purim katan meshulash - R' Chaim Kanievsky's chiddush

The Mishna in Meg (6b) has a rule:  אין בין אדר הראשון לאדר השני אלא קריאת המגילה ומתנות לאביונים.  Therefore, this year, which is a leap year, we will not be reading megillah this month, nor can one fulfill the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim this month.  

Is there any mitzvah to have a party on 14 Adar this month?  On the one hand, the Mishna only speaks about megillah and matanot l'evyonim, implying that when it comes to partying, there is no difference between the months.  On the other hand, the gemara writes

 ומתני' חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני אין בין ארבעה עשר שבאדר הראשון לי"ד שבאדר השני אלא מקרא מגילה ומתנות הא לענין הספד ותענית זה וזה שוין

implying that it's only with respect to not having hesped or taanis that the days in both months are equal.  Tos writes:

יש שנוהגין לעשות ימי משתה ושמחה בארבעה עשר ובחמשה עשר של אדר הראשון וריהטא דמתניתין נמי משמע כן מדקאמר אלא מקרא מגילה (ב) בלבד ומתנות עניים מכלל דלענין משתה ושמחה זה וזה שוין ולא נהירא דהא אמרינן בגמרא הא לענין הספד ותענית זה וזה שוין מכלל דשמחה ומשתה ליכא דע"כ לא תליא הא בהא דאי תליא הא בהא לאשמעינן דמשתה ושמחה נהגו בהו וממילא נאסר בהספד דהא הימים האמורים במגילת תענית האסורים בהספד אין בהן משתה ושמחה וכן הלכה שאין צריך להחמיר לעשות משתה ושמחה באדר הראשון

Worth noting that Tos speaks about the 14th and the 15th, but the gemara spoke only about the 14th, אין בין ארבעה עשר שבאדר הראשון לי"ד שבאדר השני.  The Beis Yosef quotes from SM"K that even if you accept the notion that there is a chiyuv of mishteh in Adar I, it is limited to the day of the 14th alone.

והגהות מיימונית כתבו בשם סמ"ק שהעולם לא נהגו לעשות משתה ושמחה כי אם בי"ד שבאדר הראשון אע"פ שבאדר השני נהגו גם בט"ו שמחה ומשתה  וטעמא משום דאמר תלמודא אין בין י"ד שבאדר הראשון וכו' ולא הזכיר ט"ו ושמא נקט אותו שהוא עיקר

(Perhaps the SM"K held that celebrating 14 vs 15 Adar are not two separate takanos, but are two opportunities for the kiyum mitzvah. See last year's post . Purim katan commemorates the source takanah, not the opportunities for kiyum hamitzvah.)

The SA and Rama (697) write that on Purim Katan, both 14 and 15 Adar I, we skip tachanun, we skip the mizmor of yaancha Hashem b'yom tzarah, and Rama paskens to avoid hesped and taanis. Rama then quotes the view that holds one should have a party of 14 and 15 of Adar I, and writes that even though it is not accepted l'halacha, one should try to have a larger seudah to be yotzei this opinion. 

The Ksav Sofer al haTorah goes a step further with an even bigger chiddush (see also here).  Tos only mentions having a seudah, but nothing about mishloach manos.  Ran writes  אבל לענין לשלוח מנות כיון דדמו למתנות לאביונים דליתנהו אלא בשני משמע נמי שאף משלוח מנות אינו אלא בשני.  K.S. disagrees, and writes that since the point of mishloach manos is to enhance the seudah, if there is a chiyuv seudah in Adar I, there should also be a chiyuv mishloach manos as well.  (See as well K.S. in the shut Y.D. 136 for a different approach).

R' Chaim Kanievsky goes yet a step further with an even bigger chiddush.  This year 15 Adar I falls out on Shabbos.  When 15 Adar II falls on Shabbos, you have Purim meshulash, and according to many shitos, the seudah is pushed until Sunday.  RC"K therefore held that on 16 Adar I, Sunday, no tachanun is recited.  Had it been Adar II, we would be celebrating on 16; therefore, we should celebrate on Adar I as well.

RC"K seems to be taking sides in a fundamental question.  When we have a Purim meshulash and end up celebrating on the 16th, does that mean the 16th is the day on which we celebrate Purim, or is Purim really on the 15th, but since we can't have the seudah then (Yerushalmi says ain m'arvin simcha b'simcha), there is tashlumin on the 16th?  If Purim is really the 15th and the 16th is just a day of tashlumin, it is harder to make the case that we should skip tachanun on that day even in Adar I.  (In fact, it is hard to even make the case to skip tachanun or avoid hesped/taanis on that day in Adar II if you are not in a walled city.  See here  5b)

The Rama ends off "tov lev mishteh tamid."  Purim is our most joyous time of year.  Shabbos is technically a day of oneg, not simcha.  On Y"T there is simcha, but beis din used to send out policemen to make sure things don't get out of hand.  The L. Rebbe notes that even on Purim itself, one has mitzvos ha'yom like mikra megillah that have to be taken seriously.  The only day when one can be immersed almost completely in joy, he says, is Purim katan.  This day is the pinnacle of simcha.  Take advantage!

each piece in its proper place -- Netziv and Meshech Chochma on the Yerushalmi's issur to move beams from the north to the south side of the mishkan

The Yerushalmi (Shabbos 12:3) has a din that a board placed on the north side of the mishkan could not at some other point be used on the south side, because that would be a lowering of its kedusha.  Kodshei kodashim can be shechted only on the north side but not the south.

Netziv comments on the pasuk  וְיִֽהְי֣וּ תֹֽאֲמִם֮ מִלְּמַ֒טָּה֒ וְיַחְדָּ֗ו יִהְי֤וּ תַמִּים֙ עַל⁠־רֹאשׁ֔וֹ אֶל⁠־הַטַּבַּ֖עַת הָאֶחָ֑ת כֵּ֚ן יִהְיֶ֣ה לִשְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם לִשְׁנֵ֥י הַמִּקְצֹעֹ֖ת יִהְיֽוּ (26:24):

״יהיו״ מיותר, וכן במעשה (להלן לו,כט) כתיב ״כן עשה לשניהם לשני המקצועות״. אלא בא ללמדנו דשתי הטבעות כשרים יהיו לשני המקצועות, בלי דקדוק איזה כאן ואיזה כאן, ולא כמשפט הקרשים דאיתא בירושלמי הוריות פ״ג (סוף הלכה ה׳) מדכתיב ״והקמת את המשכן כמשפטו״ (פסוק ל׳) דקרש שזכה לצפון לא יעמוד בדרום, אבל לא כן משפט הטבעות. והטעם כמו שכתבתי, שלא באו הטבעות לכוון איזה ענין בעולם אלא לשמש הקרשים, על כן אין להם משפט [ומזה למדנו דכל תשמישי קדושה בבית הכנסת וכדומה, אין להם משפט הקרשים, ולא כמגן אברהם בסימן ח׳ (ס״ק ו׳) שכתב לענין טלית של מצוה. ואי אפשר ללמוד מקרשים אלא במעלות אנשים, כדאיתא בירושלמי שם, משום שכל איש יש לו משפט וזכות שהגיע למעלה זו]

According to Netziv, the Yerushalmi is speaking only about the beams, but not about the taba'ot.  He explains that the mishkan was a microcosm of the world at large, but that doesn't mean every thumbtack and nail had omni significant meaning.  It means in the larger sense, the main kelim had significance, and therefore their location and makeup was precise.  The same did not apply to the taba'ot.

A few pesukim earlier, commenting on the description of the adanim  וְאַרְבָּעִ֥ים אַדְנֵיהֶ֖ם כָּ֑סֶף שְׁנֵ֣י אֲדָנִ֗ים תַּ֚חַת הַקֶּ֣רֶשׁ הָֽאֶחָ֔ד וּשְׁנֵ֣י אֲדָנִ֔ים תַּ֖חַת הַקֶּ֥רֶשׁ הָאֶחָֽד (26:21) the Meshech Chochma quotes that same Yerushalmi:

וארבעים אדניהם כסף – יתכן דאמר בירושלמי שבת פי״ב דקרש שזכה להנתן בצפון כו׳, רואים אנו דצפון קדוש יותר מדרום ואדנים שהיו לצפון מוכרחים להיות בצפון, ואינם רשאים לשנותם לדרום משום דאין מורידין בקדש כדיליף מויקם המשכן ואת אדניו, אבל בדרום כתיב אדני כסף משום דרשאי לשנותן לצפון דמעלין בקדש ודו״ק.

M.C. applies the chiddush of the Yerushalmi not just to the boards, but to the adanim.  

Is there a machlokes here between the Netziv and M.C. as to the scope of the Yerushalmi, or would you distinguish between the adamin and taba'ot?

groundwork for geulah

Daas Zekeinim comments on the dimension of the mizbeiach:

ארכו כנגד הלוחות חמש דברות על לוח זה וחמש על לוח זה ושלש אמות קומתו כנגד שלשה גואלים שעמדו להן לישראל משה ואהרן ומרים.

In the weekly parsha sheet "Chashukei Chemed" based on the shiurim of R' Yitzchak Zilberstein, they ask where it is that we find that Miriam is a "go'el"[es].  Moshe took us out of Mitzrayim; Aharon spoke to Pharoah and had a hand in the makkos.  What did Miriam do?

