dignity for the accused

It's always hard to learn parsha when you are caught up in Chanuka, but I don't want to skip a week of writing something.  

When Yaakov sends his sons back to Egypt with Binyamin, he declares (43:14)

 וְק-ל שַׁדַּי יִתֵּן לָכֶם רַחֲמִים לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ וְשִׁלַּח לָכֶם אֶת⁠ אֲחִיכֶם אַחֵר וְאֶת⁠ בִּנְיָמִין

Abarbanel is medayek in the words לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ, which seem unnecessary. According to one Midrashic interpretation, the word  אִישׁ actually refers to Hashem:

רַבִּי יַאשְׁיָה בֶּן לֵוִי פָּתַר קְרָא בַּגָּלֻיּוֹת: וְאֵל שַׁדַּי יִתֵּן לָכֶם רַחֲמִים (בראשית מ״ג:י״ד), וַיִּתֵּן אוֹתָם לְרַחֲמִים (תהלים ק״ו:מ״ו).

לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ – הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ה׳ אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה ה׳ שְׁמוֹ (שמות ט״ו:ג׳).

וְשִׁלַּח לָכֶם אֶת אֲחִיכֶם – אֵלּוּ עֲשֶׂרֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים.

אַחֵר וְאֶת בִּנְיָמִין – זֶה שֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה וּבִנְיָמִין.

וַאֲנִי כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁכֹלְתִּי – בְּחֻרְבַּן רִאשׁוֹן.

שָׁכָלְתִּי – בְּחֻרְבַּן שֵׁנִי. כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁכֹלְתִּי, בְּחֻרְבָּן רִאשׁוֹן וּבַשֵּׁנִי, לֹא אֶשְׁכַּל עוֹד

This is not pshat, as it is hard to understand what it means that Hashem should give mercy before Hashem, unless you say that the different names refer to different midos.  The point the derash means to convey is that the reunification of the brothers portends a reunification of Klal Yisrael which leads ultimately to geulah.  

Abarbanel explains pshat is that אִישׁ is not just stam "man," but it means something like "gentleman;" it connotes chashivus.  Rashi writes in parshas Shlach (13:3)  כל אנשים שבמקרא לשון חשיבות.   Or you could be medayek from Rashi in our parsha on the pasuk הלא ידעתם כי נחש ינחש איש אשר כמני (44:15) where Rashi writes   הלא ידעתם כי איש חשוב כמוני יודע לנחש - notice that he adds the word חשוב.  Here too in our pasuk, what Yaakov was telling his children is that someone of Yosef's stature cannot but help but be moved by their plight:  כי איש הוא ויתפעל מצרתכם.  Surely someone who is an אִישׁ would not be lacking in empathy.

(Parenthetically, if I remember correctly, the Rav explained that this is what struck Moshe Rabeinu (Shmos 2:12)  וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ.  Egypt was the bastion of enlightenment for its time - -a place of culture, refinement, advanced ideas.  When Moshe saw the beating of a Jew, it struck him that for all the superficial appearances, no one in that society was truly an אִישׁ.  They were barbarians at heart, as they lacked human empathy.  Of course, this was a commentary on German high culture before the war, not just pshat in the pasuk.)

R' Chaim Elazari learned by the Alter of Slabodka and always reads the parsha through the lens of Slabodka mussar and its emphasis on gadlus ha'adam.  He focusses on this same word/idea of אִישׁ/אנשׁים later in the parsha to learn a different lesson.  When Yosef orders his majordomo to run after the brothers and accuse them of stealing his goblet, you have the use of that word אִישׁ/אנשים  again: 

הֵם יָצְאוּ אֶת⁠ הָעִיר לֹא הִרְחִיקוּ וְיוֹסֵף אָמַר לַאֲשֶׁר עַל⁠ בֵּיתוֹ קוּם רְדֹף אַחֲרֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים וְהִשַּׂגְתָּם וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם לָמָּה שִׁלַּמְתֶּם רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה

R' Elazari writes that the pasuk is teaching us that even when it seems like a crime has been committed, don't be so hasty to throw around accusations and debase and degrade the accused.  רְדֹף אַחֲרֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים means treat the accused as אֲנָשִׁים; don't rob them of their dignity.  Don't chase after them through the streets screaming, "Stop thief!" so that everyone turns their heads to take a video of the scene as it unfolds.  Wait until וְהִשַּׂגְתָּם, until you catch up to them and stop them, and only then say, לָמָּה שִׁלַּמְתֶּם רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה.  

One could argue that Yosef's concern stemmed from the fact that he knew that his brothers were not in fact thieves.  On the other hand, if he treated them differently than others, that would give away the game, wouldn't it?  

Tos shita on mehadrin min ha'mehadrin - a question that has me stumped

The gemara writes that there are three possible levels to fulfill the mitzvah of neiros Chanuka:

1) ner ish u'beiso - one candle lit every night for the entire household

2) mehadrin - every person in the household lights one candle each night 

3) mehadrin min ha'mehadrin - add one candle every night.  Tos' and the Rambam disagree whether this level builds on the level of mehadrin, i.e. every person in the house lights and adds an additional candle every night, or whether this level builds on ner ish u'beiso, i.e. one person in the household lights and adds an additional candle each night

Tosfos argues that the latter interpretation must be correct.  The whole point of adding the additional candle each night is to demonstrate which night of Chanuka it is.  If every person in the household lights, there is no way the viewer can figure that out.  If, for example, you see 4 candles burning in the window, does that mean it's the first night of Chanuka and there are 4 people in the house each lighting, or does that mean it is the second night of Chanuka and two people are lighting, or is it the fouth night of Chanuka and there is only one person lighting?  The only way the lighting can reflect the day is if we assume one and only one person in the household lights.

I'm not interested in how to answer this question and justify our minhag.  I'm interested in how minei u'bei Tosfos makes sense.  Even if mehadrin min ha'mehadrin means only one person per household lights, still, how can I know what night of Chanuka it is?  Remember, there are three possible levels of fulfilling the mitzvah.  If I see 4 candles burning in the window, how do I know that that home lit mehadrin min ha'mehadrin and it therefore is day 4 of Chanuka?  Maybe in that household they only keep the mehadrin level.  Mehadrin means every member of the house lights one candle.  4 candles might means four people at home, each lighting one candle like the mehadrin custom?  Tos' hasn't solved their own problem!

I've learned this sugya multiple times over the years and for whatever reason, this never occurred to me before.  It's a simple pshat question and I am stumped.  I keep thinking I must be missing something, but I've asked a few people and so far no one has come up with a real answer.  To say that Tos' assumed everyone lit mehadrin min ha'mehadrin seems like a big dochak.  The gemara gives three levels and Tos' comment has to be taken in that context. Anyone have a good idea?  

entering into safeik sakana to save someone else from vaday sakana

Yaakov was certainly aware of the animosity the brothers had for Yosef, so why did he send Yosef to check on them. throwing him into the lion's den, so to speak?  B'pashtus you could say that Yaakov underestimated the level of animosity and danger.  Sibling rivalry is not uncommon, but it seldom leads to what happened to Yosef.  The Hadar Zekeinim (from the Baalei HaTos') on the parsha quotes another interesting answer from Ibn Ezra:

וא״ת מה ראה יעקב לשלחו לאחיו הלא יודע ששונאים אותו. ואומר אבן עזרא לפי שהלכו במקום סכנה לרעות כי הרגו אנשי שכם. אמר יעקב שמא יענישו לך ספק הוא ושיהרגום אנשי שכם אם ימצאום ודאי הוא ומוטב ליקח הספק מן הודאי לך אמור להם שישובו פן יכום אנשי שכם מכת חרב.

Yaakov perceived the Shechem was a dangerous place for his family to be.  Recall that he did not support the attack on Shechem, fearing that there would be retribution.  When he heard the brothers had taken the sheep to graze near Shechem, he felt that better to send Yosef after them and expose him to some level of risk in order to remove the brothers from certain danger.  

It seems that a person can place himself in safeik sakana to save someone else from a vaday sakana.

This point is debated by others.  The Mishna in Makos (11b) writes that even a great general like Yoav who is needed by the nation is not allowed to leave the ir miklat lest the goal ha'dam attack him  ואפי' ישראל צריכים לו ואפי' שר צבא ישראל כיואב בן צרויה אינו יוצא משם לעולם. The general faces a safeik sakana, but the war is a vaday sakana.  According to the chiddush of Ibn Ezra, why should he not leave the ir miklat?

(Just to add: I don't think the argument advanced by Yehudah in next week's parsha, as explained by Rashi 43:8, to allow Binyanim to travel with the brothers to Egypt is relevant here.    בנימן ספק יתפש ספק לא יתפש, ואנו כולנו מתים ברעב אם לא נלך. מוטב שתניח את הספק ותתפש את הוודאי.  In that case Binyamin was not being put in a safeik sakana to save others, as if he did not go down to Egypt he would be in as much a vaday sakana of dying from hunger as the rest of the family.)  

chisaron in hasbara=chisaron in havana; the power of Yaakov's tears; an amazing Midrash Talpiyot on the identity of Yehuda's wife

1) In yeshivos they like to quote the aphorism from R' Chaim that a chisaron in hasbara indicates a chisaron in havana.  If you can't explain something, it's a sign that you really don't understand it.  (see this post from earlier this year ).  In last week's parsha, Shimon and Levi disagreed with their father Yaakov about how to respond to what happened to Dinah.  When Yaakov chastised his sons, י֮ עֲכַרְתֶּ֣ם אֹתִי֒ לְהַבְאִישֵׁ֙נִי֙ בְּיֹשֵׁ֣ב הָאָ֔רֶץ, they responded and justified their actions,  וַיֹּאמְר֑וּ הַכְזוֹנָ֕הא יַעֲשֶׂ֖ה אֶת⁠־אֲחוֹתֵֽנוּ׃.  In contrast, the brothers never revealed to their father what they did to Yosef and why they acted such.  They didn't even have the courage to directly tell Yaakov their concocted story, but rather  וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֞וּ אֶת⁠־כְּתֹ֣נֶת הַפַּסִּ֗ים וַיָּבִ֙יאוּ֙ אֶל⁠־אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ זֹ֣את מָצָ֑אנוּ הַכֶּר⁠־נָ֗אא הַכְּתֹ֧נֶת בִּנְךָ֛ הִ֖וא אִם⁠־לֹֽא׃.  According to Rashbam וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֞וּ means through a messenger על ידי בני אדם שלא יגידו מי השולחים, אלא שיאמרו:⁠א זאת מצאנו so that they could hide their hand in the whole affair.  Why hide behind the veil of secrecy?  Why not explain to their father why they acted against Yosef?  R' Shmuel Birnbaum explains that when it came to Shechem, Shimon and Levi understood crystal clear what they needed to do and why their actions were justified.  Therefore, they were able to answer their father.  When it came to dealing with Yosef, the fact that they could not find the words to justify their actions indicates that the rationale for what they were doing was not really clear in their own minds. 

