Adar and Binyamin; why the mishkan had to be built lishma

1) As we've discussed many times before, the Tur tells us that the 3 regalim correspond to the Avos and the 12 months of the year correspond to the 12 shevatim.  There are many shitos and variations as to which month matches which sheivet (maybe someone should compile them all into a sefer) but if you simply go by birth order the last month of the year Adar should correspond to Binyamin.

 וַיְהִי בְּצֵאת נַפְשָׁהּ כִּי מֵתָה וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בֶּן⁠ אוֹנִי וְאָבִיו קָרָא⁠ לוֹ בִנְיָמִין (35:18)

Ramban explains:

והנכון בעיני: כי אמו קראתו בן אוני ורצתה לומר בן אבלי, .. ולכן קרא אותו: בנימין – בן הכח כי החוזק הוא בימין ולכן קראו בן הכח או בן החוזק. כי הימין בו הגבורה וההצלחה כענין: לב חכם לימינו (קהלת י׳:ב׳), ..רצה להיות קורא אותו בשם שקראתו אמו, כי כן כל בניו בשם שקראו אותם אמותם יקראו, והנה תרגם אותו לטובה ולגבורה.

This is the essence of chodesh Adar, the chodesh of v'nahapoch hu.  Yaakov Avinu changed his son's name from that which connotes sorrow to that which represents strength.  

2) Rashi comments at the opening of our parsha ויקחו לי – לשמי, that the collecting of funds for the mishkan had to be done lishma.  Even though by tzedaka there is a din that הָאוֹמֵר סֶלַע זוֹ לִצְדָקָה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּחְיֶה בְּנִי אוֹ שֶׁאֶהְיֶה בֶּן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא הֲרֵי זֶה צַדִּיק גָּמוּר and she'lo lishma is praiseworthy, apparently the mishkan was an exception to the rule.  My wife's grandfather, R' Dov Yehuda Shochet, explained that when it comes to avodah zarah, Hashem takes account of machshava as well as deed (Chulin 142).  The mishkan was a kaparah for cheit ha'eigel, an issur avoda zarah.  Therefore, since the cheit was one which involved the sin of tainted machshava, the tikun demands a purity of machshava.  

אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, מָכַרְתִּי לָכֶם תּוֹרָתִי, כִּבְיָכוֹל נִמְכַּרְתִּי עִמָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה, מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בַּת יְחִידָה, בָּא אֶחָד מִן הַמְּלָכִים וּנְטָלָהּ, בִּקֵּשׁ לֵילֵךְ לוֹ לְאַרְצוֹ וְלִטֹּל לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ: בִּתִּי שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְךָ יְחִידִית הִיא, לִפְרשׁ מִמֶּנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל, לוֹמַר לְךָ אַל תִּטְלָהּ אֵינִי יָכוֹל לְפִי שֶׁהִיא אִשְׁתֶּךָ, אֶלָּא, זוֹ טוֹבָה עֲשֵׂה לִי, שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ קִיטוֹן אֶחָד עֲשֵׂה לִי, שֶׁאָדוּר אֶצְלְכֶם, שֶׁאֵינִי יָכוֹל לְהַנִּיחַ אֶת בִּתִּי. כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, לִפְרשׁ הֵימֶנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל, לוֹמַר לָכֶם אַל תִּטְלוּהָ אֵינִי יָכוֹל, אֶלָּא בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתֶּם הוֹלְכִים בַּיִת אֶחָד עֲשׂוּ לִי שֶׁאָדוּר בְּתוֹכוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ

Rav Yissachar Meir, R"Y of Yeshivat haNegev, explains that the message of בַּיִת אֶחָד עֲשׂוּ לִי שֶׁאָדוּר בְּתוֹכוֹ is that we have to have a place inside of ourselves that we can retreat into to reconnect with G-d.  L'havdil, the the secular world, when things are going bad people talk about retreating into their "happy place."  I don't know if Judaism places such a priority on having a happy place inside, but it does place a priority on having a G-dly place inside.  

