The Garbage Is Worthy

The Gemarah says חל שם שמים על הסוכה. Why is it the mitzvah of sukkah that merits this מגרגה? Why is the mitzvah to be fulfilled with פסולת גורן ויקב? Why are the remains of the worn out בגדי כהונה used for the torches at the שמחת בית השואבה? The lesson is that even when a person is not at his best, not at a time of peak performance, still, even the leftovers the worn out last energy a person has should and can be used for the service of Hashem. 

Of course, when able, it is best to use one's best capabilities for the service of Hashem. However, at times, this is not possible and using whatever one's capabilities, as lowly as they may seem to be it is also desired by Hashem. This is why the שם שמים is present on the sukkah. When a person uses his own hands to build a sukkah when one uses their own כחות, no matter what state they are in, that merits that it brings the שם שמים on the sukkah. 

Rav Moshe Wolfson says the end of maseches Sukkah is about מרים בת בילגה or the delaying משמר to teach us even those that were not doing the right thing find a tikkun in the sukkah. Even the פסולת people can find meaning in the sukkah.

Different Types Of מצטער

The Rema (639:5) says one is obligated to eat the first night even in the rain. The Rema (640:4) says בלילה ראשונה אפי' מצטער חייב לאכול שם כזית in reference to the law that someone in pain is exempt from sukkah. Presumably this law is the same as the previous one, that the exemption of מצטער does not apply the first night. However, the sources listed as the source of the Rema are different, the law of rain is cited from Ran and Rosh and the law of  מצטער is cited from the Kol Bo. Why does he need a new source? The Sharey Teshuva cites from the Bircay Yosef and the Eliyahu Rabbah that the previous law of a sick person who is exempt may apply even on the first night. Why would it be different?

What we see are three different applications of the law of מצטער. The law of rain the Mishna describes as being like a master rejecting the service of his servant. There is room to argue that even when a person is not in a level of grave distress to the rain, he is exempt due to the siman that Hashme is not interested in his act of sitting in the sukkah (see Mishna Berurah 639:31) even if a person is not בצער if the food gets ruined one can go inside. That also explains why one doesn't have to go back out to the sukkah even if the rain stops (sif 7.) For the act of sitting in the sukkah is not desired. There, one could argue they must still eat in the sukkah on the first night when there is an obligation to eat in the sukkah. However, in a true state of צער on could have said there is an exemption even the first night. That is what the second Rema sees in the Kol Bo that there is an obligation even in that situation.   

The simple understanding from the Gemarah is that the reason מצטער is exempt from sukkah is due to the rule of תשבו כעין תדורו. However, the Ritva on daf 26 cites from the Ramban that the exemption is derived from the word אזרח that only one who is able to sit tranquility in the sukkah is called an אזרח. Based upon this we have two reasons to exempt someone who is מצטער from sukkah. One reason is from תשבו, that the sukkah itself is disqualified while the reason of the Ritva is an exemption on the גברא - that a person who is not settled is exempt from sukkah. 

The Taz (640:8) differentiates between one who is pain due to being in the sukkah who is only patur when his pain is alleviated by leaving the sukkah vs. someone who is in a constant state of pain such as a חולה who is exempt from sukkah even when being out of the sukkah will not help manage the pain at all. What is the difference? In the case of the the constant pain, there is the petur of תשבו, the person can't be in the proper state of mind to do an act of sitting in a sukkah. However, an external cause of distress and pain only exempts the person due to האזרח, since he can't be in a state of tranquility but it is an act of sitting in sukkah and the exemption only allows for one to find a better area to sit. 

In light of this, there may be room to differentiate between the exemption of the מצטער which a personal feeling, and the exemption is due to אזרח, which will not be applied the first night when one is obligated to eat in a sukkah even in a situation of pain. However, a sick person is exempt due to תשבו for their sitting in sukkah is not an act of ישיבת סוכה since people in constant pain can not have an experience of כעין תדורו and one might say since it is not an act of ישיבת סוכה, the exemption would apply even on the first night (Birchas Mordechai.) 

Day Of Fasting Day Of Holiness

R' Akiva Eger (teshuva #24) raises the issue can someone not fasting receive an aliyah on Yom Kippur at mincha - is the reading a kedushat hayom Yom Kippur reading or a fast day reading? The Marcheshes siman 14 says that issue is the root of the machlokes between the Mechabar and Remah (622:2) if the bracha of the haftorah ends מגן דוד or continues with על התורה ועל העבודה like a holiday. the Rema that ends מגן דוד  holds that the reading is that of a fast day so we don't mention the day but the Mechaber holds we do since it is the reading of a holiday. This understanding of the Rema is explicit in the Gr"a who says that the reading and haftorah are due to the day being a fast day. However, the Levush, MG"A and Alter Rebbe explain the Rema differently. They explain that the avodah of the day is already complete before mincha therefore we don't say על התורה ועל העבודה. 

A parallel inquiry applies to the ne'ilah prayer, which conceptually exists for any public fast day Is the נעילה on Yom Kippur a YK prayer or that of a taanis? R' Zvi Ryzman raises the question regarding a kohan that is not fasting can he do נשיאת כפים by ne'ilah? If ne'ilah is fundamentally a fast-day prayer, a non-fasting kohan would be disqualified; however, if it is defined by the kedushat hayom of Yom Kippur, he may be permitted to recite the blessing.

In Kol Brisk he explains why in the ne'ilah prayer we only say the short viduy of אשמנו  and not the longer על חטא recitation. He says that the על חטא prayers acknowledge wrongdoings but don't describe the person himself as a bad person, just that he has strayed in various aspects. אשמנו is a description of the person as affected by sin. On a fast day we reflect on our sad state as sinners. We do not say words of request for forgiveness. On YK however the viduy is the long one. we insert requests for forgiveness for our focus is לפני ה תטהרו how we remain connected to Hashem and just have to mend our ways. When it comes to נעילה we are davening a prayer of a taanis and hence we omit the long viduy.

On the other hand, the Chiunuch (#433) views the ne'ilah prayer as a YM prayer- וְעוֹד תִּקְּנוּ תְּפִלָּה חֲמִישִׁית בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לְבַד, לְרֹב קְדֻשַּׁת הַיּוֹם, וּבַעֲבוּר הֱיוֹתוֹ יוֹם סְלִיחָה וְכַפָּרָה לַכֹּל, וְהִיא הַנִּקְרֵאת תְּפִלַּת נְעִילָה. For more discussion about this topic see תפילת נעילה ביום הכיפורים. 

Ultimately, Yom Kippur shares the element of a standard fast day and is viewd as an עת צרה. Yet through its unique sanctity, we are granted the capacity for purification before Hashem, לפני ה תטהרו,  transforming צרה, into צהר, a window of illumination, as an opportunity to begin anew with a new light unto our lives.

Reading Of The Kohan Gadol

The Mishna Yoma (68b) says that the Kohan Gadol would be informed when the שעיר עזעזל reached the midbar and then he would read the Torah. Why the need to know the שעיר already reached the midbar? Rashi says based upon pessukim that the Kohan Gadol can't start another avodah until the previous one is completed. The Sfas Emes challenges Rashi and assumes it is just a Rabbinic law to ensure one mitzvah is done before completing another. The way the Mahar"i Korkus understands the Rambam, this is not a general law that the Kohan must wait before starting another avodah but this is a unique law for the reading of the Torah that the Kohan must wait until the preceding avodah is done. However, this is very hard to understand why would the reading of the Torah be different than other avodah? The Briskors (Rav first letter in back of sefer, Grac"h on Shas, Harraray Kedem #77) say that the Rambam holds there is a general law for the kohan to remain in the place of the avodah until it is completed. Therefore, the Kohan must remain in his place before moving to the Ezras Nashim to read the Torah. It is hard to hard why there would be such a law and why if the שיער it sent out anyway can't the Kohan Gadol leave?

The possuk Rashi cites is שנאמר ושלח את השעיר במדבר ואחר כך ואת חלב החטאת יקטיר המזבחה. How does Rashi derive from here that reading the Torah which is Rabbinic and not an avodah must be delayed as well? The simple answer is that Rashi will reject the assumption of the question. 

Rashi may indeed hold that the reading of the Kohan Gadol is the a Torah law that is considered bound by the laws of the avodah. In the very next Mishna, in the opening of the next perek, Rashi says that the reading of the Kohan Gadol is derived from the מילואים. The Sfas Emes disagrees and assumes it is a Rabbinic law. However, Rashi is clear it is a Torah obligation. 

The Mishna says that the Kohan Gadol may read the Torah either in a white cloak of his own or the בגדי כהונה. The Gemarah refers to the reading not as an avodah itself but as a צורך עבודה. The Rambam in Perush HaMishna says it is not an avodah and the proof is that it does not require בגדי כהונה. The Netziv says that Rashi holds since the reading is considered צורך עבודה it also needs the previous step to be finished. The Mishna says there are 8 berachot recited by the Kohan Gadol. Rashi says all the berachot are recited after the reading but the Rambam holds that the regular berachot before reading the Torah are recited. The Gevorot Ari wonders why Rashi doesn't hold that there is a beracha beforehand like any other Torah reading? However, if this is a reading not done as a chovas hayom like other reading but is viewed as part of the avodah service and hence it does not have the rules of regular reading.

Rosh Hashana Thoughts

1. The Radak on Tehillim (81:4)  ונראה כי זה הוא טעם מצות התרועה בראש השנה לפי שבטלו אבותינו מעבודתם ונחו מיגיעם ביום זה והתרועה הוא סימן שלוח עבדים וצאתם מרשות אדניהם וכן צוה הקב״ה תקיעת שופר ביום הכפורים של יובל שהיה סימן לשילוח עבדים וצאתם מרשות אדוניהם כן צוה הקב״ה לתקוע בראש השנה לזכר כי ביום זה בטלה העבדה והיה תחלת חירותנו. According to Radak we blow shofar to remind ourself that it is the day the servitude in Egypt ceased. 

2. Midrash Emor (29:1) בשנים עשר יצא בדימוס אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא לאדם זה סימן לבניך כשם שעמדת לפני בדין היום הזה ויצאת בדימוס כך עתידין בניך לעמוד לפני בדין ביום זה ויוצאין לפני בדימוס אימתי "בחדש השביעי באחד לחדש. How was Adam vindicated he was cursed and thrown out of Gan Eden? Furthermore, not everyone comes out of the din vindicated? 

The Sharay Hamoadim says Chazal mean that the din is an opportunity for tikkun. Without the din on Adam he would have been stuck with his sins, the judgement allowed him the opportunity to obtain a tikkun for himself. So too, the judgement on Rosh Hashana allows us to refocus to find our proper path. 

The Tur says that we prepare as a festival for RH since we know that Hashem will do for us a נס and we will come out vindicated. Why does he say it is a נס, why does he not say we are confident in emerging righteous in the judgement? It may be that it requires a נס to emerge indicated in judgement. In light of the above idea, one can translate נס as raising up as in נתת ליראיך נס להתנוסס for the judgement is a way to elevate ourselves.  

