mah inyan shemita eitzel shiluach ha'kan (and sefira)?

One of my daughters sent me a picture of a table she left out on her mirpeset upon which a bird had built a nest and laid an egg.  

She wanted to know whether there was a mitzvah of shiluach ha'kan.  Earlier in the week I was thinking that this week's parsha would be a good opportunity to discuss a shemita sugya, but I ended up getting swept into shiluach ha'kan, which I discovered actually has a link to shemita and sefiras ha'omer, as you shall see.

First, some basics:

 

1) The mitzvah only applies to the female bird of a kosher species.  Does that apply here?  My daughter later sent a picture of the bird roosting.  

My guess was that it was a mourning dove, but she said ChatGPT told her it was a laughing dove.  My original thought was that the difference between my guess and ChatGPT was a matter of personality.  I'm not an upbeat guy, so I guessed mourning dove; ChatGPT  is more positive, so it said laughing dove.  The truth is that in North America, the doves we see are mourning doves.  The doves native to Eretz Yisrael are laughing doves.  Score 1 for ChatGPT. 

 

2) My daughter has no desire for the eggs.  Is there still a mitzvah to send away the mother?  This is a big machlokes between Chavos Yair and Chasam Sofer.  Chasam Sofer says the mitzvah only applies if you want to get the eggs.  If not, why bother the bird?  CY says you can do the mitzvah anyway.  R' Yaakov Ariel makes two interesting points regarding this machlokes.  He suggests that there may be a parallel between these views and the different opinions in Rishonim with regard to the reason for the mitzvah.  If the reason is to avoid causing the mother bird pain by taking its young in its presence, as the Rambam suggests in Moreh (3:48), then the view of the Chasam Sofer that there is no reason to disturb the bird if you don't want eggs makes more sense.  Why cause the bird any discomfort if you don't have to?  However, Ramban rejects the idea that the mitzvah is motivated by rachmanus on animals.  The kabbalists and midrashim see great segulos as inherent in the mitzvah.  There is a suggested parallel between the cry of the mother bird for mercy on her children and crying by the Shechina on our behalf, our being Hashem's children.  CY may be in line with this approach and therefore sees inherent value in the act irrespective of the need for the eggs.

 

(This view of the Rambam has to be squared away with the din that one is not allowed in davening to cry out to Hashem "whose mercy extends even to kan tzipor."  R' Soloveitchik suggested that this is a din specific to tefilah.  That is not the appropriate context to give voice to our attempted justification and understanding of Hashem's mitzvos.)

 

Secondly, he suggests a conceptual difference between the two views.  According to CS, what concerns us is the end results, the toza'ah of the mitzvah -- retrieving the eggs without bothering the bird.  According to CY who holds the mitzvah applies even if you don't want the eggs, it is the act itself, the maaseh mitzvah, which is important.

 

When all that concerns us is the totza'ah, then kavanah for the action being done is not a factor.  For example, it doesn't matter if you have kavanah l'shem mitzvah when you give tzedakah.  You get credit anyway, no matter your intention, because what we are after is helping people.  When you put on tefillin, however, you have to have kavanah.  The act of donning the tefillin is what is crucial.

 

Rav Ariel suggests a proof to the CS's position: The gemara (Kid 39b) tells the story of a man who was sent by his father to gather eggs and fell off a ladder in the process of sending away the mother bird and retreiving them.  A witness to the event could not understand how could this happen.  This individual was engaged in doing two mitzvos -- kibud av and shiluach ha'kan -- where the Torah explicitly promises a blessing of long life!  The witness ended up going off the derech.  The gemara itself is bothered why the mitzvah did not protect the person from harm, and suggests that the person might have been harboring thoughts of idolatry. 

 

Why did the gemara need to come up with this extreme case as a solution to its question?  According to CY, so long as the one doing the mitzvah did not have kavanah for the mitzvah of shiluach ha'kan -- and he probably didn't, because his concern was getting the eggs for his father -- that should be enough to negate the credit for the mitzvah.  From the fact that the gemara did not offer this simple solution, it points in favor of CS's position.

 

3) Last point, which is one a lot of people overlook: the mitzvah of shiluach ha'kan only applies to a bird in the wild, not a domesticated bird or a bird that you own.  This makes finding a scenario where this mitzvah applies is exceedingly rare.  A person's chatzeir is koneh on behalf of the owner anything that falls within it.  Meaning, anything in my daughter's mirpeset is hers.  Anything on your windowsill is yours.  Anything in your backyard, in your garage rafters, etc. all belongs to you.  B'pashtus, this would include a bird living there as well.  A bird found in your yard is your bird and is no longer considered a bird in the wild.  Based on this, Achronim have a whole debate about whether the mitzvah can be done on a nest found on your property.  Even though she probably never thought about it before discovering this nest, my daughter has absolutely no desire to own that bird.  Does kinyan chatzeir work against her presumptive will (R' Moshe holds not)?  Would being mafkir the nest after it was found help?  These and other factors need to be investigated.

 

So much for the basics.  What does any of this have to do with shemita (our parsha) or sefirah?

