The Good Fight

כִּֽי⁠־תֵצֵ֨א לַמִּלְחָמָ֜ה עַל⁠־אֹיְבֶ֗ךָ וְֽרָאִ֜יתָ ס֤וּס וָרֶ֙כֶב֙ עַ֚ם רַ֣ב מִמְּךָ֔ לֹ֥א תִירָ֖א מֵהֶ֑ם כִּֽי⁠־י״י֤ אלקיך עִמָּ֔ךְ הַמַּֽעַלְךָ֖ מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם 

The Or Hachayim says that the war is also allegorically referring to one's fight with the yetzer harah.  When one goes to fight the yetzer harah and finds it prepared for battle and that is  ממך, it is due to the person's own bad actions which allow his yetzer harah greater power, still Hashem will help a person be victorious in the battle, for Hashem took you out of Egypt means that Hashem can redeem everything from  they they are stuck in.  In other words, Hashem redeemed on a national level and also redeems a private person from their battles.     

The Sfas Emes adds that one who is afraid that their averot will make them fall in battle is exempt from going to war.  That means that one who is in battle with the yetzer harah, one who is not exempt from the battle, has the ability to be victorious.  The fact that there is a battle is reassuring that there is the capability for victory.  He explains that is the meaning of the possuk we say during this time of year, אם תחנה עלי מחנה לא יירא לבי אם תקום עלי מלחמה בזאת אני בוטח, if there is a battle, בזאת, in this, in the very fact that there is a battle, that gives me bitachon that I will be victorious for one is never put in a battle that they can't overcome  He cites from the Chidushay HaRim that בזאת also alludes to the recognition that everything has no existence without Hashem, (the word זאת is made of the ז for the seven middot and את which is the aleph beis from beginning to end, everything is infused life only from the letters of the Torah.)  With that understand that the battle is also from Hashem, it is there to allow one to become stronger by beating one's yetzer harah ,then one will have the strength to fight an win.

Don't Let Him Have It

מִֽי⁠־הָאִ֞ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר בָּנָ֤ה בַֽיִת⁠־חָדָשׁ֙ וְלֹ֣א חֲנָכ֔וֹ יֵלֵ֖ךְ וְיָשֹׁ֣ב לְבֵית֑וֹ פֶּן⁠־יָמוּת֙ בַּמִּלְחָמָ֔ה וְאִ֥ישׁ אַחֵ֖ר יַחְנְכֶֽנּוּ

Why is the Torah concerned specifically with these three people dying in battle?  The Ramban: וצוה על השלשה האלה לשוב, כי לבו על ביתו וכרמו ועל אשתו וינוס.  The Even Ezra adds והטעם: כי לבו וכל תאוותיו לחנוך ביתו, והנה לבו לביתו ולא למלחמה, על כן ינוס ויניס אחרים.  The concern is that these people will be thinking about their new things and will therefore weaken the battle effort which lead to a detriment to everyone involved in the battle.  

However, why does the Torah add וְאִ֥ישׁ אַחֵ֖ר יַחְנְכֶֽנּוּ, what difference does it make?  Rashi says ואיש אחר יחנכנו – ודבר של עגומתא נפש הוא זה.  What is the explanation of this though, why is it a greater agmas nefesh for one to die and have someone else take over their new house more than if one owned it for years?  

Because of this question the Abarbanel learns the agmas nefesh is that the owner will not be able to keep the mitzvah associated with a new house of a maakeh, a vineyard of arlah and revai and a wife of having children, in his words: אבל ענין זה כלו נאמר על האיש שהתחיל בדבר שיש מצוה בתכליתו ובהשלמתו והיו מאוייו וחפצו להגיע הדבר ההוא אל תכליתו מפני קיום המצוה ועבודת האלדים אשר בו. ולכן זכר מי האיש אשר בנה בית שיהיה בו ענין המצוה שזכר כי תבנה בית חדש ועשית מעקה לגגך. וזכר נטע כרם ולא חללו. מפני המצוה שהיה בזה (פרשת קדשים) בשנה הרביעית לפדות אותו או לחללו בדמים ולהעלותם לירושלם ולאכלם שם. וזכר אשר ארש אשה ולא לקחה. שהיה מצוה לקתת אשה ולעסוק בפריה ורביה.

The Ricanti: מי האיש אשר בנה בית וגו'. ומי האיש אשר נטע כרם וגו'. ומי האיש אשר אירש אשה וגו'. דע כי אלו השלשה מזומנים לפגעי העולם יותר מאנשים אחרים ומדת הדין מקטרגת עליהם והעגל במתן תורה יוכיח. דוק ותשכח בכל המקומות שחטאו ישראל במדבר רובם היו בעת מעלתם הגדולה.  The Ricanti explains the Torah is worried that these people will die because they have reached a new level in their life.  Having a new house, a new vineyard, a new wife is a new stage, another milestone in one's life and when one reaches such a plateau it is a time of dinim where the evil forces try to knock one back down.  He says that is why the sins in the desert usually occurred after a new level was achieved as he continues to enumerate in his piece.  It is a such a time that one is mot susceptible and the Torah says such people should return. 

