A Life Of Beracha

רְאֵ֗ה אָנֹכִ֛י נֹתֵ֥ן לִפְנֵיכֶ֖ם הַיּ֑וֹם בְּרָכָ֖ה וּקְלָלָֽה אֶֽת⁠־הַבְּרָכָ֑ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּשְׁמְע֗וּ אֶל⁠־מִצְוֺת֙ ה אלקיכם אֲשֶׁ֧ר אָנֹכִ֛י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶ֖ם הַיּֽוֹם וְהַקְּלָלָ֗ה אִם⁠־לֹ֤א תִשְׁמְעוּ֙ אֶל⁠־מִצְוֺת֙ ה אלקיכם וְסַרְתֶּ֣ם מִן⁠־הַדֶּ֔רֶךְ אֲשֶׁ֧ר אָנֹכִ֛י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶ֖ם הַיּ֑וֹם לָלֶ֗כֶת אַחֲרֵ֛י אֱלֹהִ֥ים אֲחֵרִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹֽא⁠־יְדַעְתֶּֽם

Why does it say הַיּ֑וֹם, obviously it was that day?  In the קְּלָלָ֗ה form it says it as a the condition, לֹ֤א תִשְׁמְע, why does it not say that in the beracha form, merely as a fat, אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּשְׁמְע֗וּ, why the change?  What is the beracha and kellalah, there is nothing mentioned here? 

Rav Hirsch says that the listening is not the condition for the beracha but that is part of the beracha itself.  A life rich of following the mitzvot of Hashem, a life enriched with order, meaning and G-dly service is a life of beracha.  The kellalah is that if one's life strays from the path of Hashem, one's life will be unfulfilled, empty, devoid of meaning. Rav Hirsch relates the word קללה to the word קל, light, no weight, a life without any weight, any depth.  That may be hinted to in the usage of the word הַיּ֑וֹם, the Torah is instructing that these berachot and klallot are not something merely in the future, in the afterlife, but thy will be present and found in one's life.  One who follows Hashem's path is walking in the path of beracha and the opposite for one who is not (see Kedushas Levi.)

One Step At A Time

וְנָשַׁל֩ י״י֨ אֱלֹקיך אֶת⁠־הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָאֵ֛ל מִפָּנֶ֖יךָ מְעַ֣ט מְעָ֑ט לֹ֤א תוּכַל֙ כַּלֹּתָ֣ם מַהֵ֔ר פֶּן⁠־תִּרְבֶּ֥ה עָלֶ֖יךָ חַיַּ֥ת הַשָּׂדֶֽה

Rashi asks if Klal Yisrael is doing what Hashem wants the animals will not harm them?  He answers that Hashem knew they were going to sin.  The Ralbag says of course Hashem can stop Klal Yisrael from being harmed but He does not wish to make a miracle unnecessarily and therefore the possus is giving advice how to best conquer the land in a logical form.  The Be'ar Mayim Chayim says that sometimes exposure to too much holiness can be blinding for a person.  It is like a person going from darkness to great light, it is blinding at first.  One needs to become adjusted to kedusha.  To conquer all of Eretz Yisrael in one shot, to be exposed to all that kedusha immediately would be too much and would lead to harm, it needed to be conquered slowly.  This is a general lesson that it is better to go step by step, to focus on one thing at a time than try to set standards which will not be able to be upheld in the long run.  The possuk says  וְעַתָּה֙ יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מָ֚ה י״י֣ אֱלֹקיך שֹׁאֵ֖ל מֵעִמָּ֑ךְ כִּ֣י אִם⁠־לְ֠יִרְאָ֠ה אֶת⁠־י״י֨ אֱלֹקיך לָלֶ֤כֶת בְּכׇל⁠־דְּרָכָיו֙ וּלְאַהֲבָ֣ה אֹת֔וֹ וְלַֽעֲבֹד֙ אֶת⁠־י״י֣  אֱלֹקיך בְּכׇל⁠־לְבָבְךָ֖ וּבְכׇל⁠־נַפְשֶֽׁךָ.  The possuk starts off what does G-d want, as if it is a small matter, and then rattles of a whole list?  If one's focus is to go little by little, then indeed it is a small ask.  It is only when trying to leap to the top of the mountain in on bound that it is too much.

