Keep Thy's Word

The Gemorah in Nedarin (2b) says that an issur neder is an issur cheftzah.  The Ran and Rosh disagree if the Gemorah is teaching us the nature of neder or the terminology of neder is expressed as an issur on the cheftzah.  The question is neder purely an issur cheftzah or is there an element of issur gavrah as well?

The source for such an idea that it may be an issur gavrah would seem to stem from the language of the possuk, אִישׁ֩ כִּֽי־יִדֹּ֨ר נֶ֜דֶר לַֽי״י֗ אֽוֹ־הִשָּׁ֤בַע שְׁבֻעָה֙ לֶאְסֹ֤ר אִסָּר֙ עַל־נַפְשׁ֔וֹ לֹ֥א יַחֵ֖ל דְּבָר֑וֹ כְּכׇל־הַיֹּצֵ֥א מִפִּ֖יו יַעֲשֶֽׂה.  The issur is described as a desecration of the person’s speech. 

The Minchas Chinuch (368:4) assumes in a situation where a person accepts upon himself nezirut for less than 30 days or for only one of the prohibitions of nezirut, where he is established as a complete nazir for 30 days, that there is no violation of בל יחל because the Torah imposed upon him the additional stringencies but he never accepted it upon himself.  He clearly assumes that the issur is to violate one’s word, not the cheftzah of the neder. 

The Rambam (Laws of Nedarim 10:12) holds that if one forbids person B from receiving benefit from him and then person B benefits, it is person A, that made the neder that gets the punishment.  The Ran (Nedarim 15a bottom,) disagrees, and holds it is person B who gets punished for they violated the neder.  Clearly, the Ran holds the issur is to violate the cheftzah of the neder, not the violation of one’s word, not like the Minchas Chinuch.  However, the Rambam holds it is upon the one taking the neder to make sure his/her word is upheld.  He may hold like the Minchas Chinuch but we aren’t forced to say so.  He may hold the one who made the neder is the one responsible for it, but his/her responsibility isn’t limited to what was only explicitly stated in his/her neder.

Lottery, Torah, Eretz Yisroel

This is from the Teshuvot Geonim.  What is the peshat, why is disagreeing with a goral like disagreeing with the 10 dibrot?  Why was there a need for a goral at all if Rashi in Pinchas (26:24) says explains how there was ruach hakodesh regarding the portion of each tribe?

The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 13) explains that the Torah is referred to as a a מתנה (Berachos (5a) and in prayer מתן תורתנו.)  The Torah is also referred to as a ירושה and a מכר, however the name מתנה is given to indicate that a human doesn't deserve the Torah, it is a gift from Hashem.  That is why the first dibrot were given in a manner where the people heard but didn't understood.  It was to ingrain that we are given the dibrot not according to our understanding but as a מתנה even beyond our capabilities.

Similarly, ארץ ישראל is a land that is עיני ה אלקיך בה, it is above human capability to be able to truly live in Eretz Yisroel and be able to feel the kesusha of it.  It is a gift of Hashem.  That is why Eretz Yisroel is given out via a lottery; just as isn't limited by human knowledge, so too our ownership over Eretz Yisroel is above human capability.  It is a מתנה to be able to live in such a holy land.

That is the explanation of what we say in our prayers, שיבנה בית המקדש במהרה בימנו ותן חלקנו בתורתך.  What is the connection between Beis Hamikdash and Torah, why is it חלקנו, our חלק but תורתך, your Torah?  It is חלקנו, we attempt to learn according to our ability in order to have the עביד ליה נייחא לנפשיה, but at the end we accept the Torah of מתנה.  That Torah will be able to received in its full potential only after there is the kedusha of the Beis Hamikdash in the world.

Keep Your Word

The possuk at the end of the parsha of nedarim sums up the laws: אֵ֣לֶּה הַֽחֻקִּ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֤ה י״י֙ אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֔ה בֵּ֥ין אִ֖ישׁ לְאִשְׁתּ֑וֹ בֵּֽין־אָ֣ב לְבִתּ֔וֹ בִּנְעֻרֶ֖יהָ בֵּ֥ית אָבִֽיהָ.  However, what is ignored is the basic law itself that one must keep their neder.  Why? 

The Mishne L’melech Melachim (10:7) brings a machlokes in the Yerushalmi Nazir (9:1) if a gentile is obligated in בל יחל דברו.  The Mishne L’melech asks that we find many times that gentiles have to keep their word?  The Avnei Nezer Yorah Deah (306) explains that it is a סברא that one must keep their word and that is incumbent upon gentiles as well.

Based upon this we understand that the chiddush of the Torah is the din that a neder can be canceled; the need to fulfill one’s neder is self-understood (see Likutay Sichos volume 13.)

Doubled Over

Rebbe Meyer in the Mishna in Kiddushin (62a) derives from the תנאי בני גד ובני ראובן the need for תנאי כפול, we don’t assume מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן.  The simple understanding of this din would be that Rebbe Meyer also agrees that one can figure out the other side of the תנאי by one’s self but it’s a גזירת הכתוב that תנאי requires תנאי כפול.  However, the Gemorah in Nedarin 11 assumes the din of Rebbe Meyer applies to a neder as well.  There is on תנאי there, so why would Rebbe Meye require תנאי כפול?  The Achronim prove from here that it’s not just a din in תנאי, it’s a din in speech; when one’s dibbur is affecting a din, it must be clear from both sides.

