why Nadav and Avihu had to be punished; how the opening of the parsha of kashrus is a response to their sin

1) Earlier this year  on parshas zachor I revisited the yesod the Meshech Chochma quotes from the Rambam many places: a nevuah l'tovah that is related to others can never be rescinded and must come true.   This is why Shaul could not do teshuvah for sparing Agag.  The punishment of  קָרַע ה׳ אֶת⁠ מַמְלְכוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ הַיּוֹם was linked to a promise l'tovah to David, וּנְתָנָהּ לְרֵעֲךָ הַטּוֹב מִמֶּךָּ, and a nevuah l'tovah cannot be undone.  R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson in Divrei Shaul uses this same yesod to explain why Nadav and Avihu had to receive punishment.  Their misa was linked to the positive outcome of creating a kiddush Hashem for the masses, as Moshe told Aharon  הוּא֩ אֲשֶׁר⁠־דִּבֶּ֨ר ה׳  לֵאמֹר֙ בִּקְרֹבַ֣י אֶקָּדֵ֔שׁ וְעַל⁠־פְּנֵ֥י כׇל⁠־הָעָ֖ם אֶכָּבֵ֑ד.  When there is a positive outcome involved, the nevuah must come to fruition. 

2) Rashi comments on  וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶֽל⁠־אַהֲרֹ֗ן קְרַ֤ב אֶל⁠־הַמִּזְבֵּ֙חַ֙  that שהיה אהרן בוש וירא לגשת, אמר לו משה: מה אתה בוש? לכך נבחרת.  I heard the following pshat a few weeks ago but can't recall who says it: When Moshe was first chosen to be a navi by Hashem at the burning bush, he had a whole back and forth argument with G-d.  Moshe insisted that he was not the right one for the job.  Finally, Hashem had enough.  We read  וַיִּֽחַר⁠־אַ֨ף ה׳ בְּמֹשֶׁ֗ה וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הֲלֹ֨א אַהֲרֹ֤ן אָחִ֙יךָ֙ הַלֵּוִ֔י יָדַ֕עְתִּי כִּֽי⁠־דַבֵּ֥ר יְדַבֵּ֖ר ה֑וּא וְגַ֤ם הִנֵּה⁠־הוּא֙ יֹצֵ֣א לִקְרָאתֶ֔ךָ וְרָאֲךָ֖ וְשָׂמַ֥ח בְּלִבּֽוֹ (Shmos 4:14).  Rashi there writes

ויחר אף – ר׳ יהושע בן קרחה אומר: כל חרון אף שבתורה עושה רושם, וזו לא נאמר בו רושם, לא מצינו שבא עונש עלא אותו חרון. א״ל ר׳ יוסי: אף זה נאמר בו רושם:⁠ב הלא אהרן אחיך הלוי – שהיה עתיד להיות לוי ולא כהן, והכהונה הייתי אומר לצאת ממך, מעתה לא יהא כן, אלא הוא כהן ואתה לוי, שנאמר: ומשה איש האלהים בניו יקראו על שבט הלוי

Moshe here in pour parsha is alluding to this episode from his past.  You know why you were chosen Aharon?  Because I made the mistake of protesting too much, of being too bashful and reluctant to take the job.  So why are you now doing the same, repeating my mistake?  מה אתה בוש?  The whole reason you were chosen, לכך נבחרת, is because you weren't guilty of my error.  Don't make it now.

 

3) The Rishonim address why the laws of kashrus appear in our parsha after the hakamas ha'mishkan, e.g. Abarbanel writes:

 

. אחר שהוקם המשכן והושמו בו כהני ה׳ וצוה להם שלא ישתכרו מפני שעיני ישראל עליהם להודיעם את דבר ה׳ להבדיל בין הקדש ובין החול ובין הטמא ובין הטהור. ולהורות חקי השם הוצרך ית׳ לדבר אל משה ואל אהרן יחד ולהודיעם מה הם הב״ח הטהורי׳ לאכילה

 

Others explain that once the mikdash and kohanim have been sanctified, the parsha can turn its attention to the sanctification of the rest of the nation, which begins with tumah and tahara of food. 

 

I think, in light of a Sefas Emes (5631), that at least the opening of this parsha is also a response to the sin of Nadav and Avihu.  

