bentching and the bracha of shalom

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

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

 

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

 

Rashi comments:

 

ואכלתם לשובע – אוכל קימעא והוא מתברך במעיו.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

a hatred that never goes away

וְנָתַתִּ֤י שָׁלוֹם֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ וּשְׁכַבְתֶּ֖ם וְאֵ֣ין מַחֲרִ֑יד וְהִשְׁבַּתִּ֞י חַיָּ֤ה רָעָה֙ מִן־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְחֶ֖רֶב לֹא־תַעֲבֹ֥ר בְּאַרְצְכֶֽם׃

וּרְדַפְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־אֹיְבֵיכֶ֑ם וְנָפְל֥וּ לִפְנֵיכֶ֖ם לֶחָֽרֶב׃

 

 

Ohr haChaim asks: if וְנָתַתִּ֤י שָׁלוֹם֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ , then what does the next pasuk mean וּרְדַפְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־אֹיְבֵיכֶ֑ם?  If there is peace, then who are the enemies that need pursuing?

 

Many of the meforshim answer that the pasuk is not speaking about what takes place within Eretz Yisrael, but rather it is speaking about enemies outside Eretz Yisrael.  Ohr haChaim explains ומה שקרא אותם הכתוב אויבים, לא לצד שהם באים לצור על עיר הקודש שאם כן אין בטח ואין שלום ליושביה, אלא קרא אותם אויבים לצד אויבי ה׳ רשעי הגוים נקראים אויבי ה׳ ואויבינו.  He assumes that "oyeiv" means a physical threat, and he is therefore left with a problem: If there is peace in Eretz Yisrael, then there is no threat, so how does the term make any sense?  The O.C. does not consider the possibility that although we may have peace in Eretz Yisrael, there might still be Jews remaining in the diaspora who would have to deal with oyvim and physical threats.  Maybe idea that Jews would remain in disapora lands where they have to face the physical threat of oyvim when there is peace and bracha in Eretz Yisrael  is too silly and remote an idea to even consider. In any case, his solution is that oyvim does not just mean a physical threat, but can also mean אויבי ה׳.

 

The Ohr haChaim then adds something else.  I think the biggest mistake people have made in the past 2 years comes from not knowing this Ohr haChaim.  The history books are filled with the bloody and tragic stories of how Jews have been treated in Europe through the centuries: the endless cycle of pogroms, blood  libels, crusades, persecutions, inquisitions, and finally in our time, the Holocaust.  For some reason we thought this time would be different.  We thought this time the world had learned a lesson.  We thought barbaric attacks against Jews would not longer be condoned, and certainly not encouraged, by the "civilized" West.  Well, we were fools.  France is the same France of the Dreyfus trial; England is the same England that stopped Jews from escaping to Israel in the years preceding and during WWII, the same England that turned a blind eye to Arab violence against Jews under the Mandate.  Ohr haChaim writes  גם לצד שיודע ה׳ כי כל האומות שונא ישראל בטבע המתקנא והיא שנאה יסודית ואין לה תמורה.  And if you don't think that statement applies to the US of A, you are delusional.  

Are there individuals who are exceptions to the rule?  Of course there are.  But the exceptions are just that: exceptions.

I was reading Yardena Schwartz's book Ghosts of a Holy War: The 1929 Massacre in Palestine That Ignited the Arab-Israeli Conflict and every couple of pages she has to bring up the attack by Baruch Goldstein in Chevron, as if to provide something to stack up on the scale and provide balance against the litany of violance perpetrated by the Arabs.  What the author does not grap is that Goldstein is the exception that proves the rule.  For the most part, the Jews have not engaged in murder, in violent attacks, against the Arab population.  Goldstein was widely condemned by all segments of Israeli society.  The attacks against the Jews, however, are the rule.  The few Arabs who saved Jews during the Hebron massacre, the umos who saved Jews during the Holocaust, during other uprisings, had to stand against the masses who did engage in violance, and to this very day, celebrate that violence.  

 

The very next pasuk  וְרָדְפ֨וּ מִכֶּ֤ם חֲמִשָּׁה֙ מֵאָ֔ה וּמֵאָ֥ה מִכֶּ֖ם רְבָבָ֣ה יִרְדֹּ֑פוּ וְנָפְל֧וּ אֹיְבֵיכֶ֛ם לִפְנֵיכֶ֖ם לֶחָֽרֶב׃ ends with exactly the same words וְנָפְל֥וּ לִפְנֵיכֶ֖ם לֶחָֽרֶב׃ as our pasuk.  Why the word for word repitition?  Ibn Ezra answers: ונפלו אויביכם – פעם אחרת, שיפלו פעם אחרי פעם בלי תקומה.  Don't think that once you win the battle you are done.  We are dealing with, like the O.C. writes, a hatred that is built into the DNA of many people.  It will never go away.  Sadly, this is a battle that must be fought again, and again, and again.  

sometimes it's all or nothing

 וְאִם תֵּלְכוּ עִמִּי קֶרִי (26:21)  Rashi explains רבותינו אמרו: עראי, כמקרה שאינו אלא לפרקים, כך תלכו עראי במצותיו.  It sounds from the pasuk, writes Rav Shteinman, that doing mitzvos in a haphazard, careless way of עראי is worse than not doing them at all.  He then quotes a fascinating comment that he heard from the Brisker Rav in the name of R' Chaim.  When Eliyahu had his standoff with the nevi'ei ha'Baal, he challenged Bnei Yisrael (Melachim I 18:21)  עַד מָתַי אַתֶּם פֹּסְחִים עַל שְׁתֵּי הַסְּעִפִּים.  Choose -- either follow Hashem, or follow Baal, but you can't do both.  R' Chaim asked: if someone took a bite of treif, instead of telling them to stop, would you instead tell them that they might as well finish the whole meal?  מי שאכל שום יחזור ויאכל שום ?  Obviously you can't compare the issur of taking one bite to an entire meal.  Why then did Eliyahu tell the people that they might as well become 100% idol worshippers?  Isn't 50% observance better than nothing?

R' Chaim answered that when it comes to shemiras ha'mitzvos, every single mitzvah counts, every aveira avoided counts, even if a person cannot reach 100%.  However, when it comes to emunah, there is no such thing as 50%.  Either you believe, or you don't believe.  There is no such thing as hedging your bets.  Eliyahu was dealing with a crisis of emunah.  In that case, it's all or nothing.

וְאִם תֵּלְכוּ עִמִּי קֶרִי doesn't mean you make minyan only 50% of the time.  It means, based on this R' Chaim, that a person's emunah is at 50%, and because of that, their commitment is lacking.  

is learning without ameilus considered bitul Torah?

1) Rashi famously comments that אם בחקותי תלכו refers to ameilus in Torah.  Why ameilus in particular -- maybe the pasuk is referring to limud haTorah?  The meforshim generally go in one of two directions.  Some say Rashi was medayek in the pasuk's use of the word תלכו (see Gur Aryeh).  As my wife's grandfather explained (see her post here), one can only progress and grow, as connoted by the term הליכה, through hard work.  Others say Rashi was medayek in the pasuk's use of the word בחקותי.  The root of the word is חקק, to engrave.  Engraving is hard work and toil (see sicha of the L Rebbe on this Rashi), and similarly, it is only hard through work and toil that words of Torah will engrave themselves upon a person's heart.

R' Shteinman in Ayeles haShachar has an amazing safeik  whether learning without ameilus constitutes bitul torah.  I certainly hope the answer is no! 