However, the Gemorah in Shevous (36b) proves from the issur of a kohan that drank wine serving in the mikdash, which is expressed in the Torah as if they don’t drink, they won’t die, that we say מכלל הן אתה שומע לאו even according to Rebbe Meyer regarding issurim.  That is a proof from the lashan haTorah, it has nothing to do with dibbur, yet the Gemorah still assumes according to Rebbe Meyer we don’t say מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן, so we see it’s just a straight din that we don’t assume מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן.  However, if that is the case, what it the reason of the Gemorah in Shevous’s difference between issur and monetary issues, that only regarding monetary issues Rebbe Meyer doesn’t hold of מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן?  Possibly, we can understand in light of Tosfos in many places (ex. Kiddushin 6b) that Rebbe Meyer agrees if there is an אומדנא דמוכח that you don’t need a תנאי כפול.  How is this possible if Rebbe Meyer doesn’t hold of מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן?  The peshat is that Rebbe Meyer also agrees there is reason to assume מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן but its not strong enough to affect a din.  However, if it’s completely obvious that you mean מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן, then even Rebbe Meyer agrees there is no need to spell it out.  Based upon this, we can understand that the bar of birrur necessary to affect a din is higher regarding monetary issues more than issur.  This approach may be the peshat in Tosfos (Shevous) that Rebbe Meyer agrees regarding a harsh issur that we don’t say מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן.  What is the difference if it’s a harsh issur?  To initiate a greater issur, you need a greater bar of birrur.

The problem is in other Rishonim.  They all ask why does Rebbe Meyer need כפל regarding נדר, it’s issur?  The Ran Nedarim )16a) says because it’s an issur cheftzah it’s regarded as monetary.  The Ritvah says there may be a loss of money because of the neder.  Why does this manner, we are dealing with issur, the bar of measurement should be the rules of issur, where we rely upon birrurim?

Tevilas Kelim

The possuk (31:23) כׇּל־דָּבָ֞ר אֲשֶׁר־יָבֹ֣א בָאֵ֗שׁ תַּעֲבִ֤ירוּ בָאֵשׁ֙ וְטָהֵ֔ר אַ֕ךְ בְּמֵ֥י נִדָּ֖ה יִתְחַטָּ֑א וְכֹ֨ל אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹֽא־יָבֹ֛א בָּאֵ֖שׁ תַּעֲבִ֥ירוּ בַמָּֽיִם.  Rashi says: ורבותינו דרשו מיכאן שאף להכשירן מן האיסור הטעין טבילה לכלי מתכות, ומי נדה הכתובין כאן דרשו מים הראויין לטבול בהן נדה, וכמה הן? ארבעים סאה.  His source is from Avodah Zarah (75b.)  However, the Gemorah says even new vessels acquired from a gentile require dunking in a mikveh, so what does Rashi mean that the dunking is להכשירן מן האיסור? 

The Rishonim in Avodah Zarah debate this point regarding if one can dunk the vessel and only remove the issur afterward or does one have to remove the issur first.  Many Rishonim say the removing of the issur must precede the tevilah so that it won’t be like טובל ושרץ בידו and they cite a Yerushalmi that tevilas kelim is to take the vessel out of the טומאה of the gentile and come to kedushas Yisroel.   Tosfos and the Rosh say that this tevilah isn’t to remove any issur, so one can be toval first.  Tosfos and the Rosh seem to be right; what is peshat in the other Rishonim and the Yerushalmi?

The Ritvah explains that even new vessels require tevilah since סופן להשתמשש באיסור ויצאו לקדושה.  He seems to be saying even though the vessels weren’t actually used, the fact that they are defined as כלי סעודה under the jurisdiction of a gentile already gives it tumah.  Based upon this we understand the Rishonim that its considered טובל ושרץ בידו.  That may be the explanation of the Rashi here as well.

This is Rav Hirsch’s explanation of the din: זוהי אפוא ההלכה האמורה כאן: כלי אוכל של מתכת, שעוברים מבעלות נכרי לבעלות יהודי, טעונים טבילה אפילו אם הם טהורים מכל טומאה ולא בלעו שום איסור. זוהי הלכה של קדושה, ותכליתה ללמד את ישראל שאפילו ההנאה החושנית ממאכל חייבת להיות מקודשת. אולם מאחר שהלכה זו מוגבלת לכלי אכילה של מתכת, ממילא הרעיון העולה במחשבה על ידי טבילה זו הוא בעל משמעות מיוחדת.

כלי מתכת מייצג את שלטונו הרוחני של האדם על הארץ ועל חומריה. לא רק צורת הכלי אלא גם החומר שלו מעיד על שלטון זה. מאידך גיסא, אכילה היא פעילות המשרתת את טבעו הגופני־חושני של האדם. כלי מתכת המשמש לאכילה מייצג, כשלעצמו, את צדו הרוחני של אדם העומד בשירות טבעו החושני. אולם תחת ממשלת התורה, גם חייו החושניים של האדם מופקעים מתחום הכפייה הגופנית, והם מסורים לרשות פעילותו המוסרית בת־החורין, שהיא היא עבודת ה׳.

