tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-201732852024-03-28T11:10:33.649-04:00Divrei ChaimDivrei Torah & assorted musingsChaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comBlogger3574125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-52756884368399623812024-03-28T11:09:00.008-04:002024-03-28T11:09:58.452-04:00how will we know what to do? reviving lost mesorah; issurei achila -- issur gavra vs issur cheftza<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">1) One of the things I like about R' Shteinman's torah is that his questions/answers are not far-flung lomdus, but are, dare I say it, rooted in common sense. On this week's parsha <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19892&st=&pgnum=44" target="_blank">he quotes</a> the Chofetz Chaim's charge to learn kodshim so that once geulah comes b'karov gedolei yisrael will be able to pasken on issues relating to the mikdash and kodshim. R' Shteinman asks: how are these gedolim supposed to figure out what to do? He quotes that the Ponivicher Rav dealt with this very question and responded that he will just follow the Chofetz Chaim's lead. That just kicks the can down the road. How is the Chofetz Chaim supposed to figure out how to pasken? And if you say that we will have a techiyas ha'mesim and can just ask Moshe or Aharon, then why bother learning kodshim to try to figure everything out? We can just ask Moshe and Aharon? </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I've had a similar thought since I began wearing techeiles. When you order techeiles from the <a href="https://www.tekhelet.com/" target="_blank">Ptil Tekhelet</a> site they give you a whole menu of options to choose from as to which shita to follow in tying the tzitzis. How do you know what to choose? Any mesorah as to what to do has been lost for at least 1200 years or so! We are halachically flying blind. And that is assuming you even want to wear techeiles, which a large segment of the Jewish world, for one reason or other, has yet to be convinced to start doing. Imagine we somehow finally fulfill the mitzvah of binyan beis ha'mikdash in our times. Any mesorah as to what to do has been lost for even longer than the mesorah of techeiles. Already in Mishnayos (Midot 2:5) we have Tanaim saying about lishkos of the azarah אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: שָׁכַחְתִּי מֶה הָיְתָה מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת that they forgot what the space was used for. How are we supposed to know?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">2) While on the topic of R' Shteinman's torah, <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19892&st=&pgnum=46" target="_blank">here</a> is another interesting question he raises:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> וּכְלִי־חֶ֛רֶשׂ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּבֻשַּׁל־בּ֖וֹ יִשָּׁבֵ֑ר וְאִם־בִּכְלִ֤י נְחֹ֙שֶׁת֙ בֻּשָּׁ֔לָה וּמֹרַ֥ק וְשֻׁטַּ֖ף בַּמָּֽיִם (6:21) </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Is this a mitzvah or a matir? Meaning, what if you want to just throw the utensils in the garbage? Is there an <b>obligation</b> of מֹרַ֥ק וְשֻׁטַּ֖ף בַּמָּֽיִם or is it just a <b>matir</b> if you want to use the kli? </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Another interesting <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19892&st=&pgnum=48" target="_blank">one</a>: Off the cuff I would have assumed that when you have a lav ha'nitak l'aseh, the aseh has to be done by the person who violated the lav in order to give him a ptur from malkos. You see from our parsha that is not true The gemara writes that there are no malkos for the issur nosar because it is a lav ha'nitak l'aseh, but it sounds like the mitzvah of burning nosar (6:17) can be done by anyone. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And if you like a Brisker style chakira, R' Shteinman occasionally <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19892&st=&pgnum=37" target="_blank">throws those out there</a> too: The gemara (Zev 87) raises the question of whether something hung in the airspace above the mizbeiach counts as being on the mizbeiach itself or not. Yesh lachkor whether the gemara means the airspace is the makom mizbeiach, or whether it's not the makom mizbeich, but it has the din of makom mizbeiach. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I could go on all day quoting interesting points from the Ayeles haShachar, but I don't have all day so תן לחכם ויחכּם עוד. That was just to whet the appetite. Maybe I should do something like that every week.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">3) וְהַנּוֹתֶ֣רֶת מִמֶּ֔נָּה יֹאכְל֖וּ אַהֲרֹ֣ן וּבָנָ֑יו מַצּ֤וֹת תֵּֽאָכֵל֙ בְּמָק֣וֹם קָדֹ֔שׁ בַּחֲצַ֥ר אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד יֹאכְלֽוּהָ</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Based on the language of the pasuk the Malbim makes what sounds like a Brisker chiluk . He writes that when the Torah uses the term אוכל, it is referring to the gavra, but תֵּֽאָכֵל֙, passive voice, nifal, refers to the cheftza, the item being eaten. Nafka minah: whether or not you need to eat a shiur. When the object is being referred to, the shiur is any amount; when it is the person eating being referred to, then אין אכילה פּותה מכּזית (see Beis haLevi quoted in <a href="https://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2008/12/hadlakas-menorah-and-chatzi-shiur.html?_sm_au_=iVVcpctFLN50PM4HNQ618K6JkGVkq" target="_blank">this post</a>.)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> יש הבדל בין פעל ׳אכל׳ בקל ובין הנפעל. שפעל ׳אכל׳ בקל מוסב על האדם האוכל ולא יקרא אוכל אלא בכזית; שפחות מזה נקרא ׳טועם׳ – ״כי טעמתי מעט דבש״ (שמואל א י״ד). וכמ״ש בספרא לקמן [(פרשה י מ״י) (אחרי מות פרק יב מ״ב) (אמור פרק ד מט״ז) (אמור פרק ו מ״ג) ובפסחים (דף לב.)] ״סתם אכילה בכזית״. אבל הנפעל מוסב על הדבר, ואף אם נאכל כל שהוא – הגם שלא יקרא ׳אכילה׳ מצד האוכל שלא אכל רק טעם – מכל מקום הדבר ׳נאכל׳ ואיננו. וזהו שאמר בספרא שלכן שינה ואמר ״מצות יֵאכל״ בנפעל ולא תפס הלשון שדבר בו עד עתה – ״יאכלו אהרן״ ״יאכלוהו״; והיה לו לומר ״מצות יֹאכלו״. ללמד שאף שלא נשאר רק מקצתה - בכל זאת תאכל.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">With this he explains the Rambam (Cu"m 1:7) who writes that the shiur of the issur achilas chameitz is a kol she'hu:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">האוכל מן החמץ עצמו בפסח כל שהוא הרי זה אסור מן התורה שנאמר לא יאכל</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Kesef Mishna asks two questions, the second of which is . ועוד קשה דאי מקרא איפכא ה"ל למילף מיניה דלא יאכל שיעור אכילה משמע וצ"ע. It uses the word achila, so how can the Rambam say you are chayav on less than a k'zayis? Answers the Malbim: because it is nifal, passive voice, a din in the cheftza, not the gavra, so there is no shiur.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The problem is if this is correct, then the same chiddush should apply to other issurim as well written in lashon nifal:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וְכִֽי־יִגַּ֨ח שׁ֥וֹר אֶת־אִ֛ישׁ א֥וֹ אֶת־אִשָּׁ֖ה וָמֵ֑ת סָק֨וֹל יִסָּקֵ֜ל הַשּׁ֗וֹר וְלֹ֤א יֵאָכֵל֙ אֶת־בְּשָׂר֔וֹ וּבַ֥עַל הַשּׁ֖וֹר נָקִֽי׃ (Shmos 21:28)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> וְכָל-הַשֶּׁרֶץ, הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל-הָאָרֶץ--שֶׁקֶץ הוּא, לֹא יֵאָכֵל (Vayikra 11:41)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Is there an issur for eating less than a k'zayis of shor ha'niskal, or of a sheretz?!</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Ohr Sameiach explains that the Rambam's chiddush may be unique to chametz based on the context of the pasuk:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָעָ֗ם זָכ֞וֹר אֶת־הַיּ֤וֹם הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצָאתֶ֤ם מִמִּצְרַ֙יִם֙ מִבֵּ֣ית עֲבָדִ֔ים כִּ֚י בְּחֹ֣זֶק יָ֔ד הוֹצִ֧יאה׳ אֶתְכֶ֖ם מִזֶּ֑ה וְלֹ֥א יֵאָכֵ֖ל חָמֵֽץ׃ (Shmos 13:3)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The pasuk is talking about Pesach Mitzryaim, not Pesach as celebrated for future generations. At the time of that Pesach, we had not undergone the geirus of mattan Torah and in effect, were still bnei Noach. Rambam says in Hil Melachim that there is no concept of shiurim for a ben Noach (see <a href="https://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2008/11/chatzi-shiur-for-ben-noach.html?_sm_au_=iVVcpctFLN50PM4HNQ618K6JkGVkq">this post</a>); therefore, the issur chametz would be violated even on a kol she'hu. Once the issur was established, it carried over the Pesach doros in the same way. </span></p><p><br /></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-44974790925660879022024-03-24T14:26:00.002-04:002024-03-24T14:26:21.117-04:00the original 180; shlichus on a mitzvah she'bgufo<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">1) My wife pointed out that the seudah of Achashveirosh was 180 days. ונהפּוך הוא! We needed to correct that to earn the holiday of Purim. This may be the first instance of a 180 turnabout.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">2) Likutei Sichos of the L Rebbe <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14944&st=&pgnum=499" target="_blank">vol 21 page 492</a>:</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfMxjQw0ol1nqCgsDzjIeNSI3ZrNq_NDfS0BPMNqgSOP1a3U_N4LWAb80mMKh9-I5qrq70EP0U52s3zGOcsSiPvjY1-DobKii5YkApVWbsFPkushp7nUVB_JJBDUxqL1bY-Fv4lEaATZAVS3tlAjbQo5gHPmFFctPK7l2-GATOEyU8KjcTy2ykoQ/s775/Capture.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="437" data-original-width="775" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfMxjQw0ol1nqCgsDzjIeNSI3ZrNq_NDfS0BPMNqgSOP1a3U_N4LWAb80mMKh9-I5qrq70EP0U52s3zGOcsSiPvjY1-DobKii5YkApVWbsFPkushp7nUVB_JJBDUxqL1bY-Fv4lEaATZAVS3tlAjbQo5gHPmFFctPK7l2-GATOEyU8KjcTy2ykoQ/w472-h265/Capture.JPG" width="472" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><span style="font-family: verdana;">Pretty amazing chiddush -- if you can't fulfill drinking ad d'lo yada yourself, you can have a shliach do it on your behalf and sit back and watch them get drunk. You don't get a full kiyum, but the Rebbe says it is better than nothing.</span><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">How does that work? Drinking is a מצוה שׁבּגופו, and you can't fulfill a מצוה שׁבּגופו through shlichus? (The classic example is putting on tefillin -- you can't appoint a shliach to put on tefillin for you; they have to be placed on your own arm.)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">My wife's cousin, <a href="https://www.chabad.org/news/article_cdo/aid/5949029/jewish/Rabbi-Akiva-Wagner-55-Beloved-Educator-in-Toronto.htm" target="_blank">R' Akiva Wagner a"h</a>, has a hesber that hinges on two points:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">a) You can have a partial kiyum ha'mitzvah. For example, as we've discussed <a href="https://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2008/12/hadlakas-menorah-and-chatzi-shiur.html" target="_blank">before</a>, even though the shiur for mitzvos achila is a k'zayis, if you don't have the full shiur available there you may still get some credit for doing achila on a chatzi shiur.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">b) Yesh lachkor: when we say you cannot fulfill a מצוה שׁבּגופו through shlichus, does that mean the shlichus is invalid, or does it mean the shliach is your shliach, i.e. the shlichus works, but the shlichus cannot result in a kiyum ha'mitzvah.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">If you accept the second side of the chakira (which you need to prove), you at least have an opening to say that the shlichus may not be enough for a full kiyum mitzvah, but may be enough to get you a partial kiyum, akin to a chatzi shiur of a mitzvas aseh. </span></div>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-51943104180227929152024-03-22T10:56:00.001-04:002024-03-22T10:56:15.091-04:00Esther - Sarah link; the itzumo shel yom of Purim<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">1) See <a href="https://kallahmagazine.blogspot.com/2024/03/from-princess-to-queen-sarah-to-esther.html" target="_blank">my wife's blog</a> for a nice take on the relationship between Esther and Sarah.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">2) There is a machlokes Rebbi and Chachamim whether עיצומו שׁל יום is mechapeir on Yom Kippurim or whether teshuvah is required as well. R' Yaakov Moshe Charlap held that the machlokes is only viz a viz Yom Ki-Purim, but on Purim itself, everyone agrees that עיצומו שׁל יום is mechapeir. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">R' Yisrael Salanter is reported to have said that a wise person can accomplish as much in ruchniyus in his seudas Purim as an unintelligent person accomplishes with his tefilas ne'ila. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Take advantage of the day!</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-78690649900236071342024-03-22T10:54:00.002-04:002024-03-22T16:25:35.668-04:00Rabbah and R' Zeira's Purim seudah - an incredible take on an incredible story<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The gemara (Meg 7b) follows up on Rava's statement</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> אמר רבא מיחייב איניש לבסומי בפוריא עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">with a story:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">רבה ורבי זירא עבדו סעודת פורים בהדי הדדי איבסום קם רבה שחטיה לרבי זירא למחר בעי רחמי ואחייה לשנה אמר ליה ניתי מר ונעביד סעודת פורים בהדי הדדי אמר ליה לא בכל שעתא ושעתא מתרחיש ניסא</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Maharasha writes, דבר תמוה הוא לפרשו כפשטיה, taken at face value, the story is incredible. Even granting the inebriation of Rava, or Rabbah according to some girsa'ot, could he really have committed murder? Would an even keeled person (much less a tzadik like an amora!), out of the blue, without any prior animosity towards a person, jump up and kill them, no matter how drunk they might be? Were that the case bars should be the scenes of a lot more murders. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Some explain (see Baal HaMaor quoting Rabeinu Ephraim) the whole point of the story is in its shock value, as an illustration of the dangers of drinking עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי. It could be that the Rambam and others who write that one should drink until one dozes off read the story as a rejection of Rava's extreme formulation. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Others (e.g. see the <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20203&st=&pgnum=10&hilite=" target="_blank">Ben Ish Chai</a>, or the <a href="https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/93598/jewish/A-Perplexing-Purim-Feast.htm" target="_blank">Sichos of the L Rebbe</a>) take the story less literally, and explain that Rabbah taught R' Zeira great esoteric secrets of Torah, which R' Zeira's soul could not receive while contained in his physical body, so his soul departed. The Rebbe notes that the name Rabbah indicates rav=greatness, while Zeira is like the Aramaic word=smallness, indicating the gap between their knowledge.