Tuesday, January 17, 2023

"zeh lecha ha'os" -- the sign Moshe was given

Moshe was reluctant to assume the mantle of leadership.  He said to G-d:

 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־הָ֣אֱלֹקים מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי כִּ֥י אֵלֵ֖ךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְכִ֥י אוֹצִ֛יא אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָֽיִם

The Midrash comments:

רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים, כְּשֶׁיָּרַד יַעֲקֹב לְמִצְרַיִם לֹא כָּךְ אָמַרְתָּ לוֹ:: אָנֹכִי אֵרֵד עִמְּךָ מִצְרַיְמָה וְאָנֹכִי אַעַלְךָ גַּם עָלֹה (בראשית מ״ו:ד׳), וְעַכְשָׁיו אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לִי: לְכָה וְאֶשְׁלָחֲךָ אֶל פַּרְעֹה, לֹא אָנֹכִי הוּא שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ לוֹ: וְאָנֹכִי אַעַלְךָ גַּם עָלֹה

Moshe said to G-d, "You promised that you would be with the people in their exile and that you would redeem them.  I am not you!  It is not my place to take on this task."

To which G-d answered,  כִּֽי־אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה עִמָּ֔ךְ.  I, אָנֹ֔כִי, am the redeemer, but I will act through you.  

The pasuk (3:21) then continues that Hashem gave Moshe a sign:

 וְזֶה־לְּךָ֣ הָא֔וֹת כִּ֥י אָנֹכִ֖י שְׁלַחְתִּ֑יךָ בְּהוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם תַּֽעַבְדוּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים עַ֖ל הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה׃

How does this sign help Moshe prove his bona fides or prove that G-d is with him?  The fact that mattan Torah will take place 50 days after yetzias Mitzrayim will not help Moshe up front, before yetzi'as Mitzrayim takes place, when he has to convince the people to follow him?!

Meshech Chochma and Ohr haChaim say an amazing pshat here.  You have to put the period in the right place in the pasuk.  וְזֶה־לְּךָ֣ הָא֔וֹת כִּ֥י אָנֹכִ֖י שְׁלַחְתִּ֑יךָ -- period, full stop.  This is the sign!  What is the "this" they are talking about?  It's the previous sentence.  There are a lot of people who, if offered the chance to become the leader of a nation, would jump at the chance.  There are people who would demur, but out of a false sense of humility.  That works when you are speaking to a human being, but it does not work when you are speaking to G-d, as He is able to tell exactly what is in your heart and can tell whether you really want the job or not.  False modesty does not work.  It's only a Moshe Rabeinu who can say b'lev shalem, with sincerity and in absolute truth, מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי כִּ֥י אֵלֵ֖ךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה, I really don't think I am worthy of the job. Hashem told Moshe, "That is the only sign you need."  People can detect true humility and sense sincerity.  They will recognize that only someone of your caliber, only someone who would turn down the job, could possibly be the one chosen by Hashem.

The proof that humility is the quality that defines who the go'el is בְּהוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם תַּֽעַבְדוּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים עַ֖ל הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה. The same זֶה, the same humility, that characterized Moshe's response, is the same זֶה -- the mountain of הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה--  that made Har Sinai into the mountain where mattan Torah would take place.  As Chazal tell us, it's not because Har Sinai was the tallest or greatest mountain that it was chosen; it's because it was the lowest mountain, symbolizing the humility necessary to be a conduit of dvar Hashem.

what Moshe did to merit seeing the burning Moshe

When Moshe sees the burning bush, he turns towards it to see what is going on.  

וַיַּ֥רְא ה׳ כִּ֣י סָ֣ר לִרְא֑וֹת  וַיִּקְרָא֩ אֵלָ֨יו אֱלֹקים מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַסְּנֶ֗ה וַיֹּ֛אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֥ה מֹשֶׁ֖ה וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הִנֵּֽנִי׃

As a result, a Hashem appears and calls to him.

What's so special about Moshe turning to see what's going on that elicits this call from Hashem to make him the leader of Klal Yisrael?  Wouldn't any of us who came across an inexplicable phenomenon, הַמַּרְאֶ֥ה הַגָּדֹ֖ל הַזֶּ֑ה מַדּ֖וּעַ לֹא־יִבְעַ֥ר הַסְּנֶֽה, come closer to take a look?

Says the Midrash:

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, מַהוּ כִּי סָר לִרְאוֹת – אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא סָר וְזָעֵף הוּא זֶה לִרְאוֹת בְּצַעֲרָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִצְרַיִם,

It's not Moshe's turning his attention to look at the burning bush which the pasuk is referring to; it's referring to Moshe's having turned his attention to the suffering of his bretheren in Mitzrayim.  The words סָר לִרְאוֹת is talking about what we read in the previous chapter (2:11),  וַיִּגְדַּ֤ל מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֵּצֵ֣א אֶל־אֶחָ֔יו וַיַּ֖רְא בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑ם.

The tnai rishon to be zocheh to see hashra'as haShechina, to be zocheh to וַיִּקְרָא֩ אֵלָ֨יו אֱלֹקים, is to first open your eyes and see the suffering and needs of your fellow Jew.

Thursday, January 12, 2023

Mi Anochi?

When Hashem charged Moshe with the mission of acting as the go'el of Bnei Yisrael, Moshe responded (3:11)

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־הָ֣אֱלֹקים מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי כִּ֥י אֵלֵ֖ךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְכִ֥י אוֹצִ֛יא אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָֽיִם

To which Hashem responded:

וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ כִּֽי־אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה עִמָּ֔ךְ וְזֶה־לְּךָ֣ הָא֔וֹת כִּ֥י אָנֹכִ֖י שְׁלַחְתִּ֑יךָ בְּהוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם תַּֽעַבְדוּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים עַ֖ל הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה

How does that answer the question?  How does the fact that there will be a kabbalas haTorah serve as a response to מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי? 