לפי זה, ניתן להבין היטב מדוע התורה מחייבת בטבילה דווקא כלי אוכל של מתכת הבאים לרשותו של יהודי. כך גם ניתן להבין היטב מדוע טבילה זו קרויה גם ״התחטא״, שכן תכליתה להחיות ולחזק את תודעת החירות המוסרית, שאינה אלא היכולת להימנע מחטא. כך אומרים חז״ל (ירושלמי, עבודה זרה ה, טו): ״לפי שיצאו מטומאת הנכרי ונכנסו לקדושת ישראל״.

Missing The Point

The Mishna in Bikkurim (1:10) brings a machlokes if bikkurim can be brought from עבר הירדן.  According to Rebbe Yose they can't be brought from עבר הירדן.  It is a debate in the Yerushalmi if his reason is that its not considered ארץ זבת חלב ודבש or because it says אשר נתתה לי but they took the portion by asking for it.  True this derasha of אשר נתתה לי is only written by bikkurim, but it begs the question of why would they be obligated in all of the mitzvot that apply to crops but exempt from bikkurim?

Explains Rav Unertman:

The episode of the tribes asking for the land is met by Moshe with anger.  He compares them to the meraglim trying to dismay everyone else from entering the land.  Why was Moshe so harsh, they just made a sensible request because they had a lot of livestock, they wanted to remain in grassy lands?  Rav Dovid Solevetchik explains that being sensible was the mistake.  We weren't given Eretz Yisreol because of its greater physical nature and makeup; because it has superior fruits.  We were given the land that has the ability to give spiritual growth to its inhabitants.  By taking into consideration their mundane needs, the tribes of Reuban and Gad showed they missed the boat.  In that vein they were similar to the meraglim who were also afraid of a fight because they thought the conquest of Eretz Yisroel was עפ"י טבע, when in deed it was not. 

Eretz Yisroel isn't ours as just a land to call our own, it is the land that enhances, improves and intensifies our connection to Hashem.

Why The Name Moshiach

The Minchas Chinuch (107:8) is unsure if Moshiach will need to be anointed with שמן המשחה.  A king that inherits the kingship doesn’t require anointing, so it should follow that he doesn’t have to be anointed or do we say since the kingship was split and the previous kings would require anointing to have ruled over all of Klal Yisroel, so too Moshiach.

The Metzudos Dovid Zecharyeh 4:14 says explicitly that he requires משיחה: אלה שני בני היצהר – השניות מרמז על שני בני היצהר ר״ל המלך המשיח וכה״ג אשר ימשחו בשמן המשחה זה למלכות וזה לכהונה גדולה.
                                                    Mishmar Halevi Berachos siman 114

Simply, that’s why he is called Moshiach; for he is anointed, as the navi often calls kings משיח for they are anointed.  If Moshiach doesn’t require anointing why he have such a title?  Perhaps Moshiach means like the derash on (Korach 18:8) למשחה – לגדולה (footnote 59 to Likutay Sichos volume 23 Pinchas sicha 2.)

Reb Chayim Had Ruach Hakodesh

How do we know Reb Chayim had ruach hakodesh?

Just Believe

From המשיח by Rabbi Yaakov Immanuel Schochet zatzal.

Add also the Rosh on Parshas Bo:
יש לשאול מ"ש שמתו כל הרשעים בתוך ג' ימי אפלה ודתן ואבירם לא מתו שהיו רשעים גמורים. י"ל אע"פי שהיו רשעים לא נתייאשו מן הגאולה

What Is Moshiach?

We mention in Shemone Esrei in the beracha of ולירושלים עירך the reestablishment of the מלכות בית דוד  as well.  What does that have to do with the rebuilding of Yerushalim?  The Briskor Rav on Tehillim Ch. 30 brings many proofs (and this is among them,) that part of rebuilding Yerushalim is establishing מלכות בית דוד.  Part of the building of Yerushalim and the Beis Hamikdash is to have מלכות בית דוד.In this time of year where we morn over the destruction of Yerushalim and the Beis Hamikdash, we also must contemplate what we are lacking now that מלכות בית דוד isn’t in power.

The Rambam in Hilchos Melachim (11:1) says: וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַאֲמִין בּוֹ. אוֹ מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחַכֶּה לְבִיאָתוֹ. לֹא בִּשְׁאָר נְבִיאִים בִּלְבַד הוּא כּוֹפֵר. אֶלָּא בַּתּוֹרָה וּבְמשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הֵעִידָה עָלָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ל, ג) "וְשָׁב ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת שְׁבוּתְךָ וְרִחֲמֶךָ וְשָׁב וְקִבֶּצְךָ" וְגוֹ' (דברים ל, ד) "אִם יִהְיֶה נִדַּחֲךָ בִּקְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם" וְגוֹ' (דברים ל, ה) "וֶהֱבִיאֲךָ ה'".  The Briskor Rav points out that we see from here that belief in the coming of Moshiach includes two things. 1) One must believe that Moshiach will come. 2) One must yearn and anticipate his coming.  Based upon this he explains the אני מאמין in the siddur ואע"פ שיתמהמה וכו', what is this question and answer?  It’s a second din.  אני מאמין בביאת המשיח is the first din, the second din is אחכה לו.  If one looks in the source of the אני מאמין in the Rambam in his commentary to the Mishna, last Ch. of Sanhedrin, he says: להאמין ולאמת שיבא ולא יחשב שיתאחר, again we see its two obligations.  The Briskor Rav added that’s the explanation of the beracha in Shemone Esrei of את צמח, we add כי לישועתך קוינו כל היום, besides proclaiming our desire that Moshiach should come, we express our yearning for Moshiach.

