the dog that didn't bark at midnight

וּלְכֹ֣ל׀ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל לֹ֤א יֶֽחֱרַץ⁠־כֶּ֙לֶב֙ לְשֹׁנ֔וֹ לְמֵאִ֖ישׁ וְעַד⁠־בְּהֵמָ֑ה לְמַ֙עַן֙ תֵּֽדְע֔וּן אֲשֶׁר֙ יַפְלֶ֣ה ה׳ בֵּ֥ין מִצְרַ֖יִם וּבֵ֥ין יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ (11:7)

The Mechilta comments on the pasuk וְאַנְשֵׁי⁠־קֹ֖דֶשׁ תִּהְי֣וּן לִ֑י וּבָשָׂ֨ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֤ה טְרֵפָה֙ לֹ֣א תֹאכֵ֔לוּ לַכֶּ֖לֶב תַּשְׁלִכ֥וּן אֹתֽוֹ (22:3) that nevil is thrown to the dogs as a reward for their not barking.   ולמה לכלב, ללמדך שאין הקב״ה מקפח שכר כל בריה, שנאמר (פ׳ בא) ולכל בני ישראל לא יחרץ כלב לשונו, אמר הקב״ה תן לו שכרו 

In the plague of frogs described in last week's parsha the Torah tells us that the frogs jumped even into the burning hot ovens of the Egyptians, sacrificing their lives to see that the plague effected ever corner of Egypt.  The gemara writes (Pes 53) that Chanaya, Mishael, and Azarya learned the din of mesirus nefesh from these frogs:

ת"ש עוד זו דרש תודוס איש רומי מה ראו חנניה מישאל ועזריה שמסרו [עצמן] על קדושת השם לכבשן האש נשאו קל וחומר בעצמן מצפרדעים ומה צפרדעים שאין מצווין על קדושת השם כתיב בהו ובאו [ועלו] בביתך [וגו'] ובתנוריך ובמשארותיך אימתי משארות מצויות אצל תנור הוי אומר בשעה שהתנור חם אנו שמצווין על קדושת השם על אחת כמה וכמה 

If the dogs get a reward for not barking, one would think the frogs surely deserve and even greater reward for their mesirus nefesh.  How come we don't find such a thing?  

It must be that keeping silent -- holding your bark in check -- is an even greater challenge and greater accomplishment than giving  up one's life.  And that's not just a lesson that applies to dogs and frogs.

2) What was so great about the dog's not barking?  The gemara (BK 60) writes that  ת"ר כלבים בוכים מלאך המות בא לעיר כלבים משחקים אליהו הנביא בא לעיר, so the fact that the dogs did not respond to the malach ha'mashchis was a miracle.  This, says the pasuk, was meant to demonstrate to us that Bn"Y is different from the Egyptians. As Rashbam explains:

 המלאך מזיק ומשחית בכורי מצרים, אבל בכורי ישראל אפילו קול ניבוח של מזיקי החיות לא יזיק אותם.

Do we really need the silence of the dogs to prove to us לְמַ֙עַן֙ תֵּֽדְע֔וּן אֲשֶׁר֙ יַפְלֶ֣ה ה׳ בֵּ֥ין מִצְרַ֖יִם וּבֵ֥ין יִשְׂרָאֵֽל?!  For the past 9 makkos, every makkah struck the Egyptians while Bn"Y was spared.  In makkas choshech, the Egyptians were sitting in the dark, incapable even of seeing how to get out of their chairs, and when a Jew entered the same room there was light.  The difference between Bn"Y and Egypt was as clear as night vs day!

The special significance to the dogs silence becomes clear if we look deeper into why Bn"Y was still in galus. If you recall from parshas Shmos, after Moshe struck down the Egyptian who was beating up a Jewish slave, the next day he went out and accosted two Jews who were fighting with each other.  They did not take well to his rebuke (2:14:

וַ֠יֹּ֠אמֶר מִ֣י שָֽׂמְךָ֞ לְאִ֨ישׁ שַׂ֤ר וְשֹׁפֵט֙ עָלֵ֔ינוּ הַלְהׇרְגֵ֙נִי֙ אַתָּ֣ה אֹמֵ֔ר כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר הָרַ֖גְתָּ אֶת⁠־הַמִּצְרִ֑י וַיִּירָ֤א מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֹּאמַ֔ר אָכֵ֖ן נוֹדַ֥ע הַדָּבָֽר׃

Rashi comments: 

וירא משה – על שראה בישראל רשעים דילטורין, אמר: מעתה שמא אינן ראויין ליגאל

It was the talebearing, the gossip, the lashon ha'ra, that Moshe now saw which led him to think that the Jewish people were not worthy of redemption at this time.  

The Torah tells us that there is a specific punishment for a baal lashon ha'ra.  The gemara (Pes 118) explains the juxtaposition of the two pesukim (22:30-23:1)

וְאַנְשֵׁי⁠־קֹ֖דֶשׁ תִּהְי֣וּן לִ֑י וּבָשָׂ֨ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֤ה טְרֵפָה֙ לֹ֣א תֹאכֵ֔לוּ לַכֶּ֖לֶב תַּשְׁלִכ֥וּן אֹתֽוֹ

לֹ֥א תִשָּׂ֖א שֵׁ֣מַע שָׁ֑וְא אַל⁠־תָּ֤שֶׁת יָֽדְךָ֙ עִם⁠־רָשָׁ֔ע לִהְיֹ֖ת עֵ֥ד חָמָֽס׃

as follows:

אמר רב ששת משום ר׳ אלעזר בן עזריה, כל המספר לשון הרע וכל המקבל לשון הרע וכל המעיד עדות שקר בחבירו ראוי להשליכו לכלבים, שנאמר (כ״ב ל׳) לכלב תשליכון אותו וכתיב בתרי׳ לא תשא שמע שוא וקרי בי׳ נמי לא תשיא

The punishment for the sin of lashon ha'ra is being thrown to the dogs.  

According to the Midrash, when the brothers saw Yosef coming towards them and they were debating what to do with him, they were thinking of throwing him to wild dogs.  They saw Yosef as a baal lashon ha'ra, and therefore deserving of that fate.  

In next week's parsha we will read that there was one idol left to the Egyptians that had not been destroyed -- בּעל צפון (see Rashi 14:2).  Figure out the gematriya and you have the same number ( צפן is chaseir) as כּלב רע.  Meaning, Bn"Y were still plagued a bit by this sin of lashon ha'ra.  They had not yet done all the work that that needed to do to be worthy of geulah -- look in next week's parsha at the infighting that took place by Yam Suf -- but Hashem was willing to put that aside and overlook it.  

The Maggid of Marrakech puts two and two together to explain our pasuk.  The Egyptians were being punished for their sins, but Bn"Y's hands were not completely clean either.  The cloud of על שראה בישראל רשעים דילטורין, אמר: מעתה שמא אינן ראויין ליגאל still hung over them.  Nonetheless, even though כל המקבל לשון הרע וכל המעיד עדות שקר בחבירו ראוי להשליכו לכלבים, Bn"Y got a free pass that night of Pesach and  לֹ֤א יֶֽחֱרַץ⁠־כֶּ֙לֶב֙ לְשֹׁנ֔וֹ. 

mitzvah of achilas korban pesach: beautiful diyuk of the Rogatchover

The Rogatchover has a beautiful diyuk in the lashon haRambam.  In hil Chu"M 8:7 the Rambam writes

ואחר כך מברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על אכילת הזבח ואוכל מבשר חגיגת ארבעה עשר תחלה. ומברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על אכילת הפסח ואוכל מגופו של פסח. ולא ברכת הפסח פוטרת של זבח ולא של זבח פוטרת של פסח:

Later in that same perek, the Rambam continues 

ואחר כך נמשך בסעודה ואוכל כל מה שהוא רוצה לאכול ושותה כל מה שהוא רוצה לשתות. ובאחרונה אוכל מבשר הפסח אפילו כזית ואינו טועם אחריו כלל.

In the first halacha, the Rambam refers to eating מגופו של פסח.  In the latter halacha, the Rambam refers to eating מבשר הפסח. Why the switch in terminology?

There is a fundamental machlokes Rashi and the Rambam with respect to the mitzvah of achilas pesach that opens the door to understanding the Rambam's precise use of language here.  

The Mishna in Pesachim 84 tells us  כל הנאכל בשור הגדול יאכל בגדי הרך וראשי כנפים והסחוסים  Rashi explains 

כל הנאכל בשור הגדול כו'. שכבר הוקשה כל מה שעתיד להקשות בו: יאכל בגדי הרך. ראוי לאכילה בפסח בן שמנה ימים אבל מה שאין נאכל בשור הגדול אין נמנין עליו בפסח אע"פ שעכשיו רך הוא עתיד להקשות בסופו

According to Rashi our sugya comes to answer the basic question of "What parts of the animal must be eaten?"  

Rashi alludes to the machlokes R"Y and Reish Lakish in the gemara

 איתמר גידין שסופן להקשות רבי יוחנן אמר נמנין עליהן בפסח ריש לקיש אמר אין נמנין עליהן בפסח

If a piece of meat is soft now but would become hard if the animal matured, need it be eaten?  Do we look at the state of the meat now, or do we judge by what can be eaten in a mature animal?  The gemara loops our mishna into the issue:

יתיביה ריש לקיש לר' יוחנן כל הנאכל בשור הגדול יאכל בגדי הרך ומה הן ראשי כנפים והסחוסים הני אין אבל גידין שסופן להקשות לא א"ל תנא הני וה"ה להנך

The Rambam (K.P 10:10) has a different spin on this sugya.  He paskens:

גידין הרכין שסופן להקשות אע"פ שהן ראויין לאכילה עתה ונאכלין בפסח אין נמנין עליהן. 

The question is not, "What must be eaten?" but rather, "What parts of the animal can one do minuy on?"  גידין שסופן להקשות are excluded from minuy, but they still must be eaten, as the Rambam clearly says,ונאכלין בפסח!  

What we see from the Rambam (R' Chaim in the stencils as a slightly different hesber) is that there are two dinim, what the Rogatchover calls (bottom of first column here) the גוף הפּסח vs the תורת מצוה of eating the pesach, or what I would call 1) the chalos shem korban pesach on the animal vs 2) the chovas hagavra to eat korban pesach.  

