a relationship that can endure stress

1) R' Moshe Wolfson suggests that the reason we read parshas parah before ha'chodesh is because parshas hachodesh represents the hischadshus of the new month of Nissan which heralds the geulah. Every time there is a his'orerus for geulah, it arouses a corresponding push back of kitrug. Why are we worthy of geulah?  Who says we deserve it?  We want to get ahead of the curve in responding to the kitrug. Maybe it's true -- maybe it makes no rational sense to say that we are worthy of geulah. But so what? We observe mitzvos like parah adumah that make no sense. Whether something makes sense or not is not the be-all and end-all of everything. 

2) In response to the cheit ha'eigel Hashem told Moshe that in place of His presence, going forward there would now be a malach (33:2-3).

וְשָׁלַחְתִּ֥י לְפָנֶ֖יךָ מַלְאָ֑ךְ ... כִּ֤י עַם־קְשֵׁה־עֹ֙רֶף֙ אַ֔תָּה פֶּן־אֲכֶלְךָ֖ בַּדָּֽרֶךְ

Moshe refused to accept that state of affairs. וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֵלָ֑יו אִם־אֵ֤ין פָּנֶ֙יךָ֙ הֹלְכִ֔ים אַֽל־תַּעֲלֵ֖נוּ מִזֶּֽה (33:14). Rashi explains: וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֵלָ֑יו אִם־אֵ֤ין פָּנֶ֙יךָ֙ הֹלְכִ֔ים אַֽל־תַּעֲלֵ֖נוּ מִזֶּֽה

Hashem agreed: וַיֹּ֤אמֶר ה׳ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה גַּ֣ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֥ר הַזֶּ֛ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבַּ֖רְתָּ אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֑ה

Yet in the next perek, Moshe repeats the same request all over again: וַיֹּ֡אמֶר אִם־נָא֩ מָצָ֨אתִי חֵ֤ן בְּעֵינֶ֙יךָ֙ אֲדֹנָ֔י יֵֽלֶךְ־נָ֥א אֲדֹ־נָ֖י בְּקִרְבֵּ֑נוּ כִּ֤י עַם־קְשֵׁה־עֹ֙רֶף֙ ה֔וּא וְסָלַחְתָּ֛ לַעֲוֺנֵ֥נוּ וּלְחַטָּאתֵ֖נוּ וּנְחַלְתָּֽנוּ (34:9)

Hashem had already agreed to Moshe's request. Why is Moshe rehashing the same thing all over again?

Everyone knows the vort that Yom K-Purim is like Purim. In fact, it would seem that Purim is the greater holiday, as katan nitleh b'gadol. But, as my BIL R' Yochanan explained on Purim, there is a difference between them. Y"K is like you are in the dark, and suddenly a light is turned on and you can see everything clearly. That's what we feel like by neilah. At that moment all the petty things in life feel like exactly that -- petty, insignificant things. We rise above it all and the only thing that really matters is out connection to Hashem. The problem is that the light doesn't stay on forever. Eventually -- whether already by motzei Y"K, or maybe if you absorb something more it happens after Sukkos, or maybe it lasts until Chanukah -- the light grows dim and we are back in the same dark world as before, immersed in gashniyus and inyanei ha'guf. Purim is a different kind of experience. On Purim we eat and drink and party and our guf is having a great time too. Purim is not about coming close to Hashem just when the light goes on and we see His presence clearly. Purim is about knowing Hashem is there even when it's dark, even when there is hester panim, even when we are immersed in the gashniyus of olam ha'zeh. Y"K is the day the satan has no power of kitrug; we rise above his realm and escape. Purim we take the battle to the yetzer on his own court. You, yetzer ha'ra, can have your say, can have your olam ha'zeh that you drag us into -- because we can find Hashem even there.

R' Naftali of Ropshitz in Zera Kodesh writes that we always read Ki Tisa the week after Purim and so there must be some connection between the parsha and Purim. Perhaps (this is not his answer, so ayen sham what he has to say) the explanation of why Moshe repeated his request is that connection. Moshe's original request was for Hashem not to be angry with Bn"Y. It's Yom Kippur, so wipe the slate clean, because if that slate is not wiped clean, if You continue to be angry, then we are in deep trouble. We are stuck with a malach, and that's not good enough. So Moshe pleaded for Hashem to change His mood, kavyachol, and put aside the gzar din.

Not only did Hashem respond positively to that request, but He went a step further and taught Moshe the 13 middos. Armed with this new tool in his arsenal, Moshe now revisited his earlier request.  Tzror haMor writes:

ועוד אני אומר כי זה דבר חדש. כי משה קודם שידע שלשה עשר מדות בקש שילכו פנים של זעם ויתנהג עמהם במדת רחמים. ואחר שלמד י״ג מדות שהם כולם רחמים ומעבירין כל מיני מדות הדין ויש בהם כפרת עונות. חזר לומר דבר אחר הפך מהראשון. והוא ילך נא אדני שהוא מדת הדין בקרבנו. כי איני ירא ממנו אעפ״י שהוא דין וזה העם עם קשה עורף. אחר שהוא בטוח בחסד ה׳ ובי״ג מדותיו של רחמים שהם יבטלו כל הגזרות וכל מיני מדות הדין. וזהו כי עם קשה עורף. אע״פ שהוא עם קשה עורף מהטעם כי אתה תסלח לעונם. ולכן תמצא שכתוב בכאן ילך נא אדני באל״ף דלי״ת שהוא לשון אדנות ומדת הדין.

Moshe is not repeating what he said earlier.  He is changing the terms of his earlier request. Not only do we want Hashem's presence with us when the slate is clean, when the light is on, when we are like malachim, like on Y"K, and we won't cause problems, but now Moshe asks for Hashem to be with us even if the slate is dirty, even if כִּ֤י עַם־קְשֵׁה־עֹ֙רֶף֙ ה֔וּא, because we know at the end of the day there are 13 midos ha'rachamim and He will stick with us anyway.   Even though we see hester panim, even though we see midas ha'din, at the end of the day we know He will bail us out anyway. That's what Purim is all about.

There are some relationships where the two parties somehow never have a disagreement, or they tiptoe around things to avoid one, because they know that if they do, it is liable to break the bond between them. Then there are relationships where the two parties sometimes do clash. That doesn't mean the bond between then is weaker.  Aderaba, it shows the relationship is strong enough to survive the disagreement.  Moshe originally asked Hashem to put aside his anger -- we can't have a disagreement, because if we do, then You are going to leave us in the hands of a malach.  Moshe then changed his request, and said to Hashem that even if we have our fights, it doesn't matter -- we will remain bonded together anyway.

Chizkuni on when parshas shekalim was given; machtzis ha'shekel as a tikun for mechiras Yosef

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.

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?  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. 

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:

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

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.

Interestingly, Gur Aryeh, who normally defends Rashi, in this case learns pshat like Chizkuni, albeit with minor differences:

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

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:

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.

2) Last week I posted the Berdichiver's interpretation of  בְי֣וֹם פׇּקְדִ֔י וּפָקַדְתִּ֥י עֲלֵהֶ֖ם חַטָּאתָֽם׃.  The Techeiles Mordechai (#5 here )  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.  

The Yerushalmi explains that machtzis ha'shekel is a kaparah for mechiras Yosef:

אתם מכרתם בכורה של רחל בעשרים כסף שהגיע לכל אחד טבעא [היינו מטבע של מחצית השקל] לפיכך יהי' שוקל כל אחד מכם מחצית השקל

Shem m'Shmuel (Mishpatim 5675) writes:

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, והוא תיקון לחטא מכירת יוסף צדיק יסוד עולם המאחד את כל קהל ישראל שפגמו בזה, וע"כ אחר המכירה כתיב וירד יהודה מאת אחיו, והתיקון הוא התאספות כל ישראל ע"י השקלים לקרבנות ציבור שאין דינם כקרבנות השותפין אלא כמו איש אחד, 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:

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.  

