Fresh Coffee And Pesach

The first Mishna in Zevachim says that all korbanot that are slaughtered שלא לשמו the korban is kosher except the חטאת ופסח.  One brings a chattas as a baal teshuva.  It is a new beginning.  Similarly, the pesach is offered as the nation was entering a whole new relationship with Hashem.  The lesson of the chattas and the pesach is that when one is at the beginning of a new stage, one must be in 100%. One can't start a new stage in life with any aspect of שלא לשמה.  

Rashi Ki Sesa (34:3) based upon the Tanchuma says about the second luchos ואיש לא יעלה עמך – הראשונות על ידי שהיו בתשואות וקולות וקהילה שלטה בהן עין רעה. אין לך יפה מן הצניעות.  If this is the case, why were the first luchos given with such fanfare?  Rav Biderman explains with a משל of making coffee.  When you make the coffee, its too hot to drink and you have to wait for it to cool down in order to drink it.  So why not just make at a cooler temperature in the first place?  Because then the beans won't get cooked properly by the water.  So too in order for the luchos, for the Torah to be cooked into the נשמות of Klal Yisroel there had to be much fanfare.  It is only the second time around that it could be given privately.  To enter into a kabbalas hatorah there must be a big bang, you must be fully into it and only then will that fire be fully settled into the soul. 

Rashi Kedoshim (20:26) brings the Chazal רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר מנין שלא יאמר אדם נפשי קצה בבשר חזיר, אי אפשי ללבוש כלאים, אבל יאמר אפשי, ומה אעשה ואבי שבשמים גזר עלי, תלמוד לומר ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי, שתהא הבדלתכם מהם לשמי, פורש מן העבירה ומקבל עליו עול מלכות שמים.  The Maggid says that this applies to a person under regular circumstances.  However, one who has slipped up and is doing teshuva for an averah that s/he committed must say אי אפשי בבשר חזיר for the only way to do teshuva is to completely eradicate one's desire for the averah.  There can't be any link to one's previous mishaps  in order to move forward.  I believe this idea goes hand in hand with the previous one.  Any connection to the past undermines one's ability to turn over a new leaf 100%. 

Rav Hirsch sees this message in  that the removal of the דשן.  He says that this service in the Mikdash teaches us that when one has a new day, a fresh start, then one must completely throw out the past. In his words " תחילתו של כל יום חדש מזמינה אותנו לגשת לתפקידנו במסירות מלאה ורעננה, כאילו מעולם לא השגנו דבר קודם לכן. אסור שזיכרון הישגי האתמול יפגע בעשייתנו היום. מחשבות על מה שכבר הושג עלולות להחניק כל התעוררות להגיע להישגים חדשים. אוי למי שזחה דעתו מתוך סיפוק על הישגיו בעבר, שאינו מתחיל עבודת כל יום חדש כאילו היה היום הראשון של עבודת חייו! והוציא את הדשן – יש להסיר מן המזבח כל זכר לעבודת יום האתמול, כדי שעבודת היום החדש תוכל להתחיל על יסוד חדש לגמרי."

Many holy works point out that the word חודש comes from the word חדש.  Every month the moon renews itself and so too a person has a renewal (that is why there is Yom Kippur katan.)  The month of ניסן is ראשון of all the months.  All of the months power of חידוש stem from ניסן.  It is in ניסן and obviously the high point is Pesach that there is a power of renewal in the air.  It is up to a person to use the potential and put in 100% effort to change for the better; to throw away the שאור שבעיסה from the previous day and offer the pesach completely לשמה.  (One who does the proper avodah during Pesach and Omer is saved from the din of Rosh Hashana, ואכ"מ.)  The trees blossom in Nissan, do you?

Segulot Aint Enough

Two weeks ago this blog posted the Zohar that saying the ketoret helps to cancel out מגפות.  Due to the current times, the Alumni Association of the Mir (apparently there is such a thing,) has been sending out via email shiurim and shmuzzen from some of the rebbeim in the yeshiva.  In the shmuz of the Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Lezer Yudel, he says that he asked Rav Chayim if it is worthy these days to say the ketores and Rav Chayim responded "לא יועיל ולא יזיק."  Which seems quite outstanding because there are sources for this idea of reciting the ketores?  Rav Lezer Yudel said that he believes his source is from the Zohar Vayerah 100b-101a (in Sefaria its on pg. 102a see from letters יב -טז.)  The Sulam translation and explanation can be found here if you download it. [Unless I'm blind the edition of wikisource (מדרש הנעלם at the end of pg. 101a) is missing the end of the story, which is the main point here.)]  The story there goes that Rav Acha and the scholars of the city abolished the מגפה through ketores.  However, at night he realized this was the wrong approach for the point of the plague is for people to repent!  The plague, the symptoms are gone, but the virus still exists!  Without teshuva, yes, ketores will temporarily remove the plague, but is the cure, teshuva isn't implemented, then something else will come back later.

