lessons from Avraham's war

I think it's inevitable that people will look to the story of war in our parsha and try to draw lessons and parallels to our current situation, so here are a few ideas that I jotted down (I deliberately avoided themes that are further removed from the plain meaning of the text):

1)  וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אַמְרָפֶל מֶלֶךְ שִׁנְעָר אַרְיוֹךְ מֶלֶךְ אֶלָּסָר כְּדׇרְלָעֹמֶר מֶלֶךְ עֵילָם וְתִדְעָל מֶלֶךְ גּוֹיִם

 עָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה אֶת בֶּרַע מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם וְאֶת בִּרְשַׁע מֶלֶךְ עֲמֹרָה שִׁנְאָב מֶלֶךְ אַדְמָה וְשֶׁמְאֵבֶר מֶלֶךְ צְבֹיִים וּמֶלֶךְ בֶּלַע הִיא צֹעַר.

The Tanchuma comments:

 דָּבָר אַחֵר, חֶרֶב פָּתְחוּ רְשָׁעִים, אֵלּוּ אַרְבָּעָה מְלָכִים אַמְרָפֶל וַחֲבֵרָיו, שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא הָיְתָה מִלְחָמָה בָעוֹלָם בָּאוּ אֵלּוּ וּפָתְחוּ בַּחֶרֶב וְעָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה. אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אַתֶּם פְּתַחְתֶּם בַּחֶרֶב לְהַפִּיל עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן, חַרְבָּם תָּבֹא בְלִבָּם. עָמַד אַבְרָהָם וַהֲרָגָם.

War requires a casus belli, whether it is a dispute over territory, trade, or ideology.  Not so the war described in our parsha.  R' Amiel in his Higyonot el Ami writes that בָּאוּ אֵלּוּ וּפָתְחוּ בַּחֶרֶב means that the war was the petach, was the reason for itself. It was war l'shem war and no other reason.  

There are people who need to reason or justification for waging war other than the desire to shed blood and fight.

2) עָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה  Agra d'Kallah is medayek: הוה ליה למימר נלחמו עם מלך וכו.  In light of R' Amiel's explanation the pshat here is that they created a pretext for war where none existed.  

Agra d'Kallah writes that these nations created the whole concept of war:

אך הוא להורות שהם הם אשר עשו המלחמה בכל יושבי תבל, ומהם למדו להתיר המון שפיכת דמים על ידי המלחמה, כי מימות עולם היו גדורים בזה. והנה תמצא שהפרשה הקודמת מסיימת "ויבן "שם "מזבח "לד' (בראשית יג יח), ר"ת שלו"ם. להורות כי עד הזמן ההוא היה שלום בעולם, והם התחילו מלחמה

I see this expression עָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה as a contrast to the expression used earlier in the parsha in connection with Avraham, אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן .  

 Avraham made נפשׁות; these nations made war.  

3)    וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת כׇּל רְכֻשׁ סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה וְאֶת כׇּל אׇכְלָם וַיֵּלֵכוּ

וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת לוֹט וְאֶת רְכֻשׁוֹ בֶּן אֲחִי אַבְרָם וַיֵּלֵכוּ וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב בִּסְדֹם

The fact that the Torah puts Lot in the spotlight, giving the story of his being captured its own pasuk, shows that seizing him was the aim of the attack.  וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב בִּסְדֹם - Lot was not part of the war and was an innocent bystander.  There was no reason to target him. So why did they do so?

We already know that Lot is בֶּן אֲחִי אַבְרָם.  The Torah mentions the fact to bring out, writes Tzror haMor, that it was the relationship to Avraham that was the cause of Lot being a target.  Attacking him was a way to attack Avraham. 

Why not go after Avraham directly?  Contrast what we are told about where Lot lives, וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב בִּסְדֹם, with the description in the next pasuk of where Avraham was: וְהוּא שֹׁכֵן בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא הָאֱמֹרִי אֲחִי אֶשְׁכֹּל וַאֲחִי עָנֵר וְהֵם בַּעֲלֵי בְרִית אַבְרָם.  Avraham is not just a יֹשֵׁב, he is שֹׁכֵן, like the word for neighbors, שׁכנים.  And indeed, Avraham has friends who are בַּעֲלֵי בְרִית אַבְרָם.  This of course is on top אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן and the slaves who Avraham was given by Pharoah.  By going after Lot the enemy thought they were going after the weak link -- someone who was not part of a community, someone with no friends and neighbors for support, someone who had no one to call upon for help.

4) וַיָּבֹא הַפָּלִיט וַיַּגֵּד לְאַבְרָם הָעִבְרִי וְהוּא שֹׁכֵן בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא הָאֱמֹרִי אֲחִי אֶשְׁכֹּל וַאֲחִי עָנֵר וְהֵם בַּעֲלֵי בְרִית אַבְרָם

Avraham has friends who he can call on to back him up, but as we see in the next pasuk, וַיָּרֶק אֶת⁠ חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, Avraham only calls on his household to participate.  This is our fight.  The support is welcome, but it is not something we will demand of others.

Tzror haMor adds:

ולזה נתכוונו רז״ל באומרם שלא הוליך עמו אלא אליעזר שעולה שי״ח. להורות שהוא לא בטח ברוב חיל אלא בחסד ה׳ ולכן לא הוליך עמו אלא אליעזר לרמוז שבטח בחסד האל ולא בחיל ולא בכח

Avraham knows that it is not the number of soldiers or the might of the army that can guarantee victory.  Victory is b'yad Hashem.  He therefore takes a minimum of dedicated soldiers to make his hishtadlus while having the bitachon that Hashem will do the rest. 

5) Why does the פָּלִיט run davka to Avraham and why is he called הָעִבְרִי here?  Ksav v'Kabbalah writes:

בשאר מקומות לא הוזכר רק שם אברם לבדו וכאן צירף גם שם יחוסו שהוא עברי, כי רק מבחינה זו התעורר הפליט להגיד הדבר אליו, להיותו עברי, שהתעורר להחזיק באמונת אחדות אלהות הפך דעת אמרפל שהוא נמרוד, מן המנצחים במלחמה זו, ואשר מסבתו הוכרח אברם לעזוב ארץ מולדתו, וזה יהי׳ סבה גדולה לעורר את אברם שונאו לעמוד נגדו וליקח את נקמתו ממנו.

Avraham's ideology was the antithesis of those waging war, and Avraham had put his neck on the line before to stand in opposition to Nimrod.  Therefore, the פָּלִיט knew that Avraham would stick his neck out again here.

It's interesting that the Torah does not say וַיָּבֹא הַפָּלִיט וַיַּגֵּד לְאַבְרָם אחי לוט or something similar.  Apparently, as Seforno explains, Avraham was motivated to fight not just because Lot was his relative.  Avraham understood that there was more at stake than that.  There was a clash of ideologies here.

Netziv adds:

 לא שהלך להודיע צער ולבשר רעה בלי תועלת, אלא משום שהיה ״העברי״, וידוע היה שיש תקוה ממנו לשנות את הדבר גם בדרך נס.

Avraham was someone who could do something about what happened, even if a miracle was required. 

6) וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו וַיָּרֶק אֶת חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וַיִּרְדֹּף עַד דָּן

Even though just a few pesukim earlier Lot is described as  בֶּן אֲחִי אַבְרָם, here is is called  אָחִיו.  For all of us who have been saying אחינו כל בית ישׂראל this needs no explanation.

7)  וַיֵּחָלֵק עֲלֵיהֶם לַיְלָה הוּא וַעֲבָדָיו וַיַּכֵּם וַיִּרְדְּפֵם עַד חוֹבָה אֲשֶׁר מִשְּׂמֹאל לְדַמָּשֶׂק.

Avraham pursued the enemy and battled them even in the dark of night.  Netziv comments:

בדן נחו מעט ארבעה מלכים אלו כשהיה בערב, כסבורים שישבות גם אברם מלהלחם בלילה, אבל אברם נתחלק הוא בפני עצמו ועבדיו בפני עצמם ויכם, אחר שהיו נחים וישנים בלילה.

The enemy stopped to rest at night, thinking that Avraham too would pause and would need a cease fire to regroup and rest.  Avraham, however, was relentless in his pursuit and did not let up.

I wish this came from a parody account

I ask you: Is today, or this week, really the time and place to write something like this?  It's beyond tone deaf.  

UPDATE (in case you thought it couldn't get worse) --  transcript from today's press briefing:

REPORTER: What is Biden's level of concern right now about a potential rise of antisemitism in light of everything that's going on in Israel?

JEAN-PIERRE: So a couple of things. Um, look, we have no seen any credible threats. I know there's been always questions about credible threats and so, I just want to make sure that's out there. 