2) Yosef is taken by the Midyanim and sold into slavery in Egypt  וַיַּֽעַבְרוּ֩ אֲנָשִׁ֨ים מִדְיָנִ֜ים סֹֽחֲרִ֗ים וַֽיִּמְשְׁכוּ֙ וַיַּֽעֲל֤וּ אֶת⁠־יוֹסֵף֙ מִן⁠־הַבּ֔וֹר וַיִּמְכְּר֧וּ אֶת⁠־יוֹסֵ֛ף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֖ים בְּעֶשְׂרִ֣ים כָּ֑סֶף וַיָּבִ֥יאוּ אֶת⁠־יוֹסֵ֖ף מִצְרָֽיְמָה׃ (37:28).  The brothers present their story to Yaakov, who refuses to be comforted,  וַיָּקֻ֩מוּ֩ כׇל⁠־בָּנָ֨יו וְכׇל⁠־בְּנֹתָ֜יו לְנַחֲמ֗וֹ וַיְמָאֵן֙ לְהִתְנַחֵ֔ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר כִּֽי⁠־אֵרֵ֧ד אֶל⁠־בְּנִ֛י אָבֵ֖ל שְׁאֹ֑לָה וַיֵּ֥בְךְּ אֹת֖וֹ אָבִֽי (37:35)  The Torah then ends that chapter by repeating what happened to Yosef,  וְהַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל⁠־מִצְרָ֑יִם לְפֽוֹטִיפַר֙ סְרִ֣יס פַּרְעֹ֔ה שַׂ֖ר הַטַּבָּחִֽים.  We then have an entire chapter devoted to the episode of Yehuda and Tamar, and return in Ch 39 to the Yosef narrative,  וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הוּרַ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה וַיִּקְנֵ֡הוּ פּוֹטִיפַר֩ סְרִ֨יס פַּרְעֹ֜ה שַׂ֤ר הַטַּבָּחִים֙ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י מִיַּד֙ הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר הוֹרִדֻ֖הוּ שָֽׁמָּה׃.  Alshich asks: why do we need that final pasuk in ch 37 before the episode of Yehuda and Tamar to tell us again about the Midyanim selling Yosef off?  It really belongs to the start of ch 39.  Instead of that chapter starting וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הוּרַ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה, eliminate those words and start by saying הַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל⁠־מִצְרָ֑יִם upon which time he was bought by Potifar.  It is more concise, and does away with what seems an extraneous pasuk at the end of ch 37.

The Tzror haMor answers that the final pasuk of ch 37 which tells us וְהַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל⁠־מִצְרָ֑יִם לְפֽוֹטִיפַר֙ סְרִ֣יס פַּרְעֹ֔ה שַׂ֖ר הַטַּבָּחִֽים is not just there to convey information about what happened to Yosef.  It is actually connected to the description of Yaakov's grief and his refusal to cease crying for his son.  Chazal tell us that even when the gates of tefilah are closed, the gates of tears remain open.  Yosef might have ended up anywhere.  He might have been taken across the sea to a distant land or been carted off to the far reaches of the world.  Were that to happen, the chances of his being reunited with his family would be slim.  Thanks to Yaakov's endless tears, Hashem arranged things so that Yosef did not wind up too far from home.  Of course it would be years before he ultimately was able to see his father again, but the possibility of that happening was already in place and the wheels were in motion from the get-go.

3) Abarbanel comments ואמנם בהפלגת אבלות יעקב הוא מקום תימה רב.  The baalei mussar like the Seforno here: יאמר כי ארד אל בני אבל שאלה – קבל עליו אבלות לכל ימיו, מפני שארעה התקלה על ידו ששלח את יוסף אל אחיו  Yaakov refused to be comforted because he saw himself as being at fault because he was the one who send Yosef to check on his brothers.  It was the guilt that weighed him down.  No wonder he refused at first to send Binyamin down to Egypt.  Even though Shimon was being held captive waiting the brothers return, Yaakov had no hand in Shimon's being held, but were he the one to send Binyamin off to harm, in his mind he would be just as much at fault as when he sent Yosef.

3) I just saw this Midrash Talpiyot (bottom of first column( quoted somewhere this week and what an interesting find it is.  וַיַּרְא⁠־שָׁ֧ם יְהוּדָ֛ה בַּת⁠־אִ֥ישׁ כְּנַעֲנִ֖י וּשְׁמ֣וֹ שׁ֑וּעַ  Rashi tries to explain away כְּנַעֲנִ֖י as meaning a merchant.  The M.T. writes that Yeuhuda married the daughter of Eisav (!), whose name contains the same letters as שׁ֑וּעַ.  How could a tzadik like Yehuda have childen like  עֵ֚ר and אוֹנָ֔ן ?  It must be that their mother's genes from Eisav rubbed off on them.  

why Yaakov was upset at Shimon and Levi

I had a thought as to why Yaakov was angry at Shimon and Levi for attacking Shechem.  We know that David haMelech was prevented from building the Beis HaMikdash because he had engaged in bloodshed and warfare his entire life.  Yaakov was en route to the spot where Hashem had appeared to him in a dream when he left home and where he had taken the neder וְהָאֶ֣בֶן הַזֹּ֗את אֲשֶׁר⁠־שַׂ֙מְתִּי֙ מַצֵּבָ֔ה יִהְיֶ֖ה בֵּ֣ית אֱלֹהִ֑ים.  This is the same idea - יִהְיֶ֖ה בֵּ֣ית אֱלֹהִ֑ים - as building Beis haMikdash!  Yaakov was afraid that if he got bogged down in wars as a result of Shimon and Levi's attack on Shechem it would prevent him from fulfilling his neder.  (It is shortly before shabbos here so I haven't looked to see if any meforshim say this. Just throwing it out there for now.)

Yaakov's mid-life crisis (or so it seems)

  קָטֹנְתִּי מִכֹּל הַחֲסָדִים וּמִכׇּל⁠ הָאֱמֶת אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת⁠ עַבְדֶּךָ כִּי בְמַקְלִי עָבַרְתִּי אֶת⁠ הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת

 הַצִּילֵנִי נָא מִיַּד אָחִי מִיַּד עֵשָׂו כִּי⁠ יָרֵא אָנֹכִי אֹתוֹ פֶּן⁠ יָבוֹא וְהִכַּנִי אֵם עַל⁠ בָּנִים

 וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב עִמָּךְ וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת⁠ זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא⁠ יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב.

I want to first focus on a detail in Yaakov's tefilah, the micro, the prat, and then look at the bigger picture, the klal, the macro.

Rashi comments

כי במקלי – לא היה עמי לא כסף ולא זהב ולא מקנה אלא מקלי לבדו.

ומדרש אגדה: נתן מקלו בירדן ונבקע הירדן.

Whenever Rashi quotes two interpretations, esp if one is pshat and one is derash, the Sifsei Chachamim wants to know why.  The S.C.'s usual methodology is to find plusses and minuses in each interpretation; aware of the shortcomings of one reading, Rashi offers another possibility.  

S.C. explains why Rashi here was not satisfied with pshat and needed to resort to derash:

ומדרש אגדה נתן מקלו בירדן ונבקע הירדן. ולפי זה עשה לי שתי טובות אחד שנבקע לו הירדן והשני ב׳ מחנות משא״כ לפשוטו אין כאן אלא חסד אחד:

The word חֲסָדִים is plural.  If the pasuk means that Yaakov went from a penniless pauper who had nothing other than his staff to a wealthy man, that is only one chessed, not multiple chassadim.  Therefore, Rashi quotes the derash.  The reference to Yaakov's staff has nothing to do with his wealth, but rather refers to a miraculous splitting of the river that Yaakov did on his way to Lavan's house.  וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת is a second chessed of having a large and well off family. 

If S.C. is correct and Rashi's point is that חֲסָדִים has to refer to multiple chassadim, it begs the question of why the only two items on the list are the miracle of the river splitting, which occurred more than two decades ago when Yaakov was first en route to Lavan's house, and the  ב׳ מחנות, his large family of the present moment.   Nothing else happened in between?  There are no other chassadim that Yaakov could think of to list between the far past and the immediate present?!

Zooming out to look at the tefilah as a whole, Yaakov ends his prayer with a justification as to why G-d should help him: "You, G-d, promised שַׂמְתִּי אֶת⁠ זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא⁠ יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב, and therefore you owe me this protection."  We could discuss why Yaakov felt the need to offer any justification at all -- aren't we supposed to ask G-d for help when we are in danger? -- but let's leave that aside and look at the justification itself.  It seems flimsey, and is undermined by Yaakov's own actions.  Yaakov had divided his camp in two.   וַיֹּאמֶר אִם⁠ יָבוֹא עֵשָׂו אֶל⁠ הַמַּחֲנֶה הָאַחַת וְהִכָּהוּ וְהָיָה הַמַּחֲנֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר לִפְלֵיטָה  In this way if Eisav attacked one part, the other could escape.  If so, the promise of שַׂמְתִּי אֶת⁠ זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא⁠ יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב would seem to be in no danger of being abrogated.  Even if one part of the camp could not escape, the other part could, and Hashem's promise could be fulfilled through the survivors.  As Netziv puts it:  

ותו, מה זו הוכחה שלא יהרוג חלק מהבנים ותתקיים הברכה בהנשאר.

I saw a thought in the Arugas haBosem here that addresses these issues and I said to myself that even if you don't think it's pshat in the pasuk, it so hit the nail right on the head about how your perspective shifts as you get older.  Do ever find yourself looking back and wishing you could recapture something of how you were in the past?  Don't get me wrong -- I think you do get wiser as you get older, among other advantages to age. But there is something important lost as well, and I don't just mean, using myself as an example, things like no longer being able to throw a baseball the same way or stay up late without feeling tired the next day, or other such loss of physical ability or stamina.  We are coming up to the sugya of Chanukah where the gemara itself (Shabbos 22b) refers to the advantage of "girsa d'yankusa."  When you learn things when you are young, they stick in your head better.  Aside from loss of mental sharpness, I think more importantly one's perspective changes.  There is also a loss of idealism (again, speaking for myself only) as you age.  You age you start to see every issue in shades of grey rather than black and white, which is a good thing most of the time, but sometimes things really are just plain and simple black and white.  I can go on and give other examples, but I'm sure every person can make his own similar, personal list.

The Yaakov Avinu who in our parsha returns home is not the same Yaakov Avinu who left years earlier, and not just because he is now wealthy and has a huge family.  His attitude has shifted as well.  Yaakov is now a man making cheshbonos.  He strategizes before his meeting with Eisav.  He sends gifts, he sends messengers, and most importantly, he divides his camp is the hope that if all else fails, he can at least have half a victory. That's not the Yaakov of decades earlier.  Sticking your staff in the water in the hopes that it will split is not a logical strategy, something you make a cheshbon about.  Walking into a new town and immediately giving mussar to the shepherds and telling them they are not working hard enough is not a sound strategy.  Trying to singlehandedly roll a huge boulder off the well is not a sound strategy.  That's idealism, that's youth, that's trust in Hashem l'maaleh min ha'teva.  That's the Yaakov of old, of youth.

Yaakov looks at himself and says  כִּי בְמַקְלִי עָבַרְתִּי אֶת⁠ הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת.  Look what's happened to me! I went from the person who splits the river with his staff to the person who splits his camp in the hopes of half a victory being better than none.  Yaakov is not making a list of chassadim here; he is drawing a contrast between what once was and what now is.  

If I didn't know better, I would say this is the mid-life crisis of Yaakov Avinu.