3. The Ran cites the opinion of the Geonim that when Shabbos is Rosh Hashana since we do not say hallel we don't say צדקתך. What is the connection? I would presume the Geonim are of the opinion that we don't say צדקתך only when there is hallel said. The Ran cites those that disagree for it is no worse than any other Rosh Chodesh. But there is no hallel on this Rosh Chodesh? Presumably they hold like the practice that any day without tachnun has no צדקתך. This is the custom of the Shulchan Aruch yet he still rules to say צדקתך on Rosh Hashana? The Besi Yosef has another severah that since it is a day of judgement it makes sense to say צידוק הדין on Rosh Hashana. 

4. Tosfos (32a) asks why why we say the pessukim from כתובים before נביאם in the מלכיות זכרורת שופרות? The pessukim from נביאים that we recite discuss the future days and hence we put them at the end. 

5. Tosfos (16b) cites Beha"g that if a tzibbur has an אונס and can't blow shofar it is considered a year that shofar was not blown but that does not apply on Shabbos. why is Shabbos different from an אונס? See Meshech Chachma Emor. According to the explanation of Chassidus that on Shabbos the idea of shofar is accomplished even without the actual shofar it is different from a regular ones where you are still missing the shofar.  

6. The Ramban (cited in Ritva RH 26 and in his derasha on Rosh Hashana) says that a shofar by definition is the horn detached from the animals after the marrow bone is removed. All horns in their attached stage are called קרן and are called shofar when detached from the animal and fit for blowing. What emerges from the Ramban is that a shofar is something totally detached and removed from the live animal. The lesson here is that the the shofar must be removed from the physical being. This may be why the shofar blowing is the symbol of freedom for the Maharal explains freedom as being removed from physical boundaries (Z'eav Yitraf Ch. 35.)

7. The Gra says that the Hallel of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur is made up on Chanukah. We see that RH and YK are not excluded from Hallel but the Hallel in moved to Chanukah. In other words, on RH and YK it is impossible to recite the Hallel because of ספרי חיים ומתים פתוחין but there is an obligation of Hallel. How does Chanukah serve as a makeup time? Chanukah celebrates out victory over יון. Chazal equate יון with חושך. The opposite is RH which is called אורי. This is because on RH we focus on the clarity of Hashem's kingship and dominion over everything. יון attempted to take G-d out of the picture of the world and the victory of Chanukah attested to a return of the light. Hence, Chanukah is the makeup for the Hallah of the Yomin Noraim.  

9. In a letter, the Rebbe's father points out a connection between the three woman who were נפקדה on RH, שרה רחל חנה and the unique letter of each name, ש, ל, נ being the same as the dimensions of the תיבה. He points to a Zohar to make a connection between the תיבה and RH. It is noteworthy as the Berditchever points out that these letters spell the word לשן, speech. These great woman used their power of speech to cry to Hashem to merit children.  

Rosh Hashana On Shabbos

 The Minchas Ani on Ha'azenu (translation from Gemini AI) says: Although regarding a good year, it must be analyzed whether Rosh Hashanah falling on Shabbat is a good sign. Regarding this, we find that the worst years and the best years both had Rosh Hashanah on Shabbat.

For the two years in which the Holy Temple was destroyed, Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbat, as stated in the Jerusalem Talmud (Taanit, Chapter 4): the day the First Temple was destroyed was the 1st of Av, and it was the first day of the week (Sunday); and the Second Temple was also destroyed on the 9th of Av on the first day of the week, and both were at the conclusion of a Sabbatical year (Moztzei Shevi'it), as stated in the Babylonian Talmud.

According to this calculation, for the First Temple, if the 1st of Av was Sunday (Day 1), then the 1st of Tammuz was Saturday (Day 7) or Friday (Day 6); 1st of Sivan was Thursday (Day 5); 1st of Iyar was Wednesday/Tuesday (Days 3–4); 1st of Nisan was Monday (Day 2); 1st of Adar was Sunday/Saturday (Days 7–1); 1st of Shevat was Friday (Day 6); 1st of Tevet was Wednesday/Thursday (Days 4–5); 1st of Kislev was Tuesday (Day 3); 1st of Marcheshvan was Sunday/Monday (Days 1–2); and 1st of Tishrei was Saturday (Day 7).

Similarly, regarding the Second Temple, which was destroyed on the 9th of Av on Sunday, the 1st of Av was Saturday (Day 7). According to this calculation, Rosh Hashanah would have fallen on Friday (Day 6). However, this is impossible, as stated in Rosh Hashanah (page 20b), because if so, Yom Kippur would fall directly after Shabbat (on Sunday). Therefore, they must have made two months deficient (29 days) so that Rosh Hashanah would fall on Sunday (Day 1). (And we cannot resolve this by assuming it was a leap year, because the year after a Sabbatical year is not made into a leap year).

Conversely, regarding the best years, we find that the forgiveness for the sin of the Golden Calf occurred in a year where Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbat, as did the inauguration of the Tabernacle (Mishkan)—since Israel left Egypt on a Thursday, as derived in Shabbat (Chapter 9)—as Tosafot wrote in Mekhilta / Kamma (page 82b; see there). Likewise, the year they entered the Land of Israel also had Rosh Hashanah on Shabbat, since Moses died on Shabbat, the 7th of Adar, meaning the 1st of Adar was on Sunday (see Tosafot in Menachot, page 30b, and the Rosh in Arvei Pesachim).

He explains this phenomenon that when RH falls on Shabbos and we don't have shofar, the Shabbos is our zechus. However, it can only be our zechus if we keep Shabbos properly, if not, then it can't be a merit for us. It is the degree of shmerus shabbos in general which justifies canceling the shofar in order to avoid chillul Shabbos, עיי"ש a mashal to explain this concept.

Shofar And Trumpets

The Gemarah RH (27a) says that in the mikdash when the shofar is blown the חצרורת are blown along with it. The Minchas Chinuch (384:4) asks why the Rambam doesn't mention when the chaztrotzros is blown during the offering of  korbanot that the shofar should accompany it? The Sfas Emes suggests since the possuk that we derive the shofar and chaztrotzros go together is בחצוצרות וקול שופר הריעו לפני המלך ה is only when the Torah says the word תרועה to describe the blowing that the shofar and chaztrotzros go together but when blowing together with the korban where the Torah says (Bamidbar 10:10) וּתְקַעְתֶּם בַּחֲצֹצְרֹת עַל עֹלֹתֵיכֶם וְעַל זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵיכֶם, it says תקיעה, then the chaztrotzros don't need to be accompanied by a shofar. While this scriptural difference it notable, why does the Torah switch the terminology? The Malbim explains that the teruah blast is blown at times of difficulty demonstrating our fear of the din and judgement while the tekiah blown at coronations is demonstrative of happiness hence וּבְיוֹם שִׂמְחַתְכֶם וּבְמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם וּבְרָאשֵׁי חׇדְשֵׁיכֶם וּתְקַעְתֶּם בַּחֲצֹצְרֹת עַל עֹלֹתֵיכֶם וְעַל זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵיכֶם, the tekiah blast is blown at times of joy. In light of this the Sfas Emes can be understood that to create more of a serious mood at a time of din the חצוצרות וקול שופר go together but at times of joy it suffices by what the Torah says to blow (Dibros Ariel siman 63.) 

It is also noteworthy that the Rambam never mentions explicitly that on yoval the shofar was blown together with chaztrotzros (Rashi RH 27a does say it was.) The Minchas Chinuch (331:2) assumes the Rambam expects you to know it from the laws of Rosh Hashana. However it may be the Rambam holds it is only in a time of tzarah or on RH that in the Mikdash both שופר וחצרורות were blown. Rav Yehuda Zoldan suggests only in the context of a blowing both for a זכרון and as an act of תרועה that both shofar and chaztrotzros go together and only in tzarah and on RH do the pessukim highlight both aspects.

R' Brown (Moadanay Moshe) suggests that when there is a din of blowing both in the Mikdash and outside the Mikdash then the Gemarah is saying the blowing in the Mikdash is different than outside and has both shofar and chaztrotzros but when the entire law of blowing is only present in the Mikdash like blowing by a korban and the possuk specifies חצוצרות we can't say the possuk is imprecise and are limited to the instrument the Torah says. 

What is the nature of the blowing of both the tekiah and teruah on RH in light of the Malbim's explanation that the two sounds are reflective of opposite moods? The Chasam Sofer writes that on RH the cry of the teruah besides being reflective of the pain we feel for not having acted properly during the past year, it is also a cry of joy over the fact that we merit to be attached to Hashem for he has created us for His honor to be Jew as we say in עלינו לשבח. Why is RH the time for this reflection that Hashem created us for His honor? 

RH is the day of the creation of man. The purpose of man's creation is to accept the malchus of Hashem. Every RH we reaffirm our acceptance of the malchus of Hashem. It is Klal Yisrael that is dedicated to carry on this mission of Adam. אתם קרויין אדם and that acknowledgement of the fact that we are carrying on the mission of Adam, that is part of the kabbalas malchus on RH. This is the element of the tekiah. Yes, we cry over the missed opportunities, but we are in joy over the ability that we are the one's who can carry on the mission of Adam. 

Trumpets And Korbanot

The Rambam Klei Mikdash (3:5) says the kohanim would blow the trumpets when offering the korbanot on holidays and Rosh Chodesh שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וּבְיוֹם שִׂמְחַתְכֶם וּבְמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם וּבְרָאשֵׁי חָדְשֵׁיכֶם וּתְקַעְתֶּם בַּחֲצֹצְרֹת" (במדבר י, י). In Temmidim (6:6) he says that the every day during the ניסוך יין the kohanim would blow the trumpets - is the blowing of trumpets only on holidays or every day? The Chinuch (384) raises the possbility that every day trumpets are needed but the leviem can blow them but on the holidays it is a mitzvah for kohanim. However, this does not seem to work in the Rambam for he says the kohanim blow the trumpets during the daily avodah? 

The Even Ha'ezel says that on the Rambam says the trumpets are blown on the holiday at the time of offering the korban vs. every day it is done during the ניסוך. This difference is because the ניסוך is the time to sing shirah and the trumpets are blown as part of the שירה vs. the holidays is a special law of blowing trumpets at the time of the korban itself derived from וּבְיוֹם שִׂמְחַתְכֶם וכו. 

The second law of blowing on holidays is it a law in korbanot or a separate law in honor of the day? It would seem from the fact that the Rambam connects it to the korban that it is a law in the korban. On the other hand, it is only said at the time of the korban not together with the korban perse. In the gilyon משא נחום he understands from the fact that the the Sifrey says the trumpet blasts are not מעכב the korban that it is just a law in the honor of the day. He says that is why the Sifri Zuta needs to exclude a pasul kohan from blowing the trumpets, if it is just a law in korban, why do I need a new מיעוט? However, one could argue the derasha itself tells us it is a law in the korban and that is why a pasul kohan is invalid. 

Removing External Temptation

ומל ה אלקיך אֶת־לְבָבְךָ֖ וְאֶת־לְבַ֣ב זַרְעֶ֑ךָ לְאַהֲבָ֞ה אֶת ה אלקיך בְּכׇל־לְבָבְךָ֥ וּבְכׇל־נַפְשְׁךָ֖ לְמַ֥עַן חַיֶּֽיךָ

The Or HaChaim asks: since the previous pesukim already describe Klal Yisrael doing teshuvah, why is there a need for the milah of the heart? Why does the possuk say "ומל... לבבך" and not "עָרְלַת לְבַבְכֶם" like it says in Parshas Ekev (10:16), when presumably it is the orlas halev that needs to be removed? Why does the pasuk add that Hashem will also circumcise the hearts of one's children? Why does the pasuk end with "לְמַ֥עַן חַיֶּֽיךָ", which would seem to imply loving Hashem for one's own self-serving purposes?

