the King does things on a Kingly scale; tzedaka on condition; when she'lo lishma detracts from a mitzvah and when not

1) R' Zilberstein tells the following story: There was a Jew who lived close to the home of the parents of the king of Morocco who wanted to say the bracha on seeing the king.  The king would visit his parents occasionally, coming late at night in private when he could go without his whole entourage, and so this fellow asked his neighbors, the king's parents, if he could step in for just a moment when the king was there just to say the blessing.  

One night he gets a knock on his door at 2:00 AM and is told the king is there and to come.  He gets up, wakes his 12 year old son, and they go.  They bow to the king, and the man and his son say the bracha.  As they are about to leave, the king asks the man why he woke up his son and brought him along.  The man answered that his son will be bar mitzvah soon, and so he wants to train him to fulfill the mitzvah of honoring the king with this bracha.  When the king heard that, he took out his checkbook and wrote out a check for a $50,000 bar mitzvah present.  The man was a bit taken aback and said to the king that it was totally unnecessary, and if he wanted to give a gift, a check of a few dollars would suffice.  The king responded that although the man said the bracha on malchus, he obviously doesn't understand what malchus means.  A king doesn't write a check for $10 like an ordinary person.  $50,000 is the minimum gift for a king.  Malchus operates on a different scale.

Said R' Zilberstein: We are standing on the threshold of chodesh Elul.  We are getting ready to approach the King of all Kings.  If a melech basar v'dam won't write a check for a petty amount when he wants to give, kal v'chomer that the Melech of all Melachim who wants so much to be able to give us mi'tuvo v'chasdo will not write us a check for a petty amount.  

Don't daven for petty things.  The King is ready to give.  We just have to ask and to be ready to receive.

2) We have in our parsha the mitzvah of tzedaka and the mitzvah of aliya la'regel. The gemara (Pesachim 8) tells us  הָאוֹמֵר סֶלַע זוֹ לִצְדָקָה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּחְיֶה בְּנִי אוֹ שֶׁאֶהְיֶה בֶּן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.  Rashi explains: בדבר זה ולא אמרינן שלא לשמה עושה אלא קיים מצות בוראו שצוהו לעשות צדקה ומתכוין אף להנאת עצמו שיזכה בה לעולם הבא או שיחיו בניו.  The extra kavanah that tzedaka should serve as a merit so that one's son should live or that one should get olam ha'ba does not diminish from the main kavanah l'shem mitzvah.  

Tosfos is bothered by why this does not amount to serving Hashem al menas l'kabel pras.  Tos answers that when a person pledges with an al menas... condition, they do so knowing that their request may not be fulfilled, and in their mind and heart they are prepared to give anyway. I saw one of the Moroccon chachamim, R' Yaakov ben Shabbat, quoted a different answer.  He suggested that the tnai of al menas is problematic only if the basic mitzvah of tzedaka is being done on a conditional basis.  However, if one is giving above and beyond what is required, there is no issue.

He reads these answers into the pasuk נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן לוֹ וְלֹא⁠ יֵרַע לְבָבְךָ בְּתִתְּךָ לוֹ כִּי בִּגְלַל הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה יְבָרֶכְךָ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ בְּכׇל⁠ מַעֲשֶׂךָ וּבְכֹל מִשְׁלַח יָדֶךָ (15:10)  The first part of the pasuk נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן means we are not just talking about someone who gives the minimum to fulfill the mitzvah, נָתוֹן, but someone giving more than required, hence the double language, נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן.  Secondly, the pasuk is telling us that when you give, even if you don't get what you want, don't show regrets - לֹא⁠ יֵרַע לְבָבְךָ בְּתִתְּךָ לוֹ.  If you meet those conditions, then your giving can be כִּי בִּגְלַל הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה יְבָרֶכְךָ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ בְּכׇל⁠ מַעֲשֶׂךָ, for the sake of receiving the bracha that you want and need.  Otherwise, beware of conditions.

On the very next amud the gemara writes with respect to aliya la'regel אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין בַּר רַב אַדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין פֵּירוֹת גִּינּוֹסַר בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ עוֹלֵי רְגָלִים אוֹמְרִים אִלְמָלֵא לֹא עָלִינוּ אֶלָּא לֶאֱכוֹל פֵּירוֹת גִּינּוֹסַר בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם דַּיֵּינוּ נִמְצֵאת עֲלִיָּיה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ.  Hashem deliberately did not make the fruits of Yerushalayim extra delicious because otherwise people would make aliya la'regel just to eat the fruits and not for the sake of the mitzvah.  So what?  If the shelo lishma of בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּחְיֶה בְּנִי אוֹ שֶׁאֶהְיֶה בֶּן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא does not detract from the mitzvah of tzedaka, why should making aliya la'regel for the sake of enjoying the fruit detract from the mitzvah?  

R' Shteinman answered that the bracha that comes from the mitzvah of tzedaka is part of the outcome that Hashem guarantees from the mitzvah.  Therefore, having that in mind does not detract from the lishma.  However, eating fruit is not part of what the Torah says the outcome of aliya la'regel should be.  It is merely a side benefit of the trip.  In that case, having that side benefit in mind diminishes from the mitzvah itself.

Shem miShmuel in the introduction to Eglei Tal discusses whether the enjoyment one gets from learning detracts from the lishma of the mitzvah.  His answers is very similar to R' Shteinman's sevara.  Enjoying one's learning is part and parcel of the process of study.  It is an inherent benefit and outcome of doing the mitzvah, not a side point.  Therefore, it does not diminish the lishma of learning.

כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י - can one take credit for doing a good job?