The problem is that Yaakov Avinu is not you and me.  We may become middle aged pragmatists and lose our idealism, we may have a mid-life crisis when thinking about how we have changed, but we are not the bechir ha'Avos.  Yaakov felt that he should be the same as the Yaakov of old -- titein emes l'Yaakov, and emes remains consistent.  Therefore, there must be some other force at play here forcing him to act as he did.  Maaseh Avos siman la'banim -- what the Avos experienced does not just reflect on their personal lives, but reflects the current of Jewish history as well.  That is no less true in this case.

Netziv asks:

אם נפרש שחשש שיכה האם והבנים יחד וכמשמעות החיצוני מסוף התפילה ״ואתה אמרת וגו׳ ושמתי את זרעך וגו׳⁠ ⁠״, קשה, דלפי זה התכוון יעקב לדבר ה׳ אל אברם אחרי הפרד לוט מעמו (לעיל יג,טז) ״ושמתי את זרעך כעפר הארץ אשר אם יוכל איש למנות וגו׳⁠ ⁠״, וא״כ למאי שינה לשון הברכה ואמר ״כחול הים״

Why did Yaaskov add the words  כְּחוֹל הַיָּם which are not part of the blessing given to Avraham (13:16 וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת זַרְעֲךָ כַּעֲפַר הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אִם יוּכַל אִישׁ לִמְנוֹת אֶת עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ גַּם זַרְעֲךָ יִמָּנֶה), which is what Yaakov is invoking?

The Arugas haBosem points us to the dersha in Yoma 22b:

 ר' יונתן רמי כתיב והיה מספר בני ישראל כחול הים וכתיב אשר לא ימד ולא יספר לא קשיא כאן בזמן שישראל עושין רצונו של מקום כאן בזמן שאין עושין רצונו של מקום 

We can either be as numerous as the stars of the sky -- lofty, heavenly -- or be like sand of the sea, lowly and trodden on.  

When Yaakov reflected on his behavior and thinking at that moment, he realized that his behavior had changed because Hashem wanted through him to give guidence not just to great generations, but to generations that are not exactly up to snuff.  There are generations where we are not in the position to walk into a river with just our staff, confident that it will split on our behalf.  We are not in a position to think we can unstop wells that look blocked, or dictate ethics to others.  We make cheshbonos, we operate strategically, more in tune with what derech ha'teva leads us to think than with pure bitachon.  

Yaakov was praying not for his own sake, but for the sake of those generations.  וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב עִמָּךְ וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת⁠ זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא⁠ יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב.  Even if we are  כְּחוֹל הַיָּם, nonetheless, אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב עִמָּךְ.  

Rachel's swap of the simanin and the din of bnei temurah - an amazing Maharal

There is a must-see Maharal on the pasuk  וַיְהִ֣י בַבֹּ֔קֶר וְהִנֵּה⁠־הִ֖וא לֵאָ֑ה (29:25).  It doesn't say that next morning Yaakov *discovered* that he was married to Leah, or that he *saw* that it was Leah.  It says next morning it *was* Leah.  Meaning, at night, it was not Leah --- as Rashi writes, אבל בלילה לא היא לאה -- and then somehow, in the morning, the identity of who Yaakov married changed to someone else.  

How does that work?  Rashi tells us that the switch happened because of the simanin: לפי שמסר יעקב סימנין לרחל. וכשראת שמכניסין לו לאה, אמרה: עכשיו תכלם אחותי, עמדה ומסרה לה אותן סימנין, 

Maharal in Gur Aryeh explains: אלא ודאי הכי פירושו ״והנה היא לאה״ – בבקר, אבל בלילה לא היתה לאה, לפי שמסרה לה הסימנין, וקיימא לן דסימנין דאורייתא, והוי סימן מובהק, ולפיכך בלילה הרי היא רחל לענין דינא לסמוך עליו:

Since the halacha says that a person can rely on simanim to identify his wife, and the simanim Yaakov was given during the night matched the simanim of Rachel, halacha says that the identity of Yaakov's wife that night Rachel!  Came the morning and that same person appeared to be Leah, at that moment, and not before, her identity became Leah. 

The reality of who Yaakov was married to changed from the night to the morning.

Seems to me that this amazing chiddush renders moot a question raised by the MG"A.  MG"A in OC 240 asks on the din of "bnei temurah," when a person has relations with one woman thinking it's another:

תמורה. אפי' שתיהן נשיו, כגון שנתכוין לזו ונזדמנה לו האחרת (טור) וצ"ע דהלא יעקב נתכוין לרחל ובא על לאה

Wasn't Yaakov Avinu in violation of this din on his wedding night when he thought he was marrying Rachel and it was really Leah?  

 MG"A continues:

ובסי"מ כ' שמשום זה לא נטלו שבט ראובן חלק בא"י רק בעבר הירדן ומ"מ צ"ע שיהיו ח"ו מן המורדים והפושעים ובפרט שהיא נתעברה מביאה זו כמ"ש התו' ביבמות דף ע"ו וצ"ל דדוקא כשראה רחל שוכבת במטה ונתכוין לגוף זה ואח"כ נזדמנה לו לאה תחתיו אבל יעקב בשעת כניסתו לחופה ראה לאה ונתכוין לגופה רק שסבר ששמה רחל לית לן בה, וכיוצא בזה חילקו בסנהדרין גבי נתכוין להרוג את זה והרג את זה:

MB in Shaar haTziun suggests that "bnei temurah" is only a problem if your intent is for a different person than the one in front of you, but if your intent is for the individual who is present, just you think it's someone else, that's not a problem.

Based on Maharal, the question doens't even get off the groud.  Yaakov intended to be married to Rachel that night and al pi din it *was* Rachel that night.  It was only the following morning that הִנֵּה⁠־הִ֖וא לֵאָ֑ה, her identity was changed.

returning home and to one's homeland

 וַיִּנְהַג אֶת⁠ כׇּל⁠ מִקְנֵהוּ וְאֶת⁠ כׇּל⁠ רְכֻשׁוֹ אֲשֶׁר רָכָשׁ מִקְנֵה קִנְיָנוֹ אֲשֶׁר רָכַשׁ בְּפַדַּן אֲרָם לָבוֹא אֶל⁠ יִצְחָק אָבִיו אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן

We know that Yitzchak lived in Eretz Canaan.  He never left Canaan.  Why does the Torah need to mention that for Yaakov, going home meant not just a return to his father, but a return to אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן? 

Netziv answers that the pasuk is telling us that in addition to Yaakov's wanting to return to his father, יִצְחָק אָבִיו, he also longed for Eretz Yisrael. אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן. 

This idea is already anticipated in the Midrash.  

וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל⁠ יַעֲקֹב שׁוּב אֶל⁠ אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ וּלְמוֹלַדְתֶּךָ וְאֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ

What does וְאֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ mean in this context?  Was Hashem not with Yaakov all the years he was in Lavan's home?  Was it not Hashem who protected him from Lavan's trickery?  Was it not Hashem who blessed him with wives and 12 children who would be the shivtei K-h?

The Midrash comments:

 כְּתִיב: זָעַקְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ ה׳ אָמַרְתִּי אַתָּה מַחְסִי חֶלְקִי בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים (תהלים קמ״ב:ו׳), וַהֲלוֹא אֵין אֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים אֶלָּא צוֹר וְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ, תַּמָּן שׂוֹבְעָה תַּמָּן זוֹלָא, וְאַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ חֶלְקִי בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים, אֶלָּא אֶרֶץ שֶׁמֵּתֶיהָ חַיִּים תְּחִלָּה לִימוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם בַּר קַּפָּרָא מַיְתֵי לָהּ מֵהָכָא: נֹתֵן נְשָׁמָה לָעָם עָלֶיהָ וְרוּחַ לַהֹלְכִים בָּהּ (ישעיהו מ״ב:ה׳), אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ חֶלְקִי בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים, שׁוּב אֶל אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ, אָבִיךָ מְצַפֶּה לְךָ אִמְּךָ מְצַפָּה לְךָ, אֲנִי בְּעַצְמִי מְצַפֶּה לְךָ.

The Midrash Tehillim similarly writes:

ד״א מדבר ביעקב זעקתי אליך י״י בשעה שיצאתי מבית אבי מהו אומר אם יהיה אלהים עמדי, אתה מחסי והנה אנכי עמך, חלקי בארץ החיים מתאוה אני לחזור לארץ ישראל, אמר יעקב ברשות יצאתי אף אני איני חוזר אלא ברשות, א״ל הקב״ה רשות אתה מבקש הרי הרשות בידך שנאמר שוב אל ארץ אבותיך.

Yaakov's journey was not just return home, a return to his biological father's house, לְמוֹלַדְתֶּךָ, which Hashem was giving Yaakov permission for, but it was a return to אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ, the land of the Avos, his homeland.  

R' Bachyei similarly finds an allusion to Eretz Yisrael in the double language of the pasuk:

כי נכסוף נכספתה לבית אביך – כפל הלשון לרמוז כי נכסף לאביו ונכסף לארץ הקדושה כלשון (תהלים פ״ד:ג׳) נכספה וגם כלתה נפשי לחצרות אלקי.

This R' Bachyei at the end of the parsha goes hand in hand with R' Bachyei at the beginning of the parsha. When Yaakov is en route to Lavan's house, in response to Hashem's promise of protection, he takes a neder (28:20-21)

 וַיִּדַּר יַעֲקֹב נֶדֶר לֵאמֹר אִם⁠ יִהְיֶה אֱלֹקים עִמָּדִי וּשְׁמָרַנִי בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי הוֹלֵךְ וְנָתַן⁠ לִי לֶחֶם לֶאֱכֹל וּבֶגֶד לִלְבֹּשׁ. 

וְשַׁבְתִּי בְשָׁלוֹם אֶל⁠ בֵּית אָבִי וְהָיָה ה׳ לִי לֵאלֹקים 

Ramban and Rashi disagree on how to read that last phrase. Ramban writes

איננו תנאי כדברי רבינו שלמה. אבל הוא הנדר, וענינו: אם אשוב אל בית אבי, אעבוד השם המיוחד בארץ הנבחרת במקום האבן הזאת שתהיה לי לבית אלהים, ושם אוציא את המעשר.

While Ramban mentions אעבוד השם המיוחד בארץ הנבחרת, he seems to point to avodas Hashem in general, and in particular, taking maaser as the fulfillment of the neder.  R' Bachyei sees the return to Eretz Yisrael itself as the kiyum ha'neder.  Chazal tell us that כל הדר בחוצה לארץ דומה כמו שאין לו אלוה.  Therefore,  וְהָיָה ה׳ לִי לֵאלֹקים must mean being in Eretz Yisrael:

אין זה תנאי ח"ו כי אם נדר, יאמר שאם ישוב לארץ ישראל אשר שם בית אביו יצחק יהיה השם המיוחד לו לאלהים כי שם יעבדנו בארץ המיוחדת. וזה ע"ד מאמר רז"ל כל הדר בחוצה לארץ דומה כמו שאין לו אלוה

Maaseh avos siman la'banim.  We find many places in Chazal that double language is darshehed to mean that a task should be repeated multiple times.  A person should not just do the mitzvah once and think he is exempt from then after, e.g. נָת֤וֹן תִּתֵּן֙ ל֔וֹ וְלֹא־יֵרַ֥ע לְבָבְךָ֖ בְּתִתְּךָ֣ ל֑וֹ - ומנין (שאם נתת פעם אחת) שאתה נותן לו אפילו מאה פעמים? ת"ל נתון תתן.  (See BM 31a)  I would like to suggest that this is the meaning here as well.  נִכְסֹף נִכְסַפְתָּה לְבֵית אָבִיךָ, even if your hope was dashed once, even if you suffered a setback once, אפילו מאה פעמים continue to hope, continue to dream, continue to long for Eretz Yisrael and try to return.  

kislev - month of geulah

Meant to post for Rosh Chodesh Kislev, but better late than never and it's good the whole month anyway.