The possuk in Ekev and the possuk in Nitzavim are referring to two different types of milah of the heart. The possuk in Ekev which describes a person removing their own ערלת הלב in referring to a person needing to perfect their own heart from its desires to be open to fully serving Hashem. It refers to a person achieving internal perfection. The possuk in Nitzavim describes a person led astray because of what they saw done around them, ותראו את שקוציהם וכו.  Even after doing teshuva and returning to Hashem, there is always a lingering concern that external influences will lead them astray once more. Because it is beyond a person's human capability to completely eliminate external pressure, Hashem says I will מל your heart - cut off the connection between the eyes and the heart so that external sights no longer influence the person's internal world.

This act of disconnection automatically leads to the love of Hashem being implanted within one's family forever, as there will no longer be external temptations. In this context, "לְמַ֥עַן חַיֶּֽיךָ" means that this act of  milah will allow one's entire life to be completely consumed with the love of Hashem (based on Likutei Sichos, vol. 29.)

The Netziv explains למען חייך doesn't mean to ensure one's physical life but rather a fulfillment of one's spiritual potential. The Neztiv writes in a few places that חי refers to spiritual vitality and fulfillment hence צדיקים קרויין חיים וכו. He adds here that love requires reciprocity and outside Eretz Yisrael where there is not a direct connection with Hashem, one can not feel the same level of fulfillment, of חיות and that is the beracha the possuk is giving that Hashem will give a person the ability to feel the absolute fulfillment of spiritual life. 

Two Types of Klallos

The Ridvaz in a Teshuva (volume 2 #789) was asked why is there nechama after the klallos in Ki Savo like there is in Bechukosai where it says וזכרתי את ברית וכו? He answers the nechama is found in Netzavim which is all part of the bris where we are promised to do teshuva. The Gra also follows this approach and says that is why is it is not written in Ki Savo itself since it will take a long time to do teshuva. Why does the nechama hinge on teshuva? 

The Gemarah Megillah (31b) says that the klallos in Bechokosai are said by Hashem and in a plural form as opposed to Ke Tavo that is said by Moshe and in single form. According to the Gra (Nitzavim) that means that the first klallos in Bechukosai are said to every individual but the klallos in Ke Savo are said to the nation as a whole. Why is there this difference? See a nice explanation by R' Yehuda Eisenshtein. I would just like to go in a slightly different approach that the klallos in Ki Savo are given right as Klal Yisrael is about to enter Eretz Yisrael. It is in Eretz Yisrael that the nation is defined as a klal, as one body. That is why it is in this bris that that there is an obligation of ערבות given for now the nation becomes one body. Hence in Bechokosai the nechama is to remember the zechus Avos for on an individual level the zechus Avos helps but for a national redemption it is necessary for teshuva to bring people together.

Two Enemies

כי תצא למלחמה על איביך ונתנו ה אלקיך בידך ושבית שביו

The possuk first identifies the enemies in the plural form and then changes to the singular form, ונתנו, why the switch? (The Baal HaTurim says איביך in missing a י but that is not how we have it, see Minchas Shai.) The Kli Yakar explains that there are two enemies, there is the enemy that the war is being waged against, the external enemy and then there is the internal enemy, the fight with the yetzer harah. These two approaches carry over into the next pessukim. The parsha of יפת תואר on the first level of the general war against the enemy speaks of a situation of לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע. On the level of a personal fight the Or HaChayim explains the יפת תואר refers to trapping the sparks of kedusha that one elevates by abstaining from sin.

Killed Not As A Consequence

 Regarding 4 death penalties the Torah adds ישמעו ויראו. Regarding the ben sorer u'moreh (21:20,) the עד זומם in Shoftim (19:20) the zaken mamreh (17:13) and a מסית in Reah (13:11.) The Gra points out that is due to the law that is by these four cases Beis Din announces the reason why the death penalty is being carried out (see Sanhedrin 89a, the Rambam generally rules it means to carry out the death penalty on the holiday when all are present but for adim zommimim he rules that Beis Din sends out letters, see Aeuch Hashulchan C.M. 38:7.) Why are these four sins singled out that for a public demonstration to stamp out these sins? 

The Ramban explains the ben sorer u'moreh did not do anything to deserve of the death penalty and he is killed " to discipline the public so that others will not stumble... as a protective boundary, so that their death serves as a remedy for others." The death penalty is administered purely in order to be a deterrent for sin not as a consequence of his actions. The Ramban continues that the same holds true for the zaken mamreh who is killed merely to stamp out disputes with the courts and the adem zommimim who are killed despite having not actually affected anything through their testimony and the מסית who is killed merely for encouraging false faith even if his efforts are unsuccessful. That is why it is these 4 examples that Beis Din announces the sin for it in the context of these 4 examples that Beis Din punishes the victim not as a punishment for the action but to prevent an outbreak of greater problems. One killed for their sin does not the news paraded around for their is no concern for a general breakdown in society but when the entire purpose of the punishment is למען ישמעו ויראו then it is a requirement. 

The Rambam (Adut 20:4) says עדים זוממים do not need התראה לפי שאין בהם מעשה . The Raavad asks that there are other cases of sins without an action and they still need התראה? Rav Moshe Soloveitchik explains that the Rambam means that the adim are not killed due to their "action" of giving testimony as the Ramban above noted, but are killed due to the label of עד זומם being given to them (שם בגברא.) In that case there is no need for an active warning. Rav Soloveitchik (his Son) points out that the same argument is followed in halacha for the other above instances of זקן ממרא, בן סורר ומורה, מסית as well that they do not need a warning (see Rashi Sanhedrin 71a, Sanhedrin 66, Mamrin 3:8.) The reason being the same, they are not being killed due to their actions but the action creates a status on the person of being eligible for the death penalty. A warning is needed to define an action, but not to establish a status on the individual. 

(The explanation for עד זומם is צ"ע to fit with the Gemarah BK 4b that lists עדים זוממים as a mazik indicating they are punished for the act of causing harm, but see Tosfos there.)

Animals of Condemned City

The Gemarah Chullin (140a) has a drasha to exclude the birds of an עיר הנידחת to be used for the shechita bird of a metzorah. Rashi asks but the bird has to be burned as part of the עיר הנידחת so how could it be slaughtered for use of the metzorah? Rashi answers it could be burned after it is slaughtered. The Rashash points out that Rashi clearly assumes that the animals must be burned even though the possuk says to kill the animals לפי חרב? He answers that the possuk is referring to animals but birds Rashi would hold is in the same category as the שלל of the city. He cites the Rambam (Avodah Zarah 4:6) disagrees and holds all living creatures get killed. 

The Achronim ask the Gemarah Snhedrin (112a) has a safek if the act of shechitah works at all to remove the tumah of נבילה, so on the צד that it does not how could the Gemarah assume without a possuk one could use the bird for the metzorah if the shechitah will not be valid? According to this Rashash, it is not a question for the Gemarah Sanhedrin is referring to an animal which has a law of killing, then the Gemarah has a doubt if the act of killing as shechitah is just viewed as fulfilling the law of עיר הנידחת, not an act of shechitah at all or it is still defined as an act of shechitah. But regarding birds where there is only a law of burning, the act of shechitah itself will not be defined as fulfilling the law of עיר הנידחת and hence the shechitah will be an act of shechitah. 

The other way the Rashash says is there is no machlokes Rashi and Rambam but that both are done to the livestock, they are both killed and burned. 

In Sanhedrin the Rashash wonders why the Gemarah has a question about the tumah of נבילה if other cases when an animal is put to death such as שור הנסקל the tumah does go off (he cites proofs to this)? It would seem that the Gemarah understands that when there is a law of לפי חרב then the act of shechitah is not defined as an act of shechitah but rather as an act of merely killing the animal and will not remove the tumah but in other places where an animal has a דין to be killed, the shechitah act will still be valid to remove the tumah of נבילה. 

The Mezuzah

1. לא בצדקתך ובישר לבבך אתה בא לרשת את ארצם כי ברשעת הגוים האלה ה אלקיך מורישם מפניך ולמען הקים את הדבר אשר נשבע יהוה לאבתיך לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב. If the nations sinned and Klal Yisrael sinned, why are they more deserving to obtain the land? And what is the combination of the רשעת הגוים and the שבועה לאבות (see Or HaChayim.) The two questions answer each other. It is the bris to the Avot that defines the sins of Klal Yisrael as different from the other nations. The sins of the other nations define their essence and therefore they are rejected. However, the sins of Klal Yisrael do not define their essence, instead, their essence is defined by the shavua to the Avot.  

2. The possuk in Bo (12:23) says the commandment to place the blood on the Pesach on the doorposts and the very next possuk says ושמרתם את הדבר הזה לחק לך ולבניך עד עולם. The Or Hachayim asks the simple read of the possuk is that the command to place the blood is everlasting so why do we not do that? In a sicha (Shavuot 5634) the Rebbe says that we do fulfill the commandment of the blood albeit in a different form. The mitzvah of the blood was to act as a protection against the משחית and we have the mitzvah of mezuzah which has the same effect. How does the mezuzah have this effect? 

The word מזוזה contains the words זו and זה. These words are used to describe the close connection Klal Yisrael and Hashem have, עם זו יצרתה לי and זה קלי ואנוהו. The mezuzah indicates that we designate our living place our lives to Hashem and Hashem in turn watches over us. 

The Parsha Va'eschanan speaks to the saga of Klal Yisrael as they are about to enter Eretz Yisrael and Ekev hints to the saga of the Jews toward the עקב of time, during the golus era. Vaechanan can be described as the parsha of seeing, when things are clear that Hashem is leading the day. The parsha of Ekev speaks to the times when G-d's presence is not as clear and when must find Him, more in line with the sense of listening. This may explain why Ekev places greater emphasis on reward and punishment, rain in its proper time, and other practical consequences of mitzvah observance. In the time when Hashem's Presence is not always openly visible, people need to recognize Hashem through the events of everyday life. (see L.S. Ekev volume 9.)

The parsha of mezuzah appears in both parshios. It demonstrates our commitment to Hashem in times of זה as in זה קלי ואנוהו when Hashem's presence can be seen directly and in times of זה+זו=25, of כה, when the vison of Hashem is obfuscated.  

(See Sicha Shavuot 5654, 15 Shevat 5654, maamer Ekev 5629)

Non Faster Aliyah

The Teshuvot Chasam Sofer (#157) says that even one who is not fasting may receive an aliyah on tisha b'Av for the person still carries the עינוים of the day even without a full fledged fast and the reading of the Torah on tisha b'Av is not a reading due to it being a fast day, but is considered a reading as an obligation of the day. The Chasam Sofer is talking about tisha b'Av in the teshuva and he contrasts it with a fast of an obligatory Monday and Thursday. What is his opinion about other fast days? 

The Chasam Sofer assumes his idea about the reading of mincha as well which is the normal reading of a fast day (his teshuva is referring to mincha.)  R' Zvi Ryzman wants to differentiate between the reading of shachris which is unique to tisha b'Av and that of mincha which is a taanis reading but it may be the Chasam Sofer held every taanis reading is considered an obligation of the day, not a unique din in a taanis.