Segulot are great and may offer protection but that isn't the cure!  G-d is telling us to repent and that is what Rav Chayim was saying ketores may avert the disease but its not the cure.

Poignant Points Pnei Menachem

I wish to share a couple of thoughts which are in the Pnei Menachem on this weeks parsha.
1.The Gemorah in Chullin (139b) says משה מן התורה מנין (בראשית ו, ג) בשגם הוא בשר.  everyone asks Moshe' name is mentioned countless times in the Torah, why do we need to find a slight hint to his name?  The Maharsha explains that Moshe had many names as the midrash says, therefore, the Gemorah is asking how do we know that the main name of Moshe is moshe?  The Gemorah proves that we find that even before Moshe is born he is hinted to with the name Moshe, hence that must be his "true" name, the name that reflects his essence.  Why is Moshe's essence hinted to in this verse?  Explains the P.M. because Moshe's essence is to uplift others (as mentioned a few weeks ago here.)  That is the hint in the possuk.  בשגם הוא בשר, even if a person has sunk so low that they are a mere piece of meat, still Moshe will lift that individual up.

2. Our current lives have been including spiritually with our houses of worship, prayer and study closed down.  No doubt this has caused a spiritual decline in people's service of God and many wonder why this would be.  Of course I have no clue and am quite perturbed however the P.M. points out a lesson in history where sometimes less = more.  During the Purim story Mordechay did the unthinkable and had everyone cancel their Pesach plans for the Persian Plaza and declared the first days of Pesach to be days of fasting and mourning.  Even though there was plenty of time left untill the decree of Haman and why not enjoy Pesach and use the merits of eating the holy matzah and drinking the wine as additional merits to be saved?  We see some times all that's wanted is our prayers and everything else can fall by the wayside.

Lo With A Vav

The possuk (5:1) says אִם־ל֥וֹא יַגִּ֖יד וְנָשָׂ֥א עֲוֺנֽוֹ, the word לא  is written here with an additional ו. Why?  The midrash (6:5) sees this possuk not as a specific din regarding a witness that doesn't come forth to testify but as a general description of any averah.   In the words of the midrash: רַבִּי פִּנְחָס פָּתַר קְרָיָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְנֵי הַר סִינַי, וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא (דברים ט, טז): וָאֵרֶא וְהִנֵּה חֲטָאתֶם. וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה (דברים ה, כא): וְאֶת קוֹלוֹ שָׁמַעְנוּ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ.  
Chassidus explains that when we have a קרי וכתיב the קרי reflects how things appear externally but the the כתיב is a reflection of what is happening in a deeper, hidden manner.  In the lingo the קרי is עלמא דאתכסיא and the כתיב is עלמא דאתגליא.
The idea of the קרי וכתיב in the context of  לא\לו is developed in the thought of the Sfas Emes in a few contexts.  Each time has its specific style and message but the gist can be summed up that by a feeling of לא, of nullification to Hashem, we are able to feel לו ,connected to Hashem.  A few examples are as follows.  In mizmor l'todah (100:3) it says וְל֣וֹ (כתיב וְלֹ֣א) אֲנַ֑חְנוּ עַ֜מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ.  The Sfas Emes Elul (5632) says ופי' הדבר הכל א' שכפי מה שלא אנחנו כן לו אנחנו.  Based upon one's feeling of לא, of self negation will equal how much a person is לו, connected to Hashem.  Again we find this expression in the Navi Yeshayeh (63:9) בְּכָל-צָרָתָם לא (לוֹ) צָר.  Says the Sfas Emes Vayigash, through the experience of לו צר, since we are helped by Hashem in the golus, therefore, לא צר we are able to not feel the pains of the golus.  In our parsha as well, says the Sfas Emes, ל֥וֹא יַגִּ֖יד is a person has the capability to drag his body (מגיד לשון המשכה) after his soul in order to bring out the greatness of Hashem in this world.  That is the additional ו, the ויו החיבור that one must be attach his body to the will of his soul.  The possuk isn't just a negative message but the words אִם־ל֥וֹא יַגִּ֖יד clue us in to the tikkun, if one is able to read it as לו יגיד to attach to Hashem then ונשא עונו will be in the sense of Hashem is נושא עון ועובר על פשע.

