Rogatchover on building the teivah: is the mitzvah the maaseh or the totza'ah?

The Rogatchover asks what the geder of Hashem's mitzvah to make a teivah was.  Was it the עצם המעשׂה, the act of building the teivah, or was it the end result, the תוצאה, of having a teivah, which was crucial?

I would say mi'sevara that it depends on what the real reason for building the teivah was.  If the point was to have a place of refuge for Noach and family during the flood, then all that matters is the end result of having a safe haven.  If the point was to raise awareness of the impending flood and thereby arouse the people to do teshuvah, then process of building, which people would take note of, was crucial.  (Baruch she'kivanti, my son pointed out that the L. Rebbe makes this point in a sicha (vol 15).)

The Rogatchover in his unmatched genius brought a proof from the following gemara (Sukkah 52b):

״וַיַּרְאֵנִי ה׳ אַרְבָּעָה חָרָשִׁים״, מַאן נִינְהוּ אַרְבָּעָה חָרָשִׁים? אָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא: מָשִׁיחַ בֶּן דָּוִד, וּמָשִׁיחַ בֶּן יוֹסֵף, וְאֵלִיָּהוּ, וְכֹהֵן צֶדֶק.

Why are these 4 people called craftsmen?  Rashi explains that Mashiach ben David and ben Yosef will build Beis haMikdash; Eliyahu built a bamah on Mt Carmel; Kohen Tzedek is Shem ben Noach who helped his father build the teivah.

Had Noach been commanded in the עצם המעשׂה of building the teivah, then how could he have allowed his son to help?  He was given the mitzvah, not his son, and there is no din of shlichus for a ben Noach!  It must be, says the Rogatchover, that all that matters was the תוצאה, but who did the building or how it was done was not important.

an experience that makes an impression

Rashi writes that the gathering of  וַיַּקְהֵל מֹשֶׁה אֶת⁠ כׇּל⁠ עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל took place למחרת יום הכפורים, כשירד מן ההר.  When that gathering finished, the Torah reports וַיֵּ֥צְא֛וּ כׇּל־עֲדַ֥ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִלִּפְנֵ֥י מֹשֶֽׁה.  It should go without saying that when Moshe was done speaking everyone went home.  Why mention it?  (See this post where we discussed this.)

R' Avraham Shapira quotes Chasam Sofer that the point the Torah is trying to make is that in this case it wasn't just stam you went home, business as usual, like you come home from the grocery store or a day of work. In this case it was clear on the faces and in the behavior of the people that they had come מִלִּפְנֵ֥י מֹשֶֽׁה, they had just experienced something important, something that made an impression. 

So too when we come to למחרת יום הכפורים, the experience of Y"K should leave it mark, and there should be an impression left even as we depart from the kedushas ha'yom. 

tefilas neilah - kaparah of the tzibur

Rambam writes in hil teshuvah 1:4 that teshuvah alone is not enough to be mechapeir on chilul Hashem:

 במה דברים אמורים בשלא חילל את השם בשעה שעבר אבל המחלל את השם אע"פ שעשה תשובה והגיע יום הכפורים והוא עומד בתשובתו ובאו עליו יסורין אינו מתכפר לו כפרה גמורה עד שימות. 

Yet earlier in halacha 1:2 Rambam indicates that the שעיר המשתלח brings kaparah for everything, even the cheit of chilul Hashem.

שעיר המשתלח לפי שהוא כפרה על כל ישראל כהן גדול מתודה עליו על לשון כל ישראל שנאמר והתודה עליו את כל עונות בני ישראל. שעיר המשתלח מכפר על כל עבירות שבתורה הקלות והחמורות. בין שעבר בזדון בין שעבר בשגגה. בין שהודע לו בין שלא הודע לו הכל מתכפר בשעיר המשתלח. והוא שעשה תשובה

R' Avraham Shapira explained that the difference is that שעיר המשתלח is a kaparah for the community as a whole, as the Rambam writes, מתודה עליו על לשון כל ישראל.  Although an individual's personal teshuvah is not enough to forgive chilul Hashem, it can be forgiven as part of the kaparah extended to the community.

Similarly, Meshech Chochma at the end of parshas VaYelech writes that tefilas neilah also has that exceptional power to afford kaparah even for chilul Hashem:

והנה כל ימי תשובה שמלך יושב על כסא וצבא השמים עומדים עליו יכול להועיל רק על עבירות שאין בהם חלול השם שוקלין זכויות כנגד עבירות, אבל על חה״ש ע״ז אמרו אם יכופר לכם העון עד תמותון ב״י, כי אין יוהכ״פ מכפר (סוף יומא), ורק בעת החתימה שהשי״ת דן יחידי אז הוא שעת הכושר שהשי״ת יסלח מרוב טובו אחרי גודל הבכי והחרטה, כי אם הוא ימחול על חלול כבודו מי יאמר אליו, לכן בנעילה סדרו הפסוקים למה תמותו, השיבו וחיו כי לא תחפץ במות כו׳ וכיו״ב, כי הכל על עון חלול השי״ת   

This is because, explained R' Avraham, tefilas neilah, like the שעיר המשתלח, is the time of kaparah for the tzibur, not just for each of us as individuals.

This is the climax of the avodah of Y"K -- joining as a tzibur, receiving kaparah as a tzibur.  

What we cannot achieve as individuals, we can achieve as a klal.  

bracha on besamim on Y"K which falls on motzei shabbos; bracha on ner when a woman recites havdalah

There is a machlokes ha'poskim whether the bracha on besamim is said in havdalah when Y"K falls on Shabbos. The SA writes (624:3) writes that the bracha is omitted, as the purpose of besamim is to help us recover from the loss of our neshoma yesira, but on Y"K there is no neshama yseira since we can't eat or drink.  The Mordechai disagrees.  Taz quotes Maharashal who argues that there is no downside to being choshesh for the Mordechai and adding the bracha, as the bracha is a birchas ha'nehenin.  If you smell the spices and enjoy the fragrance, it's not a bracha levatala.  This is how the Mishna Berura paskens l'maaseh:

אבל רבים מהאחרונים חולקין ע"ז וסוברין דכשחל בשבת יש לברך על הבשמים ואין כאן חשש ברכה לבטלה כיון שנהנה. ומ"מ אין להורות לצבור כן ולמחות בידם במקום שנהגו בבהכ"נ שלא לברך על הבשמים רק לעצמו בביתו יכול לברך [פמ"ג].

Aside from the issue of bracha levatala, Taz raises a different concern.  If one is not obligated to say it, wouldn't adding the bracha on besamim constitute a hefsek between the bracha on the kos and the bracha of havdalah?  He draws an interesting analogy to tekiyas shofas to get out of this problem:

וויש לכאורה לדחות זה שכ' מאחר שנהנה כו' דמ"מ יש כאן הפסק בין ברכת בורא פרי הגפן לברכת המבדיל בבשמים אם אין הכרח להם מ"מ נראה דעדיף טפי לצאת ידי כל הדיעות מלחוש להפסק וראיה מדברי ת"ה סימן קמ"ב לענין קשר"ק שתוקעין בסדרים דבזה נפיק ידי כל הקולות דהיינו או קר"ק או קש"ק ולא חיישינן להפסיק אם קש"ק עיקר הוה התרועה הפסק ואם קר"ק עיקר הוה השברים הפסק דכיון דעכ"פ כבר יצא י"ח לא חיישינן להפסק  אע"ג דעיקר התקיעות הם על סדר הברכות הכי נמי  כיון דיוצא ממ"נ לא חיישינן להפסק:

I think the simplest solution to be yotzei both deyos here is that of the Chayei Adam (klal 145.  My son pointed out to me that R' Ovadya says the same in Chazon Ovadya.):

והרוצה לעשות מן המובחר לצאת דעת האומרים לברך גם על הבשמים כשחל בשבת נ"ל דלאחר שסיים ברכת המבדיל בין קדש לחול אז יברך על הבשמים ולא באמצע הבדלה

This Taz has ramifications not just when Y"K falls on Shabbos, but for other havdalah issues as well.  The Biur Halacha at the end of OC 296 is medayek from the MG"A that women are exempt from the birchas ha'ner when reciting havdalah on motzei Shabbos.  Had you asked me, I would have said based on this Taz that if they have no chiyuv recite the birchas ha'ner, they should not be allowed to recite the bracha, as it would constitute a hefsek.  This is in fact how R' Tukashinski paskens in his luach.  

