Shecheyanu on Sefirah

Why don't we say a beracha of shecheyanu on sefiras haomer?  There are many answers given, Rav Michael Yammer lists eight.  The Rabbenu Yeruchim that says the answer is since the days of the omer are a time of din it is not fitting to say shechyanu can be found here.  (It is interesting that Rabbenu Yeruchem firsts asks why we don't say the beracha of zman which is normally used to refer to shecheyanu and he gives this answer but then he proceeds to ask why don't we say שהחיינו and gives other answers.  Why did he switch in the terminology of his question?)  Rabbenu Yeruchem cites another answer that we only say שהחיינו on a complete mitzvah and this mitzah is completed only after all 49 days.  R' Yeruchem asks but we say שהחיינו on the mitzvah of sukkah even though the mitzvah is only completed after a week.  He seems to have understood they meant to say shechyanu can only be said when a mitzvah is finished and hence asks from sukkah.  However, it is logical to assume they meant that shecheyanu is said on a complete mitzvah and each day of sitting in the sukkah is a complete mitzvah but sefirah is a buildup of a 49 day count.  The Radvaz (end of teshuva) likes this approach. 

The Shibalay Haleket (234) says ועוד כתב מה שלא נהגו לברך שהחיינו לפי שזמן ספירה תלוי בקביעת פסח כמה דתימר וספרתם לכם ממחרת השבת לכן נראה שאין מברכין עליו זמן ודי לו בברכת זמן של יום טוב עצמו. ואינו דומה לסוכה ולולב שטעונין זמן ואינן נפטרים בזמן של יום טוב עצמו דהתם איתחייב בזמן משעת עשייה ואם לא בירך משעת עשייה מברך בשעת קיום המצוה ושופר נמי שטעון זמן שהרי יש בו מעשה של תקיעות ובכל הני סוכה ולולב ושופר אית בהו מעשה מה שאין כן בספירת העומר.  In the beginning of his words he seems to say there is no shecheyanu for it is covered by the shecheyanu of Pesach but at the end of his words he says a new sevarah since there is no action done?  There is a discussion about this on otzar hachachmah forum. 

The Abudraham says וכן בספירת העומר כיון שהספירה אינה אלא לצורך הבאת הבכורים כמו שנאמר וספרתם לכם וגו' עד ממחרת השבת די לו בזמן שאומר על הכוס במועד.  Rabbi Yammer interprets this to mean since the count is to reach Shavuot the shecheyanu on Shavuot covers the omer.  However, the Abudraham says not that we ae counting to Shavuot but to offering the bikkurim meaning the shtei halachem, why does he put the focus on the korban?  See also Encyclopedia Talmudit footnote 25. Though the Eschol says it is covered by the beracha of shecheyanu of Shavuot without mentioning the shtei halechem. 

The כלבו (cited in ibid footnote 666) says למה אין מברכין שהחיינו לברכת העומר כמו לשאר ברכות. ויש לומר לפי שמצות העומר אינה נעשית שלמה בזמן הזה שעקר מצות העומר בזמן שבית המקדש קיים היה. להביא קרבן מן החדש כדמפרש בקרא ועכשו אין מקריבין ממנו קרבן ולפי שאין המצוה שלמה אין מברכין עליה שהחיינו דאין מברכין אלא כשהמצוה נעשית שלמה.  As noted in footnote 666 it is unclear what he means, is the mitzvah a Torah mitzvah but incomplete somehow or does he mean it is only a Rabbinic mitzvah to remember the korban along the lines the Briskor Rav says?  Either way, his direction is that shecheyanu must be said on a complete entity which is the same yesod as the answer of the Radvaz that the count is incomplete until the end and shecheyanu needs to be said on a  complete mitzvah. 

The Ran in Sukkah (22b in the dafey HaRif) has a whole different answer. He says since if one does not count at night, they can not count during the day, therefore there is no beracha of שהחיינו.  It is difficult to understand what the Ran means, what does the fact that one can't count during the day have to do with shecheyanu?  In the Meoray Hamoadim of Rav David Solevetchik he suggests that the Ran means to say the reason that sefirah can't be done in the day is since the omer korban must be cut during the night, it can not be done during the day.  If so, the counting of the omer is not defined as bound by time but rather dependent on the action of the cutting of the omer, therefore, one can not say שהחיינו ... לזמן הזה.  It is quite a stretch to read all of this into the Ran.  The severah itself that the sefira depends not on time but on the action of the offering of the korban omer the Maharam Chalavah (teshuva end of Shittas Kadmonim Bava Kammah) says in explanation of why the Ramban understands sefirah is not a time bound mitzvah and woman are obligated in it, since it does not depend on time rather sefirah exists only due to the korban omer, it is not categorized as a time bound mitzvah.  Tosfos Megillah (20a) ask why we say שיבנה בית המקדש only after the mitzvah of counting sefirah but not after taking lulav?  Tsofos at face value seems to answer that when them mitzvah is an action we don't say anything but when it is just words we add this passage.  It is hard exactly to understand this severah.  The Alter Rebbe (489:11) explains the Tosfos that the concept of sefirah only exists when there is a korban omer and therefore our counting is merely a zecher liMikdash and we add שיבנה בית המקדש as opposed to lulav where the act of shiking lulav exists nowadays (see Kovetz Migdal Or volume 11 by R' Ezra Schochet.)   

The Kedushas Levi (first piece on sefirah) says that we don't say shecheyanu since the point of the omer is to bring Klal Yisrael up from the depths of impurity to the be able to קרבם תחת כנפי השכינה, therefore, we would be happier if we could skip the steps and be able to connect to Hashem immediately.  Interestingly enough the Levush (siman 489) already says a similar idea.   

