The Presents Of Torah

A new understanding of Torah is נקנית במח קנינים from Rav Yeruchem.

The 48 מעלות aren't prerequisites to acquiring Torah as we normally understand the Mishna, rather it means that one who learns Torah will be given the 48 middos which are necessary to be able to retain Torah.  One who lack is one of those aspects is because he is rejecting that which Hashem gave him, like a kohan rejecting terumah.  The way of obtaining the key to the middos is to sit and study Torah.

Equality = Division

The נועם אלימלך notes the Targum on ויקח קרח is ואתפלג instead of the normal Targum of the word, ונסיב.  He connects this with the possuk in Berashis (1:7) ויבדל בין המים אשר מתחת לקריע ובין המים אשר מעל לרקיע where the Targum of ויבדל is also ואתפלג, see there how he explains the connection.  The idea is already from the Zohar (17a.)

Korach's claim was that all men are created equal, כל העדה כולם קדושים, he screamed equality but that call to equality created the greatest divide.  Why does a call for equality create further machlokes and division?  The world is created to have divisions within it.  In fact, the source of division stems from the very creation of the world itself.  The creation of an entity that appears to be separate and devoid of G-d.  It is our job to unite the opposing forces, not to deny their existence.  As an example, the מדות of חסד  and גבורה are opposing forces.  Each one of these מדות has its positives and negatives and they must be deployed in different situations.  One who is a chesed or gevurah only individual will cause serios consequences.  It is the unity of the the two מדות, the middah of תפארת that paints a perfect picture.  The dichotomies in the world are necessary to be able to achieve a perfect balance and unity.  To argue equality without dichotomy leads to the destruction of unity itself.  True equality is to appreciate the talents and lacking in the individuals and to work together to fit everyone's jagged edges into one puzzle; denying the differences and forcing all to be clones only leads to bickering and strife.  This is the message of שני כתובים המכחישים זה את זה עד שיבוא הכתוב השלישי ויכריע ביניהם, it is important to understand the two opposing forces in their own right and only after that to connect them (see Toras Menachem 5751 Nasso.)

The Gemorah Bava Bathra (74a) recounts אמר רבה בר בר חנה: זימנא חדא הוה קאזלינא באורחא [פעם אחת הייתי הולך בדרך], אמר לי ההוא טייעא [ערבי אחד]: תא ואחוי [בוא ואראה] לך את בלועי מחלוקת קרח. אזיל חזא תרי בזעי דהוה קא נפק קיטרא מנייהו [הלך וראה שני בקעים שיוצא עשן מהם]. שקל גבבא דעמרא, אמשייה מיא, ואותביה בריש רומחיה, ואחלפיה התם, איחרך [לקח אותו ערבי גיזת צמר, הרטיבה במים, ושמה בראש רומחו, והעביר אותה שם, ונחרכה] להראותו כמה לוהט המקום.  (brackets is Steinsaltz translation.)  The Maharal notes that there are two holes.  Why two?  He explains that two lines can never form a closed space, you need a third line to complete the triangle.  That is representative of purgatory which is the definition of  a lack of wholesomeness.  That is why Korach's place in purgatory is represented by two holes.  That's why the division of the מים, of the upper waters and the water waters occurs on the second day.

The Gemorah Shabbos (88a) says דרש ההוא גלילאה עליה דרב חסדא בריך רחמנא דיהב אוריאן תליתאי, לעם תליתאי, על ידי תליתאי, ביום תליתאי, בירחא תליתאי.  What is the significance of all the number 3's?
As the Maharal said, The number 3 represents the joining together of two apposing forces.  The giving of the Torah came to heal the greatest divide, that of the world and G-d.  The Torah given to mankind formed a bridge between G-d and the Infinite (see Shemos Rabbah 12:3.)  The number three highlights the point and goal of Mattan Torah and Klal Yisroel.

As discussed in the past, the number 4 (multiple of 2,) represents complete separation.  A box has 4 sides, it is a complete separate entity.  the number 2 is the beginning of the separation and in full form its represented by 4.  Tammuz is the 4^th month (counting from Nissan,) when we are distant from Hashem and that's why the road to churban starts in it.  We must take the lesson of 3 and bring it into the 4, to unite what appears separate with Hashem (see Toras Menachem Korach 5744.)

