v'hasieinu - like a wedding

Throughout the Yom Tov we said again and again in our tefilos והשיאנו ד' אלהינו את ברכת מועדיך.  

Tiferes Shlomo (on Shmini Atzeres) comments: 

והשיאנו ד' אלהינו את ברכת מועדיך כו'. כבר בארנו בפני' שהוא לשון נשואין שיהי' הקדושה שורה עמנו מזמן המועד הזה עד מועד הבע"ל ולא יפסוק כמו קדושי אשה

V'hasieinu is like the word nisuin, a marriage.  When a chassan and kallah are dating or engaged, they meet, they spend time together, and then at the end of a few hours, they each go their separate ways and return to their own lives and homes.  They may even decide to never meet again, and that's OK.  

All that changes once the wedding happens.  At the end of the wedding, once the photos are done and the band stops playing and the meal is over, the chassan doesn't go his way and the kallah her way.  Once the wedding happens, the chassan and kallah are bound together and should be inseparable. 

The same should be true of Y"T.  It shouldn't be that you have a holiday of Sukkos, of Shmini Atzeres, of Simchas Torah, you spent some time together with the holiness of Y"T, and at the end of it all you go your way and the holiness that came down with the Y"T departs its way and that's it until next year, next Y"T, next meeting.  Y"T should be like a wedding.  You should leave taking the holiness of the Y"T with you and not letting it go.  That's what we are asking for when we say v'hasieinu.

rain man

וְכֹ֣ל׀ שִׂ֣יחַ הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה טֶ֚רֶם יִֽהְיֶ֣ה בָאָ֔רֶץ וְכׇל־עֵ֥שֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה טֶ֣רֶם יִצְמָ֑ח כִּי֩ לֹ֨א הִמְטִ֜יר ה׳ אלקים עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאָדָ֣ם אַ֔יִן לַֽעֲבֹ֖ד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה (Braishis 2:5).

Rashi comments:

לפי שאדם אין לעבוד ואין מכיר בטובתן של גשמים. וכשבא אדם וידע שצורך הם לעולם, התפלל עליהם וירדו, וצמחו האילנות והדשאים

Hashem only brings rain after the creation of man, when there is someone who can appreciate the rain and pray for it (see Maharal in Gur Aryeh).

The gemara (Yevamos 63a) tells us that אתם אתם קרויין אדם ואין העובדי כוכבים קרויין אדם. The word "adam" refers not to all mankind, but specifically to the Jewish people. Sefas Emes writes in light of this Chazal that when Rashi tells us that G-d delayed the creation of rain until there was an "adam" to ask for it, he means specifically the prayers of Klal Yisrael (I assume he means that Klal Yisrael existed at least in potential within Adam haRishon).

Rain is needed for all humanity, not just for the Jewish people. And there are plenty of people and nations who pray to G-d for rain when they need it. Our prayers, however, are different. Our need for rain is because "im ain kemach, ain Torah," without food to eat and our material needs being fulfilled, we would never be able to devote ourselves to any higher spiritual pursuit. Our Shimini Atzeres, where we ask for rain, goes hand in hand with a Simchas Torah.

more on the GR"A's explanation of the date of Sukkos

I wanted to just add a few points to the GR"A we discussed last post.  Given that Bnei Yisrael would have first made sukkos when they left Egypt and went into the midbar, why don't we celebrate the holiday in Nissan?  The Tur answers that if we were to eat outside in Nissan when the weather is nice, it would look like we are just having a nice camping trip or picnic.  Therefore, Hashem put the holiday in Tisrei, when the weather is getting colder, so when we go outside it is obvious that we are doing so l'shem mitzvah.  According to the Tur, there is no inherent connection between Sukkos and 15 Tishei.  In theory any time during the rainy/winter season would be an appropriate time to make the holiday.  However, according to the GR"A that connects Sukkos with the start of the construction of the Mishkan, the date is precise, as the building of the Mishkan started on 15 Tishrei.

According to the Tur, there is also no connection between Sukkos and R"H and Y"K.  The Torah links 3 regalim of Pesach, Shavuos, and Sukkos, since all share a common mitzvah of aliya la'regel, but there the fact that R"H, Y"K, and Sukkos coincide in the same month is by chance alone.  According to the GR"A, Sukkos does have a link with R"H and Y"K, as it is Hashem's forgiveness of the cheit ha'eigel on Y"K which caused the ananei ha'kavod to return.

As we discussed, Sukkos is about our efforts to repair the relationship with Hashem that we damaged through cheit ha'eigel.  My wife pointed out that by sukkah there is a din of ta'aseh v'lo min ha'asuy, that (without getting into technical details) we must construct the roof of schach, not take something some pasul material  that already is on the roof and somehow make it kosher for the sukkah.  It requires is'arusa d'li'tata.  Just as Hashem's declaration of "v'salachti" is not enough for complete kaparah without our efforts to build a Mishkan to repair the damage, so too, a sukkah that comes about without our efforts of construction is not sufficient.

I think this also explains why we commemorate the miracle of the ananei ha'kavod and not the other miracles that occurred in the desert like the mon and the be'er.  According to GR"A, it is not the first occurrence of the ananim which we are marking in celebrating Sukkos, but it is the return of the ananim.  The first occurrence of the ananim, like the mon and be'er, was a gift from Hashem.  It is the second occurrence, it is our efforts to bring back the Shechina, which is what we are celebrating.

Many ask: why do we call it simchas beis ha'sho'eivah when the simcha is in the nisach ha'mayim -- the drawing of the water is just a means to the end?  The Kozhiglover explains that once you are in the Mikdash and standing near the mizbeyach, it's no kuntz and takes no effort to be able to pour the water and do the right thing.  The chiddush is in drawing the water from the ground from outside the Mikdash and bringing it into a holy place.  That require effort, and it is our efforts which are the focus of the chag.

sukkos as a time of kapparah

Can someone please explain to me why before Y"T the local kosher supermarket was charging $10 (bli guzma) for a honeydew melon, but I was able to buy one in a regular supermarket for $2.88?  Now, let me be fair and say that the honeydew in the regular supermarket was smaller, but still, I could buy 3 of them for less than the price of that one melon in the kosher market.  Is this fair business practice?  (And don't even get me started on the price of esrogim.)

In 242 sk"2 M"B writes that if fish sellers drive up the prices, the Rabbis should make a takanah not to buy any fish until the market returns back to the normal level.  

Why do we celebrate Sukkos in Tishrei and not in Nissan?  The well known GR"A explains that when BN"Y sinned with the cheit ha'eigel, the ananei ha'kavod went away.  On Y"K Hashem said salachti ki'devarecha, on 11 Tishrei Moshe announced that they would build a Mishkan, for 2 days they collected donations (ba'boker ba'boker = 2 days), on the 14th the money was turned over to the artisans, and on 15 Tishrei construction commenced.  It was then that the ananei ha'kavod returned; therefore, on 15 Tishrei we sit in sukkah as a zecher to ananei ha'kavod.

R' Mordechai Ezrachi asks: if the ananei ha'kavod went away because of the sin of cheit ha'eigel, why did they not return immediately on Y"K when Hashem said "salachti" and forgave that sin?  Why was the return triggered only by the start of work on the Mishkan?

He answers by quoting Rabeinu Yonah in Shaarei Teshuvah (1:42) that it's possible for Hashem to forgive a person for their wrongdoing and absolve them from punishment, but still want nothing to do with that person.  Therefore, the sinner needs not only teshuvah, but needs tefilah as well, to ask Hashem to accept their avodah and restore their relationship to what it was before.