The sefer Halichos Beisa (end of ch 15) disagrees.  He suggests that even according to the Biur Halacha, women may recite the bracha if they desire to do so.  The difference between this case and that of the Taz is that when it comes to a regular motzei Shabbos, the fact that women lack a chovas ha'gavra (odd to use that term here : ) to say the bracha does not change the fact that it is part of the takanah of what constitutes the normal seder of havdalah.  On Y"K which falls on Shabbos, however, since according to the SA since there is no neshoma yseira, the bracha of besamim is not part of the "cheftza" of the takanah of havdalah for that day.  

As proof to this argument he cites the PM"G that an aveil is exempt from reciting the bracha on besamim since he is too upset to have the enjoyment of a neshama yseira; however, the PM"G implies that if the aveil may recite the bracha if he chooses to do so.  Here too, the aveil may lack a chovas hagavra because of his circumstance, but the takana of havdalah on motzei Shabbos includes the bracha, and therefore there is no issur to say it.

Important to note that this issue is only with respect to a regular motzei Shabbos. The Halichos Beisa suggests that when Y"K falls on Shabbos even according to the M"B women are obligated in the birchas ha'ner, as the purpose of the ner on motzei Y"K is part of havdalah -- to distinguish between the ner that we were not allowed to use for 24 hours and ner that we now can use -- as opposed to on a regular motzei Shabbos where it is a shevach for the creation of candlelight.

five thoughts on this 10/7 anniversary

I am not sure why we are marking the date of 10/7 and not the Hebrew calendar date when the tragedy of Hamas' attack occurred (albeit a Yom Tov), but be that as it may, I have five very simple and perhaps obvious thoughts:

1) We have seen nisim v'niflaos over the past year, and at the same time suffered heartbreak.  One day we see the yad Hashem b'giluy, the next day it is shrouded in hester panim.  What the Divine plan is is incomprehensible, but one cannot help but feel that we stand at a moment in history that will shape Jewish destiny for years to come.

2) We have discovered who our true friends are, and they have both mourned and celebrated with us.  We have also discovered who our enemies dressed in sheep's clothing are, and they are many.

3) The debt owed to the soldiers of Tzahal is immense.  They and their families have given everything.  

4) If you are a Jew and do not realize that history is now calling you to action -- to do something, whether big or small, for our nation -- then I fear רוח והצלה יעמוד ליהודים ממקום אחר ואת ובית אביך תאבדו.  

5) Finally, we should be confident in the certainty that no matter how long it takes and what obstacles must be overcome, ultimately רוח והצלה יעמוד ליהודים, and I mean specifically Eretz Yisrael.  We have no future in galus.  It is not enough to think of shivas Tzion as an abstract dream, but we must struggle to make it a reality, if not for ourselves, then for our children or grandchildren. 

judgment of the individual and judgment of the tzibur

There is a din that before R"H a person has to bathe and take a haircut before Y"T because it's a day of celebration, as we are confident that we will emerge triumphant from standing before Hashem and being judged.  

Meforshim ask: The gemara writes that we do not recite hallel on R"H because it would be inappropriate when the sifrei chaim and sifrei meisim are open and our fate hangs in the balance to be celebrating.  If we are so confident of a positive outcome, why not celebrate?   

To tell you the truth, I am not so bothered by this question.  It seems to me that there is a difference between showing confidence and being happy.  A lawyer can be confident going to trial, but that doesn't mean he is happy to have to face litigation.  We are confident that Hashem will judge us fairly and get us to a positive outcome, but that doesn't mean we should be in a celebratory mood.  The mood is still solemn, as becoming the seriousness of being judged.  Hallel is therefore out of place.

The Chochmas Shlomo on the SA as well as the Netziv at the end of Emor in the Harchev Davar offer a different answer.  On R"H, we actually face two different judgments.  Each and every one of us is individually judged as to what kind of year we will have, but in addition, Klal Yisrael as a whole isjudged.  Will our enemies have the upper hand, or will we as a people thrive and grow this upcoming year?

The Rama (OC 583) quotes the well known minhag of eating apple dipped in honey.  Biur haGR"A explains:

תפוח. ע"ש ופריו מתוק לחכי וכמ"ש כריח שדה ומתרגמינן חקל תפוחים והיה בר"ה כידוע:

It was on R"H that Yaakov went in and got the brachos from Yitzchak (other Midrashim place the date as Pesach), usurping Eisav and making sure we would have the bechora.  Chazal (Taanis 29) comment on the pasuk וַיֹּאמֶר רְאֵה רֵיחַ בְּנִי כְּרֵיחַ שָׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר בֵּרְכוֹ ה׳ that Yaakov smelled like an apple orchard, אמר רב יהודה משמי' דרב, כריח שדה של תפוחים.  (See Torah Temima on that pasuk who notes that although the GR"A refers to the Targum as the source for it being an apple field, it is not found in the Targum, and GR"A probably meant this derasha).

This was not just a personal victory for Yaakov over his brother, but this is maaseh avos siman la'banim, and it resonates on a national scale.  Every year the conflict between Yaakov and Eisav plays itself out on R"H.  Every year we and the umos ha'olam face off in judgment, each one of us trying to earn the bracha that will put us on on top.  Every year we dip the apple in the honey, assured that we will be the ones to emerge with bracha, just as our forefather Yaakov did.

The gemara writes that R' Abahu in Keisari made a takanah to blow all the different kolos: tekiya-teru'ah-tekiya, tekiya-shevarim-tekiya, and tekiya-sh"t-tekiya.  The fact that this takanah was made in Keisari is not just a trivial detail, says R' Chaim Feinstein, but perhaps is linked to the essence of what the day is about.  The gemara elsewhere (Meg 6a) tells us:

קסרי וירושלים אם יאמר לך אדם חרבו שתיהן אל תאמן ישבו שתיהן אל תאמן חרבה קסרי וישבה ירושלים חרבה ירושלים וישבה קסרי תאמן שנאמר אמלאה החרבה אם מליאה זו חרבה זו אם מליאה זו חרבה זו רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מהכא ולאום מלאום יאמץ

Keisari is the stronghold of Eisav, while Yerushalayim is our stronghold.  When one is ascendant, the other must fall.  Rosh haShana is a replay of the age old conflict between Eisav and Yaakov, between Keisari and Yerushalayim, and so it is davka there that R' Abahu instituted his takana of tekiyos, so as to weaken Eisav.