 

Rishonim write that the mitzvah of shiluach applies in all places and at all times. However, there is a Rashash (the kabbalist, not the one in the back of the gemara) who writes that it should not be done during sefirah, and it should not be done in shemita years post-churban ha'bayis.

 

Even if you reject this Rashash is light of the statement in Rishonim to the contrary, the question that still begs asking is what he was thinking.  Is there any explanation for his view that we can make sense of?

 

Rav Yehoshua Van Dyke (RY of Itamar) brings us back to taamei ha'mitzvah, in particular the notion of this mitzvah eliciting rachmei Shamayim.  He compares it to saying tachanun.  We don't say tachanun on days like Shabbos and Y"T.  Ramban in Emor writes that the entirety of sefirah is like a chol ha'moed between Pesach and Shavous.  Shemita is like Shabbos on a national level, following a yearly instead of a weekly cycle.  Because of the significance and holiness of these days, it is not a time to cry out for rachamim and tachanunim via the instrument of shiluach ha'kan.

 

While some poskim reject the Rashash outright, R' Van Dyke suggests that perhaps it can be used as an additional snif l'hakeil where there is a doubt as to whether one is obligated to do the mitzvah or not, e.g. if one does not want the eggs.

 

I was surprised this bird had no fear of making a nest where it did.  My daughter said she is more afraid of the bird than it is of her, so she did not want to approach it.  According to the CS, she certainly is exempt from shiluach, as she does not want the eggs.  Aside from that, there is the question of whether there is any obligation of shiluach here given that by virtue of kinyan chatzeir the bird is no longer considered a wild bird.  Lastly, there is the additional snif l'hakeil of the Rashash, for whatever it's worth, since we are in the middle of sefirah,  All that adds up to the conclusion: find a practicing Rav to ask what to do : )

 

For the record, my daugher now reports two eggs in the nest.  The bird is making a habit of this and my daughter is not happy about it.

Why support the party of Jew hatred (part 2)?

(Part 1 is here.)  Even the slow-on-the-uptake Alan Dershowitz, who I last wrote about in 2015 in a post entitled "Delusions Undone" on the occasion of his realizing that his statement, "“Obama will be better for Israel on Iran…” was dead wrong (surprise!), has finally woken up and realized that its time to abandon the Democrats.  Sadly, there are still people in our community who are still suffering from TDS and cannot face reality.  They continue to support Dem politicians, who, when push comes to shove, march in lockstep and never speak out against the antisemites who are have become the mainstream of their party.

Governor Janet Mills of Maine pulled out of her party's primary today, making Graham Platner the Dems nominee for Senate in Maine. John Hinderaker writes:

Platner describes himself as an “economic populist” and a follower of Bernie Sanders. He has also called himself a “communist” and has said that police officers are “bastards.” But he is best known as an anti-Semite. In 2014, he praised a Hamas attack on Israel on social media, and just a couple of months ago he shared a post by a notorious anti-Semitic podcaster named Stew Peters. (Per Google’s AI, Peters “has referred to Judaism as a ‘death cult’ and has called for the mass expulsion of Jewish people from the United States, referring to this as a new ‘final solution.'”)

Many voters may not be aware of those transgressions, but everyone knows about the SS death’s head tattooed on Platner’s chest. That put him in the spotlight as an anti-Semite; he claimed that he didn’t know what it meant, an assertion that was denied by his former campaign director, and he covered up the SS symbol with another tattoo. But I think it is fair to say that the Democratic voters who were prepared to sweep Platner to victory in the upcoming primary were well aware of the SS death’s head, and probably associated it, more than anything else, with Platner’s candidacy.

He concludes:

This year, it appears that the odor of anti-Semitism that surrounds Graham Platner was not just acceptable to Democratic voters, but may have been his chief appeal in an upstart campaign that defeated a two-term sitting governor.

A vote for any Dem is a vote for a party that condones and celebrates people like this. You won't find Schumer or any other big name Dem, with the exception of Fetterman, calling out the odious beliefs of this man.  His appeal to the Dem base is not in spite of his antisemitism -- it's because of his antisemitism.

can a kohen be mochel on his kavod? chiddush of the Chasam Sofer

Can a kohen be mochel on the kavod owed to him? Rambam in Sefer haMitzos #32 writes

היא שצונו לכבד זרע אהרן לפארם ולנשאם ושנשים מדרגתם מדרגה קודמת וראשונה ואפילו ימאנו לא נשמע מהם

Even if the kohen says not to bother, you shouldn't listen.

However, Maharam m'Rutenburg (quoted in the Mordechai) holds that the kohen can be mochel, just like a talmid chacham can be mochel on the kavod due him.

The analogy to a talmid chacham is revealing. The gemara says that a talmid chacham can be mochel because תּוֹרָה דִּילֵיהּ הִיא, it's his honor to do with what he wants, as the pasuk says וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ יֶהְגֶּה יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה. While Maharam opines that the same is true with respect to a kohen, Rambam writes זה כלו הגדלה לאל יתעלה אחר שהוא לקחם ובחרם לעבודתו ולהקריב קרבנותיו. With respect to a kohen, it's not his honor to forgo.

