singing the praises of the mishkan

 The Midrash comments on the opening of our parsha:

 אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעֲשִׂיתֶם אֶת הָעֵגֶל הִכְעַסְתֶּם אוֹתִי בְּאֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁעֲשִׂיתֶם הַמִּשְׁכָּן בְּאֵלֶּה אֲנִי מִתְרַצֶּה לָכֶם, הֱוֵי: אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן.

 

What does the Midrash mean that Hashem was angered by the words אֵלֶּה אֱלֹקיךָ by the eigel and אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן is the kapparah?  The problem with the eigel is not a particular word -- it's the fact that the people engaged in idolatry.  

 

Secondly, isn't it the donations that were given toward the mishkan and the effort put in to build it which served as the kapparah?  Our parsha is just the finish line, the end result of all those efforts.

 

The Peirush Mahara"Zu sends you to a passage in Braishis Rabbah 12:1:

 

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר מֶרְיוֹן, כְּתִיב (בראשית ב, ד): אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם, בּוֹרְאָן מְשַׁבְּחָן, וּמִי מְגַנָּן. בּוֹרְאָן מְקַלְּסָן, וּמִי נוֹתֵן בָּהֶם דֹּפִי. אֶלָּא נָאִין הֵן וּמְשֻׁבָּחִין הֵם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם בְּיוֹם עֲשׂוֹת ה' אֱלֹהִים אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם

 

Chazal undestand that when you say אֵלֶּה it doesn't just mean to identify what you are talking about, i.e. "these" to the exclusion of other things, but it means to connote praise, as if to say, "Take a look at these -- aren't they great?! 

 

The sefer Nachalas Eliezer by the mashgiach of Gateshead, R' Eliezer Kahan, explains that Hashem was telling Bn"Y that it's not just the avodah zarah of the eigel that needed kapparah, but it's the fact that they thought it was a great thing.  We read in Teh 10:3 כִּי-הִלֵּל רָשָׁע, עַל-תַּאֲוַת נַפְשׁוֹ ובֹצֵעַ בֵּרֵךְ נִאֵץ ה׳.  It's not just the fact that the rasha is ensnared by taavah which is a problem, but it's the fact that he boasts and sings the praises of wrongdoing.  They say that while it's possible that there were talmidim who learned by the Alter in Slabodka who went astray, it's impossible that after learning by the Alter that they enjoyed their aveirah the way other people might.  To be a rasha -- maybe; to be כִּי-הִלֵּל רָשָׁע, עַל-תַּאֲוַת נַפְשׁוֹ, that for sure not.  

 

A lot of people say this same vort.   Hashem told Moshe about the eigel when he was on Har Sinai, but it wasn't until he saw the celebration, the enjoyment, that people had that he blew his top   וַיַּרְא אֶת-הָעֵגֶל, וּמְחֹלֹת; וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה (32:19)

 

R' Eliezer Kahan expands on this and writes that the tikun has to fit the crime.  Just like you can have someone who is a rasha but is not  כִּי-הִלֵּל רָשָׁע, עַל-תַּאֲוַת נַפְשׁוֹ and therefore it's a different sin entirely, so too, you can have someone who contributes to a mishkan, who builds a mishkan, who sits say and night in a mishkan, but it's a differnet experience entirely from someone who really enjoys being there.  There are people who come to shul on shabbos morning and it's like a 2 hour jail sentence.  There are people learning in kollel and it's nebach like a lifetime jail sentence.  The kapparah only works if it's  אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן like  אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם, בּוֹרְאָן מְשַׁבְּחָן.  Are you singing the praises of what you are building and where you are at, or are you just there because it's a place to be?