(Parenthetically, the Rishonim quote BH"G that there was no real doubt that mi'doraysa one is yotzei with any of the combinations of kolos.  The R' Abahu made his takanah was to create a unified minhag in Klal Yisrael.  You don't have a similar takana, for example, that all of klal yisrael should do nanau'im the same way.  Perhaps the reason why is because shofar is linked to this idea of judgment on the tzibur, and so factionalism, having different groups with different practices, would be antithetical to the spirit of the day.)

The poskim write based on Midrashim that the reason we take the lulav and esrog after Yom Kippur is because when an army would emerge victorious from battle they would have a parade and wave their standards and their arms in the air.  The lulav is our standard, and we hold in high and wave it around to show that we alone have emerged victorious from the conflict with Eisav.  

The mitzvah to bathe and get a haircut, assured that we will have a good outcome on the yom ha'din, is viz a viz the judgment that occurs on a national level.  Yaakov every year triumphs over Eisav and remains Hashem's chosen one. (I am still a bit perplexed.  So why not say hallel in commemoration of the national victory over Eisav?)  As for each one of us individually, what will happen remains to be determined.  

That being given, I think one way we can assure ourselves of a positive outcome is to throw our lot in with that of the nation, the tzibur, the klal.  This, I think, is what the Isha haShunamit (Melachim 2 4:13) meant when she told Elisha that she does not need any reward because וַתֹּאמֶר בְּתוֹךְ עַמִּי אָנֹכִי יֹשָׁבֶת  If instead of focusing on our individual needs and our individual lot we focus on our simply being members of the klal, our judgment will tie in with that of the klal.

R' Yochanan's bittersweet tears

The Chofetz Chaim, whose yahrtzeit is 24 Elul, writes that the mitzvah of  וְעַתָּה כִּתְבוּ לָכֶם אֶת⁠ הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת, which appears immediately after וְאָנֹכִי הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר פָּנַי בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, is a response to hester panim.  Even amidst the darkness, Hashem's presence and light can be found in Torah.

The gemara (Chagiga 5a) writes:

 רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כִּי מָטֵי לְהַאי קְרָא, בָּכֵי: ״וְהָיָה כִּי תִמְצֶאןָ אוֹתוֹ רָעוֹת רַבּוֹת וְצָרוֹת״. עֶבֶד שֶׁרַבּוֹ מַמְצִיא לוֹ רָעוֹת וְצָרוֹת, תַּקָּנָה יֵשׁ לוֹ?!

 מַאי ״רָעוֹת וְצָרוֹת״? אָמַר רַב: רָעוֹת שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוֹת צָרוֹת זוֹ לָזוֹ — כְּגוֹן זִיבּוּרָא וְעַקְרַבָּא.

Rashi explains that the sting of עַקְרַבָּא needs to be treated with warmth, but the sting of the  זִיבּוּרָא is treated with cold.  If you are stung with both at the same time, there is no way to have any comfort from both.

Why was it davka this pasuk (31:21) that brought R' Yochanan to tears?  Why did he not come to tears when he read earlier in the same parsha (31:17) וְחָרָה אַפִּי בוֹ בַיּוֹם⁠ הַהוּא וַעֲזַבְתִּים וְהִסְתַּרְתִּי פָנַי מֵהֶם וְהָיָה לֶאֱכֹל וּמְצָאֻהוּ רָעוֹת רַבּוֹת וְצָרוֹת?  Why did he not cry when he read (31:18) וְאָנֹכִי הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר פָּנַי בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא עַל כׇּל⁠ הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה?   

Furthermore, if this pasuk is indeed the climax of the tragedies which will befall Bn"Y, why does it begin with the word וְהָיָה?  Chazal tell us אין ״והיה״ אלא שמחה!  

Two years ago I quoted the following yesod from R' Yehonasan Eibschitz: there are two type of punishment, namely punishment through hester panim, where Hashem turns a blind eye to what happens and let's things play out as b'derech ha'teva dictates, and punishment b'yad Hashem, where Hashem metes out the punishment that needs to be delivered.  The difference between the two is that only the latter type of punishment brings kapara, not the former.

This yesod explains the gemara in Brachos (7b):

מזמור לדוד בברחו מפני אבשלום בנו מזמור לדוד קינה לדוד מיבעי ליה אמר ר' שמעון בן אבישלום משל למה הדבר דומה לאדם שיצא עליו שטר חוב קודם שפרעו היה עצב לאחר שפרעו שמח אף כן דוד כיון שאמר לו הקב"ה הנני מקים עליך רעה מביתך היה עצב אמר שמא עבד או ממזר הוא דלא חייס עלי כיון דחזא דאבשלום הוא שמח משום הכי אמר מזמור

First the gemara gives a mashal to explain why David said a mizmor of celebration in response to his punishment,  משל למה הדבר דומה לאדם שיצא עליו שטר חוב קודם שפרעו היה עצב לאחר שפרעו שמח, and then, as if explaining the nimshal, tells us that David was happy because his suffering came at the hands of his own son, Avshalom.  These are two different explanations entirely.  Why does the gemara lump them together as one?  (Maharasha) 

Based on RYE's yesod, the gemara makes perfect sense.  Had David's punishment consisted of Hashem removing His hashgacha and leaving David to whatever fate decreed, it would not be a kapparah.  The shtar chov would still be hanging over his head awaiting payment.  It's only because David's punishment came at the hands of his own son, Avshalom, something so extraordinary and incredible that it could only be yad Hashem, that David felt a degree of relief and sang a mizmor, as punishment b'yad Hashem brings kaparah and would wipe his slate clean.  

In a similar vein, the gemara (Kesubos 66) writes that after the churban Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai came across the daughter of Nakdimon ben Gurion, who had been one of the richest men in the world, picking through animal dung looking for food. Recalling that he had been at her wedding and signed her kesubah worth a fortune, he exclaimed, “Ashrecha Yisrael! – When the Jewish people do G-d’s will, there is no one who can surpass them, but when they fall, they fall to the lowest depths of animal dung.” 

Maharal asks: It’s understandable why R’ Yochanan ben Zakai would say, “Ashrecha Yisrael!” on the ability of Klal Yisrael to rise to the greatest heights, but why say such words now, when he is witness to the depths to which Bn"Y had fallen?  

Maharal answers (see here) that the fact that when we fall, we fall to the lowest depths, proves that our fall is not just some turn of history, some accident of fate.  A great downfall such as ours cannot be explained b'derech ha'teva alone.  It can only reflect the yad Hashem.  So long as we remain under Hashem's watch, we can rest assured that just as He caused us to fall, the yad Hashem can and will raise us back to the greatest heights once we mend our ways.  

The Yismach Moshe uses this same idea to explain why R' Yochanan reacted davka to the pasuk of וְהָיָה כִּי תִמְצֶאןָ אוֹתוֹ רָעוֹת רַבּוֹת וְצָרוֹת.  Had Hashem punished us by simply withdrawing his hashgacha, as the previous pesukim in our parsha describe, וַעֲזַבְתִּים וְהִסְתַּרְתִּי פָנַי מֵהֶם, or וְאָנֹכִי הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר פָּנַי בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, it would mean that our suffering would be meaningless, as it would not bring us the needed kaparah to wash away our sins.  However, Hashem did not abandon us to fate and derech ha'teva.  Our suffering, as bitter as it is, is directed b'hashgacha, by yad Hashem.

This is the meaning of the mashal כְּגוֹן זִיבּוּרָא וְעַקְרַבָּא - these are two mutually exclusive forces, with mutually exclusive results, and mutually exclusive remedies.  Nature cannot abide A and not-A simultaneously.  Nature demands either/or.  The fact that we suffer under mutually exclusive forces proves that it is yad Hashem which is directing things. 