In light of this we can maybe understand that is the great agmas nefesh.  The lack of being able to convert this new energy into anything, the fact that it should have to be given over to someone else, is a greater tragedy that one who already tapped into the energy of this stage of life.  The fact that one person was prepared to embark on another leg of his journey and life and that is instead given over to someone else is the tragedy

War Is Necessary

 כִּֽי־תֵצֵ֨א לַמִּלְחָמָ֜ה עַל־אֹיְבֶ֗ךָ וְֽרָאִ֜יתָ ס֤וּס וָרֶ֙כֶב֙ עַ֚ם רַ֣ב מִמְּךָ֔ לֹ֥א תִירָ֖א מֵהֶ֑ם כִּֽי־י״י֤ אֱלֹהֶ֙יךָ֙ עִמָּ֔ךְ הַמַּֽעַלְךָ֖ מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם.  The Or Hachayim asks why does it say ממך, it seems unnecessary?  

The Or Hachayaim says derech derush that the possuk is referring to one's own battle with the yetzer harah.  It is ממך, from one one's self that the yetzer harah becomes harder to conquer becomes as one does averot, strength is added to the attacking force. 

כי ה אלקיכם הַהֹלֵ֖ךְ עִמָּכֶ֑ם לְהִלָּחֵ֥ם לָכֶ֛ם עִם־אֹיְבֵיכֶ֖ם לְהוֹשִׁ֥יעַ אֶתְכֶֽם.  The Sfas Emes asks it should have said הולך עמכם?  The Sfas Emes (5650) says that the Hashem brings about the war in order to save the individual.  In other words, it's not that there is a war where Hashem helps a person to be rescued from, but rather Hashem also brings the war.  That is what it means ה איש מלחמה, Hashem puts one in a state of war, ה שמו, and Hashem rescues one from it.  Why is there a need for war?

As the Or Hachayim taught us, the possuk is alluding to one's war with the yetzer.  If things were perfect then there would be no need for war.  However, since man sins, the world becomes contaminated and the state of העלמה grows stronger.  The struggle is to see Hashem through the state of the העלמה.  That is why the merit of those going out to war is for saying shema.  There is no clear vision, it is a knowledge of שמע, of a perceived sound.  The war is the struggle to overcome the העלמה and see what Hashem wants.  It is only through going through the struggle that one can overcome the forces.  (In the Kabbalistic literature that is the job of gatherin the netzotzot, of gathering the kedusha that has been hidden.)

The Sfas Emes (5645) says that is the meaning of what we say this month in לדוד ה אורי, the words of בזאת אני בוטח mean בזאת, in the war itself, I have trust that it is from Hashem.  If Hashem gave us the war, if He gaveme the challenge, it means that I can overcome it. 

The Rabbi Is Not Enough

The opening Mishna in Sanhedrin says that three judges are required to form a Beit Din. Why are three judges required, why can't a rabbi tell the litigants the din the same way he will pasken any rule of issur veheter? The Chashek Shlomo says that three is only required to be the שוטרים to enforce the pesak. This is difficult for the Mishna is discussing how many judges are necessary to enact the law? The only reason to have three judges is to act as the policemen to ensure their pesak is carried out. Furthermore, Tosfot Sanhedrin (2b) ד”ה ליבעי is clear that the paskening the law and enforcing it are two distinct matters, not the Chashek Shlomo who lumps the two together?

The Chazon Eish says is that a Beit Din is required to create a monetary obligation. In other words, a rabbi can tell the one obligated to pay that the Torah holds him responsible but he can't create an obligation on the individual to pay. It is a Beit Din only that has the power to create a monetary obligation. What difference does it make if he is the Torah considers him obligated or this is an actual obligation upon him? The Chazon Eish says the נפקא מינה is regarding תפיסה. Only if there is a pesak of Beit Din making one obligated can the other party grab the money that is entitled to them. Without the chiuv on the obligated party, it would be theft to grab what one is owed from them.

Rav Shmuel Rozovski (Chiddushim siman 2) brings a few proofs that even when there is no monetary obligation, 3 judges are still required to form a Beit Din. One of his proofs is from the Mishna at the beginning of Maakot which assumes that it is Beit Din accepting the testimony of witnesses that a kohan is pasul. In that instance there is no monetary obligation, yet a Beit Din is still required to accept the testimony. So why is a Beit Din required?

Lone Witness

לא יומת על פי עד אחד    

The Rambam in the beginning of Ch. 6 in the Laws of Murders discusses those that go to the arey miklat and those who don't.  He says one who kills in a manner which involves negligence does not have the atonement of the arey miklat and will have to be a fugitive from the goal hadam for his entire life.  He adds in Law 5, וְכֵן כָּל הָרַצְחָנִים שֶׁהָרְגוּ בְּעֵד אֶחָד אוֹ בְּלֹא הַתְרָאָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אִם הֲרָגָן גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם אֵין לָהֶם דָּמִים. לֹא יִהְיוּ אֵלּוּ חֲמוּרִים מֵהַהוֹרֵג בְּלֹא כַּוָּנָה.  The Raavad asks תימה הוא ואיך נאמין בעד אחד  להתיר דמו של זה לגואל הדם.  How can one trust one witness to kill the supposed killer?  It is clear from the Rambam that there is no heter for Beit Din to act based upon one aid to have someone killed but that does not mean one witness can't be believed.  Although one witness can be believed, he does not give the Beit Din the power to carry out capital punishment.  However, outside the context of a proper judicial act, one may take into account the testimony of one witness.  Hence, the goal hadam may act based upon one witness. 