As we once explained, 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.

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.

R' Levi Yitzchak miBerdichiv on וּפָקַדְתִּ֥י עֲלֵהֶ֖ם חַטָּאתָֽם

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).

R' Levi Yitzchak mi'Berdichiv ask two questions (see the Koznitzer Maggid in Avodas Yisrael end of P' Balak):

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?

2) The gemara (Brachos 32b) tells us that Hashem in fact does not keep in mind any recollection of cheit ha'eigel:

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 

If Hashem forgets about our wrongdoing, then again, how do we understand בְי֣וֹם פׇּקְדִ֔י וּפָקַדְתִּ֥י עֲלֵהֶ֖ם חַטָּאתָֽם׃?

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.

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.

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.  

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.  

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. 

shluchei mitzvah ainan nizokin

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):

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 

The Noda b'Yehudah (mh"t OC 94) 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. (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.) This is the sugya's conclusion and there is no dissenting opinion?  He answers by quoting the gemara a few lines earlier on the page:

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

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.  

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.

The Oznayim laTorah rejects 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 #430  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  אינן ניזוקין לא בהליכתן ולא בחזירתן applies when the mitzvah is over, not if you abandon the mitzvah in the middle.  Therefore,  Rav was not prepared to say that the protection extended on the way home from the beis medrash.

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.

Kesubos 77b:

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 

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.

R' Elchanan in Koveitz Shiurim asks: but isn't שְׁכִיחַ הֶיזֵּיקָא an exception to the rule of shluchei mitzvah ainan nizokin?!  

You have to say, writes R' Elchanan, that talmud Torah is categorically different and provides a more encompassing degree of protection. 

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  אילת אהבים ויעלת חן.

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 חזירתן, as ideally one should constantly be engaged in talmud Torah, v'hagisa bo yomam va'layla, and one is always on the clock. 

(Among other problems with my thesis: why does the gemara in Pesachim introduce Rav's statement if T"T is different than other mitzvos?)

chinuch in emunah

After cheit ha'eigel Hashem the Torah reiterates its warning against avodah zarah (34:11-17) and then continues with the mitzvah to observe Pesach

אֶת־חַ֣ג הַמַּצּוֹת֮ תִּשְׁמֹר֒ שִׁבְעַ֨ת יָמִ֜ים תֹּאכַ֤ל מַצּוֹת֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר צִוִּיתִ֔ךָ לְמוֹעֵ֖ד חֹ֣דֶשׁ הָאָבִ֑יב כִּ֚י בְּחֹ֣דֶשׁ הָֽאָבִ֔יב יָצָ֖אתָ מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃

and later in the same parsha, the other moadim:

 וְחַ֤ג שָׁבֻעֹת֙ תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה לְךָ֔ בִּכּוּרֵ֖י קְצִ֣יר חִטִּ֑ים וְחַג֙ הָֽאָסִ֔יף תְּקוּפַ֖ת הַשָּׁנָֽה׃

The mitzvah of observing the moadim appeared already in parshas Mishpatim.  Why repeat it again in this context and juxtapose it to the warnings against avodah zarah?

I wonder if it is because of Aharon's call of "chag la'Hashem machar" when he asked for donations for the eigel.  If making an eigel is what you think a "chag la'Hashem" is, then you need a reminder on what the real chagim are all about.

Netziv answers that in addition to the moadim being an opportunity for celebration, they are an opportunity to inculcate emuna.  They therefore stand as a bulwark against the practice of idolatry, which is the theme of the parsha.

 לא בא הכתוב לבאר שלש רגלים, שכבר כתיב לפני מעשה העגל (לעיל פרק כ״ג), אלא בא בהוספת ענין להזהיר בדרך מוסר ולעשות מסילות בלב ישראל בזמנים הללו להשריש בהם יראת ה׳ ואמונה

He quotes that Chazal darshen that command to observe Shavuos and Sukkos in our parsha teach us that even during shemita year these holidays must be observed.  Even though the normal cycle of planting and harvesting and the celebrations that go along with those agricultural milestones are interrupted during shemita, the  moadim are still observed because they serve as a time of reflection to work on emunah.

Aruch haShulchan writes at the end of 472

ולכן צריך ליתן כוס לכל אחד מבני ביתו, הן זכרים הן נקיבות. ואפילו תינוקות שהגיעו לחינוך – מצוה ליתן לכל אחד כוסו לפניו...

ולפני תינוקות – אין קפידא. ויראה לי דאף על גב דבכל מקום אין הבנות בכלל חינוך, מכל מקום בליל פסח צריך לחנכן גם כן, מפני שעיקר האמונה תלוי ביציאת מצרים.

Even though there is no chiyuv chinuch m'din 4 kosos for tinokos, there is a din chinuch for the mitzvah of emunah.  When you sit at the seder it's just the particular mitzvos of matzah, 4 kosos, etc. that you are teaching your children about, but it's about belief in Hashem and his power to intervene in history.

(Earlier in the week I mentioned the chiddush if the Raavyah that even children below the age of chinuch for megillah should hear it read because af hein hayu b'oso ha'nes of the threatened destruction.  I am wondering if the same would hold true for the mitzvos of leil ha'seder.  In any case, I think many ketanim would be unable to drink 4 cups of wine, in which case maybe there is no chiyuv chinuch given that the mitzvah cannot be fulfilled is its proper tzurah (same issue as giving a katan a pasul lulav for the sake of chinuch.)

It's not just the chag itself.  Netziv is medayek that in Mishpatim the pasuk writes לְמוֹעֵד֙ חֹ֣דֶשׁ הָֽאָבִ֔יב כִּי־ב֖וֹ יָצָ֣אתָ מִמִּצְרָ֑יִם -- it is the day, ב֖ו, which is the focus.  In our parsha, where the celebration of moadim is a kiyum in working on our emunah, the pasuk ends  כִּ֚י בְּחֹ֣דֶשׁ הָֽאָבִ֔יב יָצָ֖אתָ מִמִּצְרָֽיִם It's not just a specific day, but it's the entire month of Nisan which is an auspicious time to work on one's emunah.

Aruch haShulchan 429:13 - 

ואין לשאול: איזה יחוס יש להימים שאחר הפסח? דיש לומר: הואיל שיצא רוב החודש בקדושה (מגן אברהם סעיף קטן ג). ובאמת אין צורך לזה, דכל חודש ניסן קדוש, מפני הטעמים שבארנו.

learning how to daven

R"H 17b:

יעבור ה' על פניו ויקרא א"ר יוחנן אלמלא מקרא כתוב אי אפשר לאומרו מלמד שנתעטף הקב"ה כשליח צבור והראה לו למשה סדר תפלה אמר לו כל זמן שישראל חוטאין יעשו לפני כסדר הזה ואני מוחל להם 

R' Berel Pavorsky in his Bad Kodesh writes that obviously Moshe knew how to put on a talis -- that did not require a special lesson from Hashem.  What Moshe had to learn from Hashem is the act of tefilah itself.  How to daven properly is not something you learn from a book.  You have to see/hear a master shat"z in action; it is something you have to experience.  

Eliyahu at Har haCarmel - bracha on a nes

There is a difference between the Sefardic and Ashkenazic versions of the haftarah of Ki Tisa.  Sefardim read only the section that deals with the confrontation between Eliyahu and the Baal worshipers at Har haCarmel(18:20 onward).  Ashkenazim start earlier (from 18:1) and include the encounter between Eliyahu and Achav.  

I think the difference is noteworthy l'halacha.

The SA (OC 218) quotes the din that a person has to recite a bracha when he sees a place where a nes was done for Klal Yisrael.  The SA gives some examples: the place Yam Suf was crossed, the rock Moshe sat on during the battle against Amalek, and others.  

