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 shecheyanu 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.  

A Timely Message

Why is kiddush hachodesh the first mitzvah given to Klal Yisrael?  After the bircahas hachodesh on Shabbas mevarchim, we say a short prayer for redemption from the golus, 'מי שעשה נסים לאבותינו וכו, why do we insert this prayer specifically after the birchas hachodesh?  

The Gemarah says that the world was created through 10 utterances of Hashem expressed through the 9 times it says 'ויאמר ה during the days of creation and the word בראשית was also an expression of creation.  Why is the first utterance expressed as בראשית and not ויאמר like the other utterances? The Sforno and Gra say that the creation of בראשית is the creation of time.  The most primal creation is time.  Why?  The word for time in lashon hakodesh is זמן which is related to the word הזמנה, an invitation.  An invitation means that there is a plan for the future.  In other words, the creation of time is a creation of a journey for the world.  When there is time, there is a past, a present and a future, there is a timeline to follow.  The past leads to the future.  There is an end to the timeline, an end game for the entire creation, a mission that has to be reached.  That mission is the mission of geulah.  The creation of בראשית is the mission statement of the creation and everything put into creation is there to facilitate the goal  

The exodus from Egypt was the creation of the nation of Klal Yisrael.  The nation that is to be the instrument for the geulah goes through its own act of creation.  Therefore, the first mitzvah given is the mitzvah of being mekadesh the zman.  To bring kedusha, to illuminate the path of the world until the geulah occurs, is the mission of Klal Yisrael.  That mission statement is expressed in the mitzvah of kiddush hachodesh.  This is why after we say the bircas hachodesh we add a prayer for the geulah.  Our birchas hachodesh is all we have left from the mitzvah of kiddush hachodesh and we attach that to the message of kiddush hachodesh, to fulfill the mission of time, to usher in the geulah.

The All Important Staff

The Yalkut Shimoni Chukas (763): קח את המטה. זה שאמר הכתוב מטה עוזך ישלח ה' מציון זה המטה שהיה ביד יעקב אבינו שנאמר כי במקלי עברתי. והוא המטה שהיה ביד יהודה שנאמר חותמך ופתילך ומטך אשר בידך. והוא היה ביד משה שנאמר ואת המטה הזה תקח בידך. הוא היה ביד אהרן שנאמר וישלך אהרן את מטהו. והוא היה ביד דוד שנאמר ויקח מקלו בידו. והוא היה ביד כל מלך ומלך עד שחרב בית המקדש. וכן עתיד אותו המטה לימסר למלך המשיח, וכן עתיד לרדות בו את אומות העולם לכך נאמר מטה עוזך ישלח ה' מציון.  Why is the matteh so central that it always keeps on appearing?  Why is the opening miracle Aharon's staff turning to a snake and then turning back and eating the other staffs?  

The Alter Rebbe (who's hilulah is today, Friday) says that the word מטה means turning to, drawing down, for G-d gives life even to the those that rebel against Him such as Egypt, represented by the תנין.  That is what is represented by the staff of Aharon, representing the source of life coming into the world, is given even to Egypt, the תנין.  However, in the end, even the תנין is turned back into a snake for everything will eventually returned back to kedusha.  

This was the essence of the message of the maakot.  As the Alter Rebbe translated וידעו מצרים כי אני ה, when the Egyptians are broken, when the kelipa of Egypt is broken that the kedusha will be revealed.  That is why this is the opening salvo of Moshe and Aharon.  It came to establish the point and nature of the miracles.  This is why the staff must appear at such important junctions.  It is the symbol of the great tzaddikim that have won over evil.     

Reward/ Punishment For Animals

Revisiting the issue of reward/ punishment for animals touched on in the Divrei Chaim blog.  One of the sources that would seem to indicate the concept of reward/ punishment is from the forgs.  The Midrash on Tehillim (Ch. 28) says the frogs that jumped into the ovens were rewarded and didn't die but those that didn't did die.  This profo is cited by Rav Yosef Engel (Beis Haotzer Klal 55.)