But look, Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim have endured a disproportionate number of hate-fueled attacks, and certainly, President Biden understands that many of our Muslim, Arab, Arab-American, and Palestinian-American loved ones are worried about the hate being directed at their communities, and that is something you heard the president speak to in his address just last Thursday. 

And so, one of the things that the president has done is directed his team, Homeland Security team to prioritize prevention and disruption of any emerging threats that could hurt the Jewish, the Muslim, Arab Americans, or any other communities, and that is something the president has sought to do since day one. As you know, the president ran on, on, you know, bringing, protecting communities but also bringing communities together, protecting the soul of the nation. And so, that is something the president takes very, very seriously, and we're going to continue to denounce any sort of hate toward any American here, and that's what we're going to continue to be steadfast on.

in a different world

Rashi comments: קץ כל בשר בא לפני – כל מקום שאתה מוצא זנות, אנדרולמוסיא בא לעולם והורגת טובים ורעים.  Taz (in Divrei David) points out that Rashi seems to be a stira minei u'bei, self-contradictory. If the evils of the pre-flood world dictated a response of  אנדרולמוסיא that kills טובים ורעים, good and evil folks alike, then how is it that Noach himself was spared?  Doesn't the fact that he survived and was spared prove that in fact it was not an indiscriminate punishment, that  טובים were not killed alongside רעים?

Rashi writes in Braishis that the world was created with the letter 'hey' because  כה״י זה שסתום מכל צדדין ופתוח מלמטה לרדת דרך שם.  Last week I mentioned the question of Shem m'Shmuel: Why did Hashem not create the world with a letter that has a big opening on top so that the tzadikim could go up to shamayim?  The elevator goes in both directions, doesn't it?  

Shem m'Shmuel answers that olam ha'zeh can only bring a person down.  There is no upside.  The very word טבע, the laws of nature, is based on the same root as as used in the expression ספינה טובעת בּים, a boat sinking in the sea.  Olam ha'zeh is the quicksand that will sink you into places that are hard to get out of.  The way out is by rising above it, by choosing to live למעלה מין הטבע.

Taz uses a similar yesod to explain our Rashi.  He writes that if you read the pesukim carefully, you see that the command to build the ark, pesukim 14-16, precedes Hashem telling Noach that he is going to bring a flood, pasuk 17.  Why would Hashem tell Noach to make an ark before telling him that there is going to be a flood?  Taz answers that  אנדרולמוסיא בא לעולם effects everyone, טובים ורעים, in that עולם.  What the ark did is isolate Noach from the world.  Hashem showed Noach that even when the world of טבע warrants destruction, he has a place of refuge outside it.

Sefas Emes and others see "teivah" as an allusion to words of Torah and tefillah.  These are our places of refuge למעלה מין הטבע that can take us outside whatever is going on in the world.

This is not just a nice derasha, but it's lomdus that unlocks a Tosfos.  The gemara (San 59) has a principle that  ליכא מידעם דלישראל שרי ולעובד כוכבים אסור.  You cannot have a case where dinei Yisrael is more lenient than dinei bnei Noach.  Tosfos comments that even though a ben Noach who keeps shabbos is chayav misa but we obviously are not, that does not count because the Torah specifically gives us a mitzvah to observe shabbos.  בדבר שהוא מצוה לישראל לא אמרינן הכי העובד כוכבים ששבת חייב ולישראל מצוה  The more difficult question is with respect to other days of the week.  There is no mitzvah for us to keep shabbos on Monday, for example, but the halacha is that an aku"m that keeps a day of shabbos on Monday is chayav while we are not.  Why is that not an exception?  Tosfos cryptically writes מ"מ יש עליו מצות שביתת שבת.  

R' Yosef Engel (Ben Porat 4) explains as follows: you only say ליכא מידעם דלישראל שרי ולעובד כוכבים אסור when talking about the same cheftza, in this case the same day of the week.  You have to compare apples to apples.  The reason why an aku"m that keeps shabbos is chayav but we are not is because these are in effect apples and oranges.  For us, there is a day of shabbos.  For an aku"m, it's Saturday.  Those are totally different worlds, totally different units of time.  We live in a world where the seventh day of the week has kedusha, where we come in contact with olam ha'ba.  They have no access to such a thing.

R' Yosef Engel then goes on to say an even bigger chiddush: the same thing applies to Monday.  For us, it's "yom sheni b'shabbos."  Every day of the week connects either to the previous shabbos or the upcoming shabbos and draws from its kedusha.  For an aku"m, it's just another day of the week.  Again, apples and oranges.

We look like we are in same world, going through the same days of the week, leading the same life, as our neighbors, as everyone else.  In reality, it's not the same at all.  We are למעלה מין הטבע , למעלה מין הזמן as it exists for them.     

thanks, but... a review of how we got here

Of course we should be thankful for the arms that Biden has given Israel.  However, we should not lose sight of how we got to the point that these arms are needed.  While it's pointless to play hypothetical games and ask what could have been had Trump or someone else been in the White House, it's certainly fair game to take a look at the policy changes that the Biden administration has implemented viz a viz Iran and the Palestinians and ask ourselves whether they have contributed to or hindered Israel's security.  Here's just a sample and judge for yourselves:

1) "Just six days after taking office, the Biden administration took a sharp turn in U.S. policy in the Middle East, announcing it will resume contact with Palestinian leaders and restore U.S. contributions to the U.N. agency which provides aid to Palestinians...The remarks signaled a rejection of then-President Donald Trump's policy of the past four years, which overwhelmingly favored the interests of Israel's right-wing government. The Trump administration closed the Washington, D.C., office of the Palestine Liberation Organization; halted contributions to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, which provides aid to Palestinian refugees and their descendants; moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing the city as Israel's capital; recognized Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights; and presented a peace proposal which left all Israeli West Bank settlements in place."  (link)

2) "President Biden will also announce new contributions totaling $316 million to support the Palestinian people. This is on top of the more than half a billion dollars the United States has provided to the Palestinian people since the Biden Administration restored much needed funding to the Palestinians."  (taken from the White House's own statement)

3) "The Biden administration has funneled more than $730 million to a United Nations organization for refugee assistance in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that harbored personnel who have incited violence against the Jewish people, The Post has learned." 

4) "The Biden administration has sent more than $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to a Palestinian relief organization that has previously been accused of providing safe harbor to terrorists in Gaza, drawing increased scrutiny amid Hamas' attacks on Israel." (link)

5) "A federal judge in Texas on Tuesday evening ordered the discovery phase of a lawsuit accusing the Biden administration of knowingly providing funds that benefited Palestinian terrorists get underway.  America First Legal (AFL) first filed the lawsuit in 2022, alleging that President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken resumed payments to the Palestinian Authority (PA) that former President Trump ended in order to be in compliance with the Taylor Force Act — a federal law that prohibits the government from sending American taxpayer dollars to the PA until it stops supporting terrorism." (link)

6) "The US government will stop funding and participating in research, development, and scientific cooperation projects in Judea and Samaria, three years after Trump approved the cooperation." (link) 

7) "President Biden would not commit to inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House, a split from previous president’s who have long welcomed the country’s longest serving prime minister." (link)

8) “Because the Biden administration has been eagerly pursuing a nuclear agreement with Tehran, White House officials admitted to Bloomberg News that they have relaxed sanctions on Iran. The impact of that idiocy has been that Iran’s oil exports, which languished at less than 800,000 barrels per day under President Trump, soared to around 1.7 million b/d in August. (Some put the figure even higher, at 2 mb/d.) According to one estimate, that means Iran raked in $30-$40 billion in extra revenues this past year. Forget the $6 billion held by Qatar that Biden’s team recently unfroze; the jump in oil revenues was more than enough to fund the malevolent activities of Hamas, Hezbollah and other terror proxies." (link)

9) “President Biden stressed in a speech after his meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem on Friday that a two-state solution based on the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps is the best way to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.... Biden's address — the first time as president he laid out parameters for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — was seen as a win for the Palestinians, who were hoping to get a diplomatic achievement from the president's visit in the form of a more detailed U.S. public position on the conflict.  His comments brought the U.S. position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict back to the pre-Trump era and close to the position of the Obama administration." (link)

In summation, Biden presidency policy has 1) allowed Iran access to $, which are then used to fund terror; 2) directed the transfer of funds to the Palestinians; 3) funded UN agencies that are hostile to Israeli interests; 4) cut off cooperation with those in Yehuda and Shomron; 5) rebuffed Netanyahu; 6) advocated for a return to pre-1967 borders.  

But the other guy did... The other party believes...  

