Personal Kabalas HaTorah

The Yalkut says when Hashem spoke every one said Hashem is speaking to me and that is why it says אנכי ה אלקיך in the singular form for every understood Hashem was talking directly to them. The Midrash continues that Hashem spoke according to the recipient's ability , elders according to their abilities and younger people according to heir abilities. This means Torah was given to the collective body of Klal Yisrael but their is also a personal acceptance according to the capabilities of every individual. Everyone hears the message of the Torah according to their own prism. 

When Moshe Rabbenu recounts the episode of Matan Torah in Vaeschanan he says that Klal Yisrael said they could not handle hearing Hashem speak directly and asked Moshe to give over Hashem's message and Moshe did not think that was correct but Hashem agreed. What is the שקלא וטריא? Why was Moshe not happy with the request but Hashem granted it? The Rebbe (L.S. volume 16) says Moshe saw Klal Yisrael as they were in his presence where he elevated everyone around him to be on the level of hearing directly from Hashem but Klal Yisrael said we want to accept the Torah not due to being elevated from man external source but to have a personal acceptance according to one's own individual understanding. The laws of the Torah are equal, but the understanding of the message of the Torah are different for everyone.

End Of Rambam and Tu Beshvat

Those learning Rambam 1 perek a day cycle finishes on Tu Beshvat this year:

The last halacha in the Rambam starts: וּבְאוֹתוֹ הַזְּמַן לֹא יִהְיֶה שָׁם לֹא רָעָב וְלֹא מִלְחָמָה, וְלֹא קִנְאָה וְלֹא תַחְרוּת, שֶׁהַטּוֹבָה תִּהְיֶה מֻשְׁפַּעַת הַרְבֵּה, וְכָל הַמַּעֲדַנִּים מְצוּיִין כֶּעָפָר.

Sichos טו שבט תשמ"ב:

The lesson is to take the idea of the physical additional pleasures and use them to fuel spiritual pleasure. The pleasures will be plentiful but will be like dust - not important - in people's eyes for their focus will be on loftier things. 

Sugar By Rav Chayim Ozer

This is clearly the same story but with two different versions. The first version is in the Artscroll Rav Gustman biography:

The second version is from Nefesh Harav:

Singing Of Women

Why does the Torah emphasize that the woman sang as well? Why is it Devorah that sings the song of thanks in the haftorah? The passuk says ותען להם מרים - the mefarshim ask it should have said ותען להן for she was encouraging the women and what is ןתען, who is she answering to? The Riva cites a Midrash that the angles complained they should be able to sing shira after the men and Miraim answered them we (the women) will sing and only after that you can sing. Why is the singing of the women that allows the malachim to sing? 

The Kli Yakar addresses the word להם and he says the woman reached the level of prophesy of the men so it uses the word for men, להם and he concludes his comment וכן לעתיד נאמר (ירמיהו ל״א:כ״ב) נקיבה תסובב גבר. What is the connection between the times of the future and the shira?  

The Meor VaShemesh says the מחולות that the women did is reflective of the מחול שעתיד הקב"ה לעשות לצדיקים (end of Taanis) for it is now that there are different levels but when everyone fixes their portion, is מעלה  the ניצוצות that they need, then everyone is equal. The women are representative of the כלים of acceptance while men are representative of the כלים of giving. In the current construct the givers are above the recipients, in the sefirah order ז"א is higher than מלכות but in the future the recipients will be elevated. He says that is נקיבה תסובב גבר, the giver and recipient, will be equal. Under the great light of the circle there is no male and female, all are equal. This was the light that Miriam was tapping into with the מחול, the circle above division. Moshe said אז ישיר in the future, he wasn't able to bring down that experience at that time but Miriam was so she said שירו לה in the present. (This may answer a question meforshim ask about קול אשה for at this time the boundaries of אשה ואיש were not present.) 

Hashem tells Avraham to listen to Sarah, כל אשר תאמר שרה שמע בקולה. The Bear Mayim Chayim (on the change on name from Sarai to Sarah) says that the letter yud, the first letter of Hashem's name represents the masculine quality of giving forth was changed to a ה which is comprised of a ד and י where the ד comes first, referring to דל, the poor recipient. Sarah was at the level of the future where the feminine force comes first, where the recipient precedes the giver and hence Avraham was told to listen to her.

Any time there is a spark of geulah, a spark of the ultimate geulah present, then the woman's singing carries more weight. Song is an expression of coming full circle. שירה is like the word שיר as in בעלי שיר יוצאין בשיר, it is the recognition of the full circle. When all things are a circle. When what is down becomes equal and elevated to that which is above. That is why it is woman who are more active in the shira.

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.)