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Chasam Sofer in his teshuvos (<a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=794&st=&pgnum=143" target="_blank">OC end of 185</a>) points out that the gemara (Shabbos 156a) tells us that someone born under the planetary influence of mars will have a proclivity to spill blood, הַאי מַאן דִּבְמַאְדִּים — יְהֵי גְּבַר אָשֵׁיד דְּמָא. Guess who was born when mars was visible? אָמַר רַבָּה: אֲנָא בְּמַאְדִּים הֲוַאי. None other than Rabbah! Therefore, says Chasam Sofer, it is davka Rabbah who ended up committing murder. This is why the majority of poskim do not reject Rava's statement in the face of the story, as most people do not share that proclivity to blood lust. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">R' Menashe Klein (<a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1883&pgnum=384" target="_blank">O.C. Tinyana 556</a>) writes that Rabbah intended to channel his blood lust towards the fulfillment of a mitzvah and wanted to carry out mech'ias Amalek k'peshuto. How did R' Zeira get involved in that? He suggests that R' Zeira, as is our custom, came to Rabbah's feast dressed in costume. Rather than dress up like Mordechai, like all other little boys, R' Zeira decided he would dress up like Haman, or an Amaleiki. Overcome with drunkenness, in his zeal to fulfill mechi'as Amalek, Rabbah did not recognized his friend, thought it was really Amalek at his party, and took advantage of the opportunity. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Just when you thought we've reached the limits of creative interpretation here, I found in the last piece of the "<a href="https://asif.co.il/wpfb-file/04-pdf-37/" target="_blank">yoman</a>" kept by R' Yisrael Be'eri (note for those who learned in Kerem b'Yavneh: this is R' Binyamin Be'eri's father), R' Yaakov Moshe Charlap's son in law, (well worth your reading in its entirety!) a pshat that I am not sure is not Purim torah, but you can decide. R' Charlap writes that there must have been some friction between Rabbah and R' Zeira before this incident. The murder was the culmination of the story, not the start of the story. Who was R' Zeira? Chazal tell us (Kesubos 110b) that R' Zeira avoided R" Yehuda because R' Yehudah held there was an issur of going from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael. The gemara (BM 85) tells us that R' Zeira made aliya and then fasted so that he would forget the Babvli and could immerse himself completely in Talmud Yerushalmi, the torah of Eretz Yisrael. (My son pointed out R' Zeira is highlighted in the last sugya in Horiyos as the exemplar of exceptional ability to be maksheh u'mefareik, so his transformation from a Bavli-Amora to a Yerushalmi thinker must have been a dramatic change.) Not only was R' Zeira a confirmed Zionist, a lover of Eretz Yisrael, but he was also a great lover of the Jewish people. The gemara (San 37) writes that he was mekareiv a bunch of outlaws in his neighborhood, against the wishes of the other Rabbis who wanted nothing to do with them. Who was Rabbah? The gemara (Shabbos 153) writes that Rabbah was so despised by the inhabitants of Pumbadita because of his criticisms that Abayei wondered if anyone would even come to his funeral אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַבָּה: כְּגוֹן מָר דְּסָנוּ לֵיהּ כּוּלְּהוּ פּוּמְבְּדִיתָאֵי, מַאן מַחֵים הֶסְפֵּידָא. Rabbah and R' Zeira represent a clash of ideologies, two different approaches to avodas Hashem. They met at the Purim seudah, things came to a head, and Rabbah, in the heat of the moment, struck R' Zeira.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Fast foward to modern times. R Charlap quotes his rebbe, Rav Kook, as saying who is R' Zeira other than himself, a great lover of Eretz Yisrael, a great lover of even the most wayward of Am Yisrael. Zeira is roshei teivos, the same letters as זירא = <b>ז</b>ה <b>ר</b>ב <b>א</b>ברהם <b>י</b>צחק. And Rabbah is of course those who stood against Rav Kook and did not follow in his footsteps. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">May we be zocheh this year to fulfill mechi'as Amalek k'peshuto mamesh, in the literal sense, and I make no apologies for choosing sides here, I hope we become a little more like R' Zeira, to come to greater love of Eretz Yisrael and drawing close those who need to be drawn close. Just as Purim was the prelude to the return and aliya of Ezra and binyan ha'bayis, so too should our Purim be the prelude to our full return to Eretz Yisrael, culminating in binyan ha'bayis as well.</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-49699575862429702892024-03-21T11:31:00.003-04:002024-03-22T08:35:06.652-04:00eradicating Amalek -- chovas ha'yachid vs chovas ha'tzibur<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">This is more meaningful than anything I have to say about parshas zachor:</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DB_b_qU_Kps" width="320" youtube-src-id="DB_b_qU_Kps"></iframe></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p>I originally had the idea for this post early in the week, but the more I thought about the topic the more questions I had. Now I've reached the point where I think I've managed to at least partially put Humpty Dumpty back together again, but you can be the judge of that. </span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">R' Bachyei (last pasuk in Beshalach) that the property of Amalek is assur b'hanaah:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וע״ד הפשט כי יד על כס יה יאמר כי הש״י משביע לכל מלך ישראל שישב על כסא מלכות שיעשה מלחמה לה׳ בעמלק, באר כי המלחמה והשלל הכל יהיה אסור בהנאה ויהיה הכל לה׳ לא לבני אדם ומפני זה בא העונש לשאול ומדורו של שאול עד דורו של מרדכי וידע מרדכי כי שאול זקנו נענש בעונש גדול והיה עונשו מדה כנגד מדה כי תלה הכתוב שלמות הכסא בנקמת עמלק והוא לא נזהר בנקמתו ועל כן נענש שאבד השם והכסא כי לא נשאר לו שם אחריו אלא נהרג הוא ויהונתן בנו עמו ונפל כסא מלכותו, ומפני זה נזהר מרדכי בדבר שלא ליהנות משלל המן שהיה מזרע עמלק כענין שכתוב בפורענות המן (אסתר ט׳:י׳) ובבזה לא שלחו את ידם, לפי שהתורה הזהירה בכך (דברים כ״ה:י״ט) תמחה את זכר עמלק, וכן מצינו לעתיד המלחמה והשלל הכל לה׳ שנאמר (מיכה ד׳:י״ג) והחרמתי לה׳ בצעם וחילם לאדון כל הארץ.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The problem is that we read in the Megillah (8:1) בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא נָתַ֞ן הַמֶּ֤לֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ֙ לְאֶסְתֵּ֣ר הַמַּלְכָּ֔ה אֶת־בֵּ֥ית הָמָ֖ן, that Achashveirosh turned over Haman's estate to Esther. How could Esther have accepted a gift of issuei hanaah?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">R' Chaim Kanievsky <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49911&st=&pgnum=213" target="_blank">in Taama d'Kra</a> suggests that the din of issurei hanaah applies only in a situation of war against Amalek, where preserving the property of Amalek preserves the zecher of Amalek. Haman, however, was killed by Achashveirosh, not in battle. The property of someone killed by royal edict belongs to the king (I'm not sure why R' Chaim quotes this din which lichorah applies to a melech yisrael). It was not Haman's property that became Esther's gift, but rather Achashveirosh's. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">He adds that this is why the pasuk says בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא. It was davka property taken on that day, when Achashveirosh was meting out justice, that Esther took possession of. Once the full blown war against the hundreds and thousands of other Amalkites in the kingdom started on the next day, nothing else could be taken. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">This answer follows the same basic outline of the <a href="https://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-there-mitzvah-to-kill-animals-of.html?_sm_au_=iVVtHr7tfkZTRZ6rNQ618K6JkGVkq" target="_blank">Oneg Y"T's explanation</a> of why Shaul thought it was OK to keep the livestock of Amalek. Shaul thought that so long as the animals were made hefker before the battle the issur hanaah no longer applied to them -- they are not the property of Amalek at the time of war. The common theme of both answers is that technically, the property in question no longer belonged to Amalek at the time possession was taken by a Jew.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">There is a more fundamental chiluk that emerges from a chiddush of the Meshech Chochma, and this is where the picture began to get muddled for me.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Sefer haChinuch in mitzvah 604 writes that the mitzvah of destroying Amalek does not only apply to the tzibur fighting a battle, but applies to any yachid who chances upon an Amaleiki:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וְזֹאת מִן הַמִּצְוֹת הַמּוּטָלוֹת עַל הַצִּבּוּר כֻּלָּן, וּכְעִנְיָן שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (סנהדרין כ, ב), שָׁלֹשׁ מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּשְׁעַת כְּנִיסָתָן לָאָרֶץ, לְמַנּוֹת לָהֶם מֶלֶךְ, וְלִבְנוֹת לָהֶם בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה, וּלְהַכְרִית זֶרַע עֲמָלֵק. וּבֶאֱמֶת כִּי גַּם עַל כָּל יָחִיד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הַזְּכָרִים מוּטָל הַחִיּוּב לְהָרְגָם וּלְאַבְּדָם מִן הָעוֹלָם, אִם יֵשׁ כֹּחַ בְּיָדָם בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן, אִם יִמָּצֵא אֶחָד מִכָּל זַרְעָם. וְהָעוֹבֵר עַל זֶה וּבָא לְיָדוֹ אֶחָד מִזֶּרַע עֲמָלֵק וְיֵשׁ סִפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לְהָרְגוֹ וְלֹא הֲרָגוֹ, בִּטֵּל עֲשֵׂה זֶה.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Rav Yaakov Ilan in his sefer <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=48007&st=&pgnum=351&hilite=" target="_blank">Masa Yad (vol 1)</a> suggests that the dual nature of the chiyuv is reflected in the two different parshiyos that speak about destroying Amalek. The parsha at the end of Beshalach speaks about מִלְחָמָ֥ה לַה׳ בַּֽעֲמָלֵ֑ק; the parshas in Ki Teitzei speaks about תִּמְחֶה֙ אֶת־זֵ֣כֶר עֲמָלֵ֔ק, but no mention of war. The chiyuv to wage war is incumbent on the tzibur; the chiyuv to destroy any zeicher of Amalek is incumbent upon every individual. (I'm not sure based on this why Rashi quotes the din at the end of Ki Teitzei and not in Beshalach.)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Based on this distinction, the Meshech Chochma suggests that the mitzvah of obliterating the property of Amalek, inclusive of the livestock, applies only to the tzibur, but not to the chovas ha'yachid of eliminating Amalek:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> בספר החנוך כתב דעל כל יחיד שיקרה לפניו מזרע עמלק מצוה זו. ולרש״י שפירש זכר מאיש כו׳ משור ועד שה שלא יאמרו גמל זה של עמלק, והוא מהמכילתא דפרשה בשלח, ועיין הגהת הגר״א כאן בספרי מוכח דעל יחיד אין המצוה דהרי מפורש בשמואל א׳ כ״ז ויעל דוד ואנשיו כו׳ והעמלקי כו׳ ולקח צאן ובקר כו׳ הרי דביחיד אין מצוה לאבד הצאן ובקר. והא דאמרו במכילתא שהרג גר עמלקי שאין מקבלין גרים מעמלק, היינו לכן הרגו בהודאת עצמו כמו בן נח שנהרג עפ״י עצמו. וברור.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">M'meila, since Haman was killed outside the context of war, his property was not assur b'hanaah. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Sounds like a nice chiluk, but I was bothered by how the Chinuch makes sense l'shitaso. The Chinuch famously exempts women from the mitzvah of zechiras Amalek because he connects it to the mitzvah of mechi'as Amalek, and he holds that women are exempt from mechi'as Amalek because they do not have to participate in battle. Putting aside the fact that when it comes to a milchemes mitzvah Chazal tell us that even "kallah mi'chupasa" has to go out to war (see Marcheshesh 1:22 who tries to explain the Chinuch), there is an additional chiyuv here that applies to the individual, not to a communal battle. As the Chinuch writes, גַּם עַל כָּל יָחִיד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הַזְּכָרִים מוּטָל הַחִיּוּב לְהָרְגָם וּלְאַבְּדָם מִן הָעוֹלָם. If you see an Amaleiki walking down the street, you take care of him. Why are women exempt from this mitzvah? And why should the mitzvah of remembering Amalek be connected only to the communal obligation to wage war and not to the obligation on the individual to rid the world of Amalek? </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In order to put Humpty Dumpty back together I think we need to backtrack a bit, and here I found help in <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40624&st=&pgnum=145&hilite=" target="_blank">R' Gershuni's Mishpat haMelucha.</a> There are not 2 chiyuvim, a chovas ha'tzibur and a chovas ha'yachid, when it comes to eradicating Amalek. There is one chiyuv of milchama, and that chiyuv is ongoing -- milchama ba'Amalek m'dor dor. Sometimes that chiyuv is fulfilled on the battlefield. Sometimes that chiyuv is fulfilled when you see an Amaleiki soldier walking down the street. It's the same chiyuv that stems from fighting the war, just in this case you are attacking isolated soldiers. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The chiluk of the Meshech Chochma as to when Amalek's property is off limits vs when it is not does not depend on the chiyuv being fulfilled, yachid v tzibur, as the same chiyuv milchama is being fulfilled by the individual killing an Amaleiki or by the tzibur fighting a battle. What it depends on is the nature of the kiyum b'poel of the mitzvah. For whatever reason, when Amalek is dealt with in the context of battle by the tzibur, his property is off-limits. When Amalek is dealt with on an individual level, the property can be seized. What the reasoning for this distinction might be still eludes me.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Either way, maybe with this background we can explains Shaul's mistake and Shmuel's criticism of him. Shaul did not want the mantle of kingship; he therefore treated the command to fight Amalek not as a national battle incumbent onthe tzibur, but merely as a fight of individuals. When individuals strike at Amalek, their property is permitted to be seized. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Shmuel make clear that this was a tragic error. </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">וַיֹּ֣אמֶר שְׁמוּאֵ֔ל הֲל֗וֹא אִם־קָטֹ֚ן אַתָּה֙ בְּעֵינֶ֔יךָ רֹ֛אשׁ שִׁבְטֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אָ֑תָּה One cannot shirk leadership when called upon to serve the Jewish people. One must act in a way that reflects the greatness of the Jewish people, and help fulfill our national mandate.</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-60717255656488336732024-03-20T13:33:00.003-04:002024-03-20T13:33:38.433-04:00kaparah without korbanos<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">R' Chaim Elazari in his sefer Darkei Chaim (<a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=10018&st=&pgnum=172&hilite=" target="_blank">p 172</a>) quotes the Mabi"T who asks how it is that we achieve kaparah when the Torah says that an aveira b'shogeg requires a korban for kaparah. The pashtus is that we have a concept of u'nishalma parim sifaseinu. Hashem allows studying the parsha of the korban to serve as a substitute for actually offering the korban. R' Yonah in Shaarei Teshuvah (4:8) writes</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> כִּי מִקְרָא פָּרָשַׁת הַקָּרְבָּן יִהְיֶה לָנוּ בִּמְקוֹם הַקְרָבַת הַקָּרְבָּן בֵּין שֶׁנִּקְרָא בִּכְתָב בֵּין שֶׁנִּקְרָא בְּעַל פֶּה. כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה כָּל הָעוֹסֵק בְּפָרָשַׁת עוֹלָה כְּאִלּוּ הִקְרִיב עוֹלָה. בְּפָרָשַׁת חַטָּאת כְּאִלּוּ הִקְרִיב חַטָּאת. בְּפָרָשַׁת אָשָׁם כְּאִלּוּ הִקְרִיב אָשָׁם.)