Biur Halacha there goes back and forth as to whether one is obligated to say that same bracha when seeing Har haCarmel.  The mashmaus of a line he quotes from the Kaftor vaFerach is that one only says a bracha when there was an imminent life or death danger.  Even assuming that is what the Kaftor vaFerach means, one can debate whether what happened at Har haCarmel meets that criteria.  On the one hand, one can argue that what occurred was just a kiddush Hashem demonstration that the Baal worshippers were wrong.  On the other hand, when taken in context of Eliyahu being one Achav's most wanted list, his coming out of hiding to perform such a demonstration was indeed a risk to his own life.  

I think this issue is what is behind the difference between the two versions of the haftara.  The Sefardic version takes Eliyahu's demonstration that Baal worship was wrong as an independent, stand alone event.  The Ashkenaz version places what occurred in context of Eliyahu's conflict with Achav, with all the risks and dangers that entailed. 

My wife also had some thoughts on the haftara on her blog here.

breaking the luchos "tachas ha'har"

I want to share with you a thought from R' Shlomo Amar, the former Rishon l'Tzion and current Sefardic Chief Rabbi of Yerushalayim.  

When Moshe came down with the luchos, the parsha tells us (32:19):

וַֽיְהִ֗י כַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר קָרַב֙ אֶל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה וַיַּ֥רְא אֶת־הָעֵ֖גֶל וּמְחֹלֹ֑ת וַיִּֽחַר־אַ֣ף מֹשֶׁ֗ה וַיַּשְׁלֵ֤ךְ מִיָּדָו֙ אֶת־הַלֻּחֹ֔ת וַיְשַׁבֵּ֥ר אֹתָ֖ם תַּ֥חַת הָהָֽר

Why does the pasuk need to tell us where he broke the luchos -- תַּ֥חַת הָהָֽר?  Does it make a difference to us whether Moshe broke the luchos while he was still near the top of the mountain or at the foot of the mountain?  All that matters is that he broke the luchos, period, or exclamation point, and enough said.  

R' Amar first gives us a beautiful pshat in a gemara we all know.  Chazal tell us (Shabbos 104) that the letters mem and samech were miraculously suspended in the luchos, i.e. if you carve out both of these letters, you will be left with a donut hole in the middle attached to nothing.  That donut hole middle somehow floated in the air.  

If we look earlier in the parsha, we see that not only the mem and samech, but the writing of all the letters had a miraculous quality to it.  Rashi comments on (32:15)  מִשְּׁנֵ֣י עֶבְרֵיהֶ֔ם מִזֶּ֥ה וּמִזֶּ֖ה הֵ֥ם כְּתֻבִֽים׃ that משני עבריהם – היו האותיות נקראות, ומעשה ניסים הוא.  The letters could be read the right way no matter which side you looked at the luchos from.

So if the writing of all the letters was miraculous, why the focus on mem and samech?  OK, so there was a bit more or a miracle regarding these letters, but miraculous is miraculous, what's a little more or a little less of a miracle?  

Rav Amar explains that when Chazal were speaking about the mem and samech, it was not about those letters themselves that they were speaking.  They were speaking about what those letters represented.  Samech-mem is often used as an abbreviation for Samael, the angel that is the yetzer ha'ra.  

At the time of mattan Torah, Klal Yisrael became like Adam before the sin.  "Paska zuhamasam," Chazal say -- the pollution of sin that infects all mankind no longer infected Klal Yisrael.  The yetzer ha'ra held no sway and power over them.  So how then could the evil inclination still exist?  Answers the gemara: the mem and samech stood miraculously.  Instead of miraculously protecting us from sin, G-d had to miraculously ensure that the samech-mem, that Samael, that the yetzer ha'ra, could continue its existence.

Moshe, however, was not happy with this arrangement.  Moshe wanted to break the yetzer ha'ra completely and bring about the final tikun.  

The gemara Sukkah 52 tells us

כדדרש רבי יהודה לעתיד לבא מביאו הקב"ה ליצר הרע ושוחטו בפני הצדיקים ובפני הרשעים צדיקים נדמה להם כהר גבוה ורשעים נדמה להם כחוט השערה הללו בוכין והללו בוכין צדיקים בוכין ואומרים היאך יכולנו לכבוש הר גבוה כזה ורשעים בוכין ואומרים היאך לא יכולנו לכבוש את חוט השערה הזה

At the time of the ultimate tikun, the yetzer ha'ra will appear to the tzadikim like a great mountain, a nearly unsurmountable obstacle that they had to withstand.

Moshe said, time to topple and crush that mountain!

But then Moshe heard that there was a cheit ha'eigel, Moshe saw people celebrating with avodah zarah, and he realized that the finish line was still somewhere in the future and not for now.

 וַיַּשְׁלֵ֤ךְ מִיָּדָו֙ אֶת־הַלֻּחֹ֔ת וַיְשַׁבֵּ֥ר אֹתָ֖ם תַּ֥חַת הָהָֽר׃

Tachas here does not mean "under," but rather means "in place of," like 'ayin tachas ayin.'  Instead of breaking down that mountain of the yetzer ha'ra, as he wanted to, Moshe was forced to break the luchos instead.  

The pasuk is not about where Moshe broke the luchos, but rather is hinting to us what the original plan was that we failed to bring to fruition.

la'asos es ha'shabbos - oneg, pikuach nefesh

1. Targum Yonasan explains the pasuk  וְשָׁמְר֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֶת־הַשַּׁבָּ֑ת לַעֲשׂ֧וֹת אֶת־הַשַּׁבָּ֛ת לְדֹרֹתָ֖ם בְּרִ֥ית עוֹלָֽם as follows:

וינטרון בני ישראל ית שבתא למעבד תפנוקי שבתא לדריהון קיים עלם

According to TY, our pasuk is a din d'oraysa to make תפנוקי שבתא, enjoyable food for shabbos, i.e. oneg shabbos.

Similarly, we find later in Vaykra 23 that shabbos is included among the days called "mikraei kodesh," which Ramban interprets to mean making the day one of celebration and enjoyment:

 מקראי קדש – שיהיו ביום הזה כולםד קרואים ונאספים לקדש אותו, כי מצוה היא על ישראל להקבץ בבית אלהים ביום מועד לקדש היום בפרהסיא בתפלה והלל לאל, ובכסות נקיה, ולעשות אותו יום משתה ושמחה כמו שנאמר בקבלה: לכו אכלו משמנים ושתו ממתקים ושלחו מנות לאין נכון לו כי קדוש היום לאדנינו ואל תעצבו כי חדות י״י היא מעזכם

(Ramban mentions simcha as well, which we do not really associate with Shabbos.  M'inyana d'chodesh Adar, the Yerushalmi writes that Purim seudah cannot be done on Shabbos because ain m'arvin simcha b'simcha, which suggests that there is a din of simcha on Shabbos.  Pri Chadash paskens against this Yerushalmi.)

2. Ohr haChaim offers a number of interpretations of לַעֲשׂ֧וֹת אֶת־הַשַּׁבָּ֛ת, among them:

או ירצה על זה הדרך אימתי אמרתי לך לשמור איש ישראל אפילו בערך כבוד שבת דוקא לעשות פירוש באדם שישנו בגדר עמוד לעשות אבל מי שודאי לא יקום ולא יגיע לשבת לשומרו הגם שרפואות אלו יועילו לשעות או לימים לא יחלל עליו שבת.

In other words, you can be mechalel shabbos for pikuach nefesh only laasos es ha'shabbos, if the person being saved will go on to observe shabbos as a result, so that there is a net gain to shemiras shabbos.  If the person will die before reaching the next shabbos and will not have a chance to observe it, then there is no heter pikuach nefesh.

