the link between shabbos and mikdash

Last post got a little too long, so I broke this part off.  These parshiyos are rich with topics worth commenting on, so it's hard to pick and choose.  I always like to write about Eretz Yisrael, esp this week when we had Yom haAtzmaut.  אֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתַ֣י תִּשְׁמֹ֔רוּ וּמִקְדָּשִׁ֖י תִּירָ֑אוּ why does the parsha juxtapose these two mitzvos?  These days everyone knows the line that Shabbos is in time what the mikdash is in geographical space, so the to go hand in hand.  The Tiferes Shlomo says something else.  He quotes from Chazal that only one who experiences tzaar and pain and mourns the fact that we have no mikdash will be zocheh to see the mikdash rebuilt.  כָּל הַמִּתְאַבֵּל עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם זוֹכֶה וְרוֹאֶה בְּשִׂמְחָתָהּ, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְאַבֵּל עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה בְּשִׂמְחָתָהּ (Parenthetically, R' Rivlin, the mashgiach of Yeshivat Kerem b'Yavneh explained ומי שאינו מתאבל אינו זוכה ורואה בשמחתה based on the Chazal that teaches with respect to Yaakov Avinu that ויקומו כל בניו וכל בנותיו לנחמו וימאן להתנחם"(בראשית לז לה). ושאלו, "מאי טעמא? לפי שאין מקבלין תנחומים על החי. אבל המת משתכח מן הלב.  By continuing to be misavel, we show that Yerushalayim, the mikdash, is, like Yosef, still alive -- it is not some dead memory that is destined to be forgotten.)  However, when it comes to Shabbos, we say in bentching שלא תהא צרה ביום מנוחתנו.  Shabbos is a day of simcha (at least according to the Yerushalmi); it's not a day of mourning.  We have to give up for a day being .כָּל הַמִּתְאַבֵּל עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם  How then can we do to be assured זוֹכֶה וְרוֹאֶה בְּשִׂמְחָתָהּ?  That's why the Torah put these two mitzvos together.  Tif Shlomo writes:  כן מעלת יום השבת שהשכינה שורה בתוך בנ"י ואין אנו רשאי' לדאוג על החורבן וז"ש את שבתותי תשמורו לשמוח ביום השבת. ואע"פ כן ומקדשי תיראו. שנזכה לראות במהרה בבנין בהמ"ק.  Despite not being able to mourn on shabbos, וּמִקְדָּשִׁ֖י תִּירָ֑אוּ, don't worry -- you will still be zocheh to see the rebuilding of the mikdash. 

When I saw this Tif Shlomo, it reminded me that Tos Brachos 48b mentions and rejects the minhag of saying ויש שמתחילין בנחמנו וחותמים בנחמת ציון עירך ובבנין ירושלים on shabbos instead of saying רחם, but the GR"A to OC 188:4 holds that this minhag is preferable.  That debate revolves around the issue of saying a bakasha on shabbos (Tos explains רחם הוי לשון תחנה ואין אומרים תחנונים בשבת אבל נחם אינו לשון תחנונים) but that being said, we see at least an allusion to nechama for the churban on shabbos.  

Lulei d'mistafina I was thinking that the very words the Tif Shlomo cites to indicate that we take our mind off aveilus for the churban on shabbos are actually added as a prayer for Yerushalayim.  Meaning, שֶׁלֺּא תְהֵא צָרָה וְיָגוֹן וַאֲנָחָה בְּיוֹם מְנוּחָתֵֽנוּ is not some general request that we have happiness on shabbos, but rather refers to the  צָרָה וְיָגוֹן וַאֲנָחָה gufa of the churban hamikdash.  What we are asking for is for Hashem to remove that pain of the churban by giving us the mikdash back.  Proof that this is correct is in the very next phrase, as we continue וְהַרְאֵֽנוּ ה׳ אֱלֺקינוּ בְּנֶחָמַת צִיּוֹן עִירֶֽךָ וּבְבִנְיַן יְרוּשָׁלַֽיִם עִיר קָדְשֶֽׁךָ!  