Not His Fault

The possuk (4:3) says about the כהן המשיח that his sin is אשמת העם.  What does this mean, what does his sin have to do with everyone else?  There are different explanations in the meforshim.  Rashi brings both a halachik perspective that he is only obligated on a  בהעלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה and an aggadah that his sin is the fault of the people, for they are dependent on him to atone for them and pray for them and he has become impaired. The Rashbam says that if a leader sins then people will follow his lead and they will sin as well.  The Sforno has the opposite take of the Rashbam.  He explains that sometimes the leader's faults are really just a reflection of the sins of the people.  He adds that's why the possuk never says regarding the משיח the word ואשם for he doesn't require teshuva for its not his fault that he sinned; it was because of the people.  Not sure what does the Sforno mean, how could the people cause the leader to sin?  And why does the leader bear no responsibility to the extent that he says there is no need for teshuva?  However, we do see from the Sforno that if a leader errs it may not be because of faulty leadership but rather the leader is merely a reflection of the mistakes of those that he's leading. (Even his own private sin as this parsha is dealing with, not only a leadership error.) 

Daas

Berachos 33a - וְאָמַר רַב אַמֵּי: גְּדוֹלָה דֵּעָה, שֶׁנִּתְּנָה בֵּין שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי קל דעות יי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: גָּדוֹל מִקְדָּשׁ שֶׁנִּתַּן בֵּין שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״פָּעַלת ה' מקדש ה' וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דֵּעָה כְּאִילּוּ נִבְנָה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּיָמָיו. דֵּעָה נִתְּנָה בֵּין שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת, מִקְדָּשׁ נִתַּן בֵּין שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת.  Rashi explains בין שתי אותיות – בין שתי הזכרות.  What is the significance of being sandwiched between two names of Hashem?

The word דעת as pointed out by the Tanya and Nefesh HaChayim means connection as in ואדם ידע את חוה אשתו. Rashi Ki Sesa (31:2) says דעת – רוח הקודש.  The two meanings don't contradict; they are complimentary.  The Sifsay Chayim in his commentary to the fourth beracha of Shemone Esray explains that דעת is to have complete clarity of the subject matter.  Having complete clarity is to understand the connection to the individual and the highest level of that is ruach hakodesh (see Rambam's description of how prophesy is to have complete clarity.)  The Mikdash is the place in this world that we connect with Hashem. Hence, one who has דעה, can experience that connection its as if s/he is in the Mikdash.  Being sandwiched between Hashem's name indicates a complete attachment that exists in the realm of דעת (see Nisiv HaTorah of Maharal Ch. 14.)

The Maharsha Ketubot (5a) says: וידיו דקאמר הכא הם שני מדותיו יתעלה והוא שניתן בין ב' אותיות האחד הימין והוא הרחמים והשני השמאל שהוא הדין והצדיקים שהוא בצלאל והנלוים אליו במעשיהם במקדש מטילים כח וגבורה בפמליא של מעלה לצרף ידיו שם שהם ב' שמותיו שהן במקדש מצד ימין ומצד שמאל שהם הרחמים והדין שע"כ נכתב מקדש בין ב' שמות אחד מימין ואחד משמאל.   The building of the Mikdash parallels the building of the world (as the Ramah writes in Toras Haolah.)  Just as the world was created by the combo of דין ורחמים, so too the מקדש.  This too is the function of דעת, to be מכריע ולשלב between these two opposing outlooks.  Through the enlightened perspective of דעת one is able to define the resulting action in a manner that is not completly dominated by either the חסד or דין stance.

