The Klal And The Individual

There are two types of korbanos.  There are korbanos of the tzibbur such as the korban tammid where one korban is offered for the entity of Klal Yisrael.  There is another type of korban which is a korban yachid where a private indivdual has an obligation or offers to bring a korban of his one.  The Rambam splits these two categories into the different books, the book of Korbanot which deals with the individual korbanot and the book of Avodah which coves the communal obligations.  The korban pesach is an interesting korban in that it is a korban yachid offered by every individual but at the same time it is qualified as a korban tzibbur (the Yerushalmi says that is why it overrides Shabbos, see also Yoma (51a) פסח נמי אתי בכנופיא.)  (See about this in this book pg. 192-196 (in the pg. numbers on top,) article קורבן הפסח and sicha of the Rebbe volume 18 Behaloscha sicha 2.)  Or in another words as the Rebbe clarifies in a footnote based upon the Rogatchover's breakdown (מפענח צפונות פרק ד,) normally a tzibbur is a sum that is greater than the sum of its parts but in the korban pesach the tzibbur is the combination of all the individuals lumped together.  

The Rebbe goes on to explain the "טעם פנימי" for why this duality is present in the korban pesach.  Pesach is the time of the birth of Klal Yisrale and therefore the korban pesach carries two elements of Klal Yisrael.  On the one hand it is the body of Klal Yisrael, the tzibbur that is of vital importance but at the same time every individual also is important in his/ her own right.  These two perspectives are alluded to by Hillel in Avos אם אין אני לי מי לי, everyone has their own mission and is important in their own right but at the same time, וכשאני לעצמי מה אני, one has to be acting as part of the klal, one's actions as a yachid has to have a place as part of the general klal.  This dichotomy or paradox of acknowledging both the individual and the tzibbur is fraught with tension but is the goal.   

This paradox is also highlighted by the parshios of Vayakhel and Pekuday.  The name Vayakhel means a gathering yet the parsha details every individual vessel used in the Mishkan and the name Pekuday means every individual but the parsha is all about all the pieces coming together?  The Rebbe explains (volume 21 ) that the the parsha of Vayakhel highlights that even though there are individual vessels, they were not made purely with intent for their own function but also to function as part of the general Mishkan.  Conversely, Pekuday demonstrates that after there is an entire Mishkan structure, one should not just view all the individual parts as losing their own self worth in the totality of the building, but that the totality enhances the importance of the individual.  This is also hinted to by the fact that Vakayhel Pekuday are often combine but also are sometimes separate parshios.  There is a klal and individuals and both are of importance.     

Want It

The Chofetz Chaim in Toras Habayis (Ch.7) asks why is it that we aren't able to reach the heights in learning Torah that the previous generations could?  He explains that ones ability to learn Torah depends on how much one wants it.  Since in the past learning Torah was much more important to people, they were able to learn more.  In the footnote he uses this idea to explain the possuk is the parsha, ויקרא משה אל־בצלאל ואל־אהליאב ואל כל־איש חכם־לב אשר נתן ה' חכמה בלבו כל אשר נשאו לבו לקרבה אל־המלאכה לעשת אתה, who obtained the chochma how to do the melacha?  Those that desired to do it, כל אשר נשאו לבו, those to whom it was important, got the ability to accomplish.  This is the peshat in the Gemarah Berachot (50a) that the possuk הרחב פיך ואמלאהו refers to Divrei Torah for when it comes to accomplishing in ruchniout, in learning Torah, if one asks, if one truly desires to accomplish, there will be a way.  In the parsha sheet מתוקים מדבש he adds to this idea the Gra on the Siddur explains the words of Hallel מאשפות ירים אביון the Gemarah says אביון תאב לכל דבר, the way to be raised, to obtain greater levels, is by desiring to grow. 

The beginning of the possuk of הרחב פיך ואמלאהו says אנכי ה אלקיך המעלך מארץ מצרים.  What is the connection between Hashem taking us out of Egypt and asking to obtain divrei Torah?  The Maharsha says since Hashem took us out of Egypt, he can give us the ability to obtain Torah.  Why do we need to derive this from the fact that Hashem took us out of Egypt?  Rav Uri Zohar explains the limud is that one might think yes, one can ask to have the ability to acquire Torah but it has to be logical.  One can't expect to beseech Hashem to become a gadol baTorah if they barely know aleph beis.  The possuk is teaching us that is not the case, I was מעלה, I elevated Klal Yisrael from the depths of tumah so that in just 7 weeks they were able to accept the Torah, so too, a person can ask for the capabilities to excel in Torah beyond his dreams.  A person that wants to excel in Torah is given the capability to do so, one though must still put in the effort to do the work, כל אשר נשאו לבו לקרבה אל־המלאכה, there is a נשאו לבו but it has to lead to a לקרבה אל המלאכה.

Weighted Down

Rashi says three interpretations in word קרך in parshas Zachor.  One peshat is מקרה, another is קרי וטומאה and the third is קור.  What is the connection between the fact the Amalek caused tumah and cooled off the greatness of Klal Yisrael?  The very fact that there is a coolness is a tumah.  When there is a lack of fire, of inspiration, it automatically leads to sin. 

Rabbenu Bechai asks why did Moshe break the luchos after the agel why did he not  give them back?  He explains that the "neshama" of the luchos, the letters flew up to the heavens by themselves and all that was left in Moshe's hands was the physical stones of the luchos.  Once the life force of the luchos left, they were no longer a "חי נושא את עצמו" and they naturally became a dead weight that was to hard to carry and slipped from his hands.  The Bechai concludes this is a principle found by all things when the life force, the fire, is removed, then it or a person becomes heavier. In other words, a lack of fire, a coolness, leads to heaviness which equates with death.  

The taharah of Parah comes to cleanse one's self from the sins brought about by Amalek.  The power of Amelek is he coolness, the dead weight, the breaking of the luchos.  The tikkun says the Sfas Emes (Parah 5634) is the fire necessary for the learning of Torah.  The fire, the energy, gives a person new life.  וע"י ההבל מהתורה שבלב כל איש ישראל שצריך עי"ז ההתלהבות לשרוף כח היצה"ר שבו כמ"ש בית יעקב אש כו' עשו לקש וע"י השריפה ניתן הטהרה.  One who becomes tumah through a dead body, one who becomes defiled by sin and becomes weighed down by sin, needs the taharah of the חוקת התורה, to give him new life. 

The Mikdash is called בית חיינו.  In a sicha, Rav Yaakov Shapira notes that we find the term בית חייהם associated both with Torah and tefillah.  Both of these aspects are present in the Mikdash.  As cited here from Rav Yaakov Katz, the essence of the Mishkan is to remind a person that the learning of Torah is a means of connection to Hashem.  As the Ramban says the Mishkan is a portable Matan Torah.  It is through the Mishkan that one can be come inspired to learn Torah as Tosfos Bava Bathra (21a) says.  The Mishkan is the antidote to the the sense of deadness brought about by sin and gives a person a new chiyus.  Hence it is called בית חיינו.

Beyond Daas

Why did Klal Yisrael receive crowns for saying נעשה ונשמע but had to remove them after the agel?  At the time of the giving of the Torah there was a chance to correct the sin of Adam.  However, Klal Yisrael sinned with the agel which was the same root as that of Adam.  The Beis Halevi explains the sin of the agel was the use of human understanding.  Klal Yisrael believed Moshe Rabbenu was dead and they needed a replacement for him.  Although, logically this was a sensible argument it was incorrect since Hashem said it is prohibited to make an idol.  This was the root of the sin of the eitz haddas as well.  The holy books write all source of noble intentions that Adam had when he ate from the eitz haddas but since it was prohibited, it was prohibited.  When man acts based upon his understanding against G-d's wishes it brings downfall.  The greatness of נעשה ונשמע is that Klal Yisrael was willing to suspend their own daas and just follow what Hashem commands.  This is hinted to by the crown which goes above the head.  That was given to Klal Yisrael on account of their willingness to surrender their daas to a higher authority.  When they fell due to the use of their own daas, then they lost their crowns.  The Arizal teaches on Shabos the crowns are returned.  On Shabbos a Jew gets to experience a pre-agel sense of  following Hashem.

Haman made a gallows 50 amos high.  The Maharal says that Haman was trying to access the power of the שער נ and thereby defeat Mordechai (see more about 50 here.)  This is hinted to in the name Haman which is המ, the gematria of אדם and ן, the שער נ he tried to access.  However, ultimately this led to his downfall.  What is the capability of overpowering the שער נ accessed by Haman?  50 is the max level of daas that a person can obtain.  In as much as there are levels of daas of kedusha, there are in tumah.  Haman was trying to draw his power from the extreme powers that mankind can reach.  However, Klal Yisrael is not limited by the limit of man knowledge but their connection to Hashem goes beyond that.    Chapter 51 in Tehillim is about the teshuva of Dovid Hamelech.  The avodah of teshuva brings a person higher than one can obtain with their own daas.  Teshuva is not something that logically makes sense, one can't go back in time to correct the past but it comes from a place greater than daas.  That is the avodah of עד דלא ידע to connect to Hashem beyond one's daas.  

Purim Points

 A few points on Purim.

1. The Gemarah (4b) gives two reasons why Megillah can not be read on Shabbos.  Rav Yosef says since the poor people wait for the day the Megillah is read to be able to collect money which they won't be able to do on Shabbos.  Rabbah says we are worried someone will carry a Megillah in a public domain to read it and therefore it should not be read on Shabbos.  The Turay Even (5a) points out hat the reason of Rabbah which is a גזירה may have been a later decree but the reason of Rav Yosef which is not a גזירה must have been around from the time of the original takkanah to read Megillah otherwise a later Beis Din would not have the power to change which day the Megillah should be read.  In other words, according to Rav Yosef in a year like this year when the 14 of Adar is Friday and those that read on the 15th read on Friday as well, according to Rav Yosef it is the correct day for them to be reading for the takkanah was for them to read on the 14th if the 15th is Shabbos but according to Rabbah it is a push forward of when they should have read.  The question is discussed in poskim if someone for some reason could not read on the 14th or a katan that becomes bar mtizvah on the 15th should they read on the 15th?  According to Rav Yosef it would seem no, for the halacha is to read on the 14th but according to Rabbah maybe yes, for the גזירה is only on the tzibbur but if there is a particular case where one has to read maybe they should just like the Ran writes Chazal did not make a gezerah not to do milah on Shabbos because it is only for a specific person?  See about this is (Tzits Hakodesh siman 55, Cheshek sholom Megiilah 5a.  (Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Teshuvot volume 2 siman 127) seems to understand the opposite, that according to Rabbah the takkanah was uprooted from the 15th,I didn't understand what he was saying.) 

