Benifit From Milk And Meat

The Chinuch says that there is no punishment of lashes for receiving benefit from basar b’chalav because it can be done without an action.  However, the Rambam according to maggid mishne (שכירות יג:ב  ) holds the opposite; if it can be violated through an action, even if it’s done without an action there is lashes.  So he should hold there is lashes however, he says in מאכ"א ח:טז that there is no punishment of lashes.  Why not?  The Mishne L’melech explains based upon the principle of the Rambam shoresh #2 that there is no punishment for that which is learnt out from a scriptural reference.

The Rambam in his explanation of כריתות ג:ד  says what he calls a נקודה הפלאה that the איסור הנאה isn’t considered a איסור מוסיף  because the issur hanah isn’t separate from the איסור אכילה.  The same approach is cited by Ramban Chullin 113b in the name of יש מפרשים.  It sounds like from this Rambam that the prohibition on benefit is an outgrowth of the prohibition of eating.  However, in Sefer Hamitzvot the Rambam says the prohibition of eating is part of the issur hanah?  Rav Elchanan (Kovetz Ha’oros #30) says that what the Rambam says in Sefer Hamitzvot is right.  His intent in the perush hamishna is just to say that the two issurim go hand in hand, you can’t separate איסור אכילה fromאיסור הנאה.  In light of this Rambam, the aforementioned Rambam is very difficult to understand.  How can there be lashes for eating but not for hanah, if the issur on eating is merely a form of the issur hanah in which there is no punishment of lashes? 

Your Beast Reflects You

There is a chakirah in Babba Kamma if one pays for the 4 mazikin because they are one’s property or because there was something lax in the guarding of the owner.  The Mei Hashiloach and others explain it’s not a lack of the owner’s physical watching of his mazik, rather it’s his spiritual decline which allows for his object to damage that makes him liable.  If one was keeping the Torah and mitzvot properly it would affect his objects as well, and it wouldn’t be possible for them to damage.

Help Yourself

I forgot to mention earlier, but the posts this week are lieluy nishmas my grandfather, Anshel Hersh ben Eliezer, who's yartzheit is this Shabbos.

One of the basic teachings of the philosophy of the Baal Shem Tov is derived from a possuk in this week's parsha.  The Baal Shem Tov maintains that there is Godliness in everything, even in that which seems to be devoid of Godliness.  It may be intertwined in his view of tzimum shlo k'psutho, ואכ"מ.

From here:

Before Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, known as the “Alter Rebbe,” became the leader of Chabad, he once traveled to raise money for an important charitable cause. He came to the home of a wealthy man who, sensing that he was not one of the ordinary collectors, offered to have him stay and teach his children in return for the entire sum he hoped to raise.

After a short stay, he informed his host that he was leaving because he could not tolerate the conduct of the people of the city. His host asked him what he meant, and Rabbi Shneur Zalman replied, “You torture the poor.” The host thought that he was referring to a recent meeting to determine how to raise the money for a tax. It was decided that first the poor should give as much as they were able, and whatever was missing would be made up by the rich. He realized that Rabbi Shneur Zalman was right: the poor should not be bothered at all. Let the rich give as much as they can, and the poor won’t have to give anything. Immediately he arranged a second meeting, and it was decided that the rich should first give what they could afford.

A few days later, Rabbi Shneur Zalman again gave notice that he was leaving, exclaiming again, “You torture the poor.” Amazed, the host told his guest of the second meeting and that the poor would not be bothered at all. Rabbi Shneur Zalman told him that he was not aware of the meetings and had been referring to a different matter:

In the human body there are ‘rich’ organs and a ‘poor’ organ. The ‘rich’ organs are the mind and the heart, and the ‘poor’ organ is the stomach. “In this city,” he explained, “instead of putting emphasis on the rich organs and engaging them in the study of Torah and concentrating on prayer to Hashem, the approach is to constantly fast. Thus, the ‘poor’ organ, the stomach, is deprived and made to suffer for the person’s iniquities. I cannot tolerate this approach!”

This new philosophy was very intriguing to the host, and he asked Reb Shneur Zalman its source. He told him of the Ba’al Shem Tov and his teachings, which accentuate working with the mind and heart and not punishing the body.

“The Ba’al Shem Tov,” he continued, “bases his theory on a pasuk in Parshat Mishpatim and interprets it as follows: ‘Ki tireh’ — when you will come to the realization that — ‘chamor’— the physical matter of the body (related to the word chomer), is — ‘sonacha’— your enemy — because he is engaged in attaining physical pleasures, and thus, hates the neshamah which is striving for G‑dliness and a high spiritual level — [and the body is] ‘roveitz tachat masa’o’ — lying under his burden not wanting to get up and serve Hashem — ‘vechadalta mei’azov lo’ — you may think that you will begin to torture him and deny him the food he needs. Be advised that this is a wrong approach. Instead, ‘azov ta’azov imo’ — help him! Give him his bodily needs and attune your mind and soul to worship Hashem. Eventually, your body will become purified and cooperate in your worship.”

The Giving And The Receiving

There is a debate among the commentators as to how to understand the order of the parsha.  It would seem that the beginning of our parsha, Mishpatim follows after kabbalas hatorah.  However, at the end of the parsha in Ch. 24 it seems to be going back to the scene of mattan torah?  Rashi says that the end of our parsha actually preceds the events of mattan torah and took place on the 4^th of siyvan.  The Even Ezra and Ramban disagree and learn everything is consistent, the events at the end of the parsha follow after the mishpatim and it was a reaffirming of their acceptance.  Rashi is forced to take his approach because he assumes it makes more sense for the account of the korbanot necessary for the gerus process took place before mattan torah.  However, why did the Torah place these events out of order according to Rashi?  And what is the nature of this this additional acceptance according to the Ramban? 

Parshas Yisro describes Hashem giving the Torah to Klal Yisroel.  It was an awesome, scary event where God reveals himself to an entire nation.  The Torah continues by telling us (some of) the other commandments given at that time.  The end of Mishpatim is discussing a different aspect of the kabbalas hatorah.  It is discussing the nation’s willing acceptance of the Torah.  It is referring to the nation’s acceptance of a bris with Hashem (see Brisker Rav.)  That is why according to Rashi the parshios are out of order and that is the additional acceptance in the opinion of the Ramban (based upon Likutay sichos volume 26.)