Tosfos Menachot (66a) says one can count sefirah בין השמשות even though it is still a safek yom since safek diRabbanan likulah.  Tosfos adds that this is in fact preferable (Tosfos says to count מבעוד יום סמוך לחשיכה which is צ"ע how one can count before dark, see Devar Avraham #34:5) because of תמימות.  In other words, תמימות says the entirety of the day should be counted.  It sounds from Tosfos since we say ספק דרבנן לקולא allows you to count בין השמשות one is even allowed to then say the beracha.  The Achronim raise contradictions to many places where we do not say that safek diRannanan allows you to say the beracha, rather as the straight logic would indicate, you can do the mitzvah but one should not say the beracha which is a safek saying Hashem's name in vein?  Possible one can say based upon a yesod the Achronim say that the beracha of sefirah is pat of the kium of sefirah.  In other words, altohugh one fulfills sefirah without a beracha, when one says the beracha it adds to the kium mitzvah.  So it is specifically in the situation of sefirah where the beracha is not tacked on to say before the mitzvah but becomes part of the mitzvah that it follows the pesak of the mitzvah.  Since the mitzvah of sefirah is diRabbanan and we can say ספק דרבנן לקולא the beracha gets the same rule of the mitzvah, ועדיין צ"ע.

Change

In the Rav Shlomo Carlebach Haggadah it cites an idea in the name of the Izhbitzer that the reason the yam suf split for Klal Yisrael was able to change from being slaves to Pharaoh to the the heights of spirituality within a week, the sea was able to change its nature as well.  This is the meaning of the things Chazal compare to krias yam suf.  It order to accomplish a marriage or mezonos or go to the bathroom sometimes one is required to change their lifestyle to mesh with the new reality.  This is the lesson of krias yam suf.  This is a nice idea that encapsulates the essence of yitzias mitzraim.  Yitzias mitzraim is to go out from our מיצרים, out from all the forms and limitations that are imposed upon our selves and to be able to be unbridled from specific forms. 

Man is created in the image of G-d.  Rabbi Jonathon Sacks points out that G-d does not have an image.  In other words, man's life is not dictated.  We are not molded into a specific form but are given free choice to determine our lives.  It is when one sees himself as a fixed form that one loses his freedom.  Freedom is the ability to choose a new path.  

Questions

The Mishna in Pesachim (116a) says מזגו לו כוס שני וכאן הבן שואל אביו ואם אין דעת בבן אביו מלמדו מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות.  The Rashbam says (in first peshat) כאן במזיגת כוס שני הבן שואל את אביו אם הוא חכם מה נשתנה עכשיו שמוזגין כוס שני קודם אכילה.  In other words, the pouring of the second cup causes questions and the main question is about the pouring of the cup.  The questions of מה נשתנה of for the child that does not take the initiative and ask questions on his own.  Accordingly, the Rashbam understands the Gemarah (115b) that says when a question is asked by the child it exempts from מה נשתנה at face value for the מה נשתנה is only necessary if no questions have been asked.  

Tosfos takes a different approach.  Tosfos (115b) says even after a child asks a question on his own, there is still a requirement to say the מה נשתנה. In other words, Tosfos understands that there is a takkanah to say the מה נשתנה and that must be said even if other questions have been asked.  It would seem Tosfos holds that Chazal insisted specifically the questions of the מה נשתנה be used. 

That may be because in Tosfos's view the obligation of questions Or Tosfos may not hold that one needs specifically the 4 questions but one's questions but be based upon the mitzvot of the night not other events.  

The Alter Rebbe (473:40) says יִתְעוֹרְרוּ לִשְׁאֹל גַּם כֵּן שְׁאָר הַשְּׁאֵלוֹת: "מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה וְכוּ'", לְקַיֵּם לְבָנָיו מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: "כִּי יִשְׁאָלְךָ בִנְךָ מָחָר לֵאמֹר מָה הָעֵדֹת וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים וְגוֹ', וְאָמַרְתָּ לְבִנְךָ עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ וְכוּ'"  It is part of the mitzvah to have questions and answers at the Seder. Earlier (#14) in discussing karpas he says אֲמִירַת הַהַגָּדָה מִצְוָתָהּ לְאָמְרָהּ דֶּרֶךְ תְּשׁוּבָה עַל שְׁאֵלוֹת שֶׁשְּׁאָלוּהוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "כִּי יִשְׁאָלְךָ בִנְךָ וְגוֹ', וְאָמַרְתָּ לְבִנְךָ עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ וְגוֹ.'  Why does he change the pessukim of the source of the need for questions?  There are two different types of questions that can be asked at the Seder.  One is just bewilderment at the general strangeness of the events that we do and the other type are specifically related to the mitzvot of the night.  The karpas is not related to the mitzvot of the night, it is just something we do to evoke questions about the events of the Exodus.  That is the possuk of the generic עבדים היינו but questions specific to the mitzvot of the night are derived from מָה הָעֵדֹת וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים.  This is fulfilled by the מה נשתנה but can not be fulfilled by general questions and that may be why Tosfos requires the מה נשתנה to be asked (see Rishimos Shiurim siman 100.)    

The Alter Rebbe (473:43) says וְעִקַּר נֹסַח הַהַגָּדָה שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים חוֹבָה עַל הַכֹּל, הוּא מִתְּחִלַּת "עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ.  There is a precise text that Chazal enacted to said and that is the Haggadah which starts at עבדים היינו.  What about the מה נשתנה?  It would seem although the questions of מה נשתנה are a key part of the Seder, the precise wording of the questions is not part of the takkanah of Haggadah.   

The Rambam says in his seder Haggadah that the second cup is poured before the beginning of Maggid.  In addition, the Rambam (8:2) says the one leading the seder says the מה נשתנה.  This indicates that the Rambam is of the opinion that the questions of מה נשתנה are indeed part of the Haggadah (see also הוספות ללקו"ש חלק ג.)  Accordingly, the Rambam omits the Gemarah on 115b for he holds the מה נשתנה must be said as it is part of the Haggadah.  

Rav Chayim says that one of the differences between the general mitzvah of זכירת יצ"מ and סיפור is that the Haggadah must be said דרך שאלה ותשובה.  It would seem that he understands that is a Bibical difference.  It is clear from the Alter Rebbe that the שאלה is not part of the integral part of the Haggadah text that Chazal enacted but maybe one can suggest he may agree that it is a necessary component of the Haggadah but there is on defined text? 