Rav Yosef Engel cites a Midrash Berashis (26:6) in which it is clear that it is a three way machlokes

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֵין לְךָ שֶׁהוּא מִתְחַיֵּב בָּאָדָם הַזֶּה אֶלָּא אָדָם כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר אֲפִלּוּ זְאֵב וְכֶלֶב. רַבִּי הוּנָא בַּר גּוּרְיוֹן אָמַר אֲפִלּוּ מַקֵּל אֲפִלּוּ רְצוּעָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ישעיה ט, ג): כִּי אֶת עֹל סֻבֳּלוֹ וְאֵת מַטֵּה שִׁכְמוֹ שֵׁבֶט הַנֹּגֵשׂ בּוֹ הַחִתֹּתָ כְּיוֹם מִדְיָן, כְּיוֹם הַדִּין. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא אַף אִילָנֵי סְרַק עֲתִידִין לִתֵּן דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן. רַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי מֵהָכָא (דברים כ, יט): כִּי הָאָדָם עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה, מָה הָאָדָם נוֹתֵן דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן, אַף עֵצִים נוֹתְנִין דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן.

R' Elazar only assigns punishment to mankind.  R' Nassan assigns it even to animals and R' Huna even to inanimate objects.  While one may be able to argue for some form of limited bechira for animals, it is hard to hear that for inanimate objects.  Rav Yosef Engel further points to a Yalkut in Koheles that learns the punishment for a stick from the possuk in Noach (9:5-6) שופך דם האדם which says the punishment of the inanimate object is death.  What does that mean?  Rav Engel explains based upon the principle of the Kabbalists that everything has a spark of kedusha that gives the item its existence and death means that spark of holiness is extinguished.    

It is possible in light of this to argue that reward and punishment of the Midrash just means if this holy spark will keep on going or will be extinguished.  It is not a real punishment but due to the fact that a negative effect happened due to an animal of object, it loses its right to be elevated, וצ"ע. 

There is an article discussing some of the points about reward/ punishment for animals on animallaw.info

Permanence of Yirah

וַתִּירֶ֤אןָ הַֽמְיַלְּדֹת֙ אֶת האלקים וְלֹ֣א עָשׂ֔וּ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר דִּבֶּ֥ר אֲלֵיהֶ֖ן מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרָ֑יִם וַתְּחַיֶּ֖יןָ אֶת־הַיְלָדִֽים.  A few pessukim later it says וַיְהִ֕י כִּי־יָֽרְא֥וּ הַֽמְיַלְּדֹ֖ת אֶת האלקים וַיַּ֥עַשׂ לָהֶ֖ם בָּתִּֽים:  Why does the Torah need to repeat that they feared Hashem?  Why does the Torah put the emphasis that the motivation of their actions stemmed from a fear of Hashem and not due to their car for the babies?  What is the middah keneged middah in their reward which Rashi tells us is receiving kehunah and malchus?  

We see that the actions of the midwives were motivated by their fear of heaven.  In the situation where they were in with a threat of the king over their head, it was not their feelings of love that would be enough to put their life in danger.  It is only due to their fear of heaven, of violating the commandments of Hashem, that forced them to do the right thing.  

The Shem MiShmuel (5674) says a house is something of permanence as the Gemarah beginning of Sukkah says.  Yiras Shamayim is the house, the אוצר (see Shabbas 31a,) which keeps everything else going.  Since the midwifes exhibited yirah, an אוצר which gives permanence to all of one's avodas Hashem, in reward they receive houses of permanence in form of the linage of kehuna and malchus. 

What does it mean that yiras shamayim gives permanence?  Yirah is the fall back that that spurns one's avodah in times of difficulty.  Like the midwives that had to make a difficult choice and were guided by their yiras shamayim, so tooone's avodah remains constant only if it is spurred on by yirah.  Feelings of ahavah have peaks and valleys, but yirah is a fallback that allows avodah's Hashem to be a constant. 

Names, Stars And Life Missions

The opening Rashi in Shemos says וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.  אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּנָאָן בְּחַיֵּיהֶם בִּשְׁמוֹתָם, חָזַר וּמְנָאָם בְּמִיתָתָם, לְהוֹדִיעַ חִבָּתָם, שֶׁנִּמְשְׁלוּ לְכוֹכָבִים, שֶׁמּוֹצִיאָם וּמַכְנִיסָם בְּמִסְפַּר וּבִשְׁמוֹתָם (שמות רבה), שֶׁנֶּ' "הַמּוֹצִיא בְמִסְפָּר צְבָאָם לְכֻלָּם בְּשֵׁם יִקְרָא  Why are Klal Yisrael compared to stars?  What does the mashal add, anything can be counted?  How does counting show the precious they are?

