4 parshiyos

R' Akiva Eiger (O.C. 685) writes that if the tzibur forgot that it was parshas shekalim and didn't read the parsha, they should take out a sefer once they remember and call up one person and read the parsha.  Others disagree, as we never find a case of a stand alone kri'as haTorah where one person gets called up for an aliya.

Yesh lachkor: Is the takanah of parshas shekalim just a din in kri'as haTorah, defining the subject matter to read that Shabbos, or is it an independent takanah?  

The Emek Bracha raises the same issue with respect to parsha zachor.  He proves that reading the parsha is not a mitzvah in its own right of zechiras Amalek, but rather is just the subject matter Chazal chose for the krias haTorah that day. The Rambam does not mention the kriah in Hil Melachim (5:5) where he discusses the mitzvah of mechi'as and zechiras Amalek, but rather in Hil Tefilah (13:20), where he discusses what parshiyos to we read on the Yamim Tovim.  

Nafka minah: whether one must have kavanah for the mitzvah of zechiras Amalek when reading the parsha, or is it just a regular kriah like any other?

This seems to be the debate between R' Akiva Eiger and the Birkei Yosef, who disagrees.  R' Akiva Eiger understood that reading shekalim is an independent takanah, so if you missed reading it as maftir, just take out a sefer and have someone read it whenever they can.  The other side of the argument held that parshas shekalim is just the subject matter of kri'as haTorah, not a new din, and therefore can only be done in context of the normal rules of kri'ah.  

limud torah as a kiyum of shabbos

Rashi at the end of last week's parsha (34:32) quotes the gemara in Eiruvin (54) that describes how Moshe taught Torah:

. תנו רבנן: כיצד סדר משנה:

• משה היה למד מפי הגבורה.

• נכנס אהרן – שנה לו משה פירקו. נסתלק אהרן – ישב לו לשמאל משה.

• נכנסו בניו – שנה להן פירקן. נסתלקו הם – אלעזר ישב לימין משה, איתמר ישב לשמאל אהרן.

• נכנסו הזקנים אחריהם – שנה להן משה פירקן. נסתלקו זקנים – ישבו לצדדין.

• נכנסו כל העם – שנה להן משה פירקן.

נמצא: ביד כל העם – אחד, ביד זקנים – שנים, ביד בני אהרן – שלשה, ביד אהרן – ארבעה כו׳, כדאיתה בעירובין

Yet right at the start of our parsha, that whole seder is upended. וַיַּקְהֵ֣ל מֹשֶׁ֗ה אֶֽת־כׇּל־עֲדַ֛ת בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל -- Moshe taught the parsha to all of Klal Yisrael together.

R' Chaim Feinstein (grandson of the Brisker Rav) offers two explanations for this phenomenon.  1) This parsha was taught right after Yom Kippur, when Hashem said "salachti ki'devarecha."  Building the mishkan served as a means of kaparah for cheit ha'eigel, and by teaching the parsha b'rabim, Moshe informed Klal Yisrael of G-d's forgiveness.  2) Ramban writes that just as there was a bris created by mattan Torah, post-cheit ha'eigel there was a new bris created through the command to build a mishkan. 

 ואמר לכולם ענין המשכן אשר נצטוה בו מתחלה קודם שבור הלוחות, כי כיון שנתרצה להם הקב״ה ונתן לו לחות שניות וכרת עמו ברית חדשה שילך השם בקרבם, הנה חזרו לקדמתםא ולאהבת כלולותם  

A bris requires both parties present, and so Moshe gathered all of Klal Yisrael.

The Midrash (I am quoting the version from Yalkut Shimoni) writes:

. רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בַּעֲלֵי אַגָּדָה אוֹמְרִים. מִתְּחִלַּת הַתּוֹרָה וְעַד סוֹפָהּ אֵין בָּהּ פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּרֹאשָׁהּ וַיַּקְהֵל אֶלָּא זֹאת בִּלְבַד, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, עֲשֵׂה לְךָ קְהִלּוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת, וּדְרֹשׁ לִפְנֵיהֶם בָּרַבִּים הִלְכוֹת שַׁבָּת, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּלְמְדוּ מִמְּךָ דּוֹרוֹת הַבָּאִים לְהַקְהִיל קְהִלּוֹת בְּכָל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת וְלִכְנֹס בְּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת לְלַמֵּד וּלְהוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׁמִי הַגָּדוֹל מִתְקַלֵּס בֵּין בָּנַי, מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ, מֹשֶׁה תִּקֵּן לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיִּהְיוּ דּוֹרְשִׁין בְּעִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם, הִלְכוֹת פֶּסַח בַּפֶּסַח, הִלְכוֹת עֲצֶרֶת בָּעֲצֶרֶת, הִלְכוֹת הֶחָג בֶּחָג.

I would suggest that the gemara in Eiruvin quoted by Rashi in last week's parsha is a din in hil talmud Torah.  However, gathering the people to study Torah together on shabbos, as the Midrash explains our parsha, is a din in hil shabbos.  Part of the "seder ha'yom" of how to spend shabbos is to learn Torah b'rabim.  If you were writing a shulchan aruch, you wouldn't put this in Yoreh Deah in hil talmud Torah, but rather in Orach Chaim, in hil shabbos.  

2) In the same parsha we have the din of לֹא־תְבַעֲר֣וּ אֵ֔שׁ בְּכֹ֖ל מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּי֖וֹם הַשַּׁבָּֽת.  Based on this pasuk Rambam (lav 322 -  הזהיר מענוש הגדרים על החוטא ולהעביר הדינין עליהם ביום השבת. והוא אמרו ״לא תבערו אש״ וגו׳ (שמות ל״ה:ג׳) ״ביום השבת״ (שמות ל״ה:ג׳), רצה בזה שלא ישרף מי שנתחייב שריפה, והוא הדין לשאר מיתות) and Chinuch count as a separate mitzvah that beis din cannot administer punishment on shabbos.  

Yesh lachkor with respect to this din as well whether it is a din in shabbos or a din in beis din?  Would you put it in Orach Chaim in hil shabbos, or would you put in in Choshen Mishpat in the rules of beis din?  Maybe that's the safeik of MG"A (339:3) as to whether only specifically punishments that entail chilul shabbos are assur (i.e. it'd a din in shabbos) or whether all punishments given by beis din (e.g. niduy?) are assur (i.e. its a din in beis din).  See Avnei Nezer #228 (and since we are getting closer to Pesach, worth noting his hesber there of Ramban's shita that chameitz is isura bala.)

new "lomdus" series from R' Ben Tzion Algazi

R' Ben Tzion Algazi from Yeshivat Ramat Gan just started a new series where he sends out שאלות למדניות, one video with the question, and then a follow up with a suggested answer. Here is the first question, on the topic of hidur mitzvah:

I should also mention that his halacha shiurim done in conjunction with the Tzurba m'Rabbanan program/booklets are fantastic (not that he needs my haskama).

 

Eliyahu at Har haCarmel - bracha on a nes

There is a difference between the Sefardic and Ashkenazic versions of the haftarah of Ki Tisa.  Sefardim read only the section that deals with the confrontation between Eliyahu and the Baal worshipers at Har haCarmel(18:20 onward).  Ashkenazim start earlier (from 18:1) and include the encounter between Eliyahu and Achav.  

I think the difference is noteworthy l'halacha.

The SA (OC 218) quotes the din that a person has to recite a bracha when he sees a place where a nes was done for Klal Yisrael.  The SA gives some examples: the place Yam Suf was crossed, the rock Moshe sat on during the battle against Amalek, and others.  

Biur Halacha there goes back and forth as to whether one is obligated to say that same bracha when seeing Har haCarmel.  The mashmaus of a line he quotes from the Kaftor vaFerach is that one only says a bracha when there was an imminent life or death danger.  Even assuming that is what the Kaftor vaFerach means, one can debate whether what happened at Har haCarmel meets that criteria.  On the one hand, one can argue that what occurred was just a kiddush Hashem demonstration that the Baal worshippers were wrong.  On the other hand, when taken in context of Eliyahu being one Achav's most wanted list, his coming out of hiding to perform such a demonstration was indeed a risk to his own life.  

I think this issue is what is behind the difference between the two versions of the haftara.  The Sefardic version takes Eliyahu's demonstration that Baal worship was wrong as an independent, stand alone event.  The Ashkenaz version places what occurred in context of Eliyahu's conflict with Achav, with all the risks and dangers that entailed. 

My wife also had some thoughts on the haftara on her blog here.

breaking the luchos "tachas ha'har"

I want to share with you a thought from R' Shlomo Amar, the former Rishon l'Tzion and current Sefardic Chief Rabbi of Yerushalayim.  

When Moshe came down with the luchos, the parsha tells us (32:19):

וַֽיְהִ֗י כַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר קָרַב֙ אֶל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה וַיַּ֥רְא אֶת־הָעֵ֖גֶל וּמְחֹלֹ֑ת וַיִּֽחַר־אַ֣ף מֹשֶׁ֗ה וַיַּשְׁלֵ֤ךְ מִיָּדָו֙ אֶת־הַלֻּחֹ֔ת וַיְשַׁבֵּ֥ר אֹתָ֖ם תַּ֥חַת הָהָֽר

Why does the pasuk need to tell us where he broke the luchos -- תַּ֥חַת הָהָֽר?  Does it make a difference to us whether Moshe broke the luchos while he was still near the top of the mountain or at the foot of the mountain?  All that matters is that he broke the luchos, period, or exclamation point, and enough said.  

R' Amar first gives us a beautiful pshat in a gemara we all know.  Chazal tell us (Shabbos 104) that the letters mem and samech were miraculously suspended in the luchos, i.e. if you carve out both of these letters, you will be left with a donut hole in the middle attached to nothing.  That donut hole middle somehow floated in the air.  

If we look earlier in the parsha, we see that not only the mem and samech, but the writing of all the letters had a miraculous quality to it.  Rashi comments on (32:15)  מִשְּׁנֵ֣י עֶבְרֵיהֶ֔ם מִזֶּ֥ה וּמִזֶּ֖ה הֵ֥ם כְּתֻבִֽים׃ that משני עבריהם – היו האותיות נקראות, ומעשה ניסים הוא.  The letters could be read the right way no matter which side you looked at the luchos from.