Geulah In The Golus

Shabbat Nachamu.  What is the nechama for us if we are still in golus?  The Gemarah (Taanis 30b) says כל המתאבל על ירושלים זוכה ורואה בשמחתה, "whoever mourns for Jerusalem will merit and see her joy." What does the Gemarah mean, there were many great tzaddikim who died without seeing the rebuilding of Yerushalayim?  The Sfas Emes (Shemos 5763) notes that Chazal do not say in future tense, יזכה ויראה, one will merit and see, rather in the present tense, זוכה ורואה, one merits to see now, in the golus, he joy of Yerushalayim.  How can one see the joy of Yerushalayim if we are still in golus?  

The Baal Shem Tov teaches (see Baal Shem Tov on the Torah Noach #31) that a person is where their thoughts are.  In other words, a person is not defined by where they are physically but rather where they are mentally.  Says the Kedushat Levi, one who properly mourns over Yerushalayim, one who's found in the ruins of Yerushalayim, will זוכה, from the word זכה, become purified, will become elevated to be able to experience a taste of its joy as well.  Paradoxically, when one mourns for Yerushalayim, one becomes capable of seeing its glory.  

How is this so?  As the Yaavetz notes in his siddur, we say in benching ועל ירושלים עירך, ועל ציון משכן כבודך, ועל מלכות בית דוד משיחך, to have compassion on Yerushalayim, the Mikdash and malchus beis David.  But they are long gone?  Says the Yaavetz, that Yerushalayim and the Mikdash in the spiritual realm are still standing.  When mourning the physical loss of Yerushalayim, one is given the proper eyes to see the spiritual structure of Yerushalayim.  One is no longer trapped in the mindset of brokenness but is able to see the joy of geulah.  As the Chassidic masters teach, golus and geulah are also states of mind.  When one feels the pain of Yerushalayim, then one is elevated to be able to live in the mindset of its joy. 

There is a story in the writings of the Arizal (cited by the Magen Avraham in shorthand 493:3) "Rav Avraham Halevi testified before me that he was accustomed to reciting Nachem daily in Shemoneh Esrei, lamenting the destruction of the Temple. One year on Lag BaOmer when he was by the Rashbi and included the above prayer in his Shemoneh Esrei, the Arizal approached him with a stern message from the Rashbi. “Rebbe Shimon came to me and told me to ask you why you chose to say Nachem on the day of his Simcha? Rebbe Shimon said that due to this you yourself will unfortunately experience a reason for condolence in the near future.” And so it was that in that month Rebbe Avraham’s eldest son passed away."  What is wrong with someone who longs for the Mikdash so much that they say nachem daily to say nachem on Lag BaOmer?  The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains that Rashbi lived on the level of רואה בשמחתה, he lived in a geulah mindset and hence on his day it is not appropriate to say nachem.

In the parsha we read וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּ֥ם מִשָּׁ֛ם אֶת ה אלקיך, "And from there you will seek the Lord your God."  The Sfas Emes (5664) says it doesn't say seek the geulah, but in the golus itself you will seek Hashem, in the golus itself we can have the capability to come close to Hashem, to experience a taste of necham, a taste of the future. 

That is the nechama.  We may still be in golus but after going through the mourning period for the Mikdash, after becoming attached to the Mikdash we are able to be רואה בשמחתה, to have a sense of a little bit of the geulah mindset, to feel the sprouting of the geulah even as we are still in golus.