If so, וְהָיָה כִּי תִמְצֶאןָ אוֹתוֹ רָעוֹת רַבּוֹת וְצָרוֹת -- אין ״והיה״ אלא שמחה because our punishment, punishment b'yad Hashem, comes with the promise of kaparah and tikun.

 עֶבֶד שֶׁרַבּוֹ מַמְצִיא לוֹ רָעוֹת וְצָרוֹת, תַּקָּנָה יֵשׁ לוֹ is not a rhetorical question, but is a statement of fact.  When it is רַבּוֹ who is directing the punishment and not chance, fate, nature, circumstance, then indeed, תַּקָּנָה יֵשׁ לוֹ.  

R' Yochanan cried that we had to come to this point, but those tears were bittersweet.  You don't need Viktor Frankl to tell you that if experiences like those we have suffered this past year carry no meaning and do not lead to kaparah, to tikun, to greater heights, how much more painful and tragic they are.  We trust, however, that עֶבֶד שֶׁרַבּוֹ מַמְצִיא לוֹ רָעוֹת וְצָרוֹת, תַּקָּנָה יֵשׁ לוֹ.  

get divreichaim in your email -- widget fixed

I should have taken care of this a long time ago, but thanks to a little push from a reader I updated the widget on the site so there is once again the possibility of getting these posts emailed to you if you so desire.

when the big test comes, there are no hints

R' Shteinman records that R' Moshe Landinski, RY in the yeshiva in Radin, once told the Chofetz Chaim that he was reviewing mishnayos by heart while travelling and got stuck on a certain mishna that he could not remember exactly.  When the wagon stopped by an inn between villages (I imagine this was the 19th century equivalent of rest stops on the NJ or NY Turnpike), R' Moshe asked the Jewish innkeeper for mishnayos, refreshed his memory, and was able to continue learning.

The Chofetz Chaim remarked that this works on olam ha'zeh, but when we get the big test in olam ha'ba there will be no rest stops to pull into to take a break and refresh your memory!

simple and obvious

From here:

The reasons for this are so obvious it’s almost embarrassing to have to explain them once again. But it all began during the administration of Barack H. Obama, the man who ignored the brave freedom demonstrators in the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities in favor of negotiating a useless nuclear deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Obama, as an inducement, lifted sanctions on Iran, even added a small fortune—$400 million— under the radar in cash. Two days later he sweetened the deal with another $1.3 billion.

The mullahs were supposed to use this money to help their impoverished people. Obama, who is not an idiot, could not have possibly believed that, but for reasons too depressing to write about went ahead.

Fortunately, Trump was elected in 2016 and reimposed sanctions on Iran and pulled out of the nuclear deal. We all know what happened. No war in the Middle East. Four years of peace. (No Ukraine War either.).

Then, Joe Biden comes in, lifts the sanctions, the mullahs make untold billions on oil and ship the spoils to Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and all those ever-changing terror outfits scattered across Iraq and Syria and we have years of carnage with rapes, kidnappings, endless deaths with no end in sight.

Does that sound too simple, even stupid?

That’s because it is.

What’s not simple is why our administration actually gave the Iranians the money to do this.

For that matter, why did we, the Europeans and a world of NGOs, not to mention the UN almost most of all, ship billions to Hamas so they could build the Gaza Metro under the homes, schools and hospitals of their impoverished citizens in order to destroy Israel and kill all Jews as required in their original charter?

But leave all that alone for the moment. Why do so-called “liberal” Jews still vote for this nonsense?

Sometimes people insist on overcomplicating what should be simple.  Yesterday I walked past a house that had a Stand with Israel sign on their lawn right next to a Harris-Walz sign.  Square peg, meet round hole.  

hakaras ha'tov for the bad as well

 אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי וַיֵּרֶד מִצְרַיְמָה וַיָּגׇר שָׁם בִּמְתֵי מְעָט וַיְהִי⁠ שָׁם לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל עָצוּם וָרָב

One of the lessons of the mitzvah of bikkurim is the need for hakaras ha'tov.  According to Rashi, this pasuk is referring to two separate, unrelated events: 1) Yaakov and family being spared from Lavan, the Arami, who sought our destruction, and 2) in addition -- as Rashi writes, ועוד אחרים באו עלינו לכלותינו -- we were also saved from the Egyptians.

According to Netziv these are not two ideas, but one.  It was decreed in the bris bein ha'besarim that Avraham's descendents would be in galus for four generations, but where that galus would be was not specified.  In theory, Yaakov and his family might have spent the entire galus in Aram.  In reality, because Lavan was was merciless in his treatment of Yaakov and was bent on the destruction of Yaakov's family, Hashem arranged events so that Yaakov would leave Aram and go down to Mitzrayim, and that became our home of the rest of the duration of the exile.

Based on the Netziv's interpretation, we are not thanking Hashem for delivering us from Egypt.  We are thanking Hashem for bringing us to Egypt!  As bad as conditions were there, the alternative was far worse. 

This is a new dimension to hakaras ha'tov.  It's not enough to say thanks for all the obviously good things that Hashem gives us.  We also have to thank Him for what sometimes seems like bad things as well, because there are alternatives that are far worse, alternatives we may not even be able to imagine, that we are being spared from.  

הַשְׁקִיפָה מִמְּעוֹן קׇדְשְׁךָ מִן⁠ הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבָרֵךְ אֶת⁠ עַמְּךָ אֶת⁠ יִשְׂרָאֵל (26:15)

The Midrash observes that the term הַשְׁקִיפָה is always used in reference to seeing something bad, never something good.  For example,  וַיַּשְׁקֵף עַל⁠ פְּנֵי סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה וְעַל⁠ כׇּל⁠ פְּנֵי אֶרֶץ הַכִּכָּר (Braishis 19:28)  Our pasuk is the exception to the rule, because גדול כוחן של מוציאי מעשרות שמהפכין לשון רעה לטובה, in the merit of offering maasros what ordinarily has a bad connotation is transformed to good.

The Torah has different words for seeing things: ראיה, הבּטה, השׁקפה  We need an expended vocabulary for the act of seeing because there are so many different ways of looking at things.  We can look at things from a distance and we can examine things up close; we can take things in in a general way with a glance and we can minutely examine something. השׁקפה is when we put something under a microscope and take a careful look at it.  This is why the term generally has a negative connotation.  Nothing is perfect, and the more carefully one examines something, the more likely one is to find its flaws and defects.

The term הַשְׁקִיפָה in our parsha refers to that same type of examination -- it's not an exception to that meaning -- but in this case the outcome in different  The more carefully one examines the actions of those who are mafrish maasros (Ksav v'ha'Kabbalah), even observing those actions for the extended period of three whole years up to the point of biur (RCK in Divrei Siach), the more perfect and laudatory their behavior seems.  Unlike other things which reveal their flaws under careful inspection, here, careful inspection only highlights the exceptional qualities.      

no hishtadlus required

 וְהָיָה אִם⁠ שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ לִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת⁠ כׇּל⁠ מִצְוֺתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם וּנְתָנְךָ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ עֶלְיוֹן עַל כׇּל⁠גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ. וּבָאוּ עָלֶיךָ כׇּל⁠ הַבְּרָכוֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְהִשִּׂיגֻךָ כִּי תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ (28:1-2) 

Why do the brachos have to catch up to you, הִשִּׂיגֻךָ?  Would a person run away from bracha so that it has to chase after him?