Moshe later complained that Bn"Y will not believe his message (4:1)

וַיַּ֤עַן מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֹּ֔אמֶר וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י

Why did he doubt them?  Yosef had told them before he died (Braishes 50:24)

 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יוֹסֵף֙ אֶל־אֶחָ֔יו אָנֹכִ֖י מֵ֑ת וֵֽאלֹקים פָּקֹ֧ד יִפְקֹ֣ד אֶתְכֶ֗ם וְהֶעֱלָ֤ה אֶתְכֶם֙ מִן־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֔את אֶל־הָאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֛ע לְאַבְרָהָ֥ם לְיִצְחָ֖ק וּֽלְיַעֲקֹֽב

The people had this tradition that the use of the code words פָּקֹ֧ד פָּקֹ֧דתי would be a sign that the go'el was legitimate.  So why would they not believe if Moshe had the right code?

R' Mordechai Greenberg, the nasi ha'yeshiva of Kerem b'Yavneh, explains based on the writings of R' Kook, that  Bn"Y is singled out from the nations of the world in two respects: 1) we are a moral, law abiding people, not like the primitive tribes of the past; 2) we have a spiritual connection with Hashem beyond what other nations have.  Even if other nations attain culture, abide by laws, become civilized, and become our equal with respect to #1, we still excel above them with respect to #2.

This double-blessing is the meaning of Hashem's promise to Yaakov (Braishis 46:4) 

אָנֹכִ֗י אֵרֵ֤ד עִמְּךָ֙ מִצְרַ֔יְמָה וְאָנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣ גַם־עָלֹ֑ה

The double-אָנֹכִ֗י is a two fold promise.  One is the promise that Hashem will be with Bn"Y even in the tumah of Mitzrayim and preven them from descending to the level of primitiveness and lawlessness of a backward society. Secondly, there is the promise that redemption will bring them close to Hashem, to spiritual heights like no other people have reached.

And this is the meaning of the promise of פָּקֹ֧ד פָּקֹ֧דתי, also doubled.  A redemption that just releases the people from the chains of bondage without giving their lives spiritual content and meaning is insufficient -- the go'el must deliver both.  

This was Moshe's challenge to Hashem.  "You Hashem promised אָנֹכִ֗י אֵרֵ֤ד עִמְּךָ֙ מִצְרַ֔יְמָה וְאָנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣ גַם־עָלֹ֑ה.  That role can only be fulfilled by You, but מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי, I or any other human being cannot be that אָנֹ֔כִי." 

And this is why Moshe doubted that the people would believe.  There was no magic to saying the right code words.  Those words reflected the double promise, the promise of both physical and spiritual redemption.  That is what Moshe thought he would be unable to fulfill.  To break the shackles of slavery is one thing, but to give the nation a spiritual identity -- that's a different story.

Hashem's response to Moshe is that indeed He is the One who will fulfill the promise of אָנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣, but it will be done through Moshe, כִּֽי־אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה עִמָּ֔ךְ.  

The culmination of that promise of אָנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣ will take place at Sinai, where the people will hear אָֽנֹכִ֖י֙ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ אֲשֶׁ֧ר הוֹצֵאתִ֛יךָ מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם מִבֵּ֣֥ית עֲבָדִֽ֑ים.   

Monday, January 09, 2023

ChatGPT and human bias

One of the sites I check out now and then is fivebooks.com, where experts are asked to recommend the five best books in their field of expertise.  Their first piece this year was the most interesting one I have ever read on that site.  Unless you've been living under a rock by now you've heard of ChatGPT, the AI that can supposedly write like a person.  Fivebooks.com asked ChatGPT to recommend five books on AI, and they had a discussion with the AI about its choices.  You can read the whole "interview" here.  

As far as the writing goes, I found what ChatGPT produced to be mechanically and technically correct.  However, I would not call it good writing.  The writing lacks color, tone, charm, warmth -- all the qualities that makes good writing worth reading.  My wife tested the site out and she compared it to cooking.  There are some people who can throw together a dish that is nutritious and makes for a balanced meal, but that you would not want to eat unless you are starving.  It's food, but it's food sapped of whatever joy and flavor food gives you when eaten.

The reports in the news the past few days suggesting that ChatGPT will force schools to do away with student writing assignments since they can be done by AI to me says more about the poor quality of student writing these days than the quality of the AI.  

Anyway, back to fivebooks.  Here is the part of the interview that really grabbed caught my attention.  The interviewer asked the AI:

Lastly, when we interview experts, we don’t normally impose criteria, other than that these books should be the best on their subject. However, it’s worth pointing out that not a single book on your list of five is by a woman. Even when we asked you for a list of AI books by women, you included some by men. 

The AI then gave a list of five books by women authors, and then the interviewer follows up:

These books look excellent. Why didn’t you choose some of them as the best AI books?

I did not mention these books specifically as the “best” AI books because I was trying to provide a more general list of recommendations that would be suitable for readers who are new to the field and want to get a broad overview of AI.

Are most AI books written by men?

It is difficult to say definitively whether most books on artificial intelligence (AI) are written by men, as it would be necessary to conduct a detailed analysis of the publishing industry to determine the gender breakdown of authors in this field. However, it is worth noting that the tech industry in general has historically been male-dominated, and it is possible that this may be reflected in the authorship of books on AI. It is also important to recognize that the gender of an author does not necessarily reflect the quality or importance of their work, and that there are many excellent books on AI written by both men and women. It is always a good idea to consider a diverse range of perspectives and viewpoints when reading about any subject, including AI.

It's fascinating to see the interviewer trying to tilt the scales, as the "best" group of anything these days has to include the "right" mix of women, blacks, LGBT, etc so that the requisite number of diversity boxes get checked.  The interviewer tries to float the idea that most AI books are written by men as an excuse for the list being dominated by men, but the AI, however, is not willing to have it, and replies with some general truisms that say and mean nothing.

I sadly have no doubt given the cultural climate in which we live that the AI will eventually be tweaked so that it too, like it's leftist human counterparts, will take "diversity and inclusion" into account when making its future selections.  

shenayim mikra or pesukei d'zima -- which takes precedence

The Baal haTurim has a cute remez on the first pasuk of the parsha about the importance of shenayim mikra v'echad targum (=Shmot).