Well, ask yourself one question: is whatever he/they did that you disagree with worth your casting your lot in with a person/party that supports these policies?

issur of chatzi shiur on eating eitz ha'daas

I saw a diyun regarding whether there was an issur of chatzi shiur on the eitz ha'daas.  Rashi comments on  וַתִּתֵּן גַּם לְאִישָׁהּ עִמָּהּ וַיֹּאכַל (3:6) that גם – לרבות בהמה וחיה. Chavah fed the fruit to all the animals as well as Adam.  How big was this fruit?  If she broke off pieces to distribute, odds are there was less than the shiur left for Adam to eat.  Does the concept of shiur for issurim even apply when speaking about issurei ben Noach, or are they chayav for any amount?   

I don't think you need any fancy lomdus to answer this question.  When Hashem told Adam not to eat from eitz ha'daas the pasuk says  וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ (2:17)  The word  מִמֶּנּוּ in the pasuk seems extraneous.  Ibn Ezra comments: או טעמו: אפילו מעט ממנו  Black on white that the shiur here is any amount.

"Do you have family in Israel?"; Kayin and Hevel and inyana d'yoma; Joe Biden's worst lie yet

1)"Do you have family in Israel?"   

This is the first question I am always asked by my well meaning non-Jewish coworkers who see the war news and want to know if my family is safe.  This one question highlights the fundamental difference between the way the non-Jewish world looks at the news and events in the world and the way we look at them.  In their mind if a close relative is in danger that's one thing, but if not, then the concern is muted, you have less to be worried about, you are not losing sleep every night.

A family member in Israel recently (before the war) was talking about needing help for something, and they were not overly concerned because, in their words, "We are all family here."  If that was the feeling two weeks ago, kal v'chomer that is the feeling now, and it extends not just to those in Israel, but even to those of us living in chu"l.  

Even if you don't have a brother or sister in Israel, a parent or aunt or uncle, or even a first, second, or even third cousin, each and every one of us feels like we have family there; we are personally invested in everything that is happening in a way that only family is invested.

2) I was made aware of this Yalkut Shimoni thanks to a talk I saw by R' Oury Cherki.  

 וַיָּקׇם קַיִן אֶל הֶבֶל אָחִיו וַיַּהַרְגֵהוּ

The word וַיָּקׇם implies that Kayin was lying down or sitting down and then got up.  What was going on in this encounter?  The Yalkut writes:

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הֶבֶל הָיָה גִבּוֹר מִקַּיִן, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וַיָּקָם אֶלָא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה נָתוּן תַּחְתָּיו אָמַר לֵיהּ שְׁנֵינוּ בָּעוֹלָם, מָה אַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ וְאוֹמֵר לְאַבָּא, נִתְמַלֵּא עָלָיו רַחֲמִים, מִיַּד עָמַד עָלָיו וַהֲרָגוֹ. מִן תַּמָן אִנּוּן אָמְרִין טָב לְבִישׁ לֹא תַּעֲבִיד וְכוּ׳.

I don't need to elaborate on the application to iyana d'yoma.  Hevel assumed Kayin had the same moral rule book that he did, which was a mistake.  

3) The biggest lie of all the big lies Joe Biden has told is his statement on Sunday that, "...A significant portion of Palestinian people do not share the views of Hamas and Hezbollah."

Is there a shred of evidence that would support such an assertion?  Did the Palestinian media last Saturday and Sunday condemn the atrocities that occurred?  Was social media filled with Arab voices declaring that Hamas did not act in their name?  Have the people of Gaza when polled declared themselves sick of Hamas' ruling their territory?  Do they teach their children in school to love peace?   

No.  These barbarians celebrated what happened.  These barbarians have held multiple demonstrations in support of Hamas.  

Ask yourself this: Has there been a SINGLE demonstration in the Arab world protesting against Hamas?

Just another one of Joe's lies.  One that we will pay the price for.

thoughts on the situation at hand - Gan Eden, the letter hey and human nature, Hashem's mourning, and what our job is

A friend asked me why I have not written anything about what is going on.  The answer in short is כּשׁם שׁמקבּלים שׂכר על הדרישׁה כך מקבּלים שׂכר על הפּרישׁה.  It is sometimes too challenging to not go negative, so better to spend the time doing other things.  Still, it's before shabbos, a new parsha, so here comes a disaster of a post.

Someone at work who asked about my family in Israel asked whether we could get a flight to bring my daughter, who lives in Yerushalayim, home.  The answer to that question, which I think I managed to explain in a way that even this gentile understood, is that my daughter IS home -- it is we who are displaced.  

That is the message that we in the diaspora need to absorb and internalize and teach to out young people.

Are we really doing that?

When you sign up for a cruise, you get a choice of a first class cabin with all the luxuries, or a second class berth, etc. down the line.  When you are in a lifeboat in an emergency, there is no first class.  You do the bare minimum for survival and try your best to get someplace better.  Galus is a lifeboat.  Sometimes the lifeboat is a leaky wreck, sometimes the lifeboat is comfortable, almost as good as a real ship.  But only a fool makes himself at home on the lifeboat.  

Things are difficult now, but that doesn't mean we should make ourselves at home in the lifeboat.  It means we need to work harder at repairing what needs to be fixed in our real home.  

I have a kashe on myself that I can't answer, but I'll share it with you just in case you want to think about the same kashe.

Rashi comments on  וַיִּקַּח ה׳ אֱלֹקים אֶת הָאָדָם וַיַּנִּחֵהוּ בְגַן עֵדֶן לְעׇבְדָהּ וּלְשׇׁמְרָהּ (2:18) that ויקח – לקחו בדברים נאים ופתהו ליכנס.  Hashem had to entice and seduce Adam to get him to enter Gan Eden.

How does that make sense?  Gan Eden is the best place imaginable.  Why should Hashem have to seduce Adam to get him to go there?  

Good question, isn't it?  

 כִּי נִחַם ה׳ צִיּוֹן נִחַם כׇּל חׇרְבֹתֶיהָ וַיָּשֶׂם מִדְבָּרָהּ כְּעֵדֶן וְעַרְבָתָהּ כְּגַן ה׳ שָׂשׂוֹן וְשִׂמְחָה יִמָּצֵא בָהּ תּוֹדָה וְקוֹל זִמְרָה.

And yet we expect Hashem to twist our arm to get us to even think about moving. 

This is not kashya.  It's teiuvta.  Game, set, match.  I don't have an answer.  

What saddens me is that so many people are not even bothered by the question.

At the end of the parsha we read וַיִּנָּחֶם ה׳ כִּי עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל לִבּוֹ.  The Midrash comments that אֵין עֲצִיבָה אֶלָא אֲבֵלוּת.  Netziv asks why Hashem was in aveilus here.  The mabul had not yet started, so what was He mourning over?  

Netziv answers:

אלא הענין, דבכל משך מאה ועשרים שנה מתו כמה צדיקים שהיו בעולם והמה מכונים בשם ׳לב הבריאה׳, כי הוא תכליתו,... והנה בכל דור ודור הצדיק נאסף אל עמיו וזרח צדיק אחר, אבל במשך מאה ועשרים שנה אלו מי שמת לא הניח תמורתו וממלא מקומו, משום הכי שייך לומר ויתעצב אל לבו שהתאבל על מות הצדיקים, שאין עוד אדם שיהא ראוי לקיים העולם לצוות לו.

People die all the time, even under tragic circumstances, and people are born every day too.  But sometimes a death is so tragic that it's like your heart has been ripped out.  Something irreplaceable has been taken.  That was this past week.

I think many people lost their naivete and had their illusions shattered as they discovered this past week just how horrible college campus hatred against Jews is, as they hear the deafening silence of corporate America so willing to stake a stand on so many issues except the slaughter of Jews, etc.

  אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם.  Rashi comments לימדך כאן שהעולם הזה נברא בה״י. רמז שירדו למטה לראות שחת, כה״י זה שסתום מכל צדדין ופתוח מלמטה לרדת דרך שם  The world was created with the letter 'hey' because it has a big opening on the bottom for the evildoers to fall out of down to where they belong.  

Shem m'Shmuel asks: Why did Hashem not create the world with a letter that has a big opening on top so that the tzadikim could go up to shamayim?  The elevator goes in both directions, doesn't it?

What the pasuk is telling us is that olam ha'zeh by its very nature is cruel and barbaric, Tennyson's "nature red in tooth and claw."  Left unchecked, what comes out is the worst in man, not the best.  Don't be fooled and think that because we live in the year 2023/5754 things are any different.  Rashi in his ruach ha'kodesh had in mind most of what you read about Jews on Twitter when he wrote that comment.  

Of course there is a way up, but that way is למעלה מן הטבע.  Chazal darshen that בְּהִבָּרְאָם is the same letters as Avraham, for whom the world was created.  The 10 tests that Avraham faced proved that a human being can rise above his nature, the nature of olam ha'zeh, to reach amazing heights.

