Cheftzah Of Chametz

The Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot לא תעשה  number 198 and #199 counts a prohibition of eating chametz and a seperate prohibition of eating chametz that has been absorbed in a mixture. The Ramban asks why is there a separate mitzvah not to eat חמץ בתערובת, if there is an amount of כזית בכדי אכילת פרס then by all issurim it is considered as if the issue is intact, we should not need a special prohibition here and if it's less than that amount, it is nullified?

The answer can be found in the laws of chametz. It is subject to debate how to understand the rulings of the Rambam. But it is possible that the Rambam rules according to the opinion of R' Eliezer in the Gemarah Pesachim (42-43) that chametz which is in a mixture carries the lav but not the punishment of kares. This is also fits with the Michelta that the Rambam himself in Sefer Hamitzvot 198 quotes ולשון המכילתא: "כל מחמצת לא תאכלו - לרבות כותח הבבלי ושכר המדי וחמץ האדומי. יכול יהו חייבין עליהן? תלמוד לומר: "חמץ" - מה חמץ מיוחד שהוא מין גמור, יצאו אלו שאינן מין גמור. למה באו? לעבור עליהן בלא תעשה. It clearly states there is a lav but no kares for chametz in a mixture. Once we see that there is a מיעוט to exclude the mixture of chametz from kares we would have said that chametz in a mixture does not have a שם חמץ. Therefore, we need a new derasha to renter the chametz into the status of issur even in a case of כזית בכדי אכילת פרס. However, it still needs explanation for in a תערובת there is a halacha of טעם כעיקר telling us that the taam of chametz is considered like the chametz itself so how can we say the derasha is referring to and excluding a case of כזית בכדא"פ? 

Why would there be this split that there would be a lav but no kares? We see that there are two aspects to the issur of chametz. Chametz is prohibited like any other forbidden food and is there is a כזית בכדי אכילת פרס it is assur. However, the kares punishment is meted out only for eating pure chametz. The kares punishment is not for eating merely forbidden chametz but for eating pure chametz. In other words, for the lav one is obligated on the mere taste of the issur, it doesn't have to be a cheftzah of chametz but for the kares one is obligated only for eating a cheftzah of chametz. In light of this the Rambam understands that this split to establish the lav separate from the kares is derived from כל מחמצת. That introduces a new issur on the חמץ בתערובת even though it is not bonified kares prohibited chametz.   

The Minchas Chinuch (12) points out that the Rambam in the list of the mitzvot in the beginning of Chametz U'Matzah mentions the issur on chametz from erev Pesach but not the issur on a mitzure of chametz. He derives from there the issur of כל מחמצת only kicks in on Pesach itself. This would fit well assuming the issur on תערובת חמץ is its own unique issur and not just a גילוי that it is the regular issur of chametz. 

The Rambam (1:7) says האוכל מן החמץ עצמו בפסח כל שהוא הרי זה אסור מן התורה שנאמר לא יאכל. ואף על פי כן אינו חייב כרת או קרבן אלא על כשיעור שהוא כזית. The Achronim aks why do we need a possuk to tell us that the issur of chametz is even on a minute amount, that is the general law of חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה? According to this, the Rambam may have understood that chametz that does not meet the bar of a chiuv kares because it is less than the shiur doesn't have a qualitative amount to be defined as a cheftzah of chametz and therefore a new possuk is required to determine it is assur.  

The prohibition on a mitzture of chametz is derived from כל מחמצת לא תאכלו. The Rambam as mentioned in 'Chametz as דבר שיש לו מתירין' holds that the chumrah of דבר שיש לו מתירין applies by chametz even to a מין בשאנו מינו due to the possuk of כל מחמצת. What does the Rambam see in this possuk about דשיל"מ?

Rav Leib Malen (siman 11) cites the Pri Chadash understands the Rambam rules that when it comes to chametz, it is assur if it כזית בכדי אכילת פרס is present even if there is no טעם of the issur. In light of this, says Rav Leib, we see that for chametz being מבטל the טעם doesn't suffice. The difference between מין במינו ושאינו מינו is that מין במינו there is no ביטול of the טעם and hence if it is a דשיל"מ it is more strict but for מבשא"מ when there is no more טעם the issur is gone entirely and the chumrah of דשיל"מ is not imposed for the issur is not in existence any more. But when it comes to chametz we see in the law of כל מחמצת that even without טעם the issur remains intact so the rule of דשיל"מ will apply even for מין בשאינו מינו. This works according to the peshat of the Pri Chadash. According to above peshat in the Rambam that the Rambam is referring to a regular case of כזית בכא"פ we would have to say that Rambam means is that even though the taste of chametz should not be assur, only the cheftzah of chametz itself, nonetheless כל מחמצת teaches us it is assur. So too, when it comes to דשיל"מ, the bar of bittul is raised. It is not enough to eradicate the shem chametz but any trace of chametz in a taaroves remains forbidden. 

New Wine How Many Berachot

The Magen Avraham (175:1) cites from the Maharil that one should not say הטוב והמטיב during the Seder for it looks like adding to the number of cups. The Pri Migadim says that if one switches wine for the cups itself, according to Ashkenazik custom that one says הגפן for each of the cups, then one says both הגפן and הטוב והמטיב. The Shaar Hatzion (175:3) cites this. This would be the M.A. לשיטתו according to how R' Akiva Eger points out that he holds in theory one can say both the beracha of הגפן and הטוב והמטיב together. However, according to those that hold one says הטוב והמטיב when there is no הגפן said, then in this case one will only say הגפן. (It is interesting that in Shaar Hatzion #2 he cites the logic of R.A.E. but in #3 he goes with the understanding of the M.A.) 

Chametz As דבר שיש לו מתירין

The Gemarah Pesachim (30a) concludes that chametz is not batal on Pesach. The simple read of the Gemarah is since the law in general is that מין במינו is not batal there is a gezerah on Pesach to say even שלא במינו is not batal. Many Rishonim rule however that is general במין במינו is batal and try to justify the pesak of the Gemarah with the bottom line pesak. 

The approach of the Ramban (Milchamos) is to come with an entire new reason why chametz should not be batel and that is due to the rule of דבר שיש לו מתירין אינו בטל and since the chametz will become mutar after Pesach it is not batal on Pesach. The Ramban asks on himself that there is a Rabbinic issur on chametz not gotten rid of before Pesach, so how is it דשיל"מ if it will not become mutar? He answers the Rabbinic law is meant to serve as a chumrah, not as a קולא to remove the din of דשיל"מ. The Ran asks that this answer doesn't work for the entire din of דשיל"מ is Rabbinic so it has to work within the Rabbinic rules? 