The navi Zecharya (ch 7) raised the following shayla in the month of Kislev:

וַיְהִי בִּשְׁנַת אַרְבַּע לְדָרְיָוֶשׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ הָיָה דְבַר⁠ ה׳ אֶל⁠ זְכַרְיָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ הַתְּשִׁעִי בְּכִסְלֵו.

 וַיִּשְׁלַח בֵּית⁠ אֵל שַׂרְאֶצֶר וְרֶגֶם מֶלֶךְ וַאֲנָשָׁיו לְחַלּוֹת אֶת⁠ פְּנֵי ה׳

 לֵאמֹר אֶל⁠ הַכֹּהֲנִים אֲשֶׁר לְבֵית⁠ ה׳ צְבָקוֹת וְאֶל⁠ הַנְּבִיאִים לֵאמֹר הַאֶבְכֶּה בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִשִׁי הִנָּזֵר כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי זֶה כַּמֶּה שָׁנִים.

Would he have to fast the upcoming Tisha b'Av?

Radak provides the context:

כי עדיין לא היו מאמינים בבנין הבית מפני האויבים שהשביתו את המלאכה כמה שנים ועתה אף על פי ששמעו כי היו בונים היו קטני אמנה ולא היו רוצים לעלות מבבל כי לא היו מאמינים שישלם בנין הבית ויעמד מפני הצרים אותם ושאלו אם יצומו בתשעה באב כמו שעשו שבעים שנה

The rebuilding of Beis haMikdash had started, but the enemies of the Jewish people had caused work stoppages.  It looked far from certain that the project would ever come to completion.  The vast majority of the Jewish people remained in exile in Bavel, waiting to see what would happen, uncertain as to what the future might hold.  

Zecharya wanted to know whether the fact that there was at least something of a Mikdash standing was enough cause to suspend the fast of Tisha b'Av.

Why did he raise this question in Kislev, months and months before it would be relevant l'maaseh?  Why not wait until the three weeks, or some other time closer to Av? 

The Midrash writes at the beginning of Behaaloscha that Aharon was upset because he was left out of the chanukas haMishkan, as all the nesiim brought gifts and korbanos and he did not participate.  Hashem responded that his portion is even greater, as he is tasked with lighting the menorah.  

Ramban explains that the lighting the menorah in our homes in celebration of nes Chanukah is a continuation of the mitzvah of hadlakas menorah.  Aharon's mitzvah of menorah thus continues even after the churban, while the mitzvah of offering korbanos is no longer practiced.  

R' Noson Gestetner writes that when Kislev rolled around, Zecharya sensed the future holiday of Chanukah that would come in 200 years.  Even though he knew there would be a churban ha'bayis of the second Mikdash, he saw in Chanukah a spark of geulah, a spark of the Mikdash that would remain, as the mitzvah of menorah is still with us.  Since the geulah of Bayis Sheni would not completely be extinguished, he wondered whether Tisha b'Av would still be necessary. 

inspiration comes from inside, not outside

The gemara (San 91b) quotes a debate that took place between Rebbi and Antoninus as to when the yetzer ha'ra enters a child -- at conception or at the moment of birth:

ואמר ליה אנטונינוס לרבי מאימתי יצה"ר שולט באדם משעת יצירה או משעת יציאה א"ל משעת יצירה א"ל א"כ בועט במעי אמו ויוצא אלא משעת יציאה אמר רבי דבר זה למדני אנטונינוס ומקרא מסייעו שנאמר (בראשית ד, ז) לפתח חטאת רובץ

Rebbi conceded that it was at the moment of birth and not earlier.

We read in our parsha that Rivka was disturbed by the kicking she felt in her womb:

וַיִּתְרֹֽצְצ֤וּ הַבָּנִים֙ בְּקִרְבָּ֔הּ וַתֹּ֣אמֶר אִם⁠־כֵּ֔ן לָ֥מָּה זֶּ֖ה אָנֹ֑כִי

Rashi quotes from the Midrash:

עוברת על פתחי תורה שם ועבר ויעקב רץ ומפרכס לצאת, עוברת על פתח עבודה זרה ועשו מפרכס לצאת.

If the yetzer ha'ra only enters the child just before birth, why was Eisav kicking when he passed a place of avodah zarah in utero?  How could he already have had a desire to worship avodah zarah when he had no yetzer ha'ra yet?  

I saw this question raised by R' Moshe Yechezkel Tzalach, a sefardic acharon, in his sefer Torat Moshe.  He collects a number of different answers, but I would like to suggest an approach that is not on his extensive list.  

Rashi comments on the opening pasuk of our parsha,  וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת יִצְחָק בֶּן⁠ אַבְרָהָם אַבְרָהָם הוֹלִיד אֶת⁠ יִצְחָק, that the Torah stresses that Yitzchak was born to Avraham because there were scoffers who tried to deny it:

לפי שהיו ליצני הדור אומרים: מאבימלך נתעברה שרה, שהרי כמה שנים שהתה עם אברהם ולא נתעברה הימנו.⁠ מה עשה הקב״ה, צר קלסתר פניו דומה לאברהם, כדי שיאמרו הכל: אברהם הוליד את יצחק. וזהו שכתוב כאן: יצחק בן אברהם היה, שהרי עדות יש שאברהם הוליד את יצחק

It seems incredible that anyone would take these scoffers seriously.  We know that it was Sarah, not Avraham, who was infertile.  Avraham had fathered Yishmael through Hagar.  Secondly, the fact that Sarah could conceive in such old age was a miracle.  Does it make sense that G-d would make a such miracle for a rasha like Avimelech and not Avraham?

On the one hand, maybe there is no rhyme or reason sense to the claims of the scoffers.  People make all kinds of  outlandish claims (if you don't believe me just spend 5 minutes on social media or listen to a Democrat or member of the MSM.)  On the other hand, the Torah sees fit to respond to those claims,  G-d made a miracle and transformed Yitzchak's visage (see Sifsei Chachamim) in order to refute then.  Why bother to refute mishugas if it's just nonsense?

Although the claim that Avimelech physically fathered Yitzchak is too incredible to take seriously, what the Torah might be responding to is the claim that Avimelech was the *spiritual* father behind Yitzchak's birth.

When Yaakov returns from Lavan's home, he sends a message to his brother Eisav telling him  עִם־לָבָ֣ן גַּ֔רְתִּי.  Rashi comments: בָר אַחֵר גַּרְתִּי בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא תרי"ג, כְּלוֹמַר, עִם לָבָן גַּרְתִּי וְתַרְיַ"ג מִצְוֹת שָׁמַרְתִּי וְלֹא לָמַדְתִּי מִמַּעֲשָׂיו הָרָעִים.  If Yaakov kept all 613 mitzvos, does it not go without saying that he did not learn from Lavan's ways?

Sometimes it is hard to get up for davening, especially in the winter when it is still dark and cold and you need to head out early before work.  When I walk down my street on those early mornings, I pass a gym at the end of the block.  Without fail, even if it is 20 degrees, pitch back and only 6-something in the morning, every parking spot on the block is taken up by women who want to get to their gym class before they start the day.  I've said to my wife many times that these women are my inspiration.  If they can get up for the gym, then I can get to minyan.  

Of course Yaakov did not follow Lavan's evil ways, but he still might still have learned from him and been inspired by him.  Like those attending the gym class, Lavan was out of bed first thing in the morning.  He was motivated! He was just motivated for all the wrong things.  He used his zerizus, his intensity, his chochma, to pursue kinah, taavah, and kavod.  Yaakov might have said, "If he can do it, I can do it," and Lavan's behavior might have been his model for good.

Sounds like a good strategy, but remember the end of Rashi: וְלֹא לָמַדְתִּי מִמַּעֲשָׂיו הָרָעִים.  The talmidei haBesh"T taught the following yesod: if tzadik is inspired by the deeds of a rasha, that provides a fig leaf, so to speak, for the rasha.  Even if the rasha never intended it, since the rasha become an example for good, they earn some degree of redemption.  Now, I'm not a tzadik, and the gym goers are not really reshaim, so I take a lesson from them, but Yaakov Avinu was a tzadik, and so he did not want to take a lesson from Lavan.  He did not want to give Lavan's wickedness any cover, any positive quality.  Therefore, he said  וְלֹא לָמַדְתִּי מִמַּעֲשָׂיו הָרָעִים.

Rashi on our parsha writes (25:20) about Rivka: בת בתואל מפדן ארם אחות לבן – להגיד שבחה: שהיתה בת רשע, ואחות רשע, ומקומה אנשי רשע, ולא למדה ממעשיהם.  Of course Rivka did not learn to do evil from Besuel, Lavan, and her surroundings.  The chiddush is that she did not take her inspiration from them for good either.  Her motivation came from inside, independently from what she saw as their bad example, and so in no way can they take credit for serving as a positive, motivating force.

What the scoffers were saying about Sarah is is that the years of chessed with Avraham were not enough to earn Sarah the right to conceive.  It was only once she was in Avimelech's home, when she had the negative example of his behavior to inspire her avodah, that she was finally able to merit having a child.  (For those who are not happy with seeing this from the Besh"T, see my son's post for a similar vort from the Beis haLevi and other answers as well.)  This is what the Torah comes to refute and tell us that it all came from Avraham.

Getting back to our original question about Eisav --  עוברת על פתח עבודה זרה ועשו מפרכס לצאת -- where does it say that Eisav wanted to get out to **worship** avodah zarah?  I don't want to give Eisav too much credit, but maybe at this point in his life, in utero, pre-the entrance of the yetzer ha'ra, that was not Eisav's intention at all. The difference between Yaakov and Eisav was where to draw inspiration from.  Yaakov wanted to run out to the beis medrash and derive his inspiration from there.  Eisav wanted to see what was going on in the beis avodah zarah because the zerizus for evil is sometimes even stronger than that for good, and can therefore serve as a better example for what we should be doing in a positive sense.

Rivka, who knew not to draw any inspiration from Besuel and Lavan's actions, thought this a very dangerous road to go down and was therefore troubled by Eisav's behavior.  Inspiration needs to come from inside, not from what we see out in the world.  

so long as the other guy doesn't win

The Yalkut Shimoni writes that the news of Avraham Avinu's passing led Eisav to kerifa:

אָמַר לוֹ עֵשָׂו מַה טִּיבוֹ שֶׁל תַּבְשִׁיל זֶה, אָמַר לוֹ שֶׁמֵּת אוֹתוֹ זָקֵן. אָמַר לוֹ בְּאוֹתוֹ זָקֵן נָגְעָה מִדַּת הַדִּין, אָמַר אִם כֵּן לֹא יֵשׁ מַתַּן שָׂכָר, וְלֹא תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים

If ruchniyus had no meaning for Eisav, why then did he value so much the blessing of a tzadik, his father Yitzchak?  How can you have emunas chachamim in the power of a blessing but not believe in schar v'onesh?  

