a Yom ha'Atzmaut not of simcha or sasson, but of chedva

R' Lerrer from Merkaz haRav said that R' Tzvi Yehudah would quote from the teshuvos Ye'shuos Malko from R' Yehoshua m'Kutna (from the likutim section in the back) on the pasuk וַיִּחַדְּ יִתְרוֹ עַל כׇּל הַטּוֹבָה.  Rashi there quotes two interpretations.  One pshat is that Yisro was overjoyed at the deliverance of Am Yisrael, which is certainly the peshuto shel mikra, as Ibn Ezra comments ויחד – מגזרת: חדוה.  But then Rashi quotes a second interpretation ומדרשו (בבלי סנהדרין צ״ד.): נעשה חידודין חדודין, מיצר על איבוד מצרים.  Why does Rashi need to quote a Midrash and throw cold water on the simcha of Yisro [this is the Mizrachi's question as well]?  Why was Rashi not happy with the peshuto shel mikra as is?  

That shoresh of ויחד -- the term חדוה -- appears in a famous pasuk that Rashbam there alludes to.  When the handful of people returned with Ezra to build Bayis Sheni, there were those among them who cried when they saw their accomplishments.  They remembered the glory of Bayis Rishon, and knew that what they had was a pale comparison.  It was to them that Ezra directed his words לְכוּ אִכְלוּ מַשְׁמַנִּים וּשְׁתוּ מַמְתַקִּים וְשִׁלְחוּ מָנוֹת לְאֵין נָכוֹן לוֹ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ הַיּוֹם לַאֲדֹנֵינוּ וְאַל תֵּעָצֵבוּ כִּי חֶדְוַת ה׳ הִיא מָעֻזְּכֶם  There are different terms for happiness, says the Ye'shuos Malko.  Simcha is the joy of a new experience; sasson is the joy of rediscovering that which had been lost.  Chedva is a different animal entirely.  Chedva is when one's heart is breaking inside, but nonetheless, one rejoices.  Sometimes joy does not come easily; a person needs to coax themselves into finding it.  

Rashi's second interpretation does not mean to say that Yisro was not happy.  Both pshatim agree in that regard, that he was.  What the second interpretation adds is that Yisro's happiness did not come naturally at this time.  Yisro pushed himself to celebrate even though inside his heart was heavy.  It was not a joy of sasson or simcha, but merely a joy of chedvah.

This year we have a Yom ha'Atzmaut not of simcha, not of sasson, but of chedvah.  We have to celebrate even as we still grieve and mourn the events of 10/7 and for those who have fallen in battle.

That being said, rest assured that the words of the navi (Yeshayahu 51) will be ultimately be fulfilled:

כי־נחם ה׳ ציון נחם כל־חרבתיה וישׂם מדברה כעדן וערבתה כגן־יהוה שׂשׂון ושׂמחה ימצא בה תודה וקול זמרה׃

how a college president from the past dealt with student rebellion

I'm in the middle of Ronald White's biography of Civil War hero Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.  Towards the end he mentions an incident that occurred in 1875 while Chamberlain was serving as president of Bowdoin College in Maine.  The college had introduced mandatory military drills as part of the academic requirements.  Many students voiced their unhappiness with the requirement, but Chamberlain did not back down.  Things came to a head when the junior class voted to no longer participate in artillery drills, with the sophomore and freshman classes soon following suit.

White writes (p 294) that the faculty responded by summoning each student individually and asking if he would abide by the college rules.  When the student refused, he was sent home.

A few days later, Chamberlain sent a letter to each students' parents advising them that their son had 10 days to return to campus and pledge to adhere to the college rules and participate in the drills or they would be permanently expelled.

All but 3 of the students returned and resumed the drills.

What worked in 1875 would undoubtedly work on 2024, but they don't make men like Chamberlain anymore.

pe'ah and connecting to the Land

Why does the Torah instruct the farmer to leave pe'ah in his field for the poor to cut?  Wouldn't it be easier if he cut it for them and distributed it, like other matnos aniyim?

R' Aharon Bakst gave a mashal: imagine a mother who is angry at her child and instead of preparing his peanut butter sandwich for lunch and giving it to him herself, she allows his older brother to make the lunch and put it in his lunchbox. The loss of connection to his mother would be more painful to the child than having to eat whatever his older brother concocts. 

By telling the farmer to leave the wheat uncut and unharvested, Hashem allows the poor person to have a connection directly to the land of Eretz Yisrael, the "mother" earth where his sustenance comes from.  

Chazal tell us that the Amoraim would kiss the rocks of Eretz Yisrael before leaving the country.  They treated the land like like giving your mother a hug and kiss before you go on a trip.  

וְכִי⁠ תָבֹאוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ וּנְטַעְתֶּם כׇּל⁠ עֵץ מַאֲכָל וַעֲרַלְתֶּם עׇרְלָתוֹ אֶת⁠ פִּרְיוֹ (19:23)  

Ohr haChaim comments:

ג׳ מצות נאמרו כאן. א׳ ביאת הארץ על דרך אומרם (כתובות קי:) הכל מעלין לארץ ישראל וכו׳. ב׳ לנטוע כל עץ מאכל לשבח הארץ. ג׳ לנהוג שני ערלה.

Simple pshat in the pasuk is that there is a mitzvah to plant trees in Eretz Yisrael (see also Ayeles haShachar here.)  

He goes on to say further:

עוד ירמוז באומרו וכי תבאו אל הארץ שלא תהיה הכוונה לתיאבון המורגשות אלא תהיה כוונת הביאה אל הארץ לחיבוב ולחשק הארץ הקדושה אשר בחר ה׳ בה הר ה׳ שמה, ואמר כי אין כוונת דיבור זה להחליט המניעה מהשתדל בישוב הארץ אלא ונטעתם וגו׳, הא למדת שמה שהתנה במאמר אל הארץ הוא בבחינת תכלית המחשבה שתהיה למעלת הארץ במושכלות לא להנאת הגוף.

Baruch Hashem we live in a time where Hashem has given us the opportunity to live this as a reality.  My daughter called me one day this week because she had some question about being mafrish tru"m from some vegetables she bought.  Whose children asked them questions like this 100 years ago?!  

How can we not give thanks for this not only next week on Yom ha'Atzmaut, but each and every day?  

the most dangerous and common lifnei iveir

The Chazon Ish (YD 62:25) raises a very interesting question: does the issur of lifnei iveir apply only to misleading other people, or does it apply to oneself as well?  I think this is the most egregious, most common, and most dangerous form of lifnei iveir.  It is very hard for a person not to have a higher opinion of himself than is warranted by reality, and it's also hard to make good choices when you are nogei'a ba'davar, and there is no bigger negi'ah than a person's own self.  We therefore end up putting ourselves in bad situations and making bad choices.  We put stumbling blocks before ourselves, both in gashiyus and in ruchniyus.  

(For the record, R' Avraham Genechovsky addressed this safeik and brought proof from the following din that there is no lifnei iveir viz a viz oneself : the din is that a שׁבועה to violate an explicit mitzvah is not chal; however, a שׁבועה to violate a din not spelled out explicitly in the Torah, e.g. if someone takes an oath to eat a chatzi shiur of issur, is chal. 

Here's R' Genechovsky's logic: 

The Minchas Chinuch has a chiddush that a person who causes someone else to violate an issur derabbanan is over lifei iveir on a d'oraysa level.  Since lifnei iveir applies even to giving bad advice, causing someone to violate an issur derabbanan is at least as bad as giving them bad advice.  

By the same logic, taking an oath to feed someone else a chatzi shiur of issur should violate lifnei iveir d'oraysa, as it too is at least as bad as giving them bad advice.  

If that is true of feeding someone else, then the same should be true with respect to feeding oneself -- the שׁבועה effectively would be a violation of the issur d'oraysa of lifnei iveir viz a viz onself, if such an issur exists.

How then could such a שׁבועה be chal?  The din of eating chatzi shiur may not be explicit in the Torah, but the issur of lifnei iveir involved in eating the chatzi shiur is explicit, and that should negate שׁבועה?

QED from the fact that we don't say that, and the din is that such a שׁבועה is chal, that there must not be an issur of lifnei iveir with respect to onself, only with respect to others.)

kedushas makom mikdash b'zman ha'zeh

The Minchas Chinuch on the first mitzvah of last week's parsha (184:5)  tries to make a l'shitaso in the Rambam/Raavad. The Rambam distinguishes between kedushas ha'aretz and kedushas Yerushalayim, and holds that while with respect to the former there is a machlokes whether קידשׁה לשׁעתא or קידשׁה לעתיד לבא, the latter was sanctified for all eternity (Hil Beis haBechira 6:14):

כל מקום שלא נעשה בכל אלו וכסדר הזה אין קדוש גמור וזה שעשה עזרא שתי תודות זכרון הוא שעשה לא במעשיו נתקדש המקום שלא היה שם לא מלך ולא אורים ותומים. ובמה נתקדשה בקדושה ראשונה שקדשה שלמה שהוא קידש העזרה וירושלים לשעתן וקידשן לעתיד לבא:

The Raavad's view is 180 degrees the opposite based on gemaras as well as based on סוד הּ ליראיו as revealed to him:

א"א סברת עצמו היא זו ולא ידעתי מאין לו ובכמה מקומות במשנה אם אין מקדש ירקב ובגמּ אמרו דנפול מחיצות אלמא למ"ד קדושה ראשונה לא קדשה לעתיד לבא לא חלק בין מקדש לירושלים לשאר א"י ולא עוד אלא שאני אומר שאפילו לרבי יוסי דאמר קדושה שנייה קדשה לעתיד לבא לא אמר אלא לשאר א"י אבל לירושלים ולמקדש לא אמר לפי שהיה יודע עזרא שהמקדש וירושלים עתידים להשתנות ולהתקדש קידוש אחר עולמי בכבוד ה׳ לעולם כך נגלה לי מסוד הּ ליראיו לפיכך הנכנס עתה שם אין בו כרת:

According to Raavad, even according to the view that קידשׁה לעתיד לבא with respect to the kedusha of Eretz Yisrael, the kedusha of Yerushalayim and the makom mikdash is not eternal.

Nafka minah: according to the Rambam, a person who is tamei is prohibited from entering the makom mikdash.  According to Raavad, we would expect there to be no issur.  Raavad rather cryptically writes  אין בו כרת, which leaves open the possibility of there being no onesh, but still assur for some other reason.