The Rambam's argument makes logical sense, but there seems to be a gemara against it. The gemara (Git 59b) writes that Chazal made a takana that the kohen always should always take the first aliya. He cannot be mochel, because if he is mochel and doesn't take that aliya a fight is liable to break out in shul as to who should get the honor (nice to see that shuls have not changed much in 1500 years). According to the Rambam, why was a takana necessary? Built into the din d'oraysa is the fact that a kohen cannot be mochel!

This issue of mechila comes up in an incident quoted in the Mordechai in Gittin involving Rabeinu Tam and discussed by many of the poskim: there was a kohen who volunteered to draw water for Rabeinu Tam. R"T was asked how he could accept the favor, as it would be in breach of the mitzvah of honoring the kohen. R"T answered by quoting the din בִּזְמַן שֶׁבִּגְדֵיהֶם עֲלֵיהֶם, כְּהוּנָּתָם עֲלֵיהֶם; אֵין בִּגְדֵיהֶם עֲלֵיהֶם, אֵין כְּהוּנָּתָם עֲלֵיהֶם (Zevachim 17b). When a kohen is not wearing bigdei kehuna, he is like a zar and cannot do avodah. Given that no kohen today wears bigdei kehuna, their status is therefore forfeit. Rabeinu Tam was challenged: if so, can a kohen in our times marry a gerusha?! Can a kohen become tamei?! אֵין בִּגְדֵיהֶם עֲלֵיהֶם, אֵין כְּהוּנָּתָם עֲלֵיהֶם is a din in avodah, not a din in the kohen's status viz kedushas kehuna.  R"T was silent and offered no response. Mordechai goes on to quote R' Peter (interesting name for a Rishon) as defending Rabeinu Tam. The reason R"T had no problem with accepting the kohen's service is because the kohen was mochel on his kavod.

What are we to make of Rabeinu Tam's argument? Rashi on our parsha writes that the din of v'kidashto applies even to a kohen ba'al mum who cannot do avodah. Is a kohen who is not wearing bigdei kehuna worse than a ba'al mum?!

In defense of R"T the Ksav Sofer quotes his father as saying what sounds like a Brisker sevara. There are 2 dinim in kedushas kehuna: 1) an obligation to honor the kohen because of what he does; i.e. because he performs avodah in the mikdash, avodas Hashem on the highest level; 2) an obligation to honor the kohen because of who he is, i.e. the descendants of Aharon deserve kavod. It's like the joke of the guy who comes and begs the Rabbi  to make him a kohen. The Rabbi  refuses, but the man doesn't give up and is insistant.  The Rabbi can't take it and finally asks him, "Why do you want to be a kohen so badly?" To which the man replies, "My father was a kohen, my grandfather was a kohen, so I want to be a kohen." That's the second aspect to v'kidashto. Simply by virtue of being zera Aharon, you have certain privileges.

Nafka mina between these 2 dinin: it's with respect to the first din that the Rambam writes זה כלו הגדלה לאל יתעלה אחר שהוא לקחם ובחרם לעבודתו ולהקריב קרבנותיו. It's by virtue of avodah to Hashem, לעבודתו ולהקריב קרבנותיו, that the kohen deserves honor, and since the honor in the honor of Hashem, it is not subject to mechila. However, with respect to the second din, honor due to the kohen because of who he is, that is within his right to be mochel.

The was the point R' Tam was trying to make. R' Tam's answer goes hand in hand with what R' Peter said -- it's one answer in two parts. You have to first get past the first din of kavod that stems from the kohen's avodah, the honor that is non-negotiable, before you can begin to talk about mechila. That din, said R"T, is not in play because a kohen without bigdei kehuna cannot do avodah. Once that is out of the way, you can talk about the honor due to the kohn personally because of his lineage.  Even a kohen who is a baal mum, a kohen who cannot do avodah, still gets kavod, but that honor is subject to mechila, which was R' Peter's follow up.

This approach is meduyak in the language of the pasuk in our parsha וְקִ֨דַּשְׁתּ֔וֹ כִּֽי־אֶת־לֶ֥חֶם אֱלֹקיךָ ה֣וּא מַקְרִ֑יב קָדֹשׁ֙ יִֽהְיֶה־לָּ֔ךְ כִּ֣י קָד֔וֹשׁ אֲנִ֥י ה׳ מְקַדִּשְׁכֶֽם. There are two halves to the din. קִ֨דַּשְׁתּ֔וֹ כִּֽי־אֶת־לֶ֥חֶם אֱלֹקיךָ ה֣וּא מַקְרִ֑יב, kedusha that stems from the kohen's obligation to do avodah, but then there is an additional element: קָדֹשׁ֙ יִֽהְיֶה־לָּ֔ךְ, irrespective of avodah.