We read in our parsha (8:11-18):

הִשָּׁ֣מֶר לְךָ֔ פֶּן־תִּשְׁכַּ֖ח אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ לְבִלְתִּ֨י שְׁמֹ֤ר מִצְו‍ֹתָיו֙ וּמִשְׁפָּטָ֣יו וְחֻקֹּתָ֔יו אֲשֶׁ֛ר אָֽנֹכִ֥י מְצַוְּךָ֖ הַיּֽוֹם:

פֶּן־תֹּאכַ֖ל וְשָׂבָ֑עְתָּ וּבָתִּ֥ים טֹבִ֛ים תִּבְנֶ֖ה וְיָשָֽׁבְתָּ:

וּבְקָֽרְךָ֤ וְצֹֽאנְךָ֙ יִרְבְּיֻ֔ן וְכֶ֥סֶף וְזָהָ֖ב יִרְבֶּה־לָּ֑ךְ וְכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־לְךָ֖ יִרְבֶּֽה:

וְרָ֖ם לְבָבֶ֑ךָ וְשָֽׁכַחְתָּ֙ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ הַמּוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֛ מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם מִבֵּ֥ית עֲבָדִֽים:

הַמּוֹלִ֨יכְךָ֜ בַּמִּדְבָּ֣ר | הַגָּדֹ֣ל וְהַנּוֹרָ֗א נָחָ֤שׁ | שָׂרָף֙ וְעַקְרָ֔ב וְצִמָּא֖וֹן אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֵֽין־מָ֑יִם הַמּוֹצִ֤יא לְךָ֙ מַ֔יִם מִצּ֖וּר הַֽחַלָּמִֽישׁ:

הַמַּֽאֲכִ֨לְךָ֥ מָן֙ בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־יָֽדְע֖וּן אֲבֹתֶ֑יךָ לְמַ֣עַן עַנֹּֽתְךָ֗ וּלְמַ֨עַן֙ נַסֹּתֶ֔ךָ לְהֵיטִֽבְךָ֖ בְּאַֽחֲרִיתֶֽךָ:

וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֖ בִּלְבָבֶ֑ךָ כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י עָ֥שָׂה לִ֖י אֶת־הַחַ֥יִל הַזֶּֽה

וְזָֽכַרְתָּ֙ אֶת־ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ כִּ֣י ה֗וּא הַנֹּתֵ֥ן לְךָ֛ כֹּ֖חַ לַֽעֲשׂ֣וֹת חָ֑יִל לְמַ֨עַן הָקִ֧ים אֶת־בְּרִית֛וֹ אֲשֶׁר־נִשְׁבַּ֥ע לַֽאֲבֹתֶ֖יךָ כַּיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה:

I hear people all the time quote this warning against saying  כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י.  You hear people say things like, "What do you mean Tzahal does a great job?  Do you think it's  כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י?"  Or, "Are you worried about your parnasa?  Do you think it's  כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י?"  This past week at my job I had to fill out a mid-year performance review.  I should have just written that I deserve no credit for anything because it's not כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י that accomplished anything.  Does any frum person ever write that?  Does any person in his heart of hearts really think that the effort he puts in has no bearing on the outcome or success of what he is working on?  

Here's the catch: Despite what everyone things about not saying כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י, it doesn't actually say that anywhere in the parsha.  You can just read the words, but if you still don't believe it, R' Chaim Kanievsky in his Taama d'Kra asks the question for you: לכאורה חסר כאן חסיום, דהוה לי׳ לסים ״לא תאמר כן וזכרת..."  The punchline -- לא תאמר כן -- is absent from the text!

We've been brainwashed so effectively to think that it must be there that we find ways of putting it there.  Some change the pasuk from a statement to a question.  In other words, instead of:

"...and you will say to yourself, 'My strength and the might of my hand that has accumulated this wealth for me.'" 

with a period at the end, read it like this:

"...and you will say to yourself, "My strength and the might of my hand that has accumulated this wealth for me?!"

Can you possibly say such a thing?!

RCK suggests that the word פֶּן in the second pasuk is the start of a long quote that only ends *after* the pasuk of כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י, so we are in effect it should be translated "Lest you say..." instead of "And you will say..."  (The 'and' is wrong anyway, because it's a ואו ההיפּוך and not a ואו החיבּור, but translations always mess that up.)

The simplest answer, however, is that קושׁיא מעיקרא ליתא.  As Derashos haRan (derush #10, and Abarbanel follows in his footsteps) explains, despite what the world thinks, there really is no problem with saying כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י.  The only caveat is that when you say כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י, remember: וְזָֽכַרְתָּ֙ אֶת־ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ כִּ֣י ה֗וּא הַנֹּתֵ֥ן לְךָ֛ כֹּ֖חַ לַֽעֲשׂ֣וֹת חָ֑יִל  

When you write your performance review, you can take credit for doing a good job.   If you think our military really does pull off amazing feats, you are right to do so.  It is our strength and ability and talent which produces results.  We don't need to twist our emotions and brain into a pretzel fighting what our natural instinct tells us is true.

The only catch is that we have to acknowledge that that strength, ability, and talent which bring us success all come from G-d.  It is in our hands to make of it what we will, but it all comes from Him alone.

safeik brachos l'hakeil (2)

Last post discussed R' Ovadya's psak that if yaaleh v'yavo is omitted in bentching on y"t, one need not repeat.  You only repeat bentching when there is a chiyuv to eat bread, and since there is a machlokes rishonim whether there is a chiyuv to eat bread on y"t, we invoke the rule of safeik brachos l'hakeil.

R' Shalom Messas disagreed and argued that the root of the safeik here is a not a hil brachos safeik, but rather is a safeik in hilchos y"t -- must one eat bread or not.  In hil brachos, we say safeik brachos l'hakeil even against a rov because we are afraid of violating the d'oraysa of bracha she'eina tzericha.  In hil y"t (and all other areas), however, we pasken based on what rov poskim hold, and rov poskim hold that eating bread is required.