 

וַיְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֶל⁠ מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל⁠ אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר אֲלֵהֶם

דַּבְּרוּ אֶל⁠ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ מִכׇּל⁠ הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר עַל⁠ הָאָרֶץ.

 

Who is the לֵאמֹר אֲלֵהֶם in the first pasuk speaking about?  Rashi opines that it refers to Elazar and Itamar:

 

לאמר אלהם – אמור שיאמרו להם לאלעזר ולאיתמר, או אינו אלא לאמר לישראל? כשהוא אומר: דברו אל בני ישראל (ויקרא י״א:ב׳), הרי דבור האמור לישראל, הא מה אני מקיים: לאמר אלהםא – לבנים, לאלעזר ולאיתמר.

 

Rashbam disagrees and sees the phrase as reflexive, speaking about Moshe and Aharon לאמר אליהם – למשה ולאהרן.  He makes a general observation: ומזה יש להוכיח על כל לאמר הכתוב בוידבר ה׳ אל משה, כי פירושו לאמר למשה.

 

Sefas Emes takes the position that לֵאמֹר אֲלֵהֶם is speaking about Bnei Yisrael.  What then are we to make of the next pasuk   דַּבְּרוּ אֶל⁠ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר ?  One of the two phrases must be redundant?

 

To answer this question Sefas Emes sets down a yesod based on the Chazal at the end of Makkos  ר' חנניא בן עקשיא אומר רצה הקב"ה לזכות את ישראל לפיכך הרבה להם תורה ומצות שנאמר (ישעיהו מב, כא) ה' חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר.  Rashi/Rivan explain כדי שיהו מקבלין שכר במה שמונעין עצמן מן העבירות לפיכך הרבה להן שלא היה צריך לצוות כמה מצות וכמה אזהרות על שקצים ונבלות שאין לך אדם שאינו קץ בהן אלא כדי שיקבלו שכר על שפורשין מהן.  What Rashi/Rivan is telling us is that R' Chananya ben Akashya didn't mean to say that Hashem dreamt up meaningless, arbitrary laws for us to obey just for the sake of giving us reward.  What he meant is that there are laws in the Torah that would seem to go without saying.  Do you really need a pasuk to tell you not to eat bugs?  Who in their right mind would have an appetite or want to do so anyway?  Nonetheless, Hashem gave us a mitzvah so that we get credit for doing what we might otherwise do anyway.  Ad kan Rashi/Rivan.  The Sefas Emes adds another layer.  If I wouldn't eat pig or bugs anyway, what is Hashem rewarding me for?  The answer is that I am being rewarded not for that what, but for the why. אל יאמר האדם אי אפשי בבשר חזיר רק אפשי ומה אעשה אבי שבשמים גזר עלי. Chazal tell us, "Don't say I don't like pig."  Don't do what you are doing because of your personal taste, your common sense, your intuition, your upbringing, social norms, etc.  Rather do it because Hashem decreed that this is what we have to do.  Do it for the sake of the mitzvah.  Attitude and intent make all the difference 

 

In our parsha, says Sefas Emes, the second pasuk of דַּבְּרוּ אֶל⁠ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ address the what.  The first pasuk is needed to address the why.  לֵאמֹר אֲלֵהֶם means don't just tell them what to do, but tell them that I, G-d, and the one telling them to do it.   

 

Nadav and Avihu wanted ruchniyus, so they offered "eish zarah" to achieve that goal.  They were guided by their own subjective intuition rather than the letter of the law.  Therefore, when it came to giving the laws of kashrus, the Torah stressed that even if you wouldn't eat it anyway, what should guide your behavior is not personal, subjective taste, but rather the fact that it is a mitzvah. 

R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's chiddush on what constitutes a hefsek

No she'hechiyanu is recited in kiddush on shevii shel Pesach.  What if a person made a mistake and accidentally said shehechiyanu?  Is it a hefsek?  Does he have to repeat kiddush?