Y"K may have taken away the threat of punishment for cheit ha'eigel, but it did not bring BN"Y back to the same closeness to Hashem that had existed beforehand.  It was the enthusiasm for BN"Y to want to build a Mishkan, the desire for "Shachanti b'tocham," which repaired and restored that relationship, and only then did the ananim return.

This is why, he explains, although a person can fulfill the mitzvah of lulav in seconds -- "m'd'agb'hei nafik bei," just lifting up the 4 minin is enough -- we spend hours before Y"T trying to select the best lulav, the most m'hudar esrog, etc.  

In the midbar, it was the preparation and collection of materials for the Mishkan that showed BN"Ys love for Hashem and their desire to return to the relationship of old.  Today, it is through our preparations for the chag, our extra hidur in its mitzvos, that we try to do the same.  

growing fat on Torah and mitzvos

Transitioning from the seriousness of Y"K to the simcha of Sukkos is apt to give one spiritual whiplash, and I am not sure that having to think about parshas Ha'azinu in the middle makes it any easier.  Not to mention that there is not much time to prepare the parsha with all else that is going on.

 וַיִּשְׁמַ֤ן יְשֻׁרוּן֙ וַיִּבְעָ֔ט שָׁמַ֖נְתָּ עָבִ֣יתָ כָּשִׂ֑יתָ וַיִּטֹּשׁ֙ אלו-ק עָשָׂ֔הוּ וַיְנַבֵּ֖ל צ֥וּר יְשֻׁעָתֽוֹ (32:15)  

First the simple pshat and then a really sharp Sefas Emes.  

The appellation Yeshurun is not too common.  It appears only 4 times in Tanach, and of the 4, interestingly, three appear at the end of Sefer Devarim.  Why does the pasuk use such an uncommon term here?  Seforno (see Netziv as well) explains that it refers specifically to  קהל תופשי התורה ובעלי העיון, the spiritual elite, what we might call the yeshiva community (whether the yeshuiva is YU or Lakewood doesn't matter).  The pasuk is warning that not only can regular Joe Yisrael's religious commitment be damaged by too much enjoyment of worldly pleasures, but even those on the top rung of the community religiously, those who we least expect it to happen to and who we might think are immune from such things, even they will quickly slide down the ladder if they indulge too much in pleasure.  Ad kan what is a fairly straightforward message. 

Sefas Emes (5637), however, says we are not talking about growing fat on the pleasures of olam ha'zeh here.  Peshita that if that's the case, one will drift away.  Yeshurun is all about those who are doing the right thing, those who are growing fat on Torah and mitzvos.  It's days before Sukkos and everyone is buying lulav and esrog, everyone is putting up their sukkah, people are learning daf yomi, tomchei shabbos is delivering food packages for Y"T.  What the Torah is telling us is that sometimes a person can do all of the above, and still miss the boat.  How?  Because a person can get so caught up in what THEY are doing for Y"T, for chessed, for Torah, that they forget that someone else is really directing the show.  וַיִּטֹּשׁ֙ אלו-ק עָשָׂ֔הוּ, they forget that G-D is the one doing it all.  It is possible to be fully immersed in religion at the expense of having a relationship with G-d.

Another interesting twist in the pasuk is that it switches from third person וַיִּשְׁמַ֤ן ... וַיִּבְעָ֔ט  to second person שָׁמַ֖נְתָּ עָבִ֣יתָ כָּשִׂ֑יתָ.  Ibn Ezra learns that the third person is the pasuk's description of what is happening; the second person voice is the person speaking to himself.  Every person at some point stumbles, but even if there is a וַיִּשְׁמַ֤ן יְשֻׁרוּן֙ , so long as a person at some point wakes up and says to himself, שָׁמַ֖נְתָּ עָבִ֣יתָ כָּשִׂ֑יתָ, "You are losing your focus and going in the wrong direction," they will recover.   When Ibn Ezra comments שמנת – ולא חשב לאמר לנפשו: שמנת עבית כשית, I'm not sure this is exactly what he means, but the way I read it is the וַיִּבְעָ֔ט is modifying those next words of שָׁמַ֖נְתָּ עָבִ֣יתָ כָּשִׂ֑יתָ.  When a person turns off and rejects the message of that inner voice, then they are in real trouble. 

you have to ask for it

There is a din of piyus on erev Y"K, that someone who did wrong has to go and ask mechila from the person they harmed.  The gemara (Yoma 87a) has an additional chiddush.  The gemara relates that when R' Zeira knew someone had wronged him, he would make sure to present himself to that person to afford them the opportunity to ask mechila.  There was a butcher who insulted Rav and never came to ask mechila, so on erev Y"K Rav went to the butcher himself so that the butcher could ask mechila of him. Even though Rav and R' Zeira were  the aggrieved party, they were the ones who went to seek out the chotei rather than wait for the chotei to come to them.  

What's the source for this halacha?  Why should the aggrieved party have to do anything?

R' Yitzchak Blazer answers that the source is midosov shel haKB"H.  Dirshu Hashem b'himatz'o -- Hashem comes close to us during the 10 days of teshuvah to make it easier for us to repent.  The King is in the field, as the Baal haTanya teaches; he has made himself readily accessible.  Mah hu, af atah.  Instead of waiting for the party who has wronged you to step forward, you can take the first step and come to them to afford them the opportunity to ask for forgiveness.

It's a beautiful vort, but R' Wahrman asks a simple question:  Since Rav and R' Zeira were going to forgive the other party anyway, why play this game of trying to get them to ask for mechila?  Why not just forgive them!?   

We see from here, writes Rav Wahrman, that piyus is not just a means to get the other person to forgive.  Rav and R' Zeira would have forgiven anyway.  But that's not enough.  In order to achieve kaparah the chotei does not just needed forgiveness, but he/she needs to go through the process of asking for reconciliation and wanting that forgiveness.  It is the sometimes painful and embarrassing experience of making amends which is what leads to true reconciliation -- not just saying, "I'm mochel you." 

Let's say that Reuvain and Shimon have a longstanding feud going on, like the Hatfields and the McCoys.  Let's be real -- an simple apology on erev Y"K is not going to wipe everything wrapped up in that feud away.  So what is this halacha of piyus?  What are we trying to accomplish?  The answer, I think, is like R' Wahrman suggests: piyus is an expression of the desire to be forgiven.  That's the first step, the hardest step.  From there, mitzvah gorreres mitzvah and the rest will follow in time.    

It's an avodah to forgive people, but it's also an avodah to recognize one's mistakes and to want to be forgiven, to ask to be forgiven. 

The goal of all this is to being people together, esp as we approach Y"K.  Radomsker in Tiferes Shlomo notes that when the Torah talks about the avodah of Y"K, even though it's a mitzvah l'doros, the parsha does not talk about the avodah being done by "a kohen," or "the kohen gadol", but rather it refers again and again to avodah being done by Aharon haKohen specifically.  (It could be that there is a difference between the avodah as done by Aharon and the avodah l'doros - see how GR"A and Netziv following in his footsteps learn the peshut shel mikra.)  Perhaps the idea here is that it's not a din in the position of K"G which qualifies one for the job on Y"K, but its embodying the traits of Aharon, of being "oheiv shalom v'rodef shalom..." which qualifies one for the job.

Gmar chasima tovah

v'amar ba'yom ha'hu -- don't delay!

I am trying to wrap my head around the phenomenon of flying hundreds of miles to spend Rosh haShana in less than luxurious accommodations to be close to the kever of a tzadik ostensibly because one craves the spiritual uplift and boost from being there, and then on the way back breaking the law by falsifying Covid tests.  I know - who am I to talk since despite spending hours in shul on R"H, I've probably done plenty wrong already, but in my meager defense at least it has not made the front pages of the news.  