Incomplete Houses And Feasts

The Tur (siman 560) cites the opinion of the Rambam (Taanis 5:12) that one may not line the walls of their house entirely from סיד which was the way aristocrats houses were done, rather one should first use a covering of טיט and סיד on top of that and then leave over a space unfinished opposite the door to express our lacking due to the churban.  The Tur disagrees and holds the unfinished space works to demonstrate our lacking due to the churban even in a house finished the way aristocrats do.  Rabbi Chagai Preschel (a previous Rosh Kollel in my kollel,) in בחגוי הסלע on Eicha wants to say the machlokes is in the geder of the takkanah to leave over an unfinished amah area.  The Rambam holds it is a takkanah on the cheftzah of the house.  Chazal said that one should not live in a house constructed like that of kings and therefore, one may not plaster their house in such a manner.  In addition, even when one does not plaster their walls like that for a king, one must still leave an unfinished area to show the house is not complete.  Hence one can't build a beautiful house but just leave something out for the house is still a beautiful house.  The Tur holds it is a din in the gavra that an action that brings simcha should be left incomplete to remember the churban and that is fulfilled by always leaving something of the house unfinished. 

With this he explains the change in the dikduk halashon of the Rambam and Tur in the next halacha.  The Rambam continues וְכֵן הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁהָעוֹרֵךְ שֻׁלְחָן לַעֲשׂוֹת סְעֻדָּה לָאוֹרְחִים מְחַסֵּר מִמֶּנּוּ מְעַט וּמַנִּיחַ מָקוֹם פָּנוּי בְּלֹא קְעָרָה מִן הַקְּעָרוֹת הָרְאוּיוֹת לָתֵת שָׁם, the Rambam puts the emphasis on the table being incomplete while the Tur writes ועושה אדם כל צרכי סעודה ומשייר בה דבר מועט אפילו כסא דהרסנא the emphasis is one the person, that he should leave something out of his feast to demonstrate his pain over the churban. 

The poskim discuss if leaving a picture of Yerushalayim or sign helps instead of the leaving an ammah unfinished (see Mishna Berurah #3 and sources cited in Pischay Teshuva.)  Such an argument would only make sense if leaving an ammah is a din in the gavra, if there is a din that the cheftzah of the house not to be properly finished then it would not help to hang a sign or picture. This chakirah also may play a role in determining who the obligation should be in the case of a rentor (see Igros Moshe volume 3 #86,) it is is a din in the gavra it should be an obligation on the one living in the house.  The poskim also discuss if one uses טיט with other things mixed in that it is lower quality and one won't be obligated to leave over an ammah (see Mishna Berurah #2, Aruch Hashulchan, Ritva Bava Basra 60b,) that  makes more sense if it is a din in the house not to be built nicely.  Then one can argue this type of cement is not good and it is not considered building too nice of a house but if it is a din in the gavra then it is more likely to say there still needs to be something recognizable that is left incomplete. 

Post Chatzos

Shulchan Aruch (557) בתשעה באב אומר בבונה ירושלים נחם ה' אלהינו את אבילי ציון וכו' ועננו בשומע תפלה ואם לא אמר לא זה ולא זה אין מחזירין אותו: הגה והמנהג פשוט שאין אומרים נחם רק בתפלת מנחה של תשעה באב לפי שאז הציתו אש במקדש ולכן מתפללים אז על נחמה (רוקח ואבודרהם).  The Beis Yosef adds וז"ל הריטב"א בתשובה לענין נחם בט"ב דעתי דכיון דמשום המאורע אמרינן ליה על פי הירושלמי לאומרו בכל תפלותיו ערבית שחרית ומנחה ככל מעין המאורע שבכ"מ אלא שבערבית ושחרית שהוא כמי שמתו מוטל לפניו ואינו בנחמה אומרים רחם ולמנחה אומרים נחם שדומה למי שנקבר מתו ומ"מ ש"צ אינו אומרו אלא במנחה כמו שנהגו עכ"ל.  

The Rema says (559:3) the custom is to sit low to the ground on 9 Av until chatzos and he says (5554:22) the custom not to do work is until chatzos.  What changes at  chatzos?  Rav Solevetchik connects this to the previous Ritva.  Before chatzos, the halachot reflect the status of an אונן who is preoccupied with burying the day and can't be distracted.  After chatzos the status switches to a state of avelut which has no law prohibiting distractions from the dead, to the contrary it is a time of comfort.  It is hard to understand how this explains the law of sitting which is not prohibited for an onnan, only for an avel and it is the laws of avelut seems to be the basis of why we don't sit on a regular chair (see Taz 559)?  It is also noteworthy that the Rema does not cite this reason of the Ritva, only the previous reason of the Beis Yosef לפי שאז הציתו אש במקדש ולכן מתפללים אז על נחמה.  