You can have something that is not included in the mitzvah of minuy because there is no chovas hagavra to eat it, but at the same time because there is a chalos shem korban pesach on the entire animal, it must be consumed.

Some nafka minos the Rogatchover mentions:

A)  גידין שסופן להקשות can be eaten in a differnt chabura, unlike korban pesach which must be eaten all in the same chabura

B) גידין שסופן להקשות can be consumed after chatzos, which is the endpoint according to R' Elazar ben Azarya for the mitzvas achilas pesach of the gavra

C) גידין שסופן להקשות can be eaten even by those who have not done minuy on this particular korban

Coming back to the Rambam in hil Chu"M, when the Rambam speaks about the mitzva of achilas hakorban, he uses the expression eating מגופו של פסח, to the exlusion of גידין שסופן להקשות.  The Rambam then later in the perek tells us that at the end of the meal there is a mitzvah to eat another k'zayis, and here he uses the term מבשר הפסח, a more inclusive term and includes גידין שסופן להקשות.  The chovas ha'gavra of achilas korban pesach has already been fulfilled at the start of the meal, but one must consume some of the cheftza shel korban to fulfill the idea of being נאכל על השׂובע and to consume what one can to avoid nosar. 

chodesh Shevat

The Shem m'Shmuel writes that the month of Shevat corresponds to sheivet Asher.  מאשר שמנה לחמו והוא יתן מעדני מלך.  Chazal tell us תָּנוּ רַבָּנָן: "וְטוֹבֵל בַּשֶּׁמֶן רַגְלוֹ", זֶה חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל אָשֵׁר, שֶׁמּוֹשֵׁךְ שֶׁמֶן כַּמַּעְיָן.  Asher was blessed with plentiful olive oil.  Even though zayis is קשׁה לשׁכּחה, the oil that comes from the zayis helps one remember: כשם שהזית משכח לימוד של שבעים שנה כך שמן זית משיב לימוד של שבעים שנה (Horiyos 13).  Similarly, Chazal tell us  וישלח יואב תקועה ויקח משם אשה חכמה. מאי שנא תקועה? אמר רבי יוחנן: מתוך שרגילין בשמן זית, חכמה מצויה בהן The zayis is the outside shell that when pounded on and pounded on produces chochma, produces the power to grow in Torah.  We've been pounded by winter, and then comes Shevat, chag ha'ilanot, spring is around the corner, everything starts to grow again and starts to bloom.  Shem m'Shmuel writes that we are on an upward trajectory from here on out: chag ha'ilanot, Purim, then Pesach, then sefira and finally mattan Torah.

But we've been pounded by more than winter going back a year and a half already.  We IY"H will hopefully emerge with greater chochma, greater Torah, leading to chodesh ha'aviv, chodesh ha'geulah.

why Rashi gives 2 different reasons for 4 kosos

Rashi on the first Mishna in Arvei Pesachim writes that the 4 kosos on leil ha'seder correspond to the 4 leshonos of geulah mentioned in our parsha:

ארבע כוסות. כנגד ארבעה לשוני גאולה האמורים בגלות מצרים והוצאתי אתכם והצלתי אתכם וגאלתי אתכם ולקחתי אתכם בפרשת וארא:

However, on daf 108, commenting on R' Yehoshua ben Levi's din that even women have to drink 4 kosos because שאף הן היו באותו הנס, Rashi there writes that the kosos correspond to the kosos mentioned in the dream of Sar haMashkim:

ארבע כוסות. שלשה כנגד ג' כוסות שנאמרו בפסוק זה וכוס פרעה בידי וגומר ורביעי ברכת המזון

Why does Rashi gives two different reasons for the 4 kosos?

If you were reading this blog close to 20 years ago you know there is a chakira of the Brisker Rav (stencils Archin 3) as to how the principle of af hein works.  Without af hein, women would be exempt from the mitzvah of 4 kosos because it is a mitzvas aseh she'hazman gerama.  Yesh lachkor: does af hein simply lift the ptur of zman gerama, or is it a new mechayeiv, i.e. even though the mitzvah may be zman gerama, in this case there is a new reason for women to be chayavos?  

Tos and Rashbam disagree as to whether af hein means women were part and parcel of the dangers of galus Mitzrayim, or whether it means they were the cause of the geulah (see this post for a nafka mina):

באותו הנס. פי' רשב''ם שעל ידם נגאלו וכן במגילה ע''י אסתר ובחנוכה ע''י יהודית וקשה דאף משמע שאינן עיקר ועוד דבירושלמי גריס שאף הן היו באותו ספק משמע באותה סכנה דלהשמיד להרוג ולאבד 

It could be that this machlokes hinges on the chakira of the Brisker Rav. According to Rashbam, it's not enough to simply equate women with men, to say that they shared the same pains of galus.  Af hein demands coming up with a special reason to be mechayeiv women because af hein is a mechayeiv in its own right.

This could be why Rashi gives two different reasons for 4 kosos.  Rashi on the Mishna is explaining why even a poor person has to have 4 kosos, and so he invokes the reason on ארבעה לשוני גאולה האמורים בגלות מצרים.  However, that's not a good enough reason to be mechayeiv women. These leshonos that are part of בגלות מצרים, which women experienced alongside the men, would just equate them to men, but af hein demands creating a new mechayeiv. Therefore, Rashi on daf 108 refers to the kosos in Saf haMashkim's dream.  Targun Yonasan explains Yosef's interpretation of that dream as follows (Braishis 40:10):

ואמר ליה יוסף דין סוף פושרנא דחלמא תלתי מצוגייא תלתי אבהת עלמא הינון אברהם יצחק ויעקב דמן בני בניהון עתידין למשתעבדא למצרים בטינא ובליבנא ובכל פולחנהא באנפי ברא ומן בתר כדין מתפרקין על יד תלת רעיין     

The three "shepherds" of Moshe, Aharon, and Miriam delivered Bn"Y from galus; they were instrumental in bringing about the geulah. This sounds like Rashbam's approach of seeing women as the cause of the nes, not just participants in the experience.

(See the Kli Chemdah on our parsha who also discusses this stira in Rashi.)

"rav v'atzum" is not just about numbers

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֶל⁠־עַמּ֑וֹ הִנֵּ֗ה עַ֚ם בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל רַ֥ב וְעָצ֖וּם מִמֶּֽנּוּ

 Netziv points out that at this point in time, what Pharoah was saying was categorically false

 אע״ג שהיו אז עדיין מעט אנשי חיל מישראל נגד מצרים, ולא היה לחוש לעת עתה שיתגברו על מצרים

but Pharoah was anticipating what would happen given the growth rate of the population.  Ohr haChaim offers a different answer:

 ואומרו רב ועצום פירוש כי באמצעות היותם עם אחד ומיוחד הגם שיהיו מעטים בערך שאר האומות יחשבו לרבים ועצומים מהם לצד שהם כל אחד נותן נפשו על אחיו, וזה ידוע ליודעי ערך מלחמה

Strength is not just a matter of numbers.  A large force that lacks cohesion can be overcome by a smaller force that is unified.  Bn"Y may have been small in number, but they had an unmatched cohesiveness as a people, and were therefore considered רַ֥ב וְעָצ֖וּם.   Every individual was willing to give even his life for the sake of his friend.  

True then, still true today.

With this Ohr haChaim as background, we can better appreciate what happens later in the parsha where we read how Moshe came across an Egyptian who was striking a fellow Jew:

וַיִּ֤פֶן כֹּה֙ וָכֹ֔ה וַיַּ֖רְא כִּ֣י אֵ֣ין אִ֑ישׁ וַיַּךְ֙ אֶת⁠־הַמִּצְרִ֔י וַֽיִּטְמְנֵ֖הוּ בַּחֽוֹל

The Binah laItim explains that Moshe saw that there were other Jews who were standing there who witnessed this horrible attack, and yet וַיַּ֖רְא כִּ֣י אֵ֣ין אִ֑ישׁ none of them were willing to stand up for the victim.  

Moshe was willing to give these onlookers the benefit of the doubt.  Bn"Y are by nature rachmanin.  For better or worse, we avoid getting involved in street brawls or violence.  This was undoubtedly all the more true considering that the onlookers in this case were slaves who were subjugated by the Egyptians, and so psychologically they would have been all the more hesitant to take a stand against them.  Since no one else did anything, Moshe took it upon himself to be the אִ֑ישׁ where no one else could.  As Chazal tell us, במקום שאין אנשים ראוי להיות איש

Next day Moshe came across two Jews fighting among themselves:

וַ֠יֹּ֠אמֶר מִ֣י שָֽׂמְךָ֞ לְאִ֨ישׁ שַׂ֤ר וְשֹׁפֵט֙ עָלֵ֔ינוּ הַלְהׇרְגֵ֙נִי֙ אַתָּ֣ה אֹמֵ֔ר כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר הָרַ֖גְתָּ אֶת⁠־הַמִּצְרִ֑י וַיִּירָ֤א מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֹּאמַ֔ר אָכֵ֖ן נוֹדַ֥ע הַדָּבָֽר 

Rashi comments:  נודע לי דבר שהייתי תמה עליו: מה חטאו ישראל מכל שבעים אומות להיות נרדים בעבודת פרך, אבל רואה אני שהם ראוים לכך.

Moshe now saw that it wasn't because of their nature as rachmanim that the Jewish onlookers avoid the conflict, v'ha'raayah, they are busy fighting with each other!  What happened to the  כל אחד נותן נפשו על אחיו that the Ohr haChaim described?  What happened to the ahavas yisrael?

אָכֵ֖ן נוֹדַ֥ע הַדָּבָֽר why Bn"Y were in the situation they were in.

Still, we can ask why seeing just these two people alone trading blows changed Moshe's perspective.  הָאִ֤ישׁ אֶחָד֙ יֶחֱטָ֔א וְעַ֥ל כׇּל־הָעֵדָ֖ה תִּקְצֹֽף?  Who says these two people are necessarily representative of the entire nation?

I have seen three answers to this question:

1) Midos ra'os are like a contagious virus.  The problem won't stay with just two people -- it will inevitable rub off on and spread to others (R' Gershon Edelstein). 

