a period of transition

The gemara (Sota 34) darshens that the names of the meraglim reveal their flawed character:

תניא, א״ר יצחק, דבר זה מסורת בידינו מאבותינו, מרגלים על שם מעשיהם נקראו, ואנו לא עלתה בידינו אלא אחד, סתור בן מיכאל, סתור – שסתר מעשיו של הקב״ה, מיכאל – שעשה עצמו מך א״ר יוחנן, אף אנו נאמר, נחבי בן ופסי (פ׳ י״ד) נחבי – שהחביא דבריו של הקב״ה, ופסי – שפסע על מדותיו של הקב״ה

It seems that these were not very nice guys.  However, Rashi tells us

כלם אנשים – כל אנשים לשון חשיבות הוא, ואותה שעה כשירין היו.

Indeed, if the meraglim were as bad as their names suggested, it begs the question of why Moshe selected them for the mission. Why invite trouble by choosing the bad apples?

Furthermore, why would Moshe have davened only for Yehoshua if he knew that the other mergalim were going to cause mischief? Aderaba, he should have davened for them, as they were more in need for his tefilos than Yehoshua!  

Transitions are difficult.  Ibn Ezra famously writes that even though Bn"Y at Yam Suf vastly outnumbered the mere 600 chariots Pharaoh had, they would not have been able to fight.  Psychologically, they could not stand up to the people who had been their masters just a short time earlier.  The transition from slavery to freedom is not so simple.  Bn"Y in the midbar were surrounded by the miracles of the mon, the be'er, the ananei ha'kavod.  All their needs were miraculously taken care of.  The transition to life in Eretz Yisrael, a life of working the land, a life that would require their effort, not miracles, to create a all the trappings of a functioning country, was bound to be difficult as well.

The gemara does not mean that the spies were at that moment flawed individuals.  What the gemara means is that the 12 spies were flawed individuals who had managed to overcome the defects inherent in who they were and become better people.  Each one of them, as their name indicates, had a weakness.  Each one of them managed to make the transition to greatness.  

Who better, writes the Tiferes Shmuel (Aleksander), to lead when facing a period of national transition?  Who better to see and explain how a wasteland inhabited by immoral, antagonistic enemies can become gan Hashem?

This is why Moshe prayed for Yehoshua alone.  It was davka Yehoshua's great piety which gave rise to Moshe's concern that he, more than the others, would not be successful.  Not having to overcome any inherent flaw, not having to make a transition to become something better than who he was "meant" to be, was in this case, in Moshe's view, a defect.

entering into a situation of ones

Saw the following question:

The Mordechai holds that if one has a garment missing tzitzis, there is no problem in wearing it on shabbos.  The logic is that there is no issur in putting on a four cornered garment.  Once the garment is on, one becomes obligated to put tzitzis on it, but at that point, since it is shabbos and one cannot tie tzitzis, ones Rachmana patrei.

The first Mishna in Beitza says that if one did not prepare anything to do kiseui ha'dam with, one cannot shecht on Y"T.  Why not apply the Mordechai's logic and say that there is no issur in doing shechita, just once the shechita is done, there is a chiyuv to do kisuei ha'dam; at that point, if one has no dirt prepared that is not muktzah, ones Rachamana patrei? 

What's the difference between these cases?

tzitzis worn without kavanah - lack of kiyum mitzvah or bitul aseh?

The M.B. in Biur Halacha (siman 60) says a big chiddush: if a person puts on tzitzis but fails to have kavanah to be yotzei the mitzvah, they are mevateil a mitzvas aseh.  Therefore, he writes, a person needs to be careful when they are called up for an aliyah and they grab a talis, to make sure to have kavanah l'shem mitzvas tzitzis.  (He then backtracks a bit and suggests that since the talis in this case is being worn momentarily only for the sake of getting an aliya, it may not really be a "levisha" which is chayav in tzitzis.)

I saw some assert that this chiddush contradicts a Minchas Chinuch.  The gemara darshens that "v'asu LAHEM tzitzis" excludes using a stolen item for the mitzvah.  Why do we need a derasha to give us this new din when we already have a principle of mitzvah ha'baah b'aveira?  Minchas Chinuch answers that mitzvah ha'baah b'aveira negates the kiyum mitzvah.  It is as if the person did nothing, and therefore gets no credit.  The derasha goes a step further and teaches us that using stolen goods results in a bitul aseh.  It's worse than doing nothing -- it's like wearing a 4 cornered garment with no tzitzis.  (M.C. says the same chiddush by sukkah where there is a derasha to pasul a stolen sukkah on top of the din of mitzvah ha'baah b'aveira.)  

According to MB, failure to get credit for the kiyum mitzvah, e.g. where there is a lack of kavanah, results automatically in a bitul aseh.

R' Elchanan in Koveitz Shiurim (Kesubos 250) questions whether tzitzis worn without kavanah is doche kilayim.  This safeik should hinge in part on whether you accept the chiddush of the MB.  If a lack of kavanah is equivalent to being mevateil the mitzvah, there is no aseh to be doche the lav of kilayim.  According to MC, however, the gavra may get no credit for the mitzvah, but l'maaseh he wearing a garment with tzitzis, and perhaps the issur of kilayim does not apply to a garment that has proper tzitzis on it.

a gift is a mechayeiv

I work close to midtown Manhattan in a building, one of many in the neighborhood, that has a giant pride flag hanging over the front entrance.  Every morning I am greeted with a colorful flier pasted on the entranceway to our floor encouraging people to join a group that engages in "advocacy" and promotes "visibility" of people engaged in a to'eivah lifestyle.  As part of the celebrations this month, there are conferences and events being held with participation of C-level executives, just to make sure you get the message that toe'aveh is supported at the highest levels in the company.  All this is in addition to the regular barrage of emails I get offering me things like voluntary (for now)  unconscious bias training and the like.  

I remember back in the good ol' days where the biggest issues working in a corporate environment were things like making sure you could leave early on erev Shabbos, or a woman manager offering a handshake after a meeting or interview.  Now, in many companies there is no problem even getting kosher food at meetings (offered alongside vegetarian, vegan, hallal, and a gamut of other selections).  What you put in your mouth may be kosher, but everything else in the environment is treif! 

I'm not surprised that a judge ruled this week that Yeshiva Universtity must recognize a LGBT group.  You can't be a square and claim you are really a circle.  You can't claim to be a "non religious organization" but then exclude LGBT because you want to keep religious values.  Circle or square -- which is it?  Torah u'Mada maybe makes sense if you are dealing with 1950's liberal values, with what was once thought of as the great ideas of Western civilization.  Maybe there is something we can take away from those ideas.  These days, forget it.  To even talk about Western civilization will get you banned.  The world is not interested in our values, and I don't see how we can gain much from being interested in the ones in vogue out there.  

Anyway... something on the parsha:

1. Bn"Y complain about the mon and Moshe is ready to throw in the towel:

הֶאָנֹכִ֣י הָרִ֗יתִי אֵ֚ת כׇּל־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה אִם־אָנֹכִ֖י יְלִדְתִּ֑יהוּ כִּֽי־תֹאמַ֨ר אֵלַ֜י שָׂאֵ֣הוּ בְחֵיקֶ֗ךָ כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשָּׂ֤א הָאֹמֵן֙ אֶת־הַיֹּנֵ֔ק עַ֚ל הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֖עְתָּ לַאֲבֹתָֽיו (11:12)

Rashi already asks: when did Hashem ever say that Moshe has to serve as a nursemaid, to be like a kindergarten teacher and baby people?