וְחָרָ֣ה אַפִּ֣י ב֣וֹ בַיּוֹם־הַ֠ה֠וּא וַעֲזַבְתִּ֞ים וְהִסְתַּרְתִּ֨י פָנַ֤י מֵהֶם֙ וְהָיָ֣ה לֶאֱכֹ֔ל וּמְצָאֻ֛הוּ רָע֥וֹת רַבּ֖וֹת וְצָר֑וֹת וְאָמַר֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא הֲלֹ֗א עַ֣ל כִּי־אֵ֤ין אלקי בְּקִרְבִּ֔י מְצָא֖וּנִי הָרָע֥וֹת הָאֵֽלֶּה

 וְאָנֹכִ֗י הַסְתֵּ֨ר אַסְתִּ֤יר פָּנַי֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא עַ֥ל כׇּל־הָרָעָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֑ה

Ramban asks: if Bnei Yisrael acknowledged that  עַ֣ל כִּי־אֵ֤ין אלקי בְּקִרְבִּ֔י מְצָא֖וּנִי הָרָע֥וֹת הָאֵֽלֶּה, that it is because they turned away from Hashem that they are in trouble, i.e. they acknowledged their sins, why should Hashem respond with further hester panim instead of accepting their return?

R' Tzadok haKohen answers that hester panim here does not mean turning away from Bnei Yisrael, but rather it means looking away from their wrongdoings.  Because there was teshuvah, Hashem no longer looks at the sins done in the past.

HaKsav v'haKabbalah proves this pshat from the language of the pesukim.  In the first pasuk the Torah identifies "them," the people,  וְהִסְתַּרְתִּ֨י פָנַ֤י מֵהֶם֙, as the ones Hashem is turning away from.  The second pasuk  just says וְאָנֹכִ֗י הַסְתֵּ֨ר אַסְתִּ֤יר פָּנַי֙ , with no object, and then continues  עַ֥ל כׇּל־הָרָעָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֑ה.   It's must be that it is the רָעָ֖ה which Hashem is turning away from, not the people.  He writes:

  כי לעיל אמר והסתרתי פני מהם שפי׳ ההסתרה תהיה מהם, אבל כאן סתם לדבר, לכן נראה שהכתוב פי׳ ההסתרה ממי יסתיר, ומובנו הוא ממש להפך,... 

 אני אעשה כענין מאמר המשורר הסתר פניך מחטאי וכל עונותי מחה, שהסתר פני׳ מחטאי׳ שהיא ממש מחוי העונות שמעביר מכנגד פניו ולא יביט עוד בהם, כן אנכי הסתר אסתיר פני על כל הרעה, תהיה ההסתרה על הרעה שעשו, שלא אראה ברעתם שעשו

Chazal tell us that as a general rule אין והי׳ אלא לשׁון שׂמחה.  When you see the word והי׳, it means we are talking about something good.  What's so good about what this parsha is describing?  What is there to be happy about when you read וְהָיָ֣ה לֶאֱכֹ֔ל וּמְצָאֻ֛הוּ רָע֥וֹת רַבּ֖וֹת וְצָר֑וֹת?

Rav Schwadron in Techeiles Mordechai quotes the Yaaros Devash that it is much easier to do teshuvah if it is done immediately rather than delaying.  If you push a problem to the back burner, it is hard to come back to it, and it becomes part of the harmful baggage that one shleps around.

The chapter of Tehillim (51) that talks about David's reaction to Noson ha'navi telling him that what he did with Bat Sheva was wrong starts with the words לַמְנַצֵּ֗חַ מִזְמ֥וֹר לְדָוִֽד.  It's a mizmor, not a kinah, explains the Yaaros Devash, because by Noson telling him right away that he had done wrong, David was able to immediately do teshuvah and not let the cheit linger.

The silver lining of the punishment Bnei Yisrael receive for their sins is that  וְאָמַר֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא הֲלֹ֗א עַ֣ל כִּי־אֵ֤ין אלקי בְּקִרְבִּ֔י, it elicits an immediate reaction of teshuvah.  The simcha of the parsha is that we don't delay; we seize the opportunity to repent as soon as wrongdoing presents itself.

When one faces up immediately to one's faults and faces up to them, then Hashem inversely reacts in turn by "haster astir," by turning his face away from those wrongdoing and clearing one's slate.

l'maancha Elokim chaim

In parshas Ki Teitzei, Rashi (22:8) explains the smichus ha'parshiyos, the juxtaposition of the mitzvah of shiluach ha'kan with the mitzvah to build a maakah and then the mitzvah of not plowing with kilayim of a donkey and ox and the mitzvah of not wearing kilayim: 

כי תבנה בית חדש ועשית מעקה וגו׳ – אם קיימת שילוח הקן, סופך לבנות בית, ולקיים מצות מעקה, שמצוה גוררת מצוה, ותגיע לכרם ושדה ובגדים נאים. לכך נסמכו פרשיות הללו.

If you fulfill shiluach ha'kan, writes Rashi, you will be zocheh to build a house and do the mitzvah of maakeh, and then you will be zocheh to have a field and vineyard that need plowing and will keep the issue of kilayim, and you will have beautiful clothes to wear and you will get to fulfill the mitzvah of shaatnez.  

Shem m'Shmuel asks: Schar mitzvah b'hai alma leika!?  The reward for mitzvos comes only in the next world, not in this world.  Why here do you get a new house, a field, a vineyard, nice clothes one right after the other in this world for doing these mitzvos? 

Schar mitzvah b'hai alma leika, he explains, because reward is the tachlis, the end result.  The world of tachlis is the next world; this world is just the world of hachana, where everything is a means to the end, but not an end in itself.  If you are collecting schar a final reward for the hard work you put in, then you have to wait until you get to the next world.  But if the schar you are collecting is itself a means to a greater end, then that falls under this world, the world of means.  When you get a house not to show everyone the new kitchen you put in but rather as a means to do other mitzvos like maakah; when you have a field or vineyard not just to build your wealth but as a means to fulfill kilayim; when the clothes you wear are not to show off your new outfit but because you are mekayeim shaatnez and other mitzvos, then Hashem piles on more so that you can do more.  (Compare with Rambam in Hil Teshuvah perek 9).

Now we understand what we mean when we say, "Zachreinu l'chaim..,. l'maancha Elokim chaim."  We ask Hashem for life, we ask Hashem for so many other things.  Schar b'hai alma leika, why should we imagine we will get any of it?  The answer is, "L'maancha Elokim chaim."  We're not asking just to satisfy our own selfish needs, but we're asking so that we can use what we get "lmaancha," for your sake Hashem.  It's all just a means so that we can be better ovdei Hashem.

If that's the attitude you bring to your bakashos in davening, then hopefully you won't be turned away.

Kiddushin 25a:

 הכל מודים בלשון לענין טומאה דגלוי הוא

The gemara writes that the tongue, the mouth, is considered "galuy," a revealed, open place.  If a sheretz comes in contact with a person's tongue, the person is tamei; it's not maga beis ha'starim.  

A person can articulate and express through the tongue and the mouth things that are "galuy," that he/she can to reveal and communicate to others.

But there is a whole deeper level of pnimiyus in a person that is not galuy, that the mouth and tongue cannot formulate into words, that we can't articulate either to others or maybe not even to ourselves.  That's the kol shofar.  That's the cry that  cannot be formulated into words, but which stirs inside of us.