2. The Tur (siman 692) cites the Baal Haetur holds that one may talk between the end of the Megillah and the beracha of הרב את ריבנו.  The Beis Yosef explains that is since it is not a beracha on them mitzvah, it is just a separate beracha of thanks for the miracle there is no issue of interruption.  The Tur disagrees.  The Shaar Hatzion (692:12) is unsure if one does talk, if the Tur holds even bidieved that one can no longer say the beracha or he only argues לכתחילה.  In other words ,does the Tur hold it is a birchas hamitzvah and one cant interrupt or does he hold even though it is a birchas hashevach for the miracle it still should be connected to the Megillah and one should not interrupt.  See more about the geder of the beracha in Ratz Katzvi. 

3. The Smag lists the mitzvah of mikrah Megillah but does not list the other mitzvot of the day.  (As noted last year, this is also the case in the Rambam.)  The Mizrachi in his commentary asks why?  He answers that the yesod of all the mitzvot is the same, פרסומי ניסא and therefore, the Smag lists only the mitzvah which is the best pirsum which is Megillah.  I assume he means that since the yesod of all them itzvot is the same, it is the same theme, that it counted as one mitzvah.  The Pri Migadim (cited in Beur Halacha 694) has a doubt if ne can fulfill the mitzvah of מתנות לאביונים with a מתנה על מנת להחזיר.  What is the doubt?  Rav Zvi Reyzman suggests his debate is if the nature of them mitzvah is the mitzvah of charity to be done on Purim or a mitzvah to make people happy on Purim (which there are sources for both approaches.)  If the mitzvah is charity a מתנה על מנת להחזיר doesn't suffice but if the mitzvah is merely to increase happiness then maybe it suffices.  It is hard for me to hear that a מתנה על מנת להחזיר increases one's simcha.  However, in light of the Mizrachi, maybe he holds it suffices for a מתנה על מנת להחזיר has a שם מתנה and will effect פירסום הנס.   

4. The Rambam (Megillah Ch. 2 Law 16-17) says כיצד חובת סעודה זו שיאכל בשר ויתקן סעודה נאה כפי אשר תמצא ידו ושותה יין עד שישתכר וירדם בשכרות, וכן חייב אדם לשלוח שתי מנות של בשר או שני מיני תבשיל או שני מיני אוכלין לחברו ... מוטב לאדם להרבות במתנות אביונים מלהרבות בסעודתו ובשילוח מנות לרעיו, שאין שם שמחה גדולה ומפוארה אלא לשמח לב עניים ויתומים ואלמנות וגרים, שהמשמח לב האומללים האלו דומה לשכינה.  From the fact that the Rambam compares all of these three mitzvot, mishteh, mishloach manos, matanos lievyonim and emphasizes the importance of matanos lievyonim due to its simcha, it would seem that the Rambam holds the nature of all of these mitzvot is to increase simcha on Purim.  This is indeed how Rav Solevetchik (Harraray Kedem 232) and The Reebe (Likutay Sichos volume 16) both understand the Rambam.  The Rebbe asks how does the Rambam know that this is the nature of all of these mitzvot?  He explains since the possuk says  לעשות אותם ימי משתה ושמחה ומשלוח מנות איש לרעהו ומתנות לאביונים it means the establishment of the day is a day of joy and the laws that follow, mishteh, mishloach manos, matanos lievyonim are ways of expressing this joy.  Rav Asher Weiss goes a step further and says as opposed to a a yom tov where the mitzvah of simcha is limited to the activities one typically does to enhance a yom tov, on Purim any activity that increases one's happiness would be a fulfillment of experiencing the happiness of the day.  Or, in other words, as expressed here, the mitzvah's are to turn the day into a happy day.  This would be not like the aforementioned Mizrachi. 

5. The Manos Helevi writes the point of the mitzvah of mishloach manos is to increase friendship between people.  The Bach says this idea in order to explain the opinion of Rashi (Megillah 7b) that one can fulfill mishloach manos by eating the Purim seudah at someone else's house even without sending anything because there was an act of bonding together.  In other words, this reason of the Manos Helevi is no just a reason for the mitzvah but defines the geder of the fulfillment.  Rav Refael Shmulevitz asks why is there a specific focus on increasing friendship on Purim?  He explains that on Purim there was a new act of the acceptance of the Torah.  When it comes to Matan Torah there was a prerequisite of כאיש אחד בלב אחד as the Or Hachaim says (Yisro 19:2.)  Why is this so?  Rav Chayim Shmulevitz explains since the Torah was given to the totality of Klal Yisrael as an entity not to a cluster of individuals and hence unity is a necessity to join Klal Yisrael together.  So too, for קיימו מה שקבלו כבר, there is a need for friendship and togetherness.        

6. The Gemarah Megillah (12b) says תנא כולן על שמו נקראו בן יאיר בן שהאיר עיניהם של ישראל בתפלתו בן שמעי בן ששמע אל תפלתו בן קיש שהקיש על שערי רחמים ונפתחו לו.  The Shem MiShmuel (5671) asks the order should be the opposite for first hi prayed and only after that was he answered and lightened the eyes of Yisrael?  The Baal Shem Tov explains the double הסתר אסתר פני refers to the fact that the greatest concealment is when one doesn't feel that they are in a state of הסתר.  The Shem MiShmuel says a similar idea.  The first step to cause the salvation was to see the light, to recognize the lowly state that one is in.  It is only after Mordechai showed Klal Yisrael what they were lacking, he shined a light on their darkness, that they were then able to open their hearts to pray. 

The Holy Fragrance

There are two parshios in Titzaveh that seem to be out of place.  The bulk of the parsha deals with the garments of the kohanim and their inauguration but the beginning of the parsha discusses the oil for the Menorah and the end discusses the mizbach haketores.  The bookends of the parsha seem to fit better in parshas Teruma, what are they doing here? 

The possuk in Mishlay (27:9) says שמן וקטרת ישמח לב.  The Tanchuma (15) applies this possuk to this parsha that the kohan gadol anointed with oil offered ketores created the atonement for Klal Yisrael on Yom Kippur.  The Midrash also says that the Shechina only came to rest in the Mikdash with the offering of the ketores.  Says Rav Yitzchak Sorotzkin, that is why the mizbach haketores comes at the end of the description of all the parts of the Mishkan and the kohanim, since it isn't a vessel of the Mkdash but a means to bring about the presence of the Shechina (see Seforno who already alludes to this idea.)  What is it about the ketores that brings the presence of the Shechina?

The parsha end off that the Kohan Gadol offers ketores on the mizbaoch on Yom Kippur.  Why is this possuk included here when the avodah of Yom Kippur is described in Acharei Mos?  The Torah is demonstrating the importance of the avodah of the ketores that it plays a central theme in the avodah of Yom Kippur.  The root of קטורת is קטר which is the same word as the Aramic word for tie or connection, קטירא.  The ketores represents the deep connection Klal Yisrael has to Hashem.  Why is this connection demonstrated through ketores in particular?  As discussed in the post 'Smell Of Purity' the sense of smell is the one sense not contaminated by sin and the smell of the ketores represents the internal purity of the person which is not sullied by sin.  The Gemarah Berachot (43b) says the neshama benefits from smell.  There is no bodily pleasure from smell, it is the neshama, the essence of a person that benefits.  This is demonstrated by the fact that a person can be woken up when they are passed out by strong smells for the smell touches the internal life force of the person to awaken the physical body.  Rav Moshe Shapira notes that is due to the fact the the ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים comes through the nose of a person, the nose, the sense of smell is the entrance to the attachment between the body and the neshama.  He adds that the shape and the word for nose allude to this idea as well.  The word for nose is אף, even, something additional and in the physical form the nose protrudes from the face, it something tacked on and elevated from the rest of the face.  This is reflective of the nature of the nose to be elevated beyond the normal physicality of the rest of the body.  With this idea he explained the Gemarah Berachot (56b) that one who sees an elephant in a dream פיל פילים נעשה לו.  The Rema says that we say ומפליא לעשות in asher yatzar because it is a פלא, a wonder that the neshama can be attached to a physical body.  We see that פלא refers to the connection of gashmi and ruchni.  This is the essence of the פיל and thus it is named, for its nose, its place of ruchni, is its hand, it uses or its physical needs of eating.    

אמר רבא חייב איניש לבסומי בפוריא עד דלא ידע בין ארור המו לברוך מרדכי.  Rashi explains לבסומי - להשתכר ביין.  But why the strange term לבסומי?  The word לבסומי is related to the word בסמים, fragrance spices.  The Sfas Emes (5640) connects this word with the Gemarah Shabbos (88a) that says when Hashem said the 10 dibros the world became filled with besamim.  Why was the world filled with besamim at the giving of the 10 dibros?  At the time of Matan Torah the sin of the eitz hadaas was nullified.  That is why the dibros came with besamim for they were electric shocks to awaken the neshama.  The purity of the untainted part of mankind was awoken.  

The Gemarah in Chullin (139b) says that Mordechai is hinted to in the Torah in the words of the ketores, מר דרור ומתרגמינין מרי דכי.  Mordechai is connected to the ketores.  Ester is also called הדסה, a myrtle known for its nice fragrance.  The heroes of the Purim story are connected to smell for they awoke the sleeping souls of Klal Yisrael with the smelling salts to make them realize their predicament.  The Sfas Emes concludes that Mordechai is the light of Moshe and hence on Purim also one's drinking is לבסומי.  What does that mean?  The Gemarah Chullin says Haman is hinted to in the words המן העץ, he is connected to the eitz hadaas.  On Purim we connect to the innermost part of our soul untouched by sin.  The point of the wine is to unlock the inner depths of a person, to bring out the neshama, the part untouched by the eitz hadaas, by the Haman.  That is the antidote to Haman. 

Rashi Vayeshev (37:25) says when Yosef was sold to the Arabs as opposed to the normal horrific smelling cargo they normally carried, in this scenario they carried besamim so as Yosef would not have to smell awful smells on his journey with them.  It is specifically through the sense of smell that Hashem was indicating to Yosef don't think you are forsaken.  I am still connected to your neshama.  I am guiding you through this journey.  Even though externally it may look bad, internally, from the neshama's perspective, it is for the best. 

When one is inline with their nose, with their pure neshama, then there is nothing that stands in the way.  There is no Haman, no tumah, that can stand in the way.  That is why we find in the ketores, even the חלבנה which smells terrible on its own, is able to be transformed into the pleasant smelling ketores.  Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld (cited by Maharil Diskin) adds that the gematria of חלבנה is the same as המן, they both equal 95.  Even the Haman, the foul smell, בני בניו של המן למדו תורה ברבים.  The allusion to Mordechai is in the מור דרור which many Rishonim say is a derivative of the blood of a non-kosher animal.  Even that which is impure is able to become nullified when its source of kedusha is revealed (see Chasam Sofer and Torah Or Ad D'lo Yadah.)  Rav Kook (מדות הראי"ה אות ו) points out it says to wipe out Amalek מתית השמים but in שמים, the root of Amalek can be purified.  The Shla (Derush for Zachor) says that is why the holiday of Purim will never be nullified for the entire concept of Purim is about taking away the power of the evil forces and accessing their source of kedusha which is a fulfilment of the mission of the future. 

