a new reason why Shabbos ha'Gadol is called by that name

When we are introduced to Avraham Avinu in Lech Lecha, Hashem promised him  וְאֶֽעֶשְׂךָ֙ לְג֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל.  That promise would be realized through experiencing the Egyptian bondage.  When Yaakov is on his way down to Egypt (46:3), Hashem appeared and told him אל תירא מרדה מצרימה כי לגוי גדול אשימך שם.  What makes a גוי גדול?  The Torah tells us later in Devarim (4:8)    ומי גוי גדול אשר לו חקים ומשפטים צדיקם ככל התורה הזאת. A ג֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל means a nation that stands out in its spiritual, religious, moral commitment.  Therefore, the Shabbos when Bn"Y is given its first mitzvah, to take a korban pesach, is called "Shabbos haGadol." This is our inauguration into becoming a people dedicated to mitzvos.  

The Sefas Emes (5652) develops this theme further in a beautiful piece, but I would like to suggest a different spin.  We find that word גָּד֔וֹל used elsewhere:  פְּנ֣וּ׀ וּסְע֣וּ לָכֶ֗ם וּבֹ֨אוּ הַ֥ר הָֽאֱמֹרִי֮ וְאֶל־כׇּל־שְׁכֵנָיו֒ בָּעֲרָבָ֥ה בָהָ֛ר וּבַשְּׁפֵלָ֥ה וּבַנֶּ֖גֶב וּבְח֣וֹף הַיָּ֑ם אֶ֤רֶץ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ וְהַלְּבָנ֔וֹן עַד־הַנָּהָ֥ר הַגָּדֹ֖ל נְהַר־פְּרָֽת (Devarim 1:7)  Why is Pras called הַנָּהָ֥ר הַגָּדֹ֖ל?  Rashi there explains that it is because Pras is mentioned in context and in connection with Eretz Yisrael.   מפני שנזכר עם ארץ ישראל, קורהו גדול.  

The context of the promise of אֶֽעֶשְׂךָ֙ לְג֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל is Avraham being told in Lech Lecha to leave his homeland and go to Canaan/Eretz Yisrael.  It's developing that that connection to Eretz Yisrael which is what will make him into a ג֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל because, as Rashi tells us, gadlus comes through connecting with our homeland.

We find this connection elsewhere.  Simple pshat in the pasuk in Yehoshua (14:15)  וְשֵׁ֨ם חֶבְר֤וֹן לְפָנִים֙ קִרְיַ֣ת אַרְבַּ֔ע הָאָדָ֧ם הַגָּד֛וֹל בָּעֲנָקִ֖ים ה֑וּא וְהָאָ֥רֶץ שָֽׁקְטָ֖ה מִמִּלְחָמָֽה is that there was a man named "Arba" who was a big giant, הָאָדָ֧ם הַגָּד֛וֹל בָּעֲנָקִ֖ים, and lived in Chevron.  However, if you look in the Midrash (e.g. see Yalkut Shimoni) you will find that Chazal associate הָאָדָ֧ם הַגָּד֛וֹל בָּעֲנָקִ֖ים with Avraham Avinu. Aside from the derash reasons given, I would suggest that Avraham deserves this title particularly in connection with Chevron because that is where Avraham made the first purchase of land in Eretz Yisrael.   

Perhaps this is also the meaning of the promise made in bris bein ha'besarm, where Avraham is told (15:14) אַחֲרֵי־כֵ֥ן יֵצְא֖וּ בִּרְכֻ֥שׁ גָּדֽוֹל.  The רְכֻ֥שׁ גָּדֽוֹל that we were supposed to look forward to is the return to Eretz Yisrael.  

After introducing the halachos of korban pesach, the Torah tells us  וְהָיָ֞ה כִּֽי־תָבֹ֣אוּ אֶל־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִתֵּ֧ן ה׳ לָכֶ֖ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר דִּבֵּ֑ר וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הָעֲבֹדָ֥ה הַזֹּֽאת.  The parsha is reiterating the promise of return to Eretz Yisrael, the land of the Avos, and telling us that it is there that we will continue our future avodah.  In fact, according to the Targum Yonasan, the "kanfei nesharim" that the Torah later speaks of refers to Bn"Y magically being transported on the seder night in Mitzrayim to Yerushalayim to offer their korban pesach there.

My suggestion is that Shabbos haGadol is given that name because the command to offer korban pesach anticipates our return to Eretz Yisrael, the renewal the avodah of the Avos in out homeland.

‘kibutz galuyot’ -- in Cancun?

“It's a place that is what we call the ‘kibutz galuyot’ [ingathering of the exiles], you gather the masses of Jews from every place around the world and it's something exceptional to be able to be seated around the table,” he tells Israel National News.

What place is the Rabbi being quoted, and I will leave out the name (maybe I shouldn't even link to the article?), speaking about?  

Did you guess Cancun, Mexico?  

Yes, he was probably just borrowing the phrase, but even to borrow the phrase ‘kibutz galuyot’ and use it in the context of speaking about Cancun says something about our attitudes.

I don't pretend to be a prophet, but it seems to me to be simple midah k'neged midah that if we want Israel to be a special place where "einei Hashem Elokecha bah," where there are not strikes a protests and terrorist attacks and problems every other day, then maybe we need to think a little more about what "kibutz galuyot" means and where we want to be on Y"T, surrounded by other Jews from all corners of the world.  

"L'shanah ha'ba'ah" in Cancun?  I think not.   

Instead of a Pesach where "the guard is down, people are on vacation, nobody’s wearing their ties and suits, and therefore people are more receptive to expressing their Jewishness," maybe we should strive for a Pesach where we wear our ties and suits l'kavod Y"T, where we don't have to try to sneak in some Jewishness when people's guard is down because they are relaxing, but aderaba, the Jewishness of the chag is front and center.

How exactly that can happen when every Jewish newspaper and periodical has ads selling us on Pesach in Cancun and other exotic places, where even community Rabbis go off to join their flocks in the resorts, where staying home and making Pesach has become the exception rather than the norm, I have no idea.  

an incomplete calling

1) The command to take the korban pesach was given on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, even though nothing had to be done until the 10th.  Shem m'Shmuel explains that the 10 days from R"Ch until the 10th are like the aseres ymei teshuvah.  You don't jump into Yom Kippur without preparing yourself in advance.  So too when it comes to taking the korban pesach.   מִֽשְׁכ֗וּ וּקְח֨וּ לָכֶ֥ם צֹ֛אן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתֵיכֶ֖ם וְשַׁחֲט֥וּ הַפָּֽסַח׃ (12:21) Chazal darshen  רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, מִשְׁכוּ יְדֵיכֶם מֵעֲבֹדַת אֶלִילִים וְהִדַּבְּקוּ בַּמִּצְוֹת.  Cleansing oneself from avodah zarah takes time and effort.  Even though we no longer have a korban pesach, we still need to take advantage of the time period. 

2) Mountains of derush have been written on the fact that the aleph in VaYikra is small.  The Zohar (quoted by R' Tzuriel here ) writes that the letter is small because the revelation of Hashem here took place outside Eretz Yisrael and therefore lacked completeness.  

Tzror haMor similarly writes:

למה אלף זעירא לפי שכבוד הש״י וקדושתו הוא בארץ ישראל לפי שהיא ארץ קדושה. וכשהוצרך לצאת מהיכלו ולילך חוצה לארץ כביכול הוא ממעט כבודו. ולכן נכתב ויקרא באלף זעירא.

