Uprooting Sin

The possuk (29:17) says פֶּן־יֵ֣שׁ בָּכֶ֗ם שֹׁ֛רֶשׁ פֹּרֶ֥ה רֹ֖אשׁ וְלַעֲנָֽה.  The Pnei Menachem says that the first letters of the words שֹׁ֛רֶשׁ פֹּרֶ֥ה רֹ֖אשׁ וְלַעֲנָֽה spell out the word שופר.  The שופר has the ability to remove even  habits that have deep roots within a person's soul.  This is the bar of teshuva, not only to correct actions but to completely uproot the roots of all sin.

The Gemorah in Avodah Zarah (45b) says regarding avodah zarah that not only must it be removed, but if it is a tree even the roots must be completely uprooted.  The Bear Mayim Chayim says this is a lesson in uprooting the אל זר inside a person.  In his words parshas Metzorah (14:2): ועל כן אם רואה אדם שבא לידי עבירה בשוגג או במזיד קלה או חמורה ורוצה לשוב בתשובה. אם לא ישוב רק על העבירה שעבר ולא יתן לב לעקור המדה הרעה מלבו שממנה בא לעבור העבירה הלז הרי הוא קרוב לחזור לסורו ולמחר יחזור ויעבור כיון שעדיין תאות המדה חזקה בלבו. ולזה אמרו ז"ל מפני תקנת השבים הרוצה לעקור עבודה זרה מארצו, שרוצה לעקור העבודה שהיא זרה שהיא העבירה שלא לבוא עוד לעבור העבירה הזו. אין לו תקנה כי אם לשרש אחריה לחפש בשרשה מאין נמשך אליו שיבוא אל העבירה הלזו מאיזה מדה רעה בלבו. וכאשר יעקרנה בשרשה שיתן אל לבו בכח מוחו ושכלו להבין בגנות ומיאוס וחומר כל מדה ומדה. ויעקרנה מלבו לגמרי באופן שתהיה בזויה ומאוסה בלבו מכל וכל שלא ירצנה בשום אופן ואז יהיה נכון לבו בטוח בה' שלא יחזור לסורו ולא יעבור עוד למרות את פי ה' אלהיו בזה.

In the intro. paragraph to vidduy we say אבל אנחנו ואבותינו חטאנו.  We understand that we are confessing our sins, but why drag אבותינו into the mix? The Briskor Rav explains that in vidduy there lies a double obligation, the confession of every individual and the confession of the tzibbur. The אנחנו is acknowledging and doing vidduy for our individual sins but there is also the need for the vidduy on אבותינו, on the tzibbur. The source is an open possuk in Vayikra (26:40) וְהִתְוַדּ֤וּ אֶת־עֲוֺנָם֙ וְאֶת־עֲוֺ֣ן אֲבֹתָ֔ם.  With that idea the Rav explained the possuk in this weeks parsha, וְשַׁבְתָּ֞ עַד־י״י֤ אלקיך וְשָׁמַעְתָּ֣ בְקֹל֔וֹ כְּכֹ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־אָנֹכִ֥י מְצַוְּךָ֖ הַיּ֑וֹם אַתָּ֣ה וּבָנֶ֔יךָ בְּכׇל־לְבָבְךָ֖ וּבְכׇל־נַפְשֶֽׁךָ, why add וּבָנֶ֔יךָ?  For אתה is the vidduy of the individual and וּבָנֶ֔יךָ is the vidduy of the tzibbur. However, it still needs explanation why mention the vidduy of the tzibbur as אבותינו and not as והקהל, why pick on the earlier generations?  According to the above idea we can say that we mean to acknowledge and recite vidduy for the root of the sins, the seeds that were planted already in the earlier times.

Yaakov tells Reuvain פַּ֤חַז כַּמַּ֙יִם֙ אַל־תּוֹתַ֔ר כִּ֥י עָלִ֖יתָ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אָבִ֑יךָ. Why mention the פַּ֤חַז כַּמַּ֙יִם֙ אַל־תּוֹתַ֔ר, just say כִּ֥י עָלִ֖יתָ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אָבִ֑יךָ?  Yaakov was telling Reuvain the source of the sin, the bad roots that he had to uproot.

Teshuva And Torah

The Ramban holds the מצוה הזאת in (30:11)  כִּ֚י הַמִּצְוָ֣ה הַזֹּ֔את אֲשֶׁ֛ר אָנֹכִ֥י מְצַוְּךָ֖ הַיּ֑וֹם לֹא־נִפְלֵ֥את הִוא֙ מִמְּךָ֔ וְלֹ֥א רְחֹקָ֖ה הִֽוא is referring to teshuva.  This seems to contradict the Gemorah in Eruvin (54a) that learns it’s referring to torah (as Rashi says.)  However, it may be there is no contradiction here, rather the two interpretations complement each other.  The most ultimate form of teshuva is through learning torah. The Gemorah says that teshuva done מאהבה is the greatest teshuva.  What is the way of expressing אהבת ה'?  It is through learning torah.  Hence, the greatest form of teshuva is done through the study of torah.  Based upon this we can understand why Rabbenu Yonah in Shaarei Teshuva (4:16) says that learning torah is an atonement for חילול ה'.  It is only teshuva of the highest level that can bring כפרה for such a sin and that is accomplished through learning.  (All of this is explained in Mishnas Yaavetz #54, see there additional sources and proofs.)  This is reflected in the Targum Yonason as well in Yeshayahu (1:16.)  The possuk says רַֽחֲצוּ֙ הִזַּכּ֔וּ הָסִ֛ירוּ רֹ֥עַ מַעַלְלֵיכֶ֖ם מִנֶּ֣גֶד עֵינָ֑י and the Targum says תּוּבוּ לְאוֹרַיְתָא.  We see he explains the removal of sin is through learning. 

With this in mind we understand why Chazal made the beracha in Shemonei Esrei about teshuva start with השיבנו אבינו לתורתך.  What does one have to do with another?  Torah is necessary for teshuva. This is what the baaleh mussaar understood and the emphasis in Elul wasn’t on additional mussar, it was on learning torah as demonstrated from this quote from the sefer Kodesh Elul. 

 

See as well this citation in וענפיה ארזי אל

The Tanya in Egeres Hakodesh cites from the Zohar as well that the highest form of teshuva is learning torah. 

The second possuk in the haftorah of Shabbos Teshuva is קְח֤וּ עִמָּכֶם֙ דְּבָרִ֔ים וְשׁ֖וּבוּ אֶל־י״י֑.  What devarim is the possuk referring to?  Most Rishonim understand it’s a reference to vidduy.  However, the midrash in parshas Tzaveh (38:4) understands it’s a reference to the words of Torah.  How does the midrash see this as a reference to Torah and what’s the connection to Torah?  There seems to be a repetition in the first two pessukim of the haftorah.  The first verse already says שׁ֚וּבָה יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל עַ֖ד י״י֣ אלקיך כִּ֥י כָשַׁ֖לְתָּ בַּעֲוֺנֶֽךָ, so what is the idea of teshuva in the latter half of the second verse adding?  Rav Berel Povorski cites the Gemorah (Yoma 86a) that understands the first possuk is teshuva mayerah where the sins are now viewed as unintentional misdeeds.  That is the language of ad Hashem.  However, the second verse uses the language of el Hashem indicating a stronger connection, the teshuva that comes from love of Hashem.  The point of the midrash is that teshuva mahavah is accomplished through learning.  It is noteworthy to mention the end of the midrash that one who doesn’t have the capability to learn can pray to Hashem to atone his sins.

All For One

The possuk says אַתֶּ֨ם נִצָּבִ֤ים הַיּוֹם֙ כֻּלְּכֶ֔ם, everyone is lumped together.  Afterwards it lists off the rank and file of all the groups of Klal Yisrael.  Why bother mentioning everyone together if every category is going to be mentioned separately?  We see from here that to receive the new bris there was a necessity for everyone to be joined together as one body of Klal Yisroel.  However, one must not overlook themselves as just being another cog in the wheel, rather s/he must see how their own individualistic qualities, talents and capabilities can be used to help and inspire the Klal. 