Ketores Power

In light of the recent מגפה, the local kabbilists have called to our attention the holy words of the Zohar in this week's parsha, Vayakel that describes the power of ketores to be able to nullify such harsh calamities. The Zohar says that by reading the parsha of the ketores one will be saved from mishaps. In the words of the Zohar (218b) מִלָּה דָּא גְּזֵרָה קַיְּימָא קַמֵּי קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא, דְּכָל מַאן דְּאִסְתָּכַּל וְקָרֵי בְּכָל יוֹמָא עוֹבְדָּא (נ''א פרשתא) דִּקְטֹרֶת, יִשְׁתְּזִיב מִכָּל מִלִּין בִּישִׁין חַרְשִׁין דְּעָלְמָא. וּמִכָּל פְּגָעִין בִּישִׁין, וּמֵהִרְהוּרָא בִּישָׁא, וּמִדִּינָא בִּישָׁא, וּמִמוֹתָנָא, וְלָא יִתְזַק כָּל הַהוּא יוֹמָא, דְּלָא יָכִיל סִטְרָא אַחֲרָא לְשַׁלְטָא עָלֵיהּ, וְאִצְטְרִיךְ דִּיכַוֵּין בֵּיהּ.  What is this unique power of the ketores?
According to the kabbilists, 11 is a number associated with "the other side" for just as their are 10 powers to kedusha so too there are 10 powers to "the other side."  However, there must be some aspect of kedusha to it for it to be able to exist and that's how we get 11.  The Arizal teaches the 11 princes of עשו at the end of Vayishlach correspond to the 11 powers of "the other side" for Esav is representative of the klippot.  The ketores has 11 spices in it has the ability to nullify the power of  "the other side."  As mentioned on this blog in the past, smell is the only sense not contaminated by sin.  That is why the neshama benefits from smell (Berachot 43b.)  It is this untainted sense that is able to recognize the kedusha even in the depths of the klippah and unite the 10 powers of disjointedness together with the 1, 11^th power of unity among them.
In the ketores we say in korbanot, before the ketores we say אתה הוא שֶׁהִקְטִירוּ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ לְפָנֶיךָ אֶת קְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים.  Why do we say this preamble only before ketores and not before any of the other korbanot?  Because it is only the ketores that we tap into the אתה, directly to Hashem, to give us the ability to nullify the evil powers.
In the Mishkan there were two sets of יריעות.  the bottom layer consisted of 10 tapestries made up of various threads. On top of that were 11 tapestries designed out of goat hair.  Goats are representative of klippah (see shabbos 77b and ספרא דצניעותא פ"א.)   These 11 tapestries of goats hair represent the power of "the other side."That klippah is on the outside but underneath is kedusha, the 10 tapestries (see Zohar 213a Vayakhal.)
Now we will do advanced mathematics of 1+1=2. The mishna in Tammid (3:8) says א"ר אלעזר בן דגלאי עזים היו לאבא בערי המכוור והיו מתעטשות מריח פיטום הקטורת.  Why goats?  As we mentioned before goats are the power of klippah (1) and it is the ketores (1) that is able to nullify the power of the goats (2).  [Based upon פיטום הקטורת ועבודת הקורבנות בהלכה, באגדה ובחסידות maamer in the back.]

Building Or Planting?

The beracha about Jerusalem in Shemone Esrai refers to the rebuilding of the city.  ובנה אותה, בונה ירושלים.  However, regarding the Moshiach the beracha is את צמח דוד עבדך מהרה תצמיח, its referred to a plant sprouting.  Why does Moshiach sprout but Yerushalaim is built?  What's the difference between sprouting and building?
The Mesillas Yesharim starts Ch. 1 יסוד החסידות ושרש העבודה התמימה הוא שיתברר ויתאמת אצל האדם מה חובתו בעולמו ולמה צריך שישים מבטו ומגמתו בכל אשר הוא עמל כל ימי חייו.  Why does he use the word יסוד regarding חסידות and שורש regarding עבודה תמימה?  Rav Wolbe explains that עבודה התמימה is within grasp of everyone.  Everyone is born with such capability; it just has to be brought out.  That is like a שורש, it is underground and must be fertilized until it sprouts, but the potential is already there.  חסידות on the other hand, is to above and beyone the letter of the law.  That doesn't come naturally and is a מדרגה one must create on their own, one must build themselves up brick by brick until they can reach such a level. 
That is the difference between Moshiach and Yerushalaim.  The world is implanted with the power of Moshiach in it as the midrash says at the beginning of Berashis ורוח אלקים מרחפת על פני המים זו רוחו של משיח.  Its not a building process to achieve geulah, it is a process of bringing out the seed from the ground.  Yerushalim on the other hand, is a city that must be built. A city to unit all mankind to serve God is built by making the world able to recognize such a possibility, it is not naturally ingrained in טבע.

Permanant Structure

Seforno in the beginning of Pekuday explains that the reason the mishkan wasn't destroyed vs. the battei mikdash that were.  In his words: ספר מעלות זה המשכן, שבשבילם היה ראוי להיות נצחי ושלא ליפול ביד אויבים: ראשונה: שהיה ״משכן העדת״, שהיו בו לוחות העדות. ב׳: אשר פקד על פי משה. ג׳: שהיתה עבדת הלוים ביד איתמר – כי אמנם משמרת כל חלקי המשכן ביד איתמר היתה. ד׳: ובצלאל בן אורי בן חור למטה יהודה עשה – שהיו ראשי אמני מלאכת המשכן וכליו, מיוחסים וצדיקים שבדור, ובכן שרתה שכינה במעשי ידיהם, ולא נפל ביד אויבים. אבל מקדש שלמה שהיו עובדי המלאכה בו מצור, אף על פי ששרתה בו שכינה נפסדו חלקיו, והוצרך לחזק את בדק הבית (מלכים ב כ״ב:ה׳-ו׳), ונפל בסוף הכל ביד אויבים. אבל בית שני שלא היה בו גם אחד מכל אלה התנאים, לא שרתה בו שכינה, ונפל ביד אויבים, כי אמנם בית שני לא היה ״משכן העדת״, שלא היו בו לוחות העדות, ולא פוקד כי אם על פי כורש (עזרא א׳:א׳-ג׳), ולא היו שם בני לוי, כמו שהעיד עזרא באמרו: ״ואבינה בעם ובכהנים, ומבני לוי לא מצאתי שם״ (שם ח׳:ט״ו), ומן המתעסקים בבנינו היו צידונים וצורים, כמבואר בספר עזרא (ג׳:ז׳).
To sum it up, if it was built by the proper people with the proper levels of kedusha it lasted; if not, not.  The building can only last if its built properly, otherwise it will collapse over time.