Minchas Chinuch suggests that there should be other nafka minot as well.  In last week's parsha we had a din of באת יבא אהרון אל הקודשׁ, that kohanim can enter the mikdash only to do avodah, but not without any purpose.  Does this issur apply b'zman ha'zeh?  M.C. suggests that it depends on this machlokes Rambam and Raavad whether there is kedushas mikdash or not post churban or not.

He repeats the same idea this week at the end of the mitzvah of mora mikdash  (mitzvah 254). Here too, whether or not the issur applies b'zman ha'zeh would seem to depend on this machlokes Rambam and Raavad whether or not there is kedushas mikdash after the churban or not.  Rambam who holds there is kedusha l'shitaso in Beis haBechira 7:7 holds that there is an issur d'oraysa of morah mikdash even b'zman ha'zeh:

אע"פ שהמקדש היום חרב בעונותינו חייב אדם במוראו כמו שהיה נוהג בו בבניינו. לא יכנס אלא למקום שמותר להכנס לשם ולא ישב בעזרה ולא יקל ראשו כנגד שער המזרח שנאמר את שבתותי תשמורו ומקדשי תיראו. מה שמירת שבת לעולם אף מורא מקדש לעולם שאע"פ שחרב בקדושתו עומד:

Presumably the Raavad would disagree.

One "little" problem: if the M.C. is correct, where is the hasagah of the Raavad there stating his disagreement?  Where is the Raavad to tell us that the issur of mora mikdash no longer applies?

R' Soloveitchik explained (see footnote to Reshimos Shiurim Yevamos p 134) that even according to Raavad there can be an issur of mora mikdash even though there is no kedushas mikdash.  The halacha is that there is an issur of offering korbanos on a bamah in your backyard b'zmah ha'zeh.  This shows that irrespective of whether there is kedushas mikdash or not, the makom mikdash remains for all eternity the place chosen by Hashem to the exclusion of any other area.  The din of mora similarly is not dependent upon the place having kedusha, but rather of the place of the mikdash being chosen by Hashem to be special and unique.  

R' Betzalel Zolti  in Mishnas Yaavetz O.C. 47:5 (see this post as well) draws a similar distinction between kedushas mikdash and what he calls kedushas machneh, and in this way explains why even though Raavad holds there is no kareis for entering the makom mikdash, there is still an issur.  With respect to kareis, the Torah refers to defiling the "mikdash Hashem," (Bamidbar 19:20)  וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִתּוֹךְ הַקָּהָל כִּי אֶת⁠ מִקְדַּשׁ ה׳ טִמֵּא, meaning the onesh depends on keduash mikdash.  However, with respect to entering whole tamei, the Torah speaks only about the "machaneh" which is holy,  (Bamidbar 5:3)  וְלֹא יְטַמְּאוּ אֶת⁠ מַחֲנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי שֹׁכֵן בְּתוֹכָם.  The makom mikdash may, according to Raavad, lack kedushas mikdash, but it still remains the machaneh Shechina.  

Gadlus!!!

Just a small snippit regarding R' Dov Lior's escape from the Shoah and what greatness means.

what haftarah did you read this week?

Rama paskens in the end of siman 428:

כשקורין שתי פרשיות מפטירין באחרונה (מרדכי פרק בני העיר) ובלבד באחרי מות וקדושים דמפטירין הלא כבני כושיים שהיא הפטרת א"מ

Mishne Berura comments:

פני שההפטרה של פרשה שניה מזכרת מתועבת ירושלים משא"כ כשהן נפרדות שכבר קראו הלוא כבני כושיים בפרשת אחרי בהכרח להפטיר בפרשת קדושים התשפוט. והנה הלבוש חולק על רמ"א ודעתו דגם כשהיא כפולה קוראין הפטרה אחרונה דהיינו של פרשת קדושים אבל הב"ח וש"א כתבו שנתפשט המנהג בכל הקהלות כהרמ"א

I happened to daven in a different minyan than my usual one on shabbos morning and was surprised when the person reading the haftarah read the perek from Yechezkel and not the haftarah of כבני כושיים.  Not only does the Rama say otherwise, but even the posek acharon of shuls in our time, i.e. the Artscroll, says that minhag Ashkenaz is like the Rama.  No one else said anything, and I figured I was not a regular there, so what do I know (the Rabbi of this shul davens at the later minyan, so he was not present). As the baal koreh was finishing, finally someone knowledgeable did walk up to the bimah and asked the gabai what's going on.  Someone else then yelled out that the reader was correct, as that is what the luach says.  Curious, I went over and asked to see the luach.  It's published by Heichal Shlomo and it's available online, so you can see for yourself here on p 64  that this person is indeed correct.  

So do the Rama and Mishne Berura and even the Artscroll have it all wrong?

Here is my conjecture.  R' Y.M. Tukachinsky, author of Gesher haChaim and other works, also wrote a luach of minhagei Eretz Yisrael.  This issue came up, and he was mechadesh that the minhag in Eretz Yisrael is not like the Rama.  This elicited a backlash from the Chazon Ish and others, who disagreed.  The occurrence of Acharei Mos and Kedoshim as separate parshiyos where the potential for this question to arise is fairly infrequent, so it's not you can just ask someone what was done last year.  As luck would have it, you can read about the controversy in this month's edition of HaMaayan, and so you don't need me to spell out the details of the back and forth.  In terms of our story, my hunch is that the luach printed by Heichal Shlomo is built around Rav Tukachinsky's luach of minhagei Eretz Yisrael, and therefore, assumes not like the Rama. (I wish I could find contact info to confirm this.) That's fine and dandy if you live in Eretz Yisrael and think R' Tukachinsky got it right, but it seems to me to be a very questionable stretch to assume this is the minhag Ashkenaz in the US and elsewhere.  

Afterwards, the person who read the haftarah came over to the person who tried to correct him and admitted that in retrospect he thinks he made a mistake, as he found a parsha sheet that said the haftarah should be כבני כושיים. (I learned from this that a random parsha sheet trumps even the heilege Artscroll.)  Assuming like the lishna basra that this was an error, I wonder what this minyan should do next week.  Should they read the haftarah of התשפוט like everyone else reads for Kedoshim?  Or since they already read that haftarah of התשפוט for Achrei Mos, albeit in error, should they read  כבני כושיים for Kedoshim? I hope someone there asks their Rav what to do before next shabbos rolls around.  I also hope I get myself out of bed up on time to get to my normal place of worship so I avoid situations like this : ) 

It's worth mentioning that there is yet a third minhag, minhag Yerushalayim, to read the same haftarah of כבני כושיים for both Acharei Mos and Kedoshim (see here).  The essential background to all this is the last line of the last Mishna in Megillah, which says  רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אֵין מַפְטִירִין בְּהוֹדַע אֶת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם.  Bartenua comments: משום יקרא דירושלים.  We don't want to read a haftarah that speaks badly of Yerushalayim.  He adds that we don't pasken like R' Eliezer.  Tos Y"T asks: the stam Mishna earlier writes that we do read the maaseh ha'eigel even though the sin is an embarrassment because there is a silver lining to that embarrassment -- suffering the embarrassment enables us to get kaparah.  Why does R' Eliezer agree with the sevara there, but not with respect to reading about the sins of Yerushalayim?  Why not read about the wrongdoing of Yerushalayim to suffer embarrassment and get kaparah?  Furthermore, adds the Tos Y"T, if R' Eliezer is correct, he should have a problem with the haftarah of Kedoshim as well:   וכן הפטרה דקדושים התשפוט התשפוט את עיר הדמים (יחזקאל כ"ב) וכו' He goes on to try to answer this question, but is his answer, which you can look up, really satisfying?  This story speaks for itself:

קרה מקרה בבית הכנסת אשר בבתי ברודא כאשר התחיל הקורא לקרוא בפרשת קדושים את הפטרת הלא כבני כושיים, קרא לעומתו רב גדול אחד מהעולים החדשים אז, – קוראים התשפוט! ירד בעל הקריאה מעל הבימה ואמר: אני אינני מוכן לעמוד בהקפדתו של ר' אליעזר, אם כת"ר רוצה דוקא בהפטרת התשפוט, יעלה כת"ר ויקרא! ולבסוף הכריעו המתפללים והקורא קרא את הפטרת הלא כבני כושיים".

Besmirching  יקרא דירושלים is not something to take lightly.

Final point: a takeaway from the above story to keep in mind not just for this week, but for every week, is that the words of the navi are to be taken seriously and taken to heart.  The haftarah is not just a time to shmooz with a neighbor or go out of shul for a stroll or for some liquid fortification while the person called for maftir struggles to read words that are incomprehensible to him and most of the listeners.  The haftarah is the navi speaking to us from the page, across history.  When you read about to'eivos, you should look at what goes on around you and your eyes should fill with tears.  And when you read about the redemption of Yerushalayim, you should also look around you and fill your heart with joy.

the greater the potential gain, the greater the obstacles to get there

A)  דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אֲנִי ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם

 כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁבְתֶּם בָּהּ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּכְמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּבְחֻקֹּתֵיהֶם לֹא תֵלֵכוּ

 Rashi comments:

 ר׳ אומר: גלוי וידוע לפניו שסופן לנתק בעריות בימי עזרא, לפיכך בא עליהם בגזירה: אני ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם – דעו מי גוזר עליכם, דיין ליפרע ונאמן לשלם שכר.

It sounds like Rashi means that this is a prelude to the parsha of arayos which follows, and Hashem is warning in advance that Bnei Yisrael would succumb to these issurim.  The only problem is that the sin committed in the days of Ezra to which Rashi is referring is the sin of taking a non-Jewish wife.  Look through the parsha of arayos and you will not see this sin mentioned anywhere there!  R' Shteinman raises the question but offers no answer.

Chasam Sofer explains derech derush (d"h dabeir) that Rashi's comment is not a prelude to the parsha of arayos, but rather a prelude to the sin of כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁבְתֶּם בָּהּ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּכְמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ, which is not just about who you can or can't marry.  We find in Nac"h the term for relationship between man and woman, בּעילה, is used as a metaphor for our relations to other nations and to Hashem. Yeshayahu (26:13) describes our becoming subservient to the nations as בְּעָל֥וּנוּ אֲדֹנִ֖ים זֽוּלָתֶ֑ךָ.  Similarly, the geulah is described (63:5) as a bride coming to her groom כִּי יִבְעַל בָּחוּר בְּתוּלָה יִבְעָלוּךְ בָּנָיִךְ וּמְשׂוֹשׂ חָתָן עַל כַּלָּה יָשִׂישׂ עָלַיִךְ אֱלֹקיִךְ.  When the Torah tells us כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם ***אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁבְתֶּם בָּהּ*** לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ what it means that we should not become subjegated to Mitzrayim and fall into the orbit of Mitzrayim.  The same warning applies when entering Canaan.  Our job there is to setup our own independent society, not become subjects of others or subservient to their whims.  A wife cannot have two husbands; this is arayos.  Klal Yisrael cannot be both subjects of Hashem and subjects of other nations; this is metaphorically arayos.  This was the sin of Erza's days. The marrying of non-Jewish wives was a siman that the people thought of themselves as part of the non-Jewish society at large. 

