we don't want a second hand account -- we want to hear it directly

וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וַיִּקְרָא לְזִקְנֵי הָעָם וַיָּשֶׂם לִפְנֵיהֶם אֵת כׇּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּהוּ ה׳

וַיַּעֲנוּ כׇל הָעָם יַחְדָּו וַיֹּאמְרוּ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה׳ נַעֲשֶׂה וַיָּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָעָם אֶל ה׳ (19:7-8)

The Radomsker (Tiferes Shlomo) asks: Moshe was talking to the זִקְנֵי הָעָם. However, the response came not from the zekeinim, but rather וַיַּעֲנוּ כׇל הָעָם יַחְדָּו, from the people as a whole. Shouldn't the response have come from the זִקְנֵי הָעָם that he was talking to?

Abarbanel already asks this question. Moshe thought it would be impossible to address and get a response from the entire nation at once, so he used the zekeinim as his intermediary to present Hashem's words to Bn"Y and to glean their reaction. The people, however, bypassed the zekeinim and delivered their unanimous response directly to Moshe. Abarbanel writes:

אבל העם לא רצו לתת תשובתם כזקנים ושהם ישיבו למשה. אבל כלם בערבוביא יחדיו אמרו למשה תשובתם והוא כל אשר דבר ה׳ נעשה וכן אמרו במדרש (שם) ויענו כל העם יחדיו לא ענו בחנופה לא נתנו מקום לזקנים להשיב אלא כלם פה אחד ולב אחד אמרו כל אשר דבר ה׳ נעשה.

Malbim goes a step further:

שכבר בארתי בכ"מ ההבדל בין יחד ובין יחדו, שמלת יחדו מורה על השווי שחשבו א"ע כולם שוים, ואמרו כל אשר דבר ה' נעשה ר"ל גם מה שדבר אל הגדולים שיהיו ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש נעשה כולנו, באין הבדל, כמ"ש ועמך כלם צדיקים (שם ס), ומבואר ממילא שלפי תשובתם לא רצו שמשה ואהרן וכ"ש הזקנים יהיו אמצעיים בינם ובין ה', ולא רצו שיקבלו התורה ע"י משה, רק שכלם יתעלו למדרגת הנבואה ויקבלו התורה מה' בעצמו בלי אמצעי כמ"ש חז"ל שאמרו רצוננו לראות את מלכנו

Bn"Y wanted everyone to have an equal part in kabbalas haTorah -- equal access for all, a request that Malbi"m takes a dim view of (he ends off: וזה היה טעות קרח שאמר כי כל העדה כלם קדושים)

This approach helps resolve another difficulty with the order of the pesukim here. The Brisker Rav points out that Hashem did not immediately give Bn"Y the mitzvah of perisha and the other preparations for mattan Torah. It was only when Moshe conveyed their response to Him that Hashem commanded לֵךְ אֶל הָעָם וְקִדַּשְׁתָּם הַיּוֹם וּמָחָר וְכִבְּסוּ שִׂמְלֹתָם (19:10). Why did Hashem wait for Bn"Y's reply before giving these mitzvos? Why not tell them up front how to prepare for kabbalas haTorah? The Brisker Rav answers that there is something like a hava amina and a maskana here. The hava amina was וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי בָּא אֵלֶיךָ בְּעַב הֶעָנָן בַּעֲבוּר יִשְׁמַע הָעָם בְּדַבְּרִי עִמָּךְ (19:9). Hashem would speak to Moshe, and the people would merely eavesdrop on that conversation and overhear what Hashem was saying. Klal Yisrael, however, demanded more than this. וַיַּגֵּד מֹשֶׁה אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָעָם אֶל ה׳. Rashi comments: תשובה על דבר זה כבר שמעתי מהם שרצונן לשמוע ממך, אינו דומה שומע מפי שליח לשומע מפי המלך, רצוננו לראות את מלכנו. Moshe gave the people's response to Hashem: We don't want to be eavesdroppers -- we want You to speak directly to us. If so, Hashem responded, וְקִדַּשְׁתָּם הַיּוֹם וּמָחָר, you have to prepare.

Why was preparation needed only if Hashem was speaking directly to the people and not if they are overhearing divrei Torah spoken to Moshe? A baal keri is allowed hirhur in divrei Torah; he is just not allowed to speak divrei Torah. The source for this din is mattan Torah (Brachos 20b, see last year's post https://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2025/02/did-bny-recite-birchas-hatorah-on.html). Bn"Y did not just listen to what Hashem was saying; it was as if they were saying the words along with Him and speaking divrei Torah.  The Brisker Rav says a chiddush: If you just overhear what is said by someone, then that's not shome'a k'oneh.  Had Hashem spoken to Moshe and Bn"Y were just overhearing the conversation, that would be hirhur, not shome'a k'oneh, and the halachos of preparation would not come into play, as hirhur is permitted for a baal keri.  Because Hashem consented to the request to speak directly to each member of Bn"Y, it meant there was a din of shome'a k'oneh by mattan Torah, and once the experience of mattan Torah would be as if Bn"Y were saying words of Torah, then it meant a baal keri could not participate and hence the halachos of preparation were required.

What I find interesting about this whole topic is that it's the flip side of the coin of Yisro's plan that we saw earlier in the parsha. Instead of everyone having equal access to have their din torah decided by Moshe, Yisro said it was better to create a bureaucracy of batei dinim. רצוננו לראות את מלכנו means everyone has equal access to the King, with no intermediary and no bureaucracy intervening.

The Radomsker k'darko derech derash offers a different answer to the whole question. The זִקְנֵי הָעָם, he answers, does not mean the leaders of Klal Yisrael. There was not a separate message for the elite (as Malbim and Netziv explain) and a separate one for the masses, or an attempt to filter Hashem's message to/from the people through their leaders. The message was addressed to the people and the response came from the people. But we have to understand where this power to receive such a message from Hashem comes from. This moment in history was set in motion long ago. Chazal tell us that the 2000 year period of the development of Torah began with Avraham Avinu. In a sense, the history of Klal Yisrael is just the unfolding of everything that Avraham and the Avos set in motion. Without the spiritual DNA of the Avos within us, the geulah from Mitzrayim, kabbalas haTorah, and everything else would not follow. The זִקְנֵי ,הָעָם, explains the Radomsker, refers to that DNA of the Avos within each member of Klal Yisrael. Moshe first spoke to that spark of the Avos, and that ignited the fire and passion within the people, and that is what enabled their unanimous response of naaseh v'nishma.

We find the same idea earlier. Parshas Va'Aeira opens וָאֵרָא אֶל אַבְרָהָם אֶל יִצְחָק וְאֶל יַעֲקֹב, and Rashi comments: וארא אל האבות, and the parsha continues with the 4 leshonos of geulah. The geulah is possible only because it was promised to the Avos and we carry within us their spiritual DNA.

We reflect on this idea every day in our davening, as the Radomsker writes:

בעבור אבותינו שבטחו בך ותלמדם חוקי חיים כן תחננו ותלמדנו. פי' בעבור אבותינו שעברו ע"י אבותינו כנ"ל. והוא שאנו אומרי' על אבותינו ועלינו על בנינו ועל דורותינו על אבותינו באה תחלה הקדושה של דבריו חיים וקיימים ומהם בא עלינו ועל בנינו. וזה אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב וכו' וזוכר חסדי אבות ומביא גואל לבני בניהם כל הגאולה וישועה מן האבות בא לבני בניהם

The kabbalas haTorah at Sinai is a model for our ongoing daily kabbalas haTorah, which starts with the recognition that we are worthy of learning and engaging in Torah only by virtue of those who came before us.

did Bn"Y recite birchas haTorah on mattan Torah

1) Every once in awhile there is a dump of new seforim onto hebrewbooks.org and when I see that I start browsing here and there.  In a sefer they just put up called Noam Amarim, the Sassover Rebbe notes that it says by mattan Torah that the people stood  וַיִּֽתְיַצְּב֖וּ בְּתַחְתִּ֥ית הָהָֽר, at the bottom of the mountain.  A person should want to climb and grow in ruchniyus, but sometimes a person falls or finds himself stuck at rock bottom.  Our parsha teaches that Torah is addressed even to that person, to those stuck on the bottom of the mountain.  

The Rebbe also says he was asked an interesting question that he had never thought of before.  If you look in P' Masei, you will see that Sinai is the 13th stop that Bn"Y came to after leaving Egypt.  Why was it on the 13th stop in particular that Torah was given?  I usually don't like these sorts of questions.  If it had been the 12th or 11th of any other number stop, you could ask the same thing.  The Rebbe did like it, and connects it to the 13 midos.

2) On to a more halachic topic.  Did Klal Yisrael says a birchas haTorah before kabbalas haTorah or not?  And if they did, what did they say?

Before answering that question, first point that needs clarification is why a birchas haTorah might be required.  It says in SA 47:4 המהרהר בדברי תורה א"צ לברך.  True, GR"A disagrees, but the question here is not only according to shitas haGR"A.  The gemara (Br 20b) writes that בעל קרי מהרהר בלבו to fulfill the mitzvah of shema.  The gemara comments: מר רבינא זאת אומרת הרהור כדבור דמי because if hirhur was not equivalent to dibur, how could the baal keri be yotzei?  The gemara says perhaps this is no proof.  If הרהור כדבור דמי, why bother with hirhur -- why not just say the words?  The gemara answers כדאשכחן בסיני.  Explains Rashi: שהפרישן מאשה דכתיב אל תגשו אל אשה (שמות יט) ועל פרישה זו סמך עזרא לתקן טבילה לבעלי קריין קודם שיעסקו בתורה.  Saying the words requires a higher level of tahara, as we see from mattan Torah, that hirhur does not.

What words were said by Bn"Y at Sinai?  Tos on the spot answers that when Bn"Y heard mattan Torah, shome'a k'oneh, it was as if they said the words.  We see an interesting chiddush from Tos that the din of shome'a k'oneh is not just a means to be yotzei a bracha, but it counts as if you actually articulated the words.  