Rav Messas did not invent this sevara.  It is based on a Radbaz (vol 1 #229), who convincingly proves it from what we do every day:

כל מחלוקת שהוא בברכות עצמן יש לנו להקל כי שמא יוציא שם שמים לבטלה אבל מחלוקת בעשיית המצוה צריך לברך שהרי לדעת אותו פוסק שפיר מקיים המצוה. תדע שהרי מצות תפילין יש בה מחלוקת ולא ראינו מימינו מי שנמנע לברך עליהם ואפי' שלדעת ר"ת התפילין של רש"י ז"ל פסולין וכן לרש"י של ר"ת ז"ל פסולין לא ראינו לשום פוסק שיפקפק בברכה. וכן נהגו לברך על מקרא מגילה ביום אעפ"י שהר"ש חולק ואין זה דומה לספק ברכות ולא למחלוקת בברכות דהתם עיקר הספק או המחלוקת בברכה הילכך אזלינן לקולא אבל בעיקר עשיית המצוה לא נחלקו אלא מר אמר הכי הוא עשייתה ומר אמר הכי הוא ואנן כיון דנקיטינן כחד מינייהו זו היא עיקר המצוה ומברכין עליה ואפי' החולק מודה שאין זו ברכה לבטלה כיון דלדעת החולק זו היא עיקר המצוה ושמור עיקר זה שאם לא תאמר כן ברוב המצות לא נברך כיון דשכיח בהו פלוגתא דרבוותא:

Given that there is a machlokes Rashi and Rabeinu Tam as to the order of parshiyos in tefillin, how do say a bracha on tefillin every morning?  Safeik brachos l'hakeil?  In fact, it is almost impossible to think of a sugya where there is no machlokes on any detail, and yet that never prevents us from saying brachos. 

Not only in this Radbaz compelling mi'sevara, but R' Messas hoists R' Ovadya by his own petard and quotes places where R' Ovadya himself cites the Radbaz.  For example: there is a machlokes rishnonim (Rabeinu Tam vs BahaG) whether a sefer torah written without tagim is kosher.  The SA writes that such a sefer can be used.  R' Ovadya concludes (in Yabi'a Omer vol 10) that the olim can therefore say birchas hatorah on leining.  We don't treat the question of bracha as an independent question, and invoke the rule of safeik brachos l'hakeil.   The question of bracha as treated as an offshoot of the root question -- is the sefer kosher or not?  Once SA paskens a resolution of the root question, the bracha issue is resolved m'meila.  Why should bentching on y"t be any different?  Since SA resolves the question of whether one must eat bread l'chumra, m'meila one has to repeat bentching if one forgot yaaleh v'yavo.  One flows from the other; the question of bracha is not a separate question from the root issue.

R' Ovadya tried to deal with this in a few places, but acknowledges that it is a קושׁיא נכונה, which is not as faint praise as it sounds : )  After digging up this issue, I found R' Dvir Azulai, in his sefer Dvar Ani, talks about it and took advantage of a meeting with R' Yitzchak Yosef to ask him how to answer R' Messas' kashe.  R' YY offered two chilukim:

1) In the case of tefillin mentioned by Radbaz, or R' Ovadya's case of the questionable sefer torah, the person has not yet done the mitzvah.  The question that stands to be resolved therefore is whether or not putting on tefillin shel Rashi, or leining in the sefer without tagim, is acceptable or not.  In the case of bentching, the person already ate his meal.  The mitzvah is over.  The question at hand is whether the birchas ha'mazon after the fact is acceptable or not.  Therefore, we treat this case as a brachos issue.

2) In the case of tefillin mentioned by Radbaz, or R' Ovadya's case of the questionable sefer torah, we start with the fact that the person has a chezkas chiyuv to do the mitzvah.  The same rules of the SA that tell us how that chiyuv can be fulfilled -- by wearing tefillin shel Rashi or leining from a sefer torah without tagim -- also resolve the bracha question.  In the case of bentching, it is the chiyuv itself which is the subject of the question -- is there a chiyuv to eat bread or not?  Where the chiyuv itself is unclear, the rule of safeik bracha l'hakeil comes back into play.

omitting yaaleh v'yavo in bentching -- R' Ovadya vs R' Shalom Messas

Since the mitzvah of birchas ha'mazon is in this week's parsha I want to focus on a question that can come up on shabbos and y"t.  The basic rule is that when eating bread is obligatory, like on shabbos, you must repeat bentching if you forget to mention the day, e.g. you omit ritzei.  When eating bread is not obligatory, e.g. on rosh chodesh, if you leave out yaaleh v'yavo, you don't repeat bentching.  

What happens if a person is unsure if he said yaaleh v'yavo on yom tov in bentching, or is unsure if he added ritzei on shabbos?  Does he have to repeat or not?

Shu"T Yechaveh Daat is built around topics that R' Ovadya discussed in a weekly radio address he used to give. R' Shalom Messas, whose derash I quoted last week, writes in Shemesh u'Magen #13 that he was listening to the radio on erev yom tov and heard R' Ovadya pasken in his Pinat Halacha program that if someone forgot yaaleh v'yavo or not in bentching, he should not repeat birchas ha'mazon.  R' Messas strongly disagreed.

Before getting into the thick of the issue, a background point that is an interesting tidbit in its own right: R' Yosef Messas (R' Shalom's father) was asked why we need a rule of safeik brachos l'hakeil.  Given that the chiyuv to say brachos is derabbanan, shouldn't any safeik fall under the rule of sfeika derabbanan l'kula? (Pnei Yehoshua in Brachos does entertain the possibility of it being d'oraysa, but this is a minority view).  R' Yosef Messas answered that ain hachi nami, we have only one rule of sfeika derabbanan l'kula.  There is not a single place in shas, he writes, where the gemara refers to a rule of safeik brachos l'hakeil.  That phrase is found only in poskim, and is just used as a shorthand way of invoking sfeika derabannan l'kula in the context of hilchos brachos.  R' Yitchak Yosef, however, in his Ein Yitzchak, suggests that there is in fact a nafka minah between the two rules (R' Messas agrees l'dina with this conclusion) in a case where there is a rov on one side of the safeik.  Were we to treat this as a regular sfeika derabbanan, the rov would win.  However, when dealing with hilchos brachos, we still avoid saying a new bracha.  Even with a rov to justify it, the d'oraysa risk of bracha she'aina tzericha is too serious to gamble with.

