Chesed And Din

וְלֶ֨ךְ־לְךָ֔ אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּ֑ה Rashi says המוריה – ירושלם, וכן קורא אותה בדברי הימים: לבנות בית י״י בהר המוריה  ורבותינו פירשו: על שם שמשם הוראה יוצאה לישראל.ואונקלוס תירגם: על שם קטורת, שיש בו מר וסמים

The Gemarah Taanis (16a) says מַאי הַר הַמּוֹרִיָּה? פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי לֵוִי בַּר חָמָא וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא. חַד אָמַר: הַר שֶׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנּוּ הוֹרָאָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְחַד אָמַר: הַר שֶׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹרָא לְאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם. Rashi says in the first peshat חד אמר הר שיצא הוראה – תורה לישראל כי מציון תצא תורה (ישעיהו ב׳:ג׳) יורו משפטיך ליעקב (דברים ל״ג:י׳) ולשכת הגזית שבה עמדו הנביאים המוכיחים לישראל and the second peshat מורא לעובדי כוכבים – ששומעין גדולות ישראל וירושלים ומתפחדים עליהם שמעתי לישנא אחרינא הר המוריה הר סיני מורא לעובדי כוכבים במתן תורה דכתיב (תהילים ע״ו:ט׳) ארץ יראה ושקטה. How can Rashi possibly say in the second peshat of the Geamrah (in his second peshat) that הר המוריה in Yerushalayim refers to Har Sinai (see Tosfos Rid wonders this.) The Divrey Yatziv CM 92:13 cites the Yismach Moshe in our parsha quotes some say הר המוריה moved to Sinai and became Har Sinai. 

The Torah Temimah asks on the Rashi in the first peshat of the Gemarah why does he say it was the neviem who gave rebuke in the לשכת הגזית and not the Sanhedrin who actually gave piskey dinim which is the classical way of understanding הוראה? Why does Rashi here add the peshat of the ketores? And why the ketores as opposed to the korbanot?

Later on in the parsha Avraham calls the spot of the akedah ה יראה. The Midrash says Avraham called it יראה and Melchizedek called it שלם Hashem said I will call it ירושלים. What is this combination? Rav Shlomo Fisher explains that the two names are the names of שלם which is the middah of שלום, and יִרְאָה, the middah of fear. In other words, the city of Yerushalayim is the fusion of the middot of chesed and din. 

Why did Avraham feel the need to add a name if the place was already called שלם? To infuse the middah of yirah with the middah of chesed. Avraham could only due this after the akedah when he demonstrated an expression of יראה as opposed to his normal chesed mode. Once Avraham was able to accomplish this fusion, he was able to add this dimension to the name of Yerushalyim . 

Many of the Chassidc books (see Sfas Emes 5658, Meor Einayim Lech Lecha) say the essence of the akedah was to bind together the middot of chesed and gevurah. This is fusion gave Yerushayim its name. 

In the same vein, the name of מוריה also reflects this duality. Therefore, Rashi in Taanis explains it is the prophets who give rebuke, the middah of din who are included in Moria. This goes along with the ketores which has the middah of shalom to negate the middat hadin (based upon article.) This may be why Hashem used the name Moria here in his directions to Avraham in order to allude to the point of the mission to bind the two middot together. 

I saw a halachik explanation of why is Moria named for the ketores specifically. The Briskor Rav in Kli Midash distinguishes between korbanot which are an obligation on the tzibbur offered by the kohanim to achieve kaparah  vs. ketores which is just a חיוב הקטרה. It is just an obligation to enhance the Mikdash with ketores. Therefore, it is only the ketores which is brough specifically lekovod Mikdash and therefore the name מוריה reflects the offering done in it's honor. 