R' Yerucham Lebovitz answers that the very fact that Hashem gave Moshe the gift of leadership, the power to deal with the people even when they are rebellious, even when they test his patience, is mechayeiv him to do so.  

When Hashem gives a person a talent, a gift, that's Hashem's message to the individual that their mission is to use that ability to its fullest.  

2. How is a leader supposed to react when the flock lets him down?  וּבְעֵינֵ֥י מֹשֶׁ֖ה רָֽע׃ (11:9)  Rather than asking for mercy from Hashem, this time Moshe shows his disapproval (see post here), and in the very next pasuk says to Hashem:

 לָמָ֤ה הֲרֵעֹ֙תָ֙ לְעַבְדֶּ֔ךָ וְלָ֛מָּה לֹא־מָצָ֥תִי חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֶ֑יךָ לָשׂ֗וּם אֶת־מַשָּׂ֛א כׇּל־הָעָ֥ם הַזֶּ֖ה עָלָֽי

Sounds like Moshe is bemoaning his lot, asking Hashem why he has to put up with the complaints.  The Noam Elimelech, however, k'darko reads the pasuk quite differently.  לָמָ֤ה הֲרֵעֹ֙תָ֙ לְעַבְדֶּ֔ךָ -- why, Hashem, have you made it so that  I see the רָֽע in the people -- וּבְעֵינֵ֥י מֹשֶׁ֖ה רָֽע -- and not the good?  וְלָ֛מָּה לֹא־מָצָ֥תִי חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֶ֑יךָ לָשׂ֗וּם אֶת־מַשָּׂ֛א כׇּל־הָעָ֥ם הַזֶּ֖ה עָלָֽי -- why have I not found favor to be charged with carrying the people's burdens rather than become a leader who cannot see the good in his people?

As discussed once before, the greatness of Moshe was "temunas Hashem yabit" -- when he looked at a simple Jew, maybe even a rebellious Jew, he saw temunas Hashem.

parshas sotah and mechikas Hashem: hutra or dechuya?

The gemara (Sukkah 53) relates then when David dug the shitin drainpipes for the mizbeyach, the waters below started coming up through the drains and threatened to flood everything.  David thought of a solution: write the shem Hashem on a piece of earthenware and throw it into the drain to stop the water.  However, he did not know whether it would be permissable to erase shem Hashem to do this or not, so he announced that anyone who knows the answer should come forward.  Continues the gemara:

נָשָׂא אֲחִיתוֹפֶל קַל וָחוֹמֶר בְּעַצְמוֹ: וּמָה לַעֲשׂוֹת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: שְׁמִי שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּקְדוּשָּׁה יִמָּחֶה עַל הַמַּיִם, לַעֲשׂוֹת שָׁלוֹם לְכׇל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁרֵי.

Achitofel drew a kal v'chomer: if to make peace between husband and wife the shem Hashem can be erased, as we read in the parsha of sotah, certainly it can be erased to make peace for the whole world.

In the Reshimos Shiurim, R' Soloveitchik is quoted as learning from here that the din of mechikas Hashem by sotah is dechuya, not hutra.  

מכאן מוכח דהא דמוחקין את השם בסוטה אינה מדין הותרה אלא מדין דחויה, שיש במחיקת השם מעשה איסור אלא דשלום בית דוחה את איסור המחיקה, דהא יליף אחיתופל לכל התורה כולה מסוטה, דאילו הותרה למצות סוטה איך אפשר ללמוד לשאר התורה.

Were mechikas Hashem hutra just for the sake of sotah, then that would preclude generalizing from there to other cases.  It must be that there is an issur of mechika even in the sotah case, but the need for shalom pushes it off.  Therefore we can generalize to other contexts.

RYBS brought further proof from the last Rambam in Hil Chanukah:

היה לפניו נר ביתו ונר חנוכה או נר ביתו וקדוש היום נר ביתו קודם משום שלום ביתו שהרי השם נמחק לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו. גדול השלום שכל התורה ניתנה לעשות שלום בעולם שנאמר דרכיה דרכי נעם וכל נתיבותיה שלום

Rambam learns that just like for the sake of shalom the issur of mechikas Hashem is pushed off, so too, for the sake of shalom lighting shabbos candles takes precedence over kiddush.  Again, we see the principle derived from sotah being generalized to other instances.

Afar ani tachas kapos raglav, but I think the Shu"T haRama (100:10) learns differently.  Rama quotes a teshuvah from Rav Hai Gaon: a husband took an oath to divorce his wife.  Can the husband violate his shevu'a for the sake of shalom bayis and remaining married?  Rav Hai Gaon responded that he may not.  This case is not comparable to the parsha of sotah, Rav Hai somewhat cryptically explains, because there violating the issur of mechikas Hashem is 'motzei mi'dei safeik u'mi'dei issura,' but here, with respect to shevu'a, there is an issur of 'lo tisa." 

What exactly is the chiluk Rav Hai is making between the two cases?  Rama explains that the issur of mechikas Hashem is derived from, "lo taasun kein l'Hashem Elokeichem...," not to destory our holy things the way avodah zarah must be destroyed.  The issur of mechikas Hashem, he writes, only applies when done with a destructive intent.  However, if done for a constructive purpose, e.g. shalom bayis, there is no issur. 

Were shalom bayis **doche** the issur of mechikas Hashem, then shalom bayis should be doche the issur of shevu'a as well.  Rama says this equation does not work because the issur of mechikas Hashem is **hutra**, i.e. there is no issur when done for a constructive purpose.  This does not apply to the issur of shevu'a, which has completely different parameters.  Achitofel could generalize from sotah to his scenario because he was dealing with the same issur of mechikas Hashem done for a constructive purpose.

The proof from hil chanukah is not convincing to me because in that case we are speaking about a din derabbanan of ner shabbos taking precedence over other dinim derabbanan like drinking wine for kiddush, or ner chanukah.  There many takanos derabbanon instituted for sake of darkei shalom, so it's no surprise that one derabbanan would outweigh another for that reason.

I saw quoted b'shem R' Elyashiv a different pshat in this Rav Hai Gaon.  R' Elyashiv suggested that the woman involved suffers tremendous embarrassment by being put through the sotah process to determine her guilt or innocence.  This is why the Torah promises that if indeed she is innocent, meaning she did not have relations with a stranger, she is rewarded and will have a child.  Eevn though she is not truly 100% innocent -- she certainly violated the issur yichud -- the great burden of embarrassment inflicted upon her demands some compensation.  Davka in this instance, where a woman's reputation is on the line, when she is suffering great pains of shame, the Torah allows shem Hashem to be erased.  This is far beyond the normal bounds of ordinary shalom bayis, and therefore, one cannot generalize from here regarding shalom bayis being doche other issurim.