Thoughts On Taam

One of the sources in the Gemarah (Pesachim 44-45) for the din of טעם כעיקר is from the parsha of kashering kelim from the absorption of issue flavor after the battle in Midyan. It is a machlokes Rishonim if the bottle line pesak is that טעם כעיקר is a Bibical prohibition or only a Rabbinic prohibition. It is is Rabbinic why does the Torah say to kasher the vessels belonging to the Midyanim? Simply understood it was a temporary גזה"כ and that is the simple read of the Gemarah. However, the Reah cites the Ramban (cited in Aruch Hashulchan Yoreh Deah 98:10) says that even though taste imparted from food is only Rabbinic taste absorbed in a vessel must be kashered just as one must be tovel a new vessel purchased from a gentile, it is a מעלה for kelim brought into the jurisdiction of a Jew to be totally pure. (The Meshech Chachma points out the Torah introduces the law with the words זאת חקת התורה indicitating it is a גזה"כ and he asks if טעם כעיקר is always prohibited and the Torah is only prohibiting אעם לשבח what is the חוק? His starting point it to assume this parsha is a chiddush not the normal law.)

The Chasam Sofer Yoreh Deah (#94) recounts a story of a live bird that flew into a pot of boiling cream. The C.S. recounts an esteemed Rabbi (he doesn't say who, I have read that tradition says it was the Haflah) ruled it is בשר וחלב and אסור בהנאה. After everything was spilled out, it was pointed out to him that it was only בשר עוף which does not create an issur hanah? He immediately responded that since the chicken entered the butter while alive and died from the heat, the boiling butter absorbed the flavor of a live animal's limb before it died, hence it is אבר מן החי which is forbidden even to a non-Jew and therefore it would not be permitted to sell to a non-Jew either. The C.S. notes that it was obvious that he had made a mistake and came up with the justification afterward to save face but Hashem protects the righteous. The C.S. notes the novelty here is assuming that even a live thing can give off טעם and he cites his student cites a proof from the Rosh in Avodah Zarah who proves there is no טעם from a cold item from the fact that Haman told Achashverosh it a fly falls in wine a Jew will remove it and drink the rest, what about טעם? We see no טעם in something cold, asks the C.S.'s student, maybe there is no טעם because the fly is alive? We see live items also give off טעם. 

The Sdey Chemed cites the Teshuvot Yad Eliezer asks on the pesak that who says the law of טעם כעיקר applies to a gentile, that is a chiddush din said to a Jew? He answers that we only need the chiddush since I would say it is less than the shiur of the issur but for goyim where there are no shiurim, I would know the law of טעם כעיקר anyway. The S.C. goes on to be מפלפל in this point. 

The question assumes that טעם כעיקר is a new halacha of issur but if we say it just tells us that the original issur extends to טעם as well, we can here it is merely expanding the boundaries of the issuim that preexist and if that is an issur that applies to a gentile, the taam will be assur as well (the Achronim discuss this chakirah at length, see לקח טוב, גר"ח מאכ"א.)

The S.C. cites the Nodeh B'Yehuda suggests we don't apply the rule of טעם כעיקר only by issurim that have malkus. I don't understand since the Gemarah applies טעם כעיקר by mitzvot as well, so why should an issur without malkus be worse? (See Zevachim 78, though there may be other ways to learn the Gemarah, he doesn't even reference it?) 

Power Of The Mouth

The Ostrava Gaon explains the connection of the parsha of the מי מריבה with Klal Yisrael asking Edomi to pass through the land. He says the sin of מי מריבה was a misuse of speech and therefore Klal Yisrael did not have the power of הקול קול יעקב against עשו. He continues that this is the connection to the battles against the Emori and Sichon for he quotes the Besht that the 7 nations correspond to the 7 middos and Emori corresponds to teferes, the middah of Yaakov, the power of positive speech. Sichon, the Gemarah says means הולך אחר שיחה נאה, also connected to speech. It was the power of positive speech necessary to counterbalance the powers of Sichon and Og. This may also explain why the shira of the be'ar, positive speech is mentioned in this context.  We see this theme woven into the very fabric of the parah adumah purification process. The Alter Rebbe explains the שני תולעת used in the parah adumah is a hint to the Midrash that says that the strength of the תולע is with its mouth, so too Klal Yisrael. Part of the process of the parah adumah taharah is to understand how to use the mouth.  

This serves as an intro. to the parsha of Balak which is focused on the power of speech used by Bilam. 

The Or HaChayim (Pinchas 26:23-24) reads into the families of Yissachor hints to the kinyanim of Torah. He says the family of תולע hints to the aforementioned idea of the תולע and the פוה family hints to the power of the mouth as well. 

In the family of Binyamin (26:39,) the possuk says לשפופם משפחת השופמי לחופם משפחת החופמי. It is pointed out that this is the only possuk in the Torah where every word has a פ. he letter פ, pronounced פה, literally means mouthץ The Baal HaTurim explains this hints to the fact that Binyamin closed his mouth and did not reveal the sale of Yosef. The Torah alludes to his harnessing the power of speech by not talking. 

Whether it is singing praises like the shira of the be'ar, engaging in the vocal study of Torah like Yissachar, or channeling the silence of Binyamin, our ultimate strength lies in our mouths.

Three Parshios Of Menorah

The Torah commands the lighting of the Menorah in three distinct parshios, Tetzaveh, Emor, and Behaloscha. Are these repetitive commands, or does each serve a unique purpose? While both Rashi and the Ramban agree that these passages do not simply repeat themselves, they differ fundamentally on what each parsha comes to teach us.

 According to the Ramban (see Emor 24:2 and beginning of Behalsocha,)  there is one primary commandment to light the Menorah, which is introduced first, and the subsequent portions add layers of detail. In Titzaveh the Torah tells us the primary commandment to kindle the menorah. In Emor the Torah adds crucial practical details. It either introduces an ongoing obligation for Bnei Yisrael to donate oil beyond the initial Mishkan campaign, or it establishes a law that the lighting must occur specifically on the physical Menorah structure, rather than just lighting flames on anything.

Rashi views these parshios as entirely distinct parshios. Rashi in Emor (24:2) says the command in Emor is the actual commandment to kindle the lights. The parsha in Titzaveh  mentions the menorah merely as part of the  blueprint and construction phase of the Mishkan but not as a command to actually light it. 

What does Behalocha add? The Ramban says since the Torah just finished details of the inauguration of the Mishkan, the Mishkan is the subject at hand, therefore, the Torah here adds a few more details about the menorah. This fits with the Ramban's approach that the additional parshiot just add details to the basic law of lighting the menorah. According to Rashi however, Behalosha also teaches us something different.  Rashi opens his comment on the parsha, פרשת המנורה, this is not a command to light the menorah but is a command about the cheftzah of the menorah itself. The main possuk is וְזֶ֨ה מַֽעֲשֵׂ֤ה הַמְּנֹרָה֙ מִקְשָׁ֣ה זָהָ֔ב עַד־יְרֵכָ֥הּ עַד־פִּרְחָ֖הּ מִקְשָׁ֣ה הִ֑וא (see Or HaChayim asks why it is repeated but according to Rashi in the other parshios it was a detail, this is the main command.) The possuk of lighting is only to illustrate how the lighting also plays a role in enhancing the creation of the menorah. How? The Torah describes the menorah in Terumah as the middle being the גוף of the menorah with 6 branches extended outward. How is this apparent in the menorah after it is assembled? That is what our parsha adds the lighting is toward the face of the menorah, toward the middle of the menorah. This also answers the question of the Or HaChayim why the Torah doesn't use the terminology of a command but rather just a passive voice, "when you light, the flames will cast their light," why say an active command? Because the parsha is not coming to say a command to light the menorah but rather to describe the cheftzah of the menorah. This explains how Aharon's מדליק ומטיב את הנרות is greater than the nesiem for he gets to create the cheftzah of the menorah, to inaugurate the menorah, on a daily basis when he prepares and kindles the lights in a way that is reflective of the cheftzah of the menorah on a daily basis (based upon Likutay Scihos volume 28.)  

Carrying The Aron

The Rambam in mitzvah 34 lists a mitzvah for the kohanim to carry the aron. He says although in our parsha the command is given to the Leviem that was only since there were so few kohanim at that time but for the future it is a command for the kohanim. There are two questions on the Rambam. One question is how can the nature of a mitzvah change? And why does the Rambam hold that the mitzvah of carrying the aron applies as a permanent mitzvah but the other vessels are not included, if the source of the mitzvah, כי עבודת הקודש עליהם בכתף ישאו refers to all the vessels of the Mikdash? 

The Meshech Chachma and Briskor Rav (letters) both point to a possuk in Ekev as the source of the Rambam. The possuk (10:8) says בָּעֵ֣ת הַהִ֗וא הִבְדִּ֤יל ה אֶת־שֵׁ֣בֶט הַלֵּוִ֔י לָשֵׂ֖את אֶת־אֲר֣וֹן בְּרִית ה. This possuk singles out the aron as having a command to be carried. From there the Rambam derives that the mitzvah of carrying the aron is a permanent command. The Rav explains that they are two distinct laws, one is a law in carrying the Mishkan and that is a command to the Leviem in Naso. The possuk in Ekev tells us that there is a din in how to carry the aron when it is moved. He adds that is why the din of carrying the aron is not a command to the Leviem (that was only when does as a means of transporting the Mishkan) but is a command to the kohanim (and the Rambam would understand the possuk in Ekev as a reference to kohanim.) There are two issues I have with this interpretation. One issue is that if the Rambam is sourced in Ekev why does he not cite that possuk in the Sefer Hamitzvot, and he only cites the possuk of בכתף ישאו? In addition, we are forced to say the possuk in Ekev is not referring to Leviem but Kohanim (which is not like Rashi on the possuk, see Ramban.) And even if we grant that, why does the Rambam not say that is why the kohanim carry the aron and instead says a severah?    

The Rebbe (L.S. volume 28) says the Rambam understands from the Midrashim that line up the importance given to the family of Kehas to be counted first since they carry the aron which contains the Torah, that it is the aron which is the most significant item carried by Kehas. What defines the carrying of the aron as a permanent mitzvah is that carrying the other items is a command on the leviem, a command on the gavra how to carry the kelim. The aron requires carrying because the cheftzah of the aron demands carrying directly. With this we can understand how the mitzvah is transferred to the kohanim for it is not a command on the gavra to carry the aron, it is a command for the aron to be carried, who fulfills the act of carrying is a mere detail in the law. 

Yearning For More

The Midrash (beginnig of Vakiyra) connects the 48 times the Torah says not to oppress a convert with the 48 times is says the word באר in the Torah. What is the connection and what does it have to do with the beginning of Vakiyra? The Mei Hashiloach explains that the maximum capacity a person can reach is the level of 50 gates of understanding, Moshe was given the level of 49. How does one attain the maximum level of understanding? By having a strong, burning desire for understanding Torah. The באר symbolizes a deep, bubbling desire and yearning for the words of Torah and that is why it is mentioned 48 times. A ger also converted because he was a person that found inspiration, develop that desire to acquire Torah that he changed his life entirely. He adds that is why there are 48  קרשים in the Mishkan corresponding to the way to maintain a House for Hashem is through max desire. The source of this inspiration may be what the Ishbitzer cites from the Zohar that there are 48 daily drops that come from the Heavens. The Zohar says these drops were where the 48 prophets got there inspiration form. Says the  Ishbitzer, Moshe Rabbenu was called, ויקרא, meaning Hashem gave Moshe the capability to deepen his yearning and longing for Torah greater than anyone else and hence he merited to obtain 49 gates of wisdom. (The Avodas Yisrael Avot 2:8) says that was the praise of R' Eliezer that he was a בור סיד שאינו מאבד טיפה, he felt every day these drops of wisdom coming into the world and he made sure not to lose any of them.) 