I would have expected the MB to deal with this, but he doesn't (at least nowhere I could find).  When I raised the question my SIL suggested a parallel to kiddush on second night of R"H.  Even though according to some shitos there is no obligation to say shehechiyanu, which is why we try to have a new fruit or wear new clothes, we are not choshesh that doing so may be a hefsek.  I countered that this is not a good analogy.  Mei'ikar ha'din we pasken that on R"H there is an obligation to say shehechiyanu.  It's nice to be yotzei all shitos and try to have a new fruit, but it's not an absolute requirement.  Shevii shel Pesach is actually the flipside case, as on shevii shel Pesach mei'ikar ha'din there is no obligation at all to say shehechiyanu.

 

R' Shlomo Zalman addresses himself to this question and has an interesting sevara.  R'SZ suggests that hefsek, by definition, is a result of hesech ha'daas.  If you start talking about something else in the middle of making a bracha, it's not the interruption of the words themselves which are the issue, but rather it's the fact that in speaking about something else you are diverting attention and thought away from the bracha.  Therefore, if a person mistakenly thought they were obligated to say shehechiyanu in kiddush, since in their mind they are reciting kiddush as required, there is no hesech hadaas from the bracha, and hence the addition is not a hefsek.

 

Let me give you two sources, one in support of RS"Z's idea, one that poses a difficulty.  Let's say a person recited kiddush only to discover as they are about to drink that the kos was filled with water.  The MG"A (quoted by MB) writes that the person has to repeat kiddush, as they failed to fulfill the chiyuv of reciting kiddush al ha'kos.  However, so long as they intended to drink other wine during the meal which was available on the table, they cdo not repeat borei pri ha'gefen.  That bracha was chal on the wine on the table.  What does this have to do with RS"Z?  Even though the kiddush recited over the cup of water counted for nothing and was a hefsek of meaningless words, we see from the MG"A that it doesn't matter.  The the initial borei pri ha'gefen still stands and can combine with the kiddush now being repeated over the refilled kos.  This fits beautifully with RS"Z's reasoning.  The person was unaware the first time around that the kos had water in it, and so there was never a hesech hadaas from the first moment to the last. 

 

R' Akiva Eiger is not a fan of this MG"A, and he more clearly spells out his shira in the following case in hil havdalah (interestingly also quoted by MB, in the Biur Halacha): one is not permitted to use a candle that was lit b'issur on shabbos for havdalah. The SA writes that the bracha of m'orei ha'eish needs to be repeated if one does so.  R Akiva Eiger jumps in and adds that in this scenario, one has to go back and repeat the borei pri ha'gefen as well.  Since the bracha of me'orei h'eish is invalid, it is a hefsek in the havdalah and invalidates the entire thing.  You can see why l'shitaso RAK"E doesn't like the previous MG"A, and you can see the difficulty this poses to R"SZ's sevara.  There was no hesech hadaas here.  The person intended to recite havdalah.  The only problem was the candle used invalidated the bracha.

 

According to many shitos a woman is not obligated to say the bracha of borei m'orei ha'eish in havdalah.  If she does so, is it a hefsek?  Halichos Beisa is medayek (against the view of R' Tukichinski) from the MB that women may add the bracha if they desire to do so and it is not a hefsek.  Unlike in the cases above where the bracha was invalid, or in the case of shehechiyanu where it is a completely inappropriate addition, in this case the addition is appropriate, just not obligatory.  

A far greater problem is the question of whether a woman answering amein to shehechiyanu in kiddush when she already said the bracha at the time of hadlakas neiros is a hefsek or not.   

back where we started from -- or (hopefully) not; interesting chiddush of the Ben Ish Chai re: isru chag

1) Chazal tell us that not only did Yam Suf split to allow Bn"Y to cross, but all the waters in the world split as well.  Some explain that water symbolizes all of our troubles.  הושיעני אלקים כי באו מים עד נפש (Teh 69).  Shevi'i shel Pesach is not just about getting across the particular obstacle of Yam Suf, but is about being able to get across all of the obstacles and difficulties in our path.

Some have the custom to stay up all night learning.  I want to suggest that water also symbolizes, as it does many other places, אין מים אלא תורה.  You are stuck on a difficult Tos?  You are breaking your head on a R' Akiva Eiger?  Shevi'i shel Pesach is for you.  You can break through the difficulty and get to the other side.