Two Stories

From an article of Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson entitled Three Jewish Revolts—Then & Now 

I heard the following story from Rabbi Aaron Lispker, the director of Aleph institute in Bal Harbor, Florida.

It was summer, 1995, one year after the Rebbe’s passing. Aaron and his friend Shlomie Grossman were traveling across Florida on a mission for the Aleph Institute, visiting Jewish inmates in jail. One evening, they were running out of gas and they also needed to find a place to stay for the night.

As they drove through some backwoods town near Daytona, some 250 miles North of Miami, they found a gas station. A man who seemed like the owner, a big and burly guy, filled up their tank with gas. As he looked at them, he asked them if they could accompany him to a back office.

The two young Chassidim got nervous. "I don't know why we agreed," Aaron recalled. “It did not make sense to follow him to an unknown location, but for some reason we complied.” Aaron and Shlomie followed him to a back office behind the gas station. An old man was sitting there.

The younger man turned to the older man, pointing to the two Chabadniks: “Dad! They came to get you!”

The two yeshiva students were dumbfounded. This seemed absurd. They came to get gas and here they were in some forsaken office.

The old man turned to them and asked in Yiddish, "vemens zeit eir?” Who do you belong to? Where are you guys from?

Aaron, a witty young man, replies: “We are Rabbi Schneerson’s boys! We're Chassidim of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. The Rebbe wanted each of his pupils to try and help every Jew in need. So we have been traveling this week to visit Jewish inmates in the area, Jews behind bars who may want to learn Torah, wrap tefilin, do a mitzvah, or yearn for some encouragement and inspiration to try and rebuild their lives for the future.”

The man burst into bitter tears. It took some time for him to recover and to tell them his story.

His story began before the Holocaust when he was a newly wedded young man from a Chassidic home living in Eastern Europe. Just as he began his new life, his entire family, including parents, brothers, sisters, and wife, were transported to the death camps and murdered by the Germans. Out of his large family, he was the sole survivor.

He survived the camps, but he was completely devastated. He arrived in the U.S. and settled in Williamsburg, but could not fathom how Jews could go on living normal lives. In particular, he could not understand how religious Jews could continue keeping Torah and Mitzvos after the war. He was so angry, bitter, and broken. He was determined to leave behind every trace of Judaism and Jewish identity. He would run as far as he can to try to forget his past and begin anew.

At first, he lived in a different town in Florida, but since there was a Reform Temple, this wasn't remote enough from Judaism for him. He moved to this town near Daytona, with nothing Jewish in it at all. He married a gentile woman and had three sons, one of whom had filled their tank with gas.

Years passed, life was not very eventful for this former Chassidic Jew who was now completely estranged from his people. He never even shared with his own family about his Jewish origins.

One night, when he could not sleep, he turned on the TV and began flipping channels. To his surprise, he discovered a channel on Cable TV, where an elderly man, a bearded Chassidic Jew, was speaking in Yiddish.

He was stunned. He has not heard this language in decades. His childhood memories kept him glued to the screen, listening to the rabbi speak on TV for an exceptionally long time.  The subtitles that scrolled across the screen said this was the Lubavitcher Rebbe, addressing an audience at a “farbrengen,” a Chassidic gathering at 770 Eastern Parkway in Brooklyn.

Suddenly, all of the Chassidic memories of his youth returned to him. He was overtaken by deep emotions, but he knew that it was too late. He has made his choices decades earlier. “I am lost to my people forever,” he thought.

And then he heard the Lubavitcher Rebbe say on the screen (it is actually something the Rebbe would say frequently), “We were promised that G-d will gather every Jew, one by one, taking each of them by his or her hand, and bring them to the ultimate redemption. No Jew will be forsaken, no Jew will be left behind. When Moshiach comes, G-d will gather every Jew from wherever they are, no matter their level of observance. No Jew will be lost to our people.”