It's not just caution against being sucked into the secular world that the Midrash is speaking about, but it's also speaking about how we perform mitzvos and learn Torah.  Too often we are just going through the motions.  Are we learning Torah only with our head, or with our heart as well?  The Midrash gives a mashal to a king that cannot leave his daughter, and in that same was כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, לִפְרשׁ הֵימֶנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל.  A human king, neicha, there are limits to what he can or can't do, but how is that applicable to Hashem?  What does  אֵינִי יָכוֹל here mean?  R' Dovid Povarski explains that the "can't" here is not a din in Hashem's ability c"v, but rather it's a din in Torah. נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, לִפְרשׁ הֵימֶנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל because Torah without Hashem's presence is not Torah -- it's just a book.  Without the mishkan, without a life of avodah to accompany the intellectual depths and pursuit of Torah, all you have is a book, not a life, not a lifestyle.  Rav Yissachar Meir spesks in that same way about the mishkan as a space inside ourselves to reconnect our thoughts to our values, to reconnect to ויקחו לי – לשמי the right machshava, so that mitzvos themselves do not lose their meaning.  

Noda b'Yehuda on what to do if one leined shekalim before the kriah of rosh chodesh

There is a machlokes Rama/Taz in siman 684 regarding what to do if on rosh chodesh teves/chanukah the tzibur mistakenly started leining the chanukah kriah first instead of the kriah of rosh chodesh, which should come first.  Rama says to stop immediately and switch to reading rosh chodesh.  Taz disagrees and says that even though rosh chodesh is tadir and therefore should come first, tadir is only a lichatchila and is not m’akeiv. 

 This week we have shabbos shekalim and rosh chodesh together.  Noda b’Yehuda (mh”t 11) was asked what to do in this case if the tzibur mistakenly started leining parshas shekalim before the kriah of rosh chodesh.  Lichora this sounds like it should hinge on exactly like the same machlokes Rama and Taz.  However, Noda b’Yehuda says here l’kulei alma you should continue and not stop.  What’s the chiluk between the cases?

In siman 684 there is another din that if you took out only one sefer and read the leining of rosh chodesh and left out chanukah, you are yotzei.  GR”A points you to meg 29b that “ain mashgichim b’chanukah” (which if you look up the gemara you will see means something else in context).  That’s why Rama holds that when you took out both sefarim but started reading the chanukah leining first, you stop right away.  It’s not just that rosh chodesh is tadir – it’s that chanukah really carries no weight compared with r”c.  

The same is not true of shekalim.  If you didn't take out a sefer to lein shekalim and just leined the kriah of rosh chodesh, you haven't fulfilled your chiyuv properly and have to take out a sefer to read shekalim.  Since we see that shelakim does carry at least as much weight as the reading of rosh chodesh, you cannot stop and cut it off in the middle.

(See further in the teshuvah where the Nb"Y discusses which haftarah to read.)

I understand the proof, but I don’t understand the lomdus/sevara.  Why is the leining of chanukah “ain mashgichim bo” viz a viz the kriah of rosh chodesh but not shekalim?   

I am not sure, but my thinking so far is that when it comes to chanukah and rosh chodesh, it is the kedushas ha’yom that gives rise to the chiyuv of kriah.  For whatever reason, the kedushas hayom of rosh chodesh eclipses that of chanukah, and defines that kriah as the primary one of the day.  

Yesh lachkor: do you read parshas shekalim because it’s Shabbos shekalim, or is it Shabbos shekalim because you lein parshas shekalim?   Obviously, it's the latter.  It's not the kedushas ha'yom which is mechsyeiv the kriah, but aderaba, it is the kriah which gives this shabbos its unique name and character.  Therefore, the kriah of r"c which stems from the kedushas ha'yom cannot substitute for or eclipse the kriah of shekalim, which is an independent chovas ha'gavra.