Eating Milk And Meat

The Rambam in two places (מאכלות האסורות ט:ב וטומאת מת א:ב) explains we know there is a prohibition to eat basar b’chalav as aקל וחומר  from the prohibition of cooking.  There are two basic problems here.  One is a problem מסברה, what does the prohibition of cooking have to do with eating, maybe the Torah just doesn’t want you to cook meat and milk together? Number two, the Rambam seems to contradict what he himself writes in ספר המצות ל"ת קפד that the prohibition of eating is learnt from the repition of the issur of cooking three times, so we assume it refers to an issur of cooking, eating and any benefit?  Is the issur of eating learnt from the extra verse or from the ק"ו?

The כ"מ  in טומאת מת explains that the Rambam holds that the reason why cooking is assur is because it is part of the process of eating; one must cook in order to eat.  Based upon this both Rav Moshe Solevetchik (Penini Harav pg. 195) and the Dovev Measharim (siman 31) want to say that if one is cooking in a manner where it is not to create an edible food that there is no issur of בישול בו"ח.  The Dovev Measharim challenges this assumption from a Gemorah Chullin (113b) if one cooks milk in fat there is a punishment of lashes for cooking, but not for eating because of the principle of אין איסור חל על איסור.  We see here that the issur of cooking exists even without an issur of eating?  However, we can defend the Rambam that even with the principle of אאחע"א, there still is some form of minute issur (whatever language you want to express this idea.)  In practice however, the Dovev Measharim and Minchas Asher (#43) don’t allow cooking even if it won’t lead to eating because לא דרשינן טעמא דקרא.

The Rambam in theמשנה תורה  is discussing a different issue than in ספר המצות.  In ספר המצות the Rambam is counting the mitzvot, he is explaining why all the prohibitions of basar b’chalav are counted as one prohibition, so he explains all of the prohibitions are learnt out from one verse.  However, this leads to a problem for the Rambam himself rules his second shoresh that one doesn’t get lashes for prohibitions learnt from principles of derush.  Asks the Ramban, if so, how can there be lashes for eating basar b’chalav?  Therefore, the Rambam in משנה תורה explains that the issur of eating is a ק"ו  from cooking.  The intent of the Rambam is that the issur of eating is part of the issur of cooking (the issur of cooking is aגילוי מילתא שלוקין על אכילה ולכן ל"ק מאין עונשין מן הדין ואכ"מ להאריך .) 

The Rambam in Morah says the reason for the issur of cooking milk and meat is because that was done for avodah zarah.  It that is the reason I don’t understand the ק"ו  of the Rambam from cooking to eating; maybe only cooking was done for the avodah zarah?

Own The Pit, Not The Fire

The Gemarah says in Pesachim (6b) and other places that there are two things not under a person’s ownership but the possuk considers it in the owner’s possession.  They are chametz on pesach and the mazik of bor in a public domain.  The Tosfos Chachmei Englea asks why is the mazik of aish not included on the list?  He answers that in regard to chametz the possuk says the obligation is שלך, of your ownership and in regard toבור  it says בעל הבור, it also requires ownership.  However, for אש the obligation is on המעביר, the lighter of the fire, there is no requirement of ownership.  We see that the obligation for בור  is because of the ownership as opposed to the obligation of אש  is for making the מזיק

Don't Give, Take

The Gemorah says that even if goyim do acts of charity it is considered for them a sin, for they do it for their own sake (Babba Basra 10a.)  Why is it considered a sin just because they didn’t have noble intentions, they still supported the needy?  Rashi (22:24) says that when one grants a loan s/he must view themselves as if they are a poor person.  Why must there be an outlook of completely negating any credit for granting someone else a loan?    

Rav Chaim Schmulevetz explains that any feeling of superiority that the lender may feel because of his means demonstrates a lack of doing a complete act of kindness.  Any form of taking detracts from the completeness of the action.  He goes on to explain that even beyond the category of acts of kindness, in the broader picture of avodas Hashem, every action should be done completely for altruistic motives.   

However, we can explain why there is an additional emphasis on this idea when it comes to acts of kindness.  The point of granting the loan is not just to help the poor; it is to perfect the giver.  The person should be cultivated with feeling, compassion and consideration for his needy friend.  The Ramchal in Derech Hashem describes how the job of a person is to try to strive to act like Hashem.  Just as Hashem acts with so much mercy and kindness toward us, so too we should act toward our peers.  Rav Bakshi Doron (Teshuvos Binyan Av #76) adds that giving a loan or charity without looking for gain cultivates emunah.  It is an individual that have complete trust in Hashem that isn’t concerned about what will happen with his/her money.  
Giving isn't giving; its receiving emunah and middos.

The Best Segulah

 וְעַתָּ֗ה אִם־שָׁמ֤וֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ֙ בְּקֹלִ֔י וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֑י וִֽהְיִ֨יתֶם לִ֤י סְגֻלָּה֙ מִכָּל־הָ֣עַמִּ֔ים כִּי־לִ֖י כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ  Many interpretations and lessons for the best segulah in the book.

Ahavas Hashem to Klal Yisroel (Pri Tzaddik #1 Yisro)
 וכמו שאומרים בשם היהודי הק׳ זצלל״ה והייתם לי סגולה וגו׳ שאהבת השי״ת. לישראל בלא טעם כמו סגולה שאינו עפ״י הרפואה והשכל .

Ahavas Klal Yisroel to each other (Degel Machane Efraim) see here.