Getting back to the main story, with respect to a person who is unsure whether he said yaaleh v'yavo on Y"T (or even if he knows he left it out, according to R' Ovadya Yabi'a Omer 7:28), even though the mitzvah of birchas ha'mazon is d'oraysa, the specific text that we say is a takana derabbanan.  We are therefor dealing with a sfeika derabbanan.  Since there is a minority of Rishonim (e.g. Tos Sukkah 27a - see also Kaf haChaim 188:24) who hold that there is no obligation to eat bread on y"t, and we invoke safeik brachos l'hakeil even against a rov, bentching need not be repeated.

Rav Messas (Shemesh u'Magen #13) countered with a nice lomdus.  Safeik brachos l'hakeil only applies when the issue at hand is a hilchos brachos question.  The question of whether you have to repeat bentching, however, is really a hilchos yom tov question -- are you obligated to eat bread to be yotzei simchas y"t or not?  Since the majority of Rishonim hold that one must eat bread, one must repeat bentching if yaaleh v'yavo was omitted.

What about if a person realized their error before starting the next bracha?  The SA writes that in such a case there is a special bracha that can be inserted in which shabbos or y"t is mentioned, but the SA is predicated on the assumption that there is a chiyuv to eat bread on Y"T, so mentioning the day is necessary.  One would think that according to R' Ovadya this still falls under the umbrella of sfeika derabbanan l'kula and no bracha should be added.  R' Yitzchak Yosef writes that his father held that way at first, but then apparently changed his mind, as in Yabi'a Omer he paskens to follow the SA.  Why?  The logic here is that we have to also weigh the other side of the safeik, i.e. the potential that one was not yotzei if yaaleh v'yavo was omitted.  In this case it is impossible to be compeletely shev v'al taaseh and not do anything, as safeik brachos l'hakeil would dictate, because by continuing the final bracha of bentching without the necessary inclusion of yaaleh v'yavo one is willy-nilly doing something and risking bracha l'vatalah.  Therefore, one should try to cover his bases as much as possible and add the bracha quoted in SA.

Maybe more to come bl"n on the question of what to do if one is unsure if he said ritzei or not.

don't settle for a glass half full

 וָאֶתְחַנַּן אֶל⁠ ה׳ בָּעֵת הַהִוא לֵאמֹר  Why did Moshe pick that specific time --  בָּעֵת הַהִוא -- to daven and not earlier, when Hashem first told him that he would not enter Eretz Yisrael?  Rashi answers: בעת ההיא – לאחר שכבשתי ארץ סיחון ועוג דמיתי שמא הותר הנדר.  

There is a major machklokes Rishonim and Achronim as to whether mitzvos ha'teluyos ba'aretz apply in Eiver haYarden.  Some hold none apply mi'doraysa, only mi'derabbanan, others hold they do apply mi'doraysa, and some split between halachos like terumos u'maasros which do apply, and other halachos which do not.  Chazal darshen in a few places that certain halachos (orlah, nigei batim, korban ha'omer, shevi'is) apply in "HA'aretz" = Eretz Yisrael proper, THE land,  to the exclusion of Eiver ha'Yarden.  The question becomes whether these derashos are the exception that prove the rule that Eiver haYarden is otherwise the same as Eretz Yisrael, or do they establish that Eiver haYarden is in fact categorically different.  

Assuming that mi'doraysa mitzvos ha'teluyos ba'aretz apply in Eiver haYarden, and perhaps the war against Sichon and Og was a milchemes mitzvah of kibush ha'aretz, then Eiver ha'Yarden would seem to be, for all intents and purposes, the same as Eretz Yisrael.  Mishne laMelech in his sefer Parashas Derachim (derush #8) asks if so, what then does Rashi mean שמא הותר הנדר, maybe Hashem's oath was cancelled?  Were the neder in force, then Moshe should not only have been prevented from entering Eretz Yisrael proper, but should also have been barred from Eiver ha'Yarden as well!  

To make the same point in a slightly different way (see also the Meshech Chochma in this post ) , the gemara in Sotah (14a) writes:

דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי: מִפְּנֵי מָה נִתְאַוָּה מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ לִיכָּנֵס לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל? וְכִי לֶאֱכוֹל מִפִּרְיָהּ הוּא צָרִיךְ?! אוֹ לִשְׂבּוֹעַ מִטּוּבָהּ הוּא צָרִיךְ?! אֶלָּא כָּךְ אָמַר מֹשֶׁה: הַרְבֵּה מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֵין מִתְקַיְּימִין אֶלָּא בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֶכָּנֵס אֲנִי לָאָרֶץ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְקַיְּימוּ כּוּלָּן עַל יָדִי.

If mitzvos ha'teluyos ba'aretz apply in Eivar haYarden, then shouldn't Moshe have gotten what he wanted once he got to Eivar HaYarden?  

This question is a little less difficult, because there are mitzvos that apply only in Eretz Yisrael proper, e.g. you can't fulfill the mitzvah of binyan beis ha'mikdash in Eiver haYarden, and you can't conquer all of the 7 umos by staying in Eivar haYarden.  

To answer the Ml"M one is forced to say that even if mitzvos ha'teluyos ba'aretz apply in Eiver ha'Yarden, there is still a qualitative difference between those lands and Eretz Yisrael proper.  