The kabbalistic seforim (see Zohar volume 2-page 32b) say the word hayom is a hint to Rosh Hashana (based upon the verse in Job 1:6, see also Bedek Habayis siman 1 in Choshen Mishpat.)  Based upon this principle we can derive from here a lesson in regard to Rosh Hashana.  What is the message?

The possuk says (Devarim 32:4) קל אֱמוּנָה֙ וְאֵ֣ין עָ֔וֶל צַדִּ֥יק וְיָשָׁ֖ר הֽוּא , G-d is faithful in judgement.  How is this a praise of Hashem, every upstanding judicial branch should judge faithfully?  Rav Eliya Lopyain explains that a judge concludes the case according to what the person did and punishes accordingly.  He doesn’t take into account collateral damage that occurs because of this individual’s punishment.  However, Hashem takes into account how this person’s punishment will affect his family, coworkers etc.  Based upon this idea Rav Lopyain advises one to have some connection to others so that this dependency will have to be taken into account before s/he could be punished.  [That may be the two types of judgement on Rosh Hashana “hard judgement” and “soft judgement” that the Zohar talks about, the “soft judgement” takes others into account.  See the Mictav M’Eliyahu volume 2 about Rosh Hashana.]  That is what the remez is in our verse as well. One doesn’t stand on Rosh Hashana alone, s/he stands together with the body of Klal Yisroel and is judged in according to how his/her judgement will affect the Klal.  (Based upon Likutay Sichos volume 4, see also Me’or Veshemesh and his addition that the words “kilo each yisroel” are a reference to attaching to the tzaddik.)

Rashi is bothered by the word nitzavim which is not a commonly used word in the Torah.  Why didn’t the Torah use the word omdim which is more common?  In one interpretation he explains that since they were passing to a new leader Moshe had to encourage them, so he used the word nitzav which implies to be strong and firm.  Rashi’s language is that דבר אחר: לפי שהיו יוצאין מפרנס לפרנס – ממשה ליהושע, לפיכך עשה אותם מצבה לזרזם.  Why does Rashi use the term matzavah?  Rashi in parshas Shoftim says that a matzavah is  one stone.  This echoes the same theme.  In order for the reins to pass to the leader of Klal Yisroel there must be a joined Klal Yisroel.  Everyone must be united to bring his/her powers to be able to follow the commands of the next leader (see Shem M’Shmuel (5671) for a little deeper explanation but in the same vein.) 

This idea has a halachik application as well.  The Maharal asks how Moshe could administer an oath for the generations of the future (possuk 14 and Rashi,) they weren’t around to accept the oath?  In Netzach Yisroel (chapter 11,) the Maharal explains that the oath wasn’t on the individual, it was on the totality of Klal Yisroel.  If you are a card-carrying member of Klal Yisroel then you are automatically included in the oath.  It is because one is part of the Klal that s/he is included in the oath.  The Gur Aryeh on the possuk says a different answer but I don’t understand how he answers the question.  

  

The custom is to say the chapter of Tehillim (chapter 47) before sounding the shofar.  There are numerous explanations for why this chapter is recited.  Rav Leeb Chasman (chapter 4 in his treatise on Teshuva) suggests that we recite it for the entire chapter talks about the general, world acceptance of Hashem’s kingship.  Furthermore, the chapter was written by the sons of Korach whom had firsthand experience with the dangers of machlokes and lack of unity.  Before the high point of the day, the mitzvos hayom of Rosh Hashana, the sounding of the shofar (time of judgement according to Arizal) we remind ourselves that our judgement is as part of Klal Yisroel.  

The very act of blowing shofar itself reflects the same idea.  The Gemorah (Rosh Hashana 34a) says that Rav Avahu enacted to blow shevarim, teruah and shevarim-teruah because we are unsure what shevarim are.  If we don’t know what shevarim are what did everyone do before Rav Avahu?  The Rishonim cite Rav Hai Gaon that really all versions of the shevarim are good and different communities had different customs.  Rav Avahu wanted uniformity so he instituted that everyone should blow the same way.  Why in regard to shofar specifically was there a desire for uniformity?  Because we all stand together as one Klal Yisroel in judgement.  In order to reflect this unity Rav Avahu instituted that everyone’s shofar blowing should be the same.

The Gemorah in Rosh Hashana (18a) says that every individual must pass before Hashem one at a time to be judged.  The Gemorah also says that Hashem looks at everyone in one shot.  If everyone is seen in one shot, then why go one at a time before Hashem one at a time?  The Gemorah is emphasizing that the judgement of the individual is in respect to the Klal.  Did you improve the Klal through your avodah or impair?  (See Eyunim B’parsha and Shitos Be’halacha intro. to volume 4 by Rav Yehoshua Reizman.)

Shofar: Obligation Of The Individual And The Tzibbur

This piece is based upon part of a kuntras of Rav Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi.
The Rambam Shofar (3:1) says כַּמָּה תְּקִיעוֹת חַיָּב אָדָם לִשְׁמֹעַ בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה. תֵּשַׁע תְּקִיעוֹת.  Later on in the same Ch. (3:7,) he says הַצִּבּוּר חַיָּבִין לִשְׁמֹעַ הַתְּקִיעוֹת עַל סֵדֶר הַבְּרָכוֹת.  It is clear from the language of the Rambam that there is an obligation on the congregation to hear the shofar.  What does this mean, there is an obligation on every individual?  We see that there is an additional obligation for the tzibbur to hear the shofar besides the obligation on every individual.  What is the nature of this obligation?  We must first examine where we see this difference.

The Mishna (33b) says כשם ששליח צבור חייב כך כל יחיד ויחיד חייב.  This Mishna tells us the obligation on the individual. In the previous line, the Mishna says מי שבירך ואחר כך נתמנה לו שופר תוקע ומריע ותוקע שלש פעמים, if one already said the berachos of Shemonei Esrei and only afterward obtained a shofar, then you blow the shofar three sets of shofar blows.  The Gemorah (34b) points out that we see לכתחילה one must blow in the berachos.  The Gemorah says that that only applies when praying with a tzibbur. From here we see the additional obligation upon the tzibbur to blow shofar in the berachos.  However, Rashi on the Mishna explains the reason for the three sets of blowings is בשביל מלכיות זכרונות ושופרות.  What is the difference between the obligation of the tzibbur to blow in the berachos and the individual who blows בשביל the berachos?  Why does the individual blow בשביל the berachos but the tzibbur blows in the actual berachos?

The answer is that the contingency of the shofar and the berachos is a two way street, they each compliment each other.  Part of the obligation of the shofar is the berachos, they are part of the obligation of the shofar.  The proof to this is the Mishna on 26b שוה היובל לר"ה לתקיעה ולברכות, why would there be an obligation of the berachos in יובל?  The answer is that it is part of the obligation of shofar.  That is why even the individual must blow בשביל the berachos, for the berachos are part of the obligation of shofar.  Additionally, the shofar enhances the berachos for the shofar is also a form of prayer, see here.  That is why the tzibbur has an additional obligation to blow in the middle of the berachos in order to enhance the prayers.

Now, we can understand further the nature of this additional obligation for the tzibbur to hear the shofar and the difference between the obligation of the individual and the tzibbur.  Just as regarding the prayer service there is a special merit to praying in a quorum, so too the obligation of shofar as prayer is said as part of prayer in a quorom.  The main תקנה is to blow in the chazaras hashatz part of the prayers of the tzibbur.  Hence, an individual suffices connecting the shofar with the berachos by blowing three sets but the tzibbur as part of the communal prayers is obligated to blow in the berachos themselves.

Daven With The Shtender

What should one pray for on Rosh Hashana?  The Shtender!

          The Alter Rebbe was teaching that the essence of what we are supposed to pray for is to actualize Godliness into the lowliest parts of the world.  It isn't our job to be concerned with what's going on upstairs, our focus must be in lighting up the world with Godliness.  This starts of course, with one's own soul. 