So if the writing of all the letters was miraculous, why the focus on mem and samech?  OK, so there was a bit more or a miracle regarding these letters, but miraculous is miraculous, what's a little more or a little less of a miracle?  

Rav Amar explains that when Chazal were speaking about the mem and samech, it was not about those letters themselves that they were speaking.  They were speaking about what those letters represented.  Samech-mem is often used as an abbreviation for Samael, the angel that is the yetzer ha'ra.  

At the time of mattan Torah, Klal Yisrael became like Adam before the sin.  "Paska zuhamasam," Chazal say -- the pollution of sin that infects all mankind no longer infected Klal Yisrael.  The yetzer ha'ra held no sway and power over them.  So how then could the evil inclination still exist?  Answers the gemara: the mem and samech stood miraculously.  Instead of miraculously protecting us from sin, G-d had to miraculously ensure that the samech-mem, that Samael, that the yetzer ha'ra, could continue its existence.

Moshe, however, was not happy with this arrangement.  Moshe wanted to break the yetzer ha'ra completely and bring about the final tikun.  

The gemara Sukkah 52 tells us

כדדרש רבי יהודה לעתיד לבא מביאו הקב"ה ליצר הרע ושוחטו בפני הצדיקים ובפני הרשעים צדיקים נדמה להם כהר גבוה ורשעים נדמה להם כחוט השערה הללו בוכין והללו בוכין צדיקים בוכין ואומרים היאך יכולנו לכבוש הר גבוה כזה ורשעים בוכין ואומרים היאך לא יכולנו לכבוש את חוט השערה הזה

At the time of the ultimate tikun, the yetzer ha'ra will appear to the tzadikim like a great mountain, a nearly unsurmountable obstacle that they had to withstand.

Moshe said, time to topple and crush that mountain!

But then Moshe heard that there was a cheit ha'eigel, Moshe saw people celebrating with avodah zarah, and he realized that the finish line was still somewhere in the future and not for now.

 וַיַּשְׁלֵ֤ךְ מִיָּדָו֙ אֶת־הַלֻּחֹ֔ת וַיְשַׁבֵּ֥ר אֹתָ֖ם תַּ֥חַת הָהָֽר׃

Tachas here does not mean "under," but rather means "in place of," like 'ayin tachas ayin.'  Instead of breaking down that mountain of the yetzer ha'ra, as he wanted to, Moshe was forced to break the luchos instead.  

The pasuk is not about where Moshe broke the luchos, but rather is hinting to us what the original plan was that we failed to bring to fruition.

la'asos es ha'shabbos - oneg, pikuach nefesh

1. Targum Yonasan explains the pasuk  וְשָׁמְר֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֶת־הַשַּׁבָּ֑ת לַעֲשׂ֧וֹת אֶת־הַשַּׁבָּ֛ת לְדֹרֹתָ֖ם בְּרִ֥ית עוֹלָֽם as follows:

וינטרון בני ישראל ית שבתא למעבד תפנוקי שבתא לדריהון קיים עלם

According to TY, our pasuk is a din d'oraysa to make תפנוקי שבתא, enjoyable food for shabbos, i.e. oneg shabbos.

Similarly, we find later in Vaykra 23 that shabbos is included among the days called "mikraei kodesh," which Ramban interprets to mean making the day one of celebration and enjoyment:

 מקראי קדש – שיהיו ביום הזה כולםד קרואים ונאספים לקדש אותו, כי מצוה היא על ישראל להקבץ בבית אלהים ביום מועד לקדש היום בפרהסיא בתפלה והלל לאל, ובכסות נקיה, ולעשות אותו יום משתה ושמחה כמו שנאמר בקבלה: לכו אכלו משמנים ושתו ממתקים ושלחו מנות לאין נכון לו כי קדוש היום לאדנינו ואל תעצבו כי חדות י״י היא מעזכם

(Ramban mentions simcha as well, which we do not really associate with Shabbos.  M'inyana d'chodesh Adar, the Yerushalmi writes that Purim seudah cannot be done on Shabbos because ain m'arvin simcha b'simcha, which suggests that there is a din of simcha on Shabbos.  Pri Chadash paskens against this Yerushalmi.)

2. Ohr haChaim offers a number of interpretations of לַעֲשׂ֧וֹת אֶת־הַשַּׁבָּ֛ת, among them:

או ירצה על זה הדרך אימתי אמרתי לך לשמור איש ישראל אפילו בערך כבוד שבת דוקא לעשות פירוש באדם שישנו בגדר עמוד לעשות אבל מי שודאי לא יקום ולא יגיע לשבת לשומרו הגם שרפואות אלו יועילו לשעות או לימים לא יחלל עליו שבת.

In other words, you can be mechalel shabbos for pikuach nefesh only laasos es ha'shabbos, if the person being saved will go on to observe shabbos as a result, so that there is a net gain to shemiras shabbos.  If the person will die before reaching the next shabbos and will not have a chance to observe it, then there is no heter pikuach nefesh.

This is a pli'ah.  The halacha is that one can violate issurim, even shabbos, for the sake of chayei sha'ah, even to extend life by just a few hours or even moments.

One can b'dochak say the O.C. only meant to suggest this as peshuto shel mikra but not l'halacha, but the line is very difficult. 

Rav Tzvi Yehudah

There are many articles and talks that have been posted regarding the 40th yahrzeit of R' Tzvi Yehudah Kook, and I won't even try to pick and choose and recommend what to listen to and read, but one item that stood out for me was the following, quoted by R' Eliezer Melamed:

“There are some Jews who ‘seize’ the verse from Tehilin (Psalms): ‘Hashem, You know I hate those who hate You,’ and there are educational approaches that emphasize this above all, as being a foundation in education. They place the value of sinat ha’briot (hatred of humanity) as a foundation, arguing this is how they protect themselves. Interesting, we have never heard of a tzaddik (righteous person) and a gadol be’Yisrael (eminent rabbi) designated as the “sonei Yisrael” (Hater of Israel). On the other hand, we have heard of special individuals who have been nicknamed: “The Tzaddik, Gaon, and Kadosh, Ohev Yisrael (Lover of Israel)” (From ‘HaTorah HaGoelet’, Vol.4, pg. 160).

Adar paradox

The gemara (Archin 31b) has the following din:

וא"ר אבא בר ממל נולדו לו שני טלאים אחד בחמשה עשר של אדר הראשון ואחד באחד באדר השני זה שנולד ה] באדר השני כיון שהגיע יום אחד באדר (השני) של שנה הבאה עלתה לו שנה זה שנולד לו בחמשה עשר באדר הראשון לא עלתה לו שנה עד חמשה עשר באדר של שנה הבאה

A farmer has 2 lambs that are bechorim, one born 15 Adar I, one born on 1 Adar II.  The halacha is each must be offered as a korban within their first year.  If the next year is a non-leap year, the second lamb that was born on 1 Adar II will reach its one year deadline on 1 Adar.  The lamb born first on 15 Adar 1 will reach its deadline second, on 15 Adar.

Applying the same logic to bar mitzvah boys, in a non-leap year a boy born on 15 Adar I will become bar mitzvah two weeks after a baby born on 1 Adar II, even though he was born first.  

The Shvus Yaakov (#9) raises the following paradoxical question: there are halachos that apply to the elder or eldest child in a family, e.g. there is a din that the eldest child takes precedence to do the mitzvah of yibum, there is a din of kavod that applies to older brothers.  

When it comes to these two brothers, who is the eldest?   (You can have brothers born 2 weeks apart from different mothers, assuming you like in a place where cheirem d'Rabeinu Gershom never took hold.)  Is it the brother than was born first, or is it the brother that becomes bar mitzvah first?  Is it possible to have a bar mitzvah, blow out all 13 candles in one's birthday cake, and still be considered the halachic younger brother of someone whose bar mitzvah is only 2 weeks later?

purim katan - tov lev mishteh tamid

Ksav Sofer in his commentary on the Torah has a chiddush that if someone is machmir to have a seudah and celebrate on Purim katan, it should not just be a selfish celebration.  You should also send food to others and be mekayein mishloach manos.  This is what the Rama means when, as a smach to the minhag, he quotes in the last din in SA the pasuk, "Tov lev mishteh tamid."  if you want "mishteh tamid," to have your party both in Adar II and in Adar I, then it should be preceded by your being tov lev, good hearted and generous and sharing with others.

Dr. Henry Bendell

I recently finished reading To Rescue the Republic: Ulysses S. Grant, the Fragile Union, and the Crisis of 1876, which is far easier to get through then Chernow's bio of Grant, but l'fum tzaara agra.  Anyway, was not aware that Grant had appointed a Jew to serve as Superintendent of Indian Affairs in Arizona.  You can read more about Dr Henry Bendell here and here.  

a dose of common sense

Yesterday someone forwarded to me the following tweet put out by Rabbi Steven Burg, CEO of Aish haTorah: 

"Just had a disappointing visit to the YU Seforim Sale.  They were carding everyone for vaccinations & walking around telling people to put on masks.  A reminder why the MO community has had such a hard time getting past Covid.  YU needs to do a better job or become irrelevant."

Kudos to Rabbi Burg!  It's about time someone spoke up to state the obvious.

Maybe his words will at least get noticed.  I don't really think they will change many minds, as I am pessimistic in general that reason and evidence can have an effect on the vast majority of people's opinions on these matters.  

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former head of the FDA, recently said, "I think we should start lifting these restrictions as aggressively as we put them in...We need to preserve the credibility of public health officials to perhaps reimplement some of these provisions as we get into next winter, if we do start seeing outbreaks again.”

In other words, if you want us to believe you when you cry pikuach nefesh, then you have to be willing to cry, "Ad kan!" when the danger has passed and tell people to resume their normal lives.

The YU Roshei Yeshiva in particular were very outspoken at the height of the pandemic in saying minyanim should be stopped, shuls closed, etc.  

Where are they now when it is time, as Dr. Gottlieb as said, to say, "Ad kan!"  Where are they now to tell someone sitting in 30 degree weather davening outside in a tent with no walls, as I recently saw at one of the local MO shuls in my neighborhood, that this beyond the pale of what being choshesh for pikuach nefesh calls for?  

personal purim

There is a din that if one experiences a personal miracle of some sort, one should make a day of celebration, a personal Purim, and commemorate it every year.  If the miracle occurred in a regular year in Adar, which Adar should it be celebrated in during a leap year?  There seems to be a blatant stira in Mishne Beurah.