This approach helps deal with a pshat question Ramban and Seforno are bothered by.  וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר ה׳ אֵלָ֔יו מֵאֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵ֖ד - why the stress on Ohel Moed?   They explain that Hashem called to Moshe here because when Moshe saw the cloud of Hashem's presence enveloping the Mishkan, he was hesitant to enter.  However, according to the Zohar and the Tzror haMor maybe the stress is on Ohel Moed is because the it's the fact that the revelation took place there as opposed to Eretz Yisrael that makes the aleph small.

I would add that al derech derush we can explain based on this why it is that davka here the aleph is small.  Why not earlier, e.g. by the sneh (Shmos 3:4), where we have  וַיִּקְרָא֩ אֵלָ֨יו אֱלֹקים מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַסְּנֶ֗ה, or by mattan Torah, where we read (19:3) וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֵלָ֤יו ה׳ מִן־הָהָ֣ר?  

Rambam paskens in Hil Melachim (9:5) אסור לצאת מארץ ישראל לחוצה לארץ לעולם. אלא ללמוד תורה או לישא אשה או להציל מן העכו"ם ויחזור לארץ   Hashem's appearance by the sneh was להציל מן העכו"ם, to save Bn"Y from Pharoah's oppression.  Hashem's appearance by Har Sinai was ללמוד תורה.  These are justifiable reasons for leaving Eretz Yisrael, and therefore there was no miyut of kavod Shamayim in going out.  However, when it comes to the korbanos of the mishkan, korbanos which are offered primarily because we messed up and need a kaparah, then there is a miyut of kavod Shamayim for Hashem to come out to chu"l to deal with it.

We are all "called" upon to work on our avodas Hashem.  How many of us even realize how that calling from Hashem is diminished by virtue of our remaining in chu"l?

3) Rashi writes:

 לכל דברות ולכל אמירות ולכל ציווים קדמה קריאה, זו לשון חיבה, לשון שמלאכי השרת משמשין בו: וקרא זה אל זה (ישעיהו ו׳:ג׳). אבל לנביאי אומות העולם נגלה עליהם בלשון גנאי ועראי, בלשון טומאה: ויקר אלהים אל בלעם

We understand that the revelation to Bilam was temporary,גנאי ועראי, but what proof is there that it is לשון טומאה? Why is the fact that it is temporary necessarily something bad?  Mizrachi and others suggest that Rashi is a play on words: יקר has the same letters as קרי.  

Rav Shteinman in Ayales haShachar explains that when Hashem appears to a person, that individual needs to seize the opportunity and grow from it.  The experience has to inspire meaningful, permanent change.  If the person sees it only as a one off,  גנאי ועראי, something temporary here today and gone tomorrow, that itself by definition is טומאה, a negative.  

See his second explanation here as well.

4) My wife told me about this product, which appears to simply be masking tape that has the word chameitz printed on it, that she saw in a store, and at first I thought she was joking, but she wasn't.  Amazon does not list the price, but my wife thinks it was around $11 locally.  

Let that sink in.  $11 for a role of tape.  

Have we reached peak Pesach madness yet?  

k'zayis is not just a shiur achila

The shiur for mitzvos and issurim that entail achila is a k'zayis, as ain achila p'chusa mi'kzayis.  However, in truth the shiur k'zayis is not just a din in achila, but is the baseline shiur for all mitzvos/issurim until proven otherwise.

The first Mishna in Beitzah has a machlokes Beis Hillel and B"Sh whether the shiur bal yeira'eh and bal yimatzei for chamtez is k'zayis, like se'or, or whether the shiur is larger.  The gemara explains B"Sh:

מאי טעמייהו דב"ש א"כ לכתוב רחמנא חמץ ולא בעי שאור ואנא אמינא ומה חמץ שאין חמוצו קשה בכזית שאור שחמוצו קשה לא כל שכן שאור דכתב רחמנא למה לי לומר לך שיעורו של זה לא כשיעורו של זה

Meaning, all things being equal, you would assume the shiur is k'zayis. 

Why?  If the only reason the shiur achila is a k'zayis is because ain achila p'chusa mi'kzayis, what does that have to do with bal yeira'eh and bal yimatzei?  

QED that k'zayis is a baseline shiur, not just a shiur of achila.

See Minchas Chinuch 89 who points out the same with respect to the issur of lo tischat al chameitz dam zivchi being k'zayis.

an unsurprising headline

Only someone who has been out to lunch for the past 15 years would be surprised by the JTA headline telling us that "For the first time, Democrats sympathize more with Palestinians than with Israel."  This is a natural outcome of the anti-Israel attitudes that were on full display during the years of the Obama administration.  Of course, there have always been anti-Israel voices in the US government, esp in the State Dept., but the degree of animus displayed by Obama toward Israel as sitting President in sharp contrast to his coddling of dictatorial regimes in the Arab world was unparalleled in previous administrations.  

You need only to read Michael Oren's book describing his time as Ambassador to the US while Obama was President to discover the facts.  Read Bibi's new book.  He writes (p 497), "In hindsight, it was clear that the real 'no daylight' policy under Obama was not between the US and Israel but between the US and the Palestinians."  Remember this moment from the 2012 Democrat convention?  It's just a short jump from there to the the non-condemnation by Democrats of Ilhan Omar for her anti-semitism.  

A sadder fact than this headline is that Pew Research shows that, "Jews are among the most consistently liberal and Democratic groups in the U.S. population. Seven-in-ten Jewish adults identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, and half describe their political views as liberal."   We are heavily invested in our own destruction.  JINOs and those whose real religion is progressivism are among the most vocal supporters of Palestinians, even at the cost of harm to their own people. 

mitzvos as a national mandate

 וַתֵּ֕כֶל כׇּל־עֲבֹדַ֕ת מִשְׁכַּ֖ן אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד וַֽיַּעֲשׂוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל כְּ֠כֹ֠ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֖ה כֵּ֥ן עָשֽׂוּ׃  At first glance it seems that the pasuk here (39:32) is backwards.  First it should tell us that the people did the work, וַֽיַּעֲשׂוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל ..., and then tell us that they completed the job, וַתֵּ֕כֶל כׇּל־עֲבֹדַ֕ת מִשְׁכַּ֖ן .  Instead, it first tells us that they finished the job and only then tells us that the people did the work!  

Some of the meforshei Rashi write that this is the difficulty Rashi is trying to address in his short cryptic comment ויעשו בני ישראל – את המלאכה.

The Oznayim laTorah offers a different answer, but before getting to it, I want to point out the Ohr haChaim's comment to the pasuk and then come back and combine the two.  Ohr haChaim writes that in fact it was not everyone who participated in the work on the mishkan.  It was Betzalel and the artisans who did the work.  However, the pasuk credits everyone -- וַֽיַּעֲשׂוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל.  He explains:

 והוא מה שאמר הכתוב כאן ויעשו בני ישראל ככל אשר צוה ה׳ כינה לכולם יחד מעשה כולם הגם שמהם הביאו הנדבה מהם עשו מלאכה יאמר על כללותם שעשו הכל

This is not just a din in shlucho shel adam k'moso (which he suggests at the start of his explanation), but is a different principle entirely.  

