Kiddush Levana

The mitzvah of kiddush levana has its roots in in the mitzvah of the kiddush hachodesh as explained by Rav Asher Weiss in 'מצוות קידוש לבנה.'

The Magen Avraham (426) says a blind person does kiddsuh levana. Rabbi Akiva Eger says the Maharikash holds only one who actually sees the moon is obligated. This machlokes may hinge on the nature of the beracha, if it is a birchas hanehenin then the Maharikash is right that only one who actually sees the moon and benefits from it can say the beracha. On the other hand, if it is a birchas hashevach, then even a blind person is eligible to say the beracha. 

The Mechabar and Rema (426:4) hold that one can say kiddush levana only after a few days of the month have passed in order to ensure one can at least benefit from the new moon. The Rambam however, holds one can say the beracha immediately (Berachot 10:17.) The Aruch Hashulchan notes this is the opinion of Rashi in Sanhedrin as well. They would seem to hold the beracha is a birchas hashevach. This also fits with the placement of the Rambam where he puts this beracha together with other berachot on natural phenomena.   

The Magen Avraham (426:1) says that woman do not say the beracha because it is a time bound mitzvah. Rav Shlomo Kluger argues it is not a מעשהז"ג for the mitzvah is not limited by time, one is just limited by the facts of life that the new moon only appears sometimes. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Choshen Mishpat volume 2 #47:2) says that the beracha of kiddush levana is not a birchas hashevach or nehinin but is a new takkanah to say a beracha on the new moon as one is able to feel the majesty of Hashem and it is כאילו מקבל פני שכינה. He explains the M.A. means this is a new form of beracha and since it only occurs at specific times, the takkanah is not placed on woman just as they are exempt from time bound mitzvot. 

What Is Maror

ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה צלי אש ומצות על מררים יאכלהו

Rashi explains מרורים as: “כל עשב מר נקרא מרור”—any bitter plant is called maror. This implies that maror (or marorim) in the pasuk is a general term encompassing any bitter herb, rather than referring to a specific species.However, the Mishnah in Pesachim (39a) enumerates specific vegetables that can be used for maror: ואלו ירקות שאדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח: בחזרת, בתמכא, ובחרחבינא, ובעולשין, ובמרור. Additionally, the Gemara records different lists according to other opinions. This suggests that maror is not simply any bitter vegetable, but refers to certain recognized varieties. (Presumably the identification of these species was transmitted by mesorah.) A way to reconcile Rashi with the Mishnah is found in the Ritva, who cites the Re’ah who maintains that the term maror in the Mishnah is itself generic and refers to all bitter plants, and the Mishnah’s list is illustrative rather than exclusive. Alternatively, the view of אחרים in the Gemara כל ירק מר יש לו שרף ופניו מכסיפין may align with Rashi. According to אחרים any bitter herb with these characteristics is valid for the mitzvah.

The Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 473:5) rules that one should use the species listed in the Mishnah. The Rema, however, adds that if these species are unavailable, one may use any bitter vegetable. The Gra explains that this allowance is based on the opinion of אחרים. The Magen Avraham writes that in such a case, one should not recite a berachah, because several opinions hold that one does not fulfill the mitzvah with arbitrary bitter herbs. He argues that even Rashi may only mean that all bitter plants are called maror, but not that they are necessarily valid for the mitzvah. One of his proofs comes from Sukkah (13a), which states that if maror has a שֵׁם לְוַוי (a descriptive modifier), one cannot fulfill the mitzvah with it. The Magen Avraham says that this implies that the mitzvah requires a specific form of maror, otherwise, why should a שם לווי make it invalid if any bitter herb were acceptable?  According to the opposing view, one would need to assert that a shem levai signals a form of bitterness not consonant with the Torah’s intended taste profile (see R’ Akiva Eger to Sukkah; Rav Kook, Mishpat Kohen §14). [See also Mishnas Yaavetz siman 17 makes this point a machlokes in the Gemarah.]

It is also notable that the Shulchan Aruch presents the Mishnah’s list in an order of preference, with the earlier items being optimal. The Rambam, by contrast, makes no mention of such a hierarchy. This suggests that the Rambam views all species listed in the Mishnah as equally defined forms of maror, with no basis for preference among them. The Shulchan Aruch, however, appears to hold that while only the Mishnah’s species qualify as maror, those whose taste more strongly reflects bitterness are more ideal for fulfilling the mitzvah.

Makos Musings

There is a machlokes between the Rishonim if the makah of blood actually turned the water to blood or the water merely looked like blood. The Riva cites the Bechor Shor assumed it was just a color change and assumes that's not such a makah, so he explains the change to blood was just to kill the fish and the stench was the makah. The Sforno on the other hand, says that is the difference between them makah and the act of the magicians. They could only make water appear like blood but the makah actually turned it to blood. The Netziv says it was two stages, first just looked like blood, the turned into blood. On the torah forum someone raises all sorts of questions if the Nile during dam could be used as a mikvah. 