Before the words of the Rambam that were cited previously, the Rambam says: המלך המשיח עתיד לעמוד ולהחזיר מלכות דוד ליושנה לממשלה הראשונה ובונה המקדש ומקבץ נדחי ישראל וחוזרין כל המשפטים בימיו כשהיו מקודם מקריבין קרבנות ועושין שמטין ויובלות ככל מצותה האמורה בתורה.  Why does the Rambam open with these words describing what Moshiach will do before telling us the obligation to believe in Moshiach?  Furthermore, in the laws afterward, the Rambam describes what will happen in the world in the times of Moshiach, why does this have to be mentioned in a book of laws, it is great information, but what law do I learn from it?  The Rebbe has a sicha in which he elaborates on the idea that all of this is Part of the belief in Moshiach.  To believe in Moshaich, one must first know what is the cheftzah and geder of Moshiach.  Moshiach isn’t Gandalf, riding down on a white horse, coming to kill all the Orcs.  Moshiach’s task is to bring about the שלימות התורה, to enhance, perfect and teach Torah and mitzvot.  The knowledge of what is Moshiach, is first and foremost in the belief of Moshiach.

Time For Mussaf

The Gemorah in Temurah (14b) has a derash that one can offer the korban mussaf the entire day.  The Briskor Rav asks why do we need a possuk, why would assume it’s not allowed to be offered all day?  (See much discussion about the question in the Mishmar Halevi.)

We can suggest without a possuk one would have thought that the mussaf has to be offered in the morning for it is connected to the korban tammid. (It would explain why the parsha of mussafin opens with the korban tammid and why its mentioned in conjunction with the mussafin of the holidays על עולת התמיד.)  Sources for this idea can be found in Malbim (28:10) ומ"ש על עולת התמיד היינו שיקריב אחר תמיד של שחר ונסכיו וכר"ש בזבחים (דף פ"ט) דהא אמר עולת בלשון יחיד שקאי על עולת השחר:  The Malbim learns the possuk tells us the mussaf must be offered after the tammid, but we see he assumes it should be offered early.  The source of this can be found in the Midrash Hagodol.  In the Mahara M’pano responsa 14 he refers to mussaf as being part of shacharis as well (Or Avrohom on Sefer Hamitzvot #41.)

However, the Tosfos Rashba in Pesachim (58a) and the same vein is approached by Tosfos Yeshanim in Yoma (35a) assume that the time to offer the korban mussaf is in the midday hour.  The Tosfos Rashba has a derash on the words (Vayikra 23:37) דְּבַר־י֥וֹם בְּיוֹמֽוֹ that it indicates midday.  They seem to assume this is the time of the mussaf and not that it would have been offered only in the time of the tammid.  We could suggest still in the same vein that I would have thought the mussaf would only be valid if offered in the sixth hour of the day; hence, the Gemorah in Temurah has a derash to tell us its valid even if offered later, ועדיין צ"ע.

It noteworthy that this approach of assuming the optimal time is midday is followed by the Rambam regarding the laws of the mussaf prayer as well.  He says in Tefillah (3:5): תפלת המוספין זמנה אחר תפלת השחר עד שבע שעות ביום והמתפלל אותה אחר שבע שעות אף ע"פ שפשע יצא ידי חובתו מפני שזמנה כל היום.  He assumes that optimally one should pray mussaf before 7 hours into the day.  This is the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (286:1) as well.

Lessons Of Rashi

Even A Little Teshuvah Helps:

The possuk (26:11): וּבְנֵי־קֹ֖רַח לֹא־מֵֽתוּ׃.  Rashi: ובני קרח לא מתו – הם היו בעצה תחלה, ובשעת המחלוקת הירהרו תשובה בלבם, לפיכך נתבצר להם מקום גבוה בגיהנם וישבו שם.  How does Rashi know that the sons of Korach were in the עצה from the very beginning, and even if there is a source, why strengthen their sin when discussing their teshuvah?  And how does Rashi know their teshuvah was only a הרהור הלב, incomplete? 

The Rebbe explains (Likutay Sichos volume 33) that Rashi is bothered why the possuk juxtaposes the sons of Korach to the death of Dasan and Avirom if they did teshuvah?  Rashi explains the possuk is teaching us that the sons of Korach were also the masterminds of the argument.  However, they were spared because of their teshuvah.  If they did teshuvah why were they stuck in gehhonom and not fully spared?  It must be their teshuvah wasn’t complete. 

The lesson we can derive from the Rashi is that any small amount of teshuvah, even merely a הרהור a has a tremendous effect and can literally save a person's life .

---

Every Day Is A Holiday:

The possuk (28:2) צַ֚ו אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאָמַרְתָּ֖ אֲלֵהֶ֑ם אֶת־קׇרְבָּנִ֨י לַחְמִ֜י לְאִשַּׁ֗י רֵ֚יחַ נִֽיחֹחִ֔י תִּשְׁמְר֕וּ לְהַקְרִ֥יב לִ֖י בְּמוֹעֲדֽוֹ  Rashi says: במועדו – בכל יום הוא מועד התמידים.  What is Rashi adding to the possuk and what is he coming to explain?  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 28) explains Rashi is bothered that normally the wordמועדו  would indicate some special time, a holiday, but what is the holiday every day?  Rashi says that everyday is considered the holiday vis-a-vis offering the tammid.  What difference does it make if it’s considered an offering of the מועד of the day or is just an obligation of a korban?  Since its an obligation of the specific day, if the day passes and one doesn’t offer the tammid it can’t be made up on another day; had it just been an obligation of a korban one would’ve been able to make it up.