In the post 'After Pesach Chametz' there was a chakirah presented if the issur of chametz after Pesach is an extension of the issur on Pesach itself or a new issur. Rav Leeb Malin (siman 10) says that the Ramban holds the nature of the prohibition of chametz after Pesach is a new issur, not a new prohibition. Hence, the issur on Pesach itself is an issur that is דשיל"מ, there is just a new issur that kicks in after Pesach. This explanation only works if the law of דשיל"מ is a lomdus like the Ran in Nedarim (52a) explains. It if is a simple sevarah to eat something in a state of definitive heter instead of relying on bittul like Rashi Betzah (3a) explains then that should apply no matter what the geder of the issur is. It theory one can explain that is why those that don't like the Ramban saying it is a דשיל"מ. However, since the Ran himself asks on the Ramban, he would have to be asking with the understanding that chametz שעבר עליו הפסח is a continuation of the issur on Pesach.    

The Mordechai Pesachim (תקעג) says that chametz is not a דשיל"מ since it will become prohibited next year. At face value this is difficult to understand, so what it will become assur again in the future, there is plenty of time when one can eat the chametz in a state of heter? The Mordechai would seem to make sense in the understanding of the Ran Nedarim that a דשיל"מ is not batul due to the din of מין במינו in a halachik sense. Since the issue itself will become mutur by itself with the passage of time that proves that the issur is not innate and it is like the heter itself and will not be batal. In light of this the Mordechai may mean that chametz on Pesach is an innate issur, the fact that it becomes mutar after Pesach is not because the issur goes away but rather that the entire shem of the issur is chametz on Pesach and if its not Pesach, there is no issur. The fact that the issur comes back next Pesach in fact proves the issur does not go away but the cheftzah of the issur is tied to the timeframe (in בעניין חמץ בפסח אם הווי דבר שיש לו מתירין footnote 5 he says such an explanation in the name of Rav Shmuel Rozovsky.) [It is noteworthy that the Rema YD 102:4 and clearly R' Akiva Eger understand this Mordechai is a general rule for any issur that will come back again, not just a local severah for chametz on Pesach.]

The Rambam in Maachalos Assuros (15:9) says that chametz is not batal because it is a דבר שיש לו מתירין. According to Rav Leeb Malen that would be because he holds of the lomdus severah in דשיל"מ. The Bach (YD siman 102 #4) proves from the Rambam that even when the food will spoil we still impose the rule of דשיל"מ since the Rambam rules even from the beginning of Pesach the chametz is not batal due to the rule of דשיל"מ even though it will spoil. According to the practical severah of Rashi in that case it should be batal, this would be further proof the Rambam agrees to the Ran. 

The Rambam continues in law 12 יֵרָאֶה לִי, שֶׁאַפִלּוּ דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין - אִם נִתְעָרֵב בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, וְלֹא נָתַן טַעַם - מֻתָּר. לֹא יִהְיֶה זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין חָמוּר מִטֶּבֶל, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקְּנוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאַל תִּתַּמָּהּ עַל חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח, שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה אָסְרָה "כָּל מַחְמֶצֶת" (שמות יב, כ); לְפִיכָךְ הֶחְמִירוּ בּוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנ. Achronim ask if the Rambam has a possuk why does he need the Rabbinic reason of דשיל"מ? Presumably the Rambam means the possuk to be an asmachtah to explain why the rule of דשיל"מ applies to chametz even for מין בשאינו מינו. But what does the Rambam see in כל מחמצת that says it shouldn't be batal?  

The Aleph In It

Rashi notes the difference between Moshe who is addressed with ויקרא and Bilim who is addressed with ויקר. The word is the same with an additional א. This א hints to the difference between Moshe and Bilam. Both of them received messages from Hashem, both had great capabilities, but Bilam viewed events in his life as ויקר, a מקרה, it happened - but it didn't make an impression upon him. Moshe connected everything to the א - the אלופו של עולם - to Hashem. The exact same event Bilam would view as an accident, while Moshe would take it as a lesson from Hashem. Everyone gets messages -the question if one hears Who the sender is.  

What Makes A Kahal

ויקהל משה. Why is this parsha said in front of thep resence of the entirety of Klal Yisrael? 

The Gemarah Taanis (11b) says אמר ר' ירמיה בר אבא: אין תענית ציבור בבבל, אלא תשעה באב בלבד. The Gemarah does not explain why and there are different opinions in the Rishonim ranging from a practical point Bavel did not as much rain and there was no need to create fast days for rain to halachik requirements of a nasi to establish a taanis on the tzibbur.  The Minchas Chinuch (284:24) explains the basis of the law is that a taanis tzibbur requires an actual tzibbur. Only in Eretz Yisrael does Klal Yisrael attain a chalos shem tzibbur. Outside the land, we are merely a collection of individuals acting together, but not a halachic kahal. Accordingly, he writes that even in Eretz Yisrael today—after the destruction and exile—since the full kedushas ha’aretz is lacking, there is no genuine chalos tzibbur. As a result, Hallel would not be recited even for miracles occurring in Eretz Yisrael today, since Hallel on a miracle depends on a functioning tzibbur. (See more about this here.) The Tzafnas Paneach Berachot (10:11) echoes the same idea. He roots the idea in the Gemarah Horiyos (3b) grounding it in Horiyos (3b) that says only a kahal in Eretz Yisrael is defined as a  kahal. Why is it only in E.Y. that there a chalos tzibbur, a kahal?  

E.Y. is the place where there is direct connection to Hashem. It is that connection to the Ultimate Oneness that joine together different people together as one unit. 

The Meshech Chachma Re'ah asks how in Shoftim Ch. 2 the people offered a korban on a bamah if the Mishkan in Shilo was already erected? He explains that since the Aron was not present in the Mishkan there is no issur bamos. The issur is only when the presence of the Aron is there. In other words, the Aron creates the presence of the Shechina in the Mishkan and that is the place that unites Klal Yisrael thereby forbidding private alters. If the Aron representing the Shechina is not present in the Mishkan, then there is no issur on making a bama. The Mikdash is a place where the Shechina is present and joins the Klal together. When there is a place for the klal that creates an issur on making individual, private alters. That issur depends on the Shechina being present in the Mikdash and that is represented by the Aron.   

The Chinuch #487 counts a lav of shechting a Pesach on a bamah. There is a specific prohibition for the korban Pesach since the holiday of Pesach is to commemorate Klal Yisrael becoming a nation and therefore it has to be offered as a national korban, as one nation, on a public alter. 

This is why the parsha of Mikdash and Shabbos is said after everyone is gathered together. These two mitzvot are mitzvot where one comes to a time and place elevated with the Presence of the Shechina and that units everyone together. 

103

The Ariza"l connects the sin of the egel (עגל גימטריא 103) with the 103 methods of derash that Yeravam had in Toras Kohanim (which is stated in Sanhedrin on daf 103.) This why when Yeravam had his turn to the dark side he made his own version of the egel. What is the connection? The sin of the egel was that Klal Yisrael didn't feel intellectually equipped to deal with the death of Moshe Rabbenu and hence they looked for a substitute in the form of a egel which is a calf, completely submitted to the desire of their master. The tikkun is to come to a level of Torah that is beyond the natural grasp of a person (see sicha Ki Sesa 5751.) 