An interesting question that was posed to R' Shach: l'chatchila shenayim mikra is supposed to be done before seudas shabbos.  When R' Shmuel David Munk, who went on to become Av Beis Din in Haifa, was a bachur in the yeshiva he was behind in shenayim mikra, and because of scheduling, would not have time to finish before the seudah.  He asked whether it would it be better for him to skip pesukei d'zima (except for maybe ashrei and nishmas) and do shenayim mikra in the time gained since m'dina d'gemara most of pesukei d'zima is not obligatory but shenayim mikra is, or should he not change the tzurah of tefilah?

R' Shach paskened that shenayim mikra takes precedence; the Chazon Ish disagreed.  (see here and here #129)  

Friday, January 06, 2023

don't be deceived by sweetness

  וַיְחִ֤י יַעֲקֹב֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם שְׁבַ֥ע עֶשְׂרֵ֖ה שָׁנָ֑ה  Rashi comments:

  למה פרשה זה סתומה? לפי שכיון שנפטר יעקב אבינו נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל מצרת השיעבוד, שהתחילו לשעבדם.

Forget about the question of whether this Rashi is a stira to other Rashis that say the shibud did not begin until after the shevatim died.  Rashi is a stira to the pasuk itself!  The Torah here is describing the great life Yaakov had in Egypt.  As Netziv writes, אלא הפירוש ״ויחי יעקב״, שהיה חי חיים טובים ומתוקנים, מה שלא הורגל כזה בארץ ישראל.  The stuma that hints to  נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל shouldn't be here -- it should come after Yaakov's death, at the start of parshas Shmos, when the situation changes.  As the Shem m'Shmuel writes (5678, also see the Kozhiglover):

ויש לדקדק שכתוב זה איננו מדבר מפטירתו של יעקב עדיין, אדרבה, שמדבר מחייו שהי' עיקר שני חייו, ..., א"כ יש להבין למה הרמז ממה שנהייתה אחר פטירתו ניתן כאן

There is a Zohar that says that these 17 years of goodness that Yaakov experienced were a payback for the years of suffering he experienced when Yosef was lost -- 17 years because Yosef left home at age 17.  The obvious question: Yosef was away from home for 22 years, so why not give Yaakov 22 years of joy?  What does how old he was when he left home have to do with anything?  The Kozhiglover answers that it was the 17 years of pleasure that Yaakov had during those first 17 years of Yosef's life that made the next 22 years so miserable.  Pain and loss are a response to being deprived of joy and pleasure that one has become accustomed to.  Without the latter, the former is meaningless.  

It could be that Rashi means the same here, i.e. the goodness Yaakov experienced in Egypt set the stage for the pain of galus that was to follow because it made the fall that much more dramatic and painful.  But I think Rashi means much more than that.  I think the goodness itself is the first step into the galus.  

In my neighborhood there are yeshivos, there are kollelim, there is also every type of kosher restaurant and eatery and gashmiyus thing you could think of.  וַיְחִ֤י יַעֲקֹב֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם!  We are on a high, whether you measure our material well being or even our spiritual health.  But that high masks a sad truth, and that is  נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל.  Not because we are not learning Torah, davening with a minyan, giving out kids a good Jewish education, etc. but because we have deluded ourselves into thinking that's all that matters, that's all that being a Jew is all about.  Does it even enter anyone's mind when they are eating a great steak dinner at one of the local fancy restaurants in town, or l'havdil, when they are listening to a shiur in a local shul, that this is not where we are supposed to be, that our whole existence here is just a b'dieved?  I think not. That's  נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל  That's being blinded by the חיים טובים ומתוקנים, מה שלא הורגל כזה, to use the Netziv's language. 

What happened later in parshas Shmos is that the  נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל  that started here from all the goodness was transformed into נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל מצרת השיעבוד.  Once Yaakov, who carried with him the memory of where the family originated, was gone, a different phase of the galus began, a more painful phase, but that phase was an extension of the forgetting that began in our parsha.  Therefore it is our parsha, not parshas Shmos, which is the פרשה זה סתומה.

Thursday, December 29, 2022

Yosef's tochacha; Bnei Yisrael or bnei Yisrael?; choleh on 10 Teves

Chazal famously comment on the pasuk

 וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יוֹסֵ֤ף אֶל־אֶחָיו֙ אֲנִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י וְלֹֽא־יָכְל֤וּ אֶחָיו֙ לַעֲנ֣וֹת אֹת֔וֹ כִּ֥י נִבְהֲל֖וּ מִפָּנָֽיו׃

that Yosef's words were words of rebuke

אַבָּא כֹּהֵן בַּרְדְּלָא אָמַר, אוֹי לָנוּ מִיּוֹם הַדִּין אוֹי לָנוּ מִיּוֹם הַתּוֹכֵחָה, ... יוֹסֵף קְטַנָּן שֶׁל שְׁבָטִים הָיָה וְלֹא הָיוּ יְכוֹלִים לַעֲמֹד בְּתוֹכַחְתּוֹ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וְלֹא יָכְלוּ אֶחָיו לַעֲנוֹת אֹתוֹ כִּי נִבְהֲלוּ מִפָּנָיו, לִכְשֶׁיָּבוֹא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְיוֹכִיחַ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לְפִי מַה שֶּׁהוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים נ׳:כ״א): אוֹכִיחֲךָ וְאֶעֶרְכָה לְעֵינֶיךָ, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.

Where is the rebuke in Yosef's asking whether his father was still alive?  Why did this question throw the brothers into a state of shock?

The Sheiris Yisrael reminds us of the Rashi at the beginning of P' VaYeishev,  ושהיה זיו איקונין של יוסף דומה לו, that tells us that Yosef looked like Yaakov.  Sometimes a child is the spitting image of his parent; that's how it was with Yosef and Yaakov.