R' Chaim Elazari beat R' Zilberstein to asking this kashe.  In his sefer Darkei Chaim he reminds us that when Amram separated from his wife in response to Pharoah's decree to drown the babies, it was Miriam who encouraged her father to change course and not give up hope.  Rashi in parshas Beshalach (15:20) tells us that Miriam had a prophecy before Moshe was born that her mother would give birth to the go'el.  Without Miriam, Moshe's message might have fallen on dead ears (as it was, Bn"Y were not very receptive to Moshe's message when in response, Pharoah tightened the reins.)  She laid the groundwork of belief in redemption that enabled her brothers to be successful.  She therefore gets equal credit for bringing geulah.

We ask Hashem in every tefilah ומביא גואל לבני בּניהם.  Yes, we want mashiach, we want full geulah.  But that is the final step in the process.  Before we are zocheh to the go'el who is a poor guy riding a donkey who will get lions and lambs to live in peace, we need the go'el who will get us to believe it can and will happen, who will lay the groundwork of hope, expectations, and belief.  

That go'el, I think, perhaps can be any one of us, or all of us together.  

when is a kli not a kli

I saw a beautiful diyuk quoted in the name of R' Yechezel Abramsky:

וְנָתַתָּ֖ אֶל־הָאָרֹ֑ן אֵ֚ת הָעֵדֻ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֶתֵּ֖ן אֵלֶֽיךָ (25:10) 

וְ וְנָתַתָּ֧ עַֽל־הַשֻּׁלְחָ֛ן לֶ֥חֶם פָּנִ֖ים לְפָנַ֥י תָּמִֽיד (25:30)

וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ אֶת־נֵרֹתֶ֖יהָ שִׁבְעָ֑ה וְהֶֽעֱלָה֙ אֶת⁠־נֵ֣רֹתֶ֔יהָ וְהֵאִ֖יר עַל־עֵ֥בֶר פָּנֶֽיהָ (25:37) 

The common denominator among these pesukim is that the mitzvah of making the particular kli contains a statement about what that particular kli is used for.  Yet if you look at the command to make a mizbeiach, there is no similar statement of purpose:

וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ אֶת־הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים חָמֵשׁ֩ אַמּ֨וֹת אֹ֜רֶךְ וְחָמֵ֧שׁ אַמּ֣וֹת רֹ֗חַב רָב֤וּעַ יִֽהְיֶה֙ הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וְשָׁל֥שׁ אַמּ֖וֹת קֹֽמָתֽוֹ:

בוְעָשִׂ֣יתָ קַרְנֹתָ֗יו עַ֚ל אַרְבַּ֣ע פִּנֹּתָ֔יו מִמֶּ֖נּוּ תִּֽהְיֶ֣יןָ קַרְנֹתָ֑יו וְצִפִּיתָ֥ אֹת֖וֹ נְחֽשֶׁת:

גוְעָשִׂ֤יתָ סִּֽירֹתָיו֙ לְדַשְּׁנ֔וֹ וְיָעָיו֙ וּמִזְרְקֹתָ֔יו וּמִזְלְגֹתָ֖יו וּמַחְתֹּתָ֑יו לְכָל־כֵּלָ֖יו תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה נְחֽשֶׁת:

דוְעָשִׂ֤יתָ לּוֹ֙ מִכְבָּ֔ר מַֽעֲשֵׂ֖ה רֶ֣שֶׁת נְח֑שֶׁת וְעָשִׂ֣יתָ עַל־הָרֶ֗שֶׁת אַרְבַּע֙ טַבְּעֹ֣ת נְח֔שֶׁת עַ֖ל אַרְבַּ֥ע קְצוֹתָֽיו:

הוְנָֽתַתָּ֣ה אֹתָ֗הּ תַּ֛חַת כַּרְכֹּ֥ב הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ מִלְּמָ֑טָּה וְהָֽיְתָ֣ה הָרֶ֔שֶׁת עַ֖ד חֲצִ֥י הַמִּזְבֵּֽחַ:

ווְעָשִׂ֤יתָ בַדִּים֙ לַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ בַּדֵּ֖י עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים וְצִפִּיתָ֥ אֹתָ֖ם נְחֽשֶׁת:

זוְהוּבָ֥א אֶת־בַּדָּ֖יו בַּטַּבָּעֹ֑ת וְהָי֣וּ הַבַּדִּ֗ים עַל־שְׁתֵּ֛י צַלְעֹ֥ת הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ בִּשְׂאֵ֥ת אֹתֽוֹ:

חנְב֥וּב לֻחֹ֖ת תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה אֹת֑וֹ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר הֶרְאָ֥ה אֹֽתְךָ֛ בָּהָ֖ר כֵּ֥ן יַֽעֲשֽׂוּ:

We are told how to make a mizbeiach, but not what to do with it.  Why the difference?

Brisker affiliated achronim develop the idea that there are two dinim in construction of the kelim: 1) klei ha'mikdash as utensils; 2) klei ha'mikdash as part of the tzuras ha'bayis, as part of the architecture of the mikdash building.  

That could be the difference between the mizbeiach and the other items on the list. When it comes to the menorah, the shulchan, etc., the Torah defines the kli based on its function.  It's a utensil, and a utensil is defined by what it's used for.  However, the mizbeiach is not a utensil.  It's not defined by function because it's part of the building.  

Rashi comments on  כְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙ מַרְאֶ֣ה אוֹתְךָ֔ (25:9) that

 אם יאבד אחד מן הכלים, או כשתעשו כלי בית עולמים, כגון: שולחנות ומנורות וכיורות ומכונות שעשה שלמה, בתבנית אילו תעשו אותם.  

If a kli needs to be replaced, or in the future, when a beis ha'mikdash will be built and will need kelim, the instructions remain the same as given in our parsha.  There cannot be any deviation from the template.

Ramban on the spot jumps on this assertion and wonders how it can be true.  We know the size of the mizbeiach in the beis ha'mikdash did not match the size of the mizbeiach in the mishkan, and so there was a deviation from the template!

 ולא ידעתי שיהיה זה אמת שיתחייב שלמה לעשות כלי בית עולמים בתבנית אלו, ומזבח הנחשת עשאו שלמה עשרים אמה ארך ועשרים רחב 

Ohr haChaim defends Rashi and suggests לפי דעתי אין דברי הרב נראים כי מה שכתב כי וכן תעשו לדורות לא באה אלא על תכונת הבנין ולא על שיעורו that the details of the measurements of the kelim are not part of the template that has to be preserved.  Mizrachi suggests that what is important in making kelim is to preserve the relative measurements, i.e. the mizbeiach made by Moshe was 5x5 amos, so Shlomo could make a 20x20 mizbeiach, preserving the ratio between the sides.  See Gur Aryeh who addresses this question as well.

In their robust defense of Rashi, none of these meforshim note that if you look at the list of kelim Rashi mentions -- כגון: שולחנות ומנורות וכיורות ומכונות -- the mizbeiach is not on the list.  Rashi deliberately left it out because the mizbeiach is not a kli like all other kelim, but is part of the tzurah of the building.  

The dimensions of the mikdash building that Shlomo made were far greater than the dimensions of the mishkan made by Moshe.  TAs part and parcel of the building, the mizbeiach could therefore also change in dimensions from the size made by Moshe.

a common sense truth that educators ignore

Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality by Charles Murray is a very short book that is built around 4 premises that should be common sense, but alas, we live in a society run by progressive lunatics, so there is no such thing.  The book is 15 years old, and in hindsight, Murray was far too optimistic back then in thinking that things might change.  Anyway, I wanted to highlight one of the four ideas he discusses because it is relevant to yeshiva education.  The idea is simple: half the school population will be, by definition, below average.  Common sense, right?  If there is an average student in the middle, then by definition, half of the population falls below that average, and half above.  

Murray writes (pp 44-45):

...Children in the lower half of the distribution are just not smart enough to read or calculate at a level of fluency that most of the rest of us take for granted.  Children still lower in the distribution of linguistic and logical-mathematical ability -- the bottom third of the distribution is a rough demarcation of the group I am talking about -- are just not smart enough to become literate or numerate in more than a rudimentary sense.

Just not smart enough [italics in the original].  It is a phrase that we all use in conversation, we all know what it means, and it has to be made available once again to discussions about educational policy.  Some children are just not smart enough to success on a conventional academic track.  Recognition of this truth does not mean callousness or indifference.  It does not mean spending less effort on the education of some children than of others.  But it does mean that we must jettison glib rhetoric that makes us feel good..."

Think about a regular classroom of 5th of 6th graders being introduced of gemara.  Is it any wonder that not all of them are up to the task?  Think about high school kids expected to learn b'chavrusa for multiple hours a day and then listen to a Rebbe say over a complex hesber based on abstract ideas.  Is it any wonder that at least half the shiur is lost?  Yet the majority will continue through the system, onto beis medrash, kollel, etc.  We have turned what should be a path for the elite into a path for the masses who walk the walk, talk the talk, but I fear cannot really "think the thoughts." 

Just something to think about.

undermining Israel, as usual

From Scott Johnson over at the powerlineblog.com:

President Biden has made a show of support, Biden style. His express support has turned to ambivalence at best and hostility at worst in leaks and statements that falsely defame Israel...