Hatred Out Of Love

The possuk at the end of last weeks parsha traces back the lineage of Pinchas to Aharon so why does it have to be repeated in our parsha?  Rav Chayim Shmulevitz explains that the Torah is explaining when one can carry out an act of killing someone else for the sake of religion; only if there is no element of hate introduced into the act.  The Torah is teaching that when Pinchas killed Zimri, he felt like his grandfather, Aharon, אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה, he didn’t feel any prejudice against him, it was purely as for the sake of Hashem.  The yesod is that the act of din isn’t a sacrifice of chesed; it itself is an act of chesed.

Based upon this idea, he explains the Gemorah in Yoma (54a) that when the gentiles entered the Beis Hamikdash before they destroyed it, they found the keruvim hugging.  The Rishonim ask that the Gemorah in Babba Bathra (98a) that the keruvim hugged each other only when Klal Yisroel is doing the will of Hashem?  Based upon this yesod we understand that the middos hadin was able to have an effect only if there was a backdrop of ahavah.

This idea is elucidated in Tanya Ch. 32 (לב) וגם המקורבים אליו והוכיחם ולא שבו מעונותיהם שמצוה לשנאותם מצוה לאהבם ג"כ ושתיהן הן אמת שנאה מצד הרע שבהם ואהבה מצד בחי' הטוב הגנוז שבהם שהוא ניצוץ אלקות שבתוכם המחיה נפשם האלקית וגם לעורר רחמים בלבו עליה כי היא בבחי' גלות בתוך הרע מס"א הגובר עליה ברשעי' והרחמנות מבטלת השנאה ומעוררת האהבה כנודע. 

Based upon this we can understand the following idea.  " The disciples of the Maggid of Mezritch used to take turns to wait on him according to a certain schedule.  The Alter Rebbe heard of the following episode from R. Zusya, who heard it from his brother, R. Elimelech.  One night, when R. Elimelech was on duty, the Maggid called him from his room nearby and said: “Meilech, do you hear what they’re saying in the Academy on High? They’re saying that ahavas Yisrael means loving an utter rasha just as one loves an utter tzaddik!”  The Maggid continued: “A tzaddik is able to arouse the powers that are latent in every soul, and to empower that person to do teshuvah. A minyan of members of the Holy Brotherhood are able to arouse even an utter rasha to do teshuvah!” " (From the talks of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak of Lubavitch; translated by Uri Kaploun (Shavuot day 1940.))  The   אוהבי ה' שנאו רע doesn't diminish from the love one has for the core of the neshama that remains pure.

The Ohav Yisroel asks why in this week’s parsha, in the three weeks do we read about the korbanot of Yom Tov which only apply in the Beis Hamikdash?  He explains that the 21 days of the three weeks correspond to all the Yomim Tovim (including Shabbos) which add up to 21.  He says that in the times of Mashiach the 9^th of Av will be the greatest Yom Tov. He adds that the 21 days of the three weeks will be the source of kedusha for the Yomim Tovim.  That’s why in the letter ט the top of the head turns in, to show that the good in is hidden.  Therefore, the Yomim Tovim are read in the three weeks for this is the time that will bring kedusha to the Yomim Tovim.   How can he days of the greatest sorrow be the source of days of happiness and joy?  The answer is the same yesod.  The din of the days of the three weeks really contain in them the greatest compassion.

Vav And Geulah

The Baal Haturim explains the cut vav in the word שלום is because Pinchas is Eliyahu and Yaakov took a vav from his name to guarantee the geulah (Rashi Bechukosai 26:42.)  Therefore, the vav is cut to indicate that the name is taken from his name to guarantee the geualah.  Why is this hinted to here?  According to the Targum Yonason, the ברית שלום is that Pinchas will live forever and be the harbinger of the geulah.  It is when Pinchas is established as the one to lead the geulah that its hinted to the fact that he gives a guarantee for it. 

[How does the Targum see in the word שלום this idea?  The Sforno says: את בריתי שלום – ממלאך המות, כענין ״עושה שלום במרומיו״ (איוב כ״ה:ב׳). כי אמנם ההפסד לא יקרה אלא בסבת התנגדות ההפכים. וזה אמנם נתקיים בפינחס שהאריך ימים הרבה מאד מכל שאר אנשי דורו, עד שהיה הוא משמש במשכן שילה בזמן פלגש בגבעה, שהיה בלי ספק אחרי מות יהושע ושאר ״הזקנים אשר האריכו ימים אחרי יהושע״ (שופטים ב׳:ז׳), וכל שכן אם היה בזמן יפתח שכתב למלך בני עמון ״בשבת בני ישראל בחשבון ובבנותיה כו׳ שלש מאות שנה״ (שופטים י״א:כ״ו). וכבר ספרו ז״ל שפינחס לא רצה ללכת אז אל יפתח להתיר נדרו. וכל שכן לדברי האומר אליהו זה פינחס, והוא עדין חי וקיים.  In Yehuda Ya’aleh volume 2 #155, Rav Yehuda Asad explains that death is caused when the four prime elements are no longer in line with each other.  Hence, the bris of shalom to Eliyahu covered these elements as well; hence he wasn’t subject to death.  (I saw it quoted in Otzar Hatorah by Rav Eliyahu Shlesinger.)  See a similar approach regarding shalom between body and soul in the Alshich.]