The ketores is burnt between the preparation of the candles of the menorah (Yoma 14b.)  Why is it done then?  The neros represent the illumination of the souls.  The ketores and neros go hand in hand.  The neros represent the spread of the light of the neshama outward.  The parsha opens with the law of olive oil for the menorah for it is the inner part of the olive, the oil, the inside of a person, the soul is illuminated.  The Torah the parsha following the Mishkan highlighting the point of the Mishkan not a mere building but as a point of spreading the light to the world.  The parsha ends with the avodah that demonstrates the innermost pure part of a person which is what brings the Shechina to be present in the Mishkan (see Toras Menachem 5752.)

100 and 101

This post is adding to ideas in the post, 'Toras Purim: Nothing Certain other than Taxes: Vayasem Achashveirosh Mas' on Divrei Chaim blog. 

The word עמלק can be broken down into עמל ק.  This of course is reminiscent of the Gemarah Chagigah (9a)  אינו דומה שונה פרקו מאה פעמים לשונה פרקו מאה ואחד.  The tumah that is Amalek is to learn only 100 times. What does this mean?  What is the advantage of learning 101 times?  The Arizal (שער מאמרי חז"ל) says that the angel in charge of forgetting is called מ"ס which equals 100 and by learning 101 times one moves past the malach of forgetting.  What is it that one forgets when learning 100 times but remembers with learning 101 times?  

The Megalleh Amukot notes that Michael, 101, is the malach in charge of remembering.  By learning 101 times, one is tied to the malach of remembering which is one more than the malach of forgetting.

The Baal Shem Tov teaches that the difference between 100 and 101 times is not a difference in number but the difference if one put The One, the אלופו של עולם, in the learning of 100 times.  Is one learning to connect to Hashem?  If that is the learning, there is the 1 in the 100, it will be remembered, if not it would be forgotten.  The Degel Machene Efraim reads this into the words of the Megillah , ישנו עם אחד, meaning, a nation that puts The one, puts Hashem into their learning.  The malach of forgetting is מ"ס, meaning one can learn the maximun amount of times, 100 times but if one isn't learning with the connection to Hashem, then the Torah will be forgotten, meaning it will not permeate through the individual to transform him into a better person.  לא זכה נעשה לו סם המות.  The Torah actually will destroy the person.  זכה נעשה לו סם חיים, one is able to connect the סם with Hashem and elevate it.  

The tumah of Amalak is to cause that disconnect between learning Torah and transforming the person.  אשר קרך בדרך, on the path between the mind and the heart, between the rest of the body, they come and attack, they interrupt the flow.  Amalak comes when רפו ידיהם מן התורה, when the Torah is not connected to the hands, when one's gashmi is not permeated with the Torah he is studying.  The Arizal continues וז"ס ויתן על פניו מסו"ה ר"ל כי הקליפה הזו רוצה לעשות הפסק למעלה.  The מסוה is מ"ס and ו"ק, the break between the teachings of the Torah and Hashem.  כי יד על כס קה, the last two letters of the name of Hashem are broken by the מ"ס of the מסוה.  The first two letters represent the knowledge of Hashem as expressed in the Torah while the last two letters refer to the middot (see Tanya, Igeres Hateshuva.)  The Torah, the knowledge is here but Amalek breaks the connection between the knowledge and transforming one's middot (see sicha 5749.) 

This is why we are commanded זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלך.  We must remember.  Amalek, עמל ק, makes us forget the א, אלופו של עולם, that has to be added to our learning so we are commanded to remember, to add the א to our learning, to learn 101 times.   

The parsha of Tiztavah is the only parsha after Shemos that des not have the name of Moshe.  The Megalleh Amukot points out though that there are 101 pessukim in the parsha and the hidden letters in the name of Moshe, משה = מם שין הא, add up to 101.  Even though Moshe doesn't appear overtly, he is hidden in the parsha.  In addition, he notes that 101 is the gematria of מיכאל because when Moshe is hidden, Michael comes.  In other words, when Klal Yisrael sinned with the agel, Hashem said now the angel (Michael) will lead them, not Hashem directly and Moshe davened that Hashem himself should lead them.  But after Moshe passed, then Michael leads them.  Even after Moshe is not physically here, he is not forgotten.  He is embedded in the parsha.  Michal is not a substitute but a way to hang on to Moshe and thereby connect to Hashem. 

As noted by the Meor Einayim, the parsha of Titzavah  usually falls out around 7 Adar, the day Moshe passed.  The fact that Moshe is not present in the parsha but is still alluded to shows that even in the absence of Moshe Rabbenu himself, his presence is still there.  In fact the connection to Moshe is greater now for it is a connection to Moshe as אתה, the essence of Moshe, not limited by the name of Moshe (see Kli Yakar, sichas Rebbe 5752.) The Maggid teaches that ואתה תצוה from the word צוותא, to be connected.  How to be connected to Moshe?  את בני ישראל, by learning the Torah, the letters of the Torah, א- ת.  By connecting ourselves to Moshe through the Torah, putting the א of אתה into our learning, then we will sill the 101, the hidden Moshe.  The the passing of Moshe is not a negative but a new לידה to be able to connect to Moshe on a deeper level. 

(Sources: תכלית מלחמת עמלק, chabad.org, שער מאמרי חז"ל, שבילי פנחס.)  

Hallel Of The Megillah

The Gemarah Megillah (14a) has three reasons why there is no hallel said on Purim.  The reason the Rambam codifies (3:6) is the reason of Rav Nachman that the reading of the Megillah is the fulfillment of hallel.  The simple read of the Gemarah is that there technically hallel should be said but is is fulfilled via reading the Megillah.  This is fact is the opinion of the Meiri that holds if one is not hearing the Megillah of Purim for some reason, then they must recite hallel.  This leads to questions discussed in the Achronim such as if there should be hallel said on cities that read on the 15^th when that falls out on Shabbos and the Megillah is not read on Shabbos like this year or why we don't have to stand throughout the Megillah like when reading hallel (see Chasam Sofer siman 51 and article by Rav Zvi Ryzmanץ) 

Both the Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 36) and Rav Solevetchik (Mesorah journal volume 18) have a different take on this Gemarah.  They explain that the Gemarah means not that there is a din to say hallel on Purim and it is fulfilled through the Megillah but the only correct form of hallel on Purim is reading the megillah.  The explanation is that we only say hallel on an overt, open miracles.  The Purim story did not contain any jaw dropping miraculous events and it is only through the Megillah that connects the dots for us that we can glimpse the mircale that took place.  קריאתה זו הילולא means that the only only hallel experience that is applicable on Purim is that of the Megillah which allows us to acknowledge the covert miracles that took place.  

The opinion of Tosfos Megillah (4a) is that even though the beracha of shechiyanu is said on the night time reading of the Megillah, it is repeated again before the day time reading for the main obligation is the day time reading.  The Rambam (1:3, see Magid Mishna) disagrees and holds there is no new shechiyanu in the day.  Rav Zolti (Mishnas Yaavetz siman 77) says the Rambam agrees to the assertion of Tosfos that the main reading is in the day time but nonetheless disagrees with the conclusion of Tosfos that this should require a new shechiyanu blessing.  His explanation of this idea is that the advantage of the daytime reading over the night time reading is that it is also a fulfilment of the law of hallel.  However, since the essence of the obligation of the reading of the Megillah is the same, the shechiyanu on the night time reading covers the day time reading as the added element of hallel does not obligate shechiyanu for we never say shechiyanu on hallel.  [In light of his explanation, Tosfos would have to hold the fact that there is an added element to the reading of the daytime defines the daytime reading as a different type of reading and that enables a shechiyanu or Tosfos holds there are other advantages to the daytime reading.]  Rav Solevetchik however, uses his approach to explain the opinion of Tosfos.  Since the reading of the Megillah is not in place of hallel but rather a unique form of hallel expressed only through the Megillah, that form of krias megillah deserves its own shechiyanu. 

Quality Over Quantity

A piece from Rav Meir Goldwicht:

In describing the commandment for the Jews to donate a half-shekel for the purpose of taking a census, Hashem tells Moshe that he should "raise the heads of Bnei Yisrael." The Pesikta asks why this peculiar language is used in this context. The immediate answer that is given is that Hashem is telling Moshe to raise up the Jews as much as possible, since when they are raised up, Hashem is raised up as well.

There are, however, a number of questions that need to be answered about the concept of the half-shekel. The first is how this particular minimum donation serves the purpose of "raising up the head" of both the Jewish people and of Hashem? The second question is based on the language employed in Shemot 30:13. It says "zeh yitno" - this they shall give. The use of "zeh" in Tanach almost always refers to a situation where one point to something (such as by the splitting of the Reed Sea, when the Jews sang "zeh keili v'anveihu," and Rashi notes that they were actually able to point to the presence of Hashem).What pointing occurred by the half-shekel? The Pesikta claims that Hashem had to show Moshe a fiery coin so as to explain what the Jews were supposed to give. However, we must then ask how one is to give a coin made out of fire? What message was contained in this vision that Hashem gave to Moshe?

A third question is based on Rambam (Hilchot Shekalim 1). He says that it is a positive commandment for one to give the half-shekel, and it is so important that a pauper must sell the clothes off of his back in order to fulfill this law. This notion of selling the shirt of off one's back appears in two other places - in order to buy four cups of wine for the Pesach seder and in order to buy Chanukah candles. It is understandable that both of those commandments are reflective of great national miracles, and thus it is not surprising that we would require one to go to great lengths to be able to participate in them. However, how does the giving off the half-shekel fit in? Why is it so important that one has to sell his shirt in order to participate in it?

Our answer begins in Iyov 11. Iyov suffered through every type of personal misfortune imaginable. After the terrible losses that he suffered, three of his friends came to speak with him about what had occurred. In 11:7-9 they expressed the idea that Iyov could not get angry at Hashem, since he did not know the entire framework within which his personal tragedies were occurring. In verse 9 they state "arukah me-eretz mida, u'rchava mini yam" - the notion that the whole picture is longer than the land and wider than the sea. This metaphor is not accidental, and it in fact holds a key to answering our original question. What is the difference between the land and the sea? The land is something static that can be definitively measured. By contrast, the sea is something that is always in motion, and thus even when one tries to measure it, he can only measure it for a fleeting moment before it moves again.

There is another important aspect to the land and the sea, one that is rooted in the very story of creation in Bereishit 1. While each day of creation witnessed the birth of a different thing, no one day had any meaning without the others. The creation of light is worthless without trees to use it to grow and man to derive benefit from it. The creation of man goes nowhere without there first being a land for man to live on and trees and animals for him to make use of. As such, every day of creation had a hand in every other day. Working out the math, each of seven days counts as if it happened seven times, giving a total of forty-nine. This number is representative of our world, and thus the number fifty is representative of that which exists beyond our world (and thus we speak of the forty nine levels of purity or impurity, with the fiftieth being the point of no return, as well as of the forty nine levels of holiness than Moshe Rabbeinu attained, with the fiftieth being concealed from him).