Of course, learning Torah:
עוד ירמוז סתר עליון לפי מה שקדם לנו כי ענפי הקדושה נתפזרו בעולם ואין מציאות להם להתברר זולת באמצעות ישראל וביותר באמצעות עסק התורה שהיא כאבן השואבת ניצוציה במקום שהם, ואותם נצוצי הקדושה גם להם יקרא סגולה, והוא אומרו והייתם קרינן ביה והויתם פירוש בה״א מלאפו״ם כי הם יהיו הוית סגולה מכל העמים אשר נפוצו שם באמצעות התורה כמאמרם ז״ל וכמו שכתבנו כמה פעמים הדברים במעשה מצרים. ואומרו כי לי כל הארץ כאן רמז שיש לו סגולה מפוזרת בכל הארץ, וזה טעם פיזור ישראל בד׳ רוחות העולם לחזר אחר הסגולה שהיא אבידתם. והנה זולת עונם של ישראל היו יכולים השגת הדבר בלא פיזור בעולם אלא בכח עוצם תורתם היו מולכים בכל העולם ושואבים כל בחינות הקדושות מכל מקום שהם, ובאמצעות החטא תש כוחם וצריכין לרדת שמה לברר הטוב ההוא.(Or Hachaim courtesy of mg.alhatorah.org)

Ramban(ibid):
או יהיה סגולה – דבקות, כי לי הארץ הנקראת כל, כמו שפירשתי בפסוק: וי״י ברך את אברהם בכל (בראשית כ״ד:א׳). והמשכיל יבין. (See about kol here.)

See also Sforno here.

God Within The Darkness

(20:18, in some editions 17) ויעמוד העם מרחוק ומשה נגש אל הערפל אשר שם האלקים "The people remained far off, but Moses drew near to the opaque darkness, where God was."

Rebbe Nachman teaches (Likutay Moharan 115) that often when a person has been far from Hashem and then he decides to come close, there will be challenges that stand before.  The evil side says its not fair that he can all of a sudden come close after years of violating and abusing the Torah.  Many people get turned off by the challenge placed before them.  People feel its not right, if Hashem wants me to be close to Him, to improve myself, then it should be easy.  However, Rebbe Nachman says that is a grave mistake, Hashem is in that roadblock, that challenge that is in front of you.  He wants to plow through the block head on and that way you will be able to "find Hashem."  
This is hinted to in this verse, when people see the darkness in front of them they stand back, they are discouraged.  However, one who is smart, has the daas like Moshe moves toward the darkness and attacks it head-on.     
Rabbi Nasan Maimon adds that the numerical value of ערפל is the same as שכינה to allude to this idea that Hashem is hidden within the darkness.

Punishment Or Reward

Rashi says that Yisro came because he heard about krias yam suf and the war with amalek.  A few pesukkim later, Moshe repeats the story to Yisro and the following possuk (9) says Yisro was happy about all the good done to Yisroel which Rashi says refers to the man,  be'ar and torah.  Why is Yisro especially happy over these events more than the original information?  And according to the interpretation of Rashi that he was upset about the destruction of Egypt, why did he only feel that now?  Why does possuk 9 use the name of Hashem referring to the middas rachamim as opposed to the first possuk of the parsha which uses the name of din, Elokim?
At first Yisro heard about he great demolishing of the Egyptian kingdom, the defense against the Amalakies,  and understood that they deserved to be punished for their crimes.  However, that perked his interest, but didn't yet demonstrate there was any special quality to Yisroel.  It was an act of din against tyrants.  However, when Moshe told him that that's not the whole story, God has taken special care of us, he has done miracles for our sake alone, there has been chesed extended to us, that proved there was something special about Yisroel.  That's when Yisro felt happy for the special relationship with Yisroel.  He simultaneously now felt bad for the Egyptians because he realized they weren't punished just for their actions, but to demonstrate a lesson to Yisroel as well.  They were selected to be the puppet's of God's might (Meor ShebTorah citing Rav Mordechai Man.) 

A Mountainous Lesson

Everyone knows the midrash that the reason why Mount Sinai was chosen as the place of the giving of the Torah was because of its humbleness.  It wasn't the tallest or greenest mountain, yet that was the very reason why it was chosen.  The lesson is that one must be humble in order to acquire Torah.  That's why it is Moshe, the greatest ענו, who gives us the Torah.  If humility and humbleness are key ingredients to acquiring Torah, why give it on a mountain at all, give the Torah on flat land or better yet, in a valley?  The Alter Rebbe explains that just as much as humility is a necessary trait in learning torah, so too one must understand that they are worth something in order to learn.  Knowledge of capability and talent isn't contradictory to humility; it is a prerequisite as described here.
It seems in the past the focus of mashpiem was on the 'smallest mountain' aspect, but now they focus on the 'you must be a mountain' aspect.

I or i

Yisro says אני חתנך יתרו בא אליך.  Hashem says אנכי ה' אלקיך.  What is the difference between the word אני and the word אנכי?  The Malbim explains that the word אנכי is used to put emphasis on the person, אנכי יושב means it is I that am sitting on the chair.  The word אני puts emphasis on the action, אני יושב means to emphasis that the action being done is sitting.  Most times through Tanach the word אנכי is used by Hashem.  Hashem introduces himself that is is I who is God.  However, Yisro comes with humility, there is someone coming, it happens to be me.
מענין לענין באותו ענין, the midrash says that the word אנכי is an Egytian word  Why would Hashem introduce Himself with a foreign language?  The Rebbe explains (Likutay Sichos volume 3) that the point of mattan Torah was to be able to bring down the Torah to have an effect on the physical world.  Even the language foreign nations which were opposed to Bnei Yisroel can and must be used for kedusha. 
The Gemorah Shabbos (105a) says the word אנכי stands for אני נפשי כתבת ויהבת.  By learning Torah, one isn't learning just a divine wisdom; one is attaching to Hashem himself!  The Tanya explains this in detail in Ch. 4-5 based upon the principal of the Rambam that God and His wisdom are one, hence the Torah, God's wisdom is God.  His gives a parable that when one learns Torah it is as if he is hugging the king himself!   

Lesson of Rav Lessin

The Gemorah Kiddushin (31a) says that when the nations heard the first dibros they said God is demanding his own honor.  When they heard the later dibros then they realized that even the first one's were true.  Why do we need to know what the goyim thought?  What lesson does it teach us?  Furthermore, what is the difference if God is defending his own honor, He is still dictating the law?  And how do the latter dibros change the interpretation of the first dibros?  Rav Lessin explains that the Gemorah isn't referring to the mistake of your average street goy; it is  mistake of great thinkers and philosophers.  They think that God is too great too be involved in the life of every individual.  He is busy with great things, lecovod atzmo, Godly business, but he isn't involved in my basic, daily life.  Then they heard the last dibros, Hashem at this time of great revelation is giving basic commandments about the most basic, human affairs.  This proved that indeed Hashem is involved in the human existence, He monitors and is involved in every event of human affairs.  