The number 103 has prominence in a few other places. The Zohar Terumah (162b) that the 310 worlds that are promised to the tzaddikim are split into 2 parts of the chesed side and one part of the gevurah side and a third of 310 is 103. It is pointed out by the Beis Yaakov of Ishbitz in Vayigash that the word mincha is also gematria is also 103. It would seem from these citations that the number 103 is connected with gevurah (as noted in the past there are those that associate the time of mincha with a time of din.) The Ramban (32:1) also connects the egel to the shor of the merchava which is on the left side, the midday of din. I'm not sure what the connection is with the number 103 or if this relates to the first part. 

Megillah Prayer

The Shulchan Aruch (689:5) says מקום שאין מנין אם אחד יודע והאחרים אינם יודעין אחד פוטר את כולם ואם כולם יודעים כל אחד קורא לעצמו. The Magen Avraham (cited in Mishne Berurah) says we see that we don't apply the rule of שומע כעונה unless there is a minyan present. Why is it different than shofar? He says Megillah is like tefillah that a minyan is required. (The Chachmas Shlomo suggests this is due to the fact that קרייתא זו הלילא.) However, at face value why is the Megillah compared to prayer? In light of the Rambam (Sefer Mitzvot katzar) that the point of the Megillah is to demonstrate that Hashem answers our prayers it is logical that the Megillah itself should be considered to bear the laws of tefillah. In light of the Briskor Rav's explanation that it is the tefillah of the tzibbur that is unique to Klal Yisrael that we demonstrate Hashem heeds, it is well understood that the Megillah will have the need to have the status of a tefillah bitzibbur. 

According to the Magen Avraham why is there a difference between if the people know how to read the Megillah themselves or not? The Gra says והוי זה כמ"ש בסוף ר"ה יחיד שלא בירך אין חבירו כו' וע"ש בר"ן וכ' שם ומיהו ה"מ בשיודע אבל בשאינו יודע חבירו מוציאו דהא שלשה דברים מוציא בירושלמי מן הכלל ק"ש ותפלה ובה"מ ואמרינן בברכות פ"ז שנים שאכלו כו' אבל אחד סופר כו'. In other words, we find the same concept by tefillah itself that when each individual knows the prayers, they must say it themselves but if someone doesn't know then one person can be motzei others. How does this work? It means that the basic din of שומע כעונה is in palce even when there is no minyan present but for the kium din of tzibbur that will be lacking unless said with a minyan. Or in other words, the law of שומע כעונה will be in place to say everyone said the Megillah but it is viewed as if everyone read the Megillah individually and they are not joined together. (צ"ע that the Magen Avraham seems to be saying there is no law of שומע כעונה at all with less than 10.)

Rav Biderman on the power of the act of prayer itself: וגם כאשר 'רואה ' שננעלו בפניו כל השערים , ולא מיבעיא ש 'שערי ההצלחה' סגורים וחתומים אלא אפילו שערי התפילה , שעומד ומתחנן פעמים רבות ולא נענה , אל יפול רוחו בקרבו אלא יחזור ויתפלל , ובוודאי ישמע א-ל ויענהו . צא ולמד מדברי חז"ל (מגילה יב :) על הפסוק (אסתר ב ה ) 'איש יהודי היה בשושן הבירה ושמו מרדכי בן יאיר בן שמעי בן קיש' – שהקיש על שערי רחמים ונפתחו לו, ולכאורה עיקר מעלתו של מרדכי ש 'נפתחו' לו שערי רחמים , ואם כן היה צריך לומר 'בן יפתח', ומדוע נקטו 'בן קיש', אלא ללמדנו על גדולתו של מרדכי שלא התייאש לנוכח הגזירה, ואף שידע כל אשר נעשה , מכל מקום עמד והקיש שערי רחמים, מתוך האמונה בכוחה של תפילה, והיא שעמדה לבטל את הגזירה , והיא היא גדולתו.

.ושמע נא למה שביאר הגה "ק רבי אליהו מאיזמיר זי"ע (בעל ה'שבט מוסר' בספרו תהלות ה ' על מזמור כב) בלשון המזמור 'על איילת השחר' שהוא מעניינו של יום, כי כך אמרה אסתר המלכה 'אלוקי אקרא יומם ולא תענה' ואף על פי כן לא התייאשתי אלא 'ולילה ולא דומיה לי', וכדאיתא בגמ ' (ברכות לב :) 'אמר ר' חמא בר' חנינא, אם ראה אדם שהתפלל ולא נענה יחזור ויתפלל, שנאמר (תהילים כז יד) קוה אל ה ' חזק ויאמץ לבך וקוה אל ה ''. וזאת למדנו מאבותינו , שבך בטחו אבותינו, ואף שלא נענו מיד לא נסוגו אחור ולא התייאשו אלא חזרו ובטחו, וסוף דבר היה ותפלטמו... ומוסיף לפרש עוד בסמיכות הכתובים 'אלוקי אקרא יומם ולא תענה ולילה ולא דומיה לי, ואתה קדוש יושב תהלות ישראל ', שאם רואה שהוא קורא יומם ולילה ולא נענה, אל יאמר חלילה שאין הקב"ה שומע את קולו, אלא אדרבה הקב "ה שומע אותו ומתענג למשמע קולו, אלא שאתה קדוש יושב תהילות ישראל , והוא מחכה ומצפה לשמוע אותו עוד, ועל דרך שאמרו חז"ל (יבמות סד.) 'מפני מה היו אבותינו עקורים מפני שהקב"ה מתאוה לתפלתן של צדיקים '

.דיוק נפלא אמרו לדייק בלשון קדשו של רש "י (מגילה ד. ד"ה ולשנותה ) על הא דאיתא בגמ ' 'חייב אדם לקרות את המגילה (- מגילת אסתר) בלילה ולשנותה ביום ' ופירש רש"י 'זכר לנס שהיו זועקין בימי צרתן יום ולילה ', ולכאורה אם קריאת המגילה היא זכר ל'זעקתם' ביום ובלילה - מה שייך לומר זכר לנס, הא אותם ימים שהיו זועקים ומתפללים היו ימי צרה ולא ימי נס ? אלא, שאכן נס גדול היה באותם הימים , שזעקו יומם ולילה ולא התייאשו, הגם שהיה נראה בדרך הטבע שהכל אבוד וכבר אין מה לעשות ... נחתמה גזירה בעליונים ובתחתונים, והחרב מונחת על צווארם להשמיד להרוג ולאבד ל "ע , מכל מקום הם לא התייאשו אלא המשיכו לדפוק על שערי רחמים אולי

Through Jolt Or Joy

The Midrash compares the zechirah of Shabbos to Amalek and concludes לא דומה כוס של קונדיטון לכוס של חומץ. What is the comparison and what is the Midrash teaching us? Rav Reuvain Katz explains that Klal Yisrael also will be pushed in the right direction either by זכור את יום השבת  - by doing the right thing or זכור עמלק  - being pushed in the right direction by hardship and the Mirash concludes either way we will be led to the same end, it is up to us to choose which path we want to take, the sweeter path or the bitted one.  