 

In parshas Terumah, there is a description of the amudim: וְעָשִׂיתָ לַמָּסָךְ, חֲמִשָּׁה עַמּוּדֵי שִׁטִּים, וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם זָהָב, וָוֵיהֶם זָהָב (26:37).  Those same pillars are described in VaYakhel a bit differently:   וְאֶת-עַמּוּדָיו חֲמִשָּׁה וְאֶת-וָוֵיהֶם, וְצִפָּה רָאשֵׁיהֶם וַחֲשֻׁקֵיהֶם זָהָב (36:38)  Which is it: was the entire pillar coated in gold, or was it only וְצִפָּה רָאשֵׁיהֶם, the head coated on gold?  Chizkuni (see Netziv for a different approach) answers  הוא שפר״ש בפרשת פקודי אפילו דברים שלא אמר לו רבו, alluding to the Rashi in our parsha on the pasuk (38:22) וּבְצַלְאֵ֛ל בֶּן⁠־אוּרִ֥י בֶן⁠־ח֖וּר לְמַטֵּ֣ה יְהוּדָ֑ה עָשָׂ֕ה אֵ֛ת כׇּל⁠־אֲשֶׁר⁠־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ אֶת⁠־מֹשֶֽׁה that Betzalel figured out that he has to first make a mishkan and only then the kelim even though Moshe had conveyed the message in reverse order (see below).  Whatever the pshat, R' Shaul Alter explains that the Torah is teaching us a lesson in avodah.  If  וְצִפָּה רָאשֵׁיהֶם, your head is focussed on gold=mammon, and וַחֲשֻׁקֵיהֶם זָהָב, your cheishek = desire is all about gold (and gold is lav davka, fill in whatever other taavah you like), that's the entirety of who you are, it's the same as  וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם זָהָב, coating everything.  The fact that your body is in shul, or in the beis medrash, doesn't do anything if your mind and heart are somewhere else ,singing the praises of other place and other things. 

 

2) Regarding Rashi's comment that Betzalel was able to intuit what Hashem wanted even when Moshe conveyed the opposite,

 

כי משה צוה לבצלאל לעשות תחלה כלים, ואח״ך משכן. אמר לו בצלאל: מנהג העולם לעשות תחילה בית ואח״ך משים כלים בתוכו. אמר לו כך שמעתי מפי הקב״ה, אמר לו משה: בצל ק-ל היית, כי בודאי כך צוה לי הקב״ה. וכך עשה המשכן תחילה ואח״ך עשה כלים. 

 

How is it possible that Moshe reversed Hashem's instruction and got it wrong?  And if Betzalel somehow knew that Moshe had reversed what Hashem said, why didn't he just say that?  What difference does it make that מנהג העולם לעשות תחילה בית ואח״ך משים כלים בתוכו-- either Hashem said to do it that way or he didn't?

 

Maharal in Gur Aryeh explains that Moshe was the melamed, the rebbe, and he explained the dvar Hashem the way a teacher would, in order of importance of the subject matter.  The kelim were holier and thus more significant than the actual structure of the mishkan, and so Moshe taught those details first.  Betzlalel was the hands-on practicioner who had to translate theory into reality.  In his realm, building the building came before making the kelim.

 

The Sanz-Klausenberger, in Shefa Chaim, explains that the two views represent two different perspectives on avodah.  The mishkan is the place of hashra'as haShechina, where Hashem's presence was manifest.  Moshe thought before that could happen, one first needs kelim for avodah, one needs to put in one's own efforts.  Betzalel took the opposite view.  In theory, and for those on Moshe's level, avodah should come first.  A person should first bring to the table their motivation and hard work and through that earn the hashraas haShechina.  However, not everyone is self-motivated; not everyone is inspired; not everyone can get there.  Betzalel started with the mishkan first.  First give us hashraas haShechina.  First let us feel that Hashem's presence is with us.  That will provide the motivation and the inspiration, and the avodah, the klei ha'mishkan used to serve, will follow. 

 

That's why Betzalel used the argument מנהג העולם...  On Moshe's level, in theory, for those who can do it, of course put the kelim used for avodah first, put effort first.  But that's not how the world at large, unfortunately, operates. That's for the elite, but not for מנהג העולם. 

 

Moshe's response acknowledged the truth of Betzalel's argument.   אמר לו משה: בצל ק-ל היית.  When you are standing in the light of ispaklarya ha'meira, then demanding the kelim first does not seem like such a big deal.  But when you are standing in the shade, בצל ק-ל, where most of us are holding, where things are not so clear and shadows hiding the ratzon Hashem are everywhere, a different standard is required.