Eliezer

Here and here my father shlita discussed the midrash  וע״ד המדרש ושם האחד אליעזר א״ר יוסי ב״ר חנינא בשעה שעלה משה למרום מצאו להקב״ה שהיה עוסק בפרשת פרה אדומה והיה אומר הלכה משמו של רבי אליעזר עגלה ערופה בת שנתה ופרה אדומה בת שתי שנים אמר לפניו רבש״ע כל העליונים והתחתונים שלך ואתה אומר הלכה משמו של ב״ו אמר לו עתיד צדיק אחד לעמוד בעולמי ואליעזר שמו ועתיד לעסוק בפרה אדומה תחלה ואומר עגלה בת שנתה פרה בת שתי שנים אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם יהי רצון מלפניך שיהיה מחלצי, אמר לו חייך שהוא מחלציך שנאמר ושם האחד אליעזר ושם אותו המיוחד אליעזר (citation from Rabbenu Bechai (18:4) courtesy of mg.alhatorah.org.)

The midrash is ambiguous as to what Moshe Rabbenu saw in this teaching of Rebbe Eliezer that he was inspired to name his son after him? This midrash is explained by the Bnei Yissocher maamarai tishrai #12 and in his Igra D'perka #327.  His elucidation is beyond the scope of this blog, so here is the link to the Igra D'perka. For those that are not kabbalisticly inclined (yet😄,) here is a very nice peshat of Rav Shwab (I don't have anything against Rav Shwab, contrary to the opinion of some.)

An interesting lesson in parenting derived from the deafening silence of the son's of Moshe here.

Of course, the author likes this midrash because it talks about his blog's pseudonym.

A Large Step

לא תעלה במעלות על מזבחי is כולל both an issur of making steps to ascend the alter and taking large steps when ascending.  [However, see Rambam Beis Habichirah 1:17, Mishne L'melech there and Brisker Rav Yoma 22a.]  The חינוך says that the commandment not to use large steps while going up the alter applies both to men and woman.  A woman is never allowed to do avodah so clearly he holds the law applies even when it is not a time of avodah.  However, the Targum yerushalmi and yonason indicate the lav only applies to kohanim at the time of their avodah.  That is the opinion of Tosfos Yeshanim in Yoma 33a as well.  צ"ב ביסוד המחלוקת.  Suggestions?

The Chinuch has an interesting end to the mitzvah.  He cites the possuk וענים ישכנו ארץ (Tehillim 37:11.)  What connection does that have to anything?  The Minchas Chinuch says its just to end of on a good note.  However, that is odd for its not the usual manner of the Chinuch?  The Minchas Avraham suggests that the Chinuch is telling us that the yesod of the lav is to act in a haughty manner. Taking large steps is an act of haughtiness, hence the Chinuch ends off with a praise of the humble.

A Thank You Song

The Briskor Rav says the beracha Yisro said after hearing all the good news had the din of birchas hagomal.  The Rama says (Orach Chayim 219:4) that one can say hagomal for someone else only if he feels the joy and happiness of his friend (see the Taz that without the feelings of joy for the person he is being motzei it will be a beracha in vain.)  That’s why the possuk is מגדיש  that Yisro felt joy, ויחד יתרו  and that’s why he could say הגומל  for Klal Yisroel.  Based upon his father’s interpretation, Rav Dovid explains a difficult Yalkut.  The Yalkut says that it was a disgrace that no one saidברוך ה'  until Yisro.  Why didn’t Klal Yisroel give such praise?  Everyone asks what soes the Yalkut mean, Klal Yisroel sang the entire shira, they gave thanks?  Says Rav Dovid, yes shira was sang, but hagomal wasn’t said.  (See what my father shlita wrote about this Rav here.)  However, this distinction is difficult to understand; what is the difference between shira and hagomal?

The Beur Halacha finds this halacha very difficult.  How can one say a blessing that he is not obligated in, when do we ever find such a thing?  The Rambam (Berachos 10:8) rules that hagomal should be recited while standing.  The כ"מ  already questions why is there an obligation to recite the blessing standing?  The Aleyah Rabba suggests since the possuk calls it hallel, במושב זקנים יהלללוהו  (תהלים קז:לב), just as hallel must be recited while standing, so too hagomel.  We see from his words that hagomel isn’t just a “thank you” for being saved from danger; it is a אמירת דברי שבח והודאה בתורת שירה.  Based upon this we can answer the question of the Beur Halacha.  This isn’t like a blessing which I may not recite for you, this is a shirah which may be said by anyone that feels the joy of the event (Rav Mordechai Elefant cited in Hameor ShebTorah.)  This would seem to run against what Rav Dovid said, for according to Rav Elefant hagomal is a shira.  We would have to say that even if the geder of hagomal is that of shira, it still is said as a beracha and is distinct from shira. 

The difference between shira and beracha is that shira is an appreciation and recognition of the salvation of God.   Beracha is a way one drawing Hashem into the world as the Nefesh Hachaim describes in the second shaar that the word beracha is related to the word mavrich, to draw.  One draws the shefa eloki into the world, there is a connection between the world and God.  That was the advantage of the beracha of Yisro over the shira of Bnei Yisroel.  This connection was a prerequisite to the ultimate joining at maatan torah (according to the Zohar and others that Yisro came before maatan torah.) [Based upon Likutay Sichos volume 11, see here.] 

Rashi Tehillim Ch. 100 and in tractate Shevous (15b) holds that mizmor lesodah was said when one offers a korban todah.  That would seem to be the opinion of the Tur as well.  He rules in Orach Chayim 281 that we don’t say mizmor lesodah on Shabbos for one doesn’t offer a korban todah on shabbas.  However, the Radak and Bais Yosef disagree.  They hold mizmor lesodah was a paragraph that would be recited as expression of one’s thanks, however it isn’t the shirah of a korban todah.  The difficulty with Rashi is that one doesn’t say shirah on a korban yachid (Zevachim 89b,) so why would there be a shirah said when one offers a todah?  A suggestion is made by the Or Sameach (סוף פ"ג של מעשה קרבנות) to differentiate between shirah sung by the leviem and shirah sung by an individual.  The rule that there is no shirah accompanying a korban yachid is in regard to the shirah of the leviem.  However, an individual reciting shira as a token of appreciation would be acceptable.   However, Rashi himself in Tehillim 116:13 indicates that the mizmor lesodah was indeed recited by the leviem, hence the question is still valid.  See also the Levush in the laws of Yom Kippur and Chasom Sofer responsa 51 who both assume the leviem said the song, just like every other song said together with a korban.  [See the Shittah Mekubetses on Arachin 11a and Mikdash Dovid end of siman 10, but it remains difficult.]  It would seem that this is some kind of hybrid, yes mizmor lesodah is a shirah, but it is a shirah of thanks and that may be recited when offering a korban yachid.  ועדיין צ"ע ובירור. 