The Yarech L'Moadim suggests a possibility according to the Shulchan Aruch who holds that one pours the cup of wine before עבדים היינו that he can agree in principle to the opinion of the Rambma that the Haggadah is said over the second cup of wine but he holds the questions of מה נשתנה are not part of the Haggadah.  He quotes from Derech Sicha that Rav Chayim Kanievsky said that in fact only the עבדים היינו has to be said after nightfall, not the questions for the questions are only a means of getting to the answer.  This line of reasoning for sure does not work with the Rav Chayim for the suggestion here is that the questions are not part of the Haggadah.   

Many Words

The Gemarah (36a) says the derash of Shmuel that לחם עוני is שעונין עליו דברים הרבה.  Many words are said over the matzah.  What are the many words said over the matzah?  Rashi says the Haggadah and Hallel while Rabbenu Chananel says it refers to when we say מצה זו שאנו אוכלים על שום מה.  These two interpretations are not just a machlokes as to what words are being referred to but reflect two different understandings of the derasha.  One may say the derasha telling us a law in matzah, that the eating of matzah is incomplete unless it is accompanied by words and that is the view of the Rach, that when one eats matzah the explanation of matzah must be said (one can debate if this derash would actually mean that is one didn't say the explanation of matzah if one actually didn't fulfill matzah or is lacking in the optimal fulfillment of the mitzvah as the Ramban (Milchamos beginning of Berachot says.)  Rashi on the other hand, understands that this is a halacha in סיפור יציאת מצרים.  When one does not have the matzah present for the סיפור, then one is lacking in the סיפור.  

As an outgrowth this affects the understanding of the statement of Rabban Gamlienl כל מי שלא אמר שלשה דברים בפסח לא יצא ידי חובתו - which chiuv?  According to the Ramban following in the footsteps of the Rach, it refers to the obligation of matzah, maror and pesach.  According to the Rambam (Chametz U'Matzah 7:5) it refers to the obligation of Haggadah for he does not hold that the matzah itself needs words attached to it.  

These two approaches may be reflected in a difference in the Rishonim explaining why the matzah is brought back for the recitation of the Haggadah.  The Tosfos (114a) say in order to say מצה זו על שום, (and the Bach 473 adds we are afraid we will forget to bring it back at that point in the Haggadah, so we do it at the beginning of the Haggadah.)  In other words, it is only necessary to have the matzah present for the sake of the matzah but Rabbenu Dovid says it is in order for the matzah to be present during the sippur yitzias mitzraim. 

The Rambam (8:6) cites the derasha of דרכו של עני בפרוסה and not דברים הרבה and in addition he has yachatz done right before the eating of the matzah, not before the Haggadah, indicating that he holds that the derasha of דברים הרבה is rejected before the derasha of פרוסה and there is no need to have any part of the Haggadah said before broken matzah.  The Rambam (8:4) also does not hold of the matzah being present during the entirety of the Haggadah but has it brought back right before saying מצה זו.  Our custom to do yachatz before the Haggadah and keep the broken piece on the table, the Alter Rebbe explains (473:36) is because we hold both derashot stand.  It needs to be a piece of matzah and at the same time, the Haggadah must be said over it therefore we break it before starting the Haggadah.  However, it is noteworthy that the Beis Yosef and the Ritva in the Haggadah say that we do yachatz before הא לחמא עניא since we are say הא לחמא עניא we want a live demonstration of the poor man's bread.  Why do they not say because of the דין of דברים הרבה?  In Yarach L'Moadaim siman 34 he cites his son and son-in-law suggest that the fulfillment of lechem עוני as a פרוסה is a din in the maaseh achilah of matzah that is has to be an eating of a pauper which is a פרוסה .  However, the law of עוני meaning דברים הרבה needs only the actual cheftzah of מצה not the פרוסה. 

 The Gemarah (115b-116a) has additional derashot about לחם עוני that it is like the word עני to indicate that one uses a broken piece of matzah or that just as a pauper lights throws the bread in the oven fast before it rises, so too matzah can't rise.  Those derashot tell us about the nature of the matzah so it is logical to assume the derasha of עונין עליו דברים הרבה also is about the matzah itself.  However, the Michilta (cited in the Haggadah) says בעבור זה לא אמרתי אלא בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מנחם לפניך which is the possuk of the mitzvah of סיפור יציאת מתרים indicating that there is a law in sippur that the matzah must be there.  This may be a source to say that matzah is needed for the fulfillment of sippur.  One may in fact argue that these are two halachot.  The halacha of דברים הרבה is a law in the matzah while the law in בשעה שיש מצה לפניך is a law in sippur.  In the Briskor Haggadah it says the Briskor Rav explained the law of דברים הרבה is a law in sippur (and he compares it to kiddush said over wine,) and it concludes therefore, he was מקפיד that the matzah that was eaten be everyone should be one the table during the Haggadah.  The "therefore" is difficult for if it is just a law in sippur, it should suffice with some matzah on the table, why does all the matzah that is eaten have to be there, that would indicate it is a law in matzah?  It would seem that maybe the Briskor Rav held both elements are true, there is a law in sippur for the matzah to be present and there is a law in the matzah that is eaten that words must be recited over it (based upon בזמן שמצה ומרור מונחים לפניך', בגדרי מצות יחץ', there is room to be מפלפל in many of the points.) 

R' Brown points out (Moadanay Moshe siman 23) that these two approaches are inversed regarding if the Haggadah must be said over the second cup of wine.  The Alter Rebbe says (473:40) וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לֶאֱחֹז הַכּוֹס בְּיָדוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לִ"לְפִיכָךְ" כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן צָרִיךְ לִמְזֹג מִיָּד קֹדֶם הַתְחָלַת אֲמִירַת הַהַגָּדָה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁאֲלוּ הַתִּינוֹקוֹת  This is based upon the Tur following the interpretation of Rashi and Rashban (116a.)  In other words, there is no need to have a cup of wine present at the time of the recitation of the Haggadah, we only pour it in advance to encourage questions.  However, the Rambam (7:3) says that the Haggadah is said over the second cup.  In other words, part of the takkanah of the cup is that the Haggadah should be said over it.  This is why the Rambam in the text of his Haggadah has the second cup poured already before the הא לחמא עניא.       