B) The Toras Cohanim writes on these pesukim: 

מְנַיִן שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה אֻמָּה בָּאֻמּוֹת שֶׁהִתְעִיבוּ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן יָתֵר מִן הַכְּנַעֲנִים?

תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר ״וּכְמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן... לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ״.

מְנַיִן לַדּוֹר הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁהִתְעִיבוּ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן יָתֵר מִכֻּלָּם? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר ״וּכְמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן... לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ״.

מְנַיִן לַמָּקוֹם שֶׁבָּאוּ בוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכִבֵּשׁוּ, שֶׁהִתְעִיבוּ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן יָתֵר מִכֻּלָּם?

תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ״.

מְנַיִן שֶׁבִּיאָתָן שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל גָּרְמָה לְכָל הַמַּעֲשִׂים הַלָּלוּ?

תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ״.

What does that last line -- בִּיאָתָן שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל גָּרְמָה לְכָל הַמַּעֲשִׂים הַלָּלוּ -- mean?  How could Bn"Y coming into Eretz Canaan be the cause of the base behavior of the inhabitants?  

Malbim says you have to flip the phrase around and read it as the behavior of the inhabitants of Canaan rubbing off on Bn"Y and the acting as the cause of their going astray:

שמצד שישבו שם יהיה גרמה לישראל שיעשו התועבות האלה כי למדום מן המצריים, וכן מצד שיבואו לכנען יהיה זה גרם לישראל לעשות כן כמ״ש ״כי אתם ידעתם את אשר ישבנו בארץ מצרים ואת אשר עברנו בקרב הגוים...ותראו את שקוציהם...פן יש בכם איש או אשה וכולי״. וז״ש ומנין למקום... ומנין שישיבתם של ישראל גרמה להם (פירוש: שהוא יהיה גרם לישראל בעתיד 

Sefas Emes (5648) reads the phrase to mean just what it says.  In order to understand his approach, two points of introduction are needed:

1) The Midrash (Braishis 34) writes:

ר' שמעון בן לקיש היה יושב ויגע בתורה באלסיס זו של טבריה. יצאו שתי נשים משם. אמרה אחת לחברתה: ברוך שהוציאנו מן האוויר הרע הזה. צווח ואמר להן: מהיכן אתן? אמרו לו: ממזגא; אמר: אני מכיר את מזגא ואין בה אלא שתי דירות. אמר: ברוך שנתן חן מקום על יושביו. תלמיד אחד משל ר' יוסי היה יושב לפניו, היה (ר' יוסי) מסביר לו ולא סבר. אמר לו: למה אין אתה סובר? אמר לו: מפני שאני גולה ממקומי. אמר לו: מהיכן אתה? אמר לו: מגובת שמאי. אמר לו: ומה הן האוירות של שם? אמר לו: כשתינוק נולד, אנו גובלים לו אדמדמנים7 וטשים את מוחו, שלא יאכלוהו היתושים. אמר: ברוך שנתן חן מקום בעיני יושביו.

People can live in the most ugly places, but to them it is home, and they can't function outside their "natural habitat."  חן מקום על יושביו.  You can put a polar bear in Hawaii, and no matter how delightful it is sitting under a tree on the beach, it won't be happy because it's home is the Arctic.  There were many stories written about Gus, the famous polar bear of the Central Park Zoo, suffering depression.  I don't blame him; anyone stuck living in NY would and should be depressed.  Yet there are NYers who would not trade their home in the Big Apple for anything in the world.  

Sefas Emes explains that it's not just a matter of becoming acclimated to a place.  A polar bear born in Hawaii would still feel out of place.  What makes a person feel at home in the innate connection his/her soul has with that place.  

We all belong somewhere.  Where all have a place that we feel is home.  What that place is is determined by our neshoma.  

What is true of individuals is true of nations. The soul of Frenchmen causes them to feel at home in France.  The soul of Italians makes them long for Italy.  The soul of a Jew tells him that only Eretz Yisrael is home.

2) Sukkah 52a:

כִּדְדָרֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, מְבִיאוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיֵצֶר הָרָע, וְשׁוֹחֲטוֹ בִּפְנֵי הַצַּדִּיקִים וּבִפְנֵי הָרְשָׁעִים. צַדִּיקִים נִדְמֶה לָהֶם כְּהַר גָּבוֹהַּ, וּרְשָׁעִים נִדְמֶה לָהֶם כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה. הַלָּלוּ בּוֹכִין וְהַלָּלוּ בּוֹכִין. צַדִּיקִים בּוֹכִין וְאוֹמְרִים: הֵיאַךְ יָכוֹלְנוּ לִכְבּוֹשׁ הַר גָּבוֹהַּ כָּזֶה! וּרְשָׁעִים בּוֹכִין וְאוֹמְרִים: הֵיאַךְ לֹא יָכוֹלְנוּ לִכְבּוֹשׁ אֶת חוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה הַזֶּה! וְאַף הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא תָּמֵהַּ עִמָּהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ צְבָאוֹת כִּי יִפָּלֵא בְּעֵינֵי שְׁאֵרִית הָעָם הַזֶּה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם גַּם בְּעֵינַי יִפָּלֵא״.

The yetzer ha'ra doesn't waste effort.  If a person has his sights set only on little things, then there is no point in the yetzer putting up much of a fight.  However, when there are big things at stake, he pulls out all the stops.  

Sefas Emes puts the two ideas together.  

It's because Eretz Yisrael is destined specifically for Am Yisrael -- it is a place of greatness destined for great people -- that the yetzer ha'ra pulls out all the stops there and unleashes defilement, temptation, confusion, and all sorts of difficulties there.  Yes, בִּיאָתָן שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל גָּרְמָה לְכָל הַמַּעֲשִׂים הַלָּלוּ.  

The war in Eretz Yisrael, the challenges that exist there, the secular and even anti-religious environment in certain places, this is the yetzer ha'ra pulling out all the stops.  This greater the ohr, the greater the hester trying to get us to turn away. 

תְּבִאֵמוֹ וְתִטָּעֵמוֹ בְּ**הַר** נַחֲלָתְךָ -- this is צַדִּיקִים נִדְמֶה לָהֶם כְּהַר גָּבוֹהַּ 

כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ צְבָאוֹת כִּי יִפָּלֵא בְּעֵינֵי שְׁאֵרִית הָעָם הַזֶּה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם גַּם בְּעֵינַי יִפָּלֵא 

Did Bnei Ephraim try to leave Egypt early?

In sefer Tehillim (78:9) there is an allusion to a battle fought and lost by Bnei Ephraim, בְּנֵי אֶפְרַיִם נוֹשְׁקֵי רוֹמֵי קָשֶׁת הָפְכוּ בְּיוֹם קְרָב.  Rashi quotes from Chazal that the Bnei Ephraim tried to leave Egypt early and were attacked and killed:

בני אפרים – שיצאו ממצרים בזרוע לפני הקץ ובטחו בגבורתם ובחציהם וסופם הפכו לנוס ביום קרב, כדמפורש בדברי הימים

I think that this Chazal is fairly well known, but less well known is the fact that al pi peshuto, it is not accepted by all.  In Divei haYamim I 7:21 we read:

 וְזָבָד בְּנוֹ וְשׁוּתֶלַח בְּנוֹ וְעֵזֶר וְאֶלְעָד וַהֲרָגוּם אַנְשֵׁי⁠ גַת הַנּוֹלָדִים בָּאָרֶץ כִּי יָרְדוּ לָקַחַת אֶת⁠ מִקְנֵיהֶם

Radak comments:

ולפי דעתי כי ״הנולדים בארץ״ שב לבני אפרים; ולפי שזכר בבני אפרים הנולדים במצרים, והם בניו ובני בניו כמו שאמ׳ ״וירא יוסף לאפרים בני שלשים״ (בראשית נ׳:כ״ג), אמ׳ כי בני אפרים הנולדים בארץ – שהוליד הוא בארץ – ירדו לארץ גת לקחת מקניהם והרגום אנשי גת. וזה היה במדבר; כי בארץ ישראל לא יכול להיות, לפי שאמ׳ ״ויתאבל אפרים אביהם ימים רבים״ (להלן פס׳ כב), ואפרים לא נכנס לארץ, כי לא נכנסו מיוצאי מצרים מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כי אם יהושע וכלב (במדבר י״ד:כ״ט-ל׳). לפיכך אני אומר כי המעשה הזה היה במדבר או בארץ הגלעד, ועדין אפרים חי; כי זה יכול להיות, כי מכיר בן מנשה היה מכובשי ארץ גלעד (יהושע י״ז:א׳), והנה בני מכיר בן מנשה ילדו על ברכי יוסף (בראשית נ׳:כ״ג). ומה שמוכיח הפיר׳ הזה, כי תמצא מספר בני אפרים בצאתם ממצרים כשנמנו במדבר סיני בשנה השנית ארבעים אלף וחמש מאות (במדבר א׳:ל״ג), וכשנמנו בכניסתן לארץ בערבות מואב בשנת הארבעים לא היו אלא שנים ושלשים אלף וחמש מאות (במדבר כ״ו:ל״ז); ואלו שמונת אלפים שחסרו במדבר הם שהרגו בני גת.

According to Radak, this episode of Bnei Ephraim being killed took place after yetzi'as Mitzrayim while Bn"Y were wandering in the desert.  Interestingly, according to Radak, Ephraim himself was alive still and mourned the death of his grandchildren. This stands in contrast to the Chazal that teaches that the shibud in Egypt started only after all the shevatim died.

