Growing To Be Greater

Midrash Tanchuma (4) בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לִבְראֹת אֶת הָעוֹלָם וּבִקֵּשׁ לִבְראֹת אֶת הָאָדָם, הָיוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת אוֹמְרִים: מָה אֱנוֹשׁ כִּי תִּזְכְּרֶנּוּ (תהלים ח, ה), מָה אַתָּה מְבַקֵּשׁ מִן הָאָדָם הַזֶּה. אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וּמִי מְקַיֵּם מִצְוֹתַי וְחֻקֹּתַי וְתוֹרוֹתַי. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אָנוּ מְקַיְּמִין תּוֹרָתֶךָ. אָמַר לָהֶם ...  הִתְחִיל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר לְמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת, כִּי מִי בַשַּׁחַק יַעֲרֹךְ לַה', כְּשֵׁם שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל עוֹרְכִין לִי, שֶׁהֱיִיתֶם אוֹמְרִים לִי, מָה אֱנוֹשׁ כִּי תִּזְכְּרֶנּוּ (תהלים ח, ה). עוֹרְכִין לִי קָרְבָּנוֹת, כְּמָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְעָרַךְ הַכֹּהֵן אוֹתָם (ויקרא א, יב), עַל מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה (שם ד, י). עוֹרְכִים לְפָנַי שֻׁלְחָנוֹת, כְּמָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת יַעַרְכֶנּוּ לִפְנֵי ה' . אוֹ יֵשׁ בֵּינֵיכֶם עֶרֶךְ נְפָשׁוֹת כְּמָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִיא נֶדֶר בְּעֶרְכְּךָ נְפָשׁוֹת לַה'. הֱוֵי, כִּי מִי בַשַּׁחַק.  What is the significance of the parsha of arachin that it means man must be created?  

The Torah says (27:19)  if one is a makdish a field and then they redeem it from hekdash, the original owner must add a fifth to the value.  Why does the original owner, who went above and beyond to give his field to hekdesh lose out in the redemption process by needing to add a fifth more than anyone else?  Rav Yerucham explains that the expectation level goes up for one who is makdish their field.  Since the person demonstrated the ability to give to hekdesh, then he can't merely redeem the field at face value but he must add in his giving to hekdesh for he is someone who adds kedusha beyond the original boundaries.  When more is done, the bar gets raised.  

The possuk in Zecharyeh (3:7) says ונתתי לך מַהְלְכִים בין העומדים האלה.  A malach is called an עומד, there is no advancing, no upward trajectory, their path is set.  Mankind is called מהלכים, man is on a path, sometimes he moves closer to the goal, sometimes further away.  There is room to grow to become a greater person.  

The sefer עדרי צאן says the parsha of arachin traches us that the value of a person changes depending one one's age for it is the capability of growth that is being measured.  The parsha of arachin proves a person is a being with the capability of growing into something greater and that is something a malach can never do. 

אם בחוקותי תלכו.  Why is תלכו put together with חוקים?  The way that the effect of the Torah and mitzvot is felt as חקיקה, as becoming engraved in a person, is through growth.  By living a life of תלכו, of shteiging, of growing, then the Torah becomes part of a person.

There Must Be A Way Out

The Gemarah Arachin (29a) says עבד עברי נוהג אלא בזמן שהיובל נוהג שנאמר (ויקרא כה, מ) עד שנת היובל יעבוד עמך.  Why can't the parsha of evid evri exist without yoval?  The Chidushay HaRim says because Hashem does not put a person in a difficult situation which there is no way out from.  If the eved doesn't have a way out in yoval, he can not enter the state of servitude in the first place.  The Sifsay Tzaddik adds this idea is hinted to in the pessukim of the parsha as well.  The possuk says regarding one who sold their field, כִּֽי־יָמ֣וּךְ אָחִ֔יךָ וּמָכַ֖ר מֵאֲחֻזָּת֑וֹ וּבָ֤א גֹֽאֲלוֹ֙ הַקָּרֹ֣ב אֵלָ֔יו וְגָאַ֕ל אֵ֖ת מִמְכַּ֥ר אָחִֽיו׃ וְאִ֕ישׁ כִּ֛י לֹ֥א יִֽהְיֶה־לּ֖וֹ גֹּאֵ֑ל וְהִשִּׂ֣יגָה יָד֔וֹ וּמָצָ֖א כְּדֵ֥י גְאֻלָּתֽוֹ.  The words וְאִ֕ישׁ כִּ֛י לֹ֥א יִֽהְיֶה־לּ֖וֹ גֹּאֵ֑ל are extra for even if there is a relative that can redeem the field, still the seller can buy the field back?  The Sifssay Tzaddik says the Torah is giving a promise that if there is such a person that is in such a bad state that he has to sell his field and there is no one to get it back, then וְהִשִּׂ֣יגָה יָד֔וֹ וּמָצָ֖א כְּדֵ֥י גְאֻלָּתֽו, he will obtain money to but the field back, for there must always be an exit.  The Beis Yisrael (5720) adds that is what the Torah says earlier in the parsha, ... וכי תאמרו מה נאכל בשנה השביעת  וצויתי את ברכתי לכם בשנה הששית ועשת את התבואה לשלש השנים, things can not be made to difficult, Hashem creates an exit valve to be able to get through the difficulty.  