(Yes, I am aware of the Rav's piece in Shiurim l'Zecher Aba Mari about the function of krias haTorah in establishing the kedushas hayom of chagim.)

why say "eye for an eye" if the intent is to pay damages? -- parshanut and Brisker lomdus that go hand in hand

While Chazal and parshanim spill much ink justifying the reading of עין תחת עין to mean $, the question that begs asking is why the Torah would use this expression instead of simply saying to pay if that is what the pasuk means.  Seforno explains that there is a moral lesson the Torah is trying to convey:

כך היה ראוי כפי הדין הגמור, שהיא מדה כנגד מדה, ובאה הקבלה שישלם ממון, מפני חסרון השערתנו, פן נסכל ונוסיף על המדה לאשמה בה

One shouldn't think that just like when one's ox gores, the solution is to take out the checkbook and pay for the damages, the same is true when dealing with harm to people -- it's just a matter of the amount of $ involved.   The Torah uses the expression עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן to make the moral point that there is a qualitative difference between the two.  When you harm another person, the penalty deserved goes beyond $.  Theoretically one should have one's eye knocked out. 

Ibn Ezra approaches the same question as follows:

והנה יהיה פירוש עין תחת עין – ראוי להיותו עינו תחת עינו, אם לא יתן כפרו.

When he writes אם לא יתן כפרו what he is referring to is the pasuk later in Banidbar 35:31 ולא תקחו כפר לנפש רצח אשר הוא רשע למות כי מות יומת.  A **murderer** cannot pay a fine and be released from punishment.  The implication is that in cases other than murder, i.e. bodily harm, it is enough to pay a fine.  We see that even without getting to torah shebaal peh, the Torah itself does its own parshanut on עין תחת עין and defines it as $.  

Both Ibn Ezra and Seforno see עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן as the theoretically just punishment.  Seforno says on a practical level we cannot carry it out so we read the pasuk otherwise; Ibn Ezra sees the Torah itself as offering the culprit the opportunity of payment as a way out of his crime.  

What is interesting is that we see the echo of these parshanim in the the Rambam (Chovel u'Mazik 1:3):

זה שנאמר בתורה כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו אינו לחבול בזה כמו שחבל בחבירו אלא שהוא ראוי לחסרו אבר או לחבול בו כאשר עשה ולפיכך משלם נזקו. והרי הוא אומר ולא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח לרוצח בלבד הוא שאין בו כופר אבל לחסרון איברים או לחבלות יש בו כופר:

If bottom line the halacha defines עין תחת עין as $, why does the Rambam in his sefer halacha, need to give us parshanut?  Just tell us the din!

R' Yehuda Cooperman connected the dots here.  The Rambam saw in the use of  עין תחת עין in place of $ a fundamental yesod: the הגדרה of the payment for חבלות is different than all other monetary payments.  When your ox gores and causes damage, the purpose of the payment is to make the damaged party whole, to compensate them for loss.  When you harm another person, the theoretical עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן that should take place would not make the other party whole or provide compensation.  It's all about punishment of the aggressor.  So too, the $ that are in place of עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן are about punishment, not restitution.  

R' Soloveitchik brought many raayos to this idea, but the basis for it is already found in R' Chaim al HaRambam.  The Rambam writes in To'en v'Nit'an 5:2

 וכן החופר בשדה חבירו בורות שיחין ומערות והפסידוה והרי הוא חייב לשלם בין שטענו שחפר והוא אומר לא חפרתי או שטענו שחפר שתי מערות והוא אומר לא חפרתי אלא אחת או שהיה שם עד אחד שחפר והוא אומר לא חפרתי כלום. הרי זה נשבע היסת על הכל:

There is no שׁבועה of modeh b'miktzas when the claim is for fields because there is a din that אין נשׁבעין על הקרקעות.  

Raavad argues and says that the claim for digging up a field is a monetary claim, not a claim for the property itself.  Why is this case any different than כשאר תביעת ממון וכמי שאמר לו חבלת בי שתים והוא אומר לא חבלתי אלא אחת עכ"ל:?  The Rambam agrees that even though הוקשׁ אדם לקרקעות you can have a  שׁבועה of modeh b'miktzas when dealing with an argument about chovel because the claim is about the $ owed, so why is this case of קרקע any different?

R' Chaim answered that there is a fundamental difference between the claim of relief for damaged land and the claim of relief for chovel.  When it comes to damaged land, the $ is restitution for the land, and therefore the halacha links the payment directly to the קרקע.  When it comes to chovel, the payment is not restitution for the damage caused.  It is punishment for the act of aggression.  Therefore, there is no direct link between the $ and the victim.