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Mabi"T gives a different answer. When does sin need a korban for kaparah? Only when there is a Beit haMikdash standing when you do the aveira. Ignoring the hashra'as haShechina compounds the wrongdoing and therefore makes kaparah impossible without a korban. However, when there is no Mikdash, when the hashra'as haShechina is not manifest for all to see, one's sin is less weighty, and hence the bar to achieve kaparah is lower.</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-49572672041676644472024-03-15T08:46:00.002-04:002024-03-15T08:46:16.169-04:00could AI build a better mishkan?<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Rashi in our parsha alludes to the gemara in Brachos (55a):</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן בצלאל על שם חכמתו נקרא בשעה שאמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה לך אמור לו לבצלאל עשה לי משכן ארון וכלים הלך משה והפך ואמר לו עשה ארון וכלים ומשכן אמר לו משה רבינו מנהגו של עולם אדם בונה בית ואחר כך מכניס לתוכו כלים ואתה אומר עשה לי ארון וכלים ומשכן כלים שאני עושה להיכן אכניסם שמא כך אמר לך הקב"ה עשה משכן ארון וכלים אמר לו שמא בצל אל היית וידעת</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Even though, says the gemara, that Moshe told Betzalel to first make kelim and them the mihskan, Betzalel intuited that Hashem had actually instructed to first make the mishkan and then kelim. This has to be the case because where would you put kelim if you don't already have a mishkan.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">There are two problems with the sugya (see Tos on the spot):</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">1) How can it be that Moshe misunderstood or did not properly communicate the dvar Hashem? </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">Chazal tell us that in a small handful of places "nisalma mi'menu halacha," that Moshe did not know something, but this instance is not on that list, not to mention that t</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">o admit the possibility of this type of error calls into question the whole mesorah. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">2) In point of fact, Hashem first gave the command to make kelim and then the command to make the mishkan, as we read in parshas Terumah. Moshe got it right; Betzalel's surmise that שמא כך אמר לך הקב"ה עשה משכן ארון וכלים was in fact wrong. So why did Moshe respond אמר לו שמא בצל אל היית וידעת? Why did he accept Betzalel's interpretation of Hashem's command as being more accurate than his own?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Maharal in Gur Aryeh (and similarly, GR"A) answer that Hashem told Moshe about the kelim first because the kelim, starting with the aron, were the most important things in the mishkan. The building existed for the kelim, not the other way around. However, when it came to the actual construction of the mishkan, which was Betzalel's domain, the process was reversed. First the building had to be assembled, and only then the kelim put inside. The difference order in the parshiyos reflects these different perspectives, that of theory vs that of practice.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Alter of Kelm says a beautiful yesod here to answer the questions: </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">When Bn"Y committed the sin of cheit ha'eigel, Hashem told Moshe (32:10) וְעַתָּה֙ הַנִּ֣יחָה לִּ֔י וְיִֽחַר־אַפִּ֥י בָהֶ֖ם וַאֲכַלֵּ֑ם וְאֶֽעֱשֶׂ֥ה אוֹתְךָ֖ לְג֥וֹי גָּדֽוֹל. In a nutshell, Hashem's message was, "Leave me alone -- we are ending this show now." So why didn't Moshe do that? The very next pasuk says that Moshe began to daven וַיְחַ֣ל מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶת־פְּנֵ֖י ה׳ אֱלֹהָ֑יו -- the exactly opposite of the plain meaning of Hashem's request!</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Says the Alter, Hashem does not want us to be robots or computers. Hashem wants us to be human beings and use our brains. When a computer gets the instruction הַנִּ֣יחָה לִּ֔י, it obeys to the letter. When Moshe got that same instruction, he realized something was up. As Rashi writes עדיין לא שמענו שהתפלל משה עליהם, והוא אומר: הניחה לי? אלא כאן פתח לו פתח, והודיעו שהדבר תלוי בו, שאם יתפלל עליהם לא יכלם. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Hashem wants us to read between the lines, to interpret, to go beyond the surface meaning, and in that way arrive at His true intent. Sometimes what appears to be disobedience in fact demonstrates true fidelity to Hashem's wishes.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Hashem did give Moshe the command to make the kelim first. Moshe heard Hashem's command correctly and relayed it to Betzlalel correctly. However, that doesn't mean that's what Hashem wanted. Betzalel had the insight to understand that the mishkan building had to be put together first rather than making the kelim.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Could AI build a mishkan better than a human? Maybe, if all it took to build it was blindly following a blueprint. But Hashem wanted more than that. Hashem wanted human intuition and intelligence invested in the product, not just gold, silver, and precious metals. AI cannot substitute for that. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Hashem b'davka gave the instructions in the way he did, seemingly backwards, says the Alter, so that Betzalel would have the opportunity to use his brains to work out what Hashem wanted. In this way, the mishkan would contain the most precious commodity of all: the </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">חכמת לב of a human being. </span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-35635885157378308142024-03-11T09:43:00.002-04:002024-03-11T11:32:30.967-04:00with friends like these...<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Jonathan Tobin, editor in chief of JNS <a href="https://www.jns.org/the-moral-failure-of-bidens-state-of-the-union-address/" target="_blank">writes</a>:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Regardless of whether you support the Democrats or the Republicans, with respect to Jewish interests, Biden’s State of the Union address was a disaster. While he deplored the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel and even invited relatives of the hostage families to be in the gallery of the U.S. House of Representatives for the speech, the fact that he went on to have more harsh words for the democratically elected government of Israel than the terrorists of Hamas was shocking.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">So, too, was his unrealistic demand that Israel could wage a justified war against the Islamists without harming the Palestinians Hamas hides behind. And his demand that Israel accede to a Palestinian state at the end of the war is not only immoral, it will grant a reward to the terrorists and undermine U.S. interests in the region.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">His plans to deploy U.S. troops and resources to create a floating harbor to facilitate the delivery of aid to Gaza was an ill-thought-out idea that will likely do far more to help Hamas, which is certain to steal most of the supplies that the Americans will deliver unless Biden foolishly breaks his promise and U.S. troops do land in the Strip.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Worst of all, the president had not a single word to say about the unprecedented surge of antisemitism sweeping through America, driven by his erstwhile intersectional allies on the left-wing of his party.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The headline of Philip Klein's article in NRO says <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/biden-delivers-the-most-anti-israel-presidential-speech-in-history/" target="_blank">sums it up</a>: "Biden Delivers the Most Anti-Israel Presidential Speech in History." (I personally am not sure about that given Obama's anti-semitic hatred of Israel). He writes, "The overarching message was clear: The October 7 attacks were bad, but Israel’s response has been worse. Palestinians deserve our support, but Israel does not."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Wall Street Journal editorial page<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-draws-an-odd-red-line-for-israel-rafah-war-7209c91e" target="_blank"> writes today</a>: "President Biden likes to say that no President has been a better friend to Israel, but of late he doesn’t sound like it. He beat up Israel’s leaders in his State of the Union speech, criticized its war strategy in Gaza with regularity, and on the weekend called Israel’s plans to clear Hamas from its last stronghold in the city of Rafah a “red line” that Israel shouldn’t cross."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Biden is even making Lindsey Graham look like a right-winger in an <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/lindsey-graham-biden-screwed-world-every-way-can-rcna142544" target="_blank">interview with NBC News</a>:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Graham also responded to questions about the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, saying, “I literally about fell out of my seat” during the president’s State of the Union address to Congress on Thursday when Biden said Hamas could end the conflict by releasing all of the hostages they took on Oct. 7.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">“Is the president saying that if the hostages are released by Hamas, they can stay in power?” Graham asked on Sunday.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">“President Trump believes it’s non-negotiable when it comes to Hamas. They have to be destroyed militarily. They can’t be in charge. So I’m challenging the Biden administration today to clear this up. You cannot allow Hamas to stay in power,” Graham added.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">With friends like these...</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-46190488192599421152024-03-08T15:56:00.004-05:002024-03-08T15:56:59.784-05:00Do hasbara and havana go hand in hand? Ibn Ezra, R' Chaim Brisker, and Gardner's multiple intelligences<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">It is attributed I think to R' Chaim Brisker that if you can't explain an idea, it means you don't really understand it. Or, as they say in yeshivish אז ס'פעהלט אינעם הסברה פעהלט אינעם הבנה Or as they put it in other parts of the world: חסרון בּהסבּרה זה חסרון בּהבנה </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">R' Shteinman <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19898&st=&pgnum=300" target="_blank">points out</a> that in our parsha aside from being praised for his brilliance, וַיְמַלֵּ֥א אֹת֖וֹ ר֣וּחַ אֱלֹקים בְּחׇכְמָ֛ה בִּתְבוּנָ֥ה וּבְדַ֖עַת וּבְכׇל־מְלָאכָֽה, the Torah says Betzalel had the gift of וּלְהוֹרֹ֖ת נָתַ֣ן בְּלִבּ֑וֹ (35:34). Ibn Ezra explains:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">כי יש חכם גם חרש לא יוכל להורות היטב</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Ohr haChaim similarly writes:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> שיש חכמים רבים שתהיה חכמתם בלבם לבד שלא ידעו ללמדה, לזה אמר ולהורות נתן בלבו השכיל חכמת הלימוד</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Not everyone who is an expert can pass on that expertise and teach it to others.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">R' Shteinman asks: What happened to the rule of חסרון בּהסבּרה זה חסרון בּהבנה? </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Lulei d'mistafina I would say there is a difference between understanding a sevara and mastering a skill. The former is theoretical knowledge and the only thing required is sufficient brainpower. It falls under the logical-mathematical heading in <a href="https://pz.harvard.edu/projects/multiple-intelligences" target="_blank">Gardner's breakdown of seven intelligences</a>. Not so the latter. I can perfectly understand the mechanics and theory of hitting a baseball, but that doesn't mean I can play for the Yankees. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, as Gardner calls it, is a different ballgame. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The greatness of Betzalel is that he was a master of both, and a master teacher of both, something that is rare indeed.</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-70573066904629103232024-03-07T17:30:00.000-05:002024-03-07T17:30:07.310-05:00Chizkuni on when parshas shekalim was given; machtzis ha'shekel as a tikun for mechiras Yosef<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">1) First up, a pshat issue. According to Rashi and Ramban and most meforshim, the count of Ki Tisa is a different count than the count at the beginning of sefer Bamidbar. The count in Ki Tisa took place in Tishrei, after Moshe came down with the second luchos, and three different donations were collected: 1) a fixed half shekel per person which was used to make the adanim of the mishkan; 2) another fixed half shekel per person which was used to buy korbanos; 3) a give-what-you-like donation used to buy material to construct the mishkan. The count in BaMidbar took place in the second month of the second year (i.e. Iyar) and was a census to determine how many soldiers were on hand.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The main difficulty with Rashi's approach is that the number of people in the Ki Tisa count exactly matches the number of people in the census of BaMidbar. How could there be absolutely no population change in the intervening months? To compound the problem, the count of Ki Tisa seems inclusive of the entire nation. The count in BaMidbar is exclusive of sheivet Levi. Shouldn't that lead to an inevitable discrepancy? </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">Rashi attempts to address the problem, but Ramban already attacks the answer, followed by all the various meforshei Rashi jump into the fray to try to come up with a solution. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Chizkuni goes against the tide and writes that the count of Ki Tisa is in fact one and the same as the count in BaMidbar:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">בשנה השנית, כדכתיב בפרשת במדבר: בשנה השנית וגו׳ שאו את ראש כל עדת בני ישראל (במדבר א׳:ב׳), שכן כי תשא – להבא משמע, ושאו (במדבר א׳:ב׳) – מיד משמע. ופרשה זו נאמרה מבאחד באדר כדי להשמיע על השקלים לתרומת הלשכה לקנות הקרבנות להקריב מבאחד בניסן ואילך שבו הוקם המשכן. והלשון מוכיח: ונתת על עבודת אהל מועד (שמות ל׳:ט״ז), שמע מינה שכבר נעשה אהל מועד כלו</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Ki Tisa is not a command to count, but means WHEN you count, this is how to do it, by collection shekalim. The command to count comes later, in BaMidbar. Chizkuni adds that this parsha was given in the beginning of Adar. Our practice of reading the parsha parallels when the parsha was actually given.