2) According to Tos (Archin 15) Bn"Y did not cross the Yam Suf from one side to the other, but made rather traverssed the sea in a U shape path to end up back on the same side that they started out on.  Even though Bn"Y ended up back where they started from, they had undergone a sea change (pun intended) in the course of their journey.  The Egyptians who had persecuted them were finally destroyed completely, never to haunt them again.  My wife suggested that this is the lesson of shevi'i shel Pesach.  We may find ourselves at the end of the chag back where we started from -- the same home, the same job, the same challenges and pressures -- but hopefully we have undergone change over the past week and are not the same people coming out of the chag that we were going in.

3) R' Shternbruch in his teshuvos (vol 2 #321) quotes an interesting chiddush of the Ben Ish Chai that on isru chag one should wear bigdei shabbos and only do melacha necessary for davar ha'aveid, like chol ha'moed.  I don't know if anyone accepts this shita l'halacha (I asked a Sefardi Rav yesterday about it and he was unfamiliar with this view), but even if it not lmaaseh, we can still take the message with us of clinging to the orot of the chag as it departs from us and not being too quick to rush back into the turmoil of the mundane world.

התיצ⁠בו וראו את⁠ י⁠שועת ה׳ - a challenge, not a promise

  וַיּ֨⁠וֹשַׁע ה׳ בַּיּ֥⁠וֹם הַה֛וּא אֶת⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִיַּ֣⁠ד מִצְרָ֑יִם  Why do we need the words בַּיּ֥⁠וֹם הַה֛וּא in that pasuk?  They obviously do not come l'afukei other days or times, as Hashem has saved us on many occassions and continues to do so.  Ohr haChaim answers that until this point Bn"Y were not secure in their salvation.  There had been a yetzi'as Mitzrayim, but they recognized that they were not out of the woods yet.  It was only בַּיּ֥⁠וֹם הַה֛וּא at the splitting of the sea that they could breathe a sigh of relief.  R' Levi Yitzchak mi'Berdichiv offers a different explanation.  There are certain points in time where Hashem reveals his love for the Jewish people and showers them with his goodness.  The days most mesugal for this are the days of Pesach.  וַיּ֨⁠וֹשַׁע ה׳ happened davka because it was בַּיּ֥⁠וֹם הַה֛וּא, *the* auspicious time for yeshu'a.  These last two days of Pesach are that special time, a mesugal time, so make the most of them.

We find the term בּנים used over and over in connection with the splitting of Yam Suf, e.g. מעביר בּניו בּין גזרי ים סוף, and וראו בּניו גבורתו שׁבּחו והודו לשׁמו.  Bn"Y could have just escaped Egypt and there did not have to be a splitting of Yam Suf and final destruction of Egypt.  That was just icing on the cake, an extra bonus.  Did we really even deserve it?  When a parent deals with his children, that is not a question that comes up.  We give our children plenty, and it's not because we think they are the greatest and deserve it -- often they don't.  It's because they are our children, full stop.  We want to give, whether they deserve it or not.  Yam Suf happened because we are Hashem's children.  Saving slaves from persecution is the morally correct thing to do.  That's doesn't prove G-d has a special relationship with the Jewish people.  Yam Suf is the icing on the cake, the bonus, the part that was not required.  It's because we are בּנים (see Sefas Emes 5638).

Do you know what the biggest miracle that occurred at Yam Suf was?  Was it really the splitting of the Yam Suf?  The Yam split other times.  The Yam even split for individuals, as the gemara in Chulin relates regarding R' Pinchas ben Yair.  There was something else that happened that was an amazing miracle that people don't even think about.  You go into any shul, sit somewhere in the back, in the talking section, and you will have 2 Jews and 3 opinions about everything.  Everyone is qualified to be Prime Minister of Israel, chief of the Army, head of the Federal Reserve, Rabbi and President of the shul, etc.  So much latent talent is in those back rows just waiting to be discovered!  And no one is bashful about giving their opinion and revealing their talents -- you don't even have to ask.  The same thing went on at Yam Suf.  Some people insisted they should return to Egypt, the frummies started davening, others wanted to fight.  Moshe's response demanded something entirely different from them: הִֽתְיַצְּ⁠ב֗וּ וּרְאוּ֙ אֶת⁠־יְ⁠שׁוּעַ֣ת ה׳.  That's what you have to do.   ה׳ יִלָּ⁠חֵ֣ם לָכֶ֑ם וְ⁠אַתֶּ֖⁠ם תַּחֲרִשֽׁוּן.  Stop with the advice.  Stop with the speeches.  Stop with the 2 Jews and 3 opinions.  Now is not the time for that -- it's a time to be quiet.  You have a bunch of opinionated Jews gathered together and you want them to be quiet?  Now that's a miracle!