This man felt the Rebbe was talking directly to him. The words made such an impression on him that in the morning, he gathered his family and told them he was Jewish.  At first, they didn't know what he was talking about since they had never been in contact with Jews before. He explained to his children where he came from and about his Chassidic origin. He told them that one day, The Rebbe promised, Moshiach, G-d, or some Jew would come to get him …

"That is why," he concluded, "when you came here, my son came to me and said, 'Dad, they came to get you'”!

Aaron and Shlomie sat with this older Jew and sang Chassidic melodies from his youth. They came back the next day and put on tefillin with him. They kept up a connection with him via letters; they sent him a Chanukah menorah to light candles on Chanukah and got him involved again in Jewish life. Around a year later, they heard that he had passed away.

This remains the legacy of the Rebbe. In our final journey from exile to redemption, no Jew will be left behind, not even a forsaken Jew somewhere near Daytona. All the three groups will ultimately unite, redefining themselves as Divine ambassadors to reveal cosmic oneness.

From the sefer מרן, a book about Rav Ovadyah Yosef by Rabbi Michel Stern.

Kabbalah Please

The Bechai asks a couple of questions on the whole parsha of Korach.  He asks why did Moshe not pray for them and convince them to do teshuva?  Why didn't he just prove through a miracle that he was right and Aharon is the chosen one?  Furthermore, why were the kids punished?
What's interesting is that he says there is no good answer in peshat and it could be understood only through kabbalah.  ואמנם אם בקשנו להלום פרשה זו בדרך הפשט יקשה עלינו כל זאת, אבל אי אפשר להולמה כי אם בדרך הקבלה הנאמנה.  See there how he explains it (16:29.)

Holy Hell

From Mictav M'Eliyahu volume 5:

Moving To A New Existence

The Zohar explains the meraglim sinned because they knew that they would lose their position of נשאים when they entered Eretz Yisroel and they didn't want to be replaced.  How did they know they would lose their position upon entering Eretz Yisroel?
Life in the midbar was a miraculous existence.  There was no need to worry about food, water, lodging etc.all of one's needs were taken care of and one was free to engage in matters of holiness the entire day.  It was paradise on earth.  Moving into Eretz Yisroel wasn't a change in location but a change in life style.  In the holy land there would be no manna, be'ar miriam, annanay hakavod etc.  One would have to work the land to provide for themselves.  Moving into Eretz Yisroel is moving back into olam hazeh.  The נשאים are leaders because they are leaders, those that perfected the avodah of the times.  That avodah of the midbar that they perfected wouldn't be applicable in E.Y. and hence they knew they that would be replaced.  That is what they meant by ארץ אוכלת יושביה, the ארציות, being involved in the daily conduct of earthly affairs will eat us up.
The possuk (14:24) says ועבדי כלב עקב היתה רוח אחרת עמו וימלא אחרי והביאתיו אל הארץ אשר בא שמה וזרעו יורשנה.  Why is Yehoshua omitted, he also shunned the report of the meraglim?  Moshe prayed for Yehoshua קה יושיעך מעצת מרגלים.  Why the name קה?  The Gemorah in Menachos (29b) says עולם הזה was created with a ה and עולם הבא with a י.  Moshe taught Yehoushua the secret of the combo of the י and the ה, that עולם הזה and עולם הבא go hand in hand.  G-d wants for us not to step straight into עולם הבא, but to work for it.  We must have E.Y. as עולם הזה before paradise.  Yehoshua was taught this principle by Moshe; Calev was not.  He didn't have this understanding and still he disagreed with the Meraglim.  He didn't have the answer to the meraglim's complaint of how can we leave the tranquil life of the midbar, yet he knew it wasn't what they were supposed to do.  עבדי כלב, it was his dedication to Hashem that caused him to receive the special yerusha.
In the following parsha of the libations it says כִּ֣י תָבֹ֗אוּ אֶל־אֶ֙רֶץ֙ מוֹשְׁבֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲנִ֖י נֹתֵ֥ן לָכֶֽם.  Why is it called אֶ֙רֶץ֙ מוֹשְׁבֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם, an unusual term?  אֶ֙רֶץ֙ מוֹשְׁבֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם means the place of dwelling, where the main living is.  Hashem is highlighting immoderately after the meraglim the source of their error.  The way to find G-d is through the hardships of this world.
[Based upon shmuz of R' Elefant and additions from Likutay Torah.]