Built into the day is the concept of nechama.  Why does the mood of the day switch to the theme of nechama?  Rabbi Genack in Toras Yitzchak (Nachamu) says:

Part of the avelut is to give nechama.  It is interesting because I would think the idea of nechama is to move on from the pain of dealing with death and to be able to move on.  I would think that doesn't apply with the Mikdash.  But maybe even with the destruction of the Mikdash, although we go back to mourn every year for we can't just get on without the Mikdash, at the same time we understand the continuity of Klal Yisrael is able to carry on without the Mikdash.  Maybe part of the nechama is that despite the churban Klal Yisrael moves on and is able to looks forward to a greater future. 

Where Is Hashem

The Gemarah Megillah (29a) says תניא ר"ש בן יוחי אומר בוא וראה כמה חביבין ישראל לפני הקב"ה שבכל מקום שגלו שכינה עמהן גלו למצרים שכינה עמהן שנאמר (שמואל א ב, כז) הנגלה נגליתי לבית אביך בהיותם במצרים וגו' גלו לבבל שכינה עמהן שנאמר (ישעיהו מג, יד) למענכם שלחתי בבלה ואף כשהן עתידין ליגאל שכינה עמהן שנאמר (דברים ל, ג) ושב ה' אלהיך את שבותך והשיב לא נאמר אלא ושב מלמד שהקב"ה שב עמהן.  Form this Gemarah one wolud conclude the Shechina went along with Klal Yisrael into golus.  On the other hand the Gemarah Rosh Hashana (31a) says אמר רב יהודה בר אידי א"ר יוחנן עשר מסעות נסעה שכינה מקראי וכנגדן גלתה סנהדרין מגמרא עשר מסעות נסעה שכינה מקראי מכפרת לכרוב ומכרוב לכרוב ומכרוב למפתן וממפתן לחצר ומחצר למזבח וממזבח לגג ומגג לחומה ומחומה לעיר ומעיר להר ומהר למדבר וממדבר עלתה וישבה במקומה which indicates the Shechina departed.  Rav Yaakov Adas in Pirkay Machshava says we must say there are different levels of the presence of the Shechina, a certain aspect departed and a certain aspect remains.  

The possuk in Yirmiyahu (2:8) says הַכֹּֽהֲנִ֗ים לֹ֚א אָֽמְרוּ֙ אַיֵּ֣ה ה וְתֹֽפְשֵׂ֚י הַתּוֹרָה֙ לֹ֣א יְדָע֔וּנִי וְהָֽרֹעִ֖ים פָּ֣שְׁעוּ בִ֑י וְהַנְּבִאִים֙ נִבְּא֣וּ בַבַּ֔עַל וְאַֽחֲרֵ֥י לֹֽא־יוֹעִ֖לוּ הָלָֽכוּ.  Asks the Briskor Rav why did they have to say איה ה?  He answers with the Gemarah Rosh Hashana, since the Shechina already started to depart one is obligated to say איה ה.  If one sees a lack of the presence of the Shechina that was there previously, it behooves one to do something about it.  

Part Time Is Full Time

A chiddush of the Pela Yoatz וגדול קביעות עתים לתורה, דהא קימא לן (כתובות טו, א) כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה דמי, ונמצא, השם יחשב לו כאלו עוסק בתורה חצי היום, ורב חסד מטה כלפי חסד וקב"ע את קובעיה"ם שכר הרבה כאלו למדו כל היום וכל הלילה תמיד לא יחשו.  One who has designated times for learning all day gets credit for learning all day.

Tasting On A Fast Day

 Berachot (14a)  אָמַר לֵיהּ: טוֹעֵם וְאֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מַטְעֶמֶת אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה בְּרָכָה, וְהַשָּׁרוּי בְּתַעֲנִית טוֹעֵם וְאֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם. עַד כַּמָּה? רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי טָעֲמִי עַד שִׁיעוּר רְבִיעֲתָא.