Those learning daf yomi are familiar with the limitations on beis din in chutz la'aretz.  Rambam writes (Sanhedrin 5:10)

כל הנישום כעבד אין גובין אותו דייני חוצה לארץ. לפיכך אדם שחבל בחבירו אין גובין הנזק והצער והבשת שהוא חייב בהן דייני חוצה לארץ. אבל שבת ורפוי גובין מפני שיש בהן חסרון כיס. וכן הורו הגאונים ואמרו שמעשים בכל יום לגבות שבת ורפוי בבבל

Is נזק not about חסרון כיס?!  R' Soloveitchik explains that indeed it is not, because the payment is a punishment to the aggressor, not about making the victim whole.

There are many other proofs, but the take away point is that while the expression עין תחת עין at first glance seems to obscure the intent of the halacha, in truth it reveals halacha in a sharper and clearer light.

words are not enough

This is one of the most iconic photos of the Holocaust.  It was taken in 1943 in the Warsaw Ghetto.  The image of the innocent child with guns pointed at him, being taken away to his death, represents the clash of innocence with evil, of Jewish victim and Nazi oppressor.  In this case, a picture says more than any words can.

This is the modern day equivalent of that picture.  

Absent in both pictures because it was absent in real life is any hint of protest by the world to such atrocities.    

did Bn"Y recite birchas haTorah on mattan Torah

1) Every once in awhile there is a dump of new seforim onto hebrewbooks.org and when I see that I start browsing here and there.  In a sefer they just put up called Noam Amarim, the Sassover Rebbe notes that it says by mattan Torah that the people stood  וַיִּֽתְיַצְּב֖וּ בְּתַחְתִּ֥ית הָהָֽר, at the bottom of the mountain.  A person should want to climb and grow in ruchniyus, but sometimes a person falls or finds himself stuck at rock bottom.  Our parsha teaches that Torah is addressed even to that person, to those stuck on the bottom of the mountain.  

The Rebbe also says he was asked an interesting question that he had never thought of before.  If you look in P' Masei, you will see that Sinai is the 13th stop that Bn"Y came to after leaving Egypt.  Why was it on the 13th stop in particular that Torah was given?  I usually don't like these sorts of questions.  If it had been the 12th or 11th of any other number stop, you could ask the same thing.  The Rebbe did like it, and connects it to the 13 midos.

2) On to a more halachic topic.  Did Klal Yisrael says a birchas haTorah before kabbalas haTorah or not?  And if they did, what did they say?

Before answering that question, first point that needs clarification is why a birchas haTorah might be required.  It says in SA 47:4 המהרהר בדברי תורה א"צ לברך.  True, GR"A disagrees, but the question here is not only according to shitas haGR"A.  The gemara (Br 20b) writes that בעל קרי מהרהר בלבו to fulfill the mitzvah of shema.  The gemara comments: מר רבינא זאת אומרת הרהור כדבור דמי because if hirhur was not equivalent to dibur, how could the baal keri be yotzei?  The gemara says perhaps this is no proof.  If הרהור כדבור דמי, why bother with hirhur -- why not just say the words?  The gemara answers כדאשכחן בסיני.  Explains Rashi: שהפרישן מאשה דכתיב אל תגשו אל אשה (שמות יט) ועל פרישה זו סמך עזרא לתקן טבילה לבעלי קריין קודם שיעסקו בתורה.  Saying the words requires a higher level of tahara, as we see from mattan Torah, that hirhur does not.

What words were said by Bn"Y at Sinai?  Tos on the spot answers that when Bn"Y heard mattan Torah, shome'a k'oneh, it was as if they said the words.  We see an interesting chiddush from Tos that the din of shome'a k'oneh is not just a means to be yotzei a bracha, but it counts as if you actually articulated the words.  

Did that kiyum of talmud Torah which Bn"Y fulfilled at mattan Torah via shome'a k'oneh require a birchas ha'Torah?  This question was posed to R' Shteinman, and what bothered R' Shteinman's interlocutor is the text of the bracha.  How can you say אשׁר בּחר בּנו...ונתן לנו את תורתו when the event hasn't happened yet?   

The very same question might be asked regarding the Avos.  Assuming the Avos kept all the mitzvos, which would include birchas haTorah especially according to the shitos that hold it is d'orasya, how did the words make any sense?  Did they have a different nusach ha'bracha?