The Message Of Challah

The midrash Metzorah (15:6) says אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָמָּה נִסְמְכָה פָּרָשַׁת חַלָּה לְפָרָשַׁת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, לוֹמַר לָךְ, שֶׁכָּל הַמְקַיֵם מִצְוַת חַלָּה כְּאִלּוּ בִּטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְכָל הַמְבַטֵּל מִצְוַת חַלָּה כְּאִלּוּ קִיֵּם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.  What is the connection between challah and avodah zarah?
The essence of avodah zarah is to think that there is some power to a being other than Hashem.  The mitzvah of challah is to recognize that even what appears to be the handiwork of mankind is really in G-d's control.  One who gives challah is מבטל ע"ז, he nullifies that feeling that there is some other capability separate from Hashem.  One who doesn't give challah is מקיים ע"ז, he acknowledges the feeling that there is some feeling other than Hashem. 
That is why the obligation of challah started immediately upon entering Eretz Yisroel because the foundation of living in Eretz Yisroel must be preceded with the message of challah; it isn't our working of the land that builds it up, it is G-d's gift to us.
(Based on Likutay Sichos volume 18, intro. to Chidushay Basra on Challah and see Sfas Emes 5661.)

The Basket

The Mishna Challah (3:1) says that the obligation of challah kicks in when the dough is needed with water.  The Mishna in Challah (2:4) brings the opinion of R' Eliezer that when doughs are combined together in a basket they combine to the shiur to obligate the dough in challlah.  The halacha follows this view as concluded in Pesachim 48b.  The Rishonim (stems from Rav Achai Gaon Shiltos Tzav #73) explain that the possuk says באכלתם מלחם הארץ it tells us that there is an obligation that comes about even after it is already bread.  The Achronim ask why is it different from other scenarios where the dough is exempt at the time of placing water in the dough then it is exempt forever such as a dough of a gentile or hekdesh (Mishna 3:3 and 3:6)? 

According to the Rashba (Teshuva 461) it is not difficult for he explains that that it in the other scenarios as well if the dough is put in a basket afterward it will become obligated in challah.  He explains the lomdus of the obligation of the basket is that putting the dough the is like doing a new act of kneading the dough.  I don't know why he needs that lomdus.

The Toras Zeraim brings from Rav Chayim that the shiur for challah of a kav and a quarter isn't a regular shiur of a minimal amount to cause the obligation to kick in rather less than that amount isn't called dough - doesn't have a שם עיסה.  Based upon this he explain a dough that has the shiur of challah, it had a שם עיסה at the time of the chiuv, during the kneading, it is permanently exempt. But a dough that didn't have the shiur at the time of the kneading, the time of the chiuv never knicked in since it isn't considered a שם עיסה and its obligation is only when it obtains a שם עיסה which is when its combined in the basket with other dough.

The Toras Zeraim brings a few proofs to this principal of Rav Chayim.  One of them is the Gemorah (4:2) compares separating challah before the time of the obligation to separating terumah before the time of the obligation.  What's the comparison, its not challah taken off too early, its lacking in the shiur?  Because lacking in the shiur defines it as before the time of the obligation for the שם עיסה was never chal.  Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurerbach (Minchas Shlomo volume 1 #68) disagrees with this Rav Chayim.  He understands the Yerushalmi there is just saying that less than the shiur isn't considered akin to terumah before the final stage of מירוח where one can separate terumah, rather since it is lacking in the shiur the challah can't be chal. Additional proofs are disussed there but it is beyond the scope of this elucidation.       

Don't Fix Yourself

From the sefer חמדת דוד of Rosh Hashana in the footnote brings from the grandson of the קוזמיר in the name of his grandfather to explain why were Klal Yisroel forgiven for the sin of the חטא העגל but not for the meraglim?