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Interestingly, Gur Aryeh, who normally defends Rashi, in this case learns pshat like Chizkuni, albeit with minor differences:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">ויותר היה נראה לומר כי היה זה מספר אחד עם מספר אשר הוא אחר שהוקם המשכן, ואמר הכתוב (פסוק יב) ״כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל לפקודיהם״ אחר שהוקם המשכן, שאז יהיו נמנים ישראל, ״ונתנו איש כופר נפשם בפקוד אותם״ (שם), ורוצה לומר שיתנו כופר נפשם בפקוד אותם, לכך יקדימו שקליהם לתת אותם קודם המנין, ויתנו אותם לתרומת המשכן לאדנים שיהיו כפרה עליהם בפקוד אותם אחר כך. ולפי זה היה שפיר שאמר הכתוב ״כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל״, ולא היה מצוה ׳שאו את ראש בני ישראל׳ כמו שאמר בחומש הפקודים (במדבר א, ב) ״שאו את ראש״, ולא היה כאן מנין בפני עצמו, רק ״כי תשא״ בסוף, אחר שהוקם המשכן, והמנין היה אחר שהוקם המשכן</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">He marshals proof for his position from the Midrash Tanchuma, which refers to only one count in the desert, not two. Our parsha is about the mitzvah to give shekalim **in advance** of the count that will take place later in BaMidbar:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וכן משמע בתנחומא (כאן סימן ט), דקאמר התם; עשרה פעמים נמנו ישראל, וחשיב התם אחד בירידתן למצרים, ואחד בעלייתם משם, דכתיב (ראו לעיל יב, לז) ״ויסעו בני ישראל מרעמסס כשש מאות אלף״, אחד בחומש הפקודים כו׳, הרי שלא מנה כלל אותו של ״כי תשא״, וכמשמעות הכתוב שלא נאמר בו מנין כלל, רק ״ויהי כסף פקודי העדה״ (ראו להלן לח, כה), דפירושו הכסף של הפקודים, אבל לא נמצא שם למנות ישראל. והפירוש על דעת מדרש זה, שהיה מצוה לתת את השקלים קודם למנין שלהם שיהיה בחומש הפקודים.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">2) </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">Last week <a href="https://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2024/03/r-levi-yitzchak-miberdichiv-on.html?_sm_au_=iVVQsZP40QD7HqTFNQ618K6JkGVkq" target="_blank">I posted</a> the Berdichiver's interpretation of בְי֣וֹם פׇּקְדִ֔י וּפָקַדְתִּ֥י עֲלֵהֶ֖ם חַטָּאתָֽם׃. The Techeiles Mordechai (#5 <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=35914&st=&pgnum=168" target="_blank">here</a> ) on this week's parsha quotes a different interpretation. ובְי֣וֹם פׇּקְדִ֔י, means when Bnei Yisrael are counted -- meaning, we are a mass of individuals that can be enumerated instead of a being united, singular entity -- then פָקַדְתִּ֥י עֲלֵהֶ֖ם חַטָּאתָֽם, then we have to pay the debt for our sins. When we are united as one unit, however, Hashem puts that aside. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Yerushalmi explains that machtzis ha'shekel is a kaparah for mechiras Yosef:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">אתם מכרתם בכורה של רחל בעשרים כסף שהגיע לכל אחד טבעא [היינו מטבע של מחצית השקל] לפיכך יהי' שוקל כל אחד מכם מחצית השקל</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Shem m'Shmuel (Mishpatim 5675) writes:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">ויש להסבביר הדברים כי השקלים הם קיבוץ כל כחות ישראל לעבודה בכלל ובפרט, היינו שהוא עשר גרה רומז לעשרה חלקי הנפש שבאדם, והוא של כסף שהוא רומז לאהבה, והיינו שכל אחד מקבץ כל כחות נפשו ומסרם לעבודת הש"י באהבה, ולא בפ"ע לבד אלא כל ישראל יחד כענין ויעשו כולם אגודה אחת לעשות רצונך בלבב שלם, זהו נשמת המצוה, והפועל דמיוני הוא גוף המצוה, כמו גוף שנושא את הנשמה כן גוף המצוה נושא את נשמת המצוה, ו<b>הוא תיקון לחטא מכירת יוסף צדיק יסוד עולם המאחד את כל קהל ישראל שפגמו בזה,</b> וע"כ אחר המכירה כתיב וירד יהודה מאת אחיו, ו<b>התיקון הוא התאספות כל ישראל ע"י השקלים לקרבנות ציבור שאין דינם כקרבנות השותפין אלא כמו איש אחד</b>, ובפרט נמי הוא תיקון לפגם ברית היינו התאספות כל החושים וכל האברים, כמ"ש כל עצמותי תאמרנה ה' מי כמוך והוא תיקון לחטא שכל אבריו מרגישין בו, שהחטא נמשך ג"כ מהחטא של מכירת יוסף כנ"ל, והיינו הא דפסיקתא וירושלמי הנ"ל, וכל זה הכנה לניסן להשגת חיים חדשים, וע"כ הזמן לשקלים הוא כל חודש אדר וכולי האי ואולי יספיק לזה כל החודש:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The cheit of mechiras Yosef was a blow to the unity of Yaakov's family. The machtzis ha'shekel is the tikun. All the darshanim explain that we take 1/2 a shekel rather than a whole one to reinforce the idea that each individual is just a piece of the whole in need of a neighbor to become complete. It's only when we bond together than we become whole. We use shekalim for korbanos tzibur. A tzibur is not the same as a partnership of individuals. It is a new entity, like a corporation, that is greater than the sum of its parts. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">As we <a href="https://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2013/02/hamans-shekalim-vs-ours.html?_sm_au_=iVVb7707ZHR2MQnsNQ618K6JkGVkq)" target="_blank">once explained</a>, this was Haman's mistake. Haman paid millions of shekalim to Achashveirosh thinking that we were "mefuzar u'meforad," disjointed and disunited, and therefore vulnerable. However, Chazal tell us that our shekalim preempted Haman's attack. The mitzvah of machtzis ha'shekel underscored the core unity of Am Yisrael.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">If each individual thinks he/she counts more than anyone else, then we run the risk of ובְי֣וֹם פׇּקְדִ֔י וּפָקַדְתִּ֥י עֲלֵהֶ֖ם חַטָּאתָֽם. If we count using shekalim, if the individual sees him/herself as part of a greater whole, then we are spared having to deal with the Haman's of the world.</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-51286382259706062902024-03-06T12:14:00.002-05:002024-03-06T12:14:37.703-05:00living Elsewhere, in a land of make-believe<p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/One-Mans-Meat-B-White/dp/0884481921" target="_blank">One Man's Meat</a>, by E.B. White, better known as the author of Charlotte's Web and Stuart Little, is a delightful collection of essays written in the late '30's/early '40's. The following is an excerpt from a July 1938 essay in which White comments on the TV era, which was in its infancy (I added the bolding):</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">...Radio has already given sound a wide currency, and sound "effects" are taking the place once enjoyed by sound itself. Television will enormously enlarge the eye's range, and, like radio, will advertise Elsewhere. Together with the tabs, the mags, and the movies, it will insist that we forget the primary and the near in favor of the secondary and the remote. <b>More hours in every twenty-four will be spent digesting ideas, sounds, images -- distant and concocted</b>. <b>In sufficient accumulation, radio sounds and television sights may become more familiar to us than their originals.</b> A door closing, heard over the air; a face contorted, seen in a panel of light -- these will emerge as the real and the true; and, when we bang the door of our own cell or look into another's face the impression will be of mere artifice. I like to dwell on this quaint time, and when the solid world becomes make believe, McCarthy corporeal and Bergen stuffed, when all is reversed and we shall be like the insane, to whom the antics of the sane seem the crazy twistings of a grig.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>When I was a child people simply looked about them and were moderately happy; today, they peer beyond the seven seas, bury themselves waist deep in tidings, and by and large what they see and hear makes them unutterably sad.</b></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">If this is what he had to say about TV, imagine what he would have made of our internet era.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Last Sunday was a beautiful, sunny 60 degree day in NY. My wife and I were walking in a park and she commented on the fact that there were so few children out on such a nice day. I reminded her that children no longer go outside to play; they are happy to sit glued to a screen, and if they want to see the outdoors, they simply bring up a video of it to watch while they down their Prozac pills by the handful.</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-83840877180145955782024-03-04T13:54:00.004-05:002024-03-04T13:54:46.032-05:00more on shluchei mitzvah ainon nizokin -- chakira of the Sdei Chemed<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I) I saw the following chakira quoted from the Sdei Chemed: when we speak about shluchei mitzvah ainan nizokin does it mean that Hashem removes the threat of danger, or does it mean that the threat is there, the danger is there, but Hashem does not allow the person doing the mitzvah to come to harm?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In YD 339:5 the SA quotes a minhag to spill out any drawn water in the neighborhood in which a death occurs. Some explain that this was simply a way of communicating to all what had occurred without having to actually announce the bad news. Others, however, explain that there is a supernatural reason for the practice. When the malach ha'maves marches into town, some kind of poison can drop from his sword into the water and render it dangerous for anyone to drink.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In accord with the rule of shluchei mitzvah ainan nizokin Rama in Hil Pesach (455) writes that mayim she'lanu that is used for matzah baking does not have to be spilled out. The same (see Pischei Teshuvah in YD) applies to water drawn for shabbos food.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Can one eat matzah baked with that water after pesach is over? Can one eat the leftover cholent after shabbos? This should be taluy in the Sdei Chemed's chakira. If the principle of shluchei miztvah ainin nizokin means there is no threat present, i.e. no drop from the malach ha'maves' sword ever falls into mitzvah water, then the answer would seem to be yes, one can eat the leftovers. But if the principle of shluchei miztvah ainin nizokin means the drop of poison is there but the mitzvah protects one from harm, then after pesach (or even the seder) is over, after the seudas shabbos is over, once the mitzvah is complete, the leftovers cannot be eaten. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">II) </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">The context of shluchei mitzvah ainin nizokin in Pesachim is a discussion of the braysa תנא אין מחייבין אותו להכניס ידו לחורין ולסדקין לבדוק מפני הסכנה. The gemara gives two explanations why a person would not have to search these literal holes in the wall:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">1) Lest one be bitten by a scorpion. Asks the gemara: והא אמר ר' אלעזר שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזוקין? To which the gemara answers that maybe a person will accidentally drop something of theirs in the hole and search for it after he is done with the bedika, at which point they would be exposed to danger.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">2) The house adjoining the wall belongs to an aku"m who is might not understand the bedika and think it is some kind of witchcraft, which would be dangerous. Again, asks the gemara: האמר רבי אלעזר שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזוקין To which the gemara answers that this is a case of clear and present danger, שכיח היזיקא, and all bets are off.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Why does the gemara not gives this answer of שכיח היזיקא when it talks about why there is no protection from the scorpions? </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">It could be that these are not just two possible scenarios to explain the braysa, but rather there is a difference between the views. The Ohr haChaim writes that Reuvain thought it preferable to throw Yosef into a pit of scorpions rather than have his brothers deal with him because scorpions have no bechira and could harm Yosef only if Hashem decreed such; the brothers had bechira, and Hashem allows bechira to play out even if it goes against the ideal Divine plan. It could be that shchiach he'zeika only comes into play when one is dealing with a human agent, a baal bechira. When it comes to animals, since they are like robots that cannot deviate from Hashem's plan, even if shchiach he'zeika one is still protected.</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-54301999995422932422024-03-01T14:14:00.004-05:002024-03-01T14:32:44.496-05:00R' Levi Yitzchak miBerdichiv on וּפָקַדְתִּ֥י עֲלֵהֶ֖ם חַטָּאתָֽם<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In response to Moshe's plea to forgive Bn"Y for cheit ha'eigel, Hashem told him to go back for now and comfort the people, וּבְי֣וֹם פׇּקְדִ֔י וּפָקַדְתִּ֥י עֲלֵהֶ֖ם חַטָּאתָֽם׃ (32:34), and going forward, whenever the time comes for other punishments, Hashem will dole out a bit of punishment for cheit ha'eigel as well (see Rashi).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">R' Levi Yitzchak mi'Berdichiv ask two questions (see the Koznitzer Maggid in Avodas Yisrael end of P' Balak):</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">1) We say every Yom Kippur that Hashem is מעביר אשׁמותינו בּכל דור. The slate is wiped clean, the past forgotten. How then is cheit ha'eigel counted against us for eternity? How can we forever after get a bit of punishment for this sin that is past history?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">2) The gemara (Brachos 32b) tells us that Hashem in fact does not keep in mind any recollection of cheit ha'eigel:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">אמרה לפניו רבש"ע הואיל ואין שכחה לפני כסא כבודך שמא לא תשכח לי מעשה העגל אמר לה גם אלה תשכחנה אמרה לפניו רבש"ע הואיל ויש שכחה לפני כסא כבודך שמא תשכח לי מעשה סיני אמר לה ואנכי לא אשכחך </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">If Hashem forgets about our wrongdoing, then again, how do we understand בְי֣וֹם פׇּקְדִ֔י וּפָקַדְתִּ֥י עֲלֵהֶ֖ם חַטָּאתָֽם׃?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">R' Levi Yitzchak explains that there are two types of wrongdoers. There is the wrongdoer who comes from a broken home, who had horrible friends in his youth, who went to the worst schools, and m'meila, became a gangster. What do you expect? And then there is the wrongdoer who came from the best family, who went to the best schools, grew up in the "right" neighborhood, had wonderful friends, but nebech, took a wrong turn and became a criminal. He surely should have known better and deserves harsher punishment.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">On the flipside, if one of these two becomes an outstanding member of society, a real do-gooder, if we are speaking about the person who came from the right family, neighborhood, and school, we would say m'meila, what else would you have anticipated? But if we are speaking about someone who grew up without all those benefits, then all the more credit to them, because they rose above expectations.