The Or Hachayim (based already in the Midrash and Bechai,) say the pessukim of the redemption of a sold field allude to the redemption of Klal Yisrael from golus.  If Klal Yisrale is in golus they can be redeemed by a relative meaning by listening to the leaders but if that doesn't work, then וְהִשִּׂ֣יגָה יָד֔וֹ וּמָצָ֖א כְּדֵ֥י גְאֻלָּתֽו, the pains of golus will pay up for the sins but if that too is to no avail, then the geulah will happen in yoval, there will be an end to the golus any way, in the words of the Or Hachayim, כי קץ הגלות ישנו אפילו יהיו ישראל רשעים גמורים ח"ו.  Both in difficulties for an individual and for the tzibbur, while of course, the hardships and difficulties exist and can't be diminished, we may find comfort in the fact that there is a guaranteed end ,there is a light at the end of the tunnel when we make it through.     

Rashbi As A Taste Of The Future

 From the haskama of Rav Yosanan David to Gur Aryeh with Rav Hartman's commentary:

In the Gra itself (commentary to Tikkunay Zohar tikkun 21 pg. מב) (which I found due to Otzar Hachama):

Sinai, Money, Ladder

Midrash Rabbah (Berashis 68:12)  רַבָּנָן פָּתְרִין לֵיהּ בְּסִינַי. וַיַּחֲלֹם וְהִנֵּה סֻלָּם, זֶה סִינַי. מֻצָּב אַרְצָה (שמות יט, יז): וַיִּתְיַצְּבוּ בְּתַחְתִּית הָהָר. וְרֹאשׁוֹ מַגִּיעַ הַשָּׁמַיְמָה (דברים ד, יא): וְהָהָר בֹּעֵר בָּאֵשׁ עַד לֵב הַשָּׁמָיִם. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְהִנֵּה סֻלָּם, זֶה סִינַי, אוֹתִיּוֹת דְּדֵין הוּא אוֹתִיּוֹת דְּדֵין.

                From Or Hachachma p. Yisro (more sources to this idea, see otzar hachachma forum)

The Baal Shem Tov says סולם  is the gimatria of ממון.  With this idea we can say that is why shmittah is juxtaposed to Sinai.  Shmittah is the binyan av of the nisyonot of money.  The way up the ladder, the real test to determine is one's Torah is from Sina, is how one deals with their money.    

Rav Chatzkal's Perspective On The Eichmann Trial

 From the Mir parsha sheet.

כשלכדו את הצורר הנאצי אדולף אייכמן שר"י והביאהו למשפט בישראל, רבתה ההתרגשות. מרן המשגיח הגאון הרב יחזקאל לוינשטיין זצללה"ה ביאר בשיחתו את ההסתכלות הנכונה אודות כך:

הנה תפסו את הרוצח ומביאים אותו למשפט, ומדברים על זה בלא הרף. העיתונים מקדישים לכך עמודים שלמים, ונשמעים דיבורים שזכינו לעשות בו נקמה, וא-ל נקמות ה'. ובאמת אלו דברי הבל, ורחוקים מהשקפת התורה.

לו באמת היה ענין הרציחה חמור בעינינו כל כך, למה אדישים אנו כשאלפים מתו ברעידת אדמה, ורבים נפצעו, והמונים נותרו ללא קורת גג.

ומה היא תאוות הנקמה, האם על ידה יקומו ששת המיליונים לתחיה?! ומה הפליאה הגדולה אודות הרוצח, וכי מעט רוצחים יש בעולם, והלא כל גוי חשוד על רציחה, וכמות רציחותיו תלויה רק במידת החכמה והאפשרויות שהיו בידיו. הלא אסור להלוות לעם הארץ כי חשוד על הרציחה, משום שעל חייו לא חס על אחרים לא כל שכן (פסחים מט.). וזה נאמר על יהודי שאין בו תורה, על אחת כמה וכמה בנכרי, שכל מציאותו היא "על חרבך תחיה" (בראשית כז, מ), ועלול להגיע לרציחה בשל נגיעה לכבודו.

כל ההתפעלות נובעת מתאוות הניצחון, שביקשוהו והביאוהו, ומתגלה בזה חכמה ותושיה והצלחה. מכך נובעת ההתפעלות, ואין לה כלום עם נקמת ה'. ובכלל, על פי דרכי התורה כל ההסתכלות אף על הרשע הגדול ביותר אינה בשנאה, אלא בדרישת כבוד שמים שיתגדל בהענשתו. אבל כשלעצמו יש לחוש "מעשה ידי טובעים בים...", ו"בנפול אויביך אל תשמח", ונשתכח מאתנו כל ענין "צלם אלקים"!