Based on this, I think the reason we stick רְצֵה וְהַחֲלִיצֵֽנוּ in bentching here is not just because this is where we always stick mei'ein ha'meora, the inyana d'yoma, like yaaleh v'yavo.  The reason we stick it in here is because it fits the theme of the bracha, which is about the restoration of malchus beis david and the rebuilding of Yerusahalayim.  The Tiferes Shlomo 's argument is that we can't properly mourn Yerushalayim while we celebrate Shabbos.  My point is the opposite side of the coin is just as true -- we can't properly celebrate Shabbos while in s state of mourning for the churban.  Therefore, when we ask Hashem to restore malchus beis David, to restore Yerushalayim, we are also asking for the restoration of Shabbos to its full splendor as well, Shabbos while is immune from the pain and suffering of seeing our city in ruins, and can therefore be celebrated properly.

doing mitzvos because they make sense

1) Rashi addresses why the command אִ֣ישׁ אִמּ֤וֹ וְאָבִיו֙ תִּירָ֔אוּ וְאֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתַ֖י תִּשְׁמֹ֑רוּ ends off אֲנִ֖י ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶֽם.  You can say about every mitzvah אֲנִ֖י ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶֽם who is giving the tzivuy, so why mention it here?  Rashi says the pasuk is mechadesh that if your parent tells you to do an aveira, you don't have to listen because אֲנִ֖י ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶֽם overrides the command to listen to them.  There is a hierarchy of who you need to listen to.  Abarbanel suggests that the Torah is teaching us a fundamental yesod here. The mitzvah of kibud av is a basic, moral imperative that any ethical person can appreciate.  Chazal tell us that Eisav excelled in the mitzvah of kibud av.  The gemara (Kid 31) tells a story about a non-Jew, Dama ben Nesina, who refused to wake his father even if it meant giving up a lucrative sale.  The same is true about having a day of shabbos, a day off from work.  It's common sense that workers need a break.  True, no other nation has rules saying things like you can't turn on a light on the weekend, but they appreciate the general concept of a day of rest.  The same in fact can be said about many of the being adam l'chaveiro laws in parshas Kedoshim -- these are norms of basic morality that all people subscribe to -- but it all starts with shabbos and kibud av.  Therefore, the Torah jumps in and tells us אֲנִ֖י ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶֽם.  The reason you have to obey these principles is not because they make sense, not because it's what all people do, not because there is some ethical principle behind them, but rather simply because Hashem commanded them, because אֲנִ֖י ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶֽם.  

In the aseres hadibros the mitzvah of kibud av v'eim (Shmos 20:11) has a promise of reward  כַּבֵּ֥ד אֶת־אָבִ֖יךָ וְאֶת־אִמֶּ֑ךָ לְמַ֙עַן֙ יַאֲרִכ֣וּן יָמֶ֔יךָ עַ֚ל הָאֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לָֽךְ׃, that we should have a long life in Eretz Yisrael.  Why does the Torah specifically mention the reward?  Netziv quotes a principle that Ramban elaborates on in our parsha of Acharei Mos.  Ramban holds that fundamentally, mitzvos are meant to be done in Eretz Yisrael.  Not just mitzvos ha'teluyos ba'aretz, but all mitzvos.  However, if we had nothing to do in galus, it would not be so easy to retain our identity or even to know what to do and how to do it when we return to the land.  The Torah therefore commands us to do mitzvos that are not teluyos ba'aretyz even in chu"l so that we remain in practice and have the necesssry training so we can do them properly when G-d willing we come back to Eretz Yisrael.  