R' Eliezer Kahan, the menahel of Yeshivas Gateshead, asks this question in his sichos in the sefer Nachalas Eliezer.  I'm not sure that this question is really a question, as plenty of people who are not shomer mitzvos lined up for a dollar and a bracha from the L. Rebbe.  People who don't believe in G-d still believe in a Rebbe : )  

R' Kahan answered that Eisav's belief or lack of belief was not a product of deep philosophical thought, but was motivated by his desires and appetites.  When a person is motivated by desire, then his belief is malleable depending on the whims and desires of the moment.  Serving in the mikdash was not something Eisav cared about, so he happily discarded his beliefs and gave up the bechora for a pot of soup.  When it came time to get the brachos, the promise of reward led Eisav to put his trust in the brachos of his father in order to reap that bounty.

I think one can perhaps draw another distinction.  The butcher of Brisk once came to R' Chaim to pasken a shayla on his cow and R' Chaim declared the animal a treifa.  This was a considerable loss for the butcher, but he took the news with equinimity.  When R' Chaim on another occassion paskened against this same butcher in a dinei mamonos dispute with his neighbor, the butcher raged against the psak and hurled invectives against R' Chaim.  This was a much smaller loss than that of the cow, so why was the butcher so upset?  The answer is that it is not the loss which bothered him -- it's the fact that someone else won.   

When it came to the sale of the bechora, Eisav weighed the gain of a pot of soup against what he thought was the meaningless value of bechora, service in the Mikdash, and he did not feel cheated in any way by the deal.  In fact, he though he got the better end of the deal, as R' Dovid Tzvi Hoffman comments:

ויאכל... ויבז – במלים ברורות מראה הכתוב שלא ידע עשו להעריך נכס רוחני, ושכל שאיפתו לאכילה ולשתיה היתה מכוונת, כך שאפילו אחר שאכל לשבעו, לא התחרט על המכירה הזאת. אדרבה, חשב שעשה כאן ״עסק טוב״, כי אכן מעיד הכתוב – ״ויקם וילך״

It was, in Eisav's eyes, a fair transaction.

The same cannot be said about the loss of the brachos.  Here, Eisav did not see the link between the bechora and the brachos and thought that Yaakov took what was rightfully his.  Even if the brachos meant little to Eisav, it's the fact that Yaakov won, the fact that he was bested, which drove him mad. 

We see similar behavior from the Plishtim elsewhere in our parsha (26:18):  

וַיָּ֨שׇׁב יִצְחָ֜ק וַיַּחְפֹּ֣ר׀ אֶת⁠־בְּאֵרֹ֣ת הַמַּ֗יִם אֲשֶׁ֤ר חָֽפְרוּ֙ בִּימֵי֙ אַבְרָהָ֣ם אָבִ֔יו וַיְסַתְּמ֣וּם פְּלִשְׁתִּ֔ים אַחֲרֵ֖י מ֣וֹת אַבְרָהָ֑ם

Stealing the water of wells is understandable, but why stuff up the wells?!  Water is a valuable commodity in the hot climate of Israel.

I recently heard a shiur by the new chief Rabbi Kalman Ber in which he suggested that what motivated the Plishtim was ensuring that the other guy loses.  It didn't matter that they had no water -- so long as the other guy didn't get any either.  This is their attitude ad ha'yom ha'zeh.  It's not enough for them to have a state -- they could have negotiated for that many times.  What bothers them is that we have one.  Therefore, they can never be satisfied and will never achieve their goal.  

the relationship makes the gift

1) Yitzchak blessed Eisav (27:39)

הִנֵּה מִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ יִהְיֶה מוֹשָׁבֶךָ וּמִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם מֵעָל.

Rashi comments and explains: משמני הארץ וגו׳ – זו איטליא

Why does Rashi comment here but when those same words appear earlier in the parsha (27:28):

 וְיִתֶּן⁠ לְךָ הָאֱלֹקים מִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם וּמִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ וְרֹב דָּגָן וְתִירֹשׁ

 Rashi is silent and offers no explanation?

Taz in Divrei David explains that there are two types of land which we would call blessed: 1) land which is inherently fertile, has a good climate, and abundant resources; 2) land which inherently has none of the above, but through Hashem's hashgacha pratis becomes such a place.

Eisav's bracha, unlike Yaakov's, starts with the word הִנֵּה.  Yitzchak was telling Eisav, "Here it is before you -- a land that has everything you could want, מִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ."  Since he is referring to a specific place that is inherently good, Rashi fills in for us that it is Italy, perhaps alluding to the Roman empire, that he was referring to.

Yaakov's bracha starts off very differently: וְיִתֶּן⁠ לְךָ הָאֱלֹקים מִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם.  Yaakov is not being given a land which has abundance, a specific place that Rashi can point to that meets this criteria of משמני הארץ.  Instead, he is being given the bracha of receiving from Shamayim.  It's that which transforms Eretz Yisrael into מִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ. 

In parshas Braishis the snake is cursed to always eat the dust of the ground.  The famous question is what kind of curse is this when dust can be found everywhere guaranteeing the snake easy sustenance forever?  The mefoshim answer that by having everything he needs, the snake loses the opportunity for forge a relationship with Hashem.

Both Eisav and Yaakov receive the blessing of מִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ, but only Yaakov's bracha is the product of having a relationship with Hashem.

"lifnos erev" = birur tov and ra

 וַיֵּצֵ֥א יִצְחָ֛ק לָשׂ֥וּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶ֖ה לִפְנ֣וֹת עָ֑רֶב

Rivka's neshoma was trapped in the home of Lavan and Besuel -- the tov was mixed in with the ra, as is the nature of things in this world after the cheit of Adam.  Yitzchak went out to daven לִפְנ֣וֹת עָ֑רֶב, to ask Hashem to remove a little bit of the תערובת of this world so that the good could come out.

emor me'at -- don't tempt the yetzer ha'ra

According to some Rishonim it was not the akeidah which was the final, greatest test of Avraham Avinu; it was the challenge of buying Me'aras haMachpeila.  Had you asked me, I would have said that after the akeidah, buying Me'aras haMachpeila almost seems like an afterthought.  That gufa may be the hesber of why it was the most challenging test.  Imagine a person who is rushed to the hospital with life threatening pain in his chest.  After a few hours in the emergency room, the doctor comes in and says, "I have some good new and some bad news.  The good news is that your heart is OK, no problem found.  The bad news is there is a hangnail that we need to take care of before you are discharged to go home."  The person would probably be thinking, "What are you bothering me with nonsense for?"  Here too, after the akeidah, Avraham might have just wanted to push aside the bother of the whole back and forth with Efron and not deal with it.  Had Avraham been a lesser person, he would have no doubt lost patience.  He could have argued to Hashem, "I've already proven myself -- what do you want with me already?  Why bother me with these little things now?"  But Avraham didn't do that.  He accepted the small challenges in stride, as trivial and as nonsensical as they might have seemed in light of what he had just been through. 

The gemara (BM 87) contrasts the behavior of Avraham in welcoming guests with the behavior of Efron:

 כתיב ואקחה פת לחם וכתיב ואל הבקר רץ אברהם אמר רבי אלעזר מכאן שצדיקים אומרים מעט ועושים הרבה רשעים אומרים הרבה ואפילו מעט אינם עושים מנלן מעפרון מעיקרא כתיב ארץ ארבע מאות שקל כסף ולבסוף כתיב וישמע אברהם אל עפרון וישקל אברהם לעפרון את הכסף אשר דבר באזני בני חת ארבע מאות שקל כסף עובר לסוחר דלא שקל מיניה אלא קנטרי דאיכא דוכתא דקרי ליה לתיקלא קנטירא

Avraham offered only a simple meal of bread, but overdelivered and brought out a whole fleishig seudah.  Efron originally offered to give Avraham the Me'aras haMachpeilah for free, but in the end he charged full price paid only in top currency.  

Chazal in Pirkei Avos (1:16) teach us this same lesson: אמור מעט ועשׂה הרבּה.  

What is this idea of speaking less and doing more?  If the idea is that a person should not promise too much lest he break his word, then we already have halachos that tell us that a person should keep his word.  There is the idea of הין צדק; there is the idea of מי שׁפּרע that once you give your word to an agreement you should keep it even if the transaction is technically not yet binding.  

Furthermore, it would seem that Avraham's behavior is a poor proof to this idea.  Perhaps Avraham offered only a small meal because he was afraid that if he offered too much, the guests would shy away so as to not bother him.  Maharasha comments on that gemara that this is exactly what was going through Avraham's mind: והטעם מפני שלפעמים ימנע האורח מלהכנס והמקבל מלקבל כדי שלא ירבה לטרוח את המקבל והנותן.  It's not a general סיג to prevent a person from failing to keep his word, but a limited din by hachnasas orchim.  So how do we get from here to a general principle?

In the Shiurei Daas R' Bloch (this shiur was written over by by wife's grandfather R" Dov Yehuda Schochet) sees the idea here as not just about keeping or failing to keep one's word, but the relationship between speech and action is a siman as to a person's attitude.  The tzadik is all too aware of both the difficulties and obstacles that the yetzer and life can throw in his way and of the limits of his own abilities.  Therefore, he is wont to promise too much.  Once the tzadik gets going, however, he manages to find within the strength to overachieve.  The rasha, in contrast, consistently underestimates the difficulties that stand in his way and he overestimates his own ability.  He therefore feels free to promise the world, thinking it will be easy to deliver, only to have his efforts end in failure and frustration.

The gemara in Sukkah (52a) describes the reaction of the tzadikim and reshaim to the future destruction of the yetzer ha'ra:

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

R' Bloch writes that this gemara parallels our sugya of אמור מעט ועשׂה הרבּה.  The tzadikim see the yetzer as Mt Everest.  Who can say if anyone will make it to the top?  Their caution serves them well.  Reshaim, however, see the yetzer as just a thread, a minor obstacle.  They are therefore unprepared for the challenges that befall them and fail to deliver the goods.

While R' Bloch sees אמור מעט ועשׂה הרבּה as a siman of a person's character, R' Yehuda Deri explains that it is a sibah, that talk itself can be the cause of failure. 

R' Deri points out that Efron's intentions from the get-go may indeed have been to give Me'aras haMachpeilah as a free gift to Avraham.  Notice the repetition 3x of variations of  נָתַתִּי in Efron's declaration:

 לֹא⁠ אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי הַשָּׂדֶה נָתַתִּי לָךְ וְהַמְּעָרָה אֲשֶׁר⁠ בּוֹ לְךָ נְתַתִּיהָ לְעֵינֵי בְנֵי⁠ עַמִּי נְתַתִּיהָ לָּךְ קְבֹר מֵתֶךָ.

And Efron deliberately says this in public, to ensure that if he retracts, he will suffer embarrassment.  He put himself in a situation where the pressure was on to keep to his word. 

How then does a person go from promising so much to delivering so little?  

R' Deri explains that היא הנותנת!  Precisely because Efron talked a big talk, his words led to his downfall.