ביום הזה באו מדבר סיני Rashi says ביום הזה as opposed to ביום ההוא tells us that words of Torah should be as fresh as if they were given today. This is in the context of preparing for Torah. It is the desire to acquire Torah, the feeling that it is fresh, that ensures a successful kabbalas haTorah. 

This is the avodah of sefirah. We are to climb the gates of wisdom through gate 48 by expressing our desire to acquire the Torah by counting with anticipating joy to Matan Torah. Moshe Rabbenu bestows gate 49 upon us and then gate 50 we do not count, that has to be a gift from Hashem.  

This is one of the reasons Rus is read on Shavuot. She was a giyores who demonstrated the desire to cleave to Torah despite many hardships (see also Sfas Emes Shavuot 5647.)  

Taanis Chlaom On Shavuot

Shulchan Aruch HaRav (494:18) אָסוּר לְהִתְעַנּוֹת תַּעֲנִית חֲלוֹם בְּחַג הַשָּׁבוּעוֹת לְפִי שֶׁהוּא יוֹם שֶׁנִּתְּנָה בּוֹ הַתּוֹרָה, וְצָרִיךְ לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׂמֹחַ בּוֹ, לְהַרְאוֹת שֶׁנּוֹחַ וּמְקֻבָּל לְיִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹם שֶׁנִּתְּנָה בּוֹ הַתּוֹרָה, לְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה לִשְׁאָר יָמִים טוֹבִים וְשַׁבָּתוֹת שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְהִתְעַנּוֹת בָּהֶם תַּעֲנִית חֲלוֹם כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן רפ"ח. In other words, the simcha of Shavuot goes beyond the normal laws of simcha on Yom Tov and in this instance creates an obligation specifically to eat food. Normally, one may fast a taanis chalom on Yom Tov for that is the simcha for the person but on Shavuot it is not allowed. The basis for this hlaacha is the peshat of Tosfos Berachot (49b) in the Gemarah Pesachim (68b) that on the days that everyone agrees there is a law of לכם such as on Shavuot because of the giving of the Torah, then one does not fast even a תענית חלום. 

The other exceptions mentioned in the Gemarah are Purim and Erev Yom Kippur, It is clear from the Shulchan Aruch (668:5) that he allows a fast on Erev Yom Kippur. The Rema (604:1) doesn't allows a fast of תענית חלום on Erev Yom Kippur but regarding Purim (695:2) he allows it on Purim and does not say anything about Shavuot. The Achronim give multiple reasons ot justify the pesak of the Rema that Erev Yom Kippur is different than the other days. 

In Maaseh Rav (Hosafos) it says the Gra was happier on Shavuot than on other holidays. This echoes what the Alter Rebbe says וְצָרִיךְ לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׂמֹחַ בּוֹ as the Rebbe (sicha second day Shavuot 5728) points out it says to add both in simcha and in eating. 

What is the nature of this obligation? 

The Gemarah Pesachim (68b) says even R' Eliezer agrees there is a din of לכם on Shavuot because of the giving of the Torah. Does this impact the opinion of R' Yehoshua - does he require more לכם?  According to the Rambam, no, (he makes on mention of Shavuot having any other requirement of לכם  beyond any other holiday in Yom Tov Ch.6.) However, the Ritva Sukkah 28a says there is a din of כולו לכם on Shavuot (that may have been his text in the Gemarah,) clearly he holds לכם plays a stronger role according to R' Yehoshua on Shavuot as well. However, according to the Rambam why should there be a difference regarding taanis chlaom? 

It would seem that this law of לְפִי שֶׁהוּא יוֹם שֶׁנִּתְּנָה בּוֹ הַתּוֹרָה is not just to complement the law of שמחת יום טוב but is its own celebration of the giving of the Torah with its own set of laws. However, this still requires an explanation for why would the simcha of the giving of the Torah be different than the simcha of Yom Tov? 

Rav Yitzchak Sorotzkin (Gevuros Yitzchak Shavuot siman 1) raises the possibility that the obligation of joy over the Torah ins not simcha, on internal joy but ששון, an outward expression of joy. Since there is an obligation of outward joy, it may be that one must express that as normally one expresses joy through eating.  However, it doesn't say anywhere that there is an obligation of sasson on Shavuot. 

The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 23, sichos 5625) explains that on other holidays there can be a disconnect between the commandment to enjoy the holiday and the feelings of the person due to his dream. The Torah accommodates for such a disconnect and the  law says that the obligation is limited to what will make the person feel good in his current state of mind. The obligation is to enhance the joy of the day. However, on Shavuot, the obligation of simcha is to celebrate how the Torah permeates the entirety of existence. For such an experience, it is necessary for the person's physical body to be joined in the enjoyment of the day. The nature of the giving of the Torah impacts the obligation of simcha.

Lasting Effect

The Chidushay HaRim asks why in davening on Shavuot do we say זמן מתן תורתנו and not זמן קבלת תורתנו? He explains that while the giving was a singular historical event, the receiving must be a daily renewal. This concept addresses a classic question. Why does the Torah itself never explicitly label Shavuot as the day of receiving the Torah? The Akedat Yitzchak in his second answer explains that the memory and acceptance of the Torah cannot be relegated to a specific calendar date. Unlike other holidays tied to historical moments, the Torah is a constant obligation and every day, the Torah should feel as new and beloved as the moment it was first uttered. We see this reflected in the Birkat HaTorah , where we describe Hashem as מותן התורה in the present tense. This teaches us that Sinai was not a static point in history; it is a continuous, ongoing revelation.

This theme of a is mirrored in the census at the beginning of Parshat Bamidbar. Rashi notes that Hashem counts the Jewish people constantly (כל שעה) because of His deep affection for them. How is there a count כל שעה if there are only a select few times that a count of Klal Yisrael are taken? The count highlights the quality of every individual Jew from the greatest to the lowest. The act of counting by Hashem brings to the forefront the aspect in which every Jew is equal which is the innermost kedusha of the every person. It is this core of the Jew that is illuminated by the count of Hashem.  Although there are only a select number of times when an actual count is recorded, the effect and impact of the count, the capability for a Jew in the lowest situation to be able to be מוסר נפש, to be able to return to kedusha, is an effect of the act of counting. The counting is felt כל שעה , although the act of counting only took place a few times (see Likutay Sichos volume 8.)

The count of the parsha teaches us the lasting effect of a one time event. The same is true of Shavuot. Although the act of מתן תורה was once, its effect is ongoing.

The יש

The Torah describes the behavior of Klal Yisrael leading to the tochacha, אם תלכו עמי בקרי. It is an interesting words and the meforshim give different explanations to explain the meaning. But why use such a strange word?

The Ariza"l teaches that the word עמר has the same gematria as the word יש. What is the connection? During the days of the Omer one is given the time to work on self improvement and polishing one's soul. It is the time to nullify one's יש, one's own ego and connect to Hashem (Neshivos Shalom.) However, paradoxically by nullifying one's own personal interests and by focusing on one's connection to Hashem, that is how one's יש is developed. One's true יש is to be in touch with the Divine connection within the individual. 

The Zohar Chadash says the word יש stands for יובל שמיטה. In other words, it is by ceasing to be engaged in our normal worldly pursuits that we can be focused totally on our connection to Hashem. That is why in yoval lands return to their owners, it is reflective of people returning to their source, returning to their true יש, which is by turning themselves into אין, so that it is the pure Divine connection that shines through a person (based upon Sfas Emes 5645.) That is why the Mishna says the reward of the tzaddikim is referred to in the possuk as להנחיל אוהבי יש. It is the יש of יובל שמיטה, the יש by removing one's יש that is the reward. 

The word קרי the Ariza"l teaches is also gematria יש. It is when one follows their own יש, not the יש of יובל שמיטה that leads to the tochacha. It is when one accesses their true יש that one turns the קרי into יקר. 

Reclaiming The Light

The Ariza"l says ועתה נבאר סוד העומר, והענין, כי הלא כבר בארנו כי כל המוחין האלו, הם לצורך שעה, ליום א' דפסח לבד, כדי שיוכלו ישראל ליגאל, אך אחר יום א', נסתלק כל מה שנכנס לגמרי בקדמותו, וחזר למדרגה תלת בתלת, לכן לא יש הלל גמור, רק ביום א' לבד. אמנם מליל ב', שאז מתחיל ספירת העומר, כונתינו הוא, לחזור ולהמשיך אותן המוחין שנכנסו ליל פסח ראשון, אך אי אפשר להחזירן, אם לא ע"י זמן, והוא מפסח עד עצרת, כמ"ש. In other words, the great clarity, the מוחיו דגלות that shine on Seder night is removed and the process of sefirat ha'omer is our effort to rebuild that light as an earned reality. We spend the days between Pesach and Shavuot incrementally reclaiming the heights we glimpsed at the Seder. The Kozhnitser Maggid says that is why there is no beracha of shecheyanu on the mitzvah of sefirah since we are not bringing in any new light, we are just bringing back the light that was already present on the Seder night. He says that is what the בן חכם  asks why are we commanded to bring the light back in a slow, methodical form? The answer is because it is not always possible to serve Hashem with clarity, there are times when one feels down, and has to fight their yetzer to engage in serving Hashem, but even so one must have the patience and capability to continue serving Hashem with slow incremental growth. 

The month of Iyar is called in Melachim 1 (6:1) the month of זיו. According to one peshat in the Gemarah (Rosh Hashana 11a) it is because ירח שנולדו בו זיותני עולם meaning the Avot were born then. The Gemarah a second before said they were born in Nissan? Rashi says כשנתחדש אייר נולדו כבר בניסן אי נמי זימנין דניסן דתקופה נמשך בתוך אייר של לבנה. However, why refer to their birth in Iyar if it actually happened in Nissan? 

In light of the above idea, it mirrors exactly what the avodah of sefirah during the month of Iyar does. The actual birth, the lights of the days are already present in Nissan but the radiance, the shine, is brought out through the slow progression of the full presence takes place in Iyar. The Avos are defined as זיותני עולם because of their ability to shine forth, to show the path of Hashem to others. So too during these days, we are meant to take the great revelation of leaving Egypt and let its impression make an indelible affect upon ourselves. 

The Korban Makes The Holiday

In Parshas Pinchas the Torah delineate the korbanot of every holiday. In Emor we are told the holidays and that korbanot are offered but the Torah does not give the details of the korbanot. However, the Torah does tell us the offering of the shtei halechem and the accompanying sheep. Why is this korban mentioned here? 

The questioned is asked why do we not mention the shtei halechem in the mussaf prayers on Shavuot? Rav Yaakov Ariel answers that the korbanot of the mussafin are brought as korbanot of the holiday and are therefore mentioned in the prayers of mussaf. However, the shtei halechem are not offered as part of the holiday but as part of being chag habikkurim. In other words, the mussaf korbanot are offered because it is a holiday. The shtei halechem are not offered because of Shavuot, but rather it is chag habikkurim because the shtei halachem are offered on the day. He adds from the Shem MiShmuel that we offer the mussafin to come close to Hashem but the korbanot accompanying the shtei halachem are because the shtei halachem representing the Torah is Hashem giving himself over to us. 