However, it is quite understandable that our hagomal which is patterned after mizmor lesodah is also a form of shirah.

The Chosen Nation

The Alter Rebbe in Shulchan Aruch siman 60 quotes the Magan Avraham that different words in ahavah rabba/ahavas olam correspond to the six rememberances and one should have them in mind when saying the words.  The words forזכירת מעמד הר סיני  are ובנו בחרת you have chosen us.  Har Sinai is where we, the Jewish people became “the chosen nation” and the gentiles were rejected.  At maatan Torah we became elevated above the rest of mankind, as the Kuzari describes.  The word בחירה  indicates that there is a concise decision made.  In what regard is there a need to contemplate and ten decide between Jews and gentiles?  To choose the neshama of a Jew over that of a gentile isn’t בחירה, its obvious.  The bechera is in regard to the גוף  of a Jew.  Even the physical, unrefined body of a Jew is more precious to Hashem than that of a gentile.  Hashem loves even our physical bodies from that of the gentiles.  The Tanya explains (chapter 49) that’s why these words a prelude to krias shemah.  If one will contemplate that from all the beings (both spiritual and physical,) that are in the world, Hashem desires for our physical bodies to serve him then the person will be aroused to have a great love for Hashem.  For if one realizes how greatly Hashem loves him, he will likewise feel such feelings of love to Hashem.  That is the way to fulfill ואהבת את ה'. 

The Ramban asks at the beginning of Lech Lecha why are we introduced to Avraham via a commandment of Hashem, lech lecha etc.  We should be given an intr. That Avraham was a tzaddik and that’s why Hashem appeared to him just like we find by Noach?  The Maharal answers the Torah is telling us that the choosing of Avraham isn’t dependent on his actions.  Once Hashem chose him, that merit is passed throughout the generations no matter what their actions are (Netzach Yisroel Chapter 11.)  The same kind of choosing occurred at maatan Torah.  Hashem chose Klal Yisroel not because they were deserving, rather because he willed to choose them.  That is why the Gemorah (Shabbos 89a) says (according to explanation of Eyun Yaakov) that the gentiles hate us because of maatan Torah.  Why do they hate us, we accepted the Torah and they didn’t?  They hate us because we weren’t chosen out of our own merit, but rather Hashem showed he loves us more.  That is what the goyim can’t comprehend and bear animosity to us because of it.  Based upon this we can explain a midrash pleah which says that when Moshe heard Anochi Hashem Elokecha he said baruch shelo asani goy-he gave thanks for not being a goy.  At this point in time where Hashem’s love for Klal Yisroel was revealed to be above human comprehension, Moshe had an added appreciation of the difference between a Jew and a goy and therefore felt compelled to thank Hashem for this distinction.  
   
The Or Hachaim asks why is the parsha named after someone who spent most of the years being an idol worshiper?  He explains that the Torah is teaching us that even amongst the goyim there are many smart people, even some who have ideas we adopt like Yisro’s court system, yet being smart doesn’t get you on Hashem’s “good list.”  It is only Klal Yisroel that have this special relationship.