Did that kiyum of talmud Torah which Bn"Y fulfilled at mattan Torah via shome'a k'oneh require a birchas ha'Torah?  This question was posed to R' Shteinman, and what bothered R' Shteinman's interlocutor is the text of the bracha.  How can you say אשׁר בּחר בּנו...ונתן לנו את תורתו when the event hasn't happened yet?   

The very same question might be asked regarding the Avos.  Assuming the Avos kept all the mitzvos, which would include birchas haTorah especially according to the shitos that hold it is d'orasya, how did the words make any sense?  Did they have a different nusach ha'bracha?

I would add one detail to strengthen the makshan's question here.  As we've discussed before, the Tur writes that when one recites the bracha of  אשׁר בּחר בּנו...ונתן לנו את תורתו one should have kavanah for the mitzvah of remembering maamad Har Sinai, which Ramban counts as a separate miztvah.  Bach explains that the Tur was bothered by the fact that we have multiple brachos for birchas haTorah.  Why isn't one bracha enough?  It must be that one of the brachos is not on the act of learning, but rather on remembering maamad Har Sinai.  How does it make sense to say such a bracha before maamad Har Sinai had occurred?

R' Shteinman held that perhaps they only recited the first bracha of לעסוק בּדברי תורה since there was no other option. 

I think there is another approach one can take.  The source for the din of birchas haTorah is a pasuk in Haazinu:  אמר רב יהודה, מניין לברכת התורה לפניה מן התורה, שנאמר כי שם ה׳ אקרא הבו גודל לאלקינו.  This appears after the final mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah.  Netziv comments in Devarim 31:32 that it's no wonder that this mitzvah of birchas haTorah appears only after the 40th year in the midbar at the end of Devarim.  Until the entire Torah was put into writing, no birchas haTorah could be recited:

 עיקר הלימוד כתוב להלן (פסוק ל׳) ״וידבר משה באזני כל קהל ישראל את דברי השירה הזאת עד תומם״, וזה היה אחר שנגמרה כתיבת הספר תורה עד תומם (פסוק כ״ד), ואז היה אפשר להקהיל את העם ולומר השירה בברכה, כמו שאמר (להלן לב,ג) ״כי שם ה׳ אקרא״, אבל בספר תורה חסר אי אפשר לברך, וא״כ לא היה יכול משה מיד להקהיל קודם שהודיעו הקב״ה כל פרשת ״וזאת הברכה״ וגמר כתיבת ס״ת עד ״לעיני כל ישראל״

This fits perfectly with R' Chaim Brisker's chiddush that birchas haTorah is on the cheftza shel Torah -- the text -- rather than the chovas ha'gavra of the mitzvah of talmud Torah.  This is why even according to the SA, who paskens that women cannot recite brachos on mitzvos they were not commanded to do like sukkah or shofar, holds that they may recite birchas haTorah.  Even if women lack a chovas ha'gavra to learn, it is the text itself which requires having a bracha recited over it.  Pre-completion of the Torah there was simply no cheftza upon which to recite a birchas haTorah. 

Therefore, at mattan Torah, given that there was no text of Torah in a completed form that yet existed, a birchas haTorah may not have been applicable.

a Yom ha'Atzmaut not of simcha or sasson, but of chedva

R' Lerrer from Merkaz haRav said that R' Tzvi Yehudah would quote from the teshuvos Ye'shuos Malko from R' Yehoshua m'Kutna (from the likutim section in the back) on the pasuk וַיִּחַדְּ יִתְרוֹ עַל כׇּל הַטּוֹבָה.  Rashi there quotes two interpretations.  One pshat is that Yisro was overjoyed at the deliverance of Am Yisrael, which is certainly the peshuto shel mikra, as Ibn Ezra comments ויחד – מגזרת: חדוה.  But then Rashi quotes a second interpretation ומדרשו (בבלי סנהדרין צ״ד.): נעשה חידודין חדודין, מיצר על איבוד מצרים.  Why does Rashi need to quote a Midrash and throw cold water on the simcha of Yisro [this is the Mizrachi's question as well]?  Why was Rashi not happy with the peshuto shel mikra as is?  

That shoresh of ויחד -- the term חדוה -- appears in a famous pasuk that Rashbam there alludes to.  When the handful of people returned with Ezra to build Bayis Sheni, there were those among them who cried when they saw their accomplishments.  They remembered the glory of Bayis Rishon, and knew that what they had was a pale comparison.  It was to them that Ezra directed his words לְכוּ אִכְלוּ מַשְׁמַנִּים וּשְׁתוּ מַמְתַקִּים וְשִׁלְחוּ מָנוֹת לְאֵין נָכוֹן לוֹ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ הַיּוֹם לַאֲדֹנֵינוּ וְאַל תֵּעָצֵבוּ כִּי חֶדְוַת ה׳ הִיא מָעֻזְּכֶם  There are different terms for happiness, says the Ye'shuos Malko.  Simcha is the joy of a new experience; sasson is the joy of rediscovering that which had been lost.  Chedva is a different animal entirely.  Chedva is when one's heart is breaking inside, but nonetheless, one rejoices.  Sometimes joy does not come easily; a person needs to coax themselves into finding it.  

Rashi's second interpretation does not mean to say that Yisro was not happy.  Both pshatim agree in that regard, that he was.  What the second interpretation adds is that Yisro's happiness did not come naturally at this time.  Yisro pushed himself to celebrate even though inside his heart was heavy.  It was not a joy of sasson or simcha, but merely a joy of chedvah.

This year we have a Yom ha'Atzmaut not of simcha, not of sasson, but of chedvah.  We have to celebrate even as we still grieve and mourn the events of 10/7 and for those who have fallen in battle.

That being said, rest assured that the words of the navi (Yeshayahu 51) will be ultimately be fulfilled:

כי־נחם ה׳ ציון נחם כל־חרבתיה וישׂם מדברה כעדן וערבתה כגן־יהוה שׂשׂון ושׂמחה ימצא בה תודה וקול זמרה׃

dor holech v'dor ba

The past few days I have felt a bit torn between different emotions. Today is my father's yahrzeit, and l'havdil being ha'meisim v'hachaim, last Friday my daughter had a baby boy, our first grandson (and just to be clear: had it been another granddaughter, I would be just as happy).  You feel a sort of whiplash going from mi'shebeirach for bito ha'yoledes to K-l malei for a parent.  

 וַיִּסְע֣וּ מֵרְפִידִ֗ים וַיָּבֹ֙אוּ֙ מִדְבַּ֣ר סִינַ֔י וַֽיַּחֲנ֖וּ בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר וַיִּֽחַן־שָׁ֥ם יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל נֶ֥גֶד הָהָֽר (19:2)

There seems to be a redundancy in the pasuk. We are told  וַֽיַּחֲנ֖וּ בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר, that Bn"Y camped in the desert, but then the pasuk repeats, וַיִּֽחַן־שָׁ֥ם יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל נֶ֥גֶד הָהָֽר, that Bn"Y camped near the mountain.  Both statements could have compacted into one phrase וַיִּֽחַן or וַֽיַּחֲנ֖וּ and then say בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר נגד ההר (see Netziv).  Why split the sentence in two?

Sefas Emes (in the Likutim) answers that the pasuk is referring to two different things.  וַֽיַּחֲנ֖וּ בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר refers to the physical encampment of Bn"Y. וַיִּֽחַן־שָׁ֥ם יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל refers to "ישׂראל סבּא." Yaakov Avinu, the Avos, our forefathers, also joined us at Sinai.

Chazal tell us that the souls of all future generations were present at Sinai.  The Sefas Emes is telling us that the souls of those who came before us were there as well.  We cannot have a future unless we also connect to our past.

R' Meir Lichtenstein (R' Aharon's son) quotes the Rav as pointing out the gemara in Kid (30a) 

אמר ריב"ל כל המלמד את בן בנו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו קבלה מהר סיני שנאמר והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וסמיך ליה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב

tells us that teaching a grandchild Torah carries with it a special bracha of being like the experience of Sinai.  This applies davka to a grandson -- המלמד את בן בנו -- but apparently not to teaching one's son.

However, the Rambam in Hil Talmud Torah (1:2) writes that if one is forced to choose between educating one's child or one's grandchild, one's own child takes precedence:

אם כן למה נצטוה על בנו ועל בן בנו. להקדים בנו לבן בנו ובן בנו לבן חבירו:

So which is more important: teaching one's son or teaching one's grandson?

The Rav answered that there are two dinim in talmud Torah.  In terms of imparting information, teaching one's own child takes precedence over teaching anyone else, even a grandson.  The gemara in Kiddushin is speaking about something else.  The experience of Sinai was not just about learning laws, digesting information.  The experience was about creating a masorah so that Torah connects generation to generation.  It's when you go beyond the natural parent-child connection and add another generation into the mix, a grandparent to grandchild bond, that that idea expresses itself. 

mesirus nefesh for mitzvos aseh; no place to run to; kabbalas haTorah possible only if one is a baal chessed

Ramban quotes a Mechilta on the pasuk  וְעֹ֥֤שֶׂה חֶ֖֙סֶד֙ לַאֲלָפִ֑֔ים לְאֹהֲבַ֖י וּלְשֹׁמְרֵ֥י מִצְוֺתָֽי (20:4) saying:

רבי נתן אומר: לאוהבי ולשומרי מצותי – אלו שהן יושבין בארץ ישראל ונותנין נפשם על המצות. מה לך יוצא ליהרג, על שמלתי את בני. מה לך יוצא לישרף, על שקראתי בתורה. מה לך יוצא ליצלב, על שאכלתי את המצה. מה לך לוקה מאפרגל, על שנטלתי את הלולב. ואומר: אשר הוכיתי בית מאהבי (זכריה י״ג:ו׳) – המכות האלו גרמו לי לאהב לאבי שבשמים

A) A point l'halacha: the Mechilta seems to contradict the view of Rama (YD 157) who holds that the chiyuv of mesirus nefesh only applies when a person is being forced to violate a lav, not when a person is being prevented from being mekayeim an aseh.  The examples of the Mechilta -- milah, lulav, matzah, talmud Torah -- are all examples of mitzvos aseh (see Netziv in Haamek She'ilah 42:2).

