the "seudas mitzvah" that Eisav prepared

Last week I mentioned R' Sadya Gaon's chiddush that Yitzchak sent Eisav out to hunt game for him because אבל הבאת דבר מיגיעו ועמלו {של בנו} היתה לו לנחת רוח.  Yitzchak was not really a connoisseur.  You see that he could not tell the difference between fresh game meat and the goats that Rivka had Yaakov prepare.  What made the food that Eisav served special is the effort that Eisav put into getting it.  It's like when your kid brings home a work of "art" from school that you post on the wall or the fridge.  It's not the beauty of the picture that makes it special -- it's the effort of the child to make it which does.

On Shabbos I said over this RS"G and added that R' Tzadok haKohen in Pri Tzadik writes that what made Eisav's food special to Yitzchak is that it was infused with the mitzvah of kibud av v'eim, the one mitzvah that Eisav excelled in.  It was a seudas mitzvah -- the mitzvah of kibud av!  That's why, explains R' Tzadok, Rivka had to COMMAND Yaakov to listen to her and prepare the goats,  וְעַתָּ֥ה בְנִ֖י שְׁמַ֣ע בְּקֹלִ֑י לַאֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲנִ֖י מְצַוָּ֥ה אֹתָֽךְ (27:8)  Had she not done so, Yitzchak would have immediately known that it was not Eisav because the taam of kibud av would be missing.  By ordering Yaakov to listen to her, Rivka created an opportunity for Yaakov to fulfill kibud eim and infuse the goats with that same taam.  

2) Rashi explains that Yitzchak warned Eisav to go out to the forest to hunt and not bring him stolen food.  וצודה לי – ולא מן הגזל.  If Yitchak thought Eisav was a good guy, why would he need to warn him not to steal?

Maharal in Gur Aryeh answers:

מן ההפקר. ואף על גב שהיה עשו בחזקת כשרות, היה צריך להזהירו שלא יצוד חיות ועופות בסמוך לעיר, כההיא דתנן מרחיקין מן העיר, דלאו ודאי גזל הוא, והיה יצחק סבור שמא יעלה על דעתו שכבוד אב ואם דוחה אסור דרבנן, דהיינו ספק גזל - דדבריהם, ולפיכך הזהירו שגם זה לא יעשה, אלא ירחיק מן העיר.

I am not sure how to explain this hava amina (for whatever a hava amina is worth) that a mitzvah d'oraysa might be doche a safeik issur gezel derabbanan.  The safeik gezel is a dinei mamanos issue, so sfeika derabbanan l'kula does not come into play (and were it that simple you would not need dechiya).  

poseurs

How much does "diversty" and LGBTQ+ rights really matter to those who trumpet their support for such things?  In the case of World Cup athletes, we now know the answer.  No less than seven European countries planned to have their teams or team captains wear a rainbow colored armband to indicate their support (or so CNBC tells me) of "diversity and inclusion," whatever that means.  However, FIFA disapproved of the move and threatened to sanction teams for doing so by issuing a yellow card to players who violate the rules.

Now, I am admittedly not a big soccer fan, so maybe I don't see things quite the way fans do, but from what I understand a yellow card is just a warning.  The player has not yet been ejected, but would be if a second yellow card were issued.  Once a player gets 2 yellows, they are also automatically have to miss a match.  So it is a pretty steep penalty.  But it's also just a penalty.  Against just ONE player. In what is just a GAME. 

What does it say about the character of players whose commitment to human rights is shut down because they may get a warning penalty in a mere game? 

how to deal with an Eisav

Rashi comments on the pasuk  וַֽיִּגְדְּלוּ֙ הַנְּעָרִ֔ים וַיְהִ֣י עֵשָׂ֗ו אִ֛ישׁ יֹדֵ֥עַ צַ֖יִד אִ֣ישׁ שָׂדֶ֑ה וְיַעֲקֹב֙ אִ֣ישׁ תָּ֔ם יֹשֵׁ֖ב אֹהָלִֽים that it was not until Yaakov and Eisav became gedolim, after bar mitzvah, that they went their seperate ways, one to the beis medrash, the other to avodah zarah:

 כל זמן שהיו קטנים לא היו נכרים במעשיהם. הגדילו,ב זה פרש לבתי מדרשות וזה לעבודה זרה

Yet a few pesukim later we read that Yaakov was cooking red lentil soup, and Rashi there explains that this was a seudas havraah, as Avraham had just died at the age of 175, 5 years before his expected lifetime, so that he should die in peace and not witness his grandson Eisav go off the derech:

שאותו היום מת אברהם, שלא יראה את עשו יוצא לתרבות רעה, ואין זו שיבה טובה שהבטיחו המקום, לפיכך קיצר חמש שנים משנותיו. שיצחק חי ק״פ, וזה מת בן קע״ה, ובישל יעקב עדשים להברות האבל. 

Simple math: Yitzchak was born when Avraham was 100, and 60 when Yaakov and Eisav were born.  That would make Yitzchak 75 and Yaakov and Eisav 15 when Avraham died.  If Eisav already went out to do עבודה זרה when he became a gadol, at bar mitzvah, as the previous Rashi tells us, where is the  שיבה טובה that was promised?  It was already 2 years too late!

Answers the Maharal in Gur Aryeh:

נראה דלא קשה, דאף על גב שהיה פורש לעבודה זרה - לא עבדה ולא עשה מעשה, אלא פורש אחריה ללמוד דרכה, דלא קאמר ד׳עבד עבודה זרה׳, אלא ׳פירש לעבודה זרה׳, ואין זה עדיין תרבות רעה:

We already saw this same idea a few parshiyos ago.  Rashi comments on וַיִּסַּ֥ע ל֖וֹט מִקֶּ֑דֶם (13:11) that הסיע עצמו מקדמונו של עולם, Lot turned away from G-d.  I once quoted the Alter m'Kelm who points out that we see that Lot risked his life to fulfill the mitzvah of hachnasas orchim even in Sdom; according to Rashi he baked matzah and celebrated Pesach there.  Does this sound like someone who has run away from G-d and religion?!  Answers the Alter of Kelm that we see from the pesukim that Lot cared more about pasture for his flocks than in being around Avraham Avinu.  You eat the most kosher matzah, do mitzvos, dress the dress and walk the walk, but if your value system is off, that's הסיע עצמו מקדמונו של עולם.

Eisav did not become a practicing pagan at age 13.  He still walked the walk and talked the talk of a frum Jew.  Avraham could have  שיבה טובה because he did not see his grandson engaging in any wrong behavior.  However, Eisav's value system was off.  His interests were elsewhere, not Torah and mitzvos.  

(R' Chaim Shmuelevitz (quoted in the Mir Yeshiva parsha sheet) asks: Chazal tell us that it was only that very day of Avraham's death that Eisav went out to do aveiros,  א״ר יוחנן, חמש עבירות עבר אותו רשע ביום ההוא.  What then was Yaakov's hava amina to ask his brother to sell the bechorah?  R' Chaim answers that Yaakov understood Eisav's character from the way he spoke.   הַלְעִיטֵ֤נִי נָא֙ מִן־הָאָדֹ֤ם הָאָדֹם֙ הַזֶּ֔ה Rashi explains  אפתח פי ושפוך הרבה לתוכה, shovel the food down my throat.  Someone who speaks like that, who is so controlled by his appetite, is someone who will easily walk away from the bechora.  According to the Maharal, the question doesn't get off the ground.  Eisav was already a  פורש from the beis medrash from earlier.  He may not have actively engaged in aveiros yet, but his heart and mind were no longer engaged.) 

The question is how do you deal with an Eisav?  How do you keep him from drifting away?

When Yitzchak decided it was time to give the brachos, he called Eisav in and he told him וְעַתָּה֙ שָׂא־נָ֣א כֵלֶ֔יךָ תֶּלְיְךָ֖ וְקַשְׁתֶּ֑ךָ וְצֵא֙ הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה וְצ֥וּדָה לִּ֖י צָֽיִד , to take his bow, his knife, his tools of the trade, and go out to the field to hunt some game and prepare a meal.  

Why did Yitzchak need to send Eisav on this mission?  Yitzchak had flocks of sheep; surely there was some lamb chops or mutton in the freezer that Eisav could have cooked up a meal with.  It would have been a lot easier than hunting fresh game in the wild!

My wife's grandfather, R' Dov Yehuda Shochet, answered that the value a person places on something is in direct proportion to the effort put in to acquire it.  Chazal tell us (B"M 38a)  רוצה בקב שלו מתשעה קבין של חבירו.  Rashi explains: חביבה עליו על ידי שעמל בהן .  Yitzchak wanted Eisav to value the brachos; therefore, he forced him to work for them, to put in a huge effort.  

I wanted to share with you a different answer given by the Alshich.  According to the Alshich, Yitzchak knew that Eisav was a man of the field.  Yitzchak knew that Eisav hunted not just animals, but he preyed on people as well, and he had a wild streak in him.  

Rather than try to turn Eisav into another Yaakov, into something he was not and could not be, Yitzchak took a different approach:

 ע"כ התחכם ויאמר לו עשה זאת איפה. והפך נא כל מעשה רשעתך לטובה כי הכלים אשר תעשה בם לסטאותך בהם תעשה מצותי זאת. וזהו שא נא כליך תליך וקשתך ובמקום אשר תעשה הרעות הוא השדה הידוע לך כד"א ויבא עשו מן השדה כי היה יודע ציד איש שדה שם עשה המצוה הזאת, וזהו וצא השדה ומעשה הרעה הוא הצידה אשר תצוד נפשות עתה צודה לי ציד כלומר מה שהיא ציד ולא מה שאינו ציד. באופן שתהפך כל הכנות רשעתך לטובה

Yitzchak's command of  וְצֵא֙ הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה וְצ֥וּדָה לִּ֖י צָֽיִד echoes the pesukim from earlier in the parsha.  You're an  אִ֛ישׁ יֹדֵ֥עַ צַ֖יִד?  Great, so go צ֥וּדָה לִּ֖י צָֽיִד and fulfill the mitzvah of kibud av.  Instead of וַיָּבֹ֥א עֵשָׂ֛ו מִן־הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה וְה֥וּא עָיֵֽף from doing who knows what wrongdoing, צֵא֙ הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה and accomplish something positive there.  Take the same kelim that you use for robbery and who knows what else and use them to make a delicious meal.  Use your talents for good.  

The pasuk doesn't say צד; it says  וְצ֥וּדָה לִּ֖י צָֽיִד.  The point is not to command Eisav to hunt -- that's who Eisav is, it's not something he has to be told to do.  The point Yitzchak was making is WHAT to hunt.  צ֥וּדָה לִּ֖י צָֽיִד, as opposed to preying on people or doing other wrong.

Coming back to my wife's grandfather's point about Yitzchak surely not lacking for food at home, R' Saadya Gaon comments : וצודה לי ציד – לא היה צריך שיביא לו עשו, כי צאנו ובקרו רבים היו, אבל הבאת דבר מיגיעו ועמלו {של בנו} היתה לו לנחת רוח.  By deliberately sending Eisav out to hunt instead of taking a ready made meal at home Yitzchak was validating who Eisav was and showing appreciation for his talents and efforts.  