עוד נראה כי כאן עשה הכתוב מחברת הכללות בקיום התורה והראה כי בני ישראל יזכו זה לזה והתורה נתנה להתקיים בכללות ישראל כל אחד יעשה היכולת שבידו ויזכו זה לזה. ואולי כי לזה רמז באומרו (ויקרא י״ט י״ח) ואהבת לרעך כמוך, פירוש לצד שהוא כמותך כי בשלומו ייטיב לך ובאמצעותו אתה משלים שלימותך ואם כן אינו אחר אלא אתה עצמך וכאחד מחלקיך.

ובזה מצאנו נחת רוח כי ה׳ צוה תרי״ג מצות ומן הנמנע שימצא אדם אחד שישנו בקיום כולם וזה לך האות כהן ולוי וישראל ונשים, יש מצות עשה בכהנים שאין מציאות לישראל לעשותם, ויש מצות לישראל שאינם בכהנים, וכן בלוים, וכן בנשים, ומה מציאות יש ליחיד לקיימם להשלים תיקון לרמ״ח איבריו ושס״ה גידיו אשר יכוונו להם, אלא ודאי שתתקיים התורה במחברת הכללות ויזכו זה מזה

What he is saying is that even though particular individuals may have done the work, the nation as a whole gets credit.  You could argue that this is a unique din in making the mishkan because it's a chovas ha'tzibur, but Ohr haChaim generalizes to all mitzvos. No single individual can do all 613 mitzvos, nor is he expected to.  The 613 mitzvos are a mandate to the nation.  The individual gets credit and can accomplish all the mitzvos by virtue of being part of the whole.

Now for the Oznayaim laTorah.  He writes that the second half of the pasuk is not speaking about the mishkan, but is speaking more generally about the observance of any and all mitzvos.  We have a principle that mitzvah goreres mitzvah.  When you do one good thing, you are inclined to do another.  Positive energy begets more positive energy.  The reverse is of course also true.  Once you are on a downward slope, the negative energy reinforces itself.  The cheit ha'eigel was a steep downward drop that sapped the energy and upward momentum out of Bn"Y.  It was the collective effort to build the mishkan, with all the positive energy that went into the many steps to get the job done, that reversed the trend.  Now that that job was complete, וַתֵּ֕כֶל כׇּל־עֲבֹדַ֕ת מִשְׁכַּ֖ן, the momentum was changed and וַֽיַּעֲשׂוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל כְּ֠כֹ֠ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֖ה it became easier for Bn"Y to once again do what G-d asked of them.  

Let's maybe put 2 and 2 together. The eigel was not just a tragedy and a failure for the 3000 people who actually committed the sin of idolatry.  It was a tragedy and a failure for the nation as a whole.  The people were now splintered and divided between those like the bnei Levi who were willing to carry out the punishment of misa against their own relatives, and those like the 3000 who had gone and worshipped an eigel.  In a situation like that, even the people who remain loyal to doing Torah and mitzvos do so as individuals, without the centripetal force of a national identity to bind them together.

It was this cohesion that the mishkan restored.  It was not a project of individuals, but it was a collective project of the nation.  It's completion therefore made it easier for us to do mitzvos not just as individuals, but mitzvah goreres mitzvah, to do mitzvos together as a united people.  

This same idea is reflected in the placement of the mitzvah of shabbos.  Terumah/Titzaveh gave us the details of the mishkan, and then in Ki Tisa we have the mitzvah of shabbos, but in VaYakhel, the order is reversed, first comes the mitzvah of shabbos and then the details of the mishkan.  Sefas Emes quotes in the name of the Ch' haRI"M, whose yahrzeit is today, that before cheit ha'eigel we were able to build a mishkan and afterwards have shabbos.  When we get to Vayakhel it's after the cheit, and after the cheit we need shabbos to pull us together first.  We need shabbos to pull us together, to renew our upward momentum as a people, and only then will we have the unity and the ability to make a mishkan.

lomdus: maror and bracha on a partial mitzvah

1) Rosh writes that we eat a k'zayis maror because we say a bracha of "al achilas maror" and the shiur achila is a k'zayis.  Shaagas Aryeh asks why the Rosh needs to use the nusach of the bracha to prove his case.  Why doesn't he just say that since the mitzvah is to eat and achila=k'zayis, that must be the shiur?  

R' Hershel Shachter in his Eretz Tzvi suggests that the mitzvah of maror is not a mitzvah of achila, but is a mitzvah of making a zecher l'mikdash to the maror that was eaten with the korban pesach; therefore, absent the nusach ha'bracha, maybe a k'zayis would not be required.

(See Aruch haShulchan 477:3 -- 

מיהו בשני בני אדם שאין להם רק כזית אחד מצה, נראה דמוטב שיאכל אחד מהם כזית ויקיים המצוה כתיקונו, משיאכל כל אחד חצי זית. וכיצד יעשו יטילו גורל.

וזה פשוט שאם יש להם שני זיתים – יאכל כל אחד כזית ל"המוציא" שהיא עיקר המצוה, ולא יאכלו אפיקומן שהוא לזכר בעלמא. ואם יש להם שלושה זיתים – יאכל כל אחד כזית ל"המוציא", והכזית השלישי יחלקו ביניהם לאפיקומן, דלזכר די בחצי זית בשעת הדחק.)

I am not so sure this chiddush fits the shitas haRambam (Ch"M 7:8):

בזמן הזה שאין שם קרבן אחר שמברך המוציא לחם חוזר ומברך על אכילת מצה. ומטבל מצה בחרוסת ואוכל. וחוזר ומברך על אכילת מרור ומטבל מרור בחרוסת ואוכל. ולא ישהה אותו בחרוסת שמא יבטל טעמו. וזו מצוה מדברי סופרים. וחוזר וכורך מצה ומרור ומטבל בחרוסת ואוכלן בלא ברכה זכר למקדש.

Notice that the Rambam calls maror מצוה מדברי סופרים but calls koreich  זכר למקדש.  Seems to be two different gedarim.

2) The Brisker Rav is quoted as explaining that the Rosh holds that there is in fact no independent chiyuv of eating a k'zayis of maror even when there is a beis ha'mikdash.  The mitzvah is "al matzos u'merorim yochluhu," to eat the korban pesach with side dishes of matzah and maror.  

Rambam paskens (7:6):

 ואחר כך כורך מצה ומרור כאחת ומטבל בחרוסת ומברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על אכילת מצות ומרורים ואוכלן. ואם אכל מצה בפני עצמה ומרור בפני עצמו מברך על זה בפני עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו

According to the Brisker Rav, it comes out that even though there is no mitzvah of achilas maror in its own right -- it is just part of the larger mitzvah of "al matzos u'merorim yochluhu" -- one can still recite a bracha on achilas maror.  We see from here that you can recite a bracha on what is only a partial mitzvah.

Birchas Avraham brings two additional proofs to this idea:

a) Tos and BH"G have a machlokes whether you can continue counting sefira if you miss counting one day.  Minchas Chinuch explains that the issue hinges on whether the 49 days of sefira are one mitzvah, in which case if you miss a day you are done, or whether they are 49 independent mitzvos, each day a mitzvah in its own right.