Yehudah's argument to let Binyamin go rested primarily on the effect the loss of Binyamin would have on Yaakov   וְהָיָ֗ה כִּרְאוֹת֛וֹ כִּי־אֵ֥ין הַנַּ֖עַר וָמֵ֑ת וְהוֹרִ֨ידוּ עֲבָדֶ֜יךָ אֶת־שֵׂיבַ֨ת עַבְדְּךָ֥ אָבִ֛ינוּ בְּיָג֖וֹן שְׁאֹֽלָה  It is his father's health and well-being which Yehudah professes is uppermost in his mind.  Even when he brings up the fact that he personally guaranteed Binyamin's safety and put his olam ha'ba on the line, Yehudah does not focus on himself; he again puts the focus on his father,  אִם־לֹ֤א אֲבִיאֶ֙נּוּ֙ אֵלֶ֔יךָ וְחָטָ֥אתִי לְאָבִ֖י כׇּל־הַיָּמִֽים׃.  What dedication to their parent!  What love for Yaakov!

And then Yosef burst the bubble.

How, if Yaakov is uppermost on your minds, could you see his spitting image before you and not make the connection? 

There is a gezeira that one who dies is eventually forgotten. הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י?  If he is not, your forgetting about him is understandable, but if he is, and he is uppermost in your thoughts as you claim, how have you not recognized me?

The brothers could not answer כִּ֥י נִבְהֲל֖וּ מִפָּנָֽיו, they saw Yosef's face and it suddenly clicked.  It was the image of their father that they saw, but that image, as Yosef perceived, had retreated to the back recesses of their mind once they were no longer in their father's presence.

I would just add to the Sheiris Yisrael that it was the  דמות דיוקנו של אביו which had appeared to Yosef (39:11 in Rashi) and saved him from sinning with Eishes Potifar.  Yaakov's visage never left Yosef's imagination.  His brothers, however, had not lived up to that same standard.

2) The pasuk describes Bn"Y coming to Mitzrayim (46:5)

 וַיָּ֥קׇם יַעֲקֹ֖ב מִבְּאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע וַיִּשְׂא֨וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־יַעֲקֹ֣ב אֲבִיהֶ֗ם וְאֶת־טַפָּם֙ וְאֶת־נְשֵׁיהֶ֔ם בָּעֲגָל֕וֹת אֲשֶׁר־שָׁלַ֥ח פַּרְעֹ֖ה לָשֵׂ֥את אֹתֽוֹ׃

Yaakov is referred to by that name, but his children are referred to as bnei Yisrael -- not as bnei Yaakov.  Why the shift?

The gemara (Chulin 100) has a machlokes Tanaim whether the issur of gid ha'nasheh applied only post-mattan Torah, or did it apply earlier.  The pasuk tells us  עַל־כֵּ֡ן לֹֽא־יֹאכְל֨וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־גִּ֣יד הַנָּשֶׁ֗ה.  Does Bnei Yisrael with a capital B refer to the Jewish nation, which only came into existence later at mattan Torah, or is it a lower case b and it refers to the children of Yaakov?  R' Yehudah's view is that the term B/bnei Yisrael applies pre-mattan Torah as well, as we see from our pasuk.  

Seforno comments: 

וישאו בני ישראל – שהיו צריכים מכאן ואילך להיות ״עם בני ישראל״, להשתרר עם אלהים ועם אנשים המתקוממים, בלכתם עתה אל אדמת נכר.

The pasuk deliberately uses the term Bnei Yisrael -- as opposed to Yaakov -- because from this moment onward the shevatim needed to take on the identity of their father that the name Yisrael represented, namely, the ability to wrestle with and fight against outside forces.  

3) The Pninei Halacha put out by Mir Yeshiva discusses the question of someone too ill to fast on 10 Teves but who wants to serve as shat"z and get an aliya because they have yahrzeit on that day.  Would eating less than the shiur help?

This question would seem to hinge on the machlokes between the Marcheshes and R' Chaim that we discussed earlier this year.  According to the Marcheshes, a choleh on a fast day should, if possible, eat less than the shiur and by doing so does not lose the kiyum of the taanis.  The lomdus: the shiur of issurei achila, with respect to a taanis or anything else, is always a k'zayis.  True, chatzi shiur is forbidden, but chatzi shiur is its own independent issur.  Eating chatzi shiur would be like, for example, doing an aveira of speaking lashon ha'ra on a taanis.  The person did an issur, but that does not negate their taanis, as it was not an issur achila.  

R' Chaim held that a choleh is exempt from fasting since b'makom choli lo gazru rabbanan.  If the person chooses not to eat they accomplish nothing; it would be like voluntarily skipping breakfast and lunch on any given day of the week -- no kiyum mitzvah, no shem taanis.  A person who is not included in the chiyuv taanis cannot say aneinu or get an aliya for the kri'as haTorah of a taanis.

Wednesday, December 28, 2022

safeik sakanah -- why have shuls not reinstated mask mandates?

Per the NYC Dept. of Health:

As New York City enters the holiday season, COVID-19 and other seasonal illnesses are seeing unusually high concurrent spikes. To slow the transmission of these viruses, the New York City Health Commissioner issued a Health Advisory that urges New York City residents to use high-quality masks when indoors and in crowded outdoor settings

The referenced Health Advisory states:

1. Everyone, even if vaccinated and even if they have had COVID-19 or flu before, should wear a mask as follows:

    a. Wear a mask at all times when in an indoor public setting, including inside  stores, offices, lobbies, hallways, elevators, public transportation, schools, child care facilities, and other public shared spaces, and when in a crowded outdoor setting. 

Given the standard set down by certain YU Roshei Yeshiva, i.e. "The Torah absolutely condemns and forbids acting in a way which - under any circumstances [emph mine]- may allow for the death of a Jew," I don't understand why shuls (e.g. Young Israel and the like) which align themselves under the YU umbrella have not brought back mask requirements.  Surely there are elderly, immunocompromised, and others who come to minyan and thereby risk exposure to RSV, Covid, flu, and other illness that can prove life threatening. As R' Meir Twersky wrote elsewhere, "It is self-evident that even if the calculated risk to specific individuals within any given minyan were negligible, this calculation would be entirely immaterial because of the danger posed to the k’lal as a whole by convening minyanim. It is a near-certainty -- if not an absolute certainty -- that amongst the many individuals who will elect to participate in such widespread minyanim, there will be at least a few who will indeed contract this dangerous disease."  

L'shaitaschem, what's the heter to now hold maskless minyanim and create a situation of safeik sakanah?  