2) The fact that two people behave in such a way is indicative of the fact that the community has a whole has a lax attitude towards the issue (to some degree or other).  Let me give you an example.  When I was growing up, I don't think any kid wearing a yalmuka would ride a scooter on Shabbos, certainly not to shul.  It just wasn't done.  Recently my wife and I were walking on Shabbos and in front of one shul it looked like they needed a parking lot for the amount of scooters in front of the building.  Our attitude towards Shabbos has changed.  The kid riding the scooter didn't cause the change; he/she is just a siman. When we were kids we knew it wasn't done; now kids don't have that same innate sense that this is something off limits. I can say the same about our attitude towards kedushas beis ha'knesses -- does anyone think twice anymore about walking into minyan with a cup of coffee and cell phone out? -- or any number of things.  If there was a feeling that this was completely out of the norm of what our communal standards are, people would be far less likely to do it.  People no longer feel that way.  Moshe thought the same about the infighting that he witnessed.  If this was truly way beyond the pale of accepted behavior, it would never have happened.  The fact that it did showed that something in the bigger picture was off (R' Shteinman).

3) Once you get involved in breaking down the community between "those guys" who engage in the wrong behavior vs the rest of us, m'meila there is no longer a united klal, and Moshe understood that geulah can only come to the klal in the zechus of the klal. (R' Shteinman)

R' Shneur Kotler on Moshe Rabeinu's lashon ha'ra

In response to Moshe's argument  וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא⁠־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י כִּ֣י יֹֽאמְר֔וּ לֹֽא⁠־נִרְאָ֥ה אֵלֶ֖יךָ ה׳ (4:1), Hashem commanded Moshe to perform certain signs when he came to speak to Bnei Yisrael, the first of which was turning his staff into a snake, the second was his handing turning white, and lastly, turning water into blood.  Interestingly, Hashem also had Moshe perform each of these signs (except the last one) on the spot, while he was speaking with him.  Ramban asks: לא הבינותי למה עשה האותות למשה, כי מאמין היה משה שהקב״ה מדבר עמו, והראוי שיאמר: והמטה אשר בידך תשלך ארצה לפניהם והיה לנחש, וכן באות השני, כאשר אמר בשלישי  Why did Moshe need to do the signs for himself?  Did he need a practice run?  

Here is Ramban's second answer:

ואולי אף על פי שהודיעו השם הגדול שבו נברא העולם ובו נהיה כל דבר (שמות ג׳:י״ד-ט״ו), רצה להראותו כי בו יעשו אותות ומופתים משנים התולדת, למען יתחזק הענין בלבו של משה, וידע באמת כי על ידו יעשו בעולם דברים מחודשים,

As great as Moshe was, even he needed chizuk.  No matter how great the person, he cannot escape being human, and as humans, we are more impressed with what we see than with abstract knowledge and belief.  Therefore, Moshe performed the signs himself to that his faith would be complete  (See R' Chaim Elazari in Mesilos Chaim).

Hashem then continued and told Moshe that if the people don't believe the first sign, don't worry, they will believe the second  וְהָיָה֙ אִם⁠־לֹ֣א יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לָ֔ךְ וְלֹ֣א יִשְׁמְע֔וּ לְקֹ֖ל הָאֹ֣ת הָרִאשׁ֑וֹן וְהֶֽאֱמִ֔ינוּ לְקֹ֖ל הָאֹ֥ת הָאַחֲרֽוֹן׃.  What made the second sign so special?  Rashi explains: 

משתאמר להם: בשבילכם לקיתי על שסיפרתי עליכם לשון הרע, יאמינו לך, שכבר למדו בכך שהמזדווגים להם לוקים בנגעים, כגון: פרעה ואבימלך בשביל שרה. .⁠

The second sign, the turning of Moshe's hand white, was a sign of tzaraas, which is the punishment for speaking lashon ha'ra.  Hashem told Moshe to tell the people that he spoke lashon ha'ra against them by questioning their belief, וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא⁠־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י, and was punished for doing so.  That the people would undoubtedly believe because they have a track record of people trying to harm them getting punished.

(Isn't it incredible that the people would believe that Moshe was punished by Hashem on the spot for speaking lashon ha'ra against them while at that very moment Pharaoh was seemingly was getting away with physically enslaving them while suffering no punishment?  Isn't it also incredible that the people assumed that if Hashem stuck up for Sarah, a tzadakes and one of the Imahos, he would also stick up equally for them?)

R' Shneur Kotler has a beautiful insight on this episode.  One of the famous disputes in hil lashon ha'ra revolves around the issue of confessing to someone that you slandered them.  The  Chofetz Chaim held that if someone speaks lashon ha'ra against an innocent party and that party doesn't don't know about it, you have to tell them what was done and apologize in order to do teshuvah.  R' Yisrael Salanter disagreed with this psak.  The innocent party, said R' Yisrael, will only feel worse if he hears that he has been slandered.  The speaker's need to do teshuvah does not give him the right to cause more pain to the innocent party, even if well intentioned.  Halacha l'maaseh, we follow R' Yisrael (listen here  at about the 5:45 mark or see here  footnote 21). 

Given that background, why in our parsha did Hashem tell Moshe to go and announce to Bn"Y that he had doubted them and spoken against them?  Isn't that gufa what R' Yisrael Salanter wanted us to avoid?  Just like R' Yisrael Salanter did not see the speaker's need to do teshuvah as an adequate "matir" to allow him to cause pain to others by divulging his wrongdoing, here too, why was the need for Moshe to prove his bona fides an adequate "matir" to allow him to tell Bn"Y that he had slandered them?  Surely Hashem could have come up with another sign that would allow Moshe to prove himself to the people!

One should not have the misimpression that Bn"Y's willingness to believe in the shlichus of Moshe was not subject to an iota of doubt, and it's just Moshe who had a hang up and raised the issue of  וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא⁠־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י.  Aderaba, the exact opposite would seem to be correct.  Had you asked Joe Ploni, the man on the street, before Moshe came along, whether Bn"Y would believe Moshe's message, his money would be on Bn"Y showing him the door.  No one would take your bet otherwise, as it was a sure thing.  The chiddush of the parsha is that even Moshe Rabeinu, even the adon ha'neviim who had such deep insight, even Moshe the great kateigor and defender of the Jewish people, even he also saw the people's disbelief as a sure thing too.

Had Hashem not responded in the way He did, every Joe Ploni  would think that he is right in thinking that the people lack faith.  No one would know otherwise! Therefore, Hashem did not just respond to Moshe privately, but rather instructed Moshe to reveal the response, his being stricken with tzaraas because he doubted Bn"Y, to all.  Hashem needed to teach everyone, from Joe Ploni to Moshe Rabeinu, that they were all wrong, that emunah was baked in the DNA of Klal Yisrael, and that should never be questioned or doubted.  Even if the strongest microscope can't find it, even if the greatest navi can't see it, Hashem is mechadesh to us in this parsha that it's there.  Our job is to find it and reveal it.

There is yet another chiddush here as well.  A person might think, "So what if I am a cynic and don't give the people the benefit of the doubt?  Who am I hurting?"  The end of Rashi lumps together those who would doubt the Jewish people together with  כגון: פרעה ואבימלך בשביל שרה, our enemies.  It's not just some kind of lack of middas chassidus.  To doubt, or even to sit on the fence and remain neutral -- waiting to be convinced -- is dangerous and harmful.  

A person who is afflicted with tzaraas is a metzora, which Chazal tell us is a combination of the words motzi- ra.  The slanderer brings out the bad in people.  Moshe, as the case with everyone else, did not see the emunah latent within Klal Yisrael.  He was therefore given the mission, which is out mission as well, of bringing out that goodness, of revealing otherwise.

Pesach sheni in the zechus of Yosef

1) Midrash Rabbah Shmos 20:17

אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ לְאַחֶיךָ (בראשית נ, כא): אָנֹכִי אֲכַלְכֵּל אֶתְכֶם, חַיֶּיךָ אַתָּה נִפְטָר וְיִהְיוּ עַצְמוֹתֶיךָ מְחַזְּרִין עִמָּהֶם בַּמִּדְבָּר אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ט, ו): וַיְהִי אֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ טְמֵאִים לְנֶפֶשׁ אָדָם, וְאֵין אָדָם אֶלָּא יוֹסֵף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים עח, ס): אֹהֶל שִׁכֵּן בָּאָדָם, וּכְתִיב (תהלים עח, סז): וַיִּמְאַס בְּאֹהֶל יוֹסֵף, בִּזְכוּת עַצְמוֹתֶיךָ הֵם עוֹשִׂים פֶּסַח קָטָן.

What connection is there between Yosef offering to sustain his brothers and Pesach sheni?  

The pasuk tells us that Yosef offered  וְעַתָּה֙ אַל⁠־תִּירָ֔אוּ אָנֹכִ֛י אֲכַלְכֵּ֥ל אֶתְכֶ֖ם וְאֶֽת⁠־טַפְּכֶ֑ם. Obviously he wasn't going to feed only his brothers and let their children and family starve.  Why mention וְאֶֽת⁠־טַפְּכֶ֑ם?  The Netziv points out that we find a similar pasuk earlier (47:12)  וַיְכַלְכֵּ֤ל יוֹסֵף֙ אֶת⁠־אָבִ֣יו וְאֶת⁠־אֶחָ֔יו וְאֵ֖ת כׇּל⁠־בֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑יו לֶ֖חֶם לְפִ֥י הַטָּֽף׃ and there he explains that Yosef didn't just provide a one-size-fits-all bag of groceries to his brothers to give to their families.  What you feed an adult is not appropriate for a baby.   Yosef personally managed things, אָנֹכִ֛י* אֲכַלְכֵּ֥ל אֶתְכֶ֖ם*, to make sure that each individual got what he/she needed, right down to the nitty-gritty of making sure the Gerber baby food jars were included for the babies too. 

Hashem could easily have said, "So what if a few individuals got left out of offering the korban pesach?  So long as the bulk of the people are covered, good enough."  But just like Yosef saw that each individual was cared for, so too, midah k'neged midah, Hashem took care to make sure that each individual would have n opportunity to offer the korban pesach properly.  (see the Ostrovtza for two other interpretations)

2) וַיְבָ֨רְכֵ֜ם בַּיּ֣וֹם הַהוּא֮ לֵאמוֹר֒ בְּךָ֗ יְבָרֵ֤ךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר יְשִֽׂמְךָ֣ אֱלֹקים כְּאֶפְרַ֖יִם וְכִמְנַשֶּׁ֑ה וַיָּ֥שֶׂם אֶת⁠־אֶפְרַ֖יִם לִפְנֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה׃ (48:20)

R' Reuvain Katz (Dudai Reuvain) has a beautiful diyuk here  Yaakov was blessing both Ephraim and Menashe.  Shouldn't it therefore say בּכם in the plural, not בְּךָ֗ יְבָרֵ֤ךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ in the singular?  

