Preparing To Pray

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aspects Of Tefillin

Some ideas I said pinch hitting for a Chumash shiur. 

Where tefillin worn in the Midbar?  The first two parshios of tefillin were given in this week's parsha so presumably tefillin were worn but what about the missing two parshios which where only given later?  Some are of the opinion that although the parshios are given here, tefillin was not actually worn in the Midbar.  Others say that they worn tefillin with two parshios.  The question is according to that approach, did the head tefillin have all 4 compartments and two were left empty, or where there only two compartments? 

Rashi in Bo (13:16) says וְעַל שֵׁם שֶׁהֵם אַרְבָעָה בָתִּים קְרוּיִין טטפת – "טט" בְּכַתְפִּי שְׁתַּיִם, "פת" בְּאַפְרִיקִי שְׁתַּיִם.  However, Rashi in Vaeshachan (6:8) says  וְהָיוּ לְטֹֽטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶֽיךָ.  אֵלּוּ תְּפִלִּין שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, וְעַל שֵׁם מִנְיַן פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתֵיהֶם נִקְרְאוּ טֹטָפוֹת.  In Bo he identifies טטפות as 4 to correspond to the 4 compartments but in Vaeschanan he says it corresponds to the 4 parshios.  Why the change?  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 9) explains in our parsha it says וְהָיָ֤ה לְאוֹת֙ עַל־יָ֣דְכָ֔ה וּלְטֽוֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֣ין עֵינֶ֑יךָ, in the singular tense.  What is it that should be טוטפות?  The single aspect of leaving Egypt and that is only expressed in the two parshios of Bo, not in the additional parshios of Shema and Veha im shemoa and therefore the 4 must be referring to the amount of compartments in the tefillin which enhances the fulfillment of remembering leaving Egypt.  In Vaeschanan, the possuk says וְהָי֥וּ לְטֹֽטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֥ין עֵינֶֽיךָ, in the plural, referring to all of the parshios.

 

We find the same change in Rashi's explanation about the two prohibitions of adding to a mitzvah, in Vaeschanan (4:2) he says לֹא תֹסִפוּ.  כְּגוֹן חָמֵשׁ פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת בַּתְּפִלִּין but in Reah (13:1) he says לֹֽא־תֹסֵף עָלָיו.  חֲמִשָּׁה טֹטָפוֹת, because the first issur is to add a non mitzvah item to the mitzvah and that is a fifth parsha but the second issur adds adding to the item of the mitzvah and that is a  fifth compartment. Nonetheless, we see from Rashi that the teffilin of the Midbar had 4 compartments, but 2 would remain empty. 

 

The Rashba Minachot says that even though two of the parshiot are only recorded later on in the Torah as part of the Torah, they were given as part of tefillin earlier.  What we see from here, says Rav Gedalia Schorr, is that the parshios of tefillin are not Torah parshios placed in tefillin but there is a unique din of parshios tefillin not as words of Torah.  As pointed add out in the past on the blog, this is an idea also advanced in the Amek Beracha in the name of the Rav but contradicts the Rav in Vaeschanan, Hilchot Megillah and Tefillin where he assumes that the parshios of the tefillin are a cut and paste of the parshios of the Torah with all the laws of the writing of parshios of the Torah and not a new din of parshios of tefillin. 

Why do the parshios of tefillin include the law of kedushas bechor of an animal.  What does that have to do with tefillin?  Klal Yisrael is called by Hashem (Shemos 4:22) בני בכורי ישראל.  What does this mean that we are the bechor of Hashem?  The Pachad Yitzchak Pesach maamer 81 develops the idea that a bechor is a mirror of the father.  The word for father is אב, the 1, the father leading to his "double," the בכר, the letters of doubling, ב is 2, כ is 20 and ר is 200, the doubling of all the units.  The word בכר is in reverse רכב, a chariot,  The idea of the bechor is to return the כבוד back to its source, the father.  By returning, going backward as a רכב as complete bittul to the source, then one is acting as a proper bechor.  This is the bechorness of Klal Yisrael.  We are meant to reflect the kavof of Hashem in the world.  By subjugating ourselves to Hashem, by being the rechev, we act as the bechor.  This is the message of tefillin, to become subjects of Hashem, to assert ourselves as the bechor.  This is the ide of the kedusha of the bechor.  That which is a reflection of the source is designated to remind us of our mission to reflect our Source.       