4 Paths Of Desire

 האבן עזרא על לא תחמוד courtesy of http://mg.alhatorah.org/Full/Shemot/20.13#e0n6.
לא תחמוד – אנשים רבים יתמהו על זאת המצוה: איך יהיה אדם שלא יחמוד דבר יפה בלבו כל מה שהוא 
נחמד למראה עיניו. ועתה אתן לך משל. דע: כי איש כפרי שיש לו דעת נכונה, והוא רואה בת מלך שהיא יפה, לא יחמוד אותה בלבו שישכב עמה, כי ידע כי זה לא יתכן. ואל תחשוב זה הכפרי שהוא כאחד המשוגעים, שיתאוה שיהיו לו כנפים לעוף בהם בשמים, כי יתכן להיות זה, כאשר אין אדם מתאוה לשכב עם אמו, אע״פ שהיא יפה, כי הרגילוהו מנעוריו לאמר לו שהיא אסורה לו. ככה כל משכיל שידע כי אשה יפה או ממון, לא ימצאנו אדם בעבור חכמתו ודעתו, רק כאשר חלק לו השם. ואמר קהלת: יתננו חלקו (קהלת ב׳:כ״א). ואמרו חכמים: חיי בני ומזוני לאו בזכותא תליא מילתא. ובעבור זה המשכיל לא יקנא ויחמוד. ואחר שידע שאשת רעו אסרה לו השם, יותר היא נשגבה בעיניו מבת מלך בלב הכפרי. על כן הוא שמח בחלקו, ולא ישים אל לבו לחמוד ולהתאוות דבר שאינו שלו, כי ידע מה שהשם לא רצה לתת לו, לא יוכל לקחתו בכחו ובמחשבותו ותחבלותיו. על כן יבטח בבוראו שיכלכלנו ויעשה הטוב בעיניו. והנה נשלם פירוש עשרת הדברים.
The words of the כתב וקבלה courtesy of ibid.
לא תחמוד – רבים יתמהו על זאת המצוה איך יהיה אדם שלא יחמוד דבר יפה בלבו כל מה שהוא נחמד למראה עיניו, והלב חומד מעצמו בטבעו נגד בחירת האדם, וע׳ בראב״ע ממשל הספרי, ויראה כמו שכתב בעל הברית, אחר שה׳ צוה אותנו על האהבה באמרו ואהבת את ה״א בכל לבבך, מה מקרא חסר אם היה כתוב ואהבת את ה״א בלבבך, ומה ר״ל במלת בכל, אלא שהכונה שיהיה לבבך מלא באהבת ה׳, כלומר שלא יהיה בלב רק אהבת ה׳ לבד, לא שיהיה בו גם אהבת ה׳ גם חמדת עולם, שאם כן אינו מלא באהבת ה׳, כי אם חציו לה׳ וחציו לכם ולא נקרא בכל לבבך, הנה כל איש המקיים זאת המצוה ואחרי שחשקה נפשו להתענג על ה׳ וכלתה לדבקה בו באהבה רבה בכל עת לחזות בנועם ה׳ ולטעום מטעם המלך להתענג מזיו כבודו וגם ערב רב ומתיקות נפלא ושמחה ימצא בה, עי״כ לבו מלא כל עת וזמן בזכרון קדוש ה׳ וחושק לדבקה בו ולבו קשורה עמו בעבותות אהבה, ובזה מקיים בכל לבבך כלומר שלבו מלא על כל גדותיו באהבת ה׳, אז א״א שיחמוד שום דבר מכל מחמדי עולם הזה, מפני כי מודעת זאת שהחימוד הוא בלב לא באבר אחר, ואשר כבר לבו מלא תמיד באהבת ה׳ איה המקום בלב אשר יתאוה ויחמוד בו דבר זולתו, ככוס אשר הוא מלא על כל גדותיו שאין יכולים להוסיף מאומה, כי א״א לאדם לעבור על לא תחמוד אם לא שאינו מקיים מ״ע של ואהבת את ה״א בכל לבבך, אף שהוא אוהב אותו, רק לא לבדו אך אוהב אותו ואוהב ג״כ חמדת העולם ותענוגות בני אדם, ונמצא שאינו מקיים בכל לבבך, ואז הלב מעצמו מתאוה על כל מחמדי׳ של העולם הזה אשר לנגד עיניו, אף אם בבחירתו אינו רוצה לחמוד בדעתו שהיא עברה ועון, הלב בטבעה תחמוד. שלא ברצונו ונגד בחירתו, מפני שא״א שיתחבר בלב אהבת ה׳ עם אהבת התענוגים כשבת אחים גם יחד, אבל כל אחד דוחה את האחד ויגרשהו, אבל מי שמקיים ואהבת את ה״א בכל לבבך א״א זה כלל אחר שלבו טרוד ומלא תמיד באהבת ה׳ בשמחה רבה, ועוד שהאיש הקשור בעבותות אהבה עם ה׳ ישחק על כל מחמדי׳ של העולם הזה הכלים ועוברים ונבזים מצד עצמן, ועל חמדת נשים לא יאוה, ואם חמד אלהי׳ לשבתו עליו אוה למושב לו ואת זה לתאוה יבקש, נפרד הלב בטבעה מכל תאוות עה״ז ולא יחמוד אותם ותגעל נפשו בהם, אך על שדי יתענג להשתעשע ולדבקה בו ית׳ באהבה ושמחה, כי הנפש תתנדב בטבעה למה שהטובה עודפת ותעזוב את החסרה.
And the words of the Chinuch (416) courtesy of https://www.etzion.org.il/en/tenth-commandment-you-shall-not-covet.

"Do not wonder and ask: But how can it be in one's power to restrain his heart from longing for riches that he may see in his fellow man's possession, when he himself is lacking them all? How can a prohibition be given in the Torah about something which man cannot possibly obey?

This matter is not so; none but wicked fools and sinners would speak so. For it is indeed in one's power to restrain himself, his thoughts and his longings, from whatever he wishes. It lies within his free choice and his decision to repel his desire or draw it near, with regard to all matters, as he wishes; he rules his heart and can guide it as he wants.

No human thought - whether it be small or great, good or evil - is hidden to God, before Whom all secrets are known, Who seeks out the concealed recesses, Who sees all a person's secret thoughts; nothing is hidden from His eyes. He punishes those who transgress His will IN THEIR HEARTS, and performs kindness until the thousandth generation to those who love Him and devote themselves to His service IN THEIR HEARTS. For there is nothing so good for a man as a good, pure thought, since that is the beginning of all good deeds and their end. And this, it seems, is the significance of the 'good heart' which the Sages praise in Avot (2:9)."

Of course according to the Rambam, discussed here, that the issur is only violated by an action of convincing someone else to sell you the object you desire, the whole question is a mute point.

So we have four points of understanding how one can control their thoughts to not violate לא תחמד.  According to the Even Ezra, it is a lesson in bitachon and being completely satisfied with what you have.  According to the כתב וקבלה it is a lesson in ahavas Hashem, one's desires should merely be to engage in heavenly pursuits.  According to the Chinuch, this all part of the general principle of bechirah, yes one can control what they desire and covet.  It is quite possible Maimonides disagrees with all the above and understands that one can't control their desire for an object of their friend.  The Torah maintains that one must control that greedy sense of want so as to not bring it into action.

In other words, according to the Chinuch and Even Ezra, the commandment is to suppress one's desires.  It is a ציווי שלילי.  According to the K'sav v'Kabbalah the commandment is a ציווי חיובי to raise the bar of one's desire for Hashem until all other desires melt away. (see Sfas Emes 5636.)

The Holy Boundary

The Torah puts an emphasis that no one may go up on the mountain as long as the Shechinah was there.  Hashem tells Moshe to but a boundary around har sinai.  What served as the boundary to stop people from ascending the mountain, did they erect a fence?   And why was there a need for a dence, just command the people not to ascend the mountain?  The end of the parsha tells us the mitzvah of making the mizbaoch adama.  How is it connected to mattan Torah?

The Panim Yafos says that the boundary of the mountain wasn’t a physical boundary, it was a spiritual electric fence.  The possuk says הגבל את ההר סביב (19:12).  The letters around the word הר, hey and resh are daled, vav and kuf, shin which spells out קדוש.  It was the air of kedusha which served to fence off the mountain. 