This is a pli'ah.  The halacha is that one can violate issurim, even shabbos, for the sake of chayei sha'ah, even to extend life by just a few hours or even moments.

One can b'dochak say the O.C. only meant to suggest this as peshuto shel mikra but not l'halacha, but the line is very difficult. 

leich alei -- staying where you are will not work

 After Moshe begs Hashem to forgive the cheit ha'eigel, Hashem responds (33:1-3):

 לֵ֣ךְ עֲלֵ֣ה מִזֶּ֔ה אַתָּ֣ה וְהָעָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר הֶֽעֱלִ֖יתָ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם אֶל־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נִ֠שְׁבַּ֠עְתִּי לְאַבְרָהָ֨ם לְיִצְחָ֤ק וּֽלְיַעֲקֹב֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לְזַרְעֲךָ֖ אֶתְּנֶֽנָּה

וְשָׁלַחְתִּ֥י לְפָנֶ֖יךָ מַלְאָ֑ךְ וְגֵֽרַשְׁתִּ֗י אֶת־הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ הָֽאֱמֹרִ֔י וְהַֽחִתִּי֙ וְהַפְּרִזִּ֔י הַחִוִּ֖י וְהַיְבוּסִֽי׃

אֶל־אֶ֛רֶץ זָבַ֥ת חָלָ֖ב וּדְבָ֑שׁ כִּי֩ לֹ֨א אֶֽעֱלֶ֜ה בְּקִרְבְּךָ֗ כִּ֤י עַם־קְשֵׁה־עֹ֙רֶף֙ אַ֔תָּה פֶּן־אֲכֶלְךָ֖ בַּדָּֽרֶךְ

Why do we have a repetition here of the promise of Eretz Yisrael and the command to drive out the inhabitants of Canaan?  Ramban explains that Hashem was telling Klal Yisrael that although cheit ha'eigel was not completely forgiven, 1) zechus avos is still intact, hence the reference to Avraham Yitzchak, and Yaakov; 2) the promise to bring Klal Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael is still intact; 3) kedushas ha'aretz is still intact intact, and therefore the nations must be driven out שלא תשחת הארץ ולא תחנף תחת יושביה מפני חטאתם, 

The Ramban emphasizes the positive, but one could read the pasuk in the opposite way (see Tzror HaMor), as saying that because of the cheit Klal Yisrael was not really deserving of Eretz Yisrael if not for zechus avos, and (Tzror haMor does not say this part, but I think it is a logical extension) that because they were so easily led astray they need to be extra careful to drive out the idolatrous nations that were already there.

Either way, the pasuk is like a damage assessment after the cheit.  In R' Shlomo Amar's sichot on the parsha he points out that Targum Yonasan suggests something deeper:

ומליל ייי עם משה איזל איסתלק מיכא דילמא יתקף רתח רוגזי בעמא ואישיצינון בגין כן טייל אנת ועמא דאסיקתא מארעא דמצרים לארעא דקיימית לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב למימר לבנך איתנינה.

According to T.Y., the pasuk is a tikun for Hashem's anger caused by the cheit. 

Hashem was telling Moshe that were Klal Yisrael to remain where they are, Hashem was liable to grow angry at them again and there would be consequences.  

The solution is to make aliya, begin the journey to Eretz Yisrael.  That's the game changer that causes Hashem to set aside his anger.

Micheini na mi'sifricha asher kasavta

Chazal tell us (Avodah Zarah 4b) that Klal Yisrael sinned in order to teach the possibility of teshuvah for the community; David sinned in order to teach that teshuvah was possible for the individual:

א"ר יהושע בן לוי לא עשו ישראל את העגל אלא ליתן פתחון פה לבעלי תשובה שנאמר מי יתן והיה לבבם זה להם ליראה אותי כל הימים וגו' והיינו דא"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יוחאי לא דוד ראוי לאותו מעשה ולא ישראל ראוין לאותו מעשה לא דוד ראוי לאותו מעשה דכתיב ולבי חלל בקרבי ולא ישראל ראוין לאותו מעשה דכתיב מי יתן והיה לבבם זה להם ליראה אותי כל הימים אלא למה עשו  לומר לך שאם חטא יחיד אומרים לו כלך אצל יחיד ואם חטאו צבור אומרים (לו כלך) אצל צבור

Rashi explains:

 לא עשו ישראל את העגל. כלומר גבורים ושליטים ביצרם היו ולא הי' ראוי להתגבר יצרם עליהן אלא גזירת מלך היתה לשלוט בם כדי ליתן פתחון פה לבעלי תשובה שאם יאמר החוטא לא אשוב שלא יקבלני אומרים לו צא ולמד ממעשה העגל שכפרו ונתקבלו בתשובה: 

Maharal has problems with the idea of  גזירת מלך היתה לשלוט בם.  Did G-d decree that they would sin?  Was there no bechira!?  Maharal (in Tiferes Yisrael) explains that what the gemara means is that Klal Yisrael and David haMelech were on such high levels that they should have been afforded extra protection from the yetzer hara.  Torah protects a person from sin and doing mitzvos protect a person from sin.  However, when it came to cheit ha'eigel and the episode with Bas Sheva, Hashem did not intervene and afford that extra protection.  Klal Yisrael and David where left to battle the yetzer hara without any defenses to help them.

Even though there are countless pesukim in navi exhorting Klal Yisrael to do teshuvah, we still need these exemplars of teshuva because a person has the ability to explain away any and all proofs to justify avoiding changing their behavior.  Whatever pasuk you might quote, whatever the navi might say over in the name of Hashem, the sinner will reinterpret and (mis)interpret to mean something else.  The yetzer hara that fights against teshuvah corrupts not just a person's actions, but it corrupts a person's thinking and a person's ruchniyus, to the point that like Acheir, he might even hear a bas kol telling him that teshuvah is not possible.  Meaning, the very religiosity that should inspire a person to teshuvah can be used by the yetzer hara to undermine teshuvah, telling a person that his sins have doomed him and any proofs to the contrary are just false hope, a mirage.  Comes David haMelech, comes the episode of the eigel, and they show us concrete proof, maaseh rav, to the contrary.  (see Michtav m'Eliyahu vol 5 p 248)  

This is the background and context to Moshe's argument to Hashem that if he does not forgive Klal Yisrael, וְאִם־אַ֕יִן מְחֵ֣נִי נָ֔א מִֽסִּפְרְךָ֖ אֲשֶׁ֥ר כָּתָֽבְתָּ(32:32)

The gemara writes that before R"H there are three books that are opened.  G-d inscribes the perfect tzadikim into the Book of Life and signs it.  G-d inscribes the wicked into the opposite book and signs their decree.  Those in the middle are written into the Book of Beinonim and their judgment is suspended until Y"K -- no sign off on anything yet.

Why does there have to be a book for the folks in the middle?  Since they will eventually share either the same lot as the tzadikim or as the reshaim, let them not be written anywhere until their fate is determined?

"B'makom she'baalei teshuvah omdim afilu  tzadikim gemurim einam yecholim la'amod."  The answer is that the Book of Beinonim is not the same as the book in which the tzadikim are inscribed -- it is greater.  To be written in that book and then take advantage of the opportunity to do teshuvah is the highest level possible.

Maor vaShemesh explains that Moshe Rabeinu threw his lot in with the Jewish people and said to G-d that the whole point of this episode of the eigel, the whole point of a distinct book for Beinonim "asher kasavta," that you write but don't seal and sign off on, is to teach the greatness and power of teshuvah.  If you won't forgive, if you don't want to prove that repentance is not only possible, but can raise a person to the greatest heights, then erase me from that book, because it has no value and is unnecessary. 

rav chessed

I don't even know where to begin in terms of thinking about the mess we are currently in.  This is more an exercise in trying to wrap my brain around something that makes sense than anything else. 