Secondly, the text of the bracha itself,  יְשִֽׂמְךָ֣ אֱלֹקים כְּאֶפְרַ֖יִם וְכִמְנַשֶּׁ֑ה, puts Ephraim in front of Menashe.  Why then does the pasuk needs to reiterate in its conclusion וַיָּ֥שֶׂם אֶת⁠־אֶפְרַ֖יִם לִפְנֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה׃?

Menashe and Ephraim each had a different role.  Menashe worked at his father's side in tending to the affairs of state.   וַיְצַ֞ו אֶת⁠־אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל⁠־בֵּיתוֹ֮ (44:1) Targum Yonasan writes ופקיד ית מנשה דממנה אפיטרופוס על ביתיה.  Similarly, וְהֵם֙ לֹ֣א יָֽדְע֔וּ כִּ֥י שֹׁמֵ֖עַ יוֹסֵ֑ף כִּ֥י הַמֵּלִ֖יץ בֵּינֹתָֽם (42:23) Rashi writes המליץ – זה מנשה.  Ephraim, on the other hand, sat and learned by his grandfather.  Rashi 48:1: אפרים היה רגיל לפני יעקב בתלמוד, וכשחלה יעקב בארץ גשן, הלך אפרים אצל אביו למצרים, והגיד לו. Each child had his own talents, interests, skills. 

Yaakov Avinu tells us that when you bless your children, don't bless one child to be a Menashe and another child to be an Ephraim.  בְּךָ֗ יְבָרֵ֤ךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל֙, in the singular -- we should hope each and every child can excel at learning and be a talmid chacham like Ephraim, but also have the skills to make his way in the world, just like a Menashe.

That being said, make no mistake about priorities.  Yaakov put Ephraim before Menashe, and lest you think אין מוקדם ומאוחר בּתורה and what difference does it make, the pasuk reiterates וַיָּ֥שֶׂם אֶת⁠־אֶפְרַ֖יִם לִפְנֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה.   

hiding in plain sight

The Ishbitzer writes that the revelation of Yosef is a model for how Hashem will reveal Himself to us in the future.  Just like with Yosef where all the facts remained the same but with those words, "Ani Yosef!" everything changed, so too, all the facts of our galus will remain the same, but when Hashem will reveal himself and say to us, "Ani Hashem!" everything will be different, our entire perspective will change.

I want to extend that parallel a drop further.  R' Chaim Kanievsky in Taama d'Kra writes that when reading through the past few parshiyos the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Yosef wanted to give the game away and be recognized.  He didn't want this charade!  He wanted desperately to reveal himself, and so he did the most an appalling job possible of trying to hide his identity.  Didn't the brothers wonder why only they and no one else was accused of spying and brought before the viceroy?  Didn't they find it strange when he showed such interest in their father and their younger brother?  That he was able to sit them in order of their birth at his table? That he set his sights specifically on Binyamin, Yosef's brother from the same mother?  They knew Yosef had been sold down into slavery down into Egypt.  All the signs were there that they were dealing with someone who had close, intimate knowledge of Yosef, if not Yosef himself.  It can only be, says RCK, that hashgachas Hashem decreed that they remain blind, otherwise how could they miss it?  Yosef chose for whatever reason to wait to come clean until he could no longer restrain himself in the hopes that his brothers would recognize him on their own, but in the end his hand was forced.

The same is true, kavyachol of Hashem.  Hashem wants to reveal himself to us!  He doesn't like this charade of galus any more than we do.  Even though we live in a world of he'elem and hester, He deliberately does a bad job of concealment.  Iran fires 400 missiles, and not a single one causes major damage.  Who ever heard of such a thing?  Last week one US Navy plane was downed by friendly fire and another almost suffered the same fate.  Our air force bli ayin ha'ra has flown hundreds of missions with no issues.  How can that be?  Anyone can make a list of hundreds of similar examples of nisim v'niflaos that happen every other day, yet we go through life with blinders on, ignoring the signs right in front of us.  Hashem is hoping we will get the obvious hints and recognize Him on our own, but even if we fail to, He cannot restrain Himself forever, and one day hopefully soon, He will be forced to reveal himself fully.

Yehudah's tefilah -- what took him so long?

The Midrash comments on the opening pasuk of our parsha, רַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי הֲגָשָׁה לִתְפִלָּה: וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלִיָּהוּ הַנָּבִיא וַיֹּאמַר ה׳ אֱלֹקי וגו׳ (מלכים א י״ח:ל״ו).  This was not just a conversation between Yehudah and Yosef, but rather Yehudah was mispallel to Hashem that his brother Binyamin should be allowed to go free.  

Why, asks the Ostrovtza in Meir Einei Chachamim, did Yehuda wait until now to daven?  Why did he, or any of the other brothers, not daven to Hashem for help earlier, when Shimon was imprisoned by Yosef?  

My first thought when I saw this question is that of course Yehudah would daven now, as he put his own fate on the line in guaranteeing the return of Binyanim.  Were that true, it would be a very self-serving tefilah and not at all consistent with Yehuda's character or his words.  Yehudah offered to personally serve as a substitute for Binyamin.  He was willing to sacrifice himself for his brothers.  Surely his tefilah would come from that same spirit of self-sacrifice.

The Ostrovtza resolves the issue by taking us back to that episode of Shimon's imprisonment.  Why was it that only after three days in prison did the brothers finally admit  וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל⁠ אָחִיו אֲבָל אֲשֵׁמִים אֲנַחְנוּ עַל⁠ אָחִינוּ.  If, as Rashbam writes, this was מדה כנגד מדה, אנחנו השלכנוהו בבור והנה אנחנו נאסרים בבית השבי, shouldn't they have realized that on the first day when they were thrown  בבית השבי?  Secondly, when Yosef declared then אֲחִיכֶם אֶחָד יֵאָסֵר בְּבֵית מִשְׁמַרְכֶם וְאַתֶּם לְכוּ הָבִיאוּ שֶׁבֶר רַעֲבוֹן בָּתֵּיכֶם, the Torah tells us the brothers responded וַיַּעֲשׂוּ⁠ כֵן.  What exactly did they do?  They hadn't yet departed for home; they were still sitting in jail.  Lastly, what were Yosef's intentions in this whole charade?

Yosef was not out for revenge.  What he hoped to achieve was to cleanse his brothers of the horrible sin of his sale by bringing them to recognize and admit their error and do teshuvah.  We describe Hashem as זוכר כל הנשׁכּחות אתה  R' Shmelka m'Nikulsburg explains that if we forget about our sins, then Hashem will remember them and He will mete out punishment.  But if we are aware of our own wrongdoings and remember them ourselves, Hashem will forget about them because we will take care of doing teshuvah.  How does a person come to awareness of that which he does not remember of recognize as a sin?  The answer is that Hashem does us a favor -- the punishment always parallels the crime, midah k'neged midah.  Yosef acted in the same way, of leading his brothers down the path of midah k'neged midah to come to self-awareness.

First, Yosef accused them to being spies, מרגלים. Rashi comments on לא תלך רכיל that אני אומר על שם שכל משלחי מדיינים ומספרי לשון הרע הולכים בבתי רעיהם לרגל מה יראו רע או ישמעו רע לספר בשוק, נקראים הולכי רכיל, הולכי רגילה.  Since the brothers had accussed Yosef of spreading rechilus and tattling on them to Yaakov, he accused them of being מרגלים in the hope that they would get the message.

Three days of thinking it over were not enough, so Yosef made a deal that he would let them go provided one of them stayed behind.  The catch is that they, not he, would have to choose the one.  The Yerushalmi in Terumos (end of ch 8) writes that if the aku"m demand that one person of a group be turned over, we are not permitted to do so.  However, if it is clear that only one member of the group is culpable, he can be selected, e.g. Yonah being thrown overboard because he was the cause of the storm.  Yosef was forcing the brothers to make a choice -- you are being punished for doing wrong; figure out what you did and who the guilty party is among you (see Meshech Chochma who also refers to this Ylmi in the context of these pesukim but uses it a bit differently).  וַיַּעֲשׂוּ⁠ כֵן!  The brothers realized that it was the sale of Yosef that was the cause of their sorrows and the finger was pointed at Shimon, who they turned over.  This realization that they did something wrong prompted the brother's declaration  וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל⁠ אָחִיו אֲבָל אֲשֵׁמִים אֲנַחְנוּ עַל⁠ אָחִינוּ אֲשֶׁר רָאִינוּ צָרַת נַפְשׁוֹ בְּהִתְחַנְנוֹ אֵלֵינוּ וְלֹא שָׁמָעְנוּ עַל⁠ כֵּן בָּאָה אֵלֵינוּ הַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת

Yosef was not done.  אֲשֵׁמִים אֲנַחְנוּ means that "mistakes were made."  You bring a korban asham if you made a mistake and accidentally ate cheilev or violated a different issur kareis.  The brothers needed to do teshuvah for the intentional act of selling Yosef and not just pass it off as a mistake.  Therefore, Yosef planted his goblet, obviously an intentional act, to entrap Binyamin, midah k'neged midah just as the brothers had intentionally acted against him.

Yehudah says at the end of last week's parsha  הָאֱלֹקים מָצָא אֶת⁠ עֲוֺן עֲבָדֶיךָ.  A metziya means something lost which was now discovered. זוכר כל הנשׁכּחות אתה  Yehudah understood that until this point, they had not truly uncovered, discovered, realized and remembered all the wrong they had done. It was still b'geder הנשׁכּחות.  Now the full truth was revealed.    

Says the Ostrovtza: whatever tefilah Yehuda or the brothers had offered until this point would not have counted as tefilah.  It would be like toveil v'sheretz b'yado.  Prayers for relief can be accepted only after a person accepts responsibility for their own wrongs that led to the crisis at hand.  Therefore, it was only at this point, after the entire process of teshuvah was complete, that the Torah describes Yehudah as entering הֲגָשָׁה לִתְפִלָּה.