One must of course attempt to fix their errors but it is not in one's hands to fix their themselves, it is only because of the mitzvah of Hashem that it can be fixed.

Pay For Them

From the עין יעקב on :בבא בתרא עג

Pretty scary and strange.

Traveling By Cloud

An idea from Rav Yeruchem, who's yertzheit was this past week, 18 Sivan from the Mir parsha sheet.

Three Takes On A Tale

One who has become tamai via a sheretz etc. other than a dead corpse may bring a korban.  The Pesach offering is unique since it is offered to eat from it, even other types of tumah will prohibit one who is in a state of tumah from offering the korban (Rambam Beas Mikdash 2:12).  The Gemorah in Pesachim (90b) derives from the story of the people that were tamah that asked about pesach sheni that even a tamah sheretz can't offer the korban for since they were  at the last day of their tumah, to be tamah at night, they were akin to a tamah sheretz that is tamah for only one day and were still prohibited from offering the Pesach.  Rav is of the opinion that if the individual already went to the mikvah to rinse off his tumah and is merely waiting for nightfall to be transformed to tahor (טבול יום,) then the tamai sheretz can offer the Pesach.  Presumably, the same law would apply to the tamai meis.  Tosfos asks so in the story of the parsha why did Moshe tell the tamai masim to wait to bring the second Pesach, he should have merely told them to immerse in a mikvah and then they could offer the Pesach?  Tosfos says that in truth Moshe did tell that that and he told them the law of Pesach Shemi only if for some reason they were not able to immerse that day.

The same principle is held by the Raavad Laws of the Pesach Offering (6:1) but he explains the story differently.  He understands that they already slaughtered the Pesach and only after the time for offering the korban the men approached Moshe to ascertain the halacha.  Since it was to late to offer another korban, Moshe taught them the law of Pesach Shemi.

The Rambam understands that will learn from this story that it is only the טבול יום of a sheretz that can offer the Pesach offering but not the טבול יום of a meis.  The Raavad asks why how can the Rambam  differentiate between the two if the whole source of sheretz is from meis?

As noted before, there are two halachos that prohibit the tamai meis from offering the Pesach.  One halacha is the general rule of all korbanot that they may not be offered in a state of tamai meis.  There is a second law, derived from our parsha, specific to Pesach that it may be offered in tumah and that includes the tumah of meis.  Rav Chayim proposes that the law specific to Pesach does not apply to the טבול יום as we in the case of tamai sheretz.  It is the general law of tumas meis, applicable to any korban that does not allow the Pesach offering to be offered as a טבול יום.  Sheretz is learnt from the law of tumas meis of the Pesach that would allow offering of a טבול יום, but it is prohibited because of the law of all korbanot.  It still needs to be explained how can we learn from the tamei meis law of Pesach, at the end of the day it also isn't offered by a טבול יום, so the law of sheretz derived from there should follow?  And how do we know the law of Pesach wouldn't prohibit the offering of a טבול יום?

From here Rav Chayim takes us to the next halacha in the Rambam (that the Raavad argues on as well.)  The Rambam clarifies that the only טבול יום that can't offer the Pesach is one who became defiled by tumas meis that will destroy the count of a nazir is he became defiled by it, if its a tumah that doesn't destroy the count of a nazir, he can offer the korban as a טבול יום.  Such a distinction if found regarding the obligation of entering the mikdash, but what is the source for it here?  Rav Chayim explains that source is from Nazir (53a) that this distinction applies to korbanot but not to the korban Pesach.  He says the Rambam will understand the Gemorah means that it is only in the law of korbanot offered in tumah that such a distinction applies but not regarding the law specific to Pesach.  Hence, the law of Pesach that applies to all those that are tamei is not inclusive of a טבול יום and those that are tamei from a tumah that doesn't destroy the count of a nzair, prohibited only by the law of Pesach aren't included and can offer the Pesach.  Only those prohibited because of the general rule of korbanot, a טבול יום of tumah that destroys the count of a nazir, can't offer the korban.  It is in this real that we see the Pesach tumah law doesn't extend to a טבול יום.  