ושמעתי מהגה"צ רבי אשר קלמן הי"ד [גיסו של הרב כהנמן מפוניבז' זצ"ל] בעת למדנו יחדיו בקעלם, שזהו שנאמר (תהלים קמט, ט): "לעשות נקמה בגויים תוכחות בלאומים, לאסור מלכיהם בזיקים ונכבדיהם בכבלי ברזל, לעשות בהם משפט כתוב - הדר הוא לכל חסדיו הללויה". כלומר, רק לחסידיו שכבוד שמים בראש מעיניהם, רק עבורם הנקמה היא הדר! וכן פירשו בקעלם מה שנאמר (ש"א טו, לג) "וישסף שמואל את אגג לפני ה' בגלגל", שאמנם בהריגתו היתה מצות מחיית עמלק ועשיית דין "כאשר שכלה נשים חרבך כך תשכל מנשים אמך" (שם), אבל לא המיתו מפני רגש הנקמה והשנאה אלא "לפני ה' ", בטהרה מוחלטת.

וכשם שנאמר בפרשתנו במגדף (כד, כג) שרגמוהו "כאשר ציווה ה' את משה". לא לשנאת בן המצרי שהתקוטט עם בן ישראל, אלא מפני שמירת ציווי ה' בלבד

No Date

והניף את העמר לפני ה לרצנכם ממחרת השבת יניפנו הכהן.  The Sfas Emes (Pesach 5640) asks it should have said לרצנכם ממחרת השבת יניפנו הכהן for it is on that day we start counting, what is ממחרת?  He explains the Torah is saying from the day you start the waving process and it continues until Shavuot.  For although the physical act of waving the omer only takes place on the first day of chol hamoed Pesach the waving represents Klal Yisrael raising themselves to come close to Hashem.  The possuk says לרצנכם, why it is an obligation?  It hints to the idea that your desires should be channeled to be used to serve Hashem.  

Many commentators note that the Torah never gives a specific date for the holiday of Shavuot but instead the Torah just says 50 days after Pesach there is a holiday.  Why is this so?  On approach is that the holiday of Shavuot is the culmination of the holiday of Pesach.  On Pesach we became free but the freedom is only a means of becoming servants of Hashem as mentioned from Rav Yerucham.  The holiday of Shavuot as indicated in the name, weeks is a culmination of the preparation of the days and weeks of the omer bridging the gap between Pesach and Shavuot.  It is a process that starts ממחרת השבת and continues.  Rav Shmuel Rabinovitch suggests this a reason we read Rus on Shavuot.  The difference between Rus and Orpah is that Rus took the journey with Naomi all the way home but Orpah left; the lesson is that we must follow the path, the journey, all the way to the end.  

Another approach is that since Shavuot is the holiday celebrating the giving of the Torah, the Torah does not give a precise date for Torah can not be limited by time and space.  This approach is described in greater detail by Rav Steinsaltz.  

The Obligation Of Beracha

This post is piggybacking off a post of my father's from years ago about the Gemarah (35b) א"ר חנינא בר פפא כל הנהנה מן העוה"ז בלא ברכה כאילו גוזל להקב"ה וכנסת ישראל שנא' (משלי כח, כד) גוזל אביו ואמו ואומר אין פשע חבר הוא לאיש משחית ואין אביו אלא הקב"ה שנא' (דברים לב, ו) הלא הוא אביך קנך ואין אמו אלא כנסת ישראל שנא' (משלי א, ח) שמע בני מוסר אביך ואל תטוש תורת אמך מאי חבר הוא לאיש משחית א"ר חנינא בר פפא חבר הוא לירבעם בן נבט שהשחית את ישראל לאביהם שבשמים.  

I would just add a few points.  The Peshat of the Maharal is said by the Maharsha in Berachot as well that אילו גוזל להקב"ה means one is stealing the food from Hashem.  

The peshat of the Ramban that omitting the beracha leads to a lack of the presence of the Shechina would align with how the Nefesh HaChayim and Chassidus explains based upon the Rashba that a beracha brings shefa, additional felt presence of the Shechina in the world as acknowledged by the Kabbalists. 

The nature of the translation of the Gemarah as to what is being stolen may be a reflection of the understanding of the nature of the obligation of berachot.  Rashi says the sevarah that the Gemarah says (35a) that one must say a beracha is דכיון דנהנה צריך להודות למי שבראם, one must give thanks to Hashem for the food that he is benefiting from.  One owes Hashem gratitude and when one doesn't give thanks, he has stolen the gratitude owed to Hashem.  The approach of the Maharsha and Maharal is reflective of the way the Ritva learns the sevarah which is that must must get permission to take from the world which belongs to Hashem.  According to that approach the act of theft is taking from the world without permission.  The Ritva לשיטתו holds that the sevarah the Gemarah says only applies to ברכה ראשונה for it is only before eating that one asks for permission to benefit from the food.  However, the Rashba says the sevarah of the Gemarah applies to ברכה אחרונה as well for he understands the sevarah is like Rashi that one must give thanks to Hashem and that applies after eating as well.  