Yesterday in Israel Blinken hit a new low. The Times of Israel refers to Blinken’s statement as caustic, which doesn’t quite capture its base quality: “Israelis were dehumanized in the most horrific way on October 7,” he said. “The hostages have been dehumanized every day since. But that cannot be a license to dehumanize others.” Again, the implication is to the contrary.

Blinken reeks of weakness, of cowardice, of betrayal...

In NY you have many people, including misguided Jews, unfortunately supporting Tom Suozzi over Mimi Pilip thinking that he is a "moderate" Democrat who supports Israel and will compromise and work in a bipartisan fashion.  I have no doubt that Suozzi, if G-d forbid elected, will follow the same marching orders as all the other D's, and the fools who put him in office will act shocked and surprised when the inevitable happens.  

when was naaseh v'nishna said?

According to Rashi, the events described in ch 24 of our parsha took place before mattan Torah: פרשה זו קודם עשרת הדברות.  The inevitable conclusion one must draw is, as Gur Aryeh writes, ויהיו לפי זה הפרשיות שלא כסדר.  The Torah here hits the rewind button and brings us chronologically back to the middle of parshas Yisro.  As Rashi reads the events of the perek, on 4 Sivan Moshe gave Bn"Y the mitzvos of perisha and hagbala and told them to prepare for mattan Torah, and Bn"Y responded (24:3) כׇּל־הַדְּבָרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר ה׳ נַעֲשֶֽׂה׃.  Next day Moshe wrote out the parshiyos of Torah.  On 6 Sivan he read what he had written to Bn"Y, and this time around Bn"Y responded with the famous line that we all know  וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥רה׳ נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע׃ (24:7)   

Ramban on the spot disagrees and writes that these events took place only after mattan Torah.  There are two things to be gained by taking this approach.  1) The order of the text does not deviate from the chronological order of events -- we don't have to rewind to anywhere.  2) The answer to Tos question of why Hashem had to hold Mt Sinai over the people and threaten to crush them if they did not accept the Torah when the people had already declared נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע is simple -- נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע was said only after kabbalas haTorah, not beforehand.  

That being said, the glaring issue with Ramban, which he raises himself at the very end of his comment, is that Chazal present נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע as a great statement of faith on the part of Bn"Y in that the people accepted Torah sight unseen, details unknown.  This has so seeped into our consciousness as part of our mesorah that to disregard it seems almost impossible.  How then do you square the pshat reading advanced by Ramban that  נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע was said only after mattan Torah with this mesorah?  I don't have a good answer and I don't understand how Ramban squares the issue away.   

Turning back to Rashi's reading, there were two responses by Bn"Y before mattan Torah.  On 4 Sivan the response was only נַעֲשֶֽׂה; two days later the response was נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע.  Why the change?  Why didn't Bn"Y respond with נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע the first time around?  What changed?

Shem m'Shmuel answers that there has to first be a kabbalah of plain vanilla נַעֲשֶֽׂה, even without understanding, no questions asked.  Once a person is prepared to accept things on that level, then they are capable of נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע, of aspiring to understand.  

(Chasam Sofer has a chiddush gadol on the gemara's statement (Shabbos 88):

 רבי אלעזר בשעה שהקדימו ישראל נעשה לנשמע יצתה בת קול ואמרה להן מי גילה לבני רז זה שמלאכי השרת משתמשין בו דכתיב ברכו ה' מלאכיו גבורי כח עושי דברו לשמוע בקול דברו ברישא עושי והדר לשמוע. 

He writes that davka malachim need נַעֲשֶֽׂה to be able to come to נִשְׁמָֽע.  Bn"Y, however, are banim laMakom.  For us, we don't need any preparation or precondition, not like the Sm"S.  The gemara means the opposite of how we usually read it.  It is not complimenting us that we achieved what only angels could achieve.  Aderaba, מי גילה לבני, why are those who are  בני behaving in a way that is appropriate for angels, who are on a lower level!)

Perhaps one can say that on 4 Sivan there was not yet a text of Torah, and therefore, there could be no aspiration for נִשְׁמָֽע.  The thought that a human being can understand G-d or connect with G-d is on its face almost sacrilegious.  How can you dream that your mind can comprehend even one iota of dvar Hashem?  It's only by virture of Torah that we have a means to do so, as the Baal HaTanya explains in ch 4:

וְאַף דְּהַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא נִקְרָא "אֵין סוֹף", וְלִגְדוּלָּתוֹ אֵין חֵקֶר, וְלֵית מַחֲשָׁבָה תְּפִיסָא בֵיהּ כְּלָל,

וְכֵן בִּרְצוֹנוֹ וְחָכְמָתוֹ,

כְּדִכְתִיב: "אֵין חֵקֶר לִתְבוּנָתוֹ",

וּכְתִיב: "הַחֵקֶר אֱלוֹהַּ תִּמְצָא", וּכְתִיב: "כִּי לֹא מַחְשְׁבוֹתַי מַחְשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם".

הִנֵּה עַל זֶה אָמְרוּ: "בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא גְּדוּלָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא, שָׁם אַתָּה מוֹצֵא עַנְוְתָנוּתוֹ",

וְצִמְצֵם הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא רְצוֹנוֹ וְחָכְמָתוֹ בְּתַרְיַ"ג מִצְוֹת הַתּוֹרָה וּבְהִלְכוֹתֵיהֶן,

וּבְצֵרוּפֵי אוֹתִיּוֹת תּוֹרָה־נְבִיאִים־כְּתוּבִים,

וּדְרָשׁוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁבְּאַגָּדוֹת וּמִדְרְשֵׁי חֲכָמֵינוּ־זִכְרוֹנָם־לִבְרָכָה.

בִּכְדֵי שֶׁכָּל הַנְּשָׁמָה אוֹ רוּחַ וָנֶפֶשׁ שֶׁבְּגוּף הָאָדָם, תּוּכַל לְהַשִּׂיגָן בְּדַעְתָּהּ,

וּלְקַיְּימָן – כָּל מַה שֶּׁאֶפְשָׁר לְקַיֵּים מֵהֶן בְּמַעֲשֶׂה דִּבּוּר וּמַחֲשָׁבָה,

After Moshe had written down a text and there existed a cheftza shel Torah which Hashem's chochma was miraculously connected to, we then had the means to think about נִשְׁמָֽע.

dor holech v'dor ba

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is R' Chaim really our hero?

I recently saw a flyer in my neighborhood advertising a yeshiva week break trip to Panama, which is guess is the latest fad after you've done Florida, Cancun, etc.  I see the Bahamas has minyanim 3x a day, thank G-d.  Can you believe yeshiva week even has a wikipedia entry?

I guess I should say Baruch Hashem, our community has people with $$$ to spare for these things while still paying an arm and a leg in tuition.  Baruch Hashem there are minyanim and daf yomi shurim available on cruises and resorts all over the world so that there is no need to make compromises when you travel.

But on the other hand...

In "our" community, and when I say that I mean YU as well as the yeshivishe olam, we lionize R' Chaim Brisker.  We all want to be able to learn like R' Chaim, to say chiddushim like R' Chaim.

But what about the R' Chaim Brisker who, when there was a fire in Brisk, did did not sleep on a bed so long as poor people were displaced?  Do we lionize that R' Chaim?  Do we want to be like that R' Chaim?  

Would that R' Chaim be relaxing in the Bahamas when our nation is at war?

T"u b'Shevat; leftover mon for shabbos -- hutra or dechuya?; "ki va sus Pharoah" -- part of the shira or not?

1) Chazal tell us that each of the makkos lasted a month.  The makkah itself lasted a week, and there were three weeks of warning given. The last makkah of bechoros took place on Pesach.  Turn the clock back a month and on the 15th of Adar there would have been makkas choshech for the Egyptians.  For us, this is the time we celebrate ליהודים היתה אורה.  Turn the clock back another month to 15 Shevat and the Egyptians had arbeh to deal with, which consumed all the produce from the trees (10:5) וְאָכַל֙ אֶת־כׇּל־הָעֵ֔ץ הַצֹּמֵ֥חַ לָכֶ֖ם מִן־הַשָּׂדֶֽה׃.  We in turn have the holiday of T"u b'Shevat, which we celebrate by eating the fruits from the trees.  (Chasam Sofer in the derashos)

2) There was an exception to the rule of אִ֕ישׁ אַל־יוֹתֵ֥ר מִמֶּ֖נּוּ עַד־בֹּֽקֶר, for the mon collected on Friday that was left overnight for Shabbos.  Sefas Emes (Michtivei Torah) has a safeik whether this mon put aside for Shabbos could be leftover until Sunday.  In other words, does the issur of אַל־יוֹתֵ֥ר מִמֶּ֖נּוּ עַד־בֹּֽקֶר apply to all mon and is just dechuya for the sake of Shabbos meals, or was the mon that fell of Friday מופקע completely from the issur?  