I would add one detail to strengthen the makshan's question here.  As we've discussed before, the Tur writes that when one recites the bracha of  אשׁר בּחר בּנו...ונתן לנו את תורתו one should have kavanah for the mitzvah of remembering maamad Har Sinai, which Ramban counts as a separate miztvah.  Bach explains that the Tur was bothered by the fact that we have multiple brachos for birchas haTorah.  Why isn't one bracha enough?  It must be that one of the brachos is not on the act of learning, but rather on remembering maamad Har Sinai.  How does it make sense to say such a bracha before maamad Har Sinai had occurred?

R' Shteinman held that perhaps they only recited the first bracha of לעסוק בּדברי תורה since there was no other option. 

I think there is another approach one can take.  The source for the din of birchas haTorah is a pasuk in Haazinu:  אמר רב יהודה, מניין לברכת התורה לפניה מן התורה, שנאמר כי שם ה׳ אקרא הבו גודל לאלקינו.  This appears after the final mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah.  Netziv comments in Devarim 31:32 that it's no wonder that this mitzvah of birchas haTorah appears only after the 40th year in the midbar at the end of Devarim.  Until the entire Torah was put into writing, no birchas haTorah could be recited:

 עיקר הלימוד כתוב להלן (פסוק ל׳) ״וידבר משה באזני כל קהל ישראל את דברי השירה הזאת עד תומם״, וזה היה אחר שנגמרה כתיבת הספר תורה עד תומם (פסוק כ״ד), ואז היה אפשר להקהיל את העם ולומר השירה בברכה, כמו שאמר (להלן לב,ג) ״כי שם ה׳ אקרא״, אבל בספר תורה חסר אי אפשר לברך, וא״כ לא היה יכול משה מיד להקהיל קודם שהודיעו הקב״ה כל פרשת ״וזאת הברכה״ וגמר כתיבת ס״ת עד ״לעיני כל ישראל״

This fits perfectly with R' Chaim Brisker's chiddush that birchas haTorah is on the cheftza shel Torah -- the text -- rather than the chovas ha'gavra of the mitzvah of talmud Torah.  This is why even according to the SA, who paskens that women cannot recite brachos on mitzvos they were not commanded to do like sukkah or shofar, holds that they may recite birchas haTorah.  Even if women lack a chovas ha'gavra to learn, it is the text itself which requires having a bracha recited over it.  Pre-completion of the Torah there was simply no cheftza upon which to recite a birchas haTorah. 

Therefore, at mattan Torah, given that there was no text of Torah in a completed form that yet existed, a birchas haTorah may not have been applicable.

something harder than splitting the sea; attention at all costs; Moshe re-learns a valuable lesson

1) The parsha opens by telling us that Hashem could not lead the people through the land of the Plishtim  פֶּֽן⁠־יִנָּחֵ֥ם הָעָ֛ם בִּרְאֹתָ֥ם מִלְחָמָ֖ה וְשָׁ֥בוּ מִצְרָֽיְמָה, because they were not ready for war and might want to turn back to Egypt in fear.  Instead, they went by way of Yam Suf, which necessitated splitting the sea.  

Hashem always tries to minimize the amount of miracle required.  The mashgiach R' Chatzel Levenstein asked: couldn't Hashem have just stiffened the people's resolve so that they would not fear the Plishtim and in this way they could take the shorter path?  Wouldn't that have been easier than doing kri'as Yam Suf? 

It must be, answered R' Chatzkel, that changing people's attitudes is in fact even harder than splitting the sea.