This is why the sheri halechem and its korbanot are in Emor for they are not a part of the mussafin offering but instead are part of the establishment of the holiday, part of creating the day as chag habikkurim. 

The Light Within Yourself

Why is the commandment of milah mentioned right in the beginning of Tazria in the discussion of טומאת לידה? Why is tzarras translated by Onkelus as סגירו, closed up? Why does the Kohan need to pronounce the tumah of the negah?  Why does the Torah say the צרעת is found בעור בשרו, what does the word בעור add? The Sfas Emes (5635) says that the word עור is related to the word עיור, blindness. Every person has within themselves a great light, the light of the neshamah. However, one becomes blind to that light due to the coarseness that surrounds a person. This is the עור of a person that covers over the אור (as the Midrash says כתנות עור can be read as אור.) This is hinted to by the fact that a person's skin is porous. The holes represent that space from which the light can shine through. This is why צרעת is translated as סגירו. The tumah comes when a person's עור, their physicality clogs up a person's internal light (5641.) That is why the kohan must pronounce the person tamah. The pronouncement of tumah is not a punishment but is meant to allow the person to heal themselves from their blockages.  That is why the person with צרעת is called a מצורע- מוציא רע for the tzaras allow a person to drain the blockages around their soul.  

The Midrash cites the possuk אָח֣וֹר וָקֶ֣דֶם צַרְתָּ֑נִי regarding the man is elevated above animals but created after them. The Sfas Emes says that they are not two different modes of man but within every man is the aspect of קדם, the Divine spark that is above everything and the aspect of אחור, the last in the line of physical creations. It is up to man to determine which side will govern his actions more. 

We read in the haftorah of Shabbos Hachodesh שער החצר הפנימית הפנה קדים יהיה סגור ששת ימי המעשה וביום השבת יפתח וביום החדש יפתח. The Sfas Emes says during the week we often are consumed by the pursuits of life, and can't focus on our inner light. However, on Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh the gates are open and we can access the light easier. 

This is why the parsha of milah is in this parsha. The basis of the mitzvah of milah is the same point. A person is born creating a state of tumah but one attains a bris which allows the internal light to shine through a person's body (5661.) The Sfas Emes continues that is why נגע is the same letters as ענג for Shabbos is the time where one can focus on the kedusha that exists within an individual.  He adds ענג stands for עדן נהר גן for it is though ענג that one can access the past of themselves which was placed עדן נהר גן. 

Location

Tosfos Pesachim (3b) says that one who does not have land is exempt from korban Pesach. The Achronim struggle to find a source for the law of Tosfos. 

In the post 'What Makes A Kahal' it was cited the concept that only those living in Eretz Yisrael constitute a kahal. The Keren Orah takes this idea and says Tosfos understood that being part of the kahal is a necessary component of the obligation of korban pesach. Since it says ושחטו אותו כל קהל עדת ישראל, the Pesach requires one who is considered part of the קהל - living inside Eretz Yisrael.

Bris Of Chesed

 Chafetz Chaim p. Beshalach

I would like to say a little different peshat. Rav Solevetchik in Festival of Freedom pg. 22 recounts that people who lived in concentration camps had no ability to have compassion, sympathy or feelings of chesed. It was total self survival mode. He explains that it why the Torah emphasizes sharing the korban Pesach with a group. It is the act of doing chesed that can bring people from slaves into independent beings capable of moving beyond pure self survival. I would suggest that according to the Tana Devei Eliyahu Klal Yisrael realized this problem and made a pact to ensure that they would not descend into the pure slave mindset of self survival. נחית בחסדך, because of the chesed done with each other, that allowed Klal Yisrael to maintain a semblance of a free person and therefore they were able to be redeemed and did not just descend totally into slave mode with no way out. 

Good Or Bad

Found at the very end of the Haggadah Siach Yitchak he deals with the contradictions if those that left Egypt were considered to be very lowly or on a high level

This is the Midrash Shir Hashirim (1:25) שחורה אני במצרים ונאוה אני במצרים meaning although externally we were black with sins, intenally we were good. 

The Erev Pesach Holiday

The Gemarah Arachin (10a) says Pesach does not half full Hallel every day as opposed to Sukkot for on Sukkot there are different korbanot every day as opposed to Pesach. Rav Dovid Solevetchik ask so what, each day is still a מועד so why should it not have Hallel? 

The Rishonim beginning og Makom Shenahagu cite the Yerushalmi that Erev Pesach is assur to do work after midday since the korban Pesach is offered then. In other words, the day one brings a korban is assur to do work (the Rishonim argue is this is a Bibical law or Rabbinic - see Tosfos, Ran etc.) The Rambam Yom Tov (8:17-18) says עֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח אַחַר חֲצוֹת, שֶׁהָעוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ מְלָאכָה אַחַר חֲצוֹת מְנַדִּין אוֹתוֹ, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁמַּכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת אִם לֹא נִדּוּהוּ. לְפִי שֶׁיּוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר בְּנִיסָן אֵינוֹ כִּשְׁאָר עַרְבֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֲגִיגָה וּשְׁחִיטַת קָרְבָּן.לְפִיכָךְ יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר אָסוּר בַּעֲשִׂיַּת מְלָאכָה מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, כְּמוֹ חֻלּוֹ שֶׁל מּוֹעֵד. Why does he compare it to chol hamoed, why is this law in the laws of Yom Tov if it is a korban law? 

Rav Wahrman (Oros Hapesach siman 18) explains :

Erev Pesach itself is a holiday. He says the korban creates the holiday. Rabbi Brown says a similar idea in Moadanay Moshe siman 2; he says the korban is a siman that it is a moad. 

The Rambam Kli Mikdash (6:9-10) says regarding those who donate wood to the mizbaoch that on those days they can't do work but he says this is a minhag. This seems to contradict the aforementioned Rambam that Erev Pesach is an issur because of the korban but as R. Brown explains, according to the above explanation of the Rambam it is not difficult for a regular korban creates an issur of minhag as to keep one's thought occupied with the korban and Erev Pesach is a real issur due to it being a moad. 

What we see is that a chiuv korban can create a form of holiday. The same can be said for the korbanot of the holidays. The korbanot are a siman of the kedusha of the day. Yes, every day of Pesach is a moad, but the fact that the korbanot are the same means that it is all one long holiday. As the Alter Rebbe says (490:6) that all the days of Pesach are secondary to the first day. However, Sukkot which has different korbanot every day is a unique holiday every day. 

Cup Of Kiddush II

This post is an addendum to the post from last year 'The Cup Of Kiddush' where it was explained why the Magen Avraham assumes that the first of the four cups assumes the status of the 4 cups and therefore can't be recited before the time for the Haggadah and therefore kiddush can only be said after nightfall. However, why would the Magen Avraham not explain that one must wait for nightfall in order to fulfill קידוש במקום סעודה since one can't eat until nightfall as the Taz does? The assertion of the Taz is that in order to be קבמ"ס it has to be the timeframe to eat seudas Shabbos. However, this is not agreed upon. The Maharal Gevurot (Ch. 48) holds that to fulfill seudas Shabbos the meal must be eater into the night even though he allows one to say kiddush before nightfall. It is clear he holds one can say kiddush, eat the meal (even though it does not count for seudas Shabbos) and then eat bread after nightfall. (The Taz (291:6) holds one can fulfill seudas Shabbos before nightfall.) Clearly, he holds even though it is too early to fulfill seudas Shabbos, it does not mean one can't fulfill קבמ"ס. This would indicate the Mahara"l holds קבמ"ס is not a דין in seudah for one can eat a meal to occupy accompany the kiddush even though it is not a "seudas Shabbos." This is the opinion of the M.A. as well for he writes in 267:1 in the name of the Shl"a like the Mahara"l that one must eat bread after nightfall to fulfill seudas Shabbos. Hence, he can't say like the Taz that it won't be קבמ"ס if one can't eat the meal yet, for it is no different that saying kiddush before nightfall every Shabbos. (The Taz might mean that on Pesach night one can't eat anything at all and hence it is not קבמ"ס as opposed to when it is just to early to fulfill seudas Shabbos but one can eat Though in theory one may be able to have a bit of mezonos, וצ"ע.) 

From Poor To Rich

The Gemara in Pesachim (36a) teaches that matzah ashirah, matzah kneaded with wine, oil, or honey may not be eaten on יום טוב ראשון, but is permitted ביום טוב שני. Rashi explains that יום טוב ראשון  here does not literally mean the entire first day; rather, it refers specifically to the first night, when there is a Torah obligation to eat matzah. At that time, the matzah must fulfill the requirement of לחם עוני.

Rabbenu Channanel seems to hold that the halacha of לחם עוני applies the entirety of the night. This may be since he holds that לחם עוני is not a law merely describing the matzah but a law in the Haggadah. The Haggadah demands the presence of matzah - what matzah? לחם עוני. Hence the Haggadah obligates the eating of לחם עוני (one can also explain the Rach's opinion that all the matzah eaten at the Seder is part of the kium mitzvah of eating matzah and hence all the matzah should be לחם עוני.)  

The Rambam (Chametz 5:20) however is of the opinion that entire first day of Yom Tov one can not eat מצה עשירה. This fits with the simple read of the Gemarah, בְּיוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן but why would there be a law against מצה עשירה the entire first day?

The Briskor Rav points from the terminologies of the Rambam it emerges that he doesn't hold that לחם עוני defines the matzah of the obligation of the first night, but rather it is a separate דין to have לחם עוני and that is why it is not limited to the matzah of the obligation. The דין of לחם עוני doesn't define the matzah of the mitzvah but rather is a separate halacha with its own dinim. 

This approach is reflected in the Maharal Gevurot Ch. 48 that holds someone who does not have regular matzah for the seder should still eat מצה עשירה for although there will be no kium of לחם עוני it will still be a kium of eating matzah. Based upon this he does not allow for eating מצה עשירה on Erev Pesach (not like Tosfos Pesachim 35b and 99b.)  

It is also clear that in the הו"א of the Gemarah that לחם עוני applies all seven days. It is clear (as the Chidushay HaRan and R' Dovid point out) that the Gemarah initially holds that the law of לחם עוני is not a law in the matzah of them mitzvah but rather is a separate law. Furthermore, the Nemukay Yosef and R' M'lonil understand that there is an actual opinion in the Gemarah that one may not eat מצה עשירה all 7 days for all 7 days one is required to eat לחם עוני. 

However, this still doesn't explain why this דין of לחם עוני should apply the first day? What is unique about the first day?   

Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky connects this to the Gemarah (28a, 96a) that mentions the issur chametz is Egypt was one day. למאי נ"מ? He suggests that the issur of chametz from Egypt lasts even now - and that issur is not based upon the fact that dough didn't rise but is because of a דין of לחם עוני. However, it is not clear why would the issur of the first day be linked to לחם עוני?  

Rav Yaakov notes that with this Rambam we can answer the contradiction in the Haggadah if we eat matxah since it is what was eaten in Egypt as said in the beginning of the Haggadah or because there was no time for the matzah to rise as said in מצה זו? The answer is that there are two matzos. There is the matzah that we eat the first day - and that is the matzah eaten for to remember the matzah eaten as we were leaving Egypt. The matzah the rest of the days of Pesach is since there was no time for the matzah to rise. 