Chatzi Shiur To A Ben Noach

The Gemarah Bechorot (7a) derives from pessukim how we know that milk is permitted to be drunk. Why would it have been prohibited? The Shach (Yoreh Deah 81:12) understands that we would have thought it is considered אבר מן החי. The Plasi (81:7) understands that milk itself is not an אבר but would have been prohibited due to the law of something which comes out of a prohibited item is also prohibited and since the milk came from אבר מן החי we would have assumed it is prohibited. The Plasi asks according to the Shach, why does the Gemarah not derive that milk is permitted from the fact that Avraham fed it to the angels who he thought were people, and if there is a prohibition on the milk how would he have fed something that has a prohibition of אבר מן החי to them and violated לפני עור (this question is also asked by the Maharit Algazi)? Rav Yosef Engel in Ben Poras (3:5) discusses if there is a prohibition of חצי שיעור to a בן נח. Assuming there is not, one of his answers to the question is that Avraham gave them less than the shiur of milk and therefore they did not violate אבר מן החי. 

What I don't understand is how R' Yosef Engel set up the question of should the prohibition of ח"ש apply to a בן נח. He says the question of why ח"ש may not apply to a בן נח is since the reason for the prohibition is חזי לאיצטרופי and that does not apply to a בן נח since the law of כדי אכילת פרס to join together acts of eating is a הללמ"מ said only to a Yisrael and does not apply to a בן נח, therefore, if the they don't eat the whole shiur in one shot, they can not become obligated and hence there is no reason for ח"ש to be assur. If the premise of the question assumes that shiurim are said only to Yisrael, then the same reasoning should be extended to assume that concept of a shiur to violate אבר מן החי only applies to a Yisrael and the ב"נ violates with the smallest amount? Indeed the Rambam rules (Melachim 9:10) that a ב"נ is obligated on any amount, אבר הן החי בכל שהוא, שלא ניתנו השיעורים אלא לישראל in which case the whole question doesn't get off the ground for there is no שיעור? 

The question has to assume that the halacha of shiur applies to a בן נח as well. One can say the question may hinge on the chakirah if ח"ש is an extinction of the specific issur, in this case אבר מן החי and should apply to a ב"נ but if it is a generic issur, that issur is not said to a ב"נ.

The Journey Itself

Avraham is told לך לך ... אל הארץ אשר אראך. Why does Hashem not immediately reveal Avraham's destination? One interpretation the Midrash says is that Hashem withheld the destination so that Avraham would receive reward for every step of the journey. Why should knowing or not knowing the destination affect the reward he receives for each step? Rav Baruch Povarsky explains that had Avraham been told where he was going, the journey itself would have been merely a hechsher mitzvah, a means of reaching the ultimate goal. The focus would have been on the endpoint, with the travel serving only as preparation. Since no destination was specified, however, every step Avraham took constituted a direct fulfillment of Hashem's command and therefore deserved its own reward.

In other words, Avraham's travels were not simply a journey toward a destination; the journey itself was the mission. Hashem did not tell Avraham to leave solely so that he could arrive in Eretz Yisrael. Rather, the very act of traveling, of moving forward into the unknown with faith and obedience, carried its own significance.

Why was this so important? Because the point is not to reach a destination but to constantly travel . Hashem was teaching Avraham that one cannot become fixated on a single picture of success and assume that once it is achieved, the work is done. There is always more growth to pursue, more to accomplish, and greater heights of character to attain. Life does not conclude with a definitive "The End." A person's spiritual journey is one of constant movement and continual development.

The Kedushat Levi adds another dimension. Since the destination was left undefined, Avraham was required to interpret Hashem's will through the circumstances he encountered along the way. This helps explain why he later descended to Egypt. Sometimes new paths emerge and unexpected detours become necessary. What may appear to be a deviation from the original plan can in fact be part of the journey itself.

New Creation

The Gemara in Zevachim (116a) states that there are two covenants: one that Hashem will never again bring a mabul of destruction upon the world, and another that He will not destroy the world by any other means. Yet the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuvah 3:2) rules that if the world, becomes guilty and deserving of punishment, Hashem will wipe it out. At first glance, this appears contradictory.