The part I didn't get to. 

Why is there a split between the two parshios of tefillin here and two later on in Sefer Devarim?  The opinion of Rabbenu Tam is that that the order of the parshios of the tefillin goes קדש והיה כי יביאך והיה אם שמוע שמע.  Why does he hold the parshois go out of the order they are written in?  Rav Solevetchik explains (shiurim on Stam,) that Rabbenu Tam holds the first two parshios and last two are divided into two categories.  The first two go right to left from the perspective of one standing opposite the reader for it is a commandment to remember the Exodus which is a message meant to be passed to others.  The thrust of yitzias mitzraim is told over to one's children, it is a message passed on about Hashem's control of the world.  The last two parshios however, go right to left from the perspective of the wearer of the tefillin in which case to the reader opposite והיה אם שמוע appears before שמע but from the wearer's "view" שמע comes first.  That is because the kabbalas ol represented by these two parshois are that of a personal kabbalah.  The first two parshios are the parshois of the nation, of the kedusha of Klal Yisrael in its totality as they collectevly experienced yitzias Mitzraim, the tefillin are speaking outwardly.  The last two parshios are the personal parshois, the one's that speak of the individual's kabbalas ol.  With this idea we can say that the parshios of the tzibbur, the one's of yitzias mitzraim are given in Bo, the time when Klal Yisrael is developing into a nation of Hashem.  The time for individual kabbalas ol is relevant when they are on the brink of entering Eretz Yisrael where there would no longer be one large national encampment of people and instead the individual commitment to Hashem had to be highlighted.     

Stay In Touch

Sfas Emes Vaeschanan (5655) דברי תורה הם ניחומים לעולם לבנ"י כמ"ש במד' נחמו נחמו עמי בתורה דכ' אנכי אנכי מנחמכם. פי' בתורה שבכתב ושע"פ.  What is the nechama of the Torah?  

The Maharal Netzach Yisrael (Ch. 9): ורוצה לומר כי כאשר ישראל היו דביקים בו יתברך, אי אפשר שיהיו גולים מן הארץ עד שתשב העיר בדד, אבל בשביל שנכרתו ישראל מן העיקר, הוא השם יתברך, ולכך הלכו ישראל בגולה. כי קודם זה היו נטועים כעץ שהוא שתול על פלגי מים (תהלים א, ג), וכאשר עברו ל"ו כריתות נכרתו מן השם יתברך. והדבר שהוא גורם הכריתה מן השם יתברך הם הכריתות שבתורה, כדכתיב (במדבר טו, לא) "הכרת" בעולם הזה, "תכרת" לעולם הבא (שבועות יג. ). ומפני זה נכרתו מן העיקר, עד שהלכו בגולה.  As mentioned last week from the Sfas Emes, the true destruction of the churban was the separation between Klal Yisrael and Hashem.  As my father added, that is why Klal Yisrael can only accept comfort directly from Hashem to repair that mend.  This is what the Maharal is saying.  

From דליות יחזקאל (Sarna) 

The process of nechama, the process of healing from the churban is a teshuva process.  It is about coming closer to Hashem which is what teshuva is about.  

The best mode of connecting to Hashem is through learning His Torah.  הֲשִׁיבֵנוּ אָבִינוּ לְתוֹרָתֶךָ,וְקָרְבֵנוּ מַלְכֵּנוּ לַעֲבוֹדָתֶךָ,וְהַחֲזִירֵנוּ  בִּתְשׁוּבָה שְׁלֵמָה לְפָנֶיךָ.  Torah and teshuva go hand in hand.  That is why the nechama for the golus comes through Torah.  Despite the distance felt from Hashem during the golus ,we still have the Torah to allow us to be כִּמְחַבֵּק אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ דֶּרֶךְ מָשָׁל, שֶׁאֵין הֶפְרֵשׁ בְּמַעֲלַת הִתְקָרְבוּתוֹ וּדְבֵקוּתוֹ בַּמֶּלֶךְ בֵּין מְחַבְּקוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא לָבוּשׁ לְבוּשׁ אֶחָד בֵּין שֶׁהוּא לָבוּשׁ כַּמָּה לְבוּשִׁים, מֵאַחַר שֶׁגּוּף הַמֶּלֶךְ בְּתוֹכָם (תניא סוף פרק ד).  That may be why Vaechanan is read on Shabba Nachamu which recounts the events of Har Sinai to tell us this is what will sustain us through the golus.  This is how to stay in touch with Hashem.    