I would have thought, says the Netziv, that this Ramban is talking only about mitzvos bein adam lamakom like putting on tefillin, wearing tzitzis, etc.  However, when it comes to mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro, like kibud av, like v'ahavta l'reiacha, etc., what difference does it make whether I am in Eretz Yisrael or in chu"l -- those mitzvos should apply equally at all times and places, with no distinction.  That's why, says Netziv, the pasuk tacks on that the reward for kibuv av is  לְמַ֙עַן֙ יַאֲרִכ֣וּן יָמֶ֔יךָ עַ֚ל הָאֲדָמָ֔ה.  The Torah is showing us that even a mitzvah sichlis like kibid av that you think would apply equally everywhere is still is fundamentally connected to Eretz Yisrael and its reward can be gleaned more easily and in greater abundance only in Eretz Yisrael.  Logically, it makes no sense, and that gufa is the point -- the mitzvos, even those that make sense to us, transcend logic.  Netziv writes: משום הכי כתיב במצוה זו של כיבוד אב ואם גם כן ״על האדמה״ ללמדנו דאחר שהיא מצות עשה הכתובה בתורה הרי היא ככל חוקי התורה שאין בהם טעם ושכל אנושי

That's the same point the Abarbanel is making.  Yes, kibud av is something that makes sense to do; yes, having a weekend break makes sense.  But that's not why you should keep the mitzvos. אֲנִ֖י ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶֽם, irrespective of what makes sense or doesn't make sense.

(Abarbanel frequently addresses himself to the Rambam's rationalizations of mitzvot.  It would be interesting to do a fuller study of his attitude toward taamei hamitzvot and rationalism in general, but that's beyond a blog post.)

2) While on the topic of Abarbanel: the pasuk writes with respect to a person who gives his children over to Molech that  עַ֥ם הָאָ֖רֶץ יִרְגְּמֻ֥הוּ בָאָֽבֶן (20:2).  Abarbanel suggests that this phrase may mean אולי שכיון הכתוב בזה שמבלי התראה ולא חקירת ב״ד ירגמוהו.  I am not aware of a makor that no hasra'as is required here or no chakiras eidim is required, but if anyone knows of one, let me know, otherwise I imagine you have to say Abarbanel simply means this is something you might deduce based on peshuto shel mikra.  

is this not what we've been praying for?

The picture below (obviously I am not a great photographer), showing 4 cranes on the horizon,  was taken from a window in our hotel room (if I remember correctly) a few weeks ago when we visited my daughter in Eretz Yisrael.  We switched to a different hotel during our trip, and at that second one there was a crane practically parked outside the window.  So much for the view!  Of course, all this construction makes for a huge traffic mess.  One evening we were taking a bus back from somewhere and there was a backup for at least a few blocks trying to get to tachanah merkazit.  People were begging the driver to let them off so they could walk instead of wasting time sitting in traffic.    

When you end up sitting in traffic in Yerushalayim, stuck on a bus, and have a hotel room with nothing but views of construction cranes as far as the eye can see, and you turn Heavenward and ask, "What did I do to deserve this?" I can't help but feel that Hashem's answer is, "Isn't this what you've been asking me for for 2000 years?!"

"Don't you plead with me three times a day every day, 'U'vnei Yerushalayim Ir haKodesh b'm'heira b'yamaeinu'?  So what are you complaining about?  How do you build a city if not with cranes, without construction sites, and traffic detours?"

Somehow we fail to put 2 and 2 together.  Somehow we see right in front of our eyes all the evidence of our prayers being answered, and instead of thanking Hashem, we complain about the traffic.  What did we expect?  Buildings to fall in place from the sky?  Should we also expect to return after 2000 years of exile with no practice running a country and not have fights over things like judicial reform, not have arguments in the Knesset, not have political, social, religious turmoil?  

Maybe miracles that would happen if we would be zocheh, but for now we have to live with the next best thing -- miracles that happen b'toch ha'teva, with all the bumps in the road, but which are miracles nonetheless.

That's what we celebrate on Yom haAtzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim.  