Since the possuk in the Pesach law that extends to the tamai sheretz includes those a טבול יום that the doesn't destroy the count of the neritut when they may offer the Pesach, it from there that the טבול יום of sheretz is derived. 

Many that come after Rav Chayim, including those that would consider themselves his disciple such as Rav Issur Zalmen Melter and Rav Shimon Shkap disagree with Rav Chayim and take a different approach to understanding the Rambam, but I leave that for those with further interest in the topic to peruse on their own. 

Stop And Go

The Chidushay Harim:

Rav Hirsch:
אולם עיון מעמיק יותר בניסיונות אלה, בהם ביקש ה׳ להרגיל ולחנך את עמו לכל הדורות, מגלה, שלא המאמץ של המסעות הארוכים, אלא בעיקר ההמתנה הסבלנית בחניות הממושכות, היא המודגשת כאן כמבחן לעם. לא נאמר דבר על אורך הזמן של המסעות, אך ההמתנה הממושכת מוזכרת כמה פעמים. כבר בפסוק יז נאמר: ״ואחרי כן יסעו״ וגו׳; הם נסעו רק אחרי שעלה הענן ולא קודם לכן. ובפסוק יח – לאחר שכבר נאמר ״על פי ה׳ יסעו וגו׳ ועל פי ה׳ יחנו״ – חוזר הכתוב ואומר: ״כל ימי אשר ישכן הענן וגו׳ יחנו״. ולבסוף, בפסוק יט, המצב ש״לא יסעו״ אפילו כאשר ישכון שם הענן ימים רבים, הוא הנקרא ״שמירת משמרת ה׳⁠ ⁠״, והוא הראיה ששמעו בקולו.
ברור אפוא, שהכתוב שם דגש מיוחד על כוח העמידה והסבלנות של ישראל. דבר זה יובן עוד יותר, אם ניקח בחשבון שהמדבר הוא מקום שקשה מאוד לשבת בו, ובייחוד אם נתבונן בכך שהאנשים – אשר טרם נגזר עליהם לנדוד ארבעים שנה במדבר – ידעו היטב שמחוז חפצם אינו במדבר אלא מעבר לו, ושכל עצירה שהם עושים במדבר רק מונעת אותם מלהגיע אל המקום שהובטח להם.
It is is not only moving closer to Eretz Yisroel that is 'עפ"י ה, but the stops as well.  The stops along the way; when one appears to not be approaching the goal is in fact the only way to reach the goal.
That is the message of the הפסקות הפרשיות of ויהי בנסוע הארון; a fall may just be a way of giving one the ability to elevate further.
From Toras Menachem 5751:

Loshan Harah

Rav Reuvan Grozovsky on lashon harah from the sefer zikaron Even Tzion.