Kidding aside, the Sefas Emes (5632) explains that הִֽתְיַצְּ⁠ב֗וּ וּרְאוּ֙ אֶת⁠־יְ⁠שׁוּעַ֣ת ה׳ is not just a promise -- it's an avodah.  We all like to be back seat drivers and we all have good advice not just for our fellow coreligionists, but for Hashem as well.  We would like Him to being an end to the hostage situation in a certain way, to bring geulah in the certain way (some people will tell you it must be through the State, other [misguided] people will say the State is an obstacle), to give us specific brachos and yeshu'os.  We have our agenda.  The Torah is telling us to put the agenda aside --  וְ⁠אַתֶּ֖⁠ם תַּחֲרִשֽׁוּן.  Our job sometimes is to talk about what we want, but to ask just for kavod shamayim in this world, to want to just see הִֽתְיַצְּ⁠ב֗וּ וּרְאוּ֙ אֶת⁠־יְ⁠שׁוּעַ֣ת ה׳ in whatever form it takes, however He decided to bring it about.  

We read in the shirah that the nation of the world tremebled in their boots after what happened at Yam Suf.  שָֽׁמְ⁠ע֥וּ עַמִּ֖⁠ים יִרְגָּז֑וּן⁠ ⁠חִ֣יל אָחַ֔ז יֹשְׁ⁠בֵ֖י פְּ⁠לָֽשֶׁת and אָ֤ז נִבְהֲלוּ֙ אַלּ⁠וּפֵ֣י אֱד֔וֹם⁠ ⁠אֵילֵ֣י מוֹאָ֔ב יֹֽאחֲזֵ֖מוֹ רָ֑עַד⁠ ⁠נָמֹ֕גוּ כֹּ֖ל יֹשְׁ⁠בֵ֥י כְ⁠נָֽעַן.  We would love for a miracle like this in our times.  We would love for Iran to be trembling, for the terrorists to be trembling.  But how did Bn"Y know what the nations in Canaan were thinking?  How did they know they had heard about the miracle and were afraid?  

The fight we are in is not just a geopolitical fight or a military fight.  The world opposes our ideology, our principles, our philosophy.  When you sit down to daven and can't focus, that's the outside world winning the battle against us.  When you feel Hashem close and your avodah soars, your Jewish pride soars, that's another victory.  Bn"Y didn't need to read the Canaan Times to find out what was going on with the nations.  They knew because they felt it within them.  They felt themselves on a high, and therefore knew that if that's the case, the enemy has no power over them.   Iran would be trembling, as would every single nation in the UN, if we understood fully what it means to be בּניו שׁל מקום and acted as such, if we put our bickering aside and in its place  וְ⁠אַתֶּ֖⁠ם תַּחֲרִשֽׁוּן, and if we stopped the backseat driving and focussed on the one task of הִֽתְיַצְּ⁠ב֗וּ וּרְאוּ֙ אֶת⁠־יְ⁠שׁוּעַ֣ת ה׳.  

If we want to see it, and pray to see it, we will see it.

why the GR"A objected to reading haggadah on shabbos ha'gadol

I've seen some folks referring to this Shabbos as Shabbos ha'Gadol.  Technically, next Shabbos is Shabbos haGadol, but the MB (430:2) writes that the Rav should give his derasha this Shabbos.  If the Rav starts teaching hilchos pesach in a derasha next Shabbos, it's too late to make a difference. 

The Rama writes that the minhag is to read the haggadah mincha time on Shabbos haGadol.  GR"A quoted in Biur Halacha objects.  We read in the haggadah יכול מר״ח...בּעבור זה- בּשעה שׁמצה ומרור מונחים לפניך .  On Shabbos haGadol there is no מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך.  The question is, "So what?"  Of course you can't fulfill the mitzvah of haggadah on Shabbos haGadol because it's not the time for matzah and maror, but that's not the intent.  It's just a minhag b'alma, to familiarize oneself with the text beforehand.  Why does the GR"A read the derasha as a *prohibition*?   