Fabulous Egrah D'kalah here (start bottom of pg.) as to why the guarantee is a vav.  

Based upon his words we understand why this hint is directly in the middle of the word שלום.  Vav is חיבור, attachment.  The proper attachment is among Jews, that is the proper שלום.  The sin of Zimri was a perversion of the vav.  Eliyahu was the one to stand up and fix the vav.  The vav in the name of Pinchas is to indicate that he is the one to repair the proper חיבור, it is Eliyahu that will bring forward the geulah which will be the ultimate proper חיבור between Klal Yisroel and Hashem, he is the one to usher in the ultimate שלום. (Based upon Shviley Pinchas Pinchas 5773.) 

Mesoras HaTorah

The Rambam Sanhedrin (4:1) says: אחד בית דין הגדול ואחד סנהדרין קטנה או בית דין של שלשה

צריך שיהיה אחד מהן סמוך מפי הסמוך ומשה רבינו סמך יהושע ביד שנאמר ויסמוך את ידיו עליו ויצוהו וכן השבעים זקנים משה רבינו סמכם ושרתה עליהן שכינה ואותן הזקנים סמכו לאחרים ואחרים לאחרים ונמצאו הסמוכין איש מפי איש עד בית דינו של יהושע ועד בית דינו של משה רבינו.  The Aley Shor (volume one pg. 94) points out that semicha isn’t just passing on the rights to be a member of the beis din, it includes passing on this ability to tap into the Shechina.  Why does this need to be passed on from Moshe?  I believe the explanation is based upon the Derashot HaRan (derush 8) where he says that each navi receives the nevuah through his rebbi in nevuah.  Therefore, they had to accept this ability of receiving nevuah from their rebbi, Moshe Rabbenu.  Now we understand why Moshe must be the greatest navi for he is the teacher of all the neviem.  They receive their power from him; therefore, he must be the greatest.

Rashi (27:16) cites the midrash that says: יפקד י״י – כיון ששמע משה שאמר לו המקום: תן נחלת צלפחד לבנותיו, אמר הגיעה שעה שאתבע צורכי שיירשו בניי את גדולתי. אמר לו הקב״ה: לא כך עלתה במחשבה לפניי, כדי הוא יהושע ליטול שכר שימושו שלא מש מתוך האהל, וזהו שאמר שלמה: נוצר תאנה יאכל פריה.  Why did Moshe want his sons to take over if they weren’t the worthiest?  Possibly he thought that the “flow” of nevuah which needed to be past down would best be picked up by his sons for they literally came from him.  Hashem responded that Yehoshua was the most capable of tapping into this “flow” for he was constantly around Moshe.

The Rambam (intro. to Mishne Torah) traces the mesorah of the passing of the Torah from generation to generation.  He says: הַמִּצְוָה, שְׁהִיא פֵּרוּשׁ הַתּוֹרָה – לֹא כְתָבָהּ; אֵלָא צִוָּה בָּהּ לַזְּקֵנִים וְלִיהוֹשׁוּעַ וְלִשְׁאָר כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "אֵת כָּל־הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם – אֹתוֹ תִשְׁמְרוּ, לַעֲשׂוֹת . . ." (דברים יג, א). וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה נִקְרֵאת תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִכְתְּבָה תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה, לִמְּדָהּ מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ כֻּלָּהּ בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ לְשִׁבְעִים זְקֵנִים; וְאֶלְעָזָר וּפִינְחָס וִיהוֹשׁוּעַ, שְׁלָשְׁתָּן קִבְּלוּ מִמֹּשֶׁה. וְלִיהוֹשׁוּעַ שְׁהוּא תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁלְּמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ, מָסַר תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה וְצִוָּהוּ עָלֶיהָ; וְכֵן יְהוֹשׁוּעַ, כָּל יְמֵי חַיָּיו לִמַּד עַל פֶּה.

(See Briskor Rav on the parsha and further discussion by his son, Rav Dovid and in the Mishmar Halevi on the parsha regarding that part of the promise to Pinchas = Eliyahu is that that he will keep the mesores haTorah alive even after the chain has been broken.)

We see from the Rambam that the תורה שבעל פה was given specifically to Yehoshua; the זקנים received the Torah from Moshe as well, but they aren’t considered the מקבלים.  What is the difference between the acceptance of Yehoshua and the זקנים?  The difference lies in where they just passing on Torah that they heard, or did the Torah become part of them.  As discussed on this blog many times before (see ex. here and here,) one doesn’t just learn Torah, it becomes part of the person.  Only Yehoshua received this ability and that level is hinted to in the second hand that Moshe use to give semicha to Yehoshua (see Rashi (27:23.)  Why did Yehoshua merit this more than the זקנים?  The aforementioned midrash explains because he was משמש Moshe.  Those that sat in the shiur of Moshe Rabbenu, yes they received Torah but it was merely a mountain of information.  Only Yehoshua saw it applied in life.  It is only that person who can understand what the Torah is saying on a personal level and learn how to apply it in every situation (based upon Pnenei Harav.)