There is a machkokes Ramban and other Rishonim whether bitachon requires hishtadlus or whether one can just trust in Hashem and that alone is enough, if done properly, to see that one's needs are met.  One can reconcile the two views by positing that the need for hishtadlus is inversely proportional to the degree of bitachon.  Someone who is a bona fide tzadik can sit back and trust that G-d will provide all their needs without their having to lift a finger.  Most of us are not on that level and feel that we must do something active to get results in olam ha'zeh, so Hashem responds in kind by giving us what we need only if we put in hishtadlus.  

Seforno explains our pasuk:  והשיגך – אף על פי שלא תשתדל אתה להשיגם.  Even though normally you make hishtadlus for your needs, the Torah here is promising bracha even where you make no effort and not hishtadlus to attain it.  The bracha will come to you; you don't have to make an effort to acquire it (see Divrei Siach of RCK).

2) Netziv notes that the parsha starts with the condition הָיָה אִם⁠ שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ.  Why does the second pasuk reiterate that this blessing is only  כִּי תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ?  

For some people getting a luxury car, going on a cruise, going out to eat in a fancy restaurant, etc. are things that get their heart pumping.  This is what they consider bracha.  For a person whose life is the 4 amos of halacha, these are little, meaningless things.  Can you imagine a gadol -- choose whichever one you like -- having a taavah for such things?  There was a restaurant review of a new place that opened in our neighborhood that touted the five types of cocktails that the reviewer ordered.  What a bracha!  Not one, but five options, and that did not exhaust the menu.  I don't think a cocktail menu would (or should) make a roshem on someone steeped in learning.

That being said, sometimes the olam ha'zeh bracha is so great that even someone who is immersed completely in learning will lift their head and take note.  That, says the Netziv, is the type bracha the pasuk is talking about. וְהִשִּׂיגֻךָ כִּי תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ : even if you are immersed completely in the dvar Hashem, כִּי תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ , and you take no note of such petty things as the cocktail menu or the new car or the new restaurant, והשיגך, there will be bracha so big that it will even grab your attention. 

it all depends on context - the ptur of chaburah shel mitzvah for ben sorer u'moreh

  כִּי⁠ יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקוֹל אָבִיו וּבְקוֹל אִמּוֹ וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ וְלֹא יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם (22:18)

1) The Tiferes Banim (son of the Bnei Yisaschar) writes that it's what a parent does which matters more than what a parent says.  The ben sorer u'moreh ignores his parents, וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ וְלֹא יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם, when they tell him to daven or tell him to learn.  Why?  Because his parents talk the talk but don't walk the walk. אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקוֹל אָבִיו וּבְקוֹל אִמּוֹ, he doesn't hear the kol of his parents learning or the kol of their davening.  Their lecture is not reflected in their own behavior.

2) The Mishna in Sanhedrin (70) writes that a ben sorer u'moreh who eats in a chaburas mitzvah is ineligible to become chayav because this type of eating does not draw a person to become zolel v'sovei and rebel.  The gemara (70b) writes that even eating a meal of tanchumei aveilim, which is only a chiyuv derabbanan, is included in this ptur.  Rashi explains the chiddush as follows:

דאע"ג דתקנתא דרבנן בעלמא הוא דאי מרישא הוה אמינא חבורת מצוה היינו כהנים שאוכלין קדשים או פסחים

The Rogatchover asks how Rashi can possibly suggest that there is a hava amina that eating korban pesach is the pradigmatic case of chaburah shel mitzvah.  The gemara on the previous amud has a din that a person can become a ben soreh u'moreh only if he eats underdone, only partially cooked meat, like you would grab off the grill if you were in a hurry and had no time to wait:  

אמר רבינא יין חי מזיג ולא מזיג בשר חי בשיל ולא בשיל כבשר כיבא דאכלי גנבי

By the korban pesach there is an issur d'oraysa of אל תאכלו ממנו נא.  One is not allowed the eat the korban unless it is fully roasted.  Forget the ptur of chaburas mitzvah -- eating the meat of korban pesach cannot make one a ben sorer u'moreh because it is too well done!

Probably the simplest answer to the Rogatchover's question is that if meat is cooked kmaachal Ben Derusa'i, either 1/3 or 1/2 cooked, it is cooked enough to avoid the issur of  נא but rare enough to still make one eligible to become a ben sorer u'moreh (Divrei Yechezkel end of #15).  

R' Shmuel Rozovsky suggested a different yesod: the ptur of chaburas mitzvah does not depend on what is being eaten, but rather depends on the context in which the eating occurs.  If you read the Mishna in Sanhedrin carefully

אכל בחבורת מצוה אכל בעיבור החדש אכל מעשר שני בירושלים אכל נבילות וטריפות שקצים ורמשים... אכל דבר שהוא מצוה ודבר שהוא עבירה

There are two separate exclusions mentioned: אכל בחבורת מצוה and אכל דבר שהוא מצוה.  The latter case is speaking about where consuming the food is the mitzvah.  The former case, חבורת מצוה, is where the ben sorer u'moreh is eating whatever he is eating, nearly raw meat and underaged wine, not a cheftza shel mitzvah, but the chevra he is eating with are engaged in a meal that is a mitzvah, like eating korban pesach. In this case the food he is eating makes him eligible to become a ben sorer u'moreh, but the context he is eating in in precludes that possibility.

This yesod helps resolve another difficulty with Rashi. Aside from the case of eating korban pesach, Rashi gave another example of chaburah shel mitzvah: היינו כהנים שאוכלין קדשים.  Why does Rashi say *kohanim* eating kodshim?  Kodshim like a korban shelamim can be eaten by the person who brings the korban, even a yisrael; it doesn't have to be eaten only by a kohen?!  

Pshat in Rashi is that we are not speaking here about a ben sorer eating kodshim, which is an achila shel mitzvah.  The case Rashi is speaking about is where the ben sorer u'moreh goes out and steals his underdone steak of chulin but joins in with a chevra of kohanim who are eating their own kodshim steaks.  Even though the cheftza of food the ben sorer u'moreh is eating makes him eligible to be chayav, Rashi tells us that if you are eating that meal alongside those who serve in the Mikdash, kohanim who are eating kodshim l'shem mitzvah, you can't be a ben sorer u'moreh.  The context, the environment, keeps you on the straight and narrow.

The flipside of this yesod is the Ramban we discussed 10 years ago which explains that the reason why the ben sorer u'moreh is chayav is כי לא הומת בגודל חטאו, אלא לייסר בו את הרבים ושלא יהיה תקלה לאחרים.  As R' Leib Chasman explains, the din of the prat, the individual, is influenced by the tzibur, by the klal.  Even though the ben sorer's actions taken on their own are not necessarily so bad, since they can have a negative influence on the community and lead others astray, they therefore must be nipped in the bud.  Where the ben sorer finds himself in a chaburah shel mitzvah, the tables are turned and it is he who falls under the influence of the community, his environment, and therefore the danger is averted.

how quickly people forget 9/11

On 9/11 I was working for a company in lower Manhattan, on Broad Street, and had the unfortunate privileges of having front row seats for the day's events.  I remember in the years that followed, both at that company and a different company I worked for, the day of 9/11 was marked by a moment of silence at the time which corresponded to when the first airplane struck the Twin Towers.  That momentary pause grew shorter and shorter as the years passed, as people were in a rush to resume their work.  I can't recall when, but at some point in the intervening years (and I am at a different company now, so maybe this was always the way they did it here) that moment of silence got replaced with an email.  After all, people are so busy, who can spare even a moment to reflect?  Maybe those who had time t some point might read that email, but who are we kidding?  This year 9/11 came an went and there was not even that email. 