However, why was there a boundary of kedusha stopping everyone from going up the mountain, to reach a greater level of kedusha would be a positive move, not a reason for recoil? The Rebbe explains that naturally the neshama of a Jew wants to come as close to Hashem as possible.  The neshama is called a ner.  Fire jumps upwards attempting to be united with its source above.  Similarly, the neshema desires to come close to its source, Hashem.  Therefore, the neshama will automatically be attracted to kedusha (Tanya chapter 19.)  The Or Hachaim in Acharie Mos describes that this is what happened to Nadav v’Avehu.  They wanted to be completely drawn into kedusha, and they reached a state where they could no longer exist within their bodies.   However, this isn’t the approach which the Torah desires.  The Torah desires for kedusha to be drawn into the world.  The boundary around the mountain represents that a person cannot just beyond their grasp to obtain kedusha, one must bring kedusha into the world.  The midrash says that mattan Torah was the unity of עליונים ותחתונים.  This was the whole goal of mattan Torah, to bring kedusha into the world.  The border around the mountain reflects the essence of mattan Torah.  The goal is to reach kedusha that one can grasp and use to elevate his/her surroundings, not to go up to the heavens in a chariot of fiery kedusha (see sicha of fourth of sivan 5749.) 

Chazal say the gentiles were offered the Torah and they refused because they felt they couldn’t stand up to the commandments.  Klal Yisroel accepted the Torah and that’s why they are the chosen nation.  The Sfas Emes asks what the greatness of acceptance of Klal Yisroel is as opposed to the rejection of the gentiles, the reason why they didn’t accept the Torah was because it ran contrary to their nature but there was nothing in the Torah against Klal Yisroel’s nature.  He answers that what went against the nature of Klal Yisroel was to be contained within the boundary.  The nature of a Jews to climb higher and higher, to be contained is something s/he has a hard time dealing with.  Since they listened to the commandment not to scale the mountain, was proof that they would accept Hashem’s word even when it went against their nature.  The Kli Chemda (end of Beshalach) adds that this the foundation of the entire Torah, for a person to understand their role and place and work to fulfill that, not to try to reach beyond one’s limits.  (See there what he says about the role of woman.) 

The Torah says that there is a prohibition of making steps (madragos) for the mizbaoch, rather one must make a ramp.  Rav Zevin says that this represents that a person can’t overstep his boundaries.  A person must be aware of the level that he is holding at and can’t seek to jump above his level.  A person can’t go up to madragos that are above his level.  This is a continuation of the idea of mattan Torah that there are boundaries that one must adhere too.  On the one hand one must draw as close to kedusha as possible.  Klal Yisroel want as close to the mountain as they could go, but on the other hand, one must know not to get burnt by the .אש של קדושה

All In The Preparation

Chazal ask why does it say (19:1) ביום הזה באו מדבר סיני in the present tense, it should be past tense; they came on that day?  They explain that the present tense is used to tell you that Torah should be fresh to you every day.  Why would this drasha be hinted at here, this wasn't the giving of the Torah, it was only the preparation?  Rav Tzadok explains that the freshness in Torah experience only happens to one who is anxious, eager and exited to learn Torah.  It is the attitude with which one goes to seder that will determine if he will be learning a living Torah or a dry, old text.    

Few Thoughts on Happiness and Chassidus of Rav Hirsch

Rav Hirsch in regard to the parsha of shabbas regarding the man, contrasts the shabbos which involves eating and drinking as opposed to other religions.  He says "this elevation of the enjoyment of on'es sense into a God-serving act, dedicated to God, constitutes one of the most characteristic marks of the difference between Jewish teachings and others.  Generally, the thought of the might of the gods is rather an oppressive one, and happy laughter has to fear the anger of the gods.  Jewish thought of the Might of God, is a cheering comforting one.   Man  with all his "littleness" struggles upward to this Might.  Entering the service of this might, man with all his weakness, takes part in this Might." etc.  Now this sounds like a Hassidic idea, but its written in Hirsch, far from a chosid.  Clearly Rav Hirsch recognized the need for happiness and joy in yiddeshkit.
In Halachik Man, Rav Solevetchik explains the hisnagdus of Rav Chaim to mussar was because it leads to עצבות and נפילת רוח.  Rav Solevetchik says that the mussar movement itself had a change in the schools of Slobadka and Mir and threw out the depressing marts of the study.  This is a description by a Brisker, about a Brisker and there is also an understanding that if one is in a state of depression, upsetness  and melancholy it is impossible to advance in ruchnious!
The Kabbalistic books all say that עצבות is from the "other side."  This is of course not just for kabbalists, this is a fact of life understood by all.  Obviously there is more of an emphasis on this avodah in chassidus and especially in certain groups of chassidim, however it is a yesod muscam by all.  There is even a very harsh language in Tanya, Egeres Hakodesh 11, עיי"ש.
The Alter Rebbe in Beshalach discusses the meaning beginning of the parsha in Chassidus and its application to our life.  He explains that Plishtim represents extreme happiness, Plishtim comes from the word מבוי מפולש, a openness as one feels in a state of happiness.  Hashem didn't allow Bnei Yisroel to pass through the Plishtim, if one just experiences happiness, it will collapse when there is a war, a נסיון, hard times.  True sustainable happiness is obtained through עבודה, when it is bound to the service of Hashem (ויש עוד להאריך בזה בדעת אדמו"ר הזקן.)

Torah Man, Not Statesman

Rav Hirsch as part of his polemics against the Reform points out that we see Moshe Rabbenu isn't the best organizer and statesman.  The Torah points out to us that the great Moshe Rabbenu, the one who gives us the Torah, needs to learn how to judge the people from an outsider, his father-in-law.  Rav Hirsch says the Torah tells us this for we see from here that Moshe Rabbenu couldn't have  made up the Torah, he didn't have the head to be make parliamentary rules, obviously it must be a heavenly "rulebook" from Hashem.  Anyway, clearly Rav Hirsch is distinguishing between the one who learns Torah and the statesman, ויש בזה כמה נ"מ ודו"ק וד"ל. 