The Prayer Of the Shofar

The end of the shofros blessing is כי אתה שומע קול שופר ומאזין תרועה ואין דומה לך ברוך אתה ה' שומע קול תרועות עמו ישראל ברחמים. What does it mean Hashem listens to the shofar sounds, we blow shofar as a mitzvah, why does it matter that Hashem hears it? The Briskor Rav explains that shofar besides being a mitzvah to blow it, is also a form of prayer. It is the prayer of the shofar that Hashem harkens to and accepts. The possuk in Balak (23:21) says וּתְרוּעַ֥ת מֶ֖לֶךְ בּֽוֹ. The Even Ezra says the word וּתְרוּעַ֥ת is related to the word תרועה, ותרועת מלך בו – במחנה ישראל, וזה: ותקעתם תרועה (see also Siforno.) How is this a praise of Klal Yisroel that they blow the shofar? Explains the Rav with the above principal, this form of prayer through a shofar is unique for Klal Yisroel. It is only Klal Yisroel that can have such a form of prayer accepted.   

The Rambam at the beginning of the Laws of Taanis says מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה מִן הַתּוֹרָה לִזְעֹק וּלְהָרִיעַ בַּחֲצוֹצְרוֹת עַל כָּל צָרָה שֶׁתָּבוֹא עַל הַצִּבּוּר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר י ט) "עַל הַצַּר הַצֹּרֵר אֶתְכֶם וַהֲרֵעֹתֶם בַּחֲצֹצְרוֹת". How do we see in the possuk that the Rambam cited the need to cry out, we only see the obligation to blow trumpets? The answer is that it’s understood that the blowing is a form of tefillah and hence will go hand in hand with an obligation to pray.What is the nature of this form of prayer? 

Rav Tzadok asks what does it mean ואין דומה לך, everyone hears the shofar?  He explains it refers to the shofar of the heart.  Sometimes a person can’t even express their feelings in any form at all and its only that can Hashem hear that inner shofar.  He says the same idea is reflected in the psalm added during the 10 days of repentance, shir hamalos m’maamakim.  The second possuk says, Hashem shma b’koli etc.  The Gemorah says one should pray silently so why do we ask that Hashem should hear our voice?  Rav Tzadok says its referring to the inaudible cry of a broken soul crying out to Hashem (Pri Tzaddik Rosh Hashana #9.)

After each round of shofar blasts in the Amida we say the paragraph of areses sifasanu.  We describe how Hashem listens to the shofar, מבין ומאזין מביט ומקשיב לקול תקיעתנו.  We can understand Hashem sees and hears our tkios, but what does it mean He is מבין, understands them?  What requires understanding?  Rav Yeruchem Olshin explains Hashem understands besides the verbalized cry there is a silent cry which is inaudible.  With this principle he explains the last line in the ana becoach.  We say שועתנו קבל ושמע צעקתנו יודע תעלומות.  If Hashem hears our prayers, why do we mention he knows what’s hidden, there is nothing hidden here?  We are saying that Hashem should listen to what’s in our hearts, to the emotions which are too great to take form in words.

This is the prayer of the shofar, is the feelings that can't be formed into words which are expressed through the shofar blasts.

Difference?

The Rambam famously states that the mitzvah of the shofar on Rosh Hashana isn't the blowing of the shofar, rather to hear the shofar blown. He puts forth this understanding in Sefer Hamitzvot #170 and codifies this understanding in his Mishne Torah in the Laws of Shofar at the beginning and in Ch. 2 Law 1. He describes this in greater detail in his Teshuvot Pear Hador #51. However, when it comes to the Laws of Yovel (10:10) and in Sefer Hamitzvot #137 he says the mitzvah to blow shofar on yovel is a mitzvah on every individual to sound the shofar. Where does the Rambam get this difference from?

Celebrating Man's Ability

Shofar In Mikdash: 3 Possibilities

The Mishna (Rosh Hashana 26b) tells us that on Rosh Hashana (in the Mikdash) the shofar was surrounded by trumpets.  The Gemorah on 27a explains this law only applies in the Mikdash because of the verse (Tehillim 98:6) בַּ֭חֲצֹ֣צְרוֹת וְק֣וֹל שׁוֹפָ֑ר הָ֝רִ֗יעוּ לִפְנֵ֤י׀ הַמֶּ֬לֶךְ י״יֽ.  The Gemora derives only before Hashem trumpets accompany the shofar.  What is the nature of this difference between the shofar of the Mikdash and the shofar everywhere else?  We can understand this law in three ways.  A.  It’s a law in shofar.  Shofar has parameters outside Mikdash different parameters inside Mikdash.  B.  It’s a law in Mikdash.  The Mikdash has unique laws and one of them is to blow shofar with accompanying trumpets.  C.  It’s a law in the the korban of Yom Tov.  Every Tom Tov has trumpets blown together with the korban (Behaloscha 10:10,) so Rosh Hashana is no different.  In the responsa of Har Tzvi Orach Chaim volume 2 siman 90 Rav Yaakov Kalmas entertains the possibility of A. and C. and gives a couple of nafka menous.  He says if it’s a law in the korban of the day it will have to be blown by a Kohan as opposed to it being option A. than anyone can blow it.  He suggests a further difference that if it’s option C. then the blowing of the Mikdash can’t discharge one of his obligation to hear the shofar for it is a different type of obligation, however if its option A. then it’s the same obligation.  Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank doesn’t think they are necessarily differences of this chakirah; ayen sham and in Mikraei Kodesh siman 34. 

Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank says since the Rambam cites this law in the Laws of Shofar chapter 1 law 2, not in the Laws of The Vessels of the Mikdash (3:5) where he cites the law of blowing on festivals then it must be a law in shofar like option A. 

The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 384) wonders why the Rambam cites this law of having the shofar and trumpets together both in the Laws of Shofar and the Laws of Fasts (at a time of communal distress trumpets were sounded as well see Mishna ibid.), but not in the Laws of The Vessels of the Mikdash?  I believe the Rambam understood there are two types of trumpet blasts.  There are the blasts used as a means of prayer, of calling out to Hashem.  Then there is another type of trumpet blast; that of festivity and shirah.  The Rambam understood this juxtaposition of shofar and trumpets is a law when the sound is being used as a form of prayer (i.e. Rosh Hashana and communal peril) but not when used as a form of praise and shirah (i.e. on Yom Tov.)  The shofar adds an element of a sound of warning and danger to the sound of the trumpets which is appropriate for prayer but not for shirah.

There is a debate in the Rishonim if one should say the verse in Behaloscha (ibid) amongst the verses of Shofras in the Amidah.  The Rosh (chapter 4 siman 3 in Rosh Hashana) cites some Rishonim held not to say it for there is no mention of shofar in the verse.  The Rosh disagrees and holds the mention of the word hariu even in the context of trumpets suffices.  One might be tempted to say the debate hinges on this very chakirah.  The other Rishonim hold the blowing of Mikdash is either like possibility A. or B. but the Rosh holds like possibility C. and therefore, we mention the possuk which applies to the shofar in Mikdash.  However, we mention these pessukim outside the Mikdash so why we should mention the possuk of the obligation of Mikdash?  Rav Solivetchik (Mo’adah Harav) hinges the debate on the previous point.  The Rosh holds the shofar blowing of Rosh Hashana besides being a blowing of a mitzvah and prayer it’ also a blowing of shirah, and therefore it is fitting to read the possuk of Behaloscha.  The other Rishonim however hold this isn’t a blowing of shirah, rather of prayer and therefore the verse in Behaloscha is inappropriate.

Tosfos in Megillah (20b) asks why we don’t say a prayer sheyebana Beis Hamikdash by lulav and shofar like we do after sifiras ha’omer.  We understand the question from lulav, for in the Mikdash the lulav is a Torah obligation for 7 days but outside the Mikdash its only 1 day (the 7 days we take the lulav is Rabbinic to remember the Mikdash).  However, we blow shofar nowadays as a Torah law, why would we add in a prayer for the Mikdash?  Tosfos held that the blowing in the Mikdash is either possibility B. or C. and is distinct from our blowing. 