B) A point l'machshava: why does the Mechilta focus only on those in Eretz Yisrael?  Were there no coercive decrees in chutz l'aretz?  (See Netziv in Haamek Davar)

R' Tzuriel in Derishat Tzion quotes the MG"A in Zayis Raanan who answers that the proper response to a decree is to run away.  If they don't let you run yeshivos the way you want in NY, or if you can't wear your kipa on a college campus in NY, then move to Florida! Why remain in harms way if you don't have to?  The residents of Eretz Yisrael, however, refuse to listen to that message.  How can you run away and abandon the daily kiyum mitzvah of yeshivat ha'aretz, something you can get no where else in the world? They residents of E"Y would rather stay and face the persecution than abandon the Land.  That's why davka they are called אֹהֲבַ֖י.  

Chazal tell us that there are 4 people who had letters added to their name.  Yeser had a vav added, and so we have our parsha of Yisro.  Avraham had a hey added, Sarah had a hey added, and Yehoshua had a yud added to the beginning of his name.  R' Noson Gestetner points out that the 4 added letters spell out the shem Havaya.  That's not by coincidence.  Avraham and Sarah brought monotheism to the world and caused a great kavod shamayim, revealing Havaya to the world.  Yisro sought out Hashem, abandoning all other avodah zarah.  This too increased the revelation of Havaya to the world at large.  Just as introducing monotheism and abandoning avodah zarah caused a greater revelation of the shem Havaya, so too did the conquest of Eretz Yisrael by Klal Yisrael and Yehoshua.  There is a connection between love for the Land, and אֹהֲבַ֖י, love of Hashem.    

2) The Midrash (Mechilta) tell us that Moshe tried to convince Yisro to stay on, but Yisro insisted on leaving.  Yisro said:

 אָמַר לוֹ כְּלוּם הַנֵּר מְהַנֶּה אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם הַחֹשֶׁךְ, וְכִי מַה הַנֵּר מְהַנֶּה בֵּין חַמָּה לִלְבָנָה, אַתְּ חַמָּה וְאַהֲרֹן לְבָנָה, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה הַנֵּר בֵּין חַמָּה לִלְבָנָה, אֶלָּא הַרֵינִי הוֹלֵךְ לְאַרְצִי וּמְגַיֵּר כָּל בְּנֵי מְדִינָתִי וַאֲבִיאֵם לְתַלְמוּד וַאֲקָרְבֵם תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה.

Yisro had the opportunity to be close to and learn from the gedolei ha'dor, from Moshe and Aharon.  Imagine a bachur accepted to the most elite yeshiva in the world and offered an opportunity to learn b'chavrusa with the Rosh Yeshiva.  Who would turn down such a chance?  

What we see from this Chazal (see R' Shteinman's comment in Ayeles haShachar) is that being a mekabeil is not enough to satisfy a person.  A person has a built in need to be a mashpia and give to others as well.  Had Yisro stayed where he was, he could absorb an enormous amount from Moshe and Aharon, from his environment, but he felt he would have nothing to contribute.  To have a chavrusa with the Rosh Yeshiva sounds like a great thing, but if a person just sits passively and listens to the R"Y's chiddushim all day with nothing of his own to add, he will not grow or be satisfied.  He would be better served by learning with a peer with whom he can exchange ideas.  Yisro needed to return home where he would have the opportunity to use his talents to influence others or he would never achieve fulfillment and purpose.

The Midrash (28:1) writes that when Moshe went upstairs to get the Torah, the malachim gave him a hard time:

בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה בִּקְּשׁוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת לִפְגֹעַ בְּמשֶׁה, עָשָׂה בּוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא קְלַסְטֵירִין שֶׁל פָּנָיו שֶׁל משֶׁה דּוֹמֶה לְאַבְרָהָם, אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אִי אַתֶּם מִתְבַּיְשִׁין הֵימֶנּוּ לֹא זֶהוּ שֶׁיְּרַדְתֶּם אֶצְלוֹ וַאֲכַלְתֶּם בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה לֹא נִתְּנָה לְךָ תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בִּזְכוּת אַבְרָהָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: לָקַחְתָּ מַתָּנוֹת בָּאָדָם, וְאֵין אָדָם הָאָמוּר כָּאן אֶלָּא אַבְרָהָם

Hashem's response was to make Moshe look like Avraham, who had served food to the angels when they came to visit.  It would not be right to repay Avraham's hospitality by complaining about his descendants.

R' Shteinman explains that the way to be zocheh to Torah is through chessed.  Avraham's personified chessed, and Moshe reflected the same values.  That's the proof that humans are worthy of receiving the Torah.

I think this connects to the previous point.  To be mashpia on others is to do chessed.  If a person is only a mekabeil, only on the receiving end, and does nothing to better others, there is a lack of chessed.  Yisro realized that if he cannot contribute where he is, then even under the direct tutelage of Moshe and Aharon, he would not be zocheh to Torah because he would lack the necessary ingredient of being a baal chessed and contributing to others learning and development.

both sides of the equation

 וַיִּשְׁמַ֞ע יִתְר֨וֹ כֹהֵ֤ן מִדְיָן֙ חֹתֵ֣ן מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֵת֩ כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָשָׂ֤ה אֱלֹקים֙ לְמֹשֶׁ֔ה וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל עַמּ֑וֹ כִּֽי־הוֹצִ֧יא הֹ׳ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃

What did Yisro hear?  The pasuk seems to repeat itself:

1) אֵת֩ כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָשָׂ֤ה אֱלֹקים֙ לְמֹשֶׁ֔ה וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל עַמּ֑וֹ 

2)  כִּֽי־הוֹצִ֧יא הֹ׳ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָֽיִם

Sefas Emes (in the likkutim) explains that יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל at the end of the pasuk refers to "Yisrael sabba."  Hashem released the Jewish nation, יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל עַמּ֑וֹ, from the Egyptian bondage, but this it was also a release of the Jewish identity, the Jewish spiritual character and essence, that had been forged by Yaakov Avinu.  

Last week we read about the war Bn"Y fought against Amalek.  Moshe designated Yehoshua, from sheivet Ephraim, to lead the people in that battle.  The gemara in Baba Basra writes that we have a tradition that Amalek will fall only at the hands of decedents of Yosef.  Why should this be so?  Once upon a time I suggested that Amalek did not take issue with G-d's power to perform miracles.  The world had heard about the exodus from Egypt and the splitting of the sea.  The Midrash connects "Az Yashir Moshe" with the establishment of G-d's kisa, throne, "Nachon kisa'acha mei'AZ."  The word "AZ" is spelled with a zayin=7, like the seven days of the week, the normal routine cycle, but there is also an aleph=1.  There is a +1, there is something that transcends the routine, the normal cycle of events.  Amalek is OK with that.  G-d can have his throne in Heaven, in the world of miracles.  But if that's all there is, then "ain ha'kisei shaleim," Hashem's throne is not really complete.  Most of life is just the 7 of routine, not the +1 part.  Miracles are few and far between.  Most of life is day to day mundane drudgery and there is no supernatural cavalry on the way to help with the challenges.  Amalek's position is that G-d has nothing to do with that part of life.  Nature runs its course and we don't really see the yad Hashem.  The antidote to Amalek is Yosef, who dressed like an Egyptian, spoke like an Egyptian, managed to rise to the heights of Egyptian society, but behind that façade remained Yosef hatzaddik.  Nature too is just a façade.  Just because you don't see the yad Hashem on the surface doesn't mean it's not there.

Rashi comments וישמע יתרו – קריעת ים סוף ומלחמת עמלק.  The Berdichiver explains that Yisro saw both sides of the equation.  He witnessed the splitting of Yam Suf, the miraculous, the supernatural, the overt yad Hashem, but he also heard of the battle against Amalek, the idea that G-d is present, albeit in a concealed way, in every day life as well.   וַיִּ֣חַדְּ יִתְר֔וֹ עַ֚ל כׇּל־הַטּוֹבָ֔ה -- the word וַיִּ֣חַדְּ, says the Berdichiver, is like we say "l'shem yichud..."  The G-d of miracles is one and the same as G-d hiding behind the scenes in every day life.  

So maybe there is nothing extraneous in that opening pasuk in the parsha, and in fact, maybe it's this doubling which, based on the Berdichiver's reading, Rashi is helping resolve.  כִּֽי־הוֹצִ֧יא הֹ׳ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָֽיִם -- Yisro heard about the open miracles that were revealed (as we read in parshas Va'Eira) through the shem Havaya in yetzi'as Mitzrayim, but he also heard about  כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָשָׂ֤ה אֱלֹקים֙, that G-d was immanent in nature (Elokim = gematriya of teva), in the mundane and day to day, as well.

2. I'll throw this out there, but it's admittedly a stretch, so consider it al derech derush: the difficulty with Rashi, וישמע יתרו – קריעת ים סוף ומלחמת עמלק, is that the pasuk seems to require no explanation of what Yisro heard since it tells us the answer - כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָשָׂ֤ה אֱלֹקים֙ לְמֹשֶׁ֔ה וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל עַמּ֑וֹ.  What is Rashi explaining here?

There is a Gur Aryeh that the Shev Shmaytza discusses in his hakdama (letter cheis, tes) which says that the din of ger she'nisgayeir k'katan she'nolad only applies when there is a choice whether to convert or not.  However, at maamad Har Sinai there was no choice.  The gemara says that Hashem held the mountain over the heads of Bn"Y -- it was accept the Torah or be crushed.  Therefore, relationships and the issurei arayos that stem from those relationships remained intact.