2) "There is no such thing as bad publicity," goes the saying.  Some people love attention, no matter if it's for good or bad, no matter what the cost of that attention might be.  I think that is the simplest pshat in this Midrash:

 וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה – כְּשֶׁשָּׁלַח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם מִי צָוַח וַוי, פַּרְעֹה. מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה בְּנוֹ הוֹלֵךְ לִמְדִינָה אַחַת, הָלַךְ וְשָׁרָה אֵצֶל עָשִׁיר אֶחָד וְקִבֵּל הֶעָשִׁיר בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ בְּעַיִן טוֹבָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁמַע הַמֶּלֶךְ מִי קִבֵּל בְּנוֹ וּבְאֵיזֶה מְדִינָה הוּא, הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ אִגֶּרֶת אֵצֶל אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ וְאָמַר לוֹ שַׁלַּח אֶת בְּנִי פַּעַם אַחַת וּב׳ וְג׳ הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ בְּכָל זְמַן וּבְכָל שָׁעָה וְשָׁעָה, עַד שֶׁהָלַךְ וְהוֹצִיא לִבְנוֹ בְּעַצְמוֹ, הִתְחִיל אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ צוֹעֵק עַל שֶׁיָּצָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ שְׁכֵנָיו לָמָּה אַתָּה צוֹעֵק, אָמַר לָהֶם כָּבוֹד הָיָה לִי כְּשֶׁהָיָה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ אֶצְלִי שֶׁהָיָה הַמֶּלֶךְ כּוֹתֵב אִגֶּרֶת לִי, וְהָיָה זָקוּק לִי וְהָיִיתִי סָפוּן בְּפָנָיו, עַכְשָׁו שֶׁנִּמְשַׁךְ בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ מֵאֶצְלִי אֵינוֹ נִזְקָק לִי בְּדָבָר, לְכָךְ אֲנִי צוֹעֵק. כָּךְ אָמַר פַּרְעֹה, כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶצְלִי הָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא זָקוּק לִי וְהָיִיתִי סָפוּן בְּפָנָיו וְהָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ לִי אִגֶּרֶת בְּכָל שָׁעָה וְאוֹמֵר: כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ אֱלֹהֵי הָעִבְרִים שַׁלַּח עַמִּי (שמות ט׳:א׳), וְהָיָה פַּרְעֹה שׁוֹמֵעַ מִפִּי משֶׁה שַׁלַּח אֶת בְּנִי וְלֹא הָיָה מְבַקֵּשׁ לְשַׁלְּחָם, כְּשֶׁיָּרַד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמִצְרַיִם וְהוֹצִיא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וָאֵרֵד לְהַצִּילוֹ מִיַּד מִצְרַיִם (שמות ג׳:ח׳), הִתְחִיל פַּרְעֹה צוֹעֵק וַוי שֶׁשִּׁלַּחְתִּי אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה.

Pharoah regretted sending Bn"Y away because he missed getting that "אִגֶּרֶת" from Hashem on a regular basis in his mail.  What was that אִגֶּרֶת?  "Dear Pharoah, Release my people or you will get yet another makkah.  Sincerely yours, G-d."  And then the makkah would come.  You would think a person would get tired of getting letters like that, of suffering one makkah after the next.  Not Pharaoh.  Better to have G-d's attention, to get his letters, even at the cost of makkos, than to be ignored.  Such is the craving for attention.

We find something similar at the end of VaYechi, when the brothers return to Egypt after burying Yaakov, and we read (50:15)

 וַיִּרְא֤וּ אֲחֵֽי⁠־יוֹסֵף֙ כִּי⁠־מֵ֣ת אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ ל֥וּ יִשְׂטְמֵ֖נוּ יוֹסֵ֑ף וְהָשֵׁ֤ב יָשִׁיב֙ לָ֔נוּ אֵ֚ת כׇּל⁠־הָ֣רָעָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר גָּמַ֖לְנוּ אֹתֽוֹ׃

Rashi explains מהו ויראו? הכירו במיתתו אצל יוסף, שהיו רגילין לסעוד עמו על שולחנו של יוסף, והיה מקרבן בשביל כבוד אביו, ומשמת יעקב לא קירבן.

Some of the meforshim (e.g. see Malbim, Ksva vhaKabbalah) learn that the word  ל֥וּ here does not mean  שמא ישטמנו, like Rashi explains, but rather  הלואי.  The brothers wanted Yosef to express whatever anger, whatever hatred, whatever bad feelings he may harbor against them.  Why would they want such a thing?  Because worse than suffering someone's anger is suffering being ignored.  

Pharoah is like a celebrity whose moment in the sun has faded, and as much as they hated being hounded by media and fans in the past, they now miss the limelight.  Pharoah exclaimed "Woe is me!" because worse than suffering G-d's makkos is suffering the fate of being ignored.