The gemara (Kid 38) writes that after Moshe died and the mon ceased to fall, Bn"Y ate the leftovers until the day after Pesach, at which point they began to eat the produce of Eretz Yisrael.  How were they allowed to keep leftovers?  Rishonim write that Moshe died on Shabbos afternoon, which is one of the reasons we recite "tzidkascha tzedek" -- tziduk ha'din -- at mincha on Shabbos.  (See Tos Menachos 30: מה שנוהגין לומר צידוק הדין בשבת במנחה פירש רב שר שלום גאון על שנפטר משה רבינו באותה שעה לפיכך נמנעו מלעסוק בתורה משום דאמרי' חכם שמת כל בתי מדרשות שבעיר בטילין וקשה דהא כתיב בן מאה ועשרים שנה אנכי היום ודרשינן היום מלאו ימי ושנותי ואם בשבת מת א"כ כתב היום מערב שבת ויש לתמוה דכתב על העתיד ולר"ש לא בעי למימר דהפסוק נאמר על העתיד מדקשיא ליה מהא דכתיב לקוח את ספר התורה הזה שמא על שם שעתיד יהושע כג] להשלימו ועוד קשה דבסדר עולם משמע דבשבעה באדר שמת משה בו ערב שבת היה)  If the mon that fell of Shabbos is מופקע from the issur of keeping leftovers, then problem solved.  

The Brisker Rav rejected this proof.  Once the mon ceased to fall, the halachos associated with the mon like not keeping leftovers also ceased to be in effect.   

4) Maaseh Rav quotes the GR"A (#29) to omit the pasuk of  כִּ֣י בָא֩ ס֨וּס פַּרְעֹ֜ה בְּרִכְבּ֤וֹ וּבְפָרָשָׁיו֙ ... וּבְנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הָלְכ֥וּ בַיַּבָּשָׁ֖ה בְּת֥וֹךְ הַיָּֽם׃  when reciting shiras ha'yam.  On the one hand, the pasuk does not sound like part of the praises of Hashem sung in shirah, but rather sounds like a description of the event. On the other hand, however, the pasuk is written in the unique format of the pesukim of shirah, with extra blank space between the phrases (אריח על גבּי לבינה).  

The Rishonim already take up the question of whether it is part of the shirah or not.  Ramban quotes Ibn Ezra:

אמר ר׳ אברהם שגם זה מן השירה, כי היו משוררים ואומרים: כי בא סוס פרעה ברכבו ובפרשיו בים וישב ה׳ עליהם את מי הים בעוד בני ישראל הולכים ביבשה בתוך הים, והוא נס בתוך נס.

But then objects and says:

ואיננו כלשון השירה והנבואות. אבל פירושו: אז ישיר משה (שמות ט״ו:א׳), כי בא סוס פרעה בים [ביום ההוא מיד, לא מיום המחרת או אחרי כן. או טעמו: אז, כאשר בא סוס פרעה] בים, והשיב עליהם השם מי הים בעוד בני ישראל הולכים ביבשה בתוכו – להגיד כי בלכתם בתוכו ביבשה אמרו השירה

Both approaches of Ibn Ezra and Ramban implicitly answer a question which the Netziv spells out: mai kah mashma lan this pasuk?  Isn't it clear already that Bn"Y sang shirah as they crossed sea and watched the Egyptians drowning?  Ramban sees the pasuk as emphasizing the fact that shirah was an immediate reaction, sung on the spot, without preparation or rehearsal. Ibn Ezra sees the point as the fact that the Egyptians were drowned in the sea simultaneously with Bn"Y being on dry land and singing shira.  The Oznayim laTorah writes that Bn"Y said shirah for the fact that the Egyptians followed them into the river.  What were they thinking?  After so many makkos, couldn't they anticipate that this was a trap?  The only explanation is that the fact that they followed was itself miraculous.

Netziv develops a yesod that he already touches on earlier in the parsha (14:20). Chazal comment on  וְהַמַּ֤יִם לָהֶם֙ חֹמָ֔ה מִֽימִינָ֖ם וּמִשְּׂמֹאלָֽם that חֹמָ֔ה is written chaseir, without a vav, and can be read as cheima, anger.  Yalkut Shimoni:

הָיוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת תְּמֵהִין לוֹמַר בְּנֵי אָדָם עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מְהַלְּכִים בַּיַּבָּשָׁה. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאַף הַיָּם נִתְמַלֵּא עֲלֵיהֶן חֵמָה, שֶּׁלְּמַעְלָה הוּא אוֹמֵר וְהַמַּיִם לָהֶם חֹמָה חֵמָה כְּתִיב

If the Egyptians are to be judged for their wrongdoings, then it is only fair that Bn"Y pass muster as well.  Why should our shortcomings, our idolatry, be overlooked?  The angels claimed that Bn"Y were themselves guilty of avodah zarah and therefore undeserving of the miracle of the sea being split.  

Fortunately, G-d, not angels, is the final arbiter of justice.

The shirah ends with a vision of future geulah, ה׳ יִמְלֹ֖ךְ לְעֹלָ֥ם וָעֶֽד׃.  Chazal do not paint a rosy picture of what awaits us at that time.  Ula (San 98) said ייתי ולא אחמיניה׳, let Moshiach come, but not while I'm alive to have to suffer through it happening.  G-d will sit in ultimate judgment of the world, and while we may be confident that the nations will get their comeuppance, who is to say that we will pass muster and not suffer as well?  

Netziv sees this final pasuk as an answer. כִּ֣י בָא֩ ס֨וּס פַּרְעֹ֜ה בְּרִכְבּ֤וֹ וּבְפָרָשָׁיו֙ and G-d sat in judgment and found them wanting. At the same time, וּבְנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הָלְכ֥וּ בַיַּבָּשָׁ֖ה בְּת֥וֹךְ הַיָּֽם -- despite our flaws, despite the fact that we had our own imperfections, despite the protests of the angels, Hashem spared us and miraculously saved us.  

The future geulah will have its challenges and it may be painful to behold it unfold (witness current events), but we should not doubt for a moment that ultimately, we will be vindicated.  

4) By coincidence, the halacha yomi of the Pninei Halacha series is up to the halachos of writing a sefer Torah.  R' Melamed offers the following explanation of the blank space as a break between parshiyos (i.e. peshucha, stuma):

רמז יש בהלכה זו: האותיות השחורות מבטאות את כל מה שאנו מכירים ומבינים ויכולים להסביר, ולכן אנו מסוגלים להביע רעיונות אלו באמצעות האותיות. אבל יש רעיונות נשגבים, עליונים ועמוקים שאי אפשר לבטאם, הם כל כך גבוהים עד ששום מילה ואות לא יוכלו להכילם ולבארם. אך יחד עם זאת, אנו יודעים שהם קיימים, והם משפיעים על חיינו, מהם נובעות כל ההשגות והמחשבות שלנו. הקלף הלבן המקיף כל אות, מבטא את אותם הרעיונות הגבוהים שאינם ניתנים לביטוי. ומתוך הקלף הלבן, מתגלה ומופיעה לעינינו האות השחורה. מתוך מה שמעל ההכרה, מתגלים אלינו רעיונות מוכרים וברורים. וזה יסודה של התורה, מקורה שמימי ועליון, והיא יורדת עד לחיים היום יומיים שלנו (ע' לקוטי תורה לאדמוה"ז שה"ש מו, ג; דרך מצוותיך לצמח צדק, מצוות תפילין ב).

There are concepts that can be communicated in words and letters, and there are ideas that are so lofty that they transcend being encapsulated in that way.  The letters of the Torah are what can be communicated directly; the blank space represents those ideas that we sense, but which cannot be put into words.  The background of those ideas creates the canvas upon which the letters take shape and have meaning.

Every phrase of the shirah is surrounded by blank space.  As much as we understand and appreciate the words of shirah, there are depths of meaning davka in this parsha that go beyond what can be communicated through words alone. 

recovering our identity

Very short of time this week, but did not want to skip writing something on the parsha.  Right after Hashem commands Moshe and Aharon (6:13) to go to Pharoah again and demand the release of Bn"Y,  וַיְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן וַיְצַוֵּם אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶל פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרָיִם לְהוֹצִיא אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם., the Torah then gives us a genealogy lesson:  ...אֵלֶּה רָאשֵׁי בֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן בְּכֹר יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲנוֹךְ וּפַלּוּא חֶצְרֹן וְכַרְמִי אֵלֶּה מִשְׁפְּחֹת רְאוּבֵן etc.  Rashi is already bothered by what the connection between these parshiyos is, and comments:

  מתוך שנזקק לייחס שבטו של לוי עד משה ואהרן בשביל משה ואהרן, התחיל לייחסם דרך תולדותם מראובן. ובפסיקתא הגדולה (פסיקתא רבתי ז׳) ראיתי: לפי שקינתרם יעקב אביהם לשלשה שבטים הללו בשעת מותו, חזר הכתוב לייחסם כאן לבדם, לומר שחשובין הם.

The Kozhiglover offers his own answer.  Chazal compare the Jewish people in galus Mitzrayim to embryo trapped in the womb. We know that עובּר ירך אמו הוא.  A embryo is like part of the mother, it has no real identity.  What Chazal are telling us is that in galus the Jewish people had become an adjunct of Egypt, they lost their sense of self, their identity. 

The chain of yichus recorded here is to remind Klal Yisrael of who they are -- a people who have a connection to the shevatim, a people who have their own forefathers and Avos distinct from the Pharoahs, distinct from the families and society of Egypt.  