Perhaps what was bothering Rashi is that Yisro here is called חֹתֵ֣ן מֹשֶׁ֔ה.  Yisro converted and get she'nisgayeir k'katan she'nolad, so how can he still be called חֹתֵ֣ן מֹשֶׁ֔ה?  The answer is that an event makes such an impression on a person that they are forced to react in some way.  The gemara writes that in the days of Shlomo they would not accept converts.  People would see the greatness of Shlomo's kingdom and want to convert, but it was not a real kabbalas ha'mitzvos.  What kind of event could elicit such a reaction?  Rashi answerrs --  קריעת ים סוף ומלחמת עמלק.  Yisro saw the greatness of yad Hashem in those events and it hit home in his heart and it forced him to react, it coerced him to react no less than as if a mountain were held over his head.  That's why he is still called חֹתֵ֣ן מֹשֶׁ֔ה.  

two elements of geirus

Rashi in parshas Bo quotes a hava amina that a ger should bring a korban pesach right after he converts and not wait until pesach.  A few weeks ago my son explained that we see from Rashi that the korban pesach in Mitzrayim was a kiyum not just of the pesach offering, but also a kiyum of a korban geirus, and therefore one could have a hava amina that every ger bring such a korban at the time of conversion.  Similarly, the milah done before pesach Mitzrayim was also a kiyum in geirus, as the mitzvah of milah itself had already been given to Avraham Avinu.

I was not so enamored with this idea.  The gemara learns the need for a korban for geirus from the korban offered at the time of mattan Torah (end of our parsha).  Tevilah and milah are also learned from mattan Torah.  Why would Klal Yisrael need another geirus at mattan Torah, I asked him, if they already had a geirus in Mitzrayim?

My attempt to answer my own question:

Usually a ger has milah first and then tevilah.  Ramban (Yevamos 47) holds that bdieved it can be done the other way around as well.  Both milah and tevilah are steps in the geirus process, and until both are complete, in whatever order, the geirus in incomplete.

Achronim ask: the gemara (Yevamos 97) writes that if a mother pregnant with twins converts, even though ger she'nisgayer is k'katan she'nolad and all former familiar relationships are null and void, her sons born as Jews are considered related as brothers and there would be an issue of eishes ach for one to marry the other's wife.  Why should this be true according to Ramban?  Even though the twins are yotzei tevilah of geirus in utero, they still need milah to complete their geirus.  8 days after they are born, when they have milah and become geirim, their relationship with each other should be void?

Similarly, the gemara (Bechoros 47) writes that if a pregnant woman converts, the baby is a bechor l'kohen.  According to Ramban, the baby is not even Jewish at birth!   Since milah is necessary for complete geirus, it is only on day 8 that the baby even becomes Jewish, and therefore should not be considered a bechor?

R' Naftali Trop (shiur on ger katan in Kesubos) answers that there are two stages of geirus.  Ramban does not mean that before milah the child is an aku"m.  The child is a member of the Jewish nation, he is related to his Jewish brother, he is a bechor l'kohen if he is the first baby to come out of his mother's womb.  However, the child lacks a kedushas yisrael.  That is missing without the added step of milah.  

How could there be geirus for children at mattan Torah when geirus requires daas and a katan has no daas?  The answer is that the children were already part of Klal Yisrael since they were bnei Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov.  What the geirus of mattan Torah added is the element of kedushas yisrael.  That extension of the geirus, of what it means to be part of Klal Yisrael, does not required additional daas or consent to be accepted.

I suggested to my son that perhaps this is why there was a to stage process of geirus, one in Mitzrayim and one at mattan Torah.  The first, in Mitzrayim, forged us into a nation.  The second, at mattan Torah, forged a kedushas yisrael, which is only possible through Torah.  Without that we might have been a distinct nation, separate from Mitzrayim, but we would have not been a holy nation.

birchas haTorah, maamad har Sinai, and Eretz Yisrael

The Tur (O.C. 46) writes that one recites the bracha of "asher bachar banu...v'nasan lanu es toraso" one should remember maamad Har Sinai.  The Bach explains that the Tur was bothered by the question of why we have multiple brachos in birchas hatorah, first the bracha of "laasok b'divrei Torah," and then this bracha of "asher bachar banu..."  The Tur's answer is that the first bracha is a regular birchas hamitzvah on the mitzvah of studying Torah; the second bracha is a birchas ha'shevach to thank G-d for the experience of maamad Har Sinai. ( As we discussed once before, according to some Rishonim there is even a separate mitzvah to remember maamad Har Sinai.)

The Shem m'Shmuel (5671 last piece) has a different approach.  Rashi comments in last week's parsha on the pasuk  בַּחֹ֙דֶשׁ֙ הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֔י לְצֵ֥את בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם בַּיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה בָּ֖אוּ מִדְבַּ֥ר סִינָֽי׃ that לא היה צריך לכתוב אלא: ביום ההוא, מהו ביום הזה – שיהו דברי תורה חדשים עליך כאילו היום נתנו.  Every day the study of Torah is supposed to be fresh in one's eyes, as if it is the first time one set eyes on it.  It is the Torah itself which rejuvenates a person and refreshes his outlook.  He quotes the Tana d'bei Eliyahu that when a person learns, Hashem is right there learning alongside the individual.  That experience is what gives a person new chiyus -- today's learning is not just looking at the same old text that one saw yesterday and the day before.

The first bracha of birchas ha'Torah is on the mitzvah of study.  The second bracha is thanks for this rejuvenation, thanks that there is a "nosein haTorah" giving us a new outlook and new insight every day.

The gemara tells us that churban haMikdash and galus happened because Klal Yisrael failed to say birchas haTorah.  In light of his chiddush, Sm"S explains the midah k'neged midah: Eretz Yisrael is the one place where one can experience constant growth, constant hischadshus and renewal in avodas Hashem.  Just ask any of your children who have spent a year in Israel in seminary or yeshiva.  Undoubtedly, that year is a year of growth like no other.  It's not just the age that they go which triggers it, or being away from home which triggers it -- it's being in Eretz Yisrael which is the trigger.  Failing to say birchas haTorah indicated a failure to appreciate the hischadshus and renewal in each day.  People felt that it's the same ongoing chiyuv and the study day in and day out -- לא מפסקי לילות מימים וכחד יומא אריכא הוא (Sukkah 46a) -- so why bother with a new bracha each day?  But we do say a new bracha, because Hashem is constantly "nosein haTorah," because שיהו דברי תורה חדשים עליך כאילו היום נתנו, there is a new chiyus that is given to us each day.

too much knowledge is a bad thing?

1. Just a quick follow up to the post yesterday on כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לְבֵ֣ית יַעֲקֹ֔ב וְתַגֵּ֖יד לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃.  Rashi explains the difference between Beis Yaakov and Bnei Yisrael is a matter of gender.  The pasuk uses the term amira, which usually implies a soft tone, when it talks about speaking to the women, and the term tageid, which usually implies harsh language, when it talks about speaking to the men (Rashi, see Ibn Ezra).  The simple pshat (see R' Bachyei, Alshich) is that the women need to be approached in a more gentle manner and have things explained in more simple terms, but the men can absorb more.  Ksav Sofer says exactly the opposite.  Women are more righteous and don't need the fire and brimstone speech to motivate them.  It's enough to tell them gently what they need to do and they will get the message.  Men, on the other hand...

2. The R' Bachyei on this pasuk is a source for women davening for their children when they light Shabbos candles:

 ועוד שהאשה הטובה היא סבה לתורה שהיא יכולה להמשיך את בנה לבית המדרש לפי שהיא מצוייה בבית והיא מרחמת עליו בכמה מיני געגועין כדי להמשיך אותו אחר למוד התורה מנעוריו וגם כי יזקין לא יסור ממנה, ולכך ראויה האשה להתפלל לשם יתברך בשעת הדלקת הנר של שבת שהיא מצוה מוטלת עליה שיתן לה ה׳ בנים מאירים בתורה, כי התפלה יותר נשמעת בשעת עשיית המצוה ובזכות נר שבת שהוא אור תזכה לבנים בעלי תורה הנקראת אור שנאמר (משלי ו׳:כ״ג) כי נר מצוה ותורה אור, וכן דרשו רז״ל האי מאן דרגיל בשרגי הויין ליה בנים תלמידי חכמים.

3. Many meforshim explain the distinction between Beis Yaakov and Bnei Yisrael has nothing to do with gender, but rather the distinction is between the hamon am, the simple uneducated masses, and the educated elite.  

I have no idea what to make of this comment of the Bnei Yisascher (Sivan 2:18) which seems to indicate the for some people, remaining in a state of ignorance is a good thing:

כה תאמר לבית יעק' ותגיד לבני ישראל הנה כפל הלשון אמירה והגדה. בית יעקב ובני ישראל. הנה יתפרש הדבר. כבר ידוע אמיר"ה הוא כפשוטו. והגד"ה הוא המשך הדיבור להבין בחכמ"ה כמ"ש בזהר. וידוע ג"כ עפ"י פשוטו בי"ת יעקב הוא המון העם. ובנ"י ישראל בעלי מדריגה ת"ח גדולים המחבבים את התורה ומצותי באהבתה ישגו תמיד. וז"ש הש"י כה תאמר לבית יעקב. להמון עם. לא תפרש להם בהמשך פירוש שאפילו ח"ו לא יקיימו התורה כבר יש קיום לשמים וארץ ע"י הקבלה בלבד. דילמא עי"ז ח"ו יתעצלו ויתעצלו מלקיימה ומלעשותה. משא"כ להת"ח דהתור"ה חביבה עליהם ביותר אמר ותג"ד לבני ישראל. המשך הפירוש כי באלו אין חשש שהן המה רודפים אחרי התור"ה והמצות כל הימים ובאלה הדברים מובן מ"ש מש"ה:

this time, Chavah comes first

 One of my favorite Midrashim is the comment in this week's parsha on כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לְבֵ֣ית יַעֲקֹ֔ב וְתַגֵּ֖יד לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃.  The Midrash writes:

אָמַר רַבִּי תַּחְלִיפָא דְּקֵיסָרִין, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כְּשֶׁבָּרָאתִי אֶת הָעוֹלָם, לֹא צִוִּיתִי אֶלָּא לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִצְטַוֵּית חַוָּה וְעָבְרָה וְקִלְקְלָה אֶת הָעוֹלָם, עַכְשָׁיו אִם אֵינִי קוֹרֵא לַנָּשִׁים תְּחִלָּה, הֵן מְבַטְּלוֹת אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: כֹּה תֹאמַר לְבֵית יַעֲקֹב

The pasuk places "Beis Yaakov," the women, before "Bnei Yisrael," the men, because in Gan Eden when G-d gave the commandment not to eat the eitz ha'daas to Adam and he relayed it to Chavah, things did not work out so well.  This time around, G-d decided to loop in Chavah first.  