Worth listening to the whole thing, but for those who can't, one point: at the very end he quotes a kashe from R' Charlap.  The gemara says that after 120 a person will be asked whether they fulfilled tzipisa l'yeshu'a.  A person lichora can say back to Hashem that they have an excuse.  What if they just did not live in a time which is fit for yeshu'a?  Not their fault. 

R' Charlap answered that what Chazal are telling us is that tzipisa l'yeshu'a gufa means that we have to believe that every dor, with all its problems, with all its issues, is fit for yeshu'a.  That's what you will be held accountable for after 120. Did you believe in the potential of even your generation to experience redemption? 

Hopefully those cranes dotting the skies of Yerushalayim, the traffic jams because every other person now has a car and a place to go, make that belief a little easier for us to hold on to.

skipping tachanun on 3 Iyar but not 5 Iyar

There are shitos that I think I will never understand, and quite frankly, don't even think it's worth using brain cells to try.  The minyan I davened mincha at yesterday (not a chassdic minyan, mind you) skipped tachanun because it was the hilula of R Shayele Kerestirer.  Now, I hate to jump the gun, but since I've davened there before, I'm pretty sure they will say tachanun on Yom haAtzmaut.  

I am sure R' Shayele Kerestirer did wonderful things and is a big meilitz yosher for us, but I just can't wrap my mind around the idea of his yahrzeit being a better justification to skip tachanun than the establishment of the State of Israel.  

I am also sure that there are other people who think this makes perfect sense and cannot understand how the reverse can be true, so I guess to each his own.  

On a different note, it amazes me how history is so kind to some people's reputation, and other people who are giants languish in obscurity.  Until recently, I barely had heard of R' Shalaye Kerestirer except in some vague way as being associated with keeping mice away. Similarly, a few years ago if you had asked me who the Zera Shimshon is, I would have had no idea.  Now the sefer is available everywhere in Hebrew and English, there are parsha sheets, there are shiurim you can dial into.  Could be that these tzadikim were famous and known to everyone else and I've just been living under a rock and am revealing my own ignorance, but my hunch is that a lot of other people feel the same way.

root causes

Parshas Ki Teitzei (24:8-9) juxtaposes  הִשָּׁ֧מֶר בְּנֶֽגַע־הַצָּרַ֛עַת לִשְׁמֹ֥ר מְאֹ֖ד וְלַעֲשׂ֑וֹת with the warning/mitzvah of זָכ֕וֹר אֵ֧ת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂ֛ה ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ לְמִרְיָ֑ם.  B'shlama if the warning of הִשָּׁ֧מֶר בְּנֶֽגַע־הַצָּרַ֛עַת comes to tell us to avoid the root cause of tzaraas, which is speaking lashon ha'ra, the connection to what happened to Miriam is obvious.  However, as the Netziv already notes, ואינו לפי פשט ענין הכתוב.  Furthermore, the gemara darshens that הִשָּׁ֧מֶר בְּנֶֽגַע־הַצָּרַ֛עַת comes to prohibit cutting off a baheres.  What does that have to do with what happened to Miriam?  

Meshech Chochma explains that had there been no issur, instead of holding back everyone from travelling because Miriam became a metzora, they could have simply cut off the baheres.  The juxtaposition of the pesukim shows us the severity of the lav, that even at the cost of everyone waiting, Miriam's tzaraas had to be dealt with properly.

Ohr haChaim (R' Yaakov Shapira's develops this idea in a sicha on the parsha) explains that the issur of cutting off a baheres also teaches us something about lashon ha'ra, and that is the link to the episode with Miriam.  

השמר בנגע וגו׳ זכור וגו׳ – לדבריהם ז״ל (שבת קל״ב:) שאמרו שבא להזהיר לבל יקוץ בהרתו, נתכוין בהסמכת זכור את אשר עשה ה׳ למרים להודיע שורש שממנו יהיה הנגע ואותו יצו ה׳ לקוץ ורפא

Cutting off a baheres is wrong because it just removes the surface symptom without addressing the root cause of the disease.  