Coming back to the Rambam, perhaps when the Rambam writes that a kohen cannot be mochel he was speaking only about a kohen who can do avodah, in which case both dinim are in play. However, post churban, when we no longer have kohanim b'avodasam, even Rambam would agree that a kohen can forgo his honor. The gemara in Gitin is a post-churban takana, and therefore does not pose a problem for the shitas haRambam.

a katan who becomes bar mitzvah during sefirah: the chiddush of R' Ben Tzion Aba Shaul regarding the mitzvah of chinuch

The Minchas Chinuch raises the issue, debated among many later Achronim, of whether a katan who becomes bar mitzvah in the middle of sefirah can continue to count with a bracha or not.  There are a number of factors that this issue might hinge on:

 1) Is each day of sefirah an independent mitzvah to count that day, or is there one mitzvah to count 49 days? 

 

2) Does the act of a katan count as a kiyum mitzvah, or does it not count (no pun intended) for anything?

 

The nafka mina between these approaches would be a case of someone who converts in the middle of sefirah.  If each day is its own mitzvah, then once the covert becomes a Jew he can count with a bracha.  If the issue hinges on whether the act of a katan counts as a kiyum mitzvah, obviously in the case of an aku"m, he has no kiyum.  These are not mutually exclusive approaches to the question or even the only approaches one can take.

 

I wanted to call attention to the novel chiddush of R' Ben Tzion Aba Shaul (in Shu"T Or l'Tzion vol 1) in addressing this issue.  We usually think of the mitzvah of chinuch as something that applies only to a child.  Not so, he argues.  He points to the following source m'doraysa for the mitzvah of chinuch (and I believe R' Shachter holds this way as well) from the parsha of shema (Devarim 11:5)

 

וְשַׂמְתֶּם֙ אֶת־דְּבָרַ֣י אֵ֔לֶּה עַל־לְבַבְכֶ֖ם וְעַֽל־נַפְשְׁכֶ֑ם וּקְשַׁרְתֶּ֨ם אֹתָ֤ם לְאוֹת֙ עַל־יֶדְכֶ֔ם וְהָי֥וּ לְטוֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֥ין עֵינֵיכֶֽם

 

Rashi comments:

 

ושמתם את דברי וגומ׳ – אף לאחר שתגלו הוו מצויינין במצוות, הניחו תפילין, עשו מזוזות, כדי שלא יהו עליכם חדשים כשתחזרו. וכן הוא אומר: הציבי לך צייונים

 

As Ramban there and in our parsha of Acharei Mos writes, even mitzvos which are chovas ha'guf are ideally meant to be fulfilled in Eretz Yisrael.  The purpose for us continuing to fulfill them in chu"l is training -- chinuch -- so that when we return to Eretz Yisrael and resume living the way J  are supposed to live, the practice of mitzvos will not be strange to us. 

 

This pasuk, which is the basis of the entire concept of chinuch stems, is speaking to us as adults!

 

From here R' Ben Tzion Aba Shaul makes the next leap.  Just like a katan, whose kiyum mitzvah is by definition incomplete, must nonetheless do mitzvos because of the chiyuv of chinuch, so that he is prepared to fulfill them properly when he will be able to achieve a full kiyum, so too, a gadol also has a chiyuv of chinuch to carry out a mitzva,h even if under the circumstance he is in he will not get a full kiyum. 

 

The child who becomes bar mitzvah and is now a gadol may not get a kiyum mitzvah of sefirah if he continues and completes his count.  Nonetheless, he must continue to count m'din chinuch.  

 

He brings a proof from a famous safeik raised by R' Akiva Eiger (on OC siman 186).  A katan ate a full, satiating meal just before he turned bar mitzvah.  He said birkas ha'mazon.  The sun then set, and he became a gadol.  He is still full from that meal that he ate before sundown.  Does he have to bentch again?

 

The "lomdus" behind the question is how to understand the chiyuv of bentching.   וְאָכַלְתָּ֖ וְשָׂבָ֑עְתָּ וּבֵֽרַכְתָּ֙.  Is the chiyuv of bentching because of the  וְשָׂבָ֑עְתָּ, which is the state the now over-bar-mitzvah finds himself in, or is the chiyuv because of the ְוְאָכַלְתָּ֖, which was done while he was a katan and is therefore essentially meaningless?  (There are slightly different permutations on this formulation as well, but this suffices for our discussion.)

 

The Ohr l'Tzion makes a fantastic diyuk that I haven't seen elsewhere.  Why does R' Akiva Eiger frame the question as a case where the katan ate -- AND BENTCHED -- and now became a gadol, and now the issue is whether he has to repeat bentching?  If what I just wrote in framing the safeik is correct, R' Akiva Eiger could have framed the same question in a simpler way: a katan ate to the point of  וְשָׂבָ֑עְתָּ and now became a gadol -- does he have to bentch or not?

