deaf to the maggid shiur and blind to what's on the page

The Mechilta comments on the pasuk וְכָל הָעָם רֹאִים אֶת הַקּוֹלֹת:

 רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לְהוֹדִיעַ שְׁבָחָן שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָמְדוּ כֻלָּן לִפְנֵי הַר סִינַי לְקַבֵּל אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, מַגִּיד שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָהֶן סוֹמִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כ,יד) "וְכָל הָעָם רֹאִים"; מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָהֶן אִלְּמִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות יט,י) "וַיַּעֲנוּ כָל הָעָם יַחְדָּו"; מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָהֶן חֵרְשִׁין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כד,ז) "כֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יי, נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע." מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָהֶן חִגְּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות יט,יח) "וַיִּתְיַצְּבוּ בְּתַחְתִּית הָהָר." וּמְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָהֶן טִפְּשִׁין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים ד,לה) "אַתָּה הָרְאֵתָ לָדַעַת".

 

I don't think the point Chazal want to make here is to amplify the miracles that took place at mattan Torah or to amplify the greatness of G-d, as only He can perform miracles like those recorded here.  As far as the first point, mai d'hava hava, and as far as the second, peshita, mai kah mashma lan.  Chazal here (and as a general rule) have a didactic aim in mind.  There is something we are supposed to learn from this midrash that we can implement.

 

You might be thinking, "How can this Chazal have anything to do with me?  Do I work in a home for invalids?  And even if I do, can I cure them?" 

 

I submit to you that if you go to any shiur or listen to any derasha and look around the room, you will see plenty of examples of the "invalids" Chazal are speaking about.  Or better, yet, most of us need only look in the mirror.  How many times have we been חֵרְשִׁין, deaf to anything a rebbe or Rabbi is trying to tell us?  Or סוֹמִין, blind to the words on the page in front of us because our attention is on our phone or elsewhere?  Haven't we been אִלְּמִין, silent and afraid to speak out for Torah values, or חִגְּרִין,  slow-walking doing what we are supposed to be doing instead of acting with zerizus.  And last but not least, טִפְּשִׁין -- this one needs no explanation.

 

Ramban learns that there is a mitzvah to remember maamad Har Sinai derived from the pasuk  “rak hishamer lecha.. pen tishkach es ha’devarim asher ra’u einecha.”  That same pasuk is quoted in Avos (3:8) as the source for the issur of forgetting words of Torah.  How can the same pasuk be used for both halachos? 

 

As we once explained Ramban learns that the two ideas go hand in hand.  If you truly remember and appreciate maamad Har Sinai in all its awesomeness, your learning is as different learning -- it becomes something that sticks in your mind and is unforgettable.

 

Tiferes Shlomo writes that this is what the gemara means when it tells us

 

רב יוסף ביומא דעצרתא אמר עבדי לי עגלא תלתא אמר אי לא האי יומא דקא גרים כמה יוסף איכא בשוקא

 

If there was no day of Shavuos, there wouldn't be other Yosef's in the shuk?!  There wouldn't be other Yosefs, period!  How would there be a Klal Yisrael?

 

What Rav Yosef meant is that if not for his awareness of that day of maamad Har Sinai every day, every single time he opened his gemara, he would never have become who he is.  His learning would have been a different learning. 

 

Chazal in the Mechilta are giving us a similar message.  When you truly experience kabbalas haTorah and feel yourself as if you were standing at Sinai this Shavuos or any Shavous, then you're no longer deaf to the maggid shiur, you no longer slow walk your way to shul, you no longer are mute and can't answer when someone asks you what sugya you are holding in.  And last but not least, you no longer go through your day and your life as a טִפְּשִׁ. 

what happened on erev rosh chodesh Sivan

The talmidim of Chasam Sofer bring down that the CS fasted on erev rosh chodesh Sivan and dedicated the day to teshuvah.  Chazal tell us that when Klal Yisrael left Refidim they did teshuvah and when they arrived at Sinai the next day on rosh chodesh SIvan they did teshuvah  (see post here).  Rashi comments (Shmos 19:2)

ויסעו מרפידים – מה ת״ל? לחזור ולפרש מהיכן נסעו, והלא כבר כתוב שברפידים היו חונים (שמות י״ז:א׳), בידוע שמשם נסעו. אלא להקיש נסיעתן מרפידים לביאתן למדבר סיני, מה ביאתן למדבר סיני בתשובה, אף נסיעתן מרפידים בתשובה.

Apparently the day is a special day and an eis ratzon.  There is a special tefilah composed by the SHL'H to recite on this day for the sake of one's children.  Since erev rosh chodesh this year falls out on shabbos, the question is raised as to whether one can recite this bakasha on shabbos, as normally we refrain from personal bakashos on shabbos.  I saw R' Chaim Kamievsky is quoted both ways, so either he gave different answers at different times, changed his mind, or someone got it wrong.  On the one hand, this is a once a year opportunity, and one is asking for tzorchei Shamayim, for one's children to grow in Torah and yiras Shamayim, not for mundane needs.  On the other hand, a bakasha is still a bakashah, and you can always say a tefilah for your kids before Shabbos or after Shabbos, or every day of the year for that matter. 