2) Is ameilus a kiyum of talmud torah, or is it a seperate kiyum in its own right?  He quotes Menachos 7 which tells us that Avimi forgot masechta menachos and he travelled to his talmid, Rav Chisda, to relearn it.  Asks the gemara: why didn't he send for his talmid to come to him?  Answers the gemara:  סבר הכי מסתייעא מילתא טפי, he thought he would have more success if he did the travelling.  Rashi explains: משום יגעתי ומצאתי  Here you have ameilus for the sake of learning, but it is not the ameilus of breaking your head over a sugya.   The ameilus of breaking your head over a sugya is t"t, but travelling to go to the shiur may be it's own kiyum.  (I am not sure what the nafka minah would be.)

It's interesting that in that sugya Avimi made the job harder for himself than it needed to be -- he created the יגעתי ומצאתי even though there was a way around it.  Is there a mitzvah, for example, to look up every difficult word in a gemara using a dictionary rather than read the sugya in an English translation just because the former is more difficult than the latter?  Or do you get more schar for taking a bus to a shiur because it makes the trip harder than just driving?  Seems like a strange conclusion.

halacha based on nevuah - lo ba'shamayim hi

The gemara (Meg 3 and other places) derives from the last pasuk in our parsha,  אֵלֶּה הַמִּצְוֺת אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת מֹשֶׁה אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהַר סִינָי, that a navi is not permitted to introduce a new din or mitzvah beyond what was given at mattan Torah at Sinai.  

Chasam Sofer asks: what then was the hava amina of R' Eliezer in trying to prove he was correct in the famous tanur shel achna'i sugya by calling on a bas kol to affirm his position?  Lo ba'shamayim hi -- you cannot create halacha from nevuah.

I am a bit befuddled by the question.  The assumption that we ignore a bas kol because lo ba'shamayim hi is not so simple.  The gemara (Eiruvin 13b) tells us that it was on the basis of a bas kol that we pasken like beis hillel over beis shamai.   Tos discusses why we rely on the bas kol in this case but not with respect to tanur she achna'i and offers two answers:

 וי"ל משום דבת קול דר"א לא יצאה אלא לכבודו שאמר מן השמים יוכיחו כדאמר התם

1) The bas kol came out in support of R' Eliezer because R' Eliezer called upon it to do so, so it was bound to be mechabeid his wishes.  The bas kol came out in support of hillel without being prompted to do so.

 א"נ בההיא בת קול שהיתה כנגד רבים דרבנן הוו רובא (ב) דודאי אין הלכה אבל כבת קול דב"ה קי"ל משום דהוו ב"ה רובא אלא דב"ש מחדדי טפי

2) R' Eliezer was opposed by the majority; beis hillel was in the majority.  The reason the bas kol was needed was because beis shamai were brighter/sharper, and so we have conflicting halachic rules -- follow majority vs. follow the sharpness.    

According to the first answer of Tos, it seems like a bas kol does carry weight so long as it is an unprompted revelation.  The second view limits the role of the bas kol to cases where the halachic process does not leave us with a clear resolution, but it still has a role.  

The Rambam (Yesodei haTorah 9:1) sounds like he categorically rejects any use of bas kol to determine halacha:

ונאמר לא בשמים היא. הא למדת שאין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה. לפיכך אם יעמוד איש בין מן האומות בין מישראל ויעשה אות ומופת ויאמר שה' שלחו להוסיף מצוה או לגרוע מצוה או לפרש במצוה מן המצות פירוש שלא שמענו ממשה. או שאמר שאותן המצות שנצטוו בהן ישראל אינן לעולם ולדורי דורות אלא מצות לפי זמן היו. הרי זה נביא שקר שהרי בא להכחיש נבואתו של משה

Be that as it may, just because Tos wants to have its cake and eat it and accept the bas kol with respect to paskening like beis hillel but reject it when it comes to tanur shel achna'i doesn't mean R' Eliezer has to agree.  R' Eliezer b'pashtus would tell you that it's all or nothing -- what's good for the goose, i.e. affirming beis hillel, is good for the gander, affirming his own view.  

A second point: if C"S is correct, Tos should have asked a simpler question.  How could the bas kol affirm the halacha is like beis hillel when we have a rule that אין הנביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה  -- no need to mix in the sugya of tanur shel achna'i.  It sounds like the Tos rejection of the bas kol is only predicated on that sugya, not the derasha from our parsha.  Also worth noting that the Rambam does not cite the derasha either (see Lechem Mishne).  

Confusing.

For a general overview of what role nevuah or ruach ha'kodesh (e.g. "sod Hashem l'yireiav," as we saw in the Raavad a few weeks ago) can play in halacha, see R' Kook's comments at the end of Mishpat Kohen herehere.

not dependent on anyone

 וְכִ֣י תֹאמְר֔וּ מַה־נֹּאכַ֖ל בַּשָּׁנָ֣ה הַשְּׁבִיעִ֑ת הֵ֚ן לֹ֣א נִזְרָ֔ע וְלֹ֥א נֶאֱסֹ֖ף אֶת־תְּבוּאָתֵֽנוּ

 וְצִוִּ֤יתִי אֶת־בִּרְכָתִי֙ לָכֶ֔ם בַּשָּׁנָ֖ה הַשִּׁשִּׁ֑ית וְעָשָׂת֙ אֶת־הַתְּבוּאָ֔ה לִשְׁלֹ֖שׁ הַשָּׁנִֽים

Apparently the concern for having enough food during shemita is not something trivial, as Hashem responds with a promise that miraculously there will be a bumper crop the previous year.  But why should people worry?    Couldn't they just import produce from neighboring countries?  

Most if not all countries are rich in some resources but lack others.  They are dependent to some degree or other on trade with their allies and neighbors to make up the difference.  You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

Rav Charlap writes that Eretz Yisrael is different.  The only dependency Eretz Yisrael has is on Hashem.  Even at the cost of making miracles, Hashem does not allow for a situation where Eretz Yisrael would have to rely on its neighbors.

(26:5)  וְהִשִּׂ֨יג לָכֶ֥ם דַּ֙יִשׁ֙ אֶת־בָּצִ֔יר וּבָצִ֖יר יַשִּׂ֣יג אֶת־זָ֑רַע וַאֲכַלְתֶּ֤ם לַחְמְכֶם֙ לָשֹׂ֔בַע וִֽישַׁבְתֶּ֥ם לָבֶ֖טַח בְּאַרְצְכֶֽם Abarbanel, Netziv, and others interpret the end of the pasuk not as a bracha for protection against enemies attacking, but rather as a continuation of the beginning bracha for prosperity.  As a result of having all that you need in Eretz Yisrael proper, you won't have to travel elsewhere to seek out resources that are lacking.  As Ksav v'haKabbala puts it:

אינו יעוד השלום שלא ילחמו בהם אויביהם, רק הבטחה, שמפני רוב השובע שתהיה בארצם לא יצטרכו ללכת נע ונד בארץ אחרת לבקש מאכל כמו שכתוב נודד הוא ללחם איה

Hopefully we will be zocheh to see this bracha fulfilled in our lifetimes.

Ramban's chiddush din of cheirem

Commenting on the pasuk  כׇּל־חֵ֗רֶם אֲשֶׁ֧ר יׇחֳרַ֛ם מִן־הָאָדָ֖ם לֹ֣א יִפָּדֶ֑ה מ֖וֹת יוּמָֽת׃ (27:29), Ramban comes up with a new din based entirely on pshat in the pasuk  

ולכך אני אומר כי מן הכתוב הזה יוצא להם הדין הזה, שכל מלך בישראל או סנהדרי גדולה במעמד כל ישראל שיש להם רשות במשפטים, ואם יחרימו על עיר בהלחם עליה, וכן אם יחרימו על דבר העובר עליו, חייב מיתה

He explains:

ועל דרך הפשט: יאמר הכתוב כי כל המחרים משלו, בין אדם בין בהמה ושדה אחוזתו, הוא קדש לשם, שהן חרמי כהנים, ואין להם פדיון, אבל המחרים מן האדם שאינו שלו, כגון הנלחמים על איביהם ונודרים נדר: אם נתון תתן את העם הזה בידי והחרמתי את עריהם (במדבר כ״א:ב׳) – ימיתו כל האדם הנמצא בהם. 