The Rosh says טועם ואין בכך כלום פירש רב חננאל  כגון שחוזר ופולטו הלכך לא חשיבא הטעימה הנאה  וגם א"צ ברכה ומיהו דוקא רביעית  אבל טפי מרביעית חשיבא הנאה לענין תענית. ומיהו נראה דברכה לא צריך כיון שאינו נהנה בתוך מעיו.  According to the Rosh the obligation for beracha is swallowing the food and without that there is no obligation of beracha.  For a fast the issur is the pleasure of even having food in the throat but less than a רביעית is insignificant.   

The Rambam Berachot (1:2) says וּמַטְעֶמֶת אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה בְּרָכָה לֹא לְפָנֶיהָ וְלֹא לְאַחֲרֶיהָ עַד רְבִיעִית.  In Taanis (1:14) he says וּמֻתָּר לוֹ לִטְעֹם אֶת הַתַּבְשִׁיל וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּכְדֵי רְבִיעִית וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִבְלַע אֶלָּא טוֹעֵם וּפוֹלֵט.  He splits between beracha and taanis, only in the Taanis does he note the need to spit out the food but not in Berachot. 

The Shulchan Aruch (210:2) cites both the opinion of the Rambam and the Rosh הטועם את התבשיל אינו צריך לברך עד רביעית ואפי' אם הוא בולעו וי"א שאם הוא בולעו טעון ברכה ולא פטרו את הטועם אלא כשחוזר ופולט ואז אפי' על הרבה אינו צריך ברכה.  The first opinion is the Rambam that only requires a beracha if tasting if swallowing a רביעית and the second opinion holds that one is exempt only if one spits out what they are tasting and then one can taste as much as they want like the Rosh.  In the laws of Taanit (567:1) he says השרוי בתענית יכול לטעום כדי רביעית ובלבד שיפלוט וביום הכפורים ובתשעה באב אסור.  He requires a taster to spit it out for even the Rambam requires one to spit out what one is tasting on a fast day. 

What is the difference between fasting and a beracha?  The Kesef Mishne says ואפשר לתת סמך לדבר דטעמא משום דכתיב ואכלת וברכת שיהא לו כוונת אכילה משמע ורביעית אף על פי שהיא מטעמת כוונת אכילה יש לה וכן פירש ה"ר מנוח. ואף על גב דהאי קרא לענין ברכה אחרונה מיירי מכל מקום יש לסמוך למקרא זה ברכה ראשונה.  It sounds from the K.M. that there is no obligation of beracha for one is not intending to eat, merely to taste.  It should come out then if one is eating merely for a side reason, not for the act of eating, that there is no beracha.  However, the Shulchan Aruch (204:7) says one who drinks water to clear one's throat doesn't make a beracha and the Mishna Berura spells out that if one drinks something other than water they will have to say a beracha even though the person is drinking just to clear their throat?  Furthermore, the Shaar Hatzion (210:30) has a doubt when one tastes and also intends to get pleasure from the food if one says a beracha, what is the doubt, the person should for sure be obligated in a beracha (see Minchas Shlomo 18:5)?  

The Rambam holds that eating less than a רביעית is considered eating, a מעשה אכילה, and hence any act of swallowing is prohibited on a fast day.  That however is not enough to obligate one in a beracha.  For a beracha the obligation is for an act of taking הנאה in the form of eating (see Ramban beginning of Ch. 8 of Berachat) and tasting is not called an act of taking benefit for this is not a way to eat.  However, in an act of of getting pleasure from food, even when there is no intent for consumption there still is an obligation of beracha.  The Shaar Hatzion's doubt is when one also has intent for the benefit of the food does this transform into an act of a pleasurable act of eating or no, for the main intent is to do an act of tasting.  (See Zacher Yitzchok volume 2 siman 21, shiurim of Rav Solevetchik.)   