I only quoted the opinion in the Midrash that Yehudah was engaged in tefilah, but there is another view thay says he approached seeking to do battle, and another approach that says he approached in piyus, supplication.  Perhaps it was all three:   רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר פְּשַׁט לְהוֹן אִם לְמִלְחָמָה אֲנִי בָא, אִם לְפִיּוּס אֲנִי בָא, אִם לִתְפִלָּה  The Ostrovtza reads this like the stages of grief.  When something goes wrong, first there is the battle stage -- you want to fight G-d and argue that you are right and deserving and He is wrong.  Next comes the stage of piyus, negotiation -- you tell yourself that what you did was not so bad, that you've done plenty of good deeds to offset the wrong.  Finally there comes the stage of acceptance, where you understand the wrong that was done and come to regret it.  This is the stage of tefilah, where one can once again come close to Hashem in supplication and ask for forgiveness.

celebration or commemoration?

Why do we have a mitzvah of mishteh and seudah on Purim but not on Chanukah?  I think most people are familiar with the Levush's answer that on Purim, the threat to Jewish life was irrespective of religious commitment.  Even if someone had agreed to convert, Haman would not have spared them.  Since the threat was one of physical annihilation, the celebration is a physical one of eating and drinking.  On Chanukah, the Greeks did not want to kill us; they wanted to force us to abandon Judaism.  Had we given up Shabbos, milah, Torah, they would have left us alone.  Since the threat was to our spiritual lives, the celebration focusses on the spiritual alone, without the physical party.

The Taz does not like this answer.  גדול המחטיאו יותר מן ההורגו (Bamaidar Rabbah 21, quoted in Rashi).  Spiritual danger is far greater than physical danger.  Therefore, says the Taz, since on Chanukah we faced spiritual danger, we should make the bigger party then.  On Purim we faced the lesser threat of physical danger, and so therefore it should warrant a smaller celebration.  So why is it ונהפּוך הוא?  

Taz answers that instead of looking at the threat, we need to look at the salvation, the miracle.  Everybody was aware of what Haman planned to do and everybody celebrated his defeat and our lives being spared, so we in turn make a big party.  The miracle of the oil for menorah was different.  We got to do a mitzvah properly that we otherwise might have missed out on, and so we have a spiritual celebration, but that does not generate the same public excitement and merriment that having one's life spared does.

R' Shimshon Pincus (Tiferes Torash siman 19) explains the nekudas ha'machlokes here very nicely. According to the Taz, Chanukah and Purim are days of celebration, yamin tovim derabbanan.  The question is why the "shiur" of celebration is greater on one than the other, and so the Taz comes up with a sevara.  According to Levush, Chanukah and Purim are days of commemoration.  The days are inherently ymei chol, but there is a chovas ha'gavra to commemorate the nes.  גדול המחטיאו יותר מן ההורגו is not relevant because גדול המחטיאו יותר מן ההורג speaks to what the threat was, not what the nes was.  On Purim, the nes was physical salvation, so it gets commemorated with a physical party; on Chanukah, it was spiritual salvation, and so there is no physical celebration involved.  

the secular holiday spirit

Currently sitting in midtown looking out of the office window at the throngs of people who have come to NYC (mostly tourists, as most regular working folks take off this week and avoid the city) to celebrate yom eidam.  

Something to keep in mind this time of year: MB 224:3

 כתב הב"ח בשם ספר האשכול השמר לך לראות קנגיאות של כותים וה"ה מחולתם או שום דבר שמחתם ואם תשמע קול כותים שמחים האנח ותצער על חורבן 

dignity for the accused

It's always hard to learn parsha when you are caught up in Chanuka, but I don't want to skip a week of writing something.  

When Yaakov sends his sons back to Egypt with Binyamin, he declares (43:14)

 וְק-ל שַׁדַּי יִתֵּן לָכֶם רַחֲמִים לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ וְשִׁלַּח לָכֶם אֶת⁠ אֲחִיכֶם אַחֵר וְאֶת⁠ בִּנְיָמִין

Abarbanel is medayek in the words לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ, which seem unnecessary. According to one Midrashic interpretation, the word  אִישׁ actually refers to Hashem:

רַבִּי יַאשְׁיָה בֶּן לֵוִי פָּתַר קְרָא בַּגָּלֻיּוֹת: וְאֵל שַׁדַּי יִתֵּן לָכֶם רַחֲמִים (בראשית מ״ג:י״ד), וַיִּתֵּן אוֹתָם לְרַחֲמִים (תהלים ק״ו:מ״ו).

לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ – הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ה׳ אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה ה׳ שְׁמוֹ (שמות ט״ו:ג׳).

וְשִׁלַּח לָכֶם אֶת אֲחִיכֶם – אֵלּוּ עֲשֶׂרֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים.

אַחֵר וְאֶת בִּנְיָמִין – זֶה שֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה וּבִנְיָמִין.

וַאֲנִי כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁכֹלְתִּי – בְּחֻרְבַּן רִאשׁוֹן.

שָׁכָלְתִּי – בְּחֻרְבַּן שֵׁנִי. כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁכֹלְתִּי, בְּחֻרְבָּן רִאשׁוֹן וּבַשֵּׁנִי, לֹא אֶשְׁכַּל עוֹד

This is not pshat, as it is hard to understand what it means that Hashem should give mercy before Hashem, unless you say that the different names refer to different midos.  The point the derash means to convey is that the reunification of the brothers portends a reunification of Klal Yisrael which leads ultimately to geulah.  

Abarbanel explains pshat is that אִישׁ is not just stam "man," but it means something like "gentleman;" it connotes chashivus.  Rashi writes in parshas Shlach (13:3)  כל אנשים שבמקרא לשון חשיבות.   Or you could be medayek from Rashi in our parsha on the pasuk הלא ידעתם כי נחש ינחש איש אשר כמני (44:15) where Rashi writes   הלא ידעתם כי איש חשוב כמוני יודע לנחש - notice that he adds the word חשוב.  Here too in our pasuk, what Yaakov was telling his children is that someone of Yosef's stature cannot but help but be moved by their plight:  כי איש הוא ויתפעל מצרתכם.  Surely someone who is an אִישׁ would not be lacking in empathy.

(Parenthetically, if I remember correctly, the Rav explained that this is what struck Moshe Rabeinu (Shmos 2:12)  וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ.  Egypt was the bastion of enlightenment for its time - -a place of culture, refinement, advanced ideas.  When Moshe saw the beating of a Jew, it struck him that for all the superficial appearances, no one in that society was truly an אִישׁ.  They were barbarians at heart, as they lacked human empathy.  Of course, this was a commentary on German high culture before the war, not just pshat in the pasuk.)

R' Chaim Elazari learned by the Alter of Slabodka and always reads the parsha through the lens of Slabodka mussar and its emphasis on gadlus ha'adam.  He focusses on this same word/idea of אִישׁ/אנשׁים later in the parsha to learn a different lesson.  When Yosef orders his majordomo to run after the brothers and accuse them of stealing his goblet, you have the use of that word אִישׁ/אנשים  again: 

הֵם יָצְאוּ אֶת⁠ הָעִיר לֹא הִרְחִיקוּ וְיוֹסֵף אָמַר לַאֲשֶׁר עַל⁠ בֵּיתוֹ קוּם רְדֹף אַחֲרֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים וְהִשַּׂגְתָּם וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם לָמָּה שִׁלַּמְתֶּם רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה

R' Elazari writes that the pasuk is teaching us that even when it seems like a crime has been committed, don't be so hasty to throw around accusations and debase and degrade the accused.  רְדֹף אַחֲרֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים means treat the accused as אֲנָשִׁים; don't rob them of their dignity.  Don't chase after them through the streets screaming, "Stop thief!" so that everyone turns their heads to take a video of the scene as it unfolds.  Wait until וְהִשַּׂגְתָּם, until you catch up to them and stop them, and only then say, לָמָּה שִׁלַּמְתֶּם רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה.  

One could argue that Yosef's concern stemmed from the fact that he knew that his brothers were not in fact thieves.  On the other hand, if he treated them differently than others, that would give away the game, wouldn't it?  

Tos shita on mehadrin min ha'mehadrin - a question that has me stumped

The gemara writes that there are three possible levels to fulfill the mitzvah of neiros Chanuka:

1) ner ish u'beiso - one candle lit every night for the entire household

2) mehadrin - every person in the household lights one candle each night 

3) mehadrin min ha'mehadrin - add one candle every night.  Tos' and the Rambam disagree whether this level builds on the level of mehadrin, i.e. every person in the house lights and adds an additional candle every night, or whether this level builds on ner ish u'beiso, i.e. one person in the household lights and adds an additional candle each night

Tosfos argues that the latter interpretation must be correct.  The whole point of adding the additional candle each night is to demonstrate which night of Chanuka it is.  If every person in the household lights, there is no way the viewer can figure that out.  If, for example, you see 4 candles burning in the window, does that mean it's the first night of Chanuka and there are 4 people in the house each lighting, or does that mean it is the second night of Chanuka and two people are lighting, or is it the fouth night of Chanuka and there is only one person lighting?  The only way the lighting can reflect the day is if we assume one and only one person in the household lights.

I'm not interested in how to answer this question and justify our minhag.  I'm interested in how minei u'bei Tosfos makes sense.  Even if mehadrin min ha'mehadrin means only one person per household lights, still, how can I know what night of Chanuka it is?  Remember, there are three possible levels of fulfilling the mitzvah.  If I see 4 candles burning in the window, how do I know that that home lit mehadrin min ha'mehadrin and it therefore is day 4 of Chanuka?  Maybe in that household they only keep the mehadrin level.  Mehadrin means every member of the house lights one candle.  4 candles might means four people at home, each lighting one candle like the mehadrin custom?  Tos' hasn't solved their own problem!

