Oneg Shabbos And Yaakov

א"ר יוחנן משום רבי יוסי כל המענג את השבת נותנין לו נחלה בלי מצרים שנאמר (ישעיהו נח, יד) אז תתענג על ה' והרכבתיך על במתי ארץ והאכלתיך נחלת יעקב אביך וגו' לא כאברהם שכתוב בו (בראשית יג, יז) קום התהלך בארץ לארכה וגו' ולא כיצחק שכתוב בו (בראשית כו, ג) כי לך ולזרעך אתן את כל הארצות האל אלא כיעקב שכתוב בו (בראשית כח, יד) ופרצת ימה וקדמה וצפונה ונגבה (שבת קיח)

What is the connection between עונג שבת and meriting a נחלה בלי מיצרים? What is the נחלה without boundaries? Why is the beracha associated with עונג שבת said explicitly in the dream of Yaakov? Why is it said to Yaakov specifically? 

As explained in 'Two Yaakovs', the beginning of Veyetzei marks the transformation of Yaakov, the איש תם יושב אוהלים, into Yaakov, who is now engaged with the world at large. Yaakov takes the years of his involvement in purely holy work, and it gives him the ability to bring kedusha into חרן. It is at this juncture that Yaakov experiences his dream. The ladder is the ladder of connection between this world and the higher worlds, between Yaakov on earth and Yaakov of the כסא הכבוד, between kodesh and chol. The message to Yaakov is that it is time for him to take the spiritual heights he has developed and use them to transform the greater world. Chazal connect the סולם with סיני (minus the ו it is the same gematria.) The סולם alludes to Sinai, the giving of the Torah, and the connection of heaven and earth. The Torah is the ladder that connects heaven and earth; the ability to bring kedusha into the chol stems from the Torah. Yaakov is the Av associated with Torah. He sees the vision of the ladder; he is instructed to spread the kedusha through his power of Torah. 

The Zohar says that the beracha of a person's week stems from Shabbos. Shabbos is the point of kedusha that can elevate the chol of the week around it. The Bnei Yissachar cites the Alshich, who states that it says מענג את השבת, not המענג בשבת, for it is the appreciation of the oneg of Shabbos that brings this reward. It is not about having oneg one the day of Shabbos, but that the Shabbos adds oneg to one's activities. One who can appreciate the kedusha of Shabbos and use that to enhance the physical needs of the person, to incorporate their actions as part of Shabbos, by turning it into an act of עונג שבת, is following in the footsteps of Yaakov, of taking the point of kedusha and using that to enhance the physical matter. The נחלה בלי מיצרים is that one's life will not be limited by boundaries of where kodesh ends and chol begins, but will become a seamless life guided by the boundless kedusha that is innately within a person.  

(See Likutay Sichos volume 15, Beis Yishai derashos #12, sicha of Rav Rav Zalman Baruch Melamed.)

Esau's Milah

The Rabbenu Yona, in his commentary to Sanhedrin, says that Esau did bris milah. He explains the reason is that he would be included in the command to Avraham that his descendants should do bris milah. Even though Esau is excluded from כי ביצחק ולא כל יצחק, that was only established later on. The idea of the establishment of ולא כל יצחק was not said yet is cited by the Briskor Rav in the name of Rav Chayim to explain why the Rambam (Melachim 10:7) cites a different verse to exclude Esau from milah, שהרי יצחק אמר ליעקב ויתן לך את ברכת אברהם לך ולזרעך, מכלל שהוא לבדו זרעו של אברהם המחזיק בדתו ודרכו הישרה והם המחוייבין במילה. Why does he not cites ולא כל יצחק? Because the possuk itself doesn't say Esau is out, maybe Yaakov is out; it is only from the fact that Yaakov is given the mantle to carry on the legacy of Avraham that we know to read ביצחק ולא כל יצחק to exclude Esau, but that is not a given in itself. 