Rashi comments on the arov that the makos were based upon a pattern of how an army operates in war. Why does he comment this is the context of arov and he doesn't explain the function of the arov? The Rebbe explains (Likutay Sichos volume 11) that Rashi is bothered why the makah is called for the name of the multitude of animals and not just called wild animals? Rashi explains part of the makah was the loud noises and pure confusion associated with a swarm of  animals. This he illustrates by explaining that part of the  processes of war is to scare the enemy with loud noises. It is specifically in this makah that the Torah says there will be division between Egyptians and Klal Yisrael since this makah involved the breakdown of the natural seder of the world in which animals moved to attack people. Therefore, there was a need to assure that for Klal Yisrael the order was still in place. For the geulah to happen there had to remain seder for Klal Yisrael. There has to be boundaries in place to protect between kedusha and the opposite (Rav Shmuel Eliyahu.) 

Killing The Egypitan

What right did Moshe have to kill the Egyptian?  There is a machlokes in the Midrash how did Moshe kill the Egypitan man, either by uttering the shem hameforash or his fist or a rake used for cement. What difference does it make how Moshe killed the Egyptian? 

The the Gemarah Sanhedrin (58b) derives from this possuk that a gentile that hits a yisrael is obligated death. In other words, Moshe had the right to kill the gentile since he hit the Jew. However, the Rambam (Melachim 10:6) says that although he is deserving of the death penalty, the death penalty is not actually carried out. Based upon this idea, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik (in Igros HaGrid) and his nephew, Rav Dovid Soloveitchik, suggest that is why there is an opinion that Moshe used the shem hameforash for Moshe did have the right to actively kill the Egyptian man as the death penalty is not meted out but he was able to kill him through a manner that is not considered an act of killing. (They assume that killing through the shem hameforash is not considered a technical act of killing. However, The Halachos Ketanos volume 2 #98 [cited in Steipler Bava Kammah siman 45] says that killing through a shem or sorcery is an act of killing. [Rav Itzeleh Blazer in Nesivos Ohr cites Rav Yisrael Salanter says damaging someone through heavenly aided words is considered a mazik.]) The Briskor Rav says that the Rambam means there is an obligation of death by Heavenly punishment and Moshe used the shem hameforash to fulfill that law. However, it is not clear the Rambam means that there is Heavenly punishment and it is hard to hear that killing someone by evoking the shem mefurash is considered fulfilling the Heavenly death penalty.

However, the other opinions in the Midrash hold there are other reasons that the Egyptian was eligible for the death penalty and therefore Moshe had the right to kill him directly. One possibility raised in the Midrash is that he was a rodaf as his act of hitting the Jew may have led to a deathblow. Another option is that Moshe saw through reach hakodesh that this Egyptian has illicit relations with a married woman as the Midrash says elsewhere. But how can Moshe administer a death penalty based upon ruach hakodesh? Since a gentile does not require a formal Beis Din to rule on the death penalty for a gentile it suffices with a mere ascertaining of the facts which may be obtained through ruach hakodesh as well (Rav Yosef Engel.) Alternatively, Rav Dovid Somevetchik suggests since it was pre Matan Torah, when the dominion of pesak was still in hands of heaven, one may administer death based upon a pesak from heaven. This may explain the Midrash stating that Moshe consulted the angels to determine whether the Egyptian was deserving of death for Moshe was inquiring about a pesak from heaven. [See also Zohar Yisro 78b, וצ"ע.]  Rashi says Moshe knew through ruach hakodesh the episode of the illicit relations but also says that Moshe did not kill the Egyptian outright but through the shem hameforash. Why not kill the Egyptian directly if Moshe was aware of his guilt? Rashi holds that ruach hakodesh does not grant an obligation to adjudicate justice, it merely determines the person is deservant of the death penalty but not a license to kill directly and therefore he used the shem hameforash.

Rashi says that Moshe saw through ruach hakodesh that no righteous descendants would emerge from this Egyptian, and only then did he kill him. The Mizrachi asks, if the Egyptian was already liable to death, why should the merit of potential descendants matter at all? According to the approach that Moshe killed via the shem hameforash, the killing was extrajudicial rather than a formal execution. In such a case, it is reasonable to consider additional factors before acting (Brisker Rav). The Mizrachi, as explained by the Maharal, advances this further, even if Moshe acted because of the Egyptian man’s illicit relations, since this information was obtained only through ruach hakodesh, when acting on Divine revelation rather than judicial process, supplementary considerations such as future descendants may be weighed. The approach of the Mizrachi indicates that a Divine revelation does not create an absolute obligation to execute but rather grants Moshe a  license to act based upon his knowledge.  According to the view that the Egyptian was a rodef, however, the Mizrachi’s question remains difficult.