Going back to Iyov, the gematria (numerical value) of the word "mida" is forty nine, while that of "yam" is fifty. This is indicative of the nature of these two components of creation - the sea wants to overtake and flood the dry land. Even in creation itself, Hashem had to pull the water back in order to reveal the dry land. It is for this reason as well that one has to immerse himself or herself completely in the waters of the mikveh, and may not use a water source that drips out (Sefer HaChinuch #173).

Haman was one of the smartest and most incisive enemies of the Jews. He understand that overtaking and defeating them required looking into their history and finding the soft underbelly where they would be most vulnerable. He knew that Hashem hates lewdness, and thus he encouraged Achashveirosh to hold a party that would be characterized by self-indulgence and loose behavior. While the food may have been served on plastic plates so as to avoid kashrut problems, the very presence of the Jews at this party revealed a major deficiency in their overall moral and ethical nature.

Haman went even further. He cast lots to determine when the best time would be to destroy the Jews, lots that told him that the month of Adar was a time of weakness for them. This was so in part because it was the month in which Moshe rabbeinu died. However, Haman also noted that this was the month in which the Jews donated the half-shekel in the times of the Beit HaMikdash, and thus he gave Achashveirosh a large sum to offset the money donated by the Jews at an earlier point in their history.

Haman's one problem was Mordechai, whom he could not figure out. Thus, Haman went in the other direction, trying to place himself above Mordechai not only in the power structure of Shushan, but even in a more metaphysical way. Rashi notes that the reason that the attendants of Achashveirosh bowed to Haman was because he made himself out to be some form of a deity. Even further, the tree which Haman was to build was to be fifty cubits high, a clear sign of his attempt to exist above this world. Haman felt that if he could attain such a level, there would be no way for the Jews to thwart his plans of destroying them. The Yalkut Shimoni notes that the gallows that was built was built from a board taken from the ark of Noach, which served as a reminder of the flood (the water, symbolized by fifty, flooding the earth). Haman hoped to link up to this event in history and to thus overtake the Jewish people. Feeling his power on the rise, Haman did not wait until the morning. Rather, he built the gallows already at night, and rushed to the king's palace to have the royal seal put on his devious plans.

Of course, Achashveirosh's response completely floored Haman, as he told him to parade Mordechai through the streets of Shushan. Unable to grasp the meaning of what had just happened, the Midrash tells us that Haman ran to get Mordechai and found him teaching his students about the mitzvah of cutting the Omer. Why is this significant? The Omer is connected to the counting of the Omer, whereby the Jews count seven days seven times, for a total of forty nine. However, they then count day fifty, the day of the giving of the Torah. Haman did not realize that the secret that was contained in the number fifty, which he hoped to arrogate to himself, had already been claimed by the Jews. He was playing on Mordechai's turf, and thus there was no way for him to be able to win this battle. The tiny bit of barley grain that was taken for the Omer completely uprooted Haman's fifty foot high gallows.

In the end, Haman was undone by his inability to realize that it is quality, and not quantity, that matters. The little mitzva of Omer was able to trump all of Haman's elaborate plans, since Omer represents that which is above and beyond this world. It is representative of the power of that which is truly qualitative, an idea that is encapsulated by fire. A small fire can overtake even the largest building. Even further, fire is the only thing on earth about which it can be said that anything that enters it becomes it. Mixtures of sugar and water and the like can still be separated and distinguished under laboratory tests. Fire, however, turns everything into ash. Yaakov understood this idea when he went out against Esav and all of his men (see Rashi on the beginning of parashat Vayeshev), that he strength against overwhelming numbers lay in the quality of his character. Haman's failure was in his inability to realize this exact point.

Taking all of this into consideration, we can return to our earlier questions. Hashem showed Moshe a coin made of fire, a coin that was all quality and not quantity. Hashem's message to Moshe was that the half-shekel was not about showing off how much money one could give to charity. Rather, it was about each person making his contribution and showing that he counted in a meaningful manner. Each person's contribution was special, and when a person does something special, a person can be proud and can life his head up high. Thus, Hashem told Moshe to "lift up the heads" of the Jewish people. He commanded Moshe to teach the Jews a mitzva that would allow each person to feel pride in his role as an equal member of the Jewish nation.

The Gemara in Megilla 13a states that Reish Lakish teaches us that Hashem knew that Haman would in the future pay a large sum for the lives of the Jews, and thus He pre-empted him by introducing the mitzva of the half-shekel. Reish Lakish, who began his career as a gangster and was able to find within himself the strength of character to return to Hashem, he is the one who teaches us this lesson about the half-shekel, a mitzva which is focuses on each person discovering what is special about himself.

In contrast to Reish Lakish, the gemara in Chagigah 15a states that Rabi Meir and Elisha ben Avuya were once walking on Shabbat (the Yerushalmi says it was Shabbat which was Yom HaKippurim) and they came to the end of the techum Shabbat, the farthest that one may walk outside of the city limits before violating the Shabbat. Rabi Meir pointed this fact out to his teacher and implored him to return to the city with him. Elisha ben Avuya, who had been one of the great Torah giants of his generation before veering from the straight and narrow path, answered that he could not do so, since he "has heard it stated from behind the (heavenly) curtain: Return may wayward sons, except for Acheir." Acheir, or 'the other one," was the name by which Elisha had come to be known, since he was now estranged from Hashem. However, Rabi Meir was trying to tell his mentor that he could still return, if only he would leave behind the part of him that had strayed, as Reish Lakish had done. However, Elisha failed to see this message. He heard the heavenly voice as saying that he could not return at all, since he and "Acheir" were one, he was totally consumed by the rebellious side within him, to the point where he could no longer conceive of the internal strength of his character being able to dominate and lead him back to the true service of Hashem.

The introduction to the Zohar includes a reference to the verse in Yeshayahu 40 "mi bara eileh" - who has created this. It explains that "eileh" refers to that which we can explain, while "mi" is a question word which refers to that in the world which we cannot find an answer to. While humans chase after those things that they can explain, one who does so without looking for the "mi" as well is worshipping idolatry. Together, these two words in Hebrew spell out Elokim, the name of God, as he is composed of everything, both the knowable and the unknowable in this world.

In this vein, we can understand some of the events surrounding the Golden Calf. When the Calf was constructed, those who danced around it said "eileh elohecha Yisrael," - these are your Gods, Israel. They had the "eileh," the simple and knowable, but they lacked the "mi," the mysterious and unknowable side of Hashem. Moshe restored this aspect to the Jews when he descended, shouting "mi la-shem elai" - whoever is for God should join me! Even further, the numerical value of "mi" is fifty, again indicating the presence of this supreme number as a foundation of faith and belief.

Finally, we come to the first mention of the half-shekel in the writings of the Sages. When the servant of Avraham presented Rivka with gifts at the well, one of the things that he gave her was a nose ring weighing a "beka." Rashi mentions that this alludes to the "beka la-gulgolet," the weight of the half-shekel. At the very moment when the Jewish people were being formed, as a spouse was being found for the child of Avraham, his servant incorporated into that marriage a major factor that would exist in the eventual covenant between Hashem and the Jews. The servant understood that the Jewish people, now only in their infancy, would only survive if they understood the secret of the half-shekel, the secret of those things which are eternal.

Mishkan For All

The Rosh says that the teruma of זהב כסף נחושת alludes to three types of giving tzedakah.  There is the gold level of tzedakah when one gives out of their own volition, the silver level when one gives in a situation of distress and the נחושת level when one gives charity already on the deathbed.  

There are three opinions as to when the commandment to build the Mishkan was said.  Rashi (Ki Sesa 31:14) says it was said after Klal Yisrael were forgiven for the agel on Yom Kippur.  The Ramban's opinion is that the commandant to create the Mishkan was said before the agel but the donations were collected only afterward and the Zohar is of the opinion that the donations for the Mishkan were collected before the sin of the agel.  These three opinions, says the Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 6,) represent three types of Jews that all participated in the Mishkan.  The opinion of Rashi is that the Mishkan is donated by balei teshuva, the Jews after they were forgiven for the agel.  The Zohar's approach is that the Miskan was given when Klal Yisrael were tzaddikim, had not sinned at all.  The opinion of the Ramban is that the commandment of the Mishkan remained throughout the sin of the agel, representing reshaim.  All three are needed and have a place in their lives for the Mishkan.  All three need a place for kedusha in a physical form that they can access and contribute to.  The Rebbe adds these three correspond to the זהב כסף ונחושת for כסף related to chesed is the avodah of tzaddikim, zahav related to din is the avodah of balei teshuva and nechoshes related to the word nachash is related to the reshaim.  The first three donations correspond to the three groups of Klal Yisrael all represented in the building of the Mishkan. 

This may line up with the forms of tzeddakah the Rosh says is alluded to in the possuk.  The tzaddik gives tzeddakah without any external push, the bal teshuva gives when they are stuck like doing teshuva after a sin and the rasha gives only at the very end of his life, he doesn't want to take away from his own enjoyment when he could use the money for himself.

The Importance Of Actions

The Midrash Tanchuma (Ki Sesa #3) says כשהגיע משה לפרשת שקלים אמר רבונו של עולם שמא משאני מת אין אני נזכר, אמר לו הקב"ה חייך כשם שאתה עומד עכשיו ונותן להם פרשת שקלים ואתה זוקף את ראשן, כך בכל שנה ושנה כשישראל קורין בפרשת שקלים כאלו אתה עומד וזוקף את ראשון שנאמר (שמות ל יב) כי תשא.  Many seforim talk about the meaning of this enigmatic Midrash.  Why did Moshe feel a need to be remembered ,why would he be forgotten, he is all throughout Chumash, why is shekalim specifically the way to remember Moshe and what does it mean he raises the heads of Klal Yisrael? 

I just want to share the idea the Aish Kodesh (Shekalim 5700) says about this Midrash which is very apropos for today, the yartzheit of my grandfather.  He says that the oft cited derash of ושכנתי בתוכם בתוך כל אחד ואחד is not just for a Jew to experience Devine revelation but it is also for the sake of the Shechina which desires to be revealed in the most physical of the worlds.  The reason a person comes into the word is to do physical mitzvot.  Those actions elevate the soul to a greater place than it could reach before it came into a physical form.  He says, therefore, when a person wants to do something to elevate the soul of one who has departed, one should have in mind the departed when they are actually involved in the mitzvah and that will give the departed a piece of the physical mitzvah.  In his words, 

טובה היא להנשמות גם כשזוכרים אותן בעת עשית המצוה ותלמוד תורה, לא זכירה בלבד רק כשנתקשר אתן לעשות המצוה, ללמוד תורה יחד, ואז הן מתלבשות בגוף ובעשי׳ לתורה ולמצוה שהיא התגלות קדושה יתירה, אם הוא ית׳ ככיכול רוצה לשכון בתוך כל אחד מישראל ק״ו הוא איך טובה היא להנשמות לאחר פטירתן שהארה מהן ישכנו כישראל ועמהם יעשו תורה ומצוות.

