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.)