 

It must be, says the Or l'Tzion, that R' Akiva Eiger took for granted that in that simpler case, where the katan had not bentched, there is no safeik.  In that simpler case for sure the now over-bar-mitzvah gadol has to bentch.  M'mah nafshach.  If the chiyuv for bentching is  וְשָׂבָ֑עְתָּ, then he is chayav m'doraysa.  But even if the chiyuv is for the וְאָכַלְתָּ֖, which was done when he was a katan, he is still chayav to bentch as a gadol, not because of a din in birkas ha'mazon, but because of the din of chinuch.  Same with sefirah: even if there is no kiyum mitzvah as a gadol m'din sefirah, you have to count because of chinuch. 

 

I love the diyuk, but I'm not sure I am convinced.  To the point of why R' Akiva Eiger opted to set up this question davka using the more complex case, recall that  I started the post with two approaches to the safeik of the M.C.  One of the potential issues is whether the act of a katan counts as a kiyum mitzvah.  R' Soloveitchik and others point out that the Rambam holds that if a katan registered (minuy) to eat a korban pesach, he does not have to bring pesach sheni if he becomes a gadol in between.  He fulfilled his mitzvah with the act he did as a katan.  The point is open to debate.  Maybe R' Akiva Eiger wanted to roll this issue into his safeik.  Had he given the simple case of a katan who ate וְשָׂבָ֑עְתּ and did not bentch, one might have gotten the impression that had the katan bentched, there is nothing to talk about.  If he bentched, the kiyum mitzvah of a katan suffices.   Not so fast, says R' Akiva Eiger.  The safeik still stands even in that case.  One can still debate the point. 

 

In other words, the reason R' Akiva Eiger uses the more complex case is not because (as the Or l'Tzion argues) the safeik ONLY applies in this case, but because the safeik applies EVEN in this case.  R' Akiva Eiger was not convinced that the act of a katan can count as a kiyum mitzvah.

 

Let me try prove to you that this was on R' Akiva Eiger's mind here.  R' Akiva Eiger adds a note to look at the MG"A in 267:1.  The MG"A quotes a Mordechai that says you are yotzei the mitzvah of kiddush recited during tosefes Shabbos even if tosefes Shabbos is derabbanan (comes up all the time if you make early Shabbos).  Time inevitably passes; Shabbos will inevitably arrive; therefore it being a bit early is not a show stopper.  Asks the MG"A: why then can a katan not be motzi a gadol in bentching?  So what if he has no chiyuv d'oraysa -- it's just like tosefes Shabbos.  Time will inevitably pass and he will ultimately have a chiyuv d'oraysa.  However you resolvedthis question of the MG"A, the point I want to make is why R' Akiva Eiger alluded to it here.  The issue MG"A is raising is whether a kiyum mitzvah derabbanan (tosefes Shabbos, katan who has no chuiyuv d'oraysa) counts towards a kiyum d'oraysa.  I think R' Akiva Eiger chose his complex case deliberately to roll this issue into his safeik.

why support the party of Jew hatred?

At the end of the day, if you are a committed Jew but don't really care that Pres Biden rewrote FDA reports to disguise the risk to seniors of getting a stroke from the Covid vaccine, or don't really care that he weaponized the DOJ to prosecute pro-life groups, or that his Inspector General for Intel rewrote the existing rules so as to allow hearsay evidence against Trump; if you don't care about Cory Booker's tax plan that will lower GDP and raise debt, not to mention that companies will absorb the cost by laying off the very workers he wants to help; if you don't care about the return of toevah bathhouses approved by the Dem council in a state run by the Dem nominee for VP last year, or don't cafe about a media so biased against ICE that they are all taken in by a sob story about a women being held in custody while in reality she was enjoying a spa day; if you care about none of this (and I have barely scratched the surface! -- this is just a sample of scandals from the past few days) and are happy to see the USA be destroyed, you would think that as a committed Jew you would at least care about the State of Israel.  You would think you would at least abhor and be repulsed by a political party that would withhold arms and supplies from your own people while they fight their enemies:

Forty out of 47 Senate Democrats voted in favor of one of the resolutions to block a $295 million sale of bulldozers, which the initiative’s author, Senator Bernie Sanders, claimed would be used to demolish homes in the West Bank, Gaza and Lebanon. Fifty-nine senators — mostly Republicans — voted against blocking the sale.

Thirty-six Democrats backed another resolution aimed at blocking a $152 million sale of 1,000-pound bombs to the IDF, which Sanders argued would be used in Gaza and Lebanon. Sixty-three senators voted against blocking the sale.

We're not talking about a few fringe nuts.  We are talking about a majority of the Senators affiliated with a specific party.   Aside from Fetterman, the few who do still vote in support of Israel will not dare raise their voice and call out their colleagues.  

And yet there are still Jews who think of themselves as committed (not talking about the J Street types) but continue to support the Democrat party.  

The same party that criticized a Trump ad because it used a six pointed star that they claim resembled the Star of David but has no problem endorsing a candidate for Senator who has a nazi tattoo and has accused Israel of genocide.