We see all around us these days so many Jews who had identified as Americans, as Progressives, as part of one group or another, have woken up and started to remember their yichus, that they are part of Am Yisrael.  The first step to geulah is recovering one's own identity.  

to act or not to act -- Moshe's internal deliberations

 וַיִּ֤פֶן כֹּה֙ וָכֹ֔ה וַיַּ֖רְא כִּ֣י אֵ֣ין אִ֑ישׁ וַיַּךְ֙ אֶת־הַמִּצְרִ֔י.  Rashi explains that Moshe saw that there was no one worthy, no "ish," who would come out of this Mitzri, and so he killed him.  The Netziv, however, learns the the "ish" referred to here is someone of authority.  Moshe was looking around him to see whether there was someone he could report this crime to, e.g, a police officer.  Was there a 911 to report a crime in progress and get someone to stop it?  Netziv writes וירא כי אין איש – להגיד לפניו את העול, כי כולם עצרת בוגדים ושונאי ישראל.  Cries of anti-semitism fell then, as now, on deaf ears.  When that happens, the only solution is  וַיַּךְ֙ אֶת־הַמִּצְרִ֔י, because if no one else is going to defend you, at least defend yourself.  

Abarbanel sees Moshe as internally conflicted:

ויפן כה וכה וירא כי אין איש שחשב משה מחשבות מצד אחד ראה שאין ראוי לעשותו כי מה לו ולצרה ההיא ואולי שהמצרי יהרוג אותו. ומצד אחר ראה שהאדם המעולה הבט אל עמל לא יוכל ושבמקום שאין אנשים ראוי שישתדל להיות איש וזה אמרו ויפן כה וכה שהן שתי הבחינות שזכרתי

On the one hand, why get involved?  On the other hand, how can unjustice be ignored?

וירא כי אין איש רוצה לומר שלא יקרא משה איש ואמיץ לבו בגבורים אם לא שינקום דמי אחיו ולכן ויך את המצרי  When the opportunity for action presents itself, one can seize the moment, albeit the cost or danger involved, or one can turn away and forever lose that chance for greatness, to become an "ish."  Moshe chose the former path and this set him on his way to become a leader.

It is certainly not pshat, but I wonder if the pasuk here is derech remez perhaps alluding to the Chazal quoted by Rashi at the beginning of Matos  משה נתנבא בכה אמר ה׳ כחצות הלילה וגו׳ (שמות י״א:ד׳), והנביאים נתנבאו בכה אמר, מוסף עליהם משה שנתנבא בלשון זה הדבר.  Moshe was foresaw וַיִּ֤פֶן כֹּה֙ וָכֹ֔ה both how the brutality of Egypt would lead to the end game of makkas bechoros, as well as perhaps the fact that everyone else was on the level of כה but he felt pulled to do more and rise above that.

I found a similar interpretation to Abarbanel in the Oznayim laTorah later in the parsha.  When Moshe encounters the shepherds who were harassing Yisro's daughters, the pasuk tells us (2:17)  וַיָּ֤קׇם מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיּ֣וֹשִׁעָ֔ן.  Why do we need the extra word וַיָּ֤קׇם here?  Rav Sorotzkin explains that the Torah is alluding to what was going on in Moshe's head and the dilemma he faced.  Moshe had gotten involved when he saw the Egyptian striking a Jew; he had gotten involved when he saw two Jews fighting with each other.  Look where it got him!  He was now an outlaw with a price on his head.  Why make the same mistake a third time, especially under these circumstances where he was a wanted man and could not afford the notoriety?  On the other hand, who else would step in to help if he were to walk away?  וַיָּ֤קׇם מֹשֶׁה֙, Moshe pushed himself to take action even though there was that voice in his head warning him that he was asking for trouble and perhaps endangering his own life.

According to Netziv, I understand why there is a וַיִּ֤פֶן כֹּה֙ וָכֹ֔ה before Moshe acted.  If only there had been someone to take responsibility, he would not have had to resort to vigilante justice.  Taking matters into your own hands is not a li'chatchila.  But according to Abarbanel, why record this inner turmoil of Moshe's?  Is it  למעליותא that Moshe had to think about whether to get involved or not?    

I think it is למעליותא.  Any hot head can jump into every fight without regard to the consequences.  That's who they are.  They are not being heroic -- they just enjoy conflict.  What the Torah here is telling us is that that's not who Moshe was.  Moshe had to deliberate before jumping into the fray. There is a וַיִּ֤פֶן כֹּה֙ וָכֹ֔ה, considering the options and consequences before taking action.  That too is a sign of great leadership. 

long term vision

At the end of the parsha, after so many years of slavery, just as Moshe appeared on the scene and geulah was around the corner, rather than things getting better for Bn"Y, they actually got worse.  Instead of being provided with the straw needed to make bricks, Pharoah ordered that nothing be given, but he demanded the same output of bricks.  R' Avraham ben haRambam writes (5:19):

וכאן הגיע סוף קישוי השעבוד כי מרה תהיה באחרונה וכמו כן יש בכלל הכתובים כי בקץ הצרה בגלות זו שאנחנו בתוכה יקל מעלינו אמר הכתוב בצר לך ומצאוך וג׳

This is how geulah is meant to unfold, as many other parshiyos and pesukim tell us.  Things get worse before they can get better.  Don't feel bad if this is surprising, because Moshe Rabeinu himself did not expect things to work out that way.  Ramban asks: why was Moshe perplexed לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה when Hashem had already forewarned him that Pharoah would not give in, וַאֲנִי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי לֹא⁠ יִתֵּן אֶתְכֶם מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם לַהֲלֹךְ וְלֹא בְּיָד חֲזָקָה?  He quotes Ibn Ezra's answer:

כי חשב משה כי מעת דברו אל פרעה בשליחות השם יקל מעליהם ויחל האלקים להצילם, והנה פרעה הכביד והרע, וזה טעם למה הרעותה, כי זה הפך מה שאמרת לי: ראה ראיתי את עני עמי (שמות ג׳:ז׳), וארד להצילו (שמות ג׳:ח׳)

Moshe thought that even if Pharoah would hold out and the end of galus would not come immediately, there would still be some change in Klal Yisrael's fortune and things would at least begin to turn around.  Instead, the opposite happened.

Ramban rejects this interpretation.  איננו נכון בעיני, בעבור שאמר והצל לא הצלת, ואין ההצלה רק יציאתם מן הגלות.  Moshe's concern, according to Ramban, was whether geulah was at hand or not.  That's the meaning of הצלה -- not just a betterment of circumstance.  Parenthetically, this gives a whole new meaning to Yaakov's prayer in VaYishlach  הַצִּילֵנִי נָא מִיַּד אָחִי מִיַּד עֵשָׂו.  See Chizkuni there:

 הצילני נא – אמ׳ ר׳ אל[י]עזר (פרקי דרבי אליעזר מח) ה׳ אותיות כפולות בתורה. מנצפ״ך. ובכולן נגאלו. כ״ף. בו נגאל אברהם שנ׳ אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים (בראשית טו:ז) לך לך כו׳ (בראשית יב:א). [מ״ם. בו נגאל יצחק שנ׳ לך מעמנו כי עצמת ממנו מאד (בראשית כו:כז)] נו״ן. בו נגאל יעקב שנ׳ הצילני נא. פ״א. בו נגאלו ממצרים שנ׳ פקוד פקדתי (שמות ג:טז). צד״י (צד״י). עתידין ישראל להגאל שנ׳ איש (צדיק) [צמח שמו] ו[מ]תחתיו יצמח (זכריה ו:יב)

Rashi comments on  עַתָּה תִרְאֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶעֱשֶׂה לְפַרְעֹה that Moshe was punished for his question.  

הרהרת על מדותיי, לא כאברהם שאמרתי לו: כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע (בראשית כ״א:י״ב), ואחר כך אמרתי לו: העלהו לעלה (בראשית כ״ב:ב׳), ולא הרהר אחריי. לפיכך עתה תראה – העשוי לפרעה תראה, ולא תראה העשוי לשבעה מלכי אומות כשאביאם אל הארץ.

Rav Zevin explains the midah k'neged midah here.  Moshe saw only the immediate problem before him, the suffering.  He did not appreciate that this was necessary for the process of geulah.  (Bn"Y were supposed to be in Egypt for 400 years, but Hashem compacted the suffering and slavery into a shorter time frame in order to get to the finish line faster.)  Therefore, Moshe was not in a position to witness the wars necessary to conquer Eretz Yisrael.  Only someone with long term vision can appreciate how the battles and wars would ultimately lead to the final goal.