The Mishna (Rosh Hashana 29b) says the shofar was sounded on Shabbos in the Mikdash but not outside of it.  The Gemorah explains we don’t blow shofar on Shabbos lest someone come to carry the shofar in a public domain.  So why in the Mikdash is it permitted?  Rashi explains the heter to blow shofar on Shabbos in the mIkdash is because of the principle of ain shevus bamikdash (Rosh Hashana 29b.)  The Turay Even asks that principle is only true if the shevus is necessary for the avodah (ayen sham for his proofs,) but what avodah is being done here?  We see from Rashi that he also held the blowing of Mikdash is either possibility B. or C. 

The Mishna (26b) says the mouth of the shofar was covered with gold.  Rashi says that means the shofar of Mikdash, not the shofar outside Mikdash (see Rashash.)  Why should only the shofar of Mikdash have this hiddur?  According to the Rambam the mitzvah of shofar is the hearing of it, not the action of blowing.  The Minchas Chinuch (384) wonders does the same thing apply to the blowing of the Mikdash or maybe there the mitzvah is the act of blowing?  Rav Yeruchim Olshin (Yerach La’moadim siman 19) explains Rashi holds that the shofar of Mikdash is different from outside of the Mikdash and the mitzvah is the blowing.  The Mitzvah is to have shofar sounded in the MIkdash, the hearing is not the point.  Therefore, the hiddur to cover the mouthpiece is only for the shofar of Mikdash where it is the object used to perform the mitzvah, not outside the Mikdash where one performs the mitzvah via hearing the shofar. 

The source for this idea of the shofar of Mikdash being unique comes from the Yerushalmi (Rosh Hashana chapter 4 law 1.)  The Yerushalmi holds not blowing shofar on Shabbos is a Torah law (not like the Bavli.)  The Yerushalmi asks if so, how do we blow in the Mikdash?  It answers with a verse “vehekravtem”, in the place of sacrifices there shall be blowing.  The Rishonim (Meiri Sukkah daf 30 and Raavad beginning of chapter 4 in Sukkah) understand that this isn’t just a ribui but that the shofar of Mikdash is unique from that of outside, like option 2 or 3 (Yerach La’Moadim ibid.)    

  

To end with a note of derush.  Rav Kook says that a shofar horn is a natural, heaven made noise maker.  Trumpets are manmade noise makers.  At the time of the Mikdash when we were serving Hashem properly then our avodah (represented by the trumpets) was desired.  However, in the golus our avodah isn’t accepted the same way and we ask Hashem to help us out (heaven-made shofar.)  Ultimately, Hashem will redeem us with the shofar gadol even if we aren’t deserving.

Words From Sephardi Rabbis

We say in the mizmorim of Kabbalas Shabbos, יִשְׂמְח֣וּ הַ֭שָּׁמַיִם וְתָגֵ֣ל הָאָ֑רֶץ יִֽרְעַ֥ם הַ֝יָּ֗ם וּמְלֹאֽוֹ יַעֲלֹ֣ז שָׂ֭דַי וְכׇל־אֲשֶׁר־בּ֑וֹ אָ֥ז יְ֝רַנְּנ֗וּ כׇּל־עֲצֵי־יָֽעַר לִפְנֵ֤י י״י֨׀ כִּ֬י בָ֗א כִּ֥י בָא֮ לִשְׁפֹּ֢ט הָ֫אָ֥רֶץ יִשְׁפֹּֽט־תֵּבֵ֥ל בְּצֶ֑דֶק וְ֝עַמִּ֗ים בֶּאֱמוּנָתֽוֹ (Tehillim 96.) Why is everything in the world happy because Hashem is coming to judge the world, how is it something to rejoice about because judgement day is coming? Rav Yehuda Deri (intro. to motzei Shabbos shiur of Rav Yitzchak Yosef parshas Ke Teitzey) explained that the rejoicing isn't over the fact that Hashem is judging, its because כי בא.  Before Hashem judges us, He gives us a month of Elul when He is close with us. He first comes close to us, gives us the ability to strengthen our relationship with Him and only afterward judges us.  That is why everything is happy; for the tremendous opportunity Hashem gives us to be able to be vindicated in din.

ההלכה ברורה וראש ביהמ"ד יחווה דעת, נשא הגר"ד דברי התעוררות לקראת הימים הנוראים בפני מאות משתתפים.
במהלך דבריו חיזק הגר"ד את תושבי שדרות הנמצאים בחזית וסובלים מידי תקופה מירי טילים, ואף סיפר על מקרה שאירע לו לאחר שיעור שנשא בעיר אשדוד במלחמת צוק איתן. "אתם נמצאים בחזית, מתמודדים עם אזעקות".
"אני רוצה לספר לכם", אמר הגר"ד, "לפני כמה זמן שהיה צוק איתן, הייתי באשדוד. אני אגיד לכם את האמת הזמינו אותי לכאן לשדרות. פחדתי, אבל הלכתי לאשדוד שם יש יותר זמן לברוח. נתתי שיעור שם בכולל גדול".
הגר"ד נוסיף לתאר: "בסיום נכנסתי למכונית. הנהג התחיל לנסוע, פתאום הגענו למרכז העיר. ברמזור התחילה אזעקה. אני לא מכיר את הדברים האלו. נלחצתי. מה עושים עכשיו. ראיתי את כולם רצים ומחפשים מחסה. התחבאנו באיזה מקום מלא אנשים ואז אנחנו רואים איזה דבר עף בשמיים, רואים את הכיפת ברזל, שומעים בום. תוך כמה שניות הכל נרגע".
כאילו כלום לא היה. היה ונגמר. חוזרים למסלול של החיים הרגילים. נכנסתי למכונית, נסענו לירושלים ואז בדרך אני חושב מה שקרה כאן היום זה חודש אלול ראש השנה ויום כיפור". אמר הגר"ד יוסף ועורר את הציבור.
"חודש אלול מתחילים להתכונן, מסדרים מרחב מוגן, סליחות, ראש השנה האזעקה בשופר, ואז כולם צדיקים, מתפללים, מתחרטים. מגיע כיפור יותר ויותר ואז מוצאי יום כיפור תוקעים בשופר ואז אחרי זה מה קורה הולכים הביתה, עושים הבדלה, אוכלים ושותים ואז חוזרים למה שהיינו לפני חודש אלול. הייתה אזעקה ונגמרה".
"ריבונו של עולם.. במילים אחרות אנחנו אומרים לקב"ה, צחקנו עליך. חיכינו שיעבור כיפור ותחתום אותנו וזהו. זה אחד הדברים שאנחנו צריכים להשים לב אנחנו מבטיחים לקב"ה שהשתנה זה לא זמני. צריכים להשאר בחיזוק הזה", עורר הגר"ד.  לאחמ"כ נשא הגר"ד דברי חיזוק בעיר אופקים בפני מאות מתושבי העיר

Bikkurim Connection

The midrash Tanchuma says that when Moshe saw the Beis Hamikdash was going to be destroyed he asked what will be with bikkurim and Hashem said don’t worry they can pray.  Why is Moshe bothered more by the lack of bikkurim more than anything else which doesn’t exist without the Beis Hamikdash?  Furthermore, the avos already instituted tefilla, what was added now?  The Gemorah Ketubos (105b) says that one who gives a present to a talmud chacham is as if he offered bikkurim.  Why is it like the giver offered bikkurim more than any korban?  Why are bikkurim only offered from the 7 species that Eretz Yisroel is praised for?  Why is the mitzvah of bikkurim limited to a time when the farmer is happy?