One can take a vow of cheirim that requires killing the muchram, e.g. if one takes a vow to be machrim an enemy city that the army is trying to capture, if victorious, everyone in the city must be killed.  He further writes:

Ramban gives three examples.  The first two: 1) Bn"Y killed the townspeople of Yaveish Gilad because they did not join the rest of the community in battle (Shoftim 21) 2) Shaul was going to kill his son Yehonosan because he violated the cheirem and paused to eat during battle (Shmuel ch 14) 

Netziv (Haamek Sheila 142:9) rejects these proofs.  The reason the people of Yaveish Gilad were guilty is because failure to join Klal Yisrael in battle weakens the entire army.  Someone who does that has the din of a rodef.  Shaul thought the same of Yehonasan -- he thought that by pausing in the middle of battle Yehonsan was guilty of failing to press the enemy to the fullest extent, weaking Bn"Y's position.  

Ramban's third example is a case of a misapplication of the din.  Yiftach declared a cheirim on whatever emerged first from his house if he returned victorious in battle.  Had an animal come out, as he anticipatged, he would have offered it as a korban.  Yet it was his daughter who came out first to greet him, and he therefore was forced to kill her.  Yiftach's error: ולא ידע כי חרם המלך והסנהדרין חל על המורדים לכלותם או על העובר על גזרתם ותקנתם, אבל לחול נדר לעשות עולה מדבר שאיננו ראוי לשם חס ושלום

Ibn Ezra argues and writes that Yiftach did not kill his daughter, as if she was a korban.  What he did was to consecrate her life to G-d, like a korban.  She cloistered herself away and dedicated herself to prayer.  To which Ramban responds: ואם הדבר כן, היתה בתו הבוכה על בתוליה ורעותיה עמה כזונות לקלס אתנן, וחס ושלום שתהיה חוק בישראל לתנות לבת יפתח ארבעת ימים בשנה (שופטים י״א:מ׳) מפני שלא נשאת לבעל והיתה עובדת את השם בטהרה. אבל הדבר כפשוטו וטעותו היה ממה שאמרתי  Why would anyone cry over such a fate?!  Aderaba, it should be lauded.

I say only partially tongue in cheek that were I teaching in a RW girls school or seminary (and I'm not knocking such places -- my own daughters are products of them), I would highlight this Ibn Ezra, because I think Ibn Ezra would give a very "frum" response to Ramban.  Ain hachi nami,  מפני שלא נשאת לבעל והיתה עובדת את השם בטהרה she should cry, as a woman's role is to make the cholent, bake the kugel, raise the children, and support her husband.  To be derpived of being able to fulfill that role, even if one is עובדת את השם בטהרה, is something to bemoan.

freedom of religion is not enough

אַף־אֲנִ֗י אֵלֵ֤ךְ עִמָּם֙ בְּקֶ֔רִי וְהֵבֵאתִ֣י אֹתָ֔ם בְּאֶ֖רֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶ֑ם אוֹ־אָ֣ז יִכָּנַ֗ע לְבָבָם֙ הֶֽעָרֵ֔ל וְאָ֖ז יִרְצ֥וּ אֶת־עֲוֺנָֽם׃

Where is the אֶ֖רֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶ֑ם, this "land of our enemies" that the pasuk tells us that Hashem will bring us to, and where we will finally do teshuvah?

An amazing Seforno:

כשחזרו בני הגולה לארץ ישראל במצות כורש מלך פרס היתה הארץ תחת ממשלת האומות, כאמרו ״והארץ אשר נתתה לאבתינו לאכל את פריה ואת טובה, הנה אנחנו עבדים עליה. ותבואתה מרבה למלכים אשר נתתה עלינו בחטאותינו״ (נחמיה ט׳:ל״ו-ל״ז)

The  אֶ֖רֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶ֑ם is Eretz Yisrael!  He writes that when Koresh allowed the Jews to return to Eretz Yisrael they were not immediately granted independence.  They remained his subjects, slaves to a foreign power.  Klal Yisrael were crestfallen. The very place where they should have exhibited greatness ended up as a place where they were slaves to others.  

Simply being in Eretz Yisrael, even with the allowance to learn Torah and do mitzvos, even with the allowance to build a Mikdash is not enough.  Freedom of religion without political freedom and sovereignty is still called  אֶ֖רֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶ֑ם and should bother us. 

Ashreinu that we live in a time where our independence and sovereignty have been restored (af al pi that the gvt pays too much heed to Washington), that we can once again celebrate a united Yerushalayim under our own dominion.

still a ways to go

Towards the end of the tochacha (26:41) the Torah says that Bnei Yisrael will say viduy on what they did wrong:

וְהִתְוַדּ֤וּ אֶת־עֲוֺנָם֙ וְאֶת־עֲוֺ֣ן אֲבֹתָ֔ם בְּמַעֲלָ֖ם אֲשֶׁ֣ר מָֽעֲלוּ־בִ֑י וְאַ֕ף אֲשֶׁר־הָֽלְכ֥וּ עִמִּ֖י בְּקֶֽרִי

And 2 pesukim later the Torah promises that as a result Hashem will remember zechus avos and the zechus of Eretz Yisrael:

וְזָכַרְתִּ֖י אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֣י יַעֲק֑וֹב וְאַף֩ אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֨י יִצְחָ֜ק וְאַ֨ף אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֧י אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֶזְכֹּ֖ר וְהָאָ֥רֶץ אֶזְכֹּֽר׃

But sandwiched in between, we have a pasuk that doesn't seem to fit:

 אַף־אֲנִ֗י אֵלֵ֤ךְ עִמָּם֙ בְּקֶ֔רִי וְהֵבֵאתִ֣י אֹתָ֔ם בְּאֶ֖רֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶ֑ם אוֹ־אָ֣ז יִכָּנַ֗ע לְבָבָם֙ הֶֽעָרֵ֔ל וְאָ֖ז יִרְצ֥וּ אֶת־עֲוֺנָֽם׃

Once Bnei Yisrael said viduy, then why would Hashem make things even worse in galus?  As Ramban puts it:

והנה אחר: והתודו את עונם (ויקרא כ״ו:מ׳) היה ראוי שיאמר: וזכרתי את בריתי יעקוב (ויקרא כ״ו:מ״ב), כי מה טעם: והבאתי אותם בארץ אויביהם עכשיו במקום הזה, ואין עתה הזמן שיגלה אותם ויביאם בארץ אויביהם.

Ohr haChaim explains (HaKsav v'haKabbalah as a similar interpretation) that this pasuk is a continuation of the viduy, an acceptance that Hashem had to send us into galus to achieve the tikun that we needed and it was not just happenstance.  

לזה כשאמר ה׳ והתודו זכר שיאמרו גם כן בוידוים כי צדיק ה׳ במה שהלך עמהם קרי, ולאותו הטעם ולאותו המבחן הביאם בארץ אוביהם כדרך מעשה המקרה בלא כיון אל הצריך.

But Ramban and Seforno explain that ain hachi nami, once there is viduy Hashem will return Klal Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, but that doesn't mean we are out of the woods yet.  Ramban refers you to what happened in Ezra and Nechamia's time, how the nations who were in the land tried every which way to thwart Klal Yisrael from gaining a foothold in the land, from rebuilding Beis haMikdash.  There will be a הֵבֵאתִ֣י אֹתָ֔ם, but the Eretz Yisrael we come back to will be אֶ֖רֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶ֑ם, a land filled with our enemies.  