 

The Netziv on last week’s parsha comments that when we say Hashem is “rav chessed v’emes,” the vav hachibur means that “rav” modifies both terms –- Hashem is both “rav chessed” and “rav emes.”  Meaning, when a person appears before a judge, the judge may say that while it’s true/emes that the law says that for crime X the punishment is Y, he will be merciful and give a lesser punishment.  Or the judge may refuse to hear any grounds for leniency -– no chessed –- and instead, dispense exactly the punishment on the books.  It's either or: either you get the letter of the law, or the law goes out the window and you get mercy in its place.  Hashem somehow –- and this is beyond our human capacity to understand –- shows both an abundance of mercy, he is “rav chessed,” and at the same time, does not deviate one iota from being “rav emes,” from dispensing exactly what the letter of the law requires (see post here.)

 

It is always nice when we see  b’isgalya the “rav chessed” and the “rav emes” is somehow behind the scenes where we don’t pay attention to it.  But sometimes “rav emes” is b’isgalya; we become painfully aware of the midas ha’din.  At times like these the challenge is to remember that there is always “rav chessed” b’itkasya operating behind the scenes at exactly the same time.

 

There is one thing everyone wants during this crises: for things to back to the way they were.  I leave it to the big gedolim to figure out what we are supposed to take away from this whole situation, but I don't think you need to be an adam gadol to say that the one thing Hashem ***doesn’t*** want is for things to go back to the way they were.  Were that to be the case, or should we make that the case, then this whole crises would be a meaningless exercise in futility and pointless suffering.  It seems to me to be a davar pashut that if something like this happens, it means change is needed.  What needs  to change and how to bring it about is where cheshbon ha'nefesh is needed.

Everyone is talking about the need for tefilah, so let me say something about it too:  We had in last week's parsha “v’chanosi es asher a’chon v’richamti es asher a’racheim.”  The gemara (Brachos 7) darshens on both of these phrases that Hashem will have rachamanus and show chanina “af al pi she’aino hagun,” even if the person does not deserve it.  Is there anything we need more at this time?  How can we be zocheh to that?

 

Seforno asks, Netziv asks: why does the pasuk use the double-language?  Why both “chanosi” and “richamti?”  Tiferes Shlomo answers that the pasuk is speaking about two different people.  If you cry out to me, says Hashem, not for your own problems, not because you are in pain, but you cry out for your neighbor who is suffering, for your community, for others in your city, then “v’chanosi…,” I will take care of your own burdens even if you don’t deserve it.  And not only will I take care of you, says Hashem, but “v’richamti” as well on those for whom you are davening, even if they don’t deserve it either.

The Tiferes Shlomo teaches the same idea on our parsha as well.  The keruvim are "porsei k'nafayim," they have outstretched wings,  "u'pnei'hem ish el achiv," and they face each other.  The Radomsker writes that "porsei k'nafayim" is an allusion to tefilah, like the pasuk of "u'b'parischem kapeichem..." (Yishayahu 15).  Davening has to be done "pneihem ish el achiv," with an eye towards what a chaveir needs.  Put in a good word for someone else.

The Zohar famously looks askance on someone who uses tefilah simply as an opportunity to present Hashem with a laundry list of their needs -- someone who uses tefilah to become a “taker.”  When someone uses tefilah, however, to present Hashem with someone else’s needs, then they are in effect a “giver,” as they are interested in helping others. 

 

So don't just daven -- daven for others.  A tefilah of chessed is, it seems, a very good way to be zocheh to again see "rav chessed" openly.

nikras HA'tzur -- THE very important rock

Sorry, not a lot of time this week, so this will be brief.  2 quick points.

1) "Kol milchama ba'machaneh."  Yehoshua was the one who led Bnei Yisrael in their battle against Amalek, which was as much clash of competing ideologies as a physical battle.  Amalek attacked those stragglers who were outside the ananei ha'kavod, those on the periphery of the camp.  When Yehoshua heard the commotion of eigel worship taking place, he recognized that sound -- "kol milchama," that's the sound of battle with Amalek, with evil, but now it is, "ba'machaneh," the battle has penetrated the camp itself and is not longer restricted to the periphery.  (Sefas Emes)

2) If you have a minute, look back at the few pesukim at the beginning of ch 17 in Parshas Beshalach.  There we are told that Bnei Yisrael were camped in Refidim and had no water.  After the complaining started, Hashem told Moshe to take his staff, take the Zekeinim, and "avor lifnei ha'am... v'halachta," go walk out from the people.  "Hineini omeid lifnecha al ha'tzur b'Chorev," G-d says he is waiting by a rock at Chorev.  All Moshe has to do is hit the rock and it will produce water.  You know the rest of the story.

I don't know why I never paid attention to the fact that although the people were camped in Refidim, that's not where the miracle of the rock producing water happened.  Moshe had to leave the camp and go to Chorev, and it was there that the miracle happened.  Why?  Why not just give them water in Refidim?

Moshe already knew Chorev was a significant place.  G-d does not tell Moshe that he *will stand* -- ya'amod -- future tense, at the rock to do the miracle, but rather G-d is "omed," already standing there.  Chorev was the desert where Moshe took Yisro's sheep to graze and where he saw the burning bush.  G-d told Moshe, "You know already where I stand, where I can be found -- go back to that same place."

But more important than what had already happened in Chorev is what will happen there.  Chorev is where we came after Refidim in order to get the Torah.  There is a deliberate parallel here: G-d, the Tzur Tamim, gives Torah at Chorev, without which we cannot live; Moshe hits the tzur (note the word tzur is used for rock in this parsha, as opposed to the word sela, which is used in Chukas) at Chorev to get water, without which we cannot live.  "Ain mayim elah Torah."  The going out of the camp, the turning of attention to Chorev, is meant to bring the people to the realization of this parallel -- Torah is like water for the neshoma.  We can't live without it.  (The Ramban touches on this, but it is spelled out beautifully in the Abarbanel at the end of Beshalach.)

When Moshe in our parsha asks Hashem to reveal himself, Hashem responds that Moshe can only view what little he can see from within "nikras HA'tzur," a cleft in THE rock, with a "hey ha'yediya."  THE rock means the famous rock, the same rock that Moshe hit back in Parshas Beshalach!  You want Hashem to reveal himself?  Then you have to bury yourself in the concept that ruchniyus is as essential as water for your survival, the concept THE rock revealed.  If Torah is your life, then you will experience Hashem revealing himself to the fullest.

zecher to the machtzis ha'shekel -- 3 coins or 1 -- Rama vs GR"A

The Rama (O.C. 694) writes that the minhag is to give three machtzis ha'shekels (bad dikduk, I know) on Ta'anis Esther because the word terumah appears 3x in parshas shekalim.  However, GR"A in Ma'aseh Rav (282) writes that the minhag is to give only one machtzis ha'shekel.

Aside from trying to understand the nekudas ha'machlokes between them, it's very hard to understand the Rama.  The reason we read parshas shekalim is to remember the annual donation of machtzis ha'shekel given to the mikdash to pay for korbanos tzibur expenses.  We once a year do something to remember this once a year donation. The additional shelakim alluded to in parshas shekalim were one-in-history donations used in constructing the mishkan.  Why do we need an annual remembrance for that?

My son pointed out that the GR"A in S"A on this Rama points you to Tos in Megillah (21) which says that on ta'aneisim we give tzedaka at mincha time.  My son suggested that the GR"A is perhaps not just explaining to us when the machtzis ha'shekel is given, but is defining for us the geder ha'din, what machtzis ha'shekel is -- it's not a zecher, but a din in hilchos tzedaka, just like tzedaka given on any ta'anis.  Therefore, the shiur is machtzis ha'shekel, not 3x a machtzis shekel.  The Rama understood that it is a zecher.