I only saw this quoted second hand in a parsha sheet, but it seems to me that it leaves unresolved how Achitofel could derive anything from the parsha of sotah given that the heter mechikas Hashem there is unique to the special circumstance involved. 

the special meaning of Shavuos for Rav Yosef

(I presented a version of these divrei Torah [took out personal references and some other stuff] at the shloshim siyum for my FIL, Dovid ben haChaveir Yosef.  They should be an aliya for his neshoma)

The gemara (Pesachim 68) writes that Shavuos was Rav Yosef’s favorite holiday:

רב יוסף ביומא דעצרתא אמר עבדי לי עגלא תלתא אמר אי לא האי יומא דקא גרים כמה יוסף איכא בשוקא

We all would be nothing without mattan Torah. What did Rav Yosef have more of an appreciation and make a greater celebration of the day than anyone else’s? And if Rav Yosef was celebrating mattan Torah, why does he not say “mattan Torah?” Why does the gemara refer to “hai yoma,” the day?

The gemara at the end of Horiyos tells us that Rav Yosef was called “Sinai” because he had an unbelievable memory and could recall braisos as if they had been dictated to him word for word from Sinai.

However, at some point Rav Yosef's condition changed (Nedarim 41):

רב יוסף חלש איעקר ליה למודיה אהדריה אביי קמיה היינו דבכל דוכתא אמרינן אמר רב יוסף לא שמיע לי הדא שמעתא א"ל אביי את אמריתה ניהלן ומהא מתניתא אמריתה ניהלן

Rav Yosef forgot his learning. This is why throughout shas we find Abayei reminding his rebbe, Rav Yosef, of sugyos that Rav Yosef had taught him but had now forgotten.

In light of Rav Yosef’s condition, we can appreciate his comment (Menachos 99a)

אשר שברת ושמתם בארון תני רב יוסף מלמד שהלוחות ושברי לוחות מונחין בארון מכאן לתלמיד חכם ששכח תלמודו מחמת אונסו שאין נוהגין בו מנהג בזיון

Rav Yosef himself was the shivrei luchos! He proved that even after he could no longer function on the level he once was able to, his life still had meaning, and his life could still be lived with dignity and respect. Broken luchos can be cherished as much as whole ones.

Rav Yosef celebrated not just the giving of the luchos, mattan Torah, like we all do, but he in particular celebrated the fact that Torah was given through shivrei luchos, through that would be broken, and that even these luchos too would have a place in the aron.

A second reason why the Shavuos had particular meaning for Rav Yosef:

The gemara (Kid 30a) writes that someone who teaches Torah to his grandchildren is as if he received it directly at Har Sinai, like at Shavuos.

אמר ריב"ל כל המלמד את בן בנו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו קבלה מהר סיני שנאמר והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וסמיך ליה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב

This idea of ensuring that Torah is passed down to children, and grandchildren as well, is reflected in another statement of Chazal (B”M 85):

ר' יוחנן כל שהוא תלמיד חכם ובנו תלמיד חכם ובן בנו תלמיד חכם שוב אין תורה פוסקת מזרעו לעולם שנאמר ואני זאת בריתי וגו' לא ימושו מפיך ומפי זרעך ומפי זרע זרעך אמר ה' מעתה ועד עולם מאי אמר ה' אמר הקב"ה אני ערב לך בדבר זה מאי מעתה ועד עולם אמר ר' ירמיה מכאן ואילך תורה מחזרת על אכסניא שלה

Rav Yochanan said it, but Rav Yosef lived it. The gemara continues:

רב יוסף יתיב ארבעין תעניתא ואקריוהו לא ימושו מפיך יתיב ארבעים תעניתא אחריני ואקריוהו לא ימושו מפיך ומפי זרעך יתיב מאה תעניתא אחריני אתא ואקריוהו לא ימושו מפיך ומפי זרעך ומפי זרע זרעך אמר מכאן ואילך לא צריכנא תורה מחזרת על אכסניא שלה

(Parenthetically, why does the gemara say that R”Y fasted 40 days for himself, 40 for his children, but 100 [others change the girsa, but this is how the printed text reads and how Maharasha has it] for his grandchildren? I am admittedly a newbie in the role of grandparent, but it seems to me that by the time one’s children are grown and one gets to be a grandparent, one realizes that however many tefilos, fasts, etc. one thought would be enough to ensure the mesorah continues to the next generation, in reality even twice as much is not even enough.)

Rav Yosef’s life was Shavuos, was mattan Torah, because he established that bond across generations.  That's why the day had such special meaning for him.

Shavuos is the time we are judged on “peiros ha’ilan.” It's a time to take stock of one's efforts to pass the mesorah on to the fruits of one’s family tree, children and grandchildren.  Hopefully the effort bears spiritual fruit.

Shavuos - holiday of Torah she'baal peh

Sefas Emes (5633):

ענין קריאת רות בשבועות. שהוא ענין תורה שבע"פ

How is Rus about Torah shebaal peh, and if that is indeed the takeaway from the  book, why do we read it on Shavuos, which at first glance is a celebration of the written Torah, a celebration of receiving luchos which were engraved and written by G-d?

My wife wrote on her blog:

This year, I was thinking about parallels between Megillat Esther and Megillat Ruth. In both, the heroine for whom the book is named has a parental figures who is not her actual parent as a guide. This figure advises her about how to behave in a new environment for her -- Mordechai directs Esther to remain silent about her identity, and Naomi instructs Ruth about halachos and social norms in Jewish society in general and told to stick with the maids working in Boaz's field

Subsequently, though, that same authority figure turns the tables on the heroine due to what has come to light to change her tactics and take a great risk. The heroine then has to act contrary to her nature and take action that would be considered rash and dangerous. She must subjugates her own views to that of the wisdom of the parental figure.

She refers to Mordechai's instruction to Esther to go to Achashveirosh even uninvited in order to thwart Haman's plot, and Naomi's instruction to Rus to go to Boaz and meet him in the field in the middle of the night, seemingly unsuitable behavior for a bas yisrael. My wife ends off:

Interestingly, both heroines thus prove themselves worth of royalty, for the middah of malchus in Jewish thought is not of self-assertion but of receiving. I'd venture to say that Esther (descended from the line of Rachel) may represent the role of Moshiach ben Yosef while Ruth clearly establishes the line leading to David and the Moshiach born of that dynasty.

How does Rus express her commitment to Judaism?   She doesn't pull out a kitzur shulchan aruch, or some other guidebook that tells her how to behave and pledge to follow it.  She tells Naomi, "Ba'asher teileichi eilech, ba'asher taluni alin" -- "Where you go, I go," etc.  It is Naomi's behavior and practice that is her guide.  It is Naomi's instruction that she follows, irrespective of the risk to her reputation, or in Esther's case, to her life. 

These heroines prove worthy of the midah of malchus because "man malchi -- Rabbanan."   Without a concept of mesorah, without Rabbinic interpretation, without role models and tradition, Torah could not endure.  It is the mesorah, the Rabbis, who rule over the text, not the text which rules over the mesorah. 

Even though the Torah says an Amoni may not intermarry into Klal Yisrael, Boaz came along and revealed that an Amonis is excluded from that law.  Boaz = Bo Oz, the Torah was embodied within him, his interpretation and mesorah defined what the rules of the game were.  