That's the secret to dealing with Eisav.  Why didn't it work?  Why in the end did Eisav remain a rasha?  I don't have an answer.  But I don't think it means the approach is wrong or doomed to failure.  Not everyone can be an אִ֣ישׁ תָּ֔ם יֹשֵׁ֖ב אֹהָלִֽים.  It's not one size fits all.  Everyone has their talents and abilities that can be channeled for good, valued, and appreciated.

no room for reflection?

I didn't bother to read the article in the Atlantic about COVID "amnesty" or any of the many reactions to it.  I can understand why someone who was barred from being with a loved one at their time of death, or someone who lost a job, or someone whose spouse is suffering from depression or alcoholism, or any of the many terrible outcomes that resulted from misguided Covid policies would refuse to simply brush off the harm that was done (and that continues to be done) in the name of public health.  Dr Scott Atlas recently said that Dr Fauci is guilty of presiding over "the biggest failure in public health history."  I would say there is plenty of blame to go around and Dr Fauci is not the only one at fault.  

Yet at the same time, I think the Atlantic piece is important.  The article may be self serving, an attempt to exculpate wrongs rather than answer for them, but it's at least a first step, a start to raising the uncomfortable question of whether all that was done -- the lockdowns, the forced vaccinations, etc. -- was justified.

What troubles me is that there has been no effort, at least that I have seen, within our community to consider the same issue.  Was closing shuls for so long really justified?  Was firing teachers who were unvaccinated?  If you like, you can ask whether the community was too slow to react to the dangers of the virus or whether there was more that could have been done?  Either way, the issue deserves reflection.

I do not think it is fair to say that the question is strictly an issue for the medical community or a public health issue and not a religious/halachic issue.  In other words, I do not think it fair to say that the Rabbis and leaders in the community were simply following the dictates of public health and medicine and therefore are excused from any onus of responsibility.  Medical professionals are biased, like all people.  Political and financial motives affect their decision making; their judgment and reasoning can be as faulty as anyone else's.  (Recommended reading: False Positive: A Year of Error, Omission, and Political Correctness in the New England Journal of Medicine by Theodore Dalrymple.)  Just today, Dr. Jha, the head of the White House Coronovirus response team, said, "We can prevent every covid death in America" if everyone gets their booster.  This is an obvious lie.  Many, many people who have been vaccinated and gotten boosters continue to die with Covid.  Were someone to take this doctor's word at face value and declare that getting a booster is a matter of pikuach nefesh, as it assures one of avoiding death from Covid, that person would be a fool. A declaration by a medical professional does not excuse one from thinking critically, examining the evidence, and considering other points of view.  One need not be a doctor to form an informed opinion on a public health issue issue any more than one need have a PhD from the Harvard School of Government to have an informed opinion on foreign policy.  So no, the onus is not on the public health community alone.  The onus is also on the Rabbinic and lay leadership of the religious community to reflect on whether their decisions/psak were arrived at through an informed, unbiased assessment of the differing opinions and information that was available, or whether they perhaps uncritically followed and were too easily led by modern shaman down wrong paths, perhaps paved with good intentions. 

For someone, either a layperson or a leader, to think that their community -- whichever community it is and however they handled the response to Covid -- got it 100% right and there is no need for further reflection and consideration, to me is just another mistake among many of the Covid era.

seudas havraah; halacha k'divei ha'meikil b'aveilus vs safeik derabbanan l'kula

Rashi tells us, echoing the Midrash, that the lentil soup that Yaakov prepared was ובישל יעקב עדשים להברות האבל.  Chasal Sofer and others ask: the din is that seudas havraah must come from someone else; the aveil cannot use his own food.  אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אבל יום ראשון אסור לאכול לחם משלו (Moed Katan 27b).  Yaakov was a poor kollelnik who was someich al shulchan aviv -- he lived with his parents and did not have his own job or means of support.  How then was he able to make a seudas havraah for his father?  The meal he prepared was Yitzchak's own food!

Aruch haShulchan (Y.D. 378) writes that the chiyuv seudas havraah applies specifically to eating bread:

ונראה דהעיקר הוא הלחם, כלשון הכתוב. וכן לשון הגמרא שם: אסור לאכול לחם משלו, עיין שם. אבל תבשילין יכול לאכול משלו. וכן המנהג שמביאין להאבל לחם וביצים בלבד.

If so, it could be that Yaakov did serve Yitzchak's own food, and the real kiyum of seudas havraah was in eating bread from someone else.  (I would say it's still ktzas kashe to explain the words להברות האבל in Rashi.)

If this Ah"S is correct, it means aveilim have to be careful to make sure to wash before shekiya of that first day of aveilus to fulfill eating the seudas havraah (assuming the chiyuv is on them to eat, as opposed to the chiyuv being on others to offer them food.)  

I saw R' Shternbruch (Shu'T Teshuvos v'Hanhagos III:380) quoted as holding that even though the S"A paskens like most Rishonim that the chiyuv seudas havraah applies only to the first meal eaten, one should, if possible, be machmir like the minority view that holds all meals eaten in the first day (note the gemara's language: אבל יום ראשון) should come from someone else.  

He says a bit of lomdus and distinguishes between the din of safeik derabbanan l'kula and halacha k'divrei ha'meikil b'aveilus.  Sfeika derabbanan l'kula is an allowance to follow the more lenient view, but the issue remains unresolved; therefore, a person certainly deserves and gets credit for going the extra mile to be machmir.  Hilchisa k'divrei ha'meikil b'aveilus is because we do not want a person to engage in excessive mourning where there is no need to do so.  In these cases, you don't get extra credit for taking on more grief.

Halacha k'divrei ha'meikeil b'aveilus, R' Shternbruch argues, only applies to the nihugei aveilus like not washing, not wearing leather shoes, etc.  The din of seudas havraah is not a din in aveilus, but is done either 1) because we are afraid the aveil would be so consumed by grief that he would forget to eat, or 2) as an expression of nechama.  The reason we follow the lenient view and only require one meal is because of the din of safeik derabbanan l'kula.  Therefore, there is certainly something to be gained in this case by covering all bases.

why Sarah became the superior prophet to Avraham

1) A fantastic Meshech Chochma on last weeks parsha:

Meshech Chochma points out that when the malach appears to Hagar to tell her that Yishmael will live, he calls to her from the heavens:  וַיִּקְרָא֩ מַלְאַ֨ךְ אֱלֹקים ׀ אֶל־הָגָר֙ מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם (21:17).  However, in Lech Lecha, when Hagar was first driven out by Sarah, a malach appears and speaks to her directly, not just as a voice echoing from the sky:  וַֽיִּמְצָאָ֞הּ מַלְאַ֧ךְ הֹ׳ עַל־עֵ֥ין הַמַּ֖יִם בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר עַל־הָעַ֖יִן בְּדֶ֥רֶךְ שֽׁוּר  וַיֹּאמַ֗ר הָגָ֞ר שִׁפְחַ֥ת שָׂרַ֛י אֵֽי־מִזֶּ֥ה בָ֖את וְאָ֣נָה תֵלֵ֑כִי (16:7-8)  Apparently Hagar had somewhat of a spiritual downfall from the time she was first driven from Avraham's house and was no longer worthy of having that direct form of conversation with angels appearing on her level, only of hearing the voice echoing from above.

But don't we find that after the akeidah Avraham too was addressed by a malach that only called to him from the heavens,  וַיִּקְרָ֛א מַלְאַ֥ךְ הֹ׳ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֑ם שֵׁנִ֖ית מִן־הַשָּׁמָֽיִם!?

Answers the Meshech Chochma: when performing the akeidah Avraham was like the kohen gadol entering the kodesh kodashim on Y"K.  At that moment, no one can be present in the Kd"k, not even an angel.  The angel called to Avraham from the heavens not because Avraham was not worthy of seeing him directly, but aderaba, because the angel was unworthy of being in that holy place where the akeidah occurred.

2) I think my wife'e favorite pasuk in Braishis may be כֹּל֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר תֹּאמַ֥ר אֵלֶ֛יךָ שָׂרָ֖ה שְׁמַ֣ע בְּקֹלָ֑הּ (21:12) : )  Rashi comments: למדנו שהיה אברהם טפל לשרה בנביאות  Sarah was able to see things that Avraham could not, and therefore he was told to listen to her.

Of course Sarah is one of our great Imahos, but Avraham was not lacking in greatness either, so how is it that he did not measure up to Sarah's prophetic ability?  

Earlier in the parsha, G-d decided to reveals to Avraham what will his plan is for Sdom (18:17-19:

 וַֽהֹ׳ אָמָ֑ר הַֽמְכַסֶּ֤ה אֲנִי֙ מֵֽאַבְרָהָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֖ר אֲנִ֥י עֹשֶֽׂה׃

וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם הָי֧וֹ יִֽהְיֶ֛ה לְג֥וֹי גָּד֖וֹל וְעָצ֑וּם וְנִ֨בְרְכוּ־ב֔וֹ כֹּ֖ל גּוֹיֵ֥י הָאָֽרֶץ׃

כִּ֣י יְדַעְתִּ֗יו לְמַ֩עַן֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצַוֶּ֜ה אֶת־בָּנָ֤יו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ֙ אַחֲרָ֔יו וְשָֽׁמְרוּ֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ הֹ׳ לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת צְדָקָ֖ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט לְמַ֗עַן הָבִ֤יא הֹ׳ עַל־אַבְרָהָ֔ם אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֖ר עָלָֽיו

Rash is already bothered by the lack of connection between the second statement, the fact that Avraham was involved in passing on his legacy of derech Hashem to his children and grandchildren and followers, and the first statement, Hashem's rhetorical question, "Can I hide from Avraham what I plan to do?"  

Chasam Sofer writes that many prophets, e.g. Yirmiyahu, Yishayahu, etc. were able to prophetically see not just events that would occur in their immediate environment, but they prophesized to the world at large as well, to Mitzrayim, to Ashur, to other nations.  The saw the future of the world as a whole, on a vast, global scale.  Avraham, however, if not for G-d's deliberate effort to reveal it to him, was unaware even of what was in store for the nearby city of Sdom.  Why?  Because Avraham was involved in teaching his children, his followers, about G-d, about monotheism, about the 'derech Hashem.'  According to the Meshech Chochma, this pasuk of  לְמַ֩עַן֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצַוֶּ֜ה אֶת־בָּנָ֤יו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ֙ אַחֲרָ֔יו וְשָֽׁמְרוּ֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ הֹ׳ is the source for the mitzvah of chinuch.  You can't spend your time in a meditation, seeking prophetic insights, involved in your own growth, when you have a household to train and educate, when you have an outreach program to run.  A guy out there on a college campus giving classes to the barely religious and trying to pull together meals for them every shabbos and programs for during the week can't be expected to be immersed in every sugya the way someone sitting in beis medrash all day with nothing else on their plate is.  