3) Even though Moshe told the people that "Hashem yilachem lachem" and they had nothing to fear, he paused and started to daven, as if he was less than confident of the outcome.  Hashem immediately stopped him:

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר ה׳ אֶל⁠־מֹשֶׁ֔ה מַה⁠־תִּצְעַ֖ק אֵלָ֑י דַּבֵּ֥ר אֶל⁠־בְּנֵי⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וְיִסָּֽעוּ׃

וְאַתָּ֞ה הָרֵ֣ם אֶֽת⁠־מַטְּךָ֗ וּנְטֵ֧ה אֶת⁠־יָדְךָ֛ עַל⁠־הַיָּ֖ם וּבְקָעֵ֑הוּ וְיָבֹ֧אוּ בְנֵֽי⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל בְּת֥וֹךְ הַיָּ֖ם בַּיַּבָּשָֽׁה׃

What was Moshe nervous about? 

(Netziv writes that Moshe assumed that Hashem would save Bn"Y b'derech ha'teva.  When things are done b'derech ha'teva, such as fighting a war, the overall outcome may be guaranteed, but there is no guarantee against harm to each individual.  Therefore, Moshe davened.)  

The Midrash comments on the pasuk וּבְנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הָלְכ֥וּ בַיַּבָּשָׁ֖ה בְּת֣וֹךְ הַיָּ֑ם וְהַמַּ֤יִם לָהֶם֙ חֹמָ֔ה מִֽימִינָ֖ם וּמִשְּׂמֹאלָֽם that 

היו מלאכי השרת תמהים לומר בני אדם עובדי עבודה זרה מהלכין ביבשה בתוך הים, ומנין שאף הים נתמלא עליהם חמה, שנאמר (שמות י״ד:כ״ט) והמים להם חמה אל תקרי חומה אלא חימה

When the malachim looked down at Bn"Y, they didn't see much difference between them and the Mitzrim.  Why did Bn"Y deserve for the Yam to split for them and for the Mitzrim to drown?

Whether Moshe was aware of their thinking, or whether the same thought occurred to him independently, it clouded his judgment and led him to pause and question whether Bn"Y were deserving of the victory that was promised.  It led him to think that without his tefilos, the Jewish people might not make it.

Hashem's response: וְאַתָּ֞ה הָרֵ֣ם אֶֽת⁠־מַטְּךָ֗ וּנְטֵ֧ה אֶת⁠־יָדְךָ֛ .  You remember back in parshas Shmos, when Moshe was arguing with G-d about whether to accept his shlichus, Moshe questioned the faith of Bn"Y: וַיַּ֤עַן מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֹּ֔אמֶר וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא⁠־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י (4:1)  Hashem responded by telling Moshe that he will give him signs to perform.  First, to cast down his staff and it will turn into a snake.  Rashi explains: רמז לו שספר לשון הרע על ישראל, ותפש אומנותו של נחש.  Secondly, He told him to put his hand inside his cloak and it would turn white.  Rashi  explains: אף באות זה רמז שלשון הרע סיפר באומרו: לא יאמינו לי (שמות ד׳:א׳), לפיכך הלקהו בצרעת, כמו שלקתה מרים על לשון הרע  Never cast aspersions on the Jewish people.  

When the malachim began to voice their doubts, giving Moshe pause, Hashem reminded him of this lesson he learned on day #1 of his appointment as leader. וְאַתָּ֞ה הָרֵ֣ם אֶֽת⁠־מַטְּךָ֗, pick up that staff that turned into a snake when you questioned the faith of Bn"Y; וּנְטֵ֧ה אֶת⁠־יָדְךָ֛ stretch out your hand which turned white because you spoke lashon ha'ra against my people.  How can you question the merits of the Jewish people compared to those of the Egyptians?  (Techeiles Mordechai of the Maharasham).  

Moshe's argument  וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא⁠־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י, was finally put to rest at Yam Suf, וַיַּֽאֲמִ֙ינוּ֙ בַּֽה׳ וּבְמֹשֶׁ֖ה עַבְדּֽוֹ׃.

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.)