We have seen a lot of that this past week too.  Unbelievable heroism, unbelievable chessed.  Our nation lives למעלה מן הטבע, the very fact that we continue to exist is למעלה מן הטבע.

Even small things can restore your belief in the power of mankind in general to rise above its nature.  It is something you will rarely see if you spend too much time in the cesspool of online social media.  I was sitting outside at lunchtime one day this week in a small park near my office when a total stranger came over and said to me, "I hope if you have family in Israel that they are doing alright.  I just want to let you know that."

Don't completely lose hope.  There are still sane people left in the world out there.  

The Midrash writes (42:4, in Lech Lecha) אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר אֲבִינָא אִם רָאִיתָ מַלְכֻיּוֹת מִתְגָּרוֹת אֵלּוּ בְּאֵלּוּ צַפֵּה לְרַגְלוֹ שֶׁל מָשִׁיחַ  The Imrei Emes explained (not exactly in these words : ) that when there is war, your job is not to check every arutz station for updates all day, or monitor social media, or to discuss who is to blame, or to map out strategy of what the gvt should do next just in case you get the call to be Defense Minister tomorrow.  Instead of looking at all those things, רָאִיתָ..., instead of looking at every crumb of news and commentary about the fighting and what is going on, what you should look at is צַפֵּה לְרַגְלוֹ שֶׁל מָשִׁיחַ.  What can I learn, what can I daven for, what chessed can I do, to help bring mashiach closer.

Today happens to be my mother-in-law's yahrzeit.  Years ago she did a video interview, along with one of my wife's uncles, for the Chabad group that collects stories that have to do with the Rebbe, in which she recounts how the Rebbe's bracha brought a yeshu'a for one of her siblings as a baby.  Here is a link if you want the whole story, but I just want to focus on one detail.  When my wife's grandfather called the Rebbe to say his baby was basically at death's door, the Rebbe said to him, "You're a Rav.  The job of a Rav is to make sure the standards of kashrus are upheld, the standard of chinuch where you live is good.  You do you job, and Hashem will do His job.  The baby will be OK."  Today this aunt baruch Hashem has many, many children and grandchildren of her own.  

צַפֵּה לְרַגְלוֹ שֶׁל מָשִׁיחַ.  We each have a job to do.  Some folks are doing it on the front lines of Gaza.  Some have a job to do in the beis medrash.  Some do it in chessed programs.

Let's do our job, and Hashem will do His. 

R' Aharon Lichtenstein: mitzvos that we happen to do on a chag vs mitzvos that establish the character of the chag

 Y"T fast approaches, but wanted to get this in quickly.  The gemara (Suk 48a) says the Shmini Atzeret is רגל בפני עצמו לענין פז״ר קש״ב  Rashi on the spot comments רגל בפני עצמו  שאין יושבין בסוכה.  

Ramban raises a number of questions on Rashi, among them:

עוד שאינו נקרא רגל בפני עצמו בשביל שאינו בכל מצות הרגל שלו שהרי לולב נוהג בראשון ואינו בשאר הימים בגבולין ורגל פסח נמי חלוק במצה ומרור כדאיתמר לעיל.

How is the absence of mitzvas sukkah proof that Shmini Atzeret is its own regel?  You don't take lulav on the second day of Sukkot onward (mi'doraysa), but it is still the same holiday of Sukkos.  What's the difference between the two?

Rav Zolti in his Mishnas Yaavetz (here) has a defense of Rashi, but I would like to propose answering at least this question with a yesod R' Aharon Lichtenstein has here (parenthetically, the Asif site is really one worth putting on your radar.)  R' Aharon suggests (not enough time to go through his proofs here, so ayen sham!) that there are two types of mitzvos that we do on Yom Tov: 1) there are mitzvos that have a set time in which they have to be performed, and that time just happens to be on a specific chag; 2) there are mitzvos that define the character and nature of the chag.  

For example, R' Aharon writes that blowing shofar is not something that you do on 1 Tishrei that you could just as well do on 3 Tishrei or 5 Tishrei or any other day.  Blowing shofar is what makes 1 Tishrei into "Yom Teru'a."  It defines the day.  Without shofar, you don't have a holiday that is missing a mitzvah -- take away shofar and in effect you no longer have a holiday.  

I would suggest that the same is true of sukkah.  It's not called "Chag ha'Lulav."  It's called "Chag ha'Sukkos."  The reason is not simply because the former is done only for one day and the latter for seven.  The difference is because the former mitzvah defines the nature of the day, the character of the chag.  The latter does not -- it's just a mitzvah that happens to fall out on that particular date.  

This is why according to Rashi שאין יושבין בסוכה is proof that we are dealing with a day that has a completely different character, but the fact that mi'doraysa we don't take lulav during chol ha'moed is not indicative of anything. 

chassan torah

וַיֹּאמַר ה׳ מִסִּינַי בָּא וְזָרַח מִשֵּׂעִיר לָמוֹ הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּארָן וְאָתָה מֵרִבְבֹת קֹדֶשׁ מִימִינוֹ אֵשׁ דָּת לָמוֹ  

The pshat in the pasuk is that it is describing Hashem's revelation on Sinai to give the Torah.  Rashbam: מסיני בא – ונראה לישראל ונתן להם תורתו   Shouldn't it therefore say that Hashem came לסיני, not מִסִּינַי?  

The simple answer is that מלאה הארץ כּבודו and so you cannot say that Hashem comes anywhere.  He is there already.  Like the Uncle Moishy song says, "Hashem is here, Hashem is there, Hashem is truly everywhere..."  

Rashi already anticipated this quesrtion on the pasuk as well and quotes from Chazal מסיני בא – ויצא לקראתם כשבאו להתייצב תחת ההר כחתן היוצא להקביל פני כלה.  Sefas Emes (in the Likutim) explains this analogy:

"יצא ממה שׁהי׳ נסתר מקודם ונתגלה כּבודו"

I think in this case the nimshal teaches us something with respect to the mashal and not just the other way around. Just like at mattan Torah Hashem drew Himself out kavyachol and revealed what had previously been hidden, so too, the lesson for us is that when a person who comes to teach Torah, to learn Torah, they need to draw out their latent kochos and bring them to the table. You cannot sit back and expect to passively absorb Torah; you have to push yourself to be engaged and stretch your mind to meet the text halfway.   

Every one of us on Simchas Torah and year round can be a chassan -- a chassan Torah.  But you have to reach out beyond yourself and take the first step.

אידך פּירושׁא זיל גמור

צא ולמד

כחתן היוצא להקביל פני כלה

sukkah in the rain

I covered this back in 2009, but figured a little review (with some new addition) doesn't hurt.  We have torrential rains in NY (to quote my wife: the last time it rained this much Noah was putting his zoo together) that are not expected to stop before nightfall.  How does that impact the mitzvah of sukkah?

The Rishonim ask: the gemara (Brachos 49) writes that there is a chiyuv to eat a seudas Y"T with bread, and therefore if one forgets yaaleh v'yavo one has to repeat bentching.  The gemara (Sukkah 27) has another din learned from a gezeira shava of Sukkos to Pesach that one is obligated to eat a kzayis in the sukkah tonight.  Why do we need this latter din when we already know that we have to eat a seudah of bread tonight because it is Y"T?  

A few answers are offered: 1) Tos (Sukkah 27) answers that really on Y"T there is no obligation to eat bread.  The sugya that says you have to is speaking only about the night of Sukkos or Pesach, when we have that gezeira shavah that obligates us.  According to this view, if you leave our yaaleh v'yavo in Y"TNoa bentching you would not repeat. 2) Other Rishonim says the nafka mina is the shiur.  Normally, a person has to eat a k'beitza to be yotzei seudas Y"T.  The gezeira shava elevates the importance of the eating of a k'zayis so that one is yotzei with that. 3) Rosh answers that had we only had the chiyuv to eat because of seudas Y"T, when it rains, you could eat inside.  The gezeira shava teaches us that on the night of Y"T one must eat a k'zayis in sukkah regardless of the weather.

Since the other Rishonim did not give the Rosh's answer (which is quoted l'halacha by the Rama), one can assume that they did not accept his chiddush, and that even on the first night of sukkos one is not obligated to sit in the sukkah in the rain.  

The nekudas ha'machlokes (see the older post for a different hesber): yesh lachkor whether the chiyuv of sukkah on the first night is a mitzvah of achila, like achilas matzah, or a mitzvah of dirah, to live in the sukkah, which you do by eating there.  

If it is a mitzvah of dirah, then when it rains, one should be patur.  You don't live in your house when there is rain pouring through the ceiling -- that's not called dirah.  If it is a mitzvah of achila, then rain makes no difference.  If it rains on leil ha'seder, you still eat a k'zayis of matzah.

There are other issues that may hinge on this same chakira.  If one stole a k'zayis and ate it in the sukkah tonight, is it a mitzah ha'baah b'aveira (R' Baruch Ber's question)?  Is the mitzvah achilas k'zayis, or is the mitzvah sitting in sukkah, and you never stole the sukkah?  The Yerushalmi has a safeik (discussed by Rama as well) whether one must avoid eating a meal after chatzos on erev Sukkos in order to be able to enjoy eating that k'zayis in the sukkah just like you cannot have a meal on erev Pesach in order to relish that first bite of matzah.  Again, the issue seems to be whether the focus is on eating, or on dirah.

Bottom line: even if it rains, to be yotzei the shitas haRosh quoted by Rama you should eat a k'zayis in the sukkah and then continue the rest of the meal inside.

GR"A throws one more wrinkle into the equation.  He holds (Maaseh Rav, also quoted by Chayei Adam) that when it rains on the first night, even if you've eaten your k'zayis to be yotzei the Rosh, if it then stops raining, even at 3:00AM, you have to go out and eat another k'zayis of bread in the dry sukkah.  The M.B. asks why this should be so.  M'mah nafshach: according to the Rosh, you were yotzei with the k'zayis you ate in the rain.  According to the other Rishonim, just like you were exempt because of 'mitzta'ar pature min ha'sukkah' when it rained, you are exempt because of 'mitzta'ar pature min ha'sukkah' from having to wake up at 3:00AM?  

What we see from the GR"A (he has other Rishonim to back it up) is a new chiddush: the gezeira shava does obligate a person irrespective of the weather, irrespective of tzaar, like the Rosh holds; however, a sukkah with rain falling through the roof is not a sukkah.  There is a chovas ha'gavra, but you have no cheftza shel mitzvah to fulfill it with.  Therefore, once it stops raining and you have a livable sukkah, you have to go out and take advantage.

Four lessons from Yonah

1) Lesson #1 posted back in 2009 here.

2) The passengers aboard the ship with Yonah being tossed in the storm cannot understand the cause of the calamity that has befallen them.  Sailors are not known to be the most righteous folks, and one can safely assume that the other passengers were ovdei avodah zarah, but it is Yonah alone who raises his hand and takes full responsibility for the unfolding disaster.  

The Brisker Rav explained that society around us may be wicked and debased, but it's not our job to point the finger at their wrongdoings as the cause of evil in the world.  It's our job to look at ourselves, our own failures.  Relative to what the rest of the world does our wrongs may be trivial, but we have a Torah to learn from and therefore the bar for us in higher.

3) Why did Yonah tell the sailors to cast him into the sea?  He could have quelled the storm by tellimg them to turn around and bring him back to Eretz Yisrael so he could deliver the prophecy he was charged with?  

R' Chaim Kanievsky in Taama d'Kra (based on a Chazal) writes that Yonah knew that if he would deliver that prophecy and Ninveh would do teshuvah, it would look bad for Klal Yisrael.  Therefore, he preferred to be tossed into the sea, to be moseir nefesh rather than go back. Great leaders are those who are willing to give up everything for the sake of the people.

4) When the storm hits, the navi  tells us וַיִּֽירְא֣וּ הַמַּלָּחִ֗ים (1:5) that the *sailors* were afraid.  Yonah then tells them that he is a Jew fleeing G-d and it is because of G-d's anger that they are in danger.  The navi then tells us again of their fear, but this time it says וַיִּֽירְא֤וּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁים֙ יִרְאָ֣ה גְדוֹלָ֔ה, the *people* were afraid.

Malbi"m explains:

מ״ש תחלה וייראו המלחים היתה יראת הסכנה. אבל יראה זו היתה יראת ה׳ שהיא גדולה למעלתה לפי גדולת העצם שהתיראו ממנו

At first, the fear felt by the unsophisticated sailors was simply a fear of the storm.  That type of fear is the same fear even an animal has when it detects a threat.  However, after Yonah spoke with them, the sailors then understood this storm has a cause, that G-d is behind what is taking place.  Their fear them became a fear felt by אֲנָשִׁים֙, people, i.e. thinkers, not just the gross reactive fear of an animal facing danger.

Life has many challengers, some of which are frightening to deal with.  That fear can be elevated to yiras shamayim, to appreciate that there is a cause, that there is purpose to everything.

the immutable core

Last week I wrote about the din as it applies to divrei Torah, with respect to the klal as well as on the prat, תן חלקנו בּתורתך.  

Our parsha compares Torah to drops of rain and dew that fall on the grass:

 יַעֲרֹף כַּמָּטָר לִקְחִי תִּזַּל כַּטַּל אִמְרָתִי כִּשְׂעִירִם עֲלֵי דֶשֶׁא וְכִרְבִיבִים עֲלֵי עֵשֶׂב

Rashi explains the difference between  דֶשֶׁא and עֵשֶׂב is that עטיפת הארץ נקרא דשא, the former is the covering of the ground as a whole, the latter קלח אחד קרוי עשב refers to each blade of grass.  Sefas Emes writes that this reflects the Torah of the klal vs Torah of the prat.  Torah is part of the identity not just of Klal Yisrael the nation as a whole, but each individual also brings something to the table.  This is both a mechayeiv as well as a bracha.  

I thought this may be pshat in Sanhedrim 102a, which talks about Yeravam and Achya haShiloni: 

מאי ושניהם לבדם בשדה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב שכל תלמידי חכמים דומין לפניהם כעשבי השדה 

Meaning, even if you piled up כל תלמידי חכמים, the rest of the world, it was not like everyone against two, it was not like עֲלֵי דֶשֶׁא, but rather the entire rest of the world was like קלח אחד קרוי עשב, like individuals. and Achya and Yeravam's view was superior.

There is a machlokes Rishonim/meforshim whether the mitzvah referred to in the pasuk

כִּי הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם לֹא נִפְלֵאת הִוא מִמְּךָ וְלֹא רְחֹקָה הִוא

is the mitzvah of talmud torah or the mitzvah of teshuvah (which may hinge on whether teshuvah is counted as an independent mitzvah or whether the mitzvah is viduy).  The truth is that these two mitzvos are inseparable. Ohr haChaim writes in P' Bechukosai on the pasuk  וְאִם עַד אֵלֶּה לֹא תִשְׁמְעוּ לִי וְיָסַפְתִּי לְיַסְּרָה אֶתְכֶם שֶׁבַע עַל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם (26:18) that תלה הדבר בשמיעה שהיא התורה, כי הנמנע שיחזרו בתשובה זולת על ידי התורה.  Without Torah, teshuvah is impossible.  

Shem m'Shmuel echoes the same (Vayigash, 5680):

 וכענין אמרם ז"ל בבני עלי שאינו מתכפר בזבח ובמנחה אבל מתכפר הוא בתורה, שהוא בשכל, ויש לומר דהיינו הך שכתב האריז"ל דעיקר תשובה הוא עסק התורה, ולשון עסק התורה בודאי הפירוש העיון שהוא שקיל וטרי בתורה כל איש לפי יכולתו, והוא נוגע בשכל, ולא התמדת הקריאה ולימוד בלבד, ואפי' מי שאין ביכולתו לחדש חידושין דאורייתא נמי צריך עכ"פ לייגע את מוחו להבין בשכלו הטיב עד שיחקקו ד"ת ויקבלם בשכלו כל איש לפי הבנתו ודעתו, וטוב מעט בכוונה מהרבות שלא בכוונה:

It's no coincidence that Yom Kippur, the day set aside for teshuvah and kapparah, is also the day on which mattan Torah of the second luchos occurred.

Sefas Emes in a very short piece (end of 5647) explains the omek of this idea

We read in the haftarah on the second day of R"H (Yirmiyahu 31:19)

הֲבֵן יַקִּיר לִי אֶפְרַיִם אִם יֶלֶד שַׁעֲשֻׁעִים כִּי מִדֵּי דַבְּרִי בּוֹ זָכֹר אֶזְכְּרֶנּוּ עוֹד עַל כֵּן הָמוּ מֵעַי לוֹ רַחֵם אֲרַחֲמֶנּוּ נְאֻם ה׳

Rashi quotes the Midrash:

ומדרש ויקרא רבה די דבורי שנתתי בו שלימדתיו תורתי לרחם עליו.

Learning Torah is not simply something that we do, like other mitzvos.  It's our identity, it's who we are.  דבורי שנתתי בו means it's within us, part of our DNA. We may ignore it, we may sully ourselves to the point that we don't even know ourselves who are what we are all about, but just like a leopard can't change it's spots, we can't undo our makeup.  That's why at the end of the day רַחֵם אֲרַחֲמֶנּוּ נְאֻם ה׳.  When one learns Torah, one returns to that core, which is exactly what the process of teshuvah is all about. 