Listen

Moshe recounts the great event of Matan Torah as אתה הראת לדעת כי ה׳ הוא האלקים אין עוד מלבדו.  Klal Yisrael saw that there is nothing beside Hashem.  However, later on in the parsha, it says  שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל.  It is listening, not seeing.  Rav Hirsch points out this distinction.  Only during the period of the beginning of Klal Yisrael's existence was their relationship with Hashem forged with a total recognition of Hashem experienced through seeing.  However after that it is שמע ישראל, it is listening to the mesorah passed down through the generations that ensures our knowledge of Hashem.  It is our job to listen to the the בת קול יוצאת מהר חורב, to hear the message.  It is only in the future that we will be back to the stage of seeing, as it says in  the haftorah, וְנִגְלָ֖ה כְּב֣וֹד י״י֑ וְרָא֤וּ כׇל־בָּשָׂר֙ יַחְדָּ֔ו כִּ֛י פִּ֥י י״י֖ דִּבֵּֽר.   

Life To The Dead

In the middle of parshat Vaeschanan (4:41) the Torah quickly mentions the idea of ערי מלקט.  As the Kli Yakar says בקישור פסוק זה עם הענין הקודם יצאו המפרשים ללקוט ולא מצאו ביאור מספיק, ומהו לשון אז.  What does it have to do with anything mentioned previously?  

The Shem MiShmuel (5673) says that after hearing the rebuke from Moshe Rabbenu the people may lose hope ויתיאשו בעצמם מלהשיג הנדרש להיות עובדי ה' באמת ובתמים of ever being proper.  Therefore, Moshe designated the cities of refuge.  The cities of refuge symbolize that even one who killed and technically blood should be paid with blood, the person has lost his חיות, he is also given a way to redeem himself.  He cites his father says the cities of the Leviem serve as arey miklat as well because the avodah of the Leviem is with song and hitlavut which can give חיות even to the murderer. 

The Baal Haturim says that the cities are followed by the possuk וזאת התורה to hint to the Mishna הוי גולה למקום תורה.  The Gemarah Maakot (20a) has a derash on the words ונס אל אחת מן הערים האל וחי that a rebe follows after their student into golut,  תנא תלמיד שגלה מגלין רבו עמו שנאמר וחי עביד ליה מידי דתהוי ליה חיותא.  Why are these hints to Torah mentioned specifically in this parsha of arey miklat and not in the earlier parshiot?  In light of the Shem MiShmuel, we can say that when there is no עיר מקלט, like in our times, how can one pick themselves up from the dead?  The answer is by cleaving to Torah.  ואתם הדבקים בה' אלקיכם חיים כולכם, that is the way for one to pump new life and energy into one's soul.

Gather Yourself

 From לתורה ולמועדים of Rav Zevin.

Two Types Of Learning

The first parsha of שמע and the end of the second are very similar.  However, there are a few differences between them.  In the first parsha of שמע it says ושנתתם לבניך as opposed to the second parsha which says ולמדתם וכו בניכם, in the first parsha tefillin is mentioned after teaching Torah while in the second parsha it comes first, the word בניך refers as Rashi says to one's students but in the second parsha it means one's children.  Why are these differences present? 

The Mishna Berachot (2b) says that we say Shema before Vehayah because we first accept עול מלכות שמים and afterward עול מצות.  The first parsha is about one's relationship with Hashem directly and the second one is defined by kium mitzvot. The two parshiot therefore, are telling us two different aspects of learning torah. 

There are two aspects to the mitzvah of talmud torah.  One aspect is that it is a mitzvah like any other mitzvah.  This is the learning of torah that is in the second parsha.  The Torah informs us that part of the obligation of the mitzvah is to teach one's children, ולמדתם, one must teach them.  That is part of the kium mitzvah.  Therefore, tefillin is mentioned before the mitzvah of teaching because the point of the learning is to know how to keep the Torah properly.  The point is mentioned first.  This mitzvah of learning is to learn to be able to keep the Torah properly.  