I'm not yet convinced that the GR"A there is doing anything more than explaining why the machtzis ha'shekel is given on ta'anis esther afternoon -- why not give it sometime close to when we read the parsha?   I would formulate the issue a little differently.  The GR"A sees our machtzis ha'shekel as a zecher to the machtzis ha'shekel of the mikdash.  The Rama perhaps sees giving machtzis ha'shekel as part and parcel of our kiyum of parshas shekalim.  By way of analogy, RYBS and others understood that our eating matzah on pesach night is not just a kiyum in achilas matzah, but is a kiyum in sipur as well -- it's part of how we tell the story.  So too here, perhaps Rama means that reading parshas shekalim also entails donating 3 machtzis shekalim --- davka 3, because 3 are alluded to in the parsha, and our giving is in some way an extension of the mitzvah of reading the parsha.  (I don't know if my explanation is any less dachuk, but I have no other ideas yet.) I found that R' Yisachar Shlomo Teichtel hy"d, who these days is better known as the author of Eim haBanim Smeicha, discusses this topic in his shu"t, Mishne Sachir.  (O.C. 34).  He quotes what appears to be two contradictory gemaras: On the one hand, the gemara (Meg 13) quotes Reish Lakish as teaching that the shekalim that Klal Yisrael gave in the midbar served to nullify the money Haman paid to bribe Achashveirosh.  We proved with our pocketbooks that we are dedicated to good before he even had the idea of showing his financial dedication to evil.   On the other hand, Chazal tell us (Meg 16) that Haman chanced upon Mordechai teaching hilchos kemitza of the korban mincha and remarked that the small offering of kemitza outweighed all the thousands he had poured into doing evil (Meg 16).  So which was it -- was it the shekalim donated to the Mishkan, or was it the actual offerings of the Mikdash, e.g. kemitza -- which foiled Haman's plans?

In a simplified nutshell, these two views represent the roots of the GR"A vs Rama.  According to Reish Lakish's view, the "kesef ha'kipurim" donated to the mishkan served as a kaparah not just for that generation, but for future generations as well -- for Mordechai and Esther's time, for our time, for all time.  Therefore, according to Rama we make a zecher even for the machtzis ha'shekel donated for the building of the mishkan.  However, if Haman's downfall was brought about by hilchos kemitza, it is the korbanos themselves, purchased with the single machtzis ha'shekel given annually, which is what saved us, and therefore, as GR"A writes, it is this single machtzis ha'shekel that we make a remembrance for.

a sin worse than cheit ha'eigel

The Ohr haChaim (32:1) writes that the Torah only alludes to the murder of Chur by the eigel worshippers, but spells out in great detail all aspects of the cheit ha'eigel itself because the story of cheit ha'eigel is not about the tragedy of sin, but rather is about the possibility of redemption.  Chazal (A"Z 4b) tell us that if the community sins they should remember the cheit ha'eigel, as it teaches us the possibility of communal teshuvah.  The sin of Chur's murder was never atoned for, and so, rather than leave the blot on the record of Klal Yisrael, the Torah only alludes to it in passing.  Klal Yisrael did do teshuvah for the cheit ha'eigel, and therefore the Torah makes it the focal point.

"Ra'isi es ha'am ha'zeh v'hinei am k'sheh oref hu" -- can there be a more damning statement than that?   The Ishbitzer (in Beis Ya'akov), however, turns the statement on its head.   The navi (Chavakuk 1:13) tells us that G-d is "t'hor einayim mei're'os ra v'hibit el amal lo tochal."  G-d cannot bear the sight of evil; he will not look at it.  "Ra'isi es ha'am ha'zeh," G-d tells Moshe that he sees Bnei Yisrael -- despite their sin, he still is looking at them.  Their essence is still pure.  Again, the story the Torah is telling us is one of redemption. 

Coming back to Chur (and if someone can explain why he deserved to die, please leave me a comment), the gemara (Sanhedrin 7) explains that it was the sight of his being killed by the mob that led Aharon to make the eigel.  "Im yei'hareig b'mikdash Hashem kohen v'navi," the murder of a kohen and navi together (true, Har Sinai is not the mikdash and the avodah had not yet been given over to kohanim -- see Maharasha) together are unforgivable.  Aharon thought that with Chur the navi killed, if he protests against the mob and they kill him, it's all over.  The eigel was in this case the lesser of two evils.

Why is that so?  Why is killing a navi and kohen together a more heinous crime than even idol worship?  Maharasha explains that the kohanim are the teachers of Torah and the nevi'im convey the dvar Hashem.  They are the bearers of the mesorah.  It is one thing to have a mesorah and to do wrong, even to the point of idolatry.  It's a far worse thing to completely destroy and eradicate that mesorah. 

So the people sin, and Moshe comes to the rescue with his tefilah.  "Zechor l'Avraham l'Yitzchak ul'Yisrael... v'kol ha'aretz ha'zos... etein l'zarachem v'nachalu l'olam."  Moshe calls on the zechus of the avos, and refers specifically to G-d's promise to grant Eretz Yisrael to them and their children for eternity.  Why would that promise carry weight after the people had sinned?  The Avos were always worried "shema yigrom ha'cheit" and they would prove undeserving -- wasn't Moshe worried that the cheit ha'eigel may have made the people undeserving?   See Seforno, Netziv, and perhaps one could argue that Klal Yisrael as a whole can never be completely undeserving as a nation (see R' Tzadok in Pri Tzadik on the parsha of the bris bein ha'besarim).  R' Yonasan Eibshitz says a beautiful yesod to answer his question.  He writes that it's only in Eretz Yisrael that we can truly come to be zocheh in Torah.  That was the purpose of promising the land to the Avos and their descendants.  Moshe was telling G-d that since the Jewish people have not yet come into Eretz Yisrael, since that promise was yet unfulfilled, how then can he blame Klal Yisrael for their wrongdoing?  How can he hold them accountable for a breach of Torah when all they have learned is the Torah of galus and have not yet experienced the real thing?

Baruch Hashem, we are on the road to getting back to the real thing and need to take advantage.

uniting for the greater good

1) After the cheit ha’eigel the Torah tells us that, “Va’aya’asfu eilav kol bnei levi,” that all the members of the tribe of levi who remained true to Hashem gathered around Moshe to carry out his instructions. Chasam Sofer writes that the Torah emphasizes “all” the bnei levi to include Korach and his supporters, no fans of Moshe Rabeinu (I don’t know why C.S. assumes Korach had it in for Moshe already at this point in time, but that’s what he says.) Even they rallied around Moshe. When it comes to sticking up for kvod Shamayim and rectifying the damage of the cheit ha'eigel, all other disagreements need to be put aside. Love Moshe Rabeinu or hate him, this was not the time for that.

We live surrounded by not one eigel, but by 100 eigels, yet it seems it’s more important for some to argue about internal issues rather than unite in common cause.

2) Commenting on “V’ish al ya’aleh imach,” (34:3) Rashi writes that since the first luchos were given with such public fanfare, it attracted ayin ha’ra and things turned out badly. This second time around Hashem commanded Moshe to come alone, in private, as there is no virtue greater than tzeniyus.

If tzeniyus and privacy is such a great thing, then why didn’t Hashem do things that way the first time around? Why l’chatchila make a big show of things, opening the door to ayin ha’ra, and only then, once the price has been paid, change course? 

Sefas Emes explains that things had to be done b’davka in this order. You can be a poor kollel couple and eat noodles every night for dinner, but nobody serves noodles at the chasunah. You have to start out of the gate with a bang, with excitement, with fireworks. A rocket ship needs an enormous boost to get it off the ground. Later on, once it's in orbit, a little thrust is all it needs to keep going or to adjust course. Whatever the risks -– ayin ha’ra or anything else -- the first luchos had to be given in way that would shake the world, with fireworks and pomp. An impression had to be created. Once that stage was passed, and only once that stage was passed, could the value of tzeniyus be invoked to temper things the second time around.