Rav Shalom Messas, the former Sefardic Rav haRoshi of Yerushalayim, in his sefer derashot v'Yatazah haChamah offers a different explanation as to the significance of  בָּעֵת הַהִוא which I think is even more insightful when seen in context of the above discussion.  Before getting to his answer, let me preface one other question: why does Moshe bother to tell us about his tefilah to Hashem if at the end of the day it was rejected and made no difference?  

Rav Messas writes that the shevatim of Reuvain and Gad saw Eiver haYarden as being as good as, if not better than Eretz Yisrael proper.  This was their "eretz zavas chalav u'devash," as this was the land that could sustain their flocks.  Assuming that mitzvos ha'teluyos ba'aretz apply in Eivar haYarden, they had even more reason to stay put and not bother themselves with entering Eretz Yisrael proper.  They had all the upside of actually being in Eretz Yisrael without having to actually cross into the land.  Therefore, it was precisely at that moment, בָּעֵת הַהִוא, right after the conquest of Sichon and Og and the demand by Reuvain and Gad to settle in their territory, that Moshe chose to daven to be allowed to enter Eretz Yisrael and chose to share that tefilah with us.  Moshe is telling us not to make the mistake of thinking that a glass half full is satisfactory, that having Eivar haYarden fulfills the dream of yishuv ha'aretz and is enough to satisfy.  I had all that too, said Moshe, and I still poured my heart out to beg Hashem to let me enter Eretz Yisrael proper.  

In the famous address given by R' Tzvi Yehudah on Yom ha'Atzmaut 1967 (in full in Hebrew here and English translation here) he reflected on the joy with which the partition plan of 1947 was met in contrast to his own feeling of pain :

לפני י"ט שנה, באותו לילה מפורסם, בהגיע ארצה החלטתם החיובית של מושלי אומות-העולם לתקומת מדינת ישראל, כשכל העם נהר לחוצות לחוג ברבים את רגשי שמחתו לא יכולתי לצאת ולהצטרף לשמחה. ישבתי בדד ואדום כי נטל עלי. באותן שעות ראשונות לא יכולתי להשלים עם הנעשה, עם אותה בשורה נוראה, כי אכן נתקיים דבר ד' בנבואה בתרי-עשר - "ואת ארצי חילקו"! איפה חברון שלנו - אנחנו שוכחים את זה?! ואיפה שכם שלנו - אנחנו שוכחים את זה?! ואיפה יריחו שלנו - אנחנו שוכחים את זה?! ואיפה עבר הירדן שלנו?! איפה כל רגב ורגב? כל חלק וחלק, של ארבע אמות של ארץ ד'?! הבידינו לוותר על איזה מילימטר מהן? חלילה וחס ושלום!

באותו מצב מזועזע בכל גופי, פצוע כולי וחתוך לגזרים - לא יכולתי אז לשמוח. כך היה המצב לפני י"ט שנים, באותו לילה ובאותן שעות. למחרת בא אל ביתנו איש ברית קדשנו, הגאון רבי יעקב משה חרל"פ זצ"ל - היה לו צורך לבוא וכלום יתכן שלא היה בא?! התייחדנו אז שנינו, רגעים אחדים, באותו חדר קטן ומקודש שב"בית הרב" - ולאן יבוא אז אם לא לשם?! מזועזעים ישבנו ודמומים. לבסוף התאוששנו ואמרנו שנינו כאחד: "מאת ד' הייתה זאת, היא נפלאת בעינינו". נקבעה החותמת!

This is what Moshe was trying to tell us.  Sichon and Og were conquered, the people were now able to fulfill mitzvos that they were unable to fulfill all those 40 years in the desert, they now had land they could call their own to live in peace and raise their flocks -- you can imagine the people of Reuvain and Gad dancing in the streets, just like they danced in the streets in 1947!  Enter Moshe to throw cold water on the party and remind us to not lose sight of the bigger picture, not to be satisfied when there is so much more to strive for and achieve.  

But what are we supposed to do if that bigger picture is not politically achievable at this moment, or militarily achievable at this moment, or we are religiously not worthy of it at this moment?  What can we do?

Like Moshe, we can daven for it.  We can beg Hashem to allow us to get there.   

koach ha'tefilah to make a difference

 וַתָּשֻׁבוּ וַתִּבְכּוּ לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְלֹא שָׁמַע ה׳ בְּקֹלְכֶם וְלֹא הֶאֱזִין אֲלֵיכֶם

Netziv explains (1:45) that there are two type of tefilah.  There is tefilah where you just cry out in an inarticulate cry, where you cannot even form the proper words to express the anguish you are feeling.  We read by yetzi'as Mitzrayim that וישמע ה׳ את קולנו.  It was just a קול, a cry - we were slaves too busy with hard labor to think about the best way to express our needs, but G-d still listened and responded.  A peasant doesn't know proper diplomatic language or the protocols of the court, and when he addresses the King, he just speaks from the heart.  Someone raised in the palace, however, or someone who is part of the diplomatic staff, is expected to know the language of court and know exactly what to say and how to say it.  This is the second type of tefilah - tefilah precisely calibrated, with every word capturing just the right nuance of meaning required.  

Our pasuk tells us that in this case Hashem's response was the same in either case:  וְלֹא שָׁמַע ה׳ בְּקֹלְכֶם, He did not want to hear that inarticulate cry of the simple person, and לֹא הֶאֱזִין אֲלֵיכֶם , He did not listen even to nicely formulated supplications.  

We have been praying now for 10 months, and sometimes it feels that nothing we say is getting through, no matter what we say or how we say it.  We have been praying for 2000 years and sometimes it feels that nothing we say is getting through, no matter what we say or how we say it.