The possuk in Reah (16:3) says תאכל עליו מצות לחם עני כי בחפזון יצאת מארץ מצרים למען תזכר את יום צאתך מארץ מצרים כל ימי חייך. The לחם עוני is connected to the day of leaving Egypt. The leaving of Egypt, as the Ramban (Bo 12:12) notes, started at night but was completed during the day. The first day in its entirety was devoted to getting out of Egypt. Based upon this we can say the source for the first day is not from the issur of chametz but rather since the entire first day is considered the time of leaving Egypt. 

What is the nature of this dual leaving- in the night and the day? The dual nature is not just a historical sequence but a spiritual model. At night, darkness limits vision, one can't see properly and things are unclear. This is how the geulah began. In the nighttime phase, Bnei Yisrael followed Hashem not because they had reached a mature recognition of His truth. They followed simply because it was a way out of Egypt. It was a redemption as a way out of slavery.  As explained in the maamer of Pesach 5719 (second night), this stage is marked by kabbalas ol without daas, movement without clarity, acceptance rooted in bittul rather than comprehension.

In daylight one can see properly, distinguish directions and move with intention.  In the day there is clarity, resolve, and conscious commitment. The daytime leaving of Egypt represents the stage where the Jewish people follow Hashem not simply because He is pulling them out but because they themselves perceive that it is the best to follow Hashem (see maamer 5719 second night Pesach.)

We begin counting the Omer only after the first day of Pesach. The Sefer HaChinuch asks: why don’t we start counting from the very first day of Pesach? The answer is that the first day was devoted entirely to leaving Egypt. Only once we were safely out could we begin the process of internal growth and self‑refinement. This also explains why the Gemara records that R’ Yehoshua instructed his children specifically to prepare matzah ashirah only after the first day. On the first day we must eat לחם עוני because, at that stage, our role was pure submission to Hashem. It was a moment of complete bittul, without asserting our own identity. Hashem took us out, and our task was simply to follow. After that first day, however, the work changes. We are still in the “matzah mode” of humility and simplicity, but now we can begin to add some some ashirus. This represents taking our own independent strengths, personality, and capabilities and using them in the service of Hashem. It is still Pesach, still rooted in bittul, but now flavored with our own contributions.

Cheftzah Of Chametz

The Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot לא תעשה  number 198 and #199 counts a prohibition of eating chametz and a seperate prohibition of eating chametz that has been absorbed in a mixture. The Ramban asks why is there a separate mitzvah not to eat חמץ בתערובת, if there is an amount of כזית בכדי אכילת פרס then by all issurim it is considered as if the issue is intact, we should not need a special prohibition here and if it's less than that amount, it is nullified?

The answer can be found in the laws of chametz. It is subject to debate how to understand the rulings of the Rambam. But it is possible that the Rambam rules according to the opinion of R' Eliezer in the Gemarah Pesachim (42-43) that chametz which is in a mixture carries the lav but not the punishment of kares. This is also fits with the Michelta that the Rambam himself in Sefer Hamitzvot 198 quotes ולשון המכילתא: "כל מחמצת לא תאכלו - לרבות כותח הבבלי ושכר המדי וחמץ האדומי. יכול יהו חייבין עליהן? תלמוד לומר: "חמץ" - מה חמץ מיוחד שהוא מין גמור, יצאו אלו שאינן מין גמור. למה באו? לעבור עליהן בלא תעשה. It clearly states there is a lav but no kares for chametz in a mixture. Once we see that there is a מיעוט to exclude the mixture of chametz from kares we would have said that chametz in a mixture does not have a שם חמץ. Therefore, we need a new derasha to renter the chametz into the status of issur even in a case of כזית בכדי אכילת פרס. However, it still needs explanation for in a תערובת there is a halacha of טעם כעיקר telling us that the taam of chametz is considered like the chametz itself so how can we say the derasha is referring to and excluding a case of כזית בכדא"פ? 

Why would there be this split that there would be a lav but no kares? We see that there are two aspects to the issur of chametz. Chametz is prohibited like any other forbidden food and is there is a כזית בכדי אכילת פרס it is assur. However, the kares punishment is meted out only for eating pure chametz. The kares punishment is not for eating merely forbidden chametz but for eating pure chametz. In other words, for the lav one is obligated on the mere taste of the issur, it doesn't have to be a cheftzah of chametz but for the kares one is obligated only for eating a cheftzah of chametz. In light of this the Rambam understands that this split to establish the lav separate from the kares is derived from כל מחמצת. That introduces a new issur on the חמץ בתערובת even though it is not bonified kares prohibited chametz.   

The Minchas Chinuch (12) points out that the Rambam in the list of the mitzvot in the beginning of Chametz U'Matzah mentions the issur on chametz from erev Pesach but not the issur on a mitzure of chametz. He derives from there the issur of כל מחמצת only kicks in on Pesach itself. This would fit well assuming the issur on תערובת חמץ is its own unique issur and not just a גילוי that it is the regular issur of chametz. 

The Rambam (1:7) says האוכל מן החמץ עצמו בפסח כל שהוא הרי זה אסור מן התורה שנאמר לא יאכל. ואף על פי כן אינו חייב כרת או קרבן אלא על כשיעור שהוא כזית. The Achronim aks why do we need a possuk to tell us that the issur of chametz is even on a minute amount, that is the general law of חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה? According to this, the Rambam may have understood that chametz that does not meet the bar of a chiuv kares because it is less than the shiur doesn't have a qualitative amount to be defined as a cheftzah of chametz and therefore a new possuk is required to determine it is assur.  

The prohibition on a mitzture of chametz is derived from כל מחמצת לא תאכלו. The Rambam as mentioned in 'Chametz as דבר שיש לו מתירין' holds that the chumrah of דבר שיש לו מתירין applies by chametz even to a מין בשאנו מינו due to the possuk of כל מחמצת. What does the Rambam see in this possuk about דשיל"מ?

Rav Leib Malen (siman 11) cites the Pri Chadash understands the Rambam rules that when it comes to chametz, it is assur if it כזית בכדי אכילת פרס is present even if there is no טעם of the issur. In light of this, says Rav Leib, we see that for chametz being מבטל the טעם doesn't suffice. The difference between מין במינו ושאינו מינו is that מין במינו there is no ביטול of the טעם and hence if it is a דשיל"מ it is more strict but for מבשא"מ when there is no more טעם the issur is gone entirely and the chumrah of דשיל"מ is not imposed for the issur is not in existence any more. But when it comes to chametz we see in the law of כל מחמצת that even without טעם the issur remains intact so the rule of דשיל"מ will apply even for מין בשאינו מינו. This works according to the peshat of the Pri Chadash. According to above peshat in the Rambam that the Rambam is referring to a regular case of כזית בכא"פ we would have to say that Rambam means is that even though the taste of chametz should not be assur, only the cheftzah of chametz itself, nonetheless כל מחמצת teaches us it is assur. So too, when it comes to דשיל"מ, the bar of bittul is raised. It is not enough to eradicate the shem chametz but any trace of chametz in a taaroves remains forbidden. 

New Wine How Many Berachot

The Magen Avraham (175:1) cites from the Maharil that one should not say הטוב והמטיב during the Seder for it looks like adding to the number of cups. The Pri Migadim says that if one switches wine for the cups itself, according to Ashkenazik custom that one says הגפן for each of the cups, then one says both הגפן and הטוב והמטיב. The Shaar Hatzion (175:3) cites this. This would be the M.A. לשיטתו according to how R' Akiva Eger points out that he holds in theory one can say both the beracha of הגפן and הטוב והמטיב together. However, according to those that hold one says הטוב והמטיב when there is no הגפן said, then in this case one will only say הגפן. (It is interesting that in Shaar Hatzion #2 he cites the logic of R.A.E. but in #3 he goes with the understanding of the M.A.) 

Chametz As דבר שיש לו מתירין

The Gemarah Pesachim (30a) concludes that chametz is not batal on Pesach. The simple read of the Gemarah is since the law in general is that מין במינו is not batal there is a gezerah on Pesach to say even שלא במינו is not batal. Many Rishonim rule however that is general במין במינו is batal and try to justify the pesak of the Gemarah with the bottom line pesak. 

The approach of the Ramban (Milchamos) is to come with an entire new reason why chametz should not be batel and that is due to the rule of דבר שיש לו מתירין אינו בטל and since the chametz will become mutar after Pesach it is not batal on Pesach. The Ramban asks on himself that there is a Rabbinic issur on chametz not gotten rid of before Pesach, so how is it דשיל"מ if it will not become mutar? He answers the Rabbinic law is meant to serve as a chumrah, not as a קולא to remove the din of דשיל"מ. The Ran asks that this answer doesn't work for the entire din of דשיל"מ is Rabbinic so it has to work within the Rabbinic rules? 

In the post 'After Pesach Chametz' there was a chakirah presented if the issur of chametz after Pesach is an extension of the issur on Pesach itself or a new issur. Rav Leeb Malin (siman 10) says that the Ramban holds the nature of the prohibition of chametz after Pesach is a new issur, not a new prohibition. Hence, the issur on Pesach itself is an issur that is דשיל"מ, there is just a new issur that kicks in after Pesach. This explanation only works if the law of דשיל"מ is a lomdus like the Ran in Nedarim (52a) explains. It if is a simple sevarah to eat something in a state of definitive heter instead of relying on bittul like Rashi Betzah (3a) explains then that should apply no matter what the geder of the issur is. It theory one can explain that is why those that don't like the Ramban saying it is a דשיל"מ. However, since the Ran himself asks on the Ramban, he would have to be asking with the understanding that chametz שעבר עליו הפסח is a continuation of the issur on Pesach.    

The Mordechai Pesachim (תקעג) says that chametz is not a דשיל"מ since it will become prohibited next year. At face value this is difficult to understand, so what it will become assur again in the future, there is plenty of time when one can eat the chametz in a state of heter? The Mordechai would seem to make sense in the understanding of the Ran Nedarim that a דשיל"מ is not batul due to the din of מין במינו in a halachik sense. Since the issue itself will become mutur by itself with the passage of time that proves that the issur is not innate and it is like the heter itself and will not be batal. In light of this the Mordechai may mean that chametz on Pesach is an innate issur, the fact that it becomes mutar after Pesach is not because the issur goes away but rather that the entire shem of the issur is chametz on Pesach and if its not Pesach, there is no issur. The fact that the issur comes back next Pesach in fact proves the issur does not go away but the cheftzah of the issur is tied to the timeframe (in בעניין חמץ בפסח אם הווי דבר שיש לו מתירין footnote 5 he says such an explanation in the name of Rav Shmuel Rozovsky.) [It is noteworthy that the Rema YD 102:4 and clearly R' Akiva Eger understand this Mordechai is a general rule for any issur that will come back again, not just a local severah for chametz on Pesach.]

The Rambam in Maachalos Assuros (15:9) says that chametz is not batal because it is a דבר שיש לו מתירין. According to Rav Leeb Malen that would be because he holds of the lomdus severah in דשיל"מ. The Bach (YD siman 102 #4) proves from the Rambam that even when the food will spoil we still impose the rule of דשיל"מ since the Rambam rules even from the beginning of Pesach the chametz is not batal due to the rule of דשיל"מ even though it will spoil. According to the practical severah of Rashi in that case it should be batal, this would be further proof the Rambam agrees to the Ran. 