 קְח֤וּ עִמָּכֶם֙ דְּבָרִ֔ים וְשׁ֖וּבוּ אֶל ה׳ אִמְרוּ אֵלָיו כׇּל תִּשָּׂא עָוֺן וְקַח טוֹב וּנְשַׁלְּמָה פָרִים שְׂפָתֵינוּ

Rashi quotes a number of peshatim to address how to read the pasuk.  On the one hand, we are saying to Hashem  כׇּל תִּשָּׂא עָוֺן, you have to forgive our sins because we have done wrong.  On the other hand, וְקַח טוֹב.  Well, if we've done wrong, then where is the "tov" that Hashem is supposed to take?  So Rashi says וקח טוב – ולמדנו דרך טוב, meaning after you forgive the past, teach us to be better going forward.  Or he suggests דבר אחר: וקח טוב וקבל הודיה מאתנו, take the praise that we offer for forgiveness.  According to Sefas Emes, however, there is no difficulty.  Once you take away the bad, then m'meila,  וְקַח טוֹב because that's what's left, that's the immutable core. As he writes:   וז"ש אמרו אליו כו' תשא עון כו' ועי"ז וקח טוב. הטוב שנמצא בלבות בנ"י  

That's קְח֤וּ עִמָּכֶם֙ דְּבָרִ֔ים.  It doesn't mean to take something external to you, like bringing a gift.  Rather it's עִמָּכֶם֙, something you take out of yourself, the דבורי שנתתי בו שלימדתיו תורתי.  It's already part of you, you just have to clean off the dirt on the surface, and m'meila וְשׁ֖וּבוּ אֶל ה׳.   

yom ha'din -- on Torah

R' Ben Tzion Kook quotes the Rama mi'Pana on the gemara (Shabbos 31a)

אמר רבא בשעה שמכניסין אדם לדין אומרים לו נשאת ונתת באמונה קבעת עתים לתורה עסקת בפו"ר צפית לישועה פלפלת בחכמה הבנת דבר מתוך דבר 

who explains that Chazal are not just speaking here about the future judgment we will all have to undergo after 120 years when we depart from this world, but are speaking about Rosh haShana as well, the judgment we face each and every year.  

The gemara (Kid 41) writes:

דאמר רב המנונא אין תחילת דינו של אדם אלא על דברי תורה 

The first item on the list of things looked at on yom ha'din is how committed and engaged we were to Torah study this year.

We find the centrality of Torah to yom ha'din reflected in halacha as well.  Rama (OC 585) paskens that the baal tokea should stand next to the bima where the Torah is read.  M"B explains כדי שזכות התורה יגן עלינו לעלות זכרונינו לפניו לטובה, so that the zechus of Torah should enable our tekiyos to rise up to heaven.

The Mishna in R"H writes that on Pesach the world is judged as to how much wheat will be produced; on Shavuos we are judged on how much fruit will grow; on Sukkos we are judged on how much rain there will be.  Seems like everything is covered, so what happens on Rosh haShana?  Ran answers that on R"H Hashem decides what our individual portion will be.

Perhaps the same is true when in comes to Torah.  The world cannot exist without Torah, and inevitably 5784 will bring with it new chiddushim, new sevaros, new ideas, new questions.  What we have to ask for on Rosh haShana is תן חלקנו בּתורתך.  We want our portion, our share!  We want that the תחילת דינו של אדם על דברי תורה should come out in a positive way for us an individuals as well as for our communities, and with it should come בּני, חיי, מזוני to enable us to learn with yishuv hadaas, harvacha, and to share that Torah with our children and others.

stolen shofar -- Raavad's view

Rambam and Raavad agree that one can be yotzei tekiyas shofar with a stolen shofar, but they disagree as to why.  Rambam paskens (Shofar 1:3)

שופר של עכו"ם אין תוקעין בו לכתחלה ואם תקע יצא. ושל עיר הנדחת אם תקע בו לא יצא. שופר הגזול שתקע בו יצא שאין המצוה אלא בשמיעת הקול אע"פ שלא נגע בו ולא הגביהו השומע יצא ואין בקול דין גזל. וכן שופר של עולה לא יתקע בו ואם תקע יצא שאין בקול דין מעילה. ואם תאמר והלא נהנה בשמיעת הקול מצות לא ליהנות ניתנו. לפיכך המודר הנייה משופר מותר לתקוע בו תקיעה של מצוה:

Raavad comments:

 ואין בקול דין גזל. א"א ואפילו יהיה בו דין גזל יום תרועה יהיה לכם מ"מ הכי איתא בירושלמי עכ"ל

In truth, both reasons are brought by the Yerushalami (Sukkah perek 3 halacha 1) in the context of explaining why a shofar of avodah zarah or ir ha'nidachas is acceptable, but a lulav with either of those two psulim is not:

 שׁוֹפָר שֶׁלְעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְשֶׁלְעִיר הַנִּידַּחַת, רִבִּי לָעְזְר אָמַר: כָּשֵׁר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה: כָּשֵׁר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה: פָּסוּל. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בַּלּוּלָב שֶּׁהוּא פָסוּל. מַה בֵין שׁוֹפָר וּמַה בֵין לוּלָב? אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה: בַּלּוּלָב כְּתִיב וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם – מִשֶׁלָּכֶם, לֹא מִשֶּׁלְאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָייָה. בְּרַם הָכָא יוֹם תְּרוּעָה יִהְיֶה לָכֶם – מִכָּל מָקוֹם. אָמֵר רִבִּי לָעְזְר: תַּמָּן בְגוּפוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא, בְּרַם הָכָא בְקוֹלוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא, וְיֵשׁ קוֹל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָייָה?

What then is the Raavad objecting to?  Is there some reason the Rambam should favor the reason quoted by Raavad over the one he quotes?

Secondly, while Raavad is consistent with the Ylmi, his comment seems to contradict the Bavli.  The gemara in the opening of perek lulav ha'gazul (Sukkah 30) debates whether the din of לוּלָב הַגָּזוּל  פָּסוּל applies only to the first day of Y"T or to all days of Y"T.  Even though the din of לָכֶם applies only one the first day (ולקחתם לכם בּיום הראשׁון), the gemara writes that the psul of mitzvah habaah b'aveira would invalidate a stolen lulav on the other days as well.

It should therefore follow that even if there is no requirement of לָכֶם with respect to shofar, there should still be a psul of mitzvah habaah b'aveira.

B'shlama according to the Rambam's reasoning, a psul in the shofar does not invalidate its kol, but according to Raavad who does not accept this argument (whatever his reason might be), the psul of mitzvah habaah b'aveira should invalidate the tekiyos.  

Just to make things worse and add icing on the cake, Rambam (Lulav 8:9) actually paskens that a stolen lulav is acceptable outside the first day of Y"T:

כל אלו שאמרנו שהם פסולין מפני מומין שבארנו או מפני גזל וגניבה ביום טוב ראשון בלבד אבל ביום טוב שני עם שאר הימים הכל כשר

But Raavad disagrees because of mitzvah habaah b'aveira.  

 כל אלו שאמרנו וכו'. א"א אין הכל מודים בגזול ויבש שאין פסולים משום הדור אלא גזול ה"ל מצוה הבאה בעבירה יבש מפני שהוא כמת, בירושלמי:

L'shitaso, what then does Raavad do with the idea of mitzvah habaah b'aveira with respect to shofar?

Leaving this hanging for now... 

watchmen over the walls

The haftarah for this past week contains the famous words (Yeshayahu 62:6):

עַל חוֹמֹתַיִךְ יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם הִפְקַדְתִּי שֹׁמְרִים כׇּל הַיּוֹם וְכׇל הַלַּיְלָה

Who are these shomrim that stand watch on the walls of Yerushalayim?  Rashi interprets based on Chazal that these are angels appointed by G-d to watch over the city.  Radak similarly writes  דרך הדרוש בזה ידוע, שהשומרים הם המלאכים, והם מתפללים לק-ל על ירושלים שישיבנה לישובה.  The Ibn Ezra puts a slight twist on the same idea and writes that the shomrim are the  אבלי ציון, who sit in mourning all day and all night.  However, what grabbed my attention is the pshat of the Metzudos: אלה השומרים כינוי על אבני ציון שאין להם עסק אחר כי אם יתמידו בבכי ואבל כשומרי החומות שאינם זזים מן השמירה  The watchmen are none other than the stones of Yerushalayim.  What came to my mind when I read that pshat is the huge stones that you see on the south side near the kotel, which remain fallen to the ground exactly as the landed when the Romans tumbled them down 2000 years ago.  Those stones still mourn the churban that they themselves experienced.