Says the Aish Kodesh, that was what was bothering Moshe.  How will I be able to do mitzvot when I am no longer alive?  How will I partake in the act of doing a physical mitzvah?  Hashem told Moshe, when Klal Yisrael reads the shekalim you will life their heads, you will elevate them.  That is the action Moshe will do.  Through that actions, Moshe is now connected to every Jew all of their mitzvot and now Moshe is a player in those actions.

What does it mean Moshe lifts up the heads of Klal Yisrael? There are many interpretations given.  One approach based upon the Or Hachayim is that the machatzis hashekel is to achieve a means of atonement for the sin of the agel.  After a sin one's head is hanging low, a person feels low and disgraced.  (In Sefer Hashar it says that man walks upright because we have a neshama that is pulling us upward as opposed to animals that walk bent over because they are connected to the earth.  One who sins, who is overtaken by their animal soul droops downward.)  It is the job of Moshe, of the leader, to be able to access the access the fiery shekel, the internal fire of the person and blow on it until the person rises up (see article by R' Willig and  Toras Menachem 5711.)  When one gets inspiration from the past generations, when one uses their experiences as motivation to actually live a better life, that connects the to one's own actions and gives an iluy nishama . 

Order Of The Parsha, What Makes A Ger A Ger

Chapter 24 which starts וְאֶל⁠־מֹשֶׁ֨ה אָמַ֜ר עֲלֵ֣ה אֶל⁠־י״י֗ according to Rashi took place before the events of Matan Torah in Yisro.  Rashi says פרשה זו קודם עשרת הדברות. ⁠בארבעה בסיון נאמר לו: עלה.  Then 12 pessukim later when it says וַיֹּ֨אמֶר י״י֜ אֶל⁠־מֹשֶׁ֗ה עֲלֵ֥ה אֵלַ֛י הָהָ֖רָה וֶהְיֵה⁠־שָׁ֑ם וְאֶתְּנָ֨ה לְךָ֜ אֶת⁠־לֻחֹ֣ת הָאֶ֗בֶן וְהַתּוֹרָה֙ וְהַמִּצְוָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר כָּתַ֖בְתִּי לְהוֹרֹתָֽם, Rashi says it took place לאחר מתן תורה.  According to Rashi, the timeframe of the parsha jumps back and forth from before Matan Torah to Matan Torah in Yisro to the end of the parsha going up the mountain and after that the beginnig of Mishpatim.  The Ramban is not happy with this and learns the parshios are in chronological order.  According to the Ramban the aseres hadibbros were given with all of the mitzvot and the next day Klal Yisrael affirmed their acceptance of the mitzvot and Moshe went up the mountain for 40 days.  

According to the Ramban the words of נעשה ונשמע said in possuk 7,  וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר⁠־דִּבֶּ֥ר י״י֖ נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע are meant to say that Klal Yisrael accepted the Moshe's relaying of the commandments is accurate and we accept all commandments that come from Hashem.  According to the Ramban, we don't have Tosfos's question (Shabbos 88a) of why was there a need to put the mountain over Klal Yisrael's head if they said naaseh vinishma, because the mountain over the head at the aseres hadibros preceded the statement of naaseh vinishma. 

Possuk 3 says וַיָּבֹ֣א מֹשֶׁ֗ה וַיְסַפֵּ֤ר לָעָם֙ אֵ֚ת כׇּל⁠־דִּבְרֵ֣י י״י֔ וְאֵ֖ת כׇּל⁠־הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֑ים וַיַּ֨עַן כׇּל⁠־הָעָ֜ם ק֤וֹל אֶחָד֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כׇּל⁠־הַדְּבָרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁר⁠־דִּבֶּ֥ר י״י֖ נַעֲשֶֽׂה.  What was accepted here and why did they not say ונשמע?  Rashi says את כל דברי י״י – מצות פרישה והגבלה. ואת כל המשפטים – שבע מצות שנצטוו בני נח, ושבת, וכיבוד אב ואם,⁠ ופרה אדומה, ודינין, שנתנו לו במרה (This is slightly different from what Rashi says in Beshalach (15:25) that in Marah they were given שַׁבָּת וּפָרָה אֲדֻמָּה וְדִינִין and he omits כיבוד אב ואם, why does he switch?  See Toras Menachem Vaeschanan 5628.)  According to Rashi it would seem the נעשה said here is that Klal Yisrael accepted these commandments given to them while 4 pessukim later the נעשה ונשמע is past of the event of the bris and is the prelude to the acceptance of the commandments of Hashem.  However, according to the Ramban, why does the terminology change?  In the Ramban's commentary he explains the possuk in the same vein as the possuk of נעשה ונשמע but doesn't seem to fully address why does the possuk change terminology?  The Kli Yakar suggests they first accepted all the mitzvot that they heard.  When the people saw the splitting of the blood they took it as a simple that only half the mitzvot have been said and their will will be more mitzvot given and they said we accept those upon ourselves as well.   

Possuk 4 says וַיִּכְתֹּ֣ב מֹשֶׁ֗ה אֵ֚ת כׇּל⁠־דִּבְרֵ֣י י״י֔.  The Eben Ezra says אחר שספר להם כל דברי השם המצות והמשפטים כתבם,⁠ וזהו: ספר הברית.  This is the approach of the Ramban that this happened after the giving of all the mitzvot from Yisro and onward.  The point of the writing was to record the mitzvot that were given. Rashi however, says וַיִּכְתֹּב משֶׁה.  מִבְּרֵאשִׁית וְעַד מַתַּן תּוֹרָה, וְכָתַב מִצְווֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בְמָרָה.  Why does Rashi say that Moshe wrote from בראשית until their resent moment, why not learn that Moshe wrote the laws and description Hashem gave in the lead up to Sinai?  And why does Rashi use the word וכתב in the middle, just say מִבְּרֵאשִׁית וְעַד מַתַּן תּוֹרָה, וְמִצְווֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בְמָרָה?  Rashi can't learn like the Ramban for he holds that this parsha is before the giving of the mitzvot.  According to Rashi this is in the parsha of the bris.  The point of the writing is to give strength to the bris between Hashem and Klal Yisrael.  That is why Rashi understands that the entirety of the Torah is written for it gives the picture of the entirety of history being for the sake of Klal Yisrael.  Rashi splits two different acts of כתיבה since the parshios of the stories of the Torah are a storyline and would be written as the way it is in the Torah but the mitzvot of Marah could not be written in the same form as a written parsha of Torah because the details expressed in the Torah were not given yet.  That is why Rashi says מִבְּרֵאשִׁית וְעַד מַתַּן תּוֹרָה was written as Torah כָתַב מִצְווֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בְמָרָה, and he wrote the מצות, it was a writing of  laws given at Marah but not as parshios of the Torah (Likutay Sichos volume 21.)   

What exactly is entailed for kabbalas hamitzvot and if it is not present if the gerus is valid or not has been debated over the past few centuries, see a summary of the shitos, in hakirah and toraland.

The opinion of the Ramban (Yevamot 45b) is that kabblas mitzvot is an integral role of the gerus process that needs the Beis Din to be present at the time of the ger's acceptance of the mitzvot and without it the gerus is invalid.  The Rambam in his presentation of the steps necessary for gerus (Issuray Beah 13:4) says וְכֵן לְדוֹרוֹת כְּשֶׁיִּרְצֶה הָעַכּוּ''ם לְהִכָּנֵס לִבְרִית וּלְהִסְתּוֹפֵף תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה וִיקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֹל תּוֹרָה צָרִיךְ מִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְהַרְצָאַת קָרְבָּן., he does not mention kabbalas mitzvot.  There is a debate in the Achronim as to if the Rambam holds that קבלת מצות is מעכב as noted in the articles above, but it would appear he does not hold it is part of the gerus process.  

Rav Yehuda Amital suggests that this debate has its roots in the gerus process which occurred at Matan Torah.  The Ramban at the end of Emor (24:10) seems to hold that even pre Matan Torah there was a concept of having laws and the status of a Jew.  So what was the gerus process that was completed during the bris in this week's parsha (see Krisos 9a)?  What was added was the obligation of mitvot.  That is why the Ramban holds there must have been mitzvot given before the event of the bris because the acceptance of mitzvot is the entire essence of the gerus.  There had to be mitzvot that were accepted!  On the other hand, if we assume not like the Ramban, as he himself notes, the French Rabbi's disagreed with him, then the gerus of Matan Torah was not a mere acceptance of the Torah, but establishing a שם ישראל, a Jewish nation and than doesn't require a kabblas mitzvot.  Instead the mitzbot become obligatory because one is a Jew.  So he can learn the order of the parshios in the way Rashi understands which is the simple read of the Gemarah as noted by the Netziv here.  In other words, according to the Ramban an act of gerus, becoming Jewish is accepting mitzvot as then one is joined to the Jewish nation.  According to the Rambam, one accepts to be a Jew and therefore, one is obligated to keep the mitzvot.  

It does behoove an explanation as to why according to Rasih the parshios are out of order.  Furthermore, why does Rashi change his terminology, in possuk 1 he says, פרשה זו קודם עשרת הדברות and in possuk 12 he says לאחר מתן תורה, why change from עשרת הדברות to מתן תורה?  The Rebbe explains (Likutay Sichos volume 26) that there are two things that happened at Matan Torah.  There is a  giving of laws that must be accepted and then there is the event of the covenant between Klal Yisrael and Hashem.  The parsha of Yisro lists the mitzvot as commandments and hence other mitzvot follow.  Only following that does the Torah focus on the bris of Sinai.  This is alluded to by the change in Rashi's terminology.  The parsha of the bris is said before the עשרת הדברות, before the giving of mitzvot, of that aspect of Matan Torah .  It is the commandments that precede this parsha.  After the bris Rashi refers to the event with its total name, which is מתן תורה.     

Between A Gentile And a Jew

There is sometimes a concept in halacha of two opposite categories but sometimes something can fall in the middle of the two categories but be neither here nor there.  As an example, the Gemarah says (Sanhedrin 58b) that an eved kinani is out of the category of a gentile but has not entered the category of a yisrael.  I happened recently to be learning a few examples of this principle and was wondering about trying to find more examples but apparently a list has already been complied by Rav Moshe Adler.  This idea may be employed in the world of hashkafa as well.  In the book by Aviezer Revitsky, "Messianism. Zionism, and Jewish Religious Radicalism," he points out that both Kookian Zionism and Satmer anti-Zionism both stem from the idea that a Jewish state is only applicable outside of the boundaries of golus and hence it must have to do with the geulah.  From there they take opposite approaches either to reject the concept of Israel being a Jewish stare before the Mashiach comes or to view it as the beginning of the geulah process. The author suggests it may be a middle ground, it is not the normal state of golus to have a Jewish state but it is not the process of geulah yet.  