So sad.  So misguided. 

right hand / left hand balance

There is a Meshech Chochma in this week's parsha that fits hand in glove with a Meshech Chochma we discussed a mere 5 years ago.  In parshas Vayechi, we read how Yaakov reversed his hands and placed his right hand on Ephraim's head, even though he was the younger son, and his left hand on Menashe's head, even though Menashe was older.  Why was the placing of the hands so significant?  Meshech Chochma writes that right represents the revelation of Hashem derech nes; left represents the revelation of Hashem within teva.  אַף־יָדִי֙ יָ֣סְדָה אֶ֔רֶץ וִימִינִ֖י טִפְּחָ֣ה שָׁמָ֑יִם (Yeshayahu 48:13).  The right hand is used to create the heavens; the left hand to create earth.  We read in Zos haBracha that "mi'mino aish das lamo," that Torah is given with Hashem's right hand, kavyachol, but when we abandon the Torah, "af choveiv amim," Hashem gets is angry with us and as a result the nations are beloved, and "kol kidoshav b'yadecha," we are held in His left hand, kavyachol. 

In Zos haBracha, Rashi comments on the words וְהֵם֙ רִבְב֣וֹת אֶפְרַ֔יִם וְהֵ֖ם אַלְפֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה that רִבְב֣וֹת are the multitudes killed by Yehoshua, who was from sheivet Ephraim, and the אלפים are those killed by Gidon, who was from Menashe.  Meshech Chochma connects Moshe's words to the pasuk (Teh 91:7) יִפֹּ֤ל מִצִּדְּךָ֨ אֶ֗לֶף וּרְבָבָ֥ה מִימִינֶ֑ךָ אֵ֝לֶ֗יךָ לֹ֣א יִגָּֽשׁ.  He explains that וּרְבָבָ֥ה מִימִינֶ֑ךָ, on the right, because it corresponds to  רִבְב֣וֹת אֶפְרַ֔יִם, and Yaakov placed his right hand on Ephraim's head.  מִצִּדְּךָ֨ אֶ֗לֶף, on the left side, corresponds to אַלְפֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה, and Yaakov placed his left hand on Menashe.  Ephraim devoted himself exclusively to Torah study.  He lived a life detached from normal day to day events, a "right handed" life.  Therefore, his descendent Yehoshua merited open miracles like the sun stopping in the middle of the sky to help him pursue and defeat his enemies, the rivivos Ephraim.  Menashe helped deal with the mundane affairs that Yosef had to administer.  He was his father's "left hand."  His descendants would work within the derech ha'teva to defeat the enemies of the Jewish people, the alphei Menashe. 

 

When we take the Torah out we say the pesukim of "va'yehi bi'nso'a" where Moshe davened for Hashem to scatter our enemies.  When we put the Torah back, we say "shuvah Hashem rivivos alphei Yisrael" -- rivivos and alaphim, Ephraim and Menashe, l'maaleh min ha'teva and b'toch ha'teva as one.

 

The gemara (Sota 47a) writes  רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר, יצר תינוק ואשה תהא שמאל דוחה וימין מקרבת.  The Meshech Chochma in our parsha uses a slightly different formulation, but his basic point in interpreting this Chazal is consistent with this right/left split.  We don't believe in eschewing materialism completely.  There is a role even for the yetzer, or otherwise we might not procreate.  However, we have to always keep in mind what the end goal is.  The right-handed l'shem shamyim ימין force should guide us, not the left-handed force of gashmiyus for its own sake. 

 

The gemara (Menachos 25, a recent daf yomi) tells us that while ordinarily the left hand cannot be used for avodah, it is allowed on Yom Kippur, when the kohen carries the ketores into kodesh kodashim using a kli held in that hand.  On Y"K we completely separate ourselves from the material world, so on that day even the left hand is empowered for holiness.

 

What does all this have to do with our parsha?  In the process of the taharah of the metzora, the oil to be dabbed on him is placed in the kohen's left hand  וְטָבַ֤ל הַכֹּהֵן֙ אֶת־אֶצְבָּע֣וֹ הַיְמָנִ֔ית מִן־הַשֶּׁ֕מֶן אֲשֶׁ֥ר עַל־כַּפּ֖וֹ הַשְּׂמָאלִ֑ית (14:15)  The kohen who exemplifies leading a life where the left has its proper place -- his eating is done b'kedusha, e.g. kodshim and terumah; he is barred from marrying certain women; he cannot do avodah when he is tamei -- such a person can serve as the role model for the metzora of how to achieve a proper balance in life.  We are not meant to live בּדד ישׁב like a hermit, divorced from the world, but at the same time.  That is a temporary measure designed to enable a return to the right balance. 

time to burn the chametz

 

not knowing whether to dance or cry

I was struck by the fact that Rashi and Ramban have diametrically opposed interpretations of the last pasuk in our parsha:

 וַיַּ֥עַשׂ אַהֲרֹ֖ן וּבָנָ֑יו אֵ֚ת כׇּל־הַדְּבָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ בְּיַד־מֹשֶֽׁה

 

Rashi comments:

 

ויעש אהרן ובניו – להגיד שבחן, שלא הטו ימין ושמאל

 

The kohanim did exactly as instructed, with no deviation.