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Bnei Yisrael said naaseh v'nishma and accepted the Torah, something no other nation was willing to do. One could say what else would you expect? These are the descendants of Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, people with such a distinguished and noble background. But on the other hand, the fact that 40 days later Bnei Yisrael made an eigel proves that there was something not quite right inside, that there was a rottenness in the core of the people that was waiting to get out and express itself, and that had to be dealt with. When we said naaseh v'nishma, we rose above that flaw, and achieved more than could have been expected. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">This is the shakla v'terya of the gemara in Brachos. Hashem says to Bnei Yisrael that he will forget the cheit ha'eigel. מעביר אשׁמותינו בּכל דור If so, Bnei Yisrael answer, what about our credit for saying naaseh v'nishma? If you now view us as noble people, the finest stock, then we did no more than live up to expectations and don't deserve such a big pat on the back! To which Hashem answers, speaking still about cheit ha'eigel, that He will not forget Sinai. In the context of Sinai, the context of naaseh v'nishma, he will not forget the eigel. He will view naaseh v'nishma as the response of a people burdened by something not quite right inside, something evil that would come out later in the eigel, but something that they rose above to achieve greatness. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The root פּקד comes up when the Torah speaks about positive things. ה׳ פּקד את שׂרה. when it was time for geulah, Moshe said פּקד פּקדתי אתכם. Hashem tells Bn"Y וּבְי֣וֹם פׇּקְדִ֔י וּפָקַדְתִּ֥י עֲלֵהֶ֖ם חַטָּאתָֽם. I am not going to remember or think about cheit ha'eigel now. The slate is wiped clean. However, when it comes time to remember all the good that Bn"Y does, וּבְי֣וֹם פׇּקְדִ֔י, if someone then tries to take away credit, if someone says that what else should you expect from bnei Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, then I will remember and remind them of cheit ha'eigel, proving that we too had burdens to overcome, and we managed to do so. </span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-86012146641205912692024-03-01T08:19:00.002-05:002024-03-01T08:19:31.185-05:00shluchei mitzvah ainan nizokin<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The gemara Pesachin 8b is the source for the concept of shluchei mitzvah ainan nizokin based on a pasuk at the end of our parsha (34:28):</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">א"ר אלעזר שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזוקין לא בהליכתן ולא בחזירתן כמאן כי האי תנא דתניא איסי בן יהודה אומר כלפי שאמרה תורה ולא יחמוד איש את ארצך מלמד שתהא פרתך רועה באפר ואין חיה מזיקתה תרנגולתך מנקרת באשפה ואין חולדה מזיקתה והלא דברים ק"ו ומה אלו שדרכן לזוק אינן ניזוקין בני אדם שאין דרכן לזוק על אחת כמה וכמה אין לי אלא בהליכה בחזרה מנין תלמוד לומר ופנית בבקר והלכת לאהליך מלמד שתלך ותמצא אהלך בשלום וכי מאחר דאפילו בחזירה בהליכה למה לי לכדר' אמי דא"ר אמי כל אדם שיש לו קרקע עולה לרגל ושאין לו קרקע אין עולה לרגל </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Noda b'Yehudah (<a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14662&st=&pgnum=63" target="_blank">mh"t OC 94)</a> asks why it is that the Rambam does not quote R' Ami's din that someone who does not own land is exempt from aliya la'regel. </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">(Parenthetically, Tos Pesachim 3b d"h alya seems to compare the chiyuv to bring korban pesach with aliya la'regel and exempt someone who does not have land.)</span><span style="font-family: verdana;"> This is the sugya's conclusion and there is no dissenting opinion? </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">He answers by quoting the gemara a few lines earlier on the page:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">בעו מיניה מרב הני בני בי רב דדיירי בבאגא מהו למיתי קדמא וחשוכא לבי רב אמר להו ניתו עלי ועל צוארי ניזיל מאי אמר להו לא ידענא</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Rav told his students that they could rely on not coming to harm travelling in the dark to get to yeshiva, but he was not sure whether the same rule applied for the trip home. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Why was Rav unsure of what would happen on the way home? Rav apparently held that the rule of shluichei mitzvah ainin nizokin applied on the way to a mitzvah, but not on the way from. Meaning, he must have learned the pasuk in our parsha לא יחמוד איש את ארצך as speaking only about travel to a mitzvah, not from, in which case there is no kal v'chomer, and the din of R' Ami has no foundation.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Oznayim laTorah <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39722&st=&pgnum=496" target="_blank">rejects </a>this approach. Rav had a safeik, he writes, not because he rejected the kal v'chomer, but rather because the mitzvah of talmud torah is not the same as the mitzvah of aliya la'regel. When it comes to aliya la'regel, after 7 days the mitvah is done. In that case, the Torah guarantees that you will return home safely. When a person goes to the beis medrash to learn Torah, at what point can we really say the mitzvah is done? (The Sefer haChinuch <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14092&st=&pgnum=293" target="_blank">#430</a> discusses why mi'doraysa we recite a bracha *after* eating food, but birchas haTorah *before* learning. Perhaps the answer is that there is no end to learning, so at what could Chazal be kove'a the bracha? See the Chinuch's answer.) Who can say with clear conscience that they are not going home to relax and do something else, or because they are bored, or because they are tired of their chavrusa, etc.? The guarantee of </span><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">אינן ניזוקין לא בהליכתן ולא בחזירתן applies when the mitzvah is over, not if you abandon the mitzvah in the middle. </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">Therefore, Rav was not prepared to say that the protection extended on the way home from the beis medrash.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I am not sure this next part makes sense, but I will throw it out there and make of it what you will. I want to sharpen the chiluk of the Oznayin laTorah. The sugya in Pesachim adds one important qualifier to the rule of shluchei mitzvah ainan nizokin: ן הֵיכָא דִּשְׁכִיחַ הֶיזֵּיקָא שָׁאנֵי When there is a real and present danger, all bets are off.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Kesubos 77b:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">מכריז רבי יוחנן הזהרו מזבובי של בעלי ראתן רבי זירא לא הוה יתיב בזיקיה רבי אלעזר לא עייל באהליה רבי אמי ורבי אסי לא הוו אכלי מביעי דההיא מבואה ריב"ל מיכרך בהו ועסיק בתורה אמר אילת אהבים ויעלת חן אם חן מעלה על לומדיה אגוני לא מגנא </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Even though being near people afflicted with the sickness called raasan was dangerous, R' Yehoshua ben Levi would sit and learn with them. The gemara explains that he derived a kal v'chomer from the pasuk אילת אהבים ויעלת חן that Torah provides protection, and so he was not worried.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">R' Elchanan in Koveitz Shiurim asks: but isn't שְׁכִיחַ הֶיזֵּיקָא an exception to the rule of shluchei mitzvah ainan nizokin?! </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">You have to say, writes R' Elchanan, that talmud Torah is categorically different and provides a more encompassing degree of protection. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Based on this, I would say there are 2 distinct dinim: the normal din of shluchei mitzvah, learned from the pasuk in our parsha, and the more comprehensive protection which Torah affords, which is learned from the pasuk </span><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">אילת אהבים ויעלת חן</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Rav in Pesachim was speaking specifically about talmud Torah, which is categorically different from other mitzvos. The gemara in Kesubos shows us the upside to T"T, namely, when one is engaged in learning the protection encompasses even situations where שְׁכִיחַ הֶיזֵּיקָא. Rav shows us the downside, namely, that there is no real </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">חזירתן, as ideally</span><span style="font-family: verdana;"> one should constantly be engaged in talmud Torah, v'hagisa bo yomam va'layla, and one is always on the clock. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">(Among other problems with my thesis: why does the gemara in Pesachim introduce Rav's statement if T"T is different than other mitzvos?)</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-29777568450067610742024-02-22T12:39:00.000-05:002024-02-22T12:39:24.440-05:00purim katan meshulash - R' Chaim Kanievsky's chiddush<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Mishna in Meg (6b) has a rule: אין בין אדר הראשון לאדר השני אלא קריאת המגילה ומתנות לאביונים. Therefore, this year, which is a leap year, we will not be reading megillah this month, nor can one fulfill the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim this month. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Is there any mitzvah to have a party on 14 Adar this month? On the one hand, the Mishna only speaks about megillah and matanot l'evyonim, implying that when it comes to partying, there is no difference between the months. On the other hand, the gemara writes</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> ומתני' חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני אין בין ארבעה עשר שבאדר הראשון לי"ד שבאדר השני אלא מקרא מגילה ומתנות הא לענין הספד ותענית זה וזה שוין</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">implying that it's only with respect to not having hesped or taanis that the days in both months are equal. Tos writes:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">יש שנוהגין לעשות ימי משתה ושמחה בארבעה עשר ובחמשה עשר של אדר הראשון וריהטא דמתניתין נמי משמע כן מדקאמר אלא מקרא מגילה (ב) בלבד ומתנות עניים מכלל דלענין משתה ושמחה זה וזה שוין ולא נהירא דהא אמרינן בגמרא הא לענין הספד ותענית זה וזה שוין מכלל דשמחה ומשתה ליכא דע"כ לא תליא הא בהא דאי תליא הא בהא לאשמעינן דמשתה ושמחה נהגו בהו וממילא נאסר בהספד דהא הימים האמורים במגילת תענית האסורים בהספד אין בהן משתה ושמחה וכן הלכה שאין צריך להחמיר לעשות משתה ושמחה באדר הראשון</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Worth noting that Tos speaks about the 14th and the 15th, but the gemara spoke only about the 14th, אין בין ארבעה עשר שבאדר הראשון לי"ד שבאדר השני. The Beis Yosef quotes from SM"K that even if you accept the notion that there is a chiyuv of mishteh in Adar I, it is limited to the day of the 14th alone.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">והגהות מיימונית כתבו בשם סמ"ק שהעולם לא נהגו לעשות משתה ושמחה כי אם בי"ד שבאדר הראשון אע"פ שבאדר השני נהגו גם בט"ו שמחה ומשתה וטעמא משום דאמר תלמודא אין בין י"ד שבאדר הראשון וכו' ולא הזכיר ט"ו ושמא נקט אותו שהוא עיקר</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">(Perhaps the SM"K held that celebrating 14 vs 15 Adar are not two separate takanos, but are two opportunities for the kiyum mitzvah. See last year's <a href="https://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2023/03/inyanei-halachalomdus-for-purim.html?_sm_au_=iVVT362Q2sZfWHNrNQ618K6JkGVkq" target="_blank">post</a> . Purim katan commemorates the source takanah, not the opportunities for kiyum hamitzvah.)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The SA and Rama (697) write that on Purim Katan, both 14 and 15 Adar I, we skip tachanun, we skip the mizmor of yaancha Hashem b'yom tzarah, and Rama paskens to avoid hesped and taanis. Rama then quotes the view that holds one should have a party of 14 and 15 of Adar I, and writes that even though it is not accepted l'halacha, one should try to have a larger seudah to be yotzei this opinion. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The <a href="(https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14083&st=&pgnum=316" target="_blank">Ksav Sofer al haTorah</a> goes a step further with an even bigger chiddush (see also <a href="https://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2011/02/shushan-purim-katan.html?_sm_au_=iVVKQR8KN4ptrkZnNQ618K6JkGVkq" target="_blank">here</a>). Tos only mentions having a seudah, but nothing about mishloach manos. Ran writes אבל לענין לשלוח מנות כיון דדמו למתנות לאביונים דליתנהו אלא בשני משמע נמי שאף משלוח מנות אינו אלא בשני. K.S. disagrees, and writes that since the point of mishloach manos is to enhance the seudah, if there is a chiyuv seudah in Adar I, there should also be a chiyuv mishloach manos as well. (See as well K.S. in the <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=952&pgnum=203" target="_blank">shut Y.D. 136</a> for a different approach).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">R' Chaim Kanievsky goes yet a step further with an even bigger chiddush. This year 15 Adar I falls out on Shabbos. When 15 Adar II falls on Shabbos, you have Purim meshulash, and according to many shitos, the seudah is pushed until Sunday. RC"K therefore held that on 16 Adar I, Sunday, no tachanun is recited. Had it been Adar II, we would be celebrating on 16; therefore, we should celebrate on Adar I as well.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">RC"K seems to be taking sides in a fundamental question. When we have a Purim meshulash and end up celebrating on the 16th, does that mean the 16th is the day on which we celebrate Purim, or is Purim really on the 15th, but since we can't have the seudah then (Yerushalmi says ain m'arvin simcha b'simcha), there is tashlumin on the 16th? If Purim is really the 15th and the 16th is just a day of tashlumin, it is harder to make the case that we should skip tachanun on that day even in Adar I. (In fact, it is hard to even make the case to skip tachanun or avoid hesped/taanis on that day in Adar II if you are not in a walled city. See <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=59541&st=&pgnum=255 " target="_blank">here</a> 5b)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Rama ends off "tov lev mishteh tamid." Purim is our most joyous time of year. Shabbos is technically a day of oneg, not simcha. On Y"T there is simcha, but beis din used to send out policemen to make sure things don't get out of hand. The L. Rebbe notes that even on Purim itself, one has mitzvos ha'yom like mikra megillah that have to be taken seriously. The only day when one can be immersed almost completely in joy, he says, is Purim katan. This day is the pinnacle of simcha. Take advantage!</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-81359350826492430842024-02-20T10:42:00.003-05:002024-02-20T10:42:59.791-05:00each piece in its proper place -- Netziv and Meshech Chochma on the Yerushalmi's issur to move beams from the north to the south side of the mishkan<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Yerushalmi (Shabbos 12:3) has a din that a board placed on the north side of the mishkan could not at some other point be used on the south side, because that would be a lowering of its kedusha. Kodshei kodashim can be shechted only on the north side but not the south.