In general, poskim debate how far to take this rule of no bakashos, as we have many tefilos that do not seem consistent with it.  For example (since it's Shabbos mevorchim), the Aruch haShulchan (OC 417:9) has a problem with saying the last paragraph of birchas ha'chodesh:

 

אך מה שאומרים ה"יהי רצון" מקודם – תמיהני היאך מותר להתפלל בשבת תפילה חדשה, מה שאינה בטופס ברכות, אלא תפילה בפני עצמה? ומבקשים על פרנסה ושארי צרכים, ואיך מותר בשבת?

 

The GR"A would not say the haRachaman section of bentching on Shabbos because it is bakashos.  Others are more lenient when it comes to these things.

 

When we read וַיִּסְע֣וּ מֵרְפִידִ֗ים וַיָּבֹ֙אוּ֙ מִדְבַּ֣ר סִינַ֔י וַֽיַּחֲנ֖וּ בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר וַיִּֽחַן־שָׁ֥ם יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל נֶ֥גֶד הָהָֽר we have to keep in mind what happened in Refidim: (Shmos 17:8):

 

וַיָּבֹ֖א עֲמָלֵ֑ק וַיִּלָּ֥חֶם עִם־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בִּרְפִידִֽם

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֤ה אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁ֙עַ֙ בְּחַר־לָ֣נוּ אֲנָשִׁ֔ים וְצֵ֖א הִלָּחֵ֣ם בַּעֲמָלֵ֑ק מָחָ֗ר אָנֹכִ֤י נִצָּב֙ עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ הַגִּבְעָ֔ה וּמַטֵּ֥ה הָאֱלֹהִ֖ים בְּיָדִֽי

 

Bn"Y arrived in Sinai on the heels of the battle against Amalek.  If they arrived on rosh chodesh, it means that battle took place on erev rosh chodesh, when the moon is invisible.  Klal Yisrael is compared to the moon.  When the moon is renewed, it represents the renewal and rejuvenation of Klal Yisrael.  When the moon wanes, it is a time of din.  Rosh haShana, the yearly Yom haDin, is "b'keseh l'yom chageinu," when the moon is hidden.  On erev rosh chodesh, the old moon is completely invisible as we wait for the new moon to appear.  This is why Amalek chose this time to attack. 

 

Moshe chose Yehoshua to lead the fight because, "Pnei Moshe k’pnei chamah u’pnei Yehoshua k’pnei levana," (B"B 75) Yehoshua is compared to the moon.  When Moshe passed away, Klal Yisrael didn't fade away and collapse.  The waning of the period of Moshe's life was followed by the waxing of the conquest of Eretz Yisrael.  A period of darkness when the old moon fades away is just a preparation for a period of increased light.  (Panim Yafos end of Beshalach)

bentching and the bracha of shalom

Two weeks ago I mentioned R' Akiva Eiger's safeik (on SA OC 188) as to whether a katan who ate to the point of שׂביעה and bentched just before nightfall and then became bar mitzvah after nightfall has to repeat bentching or not.  Is the chiyuv of bentching dependent on achila, which took place while the person was a katan and so he was yotzei with his bentching as a katan, or does the chiyuv depend on שׂביעה, and since he is in a state of שׂביעה as a gadol he has to repeat bentching since he did not fulfill his mitzvah as a gadol.

 I bring it up again because of a Panim Yafos on our parsha. 

 

וְהִשִּׂ֨יג לָכֶ֥ם דַּ֙יִשׁ֙ אֶת־בָּצִ֔יר וּבָצִ֖יר יַשִּׂ֣יג אֶת־זָ֑רַע וַאֲכַלְתֶּ֤ם לַחְמְכֶם֙ לָשֹׂ֔בַע וִֽישַׁבְתֶּ֥ם לָבֶ֖טַח בְּאַרְצְכֶֽם

 

Rashi comments:

 

ואכלתם לשובע – אוכל קימעא והוא מתברך במעיו.

 

To connect this phrase with the end of the pasuk, Panim Yafos quotes the gemara in Brachos 20b:

 

דרש רב עוירא זמנין אמר לה משמיה דר' אמי וזמנין אמר לה משמיה דר' אסי אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע כתוב בתורתך אשר לא ישא פנים ולא יקח שחד והלא אתה נושא פנים לישראל דכתיב ישא ה' פניו אליך אמר להם וכי לא אשא פנים לישראל שכתבתי להם בתורה ואכלת ושבעת וברכת את ה' אלהיך והם מדקדקים [על] עצמם עד כזית ועד כביצה

 

We earn Hashem's special favor of the bracha יִשָּׂא ה' פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם because we go the extra mile for Hashem.  Even though the chiyuv bentching applies only when you hit the state of שׂביעה, we do more and bentch even after eating only a k'zayis or a k'beitzah.

 

If that's the case, when we are in a situation where אוכל קימעא והוא מתברך במעיו and there is שׂביעה even from eating just a little bit, a person is therefore mechuyav to bentch even on that little bit.  Doing so is not going the extra mile -- it's simply fulfilling the basic chiyuv required.  A person might think therefore that יצאת שׂכרה בּהפסדה because if we can't prove that we go the extra mile we lost the special reward of יִשָּׂא ה' פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם, kah mashma lan the end of the pasuk וִֽישַׁבְתֶּ֥ם לָבֶ֖טַח בְּאַרְצְכֶֽם that Hashem gurantees that we will not lose out.

 

The Panim Yafos in this shtickel Torah is taking sides in RAKE's safeik, as he assumes mi'doraysa you have to bentch so long as you are satiated, no matter how little you eat.

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.