There is another gemara in Sukkah on that same daf (52a) quoted by R' Bloch: 

כל הגדול מחברו יצרו גדול הימנו

The greater the person, the greater the yetzer ha'ra that fights against them.

We are introduced to Efron with the words וְעֶפְרוֹן יֹשֵׁב בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי⁠ חֵת (23:10).  Rashi comments: אותו היום מינוהו שוטר עליהם. מפני חשיבותו של אברהם  Efron became a big man in town overnight.  He made big promises.  He became through his position and his talk a גדול מחברו.  

A big man who makes big promises makes a big target for the yetzer ha'ra.  

Chazal advise אמור מעט ועשׂה הרבּה not just as a סיג lest you fail to deliver.  Chazal are teaching is that אמור מעט because otherwise you WILL fail to deliver.  Too much talk invites the yetzer/tempts fate, which leads inevitably to failure.

The advice of אמור מעט ועשׂה הרבּה is preceded in Avos with the command of עשׂה תורתך קבע.  What is the connection between these two ideas?  The Sefer Chareidim writes that a person needs to set a fixed portion to learn each day, e.g. daf yomi, mishna yomi, etc.  There has to be a seder kavu'a.  However, says the Sefer Chareidim, best to keep that commitment in the back of your mind, or in your heart, and not verbalize it.  אמור מעט ועשׂה הרבּה  Once you verbalize the commitment, you are making yourself into a target for the yetzer ha'ra and you won't then be able to succeed. You don't need to pit a "Do the Daf" bumper sticker on your car or baseball hat.  You don't need to advertise that you are גדול מחברו because you have a seder kavu'a.  Don't become a target for the yetzer.  Don't talk about it -- just do it (see R' Chaim Elazari's Nesiv Chaim who says a slightly different pshat in this Sefer Chareidim, but I think it fits R' Deri's approach.)

Our mission is to be like Avraham Avinu, to under promise and overdeliver.  R' Shmuel Birnbaum notes that every morning we say in Baruch she'Amar נְגַדֶּלְךָ וּנְשַׁבֵּחֲךָ וּנְפָאֶרְךָ וְנַזְכִּיר שִׁמְךָ נַמְלִיכְךָ.  That's the minimum bar that we set for ourselves -- that the "emor me'at" part!  We are supposed to do even more.  Ha'levay that we should at least strive to do so.  

akeidas Yitzchak - all a big misunderstanding?

A hypothetical question: If I think that there is a mitzvah to walk barefoot to shul every day, and I fulfill that mitzvah with great mesirus nefesh, with blisters on my feet in the summer, and even at the cost of getting frostbite in the winter, do I get schar for a kiyum mitzvah?

This should not require much thought to answer.  How can I get schar for a mitzvah that's not a mitzvah?  Yes, there is schar for good intentions: אפילו חשב אדם לעשות מצוה, ונאנס ולא עשאה, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו עשאה (Kid 40a), but that's where the good intentions were to do a mitzvah.  In this case, there is no mitzvah!  

Seems like an obvious point, but it also seems to fly in the face of our tefilos and our understanding of this week's parsha.  We call upon Hashem to remember the zechus of akeidas Yitzchak.  We view akeidas Yitzchak as the greatest act of mesirus nefesh and ahavas Hashem; it was the greatest test Avraham was called upon to pass, and which he did with flying colors.  Yet Rashi comments on G-d's command וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם לְעֹלָה עַל אַחַד הֶהָרִים אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶיך that:

 לא אמר לו: שחטהו, לפי שלא היה חפץ הקב״ה לשחטו, אלא יעלהו להר לעשותו עולה, ומשהעלהו, אמר לו: הורידהו

G-d told Avraham to bring Yitzchak up to the mountain, but not to actually sacrifice him. There was never such a mitzvah!  

Does this mean that Avraham chopping wood, taking a knife, preparing to sacrifice his son, was all a big mistake and misunderstanding?  Did Avraham misinterpret the dvar Hashem?  

If there was never such a mitzvah, why do invoke the schar Avraham's deed forever after?  It's not schar for just carrying Yitzchak up and down the mountain, but schar for the willingness to sacrifice Yitzchak that we are asking Hashem to remember.  If that was never a mitzvah, why should it be worth any more reward any more than my walking to shul barefoot?  

R' Shmuel Birnbaum (in Tiferes Shmuel on the parsha) answers this question with a yesod developed by the Ketzos in his introduction.  The gemara (BM 86a) writes that there was a machlokes in heaven about a din in hil negaim:

 קָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּמְתִיבְתָּא דִרְקִיעָא: אִם בַּהֶרֶת קוֹדֶמֶת לְשֵׂעָר לָבָן – טָמֵא, וְאִם שֵׂעָר לָבָן קוֹדֵם לַבַּהֶרֶת – טָהוֹר.

סָפֵק – הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר: טָהוֹר, וְכוּלְּהוּ מְתִיבְתָּא דִרְקִיעָא אָמְרִי: טָמֵא. וְאָמְרִי: מַאן נוֹכַח? נוֹכַח רַבָּה בַּר נַחְמָנִי. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר נַחְמָנִי: אֲנִי יָחִיד בִּנְגָעִים, אֲנִי יָחִיד בְּאֹהָלוֹת

כִּי הֲוָה קָא נָיְחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ, אֲמַר: טָהוֹר, טָהוֹר. יָצָאת בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: אַשְׁרֶיךָ רַבָּה בַּר נַחְמָנִי שֶׁגּוּפְךָ טָהוֹר, וְיָצָאתָה נִשְׁמָתְךָ בְּטָהוֹר

How could Rabbah bar Nachmaini resolve a machlokes between G-d himself and the mesivra d'rekiya!?  Isn't it obvious that G-d knows the right answer?

The Ketzos quotes the Derashos haRan as explaining that built into the Torah is the allowance for different possible interpretations.  "Eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim."  In an absolute sense there is no one "right" answer.  So how do we figure our what to do?  The Torah resolves the problem with the principle of "lo ba'shamayim hi" - the final arbiter of what is "correct" is whatever the chachmei ha'dor think is correct.  It's in our hands to determine the "right" answer.  Therefore, the heavens had to turn to Rabbah bar Nachmeini, the posek ha'dor in hil negaim, to determine exactly what the psak should be.  It's not what's "right" in heaven that matters, but rather what we think is "right" on earth.

The Midrash (B"R 8:5) writes that there was a debate among the angels as to whether or not it was worth it to create man:

אָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לִבְרֹאת אֶת אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, נַעֲשׂוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת כִּתִּים כִּתִּים, וַחֲבוּרוֹת חֲבוּרוֹת, מֵהֶם אוֹמְרִים אַל יִבָּרֵא, וּמֵהֶם אוֹמְרִים יִבָּרֵא, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (תהלים פה, יא): חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת נִפְגָּשׁוּ צֶדֶק וְשָׁלוֹם נָשָׁקוּ. חֶסֶד אוֹמֵר יִבָּרֵא, שֶׁהוּא גּוֹמֵל חֲסָדִים. וֶאֱמֶת אוֹמֵר אַל יִבָּרֵא, שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ שְׁקָרִים. צֶדֶק אוֹמֵר יִבָּרֵא, שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה צְדָקוֹת. שָׁלוֹם אוֹמֵר אַל יִבָּרֵא, דְּכוּלֵיהּ קְטָטָה. מֶה עָשָׂה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נָטַל אֱמֶת וְהִשְׁלִיכוֹ לָאָרֶץ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (דניאל ח, יב): וְתַשְׁלֵךְ אֱמֶת אַרְצָה,

What does it mean that G-d threw emes down to earth?  How does silencing truth's voice, removing his platform, address the issue raised?  

R' Yaakov Kaminetzki (in Emes l'Yaakov) explains that there are two different levels or standards of truth: there is absolute truth, and then there is the relative truth that we humans are used to dealing with.  When you sing "kallah na'ah v'chasudah" at a wedding (Kesubos 17), it doesn't matter whether or not the kallah is really beautiful as measured on some absolute scale of beauty.  All that matters is that in her chosson's eyes she is beautiful.  As far as he is concerned, relative to his frame of reference, it's the truth.  When the Midrash says that Hashem kicked the midah of emes down to earth, it doesn't mean that Hashem chose to disregard truth.  What it means is that the standard of truth for mankind is not absolute truth as it exists in heaven, but is relative truth as it exists for us on earth.  

"Lo ba'shamayim hi" means the same is true of halacha.  The "right" answer is the one that appears correct to us, not what is "right" in some absolute sense.

R' Shmuel Birnbaum is mechadesh that the same principle applies to nevuah.  What the prophet sees or hears is subject to his interpretation, and that is what determines the meaning of the nevuah.  When Avraham was commanded הַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם לְעֹלָה, since Avraham interpreted that to mean that Hashem was asking him to sacrifice Yitzchak, the act of literal sacrifice became a mitzvah.  It doesn't matter in an absolute sense what Hashem meant or didn't mean, because that is not the standard by which we determine what halacha or nevuah means.  The standard of truth is our perception (by "our" I mean the chachmei ha'mesorah or the navi) of what is meant. 

We say in the bracha before the haftarah אֲשֶׁר בָּחַר בִּנְבִיאִים טוֹבִים, וְרָצָה בְדִבְרֵיהֶם הַנֶאֱמָרִים בֶּאֱמֶת.  R'SB explains that when we say the words הַנֶאֱמָרִים בֶּאֱמֶת, we are not thanking Hashem for giving us prophets that don't c"v lie -- that should go without saying.  What we are affirming in our bracha is this principle that the navi's interpretation of the dvar Hashem -- his perception of what Hashem meant -- is true, נֶאֱמָרִים בֶּאֱמֶת, because that is the only truth that is relevant and that counts. 

no substitute for a parent

Avaraham made his way to Eretz Yisrael and wandered around until he reached Shchem (12:6):

 וַיַּעֲבֹ֤ר אַבְרָם֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ עַ֚ד מְק֣וֹם שְׁכֶ֔ם עַ֖ד אֵל֣וֹן מוֹרֶ֑ה וְהַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֖י אָ֥ז בָּאָֽרֶץ

Why did he stop there?  Rashi explains עד מקום שכם – להתפלל על בני יעקב כשיבאו בשכם  He stopped to daven for the children of Yaakov.

Later in the parsha, Avraham tells Hashem that gifts don't mean anything so long as he does not have any children (15:2-3):

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אַבְרָ֗ם ה׳ אלקים מַה⁠־תִּתֶּן⁠־לִ֔י וְאָנֹכִ֖י הוֹלֵ֣ךְ עֲרִירִ֑י וּבֶן⁠־מֶ֣שֶׁק בֵּיתִ֔י ה֖וּא דַּמֶּ֥שֶׂק אֱלִיעֶֽזֶר

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אַבְרָ֔ם הֵ֣ן לִ֔י לֹ֥א נָתַ֖תָּה זָ֑רַע וְהִנֵּ֥ה בֶן⁠־בֵּיתִ֖י יוֹרֵ֥שׁ אֹתִֽי

Sifsei Chachamim asks: If Avraham stopped to daven for the Bnei Yaakov at Shechem, then he must have known that he would have children and grandchildren and great grandchildren!  How are we to understand Avraham's complaint?