That's why the parallel to Rus is the story of Esther, which we read on Purim.  "Hadar kiblu'ha b'ymei Achashveirosh..."  Purim is also a celebration of kabbalas haTorah, and therefore, this same theme of a living, breathing mesorah is a focal point of the megillah story.

The tachlis of mattan Torah, what we celebrate on Shavuos, can be summed up in three words: Lo BaShamayim Hi.  Mattan Torah is in fact all about Torah shebaal peh because at that moment of mattan Torah G-d turned over the reins to us and Torah became more than just words on a page.  

kabbalas haTorah b'simcha

Hashem told Moshe while he was up on Har Sinai that the people below were worshipping the eigel, but that did not stop Moshe from bringing the luchos down with him.  Once he saw what was going on, however, he smashed the luchos.  M'ikara mai ka'savar u'l'bsof mai kasavar?  If he thought Bn"Y did not deserve the luchos, why did he bring them down?  If they did deserve them, why did Moshe smash them?

Seforno (32:19) answers:

וירא את העגל ומחלת, ויחר אף משה – כשראה שהיו שמחים בקלקול שעשו, כענין ״כי רעתכי אז תעלזי״ (ירמיהו י״א:ט״ו), ובזה התקצף ונואש שיוכל לתקן המעוות באופן שיחזרו לתמותם ויהיו ראויים לאותן הלוחות.

Moshe thought that even if the people were worshipping avodah zarah, it was a mistake he could correct.  Ohr she'hah machziran la'mutav once they got the Torah.  

However, once Moshe saw that it was not just that the people had gone astrary, but that they were filled with simcha at their situation, they were rejoicing in the worship of avodah zarah, he lost hope. You can't compare stam an aveira to an aveira done with simcha and hislahavus.

Rav Tzvi Shteinberg points out the Seforno's comment (23:14) on  שָׁלֹ֣שׁ רְגָלִ֔ים תָּחֹ֥ג לִ֖י בַּשָּׁנָֽה:

תחג לי – כענין ״ישמח ישראל בעשיו״ (תהלים קמ״ט:ב׳), על היפך ״וירא את העגל ומחלת״ (שמות ל״ב:י״ט).

 It's not enough to stam do the mitzvos ha'chag.  You have to have the same simcha and hislahavus that you showed when Aharon declared "chag la'Hashem machar" and you worshipped the eigel.

B'frat, this is true on Shavuos.  It's not enough to have a kabbalas haTorah, but it has to be b'simcha, just like the simcha of the eigel which thwarted the initial kabbalah.   

Ramban's chiddush din of cheirem

Commenting on the pasuk  כׇּל־חֵ֗רֶם אֲשֶׁ֧ר יׇחֳרַ֛ם מִן־הָאָדָ֖ם לֹ֣א יִפָּדֶ֑ה מ֖וֹת יוּמָֽת׃ (27:29), Ramban comes up with a new din based entirely on pshat in the pasuk  

ולכך אני אומר כי מן הכתוב הזה יוצא להם הדין הזה, שכל מלך בישראל או סנהדרי גדולה במעמד כל ישראל שיש להם רשות במשפטים, ואם יחרימו על עיר בהלחם עליה, וכן אם יחרימו על דבר העובר עליו, חייב מיתה

He explains:

ועל דרך הפשט: יאמר הכתוב כי כל המחרים משלו, בין אדם בין בהמה ושדה אחוזתו, הוא קדש לשם, שהן חרמי כהנים, ואין להם פדיון, אבל המחרים מן האדם שאינו שלו, כגון הנלחמים על איביהם ונודרים נדר: אם נתון תתן את העם הזה בידי והחרמתי את עריהם (במדבר כ״א:ב׳) – ימיתו כל האדם הנמצא בהם. 

One can take a vow of cheirim that requires killing the muchram, e.g. if one takes a vow to be machrim an enemy city that the army is trying to capture, if victorious, everyone in the city must be killed.  He further writes:

Ramban gives three examples.  The first two: 1) Bn"Y killed the townspeople of Yaveish Gilad because they did not join the rest of the community in battle (Shoftim 21) 2) Shaul was going to kill his son Yehonosan because he violated the cheirem and paused to eat during battle (Shmuel ch 14) 

Netziv (Haamek Sheila 142:9) rejects these proofs.  The reason the people of Yaveish Gilad were guilty is because failure to join Klal Yisrael in battle weakens the entire army.  Someone who does that has the din of a rodef.  Shaul thought the same of Yehonasan -- he thought that by pausing in the middle of battle Yehonsan was guilty of failing to press the enemy to the fullest extent, weaking Bn"Y's position.  

Ramban's third example is a case of a misapplication of the din.  Yiftach declared a cheirim on whatever emerged first from his house if he returned victorious in battle.  Had an animal come out, as he anticipatged, he would have offered it as a korban.  Yet it was his daughter who came out first to greet him, and he therefore was forced to kill her.  Yiftach's error: ולא ידע כי חרם המלך והסנהדרין חל על המורדים לכלותם או על העובר על גזרתם ותקנתם, אבל לחול נדר לעשות עולה מדבר שאיננו ראוי לשם חס ושלום

Ibn Ezra argues and writes that Yiftach did not kill his daughter, as if she was a korban.  What he did was to consecrate her life to G-d, like a korban.  She cloistered herself away and dedicated herself to prayer.  To which Ramban responds: ואם הדבר כן, היתה בתו הבוכה על בתוליה ורעותיה עמה כזונות לקלס אתנן, וחס ושלום שתהיה חוק בישראל לתנות לבת יפתח ארבעת ימים בשנה (שופטים י״א:מ׳) מפני שלא נשאת לבעל והיתה עובדת את השם בטהרה. אבל הדבר כפשוטו וטעותו היה ממה שאמרתי  Why would anyone cry over such a fate?!  Aderaba, it should be lauded.

I say only partially tongue in cheek that were I teaching in a RW girls school or seminary (and I'm not knocking such places -- my own daughters are products of them), I would highlight this Ibn Ezra, because I think Ibn Ezra would give a very "frum" response to Ramban.  Ain hachi nami,  מפני שלא נשאת לבעל והיתה עובדת את השם בטהרה she should cry, as a woman's role is to make the cholent, bake the kugel, raise the children, and support her husband.  To be derpived of being able to fulfill that role, even if one is עובדת את השם בטהרה, is something to bemoan.

freedom of religion is not enough

אַף־אֲנִ֗י אֵלֵ֤ךְ עִמָּם֙ בְּקֶ֔רִי וְהֵבֵאתִ֣י אֹתָ֔ם בְּאֶ֖רֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶ֑ם אוֹ־אָ֣ז יִכָּנַ֗ע לְבָבָם֙ הֶֽעָרֵ֔ל וְאָ֖ז יִרְצ֥וּ אֶת־עֲוֺנָֽם׃

Where is the אֶ֖רֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶ֑ם, this "land of our enemies" that the pasuk tells us that Hashem will bring us to, and where we will finally do teshuvah?