Why is 9 Av and Yom Kippur different and all tasting is prohibited?  Tosfos notes that it is only a private fast that depends on the nature of one's acceptance that one is permitted to taste but a taanis tzibbur which does not depend on the intention of the one accepting the taanis it will be prohibited to taste.  The Rema therefore rules that for every taanis tzibbur one may not taste.  It would seem the Shulchan Aruch holds the other fast days since רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין don't have the status of a tzibbur fast.  

Cry

 A mashal from Rav Pinkas as to why Maschiach in born on 9 Av which I liked. 

42, 48 And Safe Spaces

וְאֵ֣ת הֶֽעָרִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֤ר תִּתְּנוּ֙ לַֽלְוִיִּ֔ם אֵ֚ת שֵֽׁשׁ־עָרֵ֣י הַמִּקְלָ֔ט אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּתְּנ֔וּ לָנֻ֥ס שָׁ֖מָּה הָֽרֹצֵ֑חַ וַֽעֲלֵיהֶ֣ם תִּתְּנ֔וּ אַרְבָּעִ֥ים וּשְׁתַּ֖יִם עִֽיר כָּל־הֶֽעָרִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֤ר תִּתְּנוּ֙ לַֽלְוִיִּ֔ם אַרְבָּעִ֥ים וּשְׁמֹנֶ֖ה עִ֑יר אֶתְהֶ֖ן וְאֶת־מִגְרְשֵׁיהֶֽן:  The first possuk indicates that the 6 cities are separate from the 42 cities given to the Leviem but then the next possuk indicates they all belong to the Leviem (Or HaChayim)?  Furthermore, why say 6 + 42 cities and then add it up to 48, we can do the math to figure out it equals 48?  Add why does it add וְאֶת־מִגְרְשֵׁיהֶֽן? 

There is another 42 in the parsha and that is the number of stops that Klal Yisrael had as they traveled through the desert. The Magen Avraham (528:8) says in the name of the Tzror Hamor that all the travels should be read as one aliyah without any breaks because they correspond to the 42 letter name of Hashem.  This name corresponds to the 42 letters in אנא בכח which is split into 7 lines of 6 words each which aligns with the 6 middot * each other including malchut, 6*7 = 42.  Each stop corresponded with Klal Yisrael perfecting another one of all of the various combinations of the middot.  The Ohav Yisrael notes that their are 42 letters in the parsha of shema.  For every one of the stops of Klal Yisrael they transformed another middah and channeled it for the service of Hashem.  As noted by the Shem MiShmuel, each step was a step closer to the full fulfillment of ואהבת.        

The Ohav Yisrael also notes that the possuk of Shema has 6 words.  These correspond to the 6 cities designated as ערי מלקט.  The additional 42 cities of the Leviem correspond to the parsha of ואהבת.  The Ohev Yisrael says the message of ערי מלקט is that one who has sinned to get back on track should first focus on the 6, on shema, on מסירת נפש.  After that, there are 42, meaning you take that power of מסיר נפש, of total devotion to Hashem and put it to use channeling it for the proper usage of Torah and mitzvot.  In light of this we can understand why the Torah starts with 6 cities and says then add 42, for the starting point is the parsha of shema, of מסירת נפש and then one can channel it into the 42.

Another way to express the flow from 6 to 42 would be that one has to start with the main 6 middot and then one can fan out to perfect all the various combinations.  Then the possuk says there will be 48 cities, meaning one will only get to 48 if one goes it the proper order of 6 and then 42.  What is 48?  48 in lashon hakodesh is מח, brain.  The end degree of wisdom is represented by the number 48.  There are 48 ways the Torah is acquired for each gate has a prerequisite.  The Zohar (Berashis 125a) says every day there are 48 drops of wisdom for that is the maximum gates of wisdom open to man to acquire.  (Mei Hashiloach first piece Vayikra says only Moshe could reach level 49 , but everyone else maxes out at 48, see more about the number 48 in a piece by Rabbi Zave Rudman.)  The goal of all the perfection of the middot is to allow one to access the maximum amount of potential of wisdom available.  This is to atone for an act of שוגג which is an element of בבלי דעת as described by the possuk in Vaeschanan.  The possuk concludes וְאֶת־מִגְרְשֵׁיהֶֽן which as the Meor Vashemesh explains לפי דרכו alludes to the idea than when one does teshuva in a manner of perfecting one's middot and purifying one's מח it will push out, מגרש all possible tumot and negative effects and qualities that may have been attached to the person.  