Netziv says a beautiful pshat in those pesukim later in the parsha which answers the Sifsei Chachamim's question.  The words of Avraham's complaint are out of order, as the Ohr haChaim points out: אומרו הן לי - היה לו לומר הן לא נתת לי.  Netziv explains that Avraham deliberately put the word  לִ֔י first.  What Avraham was saying is that even if I have children, what good is it at this point in my life?  How can I in my old age, when my best years are long past, raise them and transmit to them my values, my ideology, my torah?  In what sense will those children be MY children, given to ME - לִ֔י - if I cannot fully experience raising them?  

Netziv's pshat begs the question of why was this was of such concern to Avraham Avinu.  In those very pesukim Avraham refers to Elizer as דַּמֶּ֥שֶׂק אֱלִיעֶֽזֶר.  Chazal tell us that Eliezer earned this title because he was דולה ומשקה מתורתו לאחרים, Eliezer was capable of teaching to others all the torah of Avraham.  Eliezer was such a tzadik that he went alive straight into Gan Eden at the end of his life.  Couldn't Avraham have charged Eliezer with the task of teaching his child torah, just like Eliezer taught it to others? Couldn't he have sent the child to cheider, to yeshiva, to learn there?

We see from here, writes R' Chaim Elazari in his Nesivei Chaim, is that no matter how good the yeshiva or cheider or Beis Yaakov, it's no substitute for a parent.  You don't become Avraham AVINU through shlichus.  Chinuch is a mitzvah she'bigufo, it requires direct interaction between parent and child.  When Avraham davened for a child, it is this experience that he pined for.  

2) Another great point from R' Chaim Elazari: Avraham did not want to accept any gifts from the King of Sdom lest people say that Sdom, not Hashem, made him rich  אִם⁠־מִחוּט֙ וְעַ֣ד שְׂרֽוֹךְ⁠־נַ֔עַל וְאִם⁠־אֶקַּ֖ח מִכׇּל⁠־אֲשֶׁר⁠־לָ֑ךְ וְלֹ֣א תֹאמַ֔ר אֲנִ֖י הֶעֱשַׁ֥רְתִּי אֶת⁠־אַבְרָֽם (14:23). Why did Avraham not have the same compunctions about taking gifts from Pharoah earlier in the parsha?

R' Elazari answers that Hashem's promise that He would make Avraham rich applied only in Eretz Yisrael.  Therefore, he did not want Sdom to get any credit.  In chu"l, however, Avraham had no guarantee, and could therefore could accept the gifts of others.

In galus, accepting hand outs is acceptable. In chu"l we live in a state of dependency on others for protection and sustenance.  Not so in Eretz Yisrael, where we are meant to stand on our own two feet, reliant only on Hashem for our needs.  We may not be there yet, but it's important to keep the goal and ideal in mind.

l'chaim - to life!

The gemara (Sanhedrim 108) tells us that Noach found a certian bird sitting quietly in a room in the ark not bothering anyone or anything.  He asked the bird, "Don't you want food?" to which the bird replied, "I saw you were busy and didn't want to bother you."  In response to this act of kindness Noach blessed the bird that it should live forever.

Maharasha asks: this gemara seems to contradict a different Chazal.  The Midrash teaches that this bird lived forever because it was the only animal that did not listen to Chavah and eat from the Eitz ha'Daas:

מהכא משמע דמברכתו של נח זכה לכך אבל בב״ר אמרו ותקח מפריו ותאכל הכל שמעו לה ואכלו חוץ מעוף א׳ ושמו חול הה״ד וכחול ארבה ימים אלף שנה הוא חי ובסוף אלף שנים גופו כלה וכו׳ וחוזר ומגדל אבריו וחי ע״כ וק״ל

One possible simple answer is that not eating from the Eitz ha'Daas prevented natural death, but there was always the chance that the bird might be hunted and killed.  Noach's blessing prevented even that from occurring.

Rav Pincus in Tiferes Torah suggests a different answer.  We've in the past discussed the gemara (R"H 32) that teaches that on Rosh haShana that angels are perplexed as to why Bn"Y are not saying hallel -- R"H is still a yom tov after all?  Hashem answers that it is impossible to sing hallel and be joyous when the Book of Life and Book of Death stand open before us:

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמְרוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה לְפָנֶיךָ בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וּבְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אָמַר לָהֶם אֶפְשָׁר מֶלֶךְ יוֹשֵׁב עַל כִּסֵּא דִין וְסִפְרֵי חַיִּים וְסִפְרֵי מֵתִים פְּתוּחִין לְפָנָיו וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה.

B'shalama the Book of Death being open, asks Rav Pincus, neicha that we should be trembling in our boots.  But why does the gemara also mention the fact that the Book of Life is open?  Why is our trepidation on Yom haDin related to that book as well?  

We see from this Chazal a tremendous yesod: Life means more than the absence of death.  It's not enough to hope you are not inscribed in the Book of Death on Rosh HaShana and m'meila, if nothing bad happens, life will continue as-is ad infinitum with no need to do anything more.  A person needs to have a reason to live; a person needs to strive for fulfillment, for growth.  This is especially true on the Yom haDin, especially on Rosh haShana when the entire world has a chance to renew itself and be reborn.  If a person is not part of that, what is life for?  We are beyond the days of Rosh haShana, but this shabbos is also Rosh Chodesh, a time of hischadshus.  It's not enough to slide into the new month maintaining status quo.  We have to renew ourselves, renew our reason for being here, or what are we living for?  

That's why we are shaking in our boots when the Book of Life is open.  If you just skate by by avoiding the Book of Death without a Book of Life, you don't really have a life after all.  

Unless we also make it into that Book of Life, our existence will be a futile exercise and will inevitably draw to a close. 

Think for a moment about the two special trees in Gan Eden, the Eitz haDaas and the Eitz haChaim.  If being alive means no more than avoiding death, then why was there an Eitz haChaim?  Avoiding the Eitz haDaas alone would do the trick of guaranteeing eternal life?  Al korchacha life must be about more than cheating death.  We need an Eitz haChaim, we need a Sefer haChaim, meaning and reason for being here, or all the years in eternity don't really matter.

This the lesson Chazal are teaching us in this story about Noach's magical bird.  True, the bird did not eat from the Eitz ha'Daas and therefore had the potential to live forever, but what a sad, meaningless existence that would be. Such a life would come to nothing and ultimately fizzle out on its own. It was by doing an act of chessed that this bird demonstrated that its existence had positive meaning, and that is the secret to the bracha which Noach gave it of true eternal life. 

Rogatchover on building the teivah: is the mitzvah the maaseh or the totza'ah?

The Rogatchover asks what the geder of Hashem's mitzvah to make a teivah was.  Was it the עצם המעשׂה, the act of building the teivah, or was it the end result, the תוצאה, of having a teivah, which was crucial?

I would say mi'sevara that it depends on what the real reason for building the teivah was.  If the point was to have a place of refuge for Noach and family during the flood, then all that matters is the end result of having a safe haven.  If the point was to raise awareness of the impending flood and thereby arouse the people to do teshuvah, then process of building, which people would take note of, was crucial.  (Baruch she'kivanti, my son pointed out that the L. Rebbe makes this point in a sicha (vol 15).)

The Rogatchover in his unmatched genius brought a proof from the following gemara (Sukkah 52b):

״וַיַּרְאֵנִי ה׳ אַרְבָּעָה חָרָשִׁים״, מַאן נִינְהוּ אַרְבָּעָה חָרָשִׁים? אָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא: מָשִׁיחַ בֶּן דָּוִד, וּמָשִׁיחַ בֶּן יוֹסֵף, וְאֵלִיָּהוּ, וְכֹהֵן צֶדֶק.

Why are these 4 people called craftsmen?  Rashi explains that Mashiach ben David and ben Yosef will build Beis haMikdash; Eliyahu built a bamah on Mt Carmel; Kohen Tzedek is Shem ben Noach who helped his father build the teivah.

Had Noach been commanded in the עצם המעשׂה of building the teivah, then how could he have allowed his son to help?  He was given the mitzvah, not his son, and there is no din of shlichus for a ben Noach!  It must be, says the Rogatchover, that all that matters was the תוצאה, but who did the building or how it was done was not important.

an experience that makes an impression

Rashi writes that the gathering of  וַיַּקְהֵל מֹשֶׁה אֶת⁠ כׇּל⁠ עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל took place למחרת יום הכפורים, כשירד מן ההר.  When that gathering finished, the Torah reports וַיֵּ֥צְא֛וּ כׇּל־עֲדַ֥ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִלִּפְנֵ֥י מֹשֶֽׁה.  It should go without saying that when Moshe was done speaking everyone went home.  Why mention it?  (See this post where we discussed this.)

R' Avraham Shapira quotes Chasam Sofer that the point the Torah is trying to make is that in this case it wasn't just stam you went home, business as usual, like you come home from the grocery store or a day of work. In this case it was clear on the faces and in the behavior of the people that they had come מִלִּפְנֵ֥י מֹשֶֽׁה, they had just experienced something important, something that made an impression. 

So too when we come to למחרת יום הכפורים, the experience of Y"K should leave it mark, and there should be an impression left even as we depart from the kedushas ha'yom. 

tefilas neilah - kaparah of the tzibur

Rambam writes in hil teshuvah 1:4 that teshuvah alone is not enough to be mechapeir on chilul Hashem:

 במה דברים אמורים בשלא חילל את השם בשעה שעבר אבל המחלל את השם אע"פ שעשה תשובה והגיע יום הכפורים והוא עומד בתשובתו ובאו עליו יסורין אינו מתכפר לו כפרה גמורה עד שימות. 

Yet earlier in halacha 1:2 Rambam indicates that the שעיר המשתלח brings kaparah for everything, even the cheit of chilul Hashem.

שעיר המשתלח לפי שהוא כפרה על כל ישראל כהן גדול מתודה עליו על לשון כל ישראל שנאמר והתודה עליו את כל עונות בני ישראל. שעיר המשתלח מכפר על כל עבירות שבתורה הקלות והחמורות. בין שעבר בזדון בין שעבר בשגגה. בין שהודע לו בין שלא הודע לו הכל מתכפר בשעיר המשתלח. והוא שעשה תשובה

R' Avraham Shapira explained that the difference is that שעיר המשתלח is a kaparah for the community as a whole, as the Rambam writes, מתודה עליו על לשון כל ישראל.  Although an individual's personal teshuvah is not enough to forgive chilul Hashem, it can be forgiven as part of the kaparah extended to the community.

Similarly, Meshech Chochma at the end of parshas VaYelech writes that tefilas neilah also has that exceptional power to afford kaparah even for chilul Hashem:

והנה כל ימי תשובה שמלך יושב על כסא וצבא השמים עומדים עליו יכול להועיל רק על עבירות שאין בהם חלול השם שוקלין זכויות כנגד עבירות, אבל על חה״ש ע״ז אמרו אם יכופר לכם העון עד תמותון ב״י, כי אין יוהכ״פ מכפר (סוף יומא), ורק בעת החתימה שהשי״ת דן יחידי אז הוא שעת הכושר שהשי״ת יסלח מרוב טובו אחרי גודל הבכי והחרטה, כי אם הוא ימחול על חלול כבודו מי יאמר אליו, לכן בנעילה סדרו הפסוקים למה תמותו, השיבו וחיו כי לא תחפץ במות כו׳ וכיו״ב, כי הכל על עון חלול השי״ת   

This is because, explained R' Avraham, tefilas neilah, like the שעיר המשתלח, is the time of kaparah for the tzibur, not just for each of us as individuals.

This is the climax of the avodah of Y"K -- joining as a tzibur, receiving kaparah as a tzibur.  

What we cannot achieve as individuals, we can achieve as a klal.  

bracha on besamim on Y"K which falls on motzei shabbos; bracha on ner when a woman recites havdalah

There is a machlokes ha'poskim whether the bracha on besamim is said in havdalah when Y"K falls on Shabbos. The SA writes (624:3) writes that the bracha is omitted, as the purpose of besamim is to help us recover from the loss of our neshoma yesira, but on Y"K there is no neshama yseira since we can't eat or drink.  The Mordechai disagrees.  Taz quotes Maharashal who argues that there is no downside to being choshesh for the Mordechai and adding the bracha, as the bracha is a birchas ha'nehenin.  If you smell the spices and enjoy the fragrance, it's not a bracha levatala.  This is how the Mishna Berura paskens l'maaseh:

אבל רבים מהאחרונים חולקין ע"ז וסוברין דכשחל בשבת יש לברך על הבשמים ואין כאן חשש ברכה לבטלה כיון שנהנה. ומ"מ אין להורות לצבור כן ולמחות בידם במקום שנהגו בבהכ"נ שלא לברך על הבשמים רק לעצמו בביתו יכול לברך [פמ"ג].

Aside from the issue of bracha levatala, Taz raises a different concern.  If one is not obligated to say it, wouldn't adding the bracha on besamim constitute a hefsek between the bracha on the kos and the bracha of havdalah?  He draws an interesting analogy to tekiyas shofas to get out of this problem:

וויש לכאורה לדחות זה שכ' מאחר שנהנה כו' דמ"מ יש כאן הפסק בין ברכת בורא פרי הגפן לברכת המבדיל בבשמים אם אין הכרח להם מ"מ נראה דעדיף טפי לצאת ידי כל הדיעות מלחוש להפסק וראיה מדברי ת"ה סימן קמ"ב לענין קשר"ק שתוקעין בסדרים דבזה נפיק ידי כל הקולות דהיינו או קר"ק או קש"ק ולא חיישינן להפסיק אם קש"ק עיקר הוה התרועה הפסק ואם קר"ק עיקר הוה השברים הפסק דכיון דעכ"פ כבר יצא י"ח לא חיישינן להפסק  אע"ג דעיקר התקיעות הם על סדר הברכות הכי נמי  כיון דיוצא ממ"נ לא חיישינן להפסק:

I think the simplest solution to be yotzei both deyos here is that of the Chayei Adam (klal 145.  My son pointed out to me that R' Ovadya says the same in Chazon Ovadya.):

והרוצה לעשות מן המובחר לצאת דעת האומרים לברך גם על הבשמים כשחל בשבת נ"ל דלאחר שסיים ברכת המבדיל בין קדש לחול אז יברך על הבשמים ולא באמצע הבדלה

This Taz has ramifications not just when Y"K falls on Shabbos, but for other havdalah issues as well.  The Biur Halacha at the end of OC 296 is medayek from the MG"A that women are exempt from the birchas ha'ner when reciting havdalah on motzei Shabbos.  Had you asked me, I would have said based on this Taz that if they have no chiyuv recite the birchas ha'ner, they should not be allowed to recite the bracha, as it would constitute a hefsek.  This is in fact how R' Tukashinski paskens in his luach.  

The sefer Halichos Beisa (end of ch 15) disagrees.  He suggests that even according to the Biur Halacha, women may recite the bracha if they desire to do so.  The difference between this case and that of the Taz is that when it comes to a regular motzei Shabbos, the fact that women lack a chovas ha'gavra (odd to use that term here : ) to say the bracha does not change the fact that it is part of the takanah of what constitutes the normal seder of havdalah.  On Y"K which falls on Shabbos, however, since according to the SA since there is no neshoma yseira, the bracha of besamim is not part of the "cheftza" of the takanah of havdalah for that day.  

As proof to this argument he cites the PM"G that an aveil is exempt from reciting the bracha on besamim since he is too upset to have the enjoyment of a neshama yseira; however, the PM"G implies that if the aveil may recite the bracha if he chooses to do so.  Here too, the aveil may lack a chovas hagavra because of his circumstance, but the takana of havdalah on motzei Shabbos includes the bracha, and therefore there is no issur to say it.

Important to note that this issue is only with respect to a regular motzei Shabbos. The Halichos Beisa suggests that when Y"K falls on Shabbos even according to the M"B women are obligated in the birchas ha'ner, as the purpose of the ner on motzei Y"K is part of havdalah -- to distinguish between the ner that we were not allowed to use for 24 hours and ner that we now can use -- as opposed to on a regular motzei Shabbos where it is a shevach for the creation of candlelight.

five thoughts on this 10/7 anniversary

I am not sure why we are marking the date of 10/7 and not the Hebrew calendar date when the tragedy of Hamas' attack occurred (albeit a Yom Tov), but be that as it may, I have five very simple and perhaps obvious thoughts:

1) We have seen nisim v'niflaos over the past year, and at the same time suffered heartbreak.  One day we see the yad Hashem b'giluy, the next day it is shrouded in hester panim.  What the Divine plan is is incomprehensible, but one cannot help but feel that we stand at a moment in history that will shape Jewish destiny for years to come.

2) We have discovered who our true friends are, and they have both mourned and celebrated with us.  We have also discovered who our enemies dressed in sheep's clothing are, and they are many.

3) The debt owed to the soldiers of Tzahal is immense.  They and their families have given everything.  

4) If you are a Jew and do not realize that history is now calling you to action -- to do something, whether big or small, for our nation -- then I fear רוח והצלה יעמוד ליהודים ממקום אחר ואת ובית אביך תאבדו.  

5) Finally, we should be confident in the certainty that no matter how long it takes and what obstacles must be overcome, ultimately רוח והצלה יעמוד ליהודים, and I mean specifically Eretz Yisrael.  We have no future in galus.  It is not enough to think of shivas Tzion as an abstract dream, but we must struggle to make it a reality, if not for ourselves, then for our children or grandchildren. 

judgment of the individual and judgment of the tzibur

There is a din that before R"H a person has to bathe and take a haircut before Y"T because it's a day of celebration, as we are confident that we will emerge triumphant from standing before Hashem and being judged.  

Meforshim ask: The gemara writes that we do not recite hallel on R"H because it would be inappropriate when the sifrei chaim and sifrei meisim are open and our fate hangs in the balance to be celebrating.  If we are so confident of a positive outcome, why not celebrate?   

To tell you the truth, I am not so bothered by this question.  It seems to me that there is a difference between showing confidence and being happy.  A lawyer can be confident going to trial, but that doesn't mean he is happy to have to face litigation.  We are confident that Hashem will judge us fairly and get us to a positive outcome, but that doesn't mean we should be in a celebratory mood.  The mood is still solemn, as becoming the seriousness of being judged.  Hallel is therefore out of place.

The Chochmas Shlomo on the SA as well as the Netziv at the end of Emor in the Harchev Davar offer a different answer.  On R"H, we actually face two different judgments.  Each and every one of us is individually judged as to what kind of year we will have, but in addition, Klal Yisrael as a whole isjudged.  Will our enemies have the upper hand, or will we as a people thrive and grow this upcoming year?

The Rama (OC 583) quotes the well known minhag of eating apple dipped in honey.  Biur haGR"A explains:

תפוח. ע"ש ופריו מתוק לחכי וכמ"ש כריח שדה ומתרגמינן חקל תפוחים והיה בר"ה כידוע:

It was on R"H that Yaakov went in and got the brachos from Yitzchak (other Midrashim place the date as Pesach), usurping Eisav and making sure we would have the bechora.  Chazal (Taanis 29) comment on the pasuk וַיֹּאמֶר רְאֵה רֵיחַ בְּנִי כְּרֵיחַ שָׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר בֵּרְכוֹ ה׳ that Yaakov smelled like an apple orchard, אמר רב יהודה משמי' דרב, כריח שדה של תפוחים.  (See Torah Temima on that pasuk who notes that although the GR"A refers to the Targum as the source for it being an apple field, it is not found in the Targum, and GR"A probably meant this derasha).

This was not just a personal victory for Yaakov over his brother, but this is maaseh avos siman la'banim, and it resonates on a national scale.  Every year the conflict between Yaakov and Eisav plays itself out on R"H.  Every year we and the umos ha'olam face off in judgment, each one of us trying to earn the bracha that will put us on on top.  Every year we dip the apple in the honey, assured that we will be the ones to emerge with bracha, just as our forefather Yaakov did.

The gemara writes that R' Abahu in Keisari made a takanah to blow all the different kolos: tekiya-teru'ah-tekiya, tekiya-shevarim-tekiya, and tekiya-sh"t-tekiya.  The fact that this takanah was made in Keisari is not just a trivial detail, says R' Chaim Feinstein, but perhaps is linked to the essence of what the day is about.  The gemara elsewhere (Meg 6a) tells us:

קסרי וירושלים אם יאמר לך אדם חרבו שתיהן אל תאמן ישבו שתיהן אל תאמן חרבה קסרי וישבה ירושלים חרבה ירושלים וישבה קסרי תאמן שנאמר אמלאה החרבה אם מליאה זו חרבה זו אם מליאה זו חרבה זו רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מהכא ולאום מלאום יאמץ

Keisari is the stronghold of Eisav, while Yerushalayim is our stronghold.  When one is ascendant, the other must fall.  Rosh haShana is a replay of the age old conflict between Eisav and Yaakov, between Keisari and Yerushalayim, and so it is davka there that R' Abahu instituted his takana of tekiyos, so as to weaken Eisav.

(Parenthetically, the Rishonim quote BH"G that there was no real doubt that mi'doraysa one is yotzei with any of the combinations of kolos.  The R' Abahu made his takanah was to create a unified minhag in Klal Yisrael.  You don't have a similar takana, for example, that all of klal yisrael should do nanau'im the same way.  Perhaps the reason why is because shofar is linked to this idea of judgment on the tzibur, and so factionalism, having different groups with different practices, would be antithetical to the spirit of the day.)

The poskim write based on Midrashim that the reason we take the lulav and esrog after Yom Kippur is because when an army would emerge victorious from battle they would have a parade and wave their standards and their arms in the air.  The lulav is our standard, and we hold in high and wave it around to show that we alone have emerged victorious from the conflict with Eisav.  

The mitzvah to bathe and get a haircut, assured that we will have a good outcome on the yom ha'din, is viz a viz the judgment that occurs on a national level.  Yaakov every year triumphs over Eisav and remains Hashem's chosen one. (I am still a bit perplexed.  So why not say hallel in commemoration of the national victory over Eisav?)  As for each one of us individually, what will happen remains to be determined.  

That being given, I think one way we can assure ourselves of a positive outcome is to throw our lot in with that of the nation, the tzibur, the klal.  This, I think, is what the Isha haShunamit (Melachim 2 4:13) meant when she told Elisha that she does not need any reward because וַתֹּאמֶר בְּתוֹךְ עַמִּי אָנֹכִי יֹשָׁבֶת  If instead of focusing on our individual needs and our individual lot we focus on our simply being members of the klal, our judgment will tie in with that of the klal.