Moving Forward

ואמר אלהם שמע ישראל אתם קרבים היום למלחמה על איביכם אל ירך לבבכם אל תיראו ואל תחפזו ואל תערצו מפניהם.  Rashi שמע ישראל" - אפי' אין בכם זכות אלא קריאת שמע בלבד כדאי אתם שיושיע אתכם.  But the Torah describes afterward האיש הירא ורך הלבב ילך וישב לביתו and Rashi brings רבי יוסי הגלילי או' הירא מעבירות שבידו.  If all that is needed in the merit of krias shema what is the person afraid of?  Furthermore, the Gemorah in Sotah (44b) says הירא ורך הלבב refers to one that said said krias shema and done many mitzvot but merely talked in between pitting on the hand and head tefillin, but he is promised salvation because of the merit of krias shma?  The Kotzker (Siach Sarfey Kodesh) says: 

 

If one believes Hashem will save him because of the merit of krias shema will be saved, but if one is afraid he will not be saved.  Why should one be confident if they have averot? 

The Rishonim ask Jews how do Jews live in Egypt if the Torah commands ׂ(17:16) רַק֮ לֹא־יַרְבֶּה־לּ֣וֹ סוּסִים֒ וְלֹֽא־יָשִׁ֤יב אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִצְרַ֔יְמָה לְמַ֖עַן הַרְבּ֣וֹת ס֑וּס וַֽי״י֙ אָמַ֣ר לָכֶ֔ם לֹ֣א תֹסִפ֗וּן לָשׁ֛וּב בַּדֶּ֥רֶךְ הַזֶּ֖ה עֽוֹד׃?  One approach the Ritva Yoma (38b) brings from the Yereyim that the possuk adds seemingly superfluous words, לָשׁ֛וּב בַּדֶּ֥רֶךְ הַזֶּ֖ה עֽוֹד, just say we can't go back to Egypt, what's the דרך הזה?  The Yereyim says the issur is only to return back the journey that Klal Yisroel took to leave Egypt.  Rav Shaul Nathanson (Divrey Shaul Massey) says that's why the Torah records all the travels of Klal Yisroel because the issur is only to return the exact journey that Klal Yisroel took.  (See the footnotes on the Riva that the Rishonim did not necessarily mean the exact journey just the general path but that is how the Divrey Shaul interprets.)  This seems a very strange geder to the issur.  However, I heard a few years ago a bochur say in the name of Rabbi Reznik (of Mir) that there is a mussar hascha to take out from here.  The Torah is teaching us never to go backward in life, we must always move forward.  We must not go back over roads already passed through but must look for new advancements, new paths to get to the goal. 

Maybe that is the idea of the Kotzker as well.  The Gemorah doesn't say it is because of the averah that one might fall in battle, it is one who is afraid of their averot.  It is the inability to move on from previous failures that holds the person back.  One who is a שוב מצרים nick, one who can't move on from their previous trauma and failures indeed will not be able to move forward.  It is one that knows despite previous mishaps, they are willing to move forward, such a person Hashem will help.  תמים תהיה, one who has faith that no matter what happened in the past they can be better, אם ה' אלקיך, Hashem is with such a person (see Kedushat Levi.)

Don't Do The Mitzvah

The Gemorah in Yevamot (90) says the Chochamim have the ability to uproot a mitzvah from the Torah by telling one to passively not do the mitzvah.  The Teshuvot Rashba (volume 6 #254) says this is based on the possuk of ככל אשר יורוך.  Rav Elchonon (Kovetz Ha'arot siman 69) has a chakirah if the Chachamim uprooted the mitzvah because of their takkanah or that the mitzvah remains in place but they said not to fulfill the mitzvah.  One of the נ"מ is when a kid is blowing shofar on Rosh Hashana Rabbi Akiva Eger (Derush V'chiddush maarachah 8) says one does not have to stop the kid for he is fulfilling a mitzvah.  He holds the mitzvah still remains.  R.A.E. goes lishitaso in Orach Chayim siman 128 on the Magen Avraham 4 he says that a kohan that is rabbinicly disqualified from doing ברכת כהנים should walk out before they are called up so as not to violate the mitzvah.  He clearly holds the mitzvah remains in place.  R.A.E. learns this is the peshat in Tosfos Sukkah (2a) questions why rain is considered a curse on Sukkot if one could just make schach that will not allow rain to come through?  Tosfos qualifies that even if such schach would be invalid rabbinicly that is not reason for rain to be considered a curse.  R.A.E. explains the reason is since if one violated the rabbinic decree and made schach in such a manner it would still be valid.  We see that Tosfos holds the Chachamam did not remove the fulfillment of the mitzvah because of their takkanah.  However, Tosfos Sukkah (3a) says that if one had their table sticking outside the sukkah which is rabbinicly forbidden according to Beis Shamai lest one follow the table outside the sukkah one does not even fulfill the Torah law, the Chachamim removed the fulfillment of the mitzvah?  How would this fit with the Tosfos on the previous page according to R.A.E.'s understanding? 

There are different forms of the takkanot of the Rabbanan.  It is only when the Chachamim gave a form to the maaseh mitzvah that if one doesn't adhere to the form they prescribed then they removed the kium mitzvah.  So if one doesn't sit in a sukkah in the way the Chachamim defined yeshivat sukkkah then one does not fulfill their obligation.  Similarly, Rabbenu Yona writes in the beginning of Berachot that one who says krias shema after chatzot of the night does not fulfill their obligation for the Chachamim defined the mitzvah of krias shema as being until chatzot.  However, when it comes to a takkanah that does not define the kium hamitzvah but is an external takkanah, then they did not rub out the mitzvah.  So if one blows shofar on Shabbat the Chachamam are not defining the form of blowing shofar, they made a gezarah not to do it on Shabbat.  Similarly, when it comes to a thick schach the action of the mitzvah is not being defined, the takkanah is defining a sukkah.  The Chachamam do not declare a sukkah not to be a sukkah.  It is only when the takkanah gives a presice definition to the maaseh mitzvah that the Chachamam revoked one's fulfillment it the mitzvah was not done properly.