 

My SIL Aryeh sent me a mareh makom to a Yaavetz who suggests there may be a problem of bal tosif here.  I don't understand how that can be.  Bal tosif does not apply outside the zman ha'mitzvah when one has no kavanah for a kiyum mitzah (see R"H 28).  Also, if that was the GR"As intent, he should say "bal tosif." 

 

Perhaps one can explain the GR"A based on a Terumas haDeshen quoted in Rama 471:2 (in the MB it says in parenthesis next to this din that it is in Th"D siman 7.  I'll save you a lot of time.  It's in siman 125 here.) that says if a katan is too little to really understand what is going on on pesach night you can feed him early.  However, if the katan is within chinuch age and understands, you should make him wait and not give him matzah too eat early.  Why?  Explains the Th"D: כיון שׁאין המצה חידושׁ הוא לקטן.  If he eats matzah early, what he sees at the seder is old news.  There is nothing striking that will elicit his curiosity.  (See as well the Th"D in 137 regarding starting the seder before nighfall: והשׁינוי נמי אין כּאן when the right time is reached.)

 

We see from the Th"D that eating matzah early is not just a chisaron in the kiyum of matzah, like Rashi writes in the beginning of Arvei Pesachim (99b) that you can't eat matzah on erev Pesach from mincha time onward כדי שיאכל מצה של מצוה לתיאבון, but it's a chisaron in the kiyum of sipur and haggadah because it turns the experience into something stale.  The sipur also has to be לתיאבון.

 

I don't want to repeat my entire post from 5 years ago, so I'll just give you the punchline from the Ramban at the end of P' Mishpatim (24:1): ולא יאמר ׳ויספר׳ אלא בחדשות אשר יגיד.  The word "sipur" means you are relating something new.  Old news doesn't count.  I wanted to suggest that based on this Ramban we have a new insight into what the goal of "sipur" yetzi'as Mitzrayim is.  It's not just to tell the story of what happened, but it is to make that story fresh, exciting, relevant – something new.   

 

R' Akiva Medlov suggests that this is pshat in the GR"A as well.  To come back to the Th"D:

 

דאין להאכילו מצה דדרשינן והגדת לבנך כו' ובעבור זה לא אמרתי אלא בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך ואם ימלא הבן כבר כריסו מן המצות היאך שייך לומר בעבור זה כיון דאין המצה חידוש לו לקטן:

 

Leil ha'seder is the birthday of the Jewish people.  If you got a peek at your birthday present in advance, it spoils the surprise when you open the box; kal v'chomer if you got a slice of birthday cake in advance, it's just not the same.  Matzah is our birthday cake or birthday present; sipur is like singing "Happy Birthday" at the party.  If you have a slice of matzah in advance and sing the song beforehand, whether it is the afternoon beforehand or the Shabbos haGadol beforehand, the party isn't much of a party.  The cake is not as fresh, the excitement of opening the presents and finding out what you got isn't there  That's what bothered the GR"A.  Don't ruin the party.  Don't ruin the freshness and excitement of leil ha'seder. 

 

Even if you follow the Rama and not the GR"A, that's a goal to keep in mind.

the avodah of the nasi vs the avodah of the eved

Rashi comments on the korban of a nasi/melech ⁠אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָשִׂ֖יא יֶֽחֱטָ֑א (4:22) that לשון אשרי, אשרי הדור שהנשיא שלו נותן לב להביא כפרה על שגגתו, קל וחומר שמתחרט על זדונותיו.  It's a wonderful thing when leaders own up to their mistakes.  Yet earlier in that same perek, in discussing the korban of the kohen gadol, Rashi comments on  אִ֣ם הַכֹּ⁠הֵ֧ן הַמָּ⁠שִׁ֛יחַ יֶחֱטָ֖א לְ⁠אַשְׁמַ֣ת הָעָ֑ם (4:3) that כשכהן גדול חוטא, אשמת העם היא, שזה שהםב תלוים בו להתפלל בעדם ולכפר עליהם, נעשה מקולקל, it's the people's fault if their leaders mess up.  Why by the nasi/melech is it "ashrei" when the leaders fess up, and no blame is assigned to anyone but themselves, but by the kohen it is "ashmas ha'am," a terrible thing and the fault of the people?  Two leaders, yet two very different reactions!