Not speaking lashon ha'ra is not just about controlling your mouth (thought that is certainly part of it).  A person who speaks lashon ha'ra is a person who views the world with negativity, a person who has trouble seeing the best in others.  Were such a person to tape their mouth shut, it would be a temporary band-aid that fixes the surface symptom, but not the root cause.   

kedushas arei chomah and machaneh yisrael

A naara ha'meurasa who engaged in znus is given skila on her father's doorstep.  However, if her father is no longer alive, in a city where the majority of inhabitants are Jewish, the punishment is carried out at the gates of the city; in a city where the majority of inhabitants are not-Jewish, the punishment is carried out on beis din's doorstep (Kesubos 45b).  

Tosfos asks: there is a din that the location of the beis ha'sekila must be outside the machaneh, which would mean outside the walls of the city.  How then can the naara be stoned on the doorstep of beis din?  Beis din sits in the city somewhere, not outside it!

Tosfos answers with a chiddush: a city which is majority aku"m no longer has the din of machaneh yisrael.  A metzora would not have to be sent outside its walls, and neither must the beis ha'sekila be located outside its walls.   

What's the basis for this idea?  Rashash suggests that Tos follows the view that when an aku"m has a kinyan in Eretz Yisrael it removes the kedushas ha'aretz.  

R' Shachter and R' Bakshi Doron each offer alternative explanations for the shitas haTos, the common denominator between them being that it has nothing to do with kinyan.  (Mishne la'Melech writes that the Rambam agrees with Tos din, but the Rambam does not hold that an aku"m's kinyan has an effect on kedushas ha'aretz, so there must be some other hesber.)  R' Shachter (p24 here) quotes a GR"A that cites a Yerushalmi that holds a city that is rov aku"m is like a ruin.  R' Bakshi Doron writes (seems to me that the language gets a bit muddled at the end of this teshuvah) that having a rov yisrael in a city is what endows it with the potential to be a machaneh yisrael if it has a wall.  

Either way, based on this Tos, R' Shachter and R' Bakshi Doron suggest a deeper meaning behind the gemara that says it is better to live in a city in Efretz Yisrael where there are a majority of aku"m than to live in chu"l in a city with a majority of frum residents (Kes 110).  One might have thought that the mitzvah of yishuv haaretz does not apply to a city of rov aku"m because there is no kedushas yisrael to that city anymore.  Kah mashma lan that the mitzvah of yishuv haaretz is not dependent on the kedusha of the land, but rather simply on its geographical location, i.e. the shem Eretz Yisrael, not the kedushas ha'aretz (as RYBS formulated the distinction -- see these posts I, II for more on that.)  

In the Oznayim laTorah, R' Sorotzkin is medayek in the language of the pasuk regarding nigei batim.  "V'kipeir al ha'bayis" (19:53) -- is it the house, an inanimate object, which needs kaparah?!  He explains that a Jewish home that has a mezuzah on the door, where Torah is learned, a home that is the center of a frum life, becomes a makom kadosh.  When there is a nega, that kedusha is defiled temporarily and needs to be restored.  

The same can be said about a city which has a rov yisrael living in it in Eretz Yisrael.  The religious life of its inhabitants makes the city a special place.

counting only some of the days of sefira - chatzi shiur?

The Ben Ish Chai in his Shut Rav Paalim III:32, left side of the page here brings proof from sefiras ha'omer that just like there is an issur of chatzi shiur, there is a kiyum mitzvah even if one fulfills only part of a required shiur.  

According to BH"G, sefiras ha'omer is one mitzvah that requires completing a count of 49 days.  How can a person recite a bracha on counting when there is always the possibility of missing a night and failing to complete the mitzvah?  QED, says the Ben Ish Chai, that there is a kiyum even in doing part of the mitzvah, and that kiyum is sufficient to recite a bracha on.

Halacha l'maaseh this issue comes up in cases where a person knows they will inevitably miss counting a day of sefirah for some reason.  Should they still count up until that point with a bracha, or should they skip making a bracha from the get-go knowing that they will be unable to complete the cycle?  