Radiating With Holiness

The midrash (46:7) says [skipping some of the opinions,] וּמֵהֵיכָן נָטַל משֶׁה קַרְנֵי הַהוֹד רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁהָיָה כּוֹתֵב בַּקּוּלְמוֹס נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר קִמְעָא, וְהֶעֱבִירוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וּמִמֶּנּוּ נַעֲשׂוּ לוֹ קַרְנֵי הַהוֹד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וּמשֶׁה לֹא יָדַע כִּי קָרַן עוֹר פָּנָיו.  The Chanukas Hatorah says about this midrash:

What we learn from here is that holiness is found in perfection of בין אדם לחבירו. In being able to be מוסר נפש , literally נפש, to lay down your own ruchnious in order to help out someone else.

Moshe's Egel

Why did Moshe have to break the luchos, put them aside and deal with the Egel first?  Rav Tzaddok (Tzidkas Hatzaddik #154) explains that in order to give rebuke to Klal Yisroel, Moshe had to find an aspect of their sin within himself.  Therefore, Moshe broke the luchos as the Gemorah says כל הכועס כאילו עובד ע"ז.  By getting angry and breaking the luchos, Moshe was attached to the sin of avodah zarah.  We learn from hear a lesson in rebuke; one can only rebuke others if s/he knows what the problem is and how to fix it from within.

          The same idea it says in the Ketem Ofer on the Megillah (4:17.) 

Every One Counts

From the מגד גבעות עולם.

Use Your Talents

מגד גבעות עולם עמ' צז

The Even Ezra (31:18) says in the middle ולא יוכל לדעת השם אם לא ידע נפשו ונשמתו וגופתו, כי כל מי שלא ידע מה מהוא חכמה מה לו.  Rav Wolbe (volume 2 shaar 2, Ch. 6) says we see from this Even Ezra that a person can only accomplish if they recognize their own capabilities and abilities both of the spiritual part and the physical.
Of course, the whole Even Ezra makes an important point as to what the point of Torah is, so I will copy the whole thing.  ויתן – ריקי מוח יתמהו: מה עשה משה בהר ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה. ולא ידעו, כי אילו היה עומד שם עם השם כמספר הזה וכפל כפלי שנים, לא יוכל לדעת חלק מאלף ממעשי השם ודרכיו וסוד כל המצות שצוהו. כי יחשבוהו שהוא העיקר, ואיננו רק הלבב והמעשה והלשון להרגיל, וכן כתוב: בפיך ובלבבך לעשותו (דברים ל׳:י״ד). וקדמונינו אמרו: רחמנא ליבא בעי, ושרש כל המצות עד שיאהב השם בכל נפשו וידבק בו, וזה לא יהיה שלם אם לא יכיר מעשה השם בעליונים ובשפלים וידע דרכיו. וככה אמר הנביא: כי אם בזאת יתהלל המתהלל השכל וידוע אותי (ירמיהו ט׳:כ״ג), אז יתברר לו כי השם עושה תמיד חסד ומשפט בארץ. ולא יוכל לדעת השם אם לא ידע נפשו ונשמתו וגופתו, כי כל מי שלא ידע מה מהוא חכמה מה לו. והנה משה שהתנבא ארבעים שנה, ועמד בסודות רבות שגלה לו השם בהר סיני, והוא אמר לפני מותו: י״י אלהים אתה החלות להראות את עבדך את גדלך (דברים ג׳:כ״ד). והנה עתה החל שהראה לו גדולת השם, וזה אמת, כי לגדולתו אין חקר (תהלים קמ״ה:ג׳).

Drink

                                                           Keep drinking, alcohol kills all germs ...

Two Talmud Torahs

Two dinim in Talmud Torah from Rav Chayim Kanievsky.