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Netziv comments on the pasuk וְיִֽהְי֣וּ תֹֽאֲמִם֮ מִלְּמַ֒טָּה֒ וְיַחְדָּ֗ו יִהְי֤וּ תַמִּים֙ עַל־רֹאשׁ֔וֹ אֶל־הַטַּבַּ֖עַת הָאֶחָ֑ת כֵּ֚ן יִהְיֶ֣ה לִשְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם לִשְׁנֵ֥י הַמִּקְצֹעֹ֖ת יִהְיֽוּ (26:24):</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">״יהיו״ מיותר, וכן במעשה (להלן לו,כט) כתיב ״כן עשה לשניהם לשני המקצועות״. אלא בא ללמדנו דשתי הטבעות כשרים יהיו לשני המקצועות, בלי דקדוק איזה כאן ואיזה כאן, ולא כמשפט הקרשים דאיתא בירושלמי הוריות פ״ג (סוף הלכה ה׳) מדכתיב ״והקמת את המשכן כמשפטו״ (פסוק ל׳) דקרש שזכה לצפון לא יעמוד בדרום, אבל לא כן משפט הטבעות. והטעם כמו שכתבתי, שלא באו הטבעות לכוון איזה ענין בעולם אלא לשמש הקרשים, על כן אין להם משפט [ומזה למדנו דכל תשמישי קדושה בבית הכנסת וכדומה, אין להם משפט הקרשים, ולא כמגן אברהם בסימן ח׳ (ס״ק ו׳) שכתב לענין טלית של מצוה. ואי אפשר ללמוד מקרשים אלא במעלות אנשים, כדאיתא בירושלמי שם, משום שכל איש יש לו משפט וזכות שהגיע למעלה זו]</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">According to Netziv, the Yerushalmi is speaking only about the beams, but not about the taba'ot. He explains that the mishkan was a microcosm of the world at large, but that doesn't mean every thumbtack and nail had omni significant meaning. It means in the larger sense, the main kelim had significance, and therefore their location and makeup was precise. The same did not apply to the taba'ot.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">A few pesukim earlier, commenting on the description of the adanim וְאַרְבָּעִ֥ים אַדְנֵיהֶ֖ם כָּ֑סֶף שְׁנֵ֣י אֲדָנִ֗ים תַּ֚חַת הַקֶּ֣רֶשׁ הָֽאֶחָ֔ד וּשְׁנֵ֣י אֲדָנִ֔ים תַּ֖חַת הַקֶּ֥רֶשׁ הָאֶחָֽד (26:21) the Meshech Chochma quotes that same Yerushalmi:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וארבעים אדניהם כסף – יתכן דאמר בירושלמי שבת פי״ב דקרש שזכה להנתן בצפון כו׳, רואים אנו דצפון קדוש יותר מדרום ואדנים שהיו לצפון מוכרחים להיות בצפון, ואינם רשאים לשנותם לדרום משום דאין מורידין בקדש כדיליף מויקם המשכן ואת אדניו, אבל בדרום כתיב אדני כסף משום דרשאי לשנותן לצפון דמעלין בקדש ודו״ק.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">M.C. applies the chiddush of the Yerushalmi not just to the boards, but to the adanim. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Is there a machlokes here between the Netziv and M.C. as to the scope of the Yerushalmi, or would you distinguish between the adamin and taba'ot?</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-35737300344059190302024-02-16T13:52:00.001-05:002024-02-16T13:52:53.641-05:00groundwork for geulah<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Daas Zekeinim comments on the dimension of the mizbeiach:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">ארכו כנגד הלוחות חמש דברות על לוח זה וחמש על לוח זה ושלש אמות קומתו כנגד שלשה גואלים שעמדו להן לישראל משה ואהרן ומרים.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In the weekly parsha sheet "Chashukei Chemed" based on the shiurim of R' Yitzchak Zilberstein, they ask where it is that we find that Miriam is a "go'el"[es]. Moshe took us out of Mitzrayim; Aharon spoke to Pharoah and had a hand in the makkos. What did Miriam do?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">R' Chaim Elazari beat R' Zilberstein <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=10018&st=&pgnum=168" target="_blank">to asking this kashe</a>. In his sefer Darkei Chaim he reminds us that when Amram separated from his wife in response to Pharoah's decree to drown the babies, it was Miriam who encouraged her father to change course and not give up hope. Rashi in parshas Beshalach (15:20) tells us that Miriam had a prophecy before Moshe was born that her mother would give birth to the go'el. Without Miriam, Moshe's message might have fallen on dead ears (as it was, Bn"Y were not very receptive to Moshe's message when in response, Pharoah tightened the reins.) She laid the groundwork of belief in redemption that enabled her brothers to be successful. She therefore gets equal credit for bringing geulah.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">We ask Hashem in every tefilah ומביא גואל לבני בּניהם. Yes, we want mashiach, we want full geulah. But that is the final step in the process. </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">Before we are zocheh to the go'el who is a poor guy riding a donkey who will get lions and lambs to live in peace, we need the go'el who will get us to believe it can and will happen, who will lay the </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">groundwork of hope, expectations, and belief. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">That go'el, I think, perhaps can be any one of us, or all of us together. </span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-65161014155585491642024-02-15T14:50:00.002-05:002024-02-15T14:50:56.054-05:00when is a kli not a kli<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I saw a beautiful diyuk quoted in the name of R' Yechezel Abramsky:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וְנָתַתָּ֖ אֶל־הָאָרֹ֑ן אֵ֚ת הָעֵדֻ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֶתֵּ֖ן אֵלֶֽיךָ (25:10) </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וְ וְנָתַתָּ֧ עַֽל־הַשֻּׁלְחָ֛ן לֶ֥חֶם פָּנִ֖ים לְפָנַ֥י תָּמִֽיד (25:30)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ אֶת־נֵרֹתֶ֖יהָ שִׁבְעָ֑ה וְהֶֽעֱלָה֙ אֶת־נֵ֣רֹתֶ֔יהָ וְהֵאִ֖יר עַל־עֵ֥בֶר פָּנֶֽיהָ (25:37) </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The common denominator among these pesukim is that the mitzvah of making the particular kli contains a statement about what that particular kli is used for. Yet if you look at the command to make a mizbeiach, there is no similar statement of purpose:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ אֶת־הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים חָמֵשׁ֩ אַמּ֨וֹת אֹ֜רֶךְ וְחָמֵ֧שׁ אַמּ֣וֹת רֹ֗חַב רָב֤וּעַ יִֽהְיֶה֙ הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וְשָׁל֥שׁ אַמּ֖וֹת קֹֽמָתֽוֹ:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">בוְעָשִׂ֣יתָ קַרְנֹתָ֗יו עַ֚ל אַרְבַּ֣ע פִּנֹּתָ֔יו מִמֶּ֖נּוּ תִּֽהְיֶ֣יןָ קַרְנֹתָ֑יו וְצִפִּיתָ֥ אֹת֖וֹ נְחֽשֶׁת:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">גוְעָשִׂ֤יתָ סִּֽירֹתָיו֙ לְדַשְּׁנ֔וֹ וְיָעָיו֙ וּמִזְרְקֹתָ֔יו וּמִזְלְגֹתָ֖יו וּמַחְתֹּתָ֑יו לְכָל־כֵּלָ֖יו תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה נְחֽשֶׁת:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">דוְעָשִׂ֤יתָ לּוֹ֙ מִכְבָּ֔ר מַֽעֲשֵׂ֖ה רֶ֣שֶׁת נְח֑שֶׁת וְעָשִׂ֣יתָ עַל־הָרֶ֗שֶׁת אַרְבַּע֙ טַבְּעֹ֣ת נְח֔שֶׁת עַ֖ל אַרְבַּ֥ע קְצוֹתָֽיו:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">הוְנָֽתַתָּ֣ה אֹתָ֗הּ תַּ֛חַת כַּרְכֹּ֥ב הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ מִלְּמָ֑טָּה וְהָֽיְתָ֣ה הָרֶ֔שֶׁת עַ֖ד חֲצִ֥י הַמִּזְבֵּֽחַ:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">ווְעָשִׂ֤יתָ בַדִּים֙ לַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ בַּדֵּ֖י עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים וְצִפִּיתָ֥ אֹתָ֖ם נְחֽשֶׁת:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">זוְהוּבָ֥א אֶת־בַּדָּ֖יו בַּטַּבָּעֹ֑ת וְהָי֣וּ הַבַּדִּ֗ים עַל־שְׁתֵּ֛י צַלְעֹ֥ת הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ בִּשְׂאֵ֥ת אֹתֽוֹ:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">חנְב֥וּב לֻחֹ֖ת תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה אֹת֑וֹ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר הֶרְאָ֥ה אֹֽתְךָ֛ בָּהָ֖ר כֵּ֥ן יַֽעֲשֽׂוּ:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">We are told how to make a mizbeiach, but not what to do with it. Why the difference?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Brisker affiliated achronim develop the idea that there are two dinim in construction of the kelim: 1) klei ha'mikdash as utensils; 2) klei ha'mikdash as part of the tzuras ha'bayis, as part of the architecture of the mikdash building. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">That could be the difference between the mizbeiach and the other items on the list. When it comes to the menorah, the shulchan, etc., the Torah defines the kli based on its function. It's a utensil, and a utensil is defined by what it's used for. However, the mizbeiach is not a utensil. It's </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">not defined by function because it's </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">part of the building. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Rashi comments on כְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙ מַרְאֶ֣ה אוֹתְךָ֔ (25:9) that</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> אם יאבד אחד מן הכלים, או כשתעשו כלי בית עולמים, כגון: שולחנות ומנורות וכיורות ומכונות שעשה שלמה, בתבנית אילו תעשו אותם. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">If a kli needs to be replaced, or in the future, when a beis ha'mikdash will be built and will need kelim, the instructions remain the same as given in our parsha. There cannot be any deviation from the template.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Ramban on the spot jumps on this assertion and wonders how it can be true. We know the size of the mizbeiach in the beis ha'mikdash did not match the size of the mizbeiach in the mishkan, and so there was a deviation from the template!</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> ולא ידעתי שיהיה זה אמת שיתחייב שלמה לעשות כלי בית עולמים בתבנית אלו, ומזבח הנחשת עשאו שלמה עשרים אמה ארך ועשרים רחב </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Ohr haChaim defends Rashi and suggests לפי דעתי אין דברי הרב נראים כי מה שכתב כי וכן תעשו לדורות לא באה אלא על תכונת הבנין ולא על שיעורו that the details of the measurements of the kelim are not part of the template that has to be preserved. Mizrachi suggests that what is important in making kelim is to preserve the relative measurements, i.e. the mizbeiach made by Moshe was 5x5 amos, so Shlomo could make a 20x20 mizbeiach, preserving the ratio between the sides. See Gur Aryeh who addresses this question as well.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In their robust defense of Rashi, none of these meforshim note that if you look at the list of kelim Rashi mentions -- כגון: שולחנות ומנורות וכיורות ומכונות -- the mizbeiach is not on the list. Rashi deliberately left it out because the mizbeiach is not a kli like all other kelim, but is part of the tzurah of the building. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The dimensions of the mikdash building that Shlomo made were far greater than the dimensions of the mishkan made by Moshe. TAs part and parcel of the building, the mizbeiach could therefore also change in dimensions from the size made by Moshe.</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-51410303260556515072024-02-14T13:03:00.001-05:002024-02-14T13:03:09.513-05:00a common sense truth that educators ignore<p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Real-Education-Bringing-Americas-Schools-ebook/dp/B001E2NXDY/ref=sr_1_1?crid=30SAVTS2DSGIO&keywords=real+education+murray&qid=1706118692&s=books&sprefix=Real+Education+++%2Cstripbooks%2C82&sr=1-1" target="_blank">Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality</a> by Charles Murray is a very short book that is built around 4 premises that should be common sense, but alas, we live in a society run by progressive lunatics, so there is no such thing. The book is 15 years old, and in hindsight, Murray was far too optimistic back then in thinking that things might change. Anyway, I wanted to highlight one of the four ideas he discusses because it is relevant to yeshiva education. The idea is simple: half the school population will be, by definition, below average. Common sense, right? If there is an average student in the middle, then by definition, half of the population falls below that average, and half above. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Murray writes (pp 44-45):</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">...Children in the lower half of the distribution are just not smart enough to read or calculate at a level of fluency that most of the rest of us take for granted. Children still lower in the distribution of linguistic and logical-mathematical ability -- the bottom third of the distribution is a rough demarcation of the group I am talking about -- are just not smart enough to become literate or numerate in more than a rudimentary sense.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>Just not smart enough</i> [italics in the original]. It is a phrase that we all use in conversation, we all know what it means, and it has to be made available once again to discussions about educational policy. Some children are just not smart enough to success on a conventional academic track. Recognition of this truth does not mean callousness or indifference. It does not mean spending less effort on the education of some children than of others. But it does mean that we must jettison glib rhetoric that makes us feel good..."</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Think about a regular classroom of 5th of 6th graders being introduced of gemara. Is it any wonder that not all of them are up to the task? Think about high school kids expected to learn b'chavrusa for multiple hours a day and then listen to a Rebbe say over a complex hesber based on abstract ideas. Is it any wonder that at least half the shiur is lost? Yet the majority will continue through the system, onto beis medrash, kollel, etc. We have turned what should be a path for the elite into a path for the masses who walk the walk, talk the talk, but I fear cannot really "think the thoughts." </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Just something to think about.</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-62752946510808156822024-02-09T07:37:00.004-05:002024-02-09T07:37:45.904-05:00undermining Israel, as usual<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">From Scott Johnson over at the <a href="https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/02/no-way-to-treat-a-friend.php" target="_blank">powerlineblog.com:</a></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.04px;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.04px;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">President Biden has made a show of support, Biden style. His express support has turned to ambivalence at best and hostility at worst in leaks and statements that falsely defame Israel...</span></span></p><p style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-size: 14.04px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Yesterday in Israel Blinken hit a new low. The Times of Israel refers to</span><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span><a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israelis-were-dehumanized-on-oct-7-but-thats-no-excuse-to-dehumanize-others-blinken-says/" style="background: 0px 0px; border: 0px; color: #5873c1; font-family: verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Blinken’s statement</a><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">as caustic, which doesn’t quite capture its base quality: “Israelis were dehumanized in the most horrific way on October 7,” he said. “The hostages have been dehumanized every day since. But that cannot be a license to dehumanize others.” Again, the implication is to the contrary.