The MB 686:8 writes:

ומי שנעשה לו נס באדר ונדר לעשות פורים כשיבוא שנת העיבור צריך לעשות הפורים באדר שני:

Yet the MB writes in 697:2 writes:

מי שאירע לו נס באדר וקבל ע"ע לעשות תמיד יום משתה ושמחה אם אירע בשנה פשוטה עושה בראשון 

menorah as a response to m'cheini na...

Baal haTurim famously writes that Moshe's name is not mentioned in our parsha because after cheit ha'eigel, Moshe pleaded with Hashem to forgive Bn"Y or "micheini na mi'sifricha," erase my name from your book.  How does that translate into his name being removed from our parsha?  And why was Moshe so concerned that there would be no mechila for cheit ha'eigel?  Teshuvah has the power to wipe away any aveira, doesn't it?

"Mah Hashem sho'oel m'imach ki im l'yirah."  "All Hashem wants from us is yiras shamayim," Moshe says later in sefer Devarim.  The gemara asks: when the pasuk says that's all Hashem wants, it implies that this isn't much to ask for.  How can that be -- yiras shamayim is far from a trivial request!  The gemara answers: yes, for Moshe, "l'gabei Moshe," it is but a little thing.  

Maybe for Moshe maybe yiras shamayim is not such a big thing, but how does that help the the rest of us? 

Some of the meforshim explain that when the gemara says "l'gabei Moshe" it is a little thing, it doesn't mean "for Moshe," but rather "near Moshe."  When you live in the presence of a tzadik, then yiras shamayim is easy to attain.

Teshuvah can wipe the slate clean from even the biggest sins, but it has to be heartfelt repentance that reflects a true and sincere change of direction.  "L'gabei Moshe," when you are in the presence of greatness, sometimes it's a little too easy to give the right answer, to give the expected answer, to do the right thing. When the principal is standing in the classroom, the students are all perfectly behaved, but that doesn't mean the same will hold true once he walks out of the room.  Hashem of course accepts teshuvah even for a sin like cheit ha'eigel, but the midas ha'din might question whether the teshuvah of Bn"Y was due only to Moshe standing in the room, only due to the influence of his presence, and therefore was lacking.    

Moshe therefore said to Hashem, "Micheini na..."  Take me out of the picture, out of the book.  If my presence is causing the teshuvah of Bn"Y to be called into question, to be suspect, then let's see what happens without my influence.  That will prove that Bn"Y are not just doing it for me.

The parsha of hadlakas ha'menorah by Aharon appears at the beginning of Beha'aloscha right after the Nesiim brought their gifts for the chanukas ha'mishkan.  The Midrash relates that Aharon was upset that his sheiveit was not included in those gifts and offerings.  Hashem consoled him and told Aharon that his task was even greater, as he had the privilegeof lighting the menorah.

Ramban asks: why did Hashem console Aharon with the task of lighting the menorah?  Aharon was the one who offered korbanos, who could offer ketores, who did avodah on Yom Kippur.  Surely these tasks were more indicative of Aharon's unique role than hadlakas ha'menorah, which can be done even by someone who is not a kohen. 

Shem m'Shmuel (Bhaaloscha 5677) quotes the gemara in Megillah:

 בקשו מלאכי השרת לומר שירה אמר הקב"ה מעשה ידי טובעין בים ואתם אומרים שירה אמר רבי אלעזר הוא אינו שש אבל אחרים משיש ודיקא נמי דכתיב כן ישיש ולא כתיב ישוש ש"מ 

Similar to the gemara's distinction between "yasis," making others happy, and "yisos," rejoicing oneself, Sm"S notes that the leader of each sheivet is called a "Nasi," not a "Naso" -- it's a transitive verb.  The Nasi inspired and elevated their sheivet; the position was not just about personal honor. 

This is what Aharon was jealous of.  Of course Aharon was the one who offered korbanos, who offered ketores, but what about inspiring his sheivet, what about inspiring Klal Yisrael?

Hashem's response is the command to light menorah.  B'haaloscha es ha'neiros -- the neiros are elevated, it is a bottom-up process.  In R' Tzadok's lexicon the menorah represents Torah shebaa'l peh, that which emanates from a person's mind and heart, as opposed to Torah sheb'ksav which is dictated and received as-is.  

R' Tzadok haKohen (Pri Tzadik, Titzaveh 2):

אמנם הדלקת הנרות במקדש ירמז על הופעת אור תורה מאור הגנוז בנפשות ישראל בתורה שבעל פה וזה הכח ניתן לאהרן להופיע ולהאיר בלב ישראל אור תורה שבעל פה על ידי הדלקת הנרות וז"ש (פ"א דאבות) הוי מתלמידיו של אהרן כו' אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה

Netziv comments on our parsha:

  ולזה הכח הנפלא שנקרא ׳תלמוד׳ ניתן כח המנורה אשר נכללו בה שבע חכמות וכל כוחות הנדרשים לפלפולה של תורה. וכל זה נכלל בכפתורים ופרחים, עד דאיתא בב״ר (צא,ט) ׳ר׳ טרפון, בשעה שהיה שומע דבר מתוקן היה אומר כפתור ופרח׳, ושיח רבן של ישראל ללמדנו בא, שמה שתלמיד ותיק מחדש דבר טוב הוא ע״י כח שנרמז בכפתור ופרח של המנורה. ועל כן, בבית שני שרבו ישיבות והעמידו תלמידים הרבה להויות דאביי ורבא שהוא התלמוד, משום הכי נתחזק כח המנורה ע״י נס דחנוכה.

Moshe is the one who dictated Torah sheb'ksav to us, but Aharon is the one brought out the Torah shebaa'l peh within each Jew, who inspired and uplifted, who was capable of b'haaloscha, of  אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה

Therefore, it is our parsha which opens with the mitzvah of menorah which is the response to micheini na.  Even outside the sphere of influence of Moshe, even beyond what we receive as Torah sheb'skav, the light of menorah shows that there can be a flourishing of Torah.

mitzvah of bigdei kehuna

1) Rambam lists wearing bigdei kehuna as a mitzvas aseh in Sefer ha'Mitzvos aseh #33, while BH"G counts it as a lav, not to do avodah without wearing the proper bigdei kehuna.  

Ramban, in his hasagos to the Sefer haMitzvos, questions why the Rambam counts this as a separate mitzvah.  The rule, which the Rambam himself agrees to and sets down, is that you don't count parts of existing mitzvos as new independent mitzvos.  Wearing bigdei kehuna, argues Ramban, is part and parcel of the mitzvah of doing avodah; it's just a hechsher mitzvah.  One of the steps of properly performing a rite in the mikdash is wearing the appropriate bigdei kehuna for the job. (See R' Chaim in the stencils.)

We read in our parsha:

 וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ בִגְדֵי־קֹ֖דֶשׁ לְאַהֲרֹ֣ן אָחִ֑יךָ לְכָב֖וֹד וּלְתִפְאָֽרֶת

 וְאַתָּ֗ה תְּדַבֵּר֙ אֶל־כׇּל־חַכְמֵי־לֵ֔ב אֲשֶׁ֥ר מִלֵּאתִ֖יו ר֣וּחַ חׇכְמָ֑ה וְעָשׂ֞וּ אֶת־בִּגְדֵ֧י אַהֲרֹ֛ן לְקַדְּשׁ֖וֹ לְכַהֲנוֹ־לִֽי

Rashi comments: 

לקדשו לכהנו לי – לקדשו, להכניסו בכהונה על ידי הבגדים שיהא כהן לי. ולשון כהונה שֵירוּת היא

We see from Rashi that there are two functions to the bigdei kehuna: 1) it sanctifies the kohen להכניסו בכהונה, to take on the role of kohen ; 2) it allows the kohen to do avodah and serve in the mikdash.  As Maharal writes in Gur Aryeh, ולפי זה ״לקדשו״ על הכנסתו לכהונה, ו״לכהנו״ רוצה לומר לכהן לי אחר כך:

The Lev Sameich on the Sefer haMitzvos is medayek the same from the Rambam in Klei haMikdash 10:4

מצות עשה לעשות בגדים אלו ולהיות הכהן עובד בהן שנאמר ועשית בגדי קדש. ואת בניו תקריב והלבשתם כתנות

The mitzvah, says Rambam, is to make the bigdei kehuna AND for the kohen to do avodah wearing them -- two separate ideas.  As Ramban al haTorah himself writes, the bigdei kehuna were like royal garments.  Even when the kohen was not doing avodah, the bigdei kehuna served לְכָב֖וֹד וּלְתִפְאָֽרֶת to distinguish them from ordinary people.  

Therefore, the Rambam counts bigdei kehuna as its own mitzvah, separate and apart from the need to wear them as a hechsher miztvah to do avodah.

2) The Ohr Sameich (Isurei Biah 4:8) asks: m'doraysa only a chatzitza that covers most of the body invalidates tevilah.  Even though the Torah says "v'rachatz es KOL bisaro ba'mayim," as long as most of the body comes in contact with the mikveh, rubo k'kulo.  Why then is it that even just one thread that comes between bigdei kehuna and the kohen's body is an invalidating chatzitza (Zevachim 19)?  The mitzvah of wearing bigdei kehuna is not complete until all the bigdei kehuna are donned.  Why not say rubo k'kulo on the mitzvah of levisha, and so long as most of the kohen's body is covered by the bigdei kehuna, a small chatzitza should not matter?

Take a look at his answer!   

standing upright

 Rashi comments (25:16):  יעקב אבינו נטע ארזים במצרים, וכשמת ציוה את בניו להעלותן עמהן כשיצאו ממצרים, שעתיד הקב״ה לצוות אתכם לעשות משכן במדבר מעצי שטים, ראו שיהו מזומנין בידכם.

Where did the wood to build the mishkan come from?  Yaakov planted cedar trees in Egypt and instructed his children that when they leave, they should take the wood with them, as it would be needed to build a mishkan.  