One of the examples of the middle category is how the Radvaz understands the level of a ger who has done a bris milah but not yet gone through the tevilah in a mikvah.  He says in this case as well, the "ger" is no longer a gentile but is not yet a Jew and therefore he has dinim sometimes like a goy and sometimes like a Jew.  The Radvaz says that he will not make wine יין נסך.  It is hard to know when it comes to the status of something in the middle for which laws it figures in category 1 or category 2. 

Rav Yosef Engel suggests (חוסן יוסף #69, Gilyonay Hashas Yevamot 47) that the two parts of the act of gerus, milah and tevilah, reflect these two levels.  The milah is done to remove the status of a gentile and the tevilah is done in order to give the status of a yisrael.  This line of reasoning would fit very well with the Radvaz.  The prospective ger that has done milah is no longer a gentile but has not done tevilah yet in order to enter kedushas yisrael.  It is interesting that the Chelkas Yoav (volume 2 #8) assumes diametrically the opposite.  He says that if only milah is done the person still has the full status of a gentile.  However, if tevialah is done before milah, then the person does have somewhat the status of a Jew and in fact is obligated in mitzvot.  See more about this topic here.  

The Gur Aryeh Vayigash (46:10) asks why Chazal say that Klal Yisrael were prohibited to marry their relatives after Matan Torah, we should say גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי?  He answers that כקטן שנולד דמי is said only for a ger that comes voluntarily not for Klal Yisrael that the mountain was placed over their head.  He clearly says the rule of כקטן שנולד דמי does not apply to the gerus of Matan Torah.  However, the Meshech Chachma (Vaeschanan 5:27) says the idea of  כקטן שנולד דמי is derived from the gerus of Matan Torah itself from the fact that Bnei Yisrael were not told that they were prohibited to wives who may have been prohibited relatives. (For a collection of the sources to the idea of כקטן שנולד דמי, see Rav Asher Weiss.)  I subsequently found numerous sources that point out this contradiction, see Rav Yoel Amital and Rav Meyer Yisrael.  

Rav Yosef Engel (Beis Haotzer klal 1 #8 questions if the Avos had the status of Yisrael already before Matan Torah how was there gerus at Matan Torah?  In light of the previous discussion maybe there is a middle ground.  Before Matan Torah there was a concept of a separate Jewish nation that in it of itself had a concept of gerus to join as Chazal employ the terminology of gerus even for the people Avraham was teaching.  The Jewsih nation was not in the category of a mere ben noach.  On the other hand, there was no formal kedushas Yisrael and that is established only with the gerus at Sinai (see similar idea in the גרנ"ט כתובות סימן כח ויבות בימן יא.) וצ"ע.     

Listen And Renew Yourself

 ואשא אתכם על כנפי נשרים ואבא אתכם אלי

The Avodas Yisrael cites Rav Levi Yitzchak that the נשר is called נשר because of its nature of molting.  The feathers of the eagle are נושר, they fall off.  He cites Rashi (Tehillim 103:5) כנשר הזה שמחדש כנפיו ונוצה משנה לשנה.  He says in this vein Klal Yisrael as well are able to shed their sins and do teshuva.  The possuk is saying that Hashem will bring a person close to Him and give them the ability to do teshuva.  (My father wrote this idea the first time the Eagles won the Super Bowl.) I think this idea is not such a nice vort on these words but encapsulates the essence of Yisro himself.  Yisro was able to reinvent himself and go through various incarnations to go from the כהן in מואב to the father-in-law of Moshe, rejecting avodah zarah, joining Klal Yisrael, leaving again.  He did not just stay in his old ways but was willing to molt and be מחדש himself to do what seemed right to him.  וישמע יתרו, he was always listening to hear a new way.  Yisro teaches us that it is important to have one's "ears open" to be willing to hear and listen to a different and improved outlook.  This may be why Yisro serves as the introduction to the parsha of Matan Torah.  In order to be at a Matan Torah one needed to open their ears to acquire the capability of listening. The possuk in Tehillim (40:7) says זבח ומנחה לא חפצת אזנים כרית לי עולה וחטאה לא שאלת.  Rashi says the possuk is referring to Matan Torah and Hashem says I didn't ask for korbanot just to open your ears to listen.  A few perakim later (45:11) it describes listening to Torah, והטי אזנך.  A prerequisite to learning Torah is to be able to listen to the kol Torah, to be open to molting and molding one' character to be in tune with the Torah's commands.

Neros Shabbos Part 2

The Mishna Pesachim (53b) says that there were conflicting customs if one should light neros for Yom Kippur.  The Gemarah explains the machlokes according to Rashi's explanation that בין שאמרו להדליק - אותן שנהגו להדליק והנוהגין שלא להדליק לא נתכוונו אלא לדבר אחד להפריש עצמו ממשכבי אשה האומרים להדליק משום דאין אדם משמש מטתו לאור הנר והאומרים שלא להדליק סוברים כשהנר דולק רואה את אשתו ומתאווה לה.  The machlokes is about what is practically better to do to uphold the prohibitions of Yom Kippur.  The Gemarah continues that when Yom Kippur falls out on Shabbos, it is a machlokes if everyone agrees that one then lights candles, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, אַף בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַדְלִיק — מַדְלִיקִין מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת. וְעָנֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּתְרֵיהּ: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִים.  Presumably the Chachamam hold not to light for the same practical concerns as every Yom Kippur.  So why does רשב"א differentiate?  He would seem to hold that since Shabbos has an obligation of neros Shabbos, that applies even when Shabbos coincides with Yom Kippur.  In other words, he holds the practical concerns can't cancel out the obligation of neros Shabbos.  (The Chachamim disagree and hold even on Yom Kpput that falls out on Shabbos one should not light candles.  They may hold the practical concerns override the obligation of neros Shabbos or they hold when Shabbos coincided with Yom Kipput it is a hybrid kedusha and the Shabbos has the dinim of Yom Kippur and loses its own obligation of candles, ויש לעיין בזה.)  But why does he hold that a regular Yom Kippur doesn't have the same obligation?  It would seem to depend on the nature of the obligation of neros Shabbos.  In the post last week, 'Neros Shabbos,' it was brought up the issue is the mitzvah of neros Shabbos is for the candles to be lit on Shabbos or is the mitzvah to do an act of lighting the candles.  This debate may reflect what the reason of the mitzvah is.  If the mitzvah is to give kavod to Shabbos, then it is an act to be done before Shabbos for the sake of Shabbos, so it would be a mitzvah to light the candles but if the mitzvah is for oneg Shabbos because having a lit house enhances one's enjoyment of Shabbos, then it would suffice for the candles to be lit on Shabbos, one does not need to actively light for Shabbos.  Yom Kippur does have an obligation of kavod (Shabbos 119a) but does not carry the obligation of oneg.  It would seem רשב"א holds the obligation of lighting candles is in order to give oneg to the day and therefore, he holds a regular Yom Kippur does not have the obligation of lighting neros but Shabbos Yom Kippur does.  

The Rosh (Yoma Chapter 8 siman 27) however, says we always light a candle on Yom Kippur and say a beracha because of the mitzvah of shalom bayis.  He seems to be giving a third reason for the neros which is shalom bayis and that obligation applies even on Yom Kippur.  Rav Yosef Engel (ציונים לתורה כלל לח עמ' מז) is bothered that how can shalom bayis itself be a reason to light candles, if that is the case there should be an obligation to light a candle and one should say a beracha every single day of the year?  He says the Rosh must mean that due to the fact that there is kavod on Yom Kippur as well, one can say a beracha when lighting.  How does this fit in the words of the Rosh?  I assume he means that kavod is to do something is preparation for Shabbos that will enhance one's Shabbos experience.  In what way is one's Shabbos experience enhanced?  Because one's shalom bayis is enhanced that allows for a more enjoyable Shabbos. 

See more about this discussion in כוכבי יצחק siman 1.

Continuous Building

 Spoke at a sheva berachat for a minute and a half.  

There is a question in poskim as to if there should be a beracha on שהחיינו upon marriage based upon the fact that a) it is the first time one is doing a mitzvah which may warrant a שהחיינו and b) it should be no words than new כלים that one says a שהחיינו upon.  There are various answers given as to why common practice is to not say a שהחיינו.  There is an article from Rabbi Itamar Rosensweig in which he develops the idea in halachik grounds that the act marriage is not the completion of the relationship process but it is continued through the ביאה ראשונה and having children.  He says that שהחיינו is said on achieving a certain level of completion which can not claim is fulfilled in the middle of the process.  He cites the ר"י בר יקר that the idea of שהחיינו has its basis in Hashem's creation of the world ויברך אלקים את יום השביעי ,on the completion of creation a beracha is said.  So too, one says שהחיינו on a completion of a mitzvah and here the mitzvah is ongoing.  

The idea here (outside of halachik analysis,) is that marriage is an ongoing process.  Just because a couple set foot under the chuppah does not mean they are finished with a mitzvah, on the contrary, they are just beginning. 

The Orchos Chayim (cited in ibid,) says first we say a beracha משמח חתן וכלה and after that משמח חתן אם הכלה since the first beracha is for them to lead a successful life and the next beracha is that that they should be happy together, אם, together with each other.  This is not accomplished under the chuppah but is something that must be worked on together. 

Troubling Rashba

The Rashba in Teshuva 245 says there is no shechiyanu said on bris milah for the mitzvah is on beis din, not on the father.  It is quite outstanding that he seems to say the mitzvah is entirely on the beis din, not on the child or the father at all.  

Kiddush Points

Tosfos in Pesachim (106a) ד"ה זכריהו has a discussion if kiddush on wine is a Torah law or not.  The Magen Avrohom (371:1) says since the conclusion is that is merely a Rabbinic law to say the kiddush on wine and one can fulfill the Biblical commandment of kiddush with the prayer services when one says מקדש השבת.  Rabbi Akiva Eger says based upon this that saying good Shabbos also would suffice to fulfill one's Biblical commandment for one has mentioned that the day is Shabbos.  In the Beur Halacha he objects to the R.A.E. because the Rambam says one needs to say דברי שבח in kiddush and that is not said by merely mentioning Shabbos?  The Rashba Teshuva (volume 4 #295) also says that one can fulfill kiddush outside the context of on a cup of wine or prayer but says it has to be words of שבח וקילוס. (In the sefer Ratz Katzvi he says the Rashba fits the R.A.E. not like the question of the Beur Halacha bit I don't understand how he reads the Rashba who says one needs words of praise?  Rav Mordechai Eliyahu also notes this Rashba sounds not like the R.A.E.)  The one asking the question to the Rashba however does indicate that merely saying today is Shabbos does suffice for kiddush which would fit with R.A.E.  What may be the underpinnings of this debate?  This blog in the past mentioned the machlokes Rambam and Ramban if the nature of kiddush is to mention and designate the holiness of Shabbos as a distinct day from other days or is it a human form of injecting kedusha into day like Beis Din declaring the shemittah year holy.  The Rambam goes lishitaso and hence requires a mention of the holiness and praise of the day. According to the Ramban however, one can argue that it merely suffices to declare that the day is Shabbos. 