My God

The parsha has an amazing contrast.  The storyline continues with the completion of the Exodus involving all the miracles of the yam suf.  Right after these open miracles Klal Yisroel are complaining about a lack of water, food etc.  How is this possible?  The possuk records the complaint of Bnei Yisroel as if they were possibly denying God,  וְעַ֨ל נַסֹּתָ֤ם אֶת־יְהֹוָה֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר הֲיֵ֧שׁ יְהֹוָ֛ה בְּקִרְבֵּ֖נוּ אִם־אָֽיִן.  How could they deny the very God they just saw at krias yam suf?
The Chassidic books (I think its in Sfas Emes,) say that of course BneiYisroel knew of Hashem's existence.  The question was that they had seen Hashem perform miracles of major proportion, however they were wondering is there an I - Though relationship with Hashem, is Hashem בְּקִרְבֵּ֖נוּ, within us.  Can we have a personal connection to Hashem?  Is he just a great God, or is he also my God?  Bnei Yisroel wanted to know would God take care off all there  personal needs or was that too small for God.  Is He concerned with the issues and troubles of every individual or not.  That is the question they had, and its a question everyone must deal with in their life.

A Good Deed Never Goes Unpaid

תבלעמו ארץ: מכאן שזכו לקבורה בשכר שאמרו (לעיל ט כז) ה' הצדיק.  Why is Pharaoh worthy of meriting burial because of an insincere statement made under duress?  My great-grandfather zt"l explains that we see from here that any good thing a person does, even if it is completely insincere or done for an ulterior motive, it will still have a positive effect on the individual.  If Pharaoh said ה' הצדיק it must have aroused some feelings deep within himself that the statement carried some form of validity and it is for those feelings that he merits burial.

Song of Thanks

The Gemorah Megillah (10b) says that the angels wanted to sing shira after Bnei Yisroel made it safely to the other side. Hashem said my handwork is drowning in the sea and you feel its time to sing?  The question is asked (see Maharsha,) so then why did Bnei Yisroel sing shira?  The Briskor Rav (quoted in Rav Eliyahu Baruch,) answered that the recipients of the benefit must say shira as hakaros hatov for the benefit s/he received.

The Chanukas Hatorah has a different interpretation of the Gemorah.  He explains that the angels wanted to kill the Egyptians via their holy words of praise, just as what happened to the army of Sancherev.  Hashem responded the punishment must be meted out accordingly.  My handywork was drowned, meaning the Egyptians drowned the Jewish babies; they must be killed via drowning as well.  

The Gemorah (ibid 16a) records how Mordechai told Haman that only when it comes to Jewish enemies, we assume בנפול אויבך אל תשמח.  However, when it comes to gentiles, we rejoice over their downfall.  Possibly, this is also because of hakaros hatov (though I am aware that there are sources that may indicate it is a hate against evil.)

It is well known the Shibaley Haleket says the aforementioned Gemorah is the reason as to why there is no complete hallel on the seventh day of Pesach.  Why is it different than the shira of Bnei Yisroel?  It would seem that he holds our hallel is merely to give praise for the past, its not an expression of personal hakaros hatov, hence it would be akin to the shira of the angels.

The general rule is that we don’t sing the praises of Hashem because it will automatically be unfitting for one can’t finish praising Hashem.  The Maharal Ch. 1 of Gevuros Hashem asks if that’s the case, why is the rule of the haggadah המרבה לספר הר"ז משובח?  How can one continue to praise Hashem, it will diminish His honor?  The Maharal answers that such a rule is true in regard to listing praises, however when it comes to hakaros hatov, you must express your gratitude to the best of your ability. 

See more about the primacy of hakaros hatov in the Exodus on my mother’s blog here.

An Update And More On Hiddur Mitzvah

Last week we mentioned what appears to be the opinion of Tosfos and Rambam that hiddur mitzvah isn’t a din in the cheftzah of the mitzvah, rather it is measured by the appearance of the object.  This idea is challenged by the Chelkas Yoav from the Gemorah in Sukkah (11b) that there is hiddur mitzvah to tie together the lulav with the other species.  The אגד, the tie isn’t seen for it is covered in the person’s hand, so why is it considered hiddur?  The Avnei Nezer (Orach Chayim 433) answers that there are two forms, two denim in hiddur mitvah.  There is hiddur that enhances, beautifies and adorns the object.  That hiddur only applies to that which is seen.  However, there is another kind of hiddur.  That is an enhancement in the מעשה מצוה.  By adding the tie, it helps grasp together all the species which facilitates a better לקיחה.  Based upon this principle we understand why this tie has denim, halachos attached to it.  Rashi Sukkah (33b) holds it must be a real knot and the Shulchan Aruch (651:1) rules one must have a knot on top of another, not a bow in this tie for we find in the laws of shabbas that it’s not defined as a knot.  Asks the Chasam Sofer (Sukkah 36a) why is there a need to have a halachik kesher, what ever looks nice should suffice?  However, based upon the Avnei Nezer we understand that this isn’t a “look nice” tie, it’s a halachik tie, one that serves to make it a better lekecha and that is accomplished only via a tie bound by law.

The Torah Temimah wants to infer from the Gemorah that doesn’t mention שרטוט as one of the means of hiddur, that it’s a הללמ"מ  and not a halacha of hiddur.

The Gemorah in Shabbas (133b) has two derashos on the word ואנוהו if it means התנאה לפניו במצות or הוי דומה לו מה הוא חנון וכו'.  Rabbi Sacks (R.Y. Landers) liked to say (at least in his שיחה,) that the two derashos aren’t arguing, one is built on the other.  The yesod of hiddur mitzvah isn’t just to enhance the cheftza.  As Rashi says in Yoma (70a) it’s שטרח להתנאות במצוהתפארת בעליה , its an enhancement of the gavra, the person demonstrates his attachment to Hashem by going above and beyond the call of duty.  That’s the drasha of hiddur.  Abba Shaul comes to add that its not just true in fulfillment of mitzvot, but it’s a mandate for daily life.

After writing this, I found much of this elucidation written (in English) by Rav Sacks here. 

The question is why hiddur mitzvah, learnt from זה קלי ואנוהו spelled out in az yashir?  Why is this the time and place to teach such a law?  See a nice peshat here, reminiscent of what we wrote from Rav Chaim Shmulevetz here. 

The actual verse itself needs explanation.  Why switch from קלי to אלקי אבי?  And why switch from ואנוהו to ארוממנו?  The Malbim explains first they said this is my God, the God that I can see and grasp through open miracles, ואנוהו, and I can make for Him a house, a tangible Beis Hamikdash.  He will dwell among us.  However, אלקי אבי, when there were no open miracles, then  ארוממנו, it is a God that is beyond grasp, he is מרומם, above us.