Sound familiar?

R' Chaim Elazari points out that in the piyutim in the avodah on Y"K we talk about the tefilah the kohen gadol said when he entered kodesh kodashim.  He davened, "Y'hi raton... shanah she'tolicheinu komimiyus l'artzeinu, shnas taaleinu smeichim l'artzeinu."  If there was a kohen gadol doing avodah in a beis ha'mikdash, then we must already be in Eretz Yisrael, in Yerushalayim, so why was the kohen davening that we should be able to return to our Land?!

He suggests based on this Ramban and Seforno that we might be in the land and even have a beis ha'mikdash, but so long as we are under the thumb of some other ruler, so long as we have to struggle against enemies within our borders, there is no "komimiyus b'artzeinu," there is no "smeichim" yet.  We still have a ways to go.

kedushas hamikdash and mora mikdash

The Toras Cohanim darshens (see also Meg 28) on the pasuk in the tochacha "V'hashimosi es mikdisheichem" that even when the mikdash is shomeim = in ruins, it still has kedusha.  The Rambam uses this din as the basis for his view that kedushas Yerushalayim and kedushas haMikdash is eternal, kedusha rishona kidsha l'asid lavo:  

למה אני אומר במקדש וירושלים קדושה ראשונה קדשה לעתיד לבוא. ובקדושת שאר א"י לענין שביעית ומעשרות וכיוצא בהן לא קדשה לעתיד לבוא. לפי שקדושת המקדש וירושלים מפני השכינה ושכינה אינה בטלה. והרי הוא אומר והשמותי את מקדשיכם ואמרו חכמים אע"פ ששמומין בקדושתן הן עומדים

The gemara in Yevamos 6 learns from the juxtoposition of mora mikdash to shabbos, "Es shabsosai tishmoru u'mikdashi tira'u," that just as the mitzvah of Shabbos is eternally binding, so too, there is an ongoing mitzvah of mora mikdash even if the mikdash is in ruins.  The Rambam writes in Beis HaBechira 7:7

אע"פ שהמקדש היום חרב בעונותינו חייב אדם במוראו כמו שהיה נוהג בו בבניינו. לא יכנס אלא למקום שמותר להכנס לשם ולא ישב בעזרה ולא יקל ראשו כנגד שער המזרח שנאמר את שבתותי תשמורו ומקדשי תיראו. מה שמירת שבת לעולם אף מורא מקדש לעולם שאע"פ שחרב בקדושתו עומד:

The Aruch laNer asks the obvious question: once we have a din that the kedushas hamikdash is eternal -- that Yerushalayim and the makom Mikdash retain the same sanctity whether the Mikdash is standing or not -- then doesn't it go without saying that the din of mora Mikdash still applies?  Why does the gemara and the Rambam need a new source for such a din?

(Rav Zolti in Mishnas Yaavetz (#47) points out that the Rambam includes in mora mikdash the prohibition of entering the area while tamei even though there is already a separate a issur lav of "v'lo yitamu es machaneihem" and a mitzvas aseh to send out temei'im.  R' Zolti  suggests a nafka minah between the two dinim: if we have a safeik whether a certain area was included in the original kidush, then from the perspective of lo yitamu es machaneihem, m'doraysa there would be no requirement to avoid the area, as according to the Rambam safeik d'oraysa l'kula.  However, one still would not be allowed to go there because of mora mikdash -- if you are in fear, then even in doubt you stay away.)

The overlapping dinim perhaps point to the fact that the Mikdash and Yerushalayim have overlapping kedushos.  The Rambam in Hil Beis haBechira quotes the pasuk of "V'asu li mikdash" as the source for the chiyuv to build a Mikdash, yet in Hil Melachim 1:1 the Rambam quotes "l'Shichno tidrishu" as the source.  Rav Soloveitchik explained (see Koveitz Chidushei Torah p135 and also Ch haGR"M vhaGRI"D) that there are two seperate dinim: 1) a din of the geographical makom Mikdash being the "beis habechira," the place chosen by G-d for hashra'as haShechina; 2) a din of kedushas mikdash that is tied to the building, be it the mikdash or the mishkan.  

The Rambam in Hil Beis HaBechira writes that the eternal kedusha of the Mikdash was established by Shlomo haMelech when it was built.  Yet, the gemara (Zevachim 24) writes that it was David, not Shlomo, who consecrated the ground upon which the Mikdash was built.  According to RYBS, there is no contradiction.  The Rambam is speaking about the kedushas ha'mikdash of the building; the gemara is speaking about the consecration of the geographical location as G-d's chosen place, beis ha'bechira.  

Perhaps when the Rambam speaks about kidsha l'asid la'vo, he is talking about the kidush of the mikdash building itself, the kidush established by Shlomo.  The din of mora mikdash, however, relates to the place of the Mikdash as beis habechira.  In Parshas VaYeitzei, when Yaakov realizes that he has slept in the future makom Mikdash, he cries out "Mah nora ha'makom ha'zeh..."   Nora=mora mikdash.  The building of the mikdash would take place long in the future, but the din of mora of Hashem's makom nivchar was already in place (Brisker Rav). 

We see the same theme of overlapping kedushos echoed in the Raavad.  Raavad holds 180 degrees the opposite of the Rambam: he famously writes that even those opinions which hold kedushas ha'aretz is still intact would agree that kedushas haMikdash has been dissolved; therefore, anyone who enters the makom Mikdash is not chayav kareis.  The implication is that there is no kareis punishment, but there is still an issur.  M'mah nafshach: if there is no kedusha, then why is there still an issur?  If there is kedusha, then why no kareis?

Again the same theme (see R' Zolti): overlapping kedushos.  The Raavad's contention is that the kedushas mikdash which Rambam holds is eternal is bateil, but there is some other kedusha (be it kedusha of a makom nivchar, be it kidush of machanah Shechina, as R' Zolti suggests) that is still latent and which prohibits entry.

It's almost Yom Yerushalayim.  This is the time to take a moment to reflect on the kedushas hamakom, on the fact that Hashem has once again given us access to his beis ha'bechira.  Hopefully those of us not there yet will merit to be there soon!

Notes from the Underground

1) The Sefas Emes (Emor 5632) asks: we learn in Pirkei Avos that one who is mekabeil ol Torah "ma'avirin mimenu ol derech eretz," implying that derech eretz is a burden to be gotten rid of. Yet on the other hand, we also learn in Pirkei Avos that "yafeh talmud Torah im derech eretz," that talmud Torah needs to be done in concert with derech eretz.  So which is it?  

I would have said that there is a difference between "ol derech eretz," and "derech eretz."  Some people are blessed (so I've heard : ) with jobs or secular interests that are enjoyable and give them a feeling or productivity; sometimes it is just a burden and a drain.  

The Sefas Emes draws a more interesting distinction between ol Torah and talmud Torah.  The letter is about the accumulation of knowledge; the latter is about accepting the limits of our knowledge.  Take a look.

2) The  gemara (Meg 31) writes that we have to read the tochacha in P Bechukosai before the end of the year (Shavuos is rosh hashana for new fruit) so that "tacheil shanah v'k'liloseha," that the kelalos of the year should come to an end.  How exactly does reading a parsha in chumash accomplish that?  If it was that easy then we should read a parsha about mageifa and bring Corona to an end!