The Dagul Marevavah (271:2) raises the issue if the the man of the house prays maariv and already fulfills his Biblical obligation of kiddush how can he recite kiddush for his wife who is obligated on a Biblical level if woman are not part of arvus (which he understands based upon a Rosh.)?  R.A.E. takes issue because of how he learns the Rosh.  However, according to R.A.E. the whole question shouldn't get off the ground because the woman should also fulfill her obligation by lighting neros Shabbos.  As pointed out even not according to the R.A.E., if a woman adds words of praise after lighting candles about Shabbos, they also would fulfill the Biblical obligation according to the Magen Avraham. 

The Mishna Berurah (271:2) takes issue with the Magen Avraham for mitzvot need kavanah to fulfill the obligation and one is not thinking of fulfilling the mitzvah of kiddush when davening?  The Chasam Sofer actually advises one to have in mind not to be yotzei kiddush in tefillah in order to be able to fulfill kiddush according to the takkanah of Chazal with wine in the place of the seudah (צ"ע if the chasam Sofer means to activly have this in mind ,this is what it sounds like from his haghos on Shulchan Aruch ,or this is automatic that one is not yotzei untill the meal after the takkana of Chazal, see his teshuva #17 and #21 he says it is like לב ב"ד מתנה שלא לצאת?)  However, as noted by Rav Shlomo Zalman in Shulchan Shlomo this is an interesting implementation of lack of kavanah.  The person that is davening is intending to say the words of praise about Shabbas, the same very same text as kiddush in fact, and he is expressing his his acknowledgment and intent of sanctifying Shabbos, why where is the lack of kavanah?  Says Rav Shlomo Zalman, because the person's intent is to say this as part of tefillah not as a fulfillment of kiddush.  It may very well be that the Magen Avraham will tell you there is no lack of kavanah here for the person has intent to do the same thing as kiddush does, the fact that there is no intent for the specific mitzvah of kiddush is not relevant.

Hakaras Hatov

The Eban Ezra on Koheles (5:1) אמר אברהם המחבר: הנה נא הואלתי לדבר, כי בעבור היות כבוד המקום מלא כל מקום, ולא יוכל האדם להשמר בכל מקום, הוכן לו מקום שיהיה לו קבוע לתפילתו, והוא חייב לכבדו. גם חייב הוא האדם להודות ולשבח לאלהיו בכל רגע, כי חסדו עמו בכל חלקי הרגע, שיחיינו ויתענג בהרגשות. רק בעבור היות האדם מתעסק בעסקי העולם, הושם לו זמן שיתפלל בו, והם עתים ידועים: ערב ובקר וצהרים; כי כל מי שיש לו עינים ידע עת צאת השמש ועת נטותו ועת בואו. על כן חייב אדם שיתפלל, שישמור פתחי פיו ויחשוב בלבו שהוא עומד לפני מלך, בידו להחיות ולהמית. על כן אסור שיתפלל אדם ויכניס בתוך תפילתו פיוטין לא ידע עיקר פירושם, ולא יסמוך על המחבר ברצונו הראשון, כי אין אדם אשר לא יחטא, או המעתיקים חטאו.  The Eban Ezra says that really one is obligated to say thank you to Hashem every second for every second Hashem does chesed for a person! 

The Mesilas Yesharim Ch. 8 echoes such an idea וְאָמְנָם, מַה שֶּׁיּוּכַל לְהַגְבִּיר הַהִתְעוֹרְרוּת הַזֶּה הוּא הַהִסְתַּכְּלוּת בְּרוֹב הַטּוֹבוֹת, שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה עִם הָאָדָם בְּכָל עֵת וּבְכָל שָׁעָה, וְהַנִּפְלָאוֹת הַגְּדוֹלוֹת שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ מֵעֵת הַלֵּדָה עַד הַיּוֹם הָאַחֲרוֹן, כִּי כָּל מַה שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה לְהִסְתַּכֵּל וּלְהִתְבּוֹנֵן בִּדְבָרִים אֵלֶּה, הִנֵּה יַרְבֶּה לְהַכִּיר לְעַצְמוֹ חוֹבָה רַבָּה אֶל הָאֵל הַמֵּטִיב לוֹ,... הֶעָנִי חַיָּב לוֹ שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ בְּעָנְיוֹ מַמְצִיא לוֹ פַּרְנָסָתוֹ דֶּרֶךְ נֵס וָפֶלֶא וְאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחוֹ לָמוּת בָּרָעָב. הַחוֹלֶה עַל שֶׁמַּחֲזִיקוֹ בְּכֹבֶד חָלְיוֹ וּמַכּוֹתָיו וְאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחוֹ לָרֶדֶת שַׁחַת, וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה, עַד שֶׁאֵין לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁלֹּא יַכִּיר עַצְמוֹ חַיָּב לְבוֹרְאוֹ.  The Ramchal says even one is a lowly state still owes gratitude to Hashem because he is alive.  The question is how far does one go with this obligation of hakaras hatov?  One who is in a lot of pain would sometimes prefer death, they would say they would rather not be alive, do they have to be thankful for being alive?  Do they just no understand the gift of life?  Rav Yehuda Amital was of the opinion that after the Holocaust one can not demand faith on the basis of hakaras hatov as after such genocide it is hard to demand such feelings of hakaras hatov.  He obviously felt hakaras hatov goes only so far.  

Two Levels Of Kedusha

 The Ramchal in hakdamah to מאמר ויכוח:

The Ramchal delineates two approaches to kedusha.  The peshat approach is that kedusha means separation as Rashi in the beginning of Kedoshim says.  The Kabbalist on the other hand does not see the pleasures of the world as a negative that must be avoided but instead elevates the world around him and infuses it with spirituality.  It is interesting that in the Mesillat Yesharim the Ramchal calls the peshat of kedusha the level of taharah and calls the level of  kedusha the Kabbalist approach to kedusha.

According to Chassidus based upon the Arizal, the function of our life is to be able to be מעלה fallen ניצוצות (see מעולפת ספירים.)  In the sefer אלו ואלו דברים אלקים חיים by Rav Tzvi Einfeld he demonstrates that the Gra was not a fan of practical application of this concept.  Getting involved in the elevation of hidden sparks of holiness brings one too close to the boundaries of tumah and can cause one to fall.  

It would seem these two approaches mirror the levels of kedusha that the Ramchal speaks about.  The Gra advocated for the peshat approach.  He practiced austerity and viewed the external world as a threat to maintaining one's holiness.  The Chassidim advocated the Kabbalistic approach and viewed the general world as something which can be elevated.    

It would seem to a casual observer that these two approaches are reflected by many hashkafic debates that have raged from the early 20th century until today as to how much one should protect Judaism as an insular system or can one find positives in movements that are non- Torah based.  

Why Did The Sea Split

In davening we say המעביר בניו בין גזרי ים סוף, we refer to Klal Yisrael as banim only when they crossed the yam suf.  Why?  

ויאמנו בה ובמשה עבדו.  The question is what happened now that caused a greater emunah, Klal Yisrael had already seen 10 maakos.  What caused an increase in emunah at this point?  Rav Itzele Blazer (Kocvay Or #3) explains that Klal Yisrael understood that Hashem controls the world and will do miracles to accomplish things for a sensible purpose.  However, at krias yam suf not only where Klal Yisrael saved, but the Egyptians were obliterated.  This was illogical to Klal Yisrael for they were cognizant of the their lowly state as the Midrash says the angels objected, both the Jews and the Egyptians were idol worshippers.  Why do the Jews deserve to be saved and the Egyptians killed?  However, when Klal Yisrael saw that they were saved and the Egyptians drowned they saw that Hashem will even do what seems opposite of logic and their אמונה that Hashem is not limited by the boundaries of human logic increased.  

(As an aside, there seem to be a contradiction in Midrashim both in regard to the makkos and krias yam suf if Klal Yisrael had a zechus or zechusim that validated their redemption or that they weren't really deserving, I'm not sure if they are supposed to be reconciled somehow and what that would be.) 

According to what Rav Itzele is explaining, Klal Yisrael did not have any clear advantage over the Egyptians to warrant the destruction of the Egyptians and yet Hashem deemed them worthy enough to destroy the Egyptians entirely.  Why?  Because they are Klal Yisrael.  They are בניו, the children of Hashem.  One doesn't need a reason to punish an attacker of one's son.  It is the natural desire, irrespective of sechel that motivates one's actions.  כביכול, Hashem stepped in to save his children.  

ויקח משה את עצמות יוסף עמו, why not say Moshe took the aron of Yosef, why the bones?  The Midrash says the yam split due to the aron of Yosef.  Why? The bones of Yosef refers to the עצם, the עצמיות, the essence of Yosef.  In the bones, the very essence of Yosef is the zechus for Klal Yisrael.  Yosef as sent to to Egypt but retained his Jewish identity in Egypt.  The merit of the aron of Yosef is that in the genes of Klal Yisrael is that עצמיות of Yosef, that connection to Hashem remained even as the externality of the Jew was not so apparent.  This is the nature of being בנים, the connection is innate (see Likutay Sichos volume 26.)  

Neros Shabbos

The Gemarah Shabbas (23b) says if a person can not afford both wine for kiddush and a candle for Shabbos then buying a candle takes precedence because it is needed for shalom bayis.  Asks the Chayeh Adam, why do we need a new reason of shalom bayis, since the candles are lit erev Shabbos and kiddush is only said on Shabbos, of course the candle take precedence, since it is the mitzvah done first?  

Tosfos in Shabbos (25b) has an opinion that one does not say a beracha on lighting nerot Shabbat.  One of the arguments of Tosfos is that one does not need to actively light a candle for Shabbos, it suffices to have a candle lit for Shabbos.  Rabbenu Tam argues and says one has to actively light a candle for shabbos and his proof is from a Gemarah (23b) here Rav Yosef told his wife not to light the nerot Shabbos to late since it says ״לֹא יָמִישׁ עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן יוֹמָם וְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ לָיְלָה״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעַמּוּד עָנָן מַשְׁלִים לְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ וְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ מַשְׁלִים לְעַמּוּד הֶעָנָן.  Rashi says עמוד הענן - של יום משלים אורו לעמוד האש שהיה עמוד האש בא קודם שישקע עמוד הענן אלמא אורח ארעא בהכי.  The Gemarah then continues that one can't light to early either.  Says Rabbenu Tam, we see there is a proper timeframe for lighting, it doesn't suffice to merely have a candle lit?  Rav Yosef Engel (Beis Haotzer Klal 66) points out according to the first approach in Tosfos, the mitzvah is to have a candle lit on Shabbos . In light of that approach the mitzvah of neros Shabbos is fulfilled on Shabbos when the house is illuminated and the mitzvah starts at the same time as kiddush and we don't have the question of the Chayeh Adam.  But according to Rabbenu Tam that the mitzvah is the act of lighting, the question still stands. 