I've learned this sugya multiple times over the years and for whatever reason, this never occurred to me before.  It's a simple pshat question and I am stumped.  I keep thinking I must be missing something, but I've asked a few people and so far no one has come up with a real answer.  To say that Tos' assumed everyone lit mehadrin min ha'mehadrin seems like a big dochak.  The gemara gives three levels and Tos' comment has to be taken in that context. Anyone have a good idea?  

entering into safeik sakana to save someone else from vaday sakana

Yaakov was certainly aware of the animosity the brothers had for Yosef, so why did he send Yosef to check on them. throwing him into the lion's den, so to speak?  B'pashtus you could say that Yaakov underestimated the level of animosity and danger.  Sibling rivalry is not uncommon, but it seldom leads to what happened to Yosef.  The Hadar Zekeinim (from the Baalei HaTos') on the parsha quotes another interesting answer from Ibn Ezra:

וא״ת מה ראה יעקב לשלחו לאחיו הלא יודע ששונאים אותו. ואומר אבן עזרא לפי שהלכו במקום סכנה לרעות כי הרגו אנשי שכם. אמר יעקב שמא יענישו לך ספק הוא ושיהרגום אנשי שכם אם ימצאום ודאי הוא ומוטב ליקח הספק מן הודאי לך אמור להם שישובו פן יכום אנשי שכם מכת חרב.

Yaakov perceived the Shechem was a dangerous place for his family to be.  Recall that he did not support the attack on Shechem, fearing that there would be retribution.  When he heard the brothers had taken the sheep to graze near Shechem, he felt that better to send Yosef after them and expose him to some level of risk in order to remove the brothers from certain danger.  

It seems that a person can place himself in safeik sakana to save someone else from a vaday sakana.

This point is debated by others.  The Mishna in Makos (11b) writes that even a great general like Yoav who is needed by the nation is not allowed to leave the ir miklat lest the goal ha'dam attack him  ואפי' ישראל צריכים לו ואפי' שר צבא ישראל כיואב בן צרויה אינו יוצא משם לעולם. The general faces a safeik sakana, but the war is a vaday sakana.  According to the chiddush of Ibn Ezra, why should he not leave the ir miklat?

(Just to add: I don't think the argument advanced by Yehudah in next week's parsha, as explained by Rashi 43:8, to allow Binyanim to travel with the brothers to Egypt is relevant here.    בנימן ספק יתפש ספק לא יתפש, ואנו כולנו מתים ברעב אם לא נלך. מוטב שתניח את הספק ותתפש את הוודאי.  In that case Binyamin was not being put in a safeik sakana to save others, as if he did not go down to Egypt he would be in as much a vaday sakana of dying from hunger as the rest of the family.)  

chisaron in hasbara=chisaron in havana; the power of Yaakov's tears; an amazing Midrash Talpiyot on the identity of Yehuda's wife

1) In yeshivos they like to quote the aphorism from R' Chaim that a chisaron in hasbara indicates a chisaron in havana.  If you can't explain something, it's a sign that you really don't understand it.  (see this post from earlier this year ).  In last week's parsha, Shimon and Levi disagreed with their father Yaakov about how to respond to what happened to Dinah.  When Yaakov chastised his sons, י֮ עֲכַרְתֶּ֣ם אֹתִי֒ לְהַבְאִישֵׁ֙נִי֙ בְּיֹשֵׁ֣ב הָאָ֔רֶץ, they responded and justified their actions,  וַיֹּאמְר֑וּ הַכְזוֹנָ֕הא יַעֲשֶׂ֖ה אֶת⁠־אֲחוֹתֵֽנוּ׃.  In contrast, the brothers never revealed to their father what they did to Yosef and why they acted such.  They didn't even have the courage to directly tell Yaakov their concocted story, but rather  וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֞וּ אֶת⁠־כְּתֹ֣נֶת הַפַּסִּ֗ים וַיָּבִ֙יאוּ֙ אֶל⁠־אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ זֹ֣את מָצָ֑אנוּ הַכֶּר⁠־נָ֗אא הַכְּתֹ֧נֶת בִּנְךָ֛ הִ֖וא אִם⁠־לֹֽא׃.  According to Rashbam וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֞וּ means through a messenger על ידי בני אדם שלא יגידו מי השולחים, אלא שיאמרו:⁠א זאת מצאנו so that they could hide their hand in the whole affair.  Why hide behind the veil of secrecy?  Why not explain to their father why they acted against Yosef?  R' Shmuel Birnbaum explains that when it came to Shechem, Shimon and Levi understood crystal clear what they needed to do and why their actions were justified.  Therefore, they were able to answer their father.  When it came to dealing with Yosef, the fact that they could not find the words to justify their actions indicates that the rationale for what they were doing was not really clear in their own minds. 

2) Yosef is taken by the Midyanim and sold into slavery in Egypt  וַיַּֽעַבְרוּ֩ אֲנָשִׁ֨ים מִדְיָנִ֜ים סֹֽחֲרִ֗ים וַֽיִּמְשְׁכוּ֙ וַיַּֽעֲל֤וּ אֶת⁠־יוֹסֵף֙ מִן⁠־הַבּ֔וֹר וַיִּמְכְּר֧וּ אֶת⁠־יוֹסֵ֛ף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֖ים בְּעֶשְׂרִ֣ים כָּ֑סֶף וַיָּבִ֥יאוּ אֶת⁠־יוֹסֵ֖ף מִצְרָֽיְמָה׃ (37:28).  The brothers present their story to Yaakov, who refuses to be comforted,  וַיָּקֻ֩מוּ֩ כׇל⁠־בָּנָ֨יו וְכׇל⁠־בְּנֹתָ֜יו לְנַחֲמ֗וֹ וַיְמָאֵן֙ לְהִתְנַחֵ֔ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר כִּֽי⁠־אֵרֵ֧ד אֶל⁠־בְּנִ֛י אָבֵ֖ל שְׁאֹ֑לָה וַיֵּ֥בְךְּ אֹת֖וֹ אָבִֽי (37:35)  The Torah then ends that chapter by repeating what happened to Yosef,  וְהַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל⁠־מִצְרָ֑יִם לְפֽוֹטִיפַר֙ סְרִ֣יס פַּרְעֹ֔ה שַׂ֖ר הַטַּבָּחִֽים.  We then have an entire chapter devoted to the episode of Yehuda and Tamar, and return in Ch 39 to the Yosef narrative,  וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הוּרַ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה וַיִּקְנֵ֡הוּ פּוֹטִיפַר֩ סְרִ֨יס פַּרְעֹ֜ה שַׂ֤ר הַטַּבָּחִים֙ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י מִיַּד֙ הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר הוֹרִדֻ֖הוּ שָֽׁמָּה׃.  Alshich asks: why do we need that final pasuk in ch 37 before the episode of Yehuda and Tamar to tell us again about the Midyanim selling Yosef off?  It really belongs to the start of ch 39.  Instead of that chapter starting וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הוּרַ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה, eliminate those words and start by saying הַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל⁠־מִצְרָ֑יִם upon which time he was bought by Potifar.  It is more concise, and does away with what seems an extraneous pasuk at the end of ch 37.

The Tzror haMor answers that the final pasuk of ch 37 which tells us וְהַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל⁠־מִצְרָ֑יִם לְפֽוֹטִיפַר֙ סְרִ֣יס פַּרְעֹ֔ה שַׂ֖ר הַטַּבָּחִֽים is not just there to convey information about what happened to Yosef.  It is actually connected to the description of Yaakov's grief and his refusal to cease crying for his son.  Chazal tell us that even when the gates of tefilah are closed, the gates of tears remain open.  Yosef might have ended up anywhere.  He might have been taken across the sea to a distant land or been carted off to the far reaches of the world.  Were that to happen, the chances of his being reunited with his family would be slim.  Thanks to Yaakov's endless tears, Hashem arranged things so that Yosef did not wind up too far from home.  Of course it would be years before he ultimately was able to see his father again, but the possibility of that happening was already in place and the wheels were in motion from the get-go.

3) Abarbanel comments ואמנם בהפלגת אבלות יעקב הוא מקום תימה רב.  The baalei mussar like the Seforno here: יאמר כי ארד אל בני אבל שאלה – קבל עליו אבלות לכל ימיו, מפני שארעה התקלה על ידו ששלח את יוסף אל אחיו  Yaakov refused to be comforted because he saw himself as being at fault because he was the one who send Yosef to check on his brothers.  It was the guilt that weighed him down.  No wonder he refused at first to send Binyamin down to Egypt.  Even though Shimon was being held captive waiting the brothers return, Yaakov had no hand in Shimon's being held, but were he the one to send Binyamin off to harm, in his mind he would be just as much at fault as when he sent Yosef.

3) I just saw this Midrash Talpiyot (bottom of first column( quoted somewhere this week and what an interesting find it is.  וַיַּרְא⁠־שָׁ֧ם יְהוּדָ֛ה בַּת⁠־אִ֥ישׁ כְּנַעֲנִ֖י וּשְׁמ֣וֹ שׁ֑וּעַ  Rashi tries to explain away כְּנַעֲנִ֖י as meaning a merchant.  The M.T. writes that Yeuhuda married the daughter of Eisav (!), whose name contains the same letters as שׁ֑וּעַ.  How could a tzadik like Yehuda have childen like  עֵ֚ר and אוֹנָ֔ן ?  It must be that their mother's genes from Eisav rubbed off on them.  

why Yaakov was upset at Shimon and Levi

I had a thought as to why Yaakov was angry at Shimon and Levi for attacking Shechem.  We know that David haMelech was prevented from building the Beis HaMikdash because he had engaged in bloodshed and warfare his entire life.  Yaakov was en route to the spot where Hashem had appeared to him in a dream when he left home and where he had taken the neder וְהָאֶ֣בֶן הַזֹּ֗את אֲשֶׁר⁠־שַׂ֙מְתִּי֙ מַצֵּבָ֔ה יִהְיֶ֖ה בֵּ֣ית אֱלֹהִ֑ים.  This is the same idea - יִהְיֶ֖ה בֵּ֣ית אֱלֹהִ֑ים - as building Beis haMikdash!  Yaakov was afraid that if he got bogged down in wars as a result of Shimon and Levi's attack on Shechem it would prevent him from fulfilling his neder.  (It is shortly before shabbos here so I haven't looked to see if any meforshim say this. Just throwing it out there for now.)