The next pasuk continues:

 וַתֵּשְׁבוּ בְקָדֵשׁ יָמִים רַבִּים כַּיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁבְתֶּם

This is not just a narrative recapping what happened over the past 40 years, says Netziv.  It's a continuation of the description of Hashem's reaction to our tefilos.  Even though we were not forgiven and had to spend 40 years in the desert, we did not spend those years wandering from place to place like nomads constantly on the move.  We spent 19 years in one place, and the remainder was spent in a small number of travels.  We lived a relatively stable life, surrounded by the ananaei ha'kavod, sustained by the mon and the be'er, with our needs basically cared for.  We learn a valuable lesson from this: 

כל זה מוסר והדרכה לישראל גם כן לדורות שלא יתייאשו מן התפלה, ואם לא תועיל כפי שמתפללים מ״מ תועיל הרבה.

Our prayers are not always answered 100%, but don't for a moment think that they are not answered at all, that they are ignored, or that they make no difference.

In Parshas VaYeitzei, Hashem makes a promise to Yaakov Avinu (28:14)

 וְהִנֵּה אָנֹכִי עִמָּךְ וּשְׁמַרְתִּיךָ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר⁠ תֵּלֵךְ וַהֲשִׁבֹתִיךָ אֶל⁠ הָאֲדָמָה הַזֹּאת כִּי לֹא אֶעֱזׇבְךָ עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם⁠ עָשִׂיתִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר⁠ דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ.

The simple reading of the pasuk implies that Hashem will not abandon us until  עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם⁠ עָשִׂיתִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר⁠ דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ, but after that, we are on our own.  How can that be?  We need Hashem's protection at every moment!

In Rav Teichtel's sefer Mishne Sachir he quotes from R' Menachem Mendel of Vizhnitz (the source he is citing is here, and it's worth looking at for the story with the Berdichiver) that the meaning is just the opposite.   אֵת אֲשֶׁר⁠ דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ is referring to the promise of complete yeshu'a, total salvation.  Hashem promised to get us to the finish line.  But what are we supposed to do until we are worthy of all our prayers being answered and getting to that point?  Are we going to be ignored and left on our own until then?  That's the issue the pasuk is addressing.  Of course at the moment of complete redemption Hashem will be there, but Hashem promises that He will also be there עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם⁠ עָשִׂיתִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר⁠ דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ, until that point in time as well.  Maybe it won't be the complete salvation, maybe it won't be in the form of getting 100% of what we want, maybe it won't be the real end, the real finish line, but He will still be there just the same, providing the small comforts along the way to keep us going.

The gemara says that R' Tzadok fasted 40 years in order to avert the churban. After all that, we know there was still a churban.  Does that mean he wasted 40 years for nothing?  

A bunch of years ago I posted from the Radomsker in Tiferes Shlomo that this is the wrong way to look at things.  The Radomsker explains that R' Tzadok in fact had 39.99 years of success, of tragedy averted, of tefilos and fasting that made a difference. It was not enough to completely avert the churban forever, but it was certainly not a waste of time.  Small victories are victories nonetheless.

I wanted to point out one more mareh makom on the theme of koach ha'tefilah that is indirectly related to the topic above, but it will knock your socks off so I have to include it.  R' Chaim Kanievsky in his Orchos Yosher discusses the tremendous power of tefilah k'vasikin, quoting the gemara's (Brachos 9) promise that someone who davens vasikin will come to no harm all day.  He then cites R' Yonasan mi"Prag's commentary to Eichah in which he writes that tefilah k'vasikin is guaranteed to be answered.  Therefore, had Bn"Y davaned tefilah k'vasikin on 9 Av at the time of the churban, the Mikdash would not have been destroyed.  Wow!  Megillas Eicha tells us (3:44) סַכּוֹתָה בֶעָנָן לָךְ מֵעֲבוֹר תְּפִלָּה, Hashem enveloped himself in a cloud and would not accept our prayers.  This is not a mashal, but is meant literally -- Hashem made the sky cloudy so that the precise time of haneitz could not be determined, because otherwise we could have averted the churban.  

I would not have believed this pshat had I not seen it, but there it is, so you can take a look yourself.  I don't know if it is enough motivation to get you up tomorrow morning before 6:00 to make ha'neitz, but as RCK writes, there is still an inyan of getting out of bed as soon as one is able in order to start the day properly with tefilah, and as the Netziv says,  ואם לא תועיל כפי שמתפללים מ״מ תועיל הרבה.

chalukas ha'aretz, arei migrash and miklat, and the requirement to tear kri'ah in Chevron

1) Rambam paskens in Taanis 5:16

מי שראה ערי יהודה בחורבנם אומר ערי קדשך היו מדבר וקורע. ראה ירושלים בחורבנה אומר ירושלים מדבר וגו'. בית המקדש בחורבנו אומר בית קדשנו ותפארתנו וגו' וקורע.

If you look at the same din quoted in the Tur (siman 561), there is one slight difference:

הרואה ערי ישראל בחורבנן   אומר על הראשונה שרואה ערי קדשך היו מדבר וקורע  

Why the change from ערי יהודה to ערי ישראל?  R' Zolti in Mishnas Yaavetz (#48) explains that the issue here revolves around the following question: when kedusha rishona was batlah, was the chalukas ha'aretz done by Yehoshua also batlah?  

Meshech Chochma on our parsha comments (35:13):