Even if one does not want to go as far as cancelling tefilah b'tzibur entirely, surely the slight inconvenience of wearing a mask should not only be recommended, but should be halachically obligatory given the danger?

Tuesday, December 27, 2022

incongruous facts

It was only after being locked up for three days in prison by Yosef, only after he had told them they could go home, provided they leave Shimon behind and agree to bring back Binyamin, that the brothers said to themselves

 וַיֹּאמְר֞וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֗יו אֲבָל֮ אֲשֵׁמִ֣ים ׀ אֲנַ֘חְנוּ֮ עַל־אָחִ֒ינוּ֒ אֲשֶׁ֨ר רָאִ֜ינוּ צָרַ֥ת נַפְשׁ֛וֹ בְּהִתְחַֽנְנ֥וֹ אֵלֵ֖ינוּ וְלֹ֣א שָׁמָ֑עְנוּ עַל־כֵּן֙ בָּ֣אָה אֵלֵ֔ינוּ הַצָּרָ֖ה הַזֹּֽאת׃ (42:21)

Abarbanel asks (see Shem m'Shmuel as well): why did it take them these three days to come to this realization?  Why didn't it hit them as soon as they were accused of being spies, or from the first moment they were locked up?

Abarbanel answers that when the brothers originally were accused by Yosef, they could easily have dismissed his accusations as those of a lunatic, a crazy dictator who for some reason took a disliking to them.  However, after the three days in lockup, look at how Yosef addressed the brothers:

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֤ם יוֹסֵף֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֔י זֹ֥את עֲשׂ֖וּ וִֽחְי֑וּ אֶת־הָאֱלֹקים אֲנִ֥י יָרֵֽא

 אִם־כֵּנִ֣ים אַתֶּ֔ם אֲחִיכֶ֣ם אֶחָ֔ד יֵאָסֵ֖ר בְּבֵ֣ית מִשְׁמַרְכֶ֑ם וְאַתֶּם֙ לְכ֣וּ הָבִ֔יאוּ שֶׁ֖בֶר רַעֲב֥וֹן בָּתֵּיכֶֽם

First of all, he told them that he is a G-d fearing person, i.e. he is a moral individual.  Then he told them that not only can they return home, but they can also pack their bags with food.  The only condition he set is leaving behind Shimon as a means of guaranteeing their return.  

This is not the rantings of a crazy person or person who just hates them.  אֶת־הָאֱלֹקים אֲנִ֥י יָרֵֽא, these are the words of someone who seems to be a law abiding, ethical person, and who only wants to do the right thing.

The brothers could not in their minds find a way to bridge the incongruity of their having been locked up and wrongly accused and the Yosef who now presented himself as a reasonable, ethical person.  The only conclusion they were left with is that it is not some madness or hatred on Yosef's part, but rather it was their own misdeed in selling Yosef which caused Hashem to visit this strange punishment upon them.

This Abarbanel caught my attention because it is this incongruity that the brothers found so unbelievable which I think characterizes modern antisemitism more than the antisemitism of previous times.  

I just finished reading One Hundred Saturdays: Stella Levi and the Search for a Lost World, and there is one passage that stood out in my mind (I'm sorry I already returned the book to the library and can't quote it exactly).  Stella Levi had a sister who was an intellectual; she used to read anything she could get her hands on, she used to sit and talk late into the night about philosophy, politics, etc.  After the war, when Stella was once relating some of her experiences (she survived Auschwitz) in her sister's presence, she found that her sister had gone off and was sitting alone listening to the 9th symphony.  She could not deal with the incongruity of a "civilized" world, the world of humanism, liberalism, ideas and ideals that she had believed in before the war, and what had actually happened. 

Even when news of the concentration camps seeped out, people found it unbelievable because it was so at odds with the image of German culture and reason.  Surely reasonable, intelligent, ethical people would never behave in such a way. 

And yet, they did.  

Monday, December 26, 2022

a yeshiva built on arvus

I think R' Drukman's own words are the most fitting memorial for him.  


Why of all his children did Yaakov select Yehuda to send ahead to establish a yeshiva in Goshen?  R' Drukman quoted the Tiferes Shlomo of Radomsk as explaining that it was Yehuda who in last week's parsha stepped up to guarantee the return of Binyamin (see this post).  The gemara (B"B 173) derives the principle of arvus from Yehudah's words אָֽנֹכִי֙ אֶֽעֶרְבֶ֔נּוּ (43:9):

אמר רב הונא, מניין לערב [קבלן] שמשתעבד, דכתיב אנכי אערבנו מידי תבקשנו

The bedrock upon which Yaakov wanted a yeshiva built is this concept of arvus, of accepting responsibility for others.  It's not enough to lock oneself away and learn Torah; one must also reach out to others, to engage them in learning, to connect them to Torah.   We have a responsibility for and to the klal.  I think that sums up R' Drukman's life mission perfectly.

Friday, December 23, 2022

it's all one dream

Why was Yosef able to recognize his brothers but they unable to recognize him?  The Sanz-Klausenberger Rebbe, a tzadik who, as a Holocaust survivor, was no stranger to hardship, explains that holiness has a way to etching itself on a person's face.  All 12 of the shevatim were tzadikim, but none of them had suffered the way Yosef had suffered in prison, none of them had been challenged with the trials and tests Yosef had been challenged with, none of them had overcome what Yosef had overcome.  Those experiences gave him an air of holiness that was beyond them, and beyond what they could imagine the brother they last saw as a teenager would attain.

This same idea is reflected in the name of sheivet Dan.  The 12 months of the year correspond to the 12 shevatim, and the incoming month of Teives, according to some, corresponds to sheivet Dan.  Why was Dan given that name?  When Bilha, who Rachel had given to Yaakov as a surrogate because she was unable to have children, had a child, Rachel named him Dan because

דָּנַנִּי וְחִיְּבַנִי דָּנַנִּי וְזִכַּנִּי. דָּנַנִּי וְחִיְּבַנִּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית כ״ט:ל״א): וְרָחֵל עֲקָרָה. דָּנַנִּי וְזִכַּנִּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ל׳:ו׳): וַיִּתֶּן לִי בֵּן.(Midrash) 

It is not just being validated ,  דָּנַנִּי וְזִכַּנִּי, that Rachel celebrates in the name.  She also celebrates her prior suffering, דָּנַנִּי וְחִיְּבַנִי.  The fact that she did not have it easy caused her to grow, and that was the catalyst for her eventually having children.