Even though BH"G holds all 49 days are one big mitzvah, we still recite a bracha on counting each individual day, on each part of the mitzvah.

b) If you say the bracha "al netilas lulav" and then pick up the 4 minim each one at a time, you are yotzei.  Rama in Hil Sukka (651:12) writes that if you interrupt in the middle, you would recite a new bracha on whatever min you have left to pick up, e.g. if you picked up 3 of the minim and then interrupted what you were doing before picking up the aravos, you would say a bracha of "al netilas aravah."  Even though the 4 minim are one mitzvah, you can say a bracha on doing part of the mitzvah independently.

I would add one additional case to this discussion.

c) R' Akiva Eiger (Tinyana 13) has a safeik whether one can still recite the brachos on ner chanukah if one remembered to do so only in the middle of lighting.  Many explain the nekudas ha'safeik revolves around whether the additional candles lit for the sake of hidur are part of the mitzvah of hadlaka or whether hidur is its own kiyum.  

Even if hidur is not an independent kiyum but is part of the mitzvah of hadlaka, I would think that it is at best a partial kiyum hamitzvah.  RAK"E must assume, like these other sources indicate, that one may recite a bracha on a partial kiyum.

chinuch in emunah

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

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

and later in the same parsha, the other moadim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aruch haShulchan writes at the end of 472

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

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

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

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

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

Aruch haShulchan 429:13 - 

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

learning how to daven

R"H 17b:

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

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

the hypocrisy boggles the mind

Many on the left want to silence Netanyahu and cancel Smotrich, e.g. the Jewish "leaders" who last week decided that he "should not be given a platform in our community."  No dialogue no cooperation.

Yet these same people believe the Israeli government should engage in dialogue and cooperation with Palestinian "peace" partners like Abbas, a Holocaust denier who channels $ to those who have murdered Jews.

The hypocrisy boggles the mind.

the principle of the matter

1) Someone just sent me a nice derush about הָעִ֥יר שׁוּשָׁ֖ן נָבֽוֹכָה explaining the confusion of the Jews, but I don't think the pshat in the pasuk is about confusion.  Targum explains that  נָבֽוֹכָה here is דְשׁוּשַׁן מִתְעַרְבְּלָא בְּחֶדְוַת עַמְמִין נוּכְרָאִין וּבְקַל בְּכִיתָא דְעַמָא בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל.   The Jews of the city were in anguish; the non-Jews were rejoicing, hence, the city was in a confused, mixed up state.  It does not mean the Jews themselves were confused about what the decree against them meant.   

There is a very striking Ibn Ezra on that pasuk:

ודרש ויעבור (אסתר ד׳:י״ז) לא אכל מצה דברי יחיד הן. ואם אמרנו שהתענה בט״ו בניסן לא עבר על התורה כי כל ישראל חייבין לאכול מצה ומרורים ליל פסח אם הן בארץ ישראל עם הפסח, וחוצה לארץ אכילתם לזכר. ואכילת המצות ימים שבעה רשות לא חובה רק התורה אסרה החמץ והתירה המצות כדרך ששת ימים תעבוד

When he refers to דרש ויעבור he means the gemara רב אמר, שהעביר יום ראשון של פסח בתענית, that they fasted on Pesach.  Ibn Ezra is not happy with that, so he gets around it by saying that view is a daas yachid, or (this is the striking part) by arguing that we hold that achilas matzah without korban pesach is just a zecher and therefore derabbanan.  The truth is that it is a machlokes (Pes 120), but we pasken that matzah b'zman ha'zeh is d'oraysa.  Apparently Ibn Ezra did not concur.

One other interesting Ibn Ezra: he writes that the reason why Haman's lottery fell out in Adar is because Adar is the furthest month away from Nisan, giving the Jews a full year to wake up and come to their senses.

2) At the beginning of ch 3 of the megillah we read

וְכׇל־עַבְדֵ֨י הַמֶּ֜לֶךְ אֲשֶׁר־בְּשַׁ֣עַר הַמֶּ֗לֶךְ כֹּרְעִ֤ים וּמִֽשְׁתַּחֲוִים֙ לְהָמָ֔ן כִּי־כֵ֖ן צִוָּה־ל֣וֹ הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ וּמׇ֨רְדֳּכַ֔י לֹ֥א יִכְרַ֖ע וְלֹ֥א יִֽשְׁתַּחֲוֶֽה

Why the future tense of וּמׇ֨רְדֳּכַ֔י לֹ֥א יִכְרַ֖ע וְלֹ֥א יִֽשְׁתַּחֲוֶֽה?  

The megillah continues and relates that the other officers, seeing Mordechai's refusal to bow, stirred the pot:

וַיְהִ֗י [כְּאׇמְרָ֤ם] (באמרם) אֵלָיו֙ י֣וֹם וָי֔וֹם וְלֹ֥א שָׁמַ֖ע אֲלֵיהֶ֑ם וַיַּגִּ֣ידוּ לְהָמָ֗ן לִרְאוֹת֙ הֲיַֽעַמְדוּ֙ דִּבְרֵ֣י מׇרְדֳּכַ֔י כִּֽי־הִגִּ֥יד לָהֶ֖ם אֲשֶׁר־ה֥וּא יְהוּדִֽי׃

What does it mean that י כִּֽי־הִגִּ֥יד לָהֶ֖ם אֲשֶׁר־ה֥וּא יְהוּדִֽי?  Mordechai and Haman knew each other from the court.  According to Chazal, they both served drink at Achashveirosh's lavish party.  Surely Haman knew that Mordechai was a Jew and this did not come as a surprise?

In order to understand what's going on we need to look at these pesukim in context of what occurred immediately beforehand.  At the end of the previous chapter, the megillah tells us that Mordechai foiled the assassination plot of Bigsan va'Seresh.  Mordechai was not some unknown character.  וּמׇרְדֳּכַ֖י יוֹשֵׁ֣ב בְּשַֽׁעַר־הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ, he was part of the inner circle, one of those privileged  to have a position close to the king.  The fact that he saved the king's life only served to further cement his high position in the court.

Therefore, when Haman made a decree for people to bow before him, Mordechai was not included.   כׇל־עַבְדֵ֨י הַמֶּ֜לֶךְ אֲשֶׁר־בְּשַׁ֣עַר הַמֶּ֗לֶךְ have to bow, but Mordechai was not just an "eved" of Achashveirosh, he was a member of the inner circle.  There are rules and there are rules.  The laws that applied to the regular עַבְדֵ֨י הַמֶּ֜לֶךְ did not apply to him (see Malbi"m).  He had a trump card, an out.

 לֹ֥א יִכְרַ֖ע וְלֹ֥א יִֽשְׁתַּחֲוֶֽה is in future tense because Mordechai was not satisfied with just being exempt from the law in the present, due to his position and situation.  Mordechai wanted everyone to know the law itself was unjust, and therefore declared that were he in the future lose his special privilege and be forced to obey, he still would never do so.  It was the principle of the matter.

Mordechai's identity as a Jew was nown to Haman, but it was not relevant, at least in Haman's eyes, to his order.  Mordechai was not subject to the law, so there was nothing to talk about.  It was Mordechai who chose to make it relevant.  It was Mordechai who declared that his not bowing was not a matter of immunity based on his status, but rather was because he was a Jew and a Jew cannot do such a thing. כִּֽי־הִגִּ֥יד לָהֶ֖ם אֲשֶׁר־ה֥וּא יְהוּדִֽי׃ and that is the reason for Mordechai's behavior.  

This approach explains the strange give and take between Esther and Mordechai later in chapter 4.  When Esther is told that Mordechai is sitting outside the palace in sackcloth and ashes, she sends a message to him, וַתֹּ֤אמֶר אֶסְתֵּר֙ לַהֲתָ֔ךְ וַתְּצַוֵּ֖הוּ אֶֽל־מׇרְדֳּכָֽי (4:10).  The Targum fills in what the text is missing and tells us that she commanded Mordechai וַאֲמַרַת אֶסְתֵּר לַהֲתָךְ לְמֵיזַל וּלְמַלָלָא לְמָרְדְכַי וּפַקֵידַת לֵיהּ עַל עֵיסַק מָרְדְכַי דְלָא יְגָרֵי עִם הָמָן מַצוּתָא אֲרוּם דְבָבוּ דְבֵינֵי יַעֲקֹב וְעֵשָׂו הֲוָה נְטַר לֵיהּ, not to pick a fight with Haman.  Did Esther really expect Mordechai to just roll over and start bowing to Haman, which may have involved issues of avodah zarah?  

The Kedushas Levi explains that bowing or not bowing before Haman was never the issue here.  Mordechai was free to do as he pleased; the law calling on the king's servants to bow before Haman did not apply to him.  So Esther begged him: Why make an issue of it then?  Why pick a fight?  Why arouse the animosity of Eisav and paint a target on the backs of the Jewish people?

That approach did not satisfy Mordechai.  Sometimes you have to make an issue of things, not just because the loophole you have today may be closed tomorrow, but simply because the principle of the matter demands it.

inyanei halacha/lomdus for Purim

 1) Women are not obligated in the mitzvah of giving machtzis ha'shekel (see post here).  Therefore, b'pashtus it would seem that MG"A is correct in arguing that women have no obligation to give a zecher to the machatzis ha'shekel.  However, it seems that most contemporary poskim (see Chazon Ovadya on Hil Purim, R' Elyashiv and R' Shlomo Zalman and others quoted in the Dirshu M"B) hold otherwise.  I don't know when or why things shifted away from the MG"A's view (maybe because women are included in the protection of machatzis ha'shekel, as my wife explained, or maybe because as GR"A notes, giving on a taanis is a kiyum of tzedaka, not just a zecher to the shekalim), but kach hava.  

2) The Ran writes that if there is a safeik whether a city is mukaf or not, they should read megillah on the 14th based on rov.  The Shaar haMelech raises the question of why we don't say kol kavu'a k'mechtza al mechtza given that a city is stationary.  

The classic case of kol kavu'a (see end of first perek in Kesubos) is where you have 9 butcher shops selling kosher meat and one selling treif meat and you can't remember which store you bought your meat in.  Even though the odds are greatly in favor of the meat being kosher, there is a gezeiras ha'kasuv not to follow rov in this case since the stores are stationary.  If you found the piece of meat in the street, since the meat must have changed location from inside the store to outside, we say kol d'parish m'ruba parish.  

Some Achronim argue that the case of a city is different.  In the case of the meat, there are multiple butcher shops in the city you could have bought the eat from (kavu'a) or which the meat could have come from (parish).  There is a taaroves of items before us.  In the case of an isolated city, it is just one item standing on its own.  True, it is a stationary item, but that alone does not make it kavu'a.

There is an issur of planting in a nachal eisan where an eglah arufa was offered.  Since we don't know exactly where an eglah arufah might have been offered, why not prohibit planting every nachal eisan because kol kavu'a k'mechtza al mechtza?  Same type of question.  See Ohr Sameiach (ch 6 og Hil Avodah Zarah) 

3) The Megillah tells us (9:27) וְלֹ֣א יַעֲב֔וֹר לִהְי֣וֹת עֹשִׂ֗ים אֵ֣ת שְׁנֵ֤י הַיָּמִים֙ הָאֵ֔לֶּה כִּכְתָבָ֖ם וְכִזְמַנָּ֑ם.  The Rambam in Hil Mamrim (2:2) writes that if Beis Din makes a takanah, a later B"D which has more authority (greater in chochma and minyan) can overturn that gezeira.  Malbi"m explains our pasuk to mean that built into the takanah of Purim was the condition that it be an eternal celebration, not subject to review by any future B"D.

Lulei d'mistafina I would ask how the Malbi"m learned pshat in the first daf in Megillah where the gemara wants to know the source for reading on the additional days of 11, 12, 13 and not just 14 and 15.  Asks the gemara, דאי ס"ד אנשי כנה"ג י"ד וט"ו תקון אתו רבנן ועקרי תקנתא דתקינו אנשי כנה"ג והתנן אין ב"ד יכול לבטל דברי ב"ד חבירו אא"כ גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמנין ?  The implication is that lulei there was a future B"D that was indeed  גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמנין there would be no problem in changing the original takanah -- the takanah of Purim is no different than any other takanot Chazal.

Perhaps the condition was only not to eliminate the celebration on 14 and 15, but in other respects the takanah could be modified by a later, great B"D. 

4) Yesh lachkor whether there is one takanah to celebrate Purim, and whether you have to do so on the 14th or the 15th is just a detail in the kiyum mitzvah, or whether there were two separate takanaot -- a takanah to celebrate 14 Adar for those in unwalled cities; a second, separate takanah to celebrate 15 Adar in walled cities and Shushan.  

The Yerushalmi (2:3), on the one hand, writes that someone who is chayav to read on the 15th is yotzei b'dieved if he read on the 14th. Mashma that there is only one takanah, to celebrate Purim, and the rest is details.  Were reading on the 15th a separate takanah, it obviously can only be fulfilled on that day.   

On the other hand, the Yerushalmi also writes that if someone heard megillah on the 14th in a regular city but then travels to a walled city on the 15th, they have to hear megillah again.  If there is just one takanah to celebrate Purim and read megillah, why should the person have to celebrate 2x?  They already fulfilled the chiyuv on the 14th?  This Yerushalmi seems to suggest that celebrating on the 15th is an independent takanah, and therefore has nothing to do with what was done the day before.

How to get these two Yerushalmis to fit and whether or not the Bavli agrees with these dinim is a discussion in Achronim that you need a clearer head than I have on a fast day to digest : )

This chakira may explains the machlokes Rashi and Rosh with respect to someone who travels between cities.  According to Rashi, if you intend to be in an unwalled city on the morning of the 14th, you must read megillah on the 14th; if you intend to be in a walled city on the morning of the 15th, you must read with them on the 15th.  In theory, according to Rashi if one travels from an unwalled city on the 14th and spends the 15th in a walled city, one would have to read on both days.  Rosh disagrees and writes that the determining factor of when you have to read is what your location is on the morning of the 14th.  If you are in an unwalled city, you read then; if you are in a walled city, you read the next day on the 15th.  

According to Rashi, it would seem there are two separate takanot in play, and therefore one theoretically might have to read on the 14th and the 15th to fulfill each din.  According to the Rosh, there is one takanah to celebrate Purim, and it's just a matter of figuring out which day to do it on, either 14 or 15, but not both.

5) Baruch she'kivanti, I found the Raavyah here supports my suggestion that the Yerushalmi that speaks about bringing children to hear megillah is not a din in chinuch, but applies even to younger children because af hein ha'yu b'oso na'nes of being saved from destruction by Haman.  The GRA disagrees.  

It's not clear to me what the cutoff point or difference is between the age of "yode'i l'havin" (to quote Raavyah) where listening to megillah is meaningful as pirseumei nisa because of af hein as opposed to the age of understanding when the regular din of chinuch kicks in.

R"Sh m'Shantz - learning hil megillah fulfills zechiras Amalek

Don't believe me -- here is a link to his commentary of the sifra at the beginning of Bechukosai (in #3). 

Avnei Nezer references it in passing here (Eh"E 121:16)

Sefas Emes (5653) writes that we defeat Amalek with Torah:

אמרו חז"ל זכור בפה כי בכח הפה שניתן לבנ"י יכולין למחות זכר עמלק והוא בכח התורה. לכן תקנו לקרוא פרשת זכור בשבת שיש בו קריאת התורה שמתגלה כח התורה בשבת

perfection is not an enemy of the good

Why is the mitzvah of preparing oil and lighting the menorah is sandwiched between the command to construct the mishkan and the instructions on how to make bigdei kehunah?  

I think that the type of oil spoken about in the parsha is key to answering that question.  The Torah tells us that  שֶׁ֣מֶן זַ֥יִת זָ֛ךְ כָּתִ֖ית לַמָּא֑וֹר is required.  With respect to the menorah, only the best, first pressed oil can be used.  However, with respect to menachos, Rashi comments  כתית למאור – ולא כתית למנחות.  Here the second pressed, less than perfect quality oil is acceptable.  

Why should we accept second best when it comes to how we do things in the mishkan?  Why should a lesser standard apply to the menachos offerings than the menorah?

Chazal see oil and the light of menorah as representing the ideal of wisdom. 

הרואה שמן זית בחלום יצפה למאור תורה שנאמר ויקחו אליך שמן זית זך (Brachos 57a)

רוצה שיחכים ידרים ושיעשיר יצפין וסימניך שלחן בצפון ומנורה בדרום (Baba Basra 25a)

וישלח יואב תקועה ויקח משם אשה חכמה מאי שנא תקועה אמר רבי יוחנן מתוך שרגילין בשמן זית חכמה מצויה בהן (Menachos 85b)

דאמר רבי יוחנן כשם שהזית משכח לימוד של שבעים שנה כך שמן זית משיב לימוד של שבעים שנה: (Horiyos 13b)

Explains the Shem m'Shmuel, this ideal, abstract, form of wisdom is just that -- an ideal.  In the day to day world, most of us end of cutting corners in some places, fudging here and there, and living by less that the perfect standards we might aspire to.  

The light of the menorah illuminates where we want to be, but it's the oil of the menachos which is nonetheless acceptable which speaks to the l'maaseh.

I think this distinction is what the Torah wants to draw our attention to as we shift gears from the building of the mishkan to the personnel who work in it.  Rashi in parshas Ki Tavo (26:3) comments on וּבָאתָ֙ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם that  אין לך אלא כהן בימיך, כמות שהוא.  Not every kohen will be like Aharon haKohen (see Ramban there).  Not every person will measure up to our ideals of what an oveid Hashem in a makom kodesh should be.  That's reality.  But perfection should not be an enemy of the good, to paraphrase Voltaire.  כתית למאור – ולא כתית למנחות  The kohen must light the menorah 2x a day to remind himself of the ideals to which he should aspire (see Abarbanel), but even if he falls short, that does not preclude his donning the bigdei kehunah and serving to the best of his ability.

an ongoing relationship

The Midrash opens our parsha:

וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה – הֲדָא הוּא דִּכְתִיב: כִּי לֶקַח טוֹב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם תּוֹרָתִי אַל תַּעֲזֹבוּ (משלי ד׳:ב׳), אַל תַּעֲזֹבוּ אֶת הַמִּקָּח שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לָכֶם, יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁלּוֹקֵחַ מִקָּח, יֵשׁ בּוֹ זָהָב אֵין בּוֹ כֶסֶף, יֵשׁ בּוֹ כֶסֶף אֵין בּוֹ זָהָב, אֲבָל הַמִּקָּח שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לָכֶם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כֶסֶף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אִמְרוֹת ה׳ אֲמָרוֹת טְהֹרוֹת כֶּסֶף צָרוּף (תהלים י״ב:ז׳). יֵשׁ בּוֹ זָהָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: הַנֶּחֱמָדִים מִזָּהָב וּמִפָּז רָב (תהלים י״ט:י״א). יֵשׁ אָדָם לוֹקֵחַ שָׂדוֹת אֲבָל לֹא כְרָמִים, כְּרָמִים וְלֹא שָׂדוֹת, אֲבָל הַמִּקָּח הַזֶּה יֵשׁ בּוֹ שָׂדוֹת וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּרָמִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: שְׁלָחַיִךְ פַּרְדֵּס רִמּוֹנִים (שיר השירים ד׳:י״ג). יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם לוֹקֵחַ מִקָּח וּבְנֵי אָדָם אֵינָן יוֹדְעִין מַהוּ, אֲבָל מִשְּׂכַר הַסַּרְסוּר נִתְוַדַּע מַה לָּקַח. כָּךְ הַתּוֹרָה אֵין אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ מַה הִיא, אֶלָּא מִשָּׂכָר שֶׁלָּקַח משֶׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וּמשֶׁה לֹא יָדַע כִּי קָרַן עוֹר פָּנָיו בְּדַבְּרוֹ אִתּוֹ (שמות ל״ד:כ״ט). וְיֵשׁ לְךָ מִקָּח שֶׁמִּי שֶׁמְּכָרוֹ נִמְכָּר עִמּוֹ, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, מָכַרְתִּי לָכֶם תּוֹרָתִי, כִּבְיָכוֹל נִמְכַּרְתִּי עִמָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה, מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בַּת יְחִידָה, בָּא אֶחָד מִן הַמְּלָכִים וּנְטָלָהּ, בִּקֵּשׁ לֵילֵךְ לוֹ לְאַרְצוֹ וְלִטֹּל לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ: בִּתִּי שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְךָ יְחִידִית הִיא, לִפְרשׁ מִמֶּנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל, לוֹמַר לְךָ אַל תִּטְלָהּ אֵינִי יָכוֹל לְפִי שֶׁהִיא אִשְׁתֶּךָ, אֶלָּא, זוֹ טוֹבָה עֲשֵׂה לִי, שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ קִיטוֹן אֶחָד עֲשֵׂה לִי, שֶׁאָדוּר אֶצְלְכֶם, שֶׁאֵינִי יָכוֹל לְהַנִּיחַ אֶת בִּתִּי. כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, לִפְרשׁ הֵימֶנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל, לוֹמַר לָכֶם אַל תִּטְלוּהָ אֵינִי יָכוֹל, אֶלָּא בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתֶּם הוֹלְכִים בַּיִת אֶחָד עֲשׂוּ לִי שֶׁאָדוּר בְּתוֹכוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ (שמות כ״ה:ח׳).

The Midrash understands כִּי לֶקַח טוֹב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם תּוֹרָתִי אַל תַּעֲזֹבוּ not simply as a warning not to forget the Torah, but as a warning not to forget the sale, the exchange, the mekach, of the Torah that took place between G-d and Bn"Y.  It's not what was given which is paramount, but it's the relationship forged by the exchange.  This is what the Mishkan was designed to perpetuate.  Ramban in many places writes that the Mishkan was modelled after Har Sinai.  It had an inner section that was off limits just like Har Sinai itself was off limits except to Moshe; Hashem revealed himself and spoke to Moshe from between the keruvim just as he had revealed himself and spoke to Moshe at Sinai.  The mekach is ongoing, not a one time event.