An amazing Seforno:

כשחזרו בני הגולה לארץ ישראל במצות כורש מלך פרס היתה הארץ תחת ממשלת האומות, כאמרו ״והארץ אשר נתתה לאבתינו לאכל את פריה ואת טובה, הנה אנחנו עבדים עליה. ותבואתה מרבה למלכים אשר נתתה עלינו בחטאותינו״ (נחמיה ט׳:ל״ו-ל״ז)

The  אֶ֖רֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶ֑ם is Eretz Yisrael!  He writes that when Koresh allowed the Jews to return to Eretz Yisrael they were not immediately granted independence.  They remained his subjects, slaves to a foreign power.  Klal Yisrael were crestfallen. The very place where they should have exhibited greatness ended up as a place where they were slaves to others.  

Simply being in Eretz Yisrael, even with the allowance to learn Torah and do mitzvos, even with the allowance to build a Mikdash is not enough.  Freedom of religion without political freedom and sovereignty is still called  אֶ֖רֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶ֑ם and should bother us. 

Ashreinu that we live in a time where our independence and sovereignty have been restored (af al pi that the gvt pays too much heed to Washington), that we can once again celebrate a united Yerushalayim under our own dominion.

why the GR"A wanted to leave Vilna and journey to Eretz Yisrael

You find in hil aveilus, perhaps more than any other area of halacha, minhag piled on top of minhag.  R' Moshe Tzuriel in the end of vol 2 of his Otzros haTorah collects a list of practices that people are makpid on that are in fact problematic mi'dina or have no basis, as well as practices that are binding mi'dina but people neglect.  Even if you are not interested in hil aveilus per se, he opens the section with a general discussion about conflict between minhag and din.  He quotes a fascinating tidbit from R' Yaakov Kanaha (son in law of the GR"A's brother): why did the GR"A dream of making aliyah given that the Torah centers of the world were in Europe and Eretz Yisrael was still pretty much barren?  It is permissible to leave Eretz Yisrael to learn Torah, kal v'chomer one need not leave chu"l if doing so would entail bitul Torah?  R' Yaakov Kahana answers that the GR"A was so disturbed by the minhagim that had developed in the European communities that he felt it was worth the journey to E"Y to escape and start with a clean slate in a new community!  

counting sefirah, counting years to yovel

1) Tzror haMor writes that there is a connection between the opening of week's parsha and the conclusion of last week's.  The end of last week's parsha told us about the person who was mevarech Hashem and who disrespected Moshe's authority.  Just like you must have kvod Shamayim and respect kvod talmidei chachamim, so too, writes Tzror haMor, our parsha teaches us that the land of Eretz Yisrael is holy and requires the same respect and kavod.  

2) Rabeinu Yerucham compares the counting of sefiras ha'omer to the counting of shemitah cycles and years leading up to yovel.  Just like after 49 years we are mekadesh the yovel year, so too, after 49 days we are mekadesh the 50th day as the holiday of Shavuos.

R' Berel Povarski suggests that the analogy is not just derush b'alma.  

The Rambam opens hil shemita with the din

מצות עשה לשבות מעבודת הארץ ועבודת האילן בשנה שביעית

And in perek 10 he writes with respect to yovel

מצות עשה ***לספור שבע שבע שנים ו*** לקדש שנת החמשים

Note that with respect to shemita, the Rambam does not mention the need to count six years in order to get to year 7, but he mentions the need to count seven shemitot to get to a yovel.  Tos (Menachos 65b d"h u'sefartim) writes that there may even be a chiyuv on B"D to recite a bracha and count each year (R' Akiva Eiger mh"k 29,30 is medayek otherwise from the Ran at the end of Pesachim).  

The seventh year of shemita happens even if no one counts the previous six.  Yovel, however, only comes if there is a count of 49 years beforehand to lead to it.

Meshech Chochma on our parsha draws a comparison between shemita and Shabbos and yovel and Yom Tov.  The kedusha of Shabbos is "kevi'a v'kayma;" it does not need a mekadesh.  The kedusha of Yom Tov depends on beis din sanctifying that period of time and designating it as the chag.  Yovel needs a count in order for it to happen; it does not take effect on its own.

The Rambam (Shemtia 10:5) quotes a mesorah from the Geonim that between bayis rishon and bayis sheni only shemitah and not yovel was observed, and the same, of course, was true post-churban.  If yovel was suspended because celebrating yovel is only done when "kol yoisheveha aleha," the majority of Jews live in Eretz Yisrael, then it should not have been observed for many years earlier than the bayis rishon/sheni interregnum?

R' Chaim (al haRambam) explains that there is a difference between observance of yovel and the count of yovel.  Even if in practice none the halachos of yovel can be fulfilled, so long as beis din is functioning and can count years, year 50 will be yovel and the next 49 year cycle will start the year afterward.  Only when there is no beis din to count, which happened during the interregnum period, year 50 is skipped and one 49 year cycle will follow immediately the prior one.

Coming back to Rabeinu Yerucham, now that we understand the the count of years to yovel is necessary for yovel to happen, it's parallel, sefiras ha'omer, takes on additional significance as not just marking time, but as a necessary preparation period without which Shavuos would not have the same meaning.  

can a kohen come in contact with safeik tumah b'reshus ha'rabim?

Last week's parsha introduced the issur of a kohen becoming tamei meis, except to bury certain close relatives.  The Marcheshes (long footnote at the end of siman #2) raises the following chakirah: can a kohen enter a reshus ha'rabim where there is a safeik tumas meis?  Does the din of safeik tumah b'reshus harabim tahor mean that there is no tumah, and therefore the kohein can l'chatchila enter the area, or does safeik tumah b'reshus ha'rabim mean that even though there may be potential tumah, ex post facto, we treat someone who entered such a place as tahor -- only b'dieved?

The Marcheshes was not a Brisker (see his hakdamah!), but the chakirah echoes a gavra/cheftza type split.  Is safeik tumah b'reshus harabim a din in the tumah, the cheftza, not really being tumah, or is it just a din in the gavra remaining tahor even though he might have in fact encountered something tamei?

The Rambam writes in Hil Aveil 3:6

כהן גדול אינו מטמא לקרובים שנאמר לאביו ולאמו לא יטמא. וכן אינו נכנס עם המת באהל אפילו קרוביו. שנאמר ועל כל נפשות מת לא יבא. הא למדת שהוא חייב בלא יבא וחייב בלא יטמא

There are two different issurim involved here: 1) לא יטמא and 2) ועל כל נפשות מת לא יבא

The Marcheshes suggests that viz a viz the issue of לא יטמא, all that we look at is the end result -- is the kohen causing himself, the gavra, to become halachically tamei or not.  Since safeik tumah b'reshus ha'rabim does not cause a state of tumah, there is no issur.

However, when it comes to the issur of ועל כל נפשות מת לא יבא, here we are not speaking about the end result, but rather about physical contact and proximity to a meis.  Since there is a cheftza of safeik tumah present, the kohen must l'chatchila avoid the area.

The flipside applies to a kohen who entered a reshus ha'yachid where there is safeik tumah.  Since the halacha says the gavra is tamei, לא יטמא has been violated.  However, since the cheftza is safeik tumah, there would be no malkos for the lav of  ועל כל נפשות מת לא יבא.