Like we said last week, ביקש יעקב לישב שלוה קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף, the רוגזו של יוסף is not a punishment, but it's a means to an end. True שלוה does not come from avoiding difficulties; it comes from achieving success in dealing with them.  

Yosef stresses to Pharoah the the dream of the skinny cows and the skinny sheaves and the fat cows and fat sheaves, it's all one dream, חלום אחד הוא.  L'mai nafka minah?  What difference does it make if it's one dream or two dreams or four different dreams?

Sefas Emes (5632) teaches:

חלום פרעה שנא' בתורה וגם כתיב חלום אחד הוא. נראה שיש ללמוד ממנו לעבודתו ית' שהוא ממקום האחדות והפנימיות.

We think of the good parts of life as a like a pleasant dream, and the problems are like a nightmare.  Two separate experiences.  Not true --  חלום אחד הוא.  The latter goes hand in hand with the former.

The Ch' haRI"M, like we once discussed, explains the name of the month Teives from the words "hatavas ha'neiros."  When we think of Chanukah what comes to mind is the beautiful light of the menorah.  In order to have that light someone needs to stick their finger in and clean out the greasy old wicks and set everything up for lighting. דָּנַנִּי וְחִיְּבַנִי דָּנַנִּי וְזִכַּנִּי.  That too is part of the lighting, חלום אחד הוא.  

Wednesday, December 21, 2022

kindling a fire: hil shabbos vs lighting a menorah

A long time ago we discussed R' Chaim Brisker's question on the Midrash Tanchuma that says that in the days of R' Chanina Sgan haKohanim the menorah miraculously burned from Rosh haShana to Rosh haShana.  How then did they fulfill the mitzvah of hadlakas menorah?  R' Chaim posed this question to to the Imrei Emes when they met.  The Imrei Emes responded by quoting the din (Beitzah 32) that if you add a drop of oil to a burning lamp you are chayav on shabbos for mav'ir.  Based on this, even if menorah continued to burn on its own, the kohanim could have fulfilled the mitzvah of hadlakah by simply adding a drop of oil.

R' Chaim was supposedly very taken with this answer, but R' Wahrman's in his She'eiris Yosef (vol 3) raises an objection.  The Rosh writes that since hadlakah oseh mitzvah there has to be enough oil present in the menorah at the time of lighting to burn for the required shiur.  If not, one has to put out the menorah and relight.  Why should this be necessary?  If adding oil counts as an act of hadlakah, all one should need to do is add the needed amount of extra oil that addition itself should count as a new hadlakah, one now done with the proper amount of oil present!

R' Wahrman asks the question on R' Chaim/the Imrei Emes, but I chanced across seeing that the Chidusehi Ben Aryeh, R' Gershon Edelstein's grandfather, flips things around and asks the question on the Rosh.  How did the Rosh deal with the gemara in Beitzah?  It is a longish piece, but the yesod that he tries to develop is that there is a difference between the definition of the melacha of mav'ir with respect to hil shabbos and the definition of mav'ir/hadlakah with respect to menorah, or other areas of halacha.  Adding oil is a melacha of mav'ir, but not more than that.  You would think that this is classic Brisker thinking -- you have what appears to be the same concept of mav'ir in different contexts, but tease out that it's really tzvei dinim chalukim b'yesodam.  That's what makes the fact that R' Chaim applauded the answer of the Imrei Emes so interesting -- instead of distinguishing between the sugyos, it lumps the concepts together into one.  

Tuesday, December 20, 2022

haste makes waste, Reuvain's response to the mob, and the idea behind the minhag of Chanukah gelt

 וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע רְאוּבֵ֔ן וַיַּצִּלֵ֖הוּ מִיָּדָ֑ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לֹ֥א נַכֶּ֖נּוּ נָֽפֶשׁ׃

 וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֣ם ׀ רְאוּבֵן֮ אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם֒ הַשְׁלִ֣יכוּ אֹת֗וֹ אֶל־הַבּ֤וֹר הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר וְיָ֖ד אַל־תִּשְׁלְחוּ־ב֑וֹ לְמַ֗עַן הַצִּ֤יל אֹתוֹ֙ מִיָּדָ֔ם לַהֲשִׁיב֖וֹ אֶל־אָבִֽיו׃

Why do we need the words וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֣ם ׀ רְאוּבֵן֮  in the second pasuk when the first pasuk already introduced Reuvain as the speaker, וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע רְאוּבֵ֔ן...  וַיֹּ֕אמֶר opening the quotaton marks, if you will, before the words  לֹ֥א נַכֶּ֖נּוּ נָֽפֶשׁ?  

Netziv explains that the first pasuk was an exclamation, a shout meant to cause everyone to stop and pay attention. Only once the momentum was slowed could the conversation and deliberation which started with the second pasuk, take place.

Seforno adds: ויצלהו מידם – במניעת הפועל הפתאומי המוליד ״מעות לא יוכל לתקן״ (קהלת א׳:ט״ו), שיפול בכמוהו גם הצדיק לפעמים, כענין ראובן עם בלהה, כאמרו ״פחז כמים״ (בראשית מ״ט:ד׳)  Reuvain was the one who spoke out in this way because it was Reuvain himself who knew more than anyone the danger of acting precipitously!  Yaakov blamed Reuvain's sin in moving his bed on ״פחז כמים, Reuvain's haste to take action.