Rav Bakshi Doron points out that in the entire discussion of the building of the mishkan it seems ikar chaseir min ha'sefer.  What are we supposed to do with it?  Where is the instructions about avodah, korbanos, etc.?  Yes, we will get to it all in Sefer VaYikra, but how can we go through these parshiyos witout even a passing reference to any of that?  

If we look back to maamad Har Sinai as our model, there too Moshe was told early on in Shmos that  בְּהוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם תַּֽעַבְדוּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים עַ֖ל הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה׃ (3:12)  No mention is made of kabbalas haTorah, just "avodah."  Again, it seems ikar chaseir min ha'sefer.  What could be more important than kabbalas haTorah; what "avodah" did we actually do at Sinai apart from receiving the Torah?

The answer is that we forged a relationship.

When a chassan gives his kallah a ring, hopefully it's not the ring itself which the kallah is happy to get, but it's the relationship the ring represents that she is happy about.  Korbanos, ketores, all that good stuff will come later in VaYikra.  What our parsha is about is  וְשָׁכַנְתִּ֖י בְּתוֹכָֽם, about the relationship.  The "avodah" of Sinai was our forging a bond with Hashem, a mekach, that is ongoing.

a mussar haskel from the super bowl

When you are about to close your gemara, what if instead  of doing that you push yourself for just one more minute of learning?  Just 60 more seconds?  I know what you're thinking -- what difference can one minute make?  What's one more minute of Torah worth?

Just before maariv tonight I heard someone mention that sponsors pay a million dollars for a minute of super bowl advertising.  The truth is that this person was off by a lot -- a million dollar ad would be a bargain.  Most ads this year cost in the range of six to seven million dollars.

It dawned on me afterwards that this is a tremendous mussar haskel for us.  What is a minute of time really worth?  You know how many minutes I personally waste on a daily basis?  Yet here we have companies willing to give up 7 million dollars just for one minute of our time, just to try to take a shot in that one minute of getting us to buy another beer or bag of chips or something like that.

If a minute of time to get us to buy a beer is worth seven million dollars, what do you think that one minute of Torah is worth?   

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.  

bitter waters

1. The WSJ reports that certain "rabbis" have decided they can no longer say the tefilah l'shlom ha'Medinah because they refuse to pray for the success of the new Israeli government.  The article goes on to discuss praying for the secular governments those of us in the diaspora live under.  When Obama y'mach shemo was President, and now continuing under Biden, I thought it best to have them in mind in our prayers every day, not just once a week -- "v'lamalshinim al t'hi tikvah v'kol ha'risha k'rega toveid..."  

2. A well known Rabbi put out a list of halachos pertaining to cruises, some of them specifically aimed at situations that come up on a non-kosher cruise, like whether you can eat food heated in a treif oven, etc.  I think he may have missed an important din that may render all the other questions moot:

 והענין: כי התורה הזהירה בעריות ובמאכלים האסורים, ותתיר הביאה איש ואשתוג ואכילת הבשר והיין, ואם כן ימצא בעל התאוה מקום להיות שטוף בזמת אשתו או נשיו הרבות, ולהיות בסובאי יין בזוללי בשר למו, וידבר כרצונו בכל הנבלות, שלא הוזכר איסור זה בתורה, והנה יהיה נבל ברשות התורה. לפיכך בא הכתוב הזה אחרי שפרט האיסורים שאסר אותם לגמרי, וצוה בדבר כללי, שנהיה פרושים מן המותרות.

3. Ibn Ezra (14:13) famously asks why the 600,000+ of Bn"Y were afraid of the small number of Mitzrim chasing after them.  

 יש לתמוה: איך יירא מחנה גדול משש מאות אלף איש מן הרודפים אחריהם, ולמה לא ילחמו על נפשם ועל בניהם. התשובה: כי המצרים היו אדונים לישראל, וזה הדור היוצא ממצרים למד מנעוריו לסבול עול מצרים ונפשו שפלה, ואיך יוכל עתה להלחם עם אדוניו.

He answers that psychologically, Bn"Y were unable to bring themselves to fight because the years of servitude had conditioned them to respect the Egyptians as their masters.

This explains why Bn"Y had no trouble going to war against Amalek at the end of the parsha.  It was not fear of battle which tied their hands, but fear specifically of the Egyptians, who had held them as slaves.

I noticed that the Seforno does not agree.  He writes (14:8)

ובני ישראל יצאים ביד רמה – כענין ״ידנו רמה״ (דברים ל״ב:כ״ז), היו מתאמצים לנצח את פרעה וחילו שלא היו רבים במספר כמותם. ובזה הודיע שלא היו יודעין ענין המלחמה, כי אמנם היה ראוי לירא מאותם המעטים מלומדי מלחמה יותר ממה שהיה ראוי לירא מכל המון מצרים הנוסע אחריהם אחר כך

He understands that there were two groups of Egyptians, וַיִּקַּ֗ח שֵׁשׁ־מֵא֥וֹת רֶ֙כֶב֙ בָּח֔וּר וְכֹ֖ל רֶ֣כֶב מִצְרָ֑יִם, six hundred crack troops led by Pharoah + a mass multitude of other soldiers.  Bn"Y charged ahead  וּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל יֹצְאִ֖ים בְּיָ֥ד רָמָֽה with reckless abandon, with no fear of engaging these crack troops in battle.  Had Bn"Y been more experienced in the art of war, they would and *should* have been more afraid, since 600 seasoned troops can put up a fight even if greatly outnumbered.

4. Right after the shiras ha'yam we have the episode of the bitter waters.  Bn"Y went from being surrounded by water to not having a drop to drink.  Moshe responded:

 וַיִּצְעַ֣ק אֶל־ה׳ וַיּוֹרֵ֤הוּ ה׳ עֵ֔ץ וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ֙ אֶל־הַמַּ֔יִם וַֽיִּמְתְּק֖וּ הַמָּ֑יִם שָׁ֣ם שָׂ֥ם ל֛וֹ חֹ֥ק וּמִשְׁפָּ֖ט וְשָׁ֥ם נִסָּֽהוּ׃

The word וַיּוֹרֵ֤הוּ suggests that Moshe was taught a lesson here.  Targum Onkelus translates it as וְאַלְּפֵיהּ; Ramban writes לא מצאתי לשון מורה אלא בענין למוד.  Was this simply a botany lesson, that that particular tree could make the water potable?  Ramban writes that there was more to it than that.  He siggests that the tree was bitter, but it miraculously transformed the bitter water to sweet.  It would be like adding salt to salty sea water to make it drinkable.  Rav Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi explains that the lesson Moshe was giving over here is that there is no direct connection between the means and the end.  Your going to work is not the cause of your getting enough money to take home a salary and have a nice home and be able to go on a cruise.  Your spending hours working on a sugya is not the cause of it going into your brain.  Just like adding salt to salty sea water obviously is not the cause of it becoming sweet -- it's has to be a gift from Hashem -- so too with everything else in life.  We put in effort because we have a chuyuv to do so, but the result ultimately comes from Hashem. 