All of these interpretations read  שֹׁמְרִים as an analogy.  Just as watchmen never sleep, so too, the angels/mourners/stones never cease mourning.  Radak:  שומרי חומות ירושלים יהיו ערים ביום ובלילה תמיד, והשומרים הם דרך משל.  I think the word שֹׁמְרִים has perhaps a different connotation here, and is akin to its meaning in the pasuk  וְאָבִיו שָׁמַר אֶת הַדָּבָר (Braishis 37:11), which Rashi explains to mean היה ממתין מצפה מתי יבא.  It is not just hashgacha 24x7 which the pasuk is speaking about, but it is the anticipation of return.  The angels, the mourners, even the walls themselves, eagerly await a future where our return in complete, when our control over Yerushalayim is complete.    

the journey is the lesson

1) This is the final shabbos of the year.  Some people get confused because it's not Zos haBracha, but it's the end of the calendar year even thought the leining cycle is not complete.  ברוך אתה בבאך וברוך אתה בצאתך  We see, says Sefas Emes, that there is bracha at the start of something and bracha at the end.  Shabbos starts with kiddush; Shabbos ends with havdalah.  We say a bracha before we begin kri'as haTorah; we say a bracha when we conclude the reading.  So too with respect to the year as a whole.  We hope to start the new year next week with bracha, but there is special bracha this week as well, as the year comes to conclusion.  Take advanatage!

2) Interesting question: For 40 years in the midbar Bn"Y did not do the mitzvah of milah because it would have posed a mortal danger (Yevamos 71b).  Rashi comments that the wood cutters and water drawers mentioned at the beginning of Nitzavim were people who converted while Bn"Y were in the midbar.  Geirus requires milah, tevilah, kabbalas mitzvos, and a korban.  If it was impossible to do milah in the desert, how did they undergo geirus?  (Panim Yafos)

3) Last week I wrote about the silver lining that can be found in at least one of the pesukim of tochacha.  The Chassidic seforim suggest that all the pesukim really are pesukei bracha, but we don't understand how to read it that way in our state of galus.  

Our parsha talks about people who just blow off the tochacha and do not take it to heart:   וְהָיָה בְּשׇׁמְעוֹ אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָאָלָה הַזֹּאת וְהִתְבָּרֵךְ בִּלְבָבוֹ לֵאמֹר שָׁלוֹם יִהְיֶה לִּי כִּי בִּשְׁרִרוּת לִבִּי אֵלֵךְ (29:18). How do you just blow off pesukim describing such horrific things?  The answer is that they absorbed last week's idea a little too well!  They absorbed the idea that everything that comes from Hashem is bracha, everything comes from a place of love, and so they are not afraid of the threats.

The Torah in response tells us  הַנִּסְתָּרֹת ה׳ אֱלֹקינוּ וְהַנִּגְלֹת לָׄנׄוּׄ וּׄלְׄבָׄנֵׄיׄנׄוּׄ עַׄד עוֹלָם.  There may be a hidden meaning of bracha, but that is הַנִּסְתָּרֹת ה׳ אֱלֹקינוּ, k'lapei shemaya galya alone.  Fore us, הַנִּגְלֹת לָׄנׄוּׄ וּׄלְׄבָׄנֵׄיׄנׄוּׄ , we need to focus on the revealed meaning of the words and take to heart their basic meaning.

4) The gemara (Chagiga 3) asks why it is that Hashem commanded us to bring even little children to hakhel, to which the gemara answers so that we can accrue reward for the effort.  Maharasha on the gemara and Kli Yakar on our parsha ask: since we are speaking about children too young to learn anything (otherwise the answer to why bring them is obvious -- to learn Torah!  See Gur Aryeh) and therefore there is no purpose to what we are doing, Hashem might as well have commanded us to carry rocks in our pockets and give us reward for that.  Does Hashem just give us reward for doing senseless things with no purpose?

Tzror haMor has a beautiful diyuk in the pesukim describing hakhel.  

 הַקְהֵל אֶת הָעָם הָאֲנָשִׁים וְהַנָּשִׁים וְהַטַּף וְגֵרְךָ אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ לְמַעַן יִשְׁמְעוּ וּלְמַעַן יִלְמְדוּ (31:12) 

Notice that the verbs at the end are written in future tense.  However, in the next pasuk describes the chiyuv to bring children:

 וּבְנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ יִשְׁמְעוּ וְלָמְדוּ לְיִרְאָה

Notice that here the verbs are written in past tense - לָמְדוּ and not יִלְמְדוּ.  Why the switch?

Tzror haMor answers that there are tzvei dinim in what can be learned by coming to hakhel.   For most people, the limud that takes places occurs after they get to Yerushalayim, when the king reads the parshiyos of Torah.  Little kids, however, don't understand the pesukim.  They are not coming to hakhel to hear a shiur.  What they do understand, however, and what does make an impression on them, is the fact that their parents packed up the whole family and brought them along, the fact that this is such a "chavaya" that even they get to be there.   For them the main lesson takes place before a single pasuk is read.  The lesson is in being able to be there.  לָמְדוּ is past tense because   שכבר למדו מה שהיה להם ללמד מההבאה שהוא החנוך לפי שלא היו מבינים יותר  

If you shlep your little kid to shul with you (assuming he/she can behave), they may not know every tefilah, they may not understand exactly what is going at every moment, but what they do understand is that if you made a point of bringing them, if you made a point of showing that you want to share this experience with them, then shul is something important.  

If you take your kid to a father/son learning programs on motzei Shabbos in the winter months, that kid may not remember a particular Rashi or sugya you learned together during those sessions, but what they will remember is the fact that you brought them, that you gave up your time, that you bundled up to go out in the cold, and therefore that Torah is important.  

The answer, I think, to the Kli Yakar/Maharasha, is that intellectually, a little kid may be no smarter than a rock.  Some kids remain this way through their teenage years : )  But emotionally, it's a different ball game.  Hakhel is about EQ, not IQ.  The child who is brought along and shares in the experience of hakhel with his parent learns that Torah is something they, and he, should value.  That lesson, hopefully, will last a lifetime.

(See Sefas Emes 5634 for a different answer to this Maharasha.  Bli neder, for another time).  

always another rung to climb

  וְהָיָה כִּי תָבוֹא אֶל הָאָרֶץ  Was just speaking this morning with my daughter in Yerushalayim and told her to look at the first Ohr haChaim on the parsha: והיה כי תבא אל הארץ – אמר והיה לשון שמחה, להעיר שאין לשמוח אלא בישיבת הארץ על דרך אומרו (תהלים קכ״ו) אז ימלא שחוק פינו ו

Later in the parsha we read: וְלֹא נָתַן ה׳ לָכֶם לֵב לָדַעַת וְעֵינַיִם לִרְאוֹת וְאׇזְנַיִם לִשְׁמֹעַ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה (29:3)  Sefas Emes (5634) asks: you mean the dor de'ah that stood by Har Sinai and got the Torah did not have daas, did not see things clearly, did not hear the voice of Hashem?! Of course they did!  They experienced Hashem's revelation in the fullest possible way.  However, what they lacked was the , the עֵינַיִם, the אׇזְנַיִם.  Revelation to them was like an out of body experience. There was a disconnect between the material world, the secular world, of day to day life, and their religious experience.  The generation that was going to enter Eretz Yisrael experienced things differently.  When they learned parshas shoftim about beis din, about malchus and Jewish government, when they heard halachos about fighting wars to defend their borders, laws about agriculture and business, this spoke to their day to day life.  Torah for them was not some abstract construct, but was l'maaseh in all its forms. That's the Torah that we are slowly rediscovering today after so many years in galus.

I was not planning on writing that, but got sidetracked by the call.  What I was planning on writing was about an interesting thing later in the parsha in the section of the tochacha.  When it speaks about the brachos, we read that וּנְתָנְךָ יְהֹוָה לְרֹאשׁ וְלֹא לְזָנָב וְהָיִיתָ רַק לְמַעְלָה וְלֹא תִהְיֶה לְמָטָּה (28:13).  But then later, in the tochacha section, we read that הַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבְּךָ יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ מַעְלָה מָּעְלָה וְאַתָּה תֵרֵד מַטָּה מָּטָּה (28:43).  It does not sound very fair.  When we are on top, it says only once לְמַעְלָה, but when the aku"m have the upper hand, for them it's מַעְלָה מָּעְלָה two times.  And on the flipside, when we are in charge, וְלֹא תִהְיֶה לְמָטָּה, but when they are in charge, וְאַתָּה תֵרֵד מַטָּה מָּטָּה two times.  