G-d therefore said that it's not fair here,  הַֽמְכַסֶּ֤ה אֲנִי֙ מֵֽאַבְרָהָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֖ר אֲנִ֥י עֹשֶֽׂה, that Avraham should be blind to what's coming just because his involvement in other areas of avodas Hashem deprives him of the time or kochos to work on his own personal development, his own prophetic ability.  

The gemara in Nazir (29) tells us  איש חייב לחנך בנו במצות ואין האשה חייבת לחנך את בנה.  A woman is exempt from the mitzvah of chinuch.  For the sake of derush let's not get involved in nitpicking on the details of that sugya -- that's what the words say.  If so, the mission of אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצַוֶּ֜ה אֶת־בָּנָ֤יו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ֙ אַחֲרָ֔יו was perhaps Avraham's mission, but not Sarah's.  Undoubtedly she would have helped him, but it was his primary role, not hers.  

Therefore, perhaps Sarah had more time to herself, to develop her gift of prophecy, in ways that exceeded Avraham's ability.

motivation to pass the test

 On the way to the akeidah, Avraham took some things along:

 וַיִּקַּ֣ח בְּיָד֔וֹ אֶת־הָאֵ֖שׁ וְאֶת־הַֽמַּאֲכֶ֑לֶת

Rashi comments:

מאכלת – סכין, על שם שאוכלת בשר, כמה דאתה אומר: וחרבי תאכל בשר (דברים ל״ב:מ״ב), ושמכשרת בשר לאכילה.

דבר אחר: זו נקראת מאכלתא על שם שישראל אוכלין מתן שכרה.

It's called a מַּאֲכֶ֑לֶת and not a 'sakin' because we eat the rewards of this knife forever after.

What are Chazal trying to teach us with this derash?  That we enjoy eternal reward for akeidas Yitzchak?  Don't we know that without a derash on the single word מַּאֲכֶ֑לֶת? 

What Chazal were commenting on, says Sefas Emes, is how Avraham Avinu motivated himself for the test of the akeidah.  How does a person rise to such a challenge?

Chazal answer that וַיִּקַּ֣ח בְּיָד֔וֹ, the motivation that Avraham took in hand, is the מַּאֲכֶ֑לֶת, the fact that שישראל אוכלין מתן שכרה.  Avraham took to heart that his actions would reflect not just the strength of his own beliefs, but would reverberate through history and have an impact on future generations.  The relationship between present and future cuts both ways -- future generations draw inspiration and meaning from Avraham's passing the test of the akeidah, and Avraham in turn drew inspiration from the thought of future generations riding on his coattails.

The Sefas Emes uses this same idea elsewhere.  For example, the Midrash writes that had Reuvain known the Torah would write that he saved Yosef from the pit he would have carried him home to Yaakov on his shoulder.  It's not that Reuvain was out for fame and would have behaved differently had he known his actions would be front page news.  Sefas Emes explains that what Chazal are telling us is that Reuvain would have behaved differently had he known that his actions constitute "Torah," i.e. something that generations would be impacted by and learn from.  When you know that your actions have an impact on generations to come, it changes your behavior, it pushes you to do more.  

put it on the company's tab

 After his battle against the kings, G-d appeared to Avraham to promise

אַל־תִּירָ֣א אַבְרָ֗ם אָנֹכִי֙ מָגֵ֣ן לָ֔ךְ שְׂכָרְךָ֖ הַרְבֵּ֥ה מְאֹֽד׃

Rashi comments: אחר שנעשה לו נס והיה דואג שמא נתקבל שכר כל צדקותו, לכך אמר לו: אל תירא אנכי מגן לך – מן העונש על כל אותן נפשות שהרגת. ומה שאתה דואג על קיבול שכרך – שכרך הרבה מאד.

In other words, this one is a freebie.  Whatever miracles, whatever siyata d'shemaya it took to win that war does not take anything away from Avraham's ultimate reward in store in olam haba.  

R' Shimshon Pincus in his sefer on chumash quotes from the AR"I that the word מָגֵ֣ן in the pasuk is like the Aramaic word מגנא, free.  I don't know why he had to go to the ARI" when the Netziv explains that this is how the Midrash learned the pasuk:

אנכי מגן לך שכרך הרבה מאד – פירש רש״י שירא מן העונש שהרג כמה נפשות, על זה אמר הקב״ה ״אנכי מגן לך״, ודאג עוד פן קיבל את שכרו בשביל הנס על זה אמר ״שכרך הרבה מאד״. ובאמת תרי אמוראי אינהו, ר׳ לוי ורבנן, חד אמר שירא מן העונש או ממלכי אומות העולם, וחד אמר שירא מקבלת שכר. והנה למ״ד שירא מן העונש, מפרש המקרא כמשמעו — ״אל תירא אנכי מגן לך״, והסיום ״שכרך הרבה מאד״ לא קאי להא ד״אל תירא״, ומילתא בפני עצמו הוא, ולא משום שירא מזה אלא הבטחה בעלמא. אבל למ״ד דירא מקבלת שכר וא״כ קאי ״אל תירא״ על ״שכרך הרבה מאד״, וא״כ האיך מפרש ״אנכי מגן לך״. משום הכי איתא במדרש ׳כל מה שאני עושה, בחנם אני עושך עמך, ושכרך משלם הרבה מאד׳, ומפרש ״מגן״ לשון תרגום ׳בחנם׳, ואינו אלא בתורת דרש וכוונה שניה. אבל לפי הפשט קשה להבין. ועל כן פירש רש״י שתי הכוונות יחד, ללמד דגם למ״ד ד״אל תירא״ קאי על ״שכרך הרבה מאד״, קאי גם על ״אנכי מגן לך״. אבל הרי במדרש מבואר דחולקין.

Be that as it may, the question R' Pincus then asks (which the Netziv also raises) is why this should be so.  R' Pincus quotes the baalei musar as warning that one can consume one's olam haba even in olam ha'zeh.  R' Yisrael Salanter compared this world to a hotel where anything and everything is available, but everything in turn has a price.  A plate of tzimmis, he said, can cost all of olam ha'ba.  Meaning, if your enjoyment in olam ha'zeh is so great, if that plate of tzimmis, or the Yankee tickets, or the new car, are so valuable and so important to you, then you've got your olam ha'ba right there already.  There is nothing left to pay out in the next world.  If everything has a cost, if everything has a price, then how can it be that Avraham got a freebie?  And what can we do to make sure that we don't end up paying too high a price, to ensure that even if we don't get a freebie, we are not consuming all of our rewards in the here and now and not leaving anything over?

He has six different approaches to answer the question, of which two very similar ones are:

1) When the company you work for tells you to go to a conference or an event, the hotel does not give you a bill when you check out.  The company pays the cost.  Some of my colleagues volunteer for these things because they love the fact that they can order a steak from room service, they can have a valet park their car, etc. and it's all paid for.  Everything Avraham Avinu did was for the sake of the company -- l'shem shamayim.  The biography of R' Yaakov Herman is called All for the Boss because that's how he lived his life -- every action and decision was determined by ratzon Hashem, not selfish motives.  When that's how you behave, then the Boss upstairs picks up the tab and there is never a cost to you.

2) When the owner of the hotel's son stays for a few days, he can sleep in the most expensive suite, he can whatever he likes off the menu, and no one is going to hand him a bill.  Banim atem l'Hashem Elokeichem.  If we act like Hashem's children in this world, then we don't have to worry about exhausting our expense account.

above the mazalos

 Avraham is told by the bris bein ha'besarim (15:5):

 וַיּוֹצֵ֨א אֹת֜וֹ הַח֗וּצָה וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הַבֶּט־נָ֣א הַשָּׁמַ֗יְמָה וּסְפֹר֙ הַכּ֣וֹכָבִ֔ים אִם־תּוּכַ֖ל לִסְפֹּ֣ר אֹתָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ל֔וֹ כֹּ֥ה יִהְיֶ֖ה זַרְעֶֽךָ׃

Rashi quotes from the Midrash:

והמדרש: צא מאיצטגנינות שלך, שראית במזלות אינך עתיד להעמיד בן. אברם אין לו בן, אברהם יהי לו בן, שרי לא תלד, שרה תלד. אני קורא לך שם אחר וישתנה המזל

Don't think your fate is governed by mazal.  You, Avraham, are above the mazalos.

Says the Sefas Emes, the promise of כֹּ֥ה יִהְיֶ֖ה זַרְעֶֽךָ means the same applies to us.

Just like papa Avraham, Klal Yisrael's fate is l'maalah min ha'teva, not determined by mazal.

we don't live in a bubble

This article is one of the best I have read on why you should vote Republican, and I think when you examine the reasons it's easy to guess why some communities like Satmar have done the wrong thing and endorsed Hochul and other D's in NY.  

My guess is that certain communities are convinced that they live in a bubble, isolated from society at large, and therefore whether this candidate or that promotes LGBT... (I lose track of all the letters in use these days) rights, whether they waste money on fruitless "climate change" policies, whether they allow abortion even post-birth, whether the public schools are destroyed, whether criminals roam the streets outside their bubble, etc. all don't matter.  These are non issues in the bubble.  

What then does matter?  Here's a great example.  The D candidate has honed in on one thing that will get the community endorsement  -- $$$.  Bring home the bacon.  Large government means large $ to funnel to those who depend on it.  

The problem is that no community is a bubble anymore.  The trends in society at large eventually make it into our communities, some more so, some less so.  I am not just talking about criminals that roam the streets freely in NY and are now a danger to our communities.  In 1996 then President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage bill into law, defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.  These days, D's cannot even define what a woman is anymore.  I am talking about issues like that.  In 1996, an LGBT whatever club in YU would have been unthinkable.  Yet look at where we are today.  

It would be nice if we were to care about what happens in society at large lishma, i.e. because we want the world to be a better, more moral, safe, equitable place to live.  But even if all the motivates us is a selfish concern for our own small corners of the world, we cannot turn a blind eye to what is going on out there.

pshat vs practice in anti-discrimination law

From The Great Unwokening, a summer 2022 article in The Claremont Review of Books:

Though our landmark anti-discrimination laws were written in race-neutral terms, the main purpose of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was to correct laws and social conventions which discriminated against a specific group: black Americans. Talmudic scholars have a term, peshat, to describe the form of interpretation that restricts itself to a text’s surface meaning alone. The peshat of the 1964 law, then, would suggest that there should be no legal or moral difference between a white person discriminating against a black person, and a black person discriminating against a white person. But in practice the latter conduct is defined as reverse discrimination, frequently said either not to exist or not to matter. That is to say, discrimination by whites, and not against them, is what really counts as discrimination in civil rights law as practiced, despite the law’s surface appearance.