This debate as to what the theft of eating without a beracha is and what the nature of the sevarah of the Gemarah goes to the nature of the obligation of beracha.  The Ritva views as a beracha as a מתיר.  Everything belongs to Hashem would be forbidden to man and it is the beracha which removes the issur.  That is why the Ritva is Shabbas (23) is of the opinion that when is stuck in a situation of safek berachot that one can't benefit because there is nothing to be מתיר the issur.  The Rashba and Rashi view beracha as a positive activity that one must do as an act of saying thanks but there is no issur to eat without a beracha (see this issues raised by Rav Asher Weiss.)  [Rav Shlomo Zalman had a third middle approach which is not that there is an intrinsic issur to eat without a beracha but Chazal put a chiuv beracha in place and from that obligation emanates an issur to eat without a beracha.  He brings proof to this from the laws where there is no obligation of beracha such as an אונן there is no issur to eat because there is no obligation of beracha on the other hand the Gemarah does say there is an issur to eat without a beracha.] 

How To Properly Praise

The Mishna In Avot (2:8/9 depending on your edition) says הוא היה מונה שבחם, Rav Yochanan ben Zakai would count the praises of his students.  The question is how is he allowed to say their praises if the Gemarah Arachin (16a) says תני רב דימי אחוה דרב [=אחיו של רב] ספרא: לעולם אל יספר אדם בטובתו של חבֵירו, שמתוך טובתו בא לידי רעתו, one is not supposed to praise someone else for it will lead to their negative traits being brought up?  Rashi in Arachin says the issur is in saying the praises of someone יותר מדאי, going too far an exaggerating in one's praise of another.  According to this approach it is understandable that R.B.Z. who said one simple praise of his students was allowed.  Rabbi Akiba Eger in Arachin sends you to the Rambam (Deot 7:4) who says the issur is בפני שונאיו, when speaking before people who dislike the individual then his negative traits will be brought up.  However, when it is not  בפני שונאיו it is allowed (see the Magen Avraham siman 156 who asks from the Gemarah Bava Bathra (164b) and Rashash in Arachin.)  

The Rambam earlier in Deot (6:3) says not only is it not prohibited but it is actually part of the mitzvah of ואהבת לרעך כמוך to praise someone else, מִצְוָה עַל כָּל אָדָם לֶאֱהֹב אֶת כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל כְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט יח) ".וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ". לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ לְסַפֵּר בְּשִׁבְחוֹ וכו  Part of loving somene else is to make them feel good via praise.  This would seem to run counter to the Pri Migadim (156) who suggests based upon the Gemarah Shabbat (31ש) that the mitzvah is just not to do something negative to another individual but not doing a positive is not part of וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ, from the Rambam it sounds like it is (many of the sources I developed from an article of Lord Rabbi Saks a"h.)  

The Gemarah Eiruvin (18b) says אמר רבי ירמיה בן אלעזר מקצת שבחו של אדם אומרים בפניו, וכולו שלא בפניו.  Again, how is one allowed to praise someone else, we would have to say one of the above answers.  Rashi explains the issue of saying כולו בפניו is that it appears that one is flattering the recipient.  The Mahrasha suggests the reason is that it will cause the recipient to become haughty but says Rashi did not say this was as the Midrash Rabbah on Noach (32:3) says רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אָמַר מָצִינוּ שֶׁאוֹמְרִים מִקְצַת שִׁבְחוֹ שֶׁל מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם בְּפָנָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים סו, ג): אִמְרוּ לאלקים מַה נּוֹרָא מַעֲשֶׂיךָ, שֶׁלֹא בְפָנָיו אוֹמֵר (תהלים קלו, א): הוֹדוּ לַה' כִּי טוֹב כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ.  The Maharsha says the reason of causing haughtiness doesn't apply to Hashem and hence Rashi learned the reason is that one appears to be trying to flatter.  I don't understand very well how the reason of flattery applies to Hashem either and the Eitz Yosef and other meforshim on the Midrash don't accept it either, at the end of the day I don't understand what is the issue of כולו שלא בפניו in regard to Hashem, וצ"ע. 

(Someone wrote a wrote a small kuntras on the topic of מקצת שבחו של אדם אומרים בפניו, וכולו שלא בפניו and he cites from Rav Mottel Katz that the Rashi that says אומרים מקצת שבחו means as an obligation, one should say partial praises on an individual, this is in line with the Rambam that this is part of וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ.) 