Whatever the deeper lesson of the Midrash here is, we should not lose sight of the plain meaning of what Chazal are saying.  Just because a husband or a father, the "Adam" of the family, goes to daf yomi every day, does not by osmosis cause Torah to pass on to his wife and family.  Gone are the days when just being raised in a frum home was enough to ensure that one was knowledgeable in hil shabbos, in kashrus, etc.  Chavah -- our wives, mothers, daughters -- need to hear the dvar Hashem directly, to know and study halacha and mussar and other areas, or we risk spiritual churban.  Those who misquote the Iggeres haGR"A and say tzinuyus for a women is what Torah study is for a man are mistaken -- it is not.  Tzniyus does not give one insight into what Hashem asks of us and wants to teach us.  Only Torah study does that.  

Going beyond the plain meaning, what Chazal I think are trying to tell us is that Torah cannot be studied via a kli sheni, so to speak.  G-d teaches Adam, Adam then teaches Chavah, and along the way in the game of telephone the message is lost.  You need to study text first hand.  There is no substitute for direct engagement with original sources.  The Maharasha was critical of the Shulchan Aruch being published because he thought it would become a substitute for study of the sugyos and Rishonim.  One can only tremble at what he would say in our time when ha'levay people would even open the Shulchan Aruch and not rely on other secondary and tertiary sources.  

Later in the parsha we read:

אַתֶּ֣ם רְאִיתֶ֔ם כִּ֚י מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם דִּבַּ֖רְתִּי עִמָּכֶֽם׃

לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּן אִתִּ֑י אֱלֹ֤הֵי כֶ֙סֶף֙ וֵאלֹהֵ֣י זָהָ֔ב לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּ לָכֶֽם

Unlike Ramban who learns that the latter pasuk prohibits avodah zarah b'shutfus (meaning there is some power in addition to G-d that controls things) , Netziv (based on Seforno) learns that it prohibits the worship of Hashem via an intermediary (meaning G-d is the only power, but He can be approached through some intervening medium).  Hashem tells Bnei Yisrael that He spoke with them directly at Sinai -- He did not communicate through an intermediary.  So too, when we speak to Hashem, when we study the dvar Hashem, it should be done directly, not through intermediaries.  Everyone has a direct connection.  

not being makpid

 לֹֽא־תַעֲלֶ֥ה בְמַעֲלֹ֖ת עַֽל־מִזְבְּחִ֑י אֲשֶׁ֛ר לֹֽא־תִגָּלֶ֥ה עֶרְוָתְךָ֖ עָלָֽיו (20:22)

Rashi:  והרי דברים קל וחומר: ומה אבנים הללו שאין בהן דעת להקפיד על בזיונו, אמרה תורה: הואיל ויש בהן צורך לא תנהג בהן מנהג בזיון, חבירך שהוא בדמות יוצרך ומקפיד על בזיונו, על אחת כמה וכמה.

Question: The seifa of Rashi does not match the reisha.  It should have said מה אבנים הללו שאין בהן דעת להקפיד...חבירך שיש בּו דעת ומקפּיד.  Why does Rashi switch and write חבירך שהוא בדמות יוצרך ומקפיד ?  

Rav Druk answered that there is no such thing as חבירך שיש בּו דעת ומקפּיד.  

A person who has daas is not a person who is makpid on slights. 

live and in person

I am going to lump two very different ideas into one post, an  important "pshat" Ibn Ezra and a mussar/derush idea:

1) Ibn Ezra back in parshas Bo notes the discrepancy between Moshe's prediction of the way makas bechoros would happen (11:5)  מִבְּכ֤וֹר פַּרְעֹה֙ הַיֹּשֵׁ֣ב עַל־כִּסְא֔וֹ עַ֚ד בְּכ֣וֹר הַשִּׁפְחָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר אַחַ֣ר הָרֵחָ֑יִםand the way the Torah describes the actual event  מִבְּכֹ֤ר פַּרְעֹה֙ הַיֹּשֵׁ֣ב עַל־כִּסְא֔וֹ עַ֚ד בְּכ֣וֹר הַשְּׁבִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֖ר בְּבֵ֣ית הַבּ֑וֹר and he sets out an important yesod:

וכבר אמרתי לך כי הנביאים אינם שומרים המלות רק הטעמים, כי מלת הגמאיני (בראשית כ״ד:י״ז) – השקיני (בראשית כ״ד:מ״ה), וזכור (שמות כ׳:ז׳) – ושמור (דברים ה׳:י״א), ושוא (שמות כ׳:י״ב) – ושקר (דברים ה׳:ט״ז), לא תחמוד (שמות כ׳:י״ג) – ולא תתאוה (דברים ה׳:י״ז) שוים בטעם. ועוד אדבר על זה בתפלת משה (ראב״ע שמות פירוש שני ל״ב:ט׳). והנה בכור השפחה הוא כמו: בכור השבי (שמות י״ב:כ״ט), כי השבויה שפחה היא, ואשר בבית הבור – בלילה כמנהג האסורים, כאשר הזכיר יוסף, כי שמו אותי בבור (בראשית מ׳:ט״ו), ובמקומו אפרשנו (ראב״ע שמות פירוש שני י״ב:כ״ט).

Nevi'im -- even Moshe Rabeinu -- don't quote, they paraphrase.  They privilege content over form, they can change a word here and there so long as the message remains the same.

All the differences between the dibros in our parsha and the dibros as Moshe repeated them in VaEschanan can be explained away with this one simple rule.  Don't quibble over zachor vs shamor, shav vs sheker, etc because it doesn't matter in the end, the dibros are the same dibros.  

Ibn Ezra repeats the same idea in our parsha and expands upon it (20:1):

והכלל,יז כל דבר שנוי, כמו: חלום פרעה (בראשית מ״א), ונבוכדנצר (דניאל ב׳), ואחרים רבים, תמצא מלות שונות, רק הטעם שוה.

וכאשר אמרתי לך שפעם אחזו דרך קצרה, ופעם ארוכה, כך יעשו פעמים להוסיף אות משרת, או לגרוע אותו, והדבר שוה. אמר השם: ותכלת וארגמן (שמות כ״ה:ד׳), ומשה אמר: תכלת וארגמן (שמות כ״ח:ו׳). אמר השם: אבני שהם (שמות כ״ה:ז׳), ומשה אמר: ואבני שהם (שמות ל״ה:ט׳). וכאלה רבים, ושניהם נכונים, כי הכתוב בלא ו״ויח אחז דרך קצרה, ולא יזיק, גם הכותב בוי״ו לא יזיק, בעבור שהוסיף לבאר. והנה הו״ו שהוא נראה במבטא הפה,יט אין אדם מבקש לו טעם למה נגרע, ולמה נכתב, או למה נוסף, ולמה נכתב, כי זה וזה נכון. והנה על הנראה שיבוטא בו לא יבקש לו טעם, אם כן למה נבקש טעם בנח הנעלם שלא יבוטא בו, כמו מלת: לעולם, למה נכתב מלא או למה נכתב חסר. והנה בני הדור יבקשו טעם גם למלא גם לחסר. ואילו היו מבקשים טעם לאחד מהם, שהמנהג היה לכתב הכל על דרך אחד, הייתי מחריש. הנה אתן לך משל: אמר לי אדם: כתוב לי כתב לרעי, וזה כתב: אני פלני אהבך לעלם.כ והנה כתבתי: פלני בלא ו״ו, ואהבך, גם כן לעלם. ובא ראובן ושאלני: למה כתבת חסר. ואני אין לי צורך לכתוב רק מה שאמר לי, ואין לי חפץ להיותם מלאים או חסרים. אולי יבא לוי ויודיעני איך אכתוב. ולא ארצה להאריך, רק המשכיל יבין

He gives a mashal: If Ploni asks you to write a letter expressing his enduring love for someone, the important thing is the content, not form, not whether you spell Ploni with or without a vav, malei or chaseir.  

I have a problem with this explanation of malei and chaseir.  Except for sefer Devarim, which has its own particularities, the rest of the Torah was dictated word for word by G-d to Moshe.  We are not reading Moshe's words, his paraphrase of G-d's message; we are reading G-d's words, right down to each letter.  Why should G-d be inconsistent, spelling the same word one way here and another way there?  Is spelling (malei/chaseir) just a matter of random choice with no rules?

2) VaYishma Yisro....  מה שמועה שמע ובא the gemara asks.  What did Yisro hear that caused him to come to join Klal Yisrael.  Rashi lumps together two of the gemara's answers: קריעת ים סוף ומלחמת עמלק.  

Why is the gemara/Rashi not satisfied with what the pasuk itself tells us that Yisro heard, namely, "Es kol asher asa Elokim l'Moshe ul'Yisrael amo ki hotzi Hashem es Yisrael miMitzrayim?"  And why does Rashi put together two different answers of the gemara, kri'as Yam Suf and milchemes Amalek, as if only both, not one or the other, motivated Yisro to come?

What was bothering Rashi was why Yisro needed to make the journey from Midyan to the camp of the Jewish people.  Couldn't he just have tuned into yeshivaworld, or if he was really low tech, maybe just open the Midyan Jewish Times to catch up on the latest?  Couldn't he have caught Moshe Rabeinu's shiur over Zoom, or listened to it on Torahanytime?  מה  שמועה שמע ובא -- why did he need to come, to be there in person?