The Gemarah Megillah (4a) says we have to read Megillah by night and day. Rashi says לשנותה ביום - זכר לנס שהיו זועקין בימי צרתן יום ולילה. We commemorate the happiness of the victory of Purim but at the same time we also commemorate the difficulty that brought us to that point. This is reflected in the two pessukim the Gemarah cites as a proof to read the Megillah twice, אלהי אקרא יומם ולא תענה ולילה ולא דומיה לי and למען יזמרך כבוד ולא ידום ה' אלהי לעולם אודך. The Megillah serves both as a remembrance of the crying and praise to Hashem. פורים כיפורים - We can before Hashem due to fasting and affliction or through joy. They are two sides of the same coin. Either way we will come to recognize the truth.

Night Of Purim

Rav Amram Gaon (cited in Haghos Mimoni Tefillah Chapter 2 #6) holds that we don't recite al hanissim at night by maariv since it is only said after the Megillah is read. Why? The Divrei Chaim blog in 'Assorted ideas on zachor and Purim' has one explanation. Aa a הוספה I see that the approach of tying the על הניסים to the event of the miracle of the day is linked by Rav Tzvi Ryzman to a chakirah if al hanissim is a halacha in the day of Purim or a law in tefillah to mention מעין המאורע. If it is a law in Purim itself then one can suggest the miracle of the day must be said first but if it is a law in מעין המאורע as part of tefillah (as indicated by Rambam who puts mentioning al hanissim in Laws of Tefillah) then it would not make sense to require Megillah to be read first.    

I would like to share another explanation. 

We find that the main fulfillment of Purim is in the daytime. The mitzvot of Purim can be fulfilled only in the daytime. In addition, in the sugya of a person who moves from a city that reads on the 14th to one that reads to the 15th the Rosh says what determines when a person's obligation in Megillah is where he is on the day of Purim. We see it is the daytime that creates establishes the obligation of the person. Why is the daytime that determines the obligation if we read Megillah at night as well? What we see is that it is the day of Purim that carries the kedushas hayom of Purim. The night is just an obligation of reading of the Megillah but it does not establish the essence of Purim. In light of this Rav Amram holds that one can't say al hanissim at night. Only after the Megillah is read and one has declared the miracle can one say al hanissim (I saw this idea cited in the name of Rav Soloveitchik in Harrerey Kedem siman 13 but I don't have the sefer to check, see also ביסוד דין קריאת המגילה ביום ובלילה ובגדר הלילה דפורים) 

The Mechabar (692:4) says that in a שעת הדחק one can read the Megillah already from פלג המנחה. The Pri Chadash and Gra disagree. In light of this explanation it may be easier to hear how one can be yotzei from plag for it is not a nighttime obligation, it is just an obligation to hear the Megillah during the time connected to Purim. 

Turning Back

Why is a leap year determined by adding a month of Adar, why not any month? Why is the leap month referred to as a second Adar, why not give a new name? The Sefer Yetzirah associates the month of Adar with laughter. What is the connection? And why do we add in rejoicing already from the beginning of Adar? 

The Gemarah Betzah (15b) says אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי אליעזר ברבי שמעון: הרוצה שיתקיימו נכסיו יטע בהן אדר, שנאמר אדיר במרום ה. Rashi explains אילן חשוב הוא יש לו שם למרחוק ואומרים פלוני יש לו אדר בשדהו ומתוך כך היא נקראת על שמו ואם הולך למדינת הים ובא אחר והחזיק בה יש לו עדים הרבה שהיתה שלו ואילו מכרה היה הקול יוצא להיות נקראת על שמו של שני. On the possuk the Gemarah cites  אדיר במרום ה, Rashi explains שאדר לשון קיום וחוזק ולכך נקרא אדר. We see the word אדר means a form of strength (the Bnei Yissachor in maamer 1 cites this Gemarah in connection to Adar and explains the Gemarah לפי דרכו, עיי"ש.) For further elucidation of the word אדיר the Maharsha in Menachot (53a) says מבואר לשון אדיר מלשון חוזק ואומץ בדרך הידור במתחכם להתחזק על דבר מה (see there his explanation of the Gemarah.) The word Adar means to not just stand up to something but to have the strength to overcome an opposing force. That is why planting the Adar will give one the capability to overcome claims against the person's ownership of the field. It is the ability to be able to reverse the fortune of the the natural flow of events and turn things over.  

With this we can understand the laughter of Adar. As explained on  the blog in the past ('The Laugh Of Yitzchak', 'Laughter') laugher is evoked when there is a curveball. When things don't follow the path that they seemed, but there is a punchline that introduces something else. ונהפוך הוא, when everything is overturned is the greatest joke. This is the joy and the laughter of the month of Adar. It is part of the essence of the month that it is a time of rejoicing. The Purim story with the נהפוך הוא ending happened this month because Adar is the month of rejoicing, it is not a month of rejoicing because of Purim. 

The Kedushas Levi (Parsshas Teruma and Purim) related the word אדר to the אדרת אליהו, the special garment Eliyahu word and he interprets Adar to mean a form of clothing and interprets לפי דרכו עיי"ש. However, that interpretation doesn't fit with Rashi and the Maharsh"a. However, it can be explained in reverse, the word אדרת is related to the word אדר because it was a garment designated for a prophet. When one received prophesy as is clear from pessukim and described by Rambam (Yesodey HaTorah 7:1 וּבָעֵת שֶׁתָּנוּחַ עָלָיו הָרוּחַ, תִּתְעָרֵב נַפְשׁוֹ בְּמַעֲלַת הַמַּלְאָכִים הַנִּקְרָאִים 'אִישִׁים' וְיֵהָפֵךְ לְאִישׁ אַחֵר, the person immersed in prophesy becomes transformed into a different person. The middah of אדיר is present when the person receives prophesy and is given the power to transform his being, ונהפוך הוא לאיש אחר (based upon Rav Moshe Shapiro with added sources.) 

There is another word which shares the last tow letters of the word אדר and that is the word הדר. The Ketav V'kabbalah on the possuk והדרת פני זקן (Vakira 19:32) quoting Shadal says the word הדר is related to the Aramic word הדר (to return) and explains in context there, that when one is in awe of someone else they back off, return, out of fear. Presumably one would say that is why something that is beautiful, הידור מצוה, is the same word, for one steps back to admire the impressive view. The ultimate beauty, the ultimate הדר is when everything is shown to have its purpose. As the Leshem explains this is what תחיית המתים means. It is not merely people coming back to live but as the words say תחיית מתים, giving life to what was dead already. All past events, that which was long left for dead, will be rejuvenated, will be dusted off from the tumah attached to them, and play a role in the ultimate tikkun.  

The ultimate joy, the שחוק that we are awaiting is the אז ימלא שחוק פינו. Purim is a taste of that final joy. The world that seems to be an entity devoid and separate from G-d is revealed to be the place to bring the ultimate tikkun. That is the final laugh. This is why the month of Adar is the leap month. The idea of the leap year is to unify between the solar and the lunar year. To remove the divisions that exist. The division of sun and moon represent the greater division of the world and G-d. The lining up off the schedules of the solar and lunar system represent a מעין of the greater joining of the future. This experience is felt during the Adar month.  