Briskor Rav And Rav Baruch Ber

A few weeks ago this blog wrote from Rav Henoch why the Briskor Rav and Rav Baruch Ber had different approaches to understanding Rav Chaim.  A few interesting stories about this from עובדות והנהגות לבית בריסק.

Fix Your Moshiach

Based upon the previous post an explanation in last week's parsha from Toras Menachem 12 Tammuz 5721.

You Are Moshiach

The Meor Einayim quotes the Besht that everyone has a part of his soul that is Moshiach.  See here (start bottom of pg.) for whole piece.  This is the quote from Besht.

What does this mean?  This idea is merely a reflection of the entire approach of the Besht.  Everything in Torah is viewed a lesson and teaching in regard to a person's soul.  The idea of golus and geulah is viewed through the same prism.  Many people think that golus and geulah is something external, is a state of being that a person is living through.  Therefore, many don’t care about golus and geulah.  They feel we are merely passing through golus waiting for some geulah to happen that has absolutely nothing to do with me and besides some pesky customs for 3 weeks in the year should be completely ignored. 

The Chassidic masters teach that is completely wrong.  We say in lecha dodi קרבה אל נפשי גאלה, there is a geulas hanefesh.  If there is a geulas hanefesh, then there must be a golus hanefesh.  Most notably of course, when a person sins, when there is a lacking in the service of Hashem, this is golus.  In a broader perspective, depression, barriers standing in the way of a person’s success, troubles that adversely affect a person, are all states of golus.  Geulah isn’t an external state of events in the world, it is a perspective on a person’s life.  Geulah is to be able to rise above all the problem.  To be able to feel close to Hashem despite all the problems.  There are problems; but that doesn’t impede or impair a person’s relationship with Hashem in any form or manner.    

The Kabbalists (highlighted in Egeret Hateshuva (third section of Tanya) and often cited in Solevetchik on Repentance) say that sin is the secret of the galus haShechinah and teshuva is the redemption.  The idea is the same as above.  It is a destruction and rebuilding of a person’s own soul.  The external golus is merely a reflection of the golus of the heart and nefesh.  A way to achieve the geulah of the klal is to fix the geulah of the individual.  It is not by accident that in Likutay Torah of the Baal HaTanya (which focuses on the pnemious of the parsha,) in parshas Balak (which kicked off the three weeks this year,) there is a lengthy discourse (מה טובו) about teshuva. It is when the soul returns (שב,) to its source that there can be a geulas hanefesh.

Lessons From Bilam

A couple of points on the parsha.
The Chosom Sofer at the and of his responsa on Yoreh Deah points out that the story of Balak and Bilam is unique in the Torah for no one new about it.  No body in Klal Yisroel saw what they were doing; the entire parsha was dictated by Hashem. We see from here a tremendous lesson in emunah.  Hashem is always protecting us, even when we don't realize.  Even at a time when Klal Yisroel isn't praying or doing anything to shield against the attack Hashem is still watching over us.  Based upon this we can understand the Gemorah in Berachos (12b) that says Chazal wanting to put the parsha of Bilam in krias shemah.  The Gemorah says why, because אמר רבי יוסי בר אבין משום דכתיב בה האי קרא כרע שכב כארי וכלביא מי יקימנו.  Rashi says: כרע שכב - דדמי לבשכבך ובקומך שהקדוש ב"ה שומרנו בשכבנו ובקומנו לשכב שלוים ושקטים כארי וכלביא.  However, it still needs to be explained what does the parsha of Balak have to do with the theme of shemah of accepting Hashem's oneness and kingship?  Based upon this Chosom Sofer we understand that this parsha is a living example of Hashem's hashgacha over everything.  That is what the possuk means כרע שכב, even when we are sleeping and not aware of who is coming to attack us, Hashem is still looking after us.

---

The Ramban (24:1) says: ולא הלך כפעם בפעם לקראת נחשים – כי בפעמים הראשונים היה מנחש ורוצה לקלל אותם בנחש, והיה השם בא אליו בדרך מקרה, לא בכונתו לנבואה ולא ממעלתו שהגיע אליה, ועתה כאשר נאמר לו: כי לא נחש ביעקב ולא קסם בישראל (במדבר כ״ג:כ״ג) להרע או להטיב להם, הניח הנחשים ולא הלך כפעם בפעם לקראתם. אבל שם אל המדבר פניו אשר ישראל שם, שיראה אותם ויכין להם נפשו, שיחול עליו הדבור מאת השם כאשר עשה עמו פעמים, וכן היה לו. על כן אמר: ותהי עליו רוח אלהים – כי עתה היתה עליו יד י״י כאשר היא לנביאים, כמו שאמר: ומי יתן כל עם י״י נביאים כי יתן י״י את רוחו עליהם (במדבר י״א:כ״ט), ואומר: רוח י״י אלהים עלי (ישעיהו ס״א:א׳). ועל כן קרא עצמו עתה: שומע אמרי אל (במדבר כ״ד:ד׳), כי נביא הוא.  The Ramban holds that  the first 'prophecies' of Bilam weren't real prophecies; Hashem merely took over his mouth.  However, the third time Balak assented to the level of real prophesy.  How could such a lowlife as Bilam receive prophesy?  The answer lies in the words of the Ramban.  Bilam took a look deep down in his soul, now that he was looking at Klal Yisroel the good in his soul was magnetically pulled toward the kedusha in front of it and came out.  By focusing on the this aspect of his soul (which had tremendous potential,) Bilam was able to receive prophesy.  The lesson in that if a person focuses on true service of Hashem, even if his/her character hasn't been changed completely, the individual can already tap into the river of truth (based on Mictav M'eliyahu volume 4.)