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi asks: Just like Hashem made a miracle and the winds blew the precious stones needed for avnei shoham and avnei miluim into the camp of Bnei Yisrael, so too, Hashem could make a miracle and somehow Bnei Yisrael would find the wood needed for the mishkan.  Why did Yaakov go out of his way to plant trees?

There is a big difference between precious stones and wood for beams.  You can't make a diamond or a ruby or an emerald.  You can just discover them.  A tree, however, can be planted, nourished, tended to, cared for.  Yaakov was not concerned that some raw material would be lacking for the creation of the mishkan.  His concern was that the human effort to procure those materials would be lacking.  It is the toil and effort, the preparation that goes into making something from the earliest stages, which is what sanctifies the outcome. The gemara (B"M 85) tells us that R' Chiya trapped animals, made parchment, and wrote the scrolls that he then used for teaching Torah. He could have bought the parchment in a stationary store, but R' Chiya knew that preparation done b'kedusha ensures an outcome of kedusha.  Therefore, he made the parchment himself.  Yaakov planted trees to allow his children to invest their efforts in their growth, to take a hand in the earliest preparations and toil to make the mishkan.  

The Torah describes the wood for the beams of the mishkan as "atzei shitim omdim."  Chazal learn from the word "omdim" that the beams had to be stood upright in the same way as they grew, "derech g'deilasan."  Achronim debate what the scope of this din is.  Some apply it very broadly to any cheftza shel mitzvah.  Some go far as to say that if you hold a branch of a hadas upside down, for example, you can't say the bracha of "borei atzei besamim" on it because an eitz that is not held derech g'deilasan is not an eitz.  Meshech Chochma narrows the scope.  He is medayek that this requirement of "omdim" is mentioned only in connection with the beams, but not in connection with the aron or mizbeyach, which also were made of wood, and therefore writes that it does not even apply to all the kelim in the mishkan.  Why the difference?  He explains that the mishkan was dismantled when the camp moved; the beams had to be taken down and then put back up.  The aron and mizbeyach were never broken apart and put back together.  Once assembled, they remained as-is.  The din of derech g'deilasan only applies to things that are constantly being re-constructed or moved, not to things in a static state.

With this he explains the view of the Tur that there is no din of derech g'deilsasan for walls of a sukkah -- you don't have to ensure each year that the sukkah wall is always stood with the same side up.  Shibolei haLeket writes that it is better to do so.  The Tur disagrees because derech g'deilsasan does not apply to sukkah which is set up once and you are done for the week.  (The other view is interesting because the wall of a sukkah is not even a cheftza shel mitzvah.  The mitzvah is yeshivas sukkah, not building a sukkah.)

R' Noson Gestetner ties together the machshava idea behind Yaakov's planting of the trees that we started with with this din of derech g'deilasan.  Yaakov planted trees because trees grow and change and need our care.  It is that precisely items that are not static -- beams that are taken apart, a lulav and esrog that we pick up and put down --  where the din of derech g'deilasan applies.  

who knew that the op-ed writers at the WSJ had such a sense of humor?

Today's Wall Street Journal has an editorial reacting to Amnesty International's report calling Israel an apartheid state.  After calling out the bias and distortions of the report, the editorial ends with the following sentence:

"We assume the Biden Administration will denounce this calumny and oppose all efforts to use it as a cudgel against America’s best friend in the Middle East."

Who knew that the editorial page writers of the WSJ had such a sense of humor?  Clearly this last sentence must be a joke or meant tongue in cheek.

tov acharis davar m'reishiso - Adar and Yosef

On Shabbos I made a siyum on Bechoros in to commemorate my father's yahrzeit, and I tried to tie together the siyum, the parsha, and the fact that it was shabbos mevorchim.  Don't know if I succeeded, but this was my idea:

At the end of the parsha we read (24:5)  וַיִּשְׁלַ֗ח אֶֽת־נַעֲרֵי֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַיַּֽעֲל֖וּ עֹלֹ֑ת.  Rashi explains את נערי – הבכורות.  Ramban challenges this interpretation: ולא ידעתי למה יכנה הבכורות בלשון נערי, אולי בעבור שהזכיר הזקנים שהם אצילי בני ישראל, קרא הבכורות נערים, כי הם נערים כנגדם.  Why would the Torah refer to the bechorim as ־נַעֲרֵי֙ when the bechor is the eldest of the famly and ־נַעֲרֵי֙ implies someone young?  We could ask a more fundamental question along the same lines: if the Torah meant that the bechorim offered korbanos, then why not use the term bechor?  Why introduce ambiguity by using the term ־נַעֲרֵי֙?

What is it that makes a bechor special?  The Sefas Emes explains (I believe Maharal has this same idea) that a bechor represents hischadshus.  Let me explain with a story.  The first Rosh haShana after my son was born we stayed by my MIL a"h and davened in Yeshiva Far Rockaway.  At some point before tekiyos by wife brought my son to shul in his stroller, where he sat happily sucking his pacifier.  At some point my my son either dropped or tossed his pacifier out of the stroller onto the floor, where it was retrieved by a toddler who was standing there with his mother and some other children.  The little toddler was just about to stick the pacifier back into my son's mouth when his mother, perhaps seeing the aghast look of shock on my wife's face, stopped him and said, "This is a first baby -- first baby's don't take pacifier's from the floor."

When you are still on baby #1, the bechor, the pacifier that falls on the floor gets sterilized.  You have a collection of backups that you can give the kid until you can properly clean the one that dropped.  By the time you are a few babies into building your family, when the pacifier falls on the floor it's enough to rub it on your sleeve, or maybe the 5 second rule applies if you pick it up fast enough (of course I am talking pre-Covid).  When you are dealing with a bechor, everything is new, everything is special, everything is still exciting.

The harm of Amalek is "asher karcha ba'derech."  Amalek cools us off -- our avodah loses its newness, its freshness.  Right after the war against Amalek described at the end of Ki Teitzei, the next parsha is the mitzvah of bikkurim = bechor.  Bring back that excitement to your avodas Hashem  and treat every mitzvah as if it was the first time you were doing it.

That freshness and excitement, "his'naari mei'adar kumi," is what makes the bechor special.  Therefore, the Torah uses the term naar when it calls the bechorim to offer korbanos, since this is the reason they were called to serve Hashem.

The 12 months of the year correspond to the 12 shevatim (Tur Hil Rosh Chodesh).  Chodesh Adar is the month of Yosef.  In a year like ours we have two Adars, and Yosef is the one sheivet that splits into two, Ephraim and Menashe. 

Yosef is the antidote to Eisav/Amalek.  Rashi right at the beginning of VaYeishev tells us היה בית יעקב אש ובית יוסף להבה ובית עשו לקש, ניצוץ יוצא מיוסף שמכלה ושורף את כולם.  The name Eisav, explains Shem m'Shmuel, comes from the same root as a-s-u, made.  Eisav was born with covered with hair -- he looked like a middle aged man right from the womb.  His life was complete from the get-go, with nothing to strive for and nothing left to achieve.  הִנֵּ֛ה אָֽנֹכִ֥י הוֹלֵ֖ךְ לָמ֑וּת וְלָֽמָּה־זֶּ֥ה לִ֖י בְּכֹרָֽה.  Why do I need bechorah -- hischadshus, renewal, rejuvenation -- when I am complete, when I've achieved it all already, and am just going through the motions day after day, waiting to die?  Yosef is the opposite.  He is a "ben zekunim," which the Targum explains to mean "wise," and we know that wisdom usually comes with maturity and age, but at the same time, "v'hu naar," he was and remained a naar, he retained the freshness and excitement of youth.  When Yosef was born, Rachel said, "Yosef Hashem li ben acheir..."  (30:25)  Yosef is never complete -- yosef, Hashem should add more, we should add more and strive for more.  It's no wonder that when Reuvain is displaced as bechor, it is Yosef who takes his place, as Yosef more than any other sheivet has the midah of naarus = hischadshus which defines the essence of what makes bechorah special.  It's no wonder that it is only once Yosef is born that Yaakov takes his leave of Lavan to take on the challenge of meeting Eisav.

When we get to the last month of the year, we might feel that we are out of energy, that we've been through so much these past months that we just want to put it all behind us.  Comes Adar and links us to Yosef, to naarus, to bechorah, to the possibility of renewal at all times, even at the very last moments of the waning year.  "Tov acharis davar m'reishiso" -- the goodness of this last month comes from the reishis, the element of bechorah, naarus, hischadshus, that is latent within it, even though it comes at the end.  Adar and Yosef challenge us to never stop growing.

were there no good bar-b-que joints in Lita?

Aruch haShulchan 69:22

ודע דכמה מהפוסקים כתבו בדיני מליחה דכשבצלי ההיתר ברור ובבישול אין ההיתר רק בהפ"מ אין להתיר בבישול כיון שאפשר בצלי ולי נראה דבמדינתנו לא שייך זה דאנו רואים בחוש שאין אנו בקיאים בצליית בשר על האש ובמעט שהולך לאיבוד 

I don't know how to cook, but even I can manage to grill a piece of meat!

if only everyone had a shovel!

We are all busy shoveling out from the blizzard here in NY.  If you do not have a snow shovel, shame on you.

We have two snow shovels and a booster shovel in the basement.  There is plenty of snow in front of my house, but I am sure had I not had those two shovels and my booster shovel, the snow pile in front of my house would have been even higher.

In fact, the only reason it snowed at all on my block is because there are people who have no shovels.  If everyone had two shovels and a booster shovel, I am sure the street would have been totally snow free.

There is actually tons of data to corroborate this assertion.  Multiple studies to that effect have been carried out by the snow shovel manufacturers, who assure me that their conclusions are correct.  Unfortunately, their notes are so voluminous that it will take 75 years for them to release all the data, so for now, you will just have to take their word for it.  Would you rather risk snow each season, or would you rather follow the science?

There are of course some people who will remain unconvinced.  Some people will claim that everyone on their block has multiple shovels and it still snowed, or claim that their are blocks where no one has a shovel and it did not snow as hard.  These people should be de-platformed from all social media.  These unconfirmed reports taken out of context are misinformation that poses a danger to us all.  Just because you heard of one case where someone had multiple shovels and his home was still buried in snow, is that breakthrough case really a reason to question the data?

I think those streets where people do not have shovels (we can all see your un-shoveled walk!) should not be plowed.  Or perhaps they should be charged an extra surcharge or tax.  Why should we all have to suffer because of some people's selfishness?  They are keeping the snow in the neighborhood, so make them pay.