The Cup Of Kiddush

Tosfos in the beginning of Arvei Pesachim explains that one has to wait until nightfall to eat the matzah since regarding the korban pesach it says it must be eaten בלילה הזה and mazah is equated to pesach via a hekesh.  What about the kiddush ,the first cup of wine, does that have to be done only after nightfall?  The Taz (472:1) says that since matzah must be eaten after nightfall so too kiddush since kiddush must be done at a time when one is able to eat the סעודה.  The Magen Avraham says since kiddush is the first of the four cups of wine and the four cups of wine are connected to matzah.  It is unclear in the words of the M.A. why are the 4 cups connected to matzah?  The Alter Rebbe adds that the 4 cups are Rabbinic and the takkanah follows after the din Torah of matzah.  In other words, the Taz uses a technical law in kiddush to say the kiddush must be connected to the seudah so it must be done at night while the Magen Avraham says intrinsically the four cups are connected to the matzah.  (This is how the Mishna Berura seems to explain it as two distinct sevarot but the Alter Rebbe uses also the words of the Taz in his explanation, and he may have understood they are saying the same thing.)  Why do they give two different explanations?  

The first cup of wine is both the first cup of wine and the cup of kiddush.  The M.A. views the kiddush itself as subjugated to the rules of the four cups while the Taz is of the opinion that even though the four cups may be connected to the Haggadah, the kiddush itself in theory could have been said earlier if not for kiddush במקום סעודה.  

The Tur (483) cites a machlokes Rishonim if one who does not have wine says kiddush on bread like any other Shabbos or Yom Tov or since there is a takkanah of 4 cups, one may not say kiddush on bread at all.  This would seem to parallel the same issue, if kiddush is kiddush just it also happens to be one of the 4 cups, one can say kiddush even without wine if necessary.  On the other hand, if one is of the opinion that the kiddush of Pesach night becomes incorporated only within the rubric and rules of the 4 cups, one would not be able to say kiddush on bread (see sicha second night of Pesach 5725, עיונים בלומדות כלל ה.) 

Korech II

The Briskor Rav (Grach stencil) asks according to the Rishonim that hold Hillel requires maror to be eaten in a כריכה how can we say the beracha on just eating maror alone if we are concerned for the opinion of Hillel?  He says it must be that the takkanah of maror nowadays is to eat maror by itself even according to Hillel.  He proves this from the Rambam as well who follows the opinion of Hillel (the way the Maggid understands the Rambam) yet says (8:8) it is a mitzvah diRabbanan to eat maror nowadays. And hence the כורך that we do is a mere זכר למקדש. However, he himself notes this approach fits with the Bach but not with the Shulchan Aruch who says the beracha of matzah and maror covers the korech as well. 

The Rambam (8:6) rules that in the times of the Mikdash one could eat the matzah and maror together or separately.  If so, nowadays even before כורך one has fulfilled their obligation and why eat כורך?  (This is the same issue the Chiddushay HaRan has with Tosfos who holds even according to Hillel one can be yotzei the mitzvot separately.)  According to Rav Schochet the answer would be that yes, one can fulfill the obligations without a כריכה but the additional mitzvah of כריכה is lost and we eat כורך to fulfill that mitzvah.  In the Haggadah of Rav Solevetchik he suggests a similar idea but not as a sperate kium of korech but that there are two obligations of matzah.  There is the obligation of בערב תאכלו מצות and that is fulfilled by eating the matzah by itself but for the kium of על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו it has to be eaten together with the maror.  So one eats כורך as a זכר למקדש when there could be a true fulfillment of על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו (which can't be applied today when maror is only Rabbinic.)  Therefore, the כורך is not a fulfillment of the basic mitzvah of matah and maror which have their own independent obligation but is a fulfillment of a separate din and one does not to cover the כורך with the beracha of matzah and maror.  However, it comes out from what he is saying that the זכר למקדש is applicable both on the matzah and the maror.   

The Tur (475) cites the Manhig holds when eating כורך one must do הסבה since one is eating matzah.  He cites his brother is unsure if הסבה should be done or not. The Beis Yosef says in his view it is obvious that הסבה is required since Hillel would have been doing הסבה as part of his fulfillment of matzah.  So what is the possibility of the Tur's brother that one does not need הסבה?  We see from the Manhig that he does not agree with the reason of the Beis Yosef that the eating of כורך should be patterned after the way Hillel ate it but he says since it includes matzah, הסבה is required. Presumably, the reason to say it is not required is since כורך contains maror.  And that is how the Alter Rebbe (575:20) explains.  In other words, if כורך is done only to ensure maror can be eaten wrapped as it is done Biblically, then כורך will not require הסבה, but if it is also to ensure an additional kium in matzah of על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו, then it would be required.  A noted in the footnotes to the Shulchan Aruch Harav, the Rambam (7:8) when he lists when הסבה is required does not mention כורך indicated that הסבה is not required then.  This would indicate however, that the Rambam holds כורך is done just as a זכר למקדש for the maror, not as a kium in the matzah.  The Alter Rebbe (472:20) mentions another sevarah to require הסבה and that is since the כורך is a zecher to the korban pesach.  This is only according to the opinions that כורך would include the pesach which the Rambam does not hold of.  However, the same Rambma (7:8) makes no mention of הסבה in the eating of the korban pesach indicating he doesn't hold it would require הסבה at all.  Why not? Rav Kamlenson (Rishimos Shiurim siman 67) suggests that since the eating of the korban pesach itslef demonstrates חירות there was no need for Chazal to make a takkanah to eat in a way that demonstrates חירות.    