When Reuvain later returns to the pit to pull Yosef out and sees that Yosef is gone, he says in anguish  הַיֶּ֣לֶד אֵינֶ֔נּוּ וַאֲנִ֖י אָ֥נָה אֲנִי־בָֽא׃.  (See Friday's post for one interpretation of these words.)  Abarbanel writes that Reuvain could not have been protesting against the sale of Yosef here.  Rashi earlier interprets the words לְמַ֗עַן הַצִּ֤יל אֹתוֹ֙ מִיָּדָ֔ם לַהֲשִׁיב֖וֹ אֶל־אָבִֽיו׃ above not as Reuvain's words, but as ruach hakodesh testifying as to Reuvain's intentions.  Sifsei Chachamim explains that Rashi must be correct: דקשה לרש״י היאך יתכן לומר שראובן עצמו אמר שישליכו אותו לבור כדי שהוא ישיב אותו אל אביו דאם היו יודעין לא היו מניחין את ראובן  The brothers would surely have rejected any suggestion to simply bring Yosef home and leave him alone, so Reuvain would dare not have voiced his plan aloud.  Therefore, he is not the speaker.  So too in our pasuk, according to Abarbanel, had Reuvain  been protesting what had happened to Yosef, it would give away the game and reveal that everything he had said earlier was merely a ruse, so this cannot be what he meant. 

What then was Reuvain's intent?

Abarbanel explains that Reuvain was saying to his brothers that if they can act so cruelly and plot to destroy Yosef, whom he calls here a יֶּ֣לֶד, just a child, someone immature, someone not fully aware of his actions and words, then what hope is there for Reuvain himself, the eldest?  How can he live among them knowing that if they can turn against innocent Yosef, they can just as easily if not more easily come to turn on him as well?

Oh what a lesson for modern times when various "woke" rabble rousers one day are the leaders of the pack driving the mob against some innocent victim only to find themselves a day later pursued and harasses by the very same mob.  Only a fool tries to stay one step ahead of the hungry alligator that eventually will consume everyone, but we live in a generation of fools.

Lastly a note on Chanukah: What is this minhag of Chanukah gelt all about?  My wife suggested as follows: the Rambam explains that the holiday of Chanukah is about the restoration of Jewish sovreignty.   וגברו בני חשמונאי הכהנים הגדולים והרגום והושיעו ישראל מידם והעמידו מלך מן הכהנים וחזרה מלכות לישראל יתר על מאתים שנים עד החורבן השני:  One of the rights of a king, of a government, is to coin money.  The gemara (Meg 14) writes that Avigail told David that he has no right to judge someone as a moreid b'malchus yet because  אמרה לו עדיין שאול קיים ולא יצא טבעך בעולם .  We once heard from R' Yosef Carmel, Rosh Kollel of Eretz Chemdah Institute, that לא יצא טבעך  means that David's coins were not yet in circulation -- only a true king can mint and circulate his own coins.  There are coins that come from the time of the Bar Kochba rebellion because one of the ways that Bar Kochba showed that Israel was no longer subject to Roman authority was by minting his own money.  Perhaps the Chashmonaim did the same when they won their independence from the Greeks, and Chanukah gelt, chocolate coins and the like, are a zeicher to this statement of independence.

Thursday, December 15, 2022

the taint of shelo lishma

1) It's interesting that although Reuvain is the first one to speak out against the killing of Yosef, וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֣ם ׀ רְאוּבֵן֮ אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם֒ (37:22), it is Yehudah who Yaakov, on his deathbed, gives credit to for saving Yosef, גּ֤וּר אַרְיֵה֙ יְהוּדָ֔ה מִטֶּ֖רֶף בְּנִ֣י עָלִ֑יתָ  (49:9).  Rashi on our parsha comments: אמר: אני בכור וגדול שבכולן, לא יתלה הסרחון אלא בי.  The difference between Yehudah and Reuvain (as the Sifsei Chachamim points out) is that Yehudah had no ulterior motive in mind when he spoke up.  Reuvain, however, knew that ultimately he, as the eldest, would be held responsible for Yosef.  Therefore, he felt compelled to speak out.  It's amazing how just a tinge of she'lo lishma colors what otherwise would be a noble act.

This Sifsei Chachamim stands in stark contrast to R' Amiel's observation (which we've discussed in the past) that it is only Reuvain who gets the credit of  וַיַּצִּלֵ֖הוּ מִיָּדָ֑ם (37:21).  

2) When Reuvain returns and discovers Yosef has been sold, he cries out וַיָּ֥שׇׁב אֶל־אֶחָ֖יו וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הַיֶּ֣לֶד אֵינֶ֔נּוּ וַאֲנִ֖י אָ֥נָה אֲנִי־בָֽא׃ (37:30), wondering how he can return home.  (The repitition of  וַאֲנִ֖י ... אֲנִי is reminiscent of  נָ֛א רְפָ֥א נָ֖א לָֽהּ by Miriam.  Are there other examples of repetition like this?)  There is a fascinating interpretation of R"Y haChassid quoted in the Tur in last week's parsha on the episode of Reuvain's "sin" וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֗֔ן וַיִּשְׁכַּ֕ב֙ אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑֔יו וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵֽ֑ל  וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָֽׂר (35:22)  Here is what he says:

 וה״ר יהודה חסיד פי׳ ויהי בשכון ישראל במקום ההוא וילך ראובן פי׳ שהלך לו וברח משם ולמה וישכב את בלהה פלגש אביו שרצה אביו לשכב עמה וע״ז נתקנא ראובן וברח וישמע ישראל שבשביל זה ברח ראובן ועשה מטתו באהל לאה ואז חזר ראובן ויהיו בני יעקב שנים עשר כבתחלה.

When Reuvain saw that his father had moved his bed to Bilhah's tent, he left home and fled.  He could not tolerate the disrespect that he perceived was shown toward his mother.  When Yaakov heard that, he moved his bed back to Leah's tent (it's not clear whether this was an admission of wrongdoing on Yaakov's part, or did he just want to mollify his son), and Reuvain returned.

Given R"Y haChassid's reading, the words of Reuvain in our parsha, אֲנִ֖י אָ֥נָה אֲנִי־בָֽא, take on added significance.  Reuvain was saying that if he was willing to leave home in protest of the kavod of his mother, then how can he return home now and live in peace with his brothers after they have gotten rid of Yosef and dishonored their father.