I've heard that some people from NY have started moving to states like Florida where people have no shovels and they say that it seldom snows.  Even if you could afford to move, do you really want to take a chance?  

And then you have the people who have snow blowers, or pay a service to clear their walk and driveway, and try to use this as an excuse not to buy a shovel.  "The snow is cleared away -- what do I need a shovel for?" that ask.  The way I see it, anti-shovel is anti-shovel.  Not needing a shovel is no excuse not to buy a shovel.  

Or you have the people who go out early in the storm to salt their walk so the snow melts more quickly.  Stop it!   Salt is for meat, not for walkways.  

Look, it's a small thing to do for you neighbors.  Get a shovel.  Or two, or three, actually.  And if you still experience snowfall, it means we may require a fourth  shovel -- we will have to wait and see. It's not that we keep changing our mind.  This is simply how science is done.  As the data comes in, science changes, and we revise our earlier estimates.  Just keep buying those shovels, because we know that is the only safe and effective way to stop it from snowing.  

a promise guaranteed to be fulfilled

This Shabbos is my father's yahrzeit.  Al pi halacha, a yahrzeit is a very serious day and a person should really fast.  Everyone these days seems to be sefardi or chassidic and so they mark a yahrzeit with drink and food.  This idea never really resonated with me either emotionally or intellectually; I don't understand how having a meal or a drink is an appropriate way to commemorate someone's passing or what my eating food and saying a bracha does for the departed in shamayim, but what do I know -- to each his own.  Anyway, poskim quote two reasons to mark a yahrzeit: 1) it is a day of kaparah for the departed, who benefits from our charity and Torah study done l'aliyas ha'neshomo; 2) bad mazal - those who are related to the departed should be a little nervous, as the day has proven inauspicious for them.  There is a potential nafka mina l'dina: let's say a person c"v dies at night, but for their relatives on the other side of the world, it is still the previous day.  Is the date of the yahrzeit fixed based on the date where the meis is, or where the aveilim are?  If the point of the yahrzeit is kaparah for the departed, then it should be fixed relative to the meis.  If it is for the sake of the relatives who are alive, to avoid bad mazal, then the date should be relative to their location.  (Other poskim argue that it is not taluy in the reason, v'ain kan makomo).

It seems to me that when yahrzeit falls on Shabbos, then it is exclusively about kavod ha'meis, to enhance the kaparah and aliyas ha'neshomo.  How can Shabbos, a day where וצווחין אף עקתין בטילין ושביתין, be a day with any danger from bad mazal?  

On to the parsha.

At the end of our parsha (23:20) Hashem tells Moshe that he is going to send a malach to accompany Bnei Yisrael.  Rashi comments that Hashem was telling Moshe that Bnei Yisrael were going to sin and therefore he would have to remove His presence, as we read later in Ki Tisa after the cheit ha'eigel: כִּי֩ לֹ֨א אֶֽעֱלֶ֜ה בְּקִרְבְּךָ֗ כִּ֤י עַם־קְשֵׁה־עֹ֙רֶף֙ אַ֔תָּה

Ramban already asks: although after cheit ha'eigel Hashem threatened to send an angel, Moshe was unwilling to accept that decree and davened for it to be abolished, as we read there  וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֵלָ֑יו אִם־אֵ֤ין פָּנֶ֙יךָ֙ הֹלְכִ֔ים אַֽל־תַּעֲלֵ֖נוּ מִזֶּֽה.  Hashem responded and accepted his plea, גַּ֣ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֥ר הַזֶּ֛ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבַּ֖רְתָּ אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֑ה.  Why then would Hashem tell Moshe now about a decree he would threaten in the future but that would never actually come to pass?  Ramban therefore explains that this malach did not appear during Moshe's lifetime.  The parsha is referring to events after Moshe's death, when Yehoshua was the leader, and at that point a malach guided the nation.  

Whether you learn like Rashi or you learn like Ramban, the question that begs asking is what purpose this advanced warning about a malach served.  Why not just wait for the people to sin, and m'meila they would suffer the consequences of being led by a malach?

The Rambam in his introduction to mishnayos zera'im has a yesod that we've discussed before (e.g. here), which the Meshech Chochma brings up every few parshiyos.  The Rambam writes that when G-d makes a promise, it is contingent on the person receiving the promise being worthy of it.  That's why we find that Yaakov Avinu was worried before his encounter with Eisav despite having Hashem's promise of protection.  Yaakov was worried "shema yigrom ha'cheit" -- perhaps he was unworthy of the promise made to him.  However, writes the Rambam, when the promise is articulated by a navi, not revealed by G-d himself, then it is guaranteed to be fulfilled.  If such a promise were to not come to fruition, then people would be liable to question then authenticity of the navi rather than doubt their own worthiness.  To avoid casting aspersions on the navi, the nevuah is guaranteed to be fulfilled no matter what, take it to the bank.  (See Maharal in Gevuros Hashem ch 7.)

This why, explains Meshech Chochma, Hashem appeared to Moshe to tell him that he is giving his bris of shalom to Pinchas, rather than Hashem appearing in a vision to Pinchas himself.  When Moshe said it, it meant fulfillment was guaranteed, irrespective of Pinchas' future merits or chataim.  

And this is why, says Meshech Chochma, when Avraham laughed when he was told that he would have a son, he did not suffer a rebuke from Hashem, but Sarah was rebuked for her laughter. Avraham heard the promise in a vision from Hashem, and he laughed because he doubted he would be worthy of it being fulfilled.  Sarah, on the other hand, heard the promise from a person -- nevuah -- which meant fulfillment was guaranteed.

The Oznayim laTorah explains our pesukim using the same yesod.  Without this parsha, had Bnei Yisrael only had the havtacha of Eretz Yisrael given by Hashem to the Avos, one might have thought that the cheit ha'eigel proved them unworthy of that promise being fulfilled.  Therefore, Hashem gave our parsha to be spoken by Moshe, the greatest navi, so that it would be guranateed that at least a malach, if not Hashem himself, would lead the people into Eretz Yisrael.  Since it was declared by a navi, irrespective of zechuyos, this promise would be fulfilled.  

The parsha is not meant as a besora of sin, a besora of letdown, but to the contrary, it is a guarantee that Klal Yisrael can and will never be abandoned.  

two elements of geirus

Rashi in parshas Bo quotes a hava amina that a ger should bring a korban pesach right after he converts and not wait until pesach.  A few weeks ago my son explained that we see from Rashi that the korban pesach in Mitzrayim was a kiyum not just of the pesach offering, but also a kiyum of a korban geirus, and therefore one could have a hava amina that every ger bring such a korban at the time of conversion.  Similarly, the milah done before pesach Mitzrayim was also a kiyum in geirus, as the mitzvah of milah itself had already been given to Avraham Avinu.

I was not so enamored with this idea.  The gemara learns the need for a korban for geirus from the korban offered at the time of mattan Torah (end of our parsha).  Tevilah and milah are also learned from mattan Torah.  Why would Klal Yisrael need another geirus at mattan Torah, I asked him, if they already had a geirus in Mitzrayim?

My attempt to answer my own question:

Usually a ger has milah first and then tevilah.  Ramban (Yevamos 47) holds that bdieved it can be done the other way around as well.  Both milah and tevilah are steps in the geirus process, and until both are complete, in whatever order, the geirus in incomplete.

Achronim ask: the gemara (Yevamos 97) writes that if a mother pregnant with twins converts, even though ger she'nisgayer is k'katan she'nolad and all former familiar relationships are null and void, her sons born as Jews are considered related as brothers and there would be an issue of eishes ach for one to marry the other's wife.  Why should this be true according to Ramban?  Even though the twins are yotzei tevilah of geirus in utero, they still need milah to complete their geirus.  8 days after they are born, when they have milah and become geirim, their relationship with each other should be void?

Similarly, the gemara (Bechoros 47) writes that if a pregnant woman converts, the baby is a bechor l'kohen.  According to Ramban, the baby is not even Jewish at birth!   Since milah is necessary for complete geirus, it is only on day 8 that the baby even becomes Jewish, and therefore should not be considered a bechor?

R' Naftali Trop (shiur on ger katan in Kesubos) answers that there are two stages of geirus.  Ramban does not mean that before milah the child is an aku"m.  The child is a member of the Jewish nation, he is related to his Jewish brother, he is a bechor l'kohen if he is the first baby to come out of his mother's womb.  However, the child lacks a kedushas yisrael.  That is missing without the added step of milah.  

How could there be geirus for children at mattan Torah when geirus requires daas and a katan has no daas?  The answer is that the children were already part of Klal Yisrael since they were bnei Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov.  What the geirus of mattan Torah added is the element of kedushas yisrael.  That extension of the geirus, of what it means to be part of Klal Yisrael, does not required additional daas or consent to be accepted.

I suggested to my son that perhaps this is why there was a to stage process of geirus, one in Mitzrayim and one at mattan Torah.  The first, in Mitzrayim, forged us into a nation.  The second, at mattan Torah, forged a kedushas yisrael, which is only possible through Torah.  Without that we might have been a distinct nation, separate from Mitzrayim, but we would have not been a holy nation.

birchas haTorah, maamad har Sinai, and Eretz Yisrael

The Tur (O.C. 46) writes that one recites the bracha of "asher bachar banu...v'nasan lanu es toraso" one should remember maamad Har Sinai.  The Bach explains that the Tur was bothered by the question of why we have multiple brachos in birchas hatorah, first the bracha of "laasok b'divrei Torah," and then this bracha of "asher bachar banu..."  The Tur's answer is that the first bracha is a regular birchas hamitzvah on the mitzvah of studying Torah; the second bracha is a birchas ha'shevach to thank G-d for the experience of maamad Har Sinai. ( As we discussed once before, according to some Rishonim there is even a separate mitzvah to remember maamad Har Sinai.)