It could be this chakirah is the machlokes Rabbenu Yona and the Rosh in the approach of the Pri Migadim.  Why does Rabbenu Yona disagree with the Rosh that says the Rabbanan said you are not yotzei?  That principle is only when the Rabbanan gave a form to the fulfillment of the mitzvah.  The Rosh holds kiddush not done במקום סעודה is a problem with the maaseh kiddush, the Rabbanan gave a formula how to do the mitzvah, if its not followed, you are not yotzei.  Rabbenu Yona holds like the Rivash, the Rabbanan didn't make a takkanah in how to do the mitzvah but added a detail to enhance the kium mitzvah. 

The Rosh in Arvey Pesachim siman 5 brings Rabbenu Yonah holds that even if there is no one is shul that is eating there, one can still recite kiddush in shul even though it is not in place of a seudah for the requirement of seudah is merely rabbinic and it can be ignored in place of keeping the custom to say kiddush in shul.  The Rosh disagrees because kiddush not in place of the seudah is not kiddush at all.  What does he mean?  The Pri Migadim (269:1 on Taz) says the Rosh means that once the Chachamim enacted the law of kiddush must be done in place of a seudah, if that is not kept, they revoked one's fulfillment of kiddush.  Why would Rabbenu Yona disagree if he holds of such a concept regarding the time of krias shema?  In light of what we said previously we can understand they argue as to what the takkanah of kiddush in place of seudah is.  The Rosh holds the Chachamim gave a form to the mitzvah like krias shema.  Rabbenu Yona holds the takkanah is not in the maaseh iddushin, to be magdir the maaseh kiddushin, it is an external takkanah to enhance the kium mitzvah of kiddush it should be done in place of a seudah (see Rivash #391.)  However, since the Chachamim were not formulating a din in the maaseh kiddush itself they did not remove the kium of kiddush if it was done not in the placeo f a seudah.  (This last paragraph is based upon a hesber given by Rabbi Elefant.) 

Customs

The Tur Choshen Mishpat end of siman 368 says in a place where the custom is that one who purchases stolen goods should return the stolen object and get his money back, one must uphold that custom דאמרינן מנלן דמנהגא מילתא היא שנאמר אל תסיג גבול רעך אשר גבלו ראשונים וכ"ש בדבר שיש בו תקנה גדולה והסרת מריבה לפיכך עשו כמנהגכם ולא תשנו ושלום:  The Torah Temimah brings this and notes the terminology sounds like its from Chazal but he says he does not know where this Chazal is.  (See beginning of מנהגי ישראל by professor Sperber.)  

The Gemorah in Pesachim (50b) and Chullin (93b) says one must uphold a custom because of the possuk of שמע בני מוסר אבך ואל תטוש תורת אמך.  So why does the Tur cite another possuk?  And if the Tur's source is correct why does the Gemorah not cite this possuk which is from the Chumash and instead picks a possuk from Mishlay? Rav Asher Weiss suggests that laws of issur v'heter the Gemorah learns from the possuk in Mishlay.  It is only regarding minhagim of monetary laws that the Rishonmi bring are rooted in לא תשיג.  However, it is clear from other sources that they cite this possuk even out of the context of monetary laws.  The Sefer Chassidim in 114 says המשנה מנהג ראשונים כמו פיוטים וקרוב"ץ שהנהיגו לומר אין צור חלף קרוב"ץ הקליר וזהו המנהג ואמר קרוב"ץ אחרות עובר משום אל תשיג גבול עולם אשר עשו אבותיך לא תשיג גבול רעך אשר גבלו ראשונים:  Similarly, in 302 he says לא תשיג גבול רעך אשר גבלו ראשונים שתקנו הנגונים שלא יאמר נגון של תורה לנביאים ולכתובים ושל נביאים לתורה ולכתובים. ושל כתובים לתורה ונביאים אלא כל נגון כמו שהוא מתוקן שהכל הלכה למשה מסיני שנאמר (שמות יט יט) יעננו בקול:  [I don't know what he means that הכל הללמ"מ, he is saying it is a minhag?]  We see he brings לא תשיג outside the context of monetary laws?  So הדרא קושיא לדוכתיה?  

Once I am on the topic, I saw this week in the Magen Avraham (271:22) in discussing taking out some words of kiddush to fit with a kabbalistic number he does not take change lightly because אין לשנות שום מנהג כי לכל מנהג יש טעם ויסוד ודו"ק. 