(An additional factor to throw into the mix in such a case is whether, if a person misses a day, we in fact view the brachos made on the previous days as brachos l'vatala or not?)

There are four separate chiddushim here in this Ben Ish Chai:

1) the assertion that chatzi shiur counts as a kiyum mitzvah, which we discussed here

2) the assertion that one can say a bracha on chatzi shiur (AH"S, among others, disagrees.  He writes 477:3 that there is a kiyum mitzvah in eating a chatzi shiur of matzah, but no bracha should be recited.)

3) the assertion that there should be a concern that one may not complete the 49 day count.

4) lastly, something bothers me about treating part of sefirah, or part of any unit of time, as a chatzi shiur, but unfortunately I can't seem to put my thumb on formulating what exactly it is that bothers me.  Maybe someone can do a better job at it.  If a person fasts half a day, for example, would you call that a chatzi shiur of a taanis?  (Maybe that's the machlokes Mechaber/Rama whether one should say aneinu at every tefilah or not, lest one fail to complete the fast?)  

even Moshe is human

Chazal tell us that opening day of the Mishkan was a tremendous day of simcha, as great as the moment of creation.  Why then, asks Ohr haChaim, does the parsha begin with the word "vayehi," which usually connotes suffering?  He answers:

ולצד שהפציר בשליחות פרעה חרה אפו בו ביום ההוא ועזבו מהיות כהן לעולם, וכשהגיע יום הפקידה נצטער על אשר פרח ממנו עוז תפארת כהונת עולם, והגם כי עצם מאוד בצדקות ובענוה, הלא כל לב חי מרגיש ובפרט בדבר מצוה יקרת הערך ומופלאה כזאת

Even though Moshe reacted with joy when Hashem told him that his brother Aharon was going to be kohen gadol, even Moshe Rabeinu is still flesh and blood and cannot escape a feeling of pain and remorse.  That's the tzaar reflected in the word "vayehi."  

The baalei mussar would eat this vort up.  No one should think they are immune from tempation, from the danger of sin.  

The Baal haTurim writes that because Moshe argued with Hashem for 7 days when Hashem appeared to him by the sneh and he did not want to accept the role of being the go'el of Klal Yisrael, therefore he served only 7 days in the Mishkan and then had to turn the job over to Aharon.  

Of course it's not the seven days of service which are the punishment; it's the taking away of the job.  The 7 days Moshe got to serve only whet his appetite to continue in the position of kohen gadol, serving Hashem in that way.  Worse than not getting the job is thinking for seven days that you have the job in hand only to have it snatched away.

Why should Moshe be punished for his refusal?  The reason why he demurred is because וכל זה שלא היה רוצה ליטול גדולה על אהרן אחיו, שהיה גדול הימנו ונביא היה (Rashi Shmos 4:10), he did not want to steal the spotlight from his brother Aharon.  You would think that Moshe would get a reward for his refusal, not a punihsment!  And where is the midah k'neged middah?  (See R' Chaim Elazari's Nesivei Chaim)

I think the Ohr haChaim provides us with a solution.  Ain hachi nami, had Moshe truly been concerned only for the sake of his brother for those seven days at the sneh, he would be deserving of the greatest reward.  But even a Moshe Rabeinu is flesh and blood.  Even Moshe Rabeinu cannot say with certainty that his refusal was 100% rooted in that l'shem shamayim with no other concern.  

How do we know?  Hashem's answer is "Vayehi ba'yom ha'shemini," with the word "vayehi" connoting tzaar, showing that even the selfless Moshe cannot 100% completely escape the same thoughts and feelings anyone who is human will experience.  

That same infinitesimal amount of self interest that showed itself here was the same infinitesimal amount of self interest that also played a role in Moshe's refusal at the sneh, and the two therefore go hand in hand.  