The Daas Zekanim (25:25) cites a Midrash כשראהו אביו אמר עדיין לא נבלע בו דמיו ולא רצה למולו לשמונה ימים כדאמרינן גבי מעשה דשתי נשים שבאו לפני נתן הבבלי וכו׳. כשעבר שנה או שנתיים וראה יצחק שלא החליף מראיתו ידע שזו תולדתו ואפ״ה לא מל אותו אמר הואיל ולא מלתי אותו לשמנה כמוני אמתין עד שיהיה בן י״ג כמו ישמעאל אחי ואמול אותו וכשהיה בן י״ג שנה הוא עכב בעצמו ולא רצה למול והיינו דכתיב אם לא דם שנאת ודם ירדפך. According to the Midrash Esau never obtained a bris milah. But it is clear that Yitzchak did want to give him a bris milah. According to Rabbenu Yona presumably there was no danger in doing the milah, however, if there is a machlokes, it may be explained in multiple ways. 

The Mizrachi (Shemos 4:24) asks how Moshe could delay giving milah to his son, even if there is sakanah, there is no heter of וחי בהם for a gentile to not put himself in danger for the fulfillment of a mitzvah? He clearly assumes that וחי בהם is not said for a gentile, and hence, for a positive fulfillment of a mitzvah, there is no exemption even for life-threatening situations. The Parashas Derachim (Derech Ha'esarim #2) presents several points of argument against the Mizrachi's assertion. He argues on his principle, for he holds even without וחי בהם one does not have to put themselves in danger to fulfill a mitzvah, וחי בהם is only necessary to remove a possible limmud from the cardinal sins that one would have to give up their life (see more about the discussion in הרחבות לפניני הלכה.) Another point he raises is that even if the Mirachi is correct, how can Moshe put someone else in danger to fulfill his obligation? (The Chemdas Yisrael mitzvah 215) says this objection hinges on the nature of the father who does the milah for his son. If it is the obligation of the father, the Parashes Derachim is right, that wouldn't allow him to put his child in danger but if the mitzvah is on the father to fulfill the obligation of his son since he is to young to do it himself, then the father is just acting as the agent of his son who would be obligated himself to put himself in danger to fulfill his obligation and the father can do the milah for him.)  Either one of these points would be in play regarding Yitzchak giving a milah to Esau.  

According to the Midrash why did Yitzchak not do the bris on Esau once he saw there was no more danger, why did he wait untill he was 13? Rabbi Shulman has a fancy approach here.    

The simple read of the Ramban (Lech Lecha 17:6) איננו נכון בעיני שיבשרנו בעת ברית המילה על עשו, והוא אינו מקיים המילה וגם לא נצטוה עליה, כמו שדרשו בסנהדרין (בבלי סנהדרין נ״ט:) כי ביצחק – ולא כל יצחק sounds like Esau did not have any command of milsh. However, he may be referring to after it was established ולא כל יצחק which was not at birth. Either way, the Ramban assumes that Esau did not have a bris at all like the Midrash.  

Ask Her

ויאמרו נקרא לנער ונשאלה את פיה The Midrash says from here we derive one should marry an orphan only if she agrees. The inference from the Midrash is that only for an orphan does one need her acquiescence, since she is the one who is in charge of deciding if she should be married. However, if she has a father, her father can marry her unwillingly. This means that a gentile father has the right to marry off his daughter just like a Jewish father (this is noted by Rav Yosef Engel). However, it is unclear how we know this law applies to gentiles as well?

The Gemarah Kiddushin (3b-4a) explains how we know a father has a right to marry off his daughter. We need a source for this halacha, so how do we know the same law should apply to a gentile? There is a basic chakirah discussed in the Achronim regarding whether the father's right to marry off his daughter is a right the Torah gives him, akin to an automatic shliach for his daughter, or whether the halacha indicates that the father is considered the owner of his daughter, at least vis-à-vis the law of marriage. According to the first way, it is harder to see why we should extend a chiddush of a father's rights to a gentile. According to the second approach, once we see that the father is viewed as the owner of his daughter's marriage rights, that is a halacha in ownership, as a monetary law, and the same law would be true for a gentile. (It is noteworthy that the Maharal in Gur Aryeh on this possuk assumes a gentile does not have the right to marry off his daughter.)