That's the kol that we cry to Hashem with on Rosh haShana. 

b'makom she'baalei teshuvah omdim

Perek 30 opens by telling us that as a response to the brachos and kelalos we will eventually do teshuvah:

 וְהָיָה֩ כִֽי־יָבֹ֨אוּ עָלֶ֜יךָ כׇּל־הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֗לֶּה הַבְּרָכָה֙ וְהַקְּלָלָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָתַ֖תִּי לְפָנֶ֑יךָ וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ֙ אֶל־לְבָבֶ֔ךָ בְּכׇ֨ל־הַגּוֹיִ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֧ר הִדִּיחֲךָ֛ ה׳ אלקיך שָֽׁמָּה

The pesukim then continue that as a result, Hashem will gather us back to Eretz Yisrael, and everything will be great.

But then 8 pesukim later, the Torah again tells us:

וְאַתָּ֣ה תָשׁ֔וּב וְשָׁמַעְתָּ֖ בְּק֣וֹל ה׳  וְעָשִׂ֙יתָ֙ אֶת־כׇּל־מִצְוֺתָ֔יו אֲשֶׁ֛ר אָנֹכִ֥י מְצַוְּךָ֖ הַיּֽוֹם

And we have a description of the brachos that will come as a result of that return.

If the beginning of the perek describes our return to Hashem, הֲשֵׁבֹתָ֙ אֶל־לְבָבֶ֔ךָ, then what is this return of וְאַתָּ֣ה תָשׁ֔וּב וְשָׁמַעְתָּ֖ בְּק֣וֹל ה׳ that comes later in the perek?  We already did teshuvah -- why do we need an encore performance?

There are two types of teshuvah.  There is teshuvah that happens when a person can no longer tolerate the weight of sin on his/her shoulders and is therefore moved to turn to G-d (or his/her fellow man) to ask for forgiveness.  That's the first section of our parsha.  This teshuvah is an attempt to find refuge and catharsis from the pain at hand.  

But then there is yet another level of teshuvah.  Once the sin has been rectified and that burden removed, instead of just moving on with life as "normal," a person can instead hold on to those feelings of humility, contriteness, and the longing to draw closer to G-d that teshuvah brought.  Rav Kook in Orot Teshuvah sees teshuvah as a lifelong process, a process that even tzadikim can engage in, because teshuvah of this type is not just a bandaid, a way to remove that burden of guilt and sin, but is an attitude that brings one ever closer to G-d.  This is the second half of the parsha.

Sefas Emes (5638) writes that when we talk about "b'makom she'baalei teshuvah OMDIM afilu tzadikim ainam yecholim laamod" it's this type of teshuvah that we are talking about.  The teshuvah that sticks with a person forever -- that a person is OMEID in -- not just teshuvah that a person does to get rid of a sin and then moves on.  

are tekiyos and brachos m'akeiv each other

The gemara (R"H 34b) writes  תקיעות וברכות של ראש השנה ויום הכפורים מעכבות זו את זו  Tos (33b towards the end of the long Tos) quotes that Rashi explained that this means the two mitzvos of shofar and tefilah must go hand in hand -- you can't be yotzei tekiyos outside the context of tefilah, and can't be yotzei tefilah unless you blow shofar during the davening.  

Tos disagrees and says this can't be the pshat.  Proof #1 - the din is that if you have a choice between going to a place where there is shofar blowing or a place that has a minyan and sha"tz for davening, the gemara says to go hear shofar since it is d'oraysa.  If you can't be yotzei shofar without tefilah, what good is that?  

Proof #2 - the gemara says if someone davened without having a shofar and then later in the day managed to get a shofar, he blows.  According to Rashi, shouldn't he have to daven again, since davening without a shofar doesn't count?

Tos therefore learns that the gemara means that the 3 brachos of malchiyos, zichronos, and shofaros are m'akeiv each other, i.e. if you only know one but not the others, you can't be yotzei tefilah.  Similarly, the different kolos of shofar are m'akeiv each other, i.e. if you only know how to blow a tekiya, for example, you are not yotzei blowing that kol alone multiple times.  But the two mitzvos have nothing to do with each other.

It's very hard to understand this shitas Rashi.  What does he do with those gemaros?

In R' Wahrman's sefer Oros Ymei HaRachamim he quotes a very Brisker-ish sevara from R' Leizer Silver.  Rashi agrees that of course you can be yotzei the mitzvah of shofar even if you don't daven, and you can be yotzei davening without a shofar.  But Rashi understood that gemara on 34b to mean that in addition to the independent chiyuv of shofar and the independent chiyuv of tefilah, there is a new composite chiyuv of tekiyos al seder ha'brachos that requires both elements.  

The gemaras that Tos quotes are talking about the independent chiyuvim of shofar and tefilah, not the composite chiyuv.  It's that new composite chiyuv cannot be fulfilled unless you have both elements.

This, he suggests, is why many have the practice of blowing shofar even in the middle of the silent amidah.  The tefilah would be a tefilah even without shofar, but you would lack the added kiyum of the composite chiyuv that requires both.

who you are vs who you choose to be

 הַעִדֹ֨תִי בָכֶ֣ם הַיּוֹם֮ אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֣יִם וְאֶת־הָאָ֒רֶץ֒ 

Rashi explains:

אמר להם הקב״ה לישראל, הסתכלו בשמים שבראתי לשמש אתכם, שמא שינו את מידתם, שמא לא עלה גלגל חמה מן המזרח והאיר לכל העולם, כעניין שנאמר: וזרח השמש ובא השמש (קהלת א׳:ה׳)? הסתכלו בארץ שנבראת לשמשכם, שמא שינה מידתה, שמא זרעתם אותה ולא צמחה, או שמא זרעתם חיטים והעלה שעורים? ומה אילו שנעשו לא לשכר ולא להפסד, אם זוכין אין מקבלין שכר, ואם חוטאין אין מקבלין פורענות, לא שינו את מידתם, אתם שאם זכיתם אתם מקבלים שכר, ואם חטאתם תקבלו פורענות, על אחת כמה וכמה.

Look at the heavens.  Does the sun ever choose to not do its job that day?  Look at the earth. Do you ever plant wheat and the ground decides to do its own thing and produce barley instead?  If the sun and the earth can do the ratzon Hashem without the promise/threat of schar/onesh, kal v'chomer we who do get schar/onesh have no excuses for not doing so.

What's the comparison?  The sun is not a baal bechira.  The earth is not a baal bechira.  They have no choice but to do the ratzon Hashem.  We are not like that.

Sefas Emes explains that what Rashi is telling us is that just like it's built into the teva of the sun and the earth and everything else in nature to do the ratzon Hashem, so too, it's built into our teva as well.  A human being is not a barbarian who has to affirmatively choose to curb his natural instincts in order to do the ratzon Hashem.  Aderaba, a human being is preprogrammed to do the right thing, like the rest of nature, unless he/she affirmatively chooses otherwise.  

People on the wrong path sometimes say, "What do you want from me -- that's who I am."  Comes our pasuk and tells us that's not who you are -- that's who you choose to be.  But you can choose otherwise, and correct your mistakes.

(This is very much in keeping with the Maharal's idea that cheit is not b'etzem, it's b'mikreh.  When a Jew sins, it is not because he/she by nature is corrupt; it's simply a product of circumstance.)

connection between bikurim and the 13 midos ha'rachamim

Fascinating Meshech Chochma points out that there are 13 times that the shem Havaya is mentioned in the parsha of bikurim, and he suggests that these correspond to the 13 midos ha'rachamim which Ashkenazim will start saying in slichos this motzei shabbos.  Interestingly, in Ki Tisa, the very last pasuk of the aliya in which the midos are mentioned is  רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית ה׳ אלקיך.  