The Marcheshes then adds some icing onto the cake.  He writes that he heard b'shem R' Chaim that even though safeik tumah b'reshus ha'yachid is treated as a vaday, that is not the same as a vaday of tumas **meis**.  There is a difference between actual tumas meis and a din tumah.  If a kohen comes in contact with an actual body, then the lavim of לא יטמא and ועל כל נפשות מת לא יבא kick in.  However, if the kohen comes to a safeik tumah b'reshus ha'rabim, **legally** it is as if the kohen became tamei, but that legal reality is not the same as actually coming into contact with a body.  Therefore there would be malkos for neither lav.

lechem ha'pnim

It's been a busy week.  My wife finished shiva, and then my son had a baby girl, so it's been a roller coaster ride.  Still, I did not want to leave another week without at least something on the parsha:

1) Right after the Torah talks about the offering of the korban ha'omer on Pesach and then the shtei ha'lechem on Shavuos in the context of speaking about all of the moadim, the Torah sticks in the mitzvos of pe'ah and leket:

 וּֽבְקֻצְרְכֶ֞ם אֶת־קְצִ֣יר אַרְצְכֶ֗ם לֹֽא־תְכַלֶּ֞ה פְּאַ֤ת שָֽׂדְךָ֙ בְּקֻצְרֶ֔ךָ וְלֶ֥קֶט קְצִירְךָ֖ לֹ֣א תְלַקֵּ֑ט לֶֽעָנִ֤י וְלַגֵּר֙ תַּעֲזֹ֣ב אֹתָ֔ם

The Ohr haChaim puts the question succinctly:  מה ענין זה לכאן.  

Abarbanel has a beautiful answer: The korban ha'omer uses grain; the shtei ha'lechem uses grain.  Part of your crop gets to be used to serve G-d, and therefore, you might think you were "yotzei" your religious obligation, and now the rest is yours to do with it as you like.  Comes the Torah and says that serving G-d is not enough.  You have to also remember to serve your fellow man as well.  Don't think because you offered a korban ha'omer or a shtei ha'lechem you can forget about the poor and the needy. 

2) One of my kids kept making the mistake of referring to the Misrad ha'Pnim in Israel as the Misrad haPanim (yes, I am embarassed).  It finally sunk in that Pnim = inside, what in the US would be called Ministry of the Interior, or something like that.  The end of our parsha speaks about the lechem ha'panim.  Sefas Emes writes that it's really the lechem ha'pnim, because that special bread that is inside the heichel reveals to us the pnimiyus of the bread we consume every day.   כִּ֠י לֹ֣א עַל־הַלֶּ֤חֶם לְבַדּוֹ֙ יִחְיֶ֣ה הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֛י עַל־כׇּל־מוֹצָ֥א פִֽי ה׳  יִחְיֶ֥ה הָאָדָֽם  R' Chaim Vital famously explained that it's the motzah pi Hashem **found within that bread** that keeps us going.  The lechem ha'panim=pnim reveals that מוֹצָ֥א פִֽי ה׳ found inside, that we ordinarily don't see.  

The Midrash comments at the beginning of the parsha speaking about korban ha'omer:

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי בִּקְּשׁוּ לִגְנֹז סֵפֶר קֹהֶלֶת שֶׁמָּצְאוּ בוֹ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵם נוֹטִים לְצַד מִינוּת, אָמְרוּ כָּךְ הָיָה שְׁלֹמֹה צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר: מַה יִּתְרוֹן לָאָדָם, יָכוֹל אַף בַּעֲמָלָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בַּמַּשְׁמָע, חָזְרוּ וְאָמְרוּ אִלּוּ אָמַר בְּכָל עָמָל וְשָׁתַק הָיִינוּ אוֹמְרִים אַף בַּעֲמָלָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בַּמַּשְׁמָע הוּא, הָא אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר אֶלָּא בְּכָל עֲמָלוֹ, בַּעֲמָלוֹ הוּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל אֲבָל בַּעֲמָלוֹ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה מוֹעִיל.

What kind of hava amina is is that even the ameilus of Torah has no value?  The whole book of Koheles is about olam ha'zeh being hevel havolim and the tachlis of man being to engage in Torah and yiras shamayim?

Sefas Emes (5656) answers that to find Hashem in a blatt of Bava Kama does not requires ameilus.  To find Hashem when you are standing in shul davening does not require ameilus.  What requires ameilus is to find Hashem when you are out in the world, engaged in your daily life, in your mundane pursuits.  That's עֲמָלָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה.  It takes work to see the entire world through the lens of Torah, to find Hashem in everything.

So who says we need to do that?  Maybe just stick to Bava Kama?

יָכוֹל אַף בַּעֲמָלָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בַּמַּשְׁמָע, maybe there is no value to seeking out G-d in the world at large?  הָא אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר אֶלָּא בְּכָל עֲמָלוֹ, בַּעֲמָלוֹ הוּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל אֲבָל בַּעֲמָלוֹ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה מוֹעִיל. 

That's the same message as the lechem ha'panim.  Don't starve yourself -- enjoy your sandwich.  But remember that there is a pnim to the lechem, that there is a מוֹצָ֥א פִֽי ה׳ that we have to dig for and uncover.

pri'ah vs kri'ah

If anyone would like to help learn some mishnayos for the shloshim of my FIL, much appreciated.  Here is a sign up link.

I was learning sotah and came across the mishna in the first perek that says:

וְכֹהֵן אוֹחֵז בִּבְגָדֶיהָ, אִם נִקְרְעוּ נִקְרָעוּ, אִם נִפְרְמוּ נִפְרָמוּ

The fact that the mishna uses both terms shows that there must be a difference between the term פרע and the term קרע.  

Rashi comments:  פרימה גדולה מקריעה שנקרעה לקרעים הרבה

Bartenura has another interpretation that kr'iah is a vertical tear.

Given the distinction between the terms, I was wondering why our parsha says with respect to the kohen gadol  אֶת־רֹאשׁוֹ֙ לֹ֣א יִפְרָ֔ע וּבְגָדָ֖יו לֹ֥א יִפְרֹֽם׃ (21:10)?  Since the idea is that the k"g is not supposed to display simanei aveilus, shouldn't the pasuk use the term קריעה and not  פּריעה?

See Malbim.

baruch dayan ha'emes

I usually post something for Yom haAtzmaut, also for parsha, but this week unfortunately things got disrupted because my wife lost her father.  

My BIL posted a video of the levaya on his blog here.  

For shiva or any other info, pls feel free to email me directly.  

Iyar - the month of vav hachibur

1) Why could Aharon enter the kodesh kodashing only on Y"K?  B'makom she'baalei teshuvah omdim afilu tzadikim ainam yecholim laamod.  On Y"K, we are baalei teshuvah and can enter places that are off limits even to the greatest tzadikim the rest of the year. (Sefas Emes)

2) I had previously asked why in Dayeinu we say "banah lan es beis ha'bechira" when it is we who did the building -- it did not come down from Hashem.  (Thank you to everyone who responded with suggestions.)