The Daat Mikra (ibid) quotes a fascinating comment of R"Y haChassid on the pasuk  כִּי תִקְרֶאנָה מִלְחָמָה וְנוֹסַף גַּם הוּא עַל שֹׂנְאֵינוּ וְנִלְחַם בָּנוּ וְעָלָה מִן הָאָרֶץ.  According to R"Y haChassid, there were members of Bn"Y that stayed behind in Eretz Yisrael while the rest of the family went down to Egypt.  These stragglers worked the land, raised crops, and helped support their brethern in Egypt.  At some point the Bnei Ephraim attempted to build up communities on the border between Egypt and Israel to join these two communities together, and it was the fear of the internal Jewish community uniting with the community outside the borders of Egypt that concerned Pharoah.  R"Y haChassid then quotes a R' Yitzchak mi'Russia who explained that the community in Israel paid a tax to their brothers in Egypt, and the conflict with Pharoah started when Pharoah tried to divert this tax to his own treasury. In either case, it is the failed attempt to link the community in Egypt with that in Eretz Yisrael which the pesukim are referring to. 

why spill off wine when reading the 10 makkos

Why dip your finger in wine and spill off a it when you read the makkos in the haggadah?  My wife suggested that it is not because we feel bad for the Egyptians; it's because we feel bad for our fellow Jews who witnessed the makkos and yet many of whom still wanted to stay behind in Egypt.  

Parenthetically, we tell the ben ha'rasha that had he been in Egypt he would not have experienced geulah, but in fact, we know that there were resha'im who did leave Egypt with Klal Yisrael, e.g. Dasam and Aviram.  The Nesivos in his haggadah Maaseh Nissim explains that a person can be a mechalel shabbos, for example, but still believe in geulah and by virtue of that belief, earn geulah.  I would add that I assume the flipside of the coin is also true -- one can be shomer shabbos 100% but fall short in one's belief in the potential redemption of Klal Yisrael.

seeing Hashem's goodness

 המאכילך מן במדבר למען ענותך  What kind of suffering could there be in having mon to eat?  The gemara in Yoma (74b) comments  אמר אינו דומה מי שרואה ואוכל למי שאינו רואה ואוכל אמר רב יוסף מכאן רמז לסומין שאוכלין ואין שבעין If you thought of steak when eating the mon, you tasted steak, but the food still looked like mon; therefore, a person was never fully satiated or satisfied.  From here, says the gemara, we learn that a blind person who cannot ever see his food never really feels satiated either.

I saw quoted in the name of the Damesk Eliezer that this is why we daven on Yom Tov שׂבּענו מטובך.  We don't just want Hashem to give us טובה, all that is good for us.  He does that all the time.  The problem is that we don't see His goodness for what it is, as we live in a world of hester.  שׂבּענו מטובך -- we want to be able to see the goodness, not just believe in it, as only then will we feel satiated from Hashem's blessing.

הפּסח נאכל על השׂובע.  The korban pesach was eaten only after one was satiated and full, as a desert.  We have to be satiated and full from Hashem's goodness to truly take away the message of Pesach with us.

teeth and our spiritual DNA; why I don't like vegetables, haseiba and chipazon; the seder as a re-enactment of Yakov receiving his father's blessing

1) The scariest thing about what is going on at Columbia, Yale, MIT,  et al, is that the radical Jew hater students of today are the professors, business leaders, and politicians of tomorrow.  There is little future for Jews in America, and I've been writing that for years.  

My hunch (I would love to see if anyone has done a study on this) is that had you taken a poll before events of the past few months of 12th graders in your average Jewish day school high school, you would have found more students aspiring for a spot in an ivy league college than students aspiring to make aliya. 

Hashem has forced us the hard way to reassess our values.  

2) For some reason someone in my house last night mentioned using teeth to identify a body through DNA (don't ask).  I said that I thought teeth were usable if there were dental records like X-rays or impressions of the teeth, but not for DNA.  Turns out I was wrong.  Punkt fahrkert -- the first hit in my google search says, "DNA is an excellent means for identification of unidentified human remains. As dental pulp is surrounded by dentin and enamel, which forms dental armor, it offers the best source of DNA for reliable genetic type in forensic science."  

My wife heard this and immediately chimed in that this is the pshat in הקהה את שיניו.  The rasha wants to eliminate his spiritual DNA, his connection to Klal Yisrael.  It's the teeth that are the best means of preserving DNA, so that's what we point to when we reply to him.  I think it's a great pshat.

3) The gemara in Eiruvin (4a) quotes a Mishna in Negaim:

הנכנס לבית המנוגע וכליו על כתיפיו וסנדליו וטבעותיו בידיו הוא והם טמאין מיד היה לבוש כליו וסנדליו ברגליו וטבעותיו באצבעותיו הוא טמא מיד והן טהורין עד שישהא בכדי אכילת פרס פת חיטין ולא פת שעורין מיסב ואוכל בליפתן

Why does is the eating davka  מיסב ואוכל, b'haseiba?  Rashi writes:   מיסב. שהייה זו בהסיבה שיערוהו ולא בנאכלת בעמידה והולך ובא שהוא שוהה באכילתו יותר  When you recline and are engaged in doing nothing but eating, the eating goes faster than when you are walking around with your plate (hence the reason people linger at smorgasbords).

Maybe another reason to do haseiba on Pesach night is as a sign of chipazon, because when you eat that way you eat faster.

4) R' Tzadok haKohen writes that the reason we start the seder with karpas, a vegetable, is because Adam haRishon, in response to his eating eitz ha'daas, was cursed וְאָכַלְתָּ֖ אֶת־עֵ֥שֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶֽה.  (Adam complained that he cannot be so degraded as to eat like an animal of the field,  so Hashem softened the blow a bit and allowed him to eat bread, בְּזֵעַ֤ת אַפֶּ֙יךָ֙ תֹּ֣אכַל לֶ֔חֶם. )  Pesach is not just about the release from Egypt, but is about the tikun of man's earliest sin as well.  That is the ultimate goal of geulah, which is still in process.  

I don't like eating vegetables.  Most parents have to twist their kids' arms to get them to eat veggies.  I think this may be a remnant deep in our psyche of Adam haRishon's reaction.   Either that, or vegetables just don't taste very good.  

5) R' Noson Gestetner points out that there are a number of parallels between what we do on Pesach night and the events surrounding Yaakov getting the bracha from Yitzchak.  Yaakov wore special clothes; on leil ha'seder we wear a kittel.  The  שְׁנֵ֛י גְּדָיֵ֥י עִזִּ֖ים טֹבִ֑ים are an allusion to the korban pesach and the korban chagiga.  Yaakov said to his father קֽוּם־נָ֣א שְׁבָ֗ה וְאׇכְלָה֙ מִצֵּידִ֔י upon which Rashi comments שבה – לשון מיסב על השלחן, that this means haseiba.  Yakov brings wine,  וַיָּ֧בֵא ל֦וֹ יַ֖יִן וַיֵּֽשְׁתְּ, which may be an allusion to the 4 kosos.  Rashi comments on  וַיָּ֛רַח אֶת⁠־רֵ֥יחַ בְּגָדָ֖יו וַֽיְבָרְכֵ֑הוּ וַיֹּ֗אמֶר רְאֵה֙ רֵ֣יחַ בְּנִ֔י כְּרֵ֣יחַ שָׂדֶ֔ה  that  שנתן בו ריח טוב, וזהו שדה תפוחים.  Rashbam adds  את השדה שהוא מלא נרד וכרכום קנה וקנמון.  These are the basic ingredients of our charoset.  

Why do we have this strange minhag of stealing the afikoman?  It all harkens back to Yaakov "stealing" the brachos, which we re-enact this night of leil ha'seder.  

There is a Midrash Pli'ah on the words  בָּ֥א אָחִ֖יךָ בְּמִרְמָ֑ה וַיִּקַּ֖ח בִּרְכָתֶֽךָ that that says that Yitzchak showed Eisav the afikoman.  The Sheivet haMussar quotes that the word בְּמִרְמָ֑ה is equal to the gemastriya of afikoman -- pretty incredible.  

This explains, says R' Gestetner, why Yitzchak told Eisav that he already ate from the meal brought to him earlier and so there was nothing he could do for Eisav.  Why not eat again?!  There's always room for desert!  The answer is that Yitzchak had already eaten afikoman, and אין מפטירין אחר הפּסח אפיקומן.

Chag kasher v'sameich!  

paskening tzaraas al tnai

If you're still a reader here you know in the past few weeks we've been doing some of R' Shteinman's torah on the parsha.  It's shabbos ha'gadol and everyone is into inyanei Pesach, but at this point I feel bad skipping a week.  

R' Shteinman raises the question of whether a kohen can be metaheir a metzora al tnai.  Tos (Kesubos 74) holds that you can only make a tnai in a matter that lends itself to shlichus (see this post).  The ability to appoint a shliach to take care of something indicates that you have control over the outcome, and that is the key ingredient necessary in order to be able to make a tnai that will effect the outcome.  In the case of tzaraas, the kohen has to personally declare whether something in tamei or tahor -- he cannot appoint a shliach to do so on his behalf.  It would seem, therefore, that he cannot make a tnai either.

There seem to be exceptions to the above rule, e.g. you can make a tnai in nezirus (see Tos Nazir 11), or in nedarim.  R Akiva Eiger writes that someone who is afraid that they will miss zman krias shema should read shema before davening al tnai that if they make the zman during birchos krias shema, they want to be yotzei only with the later recitation with the brachos. You can't have a shliach read k"s for you, so this sounds like yet another exception to the rule.  A number of Achronim hold that Tos rule is limited to cases where an action is being done.  However, when it comes to dibur -- the case of neder, nezirus, etc. -- a tnai can be made to undo dibur even if a case where a shliach cannot be appointed.  This would seem to cover the declaration of the kohen as well.

The reason R' Shteinman has this on his radar is because Rashi at the beginning of the parsha quotes a din ביום טהרתו – מלמד שאין מטהרין אותו בלילה.  What would happen if the kohen saw the nega during the day, and declared it tamei or tahor al tnai that the psak goes into effect after dark?  Is it the maaseh of psak at night which is barred, or is it the chalos of the psak?  Would such a tnai even work?  (This is reminiscent of R' Akiva Eiger's safeik with regards to the issur of mekach u'memkar on shabbos -- is it the act of buying/selling which is prohibited, or is it the chalos of the sale?  What if you made a sale on Friday which is chal on Shabbos?)  

Later on in the parsha (14:36) by nigei batim there is a din  וְצִוָּ֨ה הַכֹּהֵ֜ן וּפִנּ֣וּ אֶת־הַבַּ֗יִת בְּטֶ֨רֶם יָבֹ֤א הַכֹּהֵן֙ לִרְא֣וֹת אֶת־הַנֶּ֔גַע to clear out the house before the kohen comes to pasken on the nega afflicting it so that the kelim inside do not become tamei.  If it is possible to pasken on a nega al tnai, why couldn't the kohen give his psak al tnai that it does not take effect for another hour or however long so that the house can be cleared?  It seems from here that tnai does not work.

R' Shteinman rejects this proof.  Forget about tnai; one can ask more fundamentally why the house needs to be cleared before the kohen gets there -- let the kohen just hold off on paskening until the kelim are removed?  It must be (as Ohr haChaim spells out) that the kohen is obligated to pasken as soon as he sees the nega and put the house in a state of hesger, if required.  By that same token, tnai cannot work either because of that same obligation to enforce hesger as soon as the nega is seen.

2) Rashi comments that nigei batim is a gift from Hashem.   וְנָתַתִּי֙ נֶ֣גַע צָרַ֔עַת בְּבֵ֖ית אֶ֥רֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶֽם Rashi writes 

בשורה היא להם שהנגעים באים עליהם, לפי שהטמינו אמוריים מטמוניות של זהב בקירות בתיהם כל ארבעים שנה שהיו ישראל במדבר, ועל ידי הנגע נותץ הבית ומוצאן.

R' Shteinman points out that the gemara implies that negaim come as punishment for sin.  How then can Rashi tell us that Hashem did this in order to give a person a rewrd and allow them to find buried treasure?

He answers that there is no contradiction.  A person might need to receive a punishment, but at the same time, Hashem can bless them with a buried treasure.  Had they not sinned, they might have gotten that treasure without having to destroy their house, but given the circumstances, this is how it had to work out.

what our response should have been this week

The day after the Iran attack, I thought we should say hallel.  Whether the "we" should be everyone, or those living in Eretz Yisrael alone, I don't know.  But what I do know is that it is incredible that over 300 drones and missiles should be fired and cause just about no damage.  I don't care how good you think the IDF is, and how good the cooperation is with other forces, it's still incredible.  Just like the Rambam says in Hil Taanis (1:3)

אבל אם לא יזעקו ולא יריעו אלא יאמרו דבר זה ממנהג העולם אירע לנו וצרה זו נקרה נקרית. הרי זו דרך אכזריות וגורמת להם להדבק במעשיהם הרעים. ותוסיף הצרה צרות אחרות.

The same is true of salvation.  We should not say דבר זה ממנהג העולם because it absolutely is not.  

Unfortunately I only saw this video now otherwise I would have posted it earlier.  Baruch she'kivanti, R' Ouri Cherki said to say hallel shaleim without a bracha:

When things are bad, everyone pulls out a Tehillim and we cry to Hashem, as it should be.  

But when thing are good, you have to remember to also pull out a Tehillim, to sing shirah and say thank you.  

Kozhiglover on why this shabbos is called shabbos ha'gadol

My son quotes a letter of the L Rebbe in which he writes that it's not by accident that Pesach comes in chodesh ha'aviv.  During the long winter months it looks like nothing is alive, nothing can grow, but then suddenly the weather changes, the trees are blossoming and we can say birkat ha'ilanot, and the flowers and grass start sprouting again.  These winter months were a necessary preparatory step to allow things to bloom again; just because nothing was visible on the surface does not mean nothing was taking place.  So too in life, there are periods when we feel like we are stagnating and in a funk and not progressing, but these are just passing winters, and a new spring will eventually arrive.  This is the lesson of galus Mitzrayim, where it seemed we had sunk to irredeemable levels, but suddenly geulah happened and we blossomed forth as a nation. 

I would add the words of the Midrash Rabbah (Braishis 10:6):

 אָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן אֵין לְךָ כָּל עֵשֶׂב וְעֵשֶׂב, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַזָּל בָּרָקִיעַ שֶׁמַּכֶּה אוֹתוֹ, וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ גְּדַל

It is Shabbos haGadol.  Throughout the year we may be unaware of that malach standing above and may not hear the whisper commanding  גְּדַל.  This Shabbos, this time of year, all of us hear it's call.

But it is not just a whisper.  מַּכֶּה אוֹתוֹ**, וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ גְּדַל**.  Growth is hard and growth can be painful.  That is true for us as individuals and true for us as a nation.  But grow we must.

Why is this shabbos called Shabbos haGadol?

In Parshas Braishis we read (1:16) that Hashem made אֶת⁠־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים, but then the pasuk continues and tells us  that there is    אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה.  Rashi comments:

  שוים נבראו, ונתמעטה הלבנה על ידי שקיטרגה ואמרה: אי איפשר לשני מלכים שישתמשו בכתר אחד.  

The Kozhiglover explains that the difference between the sun and the moon is not merely a matter of size, but rather lies in the fact that the sun gives light, but the moon merely reflects light.  The gemara in Bava Metziya (12b) tells us  גדול וסמוך על שלחן אביו זהו קטן קטן ואינו סמוך על שלחן אביו זהו גדול  A gadol gives; a katan receives.  Similarly the gemara in Nedarim (24a) writes that a neder made to force someone to reciprocate a gift is taken seriously because the noder might be thinking  לאו מלכא אנא דמהנינא לך ואת לא מהנית לי .  I don't want to be like a melech, as a melech gives without taking in return.  The moon argued that there could not be two melachim, two gedolim, two bodies that give off light independent of each other.  As a result, it became a katan.  It no longer is able to give off light, only to receive and reflect it.

The masechta in shas dedicated to the laws of chol ha'moed is called Moed Katan.  Chol haMoed receives its kedusha from the days of Y"T that precede and come after it.  These days are the sibah for its issurim; chol ha'moed merely reflects their light.  The Kozhiglover explains that the machlokes whether to put in tefillin on chol ha'moed revolves around this point: do we look at the fact that it has no independent kedusha apart from that which comes from the days of Y"T that surround it and therefore treat it like chol, or do we say that sof sof the fact that it reflects that light of Y"T is enough to push of tefillin. 

This is also the difference between Eretz Yisrael and chutz la'aretz.  Ramban famously writes in P Acharei Mos that mitzvos should in theory only apply in Eretz Yisrael, but in chu"l we do them in order to keep in practice.  Eretz Yisrael is the source of light; chu"l merely reflects what Hashem channels through Eretz Yisrael.

Pesach is the first of the regalim and is called a day of shabbos (the omer is brought "mi'macharas ha'shabbos"), but there is a source of light even greater than itself.  Shabbos is תחילה למקראי קודשׁ, it is the primal source, the source from which springs the kedusha of all the other Moadim of the year, the first of which is Chag haPesach.  This is why our shabbos is called Shabbos haGadol.  It is the well from which Pesach and the other Moadim all draw, the source of the kedusha that we will IY"H receive and grow from in the upcoming week.

the override switch

1)  Just to make it a chazakah of 3 weeks in a row with R' Shteinman's torah: R' Shteinman has a safeik whether the kohen who rules whether a nega is tamei or tahor recites a bracha, something like, "v'tzivanu liros v'lifsok ha'nega."  Beis din does not recite a bracha when they pasken, so why should this case be any different?  

The difference is that the role of beis din is birur -- they are just there to clarify the facts, and m'meila what the din should be is clarified.  The kohen's psak is not birur.  The facts on the ground -- whether the afflication in question is a nega -- might be perfectly clear before the kohen says anything.  However, until the kohen declares something to be a nega, it's like it does not exist.  The kohen's psak does not merely clarify; it creates a new reality.

My 2 cents: whether b"d's function is just a matter of birur may not be so simple.  The Rashba (B"K 90) writes that lo te'hey shmiya gedolah m'reiya only works for a beis din of three, but not a yachid mumcheh.  From the perspective of ascertaining the facts, there is no difference between the re'iya of the mumcheh and the re'iya of a b"d of three.  It would therefore seem that there is some extra ingredient involved in the mix.  See Sharei Yosher 7:1    For a different approach, see also R' Amiel in his Darkei Kinyanim.  

2) There is a derasha (Nida 41) on the second pasuk of our parsha, אִשָּׁה֙ כִּ֣י תַזְרִ֔יעַ וְיָלְדָ֖ה זָכָ֑ר:  

א״ר יצחק א״ר אמי, אשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר, איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה, שנאמר אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר.

The gemara at the end of Brachos (60) raises the possibility of a person davening for their child to be a boy, at least within 40 days from conception, and asks how this is possible given that everything is determined already at the moment of conception, by whether אשה מזרעת תחלה or איש מזריע תחלה: 

 והא"ר יצחק בריה דרב אמי איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה אשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר שנאמר אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהזריעו שניהם בבת אחת 

The dochak seems evident. The Zohar raises the same issue in a slightly different way, but the answer is unclear (to me at least):

אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ. תָּנֵינָן, אִשָּׁה מַזְרַעַת תְּחִלָּה יוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר. רִבִּי אֲחָא אָמַר, הָא תָּנֵינָן, דְּקוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא גָּזַר עַל הַהִיא טִפָּה, אִי אִיהוּ דְּכַר אִי אִיהִי נוּקְבָּא, וְאַתְּ אַמְרַת אִשָׁה מַזְרַעַת תְּחִלָּה יוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי, וַדַּאי קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא אַבְחִין בֵּין טִפָּה דִּדְכוּרָא וּבֵין טִפָּה דְּנוּקְבָּא, וּבְגִין דְּאַבְחִין לֵיהּ, גָּזַר עָלֵיהּ, אִי לִהֱוִי דְּכַר אוֹ נוּקְבָּא.

The difference between the Zohar and the gemara is that the gemara seems like a "G-d of the gaps" type argument.  Most things are determined by the teva of whether אשה מזרעת תחלה or איש מזריע תחל, but where that's not possible, G-d steps in to take over.  The Zohar sees G-d as taking a hand in everything and somehow ironing out there being a need for that alongside how teva works.

In short, we are left with this tension between whether the determining factor of things is G-d or teva, which the Chasam Sofer encapsulates nicely with the following question: We thank Hashem every morning שׁלא עשׂני אשׂה.  What are we thanking Hashem for?  אשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר, איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה, it's determined by nature?

Chasam Sofer answers that there is in effect a two track system.  There is the derech ha'teva system of  אשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר, איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה.  On top of that, there is the system that Klal Yisrael operates under, the system that transcends teva, that allows for Hashem to step in and direct things.