Here are his words:

בפ׳ בכורים נזכר י״ג פעמים שם הוי׳, לנגד שלשה עשר מדות של רחמנים, ובפרשה דויעבור ה׳ על פניו ויקרא כו׳ הי״ג מדות הזהיר על ראשית בכורי כו׳ תביא בית ה׳ כו׳. ודו״ק.

The root of sin is to be kafuy tovah.  The 13 midos are all about recognizing the chasdei Hashem, that he is rachum v'chanun, and without that we are nothing.  Bikurim is the same idea -- to be makir tovah to Hashem for bringing us into Eretz Yisrael and giving us its peiros. 

asher lo yakim -- do things lishma!

1) Many meforshim talk about why the particular 11 arurim mentioned in the parsha are singled out more than any other aveiros.  You can find this idea in the Sefas Emes, but it really goes back to R' Bachyei: the gemara (Makos 24a) writes that David haMelech took all 613 mitzvos and boiled them down to 11 principles that are mentioned in Tehillim ch 15.  Not that you don't have to keep all 613 mitzvos -- what it means is that a m'eiyn of the level of dveikus that you can achieve by doing all 613 mitzvos can be captured by living these 11 principles (see Maharal in Ch Aggados).  The gemara at the beginning of Sukkah that daf yomi learners hopefully still remember tells us that the Shechina never came down lower than 10 tefachim, and no one ever went up more than 10 tefachim.  There is a boundary between shamayim and aretz.  David haMelech gives us 11 principles to live by, 1 more than 10, so we can break through that boundary.  11 spices are in the ketores -- same idea.  R' Bachyei writes that the 11 arurim are the flipside to these 11 principles.  I didn't try to do a one to one comparison to see how they line up, but it would be an interesting project.

The last one of the arurim on the list is אָר֗וּר אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹא־יָקִ֛ים אֶת־דִּבְרֵ֥י הַתּוֹרָֽה־הַזֹּ֖את לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת אוֹתָ֑ם.  What does "asher lo yakim" mean?  If, for example, you don't fulfill the mitzvah of not eating neveilah, then you are over the lav of neveilah.  What does "asher lo yakim" add?  We've discussed the Ramban and Chasam Sofer on this in the past.  Abarbanel suggests that the pasuk is talking about someone who does fulfill everything, aleph through taf.  The problem is the motivation.  Sometimes a person does the mitzvos because that's the key to getting the kavod they need, maybe getting $$$, or getting the social recognition and prestige.  A person has to be "yakim," to fulfill the Torah, "...LA'ASOS OSAM," because he wants to do what Hashem told him to do, not as a means to some other end.  It very much sounds like the Abarbanel is bashing she'lo lishma here.  What about l’olam yaasok adam baTorah u’mitzvot af al pi shelo lishmah?  I assume Abarbanel would differentiate between degrees of she'lo lishma, but be that as it may, it is still a very striking statement.

2) We have earlier in the parsha by bringing bikurim  וּבָאתָ֙ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם.  Rashi comments אשר יהיה בימים ההם – אין לך אלא כהןא בימיך, כמות שהוא.  Ramban asks:  b'shlama in parshas shoftim where we are speaking about zakein mamrei, I understand why the Torah has to say וּבָאתָ֗ אֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִים֙ הַלְוִיִּ֔ם וְאֶ֨ל־הַשֹּׁפֵ֔ט אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם meaning, as Rashi comments ואפילו אינו כשאר שופטים שהיו לפניו, because otherwise I might have thought that the mitzvah of listening to B"D only applies when the members of BD are talmidei chachamim of stature, but when they are not such brilliant leaders, maybe there is no problem taking issue with their psak, kah mashma lan that it doesn't work that way.   אין לך אלא שופט שבימיך - you have to listen to the B"D in your time even if they are not all Einsteins.  However, what's the hava amina to think that you would not have to bring bikurim to a kohen who is not on such a high level?  Does it take an Einstein to eat a basket of fruit?

R' Baruch Sorotzkin explains that the idea of bringing bikurim is that when you come in contact with a kohen who is oveid in beis ha'mikdash, it makes an impression.  Tos in Baba Basra (21) writes with respect to maaser sheni כדדרשי' בספרי למען תלמד ליראה וגו' גדול מעשר שני שמביא לידי תלמוד לפי שהיה עומד בירושלים עד שיאכל מעשר שני שלו והיה רואה שכולם עוסקים במלאכת שמים ובעבודה היה גם הוא מכוון ליראת שמים ועוסק בתורה: that when you spend time in Yerushalayim to eat maaser sheni and you witness the kohanim doing avodah and engaged in mileches shamayim, it brings you to greater yirah and great closeness to Torah.  You're not just a messenger to drop off a fruit basket.  One might have thought that this is well and good if the kohanim in your time are people from whom there is something to learn and something to gain from being in contact with, but let's be real -- not every kohen in history is like that.  Kah mashma lan Rashi that you still have to go and bring your bikurim to fulfill the mitzvah.

3) The Midrash writes that when Moshe foresaw that the mitzvah of bikurim would end, he instituted davening 3x a day (see this post, and here, here, and here).  The gemara in Brachos tells us that tefilah corresponds to the daily korbanos.  In other words, prayer, coming close to G-d, demands sacrifice.  According to another view, tefilah was instituted by the Avos.  In other words, we do it because it is part of our tradition, because our parents and grandparents prayed.  Our Midrash gives us a different perspective.   וְהָיָה֙ כִּֽי־תָב֣וֹא אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ -- the word "haya" is always an indicator of happiness and joy, as Ohr haChaim explains אמר והיה לשון שמחה, להעיר שאין לשמוח אלא בישיבת הארץ על דרך אומרו (תהלים קכ״ו) אז ימלא שחוק פינו.  ב .  Similarly, וְשָׂמַחְתָּ֣ בְכׇל־הַטּ֗וֹ the halacha is that אין קורין מקרא בכורים אלא בזמן שמחה, מעצרת ועד החג, שאדם מלקט תבואתו ופירותיו ויינו ושמנו you can only bring bikurim during the harvest months when the farmer has the most joy from seeing the fruits (no pun intended) of his labor.  When the farmer comes to the beis ha'mikdash with his bikurim, he is not coming with a sense of sacrifice, he is not coming because his parents and grandparents came, as this parsha is speaking וְהָיָה֙ כִּֽי־תָב֣וֹא אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ to the future generation that will be the first ones in Eretz Yisrael who can fulfill this mitzvah. The farmer is coming to express his joy.  That's what the takanah of tefilah is a substitute for -- the joy we lack because we don't have a beis ha'mikdash and we don't have bikurim.   "ר אין עומדין להתפלל לא מתוך עצבות ולא מתוך עצלות ולא מתוך שחוק ולא מתוך שיחה ולא מתוך קלות ראש ולא מתוך דברים בטלים אלא מתוך שמחה של מצוה (Brachos 31)  I would venture to guess that many people can relate to prayer as an act of sacrifice, a sacrifice of their time, their energy, it's yet another commitment to attend to, and many people can relate to prayer as a continuation of the legacy of the Avos, they think back to parents or grandparents, etc. but the challenge is to be able to come to tefilah with simcha, as an expression of simcha in avodas Hashem.

mei Noach

 You have in this week's haftarah

 כִּֽי־מֵ֥י נֹ֙חַ֙ זֹ֣את לִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֣ר נִשְׁבַּ֗עְתִּי מֵעֲבֹ֥ר מֵי־נֹ֛חַ ע֖וֹד עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ כֵּ֥ן נִשְׁבַּ֛עְתִּי מִקְּצֹ֥ף עָלַ֖יִךְ וּמִגְּעׇר־בָּֽךְ׃

Hashem tells us that the churban ha'bayis was like the Noach's flood.  Hashem promises that He will never again bring upon Bnei Yisrael such an act of destruction.