</span></p><p style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-size: 14.04px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Blinken reeks of weakness, of cowardice, of betrayal...</span></p></blockquote><p style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-size: 14.04px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></p><p style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-size: 14.04px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">In NY you have many people, including misguided Jews, unfortunately supporting T<a href="https://nypost.com/2024/02/08/news/mazi-pilip-tom-suozzi-clash-over-abortion-border-during-first-debate/" target="_blank">om Suozzi over Mimi Pilip</a> thinking that he is a "moderate" Democrat who supports Israel and will compromise and work in a bipartisan fashion. I have no doubt that Suozzi, if G-d forbid elected, will follow the same marching orders as all the other D's, and the fools who put him in office will act shocked and surprised when the inevitable happens. </span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-78007627421193316112024-02-08T16:46:00.003-05:002024-02-09T11:17:32.956-05:00when was naaseh v'nishna said?<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">According to Rashi, the events described in ch 24 of our parsha took place before mattan Torah: פרשה זו קודם עשרת הדברות.</span><span style="font-family: verdana;"> The inevitable conclusion one must draw is, as Gur Aryeh writes, ויהיו לפי זה הפרשיות שלא כסדר. The Torah here hits the rewind button and brings us chronologically back to the middle of parshas Yisro. As Rashi reads the events of the perek, on 4 Sivan Moshe gave Bn"Y the mitzvos of perisha and hagbala and told them to prepare for mattan Torah, and Bn"Y responded (24:3) כׇּל־הַדְּבָרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר ה׳ נַעֲשֶֽׂה׃. Next day Moshe wrote out the parshiyos of Torah. On 6 Sivan he read what he had written to Bn"Y, and this time around Bn"Y responded with the famous line that we all know וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥רה׳ נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע׃ (24:7) </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Ramban on the spot disagrees and writes that these events took place only after mattan Torah. There are two things to be gained by taking this approach. 1) The order of the text does not deviate from the chronological order of events -- we don't have to rewind to anywhere. 2) The answer to Tos question of why Hashem had to hold Mt Sinai over the people and threaten to crush them if they did not accept the Torah when the people had already declared נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע is simple -- נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע was said only after kabbalas haTorah, not beforehand. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">That being said, the glaring issue with Ramban, which he raises himself at the very end of his comment, is that Chazal present נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע as a great statement of faith on the part of Bn"Y in that the people accepted Torah sight unseen, details unknown. This has so seeped into our consciousness as part of our mesorah that to disregard it seems almost impossible. How then do you square the pshat reading advanced by Ramban that נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע was said only after mattan Torah with this mesorah? I don't have a good answer and I don't understand how Ramban squares the issue away. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Turning back to Rashi's reading, there were two responses by Bn"Y before mattan Torah. On 4 Sivan the response was only נַעֲשֶֽׂה; two days later the response was נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע. Why the change? Why didn't Bn"Y respond with נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע the first time around? What changed?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Shem m'Shmuel answers that there has to first be a kabbalah of plain vanilla נַעֲשֶֽׂה, even without understanding, no questions asked. Once a person is prepared to accept things on that level, then they are capable of נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע, of aspiring to understand. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">(Chasam Sofer has a chiddush gadol on the gemara's statement (Shabbos 88):</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">רבי אלעזר בשעה שהקדימו ישראל נעשה לנשמע יצתה בת קול ואמרה להן מי גילה לבני רז זה שמלאכי השרת משתמשין בו דכתיב ברכו ה' מלאכיו גבורי כח עושי דברו לשמוע בקול דברו ברישא עושי והדר לשמוע</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; text-align: justify;">. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">He <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21623&st=&pgnum=105" target="_blank">writes </a>that davka malachim need </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">נַעֲשֶֽׂה to be able to come to </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">נִשְׁמָֽע. Bn"Y, however, are banim laMakom. For us, we don't need any preparation or precondition, not like the Sm"S. The gemara means the opposite of how we usually read it. It is not complimenting us that we achieved what only angels could achieve. Aderaba, </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">מי גילה לבני, why are those who are </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">בני behaving in a way that is appropriate for angels, who are on a lower level!)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Perhaps one can say that on 4 Sivan there was not yet a text of Torah, and therefore, there could be no aspiration for נִשְׁמָֽע. The thought that a human being can understand G-d or connect with G-d is on its face almost sacrilegious. How can you dream that your mind can comprehend even one iota of dvar Hashem? It's only by virture of Torah that we have a means to do so, as the Baal HaTanya explains in ch 4:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וְאַף דְּהַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא נִקְרָא "אֵין סוֹף", וְלִגְדוּלָּתוֹ אֵין חֵקֶר, וְלֵית מַחֲשָׁבָה תְּפִיסָא בֵיהּ כְּלָל,</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וְכֵן בִּרְצוֹנוֹ וְחָכְמָתוֹ,</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">כְּדִכְתִיב: "אֵין חֵקֶר לִתְבוּנָתוֹ",</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וּכְתִיב: "הַחֵקֶר אֱלוֹהַּ תִּמְצָא", וּכְתִיב: "כִּי לֹא מַחְשְׁבוֹתַי מַחְשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם".</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">הִנֵּה עַל זֶה אָמְרוּ: "בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא גְּדוּלָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא, שָׁם אַתָּה מוֹצֵא עַנְוְתָנוּתוֹ",</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וְצִמְצֵם הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא רְצוֹנוֹ וְחָכְמָתוֹ בְּתַרְיַ"ג מִצְוֹת הַתּוֹרָה וּבְהִלְכוֹתֵיהֶן,</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וּבְצֵרוּפֵי אוֹתִיּוֹת תּוֹרָה־נְבִיאִים־כְּתוּבִים,</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וּדְרָשׁוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁבְּאַגָּדוֹת וּמִדְרְשֵׁי חֲכָמֵינוּ־זִכְרוֹנָם־לִבְרָכָה.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">בִּכְדֵי שֶׁכָּל הַנְּשָׁמָה אוֹ רוּחַ וָנֶפֶשׁ שֶׁבְּגוּף הָאָדָם, תּוּכַל לְהַשִּׂיגָן בְּדַעְתָּהּ,</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">וּלְקַיְּימָן – כָּל מַה שֶּׁאֶפְשָׁר לְקַיֵּים מֵהֶן בְּמַעֲשֶׂה דִּבּוּר וּמַחֲשָׁבָה,</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">After Moshe had written down a text and there existed a cheftza shel Torah which Hashem's chochma was miraculously connected to, we then had the means to think about </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">נִשְׁמָֽע.</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-2916512983567884692024-02-06T10:19:00.000-05:002024-02-06T10:19:44.794-05:00dor holech v'dor ba<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The past few days I have felt a bit torn between different emotions. Today is my father's yahrzeit, and l'havdil being ha'meisim v'hachaim, last Friday my daughter had a baby boy, our first grandson (and just to be clear: had it been another granddaughter, I would be just as happy). You feel a sort of whiplash going from mi'shebeirach for bito ha'yoledes to K-l malei for a parent. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> וַיִּסְע֣וּ מֵרְפִידִ֗ים וַיָּבֹ֙אוּ֙ מִדְבַּ֣ר סִינַ֔י וַֽיַּחֲנ֖וּ בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר וַיִּֽחַן־שָׁ֥ם יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל נֶ֥גֶד הָהָֽר (19:2)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">There seems to be a redundancy in the pasuk. We are told וַֽיַּחֲנ֖וּ בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר, that Bn"Y camped in the desert, but then the pasuk repeats, וַיִּֽחַן־שָׁ֥ם יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל נֶ֥גֶד הָהָֽר, that Bn"Y camped near the mountain. Both statements could have compacted into one phrase וַיִּֽחַן or וַֽיַּחֲנ֖וּ and then say בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר נגד ההר (see Netziv). Why split the sentence in two?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Sefas Emes (in the Likutim) answers that the pasuk is referring to two different things. וַֽיַּחֲנ֖וּ בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר refers to the physical encampment of Bn"Y. </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">וַיִּֽחַן־שָׁ֥ם יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל refers to "ישׂראל סבּא." Yaakov Avinu, the Avos, our forefathers, also joined us at Sinai.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Chazal tell us that the souls of all future generations were present at Sinai. The Sefas Emes is telling us that the souls of those who came before us were there as well. We cannot have a future unless we also connect to our past.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">R' Meir Lichtenstein (R' Aharon's son) <a href="https://www.academia.edu/6266776/Mayer_Lichtenstein_My_Grandfather_the_Rav" target="_blank">quotes the Rav</a> as pointing out the gemara in Kid (30a) </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">אמר ריב"ל כל המלמד את בן בנו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו קבלה מהר סיני שנאמר והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וסמיך ליה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">tells us that teaching a grandchild Torah carries with it a special bracha of being like the experience of Sinai. This applies davka to a grandson -- המלמד את בן בנו -- but apparently not to teaching one's son.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">However, the Rambam in Hil Talmud Torah (1:2) writes that if one is forced to choose between educating one's child or one's grandchild, one's own child takes precedence:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">אם כן למה נצטוה על בנו ועל בן בנו. להקדים בנו לבן בנו ובן בנו לבן חבירו:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">So which is more important: teaching one's son or teaching one's grandson?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Rav answered that there are two dinim in talmud Torah. In terms of imparting information, teaching one's own child takes precedence over teaching anyone else, even a grandson. The gemara in Kiddushin is speaking about something else. The experience of Sinai was not just about learning laws, digesting information. The experience was about creating a masorah so that Torah connects generation to generation. It's when you go beyond the natural parent-child connection and add another generation into the mix, a grandparent to grandchild bond, that that idea expresses itself. </span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-69289145440132707552024-02-01T17:24:00.000-05:002024-02-01T17:24:27.133-05:00mesirus nefesh for mitzvos aseh; no place to run to; kabbalas haTorah possible only if one is a baal chessed<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Ramban quotes a Mechilta on the pasuk וְעֹ֥֤שֶׂה חֶ֖֙סֶד֙ לַאֲלָפִ֑֔ים לְאֹהֲבַ֖י וּלְשֹׁמְרֵ֥י מִצְוֺתָֽי (20:4) saying:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">רבי נתן אומר: לאוהבי ולשומרי מצותי – אלו<b> שהן יושבין בארץ ישראל </b>ונותנין נפשם על המצות. מה לך יוצא ליהרג, על שמלתי את בני. מה לך יוצא לישרף, על שקראתי בתורה. מה לך יוצא ליצלב, על שאכלתי את המצה. מה לך לוקה מאפרגל, על שנטלתי את הלולב. ואומר: אשר הוכיתי בית מאהבי (זכריה י״ג:ו׳) – המכות האלו גרמו לי לאהב לאבי שבשמים</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">A) A point l'halacha: the Mechilta seems to contradict the view of Rama (YD 157) who holds that the chiyuv of mesirus nefesh only applies when a person is being forced to violate a lav, not when a person is being prevented from being mekayeim an aseh. The examples of the Mechilta -- milah, lulav, matzah, talmud Torah -- are all examples of mitzvos aseh (see Netziv in Haamek She'ilah 42:2).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">B) A point l'machshava: why does the Mechilta focus only on those in Eretz Yisrael? Were there no coercive decrees in chutz l'aretz? (See Netziv in Haamek Davar)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">R' Tzuriel in Derishat Tzion </span><a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=43731&st=&pgnum=51" style="font-family: verdana;" target="_blank">quotes</a><span style="font-family: verdana;"> the MG"A in Zayis Raanan who answers that the proper response to a decree is to run away. If they don't let you run yeshivos the way you want in NY, or if you can't wear your kipa on a college campus in NY, then move to Florida! Why remain in harms way if you don't have to? The residents of Eretz Yisrael, however, refuse to listen to that message. How can you run away and abandon the daily kiyum mitzvah of yeshivat ha'aretz, something you can get no where else in the world? They residents of E"Y would rather stay and face the persecution than abandon the Land. That's why davka they are called אֹהֲבַ֖י. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Chazal tell us that there are 4 people who had letters added to their name. Yeser had a <i>vav</i> added, and so we have our parsha of Yisro. Avraham had a <i>hey</i> added, Sarah had a <i>hey</i> added, and Yehoshua had a <i>yud</i> added to the beginning of his name. R' Noson Gestetner points out that the 4 added letters spell out the shem Havaya. That's not by coincidence. Avraham and Sarah brought monotheism to the world and caused a great kavod shamayim, revealing Havaya to the world. Yisro sought out Hashem, abandoning all other avodah zarah. This too increased the revelation of Havaya to the world at large. Just as introducing monotheism and abandoning avodah zarah caused a greater revelation of the shem Havaya, so too did the conquest of Eretz Yisrael by Klal Yisrael and Yehoshua. There is a connection between love for the Land, and </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">אֹהֲבַ֖י, love of Hashem.