3) Rashi (30:36) writes that the Torah mentions the chelbina, which had a foul odor, in the middle of the other ketores spices to teach that “al yakeil b’einecha,” one should not be troubled by the fact that sinners are included in the tzibur on a ta’anis, i.e. their prayers are of value as well. The implication is that of course it would be better if the whole tzibur were tzadikim and the sinners weren’t there, but don’t let it bother you if things aren’t like that. Maharal in Gur Aryeh points out that Chazal put it a little differently and stress the affirmative: “kol ta’anis she’ain bah poshei yisrael aina ta’anis.” (Kerisus 6) It’s not that we merely tolerate sinners, as Rashi implies -- Chazal are telling us that we need and want the sinners there. Why? Maharal explains that ta’anis demands contrition. The further someone is away from Hashem, the more contrite they will be when they return.

a shogeg that's worse than meizid; "ain kaparah l'meisim;" Shamai winning is as bad as cheit ha'eigel!?

1) Chazal interpret the three different terms, “avon v’pesha v’chata’ah,” at the end of the 13 midos ha’rachamim mentioned in our parsha, as referring to three different types of sin. The gemara in Yoma (36) explains that “avon” (according to the view of the Chachamim) refers to meizid, deliberate sins; “pesha” is an act of rebellion; “chata’ah” is an unwitting shogeg sin. Given those definitions, asks the gemara, shouldn’t the order in the pasuk be reversed? Wouldn’t it make sense to first ask G-d to forgive shogeg, which is less severe, and only then ask for forgiveness for meizid and pesha, rebellion? Why do we put “chata’ah,” the shogeg sin, at the end?

The gemara answers by darshening the pasuk to mean that Moshe was asking for the sins of “avon v’pesha” to be considered, through teshuvah, “v’chata’ah,” as if they were inadvertent shogeg sins. “Chata’ah” is thus not a separate request for forgiveness, but is rather part of what we are asking for with respect to the sins of “avon” and “pesha.”

But what’s the pshat in the pasuk? The Netziv offers a tremendous answer. Sometimes a sin of shogeg can be worse than meizid. We’re all human and we have a yetzer ha’ra for kinah, ta’avah, and kavod. A person can be a perfectly respectable, upstanding frum Jew who knows right from wrong but have a lapse, fall prey to temptation, and intentionally do something b’meizid that they know is bad. The moment of temptation passes, and baruch Hashem the person snaps back to normal, continuing to be observant and frum, albeit in need of teshuvah. Contrast that, says the Netziv, with a person who, due to their misunderstanding of Torah, has a completely warped ideology, a person who confuses right and wrong. What they think is a mitzvah is in fact a sin, and what they think is an aveira may sometimes be the right thing to do.  Their misdeeds will be shogeg, since they are motivated by misunderstanding, not intent to sin, but this type of shogeg is far worse than a meizid.   It's not a moment of weakness or a lapse of judgment that leads them astray -- it's a fundamental error in the way they understand the world.   That’s the “chata’ah,” the shogeg that is most severe, that comes at the end of our pasuk.

 

Apply to the world around you as you see fit.

2) I seldom revisit what I wrote in the past, but in this case I’m going to make a little exception since I was talking to my son about the din of chatas shebe’aleha meisah last week and by coincidence, it ties to something I wrote about on this parsha a few years ago. I always had assumed that the reason chatas she’meisah be’aleha is pasul is because the halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai tells us that a chatas needs an owner, and without one the korban cannot be brought. Tosfos in Temunah (15b), however, says a different hesber.  A korban chatas by definition is brought to be mechapeir.   According to Tosfos, a chatas who owner died is pasul because a dead person cannot get a kaparah -– ain kaparah l’meisim. 

I once posted the Ya’avetz in Megillah (25) who writes that when the parsha of the eigel is read, it causes embarrassment to those who participated in the worship of the golden calf, and through suffering that embarrassment they get a kaparah. This Tosfos in Temurah was not on my mind then to ask the question, but better late than never: what does the Ya’avetz do with this sevara of “ain kaprah l’meisim?”

 

I thought I had an original question, but after thinking about it during the day I figured you could answer by being mechaleik between kaparah in the metaphysical sense and the din kaparah as is relates to the chiyuv korban.  Then I came home from my day job, looked up the Ya'avetz again, and see that after he says the reading of the eigel is a kaparah, he adds "af al gav d'ain kaparah b'korban."  Now I feel like a dummy -- I discovered a Tosfos that I should have known about the first time around, thought of a question the Ya'avetz asks on himself, and came up with the same answer I must have read 2 years ago without realizing the import of the words.  Again, I guess better late than never.  Just to make myself feel better, I'll end off with a point I still am stuck on: Horiyos 6 uses the sevara of  "ain kaparah l'meisim" in discussing the pasuk, "kapeir l'amcha Yisrael asher padisa," which has nothing to do with the din kaparah of a korban.  The gemara seems to comflate both types of kaparah together.  Maybe in  another 2 years I'll have worked this part out too ; )

 

3) The gemara (Shabbos 17) writes that the day that Shamai gained the upper hand over Hillel in the yeshiva was as tragic a day as the day on which the eigel was made.

I don’t know how you interpret such an expression except to say that it’s a guzma, an exaggeration, as dibru chachamim lashon havai. That being said, here’s a suggestion I had:

The famous machlokes of tanur shel achani pitted R’ Eliezer the Shamuti, the talmid of Shamai, who refused to accept that lo ba’shamayim hi, against the rest of the chachamim (see R’ Yosef Engel in Beis haOtzar). We see that the school of Shamai allowed less room for interpretative license.

The whole error that led to the cheit ha’eigel is because Moshe added an extra day of his own volition to the 40 days he was supposed to be at Sinai, and was therefore not back yet when Klal Yisrael expected him. It was Moshe’s understanding through torah she’ba’al peh of how to count the 40 days that threw people off.

Derech derush, maybe that’s the idea behind this expression in Chazal. When the literalists, the school of Shamai have the upper hand, when interpretive license in minimized and lo ba'shamayim downplayed, it is a return to the thinking that precipitated cheit ha’eigel in not taking the koach haderush Moshe employed into account.

can there be kapparah after death?

The Mishna in Meg (25a) lists parshiyos that are read without any targum (in the days of Chazal the targum was read to the tzibur along with the parsha).  Chazal took the attitude that if you know enough to understand the parsha without targum, then you won’t be confused by what you are hearing; if not, there are ideas that may lead you astray, so better to remain in ignorance.  The Mishna says that the parsha of “eigel harishon” is read with targum; the parsha of “eigel hasheni” is not. Rashi explains that “eigel harishon” is the entire section that describes the events of the eigel up until the pasuk of “va’ashlichayhu ba’eish vayeitzei ha’eigel hazeh.”  “Eigel hasheni” is Aharon’s description of what happened and what he had done, including that pasuk of “va’ashlichayhu…” Rashi explains that the pasuk’s words can be misinterpreted as implying that the eigel had some real magical power; therefore, we don’t translate.

The gemara asks why the Mishna needs to tell us that we read the first parsha of eigel harishon with the targum – why would we think not?  Answers the gemara: the whole episode is an embarrassment to Klal Yisrael, and therefore, one might have thought it better to pass over it with no further explanation or embellishment.  Kah mashma lan that precisely because it is embarrassing it is read, as those involved want to suffer that bit of embarrassment so that they can get a kapparah.

The Meshech Chochma makes the clever point that our not extending the same reasoning to the parsha of eigel hasheni, to Aharon’s explanation of what he had done, proves that Aharon was granted a complete kapparah without needing the added embarrassment.