Vanitzak el Hashem...vayishma Hashem es koleinu, va'yar es onyeinu.  Wasn't Hashem aware of our suffering in Mitzrayim before we cried out to him?  The Kozhiglover explains that there are two types of yisrurim.  There are yisurim we suffer because of hester panim -- Hashem kavyachol turns away and whatever our fate is b'derech ha'teva, that's what we get.  Those yisurim do not fully expiate aveiros.  There is another class of yisurim that we get not because of hester panim, but to the contrary, because Hashem is the one bringing the yisurim.  Those yisurim are a kaparah.  In galus Mitzrayim it was our davening to Hashem that transformed the yisurim of hester panim, yisurim because Hashem was ignoring us kavyachol, into "va'yar es onyeniunu," yisurim that were deliberately directed by Him, and therefore, an agent that lead to our kaparah and geulah.

If we think everything is b'derech mikreh,  without rhyme or reason, then there is no kaparah.   But if we read a parsha of tochacha and remind ourselves that that yisurim come because there is a Divine plan, that they are sent to wake us up and bring kaparah, then ultimately those yisurim will come to an end.

3) Your article of the day: Wired collects the data and makes the argument that schools should be open.  They quote one of the authors of a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine as saying, “What is interesting,” he continued, “is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.”  

Yeish sachar l'peulaseich

Next week we will IY"H read Boaz's blessing to Rus that in response to her having come out to the field to meet him "yishalem Hashem paaleich u'tehi maskurteiach shleima..." (2:12).

The GR"A explains that there is a difference between being paid for "paaleich" and getting paid schar, "maskurteiach." A worker gets paid by the day or by the piece - that's "paaleich" pay. At the end of the year the worker gets a bonus.  The bonus is not for any particular day of work or any particular project -- it's for the overall assessment of the gavra as a loyal and dedicated employee.  That's "maskurteiach," schar.

The Malbim says something similar.  Your dry cleaner is a poel.  He gets paid for doing the job of cleaning your clothes.  If your suit is still dirty when you pick it up, don't pay the cleaner.  Jabob De Gram is a sachir and gets paid schar.  Whether he wins another Cy Young award or whether the Mets have to send him down to the minors, his contract guarantees him the same pay.  Schar is not for the individual act, the individual game or pitch.  It's for being a member of the team.

What Boaz was telling Rus is that Hashem will pay her like a poel for each mitzvah that she does, but by joining the Jewish people, she will get much more than that - Hashem will give her schar as well.  We get paid simply because we are members of the team, we get paid a bonus just for being employees, irrespective of and above and beyond what we earn for each individual act that we do.

Our parsha promises all kinds of great rewards for "im bechukosai teileichu..." Everyone asks: schar mitzvah b'hai alma leika?  Reward is received only in olam ha'ba?

Based on the GR"A and Malbim we can answer that true, schar = the bonus pay, what you get just for being a member of the team, is reserved for olam ha'ba.  However, you still can still earn pay for being a poel in olam hazeh based on what work you complete successfuly.

"Anu ameilim umekablim schar..." we say at a siyum.  "Im bechukosai teileichu" - Rashi explains that the pasuk is referring to ameilus in Torah.  Schar is for your efforts, not for the results, the peulah.  Even if you don't complete the job, you get points just for being a good employees and working at it.

Now that we learned this GR"A and Malbim, I think we can appreciate a pasuk we all know in a deeper way.  Yirmiyahu (ch 31) describes our mother Rachel Imeinu crying for us as we were led into galus.  Hashem turns to Rachel and tells her not to worry.  "Yesh **sachar** l'peulaseich v'shavu meiEretz oyeiv." Hashem is telling Rachel that she and Klal Yisrael don't just receive payment based on whether we succeed in doing mitzvos or whether we manage to accomplish what we are meant to.  What we also get is "sachar." Even if we have to be sent to the minors for a tune up, the contract is still in place, we are still valued employees of the firm.

This is Yom Yerushalayim -- yesh sachar l'peulaseich v'shavu meiEretz oyeiv.  We've been in the minors a lot of years.  We did not earn much as poelim because the cleaner doesn't get paid for dirty clothes.  But we are still on the team and ultimately, the reward of schar, the reward for hanging in there for 2000 years of ameilus, gets paid.

great Chasam Sofer on shibud Mitzrayim

Last post I mentioned Rashi's explanation that Parshas VaYechi is a parsha stuma to indicate that the hearts of Bnei Yisrael became closed, as Yaakov's coming down to Egypt and his death there marked the start of the shibud.  Everyone asks: Chazal tell us that it was not until "vayamas Yosef v'kol echav v'kol ha'dor ha'hu," as we read in our parsha, the death of Yosef and the shevatim, that the shibud in Mitzrayim started.  It didn't start with the arrival in Egypt.

One can answer very simply that there are different degrees of shibud.  To some degree, just being in Mitzrayim was shibud of galus.  The shibud of enslavement, however, did not start until later. 

Chasam Sofer (first piece in VaYechi) says a derush answer that speaks to our times.  In Parshas Bechukosai the Torah concludes the opening section of brachos by telling us, "Ani Hashem Elokeichem asher hotzeisi eschem mei'Eretz Mitzrayim mi'hiyos lahem avadim, ve'eshbor motos ulchem v'oleich eschem komimiyus." (26:13)  Hashem took us out of Egypt to free us, so he promises to break the burdensome yoke on our back.  Asks the Chasam Sofer: shouldn't this be the first bracha in that parsha -- not the last?  Shouldn't breaking the yoke we toil under be the first step in liberating us, before promising us the brachos of prosperity, peace, "v'nasati mishkani b'sochichem," etc? 

Chasam Sofer answers that there are two types of burdens we toil under.  There is the burden of persecution in whatever form it takes, whether it be more overt, e.g. pogroms, whether it be less overt, e.g. BDS.  But then there is another burden that is more subtle.  A frum Jew goes out today to go shopping and the stores are filled with decorations, holiday music, the tree is decked out so nicely.  We're talking about a frum Jew, so he knows this is not for him -- he's not going to bring a tree in his house and hang up a stocking by the fireplace.  But in his heart, maybe he feels a little like he is missing out.  As the Rambam writes in Shmoneh Perakim, a Jew doesn't need to say that bacon doesn't taste good -- it may taste very good, just we can't have it.  He knows he has to take out a second mortgage to pay yeshiva tuition, and there is no question he will do so -- but that doesn't mean he doesn't think of the nice car he could have if he didn't have that expense.  He is going to buy glatt food, but that doesn't mean he doesn't see the price of Purdue in the supermarket ad.  He does whatever he is supposed to, he is committed -- but boy, is frumkeit a burden to carry. 

The Torah in Bechukosai is telling us that Hashem will give us all the brachos we need to do mitzvos easily -- we will have the money to spend on tuition, food so plentiful that glatt will be the same price as Purdue, etc.  Why?  Because Hashem wants us to treat Torah and mitzvos like something we love to and want to do, not like a burden.  Torah is not meant to be a yoke to slave and toil under -- that's the burden the Torah promises to remove.  You don't feel like a slave to something if you love doing it, and Hashem wants us to love doing Torah. 

Coming back to Rashi, it was not until the death of Yosef and his brothers that the physical enslavement of Klal Yisrael started.  But there was a shibud, a burden, that set in even before that.  While Yaakov Avinu was still alive, Klal Yisrael lived Torah with joy and enthusiasm.  When Yaakov Avinu passed on, Torah and mitzvos took on a different tone.  Egyptian society with all its temptations beckoned, and even if a Jew kept true to his beliefs, observance itself, even absent any persecution, became a toil, a burden, a shibud.  

lo timacher l'tzemisus - redeeem the land

The Mishnas Chasidim, quoted by Rav Teichtel in his sefer Mishneh Sachir on parshas Bechukosai, writes that in the two years he spent in Tzefat in 1718/19 -- almost exactly 300 years ago -- he saw so many houses being built that he felt it could not be anything less than a reversal of the curse of 'v'areichem ye'hi'yu charva," the promise in the tochacha of the land being laid desolate.  The development of the city, says the Mishnas Chasidim, is a "siman l'bi'as ha'go'el."  