Chasdei Lev pre-Pesach food distribution -- chessed in action

Yesterday my wife and I decided to take a walk in the park since it was nice in the afternoon.  As we neared the park, we saw that there was a whole line of cars waiting to get in and it looked like the whole park was taken over by an event.  It turns out that we happened upon the pre-Pesach food distribution run by an organiztion called Chasdei Lev.  I have never seen anything like this.  My wife has participated in the local Tomchei Shabbos food packing before Pesach, which is big endeavor, but that was nothing like this.  There were huge trailers that had been brought in and forklifts running here and there lining up pallet after pallet of goods and an army of adults and kid volunteers coordinating things.  It looked like each order was individually wrapped on a pallet and waiting to be picked up.  There was everything from laundry detergent and paper goods to meat and fish.  If you check their website you will see that this organization allows Rebbeim and Morahs from schools across the country to place orders at super discounted prices so that families can meet all their Y"T needs without breaking the bank and without taking it as a direct handout.  The chessed of giving the food out was incredible enough, but the icing on the cake was when it was all finished I saw them going through the park and picking up the scraps of garbage that had fallen here and there.  I think they may have left the park cleaner than the way they found it.  

Sometimes you give $ to an organization and you scratch your head and wonder where the money goes.  B'einei chazisi that there must have been a small fortune of food given out.  When I got home I checked and found they have a 4 star rating, 94%, on Charity Navigator.  This organization has been around awhile, but I have never been aware of it or seen it in action until my chance park visit.  This is not a paid advertisement, and don't I know anyone involved in this organization, but all I can say is it looked like real chessed to me.  

hava'ra -- one of the 39 melachos with a lesser onesh, or not a melacha?

1)  וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶל⁠־כׇּל⁠־עֲדַ֥ת בְּנֵֽי⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁר⁠־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ לֵאמֹֽר

Rashi comments:  זה הדבר אשר צוה – לי,⁠ לאמר – לכם.   Moshe was telling Bn"Y that Hashem had spoken to him and he was charged with the task of conveying the information to them.  Isn't that how every mitzvah in the Torah was given?  (See the meforshei Rashi)

I found a pshat in a sefer called Ramat Shmuel by one of the chachmei Morocco that fits the words very nicely.  Moshe was about to ask Bn"Y for donations for the mishkan.  When the Rabbi or the President of the shul makes an appeal for some cause and people give, sometimes they feel like they are giving because the Rabbi or President twisted their arm, or gave a great speech, or maybe they like the Rabbi or think it really is a great cause.  Moshe said to Bn"Y that he doesn't want to hear any of that. "Don't say I am giving because of Moshe."  Rather, Moshe said,  וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶל⁠־כׇּל⁠־עֲדַ֥ת בְּנֵֽי⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל, that  לֵאמֹ֑ר, to say when you give:  זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁר⁠־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ לֵאמֹֽר "This is what Hashem told Moshe to say."  It's not my arm twisting, the cause is not my idea, don't give because you like me -- I'm just the middleman.  It all comes from Hashem; it's His message.

R' Shimon Sofer says a similar pshat.  Chazal extol the virtues of someone who motivates others to give even more than someone who just gives himself.  Moshe did not just want people to give, but   לֵאמֹ֑ר, tell others about it, tell others  זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁר⁠־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ לֵאמֹֽר, so that word gets out and they will be motivated as well.  

 

2) The parsha singles out for mention the issur of lighting a fire on Shabbos.  לֹא⁠־תְבַעֲר֣וּ אֵ֔שׁ בְּכֹ֖ל מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּי֖וֹם הַשַּׁבָּֽת.  The meforshim offer various reasons in pshat why this issur in particular was singled out, and why davka here when the mitzvah of Shabbos had been given earlier (see R' Chaim Kanievski in Taama d'Kra).  Rashi quotes the halachic derush of Chazal: יש מרבותינו אומרים (בבלי שבת ע׳.): הבערה ללאו יצאת, ויש מהן אומרים: לחלק יצאת.  One view is that this is the source for the rule that you are chayav a chatas on each individual melacha done on shabbos and you don't have to violate all 39 at once to be chayav for chilul shabbos.  The other view is that lighting a fire is an exception and is only an issur lav, not kareis/chatas. 

 

Yesh lachkor: according to the view that hava'ra is a lav, does that mean it is not one of the 39 melachos, or it is a melacha, just it has a lesser punishment?

 

Nafka minos:

 

1) Would the hasra'ah for violating hava'ra be "lo taaseh kol melacha" (putting aside the Minchas Chinuch's discussion of whether one needs to include the specific melacha being violated in the hasra'ah), or would it be "lo tiva'aru eish?"