Korech I

The Gemarah says that there is no definitive pesak halacha in the disagreement between Hillel and the Rabbanan is the mitzvot are to be fulfilled with כורך or independently and therefore we do both.  What would Hillel wrap together?  Rashi and Rashbam (115a) hold that Hillel would wrap together the Pesach, marrot and matzah.  The opinion of the Rambam (8:7) however, is that Hillel would eat only the matzah and marror together.  

The Tur (475) writes הרוצה לקיים מצוה מן המובחר לא יסיח עד שיעשה כריכה כהלל כדי שתעלה לו ברכת מצה ומרור לכריכה כהלל דהא משום דלא איתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר עבדינן לחומרא כתרוייהו ה"נ לענין ברכה צריכין למיעבד שיעלה לשניהם ובשיחת חולין צריך ליזהר אבל טול ברוך לא הוי הפסק.  Since we are not sure if the law follows the Chachamim or Hillel, one should not talk between the beracha and korech.  The Bach says the Tur means it is a nice thing to not talk and have the beracha go on korech but in reality there is no issue for one does korech as a mere zecher liMikdash but it is not the real mitzvah even according to Hillel for we do not have korban pesach and even Hillel will have to agree the mitzvot are fulfilled independently.  However, the Taz (475:7) says that it would seem this is לעיכובא and if one speaks, one would have to say a new beracha.  What is the peshat in the Taz?  

The Gemarah proves from the fact that Hillel holds one can bundle the various mitzvot of the night with their different tastes, that he holds the tastes of various mitzvot don't  nullify each other.  However, that applies to mitzvot of the same level of obligation.  Nowadays that there is no korban Pesach, maror is only a Rabbinic obligation and can no be consumed together with the matzah.  So Hillel should be the same as the Rabbanan?  Tosfos (Pesachim 115a) says according to Hillel, we would first eat matzah by itself and then eat matzah together with maror.  How does Tosfos solve the issue, if you ate the matzah already you fulfilled your obligation and the maror is then going against matzah that is not obligatory? The Pri Migadim (475 M.Z. 7) says the opinion of Tosfos is like the Rambam and therefore according to Hillel the takkanah to eat marror nowadays is patterned after it was done in the mikdash and therefore the obligation of marror would carry with it another obligation of eating matzah.  Says the P.M., this is the basis for the opinion of the Taz that eating korach is part of the mitzvah of eating maror and not a mere zecher liMikdash.   

The opinion of Tosfos is that both according to the Rabbanan and Hillel one can fulfill the mitzvah of matzah and maror whether eaten separately or in a sandwich, the machlokes is only which way is better to do.  Being that this is the case, the Pri Migadim's explanation is problematic, for Tosfos says even without the korech the mitzvah is fulfilled according to Hillel, so since we eat matzah and maror each independently before korech, the korech is no longer needed for the mitzvah?  In addition,  the Ran takes issue with Tosfos for if in his view one can be yotzei the mitzvot independently according to Hillel, why would there be a takkanah to do them together if Hillel agrees even in the times of the Mikdash one already fulfilled their obligation?

Rabbi Ezra Shochet (Ohalay Torah journal volume 917) suggests that there are two laws according to Hillel (in the view of Tosfos) for fulfilling maror.  There is an obligation to eat matzah and maror each independently and that point is agreed by all.  The machlokes between Hillel and the Rabbanan is if there is an additional mitzvah of כריכה.  So when Tosfos says that one can fulfill maror without korech he means the mitzvah of maror but there would not be a fulfillment of them mitzvah of כריכה.  It is that kium which we are obtaining by eating matah and maror together.  In other words, we are not eating matzah again to fulfill the optimal mitzvah of korech, we are doing it to fulfill the mitzvah of having a כורך and that we do as a zecher to the Bibical mitzvah of having maror in a כורך.  

The opinion of the Ramban (Milchamos,) Chidushay HaRan etc. is that according to Hillel one can not fulfill the mitzvah of maror without a korech.  It should follow then that according to Hillel there is no way to fulfill maror nowadays since one can't eat it with the matzah which has a Torah obligation and if one already ate matzah, then there is no obligation at all to eat matzah.  So, they explain we eat כרוך as a זכר למקדש.  In other words, according to Hillel we would have a takkanah to eat matzah and marror as a זכר למקדש.  They could have said like the Pri Migadim suggested that the Rabbanan would give an obligation to eat matzah in a korech in order to fulfill matzah properly.  Why do they not say that?  Rav Shochet suggests that they hold like the opinion of Rashi that according to Hillel the pesach is part of the sandwich and since that is impossible and the kricha will not be fulfilled anyway, there is no point is making a takkanah to eat maror and matzah in a kricha and are forced to say we only eat it as a זכר למקדש.  This would be the approach of the Bach.  What is unclear to me is that in the world of Hillel the Rishonim say we would do the maror together with matzah.  In other words, there would be a takkanah to eat the matzah together with the maror as the zecher liMikdash even though it is an incomplete mitzvah.  So, why would we not say the same thing for us that do like Hillel and say that we do matzah with maror as a takkanah of zecher limikdash?  In other words, not like the Bach that we eat korech as a zecher to past times, but there is a takkanah of doing the mitzvah of maror zecher liMikdash just like we say according to Hillel? As will be explained in essence that is the approach of R' Braun in the Alter Rebbe.    

The Alter Rebbe paskens (475:16) like Rashi that the korech of Hillel is pesach, matzah and maror. However, in the next halacha he says that according to Hillel we eat korech in order to fulfill the obligation of maror.  (That's why he says in sif 18 the beracha of matzah and maror also goes on the korech and one should not speak in the middle.)  What is the point of doing korech with just matzah and maror if that doesn't fulfill the mitzvah of maror anyway since it is not being eaten with the pesach?  In other words, how can the Alter Rebbe say like Tosfos that we ate korech to fulfill the mitzvah according to Hillel (whether that means the mitzvah of kricha or the mitzvah of maror,) if that can't be fulfilled anyway since there is no korban Pesach?  He should say we eat the korech only as  zecher liMikdash like the Ramban and Ran?  And why does he say the beracha of matzah also goes on the korech, the korech is only done to fulfill the mitzvah of maror, what does it have to do with them matzah? 