The Shem m'Shmuel (5671 last piece) has a different approach.  Rashi comments in last week's parsha on the pasuk  בַּחֹ֙דֶשׁ֙ הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֔י לְצֵ֥את בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם בַּיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה בָּ֖אוּ מִדְבַּ֥ר סִינָֽי׃ that לא היה צריך לכתוב אלא: ביום ההוא, מהו ביום הזה – שיהו דברי תורה חדשים עליך כאילו היום נתנו.  Every day the study of Torah is supposed to be fresh in one's eyes, as if it is the first time one set eyes on it.  It is the Torah itself which rejuvenates a person and refreshes his outlook.  He quotes the Tana d'bei Eliyahu that when a person learns, Hashem is right there learning alongside the individual.  That experience is what gives a person new chiyus -- today's learning is not just looking at the same old text that one saw yesterday and the day before.

The first bracha of birchas ha'Torah is on the mitzvah of study.  The second bracha is thanks for this rejuvenation, thanks that there is a "nosein haTorah" giving us a new outlook and new insight every day.

The gemara tells us that churban haMikdash and galus happened because Klal Yisrael failed to say birchas haTorah.  In light of his chiddush, Sm"S explains the midah k'neged midah: Eretz Yisrael is the one place where one can experience constant growth, constant hischadshus and renewal in avodas Hashem.  Just ask any of your children who have spent a year in Israel in seminary or yeshiva.  Undoubtedly, that year is a year of growth like no other.  It's not just the age that they go which triggers it, or being away from home which triggers it -- it's being in Eretz Yisrael which is the trigger.  Failing to say birchas haTorah indicated a failure to appreciate the hischadshus and renewal in each day.  People felt that it's the same ongoing chiyuv and the study day in and day out -- לא מפסקי לילות מימים וכחד יומא אריכא הוא (Sukkah 46a) -- so why bother with a new bracha each day?  But we do say a new bracha, because Hashem is constantly "nosein haTorah," because שיהו דברי תורה חדשים עליך כאילו היום נתנו, there is a new chiyus that is given to us each day.

too much knowledge is a bad thing?

1. Just a quick follow up to the post yesterday on כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לְבֵ֣ית יַעֲקֹ֔ב וְתַגֵּ֖יד לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃.  Rashi explains the difference between Beis Yaakov and Bnei Yisrael is a matter of gender.  The pasuk uses the term amira, which usually implies a soft tone, when it talks about speaking to the women, and the term tageid, which usually implies harsh language, when it talks about speaking to the men (Rashi, see Ibn Ezra).  The simple pshat (see R' Bachyei, Alshich) is that the women need to be approached in a more gentle manner and have things explained in more simple terms, but the men can absorb more.  Ksav Sofer says exactly the opposite.  Women are more righteous and don't need the fire and brimstone speech to motivate them.  It's enough to tell them gently what they need to do and they will get the message.  Men, on the other hand...

2. The R' Bachyei on this pasuk is a source for women davening for their children when they light Shabbos candles:

 ועוד שהאשה הטובה היא סבה לתורה שהיא יכולה להמשיך את בנה לבית המדרש לפי שהיא מצוייה בבית והיא מרחמת עליו בכמה מיני געגועין כדי להמשיך אותו אחר למוד התורה מנעוריו וגם כי יזקין לא יסור ממנה, ולכך ראויה האשה להתפלל לשם יתברך בשעת הדלקת הנר של שבת שהיא מצוה מוטלת עליה שיתן לה ה׳ בנים מאירים בתורה, כי התפלה יותר נשמעת בשעת עשיית המצוה ובזכות נר שבת שהוא אור תזכה לבנים בעלי תורה הנקראת אור שנאמר (משלי ו׳:כ״ג) כי נר מצוה ותורה אור, וכן דרשו רז״ל האי מאן דרגיל בשרגי הויין ליה בנים תלמידי חכמים.

3. Many meforshim explain the distinction between Beis Yaakov and Bnei Yisrael has nothing to do with gender, but rather the distinction is between the hamon am, the simple uneducated masses, and the educated elite.  

I have no idea what to make of this comment of the Bnei Yisascher (Sivan 2:18) which seems to indicate the for some people, remaining in a state of ignorance is a good thing:

כה תאמר לבית יעק' ותגיד לבני ישראל הנה כפל הלשון אמירה והגדה. בית יעקב ובני ישראל. הנה יתפרש הדבר. כבר ידוע אמיר"ה הוא כפשוטו. והגד"ה הוא המשך הדיבור להבין בחכמ"ה כמ"ש בזהר. וידוע ג"כ עפ"י פשוטו בי"ת יעקב הוא המון העם. ובנ"י ישראל בעלי מדריגה ת"ח גדולים המחבבים את התורה ומצותי באהבתה ישגו תמיד. וז"ש הש"י כה תאמר לבית יעקב. להמון עם. לא תפרש להם בהמשך פירוש שאפילו ח"ו לא יקיימו התורה כבר יש קיום לשמים וארץ ע"י הקבלה בלבד. דילמא עי"ז ח"ו יתעצלו ויתעצלו מלקיימה ומלעשותה. משא"כ להת"ח דהתור"ה חביבה עליהם ביותר אמר ותג"ד לבני ישראל. המשך הפירוש כי באלו אין חשש שהן המה רודפים אחרי התור"ה והמצות כל הימים ובאלה הדברים מובן מ"ש מש"ה:

this time, Chavah comes first

 One of my favorite Midrashim is the comment in this week's parsha on כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לְבֵ֣ית יַעֲקֹ֔ב וְתַגֵּ֖יד לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃.  The Midrash writes:

אָמַר רַבִּי תַּחְלִיפָא דְּקֵיסָרִין, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כְּשֶׁבָּרָאתִי אֶת הָעוֹלָם, לֹא צִוִּיתִי אֶלָּא לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִצְטַוֵּית חַוָּה וְעָבְרָה וְקִלְקְלָה אֶת הָעוֹלָם, עַכְשָׁיו אִם אֵינִי קוֹרֵא לַנָּשִׁים תְּחִלָּה, הֵן מְבַטְּלוֹת אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: כֹּה תֹאמַר לְבֵית יַעֲקֹב

The pasuk places "Beis Yaakov," the women, before "Bnei Yisrael," the men, because in Gan Eden when G-d gave the commandment not to eat the eitz ha'daas to Adam and he relayed it to Chavah, things did not work out so well.  This time around, G-d decided to loop in Chavah first.  

Whatever the deeper lesson of the Midrash here is, we should not lose sight of the plain meaning of what Chazal are saying.  Just because a husband or a father, the "Adam" of the family, goes to daf yomi every day, does not by osmosis cause Torah to pass on to his wife and family.  Gone are the days when just being raised in a frum home was enough to ensure that one was knowledgeable in hil shabbos, in kashrus, etc.  Chavah -- our wives, mothers, daughters -- need to hear the dvar Hashem directly, to know and study halacha and mussar and other areas, or we risk spiritual churban.  Those who misquote the Iggeres haGR"A and say tzinuyus for a women is what Torah study is for a man are mistaken -- it is not.  Tzniyus does not give one insight into what Hashem asks of us and wants to teach us.  Only Torah study does that.  

Going beyond the plain meaning, what Chazal I think are trying to tell us is that Torah cannot be studied via a kli sheni, so to speak.  G-d teaches Adam, Adam then teaches Chavah, and along the way in the game of telephone the message is lost.  You need to study text first hand.  There is no substitute for direct engagement with original sources.  The Maharasha was critical of the Shulchan Aruch being published because he thought it would become a substitute for study of the sugyos and Rishonim.  One can only tremble at what he would say in our time when ha'levay people would even open the Shulchan Aruch and not rely on other secondary and tertiary sources.  

Later in the parsha we read:

אַתֶּ֣ם רְאִיתֶ֔ם כִּ֚י מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם דִּבַּ֖רְתִּי עִמָּכֶֽם׃

לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּן אִתִּ֑י אֱלֹ֤הֵי כֶ֙סֶף֙ וֵאלֹהֵ֣י זָהָ֔ב לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּ לָכֶֽם

Unlike Ramban who learns that the latter pasuk prohibits avodah zarah b'shutfus (meaning there is some power in addition to G-d that controls things) , Netziv (based on Seforno) learns that it prohibits the worship of Hashem via an intermediary (meaning G-d is the only power, but He can be approached through some intervening medium).  Hashem tells Bnei Yisrael that He spoke with them directly at Sinai -- He did not communicate through an intermediary.  So too, when we speak to Hashem, when we study the dvar Hashem, it should be done directly, not through intermediaries.  Everyone has a direct connection.  

Netziv on who jumped into Yam Suf first: sheivet Yehudah or sheivet Binyamin -- and why it matters

There is a Netziv in parshas Zos HaBracha (Harchev Davar 33:12) that is relevant to our parsha that is worth taking a look at if you did not see it then or don't remember it.  Everyone seems to think that Nachshon was the first one to take the brave leap and jump into the Yam Suf, after which the waters split, but in actuality, Chazal (in Mechilta and Tosefta in Sota) have a machlokes whether sheivet Yehudah went in first or whether sheivet Binyamin jumped in first (see this post where I quoted the hesber of the Degel Reuvain to the mahlokes).  According to the view that Binyamin jumped in first, the gemara writes that the members of Yehudah began to toss stones at them --  how dare the youngest usurp the place of Yehudah!  Chazal give a mashal: a king asked his elder son to wake him at 9:00 in the morning, and also asked his younger son to wake him, but at sunrise.  When the youngest son went in to wake his father, the elder one tried to stop him.  "Father asked me to wake him only later!" he protested.  To which the younger son answered that he was also doing what the father told him to do, and to get out of his way.  Hearing the commotion and noise of the argument, the father woke up.  "Since you both wanted to do my bidding, you both get reward," he declared.  So too, Yehudah is given the reward of malchus; Binyamin is given the reward of Beis HaMikdash being built in his portion.

Why is it that Binyamin was so anxious to take the lead and did not defer to Yehudah, his elder brother?  And what does the mashal add to our understanding here?

Netziv explains that the nature of Binyamin's avodah was to live on the highest level of trust and bitachon in Hashem.  Life need not be constrained by the normal rules and expectations of derech ha'teva.  "Y'did Hashem, yishkon la'vetach alav..."  The Shechina is always close to Binyamin, as the Shechina is always close to a baal bitachon.  This is why Binyamin's bracha given by Moshe appears right after Levi's bracha, and this is why Binyamin was zocheh to have the Beis HaMikdash built in his portion.