There is a lot to say on this parsha of the bitter waters, much more than I have time to write about.  Why did Hashem deprive them of water to begin with?  When Hashem responded, why did he not give them potable water right away -- why give them bitter water that then has to be sweetened?  Chazal tell us that water represents Torah.  Bn"Y went from experiencing nevuah, singing shirah, so having what seemed to be no connection.  The Ishbitzer writes that there are moments in life when we experience gadlus ha'mochin, when we feel really connected and spiritually uplifted, but then there are moments when we sink and feel that we have nothing, that we are nothing.  Hashem wanted to show Bn"Y this the down moments are also part of the bigger plan.  There are moments in life filled with "bitter waters," but those too can be sweetened.  

why hashkiveinu is not a hefsek between geulah and tefilah

The parsha tells us וְלֹֽא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה בָכֶ֥ם נֶ֙גֶף֙ לְמַשְׁחִ֔ית בְּהַכֹּתִ֖י בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃ (12:13).  Hashem reassured Bn"Y that they would not be affected by makkas bechoros.  Seforno explains: 

 שמלבד מכת הבכורות שלח בשאר העם ״עברה וזעם וצרה משלחת מלאכי רעים״ (תהלים ע״ח:מ״ט). כי לולא הפסיחה שעשה בחמלתו על ישראל לא היו נמלטים משאר הצרות ששלח על שארית עם מצרים, כענין ״פן תספה בעון העיר״ 

I don't understand the distinction he is drawing. It sounds like there was no danger from the makkah itself, but there was other dangers of עברה וזעם וצרה משלחת מלאכי רעים.  Why should the principle of פן תספה בעון העיר apply to the latter and not the former?  

Be that as it may, the fact that Bn"Y were in fear of being affected has a nafka mina l'halacha.  O.C. 236 M"B 3 quoting Talmidei R"Y on why the bracha of hashkiveinu is not an interruption between geulah (the bracha of ga'al yisrael) and shmoneh esrei:

ואע"ג דקי"ל דצריך לסמוך גאולה לתפלה אף בערבית וכדלקמיה בס"ב מ"מ השכיבנו לא הוי הפסק דכגאולה אריכתא דמיא [גמרא] וכתבו בתר"י הטעם דכשעבר ה' לנגוף את מצרים היו ישראל מפחדים ומתפללים להש"י שיקיים דברו שלא יתן המשחית לבא אל בתיהם לנגוף וכנגד אותה תפלה תקנו לומר השכיבנו הלכך מעין גאולה היא

all about the attitude

In the opening of our parsha Moshe appears before Pharoah and says in the name of Hashem עַד־מָתַ֣י מֵאַ֔נְתָּ לֵעָנֹ֖ת מִפָּנָ֑י שַׁלַּ֥ח עַמִּ֖י וְיַֽעַבְדֻֽנִי׃.  Rashi explains לענות – כתרגומו: לאתכנעא, והוא מגזרת עני, מאנת להיות עני ושפל מפני.  Hashem is asking Pharoah why he refuses to humble himself before Him and free Bnei Yisrael.

The question at first glance seems strange.  Just 2 pesukim earlier we read that Hashem told Moshe  בֹּ֖א אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כִּֽי־אֲנִ֞י הִכְבַּ֤דְתִּי אֶת־לִבּוֹ֙ וְאֶת־לֵ֣ב עֲבָדָ֔יו לְמַ֗עַן שִׁתִ֛י אֹתֹתַ֥י אֵ֖לֶּה בְּקִרְבּֽוֹ׃.  Pharoah's heart was hardened by Hashem to prevent him from giving in so that Hashem could demonstate his might by bringing the makkos.  How can G-d take Pharoah to task for מֵאַ֔נְתָּ לֵעָנֹ֖ת מִפָּנָ֑י when Hashem is the one hardening his heart and preventing him from doing so?

The gemara (San 102) writes that Rav Ashi once flippantly told the talmidim that the next day he was going to give a shiur about "Menashe our friend," meaning King Menashe.  That night Menashe appeared to Rav Ashi in a dream to put him in his place, and he said to him, "I'm not your friend and I'm not your father's friend.  You don't even know even a basic halacha like where a loaf of bread should be cut when you say ha'motzi."  Rav Ashi then asked him to explain that halacha, and said he would say it over in King Menashe's name in the shiur.  Then Rav Ashi asked the 64 million dollar question and said, "Menashe, if you're so smart, why were you an oveid avodah zarah?"  To which Menashe answered, "Had you been alive when I was, you would have lifted your frock up so that you could run faster to get to the avodah zarah and worship it."  Meaning, the yetzer for idolatry was so strong there was no escaping it.

Why Menashe chose this particular question of where to slice bread for ha'motzi from to prove Rav Ashi's ignorance is a question for another time.  I want to focus on the last line about Rav Ashi lifting up his frock so he won't trip and be able to run faster.  What did Menashe mean by that?  Maharal (Netzach Yisrael ch 3, see Michtav m'Eliyahu vol 4 p 135) explains as follows: you can have an addict who knows what he is doing is bad but can't stop it, and you have an addict who is so entrenched in the addiction that he does not even recognize it as a bad thing.  Let's say someone just loves chocolate cake and can't resist it when he sees it in the store even though he is overweight and has high cholesterol.  If the person recognizes intellectually that it's bad for him, when the store is out of chocolate cake he says, "Baruch Hashem," and breathes a sigh of relief because he knows that he now will be doing the right thing.  However, if the person does not even recognize that he is eating what he shouldn't be eating, he gets frustrated, he will run to the next store, etc. because to him, eating chocolate cake is a good thing, it's like a mitzvah.  Menashe was telling Rav Ashi that in his generation, they knew avodah zarah was bad.  Their seichel stood in the way of temptation, but temptation was just too strong and they ended upgiving in.  However, said Menashe, had you been in my shoes, you would run after the avodah zarah, meaning there would be nothing blocking you, there would be no check on temptation because you would not even recognize it as wrong -- aderaba, you would rush to do it like it was a mitzvah.  

True, Hashem hardened Pharoah's heart and he could not help but keep Bn"Y enslaved.  It's like the addict who can't resist.  However, like the Maharal explained, there is the addict who knows it's wrong, and there is the addict who is happy to wallow in his addiction.  עַד־מָתַ֣י מֵאַ֔נְתָּ לֵעָנֹ֖ת מִפָּנָ֑י means, as Rashi explained, "Why have you not humbled yourself?"  True, Pharoah, you can't free Bn"Y yet, but you don't have to be b'simcha over that fact.  Aderaba, if you knew they should be free but just couldn't resist keeping them back, you would be humbled and contrite, upset at the state of affairs in which you find yourself.  It's Pharoah's attitude which Hashem here is criticizing (sefas Emes 5632).

Even when you have a good excuse for not doing doing a mitzvah or a chessed, or the right thing, whatever it is, there is not a good excuse for not feeling at least a little bit of sadness about it.  Ramban writes (Bamidbar 10:13) that Bn"Y ran away from Sinai, שנסעו מהר סיני בשמחה כתינוק הבורח מבית הספר, אמרו: שמא ירבה ויתן לנו מצות.  Mattan Torah was over; they were free to move on and travel -- but it should be done with some sadness.  On a Monday or Thursday if the gabai gives a klop and announces no tachanun, there doesn't have to be a cheer that goes up in shul (inwardly, if not outwardly.)  

It's all about the attitude.