Chazal tell us that Moshe corrected this sin at shiras Yam Suf:

דָּבָר אַחֵר, אָז יָשִׁיר משֶׁה, הֲדָא הוּא דִּכְתִיב (שיר השירים ד, יא): נֹפֶת תִּטֹּפְנָה שִׂפְתוֹתַיִךְ, אָמַר משֶׁה רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים בַּמֶּה שֶׁחָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ בּוֹ אֲנִי מְקַלֶּסְךָ. אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי בַּר חִיָּא מָשָׁל לִמְדִינָה שֶׁמָּרְדָה עַל הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאָמַר הַמֶּלֶךְ לַדֻּכָּס שֶׁלּוֹ נֵלֵךְ וְנִלָחֵם בָּהּ, אָמַר לוֹ דֻּכָּס אֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל, הֶחֱרִישׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהָלַךְ בַּלַּיְלָה בְּעַצְמוֹ וּכְבָשָׁהּ. יָדַע דֻּכָּס עָשָׂה עֲטָרָה וְהֵבִיא לַמֶּלֶךְ, אָמַר לוֹ הָעֲטָרָה הַזּוֹ לָמָּה, אָמַר בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁחָטָאתִי בְּדָבָר וְאָמַרְתִּי לְךָ אֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל. כָּךְ אָמַר משֶׁה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁחָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ בְּאָז, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות ה, כג): וּמֵאָז בָּאתִי אֶל פַּרְעֹה, וַהֲרֵי טִבַּעְתָּ אוֹתוֹ לַיָּם, לְכָךְ אֲנִי מְשַׁבַּחֲךָ בְּאָז, הֲדָא הוּא דִּכְתִיב: אָז יָשִׁיר משֶׁה. בֹּא וּרְאֵה דֶּרֶךְ הַצַּדִּיקִים בַּמֶּה שֶׁהֵם סוֹרְחִים הֵם מְתַקְּנִים, הֱוֵי: נֹפֶת תִּטֹּפְנָה שִׂפְתוֹתַיִךְ כַּלָּה,

Rashi comments that אז ישיר is written in the future rather than the present tense because אמרו רבותינו: מכאן רמז לתחיית המתים מן התורה.  Az yashir represents the ultimate long term view toward the future.  Moshe was not singing just for the here-and-now, but was singing for eternity.  

mitzvah of burial; keeping going when the going is tough

1) Rashi comments on Yaakov's request  אַל נָא תִקְבְּרֵנִי בְּמִצְרָיִם that there are three reasons why Yaakov did not want to be buried in Egypt:

 סופן להיות עפרם כנים, ושאין מתי חוצה לארץ חיין אלא בצער גילגול מחילות, ושלא יעשוני מצרים עבודה זרה. 

I saw quoted in the name of R' Shimon Moshe Diskin, R"Y of Kol Torah, that the reason of סופן להיות עפרם כנים is not just because משום צער המת (see Gur Aryeh) and would not be a very nice thing, but it is based on a din.  The gemara (Sanhedrin 46b) learns that burial must be done in soil.  When the plague of kinim came, all of the soil of Egypt turned to lice.  The Midrash (Shmos Rabbah 10:7) writes  לְפִיכָךְ נֶהְפַּךְ עֲפָרָם לְכִנִּים וְחוֹפְרִין אַמָּה עַל אַמָּה וְלֹא הָיָה שָׁם עָפָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: כָּל עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ הָיָה כִנִּים, that even down to the depth of an amah there was only kinim. If so, had Yaakov been buried in Egypt the mitzvah of kevurah would be bateil, as he would no longer be buried in earth.  Therefore, he asked to be carried to Eretz Yisrael.   

It's a brilliant chap, but I have one small question, or maybe it would be better to call it an observation.  The Kli Chemdah points out what seems to be a stirah in Ramban.  Ramban comments in parshas Chayei Sarah on the pasuk  אִם יֵשׁ אֶת נַפְשְׁכֶם לִקְבֹּר אֶת מֵתִי מִלְּפָנַי that מלפני – כי אם לא תעשו כן, אקברנו בארון  Avraham told the Bnei Chais that if they won't sell him a burial plot, he will bury Sarah in an aron and leave her in a coffin.  However, Ramban in Torah haAdam writes that the mitzvah of kevurah m'doraysa can only be fulfilled through burial in soil.  How then could Avraham have left Sarah in an aron?  What about the mitzvah of kevurah?  Kli Chemdah answers that the reason behind buying the body in soil is based on the din of hashavas ha'gezeilah.  Man is created from dust of the earth.  Either he can fulfill his mission and be metakein that dust and elevate it to something holy, or the dust must be returned to its source.  (Nafka mina to this hesber: gezel is prohibited even to a ben noach, so they too have to bury their dead.)  Sarah achieved the goal of sanctifying the dust her body was created from, so she did not need to be returned to the soil.  For her, burial in an aron would have been sufficient.  The same is true, says the Kli Chemdah, of Moshe, as no one knows where the burial place of his body is.  The same is true of Yosef, who was placed in an aron after death and according to some views that aron was sunk into the Nile, not buried in land.  Given all of the above, I don't think it would be a stretch to say the same is true of Yaakov Avinu.  So what if the soil would turn to kinim and he would not have burial in soil?  His body was elevated to a state of holiness and did not need to return to the earth? 

Worth noting as well that the Sifsei Chachamim asks why Rashi quotes three reasons for Yaakov's request -- wouldn't one justification be enough?  He comments: ״ל דצריך לג׳ טעמים הללו דאי משום כנים לחוד היה לו לצוות לעשות ארון מברזל לכך פירש גלגול מחילות etc.  I don't know what the S.C. does with the gemara in Sanhedrin, as לעשות ארון מברזל is not an option if you hold you need burial in land.  

Again, this is not a question, as it is all predicated on the Kli Chemdah.  You can find some other way to answer up that Ramban and avoid the whole issue.  Just thought it was worth pointing out.

2) Yaakov blessed Yissachar (49:15) וַיַּרְא מְנֻחָה כִּי טוֹב וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ כִּי נָעֵמָה וַיֵּט שִׁכְמוֹ לִסְבֹּל וַיְהִי לְמַס עֹבֵד.  A question we've dealt with before: the bracha seems self-contradictory, a stirah minei u'bei.  If Yissachar loved menucha, then what is the meaning of וַיֵּט שִׁכְמוֹ לִסְבֹּל, that he accepted a burden on his shoulders?  There is no menucha in that!

Seforno writes that the מְנֻחָה  referred to here is המנוחה בשלמות המושכלות, achieving spiritual perfection. Midrash Rabbah: וַיַּרְא מְנֻחָה כִּי טוֹב – זוֹ הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ד׳:ב׳): כִּי לֶקַח טוֹב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם.  Menucha does not mean that Yissachar loved indolence or was lazy.  What it means is that in comparison to the lot of Zevulun, who went out to do business and fight wars, Yissachar preferred to toil closer to home, to expend his energy toiling under the yoke of Torah.

Maharam Shick explains the lesson of this pasuk in a way that probably runs counter to everything modern chinuch is all about.  A bit of intro from the Shem m'Shmuel to set the table: the gemara (Brachos 13b) writes 

  אמר לי' רב לר' חייא לא חזינא לי' לרבי דמקבל עלי' מלכות שמים, אמר לי' בר פחתי בשעה שמעביר ידיו על פניו 

Rav remrked to R' Chiya that he was perplexed because he never saw Rebbi accept upon himself עול מלכות שׁמים.  Rav Chiya responded that Rebbi did so when he covered his eyes in the shiur, like we cover our eyes when we say shema.  The Shem m'Shmuel in parshas VaEschanan explains Rav's bewilderment: 

 ופרשנו דשאלת רב היתה דהיות רבי שהי' כל ימיו בדביקות עצומה איך שייך אצלו קבלת מלכות שמים שאצלו איננו עול אלא אהבה רבה [ויש להוסיף ולומר היות רבי מזרעא דדוד קאתי שהיתה מדתו השתוקקת עצומה ואהבה רבה לאלקות כמ"ש (תהלים ס"ג ב') צמאה לך נפשי כמה לך בשרי וכל ספר תהלים מלא מזה, וכן היתה בודאי מדתו של רבי, ואמר על עצמו שלא נהנה מעוה"ז אפי' כאצבע קטנה, ולעומת שלא נהנה מעוה"ז היו כל תענוגותיו רק אלקות כמו שבא ברמז בדבר אמלאה החרבה אם מלאה זו חרבה זו כמו שהארכנו בזה במק"א, איך יתכן שנקרא אצלו עול]

What bothered Rav is that for someone as connected to ruchniyus as Rebbi, is there really such a thing as עול מלכות שׁמים, as the YOKE of heaven?  Yoke means it's a burden, something you have to work hard at.  If someone gave you the job of eating chocolate ice cream or your favorite cake, you wouldn't call that a yoke, you would call it a pleasure!  For Rebbi, serving Hashem was chocolate ice cream.  Where's the burden?

Whatever the answer is (look up the Shem m'Shmuel), you see from Rav's question that there is a tremendous maa'lah to serving Hashem not because doing so is like chocolate ice cream, but because it is קבּלת עול, because it is a necessity even if we wouldn't enjoy it.

 וַיַּרְא מְנֻחָה כִּי טוֹב, Yissachar saw that המנוחה בשלמות המושכלות is the ultimate good besides which nothing can compare or complete. It was better than riches, better than chocolate ice cream.  Nonetheless, וַיֵּט שִׁכְמוֹ לִסְבֹּל  His motivation in avodas Hashem was not just because Torah is enjoyable, but rather he accepted what he had to do as an עול, as service, as something that must be done irrespective or whether it was pleasurable or not.

Today when kids go to school every morah and rebbi wants them to feel "geshmack," not just in first and second grade, but even in high school and beis medrash.  I don't know what people raised in that way do when learning does not feel so geshmack, as is the case many times after a long day of work or when dealing with other difficulties.  We all hope and pray that וַיַּרְא מְנֻחָה כִּי טוֹב, that we should love learning and experience the joy and pleasure in Torah and mitzvos, but we also need the motivation of וַיֵּט שִׁכְמוֹ לִסְבֹּל, to keep going even when the going is tough.