A second important element of the contrast between peshat and practice in our civil rights law is that we keep identifying new classes of people, in addition to blacks, against whom discrimination is prohibited. For our purposes, the key additional prohibitions forbid discrimination by whites against racial minorities in general, by men against women, and, nowadays, by straights against gays or by the “cisgendered” against the “gender non-conforming.” Strictly speaking, the text says that all discrimination according to “race,” “sex,” and “gender” is prohibited. In practice, though, we have created certain “protected classes,” defined as those “minority groups” against whom one may not discriminate. Members of these groups have learned, thanks to the law, to see themselves as deserving special protections in the aggregate. In other words, the way we have enforced our civil rights laws since 1964 has fostered what we might call protected class consciousness. Moreover, for convenience of enforcement, we put all members of protected classes on one side of every conflict and, well, straight white males on the other.

no place like home

Our parsha tells us that there was a massive war of five kings against four. It must have been a humanitarian disaster involving death, destruction, loss of property.  However, it is not until Avraham hears that his own family member Lot has been captured, וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע אַבְרָ֔ם כִּ֥י נִשְׁבָּ֖ה אָחִ֑יו, that he moves to intervene.  Had Lot not been involved, presumably Avraham would have sat on the sidelines and watched these nation clans beat each other to death.  Maybe we don't need to jump into every case of crisis in the world and offer our help.  Maybe this case is different because going to war is a sakana, and therefore the risk of providing aid has to be balanced against personal cost.

Later in the parsha Avraham famously asks G-d how he can be sure that his children will be the ones to inherit Eretz Yisrael, בַּמָּ֥ה אֵדַ֖ע כִּ֥י אִֽירָשֶֽׁנָּה (15:7)  "Yerusha ain lah hefesk" -- G-d's promise amounts to an eternal kinyan, an unbreakable claim to Eretz Yisrael granted to the Jewish people, even if we are exiled, even if we are banished for centuries.  How is such a thing possible?  G-d responds,  וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לְאַבְרָ֗ם יָדֹ֨עַ תֵּדַ֜ע כִּי־גֵ֣ר׀ יִהְיֶ֣ה זַרְעֲךָ֗ בְּאֶ֙רֶץ֙ לֹ֣א לָהֶ֔ם וַעֲבָד֖וּם וְעִנּ֣וּ אֹתָ֑ם אַרְבַּ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָֽה.  The simple reading is that G-d does not answer Avraham's question, but rather tells him that because of his question, his lack of faith, his children must suffer the penalty of exile.  R' Yaakov Moshe Charlap, however, suggests that G-d here has in fact provided an answer to Avraham.  כִּי־גֵ֣ר׀ יִהְיֶ֣ה זַרְעֲךָ֗ בְּאֶ֙רֶץ֙ לֹ֣א לָהֶ֔ם, your children may suffer exile, but the lands they go to will always be foreign lands to them, "lands not their own."  No matter how many centuries pass while we are in exile, no matter where we find ourselves, there will aways only be one home for us, and that is Eretz Yisrael.

Rav Amiel on how the mavul was midah k'neged midah for the sin of חָמָֽס, means vs end in building the ark, and how even a whiff of Torah makes a difference

1) The dor ha'mabul was punished because  וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ חָמָֽס.  What is  חָמָֽס?  The Midrash writes that the issur gezel is when you steal the amount worth a perutah; חָמָֽס is when you steal less than a perutah.  Technically, it's not theft.  The gemara (BK 62) gives a slightly different definition. Gezel is when you don't pay for what you've taken; חָמָֽס is where you paid, but twisted the seller's arm to force the sale and get what you want. The gemara itseld writes that people think that 'lo tahcmod' only applies if you force someone to sell and then never pay, but if you pay, then you did nothing wrong.  True, it's not gezel, it may or may not be lo tachmod, but it is חָמָֽס.  The common denominator of both definitions: obeying the technical details of the law but circumventing the intent and spirit of the law.

What's less than a perutah?  It's a nothing.  What can it hurt to steal it?  And in truth, that's what a person is not chayav for doing so.  But when everyone starts behaving that way, when תִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ חָמָֽס, society goes down the drain. 

R' Moshe Avigdor Amiel writes in Hegyonot El Ami that the punishment of the mabul is midah k'neged midah.  What's a single drop of water?  Water can even be a positive thing -- nothing can grow or exist without rain.  But when you put together all those drops, and you keep it up non stop for days, the world is destroyed.

2) וַיֹּאמְר֞וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵ֗הוּ הָ֚בָה נִלְבְּנָ֣ה לְבֵנִ֔ים וְנִשְׂרְפָ֖ה לִשְׂרֵפָ֑ה וַתְּהִ֨י לָהֶ֤ם הַלְּבֵנָה֙ לְאָ֔בֶן וְהַ֣חֵמָ֔ר הָיָ֥ה לָהֶ֖ם לַחֹֽמֶר

וַיֹּאמְר֞וּ הָ֣בָה׀ נִבְנֶה־לָּ֣נוּ עִ֗יר וּמִגְדָּל֙ וְרֹאשׁ֣וֹ בַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֖נוּ שֵׁ֑ם פֶּן־נָפ֖וּץ עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כׇל־הָאָֽרֶץ

The process seems out of order.  You would expect the Torah to tell us that the dor ha'palaga wanted to build a city, a migdal, and therefore they began making bricks to accomplish that task.  You first need a goal and then you devise the process to get there.  Instead, we are told that they made bricks first, and then they came up with a goal and decided to make their migdal.

R' Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld (quoted in Binah u'Bracha by R' Baruch Sorotzkin) explained that it's not the desire to make a migdal and rebel against G-d which drove the creation of new technology of brick making, but rather the new technology of brick making, which may have been developed with no nefarious purpose in mind (see Seforno), inflated man's ego and drove him to rebellion.

This was R Y C Zonnenfeld's answer to Franz Joseph as to why the more civilization advances, the weaker religious committment seems to grow.

3) Speaking of pesukim out of order, in 6:14 Noach is given the command to build a teivah, עֲשֵׂ֤ה לְךָ֙ תֵּבַ֣ת עֲצֵי־גֹ֔פֶר קִנִּ֖ים תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה אֶת־הַתֵּבָ֑ה, which is followed by a few pesukim in which the dimensions of the ark and how it should be made are spelled out.  Only after completing that description, Hashem tells Noach that he is going to bring a flood, וַאֲנִ֗י הִנְנִי֩ מֵבִ֨יא אֶת־הַמַּבּ֥וּל מַ֙יִם֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ לְשַׁחֵ֣ת כׇּל־בָּשָׂ֗ר אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ֙ ר֣וּחַ חַיִּ֔ים מִתַּ֖חַת הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם.  Shouldn't it have been presented in the reverse order, i.e. first tell Noach there is going to be a flood, and then tell him that he has to make an ark to be saved?

R' Yichiel Michel Feinstein quotes the Rashi on 6:14:  הרבה ריוח והצלה לפניו בשבילם.א ולמה הטריחו בבניין זה? כדי שיראוהוב דור המבול עסוק בבניין זהג מאה ועשרים שנה, ושואלים אותו: מה הוא זאת לך, והוא אומר להם: עתיד הקב״ה להביא מבול לעולם, אולי ישובו  It was not the flood which was the cause pushing Noach to build an ark to save himself.  Aderaba, it was the building of the ark, the warning flag Hashem put up and which was ignored by the dor ha'mabul, which sealed their fate caused the flood.

4) See here and here for posts on the Midrash's comment on "Vayarach Hashem es rei'ach ha'nicho'ach" that Hashem was smelling not just the fragrant odor of Noach's korban, but was also smelling Avraham in the furnace of Nimrod, he was smelling Chananya, Mishael, v'Azarya in their oven, he was smelling the sweet scent of all those who sacrifice their lives al kiddush Hashem.  I don't want to repeat everything I wrote before, but b'kitzur, smell is a special sense, the one sense that was uncorrupted by the cheit of Adam haRishon, and therefore is the key to man rehabilitation, his return to Eden, it is the promise of a better future when all seems lost and corrupted.  I was thinking about this topic again this week because my SIL was talking about whether odor can be transmitted electronically.  Ain beit medrash b'li chiddush, so I want to add just one point to those older posts.  The gemara (Zevachim 113) asks how the giant animal called the re'em was saved from the flood.  It was so big, says the gemara, that even its head alone could not fit in the teivah.  Answers the gemara, it stuck just it's nose in and was able to survive.  Rav Ben Tzion Kook writes that even if a person is outside the beis medrash, so long as they are connected to the "reiach haTorah," there is hope.  Even if the rest of a creature is underwater, so long as the nose, the kli for the sense of smell, is still in the teivah, there is hope for survival.  

R' Akiva Eiger's chiddush in a case where one forgot mashiv ha'ruach in Fri night davening

The S.A. paskens (OC 268) that if you accidentally daven a weekday shmoneh esrei on Friday night, you can listen to the chazan say the bracha mei'ein sheva and have in mind to be yotzei because it is like a chazaras hashat"z. 

אם התפלל של חול ולא הזכיר של שבת או שלא התפלל כלל ושמע משליח ציבור ברכה מעין שבע מראש ועד סוף יצא: 

R' Akiva Eiger (quoted in Biur Halacha from RAKE in OC 114) extends this chiddush to someone who forgot to say mashiv ha'ruach in their Friday night shmoneh esrei and is therefore not yotzei.  Here too, RAKE writes that one can just listen to מעין שבע and there is no need to repeat the entire tefilah.  Even though there is no mention of mashiv ha'ruach in the מעין שבע, so you don't gain anything, it doesn't matter, because Chazal were metakein that מעין שבע counts as a tefilah without it.

R' Akiva Eiger in OC 114 (not quoted in BH in 268) goes even a step further and suggests that if you forgot mashiv ha'ruach on Friday night maybe you are yotzei even without hearing מעין שבע.  How can it be, says RAK"E, that the מעין שבע, which is a substitute for the real tefilah, does not need mashiv ha'ruach, but the real tefilah counts for nothing without it?!  The tafeil can't be better than the ikar! He leaves off with a tzarich iyun on whether this argument is correct.  Most Achronim do not seem to accept the point (see Chazon Ovadya Shabbos vol 1, p 386 who quotes a list of mareh mekomos).

why Adam needed Chavah to be complete, the nachash's challenge, and Chanoch the shoemaker

 1) "Lo tov heyos ha'adam levado..."  Why not?  What was missing in his life?  He was living in Gan Eden with all his needs fulfilled!

What was missing is the ability to share with others, to give.  Without that, life has no purpose or meaning (R' Chaim Shmuelevitz).

According to Ramchal, Hashem created the world to be meitiv, to share his goodness with us, to give to us.  Humans are created b'tzelem Elokim.  We have an innate need to share, to give to others.  That is what gives our life meaning and purpose.

2) When the snake first approaches Chavah, the Torah relates:

וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־הָ֣אִשָּׁ֔ה אַ֚ף כִּֽי־אָמַ֣ר אֱלֹקים לֹ֣א תֹֽאכְל֔וּ מִכֹּ֖ל עֵ֥ץ הַגָּֽן׃

The pasuk is a bit cryptic.  Targum translates אַ֚ף as  בְּקוּשְׁטָא, a statement of truth.  It's hard to know (see Mizrachi) whether Targum read the pasuk as a real question being posed by the snake, i.e. "Did G-d tell you...?" or as a statement of fact posed as a rhetorical question, i.e. "Is it not true...?"  Rashi understood that it was a question: אף כי אמר וגו׳ – שמא אמר לכם לא תאכלו מכל וגו׳ – ואף על פי שראה אותם אוכלים משאר הפרות, הרבה עליה דברים כדי שתשיבנו, ויבא לדבר באותו עץ.  The nachash saw Adam and Chavah eating and knew (see Sifsei Chachamim) that they were not prohibited from doing so but he asked anyway as a means of eliciting a response and thereby engaging Chavah in conversation.  

Radak reads the pasuk as a challenge by the snake.  The nachash told Chavah that G-d must despise humans, as He did not allow them to eat all of the fruits in the garden:

באמרו אף שמורה תוספת על הדברים שקדמו, נראה כי דברים אחרים קדמו בין חוה ובין הנחש, ודומה שאמרה חוה לנחש על הכבוד שעשה להם האל שהשכינם בגן עדן, אמר לה הנחש אני רואה שהקב״ה שונא אתכם אף על פי שהגדיל אתכם משאר היצורים שלא יעשה לכם מעלה כך וכך, וכל שכן שאמר אליכם שלא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן בזה תוכלו להכיר שהוא שונא אתכם ואינכם חשובים בעיניו כמו שאת אומרת, והכתוב הניח ראשי הדברים ולקח סופם, וכן הוא מנהג הכתוב במקומות רבות

Remember the cheit ha'meraglim?   בְּשִׂנְאַ֤ת ה׳ אֹתָ֔נוּ הוֹצִיאָ֖נוּ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם (Devarim 1:27).  Once again, just as Bnei Yisrael are prepared to enter Eretz Yisrael, a return to Eden, if you will, the same sin, the same fear that G-d has rejected them, rears its ugly head.  The aleph of alephs of the yetzer ha'ra, the first and best weapon of the nachash, is to tell us that we are rejects, that G-d, or our rebbeim, or our parents, or whoever, does not love us, does not want us.   

Netziv is a contrarian here and reads the pasuk not as questioning why Adam and Chavah were eating, as Rashi assumes, but rather questioning why they were NOT eating.  אַ֚ף כִּֽי־אָמַ֣ר אֱלֹקים – ״מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל״ (לעיל ב,טז), מכל מקום --לא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן.  Netziv explains that Adam and Chavah were in a state of dveikus with Hashem, and when you are close to G-d, you don't have an appetite, you don't worry about what's for lunch.  Even if you could eat on Yom Kippur, is that really what's on your mind on the holiest of days?  In steps the nachash: על כן בא הנחש בפיתוי — שהרי לא בחנם נברא העולם ומלואו, ואין רצון ה׳ שלא תהיו נצרכים לתענוגי העולם, וא״כ אין ראוי להיות שקוע באהבת ה׳ ובדבקות שהוא מהביל ומפריע כל תענוג גשמי, והוא נגד רצון ה׳ שהרי אמר ״מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל״  Not only are you permitted to eat, argues the snake, but it's a mitzvah to eat, or why else would G-d have created a world and put you in it.  וכזה הוא פיתוי היצר בכל דור, כידוע, מתחילה משיא את הדבק בתורה ע״י איזה מצוה או דרך ארץ שהוא ישר באמת לשאר בני אדם, ואחר שמושכו מבית המדרש מוסיף והולך לפתות.  This is the argument the snake uses in every generation to draw us out into the world, to draw us away from the beit medrash, and once we are exposed to the tastes and temptations of the world, the slide down the slippery slope is almost inevitable.

3) The Midrash writes that Chanoch was a shoemaker, and with every stich he made on the shoes, he was m'yached yichudim.  Chasidim interpret this to mean that Chanoch's mind was on deep, Heavenly thoughts while he was stitching those shoes,while the aalei mussar (see Michtav m'Eliyahu in vol 1) interpret this to mean that by doing his work faithfully and avoiding gezel Chanoch was fulfilling the ratzon Hashem.  In the Mir yeshiva parsha sheet they quote a different hesber from Rav Shmuel Charkover, one that, as someone who goes to work every day, resonated with me.  R' Shmuel Charkover explained that with every stitch Chanoch made he said to himself, "I am not a shoemaker."  Next stitch, again, "I am not a shoemaker."  This was how he was m'yached yichudim.

People go through life thinking, "I am a <blank>," and that definition of who they are influences their whole approach to their avodas Hashem, to how they live.  Learn more than daf yomi?  "I'm a <blank>, not a masmid!"  Daven a little longer shacharis?  "I'm a <blank>, not a tzadik!"  Chanoch reminded himself constantly that his job was not his identity; it was just something he needed to do at that moment.  

birchas haTorah

The gemara darshens from the pasuk  כִּ֛י שֵׁ֥ם הֹ׳ אֶקְרָ֑א הָב֥וּ גֹ֖דֶל לֵאלֹקינוּ that there is a chiyuv to say birchas haTorah.  (Why does the pasuk use the word הָב֥וּ, which is Aramaic, instead of the Hebrew תנו?  Chazal tell us that the angels do not understand Aramaic.  [see this post]  The Ishbitzer in Ne'os Deshe explains that when there is כִּ֛י שֵׁ֥ם הֹ׳ אֶקְרָ֑א, you can approach Hashem without the need for the intermediary of malachim.)

Bnei Yisrael had been learning Torah for 40 years in the desert.  Why tell us now that there is a din to say a bracha? 

You could answer the question using the chiddush of the Brisker Rav that birchas haTorah is on the cheftza shel Torah, not on the chovas ha'gavra to learn (see Emek Bracha).  Even though the Mechaber paskens that women cannot say a bracha on mitzvos they are not obligated in, the Mechaber paskens that they do say a birchas haTorah because it has nothing to do with the person's obligation to learn, it has to do with the fact that there is a Torah text being studied.  Therefore, until last week's parsha where Moshe received the mitzvah of kesivas sefer Torah and wrote a sefer, there was no text that existed.  It's only now, in our parsha, that there is a cheftza shel Torah to say a bracha on.

Al derech machshava, you can maybe say something more.

 יַעֲרֹ֤ף כַּמָּטָר֙ לִקְחִ֔י  The word כַּמָּטָר֙ written with a 'patach' under the כַּ , which means grammatically it's like there is a ה הידיעה there, it's a definite article.  We're not just talking about any dew, but rather THE dew, something specific.  What specific dew is the Torah being compared to?

In a few short weeks we will be reading Braishis where the Torah tells us (2:5) וְכֹ֣ל׀ שִׂ֣יחַ הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה טֶ֚רֶם יִֽהְיֶ֣ה בָאָ֔רֶץ וְכׇל־עֵ֥שֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה טֶ֣רֶם יִצְמָ֑ח כִּי֩ לֹ֨א הִמְטִ֜יר הֹ׳ אֱלֹקים֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאָדָ֣ם אַ֔יִן לַֽעֲבֹ֖ד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃ -- the dew had not fallen because man was not yet created to work the ground.  Rashi explains:

כי לא המטיר – ומהג טעם לא המטיר? לפי שאדם אין לעבוד,ד ואין מכיר בטובתן של גשמים. וכשבא אדם וידע שצורך הם לעולם, התפלל עליהם וירדו, וצמחו האילנות והדשאים.

Maharal in Gur Aryeh formulates it even more sharply: ואין מכיר בטובתם. כלומר, ואסור לעשות טובה לאיש שאין מכיר בטובה, ולפיכך כל זמן שלא היה האדם - לא המטיר

You are not allowed to do a tovah for someone who will not appreciate it, who does not feel a need for it.  

Until there was a human being who could appreciate the need for dew and rain, G-d did not provide dew and rain.  Only once man was created and could daven and ask G-d for help did the dew fall.

Explains the Shem m'Shmuel: For 40 years there was שׁכינה מדבּרת מתוך גורנו שׁל משׁה, it was like mattan Torah every day because G-d spoke through Moshe's mouth.  Ramban writes in Ki Tisa that the Mishkan was like a mini Har Sinai where the process of revelation continued.

That's not the norm.  Mattan Torah was a one time in history unique experience.  For the rest of time, Torah is meant to be acquired through toil and effort, not received as a gift.  לִקְחִ֔י, like כִּי לֶַֿקח טוֹב נָתַֿ תִּי לָכֶם, means you have to do something to make a kinyan, not passively accept what is handed to you.   כּי יקח אישׁ אישׁה Ran in Nedarim 29 writes that the baal has to be the one to make the kinyan kiddushin but the woman's role is to be passive, to make herself like hefker.  

That's the change Moshe is preparing the people for. יַעֲרֹ֤ף כַּמָּטָר֙ לִקְחִ֔י Don't expect G-d to serve up Torah on a silver platter.  It's like THE dew, the dew of creation, that will only come to those who recognize the need for it, those who ask for it, those who are prepared לַֽעֲבֹ֖ד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃, to work for it.  

As Rashi on Braishis writes כשבא אדם וידע שצורך הם לעולם, התפלל עליהם וירדו.  That's birchas haTorah.

Motzei Y"K at Yeshiva in Sderot:

מחה פּשׁענו מנגד עינך

Read k'peshuto, you have to at least admire the brazenness of the statement מחה פּשׁענו מנגד עינך.  We know how bad we are; G-d, You of course know how bad we are, but do us a favor and turn your eyes away and pretend not to notice.  Are sins like Schrodinger's cat, i.e. so long as they are not נגד עינך and noticed, they cease to exist?

There are a lot of ways to get rid of sin.  First and foremost, there is onesh and yisurim.  If you know that when you do wrong you get a smack for it, you are not going to keep doing wrong.  However, there are better ways to go about curing the penchant for wrongdoing.  Says the Sefas Emes, when a person is really close to G-d, it becomes impossible to sin.  Think of your relationship to your wife, to your child, to your parents.  Surely you don't intentionally act in a way to harm them, not because of the negative consequences of having to sleep on the couch or your child hiding in their room, but simply because these are people you are close to and therefore do not want to hurt.  In that same vein, when you are close to someone, it becomes easier to forgive as well.

When we say מחה פּשׁענו מנגד עינך the letter מ in מנגד is the מ indicating a sibah, a cause.  We are asking G-d to forgive not through yisurim, not by punishment, not by demanding other forms of kaparah, but simply because we are נגד עינך, we are close, and when you are close, you don't want to cause harm, you don't want to linger on faults.  That should be the motivation behind and the vehicle for our kaparah.

teshuvah and arvus

The haftarah of Shabbos Shuvah comes from Hoshe'a.  Chazal famously comment:

 אמר לו הקב״ה לראובן מעולם לא חטא אדם לפני ועשה תשובה ואתה פתחת בתשובה תחלה חייך שבן בנך הושע פותח בתשובה שנאמר שובה ישראל.

Yet we know that there were in fact others who did teshuvah before Reuvain.  Kayin did teshuvah.  Adam did teshuvah.  Why do Chazal single out the teshuvah of Reuvain as being the first?

What in fact Reuvain's?  Braishis 35:22 tells us:

וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֗֔ן וַיִּשְׁכַּ֕ב֙ אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑֔יו וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵֽ֑ל  

yet that very same pasuk ends

וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָֽׂר

upon which Rashi comments 

ורבותינו דרשו (בבלי שבת נ״ה:): ללמדנו בא, שכולם שוים וכולן צדיקים, שלא חטא ראובן.