Yehudah, on the other hand, accepted G-d's presence as manifest through derech ha'teva, finding G-d in the day to day normal activities of life.  "Yadav rav lo v'eizer mi'tzarav ti'hiyeh..."  You need to fight wars to defeat enemies; you need to take action to avert tzaros.  Don't just sit back and trust G-d to perform miracles.  It is not a lack of kvod Shamayim, but aderaba, it is the greatest kvod Shamayim to see G-d's presence within teva and not just above it.

There is no right and wrong in the choice between Binyamin vs Yehudah, and throughout the ages this same machlokes reverberates though Jewish thought.  If a person, or Klal Yisrael chooses, we can forget about the rules of teva, live as if Hashem's hashgacha will take care of everything, and if we truly believe it, then it will.  Or we can choose to live within the rules of teva and trust that that is the medium through which yad Hashem acts.  

When Shaul falls in battle, David cries a kinah, a lamentation  (Shmuel 2 1:17-18):

 וַיְקֹנֵ֣ן דָּוִ֔ד אֶת־הַקִּינָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את עַל־שָׁא֖וּל וְעַל־יְהוֹנָתָ֥ן בְּנֽוֹ

וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לְלַמֵּ֥ד בְּנֵֽי־יְהוּדָ֖ה קָ֑שֶׁת הִנֵּ֥ה כְתוּבָ֖ה עַל־סֵ֥פֶר הַיָּשָֽׁר

Netziv asks: is this the time to talk about the need for Yehudah to learn archery?  What does that have to do with the death of Shaul?

He answers that David understood that when Shaul, who was from sheivet Binyamin, lead the nation, it was on that high level of expecting the miraculous, of trusting G-d to take care of everything.  With Shaul's death, that level of bitachon would be lost.  The passing of the mantle to Yehudah meant living within derech ha'teva, of needing archers and armies to fight wars, with G-d helping behind the scenes.  לְלַמֵּ֥ד בְּנֵֽי־יְהוּדָ֖ה קָ֑שֶׁת is symbolic of that shift in level of belief and shift in level of hashgacha.

This is the machlokes that took place at Yam Suf.  There was a בְּר֨וּחַ קָדִ֤ים עַזָּה֙ כׇּל־הַלַּ֔יְלָה (14:21), a wind building all night, gaining in intensity, that could have pushed the waters of Yam Suf aside -- a meteorological occurrence, just the way a scientist would explain the event away.  The only difference is that this occurrence was not freak chance, but had yad Hashem behind it.  Sheivet Yehudah was waiting for the wind to pick up enough to split the water and then they would march through.  G-d does not need to reboot teva, to override teva, to make his presence known.  Aderaba, it is a higher level to find G-d within nature and not just beyond it.  

Binyamin, on the other hand, did not want to wait.  Forget nature -- just jump in and the water will split.  If you believe, you don't need to worry about anything else.  That is the ideal.  

The machlokes betweeh shevatim was not just a matter of who gets the kavod of going first, but it reflected different philosophies in avodas Hashem.

Chazal used the mashal of waking the king to convey this idea.  Kings don't normally wake up at sunrise.  They sleep in until later in the morning.  Yehudah followed the derech ha'teva in their avodas Hashem; he is the eldest son who wanted to wake his father the king only at the normal time.  Binyamim wanted to jump the gun, to go outside the norm, as that was their derech in avodah.

Hashem's response is that both approaches have merit.  All that matters in the end is that both intend to be marbeh k'vod Shamayim.

geulah is a chok that defies reason

 מִשְׁכוּ וּקְחוּ לָכֶם צֹאן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתֵיכֶם וְשַׁחֲטוּ הַפֶּסַח

Rashi comments משכו ידיכם מעבודה זרה וקחו לכם צאן של מצוה

R' Moshe Tzvi Neriah writes that you can learn two lessons from this Rashi.  We learn from Rashi 1) how difficult it is to break old habits and resist temptation, as a person can be on the cusp of geulah and still require warnings and admonishments not to engage in idolatry; 2) and we also learn that even though a person might still be steeped in and tempted by avodah zarah, he can still be worthy of redemption.

It's worth noting (see hesber of Shem m'Shmuel 5675) that when Hashem gave Moshe the command to offer korban Pesach, He said only וְיִקְח֣וּ לָהֶ֗ם אִ֛ישׁ שֶׂ֥ה לְבֵית־אָבֹ֖ת שֶׂ֥ה לַבָּֽיִת׃.  It is Moshe who added  מִשְׁכוּ, meaning משכו ידיכם מעבודה זרה, when he transmitted it to Bnei Yisrael.  

וּפָסַ֤ח ה׳ עַל־הַפֶּ֔תַח.  We know that Hashem says "pischu li pesach shel machat," just give me an opening the size of the eye of a needle, let me into your heart just a little bit, and I will open gates for you that you can drive an 18 wheel truck through.  Sometimes, though, even an opening the size of the eye of a needle is too much to ask for.  וּפָסַ֤ח ה׳ עַל־הַפֶּ֔תַח, Hashem overlooked the need even for that smallest opening.  Hashem himself did not ask for the משכו ידיכם מעבודה זרה.  This was the amazing thing about the geulah from Egypt.  It is moments before geulah and Moshe has to still tell people to give up their idolatry -- they still were not 100% committed to Hashem or bust -- and still, Hashem redeemed us.

After this command to take the korban and shecht it, the Torah goes on to speak about sprinkling the blood on the doorposts to protect against the malach ha'mashchis, and then ends the section  וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה לְחׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם.  Ramban and Ibn Ezra are bothered by the fact that this sprinking of the blood on the doorpost is not a mitzvah l'doros.  Where is the חׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם?  

(R' Berel Povarsky in his Bad Kodesh writes that there are 2 dinim in the zerikas ha'dam on the doorposts: 1) a unique din by pesach Mitzrayim that there had to be blood there to protect the house; 2) a din zerikas ha'dam like any other korban, as the doorpost was a substitute for the mizbeiach.  Nafka minah: if a person had multiple dwellings, then m'din zerikas ha'dam of the korban, he fulfilled the mitzvah as soon as he put the blood one one house and the korban is became permissible to eat, but m'din having blood on each doorpost of a home that needed protection, he needed to paint the doorposts of the other homes as well.  If so, maybe שְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה לְחׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם is talking about the regular din zerikas ha'dam that applies l'doros by other korbanos.  Still a bit of a dochak.)

Ramban answers that you have to explain that this concluding pasuk is speaking only about taking and shechting the korban that had appeared earlier.  R' Shimon Sofer, however, explains that it is talking about the sprinkling of the blood.  "Halalu ovzei avodah zarah v'halalu ovdei avodah zarah," Bnei Yisrael had no merits to speak of to earn geulah.  How does a little blood on the doorpost warrant protection from the malach ha'mashchis when you have nothing else going for you?  The answer is that that's the  חׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם.  Geulah is a chok without reason.  There is no logic to explain how a person can still need a warning not to be an oveid avodah zarah and merit geulah, but that's how Hashem decided to make things happen.

There is perhaps another element as to why Moshe added the word מִשְׁכוּ here, which also connects to the idea of this parsha being לְחׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם something that should be transmitted for eternity.  Netziv comments as follows:

אבל לפי הפשט, באשר המצוה בפרשה הקודמת נאמרה לכל ישראל ליקח שה לבית אב, והיתה הדעת נותנת שיטפלו בזה האנשים הפשוטים בבית אב מי שרגיל למשוך טלה לשחיטה ולהפשיט, ולא מי שהוא גדול בבית אב ואין עסקו בכך, על כן קרא משה לזקני הדור והזהירם ביחוד ״משכו״ — אתם ״וקחו לכם צאן למשפחותיכם״ — בשביל כל המשפחה תהיו אתם המתעסקים בזה.

Had we just been given Hashem's command, we would have assumed that it should be the shleppers who do menial work who should go out and get the sheep and slaughter and butcher them.  Shlucho shel adam k'moso, so let them do the dirty work for us.  Moshe therefore added in his instructions מִשְׁכוּ וּקְחוּ לָכֶם, this is something you have to do for yourselves, not leave to the shleppers.  The mitzvah needs your hands-on from the first steps.

Why this should be the case is what the Torah is telling us in that last pasuk of שְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה לְחׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם. No one in the household pays much attention to what the shlepper does, what the maid does, what the nanny does.  They are there to free up our time so we can carry on with the important things of life.  The Torah is telling us that if you want a mitzvah to be something your children take note of, something they will pass on to their children, then you can't delegate it -- you have to treat it like one of those important things in life, things that you make sure to take care of yourself.  

lost legacy

There is a lot written to try to explain Rashi's comment on  וָאֵרָ֗א אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֶל־יִצְחָ֥ק וְאֶֽל־יַעֲקֹ֖ב that וארא אל האבות.  We know Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov are the avos.  Why is that relevant to pshat in this pasuk?

My son dealt with this question last week on his blog and quoted, among other ideas, the L Rebbe who explained that Rashi is highlighting the fact that Hashem appeared to Avraham not only because he embodied the midah of chessed, and to Yitzchak not only because he personified gevurah, and to Yaakov not just because he was an exemplar of tiferes.  Hashem appeared to them because they were avos, they were the forefathers of our nation, they passed those  midos down to future generations.  אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות  (Bava Kama 2)  R' Meir Goldvicht in his shiurim always likes to say that maaseh avos siman la'banim means the maaseh avos are part of our genes, our spiritual DNA.  Hashem was telling Moshe that it was not time to deal with abstract questions about why the galus was so difficult.  He had to try to connect with the people in a more direct way, in a more emotional way, so that they would be receptive to his message.