The gemara in Brachos 34b relates as follows:

 

ת"ר מעשה שחלה בנו של ר"ג שגר שני ת"ח אצל רבי חנינא בן דוסא לבקש עליו רחמים כיון שראה אותם עלה לעלייה ובקש עליו רחמים בירידתו אמר להם לכו שחלצתו חמה אמרו לו וכי נביא אתה אמר להן לא נביא אנכי ולא בן נביא אנכי אלא כך מקובלני אם שגורה תפלתי בפי יודע אני שהוא מקובל ואם לאו יודע אני שהוא מטורף ישבו וכתבו וכוונו אותה שעה וכשבאו אצל ר"ג אמר להן העבודה לא חסרתם ולא הותרתם אלא כך היה מעשה באותה שעה חלצתו חמה ושאל לנו מים לשתות ושוב מעשה ברבי חנינא בן דוסא שהלך ללמוד תורה אצל ר' יוחנן בן זכאי וחלה בנו של ריב"ז אמר לו חנינא בני בקש עליו רחמים ויחיה הניח ראשו בין ברכיו ובקש עליו רחמים וחיה אמר רבי יוחנן בן זכאי אלמלי הטיח בן זכאי את ראשו בין ברכיו כל היום כולו לא היו משגיחים עליו אמרה לו אשתו וכי חנינא גדול ממך אמר לה לאו אלא הוא דומה כעבד לפני המלך ואני דומה כשר לפני המלך:

 

What is it that made R' Chanina's prayers more efficacious that those of R' Yochanen ben Zakai?  What is the meaning of the answer to Rabbanit ben Zakai's question  אמרה לו אשתו וכי חנינא גדול ממך? 

 

While a sar, a nasi, a member of the cabinet, has access to the king to discuss heady and weighty matters, there are always protocols to be followed.  Cabinet meetings are scheduled, there is an agenda drawn up, there are official minutes and records; because important matters are at stake, nothing is just done off the cuff. 

 

The palace janitor does not need to make an appointment to enter the king's office.  He has no protocol to follow as to when he can or cannot enter.  He goes where he wants, when he wants, doing his job as needed, privy to the most private discussions, able to enter the most private chambers as needed.  True, he does not get to weigh in on lofty matters of state like the sar or cabinet member, but he also suffers no restrictions on his access.

 

We look up to the sar as above us, not one of us.  The palace janitor, on the other hand, is just like you and me. 

 

Rav Kook, R' Tzadok (Pri Tzadik in P' Eikev) and others explain that R' Yb"Z's avodah was through limud haTorah.  That's the sar, the nasi, the member of the cabinet.  He was engaged in contemplating and opining on lofty things.  However, his access to the King was governed by strict protocol.  R' Chanina was the palace janitor.  He didn't need to follow protocol, he didn't need to make appointments to see the king. 

 

When Rav Chanina prayed הניח ראשו בין ברכיו. R' Yochanan ben Zakai's head was in the clouds working on the great problems that need addressing.  R' Chanina's head was down here on earth and his prayer came from the heart.

 

When Aharon and Miriam spoke against Moshe, Hashem came to them and said  וּמַדּ֙⁠וּעַ֙ לֹ֣א יְ⁠רֵאתֶ֔ם לְ⁠דַבֵּ֖⁠ר בְּ⁠עַבְדִּ֥י בְ⁠מֹשֶֽׁה׃.  The Chofetz Chaim (al haTorah) comments on the use of the double description -- בְּ⁠עַבְדִּ֥י בְ⁠מֹשֶֽׁה -- that Moshe's greatness was that he shared both qualities.  He was Moshe Rabeinu, the greatest teacher of Torah who ever lived, but he was also ְ⁠עַבְדִּ֥י, just like a simple servant of Hashem. 

 

R' Yosef Yehuda Leib Sorotzkin says that this is the difference between the nasi and the kohen gadol.  Because of his importance, when the nasi admits mistake, it is a real a blow to his ego and pride. It carries weight.  Therefore, אשרי הדור שהנשיא שלו נותן לב להביא כפרה על שגגתו.  It has nothing to do with the people because he lives in a world apart from them.