Holy Averah

The Igra D'kallah in parshas Reah וירמוז עוד לא תעשון כן וכו' (דברים יב ד). על פי מה שאמרו רז"ל (נזיר כ"ג ע"ב) גדולה עבירה לשמה ממצוה שלא לשמה. והנה עבירה הגם שהיא באזהרת לא"ו מהש"י, עם כל זה כשיארע הדבר לשם שמים גדלה מאד מעלתו, כמו שידעת מענין יעל אשת חבר הקני, (צא ולמד מבנות לוט שהיתה כוונתן לשם שמים ויצא מהן חוטר מגזע ישי). וזה שרמזה התורה, ל"א, ר"ל מה שאתה מוזהר בל"א, היינו לאוין, תעשון כן לי"י אלקיכם, תעשון כזאת בעת יקרה לכם כוונת פעולה לשם שמים, כגון אסתר ויעל וכיוצא, אזי יהיה לרצון הפעולה ההיא בהכוונה הטובה לשם שמים, והבן.  He says a similar idea in this weeks parsha, Shoftim, וירמוז עוד ואתה לא כן וכו' (דברים יח יד). על פי מה דידוע (נזיר כ"ג ע"ב) גדולה עבירה לשמה וכו'. והנה הקשו הגדולים אשר בארץ הלא סגולת המצוה להשפיע טובות וישועות מאילן הקודש שורש מחצב המצוה, וסגולת העבירה להשפיע חרבות ושממה ויסורין ממקום תהו וצלמות אשר שם שורש העבירה, והנה מאין ולאין יבוא מפעולת העבירה, אפילו תהיה לשמה איך יבוא ממנה טובה. ותירצו כי באמת יבוא ממנה רעות, אך להיותה לשמה יושפע על ידי פעולתה רעות וחרבות לאומות העולם, וגדולה פעולתה בעשות נקם בשונאי הש"י וישראל, כן קבלתי מהקדושים אשר בארץ. וזהו כי הגוים וכו', אל מעוננים ואל קוסמים ישמעו בהצטרכם ללחום באויביהם, וכענין סיחון שלקח את בלעם הקוסם לקלל את מואב, וכן בלק שלח אחר בלעם. ואתה לא תצטרך לכל זה כי ל"א כ"ן נתן לך וכו', ר"ל נתן לך ל"א שהוא כ"ן, ר"ל לאוים שהם נכונים ויפים לפי שעתם בעשותם לשמה, ועל ידי כך תכריתו את אויביכם בעשות כל מעשיכם לשם שמים, והבן:

This idea can be found in the writing of his Rebbe, the Chozeh in Zikaron Zos parshas Pinchas:

 

Which can be found in the writing of his Rebbe, the Noam Elimelech in parshas Naso, ונראה כי בגמרא איתא "גדולה עבירה לשמה", וקשה מה זה שייכות אצל עבירה לשמה, וכי מי צוה לעשות עבירה שיהא שייך אצלה לשמה. אבל נראה דהאמת הוא כך, דהנה כל מה שברא הקב"ה בעולמו לא בראו כי אם להטיב לברואיו ע"י השפעות השפע מעילא לתתא, אלא שלזה צריך התערותא דלתתא ע"י מ"נ, וזה היה הכיון בנתינת התורה לישראל ובנסים ונפלאות שעשה עמנו, כדי שנאמין בו ית׳ באהבה ויראה, ונוכל לקבל טובותיו השפעה העליונה, נמצא השפע אינו כי אם ע"י הצדיק המשפיע, והצדיק אשר הוא רוצה להשפיע לבני אדם צריך הוא לדבק עצמו עמהם כדי להשפיע כל דבר הצורך לטובתם, כי מי שרוצה לעשות איזה טובה לחבירו אינו יכול לעשות לו הטובה בשלימות כי אם ע"י שידבק עמו באחדות גמור, וא"כ הצדיק צריך לדבק עצמו בכל ישראל כדי להטיב להם, ואיך הוא עושה עם הבעל עבירה חלילה, הלא אף שהוא בעל עבירה אעפ"כ צריך להשפעה ולחיות, ואיך יתקשר הצדיק עמו? לזה אמרה הגמרא "גדולה עבירה לשמה" שהצדיק עושה ג"כ איזה עבירה, אלא שהיא לשמה, ועי"ז יכול להתקשר עם הבעל עבירה ג"כ ויטיב לו ג"כ.  What is interesting is that he continues to give an example of Shaul Hamelech that should have ignored his conscience about killing the animals of Amalek and done the commandment of Hashem.  That is an odd example because his conscience went against the mitzvah and he had to ignore his conscience to fulfill the commandment of Hashem, not to violate it, so how does that prove his point? 

See more about this here.