I saw R' Ovadya Yosef quoted a mashal from the Ben Ish Chai, whose yahrzeit was this past week, to explain what's going on here.  A man had a dream in which he saw a huge ladder with 1000 rungs pointing up to the sky, and the king of the land began to climb the ladder.  After much time and effort the king made it halfway to the top, 500 steps up, and then vayikatz... v'hinei chalom, the dream ended.  The man told his wife about this fantastic dream, and she encouraged him to go to the king and tell him, and so he did.  Upon hearing the story, the king bestowed upon the man a gift of $1000.  One of the less than honest chambermaids was witness to this event, and figured that if the king paid $1000 for this dream in which he got only halfway up the ladder, imagine how much he would pay someone who told him that he made it to the top.  She made an appontment for her husband to appear before the king, and he related his concocted dream that the king reached the top of the ladder.  When the king heard what the man had to say he screamed for the guards to throw him into the dungeon.  No reward, not even a thank you.  The question on everyone's mind was why the first guy got a reward and the second guy was thrown in jail.  So the king explained: b'shlama according to the first dream, I achieved great things, but there is so much more ahead of me that I can and will yet accomplish.  The rest of my life can be as great as the first part.  But if I've already reached the top, this is the pinnacle of everything I can and will accomplish, that means it's all downhill from here (typical middle age depression : )  That dream does not deserve reward; it's a curse, not a blessing.

R' Ovdaya explained that when we are on top, it's only  לְמַעְלָה, one time, because there is always more in store for us from Hashem.  There are no limits to what we can accomplish and what the reward might me.  And on the flipside, when we are pushed down, it is וְאַתָּה תֵרֵד מַטָּה מָּטָּה, two times, to the very bottom, because that curse is a blessing in disguise.  When you've hit rock bottom, there is no place to go but up.  When it comes to the aku"m, the opposite is true.  הַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבְּךָ יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ מַעְלָה מָּעְלָה, to the very top, and from there, there is no place to go but down.  וְלֹא תִהְיֶה לְמָטָּה like them, meaning only one לְמָטָּה for them, because for them there is always yet another lower level to which they can fall. 

I haven't seen anyone else explain the difference between the pesukim, so wanted to pass on this fantastic vort.

From a comment by Shloma: אלול = אנו למעלה ועוד למעלה

On a different note, just found this list of 1500+ chakiros.  Enjoy!

shome'a k'oneh by mikra bikurim

A few weeks ago I asked why it is that we go out of our way to wear a 4 cornered garment to be able to fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzis but no one makes a point of washing every meal in order to have the opportunity to fulfill the aseh of bentching.

My bad for not remembering that my wife's grandfather, R' Dov Yehudah Shochet, dealt with a similar issue.  He suggested that even though technically one is not required to wear a 4 cornered garment, the way the Torah phrases the mitzvah alludes to the fact that one should do so.  Tzitzis is phrases as a command, gdilim taaseh lecha.  The mitzvah of maakah, by way of contrast, is conditional, ki tivneh bayis.  Same with shiluach ha'kan, ki yikarei...  

I did not pose an answer back then, but was thinking that birchas ha'mazon is different because the mitzvah is to give thanks.  You can't force someone to give thanks or order then to give thanks.  It's an emotional response that a person has to feel.  Therefore, we cannot require someone to fulfill the mitzvah of bentching in the same way we require wearing tzitzis.

Minchas Chinuch and others discuss whether one can fulfill the mitzvah of mikra bikurim through shome'a k'oneh.  One aspect of the debate relates to the disagreement between Beis haLevi and Chazon Ish whether birchas kohanim can be fulfilled through shome'a k'oneh.  Beis haLevi held that since birchas kohanim must be said b'kol ram, it must be heard, therefore shome'a k'oneh does not suffice.  We do not ascribe to the listener the properties of the "voice" of the speaker.  C.I. disagreed.  Here too with respect to mikra bikurim, Rashi comments on v'anisa v'amarta that one has to say the declaration out loud.  However, I think there is an additional issue here.  Avudraham writes that we say modim derabbanan during chazaras hashat"z and do not simply listen to the recitation of modim by the shliach tzibur because modim is an expression of thanks, and thanks has to come from your heart.  It's not about saying the words; it's about feeling the emotion behind them.  Similarly, mikra bikurim is thanks to Hashem for the harvest.  Here too, someone cannot stand in your place to experience that emotion.  The words are just an expression of what one has to feel in one's  heart.

starting off on the right foot

Last week I wrote about the smichus ha'parshiyos of yefat to'ar and ben sorer u'moreh.  There is, however, a parsha that separates the two, namely, the parsha of giving the bechor double.  Shem m'Shmuel explains that the reason this parsha is stuck in the middle is to teach us the importance of firsts.  A bechor has extra rights because he is the first child born; how the parents raise him sets the tone for the way other future children will be raised.  A person might be tempted to downplay or excuse the aveiros of a ben sorer u'moreh, as they are done right after he becomes a gadol.  We don't do that. Davka because these aveiros are done right after the child becomes a gadol they carry extra weight, as these first months of entering adulthood set the tone for the life to come.  Amalek is singled out because they were the first to attack us after we left Egypt. reishis goyim Amalek.  This upcoming week's parsha speaks about bikkurim, the first fruit that we have to bring to the mikdash so that our harvest gets off on the right foot.  

The Midrash Tanchuma on our parsha comments:

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסִי בַּר חֲנִינָא, בּוֹא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה מִתְחַטְּאִין, וְכַמָּה יֵשׁ לָהֶן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לְעוֹשֵׁי מִצְוֹת. אָדָם יֵשׁ לוֹ עֵסֶק אֵצֶל מַלְכוּת, פְּעָמִים שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן כַּמָּה מָמוֹן עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ אֵצֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ אֵצֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ, סָפֵק עוֹשֶׂה שְׁאֵלָתוֹ, סָפֵק לֹא עוֹשֶׂה. אֲבָל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵינוֹ כֵּן, אֶלָּא יוֹרֵד אָדָם לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ, רָאָה אֶשְׁכּוֹל שֶׁבִּכֵּר, תְּאֵנָה שֶׁבִּכְּרָה, רִמּוֹן שֶׁבִּכֵּר, מַנִּיחוֹ בַּסַּל וְהוֹלֵךְ לִירוּשָׁלַיִם וּבָא וְעוֹמֵד בְּאֶמְצַע הָעֲזָרָה וּמְבַקֵּשׁ רַחֲמִים עַל עַצְמוֹ וְעַל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: הַשְׁקִיפָה מִמְּעוֹן קָדְשֶׁךָ וְגוֹ'. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר, אֵינִי זָז מִכָּאן עַד שֶׁתַּעֲשֶׂה צָרְכִּי הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, שֶׁכָּתוּב אַחֲרָיו, הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ מְצַוְּךָ לַעֲשׂוֹת

The Midrash connects the tefilah of הַשְׁקִיפָה מִמְּעוֹן קָדְשֶׁךָ with the bringing of bikkurim.  However, that pasuk is not part of mikra bikkurim.  That pasuk appears later in the parsha in the context of viduy maasros, the declaration made at the end of three years saying that terumos and maasros were properly tithed and distributed.  

The Tanchuma did not misread the parsha.  What the Tanchuma is teaching us is that the viduy maasros that happens years later is the culmination of the reishis, the first steps taken in the right direction, that started with the bringing of bikurim.  

The Ishbitzer writes in Mei haShiloach:

בזה שהאדם מחזיר להקב"ה ראשית פרי האדמה, בזה מברר א"ע כי יוכל לעבוד את ה' בכל מאודו.

Halacha tells us that כל העושה על דעת ראשונה הוא עושה (Shabbos 91).  If a person starts by giving his first fruits, we can be assured he will continue down that path in avodas Hashem of giving of his $ and himself (see here.)

The mussar haskel with respect to Rosh haShana goes without saying.

who is going to be the first to jump in?

John Tierney writes in City-Journal that the maskaholics are back, once again dishing out ineffective Covid restrictions and unwarranted fear mongering:

Never mind that at least 97 percent of Americans have Covid antibodies in their blood as a result of infection, vaccination, or both. Never mind that actual experts—the ones who studied the scientific literature before 2020 and drew up plans for a pandemic—advised against masking the public. Never mind that their advice has been further bolstered during the pandemic by randomized clinical trials and rigorous observational studies failing to find an effect of masks and mask mandates. Scientific evidence cannot overcome the maskaholics’ faith.

It’s tempting to compare them with the villagers in Cambodia who erected scarecrows in front of their huts to ward off the coronavirus—but that’s not fair to the villagers. Their Ting Mong, as the magic scarecrows are called, at least didn’t hurt any of their neighbors. 

So which shul is going to jump in the pool first and require masks, or maybe a Vax ID card to enter the building?  Who will be the first to put up a tent again and daven outside, or maybe put a little shmata on the shofar again lest the breath of the baal tokea travel out of the shofar and c"v infect someone sitting in the same room?  After all, no one ever bothered to quantify what level of risk constitutes a sakana, so whose to say we are not at that point already with the new variant?