Rabbi Shochet suggests that the Alter Rebbe holds there is an independent mitzvah of korech and that is only fulfilled with all three items of koran pesach, matzah and maror together.  However, he holds that what Tosfos writes is true even according to Rashi that the mitzvah is all three because the mitzvah of maror is said to be done in a kricha (according to Hillel.)  So, therefore we are fulfilling the mitzvah of maror which is to be done is a kricha when we do korech.  In order to fulfill this law, there is a takkanah to eat matzah again in order to be able to fulfill the kricha.    

Rabbi Yeshayu Braun is not happy with this idea that there is a din in maror that it must be eaten in a kricha  irrespective of the general law of everything being eaten in a kricha according to Hillel.  He says the peshat in the Alter Rebbe is that the entire mitzah of maror, the Alter Rebe says in sif 15 is a זכר למקדש.  In other words, the maror we eat is not a takkanah to remember the bitterness of slavery but to fulfill the mitzah as was done in the Mikdash.  Hence, we are faced with  a problem according to Hillel for that is impossible since there is no korban Pesach? Therefore, the Chachamam had to make a taakkanah to do a kricha which is the mostly closely patterned after how it was done in the Mikdash in order to be able to fulfill the "maror of the Mikdash."  For this takkanah it was necessary to make an obligation of matzah and maror to be eaten together.  In other words, donig korech is a takkanah in order to facilitate a מעין of the true fulfillment of maror.  With this idea he explains why we say זכר למקדש כהלל, why do we say it, and why does the Alter Rebbe say to say it before eating the korech, why are we not worried about it being a הפסק like the Mishna Berura asks?  Since the korech is not actually doing the cheftzah of the mitzvah in the Mikdash since we are lacking the Pesach, in order to acknowledge its function as a זכר למקדש we proclaim our actions are a זכר למקדש  and is not considered a הפסק for it is part of creating the זכר למקדש.  .  

However, in the end, the Taz backs down for the Tur indicates that speaking does not disqualify the korech bidieved.  Rabbi Braun wants to say not like R' Schochet that the P.M.'s explanation of Tosfos is standing even in the initial thought process of the Taz and we are forced to explain there is some kium even after eating matzah and maror.  Rather, the Pri Migadim is mainly coming to address the conclusion of the Taz in which he agrees the korech comes only as a zacher to what Hillel did.  However, even Rabbi Braun is forced to acknowledge that the Pri Migadim's words also came to address the first approach of the Taz that the korech is more than a mere zecher and in that approach the Rabbinic takkanah of korech would be more strict that the true Bibical enactment and it would be מעכב.   

Vakiyra and The Pesach

Rashi says that Hashem appears to Moshe with the term vayikra, a term of affection as opposed to Bilam who Hashem appears to him ויקר a term of coincidence and impurity.   The difference between Moshe and Bilam is a gulf the size of the Grand Canyon why is one letter used to sum up the difference?  

The difference between vayikra and vakayar is indicative of the difference of how Moshe and Bilam relate to Hashem.  Vakiyra means that there is a connection between Hashem and the person.  Vaykar means that G-d merely needs to relate a message.  Moshe's desire is to connect to Hashem and therefore Hashem talks to him, vakiyra.  Bilam has abilities but he does not use them to connect to Hashem, he merely receives messages.   

This message is give at the beginning of the book of korbanot since the essence of korbanot is to enhance  one's relationship to Hashem.  One brings a korban for an inadvertent sin because that indicates one was not connected to Hashem at the time of the sin otherwise one would not have stumbled into a sin.

Why is it of all korbanot we have a zecher for the Pesach and there is a long recitation of the korban Pesach which we don't due generally for other holiday offerings?  Because the essence of our relationship with Hashem begins at Pesach.  Korbn pesach is the korban that most clearly demonstrates vayikra, that close bond between Hashem and Klal Yisrael. (based upon sicha of Rav Shimshon Pinkus on Pesach.)   

The Calling

Rashi says לכל דברות ולכל אמירות ולכל צוויים קדמה קריאה.  The Sifsay Chachamim says this alludes to three times it says ויקרא, one here which is דיבור, the אמירה is by the burning bush, ויקרא אליו אלקים and the ציווי is at Matan Torah, ויקרא ה למשה ראש ההר.  What is the lesson of the ויקרא?  And why in these three places is ויקרא used?  The Tanchuma connects this vayikra to the first vayikra in Chumash, ויקרא אלהים לאור יום.  What is the meaning of this equation?  

The Shem MiShmuel (5671) says מאמר כ"ק אבי אדומו"ר זצללה"ה שפירש ההפרש שבין ויקר שנאמר בבלעם לויקרא שנאמר במשה, כי לשון ויקר היינו שהדיבור בא אליו למקומו ולא נתעלה ע"י הדיבור ונשאר בלעם הרשע כמו שהי' עומד מבחוץ, אבל לשון ויקרא הוא שקרא אותו שיקרב הלום, ונתעלה לקראת הדיבור עכת"ד.  Vayikra means to call someone to come closer, when Hashem calls to someone, he is bringing them closer, raising them up.   

These three instances of callings to Moshe are Hashem's way of raising up Klal Yisrael through the leader, Moshe Rabbenu.  The three callings are pivotal moments in the advancement of Klal Yisrael.  The first time is when Moshe is being selected as the leader to take the Jews out of Egypt.  The second time is Matan Torah, the monumental moment when the heavens and earth meet via the giving of the Torah.  In order to elevate Klal Yisrael to be able to be ready for this moment there needed to be a vayikra.  Korbanot as well is the the way a person can elevate the physical domain to become closer to Hashem and that also requires an elevation to make it happen. The comparison to the vaykira of light is the message of all the vayikra's that Moshe experienced.  When one is in a state of darkness, in a state where they need a boost, Hashem creates the light for the person to be elevate himself. 