Shaving on Chol haMoed - R' Tzvi Pesach Frank

 Source is here

הרה"ג דוב ליאור

כ"ג אדר תשס"ב

שאלה

לפי הנוהג המקובל אצלנו שהבחורים מתגלחים כל יום, האם מותר יהיה להתגלח בחול המועד סוכות

תשובה

היתר זה שמעתי באוזני מפי הרב פראנק זצ"ל. ההסבר לכך הוא שחז"ל שאסרו גילוח לא דברו על מצב כזה שנהוג בזמנינו שמתגלחים כל יום. יתירה מזאת כותב באגרות משה (א"ח קס"ג) שבארה"ב אפילו מי שרגיל להתגלח כל יומיים יכול להתגלח בחול המועד.

אמנם, יש להעיר שבחול המועד פסח הדין שונה לנוהגים שלא להתגלח ל"ג יום מפסח. אך למנהג שהאבילות מתחילה מר"ח אייר, דין חוהמ"פ כדין חוהמ"ס.

aim high!

The Sifsei Tzadik writes that just like we have 4 minim on Sukkos that correspond to four types of Jews, i.e those that have Torah+mitzvos, those that have only Torah, those that only do mitzvos, and those that have nothing, so too the fours cups on Pesach and the 4 leshonos of geulah correspond to the same.  We say in davening every day that Hashem is "zocheir chasdei Avos" and will bring "go'el l'vnei bneihem."  Three Avos, three different qualities, three midos, all of which warrant bringing redemption to Klal Yisrael.  But there are 4 cups and not three.  Moshe added the dimension of geulah even for those that have nothing, no merits at all.  That is what we celebrate on leil ha'seder.

We say just before the second cup:

הוֹצִיאָנוּ מֵעַבְדוּת לְחֵרוּת מִיָּגוֹן לְשִׂמְחָה, וּמֵאֵבֶל לְיוֹם טוֹב, וּמֵאֲפֵלָה לְאוֹר גָּדוֹל, וּמִשִּׁעְבּוּד לִגְאֻלָּה

It sounds very repetitive.

I saw quoted from the Noam Elimelech that the geulah effected each person on his/her own level.

For some people, being in Egypt meant suffering the pains of physical toil.  The geulah they looked forward to was simply getting a pass from having to work.  This is a redemption מִשִּׁעְבּוּד.  

Some people recognized that there was more to it than that.  For them freedom was an ideal, a value, something beyond simply being an escape from physical bondage.  This is a redemption of מֵעַבְדוּת לְחֵרוּת.  

And finally, there are those who recognized that even that did not fully capture fully what geulah meant.  Geulah was more than a physical escape, more than an ideal, but it was able renewing a bond with G-d and being able to serve him.  This is the redemption מֵאֲפֵלָה לְאוֹר גָּדוֹל.

The first commandment of aseres ha'dibros is "Anochi Hashem Elokecha asher hotzeisicha..." -- "...that took YOU out from Egypt," in the singular.  

Noam Elimelech writes in P' Yisro:

אך נראה בהקדים לפרש פסוק "אני ה' אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים", ופירשו אשר נאמר "הוצאתיך" לשון יחיד. ולענ"ד נראה, דהנה בהיותם תחת שעבוד מצרים לא היה דעת כולם שוה כנ"ל, וזהו "אשר הוצאתיך" לשון יחיד כנ"ל, לכל אחד ואחד היה הגאולה לפי דעתו ומדריגת

Wherever YOU were holding -- whether it was just wanted to escape the pain of work, whether it was the ideal of freedom that inspired you, or whether it was the longing for Hashem's presence -- Hashem brought redepmtion on that level.

And so the question we have to ask ourselves on Pesach is not whether or not we will feel the redemption, as we all know that בְּכָל־דּוֹר וָדוֹר חַיָּב אָדָם לִרְאוֹת אֶת־עַצְמוֹ כְּאִלּוּ הוּא יָצָא מִמִּצְרַיִם and undoubtedly we will try to achieve that to some measure in our seder.  