We read in the shira last week, "Shamu amim yirgazun..."  The nations of the world heard about kri'as Yam Suf and they were afraid.  Amalek heard about kri'as Yam Suf too.  But the effect did not last; it did not take long until Amalek went on the attack.

Yisro put two and two together and realized that hearing about it is not enough; reading about it in the newspaper or on a website is not enough.  "Shamu amim yirgazun" has a very short lifespan, as we see from Amalek's behavior.  You have to be part of a community, a beis medrash, a shul, and personally experience Judaism as it is lived and breathed.  You have to speak with a Rav or a Rebbe in person, face to face, not just read his torah in a sefer or on a website or listen to a Zoom shiur with 100 other people.  (based on the Shinova's reading of Rashi)

The tragedy of Covid is not just that we were deprived of so many of these interactions over the past year.  Ones Rachmana patrei, sometimes you have to make due with the less than ideal.  The bigger tragedy is that what should be a bdieved has become the new normal. Rabbi Schoenfeld wrote in an article a few months ago that even when people were allowed to return to shul, they didn't, because they have internalized that shul is no longer necessary.  Can't I talk to G-d in my living room?  The bigger tragedy is that what started as concessions to the situation have now become institutionalized.  People are now writing articles and discussing how we can now reimagine davening forever after, how we can permanently shorten our tefilos on Yamim Noraim to make davening more tolerable, how Zoom has expanded the capacity to deliver shiurim like never before.   

מה שמועה שמע ובא  Showing up is more than half the battle.  You can't just host Judaism on a website; you can't communicate torah exclusively with a podcast.   We need to experience Torah live and in person.

Ramban on the mitzvah of remembing ma'amad Har Sinai

1) Ramban in two places writes that there is a mitzvah to remember ma’amad Har Sinai, yet in each place he defines what that mitzvah is a little differently: in Sefer haMitzvos (lavim that the Rambam forgot #2) he counts forgetting ma'amad Har Sinai as a lav, “rak hishamer lecha.. pen tishkach es ha’devarim asher ra’u einecha,” yet in his commentary on the Torah (Devarim ch 4) he focusses on the end of that pasuk, “...v’hodatam li’vanecha,” and counts it as a mitzvas aseh to transmit the memory of ma'amad Har Sinai to the next generation.

 

Ramban is difficult to understand as it seems to be against a Mishna.  In Pirkei Avos (3:8) the Mishna writes that someone who deliberately forgets their learning violates the issur of “pen tishkach.”  According to Ramban, this pasuk is an issur of forgetting maamad har Sinai, not an issur of forgetting Torah. 

 

(I see on my son's blog he raised this same question last August.  Only because he's my son I'll nitpick on one point of his.  It's not really true that "everyone asks on the Ramban" (as he wrote) from this Mishna.  Actually, the surprising thing is that the Megillas Esther on Sefer haMitzvos does NOT raise this question at all.  Instead, he asks on the Ramban from a gemara in kiddushin (30) that darshens from “v’hodatam li’vanecha v’livnei banecha” that there is a mitzvah to teach torah to one’s grandchildren, implying again that this pasuk has to do with limud haTorah, not remembering ma'amad Har Sinai.  Ramban himself notes that difficulty and tries to resolve it, albeit in a way that the Mg"E finds unsatisfactory.  In any case, why are they bothered by this gemara when you have a clear Mishna in Pirkei Avos to ask from?)

 

Rav Eliyahu Bakshi Doron, the former Rishon l'Tzion, in his Shu"T Binyan Av vol 3 addresses this Ramban in two places (#20 and #47) and suggests (my son quotes a similar answer from R’ Povarski) that when you learn torah with an awareness that this is the dvar Hashem received at Sinai, it becomes a different limud –- it becomes something unforgettable.  If the learning is just stam a subject, then it makes less of an impression. 

 

This is how Ramban understood the Mishna in Avos.  If you forget your learning, then that’s a siman that you are missing that awareness of maamad Har Sinai which is a mitzvah to always have in mind. 

 

I think that may be pshat in the gemara (Brachos 22 for those  of you learning the daf) that learns that a ba'al keri cannot learn Torah without going to mikvah based on a hekesh of "v'hodatam levanecha", i.e. talmud Torah, with "yom asher amadita b'Chorev", i.e. ma'amad Har Sinai -- just like the latter was b'yirah and tahara, so too must the fomer be done b'yirah and tahara.  According to Ramban, "v'hodatam livanecha" has nothing to do with limud haTorah -- the whole pasuk is talking about ma'mamad Har Sinai.  What does the gemara mean? 

 

Based on Rav Bakshi Doron's yesod, it makes perfect sense.  The gemara is telling us that you have to pass on not just what was learned at Sinai, but the whole context of the experience, the yirah, the awe, etc.  If you are learning in a state of tumah, than it shows you failed to appreciate what ma'amad Har Sinai was all about.

 

2) The gemara (Brachos 6 - more fodder for those learning the daf) writes that a person who is mesamayach a chasan and kallah through kol sason v’kol simcha will be zocheh to Torah, which was given at sinai through 5 kolos -– 5 times in our parsha the Torah mentions “kol” in connection with mattan torah.  

 

The Iyun Yaakov on the Ein Yaakov explains the midah k’neged midah: a person who invests in bringing simcha to others is himself zocheh to simcha.  What bigger simcha can Hashem give a person other than Torah -– “pikudei Hashem yesharim mi’samchei lev.”  (I haven’t done a search, but it would be nice to find a makor that says it works in the other direction as well, i.e. a source that says someone who is sameich in their learning and needs a shiduch will be zocheh to one.  It would make for a good segulah.)

 

Asks the gemara: if you look through the parsha and count you will actually find 6 mentions of kol, not 5.  Right after the aseres hadibors the Torah writes that the people were “ro’im es ha’kolos,” they had synesthesia and were able to see the thunder sounds with their eyes.

 

Answers the gemara: that pasuk is describing the kolos were experienced before mattan Torah, but is not an additional "kol." 

 

Imrei Emes asks the obvious question: if the pasuk is describing the nature of the "kolos" that took place before or during mattan Torah, why does the pasuk appear only after the aseres ha'dibbros?  Why not put it beforehand, when those other kolos are mentioned? 

 

The answer gets to the heart of what mattan Torah was all about.  It wasn't just a transfer of information from shamayim to us.  It wasn't just a “revelation” of laws.  Mattan torah was a transformation of who we are as a people and who we are as individuals.  Chronologically speaking, “ro’im es ha’kolos” happened before mattan Torah.  However, the people could not digest the experience and appreciate it in the state they were in.  It was only after they received the Torah and their neshomos were transformed that they were able retrospectively to understand those kolos that they had experienced beforehand.   

eagle's wings, football, etc.

Everyone is interested in eagles this week.  "Va'esa eschem al kanfei nesahrim..."  Why eagles wings?  Tehilim 103:5 tells us that Hashem is "tischadesh ka'nesher n'u'raychi," He renews our youth like an eagle.  Rashi explains that an eagle's feathers molt every year and are replaced by new feathers.  Our parsha is telling us that Hashem gave us the power to constantly renew ourselves.  Even when we fall, we can start over again and come back.  A nice idea from the Koznitzer Magid.

About those other Eagles...  I want to thank Colin Kaepernick, and really the whole NFL.  I used to often listen to sports radio in my car and haphazardly follow what was going on in that world.  Thanks to the SJW of the NFL and their protests against America, the country that gives them the chance to make millions playing a game, thanks to the antics of Colin, e.g. raising money for a foundation celebrating a cop killer, I went cold turkey and from preseason to superbowl, I gave up not only the NFL, but all sports.  I don't know if I could have done it without you Colin, so I want to express my hakaras ha'tov to you for making me see what a disgrace you and some (not all) of your fellow players are.  

Someone emailed me last week that it was almost time for me to write my yearly protest against the opulence of the Pesach hotels.  It's not just Pesach.  Who orders a "Hail Miriam" (I am not making up the name) package for a few hundred bucks for their superbowl half time party?   How is this kosher?  OK, so you want to watch the game, neicha, I understand.  But do you have to make it into an event, a celebration, mishteh v'simcha v'Yom Tov?  But that's what Judaism in America has turned into.  Super glatt, chalav yisrael, all the chumros, but missing the essential underlying values.  (And if anyone reading this ordered that package, you know I'm just complaining because you didn't invite me : )

Something positive to end on:

a spiritual revolution

1. There is a glaring redundancy in the first pasuk of Yisro.  "VaYishma Yisro... es kol asher asah Elokim l'Moshe u'l'Yisrael amo," Yisro heard whatever G-d had done for the Jewish people.  The pasuk continues and ends, "Ki hotzi Hashem es Yisrael m'Mitzrayim."  Isn't it clear from the beginning of the pasuk that Yisro had heard about this?  Isn't yetzi'as Mitzratim obviously part of "kol asher asah Elokim l'Moshe u'l'Yisrael?" 

It could be that this is the question that was bothering Rashi and caused Rashi to say that Yisro heard about the splitting of Yam Suf and/or the war with Amalek.  It had to be something other than yetzi'as Mitzrayim that Yisro heard about otherwise the whole phrase is redundant.

The Sefas Emes offers an explanation that caught my attention because of something I heard on a tour of the old city given by R' Simcha Hochbaum that we took 2 weeks ago when we were in Yerushalayim.  R' Hochbaum made the point (and I hope I am paraphrasing him correctly) that so many of the yeshivos and seminaries we and/or our children (depends on your age : ) go to learn in only came into existence post-1967.  That's not just because now there is more geographical space, a bigger city of Yerushalayim, a more developed area, for these yeshivos and seminaries to take root it in.  It's because the unification of Yerushalayim released this pent up spiritual energy that had been held in check so long as the city was divided and in foreign hands.  Having Yerushalayim in our hands, whole again, did not just change the physical map of Eretz Yisrael -- it changed the spiritual map as well. 