How is לא ימוש, possuk in Navi מחדש a new din of Talmud Torah?

What To Want

From the Shearis Yisroel Shaar Hiskashrus Likutimm (pg. עו in the new editions.)

Repetitive Rashi

I haven't posted a question on Rashi in quite a while but here is another one.  Rashi this week's parsha, (29:18) explains the word ריח ניחוח regarding the עולה brought to sanctify Aharon ריח ניחח – נחת רוח לפני, שאמרתי, ונעשה רצוני.  Again in possuk 25 regarding the שלמים Rashi says לריח ניחח – לנחת רוח, שאמר, ונעשה רצונו.   Again in Vayikra (1:9) Rashi says ניחח – נחת רוח, לפי שאמרתי, ונעשה רצוני. Why does Rashi feel the need to repeat this comment multiple times and specifically in these places?

The Hidden Moshe

וְאַתָּ֞ה תְּצַוֶּ֣ה׀ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וְיִקְח֨וּ אֵלֶ֜יךָ שֶׁ֣מֶן זַ֥יִת זָ֛ךְ כָּתִ֖ית לַמָּא֑וֹר לְהַעֲלֹ֥ת נֵ֖ר תָּמִֽיד׃.  Why does Moshe need to take the oil, he isn't lighting the menorah, Aharon is? Why does the Torah use this strange terminology of וְאַתָּ֞ה תְּצַוֶּ֣ה here and not צו את בני ישראל or דבר etc?  The Gemorah in Megillah (13b) says about Haman, תנא כיון שנפל פור בחודש אדר שמח שמחה גדולה אמר נפל לי פור בירח שמת בו משה ולא היה יודע שבשבעה באדר מת ובשבעה באדר נולד.  Why does the saying conclude with Moshe's death before his birth, it should have said שבשבעה באדר נולד ובשבעה באדר מת?  And how does the fact that Moshe was also born on 7 Adar counteract the fact that he died then?   The Rishonim bring from Chazal that this is the only parsha that Moshe's name isn't mentioned.  The Meor Einayim points out that this week's parsha often corresponds with Moshe's yom hilulah so it hints to his removal from the world.  However, Moshe is "hidden" in the parsha a few times, wouldn't it make more sense to omit him entirely?

What Chazal mean is that the death of Moshe wasn't a removal of his effect from the world, it was a metamorphosis.  בשבעה באדר מת ובשבעה באדר נולד is דוקא.  Moshe was reborn on 7 Adar.  He is reborn into the Torah that is נתחדש in every generation.  Yes there was a כפה עליהן הר כגיגית but then there was a קיימו וקיבלו היהודים.  The constant learning of the Torah ensures that Moshe Rabbenu never left us.  As the holy books point out that sometimes the Gemorah has an expression משה שפיר קאמרת because every Talmud Chachan has a ניצוץ of Moshe.

The name of a person is merely the representation of the individual, its a symbolic link referring to the person's body and deeds.  The essence of an individual however, goes above his/her name.  In our parsha the name of Moshe, the physical body of Moshe Rabbenu passes from our vision, however his essence remains with us.  The Migalleh Amukot (57) (cited in Yalkut Reuvani) says the העלם, מילוי of משה is מ, ין, א which is 101, the number of pessukim in the parsha.  This means that the external figure and presence of Moshe isn't there but his פנימיות is in the parsha.  The menorah represents the Torah and oil represents חכמה; ergo Moshe Rabbenu was responsible for collecting the oil for he is the transmitter of the chachmas haTorah to Klal Yisroel.  It isn't merely a body named Moshe that transmits the Torah but Moshe Rabbenu's essence can be found in the Torah itself.  That is why the Torah uses the strange terminology of וְאַתָּ֞ה תְּצַוֶּ֣ה.  It is וְאַתָּ֞ה תְּצַוֶּ֣ה for it the part of Moshe Rabbenu that can't be referenced by name that is present in the Torah.  It is the Moshe that can't be accessed through the name that is infused into the Torah.  [וְאַתָּ֞ה is א through ת and the ה מוצאות הפה used to pronounce the Torah.]  [See Torah Menachem 5751, Likutay Sichos volume 26.]

Clothes Without A Body

Rashi in Chukas (21:1) says יושב הנגב – זה עמלק, שנאמר: עמלק יושב בארץ הנגב (במדבר י״ג:כ״ט), ושינה לשונו לדבר לשון כנען כדי שיהו ישראל מתפללין לתת כנענים בידם והם אינם כנענים, ראו ישראל לבשיהם כלבושי עמלקיים, ולשונם לשון כנען, אמרו נתפלל סתם אם נתון תתן את העם הזה בידי.  If Amalek was trying to mess up the prayers of Klal Yisroel why didn't they change their garments as well so that Klal Yisroel would pray against the wrong nation?
The Or HaMeir on the Megillah says the following teaching from the Baal Shem Tov.