 

The kohen gadol, on the other hand, was a like the palace servant.  He was a man of the people.  The kohen's job was to be the oheiv shalom v'rodef shalom and be makareiv others and to daven for the nation.  The gemara in Makkos writes that a murderer b'shogeg had to stay in the ir miklat until the death of the k'g because the k'g is at fault for not davening better.  When you're just a regular Joe in the palace, if you make a mistake, it reflects on all the other regular Joes who are just like you and whom you represent.

5 years since the Covid outbreak -- have we learned anything? Has there been a hischadshus?

The name "parshas hachodesh" is somewhat of a misnomer given that there is exactly one pasuk that relates to kiddush hachodesh and the entire rest of the parsha is aboue the laws of korban pesach.  We call it "hachodesh" in recognition of the fact that the mitzvah of korban pesach would be impossible to receive or observe unless it was preceded by a hischadshus, a renewal -- of spirit, of outlook, of commitment.  That is what the mitzvah of kiddush hachodesh teaches us.  It's like when you want to paint an old wall.  You won't get the optimal results if you just slap a new coat of pain on top of all the old layers.  You have to scrape the all paint off, prime the wall, restore it to shape, and only then apply the new paint.

The 5 year anniversary of Covid has been in the news lately.  I don't want to revisit all the stupid things done and said by people back then.  (Those things should be revisited at some point, but it's not my job and it's not for now.)  I want to focus on hischadshus.  You remember all those weddings in backyards, in small halls, in all kinds of venues, sometimes with only a minyan present?  Remember when people said that it's about time we scale back simchas and do away with the lavish, expensive and unnecessary things that go into a simcha?  How long did that commitment last once Covid was over?  People who really can't afford it are back to going into debt to keep up with the Cohens, people are back to vorts and l'chaims that are the size of weddings, people are hiring party planners and decorators for halls for things like a weekday bris.  And where is the voice of the establishment, the rabbinical organizations?  Where are they when they should be decrying the return to ab-normalcy?

 

Remember when shuls re-opened and people were talking about making a commitment to respecting kedushas beis ha'knesses, a commitment to showing how much we value our places of worship?  How quickly that faded as well.  How many times is your shmoneh esrei interrupted by the sound of a cell phone going off?  I happened to see on shabbos -- and this is not a yotzei min haklel -- someone who had a giant cup of iced coffee parked right there at their makom, right next to the siddur.  There is no sense of busha about it, and why should there be?  This has become the new normal.  (The truth is that if you don't teach proper behavior when your kids are chinuch age, I fear it is a lost cause.)  You think the Rav or a gabbai is going to dare come over and tell that person this is not how to behave in a shul?  Yet during Covid when shuls finally started to have minyanim you can bet that in certain places the gabbai or Rabbi would come over bounce you out if you had no mask.  Mai sh'na? 

 

Remember when people made pesach at home, surrounded by their immediate family members?  These days people like myself who do that must seem nuts.  There is the l'chatchila of spending thousands of $ per person to go to some exotic hotel, and bdieved, there is Orlando, where instead of staying in your own kosher home, shopping in your own local kosher grocery, you ship your kitchen kelim to some 100& treif home, kasher it, ship your food and wine, all so that you don't have to be in your own neighborhood.  When I say "kol dichpein..." I don’t have no worry lest anyone will actually show up at the door because where I live, there is hardly a soul left in town over the chag.  What Rav is going to tell people to stay home when many of them also look to grap a slot on the lecture circuit at these hotels?  Who doesn't want a free vacation in exchange for a "lecture" given between the cabaret show and the golf?

 

Covid should have been a renwal.  The old paint should have come off, new primer put on, our house should look like new.  But instead, what happened is a thin coat of cheap paint got thrown on top of all the old layers, with all the same cracks still there, all the flaws inevitably set to resurface -- and indeed, in many places, they have.

It's always dangerous to write critical posts, so I hope everything here is just hyperbole and exaggeration and none of it applies to any of our shuls or communities and we should all be zocheh to daven in quiet, mekomos kedoshim, to have simchas that fulfill the spirit of "hatzne'a leches," and we should all enjoy Y"T in whatever wonderful kosher places we find ourselves.  

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.