Rashi quotes the possuk in Yishayeh (40:26) המוציא במספר צבאם לכלם בשם יקרא.  There is another, similar possuk in Tehillim (147:4) מונה מספר לכוכבים לכולם שמות יקרא.  Why the switch from singular, בשם to שמות, plural?  The Midrash in Vakhal (48:2) says כיצד יתקיימו שני כתובים אלו אלא כשהקב"ה מבקש לקרותם כאחד הוא קורא לכלם שם אחד וכשהוא קורא לכל אחד ואחד בשמו הוא קורא אותו מיכאל גבריאל לכך נאמר לכלם שמות יקרא.  The meaing of this Midrash is elaborated on by Rav Tzaddok in Sichas Malachay Hasharas and by Rav Kook in Midbar Shor #14.  They explain it a bit differently but the germane of the idea is the same.  The idea is that the name of a subject is an identification of its true identity, its purpose and importance.  The possuk which says בשם is talking about the grandeur of all of nature having one unified purpose and how inspiring that is.  There the focus is on the unified goal.  בשם יקרא, there is one unified goal and purpose to everything.  The possuk in Tehillim is focused on the individual goal of every individual star.  The possuk is focusing on the individual importance of everything.  That is בשמות, every one has their own mission to fulfill, their are various missions for individual souls.  

The counting of the shevatim is compared to the names an counting of the stars.  Just as a name indicates the mission and importance of the individual, so too the act of counting.  Counting means that there is something to be counted for, there is a purpose, a mission.      

As the golus of Mitzraim was starting it would seem that in the darkness of the golus the importance of Klal Yisrael would be lost.  They would cease to have an independent existence and would be subsumed under the mission of the Egyptians.  That is what the mashal of stars comes to tell us.  Just as stars are very far off from the earth and their impact is not felt very much, nonetheless they give off light.  The Gemarah Pesachim (2a) discusses if the light of stars is considered light and the conclusion is that it is.  What is the debate?  Since the light of stars does not illuminate like the moon and suns, one may say that is not defined as light.  However, the conclusion is that since stars have their own innate light that is called light.  Similarly, even in a dark golus where the power of Klal Yisrael to illuminate is diminished, they still retain a glimmer of light.  The connection to Hashem still exists and that light is what allows Klal Yisrael to survive (from Rav Moshe Shapira.)   

The Rebbe adds (Likutay Sichos volume 6) מנאן בשמותם, in their names, referring to the neshama of a person in a bodily form that is called a name, one has to awaken the מנין, the unifying count, the holy source, that unites all souls.  It is that connection to one's source that gives one the ability to overcome the boundaries of one's body,  Egypt, and the golus.  The ability to be light, to feel one's neshama, to be part of a collective mission, is what turns golus into geulah.  

Dan's Darkness

It is noted by holy books that the name of Hashem (in the יקוק form) does not appear in the parshios of Mikatz, Vayigash and the beginning of Vayechi.  Why is that?  And why does it finally appear in the possuk לישועתך קויתי ה?  And why is this prayer amended to the beracha of the tribe of Dan?  

The shevet of Dan is associated with the month of Teves.  What is the connection?  Chazal refer to ח, ט, י טבת as the three days of darkness.  The tribe of Dan is associated with those consumed with an inner darkness.  It is the tribe of Dan that brings along the פסל מיכה through the Yam Suf.  They are the rear guard of the tribes in the desert.  The ones holding up the rear spiritually.  

The darkness of the days of Teves is due to the fact that Teves is under the auspices of Esau.  It order to counteract this power it is necessary to have a tribe from Klal Yisrael that is associated with darkness but is able to transform this darkness into light.  That is the tribe of Dan.  As the Mictav M' Eliyahu (volume 2) elaborates on in his piece about Shimshon, see 'Shimshon the Messiah'. As Rav Dessler notes, in the beracha of Moshe, Dan is also compared to a lion in the same vein as Yehuda, דן גור אריה.  His kingship, his Messianic potential is due to his ability to steep into the dark forces and elevate them.  גור אריה יהודה, the essence of Yehuda is to rule, to be a lion but Dan first is Dan, has to associate with the lowness of life and then can elevate that to גור אריה.  