After Adam sins, he is told קץ ודרדר תצמיח לך. The sin of the eitz haddas led to tumah being introduced into the world and now there was a need for a process of birur, to get through thorns and bristles to obtain food. The sin of the eitz haddas is the root of the power of המן as the Gemarah (Chullin 139b) says המן מן התורה מנין? המין העץ. The tikkun to דרדר is אדר when the דר is adjoined to א - אלופו של עולם. And ultimately the דר will turn into a מקום דירה לו יתברך בתחתונים. The month of Adar gives us the ability to turn everything around and bring it back to its ultimate purpose.

Taanis Ester

The Mordechai Megillah (776) says when Taanis Ester is on Shabbos we do the fast earlier, unlike other fasts which are postdated since it is not a fast for bad things that happened. What does he mean? The Rambam Taanis Ch. 5 says  יֵשׁ שָׁם יָמִים שֶׁכָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִתְעַנִּים בָּהֶם מִפְּנֵי הַצָּרוֹת שֶׁאֵרְעוּ בָּהֶן and he delineates the 4 fasts. In halacha 5 he says וְנָהֲגוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּזְמַנִּים אֵלּוּ לְהִתְעַנּוֹת וּבִּשְׁלוֹשָׁה עָשָׂר בַּאֲדָר, זֵכֶר לְתַעֲנִית שֶׁנִּתְעַנּוּ בִּימֵי הָמָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "דִּבְרֵי הַצּוֹמוֹת וְזַעֲקָתָם. We see from the Rambam that Taanis Ester is different from the other fast days which are to remember the hardships of the day, it is a zecher to the fast in the time of Haman. It is not a fast day to remember hardships. 

The Shulchan Aruch (550:4) says that the Shabbos before a fast day that is up to the acceptance of Klal Yisrael it is announced that that the fast is that week and he lists Taanis Eeter as an exception. Why? The Gra says since it is not a reshus but is mandated as the Rambam evokes the possuk דִּבְרֵי הַצּוֹמוֹת וְזַעֲקָתָם. This makes it seem that Taanis Ester is stronger than the other fast days but on the other hand we find the Rema (687) says that it is more lenient and one in even a small measure of pain can break their fast? Rav Zolty (Mishnas Yaavetz #76) says that the difference between Taanis Ester and the other fast days is that the other fast days have the status of a תענית (which has laws beyond not eating of being in a somber state etc.) but Taanis Ester doesn't have the status of a יום תענית it is just a prohibition of eating and drinking. The Rishonim ask how can we fast Taanis Ester if Purim is part of Megillas Taanis which forbids the previous day in fasting as well? The Raavad (cited in Ran Taanis 7a in Rif) says it is not an issue since the fast it זכרון לנס שנעשה בו ויש סמך בפסוק דברי הצומות. Rav Zolty explains he means this idea that it is not a day that is a chalos taanis but as part of Purim we also commemorate the fast. This may be the intent of the Rambam as well who cited the possuk as the basis for the custom to fast.

Rav Zolty understands the intent of the Gra is that this fast is part of the establishment of Purim itself. Just as Purim is forever, so too is Taanis Ester. A support for the idea the assertion that Taanis Ester will remain in the days of Moshiach is supported by the Binyan Shlomo (siman 56.) He proves from Rishonom that they fasted during Bais Sheni. He asks why we say מזמור לתודה on Taanis Ester if they fasted during Bais Sheni they wouldn't have offered the korban as it would diminish the time it could be eaten? However, we see he understands that Taanis Ester applies even בזמן שלום. Rav Zolty says this is what the Rambam says (end of Ch. 2 Laws of Megillah) אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּל זִכְרוֹן הַצָּרוֹת יִבָּטֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "כִּי נִשְׁכְּחוּ הַצָּרוֹת הָרִאשֹׁנוֹת וְכִי נִסְתְּרוּ מֵעֵינָי" (ישעיהו סה, טז) - יְמֵי הַפּוּרִים לֹא יִבָּטְלוּ. What is the contrast? The Rambma is contrasting that the tzarah preceding Purim, the Taanis will remain as well because the Taanis is part of the establishment of Purim. 

Rav Tzvi Ryzman cites a Shitas Gaonim that even where there is a second Adar there is a fast of Ester in the first Adar as well. It is clear they hold that the taanis is not tied to the holiday of Purim. This would be not like the idea of Rav Zolty.

Why is Taanis Ester so significantly tied to Purim? The Rambam writes (end of Sefer Mitzvos Hakatzar) the point of Purim is to demonstrate that Hashem answers our prayers. The point of Taanis Ester is to commemorate the day of tefillah that Klal Yisrael had. It is part of the message of Purim itself and therefore is part of the days of Purim. The Tur (693) says כתב רב עמרם ז"ל: מנהג בשתי ישיבות ליפול על פניהם כיון שהוא יום נס ונגאלו בו, צריכין אנו לבקש רחמים שיגאלנו באחרונה כבראשונה. In light of this Rambam it is understood that since the essence of the day is a day of prayer it isa befitting to ask for the ultimate geulah (it is a chiddush to me that tachnun is considered to be asking for the future geulah.)

Yearning

Gemarah Megillah (13b) אמר ריש לקיש גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שעתיד המן לשקול שקלים על ישראל לפיכך הקדים שקליהן לשקליו. Why did Haman give shekalim and how is our giving a kapparah?

Haman said  ישנו מן המצות that Klal Yisrael is sleeping, they have lost their enthusiasm in the golus and therefore they have lost their protection. He thought that Klal Yisrael was vulnerable for purchase because they lost their inner spark and only retained the external garb. 

Rashi זה יתנו - הראה לו כמין מטבע של אש ומשקלה מחצית השקל ואומר לו כזה יתנו. Our shekalim show that we do retain a passion. אני ישנה ולבי ער. The desire for connection to Hashem does remain, although at times it may not be obvious.

Sfas Emes Shekalim (5631) באחד באדר משמיעין על השקלים. למה באדר. ויראה שהוא זמן תשובה כמו אלול סוף השנה. כי גם בניסן ר"ה. ובאדר תשובה מאהבה. לכך מרבין בשמחה שנתעורר רצון ונדיבות בכל איש מישראל. [וז"ש משמיעין כו']. שזה ענין השקלים לעורר נדיבות ישראל כי בוודאי אין רצון ה' במחצית השקל. רק בהתעוררות רצון פנימי שבין ישראל לאביהם שבשמים. כי יש בכל איש ישראל נקודה פנימית בלתי לה' לבדו. .. והשקלים הי' תיקון לחטא העגל כי כשנתעורר רצון פנימי כנ"ל נדחה הכל. כענין [אפילו מחיצה של ברזל אינה מפסקת וכתיב] שימני כחותם כו'. וכן בכל שנה דכ' במד' כשקורין פ' שקלים כו'. ובאדם מתעורר רצון פנימי למסור הכל להשי"ת רק ע"י שאין לנו ביהמ"ק בעוה"ר. ממילא נתעורר אהבת ה' לישראל ויכולין לשוב בתשובה מתוך שמחה. וניסן ר"ה לחדשים הוא בחי' התחדשות שבא ע"י שמחה ואהבה להשי"ת. The giving of the shekal awakens this eternal desire. 

Rav Tzaddok Resisay Laylah #52 - כי כל זמן שישראל דבוקים בתורה שהם ענפי שורש הנעלם המתגלים בעולם הזה אין מקום לשורש רע ליקרב להם. אבל כאשר רפו מדברי תורה ... ועל כן המלחמה נגד עמלק לא היה על ידי משה רבינו ע"ה שהוא שורש כל החכמים שבישראל ושורש התורה שמצדה ניצוח כל אומה ולשון חוץ מעמלק שהשער שכנגדו בדברי תורה נעלם בעולם הזה והוצרך לשלוח יהושע משרתו שנקרא נוצר תאנה שהיה מסדר הספסלים (מדרש רבה פנחס) ומשמש לדברי תורה. ואמרו ז"ל (ברכות ז סוף ע"ב) גדולה שימושה של תורה יותר מלימודה ושמעתי דהלימוד הרי יש לו גבול עד כמה הוא משיג אבל השימוש הוא החשק והאהבה שיש למשמש שמחמתו הוא משמש ומשתדל להקים דגל התורה זה אין לו גבול. כי הוא אינו משיג עצמות דברי תורה המתגלה לחכמים רק חומד וכוסף לדברי תורה היינו לשורש התורה כולה

Amalek thrives on lethargic energy and it is the power of אש, חשק, yearning and passion that counterbalances them.

Sacrifice

If I were to summarize the parsha in a single word, the obvious choice would be Mishkan. Yet the Torah itself titles the parsha Teruma. Why is that? And why does the parsha open with an appeal for donations before describing what those donations are meant to build? Logically, we might expect the Torah to first introduce the Mishkan and only then command the people to contribute toward it?

What we see is that the act of giving itself is what brings the Mishkan into being. The possuk in Vayakhel (37:6) says וְהַמְּלָאכָ֗ה הָֽיְתָ֥ה דַיָּ֛ם לְכָל־הַמְּלָאכָ֖ה לַֽעֲשׂ֣וֹת אֹתָ֑הּ וְהוֹתֵֽר - "And the work was sufficient for them for all the work, to do it and to leave over." The Or HaChayim asks if the donations were sufficient, how could there be extra? And if there was extra, how could they have been exactly enough? He explains that although the donations exceeded the needs of the Mishkan, Hashem miraculously made space for every contribution. The giving itself created what was present in the Mishkan. 

This teaches us that the focus of the parsha is not on the construction of a structure whose holiness descends from above. Holiness that originates solely from Heaven, like the revelation at Har Sinai, is temporary, once the moment passes, the site no longer retains that same sanctity. Lasting holiness is created when human beings take initiative, give of themselves, and thereby invite the Divine Presence to dwell among them. Thus, the essence of the parsha is not the Mishkan but the Teruma, the act of giving. It is the willingness to contribute that generates lasting kedusha (based upon Likutay Sichos volume 21.)

דַּבֵּר֙ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְיִקְחוּ־לִ֖י תְּרוּמָ֑ה מֵאֵ֤ת כׇּל־אִישׁ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִדְּבֶ֣נּוּ לִבּ֔וֹ תִּקְח֖וּ אֶת־תְּרוּמָתִֽי -"Speak to the children of Israel, and have them take for Me an offering; from every person whose heart inspires him to generosity, you shall take My offering." The meforshim ask why does the possuk repeat take my offering and the words "whose heart inspires him to generosity" seem entirely superfluous? I would like to suggest (in the manner of derush) that one can read the possuk as talking about two distinct types of giving. The first part of the possuk,  וְיִקְחוּ־לִ֖י תְּרוּמָ֑ה refers to the physical items that were needed to be donated to the Mishkan. The possuk then continues with a second type of donation: אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ, a person gives up from his heart, what he holds near and dear. This is followed by תִּקְחוּ אֶת־תְּרוּמָתִי, that this  donation is even more important. That is תרומתי, the teruma that is closest to Me.

Personal Kabalas HaTorah

The Yalkut says when Hashem spoke every one said Hashem is speaking to me and that is why it says אנכי ה אלקיך in the singular form for every understood Hashem was talking directly to them. The Midrash continues that Hashem spoke according to the recipient's ability , elders according to their abilities and younger people according to heir abilities. This means Torah was given to the collective body of Klal Yisrael but their is also a personal acceptance according to the capabilities of every individual. Everyone hears the message of the Torah according to their own prism. 

When Moshe Rabbenu recounts the episode of Matan Torah in Vaeschanan he says that Klal Yisrael said they could not handle hearing Hashem speak directly and asked Moshe to give over Hashem's message and Moshe did not think that was correct but Hashem agreed. What is the שקלא וטריא? Why was Moshe not happy with the request but Hashem granted it? The Rebbe (L.S. volume 16) says Moshe saw Klal Yisrael as they were in his presence where he elevated everyone around him to be on the level of hearing directly from Hashem but Klal Yisrael said we want to accept the Torah not due to being elevated from man external source but to have a personal acceptance according to one's own individual understanding. The laws of the Torah are equal, but the understanding of the message of the Torah are different for everyone.

End Of Rambam and Tu Beshvat

Those learning Rambam 1 perek a day cycle finishes on Tu Beshvat this year:

The last halacha in the Rambam starts: וּבְאוֹתוֹ הַזְּמַן לֹא יִהְיֶה שָׁם לֹא רָעָב וְלֹא מִלְחָמָה, וְלֹא קִנְאָה וְלֹא תַחְרוּת, שֶׁהַטּוֹבָה תִּהְיֶה מֻשְׁפַּעַת הַרְבֵּה, וְכָל הַמַּעֲדַנִּים מְצוּיִין כֶּעָפָר.

Sichos טו שבט תשמ"ב:

The lesson is to take the idea of the physical additional pleasures and use them to fuel spiritual pleasure. The pleasures will be plentiful but will be like dust - not important - in people's eyes for their focus will be on loftier things. 

Sugar By Rav Chayim Ozer

This is clearly the same story but with two different versions. The first version is in the Artscroll Rav Gustman biography:

The second version is from Nefesh Harav:

Singing Of Women

Why does the Torah emphasize that the woman sang as well? Why is it Devorah that sings the song of thanks in the haftorah? The passuk says ותען להם מרים - the mefarshim ask it should have said ותען להן for she was encouraging the women and what is ןתען, who is she answering to? The Riva cites a Midrash that the angles complained they should be able to sing shira after the men and Miraim answered them we (the women) will sing and only after that you can sing. Why is the singing of the women that allows the malachim to sing? 

The Kli Yakar addresses the word להם and he says the woman reached the level of prophesy of the men so it uses the word for men, להם and he concludes his comment וכן לעתיד נאמר (ירמיהו ל״א:כ״ב) נקיבה תסובב גבר. What is the connection between the times of the future and the shira?  

The Meor VaShemesh says the מחולות that the women did is reflective of the מחול שעתיד הקב"ה לעשות לצדיקים (end of Taanis) for it is now that there are different levels but when everyone fixes their portion, is מעלה  the ניצוצות that they need, then everyone is equal. The women are representative of the כלים of acceptance while men are representative of the כלים of giving. In the current construct the givers are above the recipients, in the sefirah order ז"א is higher than מלכות but in the future the recipients will be elevated. He says that is נקיבה תסובב גבר, the giver and recipient, will be equal. Under the great light of the circle there is no male and female, all are equal. This was the light that Miriam was tapping into with the מחול, the circle above division. Moshe said אז ישיר in the future, he wasn't able to bring down that experience at that time but Miriam was so she said שירו לה in the present. (This may answer a question meforshim ask about קול אשה for at this time the boundaries of אשה ואיש were not present.) 

Hashem tells Avraham to listen to Sarah, כל אשר תאמר שרה שמע בקולה. The Bear Mayim Chayim (on the change on name from Sarai to Sarah) says that the letter yud, the first letter of Hashem's name represents the masculine quality of giving forth was changed to a ה which is comprised of a ד and י where the ד comes first, referring to דל, the poor recipient. Sarah was at the level of the future where the feminine force comes first, where the recipient precedes the giver and hence Avraham was told to listen to her.

Any time there is a spark of geulah, a spark of the ultimate geulah present, then the woman's singing carries more weight. Song is an expression of coming full circle. שירה is like the word שיר as in בעלי שיר יוצאין בשיר, it is the recognition of the full circle. When all things are a circle. When what is down becomes equal and elevated to that which is above. That is why it is woman who are more active in the shira.

Kiddush Levana

The mitzvah of kiddush levana has its roots in in the mitzvah of the kiddush hachodesh as explained by Rav Asher Weiss in 'מצוות קידוש לבנה.'

The Magen Avraham (426) says a blind person does kiddsuh levana. Rabbi Akiva Eger says the Maharikash holds only one who actually sees the moon is obligated. This machlokes may hinge on the nature of the beracha, if it is a birchas hanehenin then the Maharikash is right that only one who actually sees the moon and benefits from it can say the beracha. On the other hand, if it is a birchas hashevach, then even a blind person is eligible to say the beracha. 

The Mechabar and Rema (426:4) hold that one can say kiddush levana only after a few days of the month have passed in order to ensure one can at least benefit from the new moon. The Rambam however, holds one can say the beracha immediately (Berachot 10:17.) The Aruch Hashulchan notes this is the opinion of Rashi in Sanhedrin as well. They would seem to hold the beracha is a birchas hashevach. This also fits with the placement of the Rambam where he puts this beracha together with other berachot on natural phenomena.   

The Magen Avraham (426:1) says that woman do not say the beracha because it is a time bound mitzvah. Rav Shlomo Kluger argues it is not a מעשהז"ג for the mitzvah is not limited by time, one is just limited by the facts of life that the new moon only appears sometimes. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Choshen Mishpat volume 2 #47:2) says that the beracha of kiddush levana is not a birchas hashevach or nehinin but is a new takkanah to say a beracha on the new moon as one is able to feel the majesty of Hashem and it is כאילו מקבל פני שכינה. He explains the M.A. means this is a new form of beracha and since it only occurs at specific times, the takkanah is not placed on woman just as they are exempt from time bound mitzvot. 

What Is Maror

ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה צלי אש ומצות על מררים יאכלהו

Rashi explains מרורים as: “כל עשב מר נקרא מרור”—any bitter plant is called maror. This implies that maror (or marorim) in the pasuk is a general term encompassing any bitter herb, rather than referring to a specific species.However, the Mishnah in Pesachim (39a) enumerates specific vegetables that can be used for maror: ואלו ירקות שאדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח: בחזרת, בתמכא, ובחרחבינא, ובעולשין, ובמרור. Additionally, the Gemara records different lists according to other opinions. This suggests that maror is not simply any bitter vegetable, but refers to certain recognized varieties. (Presumably the identification of these species was transmitted by mesorah.) A way to reconcile Rashi with the Mishnah is found in the Ritva, who cites the Re’ah who maintains that the term maror in the Mishnah is itself generic and refers to all bitter plants, and the Mishnah’s list is illustrative rather than exclusive. Alternatively, the view of אחרים in the Gemara כל ירק מר יש לו שרף ופניו מכסיפין may align with Rashi. According to אחרים any bitter herb with these characteristics is valid for the mitzvah.

The Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 473:5) rules that one should use the species listed in the Mishnah. The Rema, however, adds that if these species are unavailable, one may use any bitter vegetable. The Gra explains that this allowance is based on the opinion of אחרים. The Magen Avraham writes that in such a case, one should not recite a berachah, because several opinions hold that one does not fulfill the mitzvah with arbitrary bitter herbs. He argues that even Rashi may only mean that all bitter plants are called maror, but not that they are necessarily valid for the mitzvah. One of his proofs comes from Sukkah (13a), which states that if maror has a שֵׁם לְוַוי (a descriptive modifier), one cannot fulfill the mitzvah with it. The Magen Avraham says that this implies that the mitzvah requires a specific form of maror, otherwise, why should a שם לווי make it invalid if any bitter herb were acceptable?  According to the opposing view, one would need to assert that a shem levai signals a form of bitterness not consonant with the Torah’s intended taste profile (see R’ Akiva Eger to Sukkah; Rav Kook, Mishpat Kohen §14). [See also Mishnas Yaavetz siman 17 makes this point a machlokes in the Gemarah.]

It is also notable that the Shulchan Aruch presents the Mishnah’s list in an order of preference, with the earlier items being optimal. The Rambam, by contrast, makes no mention of such a hierarchy. This suggests that the Rambam views all species listed in the Mishnah as equally defined forms of maror, with no basis for preference among them. The Shulchan Aruch, however, appears to hold that while only the Mishnah’s species qualify as maror, those whose taste more strongly reflects bitterness are more ideal for fulfilling the mitzvah.

Makos Musings

There is a machlokes between the Rishonim if the makah of blood actually turned the water to blood or the water merely looked like blood. The Riva cites the Bechor Shor assumed it was just a color change and assumes that's not such a makah, so he explains the change to blood was just to kill the fish and the stench was the makah. The Sforno on the other hand, says that is the difference between them makah and the act of the magicians. They could only make water appear like blood but the makah actually turned it to blood. The Netziv says it was two stages, first just looked like blood, the turned into blood. On the torah forum someone raises all sorts of questions if the Nile during dam could be used as a mikvah. 

Rashi comments on the arov that the makos were based upon a pattern of how an army operates in war. Why does he comment this is the context of arov and he doesn't explain the function of the arov? The Rebbe explains (Likutay Sichos volume 11) that Rashi is bothered why the makah is called for the name of the multitude of animals and not just called wild animals? Rashi explains part of the makah was the loud noises and pure confusion associated with a swarm of  animals. This he illustrates by explaining that part of the  processes of war is to scare the enemy with loud noises. It is specifically in this makah that the Torah says there will be division between Egyptians and Klal Yisrael since this makah involved the breakdown of the natural seder of the world in which animals moved to attack people. Therefore, there was a need to assure that for Klal Yisrael the order was still in place. For the geulah to happen there had to remain seder for Klal Yisrael. There has to be boundaries in place to protect between kedusha and the opposite (Rav Shmuel Eliyahu.) 

Killing The Egypitan

What right did Moshe have to kill the Egyptian?  There is a machlokes in the Midrash how did Moshe kill the Egypitan man, either by uttering the shem hameforash or his fist or a rake used for cement. What difference does it make how Moshe killed the Egyptian? 

The the Gemarah Sanhedrin (58b) derives from this possuk that a gentile that hits a yisrael is obligated death. In other words, Moshe had the right to kill the gentile since he hit the Jew. However, the Rambam (Melachim 10:6) says that although he is deserving of the death penalty, the death penalty is not actually carried out. Based upon this idea, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik (in Igros HaGrid) and his nephew, Rav Dovid Soloveitchik, suggest that is why there is an opinion that Moshe used the shem hameforash for Moshe did have the right to actively kill the Egyptian man as the death penalty is not meted out but he was able to kill him through a manner that is not considered an act of killing. (They assume that killing through the shem hameforash is not considered a technical act of killing. However, The Halachos Ketanos volume 2 #98 [cited in Steipler Bava Kammah siman 45] says that killing through a shem or sorcery is an act of killing. [Rav Itzeleh Blazer in Nesivos Ohr cites Rav Yisrael Salanter says damaging someone through heavenly aided words is considered a mazik.]) The Briskor Rav says that the Rambam means there is an obligation of death by Heavenly punishment and Moshe used the shem hameforash to fulfill that law. However, it is not clear the Rambam means that there is Heavenly punishment and it is hard to hear that killing someone by evoking the shem mefurash is considered fulfilling the Heavenly death penalty.

However, the other opinions in the Midrash hold there are other reasons that the Egyptian was eligible for the death penalty and therefore Moshe had the right to kill him directly. One possibility raised in the Midrash is that he was a rodaf as his act of hitting the Jew may have led to a deathblow. Another option is that Moshe saw through reach hakodesh that this Egyptian has illicit relations with a married woman as the Midrash says elsewhere. But how can Moshe administer a death penalty based upon ruach hakodesh? Since a gentile does not require a formal Beis Din to rule on the death penalty for a gentile it suffices with a mere ascertaining of the facts which may be obtained through ruach hakodesh as well (Rav Yosef Engel.) Alternatively, Rav Dovid Somevetchik suggests since it was pre Matan Torah, when the dominion of pesak was still in hands of heaven, one may administer death based upon a pesak from heaven. This may explain the Midrash stating that Moshe consulted the angels to determine whether the Egyptian was deserving of death for Moshe was inquiring about a pesak from heaven. [See also Zohar Yisro 78b, וצ"ע.]  Rashi says Moshe knew through ruach hakodesh the episode of the illicit relations but also says that Moshe did not kill the Egyptian outright but through the shem hameforash. Why not kill the Egyptian directly if Moshe was aware of his guilt? Rashi holds that ruach hakodesh does not grant an obligation to adjudicate justice, it merely determines the person is deservant of the death penalty but not a license to kill directly and therefore he used the shem hameforash.

Rashi says that Moshe saw through ruach hakodesh that no righteous descendants would emerge from this Egyptian, and only then did he kill him. The Mizrachi asks, if the Egyptian was already liable to death, why should the merit of potential descendants matter at all? According to the approach that Moshe killed via the shem hameforash, the killing was extrajudicial rather than a formal execution. In such a case, it is reasonable to consider additional factors before acting (Brisker Rav). The Mizrachi, as explained by the Maharal, advances this further, even if Moshe acted because of the Egyptian man’s illicit relations, since this information was obtained only through ruach hakodesh, when acting on Divine revelation rather than judicial process, supplementary considerations such as future descendants may be weighed. The approach of the Mizrachi indicates that a Divine revelation does not create an absolute obligation to execute but rather grants Moshe a  license to act based upon his knowledge.  According to the view that the Egyptian was a rodef, however, the Mizrachi’s question remains difficult.

There is another approach advanced by some Midrashim cited in Torah Shelamah that indicate that there was some element of wrongdoing by Moshe killing the Egyptian. The Torah Shelamah cites the Ariza"l who says that that's why Moshe had to run away since he was obligated golus like one who kills by accident. This seems to be reflected in the Ramban who says that Moshe's may be the intent of the Ramban that indicates it was a spontaneous act of Moshe seeing another Jew in pain he jumped to kill the attacker. However, it is not the mainline approach to assume Moshe did something wrong by killing the Egyptian. 

The halacha aside, what is the message of the different forms of how Moshe possibly killed the Egyptian and what is the debate in the Midrash if he used his fist or a cement rake? Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson  explains the message of the Midrash is that there are three approaches to dealing with mortal threats to outsiders. One approach is to fight back, that is killing with the fist. Another method is to kill by using the cement rake, a building tool, which represents the approach of building connections with the outside world, which will give importance to the Jew and thereby stave off his enemies. The third method is shem hameforash, by a deep connection to Hashem, the enemy will fall by the wayside. At different times, different methods are needed and sometimes all three methods must be employed. 

Yosef's Marriage

 ויאמר יוסף אל אביו בני הם אשר נתן לי אלקים בזה Rashi says הראה לו שטר אירוסין ושטר כתובה. The mefarshim say Yosef was telling Yaakov not to suspect that they weren't fit for beracha since they were not born to him from a proper marriage. But if this is the case, why didn’t Yaakov suspect this during the 17 years he had already been in Egypt? And why did Yosef need to present both a shtar kiddushin and erusin, the shtar kiddushin should suffice? The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 30) explains that we don't find in the simple peshat of the pessukim that the Avos did kiddushin. Why not? For the cheftzah of kiddushin - of a marriage as a form of kinyan - is only a chiddush of the Torah. Pre-Mattan Torah the only form of marriage was through living together as a married couple. The Torah is mechadesh the concept of a binding kinyan of marriage through a kinyan. However, since Yosef was in Egypt, a place of immorality, he did the kinyan of kiddushin to demonstrate that his marriage was a binding kinyan that was not going to be broken. Hence, he had a shtar for the kiddushin as a lasting proof of his binding marriage and a shtar כתובה since that is part of the binding marriage post Matan Torah. Yosef was telenig Yaakov don't think that the fact they were born in such a terrible place should make them unfit for beracha for I erected extra safeguards that they should not be affected. 

When Yosef is sent by Yaakov to look for his brothers in Vayeshev, he asks someone where they are and the person answers נסעו מזה  which Rashi says means they have separated themselves from being your brother. The Sifsay Chachamim says that the word זה has gematria 12 alluding to the 12 brothers and the man was telling Yosef נסעו מזה, they have removed themselves from זה, being 12, they no longer want to be 12, they want to remove you. In light of this we can say the same idea Yosef was conveying to Yaakov. בזה, my children are proper children to descend from the 12 shevatim, they are fitting of receiving beracha like the shevatim.