He then reads this into the pesukim.  The parsha starts  אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר, which is the normal progression of teva. The continuation  וְאִם נְקֵבָה תֵלֵד וְטָמְאָה שְׁבֻעַיִם כְּנִדָּתָהּ is not the flipside case of איש מזריע תחלה and having a girl.  Were that the case, ikkar chaseir, why not say אישׁ כּי תזריע...?   Rather, the continuation is this second track, the l'maalah min ha'teva track.  Even though al pi teva אשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר, sometimes Hashem will redirect things.  Even though it's a case of אשה מזרעת תחלה, it can still come out that וְאִם נְקֵבָה תֵלֵד... In such a case you might have thought that the dinei tumah should be like a  זָכָר, like the case of אשה מזרעת תחלה, which is what happened, kah mashma lan that it doesn't work that way.

The lesson here does not just apply to our parsha.  Al pi derech ha'teva all kinds of things are determined -- how much $ you will make, how good you will do in school, etc. -- but there is an override switch to everything.  Only Hashem has the final say.

Maybe that's why this parsha of tumas leida appears as an introduction to the rest of our parsha, which deals with the issue of negaim.  A nega can come as a result of disease; it can be the result of teva.  But that does not make a person tamei.  Without the declaration of the kohen, the nega is meaningless.  There is the override switch that determines the true reality of what is and what will be. 

matzah shrinkflation

One or more of the local supermarkets has for years has offered a free box of 5lbs of matzah if you spend some amount on groceries before Pesach.  When we were shopping on Sunday we noticed the box is a little small.  Lo and behold, instead of 5lbs, the package now contains 4lbs of matzah.  We have always gotten a 5lb box.  My parents had 5lb boxes of matzah in the house.  Amazingly, for literally decades, none of the manufacturers thought they could get away with "shrinkflation" and selfishly make more $ by selling you less in the package until the Biden presidency.  Has absolutely nothing to do with the roaring rate of inflation caused by mismanagement of the economy, of course.

The same is true of Trader Joe's bananas, which have been $.19 cents each for decades until they recently went up to $.23 each.  Government mis-spending is not to to blame.  As the AP points out, "Such concerns go well-beyond bananas. Researchers expect food prices and inflation overall to rise as temperatures climb with climate change."  If it wasn't climate change, my money would have been on racism or sexism as the cause for the price increase, as those two get the blame for just about everything these days.

ra'uy l'chimutz -- siman or sibah

Last week I mentioned the Rogatchover's chakira whether the simanei kashrus of an animal are a siman or a sibah, i.e. is it the actual presence of simanim that make the animal kosher, or are the simanim just a means of identifying what species an animal belongs to, and it is being a member of a kosher species that makes the animal kosher.  Nafka mina: what if you have a member of a kosher species that lacks simanin?  What if you genetically engineer a non-kosher species so that it does have simanin?  

Since it's shloshim yom kodem ha'chag, let's use the same chakira in hil chametz u'matzah.  The Mishna (Pes 35) lists 5 species of grain that can be used to make matzah.  The gemara explains that only grain which can potentially become chamtez is acceptable.  Yesh lachkor: is this quality of being ראוי לחימוץ a siman to identify whether a grain is one of the 5 acceptable species, or is it the sibah that makes that particular grain usable for matzah?

There is a safeik of the MG"A that may reflect the 2 sides of this chakira.  Rashi holds that one can use the shell of the grain, סובּין, in order to make matzah.  (We don't pasken this way.)  The MG"A (OC 454:1) writes:

סובין. פירש"י קליפת חיטים הנושרים בשעת כתישה ומורסן הנשאר בנפה ע"ש מוכח קצת דבא לידי חימוץ מדיוצאין בהם י"ח מצה לדעת רש"י ואפשר לומ' כיון שהוא ממין הבא לידי חימוץ יוצא בה י"ח

Does Rashi mean that סובּין can actually become chameitz, or does Rashi just mean that סובּין are part of a species of grain that can become chameitz?  

Lichorah the safeik of the MG"A is this issue of siman vs sibah. If ראוי לחימוץ is the sibah that makes something usable for matzah, then סובּין must themselves be capable of becoming chametz.  If ראוי לחימוץ is just a siman, a way to identify whether a grain belongs to one of the 5 acceptable species, than even if סובּין never turn into chametz, it doesn't matter, since we know that סובּין are a byproduct of wheat, which is one of the 5 acceptable species.  (See Shu"T L'Horos Noson vol 14 #25) 

the privilege of teaching Torah; tamei birds - why not rely on rov; Bruriah's attitude towards wrongdoers vs the bracha of la'malshinim

Like I said last week, the Ayeles haShachar provides a lot of food for thought, and I could go on and on, but just a few more highlights:

1)  וַיְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר אֲלֵהֶם

 דַּבְּרוּ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ מִכׇּל הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאָרֶץ. (11:1-2) 

Rashi comments that the  אֲלֵהֶם in the first pasuk refers to Elazar and Itamar.

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

The word דַּבְּרוּ in the next pasuk refers to Moshe, Aharon, and his children together.  Rashi comments:

 את כולם השוה להיות שלוחים לדבור זה, לפי שהושוו בדמימה וקבלו עליהם גזירת המקום מאהבה.

The reward given to Aharon and his children was their being given the opportunity to teach this parsha.  We see a beautiful chiddush : The capacity to teach Torah is a gift from Hashem, it's a reward.  Don't take it for granted! 

2) Yesterday I touched on the mitzvah of bedikas simanin to check whether an animal is kosher.  R' Itzelege Ponovicher has a chiddush based on a Rivash that R' Shteinman ties to another din in our parsha.  The gemara (Chulin 63b) writes that the Torah only lists the tamei birds because most birds in the world are kosher.  Tos asks: if we are unaware of the identity of a bird, why can't we rely on rov and assume it is kosher?  Tos answers that there might be multiple subspecies of each tamei bird, so they outnumber the kosher ones and there is no rov.  (Alternatively, one could say that even if the # of kosher species is greater than th # of tamei species, there are more individual tamei birds.)  R' Shteinman offers a more "lomdish" answer and suggests that  whether a bird is kosher or not is a safeik in din, and a safeik in din cannot be resolved with a rov in metziyus.  According to these answers either there is no rov, or rov is not good enough to resolve the issue.  R' Itzele Ponovicher (Zecher Yitzchak #80) writes that in fact the rov is a good rov and takes off the lav of eating a tamei animal -- the metziyus as determined by the rov is that the bird is a kosher bird.  However, the mitzvah of bedikas simanim tells us that knowing that a bird is kosher based on rov is not enough.  Eating such an animal violates the aseh of bedikas simanim.  

R' Shteinman understood the Rivash a little differently.  He understood that the din of bedikas simanim precludes relying on the rov.  The mitzvah tells us thsat in this case so long as you cannot identity the animal with simanin, you must be choshesh for the miyut and there would therefore be a lav.  

3) Rashi comments regarding the deaths of Nadav and Avihu (10:3) ועל פני כל העם אכבד – כשהקב״ה עושה דין בצדיקים מתיירא ומתעלה ומתקלס: אם כן באילו, כל שכן ברשעים.  This piece that R' Shteinman quotes from R' Chaim has little to do with the parsha, but it's R' Chaim, so how could I leave it out?   We say in kedusha of musaf that the angels turn to each other and ask, "Where is the place of kavod Shamayim?"  משׁרתיו שׁואלים זה לזה אי׳ מקום כּבודו.  R' Chaim explained that the angels' safeik is whether there is greater kvod Shamayim in Hashem bestowing goodness on the tzadikim for all to see, or is there greater kvod Shamayim in Hashem punishing tzadikim for transgressions so all can see the demonstration of justice.  The angels bleibt by a safeik.  We therefore continue and say given all things being equal, ממקומו הוא יפן בּרחמים לעמו..., let the kvod Shamayim come through rachamim, by giving us good things, not through onesh.  (Note from me: קטונתי מכל החסדים ומכל האמת...  Sefas Emes explains that there are two ways that Hashem can make a person feel small: 1) by punishing them and knocking them down to size; 2) by giving them so much goodness that they feel unworthy of the gift.  Yaakov Avinu asked that קטונתי come from the latter, מכל החסדים ומכל האמת, rather than the former).    

Rashi tells us that a greater kavod Shamayim than either the carrot or stick for tzadikim is the punishment of reshaim.  This is why we daven, says R' Shteinman, "V'lamalshinim al t'hi tikvah..."  The problem is this seems to fly in the face of a well known gemara (Brachos 10a):

הנהו בריוני דהוו בשבבותיה דר"מ והוו קא מצערו ליה טובא הוה קא בעי ר' מאיר רחמי עלויהו כי היכי דלימותו אמרה לי' ברוריא דביתהו מאי דעתך משום דכתיב יתמו חטאים מי כתיב חוטאים חטאים כתיב ועוד שפיל לסיפיה דקרא ורשעים עוד אינם כיון דיתמו חטאים ורשעים עוד אינם אלא בעי רחמי עלויהו דלהדרו בתשובה ורשעים עוד אינם בעא רחמי עלויהו והדרו בתשובה

Bruriah told R' Meir that he should daven for troublemakers to repent, not for their elimination.  So how do we explain the bracha in our shmoneh esrei?  

R' Shteinman makes no attempt here to offer an answer, but many others already address this question.  Maharal in Be'er haGolah reinterprets the bracha of lamalshinim as a request to eliminate wickedness, not the evildoers themselves, in concert with Bruriah's approach. Maybe one can distinguish between different types of evildoers.  Or maybe the truth is far simpler: who says we pasken like Bruriah and not R' Meir?  Sure, Bruriah's sentiments sound nice, but that doesn't mean she was correct.  

4) Lastly, a question that only a Litvishe Rosh Yeshiva could ask.  וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל⁠ אַהֲרֹן קְרַב אֶל⁠ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ (10:7)  Rashi comments שהיה אהרן בוש וירא לגשת, אמר לו משה: מה אתה בוש? לכך נבחרת  Aharon was hesitating, so Moshe had to encourage him to step up to the plate.  R' Shteinman asks: so what if Aharon felt a sense of unworthiness or shame?  Hashem gave the command for him to do the avodah, so what difference should his emotional reaction make?  A command is a command!