It's interesting that the Sefas Emes (last piece in 5637) goes in nearly the opposite direction.  Rashi later in the parsha (pasuk 9) quotes from Chazal that these opening pesukim are a response to Moshe's question of why Bnei Yisrael had to suffer:

ורבותינו דרשוה לעניין של מעלה, שאמר: למה הרעתה וגו׳ (שמות ה׳:כ״ב). אמר לו הקב״ה: חבל על דאבדין ולא משתכחין. יש לי להתאונן על מיתת האבות, הרבה פעמים נגליתי עליהם בקל שדי, ולא אמרו לי: מה שמך, ואתה אמרת: מה שמו מה אומר אליהם

Simple pshat is that Moshe is being told that he is not on par with the avos.  Sefas Emes, however, interprets the point as speaking about Bnei Yisrael, that theywere not connected to the avos.   חבל על דאבדין ולא משתכחין -- the avos are gone and cannot be found because Bnei Yisrael failed to carry on their legacy and live up to it.  The spiritual DNA may be there, but it is not expressing itself.  Therefore, the galus is a harsh one.

yaaleh v'yavo vs tein tal u'matar

Chaim Brisker differentiated between yaaleh v'yavo and teil tal u'matar.  R' Chaim assumed that yaaleh v'yavo is *not* part of the definition of the bracha of avodah, but rather is recited because there is a separate chiyuv of mentioning me'ein ha'meora, what makes the day special, be it rosh chodesh or yom tov.  Nafka minah: according to this approach, if you forget yaaleh v'yavo at mincha today, you would not daven a tefilas tashlumin at night.  You already fulfilled your chiyuv of tefilah at mincha time, and once rosh chodesh is over you can no longer mention me'ein ha'meora, so you gain nothing by davening maariv twice.  Were yaaleh v'yavo part of the definition of the bracha of avodah, leaving it out would be like leaving out a bracha of shmoneh esrei and you would have to daven tashlumin at maariv.  

In contrast to yaaleh v'yavo, R' Chaim assumed that tein tal u'mater is an intrinsic part of the bracha of bareich aleinu.  Leaving it out is like missing part of a bracha in shmoneh esrei.

R' Tzvi Pesach Frank asked: The halacha is that if you miss saying tein tal u'matar, you can add it in the middle of the bracha of shema koleinu.  If mentioning tal u'matar is a separate chiyuv hazkara, like mei'ein ha'meora, this makes perfect sense.  You missed the hazkara in one spot, so you can add it in another spot.  But if tein tal u'matar is part of the bracha of bareich aleinu, then if you are missing part of one bracha, how can you make it up by sticking the words in another?

See R' Eliyahu Bakshi Doron's discussion here.

Moshe Derangement Syndrome

Pharoah's reaction to makkas barad is interesting.   וַיִּשְׁלַ֣ח פַּרְעֹ֗ה וַיִּקְרָא֙ לְמֹשֶׁ֣ה וּֽלְאַהֲרֹ֔ן וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֖ם חָטָ֣אתִי הַפָּ֑עַם. This time -- הַפָּ֑עַם -- he admits he got it wrong.  What's so special about this particular makkah?  Malbi"m explains that Pharoah was warned before barad to take the livestock in and seek shelter.  It's one think to refuse to release Bnei Yisrael from slavery; it's another thing to be so stubborn as to not even take precautions that can save lives and $.  Even Pharoah realized he had gone to far.  Pharoah clearly had MDS -- Moshe Derangement Syndrome. He rejected anything Moshe said, no matter that doing so was cutting off his own nose to spite his face.  R' Baruch Sorotzkin reads הַפָּ֑עַם as indicative of the approach of Pharoah and other reshaim to admitting guilt.  It's always only הַפָּ֑עַם, this one time, this one detail that is wrong. There is no consideration that the prat maybe is melamed on the klal, that being wrong this time may reflect a broader misconception.  That's why once the moment passes, it's back to the usual routine.  (See HaKsav v'haKabbalah who learns the pasuk as meaning exactly the opposite.)   

Moshe comes to Pharoah and tells him that although he knows Pharoah will return to his old ways, makkas barad will come to an end.  The Torah then gives what seems to be a damage report:

 וְהַפִּשְׁתָּ֥ה וְהַשְּׂעֹרָ֖ה נֻכָּ֑תָה כִּ֤י הַשְּׂעֹרָה֙ אָבִ֔יב וְהַפִּשְׁתָּ֖ה גִּבְעֹֽל

וְהַחִטָּ֥ה וְהַכֻּסֶּ֖מֶת לֹ֣א נֻכּ֑וּ כִּ֥י אֲפִילֹ֖ת הֵֽנָּה

And then continues and tells us that Moshe davened for barad to be removed.  

You would expect the damage report to come after the plague was removed, yet the Torah sticks it in before even telling us that Moshe davened for the plague to stop.  Why break up the narrative this way?  As we discussed once before, Ramban and Sadya Gaon explain that these pesukim are not third party narration, but rather are part of the dialogue between Moshe and Pharoah.  Moshe was telling Pharoah that the wheat crop has not yet been ruined, so if he repents now, he can salvage something.

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi brilliantly explains that there was a symbolic message for Pharoah in these particular crops being spared.  Pharoah was stiff necked.  He refused to buckle to Moshe's demands.  He thought that remaining inflexible was the ultimate sign of strength and would lead him to prevail.  Moshe therefore told him to take a look at which crops remained.  Rashi explains כי אפילת – מאוחרות, ועדיין היו רכות ויכולין לעמוד בפני קשה.  Because the wheat crops ripen later, their stalk is not stiff and hard, and therefore, they were were not crushed by the barad.  Sometimes the ability to bend, to show flexibility and give a little, is actually a strength. 

no substitute

I saw in the news that at the Agudah convention Rav Shmuel Fuerst from Chicago decried the fact that it costs 25-30k for girls to go to seminary in Israel, and he suggested that they open a seminary in Chicago run as a non-profit that would charge 15k to offer an alternative solution.

Two points:

1) Can someone please explain to me how you can pay teachers for a full day of teaching and provide room and board (seminaries offer usually at least 1 meal a day even if not all the meals) for only 15k a year?  There are elementary schools that charge more than that these days.

2) I realize that my perspective here is probably different than that of the RW/Agudah world, but I think the point of seminary in Eretz Yisrael is not just to spend another year studying Torah.  Let me quote myself from a few years ago, when one of my daughters was in seminary:

People ask whether a year in seminary in Eretz Yisrael is really worth the thousands of dollars it costs.  Does it really make that much difference if a girl knows one more Ramban, a piece from Michtav, or another perek or sefer of Nach?  If you ask the question that way, you are missing the whole point of going for the year.  It’s not about learning another Ramban, or if you are a boy, another Tosfos, another R’ Chaim.  The point of going is to learn one thing: to love Eretz Yisrael. 

If yeshiva or seminary in Eretz Yisrael is just another place to study Torah, then Chicago or NY or wherever might be a cheaper substitute.  By it's not.  There is an entire experience of being in Eretz Yisrael, of seeing life in Eretz Yisrael, that cannot be replicated anywhere else because no where else is our homeland.  Does it cost a lot of money?  Sure it does.  Is it beyond the reach of some people's budget?  Absolutely.  And therefore there should be alternatives, just like there should be alternatives to the expensive weddings that are the norm in our communities, the expensive pesach and midwinter vacations that are now the norm, the expensive camps that kids "must" attend during the summer.  

from 'ki yarei l'habit' to 'temunas Hashem yabit'

The Midrash writes that because Moshe was afraid to look at G-d's presence in the burning bush, וַיַּסְתֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ פָּנָ֔יו כִּ֣י יָרֵ֔א מֵהַבִּ֖יט אֶל האלקים (3:6), he was rewarded with being zocheh to  וּתְמֻנַ֥ת ה׳  יַבִּ֑יט (BaMidbar 12:8).

R' Izelele m'Volozhin asks why Moshe not wanting to look at Hashem's presence is such a big deal and worthy of reward.  It is basic yiras shalayim to be afraid, to be in awe of G-d, when one is standing directly in His presence.  

In order to understand what our pasuk means we need to review some definitions.  Back in parshas Lech Lech (12:8)Hashem told Avraham to look at the stars, as his descendants will be as numerous as they are.  וַיּוֹצֵ֨א אֹת֜וֹ הַח֗וּצָה וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הַבֶּט־נָ֣א הַשָּׁמַ֗יְמָה וּסְפֹר֙ הַכּ֣וֹכָבִ֔ים  Rashi there quotes a Midrash: דבר אחר: הוציאו מחללו של עולם והגביהו למעלה מן הככבים, וזהו לשון הבטה – מלמעלה למטה.  The word הַבֶּט, says Rashi, always means looking down from on high.  Hashem raised Avraham above the heavens so that he was looking down on the entire universe of stars.

We once discussed this point in the context of the story at the end of Chukas of the snake that Moshe put on a staff so that anyone who looked at it would be healed from the bite of poisonous snakes.  It seems strange and almost smacks of avodah zarah to have people look toward an image for a cure -- what's going on?  

Look carefully at what Moshe told the people: וְהִבִּ֛יט אֶל־נְחַ֥שׁ הַנְּחֹ֖שֶׁת וָחָֽי (baMidnbar 21:9)  The whole point is not to look up to avodah zarah, but on the contrary, to look down on it.  The word הַבֶּט, again, always means looking down from on high.  We are better than the avodah zarah and stand higher than it.

Hashem in our parsha appeared to Moshe in a low bush because עמו אנכי בּצרה, the Shechina suffers along with us.  If Klal Yisrael are downtrodden slaves, the Shechina itself is kavyachol low and humbled as well.  Bnei Yisrael cried out to Hashem in pain from their work and their suffering, but what they failed to see and cry over was the pain of the Shechina that was suffering along with them.  

The gadlus of Moshe was that he could not bear to see the Shechina so low, so reduced, while he remained standing.  כִּ֣י יָרֵ֔א **מֵהַבִּ֖יט** אֶל האלקים .  He could not stand to be on a higher plane looking down, הַבֶּט, on G-d's presence.  

As we explained once before, when Hashem said  וּתְמֻנַ֥ת ה׳  יַבִּ֑יט, Hashem was telling Aharon and Miriam that they do not compare to Moshe.  When they see an ordinary Jew,  someone who of course is on a lower madreiga than they are, they see all that person's faults and shortcomings.  When Moshe, who stood head and shoulders above everyone else in ruchniyus, sees an ordinary Jew, especially a Jew who is in trouble and in pain, he sees תְמֻנַ֥ת ה׳  יַבִּ֑יט, he sees the presence of the Shechina below him and cannot bear its suffering.  

What our Midrash is telling us is that those same antenna of Moshe that were attuned to the suffering of the Shechina here at the burning bush were also attuned to the suffering of the Shechina within each Jew, and that is what made him the greatest of our prophets.