As explained in various sefarim, the name of Hashem is missing through the parshios of the descent of Klal Yisrael into the golus of Egypt.  In the golus the open hand of Hashem is no longer recognized.  It is a time of darkness.  It is in this time that the light of the tribe of Dan is able to illuminate some of the darkness by finding Hashem within the bleakness.  When Yaakov sees this middah present in the tribe of Dan, he evokes the name of Hashem.  Rashi says this is a prophecy about Shimson after he is captured.  Even when there is no more hope, he still is able to bring back a taste of the light.  

The Ramchal in מאמר הקיווי (available online) says the root of the word  קויתי is the word קו, a line, a reference to the Kabbilistic explanation of the construct of the world in which there is a concealment and then the light is brought back starting by a ray, a line of light.  In it this ray of light that Dan connects to.  Even in the bleakness of golus of Teves, he is able to find the ray of light to illiminate the darkness.  

Mashiach in 2 Years

 From the Mir parsha sheet:

But Mashiach didn't come in 2 years after the Chofetz Chaim's prophesy?

Eyes Of Yosef

The Mishna Zevachim (112b) says that in Mishchan Shiloh the maaser sheni and kadshim kalim could be eaten in any place that was within eyesight of the Mishkan.  In the Mikdash it was eaten within the walls of Jerusalem.  The Gemarah (118b) says רבי אבהו אמר אמר קרא בן פרת יוסף בן פרת עלי עין עין שלא רצתה לזון וליהנות מדבר שאינו שלו תזכה ותאכל כמלא עיניה.  What is the connection between Yosef not taking the wife of Potifar and koshim kalim eaten within eyesight?  The Gemarah says that the descendants of Yosef are not affected by yetzer harah בן פורת עולי עין, why are they above ayin harah?  

Yosef says ועתה אל תעצבו ואל יחר בעיניכם כי מכרתם אתי הנה כי למחיה שלחני אלקים לפניכם.  Yosef's perspective of life is to see the good in things. Even the heinous act of being sold into slavery is seen by Yosef as just a means of setting up Klal Yisrael in Egypt.  Even more than this, when he repeats this to the brothers after Yaakov's passing, he says וְאַתֶּ֕ם חֲשַׁבְתֶּ֥ם עָלַ֖י רָעָ֑ה אלקים חֲשָׁבָ֣הּ לְטֹבָ֔ה לְמַ֗עַן עֲשֹׂ֛ה כַּיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּ֖ה לְהַחֲיֹ֥ת עַם־רָֽב׃ וְעַתָּה֙ אַל־תִּירָ֔אוּ אָנֹכִ֛י אֲכַלְכֵּ֥ל אֶתְכֶ֖ם וְאֶֽת־טַפְּכֶ֑ם, not only does he tell them not to worry, but he would take care of them because his descent to Egypt turned positive.  This is despite the fact that the brothers did not have any intension of doing anything for the success of Yosef, nonetheless the fact that it turned positive was reason to be positive toward his brother as well (see Tanya end of Ch. 12, Likutay Sichos volume 5 Vayigash sicha 2 footnote 48.)  It is the ability of Yosef to see the good even in what appears to be bad that made him the perfect man to be able to reverse the bad fortunes of the famine. 

It is this eye of goodness that Yosef has which allows him to see kedusha even beyond the walls of kedusha.  The positive eye of Yosef allows him to perceive kedusha even into areas which are beyond the walls of kedusha.  Therefore, his Mishkan allows maaser and kodshim kalim to be eaten in anything within eyesight.  Even that which is beyond the boundary can be elevated (Rav Kook in hesped on Hertzel and Shmuot Reyah.)  This is what allows Yosef to not be affected by ayin harah.  Those affected by ayin harah it means they are affected by external surroundings and events.  Someone who needs external validation and acceptance is affected by how others view him.  Someone who is able to rise above external negative events is not bothered by the view of others and therefore the evil eye is counterbalanced by his good eye (see Ein Ayah Berachot 55b translated on marehkohen.com)