The Arizal teaches (likutim Bo) that the various combinations that can be made from the 5 letters of the name אלקים are 120.  That means each letter is responsible for 24 additional ways.  He says that Cham the son of Noach took over two letters of the combinations, hence he is called חם, for 2*24 = 48.  That is the root of the golus in the hands of Egypt, the descendent of חם.  We may suggest as well that the golus to the 48 ערי מלקט is also an outgrow from of the חם within a person that needs to be cleansed. 

The עיר מקלט as a safe space for the person who is stuck in golut is of course akin to our situation in golut, especially poignant durin this time of the year.  The Gemarah Maakot (10a) tells us דברי תורה שהן קולטין.  Our עיר מקלט is the words of Torah that sharpen our מח and ensure our continuity through the difficult golut until we are perfected enough to merit to be able to leave.  

מענין לענין, the Mishna Makot (2:7) says אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא לֹא לְעֵדוּת מִצְוָה וְלֹא לְעֵדוּת מָמוֹן וְלֹא לְעֵדוּת נְפָשׁוֹת. וַאֲפִלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל צְרִיכִים לוֹ, וַאֲפִלּוּ שַׂר צְבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּיוֹאָב בֶּן צְרוּיָה, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לה) אֲשֶׁר נָס שָׁמָּה, שָׁם תְּהֵא דִירָתוֹ, שָׁם תְּהֵא מִיתָתוֹ, שָׁם תְּהֵא קְבוּרָתוֹ.  Why does one in an עיר מקלט not leave to help to Klal Yisrael in battle?  The Or Sameach says because he doesn't have to put himself in danger of being killed by the גואל הדם even to save others.  Rav Unterman finds this incredulous and he says the peshat is that just as one who kills on purpose gets killed, so too one who kills by accident has to be removed from the rest of the world.  He is exiled to one city and we learn from the word שמה that he remains totally rooted there working on perfecting himself totally divorced from anyone else.  The reason he doesn't leave is not because he is not permitted to leave due to an issur or that he may get killed but rather this is a unique din for someone who kills by accident that he has no interests and no obligations toward the outside world.  His entire world view is inward and hence there is nothing that can budge him from his place. 

Different Mice

The Gemarah Avodah Zarah (68b) says ההוא עכברא דנפל לחביתא דשיכרא אסריה רב לההוא שיכרא אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרב ששת נימא קסבר נט"ל אסור ... מתקיף לה רב שימי מנהרדעא ומי מאיס והלא עולה על שלחן של מלכים אמר רב שימי מנהרדעא לא קשיא הא בדדברא הא בדמתא.  The Gemarah says (Sefaria translation) "Rav Shimi of Neharde’a objects to the assumption that a mouse is repulsive: And is it repulsive? But isn’t it served at the table of kings and considered a delicacy? Rav Shimi of Neharde’a said in clarification: This is not difficult. This statement, that a mouse is served as a delicacy, is stated with regard to a field mouse, and that statement, that it is repulsive, is stated with regard to a city mouse."  Rashi says עכבר דדברא - אשקור"ל בלע"ז which seems to mean a עכבר דדברא which is eaten is a squirrel. However, it seems funny to be that it bears the same same as a mouse, a עכבר.  In light of an article on practicalselfreliance.com highlighting the Roman custom to eat dormice mice I tend to think that is what Rashi and the Gemarah is referring to.  The Gemarah is differentiating between a house mouse which is not eaten and is disgusting and the dormice mouse which has a somewhat bushy tail like a squirrel and was eaten as a delicacy in ancient Rome.  