שש ערי מקלט תהיינה לכם – יתכן דאמרו בסוף סוטה שמשחרב מקדש ראשון בטלו ערי מגרש ללוים, וא״כ אז לא היו בבית שני שייכים ללוים הערים שלהם, ואז לפי דעתי לא קלטו רק הששה ערים בלבד, שמה שקולטין הערי מקלט, נראה דאינו אלא דוקא אם הן מחנה לויה, וכמו שאמרו בסוף פ״ב דמכות מקום ממקומך, ופרש״י שתהא מחנה לויה קולטות, ואף ערי מקלט יהיו ערי לויה, אמנם המ״ב עיר כיון שלא נתנו בבית שני ללוים, לא היו קולטין רק הששה ערים לבד, שקליטת המ״ב עיר ילפינן מועליהם תתנו ארבעים ושתים עיר (מכות י׳), וכל זה כשהן של לוים, אבל לא כשהן של כהן, לכן בששה ערים הללו אמר שש ערי מקלט תהיינה לכם, פירוש, אף שהם שלכם ולא של לוים. ודו״ק. אמנם עיקר הטעם מה שלא נהגו ערי מגרש בבית שני לא ידעתי. ואולי מטעם זה בטל התרומ״ע מן התורה, וכמו שאמרו בירושלמי מאליהם קבלו המעשרות, יעוין ברמב״ם מטעם אחר. והדברים נעלמים עדיין, עד ה׳ יאיר עיני. ועיין ד״ה ב׳ ק׳ י״א כי עזבו הלוים את מגרשיהם, וק׳ ל״א ולבני אהרן כו׳ מגרש עריהם, יעו״ש. ואולי משום דבית שני לא היה החלוקה עפ״י או״ת, לכן לא היה ערי מגרש. וביהושע כתוב אלעזר הכהן באורים ותומים.

According to M.C., during bayis sheni the cities of leviim did not serve as cities of refuge because there was no chalukas ha'aretz done as was done by Yehoshua, and therefore these cities did not really belong to the leviim.  Not only was the kedushas ha'aretz batlah, but the chalukah was batlah as well.

This point is at the heart of the disagreement between Rambam and Tur.  According to the Rambam, the cities are still  ערי יהודה as designated by Yehoshua.  That division stands irrespective of whether kedushas ha'aretz is batlah or not.  According to the Tur, the cities are now ערי ישראל, shared by all of Klal Yisrael, because the chalukas ha'aretz was batlah as well as the kedushas haaretz.  Until there is a new chalukah, the cities are not considered cities of Yehduah.  (According to the Tur, we tear for these cities not because they are under the jurisdiction/sovereignty of sheiveit Yehudah, but rather because they fall *geographically* in an area that was assigned to Yehudah, which was the area most proximate to Yerushalayim.)

2) The Shaarei Teshuva on the SA comments on this din:

בש"ע ס"א הרואה ערי יהודה כו' וכתב בר"י בשם מזה הבעל חסד לאברהם שכתב נהגו העולם שלא לקרוע על חברון תוב"ב שמעתי בשם גדולים לפי שחברון מערי מקלט שניתנו ולאו מערי יהודה מיקרי וכתב בגליון בר ברתי' הרב הגדול בדורו מוהר"ר אברהם יצחק ז"ל שדברים חלושים הם עכ"ל ואף אנא אמינא דאין לסמוך ע"ז עכ"ל:

The Chessed l'Avraham makes two assumptions: 1) the cities of refuge and 42 cities of the leviim were given to them as their portion in chalukas ha'aretz; 2) that chalukah still stands, and therefore there is no requirement of kri'ah in Chevron since as a city of refuge it falls under the portion of Levi, not Yehudah.

The second assumption revolves around the issue we discussed above.  The first assumption seems to be anticipated in a machlokes in the Yerushalmi.

The Mishna (Maaser Sheni end of ch 5) writes:

 מִיכָּן אָֽמְרוּ שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל וּמַמְזֵרִים מִתְװַדִּים אֲבָל לֹא גֵרִים וְלֹא עֲבָדִים מְשׁוּחְרָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן חֶלֶק בָּאָרֶץ. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אַף לֹא כֹהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם שֶׁלֹּא נָֽטְלוּ חֶלֶק בָּאָרֶץ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר יֵשׁ לָהֶן עָרֵי מִגְרָשׁ.

The Yerushalmi, according to girsa of the GR"A (his peirush in parenthesis), comments:

(תני למחלוקת ניתנו. (פי' הערי מגרש לכהנים) דברי ר' יוסי ר' מאיר אומר לבית דירה ניתנו. (פי' ולא למחלוקת:

The Rambam paskens like R' Yosi, which would support the Chessed l'Avraham's position.

exemptions from the draft

12,000 soldiers, 1000 from each sheivet, went out to war against Midian.  אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה לְכֹל מַטּוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל תִּשְׁלְחוּ לַצָּבָא.  Rashi comments based on Sifri לכל מטות ישראל – לרבות שבט לוי.   (Parenthetically: Shouldn't there be 13,000 then?  Mizrachi answers that Ephraim and Menashe count as 2 shevatim viz a viz getting nachala in Eretz Yisrael, but here they are counted as one.  See Gur Aryeh.  The Sefas Emes in Likutim has a chiddush gadol that the 12,000 are apart from sheivet Levi.  The entire sheivet Levi -- all 22,000 of them -- actually reported for duty to escort the aron.)

Unless you've had your head in the sand the past few weeks you know that the issue of the exemption of hareidi yeshiva students from the draft in Israel is once again being debated.  One of the most widely cited sources on the issue is the Rambam at the end of hil shemita, who exempts sheivet Levi from military duty:

ולמה לא זכה לוי בנחלת ארץ ישראל ובביזתה עם אחיו מפני שהובדל לעבוד אתה׳ לשרתו ולהורות דרכיו הישרים ומשפטיו הצדיקים לרבים שנאמר יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל. לפיכך הובדלו מדרכי העולם לא עורכין מלחמה כשאר ישראל ולא נוחלין ולא זוכין לעצמן בכח גופן. אלא הם חיל השם שנאמר ברך ה׳ חילו. והוא ברוך הוא זוכה להם שנאמר אני חלקך ונחלתך:

Rambam continues and writes that not only is Levi exempt, but anyone who wants to take on the role of full time Torah study/teaching like Levi is exempt as well:

ולא שבט לוי בלבד אלא כל איש ואיש מכל באי העולם אשר נדבה רוחו אותו והבינו מדעו להבדל לעמוד לפני ה׳ לשרתו ולעובדו לדעה את ה׳ והלך ישר כמו שעשהו האלהים ופרק מעל צוארו עול החשבונות הרבים אשר בקשו בני האדם הרי זה נתקדש קדש קדשים ויהיה ה׳ חלקו ונחלתו לעולם ולעולמי עולמים ויזכה לו בעה"ז דבר המספיק לו כמו שזכה לכהנים ללוים. הרי דוד ע"ה אומר ה׳ מנת חלקי וכוסי אתה תומיך גורלי:

It seems that Rambam disagrees with Rashi's position that even sheivet Levi went to war.  