It is noteworthy that the Magid Mishna (Chanukah 4:5) notes the Rambam understands the Gemarah of not to light too early or too late is referring to the Chanukah candles, not neros Shabbos and this would knock off Rabbenu Tam's proof.  However, this is very difficult since it was the wife of Rav Yosef lit would indicate it is neros Shabbos, see there in Even Haezel that maybe it was erev Shabbos Chanukah, and she was lighting later to light Chanukah candles later, וצ"ע.  

The Mishpitay Uziel (volume 1 #7) uses this debate as a starting point for the discussion if one can fulfill neros Shabbos with electric lights.  According to the approach that one just needs light to exist in the house it should suffice but if one needs an act of kindling a fire, he does not believe merely turning on the light is considered lighting the fire.  

(See also the Griz in the Grach stencil on the opinion of the Rambam and Mishpitay Uziel.)    

Aspects Of Tefillin

Some ideas I said pinch hitting for a Chumash shiur. 

Where tefillin worn in the Midbar?  The first two parshios of tefillin were given in this week's parsha so presumably tefillin were worn but what about the missing two parshios which where only given later?  Some are of the opinion that although the parshios are given here, tefillin was not actually worn in the Midbar.  Others say that they worn tefillin with two parshios.  The question is according to that approach, did the head tefillin have all 4 compartments and two were left empty, or where there only two compartments? 

Rashi in Bo (13:16) says וְעַל שֵׁם שֶׁהֵם אַרְבָעָה בָתִּים קְרוּיִין טטפת – "טט" בְּכַתְפִּי שְׁתַּיִם, "פת" בְּאַפְרִיקִי שְׁתַּיִם.  However, Rashi in Vaeshachan (6:8) says  וְהָיוּ לְטֹֽטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶֽיךָ.  אֵלּוּ תְּפִלִּין שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, וְעַל שֵׁם מִנְיַן פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתֵיהֶם נִקְרְאוּ טֹטָפוֹת.  In Bo he identifies טטפות as 4 to correspond to the 4 compartments but in Vaeschanan he says it corresponds to the 4 parshios.  Why the change?  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 9) explains in our parsha it says וְהָיָ֤ה לְאוֹת֙ עַל־יָ֣דְכָ֔ה וּלְטֽוֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֣ין עֵינֶ֑יךָ, in the singular tense.  What is it that should be טוטפות?  The single aspect of leaving Egypt and that is only expressed in the two parshios of Bo, not in the additional parshios of Shema and Veha im shemoa and therefore the 4 must be referring to the amount of compartments in the tefillin which enhances the fulfillment of remembering leaving Egypt.  In Vaeschanan, the possuk says וְהָי֥וּ לְטֹֽטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֥ין עֵינֶֽיךָ, in the plural, referring to all of the parshios.

 

We find the same change in Rashi's explanation about the two prohibitions of adding to a mitzvah, in Vaeschanan (4:2) he says לֹא תֹסִפוּ.  כְּגוֹן חָמֵשׁ פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת בַּתְּפִלִּין but in Reah (13:1) he says לֹֽא־תֹסֵף עָלָיו.  חֲמִשָּׁה טֹטָפוֹת, because the first issur is to add a non mitzvah item to the mitzvah and that is a fifth parsha but the second issur adds adding to the item of the mitzvah and that is a  fifth compartment. Nonetheless, we see from Rashi that the teffilin of the Midbar had 4 compartments, but 2 would remain empty. 

 

The Rashba Minachot says that even though two of the parshiot are only recorded later on in the Torah as part of the Torah, they were given as part of tefillin earlier.  What we see from here, says Rav Gedalia Schorr, is that the parshios of tefillin are not Torah parshios placed in tefillin but there is a unique din of parshios tefillin not as words of Torah.  As pointed add out in the past on the blog, this is an idea also advanced in the Amek Beracha in the name of the Rav but contradicts the Rav in Vaeschanan, Hilchot Megillah and Tefillin where he assumes that the parshios of the tefillin are a cut and paste of the parshios of the Torah with all the laws of the writing of parshios of the Torah and not a new din of parshios of tefillin. 

Why do the parshios of tefillin include the law of kedushas bechor of an animal.  What does that have to do with tefillin?  Klal Yisrael is called by Hashem (Shemos 4:22) בני בכורי ישראל.  What does this mean that we are the bechor of Hashem?  The Pachad Yitzchak Pesach maamer 81 develops the idea that a bechor is a mirror of the father.  The word for father is אב, the 1, the father leading to his "double," the בכר, the letters of doubling, ב is 2, כ is 20 and ר is 200, the doubling of all the units.  The word בכר is in reverse רכב, a chariot,  The idea of the bechor is to return the כבוד back to its source, the father.  By returning, going backward as a רכב as complete bittul to the source, then one is acting as a proper bechor.  This is the bechorness of Klal Yisrael.  We are meant to reflect the kavof of Hashem in the world.  By subjugating ourselves to Hashem, by being the rechev, we act as the bechor.  This is the message of tefillin, to become subjects of Hashem, to assert ourselves as the bechor.  This is the ide of the kedusha of the bechor.  That which is a reflection of the source is designated to remind us of our mission to reflect our Source.       

The part I didn't get to. 

Why is there a split between the two parshios of tefillin here and two later on in Sefer Devarim?  The opinion of Rabbenu Tam is that that the order of the parshios of the tefillin goes קדש והיה כי יביאך והיה אם שמוע שמע.  Why does he hold the parshois go out of the order they are written in?  Rav Solevetchik explains (shiurim on Stam,) that Rabbenu Tam holds the first two parshios and last two are divided into two categories.  The first two go right to left from the perspective of one standing opposite the reader for it is a commandment to remember the Exodus which is a message meant to be passed to others.  The thrust of yitzias mitzraim is told over to one's children, it is a message passed on about Hashem's control of the world.  The last two parshios however, go right to left from the perspective of the wearer of the tefillin in which case to the reader opposite והיה אם שמוע appears before שמע but from the wearer's "view" שמע comes first.  That is because the kabbalas ol represented by these two parshois are that of a personal kabbalah.  The first two parshios are the parshois of the nation, of the kedusha of Klal Yisrael in its totality as they collectevly experienced yitzias Mitzraim, the tefillin are speaking outwardly.  The last two parshios are the personal parshois, the one's that speak of the individual's kabbalas ol.  With this idea we can say that the parshios of the tzibbur, the one's of yitzias mitzraim are given in Bo, the time when Klal Yisrael is developing into a nation of Hashem.  The time for individual kabbalas ol is relevant when they are on the brink of entering Eretz Yisrael where there would no longer be one large national encampment of people and instead the individual commitment to Hashem had to be highlighted.     

Three Takes On A Midrash

דבר אחר:יהי לבי תמים בחקיך, זה חקת הפסח, וחקת פרה אדומה. למה? ששניהן דומין זה לזה. בזה נאמר: זאת חקת הפסח. ובזה נאמר (במדבר יט, ב): זאת חקת התורה. ואי אתה יודע איזו חקה גדולה מזו! משל לשתי מטרונות דומות, שהיו מהלכות שתיהן כאחת נראות שוות, מי גדולה מזו, אותה שחברתה מלוה אותה עד ביתה והולכת אחריה.כך בפסח נאמר בו חקה, ובפרה נאמר בה חקה, ומי גדולה הפרה שאוכלי פסח צריכין לה, שנאמר ( שם שם, יז): ולקחו לטמא מעפר שריפת החטאת. (שמות רבה יט:ב)

What is the comparison between the law of Pesach and the law of Parah, what is the question of which one is greater and why is the law of parah greater?  

Rav Kook (Midbar Shor 35) says based upon the Cuzari that the sin of the agel was that Klal Yisrael wanted to serve Hashem properly through the agel, logically it was a sensible thing to do, but at the end of the day it was wrong.  The lesson is that the ways of Hashem are beyond human logic and we at times must put aside our logic for G-dly logic.  The parah atones for the agel for death is the opposite of the desire of G-d to give life but yet G-d gives death for somehow that leads to a greater life.  This is beyond our comprehension to fathom.  Hence, all those that are involved in the process of the taharah from the tumas meis are tamah, meaning they don't see the good that comes out of death, it is a tumah, a hester panim but at the end, only at the end of the process is there taharah, can one see the good.  The lesson of the parah is the antithesis of the agel.  The parah teaches that at times the goal, the taharah, the G-dly logic can only be recognized at the end of the process.  The ends justify the means but the means don't justify the end.  Pesach teaches that sometimes there needs to be a jump, one doesn't have to wait to the end ,the geulah came early, sometimes doing what appears to humanly be correct is correct.  "נתגלתה השלמות הראוי' בסוף ג"כ באמצע. ואם היו כל ההנהגות כולן עפ"ז הדרך, שהמתגלה קודם גמר התכלית הי' נראה מחלק השלמות המכוון לרצונו ית', אז הי' מקום לבעל הדין לומר שיוסיף מצות ע"פ הנהגתו והשכלתו."  There is a balance that one must have of these two approaches, of using logic to try to prefect implementations of the rules of the Torah but at the same time suspending our logic for G-dly logic when we want to implement change.  It is ultimately the message of the of the parah that is greater for it only at the ends, not the means that one will be able to truly understand Hashem's plan. 

Rav Solevetchik (sefer of Stam miluim) says the Midrash is discussing two forms of acceptance of the decrees of G-d.  Rav Solevetchik (being a Briskor) says that the concept of a chok teaches us that we don't ask למה or מדוע but מה.  A Jew doesn't ask why but what should we do.  The defining moment of kabbalas haTorah is נעשה ונשמע, Klal Yisrael said what should we do, we will do.  There are two ways that one is challenged in this acceptance of faith.  Sometimes there are personal challenges that one must overcome, a person is temted to ask למה, why do I have to do this?  For this question comes the lesson of the parah, we don't ask why we accept the chukim of Hashem what he says to do, we do.  The lesson of pesach is that sometimes there are national calamities, when Klal Yisrael is challenged with difficult times and one is tempted to ask מדוע, why is this happening to us, for that we have the chok of Pesach.  Despite the setbacks, we know the geulah will eventually come.  The question of the midrash is which chok, which aspect of acceptance will be מטהר the person, will elevate the individual to rise above his egotistical, animalistic self?  The answer is the parah, it is the internal acceptance of a person which is most necessary to elevate himself.  After that one can be elevated further by the acceptance of the national fate and faith of Klal Yisrael. 

The Rebbe (maamer Parah 5624) says the Midrash is debating what is better, the path of the tzaddik or the path of the baal teshuva.  The chok of the pesach represents the forming of the nation of Klal Yisrael as pure tzaddikim like a newborn child.  The chok of the parah comes after there is tumah ,after sin, when does teshuva to clean up the sin.  The Midrash says that although the chok of pesach, the bath of no evil is of course great, no that we are in a world which does contain sin, that must be elevated and that is only possible through teshuva.