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:

Aravah And Arev

The ushpiz of Hoshana Rabbah is Dovid. The day of Hashana Rabbah is the day of the aravah. What is the connection between Dovid and the aravah? Many of the Chassidik books explain that Dovid is associated with malchus which is in a complete state of nullification to Hashem as the Zohar says מלכות לית ליה מגרמיה כלום. In the same vein the aravah is bereft of any natural advantages - אין לה טעם וריח and therefore is totally negated. The Sfas Emes (5648) says they both embody the avodah of צפית לישועה and it is specifically the avodah of those who don't think they have any maalot and purely look to Hashem for salvation that receive salvation. The Shem MiShmuel (5671) adds that it through the aravah's recognition of its lack of any self redeeming qualities that it merits a special avodah. 

The Tiferes Shlomo (Mikatz) says כי שורש ענין הערבות לקבל על עצמו חוב זולתו ולסבול עבור חבירו זה הוא בבחי' המלכות כיל"ח. With this idea he explains why it is Yehuda, the father of malchus in Klal Yisrael is the first one to be an ערב, to take responsibility for someone else -when he guaranteed the return of Binyamin. It is all a reflection of this same middah, of a lack of self absorption that allows room for others. 

The ערבות share the same root as the word ערב, a guarantor. It is paradoxically the aravah's total devotion to the other species that allow it to merit its own special treatment.

The Garbage Is Worthy

The Gemarah says חל שם שמים על הסוכה. Why is it the mitzvah of sukkah that merits this מגרגה? Why is the mitzvah to be fulfilled with פסולת גורן ויקב? Why are the remains of the worn out בגדי כהונה used for the torches at the שמחת בית השואבה? The lesson is that even when a person is not at his best, not at a time of peak performance, still, even the leftovers the worn out last energy a person has should and can be used for the service of Hashem. 

Of course, when able, it is best to use one's best capabilities for the service of Hashem. However, at times, this is not possible and using whatever one's capabilities, as lowly as they may seem to be it is also desired by Hashem. This is why the שם שמים is present on the sukkah. When a person uses his own hands to build a sukkah when one uses their own כחות, no matter what state they are in, that merits that it brings the שם שמים on the sukkah. 

Rav Moshe Wolfson says the end of maseches Sukkah is about מרים בת בילגה or the delaying משמר to teach us even those that were not doing the right thing find a tikkun in the sukkah. Even the פסולת people can find meaning in the sukkah.

Different Types Of מצטער

The Rema (639:5) says one is obligated to eat the first night even in the rain. The Rema (640:4) says בלילה ראשונה אפי' מצטער חייב לאכול שם כזית in reference to the law that someone in pain is exempt from sukkah. Presumably this law is the same as the previous one, that the exemption of מצטער does not apply the first night. However, the sources listed as the source of the Rema are different, the law of rain is cited from Ran and Rosh and the law of  מצטער is cited from the Kol Bo. Why does he need a new source? The Sharey Teshuva cites from the Bircay Yosef and the Eliyahu Rabbah that the previous law of a sick person who is exempt may apply even on the first night. Why would it be different?

What we see are three different applications of the law of מצטער. The law of rain the Mishna describes as being like a master rejecting the service of his servant. There is room to argue that even when a person is not in a level of grave distress to the rain, he is exempt due to the siman that Hashme is not interested in his act of sitting in the sukkah (see Mishna Berurah 639:31) even if a person is not בצער if the food gets ruined one can go inside. That also explains why one doesn't have to go back out to the sukkah even if the rain stops (sif 7.) For the act of sitting in the sukkah is not desired. There, one could argue they must still eat in the sukkah on the first night when there is an obligation to eat in the sukkah. However, in a true state of צער on could have said there is an exemption even the first night. That is what the second Rema sees in the Kol Bo that there is an obligation even in that situation.   

The simple understanding from the Gemarah is that the reason מצטער is exempt from sukkah is due to the rule of תשבו כעין תדורו. However, the Ritva on daf 26 cites from the Ramban that the exemption is derived from the word אזרח that only one who is able to sit tranquility in the sukkah is called an אזרח. Based upon this we have two reasons to exempt someone who is מצטער from sukkah. One reason is from תשבו, that the sukkah itself is disqualified while the reason of the Ritva is an exemption on the גברא - that a person who is not settled is exempt from sukkah. 

The Taz (640:8) differentiates between one who is pain due to being in the sukkah who is only patur when his pain is alleviated by leaving the sukkah vs. someone who is in a constant state of pain such as a חולה who is exempt from sukkah even when being out of the sukkah will not help manage the pain at all. What is the difference? In the case of the the constant pain, there is the petur of תשבו, the person can't be in the proper state of mind to do an act of sitting in a sukkah. However, an external cause of distress and pain only exempts the person due to האזרח, since he can't be in a state of tranquility but it is an act of sitting in sukkah and the exemption only allows for one to find a better area to sit. 

In light of this, there may be room to differentiate between the exemption of the מצטער which a personal feeling, and the exemption is due to אזרח, which will not be applied the first night when one is obligated to eat in a sukkah even in a situation of pain. However, a sick person is exempt due to תשבו for their sitting in sukkah is not an act of ישיבת סוכה since people in constant pain can not have an experience of כעין תדורו and one might say since it is not an act of ישיבת סוכה, the exemption would apply even on the first night (Birchas Mordechai.)