The Yismach Moshe on this week's parsha, Emor, reads this law into a Midrash in this week's parsha and in his explanation he says ולפי זה קשה איך אנחנו משבחין ומפארין ומהללין בפיוטים בהרבה שבחות וקילוסין, וכי מסיימהו וכו'. והתירוץ הוא על פי המדרש (פרשת לך, ב"ר פל"ב ג') ואף שבחו של הקב"ה אומרים מקצתו בפניו וכו', דלא כדעת רבא דאמר להאי דנחית קמי דציבורא סיימתינהו, he says this Midrash holds you are allowed to say partial praises of Hashem not like the Gemarah which says it is prohibited to praise Hashem for you can never say enough (It is also noteworthy that Rashi Megillah 18a says the issur to add to the praises of Hashem, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, אָסוּר לְסַפֵּר בְּשִׁבְחוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא is in the context of a beracha, אסור לספר - בקביעות ברכה, it soundsl ike from Rashi merely saying praises of Hashem not in the context of a beracha is fine, in which case there is no contradiction from the Midrash for more discussion see here.) 

Respect Your Body

 לא תקפו פאת ראשכם ולא תשחית את פאת זקנך ושרט לנפש לא תתנו בבשרכם וכתבת קעקע לא תתנו בכם אני ה

Why are these two prohibitions of cutting into the flesh for a death and tattooing juxtaposed? 

 

The Rambam, and in his footsteps the Chinuch, understand these prohibitions of destroying the not cutting one's self for a dead relative and tattooing are to distance one's self from idolatry as these were practices done by priests or in worship of idols and the Torah prohibits these activities to distance our selves from idolatry.  According to that view these prohibitions are based upon the same philosophical underpinnings and hence lumped together.  

The Sforno takes a different approach to understand the philosophy behind these prohibitions.  The Sforno says that the prohibition of cutting one's skin as mourning a death is prohibited for it demonstrates that one does not believe in life after death.  This is excessive mourning demonstrated by those who value the existence of the body over the soul.  On the other hand the Torah tells us that one's body is important and one must not mutilate it by adding tattoos.   According to the Sforno the Torah is giving us a balance.  On the one and we recognize that the soul is the true life force and that carries on after death but at  the same time the body must also be treated with respect for the body of a person is holy as well.  (See Rabbi Cooperman who has a different understanding of the Sforno.) 

The Or HaChayim understands that both prohibitions are rooted in the idea of the body is something that must be honored and that is why must not cut into the flesh as a sign of mourning either for one has no right to destroy their skin.  That is why the Torah says ושרט לנפש, by attacking your body you are desecrating the life force inside of it.  The Or HaChayim notes a difference in the wording of the possuk  between cutting one's self for the dead it says לא תתנו בבשרכם vs. the tattoo it says לא תתנו בכם, why the change in terminology?  He explains when it comes to the dead relative since one is in pain their actions are more understandable and the desecration is only skin deep but one who tattoos themselves destroys the internal kedusha of himself as well.    

This approach in understanding the prohibition of tattoos because the body has kedusha which should not be destroyed is followed by Rebbe Nason in Likutay Halachos, כִּי צָרִיךְ לִשְׁמֹר בְּשַֹר הַגּוּף שֶׁלֹּא לְקַלְקְלוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא לַחֲקֹק בּוֹ כְּתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע, שֶׁלֹּא לְקַלְקֵל צֶלֶם דְּמוּת הָאָדָם שֶׁכָּלוּל מִכָּל הָעוֹלָמוֹת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בַּכֹּחַ בְּכָל אֵיבָר וְאֵיבָר וּבְכָל חֵלֶק מִבְּשַֹר גּוּפוֹ מְיֻחָד כְּנֶגֶד חֵלֶק מֵחֶלְקֵי הָעוֹלָם לְהַמְשִׁיךְ הָעוֹלָם לְהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ, כִּי כָּל חֵלֶק מֵחֶלְקֵי גּוּפוֹ, וּכְנֶגֶד כַּמָּה נְפָשׁוֹת, כִּי מִנְהוֹן תַּלְיָן בְּאוּדְנִין, וּמִנְהוֹן בְּשַֹעֲרִין וְכוּ'. ... אֲבָל אָסוּר לַחֲקֹק בְּגַשְׁמִיּוּת שׁוּם אוֹת בְּעוֹר גּוּפוֹ, דְּהַיְנוּ כְּתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע, כִּי אַדְּרַבָּא, מִזֶּה מְקַלְקֵל וּמַחֲרִיב בִּנְיַן גּוּפוֹ הַכָּלוּל מִכָּל הָעוֹלָמוֹת כַּנַּ"ל, כִּי צָרִיךְ לְהַדֵּר אֶת גּוּפוֹ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בִּשְׁלֵמוּת בְּלִי שׁוּם חֲקִיקָה, כִּי גּוּפוֹ כָּלוּל מִכָּל אוֹתִיּוֹת הַתּוֹרָה.  Rebbe Nason adds more kabbalistic overtones but the thrust is the same idea that the body is holy and must be treated with respect. 