The time of bikkurim is an opportunity for the farmer to see how all his work isn’t just a menial task he must do to put bread on the table, it can become holy work.  Through bringing the first fruits to Hashem, the farmer brings kedusha to all his work in the field.  It is specifically in Eretz Yisroel with its holy fruits that it is glaring the innate kedusha even in the fruits the farmer produces and therefore bikkurim are offered from them. The Gemorah says Hashem is a consuming fire, how can one become attached to Him?  By attaching to the talmidah chachamim (Ketubos 111b.)  That’s why bringing a gift to the Talmud chacham is like bringing bikkurim for one brings kedusha to his all his fruits by connecting to the Talmud chacham.  Moshe was asking how to accomplish this level of connection of bikkurim.  The answer Hashem gives him is tefillah.  A person infuses all parts of his day with prayer.  That serves a reminder that all his work should be for kedusha and just viewed as a way of going through the day.

The prayers of the Avos were prayers of bakashe, asking Hashem for help.  The prayer in place of bikkurim is a prayer of thanks.  The farmer thanks Hashem for all he has done for him, all the way from arami ovad avi to the present.

Few Lessons From Rashi

Rashi (29:3) says עד היום הזה – שמעתי שאותו היום שנתן משה ספר התורה לבני לוי, כמו שכתוב: ויתנה אל הכהנים בני לוי (דברים ל״א:ט׳), באו כל ישראל לפני משה, אמרו לו: משה רבנו אף אנו עמדנו בסיני וניתנה לנו, מה אתה משליט את בני שבטך עליה, ויאמרו לנו מחר: לא לכם ניתנה. ושמח משה בדבר, ועל זאת אמר להם: היום הזה נהיית לעם וגו׳ (דברים כ״ז:ט׳) – היום הזה הבנתי בכם שאתם דביקים וחפיצים במקום.  It sounds like from Rashi that Moshe only acknowledged that they really desired to attach to Hashem after they complained why is Levi singled out to receive the Torah.  Why was this necessary to prove their desire; they had been studying Torah for all the years in the Midbar? We see from here that yes, they may have been studying Torah, but that doesn't prove that they really desired to be connected to Hashem.  One may learn for many reasons, even because he knows its right.  However, that doesn't prove there is a real connection and desire to cleave to Hashem.  It is only when one they showed concern for the posterity of the Torah that proved they were really interested in Hashem.

Rashi continues in possuk 6: תבאו אל המקום – עתה אתם רואים אתכם בגדולה וכבוד, אל תבעטו במקום ואל ירום לבבכם, ושמרתם את דברי הברית הזאת.  This follows after Rashi said that היום הזה הבנתי בכם שאתם דביקים וחפיצים במקום, so why would he give extra warning not to rebel at this point?  Says Rav Moshe:

Shomea K'onea In Bikkurim

There is a debate raised in some seforim if the din of שומע כעונה would work regarding מקרא ביכורים.  Since I am lazy I will not spell out the basis of what this issue depends on and will just send you to some links.  The basis of the main issue is discussed here.  For further discussion see article of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein here.

 I would just add what the Gra points out in the Shnos Eliyahu at the beginning of Berachos.

According to the Gra the plural language of קורין indicates that שומע כעונה doesn't work. In Bikkurim (1:1) it says a language of קורין is a plural language, 'יש מביאין בכורים וקורין וכו.  This would indicate that that שומע כעונה doesn't work.

Rashi says וענית – לשון הרמת קול.  Why must the farmer make his declaration out loud, who's listening?  I don't think the point is for listeners, the point is for the farmer himself.  It's has a much more physiological effect if one says something outloud than if one just says it quietly. It is to awake himself that the farmer must say the parsha outloud. 

Between Bikkurim And Maaser Sheni

The Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot #125 says להביא ביכורים לבית הבחירה, שנאמר: "רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ" (שמות כג, יט) (שמות לד, כו).  Regarding maaaser sheni, in mitzvah #128 he says להפריש מעשר שני להיאכל לבעליו בירושלים, שנאמר: "עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר" (דברים יד, כב) מפי השמועה למדו שזה הוא מעשר שני. He differentiates between maaser sheni, where the mitzvah is to designate the maaser vs. bikkurim where the mitzvah isn't only to designate the fruit but also to bring it to Yerushalaim. This is further demonstrated in the Rambam's list of the mitzvot at the beginning of the laws of maaser sheni and the laws of bikkurim.  At the beginning of the Laws of Maaser Sheni he says the first mitzvah is להפריש מעשר שני.  In the beginning of the Laws of Bikkurim he says the first mitzvah is להפריש בכורים ולהעלותן במקדש.  He adds the words להעלותן במקדש.  Obviously the question is why?  Why does the Rambam add that part of  the mitzvah is to to bring the bikkurim up to Yerushalaim but regarding maaser sheni he says the mitzvah is to separate the maaser but doesn't include the aspect of bringing it to Yerushaliam. Why is there such a difference?

We see that there is a major difference between that which maaser sheni must be eaten in Yerushaliam vs. the bikkurim.  The confines of maaser sheni inside Yerushaliam are dinim on the person eating it.  It is an obligation of the person to confine the place of his eating.  The bikkurim on the other hand must be eating in Yerushaliam is a limitation because of the cheftzah, the bikkurim demand that they must be eaten only in Yerushaliaim.  Hence, maaser sheni isn't defined as something that must be brought to Yerushaliaim for that is merely an obligation on the owner.  It is bikkurim that is defined as something that must be brought to Yerushaliaim.  That is what we see.  Why that is and/ or where it comes from, I haven't much of a clue.  The suggestion box is open.

Birchas Shechiyanu

Rashi explains the words of vedoy maaser לא שכחתי, as referring to the blessing.  The question is that the blessings are only rabbinic so why would it be mentioned in the Torah?  The Shem M'Shmuel quotes from his father (Avne Nezer) that Rashi is referring to the blessing of shechiyanu. The Ri Migash response 203 says shechiyanu is mandated from the Torah.  The main support is from Eiruvin (40b) that on the regalim one is obligated to say a shechiyanu as a biblical law.  However, the Gemorah doesn’t tell us the source for the law.  In fact, the Ravyah (383) asks what the source of this law is? Possibly we may suggest that this obligation is learnt from the verse of “mekrah kodesh.”  The Ramban in Leviticus (23:2) explains the possuk to mean that there is an obligation to honor the day by calling it holy.  This is fulfilled through the recitation of shechiyanu.  (This could be the source for Rashi in Shevous (13a) that there is a Torah obligation to mention the day of Yom Kippur in the prayer services see Tosfos that questions the source of Rashi.)  However, this explanation of the Gemorah in Eiruvin makes the answer of the Avne Nezer insufficient because we only find shechiyanu on a biblical level in the context of a holiday. 

The Gelyonah Hashas asks why is there no shechiyanu on Rosh Chodesh and Shabbos? It could be the obligation of shechiyanu is dependent on the law of aliyah laregel.  Only at the time of a Tom Tov with the simcha of aliyah laregel is shechiyanu recited.  However, he answers that the obligation is fulfilled by the blessing of kiddash levana.  His answer is unclear for what does the birchos halevana have to do with the blessing of shechiyanu? 

Divide Up

Rashi at the beginning of the parsha says והיה כי תבוא וירשתה וישבת בה: מגיד שלא נתחייבו בבכורים עד שכבשו את הארץ וחלקוה.  What is being added here if Rashi already says in Shelach (15:18) that the words כי תבא mean לאחר ירושה וישיבה? (See Sifshei Chachamim.)  The Likutay Sichos (volume 9) points out a difference in the words.   The normal כי תבא is referring to the people, once a person receives his personal portion of the land, even before its completely divided up, the obligation kicks in already. Here וירשתה וישבתה is referring to the land, its only when the totality of the land is conquered that the obligation of bikkurim begins.

Why does the obligation of bikkurim start only after the entire land is divided up? It may be because bikkurim must be brought with simcha.  If someone else hasn't received their portion of land then that takes away from the simcha of even  the one who has their portion for they know that their buddy is still lacking (ibid.)