Rashi says on the possuk that one should marry a נערה only if she agrees; he does not specifically mention the context of an orphan. Rav Yosef Engel questions why we need to derive that a woman needs to agree to be married; in every kinyan, both parties need to agree to go through with the kinyan?

The Mesoras Hashas in Kiddushin 2b points out a contradiction in Rashi Kiddushin vs. Rashi Yevamos if the reason for the need for the woman to agree to kiddushin is because of the requirement of דעת מקנה or derived from a possuk of והלכה והיתה לאיש חר מדעתה משמע. Rav Yosef Engel says, according to Rashi in Yevamos, it would seem not to be a law based on דעת מקנה, but a possuk, and that may not apply to gentiles. However, it is difficult to understand why you would not need her to agree to be married because of דעת מקנה? This can only make sense if you assume the woman is not playing an active role in the kiddushin at all but instead she is just מפקר עצמה אצל הבעל as the Ran Nedarim daf 30 says (according to the understanding of the Avnei Miluim in many places.) (The Achronim give different explanations for the Rashi Yevamos that he is being מחדש another din of needing her דעת for kiddushin since in the context of מאמר where there is already a connection between יבם ויבמה then her דעת would not be necessary if not for another din of needing דעת, see Sharay Chayim Kiddushin.)  However, maybe Rashi doesn't mean a halacha; he is just saying we see a proper code of conduct (see also Kiddushin 61b, וצ"ע)?

Too Much Chesed

Rav Kook in פנקס "אחרון בבויסק" (#10) says

אמנם אהבת עצמו במדה הראויה, היא מיסודי חקי המוסר. אמנם שמירה גדולה צריך שלא יבא לביטול העצמיות, ביחוד בישראל, כי נטיית הקודש מאברהם אבינו ע"ה הי' להתפשטות החסד בעולם, ושלא להתגדר לא בגזע ולא בלאם. על כן לא הי' נטיית שמירה כלל לצביון הלאומי לולא עירוב כח אהבת עצמו, שצריך הי' להרכבה זרה, על כן מלכות בית דוד הי' צריך להיות ממואב ועמון, מואב אהבת הגזע, עמון אהבת האומה. בהתרחב המושג הלאומי בימי רחבעם, שכבר נפלג הגזע לשני מטות, יהודה ואפרים, צריך להמצא מושג העממי למען השמירה הצוריית. וזהו מצאתי דוד עבדי, שאמרו חז"ל היכן מצאתיו, בסדום, מקום אהבת עצמו הגדולה ביותר, מלח סדומית שמסמא את העינים. והוא מציאה משתי בנותיך הנמצאות, כדי ליסד יסוד לאומיות עם ישראל בשמירת חטיבה לעצמו. Sometimes chesed has to be reined in otherwise there is no room for prioritizing self. 

Gevurah is actually necessary for chesed to be used properly for if chesed is left unchecked it goes to far and self destructs. This is one of the explanations why rain (chesed) is called gevurot geshamim (see siddur Alter Rebbe) for it is the division of rain into droplets that allows it to be beneficial to the world and not wipe it out. 

Chassidic books say that Yishmael was the פסולת חסד of Avraham. He inherited the middah of chesed but misuses it. Yishmael's chesed does not have the safeguard of gevurah attached to it and therefore, leads to immoral activities.  

The Alter Rebbe (Torah Or Lech Lecha) says that is why we say מגן אברהם, there has to be a block around the chesed of Avraham so that it doesn't go to forces that need to be eradicated.

The Beracha In The Middle (ברכת להכניסו 2)

The Gemarah Yevamot (71b) says that Avraham had a commandment to do מילה, but he was not commanded to do פריעה. That was a commandment said to Yehoshua. The Rosh Shabbos (137) says that we say the beracha of להכניסו בבריתו של אברהם אבינו before the פריעה since that is also considered עובר לעשייתן. The Chasam Sofer asks how can we say להכניסו בבריתו של אברהם אבינו for a commandment not even given to Avraham? 

According to the Rosh, why don't we just say the beracha before the beginning of the act of the milah? It would seem because of the severah the Rosh says right beforehand, that one does not say a beracha on a mitzvah beforehand if another person is performing the action of the mitzvah. (Some Rishonim say because one can't guarantee the other person will actually carry through with doing the mitzvah. It may also just be that a rule that before one is actively doing a mitzvah, one must say a beracha, not that a beracha needs to be said before the mitzvah is performed.) The Taz (265:1) says if the father himself is performing the milah, he should say the beracha of להכניסו before the milah itself, for one shouldn't stop in the middle of the mitzvah to say a beracha, and in the interim the milah will fill with blood and be hard to do the פריעה. Why doesn't he simply say, since the father himself is doing the milah, he should say להכניסו before starting the mitzvah at all? Either the Taz holds we would have said לא פלוג, since when done by a mohal, the beracha will be said between milah and פריעה, so too even when the father does it, except for the reasons he gives not too (see Maharasha Pesachim 7a) or he must have understood this is the correct place for the beracha to be said (as suggested here.) Why would this be the proper placement? The Bach says a twist on the Rabbenu Tam (cited in Tofos and Rosh Shabbos, and Tosfos Pesachim 7a) that the beracha is said to demonstrate that we are performing the mitzvah of milah לשמה. The Bach says we say the beracha before the פריעה to demonstrate that we are different from the Arabs, who just do milah but do not do פריעה. If that is the point of the beracha, even the father should say it between milah and פריעה, but the Taz has technical concerns, so he says the father should say it even before the milah.;

Entering The Covenant (ברכת להכניסו 1)

The Shach (CM 382) rules based upon the Rosh that a father can not appoint a shliach to fulfill his commandment to do a bris milah on his son. The Ketzos says the reason is that it is like appointing a shliach to shake lulav or put on tefillin; it is something incumbent on the individual's body, and therefore, one can't nominate a shliach in their stead. However, it is difficult to understand why this mitzvah would be an obligation on the physical body of the father? The Degel Reuvain (volume 3, #37) says that the Rosh and the Shach concur that the physical mitzvah of milah can be performed through a shliach. However, there is an element of bris milah that can not be accomplished through a shliach, and that is that a bris is a bris, a covenant formed between the child and Hashem. The father is the one entrusted to escort the child into the covenant. The DR says, based upon a Midrash, that the bris is a bris of misiras nefesh, and just as one can't appoint a shliach to do an act of misares nefesh, so too the father can't pass on his obligation of participation in misaras nefesh to someone else. The same idea is cited in the name of Rav Simcha Zissel Broide, with a slightly different twist; the act of bringing the child into the covenant is given to the father to pass on the tradition of the previous generations, and that concept can't be copied by a shliach. 

Besides the beracha on the mitzvah of milah, the father also says a beracha להכניסו בבריתו של אברהם אבינו. Why do we have a second beracha on the mitzvah? According to the previous explanation, this additional beracha is said on the bris that is established at the time of the physical mitzvah of the bris milah. The Rambam (Milah 3:1) is of the opinion that if there is no father present at the milah, then the beracha of להכניסו is not said. Why does the Rambam hold that the beracha is not said if the father is not present?  Now it is understood perfectly, for it is the father who can establish the covenant for the child; therefore, the beracha is only applicable for him to say (Likutay Sichos, volume 30). 

The Beis Yosef (YD 265) cites a machlokes if the father himself does the milah, does he say two berachot, or does it make no sense for one person to say two berachot on one mitzvah. According to the Rambam, though, it makes perfect sense to say two berachot, as they are about two different functions.  The Raavad disagrees with the previous Rambam. He would fit with the opinion that the father does not say two berachot, for he holds the beracha is on the mitzvah; therefore, the beracha can be said by someone other than the father, but the father can't himself say two berachot on one mitzvah (Siach Erev on Pesachim). 

It remains difficult, though, to understand why the Raavad holds that there are two birchot hamitzvah for one mitzvah? 

There is a machlokes among the Rishonim regarding when the beracha of להכניסו should be said, before the milah or after the milah. The Rashba (cited in Tosfos Shabbos 137b and Pesachim 7a) says it should be said before the milah like any other bracha on a mitzvah. Rabbenu Tam says it should be recited afterward. One of the explanations given for the pesak of Rebbenu Tam is that the beracha is to demonstrate our thanks for the commandment of milah and that we are doing it to fulfill the mitzvah of Hashem. Simply understood, Rabbenu Tam is saying the beracha is a ברכת השבח (and therefore, may be recited after the mitzvah since a birchas hashevach does not need to precede the action according to some versions in the Rishonim, or according to other versions, this justifies the nusach of להכניסו, usually used to indicate a future action.) Rav Solevetchik, however, explains the Tosfos differently. He asks if it just a birchas hashevach why would we say אשר קדשנו במצותיו? He explains that Tosfos means that the beracha is on the chalos of being מהול. Since it's on the chalos, one should say the beracha after the milah has been done. In light of this, we can say that this is also the opinion of the Raavad. Although להכניסו is a beracha on the mitzvah that does not have to be said by the husband, it is on the chalos kium of the mitzvah and a kium of being מהול requires a second beracha.

Why An Ark

Why the need for an ark? G-d could have saved Noach in any number of miraculous ways. 

There are several approaches to this question. A few of the approaches:

1. Rashi (7:14) says the point is the building of the ark so that people would ask and be told by Noach to repent. 

2. The Ramban says that G-d likes to minimize miracles and make events seem natural. Interestingly, the Ramban's reason for this idea is that humans must do their part, and Hashem completes the rest. This is a mussar idea that man must put in their full effort and ask Hashem to complete that which is beyond control. This is in contrast to the philosophical approach advanced by the Ralbag here in To'elet HaShevi'i, who emphasizes that Hashem only breaks natural law when absolutely necessary, because G-d wishes to uphold the perfect laws of nature which He designed. 

As mentioned on my father's blog 'Rogatchover on building the teivah: is the mitzvah the maaseh or the totza'ah?' the Rogatchover proves that Noach didn't have to build the teva himself from the fact that he got help, and אין שליחות לעכו" ם, it must be the point was just that the teva be built. We see from the Rogatchover that if the point is that the action is done, then one can perform the mitzvah through a gentile, and one does not need the parsha of shlichus. This yesod is also said by Rav Elchonon Betzah, siman 25, as to why one can fulfill the mitzvah of burial through gentiles. We can use the same idea to explain the opinion of the Magen Avraham (446:2) that one can fulfill the mitzvah of תשביתו שאור מבתיכם through a genile.  R' Akiva Eger asks אין שליות לעכו"ם?  According to this idea, the Magen Avraham holds that the mitzvah of תשביתו is to have the chametz removed (see Minchas Chinuch mitzvah 9), and for that one can fulfill the mitzvah even through the actions of a non-Jew.  

3. The ark was a miniature world. The world was created through kindness. That kindness was being obliterated by the חמס of the generation, and therefore they had to be destroyed. In order to keep the world going, Noach had to provide for the world around him to allow the world to continue to function (based upon Rav Dessler).  

4. Bereishis Rabbah 31:9: "Kanim ta'aseh es haTeivah" – like a bird's nest that purifies a metzora, so too the ark was a spiritual purification for Noach. How? Perhaps Noach was a צדיק בדורותיו ולא בדורו של אברהם because he was dragged down by his surrounding society. Instead of maxing out on his potential, he settled for being better than the rest. The teva was to teach Noach that one has to view themselves as their own little bubble and not be influenced by society at large. 

5. The Baal Shem Tov teaches that the word תיבה can also mean word. To escape the torrential מים רבים surrounding us, one must be able to retreat into the words of Torah and tefillah. The Kedushas Levi notes the dimensions of the teva, 300 = ש, 50 = נ, 30 = ל spell לשן tongue. The teva teaches us how to measure our speech properly. The Noam Elimelech adds צהר תעשה לתיבה, if speaking, one should ensure their words shine like the light from the ark.