However, there may be no contradiction at all. There is a fundamental difference between a mabul and a punishment. The world may reach a state where its inhabitants deserve destruction as a consequence of their sins, and therefore be punished. The Gemara in Zevachim is teaching that Hashem will not destroy the world in the manner of a mabul. The Flood was not merely a punishment; it was a reset of creation itself. This explains why its destruction extended beyond humanity and affected the entire world. The mabul was more than retribution. It was a reboot of creation.

This understanding sheds light on the covenant made with Noach. The bris guaranteed that this new form of creation would never again be nullified. As the Ramban notes, the term bris in this context is connected to the concept of beri'ah (creation). Hashem's covenant ensured the permanence of the world as a created order, even if its inhabitants might at times deserve punishment.

This also explains the Gemara in Zevachim in its discussion of Matan Torah. The nations sensed that a new covenant was being established. Their concern was not that Hashem intended to destroy the world, but rather that He was creating a new framework, a new stage of creation, that would render them obsolete. Bilam reassured them that this could not be the case, because an essential component of the covenant with Noach was that there would never again be a destruction of the world on the scale and in the category of a mabul, a destruction that resets and recreates the world itself. Instead the bris of Torah was being input into the world. 

The Teivah As An Ir Miklat

The possuk says קץ כל בשר בא לפני כי מלאה הארץ חמס מפניהם והנני משחיתם את הארץ, then Noach is told to make a teivah and then it says ואני הנני מביא את המבול מים על הארץ לשחת כל בשר. Why is the commandment to make the teivah said before the fact the world will be destroyed, it should first say the world will be destroyed and therefore make a teivah?

The mabul was not just a punishment but was a reboot on the creation of the world. If so, nothing in the world can continue to exist. Therefore, the only way for Noach to be able to survive was that he was not considered living in the world, he was living is an oasis of the teivah which was considered its own creation. The Gemarah Zevachim (116a) uses the terminology of תיבה קולטתן -why the word קולטתן? Because the teivah existed like an ir miklat, a place different from the entire world around it, a separate existence.

The pessukim now read that Hashem told Noach I will destroy the world, there is no more existence left. So how will you survive? Make a teivah, a new existence. Whatever method of destruction is used, you need a new place of existence, a teivah. What is the method of destruction? A mabul of water (based upon what I saw in the name of R' Meir Solevetchik.)

For The Love Of Klal Yisrael

A chasid (מענה קודש כד-כו pg. 197) points out that Rashi at he beginning of every sefer of Chumash tells us that it is written to tell us of the great love Hashem has for Klal Yisrael. In other words, every book of the Chumash ratiates with the חביבות for Klal Yisrael. This is the message of the end of the Torah according to Rashi being a reference ending with the breaking of the Luchos. How is that a fitting ending for the entirety of the Chumash? Because it demonstrates that the continuity of Klal Yisrael ensured by the breaking of the luchos which spurred the path to forgiveness is  the point of the entirety of the Torah. The Torah starts with a ב and ends with a ל spelling לב that the love for Klal Yisrael is the signature of the Torah.

The Midpoint And The Circle

The Chasam Sofer (derashot second day Sukkkot) cites from the Rema M'pano that Atzeret is called חג related to the word חוגה, the midpoint that everything turns on for the kedusha of all the holidays stems from Atzeret. Why? For the holiday has no additional mitzvot, it is just about a התוועדות  with Hashem and Klal Yisrael. That is the root of all the מועדים  - to be a ועד - a time of meeting with Hashem. 

It is noted that the word for a circle, מחול, and the word for forgiving, מחילה are the same root.  On Yom Kippur we obtain forgiveness for our sins.  Rav Levi Yitzchak teaches that Sukkot is the time of teshuva from love when sins turn into merits.  We are then able to take the sins and turn them into a dance of a מחול on Simchas Torah.   

This also what the Gemarah says at the end of Taanis that the tzaddikim will be sitting in a מחול, the complete atonement and joy together. 

 From the sefer שישו ושמחו סימן מט: