The Beracha In The Middle (ברכת להכניסו 2)

The Gemarah Yevamot (71b) says that Avraham had a commandment to do מילה, but he was not commanded to do פריעה. That was a commandment said to Yehoshua. The Rosh Shabbos (137) says that we say the beracha of להכניסו בבריתו של אברהם אבינו before the פריעה since that is also considered עובר לעשייתן. The Chasam Sofer asks how can we say להכניסו בבריתו של אברהם אבינו for a commandment not even given to Avraham? 

According to the Rosh, why don't we just say the beracha before the beginning of the act of the milah? It would seem because of the severah the Rosh says right beforehand, that one does not say a beracha on a mitzvah beforehand if another person is performing the action of the mitzvah. (Some Rishonim say because one can't guarantee the other person will actually carry through with doing the mitzvah. It may also just be that a rule that before one is actively doing a mitzvah, one must say a beracha, not that a beracha needs to be said before the mitzvah is performed.) The Taz (265:1) says if the father himself is performing the milah, he should say the beracha of להכניסו before the milah itself, for one shouldn't stop in the middle of the mitzvah to say a beracha, and in the interim the milah will fill with blood and be hard to do the פריעה. Why doesn't he simply say, since the father himself is doing the milah, he should say להכניסו before starting the mitzvah at all? Either the Taz holds we would have said לא פלוג, since when done by a mohal, the beracha will be said between milah and פריעה, so too even when the father does it, except for the reasons he gives not too (see Maharasha Pesachim 7a) or he must have understood this is the correct place for the beracha to be said (as suggested here.) Why would this be the proper placement? The Bach says a twist on the Rabbenu Tam (cited in Tofos and Rosh Shabbos, and Tosfos Pesachim 7a) that the beracha is said to demonstrate that we are performing the mitzvah of milah לשמה. The Bach says we say the beracha before the פריעה to demonstrate that we are different from the Arabs, who just do milah but do not do פריעה. If that is the point of the beracha, even the father should say it between milah and פריעה, but the Taz has technical concerns, so he says the father should say it even before the milah.;

Entering The Covenant (ברכת להכניסו 1)

The Shach (CM 382) rules based upon the Rosh that a father can not appoint a shliach to fulfill his commandment to do a bris milah on his son. The Ketzos says the reason is that it is like appointing a shliach to shake lulav or put on tefillin; it is something incumbent on the individual's body, and therefore, one can't nominate a shliach in their stead. However, it is difficult to understand why this mitzvah would be an obligation on the physical body of the father? The Degel Reuvain (volume 3, #37) says that the Rosh and the Shach concur that the physical mitzvah of milah can be performed through a shliach. However, there is an element of bris milah that can not be accomplished through a shliach, and that is that a bris is a bris, a covenant formed between the child and Hashem. The father is the one entrusted to escort the child into the covenant. The DR says, based upon a Midrash, that the bris is a bris of misiras nefesh, and just as one can't appoint a shliach to do an act of misares nefesh, so too the father can't pass on his obligation of participation in misaras nefesh to someone else. The same idea is cited in the name of Rav Simcha Zissel Broide, with a slightly different twist; the act of bringing the child into the covenant is given to the father to pass on the tradition of the previous generations, and that concept can't be copied by a shliach. 

Besides the beracha on the mitzvah of milah, the father also says a beracha להכניסו בבריתו של אברהם אבינו. Why do we have a second beracha on the mitzvah? According to the previous explanation, this additional beracha is said on the bris that is established at the time of the physical mitzvah of the bris milah. The Rambam (Milah 3:1) is of the opinion that if there is no father present at the milah, then the beracha of להכניסו is not said. Why does the Rambam hold that the beracha is not said if the father is not present?  Now it is understood perfectly, for it is the father who can establish the covenant for the child; therefore, the beracha is only applicable for him to say (Likutay Sichos, volume 30). 

The Beis Yosef (YD 265) cites a machlokes if the father himself does the milah, does he say two berachot, or does it make no sense for one person to say two berachot on one mitzvah. According to the Rambam, though, it makes perfect sense to say two berachot, as they are about two different functions.  The Raavad disagrees with the previous Rambam. He would fit with the opinion that the father does not say two berachot, for he holds the beracha is on the mitzvah; therefore, the beracha can be said by someone other than the father, but the father can't himself say two berachot on one mitzvah (Siach Erev on Pesachim). 

It remains difficult, though, to understand why the Raavad holds that there are two birchot hamitzvah for one mitzvah? 

There is a machlokes among the Rishonim regarding when the beracha of להכניסו should be said, before the milah or after the milah. The Rashba (cited in Tosfos Shabbos 137b and Pesachim 7a) says it should be said before the milah like any other bracha on a mitzvah. Rabbenu Tam says it should be recited afterward. One of the explanations given for the pesak of Rebbenu Tam is that the beracha is to demonstrate our thanks for the commandment of milah and that we are doing it to fulfill the mitzvah of Hashem. Simply understood, Rabbenu Tam is saying the beracha is a ברכת השבח (and therefore, may be recited after the mitzvah since a birchas hashevach does not need to precede the action according to some versions in the Rishonim, or according to other versions, this justifies the nusach of להכניסו, usually used to indicate a future action.) Rav Solevetchik, however, explains the Tosfos differently. He asks if it just a birchas hashevach why would we say אשר קדשנו במצותיו? He explains that Tosfos means that the beracha is on the chalos of being מהול. Since it's on the chalos, one should say the beracha after the milah has been done. In light of this, we can say that this is also the opinion of the Raavad. Although להכניסו is a beracha on the mitzvah that does not have to be said by the husband, it is on the chalos kium of the mitzvah and a kium of being מהול requires a second beracha.

Why An Ark

Why the need for an ark? G-d could have saved Noach in any number of miraculous ways. 

There are several approaches to this question. A few of the approaches:

1. Rashi (7:14) says the point is the building of the ark so that people would ask and be told by Noach to repent. 

2. The Ramban says that G-d likes to minimize miracles and make events seem natural. Interestingly, the Ramban's reason for this idea is that humans must do their part, and Hashem completes the rest. This is a mussar idea that man must put in their full effort and ask Hashem to complete that which is beyond control. This is in contrast to the philosophical approach advanced by the Ralbag here in To'elet HaShevi'i, who emphasizes that Hashem only breaks natural law when absolutely necessary, because G-d wishes to uphold the perfect laws of nature which He designed. 

As mentioned on my father's blog 'Rogatchover on building the teivah: is the mitzvah the maaseh or the totza'ah?' the Rogatchover proves that Noach didn't have to build the teva himself from the fact that he got help, and אין שליחות לעכו" ם, it must be the point was just that the teva be built. We see from the Rogatchover that if the point is that the action is done, then one can perform the mitzvah through a gentile, and one does not need the parsha of shlichus. This yesod is also said by Rav Elchonon Betzah, siman 25, as to why one can fulfill the mitzvah of burial through gentiles. We can use the same idea to explain the opinion of the Magen Avraham (446:2) that one can fulfill the mitzvah of תשביתו שאור מבתיכם through a genile.  R' Akiva Eger asks אין שליות לעכו"ם?  According to this idea, the Magen Avraham holds that the mitzvah of תשביתו is to have the chametz removed (see Minchas Chinuch mitzvah 9), and for that one can fulfill the mitzvah even through the actions of a non-Jew.  

3. The ark was a miniature world. The world was created through kindness. That kindness was being obliterated by the חמס of the generation, and therefore they had to be destroyed. In order to keep the world going, Noach had to provide for the world around him to allow the world to continue to function (based upon Rav Dessler).  

4. Bereishis Rabbah 31:9: "Kanim ta'aseh es haTeivah" – like a bird's nest that purifies a metzora, so too the ark was a spiritual purification for Noach. How? Perhaps Noach was a צדיק בדורותיו ולא בדורו של אברהם because he was dragged down by his surrounding society. Instead of maxing out on his potential, he settled for being better than the rest. The teva was to teach Noach that one has to view themselves as their own little bubble and not be influenced by society at large. 

5. The Baal Shem Tov teaches that the word תיבה can also mean word. To escape the torrential מים רבים surrounding us, one must be able to retreat into the words of Torah and tefillah. The Kedushas Levi notes the dimensions of the teva, 300 = ש, 50 = נ, 30 = ל spell לשן tongue. The teva teaches us how to measure our speech properly. The Noam Elimelech adds צהר תעשה לתיבה, if speaking, one should ensure their words shine like the light from the ark.

Eight

The number eight is above teva. For the seven days of sukkot we offer korbanot to correspond to the gentiles. The 70 nations correspond to the middot* all ten mental and emotional powers. On Sukkot we celebrate our relationship to Hashem as is connected via our faculties. It is a celebration our our חיצוניות הלב connecting to Hashem, in the words of the Tanya, חיצוניות הלב היא התלהבות המתלהבת מבחי' הבינה והדעת בגדולת ה' א"ס ב"ה (להתבוננן) [להתבונן] בגדולתו ולהוליד מתבונה זו אהבה עזה כרשפי אש. We celebrate to the limit our our physical capabilities. On Shemini Atzeret (Shemini related to the word שמן, the fat, the meat, the essence) it is a private celebration between Hashem and Klal Yisrael.  This is a celebration of פנימי' הלב היא הנקודה שבפנימיות הלב ועומקא דליבא שהיא למעלה מעלה מבחי' הדעת והתבונה שיוכל האדם להתבונן בלבו בגדולת ה. We say from Elul לדוד ה אורי and we say לך אמר לבי בקשו פני. This culminates with Shemiini Atzeret. We celebrate the private,פנימיות connection to Hashem that is not limited by the faculties of a person. My father wrote about the last 8 pessukim in the Torah. The last 8 pessukim weren't written by Moshe in a coherent form, in a state of understanding, it was the pnemiuos of the Torah being written which then unscrambled into a physical state.           

Sukkah Dimensions

תשבו כעין תדורו says one should live in the sukkah as one lives in their house but sometimes it says the sukkah itself is invalid. A few examples of this principle. 

The Rema (640:4) rules like the Yeriam who is of the opinion that if one constructs their sukkah in a place where part of the time it will be a place where the they will be מצטער then one can't fulfill their obligation in the sukkah at all even at points where one is not בצער. In other words, he holds כעין תדורו defines the building of the sukkah to the extent that one can't fulfill their obligation if it is not constructed to make it livable for the duration of sukkot. The Chacham Tzvi (cited in Sharey Teshuva) disagrees and holds one can fulfill their obligation at the time one is not בצער. In other words, he views that one's residing in the sukkah has to be in a manner of כעין כדורו but it doesn't define the building.    

Shibulay HaLeket (347) ומצאתי שהשיב רבינו האיי גאון ז"ל. וששאלתם מהו למיעבד סוכה האידנא בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות. כך ראינו שאינו חייב למיעבד [סוכה] האידנא אלא בביתיה בדירתיה היכא דאכיל ושתי וגני שדירתו שם כל השנה דקא אמרה תורה כל שבעת הימים צא מדירת קבע ושב בדירת עראי. שנו חכמים מיכן אמרו יש לו כלים [נאים] מעלן לסוכה אוכל ושותה בסוכה ומטייל בסוכה אבל בתי מדרשות ובתי כנסיות אין מיחדין אלא לתפלה ולהתעסק בה בתורה לבד אבל אם עושין לכתחילה בשביל עוברי דרכים שאוכלים וישנים שם יפה עושין אבל בני העיר לסמוך על סוכה שבבית הכנסת לצאת בה ידי חובתן אינם יוצאין אלא בסוכה שלכל אחד ואחד בביתו. ולפיכך כשעושין אותה סוכה של בית הכנסת אינן צריכין לברך שלא לעצמן הן עושין אותה אלא לעוברי דרכים. וגם בשם ר' נטרונאי גאון ז"ל [מצאתי] שאין בני העיר יכולין לסמוך על סוכה שבבית הכנסת לצאת בה ידי חובתן ואין יוצאין אלא בסוכה שעושה כל אחד ואחד בחצירו לפיכך אסור לברך בסוכה של בית הכנסת. Why does he hold you can't be yotzei with the sukkah of the shul? He says אמרה תורה כל שבעת הימים צא מדירת קבע ושב בדירת עראי, in other words, this is not just a separate law of how one should design and adorn the sukkah but is part of the definition of sitting in a sukkah. One can only fulfill the obligation of being in a sukkah when it is a sitting that can be a permanent fashion (Rav Dovid Solevetchik.) 

Another example is the opinion of Ravah (Sukkah 4a) is that a sukkah that has ends of the scach hanging in the sukkah so that the airspace is less than 10 טפחים it is pasul.  According to many Rsihonim it invalidates the sukkah and that is the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (633:9.) The Rambam is of the opinion that the sukkah does not become entirely invalidated, it is merely something that ne should try to avoid. The Briskor Rav says the reason for the Rambam is that he holds the sukkah itself must have a height of 10 tefachim, the law of the sukkah being fit for living in all 10 tefachim is only required according to the opinion that sukkah is דירת קבע not according to the halacha of דירת ארעי. However, the other Rishonim hold that if the sukkah is unlivable it creates a pesul in the sukkah itself.  

Sukkah Soul

The Sfas Emes (5650) says the two mitzvot of Sukkos, the lulav and the sukkah parallel the two names or two different approaches of Yaakov, the approach of Yaakov and of Yisrael.  The mitzvah of lulav corresponds to the name Yaakov which is the avodah of fighting against evil forces.  The mitzvah of sukkah is the level where the evil forces can't touch.  That is why חל שם שמים on the sukkah.  The sukkah is above our understanding, it is the point above reason which is connected to the deepest part of our soul. It is interesting that sukkah is deemed above logic when it is also the mitzvah linked to למען ידעו. But it is no contradiction. The understanding of sukkah is beyond our understanding but it is engrained within us. דעת as explained by the Tanya and Nefesh Hachaim means connection.  It is the point of connection of the neshama that is not defined by reason but is felt by the person.  That is what sukkah represents.  It is not that sukkah is beyond sechel, it is deeper.  The lulav is the spear we use to combat the forces around us while the sukkah is the point of sitting back and take in our connection to Hashem.  

Repairing And Reformation

The Gemarah Rosh Hashana (16b) says א"ר יצחק ד' דברים מקרעין גזר דינו של אדם אלו הן צדקה צעקה שינוי השם ושינוי מעשה.  Rashi explains שינוי מעשה is שב מרעתו.  The Ritva asks ולא נהירא דהא פשיטא שאם אינו שב מדרכיו כטובל ושרץ בידו הוא שאין מועיל לו שום תשובה? 

The Mishna Yoma says לִפְנֵי מִי אַתֶּם מִטַּהֲרִין וּמִי מְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם, אֲבִיכֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יחזקאל לו, כה) וְזָרַקְתִּי עֲלֵיכֶם מַיִם טְהוֹרִים, וּטְהַרְתֶּם, וְאוֹמֵר (ירמיה יז, יג): מִקְוֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל ה.  Why the need for two pessukim? 

The Shem Mishmuel (Rosh Hashana 5571) explains the Rashi that there are two types of teshuva.  One is a person who sees they are on the wrong path and stops going further and for that one also needs the צדקה צעקה שינוי השם to rip up the decree for one has corrected themselves going forward but the past was never corrected. Then there is a greater form of teshuva where one is able to turn around and go backward and fix the past. This is a deeper form of teshuva and that is the teshuva Rashi is referring to when he is saying this form of a שינוי מעשה, where the person becomes totally reformed, doesn't require anything else to rip up the decree. 

In light of this we can understand the Mishna. The Mishna is referring to these two types of teshuva. There is the teshuva of mikva, where one goes in one plunge and takes removes the tumah, that is the teshuva of stopping to go on the wrong path. It is a quick change for the better.  The taharah of mikveh represents instantaneous disengagement from sin.

The second possuk compares teshuva to the sprinkling of water.  Sprinkling goes on a person drop by drop. This represents gradual internal reformation, a slow, deliberate reconstruction of the soul. This is the  greater form of teshuva which takes time for one to reconstruct their inner essence, their entire approach to life and to transform the person into a שינוי מעשה, a new individual.

Standing Viduy

The halacha is that one must stand while saying viduy (S.A. 607:3.) Why must viduy we recited while standing? The Mishne Berurah explains that standing demonstrates  greater sense of subservience and will establish a better confession. The Kaf Hachaim quotes the Yafe L'lev that is based upon the possuk in Nechemya (9:2) ויעמדו ויתודו על חטאתיהם וכו. The Mishne Berurah cites the Pri Migadim is unsure is this law of standing is מעכב. 

The Magen Avraham says one must be carful not to lean on something that if it is moved, the person will fall for that is considered sitting not standing. Rav Wahrman develops based upon various sources an idea that this rule only applies when standing is required innately but if one stands only for honorific purposes or for other external factors, then even when standing by being propped up, sine it still appears as if one is standing, it suffices. With this difference, he suggests according to the reason of the Mishne Berurah ,it should suffice with leaning for the standing f viduy (this would be not like the Mishne Berurah who quotes the Magen Avraham here that holds it does not work.) With this he answers the question of the Emrei Emes of how can one do viduy on a korban while doing סמיכה if one is leaning on the animal and the person will fall if it is removed? According to this, this suffices for the standing of viduy. 

Another answer Rav Wahram suggests is to differentiate between the types of viduy. Viduy as part of teshuva requires standing but the viduy on a korban is not part of the teshuva process, it is a viduy that it is a halacha in the korban. Part of bringing the korban is to say why one is bringing the korban and that entails a viduy but that viduy does not require standing. 

A third approach to the requirement of standing during viduy is suggested by Rav Yerucham Olshin. He suggests that the Rambam stresses many times in the Laws of Teshuva starting with the lists of mitzvot on the top that teshuva is done לפני ה. He says that this law of לפני ה requires standing in the same way as one stands during the amidah for being present לפני ה. (With this it is also understood why the viduy on Yom Kippur is incorporated into the Shemoneh Esrei for they are the same yesod.) With this he suggests that the Rambam does not mention the requirement of standing while doing viduy (which the Pri Migadim points out) because it is already included in the Rambam's words that teshuva is לפני ה.

The Mishne Berurah (620:2) says that one must day viduy ten times within the prayers of Yom Kippur corresponding to the ten times the Kohan Gadol mentions Hashem's name on Yom Kippur. In the Shaar Hatzion he adds that the viduy after maariv doesn't count since it is not part of the Shemone Esrai. It is clear from the M.B. that the viduy of Yom Kippur must be said within the context of prayer. Why? Presumably because of this law of teshuva being said לפני ה. But then this law should always apply not just on Yom Kippur? Rav Yehoshua Eichenstein explains based upon R' Yona that Yom Kippur has a unique mitzvah of teshuva based upon the possuk לפני ה תטהרו and it is that mode of teshuva that requires it be said in prayer.  (In other words, regular teshuva according to R' Yona is not לפני ה, it is a maaseh mitzvah like any other but the Rambam vies all viduy as an act of repairing the broken relationship with G-d and hence one must come before G-d to ask for forgiveness.) However, the Rambam holds all teshuva is לפני ה yet doesn't have to be done in tefillah so why is Yom Kippur different?  As mentioned in 'Obtaining Tahara' from Rav Solevetchik, the viduy of Yom Kippur accomplishes more than a regular viduy, it accomplishes a level of taharah. Says Rav Eichenstein, Rabbenu Yonah says ועוד יתפלל בעל התשובה אל השם. למחות כעב פשעיו וכענן חטאתיו. ושיחפוץ בו וירצהו ויעתר לו כאשר אם לא חטא, to obtain taharah one has to pray. Therefore, since the viduy of Yom Kippur is to obtain taharah it goes together with the prayer which effects taharah.

Why Eat

The Tur in siman 597 cites a machlokes Rishonim if there is an obligation to eat on Rosh Hashana. The debate would seem to center on if there is an obligation of שמחת יום טוב on RH or is that limited to the three regalim. However, the Shulchan Aruch rules one should eat on RH yet he also says in siman 582 that one does not say מועדים לשמחה in the prayers of RH, presumably since RH is not a day of simcha?  The Tur gives another reason to eat on RH besides being a fulfillment of שמחת יום טוב. The Tur evokes the Midrash that he cites in siman 581 that we dress up on RH since we show bitachon that Hashem we give us a favorable judgement.  based upon this, the Tur says one should eat as well. If so, there is no contradiction in the Shluchan Aruch for he holds it is not a day of simcha but nonetheless one should eat to show one's trust in a favorable judgment.  With this idea we can understand the comment of the Magen Avraham in the name of the Magid Masherim that one should not eat meat or have wine on RH.  But that is simcha?  Because we are not eating due to the law of simcha, rather to show bitachon in Hashem's judgement but that is nonetheless tempered by the severity of the day.  This may explain the opinion of Rav Natrunay Gaon (cited in the Tur) that one should not fast on the first day of RH but can on the second.  What is the difference, both days should have an obligation of simcha? (See Bach.) Because he holds we are not eating because of simcha, only to show that despite the severity of the din, we have bitachon in a favorable judgement. That demonstration is limited to the first day which is the main day of judgment but the second day is like the other days of the עשרת ימי תשובה where one may fast (even on Shabbos in his opinion.) (Based upon Minchas Asher, Yarech L'moadim siman 11-12.)

Repeat Or Do Not Repeat

Tosfos Berachot (12b) says צריך לחתום המלך הקדוש והמלך המשפט ואם לא אמר מחזירין אותו. וכן זכרנו ומי כמוך וכתוב לחיים ובספר חיים מחזירים אותו אם לא אמר. דכל המשנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים אינו יוצא ידי חובתו.  The Rosh agrees to Tosfos regarding המלך הקדוש והמלך המשפט but disagrees about זכרנו ומי כמוך וכתוב לחיים ובספר חיים because they are not mentioned in the Gemarah and therefore do not constitute as part of the text of the beracha.  Rabbenu Yona cites a differing opinion about forgetting המלך המשפט since in the regular text of מלך אוהב צדקה ומשפט the word מלך appears as well.  

Rabbenu Yona later in Berachot (24a in the Rif pages) says even according to the opinion of Tosfos that one should repeat Shemone Esrai if one omits זכרנו ומי כמוך וכתוב לחיים ובספר חיים, that would only apply on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, not during the rest of the days of repentance.  What is the difference between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur vs. the middle days? 

The source of adding petitions into the berachot is from Maseches Sofrim (Ch. 19) cited in the Tur siman 582 but there it only mentions adding on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.  The Tur says now the custom is to add during all the 10 days of repentance.  However, we see the main time of saying it is limited to  Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.  Hence, Rabbenu Yona holds it then that these additional petitions become part of the beracha but not during the other days when it is a later custom.  Yet, for omitting המלך הקדוש והמלך המשפט Rabbenu Yona holds during all 10 days one would repeat Shemonei Esrai because that it the text of the beracha for this time frame and if one says the wrong ending one is lacking in saying the proper beracha (based upon Gevuros Yitzchak.) 

The Bris Of The Tzibbur

At the end of the tochacha, the possuk says  אֵ֩לֶּה֩ דִבְרֵ֨י הַבְּרִ֜ית אֲֽשֶׁר־צִוָּ֧ה ה אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֗ה לִכְרֹ֛ת אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מוֹאָ֑ב מִלְּבַ֣ד הַבְּרִ֔ית אֲשֶׁר־כָּרַ֥ת אִתָּ֖ם בְּחֹרֵֽב.  What is the nature of this bris?  In Netzavim it explains, הנסתרות לה' אלקינו וְהַנִּגְלֹ֞ת לָ֤ׄנׄוּׄ וּׄלְׄבָׄנֵ֙ׄיׄנׄוּ֙ׄ עַׄד־עוֹלָ֔ם לַעֲשׂ֕וֹת אֶת־כׇּל־דִּבְרֵ֖י הַתּוֹרָ֥ה הַזֹּֽאת 'יןבי Chazal explain teaches us the principle of arvus that one is responsible for the actions of other Jews.  In other words, the bris of חורב was an obligation on every individual to keep the Torah but the bris of ערבות מואב gives an obligation on the obligations of others as well.  This is why the tochacha in Ki Tavo is said in a singular form but the one is Bechukosai is said in the plural form.  Why the difference?  Because the first tochacha is said to every single individual but the second one is said to the totality of Klal Yisrael.

Why was this the time to have a bris on arvus?  Because it is only at Har Grizim and Har Eval, inside of Eretz Yisrael that Klal Yisrael become a single unit.  It requires Eretz Yisrael to join Klal Yisrael to be one body (see Rogatchover Sanhedrin 43b, teshuva 143, tefillah 2:17, Avnei Nezer 314.)  As Klal Yisrael enter the land they are no longer mere individuals but become a collective unit with responsibilities for the tzibbur at large (based upon Rav Hershel Schachter on the parsha, article from Rav Yitzchak Ginsburgh.) 

Rashi says that the obligation of bikkurim started only after the land was fully conquered and divided.  Why should those that where already harvesting fruits wait so long?  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 9) says since bikkurim has to be brought as an expression of ושמחת בכל הטוב, one's simcha can't be complete until every Jew has received their portion in the land.  In Eretz Yisrael every has their own portion of land, every one has their own mission but in in comes together as one unit.  If one part is missing, the portion of every individual is lacking as well. 

Preparing To Pray

The Midrash enumerates 10 phraseologies of prayer bur incredibly what is the most common term, תפלה, is left out, how?  The Sfas Emes (5631) explains that the 10 terms are not different modes of prayer but rather are 10 ways how one readies themselves to pray and then one can come to the actual act of תפילה. 

Rashi says that tzaddikim like Moshe could ask for their requests to be granted due to the great merits but instead they ask Hashem to grant their request not as a reward, but as a free gift.  If they are deserving of the request why do they even need to ask?  The Sfas Emes explains that  Rashi is not referring to being deserving of the request being granted, he is talking about the first step of prayer, the right to even ask Hashem, but the request itself is not deserved.       

The Midrash says סימן לתפלה אם כוון אדם לבו לתפלה.  Asks the Sfas Emes, how is כונה merely a סימן for tefillah, it is the defining characteristic?  He explains that it is not to be taken for granted that one can just pray before Hashem, to be prepared to pray also is something granted from Hashem and the siman that one was prepared is if one was able to have כונה in their prayer.  

The Sfas Emes adds the impetus for prayer is the request, לאדם מערכי לב, the request is why one turned to Hashem, but once one is engaged in the act of tefillah, one loses themselves in the connection that occurs and the request is no longer a concern and would be forgotten if not for the fact that Hashem puts it into the person's mouth, ומה' מענה לשון.  That is the double terminology, ואתחנן ... לאמר.  The word ואתחנן is in the reflexive form, a person starts out becoming "prayed," in other words, the ability to pray to stand in prayer before Hashem, and then לאמר, he can engage in the actual prayer.  

It is noted that the gematria of תפילה and שירה both are 515 as is ואתחנן which is the number of prayers Moshe said.  Indicating the nth degree of prayer is that of שירה (see Baal HaTurim.)  In other words, as the Sfas Emes teaches us, although the request is the starting point of the prayer, the prayer itslef it one of praise and appreciation of Hashem.  

The Bach (siman 208) says there is holiness to the fruit of Eretz Yisrael itself.  The Eliya Rabbah objects based upon the Gemarah Sotah (14a) that wonders why would Moshe care to eat the fruits of Eretz Yisrael and instead explains Moshe's great desire was to fulfill the mitzvot of the land.  If there is a unique holiness to the fruits of the land, maybe that is what Moshe desired?  The Meshech Chachma asks why did the Gemarah not say he wanted the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael?  He says it must be the areas in control by Reuvain and Gad had the sanctity of EY do that mitzvah Mosh already fulfilled.  In light of this it is possible that the kedusha of the fruits Moshe already had as well and all he was lacking was the mitzvot that apply only after settling and dividing up EY.  If the Mesech Chachma is right however, so why was Moshe withheld from entering the land?  Rashi says that Moshe thought the neder that he was not allowed to enter was nullified by his living in the lands of Reuvain and Gad, but Moshe's request is still refused indicating that the Transjordan land is not the same as EY?

Seudah Hamafsekes On Shabbat

The Magen Avraham (552:14) says even though when 9 Av is motzei Shabbat one is allowed to eat whatever they ant beforehand and is not limited by the normal rules governing the סעודה המפסקת, one should not be overly merry and therefore one should not have the meal with friends.  The Yad Efraim quotes the Bechor Shor disagrees and holds that would be public avelut not displayed on Shabbat.    

 Rashi Taanis (29b) says רב תשעה באב שחל להיות בשבת - אינו מפסיק סעודתו ואינו ממעט בתבשילין אלא אוכל כל צרכו ומעלה על שולחנו אפי' כסעודת שלמה בשעתו.  The Be'ar Hatev (552:10) points out that Rashi holds when 9 Av is on Sunday - motzei Shabbat, there is no seudah hamafsekes.  Rav Soloveitchik (Mesorah journal volume 9) says according to Rashi there is no chalos of seudah hamafsekes when 9 Av follows Shabbat so it doesn't make sense to impose any of the rules at all.  

Why is there no seudah hamafsekes according to Rashi?  The Rambam (Taanis 3:3) describes the latter level of fasts for rain and he says, וּבְשָׁלוֹשׁ אֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בְּצוֹם כִּפּוּר.  Why does he say you eat beforehand like Yom Kippur when there is a mitzvah to eat as oppose to other fast days?  Why must one eat beforehand?  Says Rav Soloveitchik, we see that part of the laws of fasting is to have a meal before the fast to designate that the fast begins at the conclusion of eating.  The סעודה מפסקת is a law in the chalos of the taanis itself.  Therefore, since on Shabbos fasting itself is suspended ,there can not be any laws that stem from the fast attached to it and that is why Rashi holds there is no law of seudah hamafsekes on Shabbat.       

The Tur cites the custom of the Sar Shalom and the Avi Ezri to not eat meat or drink wine in the meal eaten before motzei Shabbat. They acknowledge it is permitted as the Gemarah (Taanis 29a) says however, they advised against it משום חורבן הבית.  It is unclear why they would say to avoid what the Gemarah clearly says is allowed and why focus only on meat and wine, why not keep all the laws of סעודה מפסקת?  However, it is clear that they view the eating on Shabbas as a seudah hamafsekes.  The Beis Yosef even cites an opinion in the Mordechai that one does have to have a regular סעודה מפסקת before entering the fast.   

The Shulchan Aruch (552:1) says עֶרֶב תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב לֹא יֹאכַל אָדָם בַּסְעֻדָּה הַמַּפְסֶקֶת, שֶׁאוֹכְלָהּ אַחַר חֲצוֹת, בָּשָׂר, וְלֹא יִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן וְלֹא יֹאכַל שְׁנֵי תַּבְשִׁילִין.  The Shulchan Aruch in the laws of 9 Av itself (554:25) says וְכָל הָאוֹכֵל בָּשָׂר אוֹ שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן בַּסְעֻדָּה הַמַּפְסֶקֶת, עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: וַתְּהִי עֲוֹנֹתָם עַל עַצְמוֹתָם.  Why does he repeat the law and why is a law in seudah hamafsekes put in he laws of 9 Av itself?  The sefer Diver Hakodesh says that we see there are two dinim to the prohibition of eating meat and wine in סעודה מפסקת.  One halacha in the seudah itself as a demonstration of mourning and then there is another halacha as a law of 9 Av not to go into the day as the possuk says עֲוֹנֹתָם עַל עַצְמוֹתָם, to have meat and wine in one's stomach.  It is a law of 9 Av which effects how one enters the day.  Hence, even one who is not fasting will still have a prohibition of meat and wine due to this halacha.  With this idea, he says, we can understand those that said not to eat meat and wine even on Shabbat going into 9 Av is in because of the halacha of the fast day, not to enter the day with meat and wine "on one's bones."  Therefore, they only said not to eat meat and wine, but do not say to refrain from having two dishes.  The issue with this explanation is that isn't the reason given in the Tur - he says משום חורבן הבית which indicates that although not a technical prohibition, one's feelings for the churban should not allow for consumption of meat and wine.  The Sefer Haminhag says that in places that obtsain from meat and wine from Rosh Chodesh Av, they should abstain at the seudah hamafsekes as well.  In other words, although from the law of the Gemarah it is permitted, since there is a custom to extend these aspects of diminishing in joy, that should definitely apply immediately before the onset of the day, even on Shabbat (see also this torahmitzion article.)       

Even on a year when erev 9 Av is not Shabbas the Rema (552:9) cites a custom to have a bigger meal before the סעודה מפסקת and gives the reason so that one has the strength to make it through the fast.  The Magen Avraham says it is to remember that the days of 9 Av will be turned into happy days so we have a meal to commemorate that idea.

Big Steps

The Chinuch mitzvah 41 שלא לפסוע על המזבח says והעובר עליה ופסע פסיעה גסה על המזבח עד שנגלה ערותו במזיד לוקה.  The issur is for one who takes a large step, to the point that he reveals his nakedness on the altar, and then one is lashed.  The Rambam in lav 80 says as well, ולשון מכילתא מה תלמוד לומר אשר לא תגלה ערותך עליו כשיעלה למזבח לא יהיה פוסע פסיעה גסה אלא מהלך עקב בצד גודל.  The Smag lav 291 adds ולאו דווקא עקב בצד גודל, שהרי לא אסר אלא הרחבת פסיעות [ביומא דף כ"ב], ותנן נמי היו רצין ועולין בכבש.  However, the Rambam in Beis Habechirah (1:17) only notes the prohibition as prohibiting making steps to go up on the mizbaoch, not merely taking large steps, אין עושין מדרגות למזבח שנאמר לא תעלה במעלות על מזבחי ... והעולה במעלות על המזבח לוקה.  The Minchas Chinuch notes this discrepancy.  The Even Haezel says that it must be the Rambam recanted his view from Sefer Hamitzvot and he hinges the issue on if the issur is defined by the reason of the possuk אשר לא תגלה ערותך עליו.  The Michilta is the opinion of R' Shimon לשיטתו who holds a reason in the possuk expands the issur to beyond the specific details of the possuk and therefore he holds all big steps are prohibited but the Rambam rules like the opinion of R' Yehuda who disagrees with this and holds one is still bound by the parameters of the possuk and therefore the issur is limited to going up via stairs.  Proof to an arguing opinion is from the Gemarah cited by the Smag that the kohanim ran up the ramp.

The Tosfos Yeshanim Yoma (22a) answers that the prohibition of taking a large step is only during active duty in the Mikdash and since the kohanim ran before avodah it is not prohibited.  The Rambam and Chinuch (as noted by Minchas Chinuch) however hold the prohibition is at all times, not only during the time of avodah.  

It is clear from the Michilta cited in the Rishonim that the issur is in taking large steps.  The Mishne L'melech cites an additional Michilta אין לי אלא עליה ירידה מנין ת"ל אשר לא תגלה.  The Briskor Rav says this Michilta disagrees with the previous opinion since if the issur is taking a large step there is no reason to differentiate between goin up or down.  This opinion holds the prohibition is for what the possuk says, לא תעלה במעלות על מזבחי and we might have limited the prohibition to going up, קמ"ל that the root of the prohibition is a lack of כיסוי ערוה and that applies going up or going down a ramp.   

It is also noteworthy that the Chinuch ends the mitzvah  וַעֲנָוִים יִשְׁכְּנוּ אָרֶץ and the Minchas Chinuch says it is to end on a positive note, however, the fact that he chooses this possuk means the yesod of the issur is an act of arrogance.  The Gemarah Zevachim (87b) says there was an empty airspace between the ramp and mizbaoch and Tosfos says it was more than an ammah.  So how did the kohanim take a big step over the airspace? The Minchas Avraham says according to the Chinuch there is no גואה since one needs to take the step to cross the airspace.;

Desire Forms Destiny

The possuk in Re'ah (12:5) says כי אם אל המקום אשר יבחר ה אלקיכם מכל שבטיכם לשום א שמו שם לשכנו תדרשו ובאת שמה.  On the one hand the possuk calls it the place chosen by Hashem, המקום אשר יבחר ה אלקיכם, but on the other hand the possuk says לשכנו תדרשו, you have to seek it out.  Is it chosen or must it be sought?  The Malbim says that even though the exact place of the Mikdash was notified through the navi, Dovid still attempted to find the place before the prophet came to him, for the לשכנו תדרשו, the desire, the seeking, is a prerequisite for receiving the message of the המקום אשר יבחר ה, the place notified by Hashem.

The Radak at the end of Sefer Shmuel says ובדרש: כל האלפים האלה שנפלו בימי דוד לא נפלו אלא ע״י שלא תבעו בית המקדש. והרי דברים קל וחומר: ומה אם אלו שלא היה בימיהם ולא חרב בימיהם נפלו על שלא תבעו אותו, אנו שהיה בימינו וחרב בימינו על אחת כמה וכמה. לפיכך התקינו זקנים ונביאים ליטע בפיהם של ישראל להיות מתפללים שלשה פעמים בכל יום: השב שכינתך ומלכותך לציון וסדר עבודתך לירושלם אכי״ר סלה.

The Gemarah Sukkah (41a) says מנא לן דעבדינן זכר למקדש א"ר יוחנן דאמר קרא (ירמיהו ל, יז) כי אעלה ארוכה לך וממכותיך ארפאך נאם ה' כי נדחה קראו לך ציון היא דורש אין לה דורש אין לה מכלל דבעיא דרישה.  In light of this Malbim, this is not just a nice idea to remember the Mikdash even in its destruction, but the way to rebuild the Mikdash is to be דורש המקדש, to express a desire to have it built (from a shmuz by R' Elefant.)  

The Chasam Sofer on the Gemarah Sukkah says that is why the redemption of the second Mikdash was incomplete, because there was no דרישה, there was no expressed desire from Klal Yisrael to rebuild the Mikdash and that is what the possuk in Yermiyahu is saying, ממכותיך ארפאך, you will have a healing from the destruction of the first Mikdash, but not a healing that proceeds the makkah, because there is no דרישה, there is no yearning to rebuild the Mikdash, hence it will merely be a temporary building.   

At the end of Massay the Torah instructs woman to marry within their own tribe so that if they inherit, they will not transfer the land to a different tribe, (36:7)  וְלֹֽא־תִסֹּ֤ב נַחֲלָה֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מִמַּטֶּ֖ה אֶל־מַטֶּ֑ה.  However ,the same point is reiterated to verses later, וְלֹֽא־תִסֹּ֧ב נַחֲלָ֛ה מִמַּטֶּ֖ה לְמַטֶּ֣ה אַחֵ֑ר.  The Or Hachayim asks why the repetion?  Furthermore, why the switch in terminology, מִמַּטֶּ֖ה אֶל־מַטֶּ֑ה to מִמַּטֶּ֖ה לְמַטֶּ֣ה אַחֵ֑ר?  The Rodamsker (cited in Divrei Chaim 2021 and 2019,) explains that the parsha was given due to the complaint of the tribe of Yosef that they would lose the land given to the daughters of Tzlafchad.  It was the desire of the tribe of Yosef to hang on to the land that caused the prohibition of marrying outside the tribe.  It was the desire that created the issur.  Says the Rodamsker, from this we are to understand that is it the desire that creates our hold over Eretz Yisrael and the Mikdash.  That's why it is called דביר ביתך - "לשון דבור שצריך לבקש מהש"י עליו להבנות במהרה וכל המתאבל על חורבן ירושלים זוכה ורואה בנחמתה כי כל האומר כן באמת בתפלה ולירושלים עירך ברחמים תשוב הנה פועל באמת זה למעלה על קירוב הגאולה כנ"ל."  So he says by way of derush the first possuk is the prohibition of marrying into another tribe and causing the land to move to another shevet, ממטה אל מטה.  The second possuk is telling us that from the prohibition one should take a message to feel the pain over the fact that the נחלה of Yerushalayim is now in the hands of "ביד האחרים הישמעאלי' היושבי' עליה בעוה"ר וצריך להתעורר בתשוקה להמשיך הדין הזה להתקיי' לא תסוב נחלה למטה אחר הם הישמעאלי' כנ"ל."  

Rav Solevetchik (Rishimos Shiurim on the Gemarah Sukkah) differentiates between laws of זכר למקדש intended to arouse mourning over the destruction of the Mikdash vs. the זכר למקדש of the Gemarah in Sukkah which is a זכר למקדש as a positive remembrance of the mitzvot as done in the Mikdash, not to remember the past but as a preparation for the future when the Mikdash will be rebuilt.   This זכר למקדש is a forward-looking remembrance, not about what was lost, but about what will be restored.  It’s not nostalgia, it’s anticipation.  However, in light of the above, it is understood that the point of the mourning is not to be stuck in the past but to awaken feelings of yearning and longing for the Mikdash which serve as preparation of building Mikdash, in the Rodamsker's words," כי כל האומר כן באמת בתפלה ולירושלים עירך ברחמים תשוב הנה פועל באמת זה למעלה על קירוב הגאולה."

Hearing

The Sefer Yetzirah associates the month of Av with the sense of listening.  The Bnei Yissachor (maameray Tamuz and Av 1:3) says the decree of 9 Av was sealed due to listening to the meraglim which is a lack in proper listening.  The Sefer Yetzirah also connects the month with the letter ט.  The letter ט is טוב גניז בגויה (as the Zohar says,) which is related to the ear which has an external covering and the internal part.  The sense of hearing contains the capability to bring out a internal goodness or destruction when it is misused.  Why is the sense of hearing connected to golus?  

The word for hearing שמע is the same word as the word gather as in וישמע שאול את העם (see Likutay Torah Vaeschanan.)  When one listens to Hashem, a person's capabilities are aligned.  When one does not listen, then a person's internal order is disturbed.  The golus is a collective of all of the individual internal states of golus (see Shuvi V'necheza siman 25.)  

The original sin of mankind stemmed from Chava listening to the snake and then Adam listening to her.  G-d asks Adam איכה the same word as the איכה we read on tisha b'Av.

Tents

Bava Bathra (60a) לא יפתח אדם לחצר השותפין פתח כנגד פתח וחלון כנגד חלון ... מנהני מילי א"ר יוחנן דאמר קרא (במדבר כד, ב) וישא בלעם את עיניו וירא את ישראל שוכן לשבטיו מה ראה ראה שאין פתחי אהליהם מכוונין זה לזה אמר ראוין הללו שתשרה עליהם שכינה:  The Ramah says מיהא שמעינן דבהא איסורא נמי איכא משום צניעותא דנשי, ואע"ג דאחזיק נמי לא מהניא ביה חזקה. דאי ס"ד לענין דינא בלחוד קאמרינן, מאי ראויין הללו שתשרה עליהן שכינה, דמשמע טעמא דאין פתחיהן מכוונין זה לזה הא לאו הכי לא, ואי טעמא דדינא [קאמר] ותו לא, כי מכוונין נמי אמאי אין ראויין, דילמא ממחל הוא דמחלי גבי הדדי, אטו מאן דמחיל היזיקיה גבי חבריה (בריעותא) [גריעותא] היא, אלא משום דלאו מידי דמשתריא במחילה הוא.  The possuk here by telling us the Shechina being present depends upon privacy that this is not just a Choshen Mishpat law not to infringe upon someone else's privacy but it is an issur and therefore mechilah will not help.    

The prohibition of looking into someone else's property is a halachik law but also contained other lessons.  Rav Nissim Peretz says a mussar approach that one should not look to copy the Jones's but should be happy with one's own lot.  One should not be looking at the neighbor's tent to see what there is in it to copy what they have but one should be happy with their own possessions.  Rebbe Nasan (Likutay Halachos Shcanim) says that the lesson is that everyone has their own 'window of truth,'  their own way of doing things and one must not denigrate their neighbor's way of doing things although it may differ.

Engraved

Why does the Torah introduce the mitzvah of the parah adumah with the phrase זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה, This is the law of the Torah, wouldn’t it have been more fitting to say זֹאת חֻקַּת הַפָּרָה, This is the law of the cow, as it does with other commandments like such as זֹאת חֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח, This is the law of the Pesach offering?

The Or HaChaim explains that the Torah isn’t merely presenting the law of the parah adumah—it is revealing a foundational principle for the entire Torah. What is that principle?  The parah adumah is the quintessential chok—a command that defies human logic. By calling it “the law of the Torah,” the Torah is teaching us that this approach applies to all mitzvot: just as we fulfill a chok not because we understand it, but because it is the will of Hashem, so too every mitzvah—whether rational or beyond comprehension—must ultimately be fulfilled because Hashem commanded it. Our commitment is not rooted in intellect but in submission to Divine will.

The word חק shares its root with the word חקיקה, meaning “engraving.”  Written text lies atop the parchment, it is separate and is removable.  However, engraved text  is carved into the stone and becomes one with the surface itself.  So too, when we fulfill a mitzvah only because it makes sense to us, it remains external, superimposed on our identity. But when we perform Hashem’s will because it is His will, the mitzvah becomes engraved into our soul. The mitzvah performed shapes the identity of the person (see Likutay Sichos volume 8.) 

When there is a lack of water Moshe is instructed to speak to the rock.  But earlier, in parshat Beshalach, when the people complained  they were thirsty Moshe is instructed to hit the rock, what is the difference between these two episodes?  The answer lies in viewing the rock not merely as a source of water, but as a metaphor for accessing the inner being of the people. To draw water from the rock is to access the waters of spiritual vibrancy.

In Beshalach, Bnei Yisrael had not yet stood at Har Sinai. They had not yet entered into the covenant of Torah, the eternal bond engraved (chakikah) into their essence. They still required an external impact, a bang, to break open the spiritual barriers that concealed their dormant holiness.  Hence, Moshe was told to strike the rock.  But in Chukas, Klal Yisrael had experienced Matan Torah, they already obtained  "חיי עולם נטע בתוכנו", “eternal life was planted within us.” The Torah was no longer external to them; it was engraved into their souls. The appropriate approach, then, was no longer force, but gentle speech to bring  out the deep inner connection that already existed.  

The meforshim have a struggle to pinpoint exactly what Moshe Rabbenu did wrong at the מי מריבה, but no matter how we explain the sin, why is it deemed so bad that Moshe Rabbenu's opportunity to enter Eretz Yisrael is revoked?  Many of the Chassidic seforim explain each in their own way that the sin was not so bad in its own right to be the סיבה, the cause, for Moshe Rabbenu to lose out but rather was a סימן, a sign that Moshe was no longer fit to be the leader.  Moshe Rabbenu led a people  who required miracles and awe, a generation whose spiritual growth was catalyzed through external force, he had to lead with the stick. so to speak.  But now, a new generation had matured. Their connection to Hashem was deeply rooted; they no longer needed to be struck to awaken. They needed to be spoken to, to merely shake off the dust to reveal that connection. Moshe’s leadership style, perfect for the generation that left Egypt wilderness, was no longer fit for the current generation.  Sometimes while a leader may be a great person, he is no longer able to connect to the next generation, his methods and messaging is old and outdated and there is need for younger leadership, those who speak to the ears of the current generation, to step up.  

This shift is reflected in the contrasting shirot of Bnei Yisrael.  At Yam Suf, it is Moshe who leads, אש ישיר משה and the people follow his lead in song and spirit. They required someone to draw the praise from them.  However, in the song of the Be’ar Miriam, the well of Miriam, Moshe’s name is absent as the Sfas Emes notes.  Why?  Because now the people sang on their own.  It is the same as the difference between a pit and a well.  A pit is reliant on external rain, while a well draws water from deep within. The song of the be'ar was not just for the be'ar of Miriam, it was about their internal well. Klal Yisrael had become a well, they had their own deep spiritual connection to Hashem and could feel the spiritual uplifting expressed in a shira.  They no longer needed Moshe to place the words in their mouths. The song sprung forth from within themselves.  The recognition of Hashem was engraved in their hearts.

Must Gentiles Believe In Hashem

Rambam Laws of Kings (Ch 8 Law 11) כָּל הַמְקַבֵּל שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת וְנִזְהָר לַעֲשׂוֹתָן הֲרֵי זֶה מֵחֲסִידֵי אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל אוֹתָן וְיַעֲשֶׂה אוֹתָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצִּוָּה בָּהֶן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בַּתּוֹרָה וְהוֹדִיעָנוּ עַל יְדֵי משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ שֶׁבְּנֵי נֹחַ מִקֹּדֶם נִצְטַוּוּ בָּהֶן. אֲבָל אִם עֲשָׂאָן מִפְּנֵי הֶכְרֵעַ הַדַּעַת אֵין זֶה גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב וְאֵינוֹ מֵחֲסִידֵי אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם וְלֹא מֵחַכְמֵיהֶם.  What dos the Rambam mean, is the fulfillment of the 7 mitzvot not as a commandment of G-d in the Torah, a lack of fulfillment of the 7 commandments, or is it an additional law necessary to fulfill if a gentile wants a portion in עולם הבא?  If it is a lack of fulfillment of the commandments, why doesn't the Rambam say the gentile is held culpable for violating them, and if  not, then why is this a necessary condition to merit עולם הבא?    

It would seem the Rambam is saying that fulfillment of 7 mitzvot means the gentile is not doing anything wrong, but to merit to עולם הבא it is required to have a recognition in G-d that gave the 7 commandments.  See more about this and a twist of Rav Kook on the Rambam in 'גר תושב, חסיד אומות העולם וחכם אומות העולם.'  

The Rambam refers to a gentile who keeps 7 mitzvot but not as a command of Hashem.  Why does the gentile not keep them as a command of Hashem, is he ignorant of the fact that He commanded them, doesn't believe He did or doesn't believe in G-d?  Is belief in G-d a command upon gentiles?  There is somewhat of a discussion about this topic on forums, here and here.  It does seem to be the overwhelming opinion that a gentile must believe in Hashem and it is part of the prohibition against idolatry, blasphemy, part of the nature of commandments to mean there must be a Commander or maybe it is just a logical deduction.  Rav Moshe takes this a step further and says since a gentile must believe in Hashem, he is obligated to pray during an עת צרה as that is a demonstration of one's belief in Hashem.

This may paly a role in the question discussed by Rav Herzog (in teshuva to his son about joining Pope for anti-Communist declaration) if it is better for a gentile to be an ashiest or worshipper of avodah zarah. 

Unstable Energy

Korach’s rebellion can be understood that he was objected to order, boundaries and divisions. His cry of כִּי כָל־הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדֹשִׁים was since h recognized the inner spark of holiness within everything and wanted that potential to be actualized.  His arguments of that a tallis totally made of techeles and a house full of seforim demonstrate his point that with a lot of spiritual energy one need not be bound by the strict parameters of the law.  Korach saw the spiritual energy around him and wished to tap into its power.  The argument against Moshe and Aharon is that if everyone can become in tune with their spiritual potential, there is no need for leaders.  

However, Korach’s failure lay in his denial of boundaries. The need for parameters for mitzvot, different levels of kedusha, separation between Kohanim and Leviim, between leaders and lay people, is because in order to properly access kedusha there must be a kli.  There must be order otherwise there is just chaos.  The divisions and boundaries due not serve as limitations, but as a vessel to hold and direct kedusha.

By denying boundaries, Korach essentially overexposed himself to uncontained energy.  His end is to fall into שאול.  The שאול is the underground, the strong forces of energy contained beneath the earth's surface representing the the abyss of unharnessed spiritual energy.  

Yet, the Kabbalists tell that in the future Korach's vision will be realized.  When the world will be purified, and all souls refined, we will be able to access the kedusha which is inherent in everything. 

As the Chassidic expression goes, to bring about the redemption it is necessary to use אורות דתוהו בכלים דתיקון.  Using chaotic force of energy must be necessary but it must be limited by the vessels to give it order. 

The Challah And Tzitzit Message

Why are the mitzvot of challah and tzitzis given after the sin of the meraglim?  The Sfas Emes (5661) explains the idea of the mitzvah of challah is to recognize that even in the most basic gashmi needs of a person, in the staple of his life, there is a G-dly spark that illuminates one's actions.  In other seforim it says (see Igra D''Kallah, Megalleh Amukot) that the parsha of challah, ראשית עריסותיכם, כי תבואו אל הארץ,  hints to the idea that at the beginning of the day, when you get out of bed (עריסה also means a bed,) when the neshama returns to the gashmi, at the beginning of the gashmi needs a person needs to take care of, one should acknowledge how it ties into their spiritual accomplishments.  

The Sefer HaChinuch says that the lavan strings of the tzitzit represent the body of a person and the techeles strings represent the nefesh.  The strings are intertwined since the nefesh and gashmi must be united.  

The sin of the meraglim was that they viewed the gashmi as separate from the ruchni and hence they did not want to enter Eretz Yisrael.  The mitzvot that come after are to demonstrate the mistake of the meraglim.    

The Traveling Aron

 Why is the parsha of ויהי בנסוע the parsha to separate between the events of פורעניות?  

The Baal HaTurim (Terumah 25:10) says ארון אותיות אורן שיש בה אורן של ישראל ואותיות נורא כי הוא אש אוכלה.  The Aron represents the fire of Torah and the middah of נורא.   

The Gemarah Yoma (69b) says the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah reinstituted saying in Shemone Esrai הנורא even after the golut since הן נוראותיו שאלמלא מוראו של הקב"ה היאך אומה אחת יכולה להתקיים בין האומות.  In other words, the fact that Klal Yisrael can survive through the golut is a fulfillment of the middah of נורא.  What ensures this kium through the golus?  The אור of the Torah.  It is the fact that the Torah is carried with us through all the stages of the golus, that will ensure there will be a וינוחו, that we will ultimately come to a final stop.  The Gemarah says that there are 85 words in the parsha of ויהי בנסוע which tells us that is the minimal amount of words to define a sefer Torah.  85 is פה, it is the Torah of the פה, the Torah שבעל פה that allows for this continuum. 

Choosing

In the Mishna the holiday of Shavuot is refered to as Atzeret.  Why does it bear this name if that is not the name the Torah says and if it is the correct name why does the Torah not call Shavuot Atzeret?  The holiday of Shavuot has no mitzvot attached to it as do the other holidays, why not?  The Magen Avraham (60:2) says when one says in ahavas olam/ahavah rabbah ובנו בחרת מכל עם ולשון one should have in mind Matan Torah.  What does Hashem's choosing of us have to do with Matan Torah?  

True bechirah is when chooses without any reason for the choice.  For the most part when one has a choice and chooses one way over the other, it is due to some reason or some favoritism to one choice over the other.  That is why one is hard pressed to find a choice made out of ultimate bechirah of purely choosing just for the sake of choosing.  When Hashem gave the Torah to Klal Yisrael is wasn't due to the positive traits within the nation but rather just due to the ultimate choice of Hashem.  Hashem desired, he chose Klal Yisrael to be the people to receive the Torah.  This is why Hashem offered the Torah to the gentiles.  Why bother if he knows they will not accept?  Because it shows that there was no favoritism in choosing Klal Yisrael, everyone had equal opportunity to obtain the Torah (Likutay Sichos volume 4 hasafos Shavuot.)  Reciprocally, Klal Yisrael chose to due the desire of Hashem.  Hence the aseres hadibros include basic commandments such as not to kill, steal, commit adultery etc. since even the most basic commandments are not fulfilled due to human understanding of the law but due to choosing to due the desire of Hashem (see Likutay Sichos volume 28 sicha of 12 Sivan.)  

The Kedushat Levi gives a few explanations of the name of the holiday being Atzeret.  One of his explanations is that there are no specific mitzvot attached to the holiday and the only thing that designates it as being a holiday is being עצור, stopping from work. In other words, every holiday has a mitzvah that reflects the mood of the holiday.  There is a reason, a logic for why we celebrate those days as special days.  On Shavuot, we are celebrating the ובנו בחרת, the innate choosing of Klal Yisrael by Hashem and that can not be limited to the container of specific mitzvot (see sicha ibid.)  However, why does the Torah not call the holiday Atzeret?  Possibly, the Torah refers to the holiday by what we have to do to be prepared, we have the weeks of preparation for Shavuot.  However, Klal Yisrael calls the holiday Atzeret to reflect the unlimited connection to Hashem established on the holiday.    

When To Stop When To Strive

In Parshas Bamidbar, we read about the arrangement of the tribes of Klal Yisrael in the desert, each encamped under its own flag. The Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 2:3) teaches that this concept of encampments under flags originated with a vision at Matan Torah: "When Hashem gave the Torah, twenty-two thousand angels descended with Him, all arranged in camps, each with flags. Klal Yisrael saw them and desired flags. Hashem said, ‘They desire flags? I will fulfill their desire."  What did Klal Yisrael see in the arrangement of the angles that was so inspirational and what is the significance of the flags?  The Meor Vashemesh explains that Klal Yisrael was moved by the order and individuality of the angels. Each malach had its own place, purpose, and mission — yet they were all harmoniously unified in service of Hashem. Klal Yisrael longed for that same clarity of identity and purpose.  The flag, in this view, represents the unique role of each tribe, and by extension, each individual Jew. This is a powerful message for us: Everyone has a place in Klal Yisrael. Even if our strengths are different , whether in Torah, chessed, prayer, leadership, or creativity, each person’s contribution is essential to the collective mission.  However, the Sfas Emes (5635)  offers a different interpretation of the Midrash.  The Sfas Emes sees the flag not merely a sign of where one is, but a banner pointing to something higher, a connection to something beyond the self. There are various natural levels of capabilities granted to the different forms of creations that exist in the world.  The flags carried by Klal Yisrael represent that we are not capped by the capabilities granted to us, but we have the ability to connect directly to Hashem.  The Sfas Emes cites the continuation of the Midrash that interprets the word דגל like the word דיגול, skipping or jumping.  Through a yearning to come close to Hashem, one can leap beyond their natural place, beyond their predetermined borders. 

In Parshat Yisro it says there was a boundary erected around Sinai so that people would not scale the mountain.  The Panim Yavos says it wasn't a physical boundary, but a boundary of extreme spirituality.  Why should people be restrained from going up the mountain if there was a greater kedusha present there?  Sometimes, a person can reach too high, too fast. If one attempts to connect to levels of holiness beyond their current capacity, it can become overwhelming and cause destruction.  Growth that is not balanced can be dangerous.

Chazal say the gentiles were offered the Torah and they refused because they felt they couldn’t stand up to the commandments.  Klal Yisroel accepted the Torah and that’s why they are the chosen nation.  The Sfas Emes asks why is Klal Yisrael given such credit for accepting the Torah, there was nothing in the Torah against Klal Yisroel’s nature?  He answers that what went against the nature of Klal Yisroel was to be contained within the boundary.  The nature of a Jews to climb higher and higher, to be contained is something a Jew has a hard time dealing with.  Since they listened to the commandment not to scale the mountain, it was proof that they would accept Hashem’s word even when it went against their nature. 

The two approaches in Midrash, although contradictory, are like most other things, the dualism necessary to find equilibrium.  On the one hand one has to know their place, be honest as to what their capabilities are but at the same time one can't feel complacent but must push themselves to expand their boundaries.  For a person to suddenly attempt to finish Shas every year when one is accustomed to learning daf yomi, that would probably be jumping beyond one's capabilities.  That would be going beyond the boundary, up the mountain.  But after one has gone through a few cycles of daf yomi, it may be feasible for a person to try to push the boundary a little, to maybe add some depth to the study, or adding to one's learning in another format.   Is one supposed to find their place and say I will not go further, not scale the mountain or should one push to grow beyond their place?  Both. Find your place. Know your identity. But never stop yearning for more.  

Coming Together

The sefer of Vakiyra finishes with the parshios of מעשר בהמה and בכור.  Why are these parshios placed here?  נעוץ סופן בתחילתן, the end always connects to the beginning.  Things must come full circle.  The beginning of Vayikra opens אָדָ֗ם כִּֽי־יַקְרִ֥יב מִכֶּ֛ם קׇרְבָּ֖ן לַֽי־הֹוָ֑ה מִן־הַבְּהֵמָ֗ה מִן־הַבָּקָר֙ וּמִן־הַצֹּ֔אן תַּקְרִ֖יבוּ אֶת־קׇרְבַּנְכֶֽם.  The Alter Rebbe says (in a Chassidic interpretation,) that אדם here refers to אדם עליון which inspires an individual to offer a korban, to sacrifice his animal desires to Hashem.  In other words, there is an external inspiration from G-d which is the catalyst for a person to do self work to connect with Hashem.  This is the message of the bechor and maaser as well.  The kedusha of bechor is infused into the animal by G-d, it does not come from the work of man vs. maaser which needs the designation of a person to give it kedusha.  The theme of external inspiration leading to man extending kedusha is represented by the bechor and maaser (based upon Likutay Sichos volume 17.) 

The Gemarah Shabbas (88a and Rav Nissan Gaon ad loc.) note many forms of three that were present at the giving of the Torah.  It was the third month, Moshe was the third child from Levi ,the third child etc.  What is the significance of three?  The Maharal says that three is a connection between two opposing forces.  The world and the Torah, the Divine Word, are separate.  Matan Torah unites these two opposing forces of physical form and spiritual holiness.  The Torah was put in to the world to infuse it with kedusha.  The sefer of Vayikra is the third sefer.  Berashis is G-d's creation of the world, the formation of the world set by G-d.  The second book Shemos also start with G-dly revelations but that leads into the building of the Miskan, man making an abode for G-d.  The book of Vayikra, the korbanot, is the fusion of the two.  The korbanot is the meeting of the אש שלמטה with the אש שלמעלה, where man and His Creator come together. 

The Days Count

The Ramban says (23:15) וספרתם לכם – כמו: ולקחתם לכם שתהא ספירה ולקיחה לכל אחד ואחד, שימנה בפיו ויזכיר חשבונו כאשר קבלו רבותינו. ואין כן: וספר לו , וספרה לה  דזבין, [שהרי אם רצו עומדים בטומאתם,] אלא שלא ישכחוהו.  For sefiras ha'omer,  one must count orally, but a zav and zavah who do not have to become tahor, they don't need to actually count the days.  The Nodah B'Yehuda (YD #2 124 note from the son) asks what's the difference, when one wants to become tahor why don't they need to count, just as they say a beracha on going to the mikvah? 

The Meshech Chachma says תספרו חמשים יום. הענין כי ספירה הוא בכל מקום על שיהא משונה מזולתו במכוון. וזה בזב וזבה וספרה לה שבעת ימים, הוא כי תראה במכוון שיום זה טהור ולא ראתה נדה וכן הוא זיבה, וכן קרי ופליטת ש"ז, והרי ימים אילו נספרין במה שהם טהורים ומכוונים מזולתן, אבל השבע שבתות מה ענין ספירתם מכוון, שיהא נשתנה מזולתו, אם לא דזה הוי ספירה ממש בפה,  In other words, sefirah means to designate the days as unique.  For the counting of a zav/zavah the days are designated by the fact that they lead to taharah.  However, when it comes to the counting of the omer, there is no chalos to the day that should make it designated as part of a count toward anything.  Therefore it is the act of actually counting, of explicitly counting the day that creates a chalos of a counted day.  

In light of this idea we can say this may be the intent of the Ramban.  The Ramban starts by telling us that sefirah must be done by every individual.  That means that the sefirah is not merely to not forget the days for if that was the entire yesod of the count, there would not be a need for every individual to count.  That derasha tells us that there is a mitzvah to create a chalos to the day and therefore, to designate these days one must make a verbal count. 

This may be why there are opinions that one cannot fulfill sefira through שומע כעונה for that only helps when all that's necessary is just words but when the words come to create a chalos of a counted day, for that שומע כעונה does not suffice (Kovetz Migdal Or volume 9 by Rabbi Ezra Schochet.) 

The importance of counting every day, Rabbi Nason writes in Likutay Halachos (Pikadon #4-5) is to teach us that every day is important.  By counting the day, one realizes that the days count.  Every day of a person's life is there to accomplish and grow.  Through the days of coming free from the tumah of Egypt until we receive the Torah, we drill this message into our heads and its imprint lasts throughout the year.

No Self

וכל אדם לא יהיה באוהל מועד בבאו לכפר בקודש

The Midrash asks but is not the Kohan Gadol himself a person?  The Midrash answers בשעה שהיה רוח הקודש שרוי עליו היו פניו בוערות כלפידים עליו.  The simple understanding is that the Kohan Gadol was elevated to angelic status and was not considered a person.  In the post, 'Are Angels Men' it was pointed out this seems to disagree with the opinion that even angles are prohibited to enter.  However, the Matnos Kehuna on the Midrash says that is quite difficult for the very previous line in the Midrash by the same opinion, Rav Abahu, says the figure that Shimon Hatzaddik saw coming into the Kodesh Hakadashim with him was Hashem Himself.  Why is he forced to say this?  For he holds the prohibition encompasses angles as well and if so, it must have been Hashem Himslef entering with Shimon Hatzaddik.  So he holds the prohibition applies to angels as well, so what it the answer of the Midrash that the Kohan Gadol was like an angel?  Rav Tzaddok (Pri Tzaddik Erev Yom Kippur #7) explains that the Kohan Gadol lost all form of gashmios upon entering the Kodesh Kadoshim and was elevated even beyond the level of an angel who has a form, albeit very refined.  When the Kohan Gadol entered, he was in total sync with his neshama which is directly connected to Hashem unlike an angel who is a separate being.  

The Mei Hashiloach says וכל אדם means that the Kohan Gadol must remove all vestiges of his אדםness, of his own self, when entering באוהל מועד.  He is not bringing in himself to make an offering to G-d but is there to receive from Hashem that which is totally beyond the human grasp. 

Putting the two Rav Tzadook with the Ishbitzer, the Kohan Gadol is not entering the Holy of Holies due to his great preparations but instead, he is entering into a complete state of negation of self to receive Divine inspiration way beyond one's own grasp.  

There is a discussion on otzer hachama forum as to the geder of this issur with some interesting stories. 

Learning To Speak

Why do the parshios of Tazria and Metzorah come in between the parsha of the inauguration of the Mikdash and the avodah of Yom Kippur? 

The Kabbalists tell us that the word פסח can be read as פה סח, the mouth was able to talk.  On  Pesach there was a redemption to the power of speech.  Previously, Klal Yisrael was under the rulership of פרעה which can form the letters פה רע, a bad mouth (Meor VaShemesh Pesach.)  On פסח there was a redemption of the power of speech.  The korban omer, offered on the second day of Pesach is referred to as the omer התנופה, of waving for the offering had to be waived in all directions.  The word תנופה can also be read as תנו פה, give a mouth, for the offering of the omer is the start of the bridge period between Pesach and Shavuot where we perform the mitzvah of sefiras ha'omer which is done with the mouth.  We refer to the written Torah as תורה שבכתב but the oral Torah as תורה שבעל פה, why not תורה שבפה, the Torah of the mouth?  The Noam Elimelech (Bechukosai) explains that in order to properly understand Torah, one must a  בעל פה, one must have proper control, rule over their mouth.  The Gemarah Yevamot (62b) says that the students of Rebbe Akiva died of diphtheria during the period between Pesach and Shavuot. because they did not have proper respect for each other.  The Maharsha explains that they died due to a disease of the throat since they spoke lashon harah about each other.  So why did they die specifically at this time of the year?  Because it is during this time that we are meant to work on having proper speech. 

Chazal tell us one of the reasons for the affliction of tzaaras is for speaking lashon harah.  In the Patach Eliyahu (printed in the opening pages of the Nusach Sefard siddur) it says מלכות תורה שבעל פה קרינן ליה.  The sefirah of malchus is associated with speech for malchus is how one rules over others and the power of speech is used when interacting with others.  The power of speech is needed when there is a need to create  a connection between two different people.  The Mikdash is the place where the presence of the Shechina meets with the earth which is the connection of the greatest divide, between the Divine and the mortal.  Therefore, as the Mikdash's inauguration is complete the Torah tells us the parsha of tzaraas for having a Mikdash, having a connection with the Infinite, demands one to improve their connection, their power of speech, with their peers.  This may be some of the intent that there was a redemption to the power of speech on Peach for coming out of Egypt is what formed Klal Yisrael from a bunch of families into a nation.  There was a cohesiveness, a newfound connection due to being part of a nation that did not exist beforehand.  

The Maharal (Netzach Ch. 4) explains that sinas chinum (which the Chofetz Chayim explains was the sin of lashon harah) destroyed the second Mikdash because the Mikdash was built in the merit of the body of Klal Yisrael and if people are not getting along, there is no sense of togetherness, no klal,  then the Mikdash ceased to exist.  Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook said that is why right before the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel, Hashem sent us the Chofetz Chayim to teach us how to speak properly for to be able to be to have a Jewish nation running their own country, to be a tzibbur, there is first a need to fix our speech.  

Kedushas Ha'aretz And Omer

ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים לה.  The Toras Kohanim has a derash on the word אם indicating the omer may or may not be offered that עתידה שתפסוק ותחזור, for now we don't have a korban omer but it will return.  But all korbanot are not offered now so why single out the omer?  The Meshech Chachma explains when it comes to korbanot מקריבין אע"פ שאין בית, the kedusha of the original Mikdash lasts forever after it was erected but in regard to the kedusha of the land itself the first kedusha of the land was batel and only came back to be everlasting through the conquest of Ezra.  Therefore, the omer which must be offered from grain of E.Y., in between the first golus and the conquest of Ezra would not be able to be offered because the kedusha of the land did not exist at that time and it is that timeframe which the Sifri is referring to. 

The Toras Hakodesh (volume 3 siman 30)  goes a step further.  The Or Sameach (Temidim 8:3) explains that the omer and shtei halechem are exempt from the obligation of terumot since they are called ביכורים which are exempt from terumot.  In other words, sometimes the omer korban has the status of bikkurim.  Nowadays, even though the kedusha of Eretz Yisrael remains, there is no obligation on a Biblical level of terumot since the obligation of teruma is only when the majority of Jews come into Eretz Yisrael, ביאת כולכם (Rambam Terumot 1:26.)  What about other obligations that stem from the kedusha of the land, would they also have this condition of ביאת כוכלם or is it limited to teruma and challah?  Simply understood it should be a גזירת הכתוב for terumah and challah but one could argue that it is not a mere halacha in the obligation of terumah and challah but is a halacha in defining when the kedushas ha'eretz is complete and would apply to other agricultural obligations well.  Argues the Toras Hakodesh, in that case we can say that the bikkurim would not apply unless there is ביאת כולכם and the omer offering having the status of bikkurim will not apply as well.  In this vein the Sifri is not just talking between the time of the two בתי מקדש but nowadays as well even though מקריבין אע"פ שאין בית but the omer can't be offered for it needs ביאת כולכם to establish the kedusha of the land regarding agricultural obligations.   

The Gemarah Rosh Hashana (13a) asks how the omer was offered immediately after entering Eretz Yisrael is if grew to be a third of its growth in the hands of gentiles?  The Minchas Chinuch (302) asks why did the Gemarah asks that it grew in chutz laeretz since Eretz Yisrael was not imbued with the kedush of כיבוש yet?  The Minchas Avraham on the Toras Kohanim suggests that for the omer there was no need for the formal קידוש of the land through כיבוש but it suffices that the land had the status of the promised land of Eretz Yisrael and for that there is no need for an act of כיבוש to establish the obligation.  It comes out according to his argument that there is no need for כיבוש to offer the omer but rather the status of Eretz Yisrael which applies even without the formal kedusha (as explained by my father, 'kedushas eretz yisrael'.  In that case, the Mesech Chachma's assertion that there is a need for kedushas ha'aretz to offer the omer would be incorrect.       

The Mishna in Kelim (1:6) says ארץ ישראל מקודשת מכל הארצות. ומה היא קדושתה? שמביאים ממנה העומר והביכורים ושתי הלחם.  Why does the Mishna not list terumot and maasarot?  And the Gra takes out bikurim from the list, why?  Rav Aharon Kotler (Osef Chidushay Torah #33) explains that the Mishna is referring to halachot that apply because of the kedusha of Eretz Yisrael itself as the promised land not halachat that are established due to the kedusha of כיבוש.  If so, the obligation of the omer and shtei halechem does not depend on the kedusha of כיבוש but will be limited to the actual promised land.  That is why the Ran Nedarim (22a) says that one can not bring the omer from grain of עבר הירדן because even if it has kedusha, it is not part of the actual promised land. The Gra removes bikurim from the Mishna since he holds it is a mitzvah that depends on the the kedusha of the land which depends on כיבוש, not on the actual land of Eretz Yisrael proper (it depends on who to rule like in a Mishna Bikurim 1:10.)

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.