No Wood

For those learning Rambam at one chapter a day pace, this week we learnt Ch. 6 of the Laws of Foeign Worship and Customs of the Nations.  At the end of the chapter he discusses the law of our parsha, לֹֽא־תִטַּ֥ע לְךָ֛ אֲשֵׁרָ֖ה כׇּל־עֵ֑ץ אֵ֗צֶל מִזְבַּ֛ח י״י֥ אֱלֹקיך אשר תעשה לך.  The last law in that chapter says אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת אַכְסַדְרָאוֹת שֶׁל עֵץ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בַּחֲצֵרוֹת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּבִנְיָן וְאֵינוֹ עֵץ נָטוּעַ הַרְחָקָה יְתֵרָה הִיא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טז כא) "כָּל עֵץ". אֶלָּא כָּל הָאַכְסַדְרָאוֹת וְהַסְּבָכוֹת הַיּוֹצְאוֹת מִן הַכְּתָלִים שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁל אֶבֶן הָיוּ לֹא שֶׁל עֵץ:  The Raavad disagrees  א''א לשכת העץ בית היתה, בימה של עץ שעושין למלך בשעת הקהל לשעתה היתה. וכן גזוזטרא שהקיפו בעזרת נשים בשמחת בית השואבה לשעתה היתה:
In Beis Habechirah (1:9) the Rambam says וְאֵין בּוֹנִין בּוֹ עֵץ בּוֹלֵט כְּלָל אֶלָּא אוֹ בַּאֲבָנִים אוֹ בִּלְבֵנִים וְסִיד. וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין אַכְסַדְרוֹת שֶׁל עֵץ בְּכָל הָעֲזָרָה אֶלָּא שֶׁל אֲבָנִים אוֹ לְבֵנִים:  The Raavad says א''א והלא לשכת כהן גדול של עץ היתה ובשמחת בית השואבה מקיפין כל העזרה גזוזטרא אלא לא אסרה תורה כל עץ אלא אצל מזבח ה' והיא עזרת כהנים משער ניקנור ולפנים אבל בעזרת נשים ובהר הבית מותר:  
The Achronim ask a contradiction in the Raavad for in the first halacha, he seems to allow wooden structures in the Mikdash temporarily but in the second halacha he forbids them in the היכל?  Furthermore, in the second halacha he allows wooden structures outside the היכל even permanently, but in the first halacha he allows it only temporarily?
We see from the Rambam that there are two problems with making a wooden structure in the Mikdash.  As the name of the Laws indicate and from the possuk that establishes the issue with a אשרה tree, the Rambam derives all wooden structures are prohibited as to distance from idolatry.  (This may be a Rabbinic prohibition, see Kesef Mishne.)  In Beis Habechira, as the name of the laws indicate, the Rambam isn't mentioning a problem of using wood, rather that the Mikdash must be made from stone or bricks (see there previous halacha,) and therefore wood is excluded.  The Rambam isn't telling us a negative of wood, but that there is a positive law to build with stones of bricks.  Based upon this maybe we can understand the Raavad.  When it comes to the negative of using wood to distance from idolatry, the Raavad holds that if its a structure, not a tree and temporary there is no problem of it leading to idolatry.  However, in the Laws of Beis Habechirah he is coming to address the issue of building with materials other than stone/ bricks and there he says that it is a problem only in the עזרת כנהים.  (From the sefer קונטרס בעניין נטיעת עץ במקדש pg. 13 -17, https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=57893&st=&pgnum=1&hilite=.)

Two Two's

 (עַל־פִּ֣י׀ שְׁנַ֣יִם עֵדִ֗ים א֛וֹ שְׁלֹשָׁ֥ה עֵדִ֖ים יוּמַ֣ת הַמֵּ֑ת (17:6
(19:15) עַל־פִּ֣י׀ שְׁנֵ֣י עֵדִ֗ים א֛וֹ עַל־פִּ֥י שְׁלֹשָֽׁה־עֵדִ֖ים יָק֥וּם דָּבָֽר
Why the change from שנים to שני?  Rav Lazer Silver explains based upon the midrash Massey (23:9) that the word שנים means the two are the same type.  Based upon this this he says the first possuk which is talking about דיני נפשות where the Gemorah Makkot (6b) says that the witnesses must see the act together, from the same view, then the Torah says שנים.  However, the second possuk, dealing with monetary laws, where עדות מיוחדת works, there the Torah says שני for they don't have to see the act together. He says he said this over to the Or Sameach, who approved of the idea.  He uses this idea to explain many other ideas as well, see https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=3001&st=&pgnum=231&hilite=.

See also here.

Killing

The last Even Ezra in the parsha in his final explanation of the final possuk וְאַתָּ֗ה תְּבַעֵ֛ר הַדָּ֥ם הַנָּקִ֖י מִקִּרְבֶּ֑ךָ כִּֽי־תַעֲשֶׂ֥ה הַיָּשָׁ֖ר בְּעֵינֵ֥י י״יֽ  says והנכון בעיני, הוא אשר הזכרתי: כי לא ישפך דם נקי בארצך אם תעשה הישר (ראב״ע דברים י״ט:א׳, כ״א:ז׳), כסוד ושכר עבירה עבירה ושכר מצוה מצוה.  He reads the possuk as כִּֽי־תַעֲשֶׂ֥ה הַיָּשָׁ֖ר בְּעֵינֵ֥י י״יֽ, by doing the right thing, then, תְּבַעֵ֛ר הַדָּ֥ם הַנָּקִ֖י מִקִּרְבֶּ֑ךָ, blood won't be spilled.  That is what he says means שכר עבירה עבירה ושכר מצוה מצוה, by doing a mitzvah it will attract further mitzvot but doing averot allows for mishaps to happen.  Why was a man found dead in the vicinity of the city?  Because the leaders were lacking in some level.  It is the onus of the leaders who's conduct can affect the area around them.

Take It Upon Yourself

Rashi (20:3) שמע ישראל – אפילו אין בכם זכות אלא של קריית שמע בלבד, כדיי אתם שיושיע אתכם.  Why is it specifically the merit of krias shema that guarantees success in war?

This blog mentioned before the Even Ezra that to be a nazir is considered a פלא; for a person to control their animalistic desires is considered a פלא.  Rav Leeb Chasman asks why is it considered such a big deal to abstain from some wine and haircuts for thirty days?  It doesn't seem that these are tremendously earth shattering, otherworldly guidelines to adhere to?  He explains its not the content of the nezirus that's the פלא, its the acceptance.  For a person to be willing to accept upon himself even a small measure of abstention runs against the very nature of an individual and it is indeed a פלא to willingly accept such limitations upon one's self.