Ezra - Torah for the masses

One of the reasons (it's mentioned in the slichos as well) that we fast on 10 Teves is because this is the yahrzeit (or 9 Teves, but they combined the fasts into one) of Ezra haSofer. Chazal tell us that had the Torah not been given through Moshe, it would have been given through Ezra. The Meshech Chochma in parshas va'yeilech quotes a Yerushalmi (Yevamos 8b) that says that R' Dosa ben Hyrkenus said about R' Elazar ben Azarya that he knows that he is the 10th generation from Ezra and his eyes are similar to the eyes of Ezra.

. ראה את °רבי אלעזר בן עזריה וקרא עליו (תהלים ל"ז, כ"ה) נער הייתי גם זקנתי. מכירו אני שהוא דור עשירי לעזרא. ועינוי דמיין לדידיה

It's hard to take this k'peshuto, as how would R' Dosa have known what Ezra's eyes looked like? The point he was making, explains the Meshech Chochma, is that R' Elazar ben Azarya was like Ezra. In parshas vayeilech is says that Moshe gave the Torah to the kohanim and levi'im: וַיִּכְתֹּ֣ב מֹשֶׁה֮ אֶת⁠־הַתּוֹרָ֣ה הַזֹּאת֒ וַֽיִּתְּנָ֗הּ אֶל⁠־הַכֹּֽהֲנִים֙ בְּנֵ֣י לֵוִ֔י Torah was meant for an elite class of scholars. That's why it was written in ksav ivri. This was a ksav that not everyone could read, and so it prevented the average person from having access to the text. Ezra changed all that. Ezra  changed the ksav to ksav ashuri which allowed everyone easy access to the text.  Ezra understood that although there are risk in allowing every layperson access to Torah, allowing everyone to think all they need is the internet and an Artscroll and they can pasken any shayla, the risks are worth it. Ezra lived in a time of transition, a time when prophecy was ending, and he understood that dissemination of the Torah to the masses was needed if we were to survive.

The gemara in Brachos writes that R' Gamliel only accepted students to the beis medrash who were "tocho b'baro," an elite group. When R' Elazar ben Azraya took over, he opened the doors to everyone. His eyes, his outlook on life, matched that of his ancestor Ezra.

Here's the Meshech Chochma:

ויתנה לכהנים בני לוי – בירושלמי פ״א דיבמות ראה את ראב״ע וקרא עליו נער הייתי כו׳ מכירו אני שהוא דור עשירי לעזרא ועיניו דמיין לדידיה. הענין כי מצאנו בעזרא ששינה הכתב, והוא כי באמת יאות לפי משפטי התורה אשר התורה תהא מסורה ביד הכהנים הלוים והזקנים אשר יש בהם כל מכמני השלמות והפרושים היושבים בירושלים, וכל מי שנדבו לבו להתקרב אל התורה יבא לירושלים, כמו שמצאנו בר״א בן הורקנוס, והיו הישיבות הגדולות אשר נקבצו כל הראוי בהם לפי חכמת בינתם, וכן מצאנו בספרי על קרא דלמען תלמד ליראה את ה׳ [הביאהו תוס׳ ב״ב כ״ה], ומפני זה היה התורה כתובה בכתב עברי למען לא ילמד מי שאינו ראוי ויהיה כזורק אבן למרקוליס, ולא ירהב הנער בזקן לאמר גם אנכי הרואה ויודע סתרי החכמה כמוך. אמנם עזרא ראה בזמנו לפי פזור ישראל בעמים והשכח מאתם עקרי התורה (כאשר מצאנו בנחמיה ודה״י) ונסתם החזון ובטלו הרואים באספקלריא המאירה, יותר נאות לכותבה בלשון מובן לכל הרוצה לדעת וחכמות בחוץ תרונה, ומוטב להגיע אל המטרה הנאותה להרחיב הדעת בארץ [כאשר באמת נתפשטה עד מאד התורה בזמן בית שני, כידוע] ולסבול ההיזק המגיע אשר כבר הגיע מזה בבית שני כידוע מתלמידים שלא שמשו כל צרכן, וזה שפט ברוח הקודש רוח אלהי אשר הופיע עליו ממרום, והפליגו חז״ל זה עד כי אמרו ראוי היה עזרא להנתן תורה ע״י כמו ע״י משה, ואמרו עילם זכתה ללמוד ולא ללמד בבל זכתה כו׳, ערש״י, וכן מצאנו ענין כזה לראב״ע, שר״ג הנשיא היה בדעתו לסתום כל דבר המקובל ולבלי לפרש טעמו, כאשר מצאנו לו בכמה מקומות מקובל אני מאבותי, וכן שלא לקבל רק הנאות להגיע אל מטרת השלמות ולמעט התלמידים, וכל מי שאין תוכו כברו אל יכנס, לא כן ראב״ע מצאנו לו שמיד שישב בנשיאות אמר כל הרוצה לכנוס יבוא ויכנס ואתוספו ה׳ מאה ספסלי בבי מדרשא, וכן בכ״מ תמצא שמפרש טעם כל דבר, עיין בחגיגה טף למה באין אלא כדי ליתן שכר טוב למביאיהן, וכן בכ״מ הפליג בהתפשטות התורה וריבוי לומדיה, והוא שאמר ועינו, ר״ל עינו הצופיה למרחוק, הבטה כללית, כמו עיני העדה וכמו עיניך יונים (עיין מדרש), בהבטה על הנהגת הכלל הוא דומה להנהגת עזרא הסופר. ונכון

I think we can put 2 and 2 together and lump this Meshech Chochma together with an Ohr Sameich in Hil Issuei Bi'ah from this post two years ago.  The Ohr Sameich distinguishes takanos of Chazal instituted for what he calls "tikun ha'dat," strengthening religious law, e.g. don't do X on shabbos lest you come to do a melacha and violate the law of shabbos, and the takanos of Ezra, which were made for "tikun ha'umah," to strengthen our national identity.  

Ezra was not concerned with promulgating the mitzvah of talmud Torah simply because it is an important mitzvah to do.  He was concerned with promulgating Torah because Torah is what gives us our national identity.  In earlier times, it was enough for an elite group to carrier the banner for the national as a whole.  In Erzra's time, in R' Elazar ben Azarya's time, in our time, that is not longer the case.

breaking fast on coffee and cake on shabbos; chatzi shiur by peru u'revu, learning without rischa d'oraysa

1) Many people prefer to break their fast on coffee and cake rather than sit down to a heavy meal.  Is that an option when 10 Teves falls on Friday as it does this year?  Can you say kiddush and then have your coffee and cake and then eat seudas shabbos a bit later?  There are a few hurdles to overcome: 1) Those who do not drink a revi'is of wine from kiddush have a potential safeik bracha rishona on the coffee (Biur Halacha 174:2); 2) You have a potential safeik whether to say bracha achrona on the coffee or whether it would be exempted by birchas ha'mazon of the meal (MB 174:37); 3) Rama writes that seudas shabbos should be eaten immediately after kiddush, and ideally cake does not suffice for kiddush b'makom seudah at night (Shu"t Ein Yitzchak #12).  4) Al pi din one could wash, drink coffee, and then continue with the main fleishig meal (as MB says to do by Shavuos), but there is a Zohar that says not to have milchigs and fleishigs in the same meal.  Given all of the above probably best to ask someone in advance what to do or work out the issues here instead of waiting until you are about to sit down and eat.

2) The sefer Tzlach Rchav quotes a machlokes Chida and Chikrei Lev whether there is any value to a chatzi shiur of a mitzvas aseh, a topic we have discussed before (here, and earlier this year).  Perhaps one could argue that the safeik depends on the source for the issur of chatzi shiur (see Yoma 74a).  If it is learned out from a derasha on the words כל חלב, then the gezeiras ha'kasuv is perhaps limited to issurim like cheilev (there are Achronim who limit chatzi shiur even by issurim only to issurei achila).  If, however, the source is the sevara of כיון דחזי לאיצטרופי, the same sevara can be applied to mitzvos.  

Tzlach Rchav brings this up on the parsha because of a cute remez.  Among those who went down to Mitzrayim is the child of Dan,  וּבְנֵי דָן חֻשִׁים.  This is the only child of Dan.  What about the mitzvah of peru u'revu? The answer is Dan = דכר ונוקבא, and Chushim = חצי שׁיעור יחשׁב  מצוה.  The one child is a chatzi shiur of the mitzvah of peru urevu, but a chatzi shiur also counts as a mitzvah.

Regardless of how convinced you are by this remez, I think it's fair game to ask whether having one child can even be called a chatzi shiur.  The din of chatzi shiur applies to quantities, e.g. eating less than the required k'zayis of matzah.  You still ate matzah, just not enough. If, for example, you put tzitzis on three of the four corners of your garment, that's not a chatzi shiur.  You haven't done the mitzvah of tzitzis, just not enough of it -- you haven't accomplished the miztvah at all.  There is something qualitatively lacking in this case.  Having one child instead of two seems to me to be more akin to the tzitzis case than the matzah case.

3) When Yosef has a send off for his brothers to return home, he tells them  וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת אֶחָיו וַיֵּלֵכוּ וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַל תִּרְגְּזוּ בַּדָּרֶךְ (45:24).  Rashi already alludes to a Midrashic interpretation that the Yalkut Shimoni fleshes out:

 ויאמר אלהם אל תרגזו בדרך א"ל יוסף לאחיו אל תתעסקו בדבר הלכה שמא תרגז עליכם הדרך. איני והאמר ר' אילעאי שני תלמידי חכמים המהלכים בדרך ואין ביניהם דברי תורה ראויין לישרף שנאמר ויהי המה הולכים הלוך ודבר טעמא דאיכא דבור הא ליכא דבור ראויין לישרף לא קשיא הא למיגרס הא לעיוני.

Yosef knew that if his brothers started learning in depth on the road home they would get carried away in the "rishca d'oraysa" of arguing back and forth with each other, so he told them to keep their learning light.

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi asks: Why didn't Yosef just tell them that when they learn b'iyun, not to get carried away and to avoid battling back and forth over each point?  Why change the subject matter?  

The answer is that learning without "rischa d'oraysa," without battling back and forth, is not called עסק, is not called learning with depth and intensity.  The two by definition go hand in hand.  

acharei rabim l'hatos

If a drop of milk fell into my cholent but is bateil b'rov, if I decide that I don't want rely on bitul and would rather give up eating the cholent, would you say that this is a pious act, comparable, for example, to the gemara's derasha (Chulin 44) about Yechezkel that  שלא אכלתי מבהמה שהורה בה חכם, or is it sheer foolishness?

The Minchas Chinuch writes (mitzvah 78) that if rov of beis din decided something is permissible, e.g. beis din decided that a certain cut of meat is not cheilev and may be eaten, if a person wants to be machmir on himself and not rely on that rov, that is a violation of the mitzvah of acharei rabin l'hatos.   

By that same token, would you also say that if the cholent is permissible based on bitul b'rov, which is learned from acharie rabim (Rashi B.M. 53 d"h d'oraysa  שהמעורב מן התורה בטל ברוב דכתיב (שמות כג) אחרי רבים להטות,) choosing to deliberately not rely on rov and not eat it is also a violation of the mitzvah of acharei rabim l'hatos?

Doesn't sound right, does it?

what is the end game in Gaza?

What is Israel's end game in Gaza?  I don't pretend to have the answer to that question.  I'm just spitballing ideas.  It's easy to talk about eradicating Hamas or defeating Hamas, but what exactly does that mean?  Does it mean killing every member of Hamas?  That seems to me to be an impossible task.  Hamas has been compared to the Nazis.  We did not kill every single Nazi in defeating Germany.  There were many even high ranking Nazis who escaped, and certainly many Germans knew and/or were complicit in the Nazi atrocities yet were allowed to resume life as normal after the war.  The same probably will hold true in Gaza.  

Is the goal demilitarizing Gaza, irrespective of whether Hamas or some other entity remains in charge?  The problem is Gaza is not an independent, isolated regime the way Nazi Germany was.  Gaza is one of the many arms of Iran.  So long as the Iranians have funds and weapons to supply Hamas, Hamas will remain in business.  Sealing the Gazan borders completely is nearly impossible, as there are simply too many avenues open to smuggle arms.  To cut off Iran's access to funds and arms requires the cooperation of the US and other international players, and long as Biden remains president (Obama term 3), the US does not seem moved to do anything about the situation.   

Is the end goal removing Hamas from political power?  Polls indicate that a majority of Palestinians support Hamas' actions.  Were elections to be held in Gaza, Hamas would win.  This goal therefore seems to necessitate imposing control by some outside authority on the area.  Who has the trust of Israel and credibility to assume that role?  Does Israel itself really want to become mired in a long term investment of troops patrolling Gaza?

Lots of questions, with no answers.  Glad I'm not in charge making decisions.

zos chanukah; a beautiful diyuk from R' BenTzion Mutzafi that teaches us how to settle arguments

1) Today is the last day of Chanukah, known as "zos Chanukah."  Rashi in parshas Matos comments on the pasuk at the beginning of that parsha  זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ that משה נתנבא בכה אמר ה׳ כחצות הלילה וגו׳ (שמות י״א:ד׳), והנביאים נתנבאו בכה אמר, מוסף עליהם משה שנתנבא בלשון זה הדבר.  What's the difference whether the word כה or the word זה is used?  Maharal explains in Gur Aryeh: 

ונראה, כי ענין זה הוא תולה בנבואת משה רבינו עליו השלום ומדריגתו, כי הנבואות הם שתים; האחת הוא שנתנבאו בה כל הנביאים על מעשה ה׳ והנהגתו בעולם, לכל אשר נעשה בעולם. והמדריגה של משה היה כולל זה, וכולל גם כן להתנבאות על המצות והתורה שצוה לו השם יתברך מפיו. וזאת המדריגה היא אינו דומה לראשונה, כי המדריגה הראשונה בדברים אשר יחדש ויעשה בעולם, והמדריגה של משה רבינו עליו השלום היא התורה מה שהשם יתברך רוצה שיהיה נוהג תמיד בעולם מבלי שינוי, והוא סדר מציאות כללי בעולם. כי בתורה אשר נתן השם יתברך על ידי משה, סידר את ישראל בסדר כללי, לא בענינים המתחדשים בפרטים מן הסבה הראשונה, שזה אין המדריגה כל כך. 

The word זֶ֣ה means you can always point to the thing; it's axiomatic, true for all eternity, in all times and places. כה is what is true in a particular context, based on circumstance.  

וזאת התורה אשׂר שׂם משׂה.  Only Moshe had the level of nevuah of זה and not just כה that was needed to gives us זאת התורה , a Torah that is eternal.  

Chanukah is not just about what happened centuries ago when we needed to be saved from the Greeks.  זאת חנוכּה, it is an eternal truth, it's about the salvation of the Jewish people in all times and in all places, now as well and then.

2) R' BenTzion Mutzafi has a beautiful diyuk in Rashi in our parsha.  The parsha tells us that Yosef imprisoned Shimon and allowed the other brothers to return home (42:24).   וַיִּקַּח מֵאִתָּם אֶת שִׁמְעוֹן וַיֶּאֱסֹר אֹתוֹ לְעֵינֵיהֶם  Rashi explains that it was only in the other brother's presence, לְעֵינֵיהֶם, that Shimon was locked up, but once the brothers were gone, Yosef released him and gave him food and drink לא אסרו אלא לעיניהם, וכיון שיצאו, הוציאו ומאכילו ומשקו.  We understand that Yosef would release Shimon from jail once the coast is clear, but why does Rashi add that Yosef also fed him and cared for him?  Why are those details important and deserving of mention here?  Rashi is based on the Midrash: רַבִּי חַגַּי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר לְעֵינֵיהֶם אֲסָרוֹ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לָהֶם הָיָה מַאֲכִילוֹ וּמַשְׁקוֹ מַרְחִיצוֹ וְסָכוֹ.  I am not sure why Rashi cut off the last words מַרְחִיצוֹ וְסָכוֹ, but the point remains the same.  Furthermore, did Yosef really need to be personally involved?  Didn't Yosef, as the head of Egypt, have servants who could take care of preparing the food, or bathing Shimon?  Later in the parsha when Yosef hosts all the brothers, the Torah tells us that Yosef told others prepare the food  וַיֹּאמֶר לַאֲשֶׁר עַל⁠ בֵּיתוֹ הָבֵא אֶת הָאֲנָשִׁים הַבָּיְתָה וּטְבֹחַ טֶבַח וְהָכֵן כִּי אִתִּי יֹאכְלוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים בַּצׇּהֳרָיִם, so why not here as well?   

We learned 2 years ago a yesod from R"Y Salanter, which the Netziv develops as well, on the pasuk (Mishlei 17:13)  מֵשִׁיב רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה לֹא תָמוּשׁ רָעָה מִבֵּיתוֹ.  The way most people understand that pasuk is not to repay a kindness by doing wrong to someone.  The Netziv, however, says that's not the pshat.  The idea of 'hashava' means returning something owed, like the Torah says in the case of theft, "v'heishiv es ha'gezeilah" -- you stole something, you have to repay it back.  If someone does you a favor, you obviously don't owe it to them to wrong them in return.  What the pasuk is talking about, explains Netziv, about is a case where someone wronged you.  In that case, tit-for-tat, you do owe them back wrongdoing, just like they gave you.  You might even think that this is the way to end the fight -- you wronged me, I wrong you back, now we're even and life goes on.  But it doesn't work that way.  What happens in that case is that the first party sees it as an escalation and responds in kind, and the cycle continues.   

The way to settle things is instead of responding to wrongdoing in kind, respond by doing a kindness.  Do something good for the other person who harmed you and their animosity will melt away and that will mend the broken bridges. 

This is what Mishlei is teaching us: you might think that מֵשִׁיב רָעָה, repaying a wrongdoing tit-for-tat in kind, evening the score, is the way to settle things תַּחַת טוֹבָה, instead of following this strategy of doing kindness; kah mashma lan לֹא תָמוּשׁ רָעָה מִבֵּיתוֹ, if you do that, the fight will never end.  The score will never be perceived as even and the argument will continue.

Shimon was one of the ringleaders in selling Yosef. Therefore, Yosef went out of his way to personally do good by him.  Yosef wanted to settle the quarrel and have peace.