Am I surprised?  Not at all.  We are so busy moving from one task to the next, from gobbling up one bit of information and moving on to the next, that there is no time to reflect on or remember the past, nor do we want to.  America would prefer to think of the world as benign and to deny that there is unredeemable evil which must be eradicated.  I also realize that I am getting older, and some of the people around me at work were in diapers when these events occurred.  They have no personal recollection of what happened, and doubt any lesson they may have had in school truly impressed upon them the significance of what happened that day.

matzeivah vs mizbeiach -- the value of individualism

 וְלֹֽא⁠־תָקִ֥ים לְךָ֖ מַצֵּבָ֑ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר שָׂנֵ֖א ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ׃

Why do we find this expression אֲשֶׁ֥ר שָׂנֵ֖א ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ davka here by the issur of matzeivah?  The Torah doesn't say not to be mechalel Shabbos because it is something that Hashem hates, or not to engage in arayos because it is hated.  Why here?

Rashi writes that worship at a matzeivah was acceptable during the time of the Avos but no longer since it is used for avodah zarah.  Why then is worship at a mizbeiach acceptable?  That too is used by ovdei avodah zarah?

The difference between a matzeivah and a mizbeiach is that a matzeivah is made of one stone, while a mizbeiach is made from many.  

A matzeivah represents avodas Hashem through one, singular path.  It's one size fits all.  That worked well when dealing with the Avos, who were individuals.  It does not work well when dealing with a plurality, with a nation.  For the nation, only worship on a mizbeiach, composed of multiple stones, each representing a different path, a different steam of avodah, can succeed.

The first commandment of the aseres ha'dibros is not "Anochi Hashem Elokeichem," but rather "Anochi Hashem Elokecha" -- Hashem addressed himself to each individual, acknowledging that each person has their own way of relating to Him.

Building a matzeivah, turning Judaism into a one size fits all religion, is a direct contradiction to that message of "...Hashem Elokecha," which affirms the value of individualism.

a cause worthy of your support

I rarely advertise causes to support here, and in this case I am a noge'a ba'davar since my son learns in this kollel, but at the same time, as a noge'a ba'davar I can tell you that from what I see the kollel does amazing work.  They provide shiurim for adults, the bnei kollel learn b'chavrusa with adults as well as kids, they check and keep up the eiruv, and the kollel is an important Torah presence in a small out of town community.

If you can lend a hand and donate something to the Somerton Community Kollel, please pitch in here:

https://thechesedfund.com/sck/somerton-community-kollel-2024/teams/philadelphiabrowns

I know they will appreciate the support.

l'vaker b'heichalo

לַחֲז֥וֹת בְּנֹעַם⁠ ה׳ וּלְבַקֵּ֥ר בְּהֵֽיכָלֽוֹ׃

Rav Tamir Granot, R"Y of Orot Shaul, explains that the term לְבַקֵּ֥ר here has a similar meaning to the way it is used in the context of bikur cholim. The mitzvah of bikur cholim is not just to stop in and say hello to the choleh. Bikur cholim means to investigate what the choleh needs or wants and to try to help.

We want to experience נֹעַם⁠ ה׳, the pleasure and enjoyment of closeness to Hashem. But we also have to remember that we have a responsibility וּלְבַקֵּ֥ר בְּהֵֽיכָלֽוֹ׃. We have to ask ourselves what kavyachol the Shechina needs from us; what can we do to help Hashem make His presence felt in the world to a greater degree?

  

malchus - Divine right or by consent of the people?

Why is it that מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול (Kes 17a)?  Rashi explains:

שום תשים עליך מלך. ישראל הוזהרו שישימו עליהם שימות הרבה כלומר שתהא אימתו עליהם הלכך אין כבודו מחול שלפיכך ריבה הכתוב שימות הרבה:

In other words, the Torah demands that we give respect to the king; it has nothing to do with his wishes, and so he cannot choose to demur.

Rabeinu Yonah (San 21), however, offers a different explanation. He writes that the honor due to a king is not because of his person, but rather is because he is representative of the nation.   As Tos in Zevachim (16a d"h meyushav) puts it, אין זה שלו אלא של אחרים. Therefore, the honor is not his to dispense with.

These two views may reflect a larger issue, namely, from where does a king derive his authority -- is it a Divine right, or a reflection of the will of the people?  

Radbaz comments on the halacha of moreid b'malchus (Melachim 3:8) that this din applies to 

 והאי מלך היינו שהומלך על פי נביא או שהסכימו עליו כל ישראל

We see two distinct tracks: authority based on appointment by a navi and authority that is vested in the office by the people.

This dichotomy is reflected in different halachos in the Rambam.  In Hil Melachim 1:3 Rambam writes:

אין מעמידין מלך בתחילה אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים זקנים ועל פי נביא. כיהושע שמינהו משה רבינו ובית דינו. וכשאול ודוד שמינם שמואל הרמתי ובית דינו:

You need a prophet and a beis din to appoint a king, which seems to reflect authority being bestowed by G-d.  Yet the Rambam writes with respect to dina d'malchusa (Gezeila 5:18):

במה דברים אמורים במלך שמטבעו יוצא באותן הארצות שהרי הסכימו עליו בני אותה הארץ וסמכה דעתן שהוא אדוניהם והם לו עבדים. אבל אם אין מטבעו יוצא הרי הוא כגזלן בעל זרוע וכמו חבורת ליסטים המזויינין שאין דיניהם דין וכן מלך זה וכל עבדיו גזלנין לכל דבר:

Here the Rambam indicates that it is the consent of the governed which is the ultimate source of authority.

In fact, the Brisker Rav points out that the Mishna in Sanhedrin which lists off the functions of Sanhedrin:

אֵין דָּנִין לֹא אֶת הַשֵּׁבֶט וְלֹא אֶת נְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר וְלֹא אֶת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר וְעַל הָעֲזָרוֹת, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אֵין עוֹשִׂין סַנְהֶדְרִיּוֹת לַשְּׁבָטִים, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אֵין עוֹשִׂין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת בַּסְּפָר, וְלֹא שְׁלֹשָׁה, אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתָּיִם

omits any mention of their role in appointing a king. GRI"Z explains (the Rav developed this idea as well) that Sanhedrin served a dual role: as the executive branch, and as representatives of the people.  The Mishna in Sanhedrin is an enumeration of the executive branch roles of Sanhedrin.  Appointing a king is a function of their role as representatives of the people, and therefore does not belong on this list.  This is perhaps not just a procedural issue, but is reflective of the source of the king's authority.