There is another approach advanced by some Midrashim cited in Torah Shelamah that indicate that there was some element of wrongdoing by Moshe killing the Egyptian. The Torah Shelamah cites the Ariza"l who says that that's why Moshe had to run away since he was obligated golus like one who kills by accident. This seems to be reflected in the Ramban who says that Moshe's may be the intent of the Ramban that indicates it was a spontaneous act of Moshe seeing another Jew in pain he jumped to kill the attacker. However, it is not the mainline approach to assume Moshe did something wrong by killing the Egyptian. 

The halacha aside, what is the message of the different forms of how Moshe possibly killed the Egyptian and what is the debate in the Midrash if he used his fist or a cement rake? Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson  explains the message of the Midrash is that there are three approaches to dealing with mortal threats to outsiders. One approach is to fight back, that is killing with the fist. Another method is to kill by using the cement rake, a building tool, which represents the approach of building connections with the outside world, which will give importance to the Jew and thereby stave off his enemies. The third method is shem hameforash, by a deep connection to Hashem, the enemy will fall by the wayside. At different times, different methods are needed and sometimes all three methods must be employed. 

Yosef's Marriage

 ויאמר יוסף אל אביו בני הם אשר נתן לי אלקים בזה Rashi says הראה לו שטר אירוסין ושטר כתובה. The mefarshim say Yosef was telling Yaakov not to suspect that they weren't fit for beracha since they were not born to him from a proper marriage. But if this is the case, why didn’t Yaakov suspect this during the 17 years he had already been in Egypt? And why did Yosef need to present both a shtar kiddushin and erusin, the shtar kiddushin should suffice? The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 30) explains that we don't find in the simple peshat of the pessukim that the Avos did kiddushin. Why not? For the cheftzah of kiddushin - of a marriage as a form of kinyan - is only a chiddush of the Torah. Pre-Mattan Torah the only form of marriage was through living together as a married couple. The Torah is mechadesh the concept of a binding kinyan of marriage through a kinyan. However, since Yosef was in Egypt, a place of immorality, he did the kinyan of kiddushin to demonstrate that his marriage was a binding kinyan that was not going to be broken. Hence, he had a shtar for the kiddushin as a lasting proof of his binding marriage and a shtar כתובה since that is part of the binding marriage post Matan Torah. Yosef was telenig Yaakov don't think that the fact they were born in such a terrible place should make them unfit for beracha for I erected extra safeguards that they should not be affected. 

When Yosef is sent by Yaakov to look for his brothers in Vayeshev, he asks someone where they are and the person answers נסעו מזה  which Rashi says means they have separated themselves from being your brother. The Sifsay Chachamim says that the word זה has gematria 12 alluding to the 12 brothers and the man was telling Yosef נסעו מזה, they have removed themselves from זה, being 12, they no longer want to be 12, they want to remove you. In light of this we can say the same idea Yosef was conveying to Yaakov. בזה, my children are proper children to descend from the 12 shevatim, they are fitting of receiving beracha like the shevatim. 

Frumkeit

 

Growing Through Breaking

Yosef reveals himself to the brothers, ויאמר אני יוסף אחיכם אשר מכרתם אתי מצרימה. Why does Yosef add אשר מכרתם אתי מצרימה? There are different approaches to this question. Some say it was a siman to prove he was Yosef, some say he was was saying he loved his brothers even though they hold him (see Or HaChayim, Kli Yakar.) The Safas Emes (5643) says כמ"ש חז"ל אשר שברת יישר כחך. כן ניחם יוסף אותם כי זכה לכל זה על ידי המכירה. He explains his point more in 5636 where he adds the possuk says כי נבהלו מפניו, literally מפניו from the face of Yosef since they say and sensed the kedusha that was present on the face of Yosef.  They could not fathom how they were so far off the mark. How did they not see this beforehand? Yosef adds the line אשר מכרתם אתי מצרימה as a way of consoling them. He explained I am Yosef, I was able to this obtain this kedusha only because you sold me. It was the low parts of my life, the sale, that led me to become greater in my life. It was the struggle through the difficulty that helped him soar to greater heights. The Sfas Emes cites as a template to this concept the breaking of the luchos, אשר כחך ששברת, the breaking of the luchos, the destruction gets a ישר כח. It was necessary to allow Klal Yisrael to go further beyond the chat haegel. The seed needs to be broken down in the ground before it can sproup into a tree bearing fruit. It is the breaking down that leads to the greatest growth.  

Yeshayeh (12:1) וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא אוֹדְךָ֣ ה כִּ֥י אָנַ֖פְתָּ בִּ֑י יָשֹׁ֥ב אַפְּךָ֖ וּֽתְנַחֲמֵֽנִי. It the future we will say thank to Hashem for the times of hardship of the golus for that is what paved the way for the geulah. Living through it one can can't see how the hardships are good. But looking back, when the story is complete, one can see how it led to the process of the geulah.