Mitzvas Maror

The Rambam (Chametz 7:12) says אכילת מרור אינה מצוה מן התורה בפני עצמה אלא תלויה היא באכילת הפסח. שמצות עשה אחת לאכול בשר הפסח על מצה ומרורים.  In Sefer Hamitzvot (#56) as well he says המרור נגרר לאכילת פסח, ואינו נמנה מצוה בפני עצמה.  It would seem from the Rambam that since maror on a Bibical level only applies when we have the korban pesach (Pesachim 120a) it is not viewed as its own mitzvah but rather as an extension of the mitzvah of pesach.  However, the Yiraim and Smag (see Rav Perlow on mitzvah 47-49) and Toafos Re'am) do count maror as a sperate mitzvah.  In other words, altough there is a תנאי that maror can only be eaten with the korban pesach, the maror is its own commandment.  The Avnei Nezer (O.C. 534) asks but the Gemarah (28b, 120a) says that an ערל טמא ומי שהיה בדרך רחוקה even though they don't eat the pesach they still eat maror?  He understands from the Rambam (Korban Pesach 9:8) that it is a heter to eat maror but not an obligation.  This approach is already suggested by R' Avraham son of the Rambam in the teshuvot printed in back of Frankel Sefer Hamitzvot. 

The simple read of the Gemarah in Pesachim (91b) is that even according to the opinion of R' Shimon that holds woman are patur from korban pesach, they are still obligated in maror.  The Briskor Rav proves from Rashi there that indeed that is how he holds and he supports this thesis from a Rashi (39b.)  The Briskor Rav aligns Rashi with the opinions that hold maror is an independent mitzvah. He says the Rambam will understand as many Rishonim do that the Gemarah is really referring to matzah and maror is just thrown in since it is an expression to say matzah and maror together.    

Based upon this Rambam that maror is not an independent mitzvah but rather as part of the laws of the korban pesach, Rav Chayim (stencil) explains why the Rosh would entertain that one would not need to eat a cazais of maror since it is not a mitzvah to eat the maror itself but it is a part of the eating of the pesach.  

However, The Rebbe in the Hagadah (on Tzafon) says that even according to the Rambam if a person could not eat the pesach there is still an obligation of maror and he sends you to Pesachim (91b), Kiddushin (37b,) Tosefta end of Chapter 2 and Tafnas Paneach (On the Rambam Chametz U'Matzah 7:2.)  Rav Zevin (Igros volume 17 pg. 41) askes how does it make sense to say the Rambam hold that one can eat maror without pesach if the Rambam clearly says maror is part of pesach.  The Rebbe just says in response that the Rogatchover says that the Rambam holds maror is linked to the pesach only so far as that if the pesach is not offered at all, then there is no maror but if the pesach is offered in general, just an individual has an exemption, that person still has an obligation of maror and the Rogatchover was well aware of the Rambam's that Rav Zevin is quoting.  It is noteworthy that the Rebbe does not ponit to the Gemarah on 120a that an ערל וטמא eat maror.  Presumably there is understandable to learn that it is merely a reshus to eat the maror as the Avnei Nezer argues. However, it is very hard to understand how on can justify the Rambam holding that maror can exist as a stand alone obligation if he considers it part of the pesach?  However, it is notable that this position may be supported from the ruling of the Rambam (Chametz U'Matzah 8:6) that one says a beracha before eating the marar even in the times of the mikdash.  If the maror is only a detail in pesach why would it receive its own beracha? It would seem even according to the Rambam maror is an obligation, וצ"ב.

After Pesach Chametz

Chametz שעבר עליו הפסח is prohibited due to a קנס.  The halacha (448:3) is that it is prohibited to everyone even to benefit from the chametz. However, there are Rishonim that hold it is only prohibited for the one who keeps the chametz and those that hold it is not prohibited בהנאה (see beginning of shiur of Rav Asher Weiss.)  

The Pri Migadim (434:9) says that chametz owned by kids would not be prohibited after Pesach since the קנס on chametz שעבר עליו הפסח would not be imposed on kids. In the פתיחה כוללת he is unsure about this halacha.

All of these issues may hinge on the geder of the קנס of the Chachamim.  Did the Chachamim place  an issur on the cheftzah of chametz that was kept over Pesach as an extension of the issur of chametz and if so it is across the board and carries all the stringencies of chametz on Pesach.  Or it is an issur on the gavra for violating the issur and if so it can have it may only apply to the one who kept the chametz and may only carry an issur achilah or may not apply to kids.  (We can sharpen the chakirah more and even if it is an issur cheftzah, is it an extension of the issur chametz with all of its laws or is it an new issur and may not carry an issur hanah (like the Briskor Rav's difference between the issur chametz Erev Pesach in the fifth hour or the sixth hour.)

Thoughts On Karpas

We eat karpas as a strange thing to eat a vegetable before the meal in order encourage children to why we are doing karpas.  The Bach (673) gives three explanations as to what is the answer to the question of we are doing karpas at the seder.  1.  It is the way of בני חורין to eat vegetables before a meal in order to whet the appetite.  2. The answers is that we eat a snack since its going to be a while until the meal.  3. He cites the Maharal (Gevuros 50) that it is not the karpas itself that is strange for it is normal to eat a vegetable at the beginning of the meal, rather it will make the eating of maror strange for we already ate a vegetable for karpas.  This approach is already mentioned in the Rishonim, and Rabbenu Dovid says this is supported from the ma neshtana which we say שתי פעמים, the strangeness is the eating of two vegetables, not the karpas itself.  (However, it does create another difficulty since the ma neshtana is recited before the maror, why would there be a question?)  According to this approach, the answer is we are eating maror since it is a mitzvah.  

These two approaches should come into play in the discussion the Tur has in siman 483 if one doesn't have wine and has to say the kiddush on matzah, when is karpas eaten.  The Tur says in that case karpas should be eaten before kiddush for if it is eaten afterward, there will be nothing strange for the vegetable is bein eaten after the bread.  However, according to the Maharal, the point is just to make the second eating of the vegetable as the maror a funny event and that can still take place even if the karpas is eaten after the matzah.  The Maharal's approach in fact is the simple read of the Gemarah (114b) that since even if one can be yotzei maror with the karpas we eat again as a היכר for the kids.  In other words, it is the second eating that is strange.  See Chazon Eish who tries to align the other approach with the Gemarah. 