Shir haShirim Rabbah right at the beginning:

יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל אָמַר, כְּתִיב (מלכים א ח׳:י״ג): בָּנֹה בָנִיתִי בֵּית זְבֻל לָךְ, בִּנְיַן בָּנֹה בָּנִיתִי. רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה אָמַר, הַבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ בּוֹנִים, אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא (מלכים א ו׳:ז׳): וְהַבַּיִת בְּהִבָּנֹתוֹ, מֵאֵלָיו הָיָה נִבְנֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלכים א ו׳:ז׳): אֶבֶן שְׁלֵמָה מַסָּע נִבְנָה. בָּנוּי אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא נִבְנָה, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיְתָה הָאֶבֶן נוֹשֵׂאת אֶת עַצְמָהּ וְנִתְּנָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַדִּימוֹס.

Unlike Al Gore and the internet, we did not build it.  The Mikdash built itself miraculously.  We just went through the motions.

3) Sefer Yetzira says the month of Iyar corresponds to the letter vav.  Ain li eisek b'nistaros, but R' Tzadok gives us insight to understand it on some level.  Vav is the vav ha'chibur, the vav which connects.  Nisan is the month where we left Egypt with the goal of taavdun es ha'Elokim al ha'har ha'zeh.  Sivan is when we fulfilled that goal with kabbalas haTorah.  We need some way to connect the start of the process with its fulfillment.  That's Iyar, the vav ha'chibur between the two.

I would suggest as well that we know that this is the month when R' Akiva's students died because they did not treat each other respectfully.  There needs to be a vav ha'chibur between people, better connection between us to create more harmonious relationships. 

more like this

We could use more of things like this in Klal Yisrael:

מפגש: הרבי ממאה שערים עם זקן רבני הציונות הדתית

BREAKING STEROTYPES: The IDF Soldiers in Beitar Over Pesach

safeik tumah, Ibn Ezra on chiyuv mitzvos of a ger toshav, Sefas Emes on the parsha, and a Shaul Lieberman anecdote

1) One more point of catch up from Pesach... The gemara learns the din that safeik tumah b'reshus ha'yachid is tamei from the parsha of sotah.  The flip side of that coin should be that in all other cases, i.e. s"t b'reshus ha'rabim, the din is tahor.  That's your baseline; the case of rh"y is the exception.  The Rambam, however, quotes a makor for the din of s"t b'reshus ha'rabim from hilchos pesach (Hil Avos haTumah 16:1):

מפני מה טהרו חכמים ספק טומאה בר"ה. שהרי הציבור עושין פסח בטומאה בזמן שהטמאים מרובין אם טומאה ודאית נדחית מפניהן קל וחומר לספק טומאה שאיסור כל הספקות מדבריהן כמו שביארנו בהלכות ביאות אסורות. ומפני מה החמירו בספק רה"י. שהרי סוטה שנסתרה אף ע"פ שהדבר ספק הרי היא טמאה לבעלה עד שתשתה:

The source for the Rambam in a Tosefta in Taharos, which gives another reason as well, quoted by Raavad:

א"א ובתוספתא מפרש עוד טעם אחר מפני שאפשר להשאל על היחיד וא"א להשאל על הרבים:

Aside from the question of whether there is a a machlokes here or just two possible reasons, the more fundamental question is why we need a makor at all.  The baseline does not need a makor, only the exception needs a makor.

Just wanted to mention the question.  Od chazon la'moed...

2) There is a well known Ramban in our parsha that says that outside Eretz Yisrael mitzvos are just done for practice, but the real fulfillment can only take place in E"Y.  Less well known (I think) is a chiddush of the Ibn Ezra which also shows the centrality and importance of Eretz Yisrael (good week to discuss the topic given the upcoming chag).  Commenting on וְכׇל־נֶ֗פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר תֹּאכַ֤ל נְבֵלָה֙ וּטְרֵפָ֔ה בָּאֶזְרָ֖ח וּבַגֵּ֑ר (17:15), Ibn Ezra writes:

ואם טען טוען והלא הכתוב אמר: לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה (דברים י״ד:כ״א). התשובה: כי זה הגר גר תושב, וכן כתוב: והגרא הגר בתוככםב (ויקרא י״ז:י״ב) לא נעזבנו שיאכל נבלה, רק הנכרי שיבוא בשערינו נתן אותה לו ויאכל אותה לחוץ.

The usual assumption is that a ger toshav has to keep just 7 mitzvos.  Ibn Ezra writes that you see from our pasuk (he interprets וּבַגֵּ֑ר as ger toshav) that a ger toshav cannot eat neveila either.  

But, you will ask, the Torah itself writes in P' Mishpatim that neveilah and treifa can be disposed of by giving them to a ger?  Answers Ibn Ezra, there is a difference between a ger who lives in E"Y and a ger from outside.  E"Y demands a higher standard of behavior even from everyone, even the ger.

In case you are not convinced, he says it again in P' Kedoshim.  Notice there how the Torah itself there connects the issur of maachalos assurus with the command of yishuv haaretz (20:24-25):

וָאֹמַ֣ר לָכֶ֗ם אַתֶּם֮ תִּֽירְשׁ֣וּ אֶת־אַדְמָתָם֒ וַאֲנִ֞י אֶתְּנֶ֤נָּה לָכֶם֙ לָרֶ֣שֶׁת אֹתָ֔הּ אֶ֛רֶץ זָבַ֥ת חָלָ֖ב וּדְבָ֑שׁ אֲנִי֙ ה׳ אלקיכם  אֲשֶׁר־הִבְדַּ֥לְתִּי אֶתְכֶ֖ם מִן־הָֽעַמִּֽים

 וְהִבְדַּלְתֶּ֞ם בֵּֽין־הַבְּהֵמָ֤ה הַטְּהֹרָה֙ לַטְּמֵאָ֔ה וּבֵין־הָע֥וֹף הַטָּמֵ֖א לַטָּהֹ֑ר וְלֹֽא־תְשַׁקְּצ֨וּ אֶת־נַפְשֹֽׁתֵיכֶ֜ם בַּבְּהֵמָ֣ה וּבָע֗וֹף וּבְכֹל֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּרְמֹ֣שׂ הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־הִבְדַּ֥לְתִּי לָכֶ֖ם לְטַמֵּֽא

Ibn Ezra comments:  על כן גר תושב לא יאכל טמא בארץ טהורה, כי על זה התנאי ידור בתוכנו.

Avoiding maachalos assuros is a tnai in living in E"Y, regardless of whether you are a Jew or not.

In the back of the new Oz v'Hadar Mikraos Gedolos they have additional notes, and I found that they put together a whole list of other places the Ibn Ezra says this same chiddush with respect to other issurim.  Being in E"Y is a privilege that demands a greater level of observance.

3) The Toras Kohanim has an interesting comment on the pasuk כְּמַעֲשֵׂ֧ה אֶֽרֶץ־מִצְרַ֛יִם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְשַׁבְתֶּם־בָּ֖הּ לֹ֣א תַעֲשׂ֑וּ וּכְמַעֲשֵׂ֣ה אֶֽרֶץ־כְּנַ֡עַן אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֲנִי֩ מֵבִ֨יא אֶתְכֶ֥ם שָׁ֙מָּה֙ לֹ֣א תַעֲשׂ֔וּ וּבְחֻקֹּתֵיהֶ֖ם לֹ֥א תֵלֵֽכוּ׃  It writes:

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״

Not only are the aku"m in E"Y the most depraved, but, say Chazal, it is our coming into the land which causes it.   How and why are we the cause of the aku"m doing wrong?