---

Rashi 22:28 says: [זה שלש רגלים – רמזה לו אתה מבקש לעקור אומה החוגה שלש רגלים בשנה.]  Everyone asks why is it specifically the merit of the three regalim that brings Bilam down?  The idea is that Bilam was one of the greatest intellectuals of the day, he knew all of the philosophy, the arts, all the wisdom and even the all of the ethical teachings and laws of the day.  What was lacking was the legs.  The legs are the lowest part of the body, the part farthest from the brain.  (See similar theme here.)  The feet only act based upon what is ingrained into the core of the person. The wisdom of Bilam was limited to his brain, it didn't affect his feet, his actions didn't parallel his wisdom.  It is the mitzvoh of the feet going up on the regel that is the opposite of Bilam.  It demonstrates that the body of a Jew itself becomes imbued with holiness.  That was something that Bilam couldn't match up to and that is what worked against him.

Tammuz Power: 6 + 7

וירא העם כי בשש משה ובגמ' שבת פט. אל תקרי בשש אלא באו שש.  צ"ב מה נ"מ באיזה שעה הם סברו שמשה יבא ומה איכפ"ל אם היה שעה ששית או שעה אחרת?  עפ"י פנימיות זה לא סתם שעה אלא זה מורה על מהות ותוכן החטא של כלל ישראל כמו שיתבאר. 

השם של החודש הזה הוא תמוז.  מהו תמוז?  רש"י יחזקאל (ח:יד) פ': מבכות את התמוז – דמות א׳ שמחממו׳ אותו מבפני׳ והיו עיניו של עופר׳ והם נתוכין מחום ההיסק ונראה כאלו בוכה ואומרת תקרובת הוא שואל.  וא"כ צ"ב למה בוחרין בשם ע"ז להיות שם של החודש?

כל הענין של יז' בתמוז התחילה ע"י חטא העגל.  חטא העגל היה חטא של פירוד בין ו' לז'.  הם אמרו עכשיו בשש, אין קשר בין ניהוג העולם והקב"ה.  השם של החודש הוא שם של ע"ז שאנשים חושבין שיש בה כח שמכחישין במלכות שמים, שה' מנהיג הכל.  וזה היה הגורם של כל הגלות.  הפירוד הזאת (שנתחדש כבר בדור הפלגה עיין שיעורי דעת) הוא הסיבה שממנו בא כל החטאים. 

מלבד מה שתמוז הוא שם ע"ז יש בו גם רמז למעליותא והיינו שמורכב ממלת תם ו' ז'.  היינו שיש בו רמז לחיבור בין ו' לז'.  ז' הוא ספירה השביעית, מלכות, ההכרה של מלכות שמים.  ו' הן הו' מדות, הו' קצוות של העולם שהעולם נראה בפירוד ממלכות שמים.  ועבודת בנ"י הוא כמשכ' בפסוק ישעיה (מ"ג:כ"א) עם זו יצרתי לי תהלתי יספרו.  זו היינו החיבור בין ו' וז', לחבר את העולם אם הבורא.  בתוך המכה של תמוז, מונח הרפואה.  יש לנו כח להפוך את תמוז לתם ו'ז'.
(עפ"י לקוטי תורה שלח יג: ושבילי פנחס תשע"ג.)

וענין זה מבואר גם בשם הפרשה שלנו.  למה נקרא הפרשה ע"ש רשע, שונה ישראל כמו בלעם?  אלא דזה גופא הוא ביטול הכי גדול שייך לו, שלא רק שכחו נתבטל אלא להיפך, הוא גרם ברכות גדולות לכלל ישראל.  ומה שמוזכר שמו בשם הסדרה זה גופא הוא הביטול הכי גדול ששייך לו.  ולכן מה שהפרשה נקרא על שמו זה גופא הוא קיום של שם רשעים ירקב (עפ"י לקו"ש חכ"ג.)

וגם י"ל דבר זה מרומז בחג הגאולה של האדמו"ר הקודם של חב"ד, הריי"צ, ביג' תמוז (שחל בשבוע הזאת,) שאותיות ו' וז' עולה ביחד למספר יג'.  גאולה של אדמו"ר זה לא גאולה פרטית אלא זה דבר ששייך לכל כלל ישראל.  ובחג הזאת נתגלה במקצת הענין וגילוי המהות הפנימיות של חודש תמוז, שמה שהוא התחלת הגלות באמת הוא מפתח הגאולה.  ובודאי לא במקרה הוא שמספר יג' עולה בדיוק בחשבון של מלת אחד, שע"י חיבור ו' עם ז' מתגלה אחדות הויה. 

שבת הוא פנימיות השבוע ולכן כל הפנימיות של התחלת הזמן שאנחנו מזכירין את ענין וימי הגלות מונח בתוך השבת שחל בו.  ולכן בשבת הזאת קורין בפרשת בלק נבואות על הגאולה!  איך זה מתאים לשבת של יז' תמוז, לכ' הוא היפך כל הענין?  אלא כנ"ל שבתוך הנעול של גלות נמצא המפתח של גאולה.