The Shem M'Shmuel says that's the great merit of shema as well.  It isn't just a mitzvah like any other but it involves a acceptance of malchus shamayim.  It is the acceptance of Hashem's will, even if it hasn't fully been realized in actuality that is the grates merit for success in war.

This is why the baalei mussar put an emphasis on some form of a kabbalah (or hachlatah depending on your lingo,) of special behavior for a person to accept upon themselves  during these times of year.  It's not the point for the actual content of the kabbalah itself, quite the contrary, very small kabbalos are encouraged.  It's is the middah of curtailing a person's free reign in some matter, the need to acknowledge a Higher Presence that is expressing by means of the kabbalah.    

One Stone, Multiple Paths

וְלֹֽא־תָקִ֥ים לְךָ֖ מַצֵּבָ֑ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר שָׂנֵ֖א י״י֥ אלקיך.  Rashi says לא תקים לך מצבה – מצבת אבן אחת, להקריב עליה אפילו לשמים מזבח אבנים ומזבח אדמה צוה לעשות, ואת זו שנא כי חק היתה לכנענים. ואף על פי שהיתה אהובה לו בימי האבות, עכשיו שנאה, מאחר שעשאוה אילו חוק לעבודה זרה.  It needs to be explained what changed, why was a מַצֵּבָ֑ה good for the Avos but prohibited afterward? 

The Gemorah (Nedarin 22a) says one who makes a נדר its as if they are building aבמה .  What is the comparison?  The Maharal (Nesiv Shalom Ch. 2) explains that a single מזבח unites Klal Yisroel together.  Similarly, we are united through one Torah.  When one accepts upon himself additional prohibitions, he is leaving the general Klal and is like one who builds their own במה, who also leaves the Klal. 

In light of this idea, we can understand the difference between the days of the Avos and afterward.  In the days of the Avos, there was no Klal Yisroel, there was a family that devoted itself to serving Hashem; everyone was an individual looking for their way to serve Hashem.  One’s person’s avodah had nothing to do with anyone else.  It is only after the forming of a Klal that there must be a united Klal Yisroel.  One’s avodah can’t be separate from everyone else, it must be united.  A מזבח is a collaboration of many stones, it is everyone coming together, not separate individuals.

Rav Hirsch gives a different explanation.  He says  that a matzavah, the  singular stone, represents G-d’s involvement in the world.  This was the task of the Avos to recognize Hashem’s involvement to the world and then teach it to to the world.  However, post the giving of the Torah what’s wanted is our avodah of bringing together many stones to serve Hashem. It is the avodah of mankind which is desired.  Elul is אני לדודי ודודי לי, first there must be the אני לדודי, to start with one's own עבודה.

It's also noteworthy that my great-grandfather points out that the Rambam disagrees with Rashi and doesn't hold the מצבה is one stone.  The Rambam says in the Laws of Avodah Zarah (6:6) מַצֵּבָה שֶׁאָסְרָה תּוֹרָה הִיא בִּנְיָן שֶׁהַכּל מִתְקַבְּצִין אֶצְלָהּ וַאֲפִלּוּ לַעֲבֹד אֶת ה' שֶׁכֵּן הָיָה דֶּרֶךְ עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים, the Rambam identifies the the matzavah as not a singular stone, but as a structure in the manner of idol worshipers.

Conquering The Brain

 לֹֽא־יִ֠הְיֶ֠ה לַכֹּהֲנִ֨ים הַלְוִיִּ֜ם כׇּל־שֵׁ֧בֶט לֵוִ֛י חֵ֥לֶק וְנַחֲלָ֖ה עִם־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אִשֵּׁ֧י י״י֛ וְנַחֲלָת֖וֹ יֹאכֵלֽוּן.  What is the meaning of the possuk, why is the fact that the לוים partake in the אִשֵּׁ֧י י״י֛ וְנַחֲלָת֖וֹ a reason that they shouldn't receive a portion of the land?  There are two ways to understand this, either that its a reason that they can't get a נחלה or that they don't need a נחלה.  The possuk may mean that since they receive אִשֵּׁ֧י י״י֛ וְנַחֲלָת֖וֹ they feel no need for a נחלה because they are completely satisfied with their spiritual נחלה.  Another way of understanding is that they can't receive a נחלה for it will detract from their service of Hashem.  In order to serve in the Mikdash, one must be 100%, fully involved, in their service of Hashem and can't have any distraction, even of a נחלה (Rav Avrohom Gorvitz (Gateshead.))

The Mishne L'meleceh at the end of the Lasw of Shmittah brings the Smag that in the times of Mashiach then שבט לוי will get a portion in Eretz Yisroel.  The Achronim ask, this is a לאו for the לוים to get a portion, how will it be nullified?  The answer lies in the words of the Rambam in halacha 10, כָּל שֵׁבֶט לֵוִי מֻזְהָרִין שֶׁלֹּא יִנְחֲלוּ בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן.  What does the Rambam come to exclude with the words בארץ כנען?  He comes to exclude the additional lands that will be added in the times of Moshiach, the lands of קיני, קניזי, וקדמוני (see Laws of Rotzaoch 8:4.)  It is in those lands that שבט לוי will get a portion of in the future.  This will not be a violation of the  לאו, for the לאו is only to get a portion in Eretz Yisroel.  [This seems to run against Rashi's understanding of the Sifri (18:2,) however see Ramban and footnote 44 of the sicha.]