 

2) Is there an issur of hava'ra on Yom Tov?  The 39 melachos carry over to Y"T, but if hava'ra is a seperate issur, maybe not (similar question is asked about the issur of shevisas b'heima.)

 

The gemara in Pesachim (5a-b) quotes R' Akiva as proving that "ba'yom ha'rishon tashbisu chametz" must mean erev Pesach and not the first day of chag because burning one's chametz on Y"T itself is assur.

 

רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שאור מבתיכם וכתיב כל מלאכה לא (תעשו) ומצינו להבערה שהיא אב מלאכה

 

The gemara deduces from this proof that R' Akiva holds that hava'ra is singled out l'chaleik, not because it is a lav.  How do we see that from the proof?  Rashi explains that since R' Akiva refers to hava'ra as an אב מלאכה, it must be the same as any of the other 39 melachos.   Tos quotes a Riv"a that the proof is from the fact that hava'ra is prohibited on Y"T.  Had it been a lav, it would be a specific din in hil shabbps (point 2 above).

 

Why didn't Rashi accept the interpretation of Riv"a?  It could be that according to Rashi the din הבערה ללאו יצאת just means the punishment is diminished, but hava'ra still has a shem melacha and therefore would be assur on Y"T too.

 

Rabeinu Chananel has a different pshat entirely in the sugya.  He writes that R' Akiva must hold havra'ra is like any other melacha because if הבערה ללאו יצאת the mitzvas aseh of biur chametz would be doche the lav and it would be allowed on Y"T.  This just begs the question -- even if hava'ra is a melacha like any other, why isn't the aseh of biur chametz doche the lav of doing melacha?  And if you  tell me it's because on Y"T there is not only a lav but an aseh of shabbason as well that goes with it, why can't you say the same thing if הבערה ללאו יצאת and there would be no dechiya?

 

The R'Ch apparently holds (this is the shitas haRashba in Yevamos 6) that the aseh of shabbason only goes hand in hand with items that fall in the basket of the issur melacha of Y"T.  It does not come into play when dealing with other issurim, whether it is mechamer achar be'hemto, or the lav of hava'ra.

GR"A on Mordechai -- "chibas Eretz Yisrael alav"

1) The Rama miPana notes that the name of Haman is mentioned 54 times in the megillah, which corresponds to הגוי אשׂר יעבודו ד״ן אנכי.  Yaakov prayed הציליני נא מי״ד אחי מי״ד עשׂו which also is 54.  The Tiferes Banim says the same regarding שׁומר נפשׁות חסידיו מי״ד רשׁעים יצילם.  I wonder why he doesn't quote the pasuk from לַמְנַצֵּחַ עַל אַיֶּלֶת הַשַּׁחַר, Teh 22, which was said by Esther: הַצִּילָה מֵחֶרֶב נַפְשִׁי מִ"יַּד כֶּלֶב יְחִידָתִי.

2) אִ֣ישׁ יְהוּדִ֔י הָיָ֖ה בְּשׁוּשַׁ֣ן הַבִּירָ֑ה וּשְׁמ֣וֹ מׇרְדֳּכַ֗יא בֶּ֣ן יָאִ֧יר בֶּן⁠־שִׁמְעִ֛י בֶּן⁠־קִ֖ישׁ אִ֥ישׁ יְמִינִֽי׃

אֲשֶׁ֤ר הׇגְלָה֙ מִיר֣וּשָׁלַ֔יִם עִם⁠־הַגֹּלָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הׇגְלְתָ֔ה עִ֖ם יְכׇנְיָ֣ה מֶֽלֶךְ⁠־יְהוּדָ֑ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֶגְלָ֔ה נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּ֖רא מֶ֥לֶךְ בָּבֶֽל

 

The repetition and redundancy of the shoresh גלה so many times in the pasuk is glaring.  GR"A writes as follows:

 

אמר כאן הגלה ג׳ פעמים: ״אשר הגלה מירושלים״, ״אשר הגלתה״, ״אשר הגלה״ להודיע חיבת ארץ ישראל עליו, שבכל פעם חזר לירושלים והיה נגלה ג׳ פעמים וזהו שאמרו (בגמרא יג, א) שגלה מעצמו כלו׳ מדעתו שחזר לארץ ישראל משום כך נגלה פעם שנית, וכן פעם שלישית ואמר כאן ד׳ פעמים לשון של גלות להורות שכל הד׳ גליות יזכרו את גאולתו, כמו שנאמר (ט, כח) וזכרם לא יסוף.