3) Seforno comments on וַיָּקֻ֩מוּ֩ כׇל־בָּנָ֨יו וְכׇל־בְּנֹתָ֜יו לְנַחֲמ֗וֹ וַיְמָאֵן֙ לְהִתְנַחֵ֔ם (37:35) that Yaakov accepted on himself lifelong aveilus because he felt that he had a hand in whatever befell Yosef, as he had sent him out to find his brothers.  וַיֵּ֥בְךְּ אֹת֖וֹ אָבִֽיו׃ at the end of that pasuk refers to Yitzchak, who bemoaned the situation.  There was a lot to cry over, especially given (as Rashi explains) that Yitzchak knew that Yosef was alive -- his son Yaakov suffering unnecessarily, the crime the brothers had committed, the breakup of the family.  But that's not why Yitzchak was crying according to Seforno.  He explains

 יצחק בכה על שקבל עליו בנו אבלות לכל ימיו, ובכן לא תשרה עליו שכינה.   

I don't think this means that Yitzchak saw all that transpired solely through the lens of the potential loss of hashra'as haShechina without any regard to the human dimension of loss and suffering.  I think what it means is that davka the acceptance of a lifetime of mourning, as opposed to the normal period of 30 days or a year that halacha mandates, disturbed Yitzchak.  There is a time to mourn, but at some point mourning itself can become debilitating and an obstacle to growth, i.e. hashra'as haShechina.  That is something to cry over.

4) Apropos:




"lei'shev b'shalvah" - something to avoid or something to strive for?

My son wrote last week (lightly edited):

After Yaakov fights with the angel, he is given the name Yisrael כי שרית אם אלקים ואנשים ותוכל.  If the point is that Yaakov was able to even be victorious over angels, shouldn't he have been named תוכל for he was victorious?  Rav Leibel Eger explains that the point isn't the victory, the point is the battle.  Klal Yisrael is named for the fact that they are willing to put up a fight no matter what stands in the way. 

Rashi comments on the opening of our parsha,  וַיֵּ֣שֶׁב יַעֲקֹ֔ב בְּאֶ֖רֶץ מְגוּרֵ֣י אָבִ֑יו, that ביקש יעקב לישב שלוה קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף.  R' Moshe Avigdor Amiel points out that the opening pasuk uses davka the name Yaakov, as opposed to 2 pesukim later when we read  וְיִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל אָהַ֤ב אֶת־יוֹסֵף֙ מִכׇּל־בָּנָ֔יו כִּֽי־בֶן־זְקֻנִ֥ים ה֖וּא ל֑וֹ and the name Yisrael is used.  It is Yaakov who desires tranquility, but the role of a Jew is to be a Yisrael, to engage in ongoing toil and battle, as that is the only way to grow.  

Sefas Emes (5635) writes:  ומ"ש קפץ עליו. רוגזו של יוסף לא הי' עונש על זה רק שא"א לתקן הכל בלי נסיונות רבות כאלו.  The trials and tribulations of dealing with the episode of Yosef are not a punishment for asking לישב שלוה.  They are the means of fulfilling that wish.  You can have לישב שלוה by avoiding the difficulties of life; you can have לישב שלוה as a result of successfully managing the difficulties as they come.  Chazal are teaching us that the לישב שלוה of Yaakov/Yisrael is the latter type, and that is what we should strive to emulate. 

Thursday, December 01, 2022

An unexpected encounter; the importance of a parent's blessing

1) R' Leible Eiger in Imrei Emes points out that the first nisayon Avraham faced was being told by Hashem, "Lech lecha," to leave his parent's home.  This is considered a major test despite the fact that Avraham's outlook on life was completely different than his father's -- he should have wanted to leave -- and despite the fact that he was being commanded to do so directly by Hashem.

Imagine what was going through Yaakov's head when he left his father's home.  He was not directly told to do so by Hashem; he was compelled to do so as a result of his stealing of the brachos.  Until now had been under the protective and nurturing wing of his parents, who were his guilding lights; he had been "yosheiv ohalim," and now he was forced to flee to parts unknown.  M'igra rama l'beira amikta! 

 

That's the meaning of  וַיִּפְגַּ֨ע בַּמָּק֜וֹם...  The term וַיִּפְגַּ֨ע implies an unexpected encounter, like when you are walking along and suddenly bump into someone you know.  At the very moment when Yaakov thought that he was on a road that would take him far from kedusha, here was the Beis haMikdash, here was the hashra'as haShechina.

 

R' Leible Eiger writes that it was precisely because Yaakov thought that his situation was so dire, that he was on a path that would take him far from ruchniyus, that led to this revelation.  Hashem's dwells among the broken and the downtrodden.  


2) I just want to point out a Seforno that every parent and grandparents should know.  At the end of the parsha, we read: וַיַּשְׁכֵּ֨ם לָבָ֜ן בַּבֹּ֗קֶר וַיְנַשֵּׁ֧ק לְבָנָ֛יו וְלִבְנוֹתָ֖יו וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֶתְהֶ֑ם וַיֵּ֛לֶךְ וַיָּ֥שׇׁב לָבָ֖ן לִמְקֹמֽוֹ  The Torah doesn't dwell on meaningless details.  We don't know what Lavan ate for breakfast, or how many people were in his entourage, or any number of other trivial facts because they are not important to the halacha or moral lesson of the story.  Here, we have a pasuk filled with details that all seem unnecessary. וַיֵּ֛לֶךְ וַיָּ֥שׇׁב לָבָ֖ן לִמְקֹמֽוֹ - obviously at some point Lavan returned home.  Why mention it?  Take a look at the Meshech Chochma, Netziv, and others.  I want to focus on the earlier half of the pasuk.  Why does the Torah go out of its way to tell us that Lavan kissed and blessed his children and grandchilden (see Ibn Ezra) before departing?  Seforno answers:


   להורות שברכת האב אשר היא על בניו בכל נפשו בלי ספק ראוי שתחול יותר בסגולת צלם אלקים המברך


When a parent/grandparent, even one like Lavan, gives a blessing to a child, they put their full heart and soul into it, and therefore it is of special significance and worthy of being fulfilled.  

Monday, November 28, 2022

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? 

Friday, November 25, 2022

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.

Wednesday, November 23, 2022

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.

Monday, November 14, 2022

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.

Thursday, November 10, 2022

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.  

Monday, November 07, 2022

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.

Thursday, November 03, 2022

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.