What needs to be explained is why this isn't included in the לאו, the possuk says the reason is אִשֵּׁ֧י י״י֛ וְנַחֲלָת֖וֹ יֹאכֵלֽוּן so that should apply even in the additional lands?  Chassidus says that the seven nations of Eretz Yisroel represent the seven middot.  Capturing Eretz Yisroel is to capture the seven middot to be used for Hashem.  This involves going to war and that isn't the task of the Leviem.  It is there job to be separate from the world and immersed purely in holiness.  The three additional nations represent the three aspects of the intellect.  That isn't won by war, rather as the possuk says, וְאִם־יַרְחִ֞יב י״י֤ אֱלֹקיך אֶת־גְּבֻ֣לְךָ֔ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֖ע לַאֲבֹתֶ֑יךָ, it is a gift from Hashem, it doesn't involve one to go to war and that won;t detract from the job of the Leviem so they can get a portion in it as well (based on Toras Menachem 5751 parshas Shlach.)

The Arizal asks why will there be additional ערי מקלט in the future (as it says 19:8,) there will be no more killing in the future?  The Shem M'shmuel uses this idea to answer the question.  It won't be necessary for killing, in the future it will be a place to go for kapparah for those that have a sin affecting the brain; זרע לבטלה.  Based upon this he explain the Gemorah in Makkos (12a) that the שר of עשו will run to a עיר מקלט.  The Gemorah says he is mistaken for he killed wantonly.  In light of this, we understand that in the future, even when the חטא is wanton, with the brain, there still can be a kapparah.  The mistake is that only the additional three can fix even מזיד, not the original ערי מקלט.

The Inner Spark

The halacha is that if the Sanhedrin have a unanimous decision that someone is deserving of the death penalty then the defendant is off the hook (Sanhedrin 17a.)  The meforshim struggle to understand this peculiar law.  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 29 sicha 3 on this parsha) explains that the point of the punishments of Sanhedrin are to atone for the person.  That means if the person is worthy of attonement that there is a spark of goodness left to him.  If Sanhedrin can’t see that spark of goodness it means that they obviously aren’t seeing the case properly and therefore are unfit to preside over this case.

Of course this isn't a law just regarding Sanhedrin, but is a lesson of how to look at another individual, to always find the good spark within.  Those of a Breslov persuasion would of course take this as a lesson at looking at one's self as well.  A individual must never lose sight of the inner spark of goodness that remains untainted within them as Rebbe Nachman elaborates in the famous Torah of רפב, אזמרה.

What Sanhedrin

The Ramban at the beginning of the parsha says that besides the Beis Din of 71 that was in charge of all of Klal Yisroel, there is a Beis Din in charge of every tribe.  In his words,
ויתכן לפרש שחייב הכתוב למנות ב״ד על כל השבט, והוא ישפוט את כולם, ואחרי כן נמנה ב״ד בכל עיר ועיר, שישפוט את העיר. ואף על פי שכולם שוים במנין, שהם כ״ג בדיני נפשות וג׳ בדיני ממונות, אבל הגדולים שבהם בחכמה יתמנו על כל השבט, ותחתיהם לכל עיר ועיר. ואין בעלי הדין יכולין לכוף זה את זה לדון אלא בפני ב״ד שבעירם, לא בפני ב״ד שבעיר אחרת, ואפילו היו שני בעלי הדין בעיר אחרת, יכול לומר נלך לפני ב״ד שבעירנו, אבל ב״ד השבט יכול לכוף כל אנשי שבטו לדון לפניו, ואפילו היו הנדונים בעירם יכול לומר לב״ד הגדול של שבט אזילנא, וכן אם נסתפקו בתי דינין של עיירות יבאו לפני ב״ד הגדול של שבט, וישאלו. כדרך שסנהדרי גדולה ממונה על כל בתי דינין של כל ישראל, כך יהא ב״ד אחד ממונה על כל שבט ושבט. ואם הוצרכו לתקן ולגזור דבר על שבט שלהם, גוזרין ומתקנין, והיא לשבט כגזרת סנהדרי גדולה על כל ישראל. וזה הב״ד הוא המוזכר במסכת הוריות (בבלי הוריות ה׳) ששנינו בו: הורו בית דין של אחד מן השבטים ועשה אותו השבט על פיהם, אותו השבט חייב ושאר השבטים פטורים וכו׳.  According  to the Ramban the obligation to listen to Sanhedrin is because it is considered  the authoritative Beis Din in the region. Therefore, this obligation applies to  is to the  Beis Din appointed over the שבט as well.

The Rambam (beginning of Mammrim) gives a different explanation for the obligation to listen to the Sanhedrin.  In his words,  בית דין הגדול שבירושלים הם עיקר תורה שבעל פה והם עמודי ההוראה ומהם חק ומשפט יוצא לכל ישראל ועליהן הבטיחה תורה שנאמר על פי התורה אשר יורוך זו מצות עשה וכל המאמין במשה רבינו ובתורתו חייב לסמוך מעשה הדת עליהן ולישען עליהן כל מי שאינו עושה כהוראתן עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר לא תסור מכל הדבר אשר יגידו לך ימין ושמאל.  According to his explanation is is only a command for the Sanhedrin Hagadol that their word is considered to be part of the תורה שבעל פה.  Therefore, he makes no mention of the concept of a Beis Din in charge of the שבט for in his view there is no such authority (Mishnas Yaavetz Choshen Mishpat siman 7.)