 

You kicked Mordechai out of Eretz Yisrael again, and again, and yet again, but each time he kept trying to get back.  

Mashal l'mah h'dava domeh -- imagine going on a safari and bringing home some exotic bird to keep as a pet.  You're not happy with just a goldfish, guinea pig, or dog -- you want something more exciting.  Inevitably, the day will come when you leave the cage door open by accident and there goes your pet, flying off into the wild.  Even though you cared for it, fed it, put little toys in its birdcage, all that doesn't matter.  You can't change the teva of the creature.

 

The teva of a Jew is to be in Eretz Yisrael.  It's like a magnet that draws us back.  You can put us in the 5 Towns with more than a dozen kosher restaurants, shuls, yeshivos, etc., but at the end of the day, you've just decorated the cage nicely and provided better birdfood.  A Jew who is true to his teva should want to run off as soon as he can.

 

Maharal in Ohr Chadash adds as follows:

 

כתב זה שלא תאמר שיצא חוץ לארץ ישראל מדעתו, ודבר זה אינו ראוי לצדיק. ועל זה אמר ״אשר הגלה״, ולא יצא חוץ לארץ מדעתו. ושלא יקשה כיון שהיה מרדכי מוכן לגאולה באחרונה, אם כן היה ראוי שלא ילך בגולה הוא בעצמו.

 

You can’t say, "I love it here in galus, but don't worry – when the time comes, I'll be ready to leave."  That’s not מוכן לגאולה.  That's being comfortable where you are until you are forced to leave.  And by forced, I don't necessarily mean in a negative sense.  When mashiach comes we will all be "forced" to change in a positive sense.  מוכן לגאולה means the opposite.  You are ready to leave now.  For whatever reasons, circumstance forces you to stay, not by choice --  ולא יצא חוץ לארץ מדעתו, 

 

Later in the megillah we read  ויהי [כאמרם] (באמרם) אליו יום ויום ולא שמע אליהם ויגידו להמן לראות היעמדו דברי מרדכי כי⁠ הגיד להם אשר⁠ הוא יהודי.

 

The Midrash writes:

 

ולא עוד אלא, שאנו איסגנסירין של הקב״ה, שכל השבטים נולדו בחוצה לארץ, וזקני נולד בארץ ישראל. אמרין* ליה ונימר ליה, מיד ״ויגידו להמן וגו׳⁠ ⁠⁠״. אמר להון המן, אמרינן ליה זקנו הלא הוא השתחוה לזקני, הדה הוא דכתיב (בראשית לג, ו-ז) ״ותגשן השפחות וגו׳ ואחר נגש יוסף ורחל וישתחוו״. היתיב, ועדיין לא נולד בנימין. אמרין ליה הדה הוא דכתיב ״ויגידו להמן

 

Binyanim was the only one of the shevatim born in Eretz Yisrael.  Maharal comments עוד, כי הוא נולד בארץ ישראל, שמזה תראה כי הוא שכן אל השם יתברך, וקשה להוציא אותו משם.   

 

Maharal is alluding to Moshe's bracha to Binyamin of וּבֵ֥ין כְּתֵפָ֖יו שָׁכֵֽן (Devarim 33:12).  Rashi there comments that Beis haMikdash was built in Binyamin's portion.  Maharal is adding that it's the fact that Binyamin was born in Eretz Yisrael that gives him this segulah. 