It is noteworthy that there are other texts of Rashi that say וירשתה וישבת בה – מגיד שלא נתחייבו בביכורים עד שכיבשו וחילקו (that is the text used in the mg.alhatorah.org site) which the aforementioned idea to resolve the Rashi would go out the window.  However, most Chumashim follow the text used above.

Take Responsibility

The Midrash Rabbah Berashis (19:12) says אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא וְאָכַלְתִּי אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא וָאֹכֵל, אכלתי ואוכל.  How do Chazal see in the possuk that Adam would sin again?  My great-grandfather says that the only way a person will stop sinning is if s/he acknowledges their mess up and sin.  If a person refuses to acknowledge they went wrong, then their is no hope for repentance. Adam didn't take responsibility for his sin, instead he blamed it on Chava,וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הָֽאָדָ֑ם הָֽאִשָּׁה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָתַ֣תָּה עִמָּדִ֔י הִ֛וא נָֽתְנָה־לִּ֥י מִן־הָעֵ֖ץ וָאֹכֵֽל.  It is in this lack of self blame that Chazal derive that Adam would sin again.

This same principle can explain the Gemorah in Yoma (22b) that Shaul Hamelech sinned only once but lost the kingship; Dovid sinned twice but was forgiven.  What's the difference between Dovid that was forgiven and Shaul that wasn't?  Dovid immediately admitted guilt when the prophet chastised him but Shaul denied any fault, to the contrary he said 'הקימותי את דבר ה (see Maharsha.)  It is accepting culpability for one's sin that is a prerequisite for teshuva.

40 Days, 40 Lashes

Last week, this blog discussed the inner core of a person that can never be corrupted.  The Maharal in this week's parsha says a similar idea explaining why there are 39 lashes as written years ago by my father, here.  The gist is that the 40 corresponds to the 40 days of a person's creation (it takes 40 days for the embryo to form;) when sinning a person contaminates himself but the innermost level, that which is formed on day 1 can't become contaminated. 

We are standing now in the month of Elul. It is 40 days from Elul to Yom Kippur.  Rashi on Chumash says that they are the 40 days that Moshe went up to receive the second luchos.  We can understand that the first 39 days are in place of the 39 lashes.  It is finally on day 40, on Yom Kippur, when we achieve ultimate purity and are granted forgiveness.  It is on day 40 that our inner core which is completely uncontaminated is revealed and hence we merit forgiveness.

What are the "lashes" of the 40 days between Elul and Yom Kippur? [Those that say selichot may say that those are the lashes.]  The possuk (Tehillim 94:1) says קל־נְקָמ֥וֹת י״י֑ קל נְקָמ֣וֹת הוֹפִֽיעַ.  The Baal Shem Tov the possuk means, how is Hashem the קל נְקָמ֣וֹת, by הוֹפִֽיעַ, by showing his greatness.  The punishment of the person is to see the the greatness of Hashem, to feel a tremendous embarrassment for rebelling against Hashem who gives him everything.  The Kabbalists teach during these days the 13 middot harachamim are present in the world, Hashem is הוֹפִֽיעַ, he is very close to us.  We receive the lashes of that great feeling of closeness of Hashem.  Hashem shows he is so close to us, he wants to come into our homes but first it must be cleaned, its too dirty and disgusting for Hashem to enter.  Those are the 39 lashes that are meant to remove all the dirt from our souls and to cleans it so that we can indeed welcome Hashem in.

[Of course, it's no coincidence that its 40 days for a embryo to form.  As discussed in the past, from the Maharal, the number 4 is expansion and 4*10, 40 is complete expansion, hence a new person is formed. It is also discussed there how the number 40 relates to geulah, which we can tie in  especially according to the writings of Rav Kook that teshuvah is on a worldly level, which will be the ultimate geulah, ואכ"מ.]

Weighty Measures

Rashi explains the juxtaposition between faulty weights and measurements and Amalaks attack as followsזכור את אשר עשה עמלק וגו׳ – אם שקרת במדות הללו ובמשקלות, הוי דואג מן גירוי האויב, שנאמר: מאזני  מרמה תועבת י״י (משלי י״א:א׳), וכת׳ בתריה: בא זדון ויבא קלון (משלי י״א:ב׳).  [It is interesting why Rashi in a few places in this weeks parsha explains the juxtaposition of the different ideas more than any of the other places, here and in 21:11, 21:22, 22:8?] 

What does this mean, why does having improper measures lead to a Amalek attack?  The Maharal explains that every being has their own measure of space so that everything can coexist.  If one misuses measures, then the measure of the world will also be turned against him and hence he is open to attack.    

Others interpret that one who uses false measures denies Hashem's attention to the little details in a person's life.  That is akin to Amalek, they also saw the plagues in Egypt and acknowledged Hashem's presence in the big things, what they denied is His involvement in the small things.

The Rebbe says homiletically that everyone has to keep the proper balance in life.  Amalek is a disruption of the balance of kedusha and chol, they encourage too much focus and emphasis on the material aspect of life.  אשר קרחה, they cool off the passion and desire for ruchnious and replace it with an empty shell of gashmious.  It is a lack of the measures, of the weight of ruchni that makes one susceptible of Amalek.       

Everyone Counts

Toward the end of parshas Shoftim the Torah discusses the proper way of acting during war and that is followed by the parsha of עגלה ערופה.  Then our parsha opens again with laws of war.  What is the parsha of עגלה ערופה doing stuck in the middle (see Even Ezra. Abarbanel)?  The Chofetz Chayim says that the lesson is even if there are wars raging around a person and many people are dying, if an individual is found dead it still is a tremendous tragedy.  Even if there are big things happening around, one must not loose sight of the individual.

There is a famous quote attributed to Stalin (although he might not have said it see here,) "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."  That is the attitude the Torah is warning against, every life is precious and must be appreciated.

From the Or Hachayim and onward this parsha has been expounded upon as lessons regarding the war against the yetzer harah.  This lesson of the Chofetz Chayim can be used in such context as well.  If one is engaged in major battles against the yetzer it doesn't exempt one from the small battles as well.  At the end of the Keser Rosh, it brings a story where the Gra told a אפיקורס that he gets punished even for drinking without a beracha.  Doing big averos is no exemption from the small ones.  On the flip side, sometimes it is by putting a focus on the small battles, on the skirmishes with the yetzer, that lead one to win the war(as in the end of the story with the Gra where the person did complete teshuva.) 

Lessons From The Son

A few lessons from the parsha of ben sorrer u’moreh. 

The Gemorah (Sanhedrin 71a) brings an opinion that ben sorrer u’moreh never happened, rather its written to learn and receive reward.  Why does the Torah have to pick a special example to give us something to learn when there is all the Torah to learn?  Rav Yisroel Salanter (letter 31 in Or Yisroel) explains that this is an example which teaches us the rule.  The point of learning Torah is not to arrive at a conclusion of action but rather the learning itself is sacred.  Therefore, the Torah gives us an example of learning where there is no practical outcome.  Rabbenu Bechai suggests another approach.  He says the Torah wrote the parsha to teach us the extent of ahavas Hashem.  The parent’s love for Hashem must be so great that it will even override their natural close love for their son and they will personally kill him.

The Gemorah (ibid) cites the opinion of Rab Yonasan that he sat on the grave of a ben sorrer umoreh.  Why would he do this strange action? Does he mean to argue with the opinion that it never happened, what’s the machlokes, it’s a mitzious, either it happened or didn’t? Why would the Torah set up the laws of ben sorrer umoreh in a way to make it impossible?  Rav Wolfson explains bederech derush that the Torah comes to teach us that the logic of מות זכאי ואל ימות חייב (Rashi 21:18) has no application because anyone can do teshuva and steer clear of the path of guilt.  The Gemorah says it was written derush lekabal secar.  Derush can mean to search like dirshu Hashem, the parsha teaches that a person can always do teshuva no matter how far off the trajectory he seems.  Rav Yonasan isn’t arguing on the first opinion, he’s supporting it.  The grave Rav Yonason sat on, was the grave of someone who was on the ben sorrer path but subsequently did teshuva and then became such a tzaddik that I (Rav Yonasan speaking) became a tanna because of the help of his neshama.  (Based upon the Arizal that sometimes by sitting near the grave of a tzaddik you get helped by their neshama.)