The Yismach Yisrael of Aleksander writes that this is why Reuvain is held up as the paragon of teshuvah.  He did something wrong, but immediately regretted and repented on his actions, such that there is not even a pause between the sin and the tikun of וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָֽׂר.  The same cannot be said of Adam and Kayin.

That being said, just a few parshiyos later, when we read about the sale of Yosef, the Torah relates how Reuvain tried to save his brother, but then vanishes from the story while the brothers go and sell Yosef into slavery.  Reuvain comes back to retrieve Yosef and discovers him missing (37:29):

 וַיָּ֤שׇׁב רְאוּבֵן֙ אֶל־הַבּ֔וֹר וְהִנֵּ֥ה אֵין־יוֹסֵ֖ף בַּבּ֑וֹר

Where was Reuvain while the sale was going on?  

Rashi tells us: דבר אחר: עסוק היה בשקו ותעניתו על בילבול יצועי אביו.

You can't have it both ways!  If Reuvain did nothing wrong, or at least immediately repented for whatever slight mistake he made, then why here is he doing teshuvah again?  Why is this moment the time the rehash old wounds?

I think our parsha contains the answer.  In pesukim 10-13 of our parsha we have the mitzvah of hakhel, which, as we've discussed in the past, really would seem to fit better in parshas Shoftim, where we have the laws that pertain to a king, or maybe in the parshiyos of the moadim, since hakhel takes place on Sukkos.  Following that mitzvah we have pesukim which portend sin and galus:

 וְחָרָ֣ה אַפִּ֣י ב֣וֹ בַיּוֹם־הַ֠ה֠וּא וַעֲזַבְתִּ֞ים וְהִסְתַּרְתִּ֨י פָנַ֤י מֵהֶם֙ וְהָיָ֣ה לֶאֱכֹ֔ל וּמְצָאֻ֛הוּ רָע֥וֹת רַבּ֖וֹת וְצָר֑וֹת׃

It sounds like Bnei Yisrael repent: 

 וְאָמַר֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא הֲלֹ֗א עַ֣ל כִּי־אֵ֤ין אֱלֹקי֙ בְּקִרְבִּ֔י מְצָא֖וּנִי הָרָע֥וֹת הָאֵֽלֶּה׃

But instead of acceptance and forgiveness, the next pasuk (18) follows with a promise of greater hester panim:  

 וְאָנֹכִ֗י הַסְתֵּ֨ר אַסְתִּ֤יר פָּנַי֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא עַ֥ל כׇּל־הָרָעָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֑ה כִּ֣י פָנָ֔ה אֶל־אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֲחֵרִֽים

Ramban and everyone asks why it is that Hashem responds to this overture of repentance by hiding?

R' Simcha Bunim Sofer gives a magnificent answer.  He writes that the bris we read about in Nitzavim created the idea of arvus, the idea that no one in Klal Yisrael is an island.  One person's wrongdoing bears not just on the individual, but weighs down the nation as a whole.  

The statement עַ֣ל כִּי־אֵ֤ין אֱלֹקי֙ בְּקִרְבִּ֔י is all about personal wrongdoing, personal repentance.  "B'kirbi" -- it's all about me.  This type of repentance misses the mark because there is no acknowledgment of belonging to something greater, of having caused harm to something greater.

Perhaps that is why the Torah deliberately uses the mitzvah of hakhel as an introduction to this parsha.  Hakhel, the gathering together of men, women, even little children, as one, is the antithesis of the selfish teshuvah where the individual is concerned only with his/her own spiritual plight to the exclusion of others.

Returning to Reuvain,  וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָֽׂר certainly proves that Reuvain was in good standing, no different than his brothers, but at the same time, this same pasuk underscores the fact that these were 12 separate individual sons, not one united family.  Reuvain may have regretted moving his father's bed, but his actions opened a Pandora's box and exposed the underlying feeling that not all Yaakov's wives, and by extension not all the brothers, were in fact equal, and hence not united as one.  The result that would play out over time would be the sale of Yosef.  

This leads to the second teshuvah of Reuvain, the teshuvah he comes to when he sees the plot against Yosef playing itself out.  This is not his repentance as an individual for the sin of moving his father's bed, but repentance for the effect of his sin on the community, on the family structure.  This is the repentance of arvus, of feeling for the plight of his brother.

Adam repented, Kayin also repented.  Reuvain had already done his own private repentance as well.  But what we celebrate on Shabbos Shuvah is not just repentance for private wrongdoing, but the repentance for the harms done to the nation, to the community, by our own shortcomings.

sima b'PIHEM vs sim b'OZNEI Yehoshua

In our parsha we have the very last mitzvah in the Torah, "v'Atah kisvu lachem es ha'shirah ha'zos... sima b'PIHEM," to write a sefer Torah and, literally translated, to "place it in their [the people's] mouths," an allusion to Torah shebaal peh. 

This pasuk reminded me of an earlier pasuk.  After the war with Amalek Moshe is told "ksov zos zikaron ba'sefer," to write what happened in a book, "v'sim b'OZNEI Yehoshua," and, literally translated, "place it in Yehoshua's ear," also an allusion to orally transmitting Torah shebaal peh. 

Both pesukim refer to writing a book, both refer to teaching the lessons of Torah orally, so why then does the pasuk we read this week refer to placing Torah in the people's MOUTHs while Moshe is told to place Torah in Yehoshua's EAR?  

Seems to me that leaders are often good at using their mouths to give orders, but sometimes need reminding to use their ears as well, to listen and take advice and guidance from others.  The flipside is that people sometimes get good at just following orders, blind obedience, and need to be reminded that they can, and should, use their mouths to speak up and contribute their own ideas and insights, not just act as automatons or yes men.  

GR"A on why we don't blow shofar Erev Rosh haShana and the piyus of Nitzavim

1) To explain why we don't blow shofar on Erev Rosh haShana, the Vilna Gaon in his commentary to Yonah (3:3) quotes the gemara (Gittin) that relates how Hashem sent a little bug or bird to fly up Titus' nose into his head and bang away there for years.  One day Titus happened to walk past a blacksmith, and when the blacksmith's hammer was banging, the pecking in his brain stopped.  Now finally having a way to get some relief, Titus arranged to have blacksmiths working in his palace, banging away day in and day out.  After 30 days, however, the pecking resumed as usual.  The bird had acclimated itself to the banging, and resumed its pecking at Titus brain.

You see from this gemara that when something happens for 30 straight days, a creature, whether it is a bird or a person, becomes acclimated to it and it makes no impression.

If we blew shofar inclusive of Erev Rosh haShana, then we would have 30 days of blowing before the chag and tekiyas shofar would make no impression on is. Tekiyos have to make a roshem!  Therefore, says the GR"A, we take a break on Erev R"H.

(But we never have 30 straight days -- there are shabbosos in between that break things us?  R' Chaim Kanievski points to the din that when you switch to saying tein tal u'mater, 30 days makes a chazakah and after 30 days you can assume in case of safeik that you said the correct insertion.  Even though you don't say teil tal u'matar on shabbosos so the 30 days are really 26 days, the fact that the change at every possible opportunity to do so during those 30 days makes a chazakah.  Same with teikyas shofar.)

אמרו לפני בראש השנה מלכיות זכרונות ושופרות מלכיות כדי שתמליכוני עליכם זכרונות כדי שיעלה זכרוניכם לפני לטובה ובמה בשופר 

The kashe of  ובמה is not asking "How do we properly fulfill the mitzvah of reciting malchiyos, etc." and telling us that you need to blow in the shmoneh esrei.  The kashe the gemara is asking (see Ritva) is "How to we fulfill the mitzvah of coronating G-d as King?"  And the answer is that you do that with a shofar.

That requires mental activity.

That requires the shofar making a roshem.

2) The Divrei Chaim of Sanz on our parsha quotes the pasuk in Yeshayahu 3:13 נִצָּ֥ב לָרִ֖יב הֹ׳ וְעֹמֵ֖ד לָדִ֥ין עַמִּֽים׃.  The word נִצָּ֥ב there refers to Hashem standing in judgment, as Radak there explains, אמר אל תחשבו כי לא יענישכם האל על הרעות שתעשו כי בכל זמן הוא נצב ועומד לדין כל העמים כל שכן עמו ישראל    We read in Tehillin 82:1  אֱֽלֹקים נִצָּ֥ב בַּעֲדַת־קל.  The word "nitzvav" implies you are coming to pick a fight.  אַתֶּ֨ם נִצָּבִ֤ים הַיּוֹם֙ כֻּלְּכֶ֔ם, we are נִצָּ֥ב לָרִ֖יב, to borrow the phrase from Yishayahu, we are troublesome, quarrelsome, rebellious. That's why we read the tochacha last week.  Nonetheless, says the Divrei Chaim, we are לִפְנֵ֖י הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיכֶ֑ם, there is the shem Havaya, the midas haRachamim, that is extended to us b'pnimiyus of the din.  This is what Rashi means:

 התחיל משה מפייסן אתם ניצבים היום (דברים כ״ט:ט׳) – הרבה הכעסתם למקום ולא עשה אתכם כלייה, והרי אתם קיימים לפניו.  

Despite הרבה הכעסתם למקום , despite אתם ניצבים היום, despite our rebellious quarrels, G-d does not punish us vindictively, and does not reject us.  We are still הרי אתם קיימים לפניו and will always be so.

bikurim, nachala, and kinyan peiros

 וְהָיָה֙ כִּֽי־תָב֣וֹא אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁר֙ הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ נַחֲלָ֑ה  Chazal tell us that  וְהָיָה֙ at the start of a parsha connotes simcha.  The simcha here is not the fact that the first crops are ready, but, as the Ohr haChaim writes, להעיר שאין לשמוח אלא בישיבת הארץ, the simcha is from the fact that we have Eretz Yisrael.  

The Sifri writes that by fulfilling the words of our parsha, the parsha of bikurim, you will be zocheh to yeshivas ha'aretz (see here). The mitzvah of bikurim can only be done only after you are already in Eretz Yisrael and are harvesting crops there.  How then can Chazal say that it's because of this mitzvah that we will enter the land?

A couple of years ago I quoted from R' Teichtel's Eim haBanim Smeicha: 

Ki tavo'u el Eretz Canann asher ani nosein lachem l'nachala v'nasati nega tzara'as b'veis eretz achuzaschem (14:35).  A strange promise!  Once we finally merit seeing Hashem's promise to give us the land fulfilled, the Torah tells us that our homes will be plagued with leprosy.  Why?  What did we do to deserve that?  (see Rashi)

Rav Teichtel in his classic Eim haBanim Smeicha interprets the pasuk derech derush as saying that if after G-d is "nosein lachem nachala" and gives us a homeland, we still think of the 5 Towns, Boro Park, Englewood, Teaneck, or even Lakewood, NJ as "home," then "v'nasati nega tzara'as," I will bring tzara'as and tzaros to "beis achuzaschem," that place in galus you still mistakenly think of as home.  Sometimes unfortunately we need a wakeup call, a little suffering and discomfort, to appreciate and recognize where home is.