I think I've written this about the Ayeles haShachar before.  Certain questions are ra'uy specifically for the person asking them.  Only someone who is capable of overcoming the challenge of putting aside their own emotions to do whatever Hashem asks can ask such a question on this Rashi.

parshas hachodesh; simanei kashrus - sibah or siman; achila less than k'zayis - ptur onshin or not a maaseh achila; and more

1) The gemara (Pesachim 6) has a din שואלין ודורשין בהלכות הפסח קודם הפסח שלשים יום which is derived from the fact that Moshe taught the halachos of Pesach Sheni one month in advance, on Pesach Rishon שהרי משה עומד בפסח ראשון ומזהיר על הפסח שני שנאמר ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח במועדו וכתיב ויהי אנשים אשר היו טמאים לנפש אדם.  R' Chaim Kanievsky held that this is a real derasha, not just an asmachta, and is therefore a din d'orasya.  Rokeach writes that reading parshas Parah and HaChodesh is a kiyum of this din of being shoel v'doresh hil ha'chag, as the whole point of these parshiyos is to teach us the halachos of becoming tahor and offering korban pesach.  Acc to R' Chaim, the reading would therefore be a kiyum d'orasya.  Rama (282:4, see R' Akiva Eiger there) quotes a yesh omrim that a katan should not be called by for any of the 4 parshiyos.

I enjoyed posting the Ayeles haShachar pieces last week, so I am going to do more of the same this week, with a mix of halacha and aggadah.

2)  זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ -  מלמד שהיה משה אוחז בחיה ומראה אותה לישראל.  Why did Moshe have to hold up the animals for display?  What was the necessity of having a show and tell session instead of just teaching the halachos?

The Rogatchover has a chakira whether the simanei kashrus are a siman or a sibah for a creature's kashrus (see post here, also here ).  Tos (Nida 50b) writes with respect to some kind of wild chicken that lives by a pond:

 תרנגולתאדאגמא. הזכר אסור לפי שאין לו סימני טהרה ולא שרי מטעם כל היוצא מן הטהור טהור שהרי האם לא ילדה האפרוח אלא ביצים הטילה והאפרוח מעפרא קא גדיל ונאסר ממילא ע"י סימני טומאה ונקבה נמי אין לאוסרה למאן דאסר זה וזה גורם דהא אפרוח לא יצא אלא מן הביצה ומעפרא קגדיל כדפרישית.

Even though we know that this chicken is born from the egg of a kosher mother bird, it is considered a min tamei because it lacks simanim.  It seems from Tos that simanim are a sibah -- even though we know the family the bird is related to, it still needs simanim to be kosher.  Ralbag on our parsha seems to disagree and hold that simanin just serve to identify the species of the animal, and it's by virtue of being a member of that species that it is kosher.  

R' Shteinman suggests that our Rashi speaks to this issue.  Let's say a person could genetically engineer a tamei animal and cause it to be born with simanei kashrus, or genetically engineer a kosher animal so it was not born with simanim.  What would be its status -- tamei or tahor?  Are the simanim the sibah for the animal's status, and without them it is tamei, or are the simanim just a siman that help us identify the species?  R' Shteinman writes that Moshe held up each animal so that we can recognize it and know what species it is because that is what determines whether it is tamei or tahor, not the presence/absence of simanin.

Rashi works well l'shitaso, as he writes at the end of the parsha (11:47) writes that the mitzvah of knowing the simanei kashrus is לא בלבד השונה, אלא שתהא יודע ומכיר ובקי בהן.  Theoretical knowledge is not enough; you have to be able to recognize the physical signs of what makes an animal kosher.  

3) וְאֶת הַשָּׁפָן...וְאֶת הָאַרְנֶבֶת  For those interested in this sort of thing (which, for the record, I am not), R Shteinman quotes R' Hirsch who writes  והנה, רגילים לפרש ששפן וארנבת הם בעלי החיים הקרויים כן בימינו. אך פירוש זה לא ייתכן, אלא אם כן שני בעלי חיים אלה יהיו מעלי גרה, ודוחק לומר כן and then adds that today we know that the ארנבת actually does chew its cud, but it is almost undetectable.  (I'm not sure why this piece is in brackets.)  

4) Yesh lachkor whether אין אכילה פּחותה מכּזית means it is not a maaseh achila, or whether it is a maaseh achila but there is a ptur onshin? 

Rashi comments on the pasuk  וְהָאֹכֵל מִנִּבְלָתָהּ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב וְהַנֹּשֵׂא אֶת נִבְלָתָהּ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב that the reason the pasuk mentions eating is to tell us that the shiur of noge'a or nosei is the same amount as that which constitutes achila, namely, a k'zayis:

  האוכל – ליתן שיעור לנושא ולנוגע כדי אכילה, והוא כזית.

It sounds from here like the definition of achila is a k'zayis.  

However, R' Shteinman points out that the implication of there being a chiyuv for eating a chatzi shiur (according to R' Yochanan Yoma 74) is that the shiur k'zayis is a maaseh achila, just there is a ptur onshin.  If achila less than a shiur is not a maaseh aveira, then the sevara of "chazi l'itztarufei" makes no sense -- 0+0 is still 0.   

if you see this on your host's seder table, get ready for a long night

Yes, I know it's too early to do posts about Pesach, but saw this in the supermarket and can't resist.  If you see these candles on the table, get ready for a long night, as in, "Raboseinu, it's zman kri'as shema shel shacharis," long.

The President's War Against the Jews (and against morality)

I usually don't post on weekends, but I am stuck in front of the computer taking care of some work related things today. Tablet Magazine has a wonderful article entitled The President's War Against the Jews well worth your attention. The punchline:

Biden owns this war imposed on Israel. The president inherited a Middle East marked by a bankrupt Iran and amicable relations between Israel and Arab countries with more in the works, thanks to President Trump’s historic Abraham Accords. Biden reversed course, enriched Tehran, funded terrorists and destabilized the Middle East—setting the stage for Oct. 7.

Biden shows no sign of reversing even one of his deadly failures. Instead of taking responsibility for his policy mistakes, he blames Israel for not going further and providing Iran with a launching pad on its border by establishing a Palestinian state. Perversely, the attacks of Oct. 7 have only led Biden to kick his effort to establish a Palestinian state into high gear.

Perfectly put.  I would only add that while the buck stops with Biden, he would not be in a position to do the harm he has done if not for those who voted for him, including, sadly, people in our own community.  One can only hope that they will not make the same terrible mistake a second time this November.

Meanwhile, at my workplace today the internal bulletin board reminds me that we are celebrating Transgender Visibility Day, as well as National Indigenous Languages Day.  No mention of any other meaning for the day.  Now, you may think who cares?  What does it have to do with us?  But it does have to do with us.  It does make a difference whether the community around us celebrates religion, even the wrong one, or celebrates the perversion of gender.  One of these two is supported by the President and Democrat party; one is not.  

sheves achim gam yachad

  ת"ר כשמן הטוב היורד על הראש וגו' כמין שתי טיפין מרגליות היו תלויות לאהרן בזקנו אמר רב כהנא תנא כשהוא מספר עולות ויושבות בעיקרי זקנו ועל דבר זה היה משה רבינו דואג שמא חס ושלום מעלתי בשמן המשחה יצתה בת קול ואמרה כטל חרמון שיורד על הררי ציון מה טל אין בו מעילה אף שמן שיורד על זקן אהרן אין בו מעילה ועדיין אהרן היה דואג שמא משה לא מעל ואני מעלתי יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו הנה מה טוב ומה נעים שבת אחים גם יחד מה משה לא מעל אף אתה לא מעלת

Why was Moshe worried about the issue me'ila when he had no benefit from the shem ha'mishcha?  Rabeinu Gershom on the daf explains שמא מעלתי לפי שהזקן לא נצטוה למשוח והיה רואה בו ב׳ טיפין מן הראש ירדו לזקן:.  R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi, however, quotes the comment of the Shita MeKubetzet on the same sugya and uses that to answer the question.  The full text of the chapter of Teh (133) the gemara is quoting is as follows:

שִׁ֥יר הַֽמַּֽעֲל֗וֹת לְדָ֫וִ֥ד הִנֵּ֣ה מַה־טּ֖וֹב וּמַה־נָּעִ֑ים שֶׁ֖בֶת אַחִ֣ים גַּם־יָֽחַד:

כַּשֶּׁ֚מֶן הַטּ֨וֹב | עַל־הָרֹ֗אשׁ יֹרֵ֗ד עַל־הַזָּ֫קָ֥ן זְקַ֥ן אַֽהֲרֹ֑ן שֶׁ֜יֹּרֵ֗ד עַל־פִּ֥י מִדּוֹתָֽיו:

כְּטַ֥ל חֶרְמ֗וֹן שֶׁיֹּרֵד֘ עַל־הַרְרֵ֪י צִ֫יּ֥וֹן כִּ֚י שָׁ֨ם | צִוָּ֣ה ה׳ אֶת־הַבְּרָכָ֑ה חַ֜יִּ֗ים עַד־הָֽעוֹלָֽם:

Why does the word זְקַֽן appear twice in the second pasuk?  The Shita answers that when the shemen ha'mishcha was placed on Aharon's beard, Moshe felt as if it was on his own beard.  That's מה טוב ומה נעים שבת אחים גם יחד.  Moshe felt such pleasure from seeing his brother become kohen gadol, it was as if he gufa was standing in Aharon's shoes.  M'meila, if it was as if Moshe was annointing himself as well as his brother, then b'shmala annointing Aharon, that was the mitzvah, but there was no mitzvah for Moshe himself to be annointed.  Was that hanaah that Moshe himself got an issur me'ila?

Putting aside the issue me'ila issue, the takeaway thought here is that when you are singing אחינו כּל בּית ישׂראל, do you really feel like you are in your brothers' shoes?  That his/her experience is your experience, that you vicariously share in everything?  That was the level of Moshe Rabeinu's  הִנֵּ֣ה מַה־טּ֖וֹב וּמַה־נָּעִ֑ים שֶׁ֖בֶת אַחִ֣ים גַּם־יָֽחַד.  That is what we should aspire to.

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi goes on to discuss why it is that Aharon became concerned for the issue me'ila only after the bas kol responded to Moshe.  M'mah nafshach: if there was something to be concerned about, he should have been concernde from the get-go, and if the bas kol revealed there was nothing for Moshe to be concerned about, then why Aharon troubled?  Take a look.

The punchline of why there is no me'ila is מה טל אין בו מעילה אף שמן שיורד על זקן אהרן אין בו מעילה.  The shemen ha'mishcha is compared to tal, and tal is not subject to any issur me'ila. 