1) What's the comparison?  The flood destroyed the entire world.  The churban and ensuing galus is our problem, not the whole world's problem?  

When you lose someone dear to you and close to you, it's like your whole world is gone.  Hashem is telling us that when he has to give such a big punishment to us, for whom He created the whole world, it's like that whole world is gone.

2) Everybody knows the derasha that it's called מֵ֥י נֹ֙חַ֙ because Noach is held responsible for the flood.  He could have davened and done something to avert the disaster, and is assigned blame for not having done so.  

If Chazal want to teach us who is to blame for the flood, why here?  Why stick this in a pasuk in the middle of Yeshayahu and not somewhere in parshas Noach or elsewhere?

R' Tzadok haKohen (Pri Tzadik 12) quotes the gemara (Yoma 86) תניא היה ר"מ אומר גדולה תשובה שבשביל יחיד שעשה תשובה מוחלין לכל העולם כולו שנא' ארפא משובתם אוהבם נדבה כי שב אפי ממנו מהם לא נאמר אלא ממנו .  All it takes is one person doing teshuvah and the whole world can be uplifted and be granted mechila and kapara. 

Chazal are telling us about the flood because it's a lesson for us.  We had a churban ha'bayis and we are sitting in galus for 2000 years already and Hashem comes and tells us that it's like מֵ֥י נֹ֙חַ֙ because all it takes is one person to do teshuvah, all it takes is one Noach willing to beg Hashem to forgive Klal Yisrael, and the whole world changes, everything can be different.

3) There is a machlokes whether מֵ֥י נֹ֙חַ֙  is one word or two (see Radak).  If you read it as two words, it means "the waters of Noach," like I explained above.  If it is one word, then it means "like the days of Noach," k=like+ y'mei=days.  

Abarbanel explains:

שכמו מה שקרה לישראל בחטאתיהם וגאולתם ותשועתם כן קרה לדור המבול שנתרבו על פני כל הארץ והשחית כל בשר את דרכו ונתן השם להם זמן לשוב בתשובה ולא שבו ונתחייבו כליה ונשארו מהם מעט מהרבה נח ובניו והם נעשו לגוי גדול ומאלה נפצה כל הארץ ונשבע ה׳ בזרוע קדשו שלא להביא עוד מבול לשחת כל בשר כן ישראל פרו ורבו ותמלא הארץ אותם ומלאה הארץ חמס מפניהם ונתן השם להם מקום לשוב בתשובה ולא שבו עדין, ומפני זה שבלת מים שטפתם זרם מים רבים שהוא הגלות האמנם ישארו מהם אחד מעיר ושנים ממשפחה כאותם שניצולו בתיבה והם יהיו לראש פנה וירבו ויעצמו בארץ וישבע השם שלא להביא עוד עליהם גלות 

Just like in the days of the flood there was a long window of opportunity of teshuvah that no one took advantage of, and then Hashem finally brought the flood to wipe out the world and only Noach and his small family was spared, so too, before the churban Hashem sent warnings, there was a window of opportunity for teshuvah, but once that passed Hashem brought us into galus, which, like the flood, wiped out everyone except for small pockets here and there.  

If you live in the 5T like I do, or some other frum neighborhood, you live in a little bubble and you think the Jewish world is booming.  The latest census data shows that the fastest growing neighborhoods in NY/NJ are those areas where Orthodox Jews live -- we have lots of kids and so the population grows.  In my area we have kosher restaurants aplenty, we have multiple yeshivos to choose from, plenty of minyanim to choose where you want to daven and where you won't step foot.  But all this is an illusion.  Your little island may have gotten a little bigger in the last census count, it may have better restaurants and more schools than the next little island, but sach ha'kol, it's still just a little island surrounded by the vast ocean of the flood, and those waters and closing in more rapidly than you think.  The vast majority of American Jews are underwater already or barely holding their head above water Jewishly, as intermarriage, assimilation, ignorance, and apathy take their toll.  These is מים רבים שהוא הגלות that the Abarbanel is referring to.  We can only hope that we are among the אמנם ישארו מהם אחד מעיר ושנים ממשפחה כאותם שניצולו בתיבה those who can make it to the finish line and witness Hashem's promise that days like those of Noach, whether the flood of rain or the flood of galus, never repeat themselves again.

teshuvah that is transformative

עַל־דְּבַ֞ר אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹא־קִדְּמ֤וּ אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּלֶּ֣חֶם וּבַמַּ֔יִם בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֣ם מִמִּצְרָ֑יִם וַאֲשֶׁר֩ שָׂכַ֨ר עָלֶ֜יךָ אֶת־בִּלְעָ֣ם בֶּן־בְּע֗וֹר מִפְּת֛וֹר אֲרַ֥ם נַהֲרַ֖יִם לְקַֽלְלֶֽךָּ׃

וְלֹֽא־אָבָ֞ה ה׳ אלקיך לִשְׁמֹ֣עַ אֶל־בִּלְעָ֔ם... כִּ֥י אֲהֵֽבְךָ֖ ה׳ אלקיך

How can the pasuk juxtapose and equate something so trivial like not serving food with the sin of hiring Bilam to destroy Klal Yisrael? Not only does it put the two together, but it puts the not bringing out the food first!   R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi suggests a thought experiment: if you wanted to get a Bilam to do teshuvah, what would you have him do?  Keep shabbos?  Eat kosher?  Daven?  R' Ezrachi says that even if he did all that, all you would have is a Bilam who davens, eats kosher, and keeps Shabbos -- the same rotten person, just one who does a few mitzvos.  The way to change the core of the person and make Bilam not Bilam anymore is to have him do chessed like serving food to a stranger, something that will change his midos.  The אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹא־קִדְּמ֤וּ אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּלֶּ֣חֶם וּבַמַּ֔יִם is the siman that at core, Amon and Moav were rotten people.  What starts with a trivial slight ends up with  אֲשֶׁר֩ שָׂכַ֨ר עָלֶ֜יךָ אֶת־בִּלְעָ֣ם בֶּן־בְּע֗וֹר .  It's just a matter of degree, not a qualitatively different sin.

We're supposed to be doing teshuvah during Elul.  The Chayei Adam (143) writes at length about how during this time of year a person is supposed to add time to his learning, add to the $ he gives to tzedaka, adds to his zehirus in shemiras ha'mitzvos.  I think what you learn from R' BM"E is that Reb Ploni can do all that -- he can learn an extra hour, he can wake up at dawn for slichos, he can write checks to a dozen different charities -- and yet he can still be the same Reb Ploni, just with a few extra mitzvos under his belt.  The goal of teshuvah has to be to not be the same Reb Ploni.  

Taz explains that the two different reasons given for our rejecting Amoni and Moavi, 1) עַל־דְּבַ֞ר אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹא־קִדְּמ֤וּ אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּלֶּ֣חֶם וּבַמַּ֔יִם  and 2) אֲשֶׁר֩ שָׂכַ֨ר עָלֶ֜יךָ אֶת־בִּלְעָ֣ם בֶּן־בְּע֗וֹר are hah b'hah talya.  Why should Amon and Moav be held accountable for not offering food and drink more than any other nation?  (see Ramban!)  Taz quotes the pasuk in Mishlei 25:21 אִם־רָעֵ֣ב שׂ֖נַאֲךָ הַאֲכִלֵ֣הוּ לָ֑חֶם וְאִם־צָ֜מֵ֗א הַשְׁקֵ֥הוּ מָֽיִם, that there is a mitzvah to extend hospitality davka to your enemy, the person who you like least, because that's how to overcome your yetzer ha'ra.  Similarly, the gemara (BM 32) writes that even though unloading a burden from an animal is a bigger mitzvah than loading, if the person who needs help loading is your enemy, then that mitzvah comes first.  And we learned from the Netziv earlier this year, the way to solve a dispute is to do something good davka for the person who has harmed you.  If it would have been anyone else, any other nation, the fact that we were not greeted with a welcome parade and a tray of cake and cookies would not have been that big a deal.  But since שָׂכַ֨ר עָלֶ֜יךָ אֶת־בִּלְעָ֣ם בֶּן־בְּע֗וֹר, proving their hate, Amon and Moav had an even greater obligation to try to do good.  (Amazing that this obligation to break one's yetzer extends even to a ben Noach. )  Doing what we like least, or doing something good for someone we like least, is transformative in a way that just doing more of what we are already good at is not.