Eretz Yisrael is our nachala, our homeland.  Everyplace else in the world is just a hotel.  

Chasam Sofer uses this same idea to explain the Sifri. Thinking of  Eretz Yisrael as our nachala, as our homeland, doesn't start just when we get there.  Thinking of Eretz Yisrael as our nachala is the precursor to our getting there.  We can't bring bikruim in galus, but we can recognize that Eretz Yisrael, not wherever in the world we find ourselves, is the one place  אֲשֶׁר֙ הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ נַחֲלָ֑ה.  If we adopt that attitude, then we will be zocheh to physically be able to fulfill the mitzvah.

Notice the repetition throughout our parsha:

וְהָיָה֙ כִּֽי־תָב֣וֹא אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁר֙ הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ נַחֲלָ֑ה

וְלָקַחְתָּ֞ מֵרֵאשִׁ֣ית׀ כׇּל־פְּרִ֣י הָאֲדָמָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר תָּבִ֧יא מֵֽאַרְצְךָ֛ אֲשֶׁ֨ר הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לָ֖ךְ

 וּבָאתָ֙ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֵלָ֗יו הִגַּ֤דְתִּי הַיּוֹם֙ לַ הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ כִּי־בָ֙אתִי֙ אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר נִשְׁבַּ֧ע ה׳ לַאֲבֹתֵ֖ינוּ לָ֥תֶת לָֽנוּ

Again and again the parsha reminds us that Eretz Yisrael is the homeland that Hashem promised to us. 

Why do we mention the story of Lavan harassing Yaakov when we bring bikurim?  Malbim reminds us of the Midrash: ועז״א ארמי אובד אבי דכתב המדרש מה שהיה ללבן כח להתאבק כ״כ עם יעקב הוא משום שהוא בח״ל והיה בידו חטא מה שאינו דר בא״י  How could a rasha like Lavan have any power over the bechir ha'Avos?  The Midrash tells us that it's because Yaakov was outside Eretz Yisrael, where he belonged, where his homeland was.   

The Midrash Tanchuma writes that Moshe foresaw that we will be in galus and would not be able to fulfill the mitzvah of bikruim so he instituted tefilah 3x a day.  What's the connection between bikruim and tefilah? (see here, here, and here) When a person davens, he/she must turn to face Eretz Yisrael, to face the Beit HaMikdash.  If it's not possible to physically face that direction, he/she has to turn their heart to Eretz Yisrael.  If we cannot physically bring bikurim to give thanks for the nachala of Eretz Yisrael, we can year to do so, we can remind ourselves 3x a day about the importance and centrality of Eretz Yisrael.

Tos in Gittin (48) puts two halachos together an asks a great kashe: In order to read the parsha of bikurim you have to own the land the produce grew on.  The gemara has a machlokes R"Y and Reish Lakish whether kinyan peiros is k'kinyan ha'guf or not, and we pasken like Reish Lakish, that it is not.  Someone who only has a kinyan peiros cannot read the parsha of bikurim.  We also pasken that brothers who divide up a yerusha are considered lekuchos --- the inherited land is theirs only as a kinyan peiros until the yovel, at which point it reverts to the estate and has to be re-divided.   הקשה רבינו תם ואנו איך מצאנו ידינו ורגלינו!  How can anyone then ever read the parsha of bikurim?  Unless a property was passed from father to his only son generation after generation from the time of Yehoshua, every piece of land was either bought or inherited by a group of brothers and everyone's kinyan in the land of Eretz Yisrael is only a kinyan peiros? 

The Rishonim answer (see Tos 48a, Rashba, see Malbim on our parsha as well) that yerushas Eretz Yisrael is different.  Eretz Yisrael is ours because it is the land promised to the Avos, it is the land those who left Mitzrayim were supposed to conquer.  The farmer who brings bikurim states כִּי־בָ֙אתִי֙ אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר נִשְׁבַּ֧ע ה׳ לַאֲבֹתֵ֖ינוּ לָ֥תֶת לָֽנוּ.  The land being an inheritance does not diminish our ownership claim and turn it into a kinyan peiros.  Aderaba, viz a viz bikurim, it defines and strengthens our claim and connection to the land.

pruzbul and shemitas kesafim

Some Achronim write that if someone makes a pruzbul, he should make a small loan to a friend and allow shemita to cancel it in order to fulfill the mitzvah of shemitas kesafim.  Another possible solution to accomplish the same thing is to exclude one debt from the pruzbul and allow it to be cancelled.  A third option, which is questionable, is to declare the pruzbul void with respect to one outstanding loan (the use of verbal declaration to cancel a written pruzbul is what makes this questionable).

Yesh lachkor how pruzbul works: does pruzbul allow for the collection of the loan that existed before shemita, or does pruzbul mean the previous loan was cancelled, but thanks to the pruzbul a new loan now exists that can be collected?

All the above solutions assume the former is correct and the previous loan is still outstanding and not cancelled.  See R' Berel Povarski's shiurim on Gittin 36  where he takes the latter approach.  If that is correct, then none of these solutions are needed, as the loans are cancelled by shemitas kesafim and what pruzbul allows for is the collection of a new "refinanced" loan.

the harm in doing wrong

Rashi (21:11) explains the smichus ha'parshiyos of topics at the beginning of our parsha: if you take a yefat to'ar in battle, even if permitted, you will eventually come to hate her, and your offspring will end up being a ben sorer u'moreh.  Why should a person suffer all these horrible outcomes if what he did is permitted?  R' Bloch in Shiurei Daas explains (see post here) that the Torah's commandments function on two levels.  When a doctor tells you smoking is the wrong thing to do, that's a different "wrong" from an IRS agent telling you that it's wrong not to pay taxes.  One is a legal restriction; the other is a metziyus.  When Hashem tells you something is wrong, it's meant in both senses of the word.  To combat the yetzer ha'ra, the Torah lifted the IRS agent element of the yefat to'ar prohibition.  It's not going to cause you to be brought before beis din shel maalah and penalized.  However, the metziyus remains the metziyus.  The element of it being harmful remains in place, and you assume the consequences.

In last week's parsha we had the issur of lo tasur.  Rambam holds that issurim derabbanan fall under the lo tasur umbrella that orders us to listen to Chazal.  Ramban disagrees, and asks if this is true, why is it that sfeika d'oraysa l'chumra but sfeika derabbanan l'kula?  Every derabbanan is implicitly a safeik doraysa of lo tasur?

R' Baruch Sorotzkin uses this same yesod of the Shiurei Daas to answer that question.  The reason sfeika d'oraysa l'chumra is because even though legally you may not be doing anything wrong by taking a gamble, you still risk running into negative consequences b'metziyus.  L'mashal, even if legally you are allowed to smoke outside as opposed to inside your office building, that does not mean you are immune from cancer so long as you remain outside.  That sevara only applies when speaking about issurei d'oraysa, where what the Torah spells out as wrong is both legally wrong as well as b'metziyus wrong.  When Chazal instituted a new issur derabbanan, they did not change the metziyus; they only added legal strictures.  (Compare with R' Yosef Engel in Esvan D'Oraysa who writes that issurei d'oraysa are issurei cheftza, as opposed to issurei derabbanan that are only issurei gavra.  But Shaarei Yosher's hesber of the Rambam in I:3 and in ch 7 top of the page here.)

The Netziv uses this same sevara to explain a difficult Raavad.  If a person's life is in mortal danger, the gemara writes that where there is a choice of different issurim to violate, the rule of thumb is to choose the lesser evil.  Raavad  holds that it is better to violate Shabbos to shecht and animal and eat kosher food rather than eat treif, even though the latter is only an issur lav of malkos.  Netziv (Harchev Davar to Devarim 6:10, see the many proofs he brings) explains that food prepared on Shabbos is a legal violation; treif food is bad for you b'metziyus, like poison.  To save a person's life we can suspend legal restrictions, but b'metziyus, poison is still poison and will cause harm.  

According to this Netziv, it is meduyak why the gemara writes that beis din does not have to intervene to stop a katan from eating neveilah -- katan ocheil neveilos ain beis din metzuvim l'hafrisho.  The same is true of any issur.  Why single out neveilah for special mention?   Netziv answers that one might have thought that with respect to maachalos assuros beis din should intervene because even though a katan is legally not bound to stop eating, there is a harm b'metziyus that the katan suffers by eating treif, kah mashma lan beis din can still remain on the sidelines.

Netziv offers a similar explanation in our parsha for why there is a special command to be careful to protect the sanctity of the camp when going out to war,  כִּֽי־תֵצֵ֥א מַחֲנֶ֖ה עַל־אֹיְבֶ֑יךָ וְנִ֨שְׁמַרְתָּ֔ מִכֹּ֖ל דָּבָ֥ר רָֽע (23:10).  According to Ramban (see post here) it was permissible to eat maachalos assuros during the battles of conquest of Eretz Yisrael. Even the legal restriction against maachalos assuros was lifted, the danger of consuming what b'metziyus poses a danger remains in place.  Netziv writes:

 עוד יש טעם מה שכתב הרמב״ן כאן, באשר במחנה עלול לכל שקץ ותועבה. והוספנו לעיל שם (ו,י) הסיבה לזה, משום שהותרו מאכלות אסורות, והמה גורמים לטמטם נפש הישראלי. וכבר הזהיר הרבה לעיל (ו,יג) על זה ״השמר לך פן תשכח את ה׳ וגו׳⁠ ⁠״ וכל הענין, וכאן כפל הענין משום הוספה שהובאה כאן

With this perspective on issurim, undoing wrong and doing teshuvah is more than just a matter of spiritual rehabilitation, but encompasses restoring the damage done b'metziyus as well.

a question of survival?

I noticed an ad for a Labor Day program featuring some prominant Roshei Yeshiva and Rabbonim speaking on the topic of "Can We Survive in the Medina Shel Chessed?"  

You can say a derasha on almost every word of the title.

Firstly, I've never really liked the term "Medina Shel Chessed."  I mean, I guess if your point of comparison is the threat of government sponsored pogroms, then yes, living here is a great chessed.  But if you were on the St Louis in 1939 and had to turn around and go back to face near certain death in Germany because the US would not allow the ship to dock, then maybe you would not think of this as such a Medina Shel Chessed.  

Secondly, who is the "We" in "Can **We** Survive?" Jews in general?  Orthodox Jews?  Orthodox Jews who identify with a certain movement?  The answer may be very different for each of those groups.

Lastly, and most importantly, the fact that the question "Can We Survive?" even needs to be asked should set off alarm bells.  We are not talking about whether we can build another yeshiva or kollel somewhere, or whether we can get more people involved in yiddishkeit.  The bar is being set at bare bones survival.  Assuming the speakers are not all simply alarmists, the fact that the question needs to be asked should tell you already what dire straits we are in.