                                                           What I believe he is trying to say is that the evil forces don't have any true self; they only exist as a cover up, as garments over the truth.  It is impossible for Amalek to change their garments for that is their entire existence.  Amalek without its clothes ceases to be Amalek.  Amalek was trying to disguise itself as כנען but not steal their identity.  In order to maintain their own identity, Amalek must remain in its own garb.

Atz Hadaas, Amalek And Weights

Rashi in the beginning of Parshas Zachor explains the juxtaposition of Amalek right after the parsha of weights זכור את אשר עשהא עמלק וגו׳ – אם שקרת במדות הללו ובמשקלות, הוי דואג מן גירויב האויב, שנאמר: מאזני מרמה תועבת י״י (משלי י״א:א׳), וכת׳ בתריה: בא זדון ויבא קלון (משלי י״א:ב׳).  Why does cheating in weights lead to Amalek; what is the connection?  The Gemorah Chullin (139b) says the hint to Haman in the Torah is in the word Berashis (3:11) המן העץ אשר צויתיך לבלתי אכל ממנו אכלת.  Why is Haman connected to the these words?
Why was eating from the עץ הדעת prohibited; seemingly knowing between good and bad should be a good thing?  Knowledge of the difference between good and evil is indeed a positive; but one has to be an honest judge between the two.  Before the sin of the עץ הדעת, Adam and Chava also had a clear perception of good and evil but they had no personal bias and connection to it.  They were able to judge between the two forces as outsiders and to separate between the two.  The word דעת means connection.  Eating from the עץ הדעת meant that know Adam and Chava became connected to the good and the evil.  They could no longer be bystanders to arbitrate fairly between the two but they had to see the ideas through their own prism.  They decided good and evil not based upon what it is inherently but based upon how they felt, how it affected them, was it good or bad for them. 
The idea of false measures isn't just in the scales in your fruit store, its a message for life.  How does a person weigh what's important or inconsequential, what's good or inappropriate, moral or depraved?  These are the scales of life.  If one's scales are weighed down by their own feelings and ego, that is having false scales and measurements.         
This is Amalek.  They attack the bridge between the מוחין and מדות of the individual as is represented by the וה of the שם that they cut off.  That bridge is דעת.  Amalek infiltrates the דעת of a person to be מקלקל the חשבונות of an individual.  That is why Haman is hinted to in the עץ הדעת for that is the source of his power.

Don't Rip The Clothes

The Gemorah in Yoma (72a) says אמר רחבא אמר רב יהודה המקרע בגדי כהונה לוקה שנאמר (שמות כח, לב) לא יקרע.  The Gemorah seems to be saying that somehow we derive that the prohibition to rip the priestly garments isn't limited to the מעיל which is mentioned in the possuk, but applies to all the garments.
The Rambam Kli Mikdash (9:3) says וְהַקּוֹרֵעַ פִּי הַמְּעִיל לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כח לב) (שמות לט כג) "לֹא יִקָּרֵעַ". וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל בִּגְדֵי כְּהֻנָּה שֶׁהַקּוֹרְעָן דֶּרֶךְ הַשְׁחָתָה לוֹקֶה:  The Achronim argue is the praise דֶּרֶךְ הַשְׁחָתָה is going back on the מעיל as well or only referring to the other priestly garments (see Mishne L'melech, Torah Temimah here.)  Why would there be a difference?  The Achronim (Michas Chinuch mitzvah 101, Rogatchover) explain that ripping the מעיל is an innate issur.  However, ripping the other garments is only prohibited because of לא תעשון כן לה' אלקיכם (Reah 12:4,) which is only דֶּרֶךְ הַשְׁחָתָה.  According to this the Gemorah doesn't mean to say that the issur of לא יקרע is learnt out to the other garments but rather that its prohibited as well, however, the issur is only because of לא תעשון כן.