 

The megillah needs to be read against the backdrop of events in Sefer Ezra.  The 10 sons of Haman according to Chazal were those who claimed the Jews were rebelling and wanted to put a stop to the reconstruction of the Beis haMikdash.  Achashveirosh offered Esther "ad chatzi ha'malchus" but no more, which Chazal take to mean he excluded binyan haMikdash.  The Shem m'Shmuel writes that just as at daybreak, "ayales ha'shachar," the sun has not risen yet but its rays are peeking over the horizon, so too, the nes of Purim really stems from the power of Bayis Sheni that was just over the time horizon in the future.  The great challenge to those who lived then was to not get distracted by the lavish party of Achashveirosh, to remain מוכן לגאולה, as Maharal puts it, and not to forget who they were and where they came from.  The end was just over the horizon, if only they could hold on.

lomdus of the chiyuv/kiyum of ben mukaf chomah reading megillah on 14 Adar erev Shabbos

Since 15 Adar falls on Shabbos this year cities that are mukaf chomah will celebrate Purim on Fri, 14 Adar, along with everyone else.  Yesh lachkor: is the chiyuv of megillah for mukaf chomah moved to 14 Adar, or is their chiyuv really on 15 Adar, but since the megillah cannot be read then because of gezeirah d'Rabbah, they get a makeup day on the 14th?  If the former is true, a ben mukaf chomah can read for a ben ir because they share the same chiyuv.  If the latter is true, perhaps not.

A similar issue is debated by the Rishonim.  Rashi writes that when the bnei kfarim read on earlier dates like 11,12, 13, it is the bnei ha'ir who read for them.  Tos (Yevamos 14) disagrees based on a Yerushalmi that says a ben ir whose chiyuv is on the 14th cannot read for a ben mukaf chomah whose chiyuv is on the 15th.  How then can a ben ir who has to read on the 14th be motzi a ben kfar who reads earlier?  (I thought I posted on this issue before, but can't find it - lots of Purim material on the blog).  The hesber for shitas Rashi (Steipler, Brisker Rav) is that while Chazal allowed the possibility for the kiyum mitzvah on earlier days, the chiyuv for kfarim is the same as that of the ben ir.  It's the same chiyiv of "arei perazos."  However, for someone living in a walled city, however, it's not just the kiyum mitzvah which is on the 15^th – it's the chiyuv which is different.

 

Based on this lomdus, it would seem that while a ben ir and a ben mukaf chomah might this year share a kiyum mitzvah on the 14^th, they are fulfilling different chiyuvim and therefore cannot be motzi each other.    

 

A few other potential nafka minot (many of these were discussed in the Pninei Halacha sheets put out by Yeshivas Mir):

 

1) Some suggest that the reason for the BH"G's shita that women cannot be motzi men in megillah is because men are chayav m'divrei kabbalah but women are only chayavos mi'derabbanan because af hein ha'yahu b'oso ha'nes.  Those chiyuvim are not parallel.  This year, when the bnei mukaf chomah read on the 14th, can a women be motzi a man?  If the chiyuv mi'divrei kabbalah of reading on the 15th is effectively cancelled because of gzeirah d'Rabbah, men are left with a chiyuv derabbanan makeup day of the 14th.  That is parallel to the chiyuv derabbanan which women have.   However, if the chiyuv on the 15th remains in place and just the kiyum is moved to the 14th, the disparity between the chiyuv of men and women remains in place.  

2) According to Rama we say a bracha of she'hechiyanu on the megillah reading of the day (Rambam holds that there is only one she'hechiyanu said at night -- reading during the day is an encore performance of the same mitzvah).  The Aderet explained that  the reason for 2 birchot she'hechiyanu is because the night reading is derabannan; the day reading is divrei kabbalah. See this post where we discussed this chidduush.  Based on this logic, it should come out that this year even the bnei mukaf chomah who read during the day do NOT recite she'hechiyanu.  They chiyuv mi'divrei kabbalah is on the 15th.  When they read on the day of 14th, it is only a kiyum derabbanan, same as at night.

 

3) The gemara gives a number of reasons why we do not say hallel on Purim, among them that reading the megillah counts as hallel.  Meiri holds that if one does not have a megillah, one must says hallel.  If a ben mukaf chomah does not have a megillah this year, presumably he would say hallel on shabbos, they day he would be theoretically mechuyav  to read megillah, even though had he had a megillah he would lmaaseh read it on Friday.

 

4) R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is quoted as saying that if a baal koreh who is a ben mukaf chomah reads megillah on Friday and then r"l dies before Shabbos, the tzibur was not yotzei.  Since the baal korei never reached the point at which the chiyuv mitzvah kicks in, he only was alive at the time of the kiyum mitzvah, he cannot be motzi anyone. 