The opinion of the Rambam (Matzah 8:2) and Rav Amram Gaon is that karpas should be dipped in charoses.  Tosfos disagrees for we use charoses for maror only to remove the poison in the maror (115a,) which does not apply for the karpas.  So why do the Rambam and Rav Amram hold one must use charoses?  

The Bach (ibid) suggests that there is some degree of poison that exists in all vegetables.  

The Ritva on the Haggadah says יש להם לאכול מן הירקות המרים, ונהגו לאכול כרפס, ויש לנו לטבלו בחרוסת, ... והטיבול הזה הוא זכר לוימררו את חייהם בעבודה קשה בחומר ובלבנים.  According to the Ritva the karpas is a bitter vegetable to remember the slavery in Egypt.  In light of this it may very well be that is why the Ritva says to dip it is charoses which is also meant to serve as a remembrance to the slavery (see Rishimos Shiurim of Rav Kamlenson siman 75.)  It comes out the Ritva holds karpas is connected to being slaves in Egypt while the Bach in one approach holds we eat karpas as a means of demonstrating freedom so they view karpas from opposite sides.  

The Rambam is of the opinion that everything eaten as a mitzvah through the seder, matzah, korech, maror, karpas, is dipped in charoses.  Why does he hold that way?  The Rambam (7:11) says הַחֲרֹסֶת מִצְוָה מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים זֵכֶר לַטִּיט שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹבְדִין בּוֹ בְּמִצְרַיִם. ... וּמְבִיאִין אוֹתָהּ עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן בְּלֵילֵי הַפֶּסַח.  Here the Rambam says it is a mitzvah for the charoses to be present on the table durnig the Haggadah.  As the Alter Rebbe puts it (473:20)  וְתִקְּנוּ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לְפָנָיו חֲרֹסֶת בִּשְׁעַת אֲמִירַת הַהַגָּדָה, שֶׁהַחֲרֹסֶת הוּא זֵכֶר לַטִּיט שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ בּוֹ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְּמִצְרַיִםק וְזֵכֶר לַתַּפּוּחַ כְּמוֹ שֶׁ[יִּ]תְבָּאֵר, לְכָךְ צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמְּסַפֵּר שִׁעְבּוּד מִצְרַיִם.  In other words, there is a halacha that the table should be adorned with charoses as a remembrance to the shibud and then there is another halacha of dipping in the charoses which the Rambam delineates in Chapter 8.  In light of this it is understandable that the Rambam holds the halacha of dipping things in charoses is not a halacha in the item being sipped but it is a halacha in charoses as a way of enhancing the remembrance of the shibud that all dippings of the night should be done in charoses (ibid siman 79,80.)  

According to to Tosfos (114a,) the Rosh and Tur that hold we don't dip in charoses why do they require a dipping at all?  The Migdal Oz (8:8) says שאין אכילה חשובה בלא טיבול.  In other words, to define it as a eating that will be acknowledged dipping is required.  

The Ritva (presumable lishitaso that it is a bitter vegetable,) asks how can one say a ha'adamah on the vegetable if it is not fit for consumption and vegetables which are not edible are shehakol?  He answers that כי בלילה הזה מצותו קובעתו ועושה אותו כאילו מידי דחזי, כיון שאנו חייבים לאוכלו, since we have to eat it, on this night it is deemed fit.  In the Haggadah Naftali Sheva Ratzon (which is one of the commentaries on the Haggadah on Sefaria) says a derush idea, "This is an allusion to a Midrash: when the Israelite women gave birth in the fields and the Egyptian soldiers would come to kill the children, the ground would swallow up the infants. The Egyptians would then bring oxen to plow up the ground in order to find them. After they left, they broke through the ground and sprouted up like weeds, as it says “I caused thee to multiply as the plants of the field.” (Ezekiel 16:7) In order to remember this great miracle, we eat greens and recite the blessing boray peri ha’adamah even though it is not necessary to recite this blessing under these circumstances."    

The Rambam (8:2) is of the opinion that one must eat a cazais of karpas.  That would presumably be because every time we find an act of eating it entails eating a cazais.  Many Rishonim disagree with the Rambam and do not require a cazais because one is not obligated to eat karpas for the sake of eating it but merely as a means of inspiring questions.  This issue may have its roots as to the nature of the point of karpas.  According to the approach that the karpas eating itself is to arouse questions then its whole purpose is defined as a question starter and it would not require a cazais.  However, the Maharal notes according to his approach that the eating of karpas is to to encourage questions about the maror, it is logical that it will only make the eating of maror strange if an act of actual eating, meaning a cazais took place beforehand.  In line of this thought, if the Rambam holds like the Maharal, it is possible to suggest another reason for why he requires the karpas to be dipped in charoses and that is to drive home the home the point that the marror is a second vegetable eating parallel to that of the karpas which will inspire questions (ibid siman 76.)   

The Ritva says proof that there is no act of eating required but it is merely necessary to taste a little bit because we do not say a birchas hamitzvah before eating karpas.  It is noteworthy that even though we say on the karpas the regular beracha of ha'adamah, the Tur (484) is of the opinion that even one who is not eating the karpas currently may say the beracha for others .  The Taz explains that even though the karpas is not technically a mitzvah, once there is a takkanah to do it, its beracha is like a birchas hamitzvah where one can say it for others.  In other words, it is not a mitzvah but it is a chiuv.  The Ritva also must hold this way for he says it is not a mitzvah but as cited before he says מצותו קובעתו which must mean it is a Rabbinic obligation in order to inspire questions.  The Baal Ha'Etur (cited in the Tur) that holds one can't say the beracha unless partaking in the karpas, in other words, it is a regular birchas hanehin would seem to view the karpas as not a geder of a takkanah but as a minhag.  The Rambam that holds one must eat a cazais may hold due even though the point is to arouse questions (even if we don't say he holds like the Maharal,) once it is an obligation, it requires a cazais like any other act of eating.  

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.