Says the Sefas Emes, so long as the Jewish people were enslaved in Egypt, spirituality was locked up and held in check.  Chazal tell us that no one -- not a single slave, no matter what nation they were from -- escaped Egypt.  It was like a black hole that sucked everything in.  "VaYishma Yisro," suddenly a person like Yisro, after years of worshipping every avodah zarah under the sun, wakes up and is able to hear that there is a true G-d.  How did that happen?  The pasuk answers, "Ki hotzi Hashem es Yisrael m'Mitzrayim."  Because the Jewish people were taken out, the black hole's pull was broken.  Because the Jewish people were taken out, all that ruchniyus that was pent up was suddenly free, and it had an effect not only on us, but on the whole world as well.

Same idea, different context. 

2. In the haftarah we read that Yishayahu heard the malachim saying "kadosh kadosh..." and he responds, "oy li ki nidmeisi ki ish tmei sefasayim anochi u'b'toch am tmei sefasayim anochi yosheiv."  What does that first phrase, "oy li ki nidmeisi," mean?   I congratulate you if you knew without looking at Rashi that the word "nidmeisi" here can mean death.  I don't have Artscroll at home, but I checked on Shabbos in shul and they translate something like "Woe is me for I might die."  Yishayahu heard the angels and he thinks that's the end for him.  How can a person who is "tamei sefasayim" live through that?

If I were doing the translating I would go with the second interpretation of Radak.  "Nidmeisi" here is like "va'yidom Aharon" -- to be silent.  Yishayahu heard the angels and did nothing -- he didn't say anything.  When he came out of his shock, he bemoaned the fact that he had not responded in kind, he bemoaned the fact that his tamei lips (according to Rashi, why the stress on the lips)? were unworthy of uttering such holy praise. 

(I am not suggesting that Rashi is wrong or a mistranslation.  I am just saying that given the choice of one or the other, from a literary perspective I would go with Radak.)

dissatisfaction is sometimes a good thing

We've passed through the parsha of "v'lo sham'u el Moshe," the parsha of "mi Hashem asher eshma b'kolo," and we've reached "va'yishma Yiso" -- finally someone willing to listen.  On deck of course is "na'aseh v'nishma," telling us that listening isn't everything after all; doing is far more important.

Chazal tell us that Yisro worshipped every avodah zarah in the world.  At first blush this sounds terrible.  It's one thing to be deluded and led astray once, but to repeat the same mistake again, and again, and again...  The Maharal looks at it differently.  Chazal are speaking to the gadlus of Yisro.  Here is a man who never rested in his search for truth -- a man who was never satisfied.  Yisro went from avodah zarah to avodah zarah not because he didn't like the people in that "shul" or he thought there was a better kiddush at the place down the block.  He did it because each avodah zarah he tried left him feeling lacking, feeling that the truth was elsewhere.  Eventually, he found the truth of yahadus, but until then he spent his life running away from one falsehood after another.

Achieving kedusha and dveikus is very hard.  The loftier the goal, the more elusive it is.  The Sochotchover helps us out with a yesod: be like Yisro and start by running away from the things that you know are wrong and false.  If you do that, Hashem will take care of getting you to where you want to go.

To me this is reminiscent of the Rambam's negative theology.  The Rambam writes that you can never really describe G-d; he transcends anything one might say about Him.  The best one can do is to describe what G-d is not, e.g. He is not unkind, He is not unjust, etc. and in that way, come to some understanding, some connection to Him. 

Michelangelo was asked (not really - the story is a myth) how he was able to sculpt the famous statue of David.   He replied that he just chopped away all the marble that was not-David and m'meila he was left with a work of art.  (BTW, you have less than 2 weeks to see the Michelangelo exhibit at the Met that everyone is raving about.  Not only do you get Torah on this blog, but you get weekend museum tips as well : ) 

Yisro spent a lifetime chopping away -- he chopped away this avodah zarah and that avodah zarah, he ran away from one false belief after another, until he was left with a connection to Hashem.

"What did Yisro see that caused him to come to Klal Yisrael?" asks Rashi.  According to one view it was the splitting of Yam Suf that was Yisro's motivation.  What's so special about the splitting of Yam Suf more than the makos in Egypt or any other miracles?  The Shem m'Shmuel (5674) quotes the Midrash that the Yam split in the merit of Yosef running away from Eishes Potifar.  "Ha'Yam ra'ah va'yanos" -- the Yam ran to its banks as well, midah k'neged midah.  Chazal tell us that even maidservants experience nevuah at Yam Suf.    Yisro saw that to connect to the infinite, you don't need to be a guru or meditate for decades on a mountain.  You can attain great heights even if all you know how to do is run away from what you know is wrong, something he had a lifetime of experience doing.  (See the Shem m'Shmuel's hesber of the other shitos of what Yisro heard along similar lines.) 

Another gemara (Sanhedrin 106): Pharoah had three advisors: Yisro, Iyov, Bilam.  Bilam advised Pharoah to kill Jewish children.  Iyov was silent.  Yisro ran away.  The gemara continues that his descendants sat in the lishkas ha'gazis teaching Torah with the Sanhedrin.  Hashem takes the energy used running from... and converts it into energy that brings a person to... 

What drew Moshe to Yisro's house?  "...Va'yivrach Moshe mipnei Pharoah va'yeishev b'Eretz Midyan."  (2:16)   Did Moshe recognize in Yisro someone like himself, someone who had run away from the evil of Egypt?  Or did Yisro recognize in Moshe's flight a journey similar to his own?   Either way, the stories of running are strikingly parallel.

In last week's parsha we read how Pharoah discovered the people had fled, "Va'yugad l'melech Mitzrayim ki barach ha'am..." (14:5) and he decided to give chase.  Strange -- the people had run away??  Pharaoh himself had gone in the middle of the night to find Moshe and Aharon to throw Klal Yisrael out as fast as possible!  

L'havdil, no parent is like Pharoah, but sometimes a kid comes back from yeshiva or seminary, and the parent has been waiting with the acceptance letter from Columbia or Penn u'k'domeh tacked to the refrigerator, and lo and behold their kid has flipped out and frummed out.  What does the parent think?  OK, so I'll give him/her some time -- it's a passing fad.  Over the summer they will adjust to America, they will meet up again with friends, they will daven again in our shul instead of yeshiva, and by fall, poof, back to normal.  What the parent doesn't realize is "ki borei'ach hu!"  Their son, even he stayed for shanah bet, has just really just gotten a taste of R' Chaim, of Ketzos, or R' Akiva Eiger; their daughter has not even made it through all of volume 1 of Michtav.  They have by no idea what a Torah life is realty about, but what they have learned is that there are a lot of things in our society that a person should run away from.  As the Sochotchover tells us, once you start running and know what you should be running from, Hashem will take care of the rest.

R Yisachar Dov Englander, a Rosh Kollel of Belz in London, suggests that that's what Pharoah discovered.  Sometimes you are in a bad situation, but change is hard, and even if you decide to move on, you sometimes have one eye looking back over your shoulder.  That's how Pharoah though Klal Yisrael would leave Egypt.  OK, so they would go for three days, but after that, they would come back.  How could they not?   That's the parent thinking that the black hat is nice, but let's be real -- the kid has to miss watching the game on Sunday, right?  He'll snap out of it eventually.  When Pharoah saw "ki borei'ach hu" -- they were running, they couldn't wait to leave, had no regrets, missed none of it -- then he knew they were gone for good unless he would act.  Even if you don't know where you are going -- "nevuchim heim ba'midbar" -- running away from wrong, like the Shem m'Shmuel tells us, chopping away the not-David parts of who you are, will get you to the right destination.

why couldn't G-d answer the angels himself?

The Torah always puts the mitzvah of kibud av next to the mitzvah of Shabbos: you have it in the aseres hadibros in our parsha, you have it in the second dibros, you have it in Parshas Kedoshim - "Ish imo v'aviv tira'u v'es shabsosei tishmoru."  What's the connection?  Chidah in Nachal Kedumim explains that on Shabbos one has time to learn in greater depth.  When one is mechadesh in Torah on Shabbos it causes one's parents who are in the next world to be rewarded with a crown to wear, a special spiritual boost.  Shabbos thus provides the opportunity to fulfill kibud av even when one's parents are no longer here.  In keeping with that idea, please learn the divrei Torah for this Shabbos l'zecher nishmas my father, whose yahrzeit will be this upcoming week.  

The gemara (Nidah 70) writes that the people of Alexandria in Egypt sent 3 questions of derech eretz to R' Chanina ben Gamliel: how to become smart, how to become rich, and how to have good kids.  (We would all love the answers to those too, right?)    The first question was how to attain chochma, to which R' Chanina answered that the key is to spend a lot of time in yeshivah learning.  They replied that this can't be it, as a lot of people tried that and have not been successful.  R' Chanina responded that there is another ingredient needed as well: you have to daven.  The gemara concludes that you need both factors, both yeshiva and davning, and one without the other won't work.

The second question was how to get rich, and R' Chanina answered that the key is to spend a lot of time doing business (GR"A takes that out!) and to do so honestly.  Again, the people of Alexandria argued that a lot of people tried that and failed, and again, R' Chanina told them there is another ingredient necessary: tefilah.  The gemara here too concludes that you need both ingredients together.

The third question was how to have "banim zecharim," and R' Chanina told them that the key was to marry a good wife and to act with tzeniuyus.  You can guess the rest of the shakla v'terya at this point : )

I have a one simple question.  If the answer to each question was that you need X + tefilah, why didn't R' Chanina say that?  Why did he give the people of Alexandria only half the recipe at first, and only when they pressed the point and complained that the recipe did not work did he reveal to them that they needed to daven as well?  

The Maharal in his Derush al HaTorah says a fantastic yesod (in Tif Yisrael he says a different answer) that is worth knowing even if you don't think it explains R' Chanina's answers.  The gemara famously tells us that when Moshe went up to get the Torah, the angels complained and asked what this human being is doing up in Heaven, in their place.  Mankind does not deserve Torah and should stay back down on earth.   Moshe Rabeinu was afraid of what the angels might do to him, but Hashem responded that Moshe should just hold on to His throne and answer them, which he did.  Maharal asks: why did Hashem put Moshe on the spot and tell him to answer the angels?  Moshe was there on Har Sinai only because Hashem and told him to come up the mountain to get the Torah.  This was Hashem's plan -- why didn't Hashem answer the angels himself?!