What do you think the Mishnas Chasidim would say were he alive today, looking at the many cranes that dot every neighborhood of Yerushalayim, at the buildings going up all over Eretz Yisrael?   What do you think he would say if he witnessed the celebration of Yom Yerushalayim in a rebuilt, modern, Yerushalayim in an independent Jewish state?

Ramban in sefer ha'mitzvot lav 227 discusses the nature of the issur of "lo timacher l'tzemisus."  Rashi seems to hold the issur is for the buyer not to return the land, but, as Ramban points out, the formulation of the lav seems to indicate the prohibition is on the seller, not the buyer.  Ramban, based on the Yerushalmi, is machadesh that the issur is in selling land to an aku"m, who has no incentive to return it.  Ramban then compares the issur of leaving Eretz Yisrael in the hands of aku"m to the mitzvah of redeeming a Jew who is sold into slavery to an aku"m.  Just like in that case  the Torah tells us that the reason for the mitzvah is "ki li Bnei Yisrael avadim," that we are supposed to be servants only of Hashem, so too, Eretz Yisrael is supposed to be a land dedicated to being a makom Shechina, a place of service to Hashem, which is impossible so long as it is not in our hands.

Rav Teichtel quotes 'Ha'gaon ha'mekubal ish ha'Elokim" R' Dovid Lida (the honorifics are especially noteworthy given the background of who R' Dovid Lida was) as saying that our redemption from galus is directly dependent upon the redemption of Eretz Yisrael from our enemies.  Why must the two go hand in hand?  Why can't Hashem redeem us irrespective of our establishing a home in Eretz Yisrael?  Can't we do that afterwards?  Rav Teichtel explains that this is not sisrei Torah, but is implicit in the Ramban's equation of the land in foreign hands to an eved.  Hashem treats us middah k'neged middah.  We want Hashem to take us out of galus and to restore us to being his, and only his, faithful servants.  It's up to us to practice the same middah and redeem his land from foreign control so it can be dedicated to his service.  

We should celebrate the fact that we have been zocheh to see the start of that slow process.

punishment in exact measure

A) "V'zacharti es brisi Ya'akov v'af es brisi Yitzchak v'af es brisi Ya'akov ezkor v'ha'aretz ezkor." (26:42)  It sounds like this is a bracha, but the pasuk is actually part of the tochacha.  The Shl"H explains that if a child grows up without a role model or training, it's not surprising if the child becomes a monster.  But if the child has wonderful parents who are excellent role models and the child still becomes a monster, then something is really wrong with that child.  Klal Yisrael does not lack for role models.  When Hashem looks at our behavior, he remembers that we are the children of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov.  We should know better and we should do better. 

Last year I quoted R' Eliyahu Lopian's (in the essay 'Ha'kove'a Makom l'Tefilaso' in the Ma'areches HaTeshuvah section in Lev Eliyahu) question: we quote this pasuk among the zichronos that we recite in musaf on Rosh haShana.  The halacha says that we are not allowed to recite pesukim that have negative implications or associations in the zichronos.  If the Shl"H's pshat is correct, what is this pasuk doing there?   Why would we mention a pasuk of rebuke?  R' Lopian ends by saying the answer is a deep yesod that he will explain some other time -- and then he leaves us hanging.

I discovered this year that the same question is asked by another one of the great ba'alei mussar, R' Ya'akov Neiman.  R' Neimen writes that al korchacha we must say that the pasuk is in fact an expression of rachamim.  So what's it doing in the tochacha?  He answers that we should not think that when there is a time of tochacha and Klal Yisrael is suffering punishment that Hashem has just abandoned us to fate.  To the contrary, even amidst the suffering, even when we deserve punishment, Hashem says, "v'zacharti es brisi," I Hashem still remember the covenant between us, and that punishment will be precisely meted out, no more than is deserved.

He gives two example to prove the point:

1) When Yosef is sold into slavery by his brothers, the Torah tells us that he was taken down to Egypt by a caravan of spice/perfume sellers.  Rashi explains (Br 37:25) that the Torah gives us this detail to tell us that Hashem spared Yosef from having to travel in a foul smelling wagon.  Here Yosef has been betrayed by his brothers, he has become captive to strangers, he is on the way to a foreign land to await some unknown fate -- would the caravan's odor really make that much difference to him at this point?  It's like a poor guy dressed in a ragged shirt, pants that have patches and holes, torn shoes, but he stops to put on a beautiful tie before he leaves his home.  What sense does it make in context?  Answers R' Neiman, Yosef may have deserved to have to become a slave in Egypt, but he did not deserve any more than that.  He did not deserve to suffer stink on his way down.  That's the "v'zacharti es brisi...."  Punishment -- yes, but not one drop more than is deserved.  The precise calibration is itself a nechama, in that it shows Hashem is in charge of every detail.

2) In describing the slav birds that Hashem brought in response to the people's complaints, the Torah in Parshas Be'ha'alosecha tells us that they were piled two amos high off the ground (11:31).  Rashi explains the significance of this detail: the birds were at just the right height to be taken, so that a person would not have to exert himself to reach up or to bend over.  Whoever ate those birds, continues the parsha, died.  The birds were sent as a punishment for the people's complaints.  Given the end result of suffering death, would having to reach up or down a little bit to grab the bird make any difference?  

Here too, answers R' Neiman, the point is that the punishment was precisely calibrated.  The extra exertion was underserved, and therefore was not included in the package.

B) Just before this pasuk of v'zachati the Torah describes how Klal Yisrael will ultimately confess their wrongdoing, v'hisvadu es avonam (26:40).  You would think that would be the end of the galus, but it's not.  The parsha continues, "v'ha'aretz tei'azev meihem," the land will still not take them back, "ya'an ub'ya'an b'mishpatai ma'asu v'es chukosai ga'alah nafsham."  Why is the teshuvah not enough?  Netziv explains that the chukim referred to here are Torah laws.  (Remember the beginning of the parsha: Im b'chukosai teilechu - explains Rashi, this refers to ameilus b'Torah.)  You can want to do mitvos, you can want to have a connection with Hashem, but, says the Netziv, without limud haTorah, it's not enough.  

He quotes from Hoshea 8:2-3: "Li yi'zaku 'Elokai, y'da'anucha Yisrael!'" The Jewish people will cry out to G- that they want to know him, to have a relationship with him. Tehsuvah!  But, continues the navi, "Zanach Yisrael tov, oyev yirdifo."  The Jewish people have abandoned tov, and therefore their enemies [continue] to puruse them.  What is the tov the navi is referring to?  Chazal tell us that ain tov eleh Torah, it refers to Torah.  Without limud haTorah, one's spirituality, one's moral and religious development, can never be complete.

I saw a local Rabbi was planning to speak on Shavuos on the topic of the role of the intellect in avodas Hashem.  I thought that was an interesting title for a shiur.  Would anyone think of giving a shiur about the role of one's arm in the mitzvah of tefillin?  Of course not -- it's obvious that an arm is essential to the mitzvah.  What's there to talk about?  Once upon a time I think it was obvious that the intellect is THE primary tool for avodas Hashem.  You might even say that in a nutshell the mussar movement came about to try to involve more than intellect -- the heart, the midos, etc.  But the presumption was that the intellect was the bedrock.  That's what the Netziv is telling us -- without Torah, mitzvos, spirituality, etc. can't get off the ground.  It seems that we've reached a point in history where v'nahapoch hu, there is a lot of people who want to feel spiritual, who want to sing and enjoy cholent, maybe do lots of chessed, support his cause or that cause, but where is the intellect?  Where is the bedrock of limud haTorah to ground it all?  The title of that shiur reinforced my impression that the presumption these days is that intellect is the icing on the cake, the cherry on top of the sundae, rather than the foundation upon which everything rests.  You can be a good Jew without the Ketzos and R' Chaim, can't you?  Well, I'm afraid the answer is no.  (For all I know maybe that's what this Shavuos shiur will be about - - I don't really know.)  Anyway, maybe I'm wrong about my read of things -- the Netziv is still a great point even if you disagree with my social commentary, and it certainly something to take to heart as we approach Shavuos.

v'zacharti es brisi: tochacha or blessing?