Bring It

In the previous post we discussed the Meshech Chachma's approach to understanding יביא אותו.  The Seforno takes the same basic approach of יביא עצמו.  He explains that normally for a change to be affected in a person they need someone else to bring them to what will effect the change.  The nazir on the other hand, is different, for he has reached such heights that here is no need, indeed no one capable of raising him.  However, there are other interpretations from the Rishonim in the verse.
The Even Ezra (and Rashbam) explains differently.  He says או: יביא הכהן אותו – בציווי בעל כרחו, להקריב את קרבנו.  The possuk means that the kohan should force him to bring his korbanot.  This would seem to based off the Gemorah in Arachin (21a.)
The Mishna in Arachin (21a) says that we force a person to bring a korban olah but not a korban chatas.  The difference is that we assume a person will come around to bring their chatas in order to obtain atonement.  The Gemorah says that the to offer the chatas of a nazir, which a person may be lax in offering for it doesn't withhold the completion of the nezurit, we will also be forced the person to bring it.
The Ramban in Bava Metzia (3b) brings a proof from the law of אין ממשכנין that the obligation of the chatas is dependent on the person's own knowledge of what s/he did and hence one will even be believed against witnesses to determine if they are obligated in a chatas.  What is his proof,  the reason we don't force the person if practical because the person will end up bringing the korban to obtain kapparah, not because of a lomdus?  And the practical reason is accepted by the Ramban himself in Bava Basra (48,) Milchamos Bava Kama (36b, 18 in daffay haRif,) and seems to be supported from the Gemorah in Bava Kama (40a)?
In every obligation to bring a korban, there is both a mitvah obligation that one is commanded to offer the korban and a monetary obligation to pay the korban to hekdesh (see Kiddushin 13a.)  Both of these obligations are reason enough to force someone to offer their korban.  The Briskor Rav in Arachin shows that indeed it is a machlokes Rishonim as to what din is the cause to force one to bring the olah; to do their mitzvah (see for example Ketubot 86,) or because of the שיעבוד ממוני that exists upon the individual to pay their korban.  Based upon this we can possibly understand the Ramban,  The practical reason is why we don't force the person to bring the korban of the monetary obligation; they will end up doing it.  However, the mitzvah obligation should still require him/her to be forced to bring the korban; it is from there that the Ramban sees that a chatas is dependent on the person wanting to bring the korban.
The opinion of Tosfos in Rosh Hashana (6a) is that after 3 regalim even by a regular chatas we force the person to bring his korban because of the violation of בל תאחר.  Asks the Keren Orah in Nazir, if so, when it comes to the chatas of the nazir of course we should force him to bring it because there is בל תאחר immediately (see Tosfos Nazir (4a))?   
Rav Solevetchik (Igrot HaGrid pg. 197) explains that what בל תאחר tells us is that that after 3 regalim is payday, its time that you must pay your korban.  Tosfos holds when it comes payday, you must be forced to pay your dues.  That is for the בל תאחר of korbanot.  The בל תאחר one violates in Nazir immediately is because the korbanot are a completion of the nezirut, as part of the acceptance of nezurit is to to bring the korbanot of the nezurit as well.  However, this is because of the mitzvah, not because of a monetary obligation and that would not be reason to force the offering to be brought.  Hence, there is a chiddush of the Gemorah in Arachin to force a person to korbanot.
The Ramban in Milchamos Bava Kama (ibid) also suggests that after 3 regalim the individual will be forced to offer their korban chatas.  However, the Ramban compares it to the din of forcing to fulfill a mitzvah, nor because of paying a debt, so the question is back, the בל תאחר of nezirut should be the same mitzvah?
[However, Tosfos in Rosh Hashana  ד"ה יקריב also understands the law of enforcing the bringing of the korban is because of the mitzvah and doesn't hold there is a special din of enforcing here, עיי"ש וצ"ע.]

Bring Yourself

 וְזֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת הַנָּזִ֑יר בְּי֗וֹם מְלֹאת֙ יְמֵ֣י נִזְר֔וֹ יָבִ֣יא אֹת֔וֹ אֶל־פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד׃

What does it mean יביא אותו?  Rashi says he should bring himself; what does that mean?

The Meshech Chachma points out the Torah never clearly mentions the length of nezirut because there is no set prescription.  The point of accepting nezirut is to curb a person's תאוות and the length of time required must be judged on a case by case study.  What is the measuring stick that a person can use to know if its time for nezirut to be up?  The answer lies in this possuk.  If the person reaches the level that he is able to view a question his conduct the same way he would view the question if asked by someone else.  If he has completely eradicated any personal bias, "כשהוא מסתכל על עניני עצמו, כמביט על מפעלות אחרים ולבבו אינו חשוד באהבת עצמו", then it is time for his nezirut to end.  For nezirut isn't the endgame, it is a means to an end.  "כי זה אינו מכוונת הבורא, שלא יהנו מהעולם, רק זה בגדר רפואה."  That is the intent of  יביא אותו, he vies it as if dragging his body to come to the kohan is like dragging someone else there. That is the purpose of the nezirut, for one's soul to be able to determine the conduct of his body.  That is what the Even Ezra (6:7) describes why nezirut is called a נזר אלקיו על ראשו, for the nazir rules over his body and controls its desires.