The two views find their roots in different girsaot in the Sifrei.  The Sifri as we have it reads להביא את שבטו של לוי; but the GRA changes the girsa to להוציא שבט לוי.

(The Rogatchover suggests that the battle against Midyan was an act of nekama, not technically a milchama, so perhaps Rashi here is not a proof as to whether sheivet levi was obligated to enlist in other cases.  The downside of this approach is that it means the Sifri cannot serve as a makor for the Rambam, and so one must find some other source for this tremendous chiddush that Rambam advances.)

Were the issue that simple : )

The problem is that it is hard to take this Rambam at face value.  Rambam writes in hil melachim ch 7:

ואחר שחוזרין כל החוזרין מעורכי המלחמה. מתקנין את המערכות. ופוקדים שרי צבאות בראש העם. ומעמידין מאחור כל מערכה ומערכה שוטרים חזקים ועזים. וכשילין של ברזל בידיהם. הרוצה לחזור מן המלחמה הרשות בידן לחתוך את שוקו. שתחלת נפילה ניסה. במה דברים אמורים שמחזירין אנשים אלו מעורכי המלחמה במלחמת הרשות. אבל במלחמת מצוה הכל יוצאין ואפילו חתן מחדרו וכלה מחופתה:

אחד המארס את הבתולה. ואחד המארס את האלמנה. וכן אם נפלה לו יבמה אפילו חמשה אחים ומת אחד מהן כולן חוזרין. קדש אשה מעכשיו ולאחר שנים עשר חדש ושלם הזמן במלחמה חוזר ובא לו:

המחזיר את גרושתו. והמארס אשה האסורה עליו. כגון אלמנה לכהן גדול. גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט. ממזרת ונתינה לישראל. בת ישראל לממזר ולנתין. אינו חוזר:

The Rambam writes that הכל יוצאין - everyone goes out to war, even a chassan and kallah. He speaks of  כגון אלמנה לכהן גדול. גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט going to battle. Were there a blanket exemption for members of sheivet Levi from war, what is the kohen gadol or hedyot doing here?

Furthermore, the gemara (Kid 21) discusses whether a kohen is permitted to take a yefat toar.  The Ramban paskens (8:4)

הכהן מותר ביפת תואר בביאה ראשונה. שלא דברה תורה אלא כנגד היצר. אבל אינו יכול לישאנה אחר כך מפני שהיא גיורת

Again, how does this make sense if members of sheivet Levi do not go to war?

Not only do we see that kohanim serve, but we find in Tanach that בניהו בן יהוידע, who was a kohen (Divrei haYamaim I 12:28), was appointed by Shlomo as a general in charge of his army (Melachim I 2:35)!

Finally, and more fundamentally, it is strange that the Rambam brings up this exemption of sheiveit Levi from war at the end of hil shemita but makes no mention of it in hil melachim where he codifies all the other laws that pertain to battle.    

Some argue based on this consideration that the Rambam at the end of hil shemita is not meant to be taken as a halachic statement.  The Ramban often concludes a sefer with a mussar or philosophical point.  Here too, the Rambam is just setting a goal of a high level of talmud torah for us to aspire to, not lay down the practical rules of who should or should not go out to war.  

If so, there is no argument between Rashi and the Rambam, and this Rambam cannot serve as a source to exempt yeshiva students from the draft.

Others do accept that there is an exemption from battle for sheivet levi, but qualify that exemption in some way so as to allow a scenario of kohanim participating in battle. You can read this article for a rundown of the various chilukim that aim to get to this result.  Since I have a day job and limited time, I'll just mention one: When an army goes to war, not everyone gets called up at once and not everyone is deposited on the front lines at once.  The army drafts based on its needs.  The Brisker Rav (Sota 43) therefore suggests that in principle, sheivet Levi has a chiyuv to participate in war like anyone else.  What the Rambam in hil shemita means is that given the option, we defer drafting kohanim and leviim until we have exhausted all other options.  

It's interesting that this Rambam that everyone quotes as the source to exempt people from battle never uses the words פּטורים מללכת למלחמה!  What he says is לא עורכין מלחמה כשאר ישראל - sheivet levi does not go to war like everyone else.  There is a big difference between saying that levi does not going to war, period, full stop, and saying that they do not going to war **like other people**.  I would certainly hope that when bnei Torah go to war, they don't go like everyone else.  I think the plain meaning of the words is exactly like the chiddush of the Brisker Rav.  Sheiveit levi does go to war, but the criteria for when and how they are drafted is different than that of other shevatim, as indeed it should be.   

On a practical level, it's important to also mention that one thing is certain: the burden of להבדל לעמוד לפני ה׳ לשרתו is not a light one.  For example,  it seems reasonable to me to assume that the Rambam's standard does not allow for a multi-week bein ha'zemanim vacation away from sedarim.  להבדל לעמוד לפני ה׳ לשרתו is a full time 24x7 occupation, a life of total dedication to Torah and ruchniyus.  Thus, even if one accepts the theoretical possibility of there being an exemption from the draft, practically speaking it is hard to see how the bar set by the Rambam can be met by any more than a small minority of 18-19 year olds.  I haven't met too may young men who have achieved such lofty heights of holiness at such a young age, but then again, maybe my experience is too limited. 

It's also worth remembering that at the end of the day, many of those who leave beis medrash to serve also share the aspiration להבדל לעמוד לפני ה׳ לשרתו.  Our ultimate ideals are the same, even if we disagree sharply in the messy practicalities of how to achieve them.