If only there were a country with a Jewish majority, a place where Jews could live freely, where they could defend themselves against external physical threats, where they could run their own affairs and not be subject to the whims of a secular, outside government.  Hmmm....   : )

egkah arufah -- what went wrong

The gemara interprets the final pasuk in the parsha of eglah arufah, וְאַתָּ֗ה תְּבַעֵ֛ר הַדָּ֥ם הַנָּקִ֖י מִקִּרְבֶּ֑ךָ כִּֽי־תַעֲשֶׂ֥ה הַיָּשָׁ֖ר בְּעֵינֵ֥י הֹ׳, to mean that if the murdered is found after the eglah arufah is done, he is still executed.  R' Chaim Kanievsky in Taama d'Kra  asks what about the end of the pasuk -- כִּֽי־תַעֲשֶׂ֥ה הַיָּשָׁ֖ר בְּעֵינֵ֥י הֹ׳.  What does that come to teach us?

R' Chaim cites a SHL"AH that quotes a Midrash that if Bn"Y are worthy, there will be worms that crawl out of the eglah arufah and make a beeline straight to the murderers home, exposing the killer.  The last letters of אַתָּ֗ה תְּבַעֵ֛ר הַדָּ֥ם הַנָּקִ֖י spell out the word רימה, alluding to this miracle.  

R' Chaim reads this into the last pasuk: we can be zocheh to אַתָּ֗ה תְּבַעֵ֛ר הַדָּ֥ם הַנָּקִ֖י מִקִּרְבֶּ֑ךָ, to identify the murderer through this special property of the eglah arufah, if כִּֽי־תַעֲשֶׂ֥ה הַיָּשָׁ֖ר בְּעֵינֵ֥י הֹ׳, we are worthy of such a miracle.

R' Chaim is trying to connect כִּֽי־תַעֲשֶׂ֥ה הַיָּשָׁ֖ר בְּעֵינֵ֥י הֹ׳ to the din of killing the actual murdered when found, but al pi peshuto shel mikra, I think the simpler reading follows Ibn Ezra.  As we discussed before, Ibn Erza interprets the confession of the elders where the body is found, יָדֵ֗ינוּ לֹ֤א שָֽׁפְכוּ֙  אֶת־הַדָּ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה וְעֵינֵ֖ינוּ לֹ֥א רָאֽוּ, not in relation to the specific crime at hand, but rather in relation to other, similar crimes that occurred in their city.  ויתכן, שהשם צוה לעשות כן העיר הקרובה, כי לולי שעשו עבירה כדומה לה, לא נזדמן אדם שיהרג קרוב מהם. ומחשבות השם עמקו וגבהו לאין קץ אצלנו.  This type of outrage -- murder -- does not occur in a vacuum; it occurs in an environment that allows similar crimes to go unpunished and ignored. 

Based on Ibn Ezra, one can answer R' Chaim's question. וְאַתָּ֗ה תְּבַעֵ֛ר הַדָּ֥ם הַנָּקִ֖י מִקִּרְבֶּ֑ךָ is a promise (see Netziv who reads it this way as well), not a din.  The pasuk is teaching that innocent blood will not be spilled in a city where כִּֽי־תַעֲשֶׂ֥ה הַיָּשָׁ֖ר בְּעֵינֵ֥י הֹ׳ in other areas, meaning where there is a general climate of justice.  

Ibn Ezra writes:

 והנכון בעיני, הוא אשר הזכרתי: כי לא ישפך דם נקי בארצך אם תעשה הישר , כסוד ושכר עבירה עבירה ושכר מצוה מצוה 

Where there is justice, שכר מצוה מצוה, but where criminals are free to act as they will in one area, שכר עבירה עבירה and other troubles follow.

 Or, as Ralbag puts it:

, או ירצה בזה שכאשר תעשה הישר בעיני י״י לא יקרה בקרבך כמו זה החטא כי הזקנים יוכיחו העם ויקבלו כלם מוסרם ללכת בדרכי התורה 

Along similar lines, Tzeror haMor makes a nice diyuk in the parsha and places blame on the kohanim for spiritual failure:

וְנִגְּשׁ֣וּ הַכֹּהֲנִים֮ בְּנֵ֣י לֵוִי֒ כִּ֣י בָ֗ם בָּחַ֞ר הֹ׳ אֱלֹהֶ֙יךָ֙ לְשָׁ֣רְת֔וֹ וּלְבָרֵ֖ךְ בְּשֵׁ֣ם הֹ׳ וְעַל־פִּיהֶ֥ם יִהְיֶ֖ה כׇּל־רִ֥יב וְכׇל־נָֽגַע׃

וְכֹ֗ל זִקְנֵי֙ הָעִ֣יר הַהִ֔וא הַקְּרֹבִ֖ים אֶל־הֶחָלָ֑ל יִרְחֲצוּ֙ אֶת־יְדֵיהֶ֔ם עַל־הָעֶגְלָ֖ה הָעֲרוּפָ֥ה בַנָּֽחַל׃

 וְעָנ֖וּ וְאָמְר֑וּ יָדֵ֗ינוּ לֹ֤אשָֽׁפְכוּ֙ אֶת־הַדָּ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה וְעֵינֵ֖ינוּ לֹ֥א רָאֽוּ׃

Notice the switch between the first pasuk, which speaks about the kohanim gathering, and the second, which speaks about the zekeinim and then goes on to say that they wash their hands and declare that they are innocent of wrongdoing.  Tzeror haMor writes that it is davka the zekeinim and NOT the kohamim who make this declaration because it is only the zekeinim and NOT the kohanim who can truly say they are innocent:

 וכן נראה שהוצרכו בכאן הכהנים לקבל בושה וכלימה. על מה שלא נתכוונו בעבודתם ובתפלתם. כי ידוע שהכהנים נוטלים בשכרם מישראל מתנות כהונה. והכהנים היו עובדים עבודתם בבהמ״ק לכפר על ישראל ולהצילם מכל מכשול ועון. ואחר שנהרג זה בגבולם. לא כיונו בתפלתם ובעבודתם. ואחר שזה כן. ראוי שיבואו לכאן ויקבלו בושה וכלימה על מה שעשו.

The fact that a murder occurred is proof that the avodah of the kohanim was not up to par.  Therefore, they must stand silently, suffering embarrassment, as the elders declare their innocence, but they cannot say the same.

לכן על פיהם יהיה כל ריב וכל נגע. כי מות וחיים ביד לשון

The pasuk davka here describes the kohanim as  עַל־פִּיהֶ֥ם יִהְיֶ֖ה כׇּל־רִ֥יב וְכׇל־נָֽגַע because it is the avodah they do על פיהם with their mouth -- their tefilah -- which has in this case failed.

It's Elul!  Slichos, ymei ha'din, a time of tefilah.   כי מות וחיים ביד לשון.  

fear of battle

There are two opinions Rashi quotes to define יָּרֵא֙ וְרַ֣ךְ הַלֵּבָ֔ב in the pasuk

 וְיָסְפ֣וּ הַשֹּׁטְרִים֮ לְדַבֵּ֣ר אֶל־הָעָם֒ וְאָמְר֗וּ מִי־הָאִ֤ישׁ הַיָּרֵא֙ וְרַ֣ךְ הַלֵּבָ֔ב יֵלֵ֖ךְ וְיָשֹׁ֣ב לְבֵית֑וֹ וְלֹ֥א יִמַּ֛ס אֶת־לְבַ֥ב אֶחָ֖יו כִּלְבָבֽוֹ׃

Rashi comments:

הירא ורך הלבב – ר׳ עקיבא אומר: כשמועו, שאינו יכול לעמוד בקשרי המלחמה ולראות חרב שלופה.

ר׳ יוסי הגלילי אומר: הירא מעבירות שבידו. ולכך תלתה לו תורה לחזור על בית וכרם ואשה, לכסות על החוזרים בשביל עבירות שבידם, שלא יבינו שהם בעלי עבירות, והרואהו אומר: שמא בנה בית או נטע כרם או ארש אשה

The baalei musar point out that the Torah is so concerned with protecting anyone from embarrassment that it even allows extra people, those who אֲשֶׁר־אֵרַ֤שׂ אִשָּׁה֙ וְלֹ֣א לְקָחָ֔הּ, נָטַ֥ע כֶּ֙רֶם֙ וְלֹ֣א חִלְּל֔וֹ,  בָּנָ֤ה בַֽיִת־חָדָשׁ֙ וְלֹ֣א חֲנָכ֔וֹ , to leave the army just before battle, when they are needed most, to avoid shaming a sinner.  

What's the nekudas ha'machlokes between the two views quoted in Rashi?  Mizrachi writes that the issue is whether a person innocent of cheit can be killed (yesh misa b'lo cheit).  R' Yosi holds not, and therefore, only a sinner need worry about going out to war; R' Akiva disagrees. 

Maharal, however, points out that the gemara in Shabbos (55, see this post) rejects the view that ain misa b'lo cheit, so it is hard to build a machlokes around this point (see R Akiva Eiger in the gilyon hasha"s there).  

I still dont get how the Maharal understands the machlokes, but from what I can piece together, he links it to the pesukim earlier in the parsha

 וְהָיָ֕ה כְּקָֽרׇבְכֶ֖ם אֶל־הַמִּלְחָמָ֑ה וְנִגַּ֥שׁ הַכֹּהֵ֖ן וְדִבֶּ֥ר אֶל־הָעָֽם

וְאָמַ֤ר אֲלֵהֶם֙ שְׁמַ֣ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אַתֶּ֨ם קְרֵבִ֥ים הַיּ֛וֹם לַמִּלְחָמָ֖ה עַל־אֹיְבֵיכֶ֑ם אַל־יֵרַ֣ךְ לְבַבְכֶ֗ם אַל־תִּֽירְא֧וּ וְאַֽל־תַּחְפְּז֛וּ וְאַל־תַּֽעַרְצ֖וּ מִפְּנֵיהֶֽם׃

 כִּ֚י הֹ׳ אֱלֹֽקיכֶ֔ם הַהֹלֵ֖ךְ עִמָּכֶ֑ם לְהִלָּחֵ֥ם לָכֶ֛ם עִם־אֹיְבֵיכֶ֖ם לְהוֹשִׁ֥יעַ אֶתְכֶֽם

R' Yosi held that the whole point of the kohen telling the people to be brave and not fear the enemy is to remove that as a justification for not fighting.  Physical fear alone is not a justification to leave the front.  R' Akiva, on the other hand, holds that if despite the kohen's admonition someone is afraid of battle, they should return home.

Maharal writes:

טעמא דרבי יוסי, משום ד״הירא״ משמע יראה בלבד בלב, ואם כן למה יחזור, יאמר לו ״אל תירא כי ה׳ אלהיכם הוא ההולך עמכם״ (ר׳ פסוקים ג, ד), כמו שהיה מזרז אותם השוטרים והכהן (שם), ולמה יחזור בחנם. אבל רבי עקיבא בודאי סובר כיון דהוא ירא ומצטער - יחזור

I dont understand how this works because m'mah nafshach: if after hearing the kohen the person is still afraid, then why not send him home, like R' Akiva holds?  But if there is a chance that hearing the kohen's encouragement would help overcome fear, then why not have the kohen speak to him, like R' Yosi holds?  What exactly is the point of contention between them?