 

5) There is a fascinating chiddush of the Maharil Diskin regarding a katan who becomes bar mitzvah on this Shabbos.  The Rishonim discuss why certain cases are exceptions to the rule of gezeirah d'Rabbah, e.g. bris milah.  One answer is that the gezeirah only applies to mitzvos like lulav, shofar, megillah, where the mitzvah is incumbant upon everyone to do.  Since everyone is busy trying doing there own mitzvah, someone who makes a mistake and carries is liable to escape notice and end up violating Shabbos.  Where only one person is involved in doing the mitzvah, e.g. bris milah, all the other people not involved might notice an error and prevent the chilul shabbos.  In our case, the katan who hears megillah on Friday cannot be yotzei since he is not yet a bar chiyuva.  Everyone else was already yotzei by reading on Friday.  Therefore, says Maharil Diskin, the katan should read megillah on Shabbos.  For him it is like the mitzvah of milah -- a mitzvah only a yachid and not everyone is involved in, in which case gezeirah d'Rabbah does not apply.  (See Shu"T Sheivet haLevi 5:83) 

(I wrote this a bit b'kitzur, but hopefull the gist is clear.)

a 4 kugel problem; Chazon Ish on women's obligation to hear zachor; bracha on zachor; why Shaul's fate was sealed; the zechus of yishuv ha'aretz

1) Sherlock Holmes had his three pipe problems.  Apparently zachor is a four kugel problem:

קיים מנהג לאכול בשבת זכור ארבעה סוגים של קוגל, בהתאם לראשי התיבות- "עמלק": 

עפל (ביידיש: תפוחי עץ) מעהל (ביידיש: קמח)  לוקשן (ביידיש: אטריות) קרטופל (ביידיש: תפוחי אדמה).

 ובכך לקיים את מצוות זכירת מעשי עמלק, או מחיית זכר עמלק על ידי אכילת הקוגלים.

My son and I were both wondering where this "minhag" came from.  If you have any info  other than what is on the otzar hachochma forum, pls pass it on.

2) The Chazon Ish brought proof that women are exempt from hearing parshas zachor from the Rosh (Brachos 7:2) that learns the gemara there to mean that R' Eliezer freed his eved to make a minyan for zachor.  An eved has the same chiyuv as women.  If women are obligated in zachor, the eved should have been chayav even without being freed.  R' Chaim Kanievsky countered that even if the eved is chayav, he might not count to make up the minyan.  For example, Rama holds that the bracha of "ha'rav es riveinu" can only be said with a minyan.  Women have a chiyuv to hear megillah, but MB in 690:63 the M"B has a safeik whether they can count for the minyan for purposes of the bracha. 

3) There is no bracha on the mitzvah of tzedaka because the recipient may not accept the gift, in which case the mitzvah is not fulfilled (Shu"T haRashba).  That same concern does not come into play with respect to mishloah manos according to Rama's view that even if the recipient is mochel and does not accept the gift, one is yotzei.  So why no bracha?  Seridei Eish offers a number of sevaros, among them that mishloach manos is really a mitzvah tmidis.  The point of giving gifts is to engender friendship and comradery.  That is not something you should strive for just once a year -- it's something you should aim for every day.  Chazal just formalized a once a year practice to cause us to remember and reflect on what we should be doing every day.  According to Ohr Zarua there is never a bracha on a mitzvah tmidis, and so there is no bracha on m"m.

The same sevara explains why there is no bracha on parshas zachor (a topic we've discussed before).  "Zachor" is a mitzvah tmidis -- every day we should remember what Amalek did.  Tos (Brachos 4) quotes one view that when we say "y'hei shemei rabbah" there is a period after the word "rabbah."  The Torah tells us that Hashem's name is incomplete so long as Amalek exists.  What we are saying is that "yhei shemei," the name of Hashem, "rabbah," should be great=complete again.  We should remember and eliminate Amalek.  Chazal created a formal once yearly reminder of what we should be doing every day.

4) וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו שְׁמוּאֵל קָרַע ה׳ אֶת⁠ מַמְלְכוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ הַיּוֹם וּנְתָנָהּ לְרֵעֲךָ הַטּוֹב מִמֶּךָּ

וְגַם נֵצַח יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יְשַׁקֵּר וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם כִּי לֹא אָדָם הוּא לְהִנָּחֵם

Malbi"M explains:

אומר אל תדמה כי היעוד האלהי דומה כיעוד בני אדם, שלפעמים הוא שקר תיכף שמגזם בפיו להרע ובלבבו לא כן ידמה, ופעמים הגם שחושב כן לעשות יתנחם אחר כך ולא יעשה

What could the possible hava amina be to say otherwise?