1) "V'zacharti es brisi Ya'akov v'af v'es brisi Yitzchak v'af es brisi Ya'akov ezkor v'ha'aretz ezkor." (26:42)  The Shl"H has a famous comment as to why this pasuk is considered part of the tochacha.  If a child is raised by bad parents and he/she doesn't have a role model or training as to how to behave, it would be no wonder if the child grows up to be a monster.  But if the child has wonderful parents who are excellent role models and the child still becomes a monster, then something is really wrong.  The Torah is telling us that had we lacked role models, then maybe our behavior could be excused and the tochacha would not be that harsh.  But we are bnei Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov.  We come from the best of the best; we have within us the genes of the best of the best.  Therefore, when we misbehave, its an even greater tragedy.  WHen the pasuk here talks about Hashem remembering the Avos, it places us in an even worse light and magnifies our sins.

R' Lopian Lev Eliyahu (in the essay 'Ha'kove'a Makom l'Tefilaso' in the Ma'areches HaTeshuvah section in the edition I have) quotes a tremendous question on this Shl"H.  In the 10 pesukim of zichronos that we say on Rosh haShana, which do not include zechirot that have negative associations , we mention this pasuk of "V'zacharti es brisi...."  Clearly we are quoting the pasuk to elicit rachamim.  How can the same pasuk be both a tochacha and a vehicle to bring about Hashem's mercy?   R' Lopian in that piece says the answer is a deep yesod that he will get back to some other time -- and then he leaves us with the question.  Nu, any answers?

2) "U'fanisi aleichem v'hirbeisi eschem..."  (26:9)  The parsha until this point contained other brachos as well, brachos about bountiful crops and sufficient rainfall.  Why does the Torah only now use this phrase of "u'fanisi aleichem?" 

Netziv answers that the Torah here is speaking about raising children, "v'hirbeisi eschem..."  When it comes to crops, to rain, etc., it's enough for Hashem to direct his hashgacha to those items at the appropriate time, the appropriate season.  When it comes to raising children, it takes constant hashgacha pratis for things to work out well. 

I would say that in this regard we have to take a lesson from Hashem.  It's enough to check the market once in awhile, but kids need constant hashgacha.

3) "V'im lo tishmi'u li..." (26:14)  In many places Rashi writes that "li" means lishma, e.g. Rashi comments on "V'asu li mikdash" that the mikdash must be built lishmi, i.e. lishma.  The Netziv similarly here writes that the pasuk is speaking about Klal Yisrael not doing things lishma, for the right intention.  This is the start of the tochacha, the first step on a downward spiral of misdeeds.   But, asks the Netziv, don't Chazal tell us that, "l'olam ya'asuk adam b'Torah u'mitzvos shel'lo lishma," that a person should do things even she'lo lishma, as that ultimately will bring a person to do things for the right reason, lishma?  Don't Chazal tell us that doing things she'lo lishma is the start of an upward spiral, not a downward spiral? 

My wife suggested that it all depends on your starting point.  If your starting point is she'lo lishma, then doing something is better than nothing and may lead upward.  If, however, you were doing things lishma and then regress to a she'lo lishma, that another story.

Netziv answers that there is a difference between the individual and the community. On an individual level, each one of us may do things for less than proper motivations, with the hope of one day doing better.  These shortcomings, however, cannot be institutionalized on a communal level.  The community needs to strive for the ideal, to strive to act for the right reasons and with the right motivations.  

im bechukosai teilechu -- tikun of the eitz hada'as

Abarbanel opens the parsha with seven different answers (“b’shiv’ah derachim yanusu mipanecha…”) to the question of why the Torah promises material rewards for the observance of mitzvos and never makes any mention of the spiritual rewards. Rishonim do NOT answer that Biblical Judaism had no concept of reward in an afterlife and these ideas only developed afterwards (I hope you are not surprised). One answer they do give is that the pagan societies had no concept of reward in an afterlife.  Avodah zarah “deities” were viewed as being in control of nature.  Worshiping them was the means to ensure that one’s crops grew, enough rain fell, etc. Had the Torah only promised an olam ha'ba reward, a farmer might feel his commitment to Torah comes at the expense of the good material life that his oveid avodah zarah neighbor enjoys.  Therefore, the Torah promises the same material rewards as avodah zarah worship as well (we are talking gross gain of course, before the high cost of tuition and kosher food sends you into poverty : )  The Torah wants to make it less challenging to leave behind avodah zarah.  If you don’t like this approach, the Abarbanel has six others for you.

I think it's worth noting what Abarbanel doesn't ask in addition to what he does.  Again, his main problem is ikar chaseir min ha’sefer – why no mention of the "real" reward of olam ha’ba?  The Torah is telling us about the appetizer and ignoring the main dish.  Achronim go a step further and ask why the appetizer is even on the menu: “schar mitzvah b’hai alma leika” – the ONLY reward that there is for mitzvah performance is reward in olam ha’ba. It's not the absence of a mention of olam ha'ba that bothers them -- it's the mention of olam ha'zeh that is the problem. Why the Abarbanel does not see ask this and address it (though many of his answers cover this issue as well) may be something worth thinking about.

So why are we promised all these great material things if “schar mitzvah” is reserved only for olam ha’ba? Rashi comments that “im bechukosai teileichu…” refers to ameilus ba’Torah – not the learning itself, but the toil involved in the process. Reuvain and Shimon sit and learn the same sugya, but it might take Reuvain 3 days to master it while Shimon grasps it in 3 hours. The material covered is the same, but the measure of toil is very different. “Anu ameilim u’mekablim schar” – we get reward for the toil. Perhaps Rashi means that the rewards of the parsha are payment for ameilus alone, but the reward for the mitzvah itself, the learning itself, comes only in olam ha'ba.   

The Sefas Emes (5651) doesn’t so much answer the question as render it moot. Why shouldn’t we be blessed with abundant crops, with all the rain we need, with whatever material goods we need? Why is this considered something extraordinary, a special reward? The answer is simple: because we’ve become accustomed to a world that doesn’t run the way it should. The post-original cheit of Adam world is one that is tainted, one where things are out of kilter, where we suffer droughts and failed crops and all kinds of other tzaros.  What Parshas Bechukosai is describing to us is not so much as a reward as simply a return to the way things should be.

How do we get there? Adam’s sin was the desire for da’as, for knowledge. The way back to the perfect pre-sin world is “im bechukosai teileichu,” accepting the idea of chok, of the unknowable.  That is not to say that one should disdain intellectualism.  The Sefas Emes himself writes here that, “Tzarich adam l’chapeis b’da’ato k’fi hasagas yado.”  A person must exercise his mind to its fullest.  The point the Sefas Emes is making is that the intellect is just a tool to understand G-d's world, not to be G-d.  The sin of Adam was seeking da'as to be "v'heyisem k'Elokim" rather than to be an "oveid Elokim."  The hardest thing is to accept and obey even though one does not understand, or one feels things should be different.  That's ameilus ba'Torah says the Sefas Emes.

(See Sefas Emes end of 5649 d”h teilechu for another beautiful hesber of this issue).
 

v'es ha'aretz ezkor -- that alone is enough

Just a few quick thoughts - I have not had time to focus much this week.