</span><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">2) The Midrash (Mechilta) tell us that Moshe tried to convince Yisro to stay on, but Yisro insisted on leaving. Yisro said:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> אָמַר לוֹ כְּלוּם הַנֵּר מְהַנֶּה אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם הַחֹשֶׁךְ, וְכִי מַה הַנֵּר מְהַנֶּה בֵּין חַמָּה לִלְבָנָה, אַתְּ חַמָּה וְאַהֲרֹן לְבָנָה, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה הַנֵּר בֵּין חַמָּה לִלְבָנָה, אֶלָּא הַרֵינִי הוֹלֵךְ לְאַרְצִי וּמְגַיֵּר כָּל בְּנֵי מְדִינָתִי וַאֲבִיאֵם לְתַלְמוּד וַאֲקָרְבֵם תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Yisro had the opportunity to be close to and learn from the gedolei ha'dor, from Moshe and Aharon. Imagine a bachur accepted to the most elite yeshiva in the world and offered an opportunity to learn b'chavrusa with the Rosh Yeshiva. Who would turn down such a chance? </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">What we see from this Chazal (see R' Shteinman's comment in <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19898&st=&pgnum=143" target="_blank">Ayeles haShachar</a>) is that being a mekabeil is not enough to satisfy a person. A person has a built in need to be a mashpia and give to others as well. Had Yisro stayed where he was, he could absorb an enormous amount from Moshe and Aharon, from his environment, but he felt he would have nothing to contribute. To have a chavrusa with the Rosh Yeshiva sounds like a great thing, but if a person just sits passively and listens to the R"Y's chiddushim all day with nothing of his own to add, he will not grow or be satisfied. He would be better served by learning with a peer with whom he can exchange ideas. Yisro needed to return home where he would have the opportunity to use his talents to influence others or he would never achieve fulfillment and purpose.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Midrash (28:1) writes that when Moshe went upstairs to get the Torah, the malachim gave him a hard time:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה בִּקְּשׁוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת לִפְגֹעַ בְּמשֶׁה, עָשָׂה בּוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא קְלַסְטֵירִין שֶׁל פָּנָיו שֶׁל משֶׁה דּוֹמֶה לְאַבְרָהָם, אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אִי אַתֶּם מִתְבַּיְשִׁין הֵימֶנּוּ לֹא זֶהוּ שֶׁיְּרַדְתֶּם אֶצְלוֹ וַאֲכַלְתֶּם בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה לֹא נִתְּנָה לְךָ תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בִּזְכוּת אַבְרָהָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: לָקַחְתָּ מַתָּנוֹת בָּאָדָם, וְאֵין אָדָם הָאָמוּר כָּאן אֶלָּא אַבְרָהָם</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Hashem's response was to make Moshe look like Avraham, who had served food to the angels when they came to visit. It would not be right to repay Avraham's hospitality by complaining about his descendants.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">R' Shteinman <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19898&st=&pgnum=145" target="_blank">explains</a> that the way to be zocheh to Torah is through chessed. Avraham's personified chessed, and Moshe reflected the same values. That's the proof that humans are worthy of receiving the Torah.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I think this connects to the previous point. To be mashpia on others is to do chessed. If a person is only a mekabeil, only on the receiving end, and does nothing to better others, there is a lack of chessed. Yisro realized that if he cannot contribute where he is, then even under the direct tutelage of Moshe and Aharon, he would not be zocheh to Torah because he would lack the necessary ingredient of being a baal chessed and contributing to others learning and development.</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-87623663898016671802024-01-26T09:46:00.001-05:002024-01-26T09:46:57.807-05:00is R' Chaim really our hero?<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I recently saw a flyer in my neighborhood advertising a yeshiva week break trip to Panama, which is guess is the latest fad after you've done Florida, Cancun, etc. I see the Bahamas <a href="https://www.jewishbahamas.com/yeshivaweek" target="_blank">has minyanim</a> 3x a day, thank G-d. Can you believe yeshiva week even has a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshiva_Week" target="_blank">wikipedia entry</a>?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I guess I should say Baruch Hashem, our community has people with $$$ to spare for these things while still paying an arm and a leg in tuition. Baruch Hashem there are minyanim and daf yomi shurim available on cruises and resorts all over the world so that there is no need to make compromises when you travel.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">But on the other hand...</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In "our" community, and when I say that I mean YU as well as the yeshivishe olam, we lionize R' Chaim Brisker. We all want to be able to learn like R' Chaim, to say chiddushim like R' Chaim.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">But what about the R' Chaim Brisker who, </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">when there was a fire in Brisk,</span><span style="font-family: verdana;"> did did not sleep on a bed so long as poor people were displaced? Do we lionize that R' Chaim? Do we want to be like that R' Chaim? </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Would that R' Chaim be relaxing in the Bahamas when our nation is at war?</span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-22571263792362364312024-01-25T11:27:00.005-05:002024-01-25T11:27:31.121-05:00T"u b'Shevat; leftover mon for shabbos -- hutra or dechuya?; "ki va sus Pharoah" -- part of the shira or not?<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">1) Chazal tell us that each of the makkos lasted a month. The makkah itself lasted a week, and there were three weeks of warning given. The last makkah of bechoros took place on Pesach. Turn the clock back a month and on the 15th of Adar there would have been makkas choshech for the Egyptians. For us, this is the time we celebrate ליהודים היתה אורה. Turn the clock back another month to 15 Shevat and the Egyptians had arbeh to deal with, which consumed all the produce from the trees (10:5) וְאָכַל֙ אֶת־כׇּל־הָעֵ֔ץ הַצֹּמֵ֥חַ לָכֶ֖ם מִן־הַשָּׂדֶֽה׃. We in turn have the holiday of T"u b'Shevat, which we celebrate by eating the fruits from the trees. (Chasam Sofer in the derashos)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">2) </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">There was an exception to the rule of אִ֕ישׁ אַל־יוֹתֵ֥ר מִמֶּ֖נּוּ עַד־בֹּֽקֶר, for the mon collected on Friday that was left overnight for Shabbos. Sefas Emes (Michtivei Torah) has a safeik whether this mon put aside for Shabbos could be leftover until Sunday. In other words, does the issur of אַל־יוֹתֵ֥ר מִמֶּ֖נּוּ עַד־בֹּֽקֶר apply to all mon and is just dechuya for the sake of Shabbos meals, or was the mon that fell of Friday מופקע completely from the issur? </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The gemara (Kid 38) writes that after Moshe died and the mon ceased to fall, Bn"Y ate the leftovers until the day after Pesach, at which point they began to eat the produce of Eretz Yisrael. How were they allowed to keep leftovers? Rishonim write that Moshe died on Shabbos afternoon, which is one of the reasons we recite "tzidkascha tzedek" -- tziduk ha'din -- at mincha on Shabbos. (See Tos Menachos 30: מה שנוהגין לומר צידוק הדין בשבת במנחה פירש רב שר שלום גאון על שנפטר משה רבינו באותה שעה לפיכך נמנעו מלעסוק בתורה משום דאמרי' חכם שמת כל בתי מדרשות שבעיר בטילין וקשה דהא כתיב בן מאה ועשרים שנה אנכי היום ודרשינן היום מלאו ימי ושנותי ואם בשבת מת א"כ כתב היום מערב שבת ויש לתמוה דכתב על העתיד ולר"ש לא בעי למימר דהפסוק נאמר על העתיד מדקשיא ליה מהא דכתיב לקוח את ספר התורה הזה שמא על שם שעתיד יהושע כג] להשלימו ועוד קשה דבסדר עולם משמע דבשבעה באדר שמת משה בו ערב שבת היה) If the mon that fell of Shabbos is מופקע from the issur of keeping leftovers, then problem solved. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Brisker Rav rejected this proof. Once the mon ceased to fall, the halachos associated with the mon like not keeping leftovers also ceased to be in effect. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">4) </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">Maaseh Rav <a href="https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=30753&st=&pgnum=16" target="_blank">quotes the GR"A</a> (#29) to omit the pasuk of כִּ֣י בָא֩ ס֨וּס פַּרְעֹ֜ה בְּרִכְבּ֤וֹ וּבְפָרָשָׁיו֙ ... וּבְנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הָלְכ֥וּ בַיַּבָּשָׁ֖ה בְּת֥וֹךְ הַיָּֽם׃ when reciting shiras ha'yam. On the one hand, the pasuk does not sound like part of the praises of Hashem sung in shirah, but rather sounds like a description of the event. On the other hand, however, the pasuk is written in the unique format of the pesukim of shirah, with extra blank space between the phrases (אריח על גבּי לבינה). </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Rishonim already take up the question of whether it is part of the shirah or not. Ramban quotes Ibn Ezra:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">אמר ר׳ אברהם שגם זה מן השירה, כי היו משוררים ואומרים: כי בא סוס פרעה ברכבו ובפרשיו בים וישב ה׳ עליהם את מי הים בעוד בני ישראל הולכים ביבשה בתוך הים, והוא נס בתוך נס.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">But then objects and says:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">ואיננו כלשון השירה והנבואות. אבל פירושו: אז ישיר משה (שמות ט״ו:א׳), כי בא סוס פרעה בים [ביום ההוא מיד, לא מיום המחרת או אחרי כן. או טעמו: אז, כאשר בא סוס פרעה] בים, והשיב עליהם השם מי הים בעוד בני ישראל הולכים ביבשה בתוכו – להגיד כי בלכתם בתוכו ביבשה אמרו השירה</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Both approaches of Ibn Ezra and Ramban implicitly answer a question which the Netziv spells out: mai kah mashma lan this pasuk? Isn't it clear already that Bn"Y sang shirah as they crossed sea and watched the Egyptians drowning? Ramban sees the pasuk as emphasizing the fact that shirah was an immediate reaction, sung on the spot, without preparation or rehearsal. Ibn Ezra sees the point as the fact that the Egyptians were drowned in the sea simultaneously with Bn"Y being on dry land and singing shira. The Oznayim laTorah writes that Bn"Y said shirah for the fact that the Egyptians followed them into the river. What were they thinking? After so many makkos, couldn't they anticipate that this was a trap? The only explanation is that the fact that they followed was itself miraculous.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Netziv develops a yesod that he already touches on earlier in the parsha (14:20). Chazal comment on וְהַמַּ֤יִם לָהֶם֙ חֹמָ֔ה מִֽימִינָ֖ם וּמִשְּׂמֹאלָֽם that חֹמָ֔ה is written chaseir, without a vav, and can be read as cheima, anger. Yalkut Shimoni:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">הָיוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת תְּמֵהִין לוֹמַר בְּנֵי אָדָם עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מְהַלְּכִים בַּיַּבָּשָׁה. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאַף הַיָּם נִתְמַלֵּא עֲלֵיהֶן חֵמָה, שֶּׁלְּמַעְלָה הוּא אוֹמֵר וְהַמַּיִם לָהֶם חֹמָה חֵמָה כְּתִיב</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">If the Egyptians are to be judged for their wrongdoings, then it is only fair that Bn"Y pass muster as well. Why should our shortcomings, our idolatry, be overlooked? The angels claimed that Bn"Y were themselves guilty of avodah zarah and therefore undeserving of the miracle of the sea being split. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Fortunately, G-d, not angels, is the final arbiter of justice.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The shirah ends with a vision of future geulah, ה׳ יִמְלֹ֖ךְ לְעֹלָ֥ם וָעֶֽד׃. Chazal do not paint a rosy picture of what awaits us at that time. Ula (San 98) said ייתי ולא אחמיניה׳, let Moshiach come, but not while I'm alive to have to suffer through it happening. G-d will sit in ultimate judgment of the world, and while we may be confident that the nations will get their comeuppance, who is to say that we will pass muster and not suffer as well? </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Netziv sees this final pasuk as an answer. כִּ֣י בָא֩ ס֨וּס פַּרְעֹ֜ה בְּרִכְבּ֤וֹ וּבְפָרָשָׁיו֙ and G-d sat in judgment and found them wanting. At the same time, וּבְנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הָלְכ֥וּ בַיַּבָּשָׁ֖ה בְּת֥וֹךְ הַיָּֽם -- despite our flaws, despite the fact that we had our own imperfections, despite the protests of the angels, Hashem spared us and miraculously saved us. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The future geulah will have its challenges and it may be painful to behold it unfold (witness current events), but we should not doubt for a moment that ultimately, we will be vindicated. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">4) By coincidence, the halacha yomi of the Pninei Halacha series is up to the halachos of writing a sefer Torah. R' Melamed <a href="https://ph.yhb.org.il/07-04-11/" target="_blank">offers the following explanation</a> of the blank space as a break between parshiyos (i.e. peshucha, stuma):</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">רמז יש בהלכה זו: האותיות השחורות מבטאות את כל מה שאנו מכירים ומבינים ויכולים להסביר, ולכן אנו מסוגלים להביע רעיונות אלו באמצעות האותיות. אבל יש רעיונות נשגבים, עליונים ועמוקים שאי אפשר לבטאם, הם כל כך גבוהים עד ששום מילה ואות לא יוכלו להכילם ולבארם. אך יחד עם זאת, אנו יודעים שהם קיימים, והם משפיעים על חיינו, מהם נובעות כל ההשגות והמחשבות שלנו. הקלף הלבן המקיף כל אות, מבטא את אותם הרעיונות הגבוהים שאינם ניתנים לביטוי. ומתוך הקלף הלבן, מתגלה ומופיעה לעינינו האות השחורה. מתוך מה שמעל ההכרה, מתגלים אלינו רעיונות מוכרים וברורים. וזה יסודה של התורה, מקורה שמימי ועליון, והיא יורדת עד לחיים היום יומיים שלנו (ע' לקוטי תורה לאדמוה"ז שה"ש מו, ג; דרך מצוותיך לצמח צדק, מצוות תפילין ב).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">There are concepts that can be communicated in words and letters, and there are ideas that are so lofty that they transcend being encapsulated in that way. The letters of the Torah are what can be communicated directly; the blank space represents those ideas that we sense, but which cannot be put into words. The background of those ideas creates the canvas upon which the letters take shape and have meaning.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Every phrase of the shirah is surrounded by blank space. As much as we understand and appreciate the words of shirah, there are depths of meaning davka in this parsha that go beyond what can be communicated through words alone. </span></p>Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com0