The Gemorah Sanhedrin (88a) says that the parents can forgive the ben sorrer and this gets him off the hook.  The Shem M'Shmuel (5671) asks, the ben sorrer is a societal risk, so why does the parent’s forgoing of his wrong deeds get him off the hook, how does that keep society safe?  He explains that the reason why a Jew has the power of teshuva is because s/he is connected to the Avos and therefore his/her soul at the core is pure; it just needs the dirt of the averos removed.  The reason why the ben sorrer is guaranteed to become liable of death is because he has lost the connection to his parents, the connection back to the Avos, and therefore won’t do teshuva.  However, as long as the connection remains, if the parents acknowledge their connection, then teshuva is possible and there is no guarantee that he will become guilty and therefore must be spared.   

The Gemorah has a derash on the words annenu shomauh bikolanu that the parents must be able to hear to exclude deaf mutes.  The derash is difficult for the word shomea is referring to the son, not to the parents?  Rav Zilberstein (Alenu Le’shabach) explains that the son will listen to the parents only if he sees them heeding their own words.  If they can’t hear their own words, then he won’t listen.

The Gemorah in Sanhedrin (71a) says that if the meat and wine that the ben sorrer is eating is that of a mitzvah he doesn’t become a ben sorrer.  The Toseftah in Negaim (6:2) says that there was no law of ben sorrer in Yerushalim and has a derash to support this law.  The Meshech Chachma explains that is because most of the eating done in Yerushalim was from kodshim and therefore was an eating of mitzvah.  We see from here the power of a little kedusha, even though this kid is acting like a ben sorrer since his eating is that of kedusha it will not lead head him down a bad path.

Put Up A Fence

כִּ֤י תִבְנֶה֙ בַּ֣יִת חָדָ֔שׁ וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ מַעֲקֶ֖ה לְגַגֶּ֑ךָ וְלֹֽא־תָשִׂ֤ים דָּמִים֙ בְּבֵיתֶ֔ךָ כִּֽי־יִפֹּ֥ל הַנֹּפֵ֖ל מִמֶּֽנּוּ.  There is a mitzvah to build a fence around one's flat roof to prevent others from falling off.  The Gemorah is clear that this obligation to put up a fence only applies to what's halachically defined as a house.  Based upon this the Gemorah in Bavva Kammah (51a) says that a house less than 10 טפחים is exempt from putting up a fence.  Similarly, the Gemorah is Sukkah (3a) exempts a house less than 4*4 טפחים and the Gemorah Chullin (136a) exempts synagogues and battei midrash from putting up a fence.

The Gemorah in Bavva Kammah (15b) says that the lav of לא תשים דמים בביתך says that this is a general rule to remove any thing that would be liable to cause harm. רבי נתן אומר מניין שלא יגדל אדם כלב רע בתוך ביתו ואל יעמיד סולם רעוע בתוך ביתו ת"ל (דברים כב, ח) לא תשים דמים בביתך.  Based upon this its hard to understand why something not defined as a house is exempt from putting up a fence, it should be no better than any other thing that may cause damage that there is a lav to leave it unprotected?

We see from here that the mitzvah of putting up the roof isn't a positive mitzvah to remove the damage.  If not for the mitzvah, there would be no obligation to put up a fence because the percentage of damage of a roof is negligible for it isn't commonly used.  The Torah is mechadesh a new mitzvah is regard to a roof to remove even the small percentage of damage that may exist (Chazon Eish likkutim Bavva Kammah siman 18.)

Tosfos in Chullin 105a says there is no blessing on something that comes just to remove danger.  If that's the case how is there a beracha on putting up a fence? Based upon this Chazon Eish its not a difficulty for the mitzvah of putting up the fence isn't just to remove danger.

The possuk says כִּ֤י תִבְנֶה֙ בַּ֣יִת חָדָ֔שׁ, why does it say a new house if the same also applies even if one isn't building a new house?  The possuk is also alluding to one who is building new levels in avodat Hashem.  In order to guarantee that one doesn't fall down from his/her new heights and fall down, one must put up a fence, make extra safeguards to guarantee they don't fall (see Likutay Sichos volume 2 and volume 19.)

Take It Upon Yourself

Rashi (20:3) שמע ישראל – אפילו אין בכם זכות אלא של קריית שמע בלבד, כדיי אתם שיושיע אתכם.  Why is it specifically the merit of krias shema that guarantees success in war?

This blog mentioned before the Even Ezra that to be a nazir is considered a פלא; for a person to control their animalistic desires is considered a פלא.  Rav Leeb Chasman asks why is it considered such a big deal to abstain from some wine and haircuts for thirty days?  It doesn't seem that these are tremendously earth shattering, otherworldly guidelines to adhere to?  He explains its not the content of the nezirus that's the פלא, its the acceptance.  For a person to be willing to accept upon himself even a small measure of abstention runs against the very nature of an individual and it is indeed a פלא to willingly accept such limitations upon one's self.

The Shem M'Shmuel says that's the great merit of shema as well.  It isn't just a mitzvah like any other but it involves a acceptance of malchus shamayim.  It is the acceptance of Hashem's will, even if it hasn't fully been realized in actuality that is the grates merit for success in war.

This is why the baalei mussar put an emphasis on some form of a kabbalah (or hachlatah depending on your lingo,) of special behavior for a person to accept upon themselves  during these times of year.  It's not the point for the actual content of the kabbalah itself, quite the contrary, very small kabbalos are encouraged.  It's is the middah of curtailing a person's free reign in some matter, the need to acknowledge a Higher Presence that is expressing by means of the kabbalah.    

One Stone, Multiple Paths

וְלֹֽא־תָקִ֥ים לְךָ֖ מַצֵּבָ֑ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר שָׂנֵ֖א י״י֥ אלקיך.  Rashi says לא תקים לך מצבה – מצבת אבן אחת, להקריב עליה אפילו לשמים מזבח אבנים ומזבח אדמה צוה לעשות, ואת זו שנא כי חק היתה לכנענים. ואף על פי שהיתה אהובה לו בימי האבות, עכשיו שנאה, מאחר שעשאוה אילו חוק לעבודה זרה.  It needs to be explained what changed, why was a מַצֵּבָ֑ה good for the Avos but prohibited afterward? 

The Gemorah (Nedarin 22a) says one who makes a נדר its as if they are building aבמה .  What is the comparison?  The Maharal (Nesiv Shalom Ch. 2) explains that a single מזבח unites Klal Yisroel together.  Similarly, we are united through one Torah.  When one accepts upon himself additional prohibitions, he is leaving the general Klal and is like one who builds their own במה, who also leaves the Klal. 

In light of this idea, we can understand the difference between the days of the Avos and afterward.  In the days of the Avos, there was no Klal Yisroel, there was a family that devoted itself to serving Hashem; everyone was an individual looking for their way to serve Hashem.  One’s person’s avodah had nothing to do with anyone else.  It is only after the forming of a Klal that there must be a united Klal Yisroel.  One’s avodah can’t be separate from everyone else, it must be united.  A מזבח is a collaboration of many stones, it is everyone coming together, not separate individuals.

Rav Hirsch gives a different explanation.  He says  that a matzavah, the  singular stone, represents G-d’s involvement in the world.  This was the task of the Avos to recognize Hashem’s involvement to the world and then teach it to to the world.  However, post the giving of the Torah what’s wanted is our avodah of bringing together many stones to serve Hashem. It is the avodah of mankind which is desired.  Elul is אני לדודי ודודי לי, first there must be the אני לדודי, to start with one's own עבודה.