R' Shimon Sofer asks: Why does the gemara compare the shemen davka to tal?  Why not some other liquid?

The gemara (Taanis 4) writes that Bn"Y asked Hashem to be like rain:

אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה אַף כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׁאֲלָה שֶׁלֹּא כַּהוֹגֶן וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֱשִׁיבָהּ כַּהוֹגֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר {הושע ו׳:ג׳} וְנֵדְעָה נִרְדְּפָה לָדַעַת אֶת ה׳ כְּשַׁחַר נָכוֹן מוֹצָאוֹ וְיָבוֹא כַגֶּשֶׁם לָנוּ.

To which Hashem responded that their request was wrong.  Rain is not always a blessing.  Rain does not always fall.  They instead should have asked for Him to be like dew, which always is there, and is always a blessing.  Our request was not formulated properly, but Hashem responded anyway and blessed us that he would be like dew:

אָמַר לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בִּתִּי אַתְּ שׁוֹאֶלֶת דָּבָר שֶׁפְּעָמִים מִתְבַּקֵּשׁ וּפְעָמִים אֵינוֹ מִתְבַּקֵּשׁ אֲבָל אֲנִי אֶהְיֶה לָךְ דָּבָר הַמִּתְבַּקֵּשׁ לְעוֹלָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר {הושע י״ד:ו׳} אֶהְיֶה כַטַּל לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.

Shem m'Shmuel (Pesach 5772) explains the difference between rain and dew as follows:

כי גשם פעמים מתבקש פעמים אינו מתבקש, פי' דגשם הוא השפעה הבאה לעומת המעשים לטוב או למוטב וכשח"ו אין מעשים טובים מה גם להיפוך יכולה ח"ו לבוא השפעה להיפוך, וכעין גשם המבול, אבל בבחי' טל הוא לטובה לבד, ובא אף בלא אתעדל"ת, רק אם הוא כלי מוכשר לקבל,

Rain is something you ask for.  When you make a request, you don't always deserve to get what you ask for.  You don't always realize the right thing to ask for.  Dew is something that is there whether you ask for it or not, whether you want it or not, whether you deserve it or not.

Aharon was concerned lest his acceptance of the kehuna be tainted by the desire for pesonal aggrandizement, for his own enjoyment of the position, for the honor.  Accepting the position on those terms would be an issur me'ila, taking advantage of hekdesh for personal gain.

Hashem responded that He knows this is not somethign Aharon would ever ask for.  It's not like the rain -- פעמים מתבקש.  Rather, the position is like the dew.  Aharon's acceptance was not because he wanted the position and not even because he thought he deserved or earned the position, but simply because it was the ratzon Hashem.

how will we know what to do? reviving lost mesorah; issurei achila -- issur gavra vs issur cheftza

1) One of the things I like about R' Shteinman's torah is that his questions/answers are not far-flung lomdus, but are, dare I say it, rooted in common sense.  On this week's parsha he quotes the Chofetz Chaim's charge to learn kodshim so that once geulah comes b'karov gedolei yisrael will be able to pasken on issues relating to the mikdash and kodshim.  R' Shteinman asks: how are these gedolim supposed to figure out what to do?  He quotes that the Ponivicher Rav dealt with this very question and responded that he will just follow the Chofetz Chaim's lead.  That just kicks the can down the road.  How is the Chofetz Chaim supposed to figure out how to pasken?  And if you say that we will have a techiyas ha'mesim and can just ask Moshe or Aharon, then why bother learning kodshim to try to figure everything out?  We can just ask Moshe and Aharon?  

I've had a similar thought since I began wearing techeiles.  When you order techeiles from the Ptil Tekhelet site they give you a whole menu of options to choose from as to which shita to follow in tying the tzitzis.  How do you know what to choose?  Any mesorah as to what to do has been lost for at least 1200 years or so!  We are halachically flying blind.  And that is assuming you even want to wear techeiles, which a large segment of the Jewish world, for one reason or other, has yet to be convinced to start doing.  Imagine we somehow finally fulfill the mitzvah of binyan beis ha'mikdash in our times.  Any mesorah as to what to do has been lost for even longer than the mesorah of techeiles.  Already in Mishnayos (Midot 2:5) we have Tanaim saying about lishkos of the azarah אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: שָׁכַחְתִּי מֶה הָיְתָה מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת that they forgot what the space was used for.  How are we supposed to know?

2) While on the topic of R' Shteinman's torah, here is another interesting question he raises:

 וּכְלִי־חֶ֛רֶשׂ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּבֻשַּׁל⁠־בּ֖וֹ יִשָּׁבֵ֑ר וְאִם⁠־בִּכְלִ֤י נְחֹ֙שֶׁת֙ בֻּשָּׁ֔לָה וּמֹרַ֥ק וְשֻׁטַּ֖ף בַּמָּֽיִם (6:21) 

Is this a mitzvah or a matir?  Meaning, what if you want to just throw the utensils in the garbage?  Is there an obligation of מֹרַ֥ק וְשֻׁטַּ֖ף בַּמָּֽיִם or is it just a matir if you want to use the kli? 

Another interesting one: Off the cuff I would have assumed that when you have a lav ha'nitak l'aseh, the aseh has to be done by the person who violated the lav in order to give him a ptur from malkos.  You see from our parsha that is not true   The gemara writes that there are no malkos for the issur nosar because it is a lav ha'nitak l'aseh, but it sounds like the mitzvah of burning nosar (6:17) can be done by anyone.  

And if you like a Brisker style chakira, R' Shteinman occasionally throws those out there too: The gemara (Zev 87) raises the question of whether something hung in the airspace above the mizbeiach counts as being on the mizbeiach itself or not.  Yesh lachkor whether the gemara means the airspace is the makom mizbeiach, or whether it's not the makom mizbeich, but it has the din of makom mizbeiach.  

I could go on all day quoting interesting points from the Ayeles haShachar, but I don't have all day so תן לחכם ויחכּם עוד.  That was just to whet the appetite.  Maybe I should do something like that every week.

3) וְהַנּוֹתֶ֣רֶת מִמֶּ֔נָּה יֹאכְל֖וּ אַהֲרֹ֣ן וּבָנָ֑יו מַצּ֤וֹת תֵּֽאָכֵל֙ בְּמָק֣וֹם קָדֹ֔שׁ בַּחֲצַ֥ר אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד יֹאכְלֽוּהָ

Based on the language of the pasuk the Malbim makes what sounds like a Brisker chiluk .  He writes that when the Torah uses the term אוכל, it is referring to the gavra, but תֵּֽאָכֵל֙, passive voice, nifal, refers to the cheftza, the item being eaten.  Nafka minah: whether or not you need to eat a shiur.  When the object is being referred to, the shiur is any amount; when it is the person eating being referred to, then אין אכילה פּותה מכּזית (see Beis haLevi quoted in this post.)

 יש הבדל בין פעל ׳אכל׳ בקל ובין הנפעל. שפעל ׳אכל׳ בקל מוסב על האדם האוכל ולא יקרא אוכל אלא בכזית; שפחות מזה נקרא ׳טועם׳ – ״כי טעמתי מעט דבש״ (שמואל א י״ד). וכמ״ש בספרא לקמן [(פרשה י מ״י) (אחרי מות פרק יב מ״ב) (אמור פרק ד מט״ז) (אמור פרק ו מ״ג) ובפסחים (דף לב.)] ״סתם אכילה בכזית״. אבל הנפעל מוסב על הדבר, ואף אם נאכל כל שהוא – הגם שלא יקרא ׳אכילה׳ מצד האוכל שלא אכל רק טעם – מכל מקום הדבר ׳נאכל׳ ואיננו. וזהו שאמר בספרא שלכן שינה ואמר ״מצות יֵאכל״ בנפעל ולא תפס הלשון שדבר בו עד עתה – ״יאכלו אהרן״ ״יאכלוהו״; והיה לו לומר ״מצות יֹאכלו״. ללמד שאף שלא נשאר רק מקצתה - בכל זאת תאכל.

With this he explains the Rambam (Cu"m 1:7) who writes that the shiur of the issur achilas chameitz is a kol she'hu:

האוכל מן החמץ עצמו בפסח כל שהוא הרי זה אסור מן התורה שנאמר לא יאכל

The Kesef Mishna asks two questions, the second of which is . ועוד קשה דאי מקרא איפכא ה"ל למילף מיניה דלא יאכל שיעור אכילה משמע וצ"ע. It uses the word achila, so how can the Rambam say you are chayav on less than a k'zayis?  Answers the Malbim: because it is nifal, passive voice, a din in the cheftza, not the gavra, so there is no shiur.

The problem is if this is correct, then the same chiddush should apply to other issurim as well written in lashon nifal:

וְכִֽי־יִגַּ֨ח שׁ֥וֹר אֶת־אִ֛ישׁ א֥וֹ אֶת־אִשָּׁ֖ה וָמֵ֑ת סָק֨וֹל יִסָּקֵ֜ל הַשּׁ֗וֹר וְלֹ֤א יֵאָכֵל֙ אֶת־בְּשָׂר֔וֹ וּבַ֥עַל הַשּׁ֖וֹר נָקִֽי׃ (Shmos 21:28)

 וְכָל-הַשֶּׁרֶץ, הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל-הָאָרֶץ--שֶׁקֶץ הוּא, לֹא יֵאָכֵל (Vayikra 11:41)

Is there an issur for eating less than a k'zayis of shor ha'niskal, or of a sheretz?!

Ohr Sameiach explains that the Rambam's chiddush may be unique to chametz based on the context of the pasuk:

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָעָ֗ם זָכ֞וֹר אֶת־הַיּ֤וֹם הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצָאתֶ֤ם מִמִּצְרַ֙יִם֙ מִבֵּ֣ית עֲבָדִ֔ים כִּ֚י בְּחֹ֣זֶק יָ֔ד הוֹצִ֧יאה׳ אֶתְכֶ֖ם מִזֶּ֑ה וְלֹ֥א יֵאָכֵ֖ל חָמֵֽץ׃ (Shmos 13:3)

The pasuk is talking about Pesach Mitzryaim, not Pesach as celebrated for future generations.  At the time of that Pesach, we had not undergone the geirus of mattan Torah and in effect, were still bnei Noach.  Rambam says in Hil Melachim that there is no concept of shiurim for a ben Noach (see this post); therefore, the issur chametz would be violated even on a kol she'hu.  Once the issur was established, it carried over the Pesach doros in the same way.