 

Ramban, on the other hands, notes the expression used in our pasuk, אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ בְּיַד־מֹשֶֽׁה, is unusual.  Usually we see the phrase כּאשר צוה ה׳ את משה.  Why the difference here?  He explains:

 

אבל בכאן מפני שהוסיפו על המצוה, לא אמר כן, כי לא עשו כאשר צוה השם, אבל עשו כל הדברים אשר צוה השם, ועוד נוסף עליהם מה שיאמר באש זרה: אשר לא צוה אותם

 

The kohanim did exactly as instructed, plus.  That plus is a deviation that, as we will read in next week's parsha, would lead to tragedy.  

 

I understand the need to tell us that things did not go according to plan.  However, according to Rashi, why does the fact that things did go according to plan warrant a mention?  Clearly the Torah does not tell us every time Moshe gave some command or mitzvah that Bn"Y obeyed as instructed.  It's assumed.  So why would we not make that assumption here?  We does the Torah have to spell it out?

 

This is not the only place we find this phenomenon.  One other well known example occurs in the parsha of lighting the menorah (BaMidbar 8:3)

 

וַיַּ֤עַשׂ כֵּן֙ אַהֲרֹ֔ן אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה הֶעֱלָ֖ה נֵרֹתֶ֑יהָ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶֽׁה

 

Rashi: ויעש כן אהרן – להגיד שבחו של אהרן שלא שינה.

 

Maharal in Gur Aryeh explains why the fact that Aharon did as instructed warrants mention:

 

וקשה, מאי שבח יש בזה שהיה מדליק המנורה, ויש לתרץ, דהוצרך צמצום גדול לצמצם שיהיו כולם נגד האמצעי ממש, והוצרך לצדד אותם.

 

Another example that has to do with Pesach, since it is inyana d'yoma (BaMidbar 9:5):

 

וַיַּעֲשׂ֣וּ אֶת־הַפֶּ֡סַח בָּרִאשׁ֡וֹן בְּאַרְבָּעָה֩ עָשָׂ֨ר י֥וֹם לַחֹ֛דֶשׁ בֵּ֥ין הָעַרְבַּ֖יִם בְּמִדְבַּ֣ר סִינָ֑י כְּ֠כֹ֠ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֤ה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֔ה כֵּ֥ן עָשׂ֖וּ בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

 

Sifri darshens: ככל אשר צוה י״י את משה – להודיע שבחן של ישראל שכשם שאמר להם משה כן עשו.

 

Here too, Maharal (on our pasuk) explains why the fact that Bn"Y followed instructions warrants mention: מפני כי הפסח הוא מוטל על כל יחיד ויחיד לעשות הפסח, ולא כמו שאר המצות, כי קרבן זה יש לו שעה ידועה ומוגבלת לכל ישראל:

 

(Parenthetically, why does Rashi in our parsha and Rashi in the parsha of lighting menorah quote the derash of להגיד שבחו or להגיד שבחן, but he doesn't do so in that parsha of korban pesach?  The Sifri has the derasha, but Rashi is silent.  I don't have an answer yet.)

The common denominator in these cases is that there was some difficulty to be overcome, and the pasuk tells us that everything was done exactly כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶֽׁה despite the difficulty.  So what was the difficulty Aharon faced and that he overcame in our parsha?  I want to offer three possibilities: a practical difficulty, a psychological challenge/difficulty, and an emotional one.  

 

The miluim were a seven day prep and training period for Aharon and his sons to learn how to do avodah.  When you have a period of time set for training, you don't expect a person to perform the same on day #1 as on the final day.  Let's say you decide to devote six months to learn to play the piano  One would hope that on the last day of month 6 your playing is significantly better than on the day you started.  In our case, the praise of  שלא הטו ימין ושמאל is not talking about what happened only on day seven of the miluim.  It's talking even about day one.  Not only did Aharon or his sons not err in a way that would pasel a korban, but, explains the Lubavitcher Rebbe, לא הטו, they did not make the slightest deviation, the slightest error, even something that was not l'ikuva.  Despite the practical challenges of performing a task that he had no prior training for, Aharon did a flawless job from the get-go.   It would be like sitting down at that piano on day #1 with no prior training and banging out a flawless rendition of Rachmaninoff's Concerto No. 2 (enjoy!). Only someone who is completely connected to what he is doing can pull that off. לֹא יְאֻנֶּה לַצַּדִּיק כׇּל אָוֶן (Mishlei 12:21)  That was the special bracha of Aharon.

Maharal offers another answer based on a Chazal:

 

אלא שעשו זה בשמחה לקיים מה שאמר להם משה כאילו שמעו מפי הגבורה. ... דזה שייך כאן, כי דרך עולם – גדול שנצטווה מאחר, אינו עושה בשמחה שהוא ישמע לאחר, אבל אהרן היה שמח כאילו בעצמו שמע.

 

Even though the commands were given בְּיַד־מֹשֶֽׁה and not to him directly, and no one, not even the great Aharon, likes to be bossed around -- psychologically, we have an adverse reaction to taking orders -- that didn't diminish Aharon's simcha, that didn't diminish he meticulousness in doing the avodah properly.