This question may underpin a machlokes Rav and Shmuel regarding the scope of a king's power.  When Bn"Y demanded that Shmuel haNavi appoint a king, he warned them of the consequences (Sh I:8):

יאוַיֹּ֕אמֶר זֶ֗ה יִֽהְיֶה֙ מִשְׁפַּ֣ט הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִמְלֹ֖ךְ עֲלֵיכֶ֑ם אֶת־בְּנֵיכֶ֣ם יִקָּ֗ח וְשָֹ֥ם לוֹ֙ בְּמֶרְכַּבְתּ֣וֹ וּבְפָרָשָׁ֔יו וְרָצ֖וּ לִפְנֵ֥י מֶרְכַּבְתּֽוֹ:

יבוְלָשֹ֣וּם ל֔וֹ שָׂרֵ֥י אֲלָפִ֖ים וְשָׂרֵ֣י חֲמִשִּׁ֑ים וְלַחֲר֚שׁ חֲרִישׁוֹ֙ וְלִקְצֹ֣ר קְצִיר֔וֹ וְלַעֲשֹ֥וֹת כְּלֵֽי־מִלְחַמְתּ֖וֹ וּכְלֵ֥י רִכְבּֽוֹ:

יגוְאֶת־בְּנוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם יִקָּ֑ח לְרַקָּח֥וֹת וּלְטַבָּח֖וֹת וּלְאֹפֽוֹת:

ידוְאֶת־שְֹ֠דֽוֹתֵיכֶם וְאֶת־כַּרְמֵיכֶ֧ם וְזֵיתֵיכֶ֛ם הַטּוֹבִ֖ים יִקָּ֑ח וְנָתַ֖ן לַעֲבָדָֽיו:

טווְזַרְעֵיכֶ֥ם וְכַרְמֵיכֶ֖ם יַעְשֹ֑ר וְנָתַ֥ן לְסָרִיסָ֖יו וְלַעֲבָדָֽיו:

טזוְאֶת־עַבְדֵיכֶם֩ וְֽאֶת־שִׁפְח֨וֹתֵיכֶ֜ם וְאֶת־בַּחוּרֵיכֶ֧ם הַטּוֹבִ֛ים וְאֶת־חֲמוֹרֵיכֶ֖ם יִקָּ֑ח וְעָשָֹ֖ה לִמְלַאכְתּֽוֹ:

יזצֹאנְכֶ֖ם יַעְשֹ֑ר וְאַתֶּ֖ם תִּֽהְיוּ־ל֥וֹ לַעֲבָדִֽים:

יחוּזְעַקְתֶּם֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא מִלִּפְנֵ֣י מַלְכְּכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר בְּחַרְתֶּ֖ם לָכֶ֑ם וְלֹֽא־יַעֲנֶ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶתְכֶ֖ם בַּיּ֥וֹם הַהֽוּא:

Was Shmuel haNavi just making a threat as to what might happen should the king abuse his power, or does this list accurately reflect what a king is empowered to do?  The gemara (San 20b) writes:

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל האמור בפרשת מלך מלך מותר בו רב אמר לא נאמרה פרשה זו אלא לאיים עליהם שנאמר שום תשים עליך מלך שתהא אימתו עליך

Rav Yaakov Ariel suggests that Rav does not necessarily hold that a king is just a figurehead with no real power.  That would not seem to fit with many examples in Tanach.  Rather, the machlokes Rav and Shmuel revolves around this question of whether power is Divinely granted to the king and therefore there is little limit on its scope, or whether it depends on the consent of the goverened, and therefore has a more narrow scope and can be reined in.  

This whole discussion brought to my mind a famous vort of the Gaon m'Vilna on the pasuk in Teh (22:29)  כִּי לַה׳ הַמְּלוּכָה וּמֹשֵׁל בַּגּוֹיִם.  The Gaon explains (see Ibn Erza to Braishis 37:8) that there is a difference between a malchus and memshala.  Memshala means ruling by coercion; malchus is with the consent of those ruled.  When it comes to Bn"Y, כִּי לַה׳ הַמְּלוּכָה because we willingly accept Hashem as our king.  When it comes to the other nations, וּמֹשֵׁל בַּגּוֹיִם, they willy-nilly accept Hashem as king, only against their will.

I think there is a parallel between the malchusa d'arah and the malchusa d'rekiya, and these two terms reflect the issue we have been discussing.  Memshala is not just malchus with an arm twist.  It's a different animal entirely, both in the scope and source of the authority it defines.  It is authority that is imposed form without, as opposed to authority that is a reflection of the will of the people.  The idea of tekiyas shofar, of malchiyos on Rosh haShana, of our acceptance of Hashem as our ruler, is what differentiates us from the aku"m in that it reflects a relationship of malchus and not memshala, authority that comes from isarusa d'litata, bottom up, from the people, as opposed to one of isarusa d'leila, top down, imposed from without, based in fear instead of love.

The truth is that these two tracks, malchus as a function of tzav Hashem and malchus as a  function of consent of the people, are intertwined, as the Shem m'Shmuel points out.  How can you ever arrive at consent of the masses when every person has their own agenda, their own ideas about what should be done and who should do it?  The path to common consensus is only through the common denominator of acceptance of ratzon Hashem.   

the King does things on a Kingly scale; tzedaka on condition; when she'lo lishma detracts from a mitzvah and when not

1) R' Zilberstein tells the following story: There was a Jew who lived close to the home of the parents of the king of Morocco who wanted to say the bracha on seeing the king.  The king would visit his parents occasionally, coming late at night in private when he could go without his whole entourage, and so this fellow asked his neighbors, the king's parents, if he could step in for just a moment when the king was there just to say the blessing.  

One night he gets a knock on his door at 2:00 AM and is told the king is there and to come.  He gets up, wakes his 12 year old son, and they go.  They bow to the king, and the man and his son say the bracha.  As they are about to leave, the king asks the man why he woke up his son and brought him along.  The man answered that his son will be bar mitzvah soon, and so he wants to train him to fulfill the mitzvah of honoring the king with this bracha.  When the king heard that, he took out his checkbook and wrote out a check for a $50,000 bar mitzvah present.  The man was a bit taken aback and said to the king that it was totally unnecessary, and if he wanted to give a gift, a check of a few dollars would suffice.  The king responded that although the man said the bracha on malchus, he obviously doesn't understand what malchus means.  A king doesn't write a check for $10 like an ordinary person.  $50,000 is the minimum gift for a king.  Malchus operates on a different scale.

Said R' Zilberstein: We are standing on the threshold of chodesh Elul.  We are getting ready to approach the King of all Kings.  If a melech basar v'dam won't write a check for a petty amount when he wants to give, kal v'chomer that the Melech of all Melachim who wants so much to be able to give us mi'tuvo v'chasdo will not write us a check for a petty amount.  

Don't daven for petty things.  The King is ready to give.  We just have to ask and to be ready to receive.

2) We have in our parsha the mitzvah of tzedaka and the mitzvah of aliya la'regel. The gemara (Pesachim 8) tells us  הָאוֹמֵר סֶלַע זוֹ לִצְדָקָה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּחְיֶה בְּנִי אוֹ שֶׁאֶהְיֶה בֶּן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.  Rashi explains: בדבר זה ולא אמרינן שלא לשמה עושה אלא קיים מצות בוראו שצוהו לעשות צדקה ומתכוין אף להנאת עצמו שיזכה בה לעולם הבא או שיחיו בניו.  The extra kavanah that tzedaka should serve as a merit so that one's son should live or that one should get olam ha'ba does not diminish from the main kavanah l'shem mitzvah.  

Tosfos is bothered by why this does not amount to serving Hashem al menas l'kabel pras.  Tos answers that when a person pledges with an al menas... condition, they do so knowing that their request may not be fulfilled, and in their mind and heart they are prepared to give anyway. I saw one of the Moroccon chachamim, R' Yaakov ben Shabbat, quoted a different answer.  He suggested that the tnai of al menas is problematic only if the basic mitzvah of tzedaka is being done on a conditional basis.  However, if one is giving above and beyond what is required, there is no issue.