The question we have to ask ourselves is what type of redemption we will feel and aspire to.  

Is escaping the שִּׁעְבּוּד if our day to day drudgery all we care about, in which case we are yotzei with our vacation in Cancun?

Or maybe, even if we are not social justice warriors, we are bothered by the injustice, inequality, and unfairness that has corrupted our entire society, the failure to have חֵרוּת because of economic, social, and political bonds that hold us back?  That's a madreiga too. 

Or maybe we can aim even higher, and feel the pain of being seperated from G-d, and yearn to bridge that chasm.  

אֲשֶׁ֧ר הוֹצֵאתִ֛יךָ - in the singular.  Whatever we aspire to, that is what the chag will give us in return.  So aim high.

dina d'malchusa

Way back in 2016 (here and here)  I quoted the Ran's distinction between dina d’malchusa, fair laws that are necessary for good governance, and dina d’malka, arbitrary laws decreed by whim of the ruler, and I opined that we no longer live in a country where dina d'malchusa applies, but rather dina d'malka.  The "law" is now all about the exercise of power, without respect for fairness or equal standards of justice. 

What happened in NY today is but the final nail in the coffin.   

the first thanksgiving

My son posted the following question:

Rav Chaim explains that the Rambam not count the mitzvah of mentioning yitziat mitzraim on a daily basis in his count of the mitzvot because the Rambam says (Sefer HaMitzvot shoresh 3) that only mitzvot that apply forever are counted as mitzvot. When it comes to remembering yitziat Mitzraim, the Rambam rules like Ben Zoma that כל ימי חייך comes to include the night, not the times of Moshiach, when the miracles that will happen then will overshadow everything that came previously.  If that is the case, why is the mitzvah of sippur yitzias mitzraim counted as a mitzvah?  Why will it be still apply in the times of Moshiach and not be overshadowed by the great miracles that will occur then?  

My reply was that the Rambam includes in the mitzvah of sipur (Sh"M 157) not just telling the story of what happened, but "l'hodos al kol ha'tov she'gimalanu," to thank Hashem.  Pesach is the original Thanksgiving!  

You see this in the connection made by Rishonim (Rosh) between matzos of leil ha'seder and the 3 types of matzah offered with the korban todah.

You see this in the shitas Rama that hallel on seder night must be completed before chatzos.  R' Soloveitchik explained that hallel of leil ha'seder is part of the mitzvah of sipur and therefore must conform to the time boundary of the mitzvah of sipur, which is chatzos.  

The Maharal makes the same point, quoting the gemara (Meg 18) that darshens  דא"ר אלעזר מאי דכתיב (תהלים קו, ב) מי ימלל גבורות ה' ישמיע כל תהלתו למי נאה למלל גבורות ה' למי שיכול להשמיע כל תהלתו אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן המספר בשבחו של הקב"ה יותר מדאי נעקר מן העולם שנאמר (איוב לז, כ) היסופר לו כי אדבר אם אמר איש כי יבלע.  A person is not allowed to add extra praises of Hashem to his brachos because a person can never exhaust all the praise Hashem should receive.  Therefore, we just say what Anshei Knesset HaGedolah instituted and allowed for us to say, no more and no less.  How then can we say on Pesach night that  "kol hamarbeh harei zeh meshubach?"  

Maharal answers that there is a difference between offering praise and offering thanks.  If we take the initiative and try to offer praise to Hashem on the level that He deserves, we will never be able to say enough.  But if Hashem has given us something and we are coming to express our thanks, to stop short of attempting to say all we can would be a mark of ingratitude and selfishness, kafuy tovah.  The mitzvah of siupr is not one of praise, but one of thanks.

Therefore, while in the days of Moshiach there may be other miracles that we have uppermost in our minds and that we express our praise of Hashem for, when it comes to giving thanks, when it comes to sipur, we can never forget and never exhaust the words of gratitude that we owe.