Yaakov's mid-life crisis (or so it seems)

  קָטֹנְתִּי מִכֹּל הַחֲסָדִים וּמִכׇּל⁠ הָאֱמֶת אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת⁠ עַבְדֶּךָ כִּי בְמַקְלִי עָבַרְתִּי אֶת⁠ הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת

 הַצִּילֵנִי נָא מִיַּד אָחִי מִיַּד עֵשָׂו כִּי⁠ יָרֵא אָנֹכִי אֹתוֹ פֶּן⁠ יָבוֹא וְהִכַּנִי אֵם עַל⁠ בָּנִים

 וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב עִמָּךְ וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת⁠ זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא⁠ יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב.

I want to first focus on a detail in Yaakov's tefilah, the micro, the prat, and then look at the bigger picture, the klal, the macro.

Rashi comments

כי במקלי – לא היה עמי לא כסף ולא זהב ולא מקנה אלא מקלי לבדו.

ומדרש אגדה: נתן מקלו בירדן ונבקע הירדן.

Whenever Rashi quotes two interpretations, esp if one is pshat and one is derash, the Sifsei Chachamim wants to know why.  The S.C.'s usual methodology is to find plusses and minuses in each interpretation; aware of the shortcomings of one reading, Rashi offers another possibility.  

S.C. explains why Rashi here was not satisfied with pshat and needed to resort to derash:

ומדרש אגדה נתן מקלו בירדן ונבקע הירדן. ולפי זה עשה לי שתי טובות אחד שנבקע לו הירדן והשני ב׳ מחנות משא״כ לפשוטו אין כאן אלא חסד אחד:

The word חֲסָדִים is plural.  If the pasuk means that Yaakov went from a penniless pauper who had nothing other than his staff to a wealthy man, that is only one chessed, not multiple chassadim.  Therefore, Rashi quotes the derash.  The reference to Yaakov's staff has nothing to do with his wealth, but rather refers to a miraculous splitting of the river that Yaakov did on his way to Lavan's house.  וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת is a second chessed of having a large and well off family. 

If S.C. is correct and Rashi's point is that חֲסָדִים has to refer to multiple chassadim, it begs the question of why the only two items on the list are the miracle of the river splitting, which occurred more than two decades ago when Yaakov was first en route to Lavan's house, and the  ב׳ מחנות, his large family of the present moment.   Nothing else happened in between?  There are no other chassadim that Yaakov could think of to list between the far past and the immediate present?!

Zooming out to look at the tefilah as a whole, Yaakov ends his prayer with a justification as to why G-d should help him: "You, G-d, promised שַׂמְתִּי אֶת⁠ זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא⁠ יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב, and therefore you owe me this protection."  We could discuss why Yaakov felt the need to offer any justification at all -- aren't we supposed to ask G-d for help when we are in danger? -- but let's leave that aside and look at the justification itself.  It seems flimsey, and is undermined by Yaakov's own actions.  Yaakov had divided his camp in two.   וַיֹּאמֶר אִם⁠ יָבוֹא עֵשָׂו אֶל⁠ הַמַּחֲנֶה הָאַחַת וְהִכָּהוּ וְהָיָה הַמַּחֲנֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר לִפְלֵיטָה  In this way if Eisav attacked one part, the other could escape.  If so, the promise of שַׂמְתִּי אֶת⁠ זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא⁠ יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב would seem to be in no danger of being abrogated.  Even if one part of the camp could not escape, the other part could, and Hashem's promise could be fulfilled through the survivors.  As Netziv puts it:  

ותו, מה זו הוכחה שלא יהרוג חלק מהבנים ותתקיים הברכה בהנשאר.

I saw a thought in the Arugas haBosem here that addresses these issues and I said to myself that even if you don't think it's pshat in the pasuk, it so hit the nail right on the head about how your perspective shifts as you get older.  Do ever find yourself looking back and wishing you could recapture something of how you were in the past?  Don't get me wrong -- I think you do get wiser as you get older, among other advantages to age. But there is something important lost as well, and I don't just mean, using myself as an example, things like no longer being able to throw a baseball the same way or stay up late without feeling tired the next day, or other such loss of physical ability or stamina.  We are coming up to the sugya of Chanukah where the gemara itself (Shabbos 22b) refers to the advantage of "girsa d'yankusa."  When you learn things when you are young, they stick in your head better.  Aside from loss of mental sharpness, I think more importantly one's perspective changes.  There is also a loss of idealism (again, speaking for myself only) as you age.  You age you start to see every issue in shades of grey rather than black and white, which is a good thing most of the time, but sometimes things really are just plain and simple black and white.  I can go on and give other examples, but I'm sure every person can make his own similar, personal list.

The Yaakov Avinu who in our parsha returns home is not the same Yaakov Avinu who left years earlier, and not just because he is now wealthy and has a huge family.  His attitude has shifted as well.  Yaakov is now a man making cheshbonos.  He strategizes before his meeting with Eisav.  He sends gifts, he sends messengers, and most importantly, he divides his camp is the hope that if all else fails, he can at least have half a victory. That's not the Yaakov of decades earlier.  Sticking your staff in the water in the hopes that it will split is not a logical strategy, something you make a cheshbon about.  Walking into a new town and immediately giving mussar to the shepherds and telling them they are not working hard enough is not a sound strategy.  Trying to singlehandedly roll a huge boulder off the well is not a sound strategy.  That's idealism, that's youth, that's trust in Hashem l'maaleh min ha'teva.  That's the Yaakov of old, of youth.

Yaakov looks at himself and says  כִּי בְמַקְלִי עָבַרְתִּי אֶת⁠ הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת.  Look what's happened to me! I went from the person who splits the river with his staff to the person who splits his camp in the hopes of half a victory being better than none.  Yaakov is not making a list of chassadim here; he is drawing a contrast between what once was and what now is.  

If I didn't know better, I would say this is the mid-life crisis of Yaakov Avinu.

The problem is that Yaakov Avinu is not you and me.  We may become middle aged pragmatists and lose our idealism, we may have a mid-life crisis when thinking about how we have changed, but we are not the bechir ha'Avos.  Yaakov felt that he should be the same as the Yaakov of old -- titein emes l'Yaakov, and emes remains consistent.  Therefore, there must be some other force at play here forcing him to act as he did.  Maaseh Avos siman la'banim -- what the Avos experienced does not just reflect on their personal lives, but reflects the current of Jewish history as well.  That is no less true in this case.

Netziv asks:

אם נפרש שחשש שיכה האם והבנים יחד וכמשמעות החיצוני מסוף התפילה ״ואתה אמרת וגו׳ ושמתי את זרעך וגו׳⁠ ⁠״, קשה, דלפי זה התכוון יעקב לדבר ה׳ אל אברם אחרי הפרד לוט מעמו (לעיל יג,טז) ״ושמתי את זרעך כעפר הארץ אשר אם יוכל איש למנות וגו׳⁠ ⁠״, וא״כ למאי שינה לשון הברכה ואמר ״כחול הים״

Why did Yaaskov add the words  כְּחוֹל הַיָּם which are not part of the blessing given to Avraham (13:16 וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת זַרְעֲךָ כַּעֲפַר הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אִם יוּכַל אִישׁ לִמְנוֹת אֶת עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ גַּם זַרְעֲךָ יִמָּנֶה), which is what Yaakov is invoking?

The Arugas haBosem points us to the dersha in Yoma 22b:

 ר' יונתן רמי כתיב והיה מספר בני ישראל כחול הים וכתיב אשר לא ימד ולא יספר לא קשיא כאן בזמן שישראל עושין רצונו של מקום כאן בזמן שאין עושין רצונו של מקום 

We can either be as numerous as the stars of the sky -- lofty, heavenly -- or be like sand of the sea, lowly and trodden on.  

When Yaakov reflected on his behavior and thinking at that moment, he realized that his behavior had changed because Hashem wanted through him to give guidence not just to great generations, but to generations that are not exactly up to snuff.  There are generations where we are not in the position to walk into a river with just our staff, confident that it will split on our behalf.  We are not in a position to think we can unstop wells that look blocked, or dictate ethics to others.  We make cheshbonos, we operate strategically, more in tune with what derech ha'teva leads us to think than with pure bitachon.  

Yaakov was praying not for his own sake, but for the sake of those generations.  וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב עִמָּךְ וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת⁠ זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא⁠ יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב.  Even if we are  כְּחוֹל הַיָּם, nonetheless, אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב עִמָּךְ.  

Rachel's swap of the simanin and the din of bnei temurah - an amazing Maharal

There is a must-see Maharal on the pasuk  וַיְהִ֣י בַבֹּ֔קֶר וְהִנֵּה⁠־הִ֖וא לֵאָ֑ה (29:25).  It doesn't say that next morning Yaakov *discovered* that he was married to Leah, or that he *saw* that it was Leah.  It says next morning it *was* Leah.  Meaning, at night, it was not Leah --- as Rashi writes, אבל בלילה לא היא לאה -- and then somehow, in the morning, the identity of who Yaakov married changed to someone else.  

How does that work?  Rashi tells us that the switch happened because of the simanin: לפי שמסר יעקב סימנין לרחל. וכשראת שמכניסין לו לאה, אמרה: עכשיו תכלם אחותי, עמדה ומסרה לה אותן סימנין, 

Maharal in Gur Aryeh explains: אלא ודאי הכי פירושו ״והנה היא לאה״ – בבקר, אבל בלילה לא היתה לאה, לפי שמסרה לה הסימנין, וקיימא לן דסימנין דאורייתא, והוי סימן מובהק, ולפיכך בלילה הרי היא רחל לענין דינא לסמוך עליו:

Since the halacha says that a person can rely on simanim to identify his wife, and the simanim Yaakov was given during the night matched the simanim of Rachel, halacha says that the identity of Yaakov's wife that night Rachel!  Came the morning and that same person appeared to be Leah, at that moment, and not before, her identity became Leah. 

The reality of who Yaakov was married to changed from the night to the morning.

Seems to me that this amazing chiddush renders moot a question raised by the MG"A.  MG"A in OC 240 asks on the din of "bnei temurah," when a person has relations with one woman thinking it's another:

תמורה. אפי' שתיהן נשיו, כגון שנתכוין לזו ונזדמנה לו האחרת (טור) וצ"ע דהלא יעקב נתכוין לרחל ובא על לאה

Wasn't Yaakov Avinu in violation of this din on his wedding night when he thought he was marrying Rachel and it was really Leah?  