He reads these answers into the pasuk נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן לוֹ וְלֹא⁠ יֵרַע לְבָבְךָ בְּתִתְּךָ לוֹ כִּי בִּגְלַל הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה יְבָרֶכְךָ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ בְּכׇל⁠ מַעֲשֶׂךָ וּבְכֹל מִשְׁלַח יָדֶךָ (15:10)  The first part of the pasuk נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן means we are not just talking about someone who gives the minimum to fulfill the mitzvah, נָתוֹן, but someone giving more than required, hence the double language, נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן.  Secondly, the pasuk is telling us that when you give, even if you don't get what you want, don't show regrets - לֹא⁠ יֵרַע לְבָבְךָ בְּתִתְּךָ לוֹ.  If you meet those conditions, then your giving can be כִּי בִּגְלַל הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה יְבָרֶכְךָ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ בְּכׇל⁠ מַעֲשֶׂךָ, for the sake of receiving the bracha that you want and need.  Otherwise, beware of conditions.

On the very next amud the gemara writes with respect to aliya la'regel אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין בַּר רַב אַדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין פֵּירוֹת גִּינּוֹסַר בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ עוֹלֵי רְגָלִים אוֹמְרִים אִלְמָלֵא לֹא עָלִינוּ אֶלָּא לֶאֱכוֹל פֵּירוֹת גִּינּוֹסַר בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם דַּיֵּינוּ נִמְצֵאת עֲלִיָּיה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ.  Hashem deliberately did not make the fruits of Yerushalayim extra delicious because otherwise people would make aliya la'regel just to eat the fruits and not for the sake of the mitzvah.  So what?  If the shelo lishma of בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּחְיֶה בְּנִי אוֹ שֶׁאֶהְיֶה בֶּן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא does not detract from the mitzvah of tzedaka, why should making aliya la'regel for the sake of enjoying the fruit detract from the mitzvah?  

R' Shteinman answered that the bracha that comes from the mitzvah of tzedaka is part of the outcome that Hashem guarantees from the mitzvah.  Therefore, having that in mind does not detract from the lishma.  However, eating fruit is not part of what the Torah says the outcome of aliya la'regel should be.  It is merely a side benefit of the trip.  In that case, having that side benefit in mind diminishes from the mitzvah itself.

Shem miShmuel in the introduction to Eglei Tal discusses whether the enjoyment one gets from learning detracts from the lishma of the mitzvah.  His answers is very similar to R' Shteinman's sevara.  Enjoying one's learning is part and parcel of the process of study.  It is an inherent benefit and outcome of doing the mitzvah, not a side point.  Therefore, it does not diminish the lishma of learning.

כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י - can one take credit for doing a good job?

We read in our parsha (8:11-18):

הִשָּׁ֣מֶר לְךָ֔ פֶּן־תִּשְׁכַּ֖ח אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ לְבִלְתִּ֨י שְׁמֹ֤ר מִצְו‍ֹתָיו֙ וּמִשְׁפָּטָ֣יו וְחֻקֹּתָ֔יו אֲשֶׁ֛ר אָֽנֹכִ֥י מְצַוְּךָ֖ הַיּֽוֹם:

פֶּן־תֹּאכַ֖ל וְשָׂבָ֑עְתָּ וּבָתִּ֥ים טֹבִ֛ים תִּבְנֶ֖ה וְיָשָֽׁבְתָּ:

וּבְקָֽרְךָ֤ וְצֹֽאנְךָ֙ יִרְבְּיֻ֔ן וְכֶ֥סֶף וְזָהָ֖ב יִרְבֶּה־לָּ֑ךְ וְכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־לְךָ֖ יִרְבֶּֽה:

וְרָ֖ם לְבָבֶ֑ךָ וְשָֽׁכַחְתָּ֙ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ הַמּוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֛ מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם מִבֵּ֥ית עֲבָדִֽים:

הַמּוֹלִ֨יכְךָ֜ בַּמִּדְבָּ֣ר | הַגָּדֹ֣ל וְהַנּוֹרָ֗א נָחָ֤שׁ | שָׂרָף֙ וְעַקְרָ֔ב וְצִמָּא֖וֹן אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֵֽין־מָ֑יִם הַמּוֹצִ֤יא לְךָ֙ מַ֔יִם מִצּ֖וּר הַֽחַלָּמִֽישׁ:

הַמַּֽאֲכִ֨לְךָ֥ מָן֙ בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־יָֽדְע֖וּן אֲבֹתֶ֑יךָ לְמַ֣עַן עַנֹּֽתְךָ֗ וּלְמַ֨עַן֙ נַסֹּתֶ֔ךָ לְהֵיטִֽבְךָ֖ בְּאַֽחֲרִיתֶֽךָ:

וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֖ בִּלְבָבֶ֑ךָ כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י עָ֥שָׂה לִ֖י אֶת־הַחַ֥יִל הַזֶּֽה

וְזָֽכַרְתָּ֙ אֶת־ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ כִּ֣י ה֗וּא הַנֹּתֵ֥ן לְךָ֛ כֹּ֖חַ לַֽעֲשׂ֣וֹת חָ֑יִל לְמַ֨עַן הָקִ֧ים אֶת־בְּרִית֛וֹ אֲשֶׁר־נִשְׁבַּ֥ע לַֽאֲבֹתֶ֖יךָ כַּיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה:

I hear people all the time quote this warning against saying  כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י.  You hear people say things like, "What do you mean Tzahal does a great job?  Do you think it's  כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י?"  Or, "Are you worried about your parnasa?  Do you think it's  כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י?"  This past week at my job I had to fill out a mid-year performance review.  I should have just written that I deserve no credit for anything because it's not כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י that accomplished anything.  Does any frum person ever write that?  Does any person in his heart of hearts really think that the effort he puts in has no bearing on the outcome or success of what he is working on?  

Here's the catch: Despite what everyone things about not saying כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י, it doesn't actually say that anywhere in the parsha.  You can just read the words, but if you still don't believe it, R' Chaim Kanievsky in his Taama d'Kra asks the question for you: לכאורה חסר כאן חסיום, דהוה לי׳ לסים ״לא תאמר כן וזכרת..."  The punchline -- לא תאמר כן -- is absent from the text!

We've been brainwashed so effectively to think that it must be there that we find ways of putting it there.  Some change the pasuk from a statement to a question.  In other words, instead of:

"...and you will say to yourself, 'My strength and the might of my hand that has accumulated this wealth for me.'" 

with a period at the end, read it like this:

"...and you will say to yourself, "My strength and the might of my hand that has accumulated this wealth for me?!"

Can you possibly say such a thing?!

RCK suggests that the word פֶּן in the second pasuk is the start of a long quote that only ends *after* the pasuk of כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י, so we are in effect it should be translated "Lest you say..." instead of "And you will say..."  (The 'and' is wrong anyway, because it's a ואו ההיפּוך and not a ואו החיבּור, but translations always mess that up.)

The simplest answer, however, is that קושׁיא מעיקרא ליתא.  As Derashos haRan (derush #10, and Abarbanel follows in his footsteps) explains, despite what the world thinks, there really is no problem with saying כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י.  The only caveat is that when you say כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י, remember: וְזָֽכַרְתָּ֙ אֶת־ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ כִּ֣י ה֗וּא הַנֹּתֵ֥ן לְךָ֛ כֹּ֖חַ לַֽעֲשׂ֣וֹת חָ֑יִל  

When you write your performance review, you can take credit for doing a good job.   If you think our military really does pull off amazing feats, you are right to do so.  It is our strength and ability and talent which produces results.  We don't need to twist our emotions and brain into a pretzel fighting what our natural instinct tells us is true.

The only catch is that we have to acknowledge that that strength, ability, and talent which bring us success all come from G-d.  It is in our hands to make of it what we will, but it all comes from Him alone.