It's also noteworthy that my great-grandfather points out that the Rambam disagrees with Rashi and doesn't hold the מצבה is one stone.  The Rambam says in the Laws of Avodah Zarah (6:6) מַצֵּבָה שֶׁאָסְרָה תּוֹרָה הִיא בִּנְיָן שֶׁהַכּל מִתְקַבְּצִין אֶצְלָהּ וַאֲפִלּוּ לַעֲבֹד אֶת ה' שֶׁכֵּן הָיָה דֶּרֶךְ עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים, the Rambam identifies the the matzavah as not a singular stone, but as a structure in the manner of idol worshipers.

Conquering The Brain

 לֹֽא־יִ֠הְיֶ֠ה לַכֹּהֲנִ֨ים הַלְוִיִּ֜ם כׇּל־שֵׁ֧בֶט לֵוִ֛י חֵ֥לֶק וְנַחֲלָ֖ה עִם־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אִשֵּׁ֧י י״י֛ וְנַחֲלָת֖וֹ יֹאכֵלֽוּן.  What is the meaning of the possuk, why is the fact that the לוים partake in the אִשֵּׁ֧י י״י֛ וְנַחֲלָת֖וֹ a reason that they shouldn't receive a portion of the land?  There are two ways to understand this, either that its a reason that they can't get a נחלה or that they don't need a נחלה.  The possuk may mean that since they receive אִשֵּׁ֧י י״י֛ וְנַחֲלָת֖וֹ they feel no need for a נחלה because they are completely satisfied with their spiritual נחלה.  Another way of understanding is that they can't receive a נחלה for it will detract from their service of Hashem.  In order to serve in the Mikdash, one must be 100%, fully involved, in their service of Hashem and can't have any distraction, even of a נחלה (Rav Avrohom Gorvitz (Gateshead.))

The Mishne L'meleceh at the end of the Lasw of Shmittah brings the Smag that in the times of Mashiach then שבט לוי will get a portion in Eretz Yisroel.  The Achronim ask, this is a לאו for the לוים to get a portion, how will it be nullified?  The answer lies in the words of the Rambam in halacha 10, כָּל שֵׁבֶט לֵוִי מֻזְהָרִין שֶׁלֹּא יִנְחֲלוּ בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן.  What does the Rambam come to exclude with the words בארץ כנען?  He comes to exclude the additional lands that will be added in the times of Moshiach, the lands of קיני, קניזי, וקדמוני (see Laws of Rotzaoch 8:4.)  It is in those lands that שבט לוי will get a portion of in the future.  This will not be a violation of the  לאו, for the לאו is only to get a portion in Eretz Yisroel.  [This seems to run against Rashi's understanding of the Sifri (18:2,) however see Ramban and footnote 44 of the sicha.]

What needs to be explained is why this isn't included in the לאו, the possuk says the reason is אִשֵּׁ֧י י״י֛ וְנַחֲלָת֖וֹ יֹאכֵלֽוּן so that should apply even in the additional lands?  Chassidus says that the seven nations of Eretz Yisroel represent the seven middot.  Capturing Eretz Yisroel is to capture the seven middot to be used for Hashem.  This involves going to war and that isn't the task of the Leviem.  It is there job to be separate from the world and immersed purely in holiness.  The three additional nations represent the three aspects of the intellect.  That isn't won by war, rather as the possuk says, וְאִם־יַרְחִ֞יב י״י֤ אֱלֹקיך אֶת־גְּבֻ֣לְךָ֔ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֖ע לַאֲבֹתֶ֑יךָ, it is a gift from Hashem, it doesn't involve one to go to war and that won;t detract from the job of the Leviem so they can get a portion in it as well (based on Toras Menachem 5751 parshas Shlach.)

The Arizal asks why will there be additional ערי מקלט in the future (as it says 19:8,) there will be no more killing in the future?  The Shem M'shmuel uses this idea to answer the question.  It won't be necessary for killing, in the future it will be a place to go for kapparah for those that have a sin affecting the brain; זרע לבטלה.  Based upon this he explain the Gemorah in Makkos (12a) that the שר of עשו will run to a עיר מקלט.  The Gemorah says he is mistaken for he killed wantonly.  In light of this, we understand that in the future, even when the חטא is wanton, with the brain, there still can be a kapparah.  The mistake is that only the additional three can fix even מזיד, not the original ערי מקלט.

The Inner Spark

The halacha is that if the Sanhedrin have a unanimous decision that someone is deserving of the death penalty then the defendant is off the hook (Sanhedrin 17a.)  The meforshim struggle to understand this peculiar law.  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 29 sicha 3 on this parsha) explains that the point of the punishments of Sanhedrin are to atone for the person.  That means if the person is worthy of attonement that there is a spark of goodness left to him.  If Sanhedrin can’t see that spark of goodness it means that they obviously aren’t seeing the case properly and therefore are unfit to preside over this case.

Of course this isn't a law just regarding Sanhedrin, but is a lesson of how to look at another individual, to always find the good spark within.  Those of a Breslov persuasion would of course take this as a lesson at looking at one's self as well.  A individual must never lose sight of the inner spark of goodness that remains untainted within them as Rebbe Nachman elaborates in the famous Torah of רפב, אזמרה.

What Sanhedrin

The Ramban at the beginning of the parsha says that besides the Beis Din of 71 that was in charge of all of Klal Yisroel, there is a Beis Din in charge of every tribe.  In his words,
ויתכן לפרש שחייב הכתוב למנות ב״ד על כל השבט, והוא ישפוט את כולם, ואחרי כן נמנה ב״ד בכל עיר ועיר, שישפוט את העיר. ואף על פי שכולם שוים במנין, שהם כ״ג בדיני נפשות וג׳ בדיני ממונות, אבל הגדולים שבהם בחכמה יתמנו על כל השבט, ותחתיהם לכל עיר ועיר. ואין בעלי הדין יכולין לכוף זה את זה לדון אלא בפני ב״ד שבעירם, לא בפני ב״ד שבעיר אחרת, ואפילו היו שני בעלי הדין בעיר אחרת, יכול לומר נלך לפני ב״ד שבעירנו, אבל ב״ד השבט יכול לכוף כל אנשי שבטו לדון לפניו, ואפילו היו הנדונים בעירם יכול לומר לב״ד הגדול של שבט אזילנא, וכן אם נסתפקו בתי דינין של עיירות יבאו לפני ב״ד הגדול של שבט, וישאלו. כדרך שסנהדרי גדולה ממונה על כל בתי דינין של כל ישראל, כך יהא ב״ד אחד ממונה על כל שבט ושבט. ואם הוצרכו לתקן ולגזור דבר על שבט שלהם, גוזרין ומתקנין, והיא לשבט כגזרת סנהדרי גדולה על כל ישראל. וזה הב״ד הוא המוזכר במסכת הוריות (בבלי הוריות ה׳) ששנינו בו: הורו בית דין של אחד מן השבטים ועשה אותו השבט על פיהם, אותו השבט חייב ושאר השבטים פטורים וכו׳.  According  to the Ramban the obligation to listen to Sanhedrin is because it is considered  the authoritative Beis Din in the region. Therefore, this obligation applies to  is to the  Beis Din appointed over the שבט as well.

The Rambam (beginning of Mammrim) gives a different explanation for the obligation to listen to the Sanhedrin.  In his words,  בית דין הגדול שבירושלים הם עיקר תורה שבעל פה והם עמודי ההוראה ומהם חק ומשפט יוצא לכל ישראל ועליהן הבטיחה תורה שנאמר על פי התורה אשר יורוך זו מצות עשה וכל המאמין במשה רבינו ובתורתו חייב לסמוך מעשה הדת עליהן ולישען עליהן כל מי שאינו עושה כהוראתן עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר לא תסור מכל הדבר אשר יגידו לך ימין ושמאל.  According to his explanation is is only a command for the Sanhedrin Hagadol that their word is considered to be part of the תורה שבעל פה.  Therefore, he makes no mention of the concept of a Beis Din in charge of the שבט for in his view there is no such authority (Mishnas Yaavetz Choshen Mishpat siman 7.)