Radak explains that the pasuk וְגַם נֵצַח יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יְשַׁקֵּר וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם is not speaking about Shaul, but rather about David.  B'shlama Shaul, there was never any guarantee from G-d that he would reign forever.  The malchus was contingent on his serving Hashem properly.  However, the promise of malcus to David is eternal.  Even though it was taken from Shaul, it would be David's forever.

Rashi and others, however, read the pasuk as speaking about Shaul, and so hadra kushya l'duchta.  The Meshech Chochma quotes a Turei Even to answer this question.  The gemara (R"H 17) writes that once a gzar din is issued, it cannot be retracted.  The only exception is with respect to a tzibur.  Turei Even asks: but the gemara in R"H writes that even after Yeshayahu haNavi told Chizkiyahu (Yesh 38) that there is a gzar din that he is going to die, Chizkiyahu didn't give up hope and was able to change the gzar din through tefilah?  From here we see, says the Turei Even, that a melech is not treated like a yachid.  A melech represents the nation, and therefore has the din of a tzibur.  Shaul therefore might have thought that in his case too, he is the king, he is like a tzibur, and so gzar din or no gzar din, he can beg Hashem for forgiveness.

Why did it work for Chizkiyahu and not for Shaul?

The Meshech Chochma every few parshiyos brings up a yesod from the Rambam in Peirush HaMishnayos to explain some difficulty.  I've quoted two places where he says it here.  The Rambam says that when a navi is shown a vision of something positive that is supposed to happen, there is no guarantee that it will take place.  It is a possible outcome, but not a guaranteed outcome.  That vision may be contingent on people's behavior, on circumstances, on other factors.  However, if the navi is told to prophesize and tell people what is going to take place, you can take it to the bank.  No matter if the circumstances change, the outcome is guaranteed.  The Torah says you can test a navi.  If a navi makes a promise that doesn't come true, you know he is a navi sheker.  If there was no guarantee of fulfillment, the test wouldn't work.  The Meshech Chochma (this is one of his 2 answers) uses that same yesod here.   קָרַע ה׳ אֶת⁠ מַמְלְכוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ הַיּוֹם וּנְתָנָהּ לְרֵעֲךָ הַטּוֹב מִמֶּךָּ.  Hashem didn't just take the malchus away from Shaul -- Hashem promised it to David.  A prophecy for good cannot be retracted.  

5) The Shu"t Oneg Y"T in his intro explains that when Shaul said to Shmuel בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה לַה׳ הֲקִימֹתִי אֶת⁠ דְּבַר ה׳ he was not crazy.  There was a technical halachic justification for what he did (I discussed it in this post).  The lesson of the haftara is that G-d does not want technical obedience.  What he wants is for us to fulfill his ratzon. The Mahari"L Diskin offers his own variation on that same theme.  Shaul did not just start coming up with rationalizations to spare Amalek out of the blue.  The gemara in Makkos (7a) has a din 

 דתניא רבי יהודה בן דוסתאי אומר משום רבי שמעון בן שטח ברח מארץ לחוצה לארץ אין סותרין את דינו מחוצה לארץ לארץ סותרין את דינו מפני זכותה של ארץ ישראל.  

Rashi explains: מפני זכותה של ארץ ישראל. אולי תועיל למצוא לו פתח של זכות.  Shaul held that it is kibush ha'aretz by the king and nation that establishes kedushas ha'aretz.  Therefore, the din on Amalek that was true before he waged war on them.  Once he conquered their land, all bets were off.  Even for an aku"m, even for Amalek, the zechus of Eretz Yisrael can perhaps help, and therefore he wanted to review whether killing was justified. The punchline remains the same: technically, Shaul's argument might have merit, but it nonetheless circumvented the ratzon Hashem.

The point I want to make from this MahariL Diskin is that kal v'chomer hu! if Shaul thought the zechus of Eretz Yisrael might even help Amalek, surely the zechus of Eretz Yisrael should stand in our favor.  May we be zocheh to finally blot out Amalek and bring the shem HavayaH to completion.

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.