Let me put the Maharal's answer in contemporary terms.  A guy or girl might go out on a date because their parents think the boy/girl would be a good match, their rebbe or morah thinks the boy/girl is a good match, their friends think the boy/girl is a good match.  But when that boy or girl is standing under the chuppah, if you ask him/her what they are doing there, oy va'voy if all they can say is, "My mother/father/rebbe/morah/friend thinks this is a good match."  If they can't say, "I can't think of how I can live without Bas Ploni/Ben Ploni; without him/her my life is incomplete," then l'fi anyiyus da'ati there is something very wrong.  When you are under the chuppah, no one else's sevara works to explain what you are doing there. 

"Yom chasunaso," explains the Mishna in Ta'anis, is the day of mattan Torah.  When the angels came to ask Moshe what he was doing there, no one else could answer that question.  G-d himself can't answer that question for him!  If you want to be mekabeil the Torah, the answer has to come from you.  Torah is the key to achieving perfection, but unless YOU first feel imperfect, lacking, incomplete, without it, you don't really deserve it. 

There are a lot of kids who sit in yeshiva listening to their rebbe drone on in shiur, totally bored out of their minds, feeling like it's a jail sentence.  If you ask them, "What are you doing here?" the answer these kids will give probably will have to do with where their parents want them to go, what is expected, lack of other choices, etc.  They don't feel like they would be missing anything by not being there.  You can't be mekabeil Torah unless you feel like you are missing something without it. 

Getting back to R' Chanina, I think the gemara deliberately left tefilah off the list of ingredients.  R' Chanina wanted the people coming back feeling, "We've tried everything you said and it hasn't worked for us."  He wanted them to acknowledge that their best efforts were not just goof enough.  Until they felt that there was something more needed beyond what they could muster on their own, until they felt their efforts were incomplete without it, they weren't ready for tefilah. 

So when you sit in shul and listen to Parshas Yisro, the question to ask yourself is, "What am I doing here?"  Hopefully the answer is not about your neighbors, your husband/wife's expectations, your kids, or your social position.  Hopefully it's about how you find fulfillment and where you find fulfillment.

part of one's identity

Everyone is concerned these days about identity theft.  This week I want to talk about the topic of acquiring a new identity, or actually identities.  Rashi writes that Yisro had seven names: Re’uel, Yeser, Yisro, Chovev, Chever, Keini, Putiel. The name Yeser was given to him because he caused the parsha of “v’atah techezah,” of appointing judges, to be added to Torah (Why does Rashi cite the words “v’atah tzechezeh” and not the opening of the parsha, “lo tov hadavar asher atah oseh?” R’ Menachem Zemba answers that “lo tov” is a criticism of what was going on.  It's easy to criticize -- that's not a parsha.  Offering a solution -- that's a parsha in Torah.)    He got the name Yisro = Yeser with an additional letter vav, because when he con and began to observe mitzvos, he merited another letter being added to his name.

A regular person has one name – that’s who he/she is, that's his/her identity. Not so Yisro, who had seven names, seven different identities.  Yisro was originally an oveid avodah zarah. When he underwent giyur he became a different person; therefore, he got an added name to reflect the new identity he took on.  Rambam in Hil Teshuvah writes similarly that changing one’s name is part of the teshuvah process, as a ba’al teshuvah becomes a different person than who he was before.

It’s not just giyur, though, that causes an identity transformation. We see yet an even bigger chiddush from this Rashi: being mechadesh in Torah causes the same type of reaction. Yeser/Yisro was given yet another name, another identity, because he caused a parsha of Torah to be added.  Learning, and particularly being mechadesh, is a transformative experience (from the sefer Yismach Yehudah.)  A person who comes up with a new insight in a sugya, in a Tosfos, is a different person than he was before coming up with that chiddush.

Why was it davka the letter “vav” that was added to Yeser/Yisro’s name? The sefer Sheiris Menachem explains that the “vav” turns a word into a possessive, e.g. "bayis"= house, "beiso" = his house. Before he was megayeir, the extra parsha was like some piece of theoretical knowledge. Daughter #1 always asks about algebra, “What does this have to do with me?” There is no connection between her needs and who she is and the knowledge she gets from knowing how to do a quadratic equation. That's what Yeser/Yisro was like before the giyur. After the giyur, it was his parsha, it was his Torah – he understood how it was part of his identity. “B’torasa ye’hege yomama v’layla” – a person can make the Torah into his Torah, not just information that happens to reside in his brain.

Yeser = without that knowledge being internalized is a different person than Yisro = with the knowledge internalized. These are two completely different identities (see Mizrachi, Taz in Divrei David on counting these as two names).

We see this same idea of Torah and midos becoming part of a person's identity a little further on in the parsha.  Rashi comments on “Vayishtachu ish l’rey’eyhu” that it is not clear who bowed to whom – did Moshe bow to Yisro, or Yisro to Moshe? Rashi answers that we can figure it out from that fact that Moshe elsewhere is called “ish,” as it says, “v’ha’ish Moshe anav me'od.” It was Moshe, the ish, who bowed respectfully to Yisro.

The Da’as Zekeinim as well as many of the meforshi Rashi (e.g. Sifsei Chachamim, Taz) are bothered by this proof, as we find that Yisro is also called “ish” in parshas Shmos: “Vayo’el Moshe lasheves es ha’ish.” Why is the proof from “V’ha’ish Moshe anav” better than proof from “…Lasheves es ha’ish?”

I saw quoted b'shem R’ Shmuel Berenbaum (and I found that it in Chasam Sofer as well) that both Yisro and Moshe were exempt from any chiyuv of kavod to the other. Yisro was Moshe’s father-in-law and Moshe was the rebbe of Klal Yisrael. So how do we know who went beyond what he was obligated to do and bowed? The answer is that when Yisro is called “ish” in the pasuk, it doesn’t tell us anything about his personality – it’s just a pronoun, a title. When Moshe is called “ish,” it’s in the context of defining his personality as an anav. Modesty was part of Moshe’s identity, part of who he was as an “ish.”  Behaving modestly wasn’t just a chiyuv for him – it was part of his being. You can skip doing something you are patur from, but if, like in Moshe’s case, it's part of your identity, then you do it no matter what.  Yisro was patur from giving kavod and therefore did not bow; Moshe was also patur, but showing deference, giving kavod instead of receiving it, was part of who he was, and so he did it anyway.  (It’s a little hard to read this into the Rashi, as the key words, “anav me’od” are missing – all Rashi refers to is the fact that the pasuk says “ish.”) 

Ultimately that's the goal -- Torah and midos tovos should be part of who we are, not just things we study and do.

a seudah on the first Yom Kippur?

The Torah introduces the parsha relating Yisro’s suggestion to appoint judges by telling us that the episode occurred, “mi’macharas…,” (18:13) “It was on the day after….”  The obvious question: the day after what?  Had you asked me, I would have said it means the day after the immediately preceding episode of Yisro coming, offering korbanos, and sharing a meal with Moshe, Aharon, and the elders.  The Mechilta, however, comments that “mi’macharas” means the day after Yom Kippur. It could be that there is no contradiction between the Mechilta and the simple pshat – it could be that the day after Yiso’s arrival also happened to be the day after Yom Kippur.  Ramban, however, rejects that possibility out of hand.  If “mi’macharas” means the day after the seudah, it cannot also be the day after Yom Kippur, because that would mean the seudah was eaten on Yom Kippur!

Ramban put’s it like this:

  כי לא אכלו ביום הכפורים, אם היה להם יום הכפורים בשנה ראשונה קודם שנצטוו בו

The Ramban’s language seems to give away a weakness in his argument that Maharal picks up on.  What does the Ramban mean when he says they could not have eaten *if* there was a Yom Kippur?  Apparently there is room for doubt, or room to argue that there was not a Yom Kippur in the year that Yisro came.  We only find the commandment of how to celebrate Yom Kippur later, in Parshas Acharei Mos.  Maybe Yom Kippur was not celebrated until the second year in the desert, after the construction and dedication of the Mishkan, but not that first year when Yisro came.  Perhaps in that first year it was still permissible to eat on Yom Kippur.

The Maharal understood that Ramban was using the word “if” as a hypothetical, like the word “if” in this sentence: if you had studied for your test, you would have gotten a better grade.  But the word “if” can also be used as a conditional statement, like in this sentence: you can’t have desert if you don’t finish your food.  The Taz in Divrei David suggests that this is what the Ramban meant – the day of Yom Kippur is conditional on fasting.  You can’t have a Yom Kippur and eat your cake too.  The Ramban was not implying the possibility that Yom Kippur was not celebrated – he was saying that it would be impossible to have a Yom Kippur absent fasting.

The Taz is telling us a chiddush: the kedushas ha’yom of Yom Kippur goes hand in hand with it being a day of fasting.  In other words, fasting is not just something you do on Yom Kippur -- fasting is part of the definition of the day of Yom Kippur.  To use the term Yom Kippur, as the Mechilta does, to describe a day in which a festive seudah was eaten, is an oxymoron.  (What about a choleh who must eat on Yom Kippur – do other aspects of the same kedushas hayom remain intact or is the whole kedushas hayom diminished in some way?  Something to think about…)

There is another reason Ramban might find the Maharal’s position unpersuasive.  Ramban in many places (see the notes in the Chavel edition for a list) holds that regardless of where a mitzvah appears in the text of Torah, the command to observe that mitzvah was been given at Sinai.  The fact that Yom Kippur is first described in Parshas Acharei Mos does not mean that before that point in time there was no mitzvas ha’yom of Yom Kippur.  Rashi offers a different reason for not reading “mi’macharas” as the day after Yisro shared a seudah with Moshe and Aharon, so it could very well be that Rashi does not accept this position of the Ramban.  Something to look into…