This message is part of the general message of the parsha.  For many of the mitzvot in the parsha it says at the end אני ה or אני ה אלוקיכם.  Why emphasis this so many times?  The Torah is emphasizing that it is through the mitzvot done with one's body, through the mundane mitzvot, that one obtains kedusha.  By honoring, respecting and sanctifying the body ones obtains kedusha.

Keep To Your Word

Gemarah Bava Metzia (49a) איתמר דברים רב אמר אין בהן משום מחוסרי אמנה ורבי יוחנן אמר ביש בהם משום מחוסרי אמנה מיתיבי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר מה תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יט, לו) הין צדק והלא הין בכלל איפה היה אלא לומר לך שיהא הן שלך צדק ולאו שלך צדק אמר אביי ההוא דשלא ידבר אחד בפה ואחד בלב.  Rashi says שלא ידבר אחד בפה כו' - בשעה שהוא אומר הדבור לא יהא בדעתו לשנות אבל אם נשתנה השער לאחר זמן והוא חוזר בו לפי שינוי השער אין כאן חסרון אמנה.  

The Rosh (siman 12) asks why does the Rif cite the law of שלא ידבר אחד בפה ואחד בלב if we rule like Rav Yochanan that there is מחוסר אמנה on retracting from one's words, then that is the derash leaned out from the possuk?  The Rosh answers since the Gemarah later on the page qualifies the statement of Rav Yochanan that there is מחוסר אמנה for words only if it is a promise to give a small present, then the source for R. Y. can't be the possuk for if so there would be no such difference, rather R.Y.'s din must be an independent sevarah and indeed the possuk teaches us שלא ידבר אחד בפה ואחד בלב.  What is the difference between if the law is derived from a possuk or a sevarah?  

Why is it considered in bad faith to recant only from a small present?  Rashi explains משום דסמכא דעתיה דמקבל אדיבוריה וכי אמר מותר לחזור בו במתנה מרובה קאמר דלא סמכא דעתיה דמקבל דלקיימיה לדיבוריה.  If it a small present the receipt assumes the one making the promise will keep his word but if it is something large, he knows that there is a great possibility he will renege.  

We can have a chakirah what is this halacha of מחוסר אמנה, "bad faith," is it a din in the giver, the גברא making the promise, not to be a liar (like a middos din,)  or is it a din for the sake of the recipient, not to violate his trust. 

The Rosh understood if the law of מחוסר אמנה was based upon the possuk, it is a din in הן צדק, for one to keep their word, not to be a liar, and it doesn't matter what the recipient thinks ,either way the one that made the promise must keep his word.  If we see the Gemarah is saying that מחוסר אמנה depends on if the recipient feels violated, then it must be his halacha is not derived from the possuk and he needs the possuk to be telling us שלא ידבר אחד בפה ואחד בלב as well.  

With this idea we can explain Rashi as well.  Rashi says in the answer of the Gemarah שלא ידבר אחד בפה ואחד בלב that Rav agrees you can't make a promise with intent to break it but if the market value changes, אבל אם נשתנה השער לאחר זמן והוא חוזר בו לפי שינוי השער, then there is no issue of חסרון אמנה.  Why does Rashi have to introduce the market value changing, just say if you didn't intentionally lie, there is no issue of חסרון אמנה?  We see Rashi holds the machlokes Rav and R.Y. is if the promisor must be totally truthful, however everyone agrees there is a concept of מחוסר אמנה if one is just violates the trust of the recipient for no reason at all. 

Tosfos Bava Bathra (123b) says בכל דוכתא עביד מכירי כהונה מוחזק בפרק כל הגט (גיטין דף ל.) המלוה מעות את הכהן והלוי והיינו טעמא שזהו מתנה מועטת ואסור לחזור בו ואפי' בדברי' בעלמא ואע"פ שאם רצה יכול לחזור בו מכל מקום כל כמה דלא הדר הוי כמוחזק.  Tosfos holds due to the law of מחוסר אמנה the kohan is considered muchzak in priestly presents normally given to him.  We see from Tosfos that מחוסר אמנה is obviously a din reflective of the recipient but Tosfos goes a step further and says that the present is viewed as muchzak (so that a bechor can receive double portion from it,) in the hands of the recipient.  Rav Shmuel Rozovsky says we see Tosfos must hold that מחוסר אמנה mean not only can the recipient grumble if he doesn't receive what is promised to him, but he is considered to have a monetary rights to the promised object.  