The Rambam Sefer Hamitzvot (negative commandments #88) says הזהירנו מקרוע פי מעיל כהן גדול אבל יהיה ארוג כמו שהוגבל. והוא אמרו יתעלה כפי תחרא יהיה לו לא יקרע, ומי שחתכו במספרים או הדומה להם לוקה. (שם, שם):  From here would seem to be a proof that the Rambam holds that the issur of לא יקרע applies only to the מעיל, and other garments are only prohibited because of לא תעשון כן לה' אלקיכם.  However, from the fact that he records the issur of tearing the priestly garments next to the מעיל would indicate ripping the other garments is also a violation of לא יקרע.  As noted last year on this blog, the Rambam also holds the לאו of לא יזח החושן applies only if one removes them דרך קלקול.  If the rule of דרך קלקול applies to the מעיל as well then we would see the Rambam holds that definition of ripping apart the בגדי כהונה is דרך קלקול so that is the rule for לא יזח החושן as well.  However, if its only a din in the prohibition of לא תעשון כן then why would it be a requirement for violation of לא יזח החושן as well?  So, there seem to be opposite indications from the Rambam if other garments are prohibited because of לא תעשון כן or because of לא יקרע, וצ"ע.

פס"ר דלא ניחא ליה

Tosfos in Shabbos 75a and 103a says that a פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה is prohibited rabbinically on Shabbos for it is a מלאכה שאין צריך לגופא which is a rabbinic prohibition.  It is clear from Tosfos 103 that he doesn't hold only regarding Shabbos that a פס"ר דלא ניחא ליה is prohibited but by other issurim it is prohibited as well.  The law of מלאכה שאין צריך לגופא is only applicable by Shabbos so it would appear Tosfos must hold by other prohibitions it is forbidden from Torah law.  However, regarding Shabbos one would have been exempt because its not מלאכת מחשבת, nonetheless it's still rabbinically prohibited (see also Tosfos Yoma 35a.)
However, if we look at Tosfos in Ketubot 6a, it appears that Tosfos there has a different take.  There Tofos doesn't say it it a מלאכה שאין צריך לגופא, but that the Rabbis prohibited just like a מלאכה שאין צריך לגופא.  In other words, Tosfos agrees that a פס"ר דלא ניחא ליה itself is not a מלאכה שאין צריך לגופא and technically should be completely permitted.  However, just like the Rabbis prohibited a מלאכה שאין צריך לגופא because it looks like your doing a מלאכה, one can't tell what's going on in your head, so too the Rabbis prohibited a פס"ר דלא ניחא ליה because it looks like you're doing a מלאכה.  According to this Tosfos it may well be that even regarding other issurim the prohibition of פס"ר דלא ניחא ליה is rabbinic in nature.
The Aruch is of the opinion that a פס"ר דלא ניחא ליה is completely permitted.  Tosfos says one of his proofs is from the Gemorah in Zevachim that one may offer a נדבה of wine and pour it on the fire of the alter even though one violates the lav of extinguishing the fire from the mizbaoch for the person's intent is not to extinguish, but to offer his נדבה.  The Aruch asks how is it permitted because its a דבר שאינו מתכוין, its a פס"ר that it will be extinguished?  He says we see that since you don't want the fire to be extinguished, its permitted. Tosfos in Ketubos says no proof; there its permitted to uphold the mitzvah of your libation.  Tosfos in Shabbos answers that the question isn't right; its not a פס"ר, you can pour the wine slowly so it won't extinguish the fire.  Tosfos in Shabbos can't say like Tosfos in Ketubot for saying מצוה שאני only makes sense if its a rabbinic prohibition.  Since Tosfos in Shabbos holds its prohibited from Torah law, he is forced to say its not a פס"ר.
The big question is why according to the Aruch (and even Tosfos in Ketubot that disagrees,) it פס"ר דלא ניחא ליה not prohibited because of מלאכה שאין צריך לגופא?  (See the gilyon on the Tosfos, Rashash and Chidushay Rav Reuvain.)  The reason why a פס"ר דלא ניחא ליה is permitted according to the Aruch is that he holds פס"ר is prohibited for we view it as if the person intended to do the מלאכה since its an obvious derivative of his actions.  However, if its against his will, we can't view it as if the person has intent to do the מלאכה for the individual doesn't want to do the מלאכה at all (see Rosh Shabbos 16:8.)  That is all if there is no intent to do the מלאכה.  However, when there is intent to dd the מלאכה, but the person doesn't desire the results of the מלאכה, then its a מלאכה שאין צריך לגופא (still needs to be worked through all the cases,וצ"ע.)
The Maggid Mishna (Shabbos 12:2) has a chiddush that when it comes to the מלאכה of מכה בפטיש there is no law of פס"ר being prohibited for it is only the though process of the person that determines if what they are working on is completing it to be a vessel.  This seems to fly in the face of the Gemorah Sukkah (33b) that assumes there is a problem of פס"ר when plucking berries off the hadash branch for it makes it into a usable object for the mitzvah?  [It is true the Rambam omits that step of the Gemorah which would work well for this Maggid but the Maggid there (Lulav 8:5) gives a different explanation of the Rambam which still doesn't work with his opinion.]