 MG"A continues:

ובסי"מ כ' שמשום זה לא נטלו שבט ראובן חלק בא"י רק בעבר הירדן ומ"מ צ"ע שיהיו ח"ו מן המורדים והפושעים ובפרט שהיא נתעברה מביאה זו כמ"ש התו' ביבמות דף ע"ו וצ"ל דדוקא כשראה רחל שוכבת במטה ונתכוין לגוף זה ואח"כ נזדמנה לו לאה תחתיו אבל יעקב בשעת כניסתו לחופה ראה לאה ונתכוין לגופה רק שסבר ששמה רחל לית לן בה, וכיוצא בזה חילקו בסנהדרין גבי נתכוין להרוג את זה והרג את זה:

MB in Shaar haTziun suggests that "bnei temurah" is only a problem if your intent is for a different person than the one in front of you, but if your intent is for the individual who is present, just you think it's someone else, that's not a problem.

Based on Maharal, the question doens't even get off the groud.  Yaakov intended to be married to Rachel that night and al pi din it *was* Rachel that night.  It was only the following morning that הִנֵּה⁠־הִ֖וא לֵאָ֑ה, her identity was changed.

returning home and to one's homeland

 וַיִּנְהַג אֶת⁠ כׇּל⁠ מִקְנֵהוּ וְאֶת⁠ כׇּל⁠ רְכֻשׁוֹ אֲשֶׁר רָכָשׁ מִקְנֵה קִנְיָנוֹ אֲשֶׁר רָכַשׁ בְּפַדַּן אֲרָם לָבוֹא אֶל⁠ יִצְחָק אָבִיו אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן

We know that Yitzchak lived in Eretz Canaan.  He never left Canaan.  Why does the Torah need to mention that for Yaakov, going home meant not just a return to his father, but a return to אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן? 

Netziv answers that the pasuk is telling us that in addition to Yaakov's wanting to return to his father, יִצְחָק אָבִיו, he also longed for Eretz Yisrael. אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן. 

This idea is already anticipated in the Midrash.  

וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל⁠ יַעֲקֹב שׁוּב אֶל⁠ אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ וּלְמוֹלַדְתֶּךָ וְאֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ

What does וְאֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ mean in this context?  Was Hashem not with Yaakov all the years he was in Lavan's home?  Was it not Hashem who protected him from Lavan's trickery?  Was it not Hashem who blessed him with wives and 12 children who would be the shivtei K-h?

The Midrash comments:

 כְּתִיב: זָעַקְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ ה׳ אָמַרְתִּי אַתָּה מַחְסִי חֶלְקִי בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים (תהלים קמ״ב:ו׳), וַהֲלוֹא אֵין אֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים אֶלָּא צוֹר וְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ, תַּמָּן שׂוֹבְעָה תַּמָּן זוֹלָא, וְאַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ חֶלְקִי בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים, אֶלָּא אֶרֶץ שֶׁמֵּתֶיהָ חַיִּים תְּחִלָּה לִימוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם בַּר קַּפָּרָא מַיְתֵי לָהּ מֵהָכָא: נֹתֵן נְשָׁמָה לָעָם עָלֶיהָ וְרוּחַ לַהֹלְכִים בָּהּ (ישעיהו מ״ב:ה׳), אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ חֶלְקִי בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים, שׁוּב אֶל אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ, אָבִיךָ מְצַפֶּה לְךָ אִמְּךָ מְצַפָּה לְךָ, אֲנִי בְּעַצְמִי מְצַפֶּה לְךָ.

The Midrash Tehillim similarly writes:

ד״א מדבר ביעקב זעקתי אליך י״י בשעה שיצאתי מבית אבי מהו אומר אם יהיה אלהים עמדי, אתה מחסי והנה אנכי עמך, חלקי בארץ החיים מתאוה אני לחזור לארץ ישראל, אמר יעקב ברשות יצאתי אף אני איני חוזר אלא ברשות, א״ל הקב״ה רשות אתה מבקש הרי הרשות בידך שנאמר שוב אל ארץ אבותיך.

Yaakov's journey was not just return home, a return to his biological father's house, לְמוֹלַדְתֶּךָ, which Hashem was giving Yaakov permission for, but it was a return to אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ, the land of the Avos, his homeland.  

R' Bachyei similarly finds an allusion to Eretz Yisrael in the double language of the pasuk:

כי נכסוף נכספתה לבית אביך – כפל הלשון לרמוז כי נכסף לאביו ונכסף לארץ הקדושה כלשון (תהלים פ״ד:ג׳) נכספה וגם כלתה נפשי לחצרות אלקי.

This R' Bachyei at the end of the parsha goes hand in hand with R' Bachyei at the beginning of the parsha. When Yaakov is en route to Lavan's house, in response to Hashem's promise of protection, he takes a neder (28:20-21)

 וַיִּדַּר יַעֲקֹב נֶדֶר לֵאמֹר אִם⁠ יִהְיֶה אֱלֹקים עִמָּדִי וּשְׁמָרַנִי בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי הוֹלֵךְ וְנָתַן⁠ לִי לֶחֶם לֶאֱכֹל וּבֶגֶד לִלְבֹּשׁ. 

וְשַׁבְתִּי בְשָׁלוֹם אֶל⁠ בֵּית אָבִי וְהָיָה ה׳ לִי לֵאלֹקים 

Ramban and Rashi disagree on how to read that last phrase. Ramban writes

איננו תנאי כדברי רבינו שלמה. אבל הוא הנדר, וענינו: אם אשוב אל בית אבי, אעבוד השם המיוחד בארץ הנבחרת במקום האבן הזאת שתהיה לי לבית אלהים, ושם אוציא את המעשר.

While Ramban mentions אעבוד השם המיוחד בארץ הנבחרת, he seems to point to avodas Hashem in general, and in particular, taking maaser as the fulfillment of the neder.  R' Bachyei sees the return to Eretz Yisrael itself as the kiyum ha'neder.  Chazal tell us that כל הדר בחוצה לארץ דומה כמו שאין לו אלוה.  Therefore,  וְהָיָה ה׳ לִי לֵאלֹקים must mean being in Eretz Yisrael:

אין זה תנאי ח"ו כי אם נדר, יאמר שאם ישוב לארץ ישראל אשר שם בית אביו יצחק יהיה השם המיוחד לו לאלהים כי שם יעבדנו בארץ המיוחדת. וזה ע"ד מאמר רז"ל כל הדר בחוצה לארץ דומה כמו שאין לו אלוה

Maaseh avos siman la'banim.  We find many places in Chazal that double language is darshehed to mean that a task should be repeated multiple times.  A person should not just do the mitzvah once and think he is exempt from then after, e.g. נָת֤וֹן תִּתֵּן֙ ל֔וֹ וְלֹא־יֵרַ֥ע לְבָבְךָ֖ בְּתִתְּךָ֣ ל֑וֹ - ומנין (שאם נתת פעם אחת) שאתה נותן לו אפילו מאה פעמים? ת"ל נתון תתן.  (See BM 31a)  I would like to suggest that this is the meaning here as well.  נִכְסֹף נִכְסַפְתָּה לְבֵית אָבִיךָ, even if your hope was dashed once, even if you suffered a setback once, אפילו מאה פעמים continue to hope, continue to dream, continue to long for Eretz Yisrael and try to return.  

kislev - month of geulah

Meant to post for Rosh Chodesh Kislev, but better late than never and it's good the whole month anyway.

The navi Zecharya (ch 7) raised the following shayla in the month of Kislev:

וַיְהִי בִּשְׁנַת אַרְבַּע לְדָרְיָוֶשׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ הָיָה דְבַר⁠ ה׳ אֶל⁠ זְכַרְיָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ הַתְּשִׁעִי בְּכִסְלֵו.

 וַיִּשְׁלַח בֵּית⁠ אֵל שַׂרְאֶצֶר וְרֶגֶם מֶלֶךְ וַאֲנָשָׁיו לְחַלּוֹת אֶת⁠ פְּנֵי ה׳

 לֵאמֹר אֶל⁠ הַכֹּהֲנִים אֲשֶׁר לְבֵית⁠ ה׳ צְבָקוֹת וְאֶל⁠ הַנְּבִיאִים לֵאמֹר הַאֶבְכֶּה בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִשִׁי הִנָּזֵר כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי זֶה כַּמֶּה שָׁנִים.

Would he have to fast the upcoming Tisha b'Av?

Radak provides the context:

כי עדיין לא היו מאמינים בבנין הבית מפני האויבים שהשביתו את המלאכה כמה שנים ועתה אף על פי ששמעו כי היו בונים היו קטני אמנה ולא היו רוצים לעלות מבבל כי לא היו מאמינים שישלם בנין הבית ויעמד מפני הצרים אותם ושאלו אם יצומו בתשעה באב כמו שעשו שבעים שנה

The rebuilding of Beis haMikdash had started, but the enemies of the Jewish people had caused work stoppages.  It looked far from certain that the project would ever come to completion.  The vast majority of the Jewish people remained in exile in Bavel, waiting to see what would happen, uncertain as to what the future might hold.  

Zecharya wanted to know whether the fact that there was at least something of a Mikdash standing was enough cause to suspend the fast of Tisha b'Av.

Why did he raise this question in Kislev, months and months before it would be relevant l'maaseh?  Why not wait until the three weeks, or some other time closer to Av? 

The Midrash writes at the beginning of Behaaloscha that Aharon was upset because he was left out of the chanukas haMishkan, as all the nesiim brought gifts and korbanos and he did not participate.  Hashem responded that his portion is even greater, as he is tasked with lighting the menorah.  

Ramban explains that the lighting the menorah in our homes in celebration of nes Chanukah is a continuation of the mitzvah of hadlakas menorah.  Aharon's mitzvah of menorah thus continues even after the churban, while the mitzvah of offering korbanos is no longer practiced.  

R' Noson Gestetner writes that when Kislev rolled around, Zecharya sensed the future holiday of Chanukah that would come in 200 years.  Even though he knew there would be a churban ha'bayis of the second Mikdash, he saw in Chanukah a spark of geulah, a spark of the Mikdash that would remain, as the mitzvah of menorah is still with us.  Since the geulah of Bayis Sheni would not completely be extinguished, he wondered whether Tisha b'Av would still be necessary.