The Rosh in Teshuvot (102:10) says if one promised the rights to be the מוהל of his son to an individual  and then decides to give it to someone else, there is no problem of מחוסר אמנה because that only applies to something that a kinyan can take affect on but the rights to do the milah which there is no way to make a binding kinyan on, there is no violation of מחוסר אמנה when backing out.  This only makes sense if the issue of מחוסר אמנה is violating the recipient, if the law is to be  stand up guy, it should not depend upon the laws of kinyanim.  Why would מחוסר אמנה apply only when a kinyan does?  It would seem the Rosh holds the law of מחוסר אמנה is an extension of the law of kinyan to one's words, one's words creating a kinyan bind vis-a-vis the law of מחוסר אמנה.  In light of the Tosfos in Bava Bathra it is clearer that the law of מחוסר אמנה has to create a monetary right for the recipient and that can only exist on something that has a kinyan (based upon a shir by R' Elefant.)  

The Rambam (Mechirah 7:9) says וְכֵן מִי שֶׁאָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ לִתֵּן לוֹ מַתָּנָה וְלֹא נָתַן הֲרֵי זֶה מִמְּחֻסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמַתָּנָה מוּעֶטֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי סָמְכָה דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל מְקַבֵּל כְּשֶׁהִבְטִיחוֹ. אֲבָל בְּמַתָּנָה מְרֻבָּה אֵין בָּהּ חֶסְרוֹן אֲמָנָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הֶאֱמִין זֶה שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ עַד שֶׁיִּקְנֶה אוֹתָן בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁקּוֹנִין בָּהֶן.  This is the din of Rav Yochanan.  The Rambam (Deot 5:13) says מַשָּׂאוֹ וּמַתָּנוֹ שֶׁל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם בֶּאֱמֶת וּבֶאֱמוּנָה. אוֹמֵר עַל לָאו לָאו וְעַל הֵן הֵן.  This line would seem to come from the Gemarah שיהא הן שלך צדק ולאו שלך צדק.  It is noteworthy that this is cited in Hilchot Deot indicating it is just a measure of good behavior, not a din in Mechirah like the law of מחוסר אמנה.  However, the Rambam doesn't cite the law שלא ידבר אחד בפה ואחד בלב like the Rif, he cites the simple read of the berasah שיהא הן שלך צדק ולאו שלך צדק.  It sounds like the Rambam also holds that there are two tiers.  One law is that of R.Y. which is a kinyan law, a law to not disappoint the recipient.  The possuk tells us שיהא הן שלך צדק ולאו שלך צדק (presumably the Rambam would have to say like the Rosh that R.Y.'s din doesn't emanate from the the possuk but then we are free to say the possuk is telling us another law, to be a standup individual and always keep one's word.  Also, it is clear the Rambam says this in the context of a talmud chacham, it seems this  additional enhancement of always keeping one's word in only necessary for a talmud chacham, וצ"ע.  However, in Deot (2:6) the Rambam says אָסוּר לָאָדָם לְהַנְהִיג עַצְמוֹ בְּדִבְרֵי חֲלָקוֹת וּפִתּוּי. וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אֶחָד בַּפֶּה וְאֶחָד בַּלֵּב אֶלָּא תּוֹכוֹ כְּבָרוֹ וְהָעִנְיָן שֶׁבַּלֵּב הוּא הַדָּבָר שֶׁבַּפֶּה.  Here he does say וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אֶחָד בַּפֶּה וְאֶחָד like the Gemarah says and he records it as a mode of behavior for everyone.  This would follow the Rif of the second tier of the right way to act is וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אֶחָד בַּפֶּה וְאֶחָד בַּלֵּב, but how does the Rambam know three levels, the level of מחוסר אמנה, a kinyan law, applies only as to not upset the recipient and then two distinct levels of proper behavior, one for everyone וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אֶחָד בַּפֶּה וְאֶחָד בַּלֵּב and another level for a talmud chacham to always keep their word, וצ"ע.

Redeeming The Fruits

Tosfos Berachot (35a) says כרם רבעי בזמן הזה מחללין על שוה פרוט' ושוחקו ומטילו לנהר וכן מפורש בשאלתות דרב אחאי פרשת קדושים סימן ק.  Rabbi Akiva Ager asks how can Tosfos say you can redeem רבעי on the value of a perutah, ותמוה לי כיון דילפינן חלול חלול ממעשר ליבעי חלול על דבר שעליו צורה וצ"ע?  

There are a few answers to R.A.E.'s question. The simplest  answer is that the question is right and when Tosfos says שוה פרוטה he means a פרוטה (see Tosfos Bechorot 30a.)

Another approach is that there are two aspects to the law of רבעי.  One law is that there is an issur on the fruits unless they are redeemed or eaten in Yerushalayim and that issur is a carryover from the issur arlah of the first three years.  Another aspect is that there is kedusha on the fruits like maaser sheni.  Tosfos holds in chutz la'aretz since there is no law of masser sheni, the aspect of the fruits being like maaser sheni with kedusha on the fruits doesn't apply and what remains is the issur on the fruits.  According to this approach Tosfos is talking specifically about the fruits of chutz la'aretz. 