Ksav Sofer (see Netziv as well) explains that since the aku"m know that ultimately the land will be ours, they have no incentive to behave or take care of the land.  When you know there is no future, then you live for the moment, and indulge, enjoy, and abuse.

Sefas Emes has a different approach.  Just like we have a principle that "kol ha'gadol mei'chaveiro yitzro gadol mimenu," that the greater a person, the greater their yetzer ha'ra pushing back against whatever they try to achieve, so too with respect to a place -- the greater the kedushas ha'makom, the greater will be the obstacles and challenges, the greater the klipos, standing in the way of realizing that place's potential.  

Because E"Y is promised to us, because it is invested with such great spiritual potential for us to realize, davka there the aku"m are the most immoral.  Davka there we find the greatest obstacles to ruchniyus.  On Har haBayit you now have the aku"m having riots, throwing stones, etc.  Even on a regular day, they have picnics there and use it as a playground.  The holiest place in the world should have such tumah there?!  The answer is yes, because it's the holiest place in the world that's what happens there.  You need a lot of pushback, a lot of hester, a lot to hide the irrepressible force of kedusha that is bursting to escape. 

4) Lastly, in Hillel Halkin's new book A Complicated Jew: Selected Essays, I found the following wonderful anecdote about his uncle, R' Shaul Lieberman: 

A Lithuanian Jew with a no-nonsense attitude toward religion, he once, when I was a college student, startled me by saying that he considered prayer a waste of time, since it interrupted his study of Talmud and he had nothing to say to G-d.  I did not contradict him by remarking that, standing diagonally behind him as a boy on Yom Kippur, the only day of the year on which he covered him head with his prayer shawl, I had glimpsed beneath it the tears running down his cheeks."  (p 34-35)

catching up on a few things

Catching up on a few things from Pesach:

1) We bought a few different brands of shmurah matzah and one of the boxes had this printed on it:

For those like myself who are unfamiliar with this teshuvah of the C"S, it is a letter to the Jewish community of Trieste in Northern Italy (historical background here) in which the C"S bemoans the fact that their standards have fallen when it comes to matzah production.  C"S then mentions some of the hakpadot that he has, among them this point of not leaving the dough alone for more than 2-3 min.  

Is this now a thing?  IDK.  I do know that long before the C"S lived there was a chumrah from the Geonim not to leave the matzah unworked for even a minute (see Rosh Pesachim 3:6).  Perhaps that will make it onto a matzah box next year.

2) On the same box I found the following:

I have no idea what the "last date of consummation" means with regards to matzah, but it gives new meaning to  

האוכל מצה בּער״פּ כאילו בּועל ארוסתו בבית חמיו

(that's a bad joke, isn't it?)

3) My daughter is an olah chadasah, officially a citizen of Israel, but was by us in chu"l for Pesach.  She was thinking of cooking string beans for herself for the 8th day, Shabbos, which for her was no longer Pesach.  My wife objected.  The gemara (Pes 47) has a machlokes why one is allowed to cook on Y"T for Shabbos: either because צרכי שׁבּת נעשׂים בּיו״ט, or because הואיל ואי מקלעי לי׳ אורחים, if guests were to come on Y"T they could eat the extra food, so the cooking is really a tzorech of Y"T.  My wife pointed out that if guests were to come, they could not in fact eat the string beans because it was still Pesach.

This issue is an old argument between heavy hitters.  The custom in Pozna, R' Akiva Eiger's hometown, was not to eat dried fruits on Pesach (see Rama in OC 467) except on the last day.  R' Akiva Eiger thought it permissible to prepare such fruits in advance for the 8th day if it fell on Shabbos, but sent the question to his son-in-law, the C"S, to get his opinion.  C"S disagreed, and argued (Shu"T C"S OC #79, second to last paragraph), as my wife did, that you cannot apply ho'il because the food cannot be eaten on the day it is prepared.  The fact that a choleh is allowed to eat it is irrelevant, as even if one argues that there being some choleh in a large city is not "lo shichiach," but who says the choleh wants or needs to eat string beans?  

(Take a look at the last paragraph of the teshuvah as well for some nice derush).

4) Another issue that came up regarding a ben E"Y in chu"l: could my daughter, who only needed to hear kiddush for shabbos, be yotzei with my kiddush on Friday night, which included insertions for Y"T?  Or would those insertions be a hefsek?

The Bikrei Yosef (OC 213) deals with a similar issue: can someone who has a safeik whether they said a bracha achrona on mezonos (al hamichya alone) be yotzei with the bracha achrona of a friend who ate both mezonos and fruit (al hamichya + al ha'peiros)?  

He quotes a teshuvah of Radbaz who writes that a person who missed maariv can be yotzei their tefilas tashlumin by listening to chazaras hashatz of shacharis.  Radbaz was not concerned that kirkas kohanim added in shacharis (in EY and Sefard) but not maariv would be a hefsek.  Birkei Yosef adds that based on Radbaz, in our case the Y"Y insertions do not count as a hefsek either.

An issue that comes up far more frequently but that involves the same safeik: many women recite she'hechiyanu when they light neiros for Y"T.  When their husbands recite kiddush, they add she'hechiyanu in between the kiddush and drinking the wine.  Are those added words a hefsek for the women who are being yotzei through shome'a k'oneh?  Can you pick and choose which words you want to be yotzei with when you relying on shome'a k'oneh?

There are other examples as well...

5) Chazal say that "az yashir," in future tense, alludes to techiyas ha'meisim.  Why did the Torah couch such an allusion davka here?  

We started Shmos with the words  וְאֵ֗לֶּה שְׁמוֹת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל הַבָּאִ֖ים מִצְרָ֑יְמָה.  When we read the shirah,  אָ֣ז יָשִֽׁיר־מֹשֶׁה֩ וּבְנֵ֨י יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־הַשִּׁירָ֤ה הַזֹּאת֙, it's the conclusion to the story.  It's the same  בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל, the same children of Yaakov Avinu, who are now singing shirah!  These great souls came down to become one with their children and share in the simcha of finally leaving Egypt.  And so too, adds the Sefas Emes, whenever we experience such simcha, the souls of our ancestors come down to be one with us in celebration.  

That's the yesod of techiyas ha'meisim.  Souls will come down to the world once again in order to experience and rejoice in the hisgalus of Hashem.

A beautiful Sefas Emes to take out of the chag, esp for those saying yizkor on the last day and thinking about those no longer here.

6) This is an amazing piece by a NYU Law School student (see here for some background if you are not familiar with the controversy).  Read the whole thing.  Her concluding paragraph:

All of you have done more than I ever could to convince my fellow Jews that the left doesn’t just have a Corbyn problem or a Tlaib problem or a Farrakhan problem. It has a big, fat Jew-hatred problem right in its ideological core. This time it happened to rear its head at one of the best law schools in the country. One where the name Steinhardt adorns the buildings and about a quarter of the students are Jews. Yes, even here. Especially here. 

Yes, thank you to NYU's students for letting the cat out of the bag.  But is it enough to convince our fellow Jews?  Are any members of our community listening?