Cancelling The Vow Of Golus

The Rambam Nedarim (7:9) rules אָסַר עַל עַצְמוֹ הֲנָיַת בְּנֵי הָעִיר אָסוּר לְהִשָּׁאֵל עַל נִדְרוֹ לְחָכָם מִבְּנֵי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, "if he forbade himself from benefiting from the inhabitants of a city, he is forbidden to ask the sage of the city for the repeal of his vow."  Presumably this is since it affects the one nullifying the vow he may be lean to nullify the vow improperly.  The Mishne L'melech asks  וקשיא לי מאותה הגדה דפרק הספינה דרבה בר בר חנה שמע בת קול אומרת אוי לי שנשבעתי ועכשיו שנשבעתי מי מיפר לי כו' ולפי דברי הירושלמי לא היה יכול רבה להתיר שבועה זו לפי שהיה נוגע בדבר.  How does the Gemarah Bava Bathra (74a) say that Rabba bar bar Chana should have been מפיר the oath of Hashem to put us in golus?  A few answers are recorded on portal daf yomi.  Another question is that the Gemarah uses the terminology מפיר, that is the terminology used for a husband nullifying his wife's vow, not the terminology for a chacham which is התרה?  Tosfos Bechorot (37a) says the Gemarah just uses the terminology of the possuk even though it is imprecise.  However, the Shittah Bava Bathra says אי נמי יש כח ביד צדיקים לבטל גזרת הקדוש ברוך הוא ושבועה.  What does he mean?  The Chidah understands that he means that it is not a regular din of nullifying nedarim, the Gemarah just means that a tzaddik has power over what happens in the world and Rabbah should have taken the opportunity to pray for the decree of the golus to be removed.  In his words,  דנקט מופר דיש כח ביד הצדיקים לבטל גזרת ה' ושבועה ואם כן אינו בסוג דין נדרים דהצדיקים מבטלים הגזרה אף שהם נוגעים בדבר ומשו"ה אפיקיה בלשון מופר לומר דאינו דין נדר שהנוגע אינו יכול להתיר. 

However, there is another approach.  The Midrash Devarim Rabbah (2:8) says  דָּבָר אַחֵר, אַתָּה הַחִלֹּותָ, אָמַר רַבִּי רְאוּבֵן אָמַר משֶׁה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, לָמָּה אַתְּ עוֹשֶׂה לִי כָּךְ, אַתָּה הִתְחַלְתָּ לָבוֹא אֶצְלִי, מִנַּיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות ג, ב): וַיֵּרָא מַלְאַךְ ה' אֵלָיו בְּלַבַּת אֵשׁ מִתּוֹךְ הַסְּנֶה, אָמַר לוֹ מִשֶּׁגִּדַּלְתָּ אוֹתִי אַתָּה מוֹרִידֵנִי מִגְדֻלָּתִי, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וַהֲרֵי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי, אָמַר לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם אַתָּה הַחִלֹּותָ, כְּשֶׁבִּקַּשְׁתָּ לֹא חִלַּלְתָּ הַשְּׁבוּעָה, לֹא נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ שֶׁאַתָּה מְכַלֶּה אֶת בָּנֶיךָ בָּעֵגֶל וְחָזַרְתָּ בְּךָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות לב, יד): וַיִּנָּחֶם ה'  Moshe asked Hashem to violate his oath to allow him to enter Eretz Yisrael.  How could he ask Hashem to violate his oath?  Rather, what he was asking explains the Kasnot Or was that Moshe would nullify the vow.  This is based upon the Midrash Tehillim (90:4) דבר אחר אמר רבי יהודא בר' סימון בשם ריש לקיש למה נקרא שמו איש האלקים מה האיש אם מבקש להפר נדרי אשתו מפר ואם מבקש מקיים שנאמר (במדבר ל יד) אישה יפירנו וגו'. כך כביכול משה אומר להקב"ה (שם י לה-לו) קומה ה'. שובה ה.  Moshe could nullify the vow like a husband.  He was saying I will nullify your vow.  The response the Kasnot Or explain based upon another Midrash is that it was a neder made in front of Beit Din which a husband can not nullify.  In light of this, the Shittah means literally that a tzaddik can be like the husband and nullify the vows of Hashem (the Chidah does seem to entertain this idea but does not like comparing anyone to Moshe, עיי"ש.)