The argument against Amon and Moav is m'mah nafshach: if you hate Bnei Yisrael, all the more reason you owe them the favor of a proper greeting with food and drink.  And if you don't really hate them because you know that G-d loves them, כִּ֥י אֲהֵֽבְךָ֖ ה׳ אלקיך, and it would be wrong to hate that which G-d loves, then why did you go  out and hire Bilam to curse them?  

yarei v'rach ha'leivav (II)

 ר׳ עקיבא אומר: כשמועו, שאינו יכול לעמוד בקשרי המלחמה ולראות חרב שלופה.

ר׳ יוסי הגלילי אומר: הירא מעבירות שבידו. 

Yesterday I posted one approach to understand the nekudas ha'machlokes; today I want to offer another.  

The Chovos haLevavos writes that someone who is a true baal bitachon has no worry.  If you trust that G-d is in complete control and will do what is best for you, then what is there to be worried about?  However, a long time ago we discussed an amazing Abarbanel, who comments on "Va'yira Yaakov va'yetzer lo" that Yaakov's fear of Eisav does not mean Yaakov lacked bitachon.  Worrying about the future is a normal human reaction to stress.  Bitachon means that by putting one's trust in G-d one is able to overcome that worry and lead a normal life.

חֶרְדַּ֣ת אָ֭דָם יִתֵּ֣ן מוֹקֵ֑שׁ וּבוֹטֵ֖חַ בּה׳ יְשֻׂגָּֽב (Mishlei 29:25)  The Shem m'Shmuel (Zechor Bris [section on Slichos] 5675) explains the beginning of the pasuk to mean that fear itself is the מוֹקֵ֑שׁ which can ensnare a person (see Rashi who explains that aveiros which are a מוֹקֵ֑שׁ give rise to fear).  The end of the pasuk, בוֹטֵ֖חַ בּה׳ יְשֻׂגָּֽב, he writes, does not simply mean to tell us that a baal bitachon will not have those same fears.  Peshita, mai ka mashma lan that a person like that has nothing to worry about?  Rather, what it means is:  אך ובוטח בה' ישוגב היינו שאין הפירוש שאיננו חרד אלא בוטח בה', זה לא נצרך להאמר דפשיטא דמהיכא תיתי לחשוב שח"ו יצמח לו ממה שבוטח בה' רע ח"ו, אלא הפי' אף שהוא חרד מ"מ אם עם חרדתו הוא בוטח בה' הוא ישוגב כי מאחר שהוא בוטח בה' דבקה בו השמירה מהש"י וישגב בו מפני האויב הם כחות החיצונים כנ"ל:  Even though the baal bitachon is also afraid, is also worried, nonetheless, because he has bitachon he can move forward and Hashem will help him out.  

R' Akiva maybe held like the Chovos haLevavos, and therefore if someone was afraid of the enemy, he should return home, as his bitachon is lacking.  R' Yosi on the other hand, held that fear of the enemy was a normal reaction to war, and is not a contradiction to being a baal bitachon.  The only reason for such a person to go home is if his fear was caused by aveiros.  

ish ha'yarei v'rach ha'leivav

Among the people who are sent home and do not participate in war is מִי־הָאִ֤ישׁ הַיָּרֵא֙ וְרַ֣ךְ הַלֵּבָ֔ב יֵלֵ֖ךְ וְיָשֹׁ֣ב לְבֵית֑וֹ  (20:8)  Rashi quotes 2 shitos as to what the pasuk is referring to: 

ר׳ עקיבא אומר: כשמועו, שאינו יכול לעמוד בקשרי המלחמה ולראות חרב שלופה.

ר׳ יוסי הגלילי אומר: הירא מעבירות שבידו. 

What's the nekudas ha'machlokes?  Why does R' Yosi reject the simple "mashma'o" reading of the pasuk?

Maybe this came to mind because a week or two ago I quoted the Ohr haChaim/Zohar's view that a baal bechira can override hashgacha on an individual.  That is why there was more danger to Yosef from the Midyanim or Egyptians than from the snakes and scorpions in the pit he was thrown into.  The latter are under Hashem's total control; the former can exercise free will and cause harm "outside" Hashem's plan.

R' Akiva perhaps holds like the O.C. and the Zohar, and therefore, when going to battle against a baal bechira, even a tzadik gamur has reason to be scared.  R' Yosi maybe does not agree with that view and holds that if a person is truly a tzadik, then hashgacha will protect him even against a baal bechira.  The only one who has a need for fear is a person who has "aveiros b'yado."

the sin of indifference

The end of the parsha deals with the sugya of a dead body found between cities and the offering of eglah arufah by the B"D as a kaparah.  The leaders of the closest city must declare יָדֵ֗ינוּ לֹ֤א שָֽׁפְכוּ֙ אֶת־הַדָּ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה וְעֵינֵ֖ינוּ לֹ֥א רָאֽוּ, that they are not guilty of spilling the blood of the victim.  Do we really suspect the leaders of the city or the B"D of committing the crime?  

Three approaches:

1) Rashi comments: וכי עלתא על לב שזקני בית דין שופכי דמים הם? אלא, לא ראינוהו ופטרנוהו בלא מזונות ולוייה.  Of course we do not suspect that the leaders of the city are literally guilty of murder.  However, they are perhaps guilty of letting someone pass through their city and not be given a welcome, not be offered any accomodation, not be given a proper escort upon departure, and as a result of their indifference, that lonely individual fell prey to criminals.  

Chasam Sofer writes that in this context וְעֵינֵ֖ינוּ לֹ֥א רָאֽוּ is not meant as an excuse -- we didn't see anything, so we cannot be held accountable.  Aderaba, it is part of what the leaders are asking kapara for.  וְעֵינֵ֖ינוּ לֹ֥א רָאֽוּ, we were blind to what which we should have been attentive to!

2) The Yerushalmi (Sota 43), however, explains that the B"D is not suspect of indifference towards the victim, but rather of indifference towards the criminal.  רבנין דהכא פתרין קרייא בהורג שלא בא על ידינו ופטרנוהו ולא הרגנוהו ולא ראינוהו והנחנוהו ועימעמנו על דינו.  The leaders of the city must declare that they have not been lax in meting out justice; they did not catch the criminal and then let him go because they supported bail reform.  Seforno comments:   שלא הנחנו שום נודע לרוצח בארץ.  

According to Ylmi, the responsibility placed upon the kohanim b'nei levi to carry out the eglah arufah because וְעַל־פִּיהֶ֥ם יִהְיֶ֖ה כׇּל־רִ֥יב וְכׇל־נָֽגַע is meduyak -- since they were responsibile for enforcing the law and failed, they are at fault.  According to the other meforshim, it is harder to make sense of this phrase.