Another approach is based upon the opinion of the Rambam (מעשר שני ב:ג ומאכלות אסורות י:יז) that one can exchange (even maaser sheni) onto non money nowadays since there is no obligation to bring the fruits to Yerushalayim there is no obligation of כסף צורה.  The explanation of this difference would be that for the halacha of the act of redeeming the fruit, it is like any other kinyan and there is no need for כסף צורה.  The law of כסף צורה is a law in the process of bringing the maaser sheni to Yerushalayim as the possuk says וצרת הכסף בידך והלכת אל המקום אשר יבחר ה, the צרת הכסף is a method of והלכת אל המקום אשר יבחר ה, no Mikdash, no need for כסף צורה. 

(From Afikay Mayim volume 4 siman 16, Shiurim of Rav Solovetchik on Berachot, Rav Dov Schwartzman Bava Kammah.) 

שומע כעונה For Sefirah And Details Of שומע כעונה

This post is a synopsis of a shiur by R' Elefant about שומע כעונה for sefiras haomer

The Rishonim and Poskim (see siman 489) discuss if one can fulfill the mitzvah of sefiras haomer through שומע כעונה.  The simple understanding behind the debate is that it is rooted in the derasha of the Gemarah Menachot (65b) וספרתם לכם שתהא ספירה לכל אחד ואחד.  Why does the Gemarah need a derash that everyone must count, what else would we have thought?  Tosfos says that we thought only the Beit Din does the counting as is done for counting the years of the shemittah cycle, קמ"ל it is an obligation on the individual.  Another way to learn the Gemarah is that the derash is coming to say that everyone must actually count themselves and the regular law of שומע כעונה will not help.  This is the way the Pri Chadash originally explains this way to the point that he asks why does the Gemarah in Sukkah need a different source for the law of שומע כעונה, it should be derived from the fact that this derash is needed to exclude that halacha.  However, he answers that the derash is mainly to tell us it is not just a mitzvah of Beis Din (therefore, he concludes it is better to count for one's self but שומע כעונה will work if one has intent to be yotzei.)  It is unclear to me how he comes to the conclusion that it is better to count for one's self if שומע כעונה does work.)  At the end of the day it is unclear why שומע כעונה will not work?  

The Dvar Avraham siman 34 has a yesod that since the mitzvah is a sefirah, a count, not a mere proclamation, that means one has to know exactly what they are counting.  He concludes that one can not count for two days to cover one's bases if one loses track of which day of sefira it is for although he may have said the day, it can not be defined as a sefirah if one does not know at the time of the counting which day it is.  With this principle it is possible to suggest that although when it comes to laws of speech there is a law of שומע כעונה, when it comes to a law of a sefirah, of a precise act of counting, a person must count themselves.  

The Beur Halacha cites a proof from the Ritz Gaous that he holds שומע כעונה does work for he writes that one must stand to count the omer based on the fact that the Torah says הקמה and yet he writes if the tzibbur is already sitting, so as not to bother them to stand, the chazan can count and everyone answers אמן.  Says the B.H., is he merely means that they are listening to the beracha of the chazan but are counting themselves, they would have to stand anyway, he must mean that everyone is fulfilling the mitzvah of counting by listening to the chazan.  We see from the B.H. that to count for one's self one has to stand but to be yotzeh through שומע כעונה one does not need to stand.  The Achronim ask a contradiction to this from the Shaar Hatzion siman 690:1 where he says that for the beracha of the megillah everyone, even those being yotzei through שומע כעונה must stand, there he holds even when fulfilling the obligation through שומע כעונה one must still stand?   

It is possible to differentiate between the two laws.  When it comes to the law of standing for a beracha that is a law to give honor to the blessing being done for the mitzvah and that is a din in the gavra to give honor to the blessing so everyone must stand.  On the other hand, the law to stand for sefirah is a derash from the word הקמה and that is a law in the maaseh mitzvah limited to the one doing the counting.  However, while this works for the Mishna Berurah it can not be the explanation for the Ritz Gaous. The Beis Yosef siman 124 cites in the name of the Ritz Gaous that if one is fulfilled tefillah by listening to shemone esrai from the chazan then one does not need to take three steps back at the end of shemone esrai for the chazan will do it for you.  The halacha of taking three steps back is a law in kavod for removing from the presence of standing before Hashem, a din in the gavra, and yet still he holds if one is fulfilling the law via שומע כעונה one doesn't need to do it?  We see the Ritz Gaous holds that always when fulfilling a law via שומע כעונה the listener gets the complete kium without doing any of the details personally.  If  so the contradiction is back?  

The answer is very simple.  The halacha is not like the Ritz Gaous regarding the details of שומע כעומה, the Mechabar in the beginning of siman 124 paskens that the one listening has to take three steps back.  That is what the Shaar Hatzion says as well.  The Beur Halacha in the laws of seferah is merely citing the words of the Ritz Gaous to prove that he holds one can fulfill sefirah through שומע כעונה, it doesn't mean that he is ruling like him on the all the details that he says.