 

I wanted to suggest another reason that the praise warrants mention here.  The Tanchuma at the beginning of next week's parsha writes as follows:

זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב: שׁוֹמֵר מִצְוָה לֹא יֵדַע דָּבָר רָע (קהלת ח, ה). מִי הָיָה. זֶה אַהֲרֹן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וּמִפֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא תֵּצְאוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, וּפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד תֵּשְׁבוּ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה. אָמַר לָהֶם מֹשֶׁה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו, שִׁמְרוּ אֲבֵלוּת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַגִּיעַ בָּכֶם. וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת ה', שֶׁכָּךְ שָׁמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי אֲבֵלוּת עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֶת הַמַּבּוּל, כִּבְיָכוֹל. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁנִּתְאַבֵּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיִּנָחֵם ה' כִּי עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל לִבּוֹ (בראשית ו, ו). וְאֵין עֲצִיבָה אֶלָּא אֵבֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַתְּהִי הַתְּשׁוּעָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לְאֵבֶל עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי אָמַר הָעָם כִּי נֶעֱצַב הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל בְּנוֹ (ש״ב יט, ג). וְכֵן עֶזְרָא אָמַר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיוּ בּוֹכִין אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו וְאִישׁ אֶל בְּנוֹ, לְכוּ אִכְלוּ מִשְׁמַנִּים וּשְׁתוּ וְגוֹ' וְאַל תֵּעָצְבוּ כִּי חֶדְוַת ה' הִיא מָעֻזְּכֶם (נחמיה ח, י). בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה שָׁמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הָאֵבֶל עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֶת הַמַּבּוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיְהִי לְשִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים וּמֵי הַמַּבּוּל הָיוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ (בראשית ז, י). וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּתְאַבֵּל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל עוֹלָמוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֶת הַמַּבּוּל, אַף אַתֶּם שִׁמְרוּ אֶת יְמֵי הָאֵבֶל עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַגִּיעַ בָּכֶם. הָיוּ מְשַׁמְּרִים וְלֹא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִים עַל מָה מְשַׁמְּרִים. כְּמַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: שׁוֹמֵר מִצְוָה לֹא יֵדַע דָּבָר רָע.

 

Imagine that it's one week to go before the chassunah, and the Rabbi pulls aside the chaosson and kallah and says to them that he has a special task for them to complete in this week before the wedding.  He wants them G-d forbid to sit shiva. Can you imagine what the chosson and kallah would think?  "The Rabbi has lost his marbles!" is what they would think.  Here, it's one week before the grand inauguration of the mishkan, a day of overwhelming simcha, and Moshe comes and tells Aharon and his sons that they need to sit shiva. Emotionally, it's something that is jarring and out of sync with their feelings.    לֹא יֵדַע דָּבָר רָע they have no idea what bad thing they are sitting shiva for, they have no idea why that have to do this, but they do so anyway.  

 

The flipside is the episode in Sefer Ezra that the Midrash refers to..  It's Rosh haShana everyone in shul is crying tears of remorse.  Each person is in aveilus for himself, because he married a shiksa and he realizes it's the Yom haDin and he is finished, his life is ruined.  Ezra gets up and gives a derasha and tells this guy to go out and party, וְאַל תֵּעָצְבוּ כִּי חֶדְוַת ה' הִיא מָעֻזְּכֶם.

 

R' Zalman Sorotzkin writes in the Oznayim laTorah  that Chazal are trying to tell us that a person can have no idea where he is holding.  Am I at a chasunah or am I in the beis aveilus?  We don't even understand the reality before us.  Sometimes we are on the cusp of tragedy and don't even realize what is around the corner, and sometimes we are tearing kri'ah like our life is ruined and we should instead be dancing.  That's a very sobering thought.

 

Since it's shabbos ha'gadol, maybe we can connect this to leil ha'seder.  When it comes to the leil ha'seder, on the one hand we recline like kings, we eat the korban pesach al ha'sova, we recline like kings but on the other hand we eat lechem oni, we eat maror, we eat eggs to remind us of 9 Av.  What kind of hodge podge is this?  Is it a beis ha'mishteh or  beis aveil?  According to the Abarbanel that's the meaning of mah nishtana.  It's the contrast between haseiba and tibul (which is how the rich would eat) with maror and lechem oni that arouses curiosity.  We exist in a twilight world and can't make sense of things.  But that's an accurate reflection of life, or at least life as we know it now.  The Yaavetz, in his commentary, writes that in our galus we are like a chatzi eved chatzi ben chorin.  We can (sometimes) find peace and prosperity in foreign lands, but we know that this is not where we belong.  We are in a state of "yachatz," a matzah half full, half empty, unsure of which way things will tilt this year.  In Eretz Yisrael, there are missiles flying.  The danger is real.  But we all sense that it's not time for aveilus, that we are on the cusp of something big, something great just out of reach.