The Rambam continues in law 12 יֵרָאֶה לִי, שֶׁאַפִלּוּ דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין - אִם נִתְעָרֵב בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, וְלֹא נָתַן טַעַם - מֻתָּר. לֹא יִהְיֶה זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין חָמוּר מִטֶּבֶל, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקְּנוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאַל תִּתַּמָּהּ עַל חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח, שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה אָסְרָה "כָּל מַחְמֶצֶת" (שמות יב, כ); לְפִיכָךְ הֶחְמִירוּ בּוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנ. Achronim ask if the Rambam has a possuk why does he need the Rabbinic reason of דשיל"מ? Presumably the Rambam means the possuk to be an asmachtah to explain why the rule of דשיל"מ applies to chametz even for מין בשאינו מינו. But what does the Rambam see in כל מחמצת that says it shouldn't be batal?  

The Aleph In It

Rashi notes the difference between Moshe who is addressed with ויקרא and Bilim who is addressed with ויקר. The word is the same with an additional א. This א hints to the difference between Moshe and Bilam. Both of them received messages from Hashem, both had great capabilities, but Bilam viewed events in his life as ויקר, a מקרה, it happened - but it didn't make an impression upon him. Moshe connected everything to the א - the אלופו של עולם - to Hashem. The exact same event Bilam would view as an accident, while Moshe would take it as a lesson from Hashem. Everyone gets messages -the question if one hears Who the sender is.  

What Makes A Kahal

ויקהל משה. Why is this parsha said in front of the presence of the entirety of Klal Yisrael? 

The Gemarah Taanis (11b) says אמר ר' ירמיה בר אבא: אין תענית ציבור בבבל, אלא תשעה באב בלבד. The Gemarah does not explain why and there are different opinions in the Rishonim ranging from a practical point Bavel did not as much rain and there was no need to create fast days for rain to halachik requirements of a nasi to establish a taanis on the tzibbur.  The Minchas Chinuch (284:24) explains the basis of the law is that a taanis tzibbur requires an actual tzibbur. Only in Eretz Yisrael does Klal Yisrael attain a chalos shem tzibbur. Outside the land, we are merely a collection of individuals acting together, but not a halachic kahal. Accordingly, he writes that even in Eretz Yisrael today—after the destruction and exile—since the full kedushas ha’aretz is lacking, there is no genuine chalos tzibbur. As a result, Hallel would not be recited even for miracles occurring in Eretz Yisrael today, since Hallel on a miracle depends on a functioning tzibbur. (See more about this here.) The Tzafnas Paneach Berachot (10:11) echoes the same idea. He roots the idea in the Gemarah Horiyos (3b) grounding it in Horiyos (3b) that says only a kahal in Eretz Yisrael is defined as a  kahal. Why is it only in E.Y. that there a chalos tzibbur, a kahal?  

E.Y. is the place where there is direct connection to Hashem. It is that connection to the Ultimate Oneness that joine together different people together as one unit. 

The Meshech Chachma Re'ah asks how in Shoftim Ch. 2 the people offered a korban on a bamah if the Mishkan in Shilo was already erected? He explains that since the Aron was not present in the Mishkan there is no issur bamos. The issur is only when the presence of the Aron is there. In other words, the Aron creates the presence of the Shechina in the Mishkan and that is the place that unites Klal Yisrael thereby forbidding private alters. If the Aron representing the Shechina is not present in the Mishkan, then there is no issur on making a bama. The Mikdash is a place where the Shechina is present and joins the Klal together. When there is a place for the klal that creates an issur on making individual, private alters. That issur depends on the Shechina being present in the Mikdash and that is represented by the Aron.   

The Chinuch #487 counts a lav of shechting a Pesach on a bamah. There is a specific prohibition for the korban Pesach since the holiday of Pesach is to commemorate Klal Yisrael becoming a nation and therefore it has to be offered as a national korban, as one nation, on a public alter. 

This is why the parsha of Mikdash and Shabbos is said after everyone is gathered together. These two mitzvot are mitzvot where one comes to a time and place elevated with the Presence of the Shechina and that units everyone together. 

103

The Ariza"l connects the sin of the egel (עגל גימטריא 103) with the 103 methods of derash that Yeravam had in Toras Kohanim (which is stated in Sanhedrin on daf 103.) This why when Yeravam had his turn to the dark side he made his own version of the egel. What is the connection? The sin of the egel was that Klal Yisrael didn't feel intellectually equipped to deal with the death of Moshe Rabbenu and hence they looked for a substitute in the form of a egel which is a calf, completely submitted to the desire of their master. The tikkun is to come to a level of Torah that is beyond the natural grasp of a person (see sicha Ki Sesa 5751.) 

The number 103 has prominence in a few other places. The Zohar Terumah (162b) that the 310 worlds that are promised to the tzaddikim are split into 2 parts of the chesed side and one part of the gevurah side and a third of 310 is 103. It is pointed out by the Beis Yaakov of Ishbitz in Vayigash that the word mincha is also gematria is also 103. It would seem from these citations that the number 103 is connected with gevurah (as noted in the past there are those that associate the time of mincha with a time of din.) The Ramban (32:1) also connects the egel to the shor of the merchava which is on the left side, the midday of din. I'm not sure what the connection is with the number 103 or if this relates to the first part. 

Megillah Prayer

The Shulchan Aruch (689:5) says מקום שאין מנין אם אחד יודע והאחרים אינם יודעין אחד פוטר את כולם ואם כולם יודעים כל אחד קורא לעצמו. The Magen Avraham (cited in Mishne Berurah) says we see that we don't apply the rule of שומע כעונה unless there is a minyan present. Why is it different than shofar? He says Megillah is like tefillah that a minyan is required. (The Chachmas Shlomo suggests this is due to the fact that קרייתא זו הלילא.) However, at face value why is the Megillah compared to prayer? In light of the Rambam (Sefer Mitzvot katzar) that the point of the Megillah is to demonstrate that Hashem answers our prayers it is logical that the Megillah itself should be considered to bear the laws of tefillah. In light of the Briskor Rav's explanation that it is the tefillah of the tzibbur that is unique to Klal Yisrael that we demonstrate Hashem heeds, it is well understood that the Megillah will have the need to have the status of a tefillah bitzibbur. 

According to the Magen Avraham why is there a difference between if the people know how to read the Megillah themselves or not? The Gra says והוי זה כמ"ש בסוף ר"ה יחיד שלא בירך אין חבירו כו' וע"ש בר"ן וכ' שם ומיהו ה"מ בשיודע אבל בשאינו יודע חבירו מוציאו דהא שלשה דברים מוציא בירושלמי מן הכלל ק"ש ותפלה ובה"מ ואמרינן בברכות פ"ז שנים שאכלו כו' אבל אחד סופר כו'. In other words, we find the same concept by tefillah itself that when each individual knows the prayers, they must say it themselves but if someone doesn't know then one person can be motzei others. How does this work? It means that the basic din of שומע כעונה is in palce even when there is no minyan present but for the kium din of tzibbur that will be lacking unless said with a minyan. Or in other words, the law of שומע כעונה will be in place to say everyone said the Megillah but it is viewed as if everyone read the Megillah individually and they are not joined together. (צ"ע that the Magen Avraham seems to be saying there is no law of שומע כעונה at all with less than 10.)

Rav Biderman on the power of the act of prayer itself: וגם כאשר 'רואה ' שננעלו בפניו כל השערים , ולא מיבעיא ש 'שערי ההצלחה' סגורים וחתומים אלא אפילו שערי התפילה , שעומד ומתחנן פעמים רבות ולא נענה , אל יפול רוחו בקרבו אלא יחזור ויתפלל , ובוודאי ישמע א-ל ויענהו . צא ולמד מדברי חז"ל (מגילה יב :) על הפסוק (אסתר ב ה ) 'איש יהודי היה בשושן הבירה ושמו מרדכי בן יאיר בן שמעי בן קיש' – שהקיש על שערי רחמים ונפתחו לו, ולכאורה עיקר מעלתו של מרדכי ש 'נפתחו' לו שערי רחמים , ואם כן היה צריך לומר 'בן יפתח', ומדוע נקטו 'בן קיש', אלא ללמדנו על גדולתו של מרדכי שלא התייאש לנוכח הגזירה, ואף שידע כל אשר נעשה , מכל מקום עמד והקיש שערי רחמים, מתוך האמונה בכוחה של תפילה, והיא שעמדה לבטל את הגזירה , והיא היא גדולתו.

.ושמע נא למה שביאר הגה "ק רבי אליהו מאיזמיר זי"ע (בעל ה'שבט מוסר' בספרו תהלות ה ' על מזמור כב) בלשון המזמור 'על איילת השחר' שהוא מעניינו של יום, כי כך אמרה אסתר המלכה 'אלוקי אקרא יומם ולא תענה' ואף על פי כן לא התייאשתי אלא 'ולילה ולא דומיה לי', וכדאיתא בגמ ' (ברכות לב :) 'אמר ר' חמא בר' חנינא, אם ראה אדם שהתפלל ולא נענה יחזור ויתפלל, שנאמר (תהילים כז יד) קוה אל ה ' חזק ויאמץ לבך וקוה אל ה ''. וזאת למדנו מאבותינו , שבך בטחו אבותינו, ואף שלא נענו מיד לא נסוגו אחור ולא התייאשו אלא חזרו ובטחו, וסוף דבר היה ותפלטמו... ומוסיף לפרש עוד בסמיכות הכתובים 'אלוקי אקרא יומם ולא תענה ולילה ולא דומיה לי, ואתה קדוש יושב תהלות ישראל ', שאם רואה שהוא קורא יומם ולילה ולא נענה, אל יאמר חלילה שאין הקב"ה שומע את קולו, אלא אדרבה הקב "ה שומע אותו ומתענג למשמע קולו, אלא שאתה קדוש יושב תהילות ישראל , והוא מחכה ומצפה לשמוע אותו עוד, ועל דרך שאמרו חז"ל (יבמות סד.) 'מפני מה היו אבותינו עקורים מפני שהקב"ה מתאוה לתפלתן של צדיקים '

.דיוק נפלא אמרו לדייק בלשון קדשו של רש "י (מגילה ד. ד"ה ולשנותה ) על הא דאיתא בגמ ' 'חייב אדם לקרות את המגילה (- מגילת אסתר) בלילה ולשנותה ביום ' ופירש רש"י 'זכר לנס שהיו זועקין בימי צרתן יום ולילה ', ולכאורה אם קריאת המגילה היא זכר ל'זעקתם' ביום ובלילה - מה שייך לומר זכר לנס, הא אותם ימים שהיו זועקים ומתפללים היו ימי צרה ולא ימי נס ? אלא, שאכן נס גדול היה באותם הימים , שזעקו יומם ולילה ולא התייאשו, הגם שהיה נראה בדרך הטבע שהכל אבוד וכבר אין מה לעשות ... נחתמה גזירה בעליונים ובתחתונים, והחרב מונחת על צווארם להשמיד להרוג ולאבד ל "ע , מכל מקום הם לא התייאשו אלא המשיכו לדפוק על שערי רחמים אולי