Netziv points out a nafka minah between these views.  It's the closest city that has a B"D who must bring the eglah arufah.  What kind of B"D must the city have?  Rashi, l'shitaso of the Bavli, learns a B"D of 3 is sufficient.  The Rambam, however, follows the Ylmi and learns that we measure to the closest city with a B"D of 23, because it takes 23 to judge dinei nefashos.  Only that type of B"D can be held accontable for letting the killer off the hook.

Sadly in our society we all know of cases where Rabbis have not taking certain accusations as seriously as they should have, or have directed the accused to seek therapy instead of turning them over to the police to face the jail time they deserve, etc.  But without going that far, there is indifference to murder of a different sort, that may not call for a B"D of 23 to judge, but nonetheless falls under the umbrella of the moral teaching not to turn a blind eye to crime.  Rabeinu Yonah (S.T. 3:139) calls being malbin pnei chaveiro b'rabim "avak shefichus damim," murder with a lowecase m instead of a capital M, if you will.  This is the lesson of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, where the Rabbis who were sitting at that celebrating ducked for cover rather than stand up for Bar Kamtza.  

According to the Ylmi, the close of the parsha makes a nice bookend to its opening.  Shoftim v'shotrim -- we must establish a working justice system.  And if we fail and let criminals off the hook, the end result is eglah arufah.

3) Lastly, Ibn Ezra suggests that ועינינו לא ראו – ויתכן, שהשם צוה לעשות כן העיר הקרובה, כי לולי שעשו עבירה כדומה לה, לא נזדמן אדם שיהרג קרוב מהם. ומחשבות השם עמקו וגבהו לאין קץ אצלנו.  Those who live in the closest city must be guilty of some similar crime otherwise this type of outrage would not happen on their doorstep.

At the end of the eglah arufah ceremony, the kohanim declare  כַּפֵּר֩ לְעַמְּךָ֨ יִשְׂרָאֵ֤ל אֲשֶׁר־פָּדִ֙יתָ֙ ה׳ וְאַל־תִּתֵּן֙ דָּ֣ם נָקִ֔י בְּקֶ֖רֶב עַמְּךָ֣ יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְנִכַּפֵּ֥ר לָהֶ֖ם הַדָּֽם׃.  Chazal darshen כפר לעמך – אלו החיים, אשר פדית – אלו המתים, מלמד שהמתים צריכים כפרה, נמצינו למדין, ששופך דמים חוטא עד יציאת מצרי.  This unsolved murder requires kaparah not just from those currently living in the cities, but kaparah is required for generations past as well.

R' Leib Chasam points out that we don't find a similar statement in Chazal or a similar pasuk regarding an actual murder.  You would think that if a whole ceremony is required to ask kaparah for generations and generations of Klal Yisrael when a body is found and we don't know the facts of the case -- we don't know who the victim is, we don't know if anyone who lived close by is really at fault in a direct way, we don't even know if the victim or criminal was Jewish -- kal v'chomer if we catch an actual murdered in our midst, how much more of a kaparah is required!  How much more should be concerned that if such a thing happens on our doorstep, as Ibn Ezra writes, it must reveal that there is something rotten in our midst.  So why does the Torah never say such a thing?

The answer he gives fits perfectly with the lesson of eglah arufah.  It's not the crime per se that the the B"D comes to ask kaparah for, but it's their indifference which led to the crime, either indifference to the victim, indifference to the criminal, indifference towards other crimes in the midst of their city.  When an actual murder takes place and it makes the front page news (though these days it's so common it doesn't even make the front page anymore), people take notice.  People wonder what's going on, what do we need to do to stop the crime wave, people ask how such a thing could happen.  When it's a no name victim somewhere on the outskirts of town, when it's easy to dismiss what happened as not our problem, not directly related to us, then we ignore it.  The indifference is perpetuated.  Therefore, the Torah requires an eglah arufah to make us take notice.

not fully functional

 I) With respect to the mitzvah of appointing judges, The Rambam distinguishes between Eretz Yisrael and ch"ul:

אין אנו חייבין להעמיד בתי דינים בכל פלך ופלך ובכל עיר ועיר אלא בארץ ישראל בלבד. אבל בחוצה לארץ אינן חייבין להעמיד בית דין בכל פלך ופלך שנאמר תתן לך בכל שעריך אשר ה' אלהיך נותן לך לשבטיך:

Why should that be so?  Are we less in need of courts and police in chu"l than in Eretz Yisrael?

R' Gifter suggests that the establishment of courts is not just a means of meting out justice, but is indicative of an organized social structure.  The Torah here is telling us that Eretz Yisrael is the only place where such a fully functioning Jewish society can be created. 

II) The parsha warns not to learn from what the aku"m do (18:9) לֹֽא־תִלְמַ֣ד לַעֲשׂ֔וֹת כְּתוֹעֲבֹ֖ת הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָהֵֽם׃ and then follows up לֹֽא־יִמָּצֵ֣א בְךָ֔ מַעֲבִ֥יר בְּנֽוֹ־וּבִתּ֖וֹ בָּאֵ֑שׁ קֹסֵ֣ם קְסָמִ֔ים מְעוֹנֵ֥ן וּמְנַחֵ֖שׁ וּמְכַשֵּֽׁף.  Shem m'Shmuel (5675) reads this second pasuk as not just an additional lav, but as a consequence.  If you don't engage in the study of sorcery and avodah zarah, then the Torah promises לֹֽא־יִמָּצֵ֣א בְךָ֔ , you won't end up getting involved in doing it.  

 Zeh l'umas zeh, if that study is the slippery slope to consequential wrongdoing, then studying the right things is necessary to lead to a consequential kedusha of the chagim:

 כן להבדיל בקדושה כל המצות ועניני ירחא שביעאה הכל נכלל בהלימוד של מסכתות הללו ר"ה יומא סוכה, וע"כ כל בעל נפש מחויב לגזול מעתותיו הספורות ולקבוע לימוד מסכתות הללו בימי אלול שהוא הכנה לירחא שביעאה הגדול לפי גדלו והקטון לפי קטנו:

The clock is ticking -- what are you waiting for?

tefillin with only 2 parshiyos?

The gemara in R"H tells us that R' Abahu made a takana to blow teruah, shevarim, and shevarim-teruah to cover all the bases of the different minhagim that had been in practice.  The Rishonim quote R' Hai Gaon as having asked how something as basic as shofar blowing that we do every year and is such an important mitzvah could have been forgotten.  How could there have been different minhagim -- everyone should have had the same mesorah of how to do the mitzvah.  

Achronim ask the same question about tefillin of Rashi/R"T.  People put on tefillin every day.  How could the correct way to do the mitzvah have been forgotten?

R' Yosef Messas offers an interesting answer: the parshiyos of shema and v'haya im shamo'a were not given until the 40th year in the midbar, as we only find them in sefer Devarim.  For the duration of the time in the midbr, the tefillin must have had only 2 parshiyos.  We also know that when Moshe died thousands of halachos were forgotten.  It could be that there was never a strong mesorah established as to how the last 2 parshiyos should be added.

This chiddush gadol, that the nature of the mitzvah changed from what was given at Sinai (which seems to fly in the face of the first Rashi in Behar), is entertained by the Kli Chemdah, who rejects it.  The Mishna writes that the 4 parshiyos of tefillin are m'akeiv each other -- it's all or nothing.  Asks the gemara (Men 34): peshita -- isn't this obvious?  If the mitzvah originally required only 2 parshiyos, why does the gemara think this is such a davar pashut?  Perhaps if one cannot fulfill the mitzvah as it ultimately was performed from year 40 in the midbar onward, one should still fulfill the mitzvah with 2 parshiyos as it was given at Sinai?  See R' Kasher in Torah Shleima here, and R' Ovadya's teshuvah in Yabia Omer I:3 footnote 10.