As the M.C. mentioned, the abstention of the nazir is merely the first step to obtain full control over one's desires.  A few pessukin later, verse 20, the Torah says אחר ישתה הנזיר יין.  Obviously the nezurit is up and he may drink, what are these additional words teaching us?  The Alsich explains that the point of the nezurit is to learn how to drink in the proper place, time and with the proper measurement.  Once that lesson is imbued, then drink!  The Anvei Nezer points out further that he is still called a נזיר.  Why, the nezirut is over?  Because at this point he may reamin a nazir even as he drinks!  His drinking is no longer a contradiction to his nezirut, to his control of his desires, he has broken the colt inside of him.

To take this a step further we may suggest that יביא עצמו doesn't mean to drag the body along, but that the body will naturally follow the will of the soul.  The midrash at the beginning of Bechukosay says אָמַר דָּוִד רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם בְּכָל יוֹם וָיוֹם הָיִיתִי מְחַשֵׁב וְאוֹמֵר לְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּלְבֵית דִּירָה פְּלוֹנִית אֲנִי הוֹלֵךְ, וְהָיוּ רַגְלַי מְבִיאוֹת אוֹתִי לְבָתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּלְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וָאָשִׁיבָה רַגְלַי אֶל עֵדֹתֶיךָ.  If a person is saturated with Torah, their limbs are completely in line with the desire of the Torah and automatically follow suit.  The Alter Rebbe asks why does it say by the korbanot of Shavuot מסת ידך (Reah 16:10,) and not מסת לבך, like the normal expression?  He says because the power of the Torah will allow for one's hand to automatically bring the korbanot.  Through Torah one doesn't just rule over their desires but may attain a level where one's desires be in tune with the desire of the Torah (based on Rav Avrohom Schorr.) 

Killer Shema

From Aley Shor volume 2 vaad on birchas krias shema.

Pain To Pray

Why are there צרות, why is a person in pain?  To pray!
דעת חכמה ומוסר סי' ד.

He builds this from the Midrash Beshalach (21:5) אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה, יָפָה הָיְתָה הַקְרָבַת פַּרְעֹה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מִמֵּאָה צוֹמוֹת וּתְפִלּוֹת, לָמָּה, שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁרָדְפוּ אַחֲרֵיהֶם וְרָאוּ אוֹתָן, נִתְיָרְאוּ מְאֹד וְתָלוּ עֵינֵיהֶם לַמָּרוֹם וְעָשׂוּ תְּשׁוּבָה וְהִתְפַּלְּלוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יד, י): וַיִּצְעֲקוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל ה', אָמְרוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמשֶׁה, מֶה עָשִׂיתָ לָנוּ, עַכְשָׁו הֵם בָּאִים וְעוֹשִׂים לָנוּ כָּל מַה שֶּׁעָשִׂינוּ עִמָּהֶם, שֶׁהָרַגְנוּ בְּכוֹרֵיהֶם וְנָטַלְנוּ מָמוֹנָם וּבָרַחְנוּ, לֹא אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ לָנוּ (שמות ה ג, כב): וְשָׁאֲלָה אִשָּׁה מִשְּׁכֶנְתָּהּ, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה הָיוּ עוֹמְדִים וְלֹא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִים מַה לַּעֲשׂוֹת, וְהָיָה הַיָּם סוֹגֵר, וְהַשֹּׂוֹנֵא רוֹדֵף, וְהַחַיּוֹת מִן הַמִּדְבָּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות ה יד, ג): סָגַר עֲלֵיהֶם הַמִּדְבָּר, אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אֵין סָגַר אֶלָּא חַיּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דניאל ו, כג): אֱלָהִי שְׁלַח מַלְאֲכֵהּ וּסֲגַר פֻם אַרְיָוָתָא. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ מֻקָּפִין מִשָּׁלשׁ רוּחוֹת, הַיָּם סוֹגֵר, וְהַשֹּׂוֹנֵא רוֹדֵף וְהַחַיּוֹת מִן הַמִּדְבָּר, תָּלוּ עֵינֵיהֶם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם וְצָעֲקוּ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיִּצְעֲקוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל ה', וְלָמָּה עָשָׂה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לָהֶם כָּךְ, אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִתְאַוֶּה לִתְפִלָּתָן.