Be that as it may, I want to focus on a little comment of R’ Ya’akov Emden.  The Yavet”z writes that we see from this gemara that even the dead are capable of achieving kapparah.  Those who worshipped the eigel are no longer with us, but still, apparently they suffer embarrassment at having their misdeeds recounted and through that can achieve forgiveness.  (The Rama similarly writes that the reason we say yizkor on Yom Kippur is because it is a day of kapprah for the dead as well as the living.)

Is this really a proof?  My son’s rebbe in another context has said over a mashal from the Sh"lah: someone being prosecuted for a crime cannot say in his/her defense that the culprit was a bunch of other molecules, but since then their body has produced new skin, new blood cells, etc. and they are now a different person.  The meforshim ask how the oath administered in Parshas Nitzavim as part of the bris between Hashem and Klal Yisrael is binding on future generations – those generations haven’t been born yet and haven’t given their consent?  The answer is that when we speak of Klal Yisrael, those future generations are like new blood cells, new skin cells, etc. – the identity of Klal Yisrael remains constant, even if the parts undergo change.  Here too, the way I understood the gemara is that the kapparah for the cheit ha’eigel is not something being given to the dor ha’midbar, who are long gone, but is being given to us, something we need, because we carry on their identity.

lo yamish m'toch ha'ohel - no matter what the crisis

Why does the Torah bother to record Yehoshua’s reaction to the sound of the eigel worship, “Kol milchama ba’machanah,” “A sound of war is in the camp,” when he got it wrong, as Moshe immediately told him? 

Because he was not as wrong as we think he was.  The sounds of war that Yehoshua recognized were the sounds he had heard in the fight against Amalek.  At that time, Amalek had attacked the stragglers, those who for whatever reason were left outside the protection of the ananei hakavod.  Now, said Yehoshua, “Kol milchama bamachaneh,” that sound of battle with Amalek were in the very midst of the camp.  What was the tumult over the eigel if not a resurgence of the evil of Amalek? (Sefas Emes)

Moshe davened for Bnei Yisrael, Hashem’s anger was assuaged, the 3000 who worshipped the eigel were killed, but all was still not right, as evidenced from the fact that Moshe moved his tent outside the camp.  It would take forty more days of work for Moshe to restore unity in Klal Yisrael and undo the damage caused by the eigel.  The Torah then again comes back to Yehoshua: “…V’Yehoshua bin Nun na’ar, lo yamish m’toch ha’ohel.” (33:11)   Why does the Torah shift gears and give us half a pasuk about what Yehoshua was doing,right in the middle of the description of Moshe's "cleanup" efforts?

The Netziv writes that Moshe had a tremendous amount of work to do in rehabilitating the damage done by the cheit ha’eigel.  Even though Yehoshua is described here as a “na’ar,” in reality he was in his 50’s and had been learning in “kollel” at the feet of Moshe for years.  Wouldn’t Yehoshua have been the natural choice to help Moshe in his efforts to repair the damage that had been done? 

That’s exactly the thinking that the Torah here tells us is wrong.  Moshe’s job was being the manhig ha’dor, being the leader, and with that came the responsibility of shouldering the burdens and work that was needed.  Yehoshua’s job was being a talmid engaged in learning.  Doing that job means no matter what the crisis, no matter how important the needs out there may seem, “lo yamish m’toch ha’ohel,” one must keep learning. 

Shem m'Shmuel on Ki Tisa

Having done a few other Shem m’Shmuel’s this week, might as well finish it off with some more (apologies to those who want lomdus):

1) Earlier in the week we spoke about the Ramban’s question of why Moshe Rabeinu did not object in Parshas Mishpatim when Hashem said that he would send an angel to guide Bnei Yisrael, but now, after the cheit ha’eigel, when he is in a far worse bargaining position, Moshe insists that Hashem himself guide them. Another approach: We know from the Haggadah shel Pesach that the redemption from Egypt was also not done via a malach or any other intermediary, but by Hashem himself. When there is such a strong force of tumah, like in Egypt, even an angel is in danger of being sucked in; Hashem himself must intervene. Here too, when Klal Yisrael first accepted the luchos, they were on a tremendously high level. Being led by an angel in those circumstances was acceptable. But now, after the cheit ha’eigel, davka because Klal Yisrael had fallen to such depths, Moshe had to call on Hashem himself to pull them out.

Even if G-d forbid a person has fallen to a place that even angels would be sullied were they to tread there, there is still hope. G-d himself is willing to go down and pull a person out of the filthy quicksand when it needs to be done. 

2) The word “ach” is usually darshened as a miyut, a limitation. Rashi comments that the word “ach” in “Ach es shabsosai tishmoru,” teaches us that building the Mishkan is limited to weekdays and cannot be done on Shabbos. Ramban asks: the word “ach” in the pasuk refers to Shabbos; therefore, the derasha should tell us some limitation of Shabbos. According to Rashi, the pasuk is telling us a limitation in the mitzvah of building Mishkan, not Shabbos?

Shabbos elevates a person, but where Shabbos takes you depends on what you put into it. Around where I live there is one street where on nice days there is a seder kav’ua for a Shabbos pickup basketball game. Some people have a seder kavu’a in the beis medrash, or at a tisch. Imagine what Shabbos would be like if we could combine the holiness of Shabbos with the holiness of doing mitzvah of building Mishkan – that would be one special Shabbos! But the Torah tells us, “Ach es Shabsosai tishmoru,” we have to celebrate Shabbos on its own terms without the mitzvah of Mishkan, even if it means Shabbos itself is lessened as a result. [Why this should be so is something to think about...]

 3) Why was the kiyor placed betweeh the mizbeyach and the Ohel and not closer to the entrance to the Mishkan, so that kohanim could wash themselves as soon as they walked in the door? The Targum Yonasan in Parshas Pikudei tells us that the kiyor represents teshuvah -- the kohanim cleansing themselves for avodah represents washing off the shmutz of aveirah.  It is very hard to do teshuvah alone in a vacuum; the inspiration and energy of others is needed to move forward. Just as the kohen must pass the mizbeyach to get to the kiyor, a Jew needs to see the fire and sacrifice of others to help him get back on track.

4) Unlike the first luchos that came directly from G-d, the second luchos were made by Moshe. However, let's get rid of the misimpression that there was no miracle involved. Rashi writes on “Psol lecha…” that Hashem showed Moshe that there was a sapphire mine in his tent that had the stones he needed. Obviously, the mine being located right there was a miracle.  Once G-d was making a miracle anyway, why not just deliver the luchos the same way as the first time around?

We've been hitting this theme all week -- one more time won't hurt. The Torah here is telling us that the miracle of the luchos now has an address; it comes into the world only through the tent of Moshe.  For there to be luchos, there has to also be chachmei hamesorah to help deliver them.

5) “V’kasavta al haluchos es hadevarim asher ha’yahu al haluchos ha’rishonim…” It doesn’t say v’ksavata… KA’devarim,” words like you wrote the first time, but rather “HA'devarim,” the words, i.e. the exact same ones as before.  Chazal tell us that when Moshe broke the first luchos the letters jumped off and floated away.  Those exact same letters now came down and were engraved on the second tablets.

I don't know if this is what the Shem m'Shmuel wants us to take away from this vort, but this is what I take away: Klal Yisrael has had more than its fair share of periods of "sheviras haluchos."  David HaLivni has a book called, "Breaking the Tablets: Jewish Theology After the Shoah."  Baruch Hashem, we survive, we rebuild.  But there are those who always argue that "mai d'hava hava" and we need a new "torah" for new luchos.  There are those who argue that we cannot remake what once was even if we wanted to - if a Rembrant or Vermeer gets damaged, it can be restored so it looks like the original, but it will never be Vermeer's paint or Rembrant's brushstrokes.  When it comes Torah that's not how it works.  The tablets may be different, but we can and must inscribe "HA'devarim,"  the exact same ideas, ideals, and traditions as before onto them.  We can bring the past back to life.