1) “Af ani eleich imachem b’chamas keri…” I don’t know about you, but sometimes anger gets the best of me and then I’m not really myself. Dibra Torah k’lashon bnei adam, the Torah speaks in anthropomorphic language we can understand.  G-d is going to get angry at us, but even that warning has a silver lining. The message between the lines is that kavyachol G-d too is not really being himself when he is angry. Sometimes anger is warranted and even necessary, but we should know that those moments are exceptions to the rule.

2) Rashi famously comments that “Im b’chukosai teileichu” means that we need to be “ameilim baTorah,” to not just learn, but to toil and work at learning. I went to a shiur last night and the person introducing the main speaker quoted this Rashi and asked (as some meforshim do) why Rashi interprets the word “chukim” here differently than he does in other places. Doesn’t Rashi himself tell us elsewhere (e.g. Parshas Chukas) that chukim refers to laws that have no reason, or laws whose reason eludes us?

I would say (based on the Shem m’Shmeul) that kushya m’ikara leisa – Rashi in fact is consistent with how he understands the word chukim in other places. Amielus baTorah is a chok! Chazal tell us that every day on Har Sinai for 39 straight days Moshe Rabeinu broke his head trying to learn Torah, and for 39 straight days he closed the book at the end of the day and found that he had absorbed nothing and understood nothing. If Moshe Rabeinu couldn’t get it, why should I think I will absorb anything no matter how hard I work at it?  Hashem on day 40 finally took the Torah and put it in Moshe Rabeinu’s brain – he gave it to him as a gift.  What’s the point of all the ameilus if at the end of the day Torah is just a gift anyway? What’s the point of working so hard if “yaga’ti u’matza’si,” at the end of all the yegi’a Torah is just a metzi’ah anyway and there is no causal relationship between the effort and the results?  And if you tell me that effort doesn’t produce the knowledge, but it prepares the person’s brain and persona so he is able to receive the gift of knowledge from G-d, then can you please explain to me how thinking about level of tumah in the sugya of R’ Chanina Sgan haKohanim does that better than my sitting on a mountain and meditating would do it?  You can’t. Don’t bother trying – it’s a chok.  

3) After saying, “V’nasati mishkani b’sochechem” the pasuk promises “v’lo tigal nafshi eschem” (26:11). Ramban asks, if we are worthy of the hashra’as haShechina of having a Mishkan, doesn’t it go without saying that G-d will not be repulsed by us? We gave a few answers to this last year already, and this year a new one caught my eye.

One of my daughter’s recently asked about why R’ Akiva’s students were punished – could they really have acted so badly? I explained to her that the greater the person, the higher the bar is raised and the greater the expectations. Because R’ Akiva championed the idea of “V’ahavta l’rei’acha” being a cardinal principle, his students were held to a higher standard when it came to interpersonal relationships.

We recently read parshas Tazria-Metzora where Rashi quoted the din that a kohen does not pasken on the tzara’as of a chassan during his sheva brachos week. The meforshim ask how it’s even possible for a chassan to get tzara’as then. Tzara’as is a punishment for sin, and we know a chassan is forgiven for all his wrongdoings. Why now davka after his big kapparah would he get tzara’as? One of the answers is that before having his slate wiped clean, the chassan would have been judged like any other regular Joe and whatever he did wrong that might give rise to tzara’as was not significant enough to stand out. Now, after his slate is clean from everything else, the sin that would warrant tzara’as stood out and caused damage. After becoming a chassan the bar was raised, and what passed and was allowed before now stood out for punishment.

This is one of the reasons a yahrzeit is a yom din. The neshoma has a aliya, but with that aliya comes renewed scrutiny – what was overlooked when the neshoma was on a lower level now is unacceptable and needs tikun (whatever that means).

The Wright brothers could build an airplane out of wood and fabric because they were only flying a few feet off the ground. If they tried to fly that plane at 35,000, it would be torn to shreds. If you want to spiritually soar to the stratosphere, you need to make sure you can withstand the pressure.  The higher you fly, the greater demands on your aircraft.

Coming back to our pasuk, the Torah is telling us that we will be zocheh to reach great heights and have the Shechinah among us. Lest you worry that climbing to such great heights will invite greater scrutiny by the midas ha’din, lest you worry that once the bar is raised you won’t past muster, the Torah reassures, “v’lo tigal nafshi escham.”

4) Yom Yerushalayim is almost upon us!  "V'zacharti es brisi Ya'akov v'af v'es brisi Yitzchak v'af es brisi Ya'akov ezkor v'ha'aretz ezkor." (26:42)  R' Charlap explains that if we have the bris of Ya'akov, the Av that was kollel all the midos of the Avos combined, then surely we will be worthy of geulah.  But even if we lack that, if we just have the bris of Yitzchak, we have mesirus nefesh like Yitchak showed at the akeidah , that alone is enough to merit geulah.  And even if we lack that, if we just have the bris of Avraham, we show generosity and do chessed, that too is enough.  And even if we lack all of the above, if we just return to Etetz Yisrael and love the land, rebuild the land, and make it our home, "v'ha'aretz ezkor," that itself is a zechus that will bring us to geulah.

ameilus baTorah (II)

Why is it specifically the “hashoneh halachos” every day who merits olam ha’ba?  Why do Chazal not use the more generic term of “halomeid Torah” or “hashoneh pirko” or something similar?

Yesterday we discussed one approach from the Sefas Emes to explain how Rashi knew that “im bechukosai teileichu” means ameilus baTorah and not simply learning.  The Maharal in Gur Aryeh asks this same question and offers two answers, both of which focus on the pasuk’s use of the word “halicha”:

1)      Travel is burdensome and difficult.  For those who live in NY, think of what it’s like to be stuck in traffic on the Cross Bronx or the Van Wyck.  The type of learning the pasuk is referring to is learning that is equally challenging.

2)      A person who travels moves from place to place.  So too, a person who learns with ameilus will move to greater and greater depths in his learning. 

In Rav Hartman’s edition of the Gur Aryeh he footnotes this second answers and refers to a question R’ Hutner raises in Pachad Yitzchak on Shavuos.  Every mitzvah, especially one done with proper effort and intent, should move a person to deeper spirituality.  Why is it that the concept of halicha is only connected to talmud Torah? 

Rav Hutner answers that when the Maharal talks about halicha in this context he is not talking about the gavra, the person, but rather about the cheftza shel mitzvah.  Whether you put in tremendous work to obtain a pair of tefillin or make a pair of tefillin or just walk into the sofer with a dispensable wad of cash and in five minutes have for yourself the best pair tefillin on the market, at the end of the day the tefillin are the same tefillin.  Not true when it comes to talmud Torah.  Someone who works all day and comes up with an answer to a question of R’ Akiva Eiger is learning a different Torah than someone who doesn’t know that answer.  More than that: even if he doesn’t come up with an answer, just the time spent thinking about the R’ Akiva Eiger transforms his understanding and appreciation of Torah so that the material being learned is completely different.

The Igra d’Kallah at the end of Bechukosai writes that the brachos of “v’nasana ha’aretz yevulah v’eitz ha’sadeh yitein piryo” are midah k’neged midah.  The person learning with ameilus causes a halicha, an expansion of the world of Torah – his learning produces intellectual fruit and pays intellectual dividends.  In turn, the earth rewards that person by producing its fruits and paying dividends of weath.

Chazal deliberately refer to one who is “shoneh halachos” because they are alluding to this element of halicha, of expansion, of creative growth, of intellectual fruit.  Olam ha’ba is where we enjoy the radiance from the “ziv haShechina.”  It’s only by causing Torah to radiate and expend outward, that midah k’neged midah can a person earn the bracha of the radiance of the Shechina expanding outward to envelop him.