The first parsha is another aspect of learning torah.  This is when one learns not just for the mitzva but to have a greater connection to Hashem.  To delve into the chachmat haTorah.  For this aspect one teaches not just their children but students as well.  One learns in a manner of ושננתם, where the words of Torah are one with the person.  This type of learning goes beyond the basic knowledge of the dinim, it is not connected to the mitzvah of tefillin so tefillin is mentioned afterward.  (From the sefer Emrei Eliezer.)

Echoes Of Torah

The Midrash Rabbah Yisro (28:6) says  קוֹל גָּדוֹל וְלֹא יָסָף, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר קוֹל אֶחָד נֶחְלַק לְשִׁבְעָה קוֹלוֹת וְהֵם נֶחְלָקִים לְשִׁבְעִים לָשׁוֹן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ נִתְנַבְּאוּ כָּל הַנְּבִיאִים שֶׁעָמְדוּ. רַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי שֶׁלֹא הָיָה לוֹ בַּת קוֹל.  We can understand the first two opinions are stressing the connection of the later generations to Sinai but what is the point of the miracle of the third opinion, that there was no echo (bas kol here means echo)?

Rashi (4:25) says כשנתן הקב״ה את התורה פתח להם שבעה רקיעים. וכשם שקרע את העליונים קרע את התחתונים, וראו שהוא יחידי, לכך נאמר: אתה הראית לדעת.  Rabbi Feuer said on tisha b'av from Rav Pinkas that this doesn't just mean that Hashem showed that there is no other power but he showed that true clarity only comes through the Torah.  It through the Torah that the façade and confusion of the world is removed and we can perceive the truth.   

The Beis Hamikdash is called Beis Habechirah because going to the Mikdash, even just having a Mikdash in the world gave a person clarity to make the right decisions.  Now that is lacking, אין לנו שיור אלא התורה הזאת to give us a form of clarity.  The events of Mattan Torah are reoccurring throughout history when a person learns Torah properly as the Sfas Emes (5638) says מצות זכירת מתן תורה שדרשו חז"ל מה להלן ברתת ובזיע כו'. פי' ההיקש שבכח האדם ע"י הזכירה והשתוקקות לדביקות התורה יכול לעורר התלהבות. כענין שאמרו הדברים שמחים כנתינתן. דכתיב קול גדול ולא יסף מתרגמינן ולא פסק וכ"כ את הדברים כו' דבר כו' א"כ קהלכם. פי' גם עתה בכל עת שמתאספין ביחד לש"ש. וכמו התאספות כל א' כל רצונותיו וכוחותיו לעבודת הבורא ית' אף שא"י לקיים בפועל רתת וזיע כמו בהר סיני אעפ"כ הכנה אז הי' לכל בנ"י לדורות.  In the Chumash Hachel Beracha of the Kamerna it brings that by the Baal Shem Tov it was mammash like by Sinai:

Although that is probably beyond our grasp, at least the clarity of Torah is available for us to tap into. 
 

The Rebbe (Likutay Sichot volume 4) explains when there is an echo that is because the sound is not fully absorbed into the recipient of the voice and therefore it bounces back.  The lack of an echo is because the words of Hashem the Torah became fully absorbed into Klal Yisroel.  It is that message of אנכי ה אלקיך that not only was heard but affects the entire mindset and being of man.

Tzibbur

The Mishna Rosh Hashana (1:2) says בארבעה פרקים העולם נידון בפסח על התבואה בעצרת על פירות האילן בר"ה כל באי עולם עוברין לפניו כבני מרון שנאמר (תהלים לג, טו) היוצר יחד לבם המבין אל כל מעשיהם ובחג נידונין על המים.  Why does the Mishna switch from the word נידון to the word נידונין regarding water?  The Rogatchover explains based upon the Gemorah Sukkah (55b) that that the korbanos offered on Sukkos come to atone for the gentiles so that rain will come for them; they are also part of the prayer for rain.  When gentiles are included, they are defined as a bunch of individuals and therefore the Mishna uses the word נידונין, plural language.  In the first cases of the mishna, when it is only the avodah of Klal Yisrael, then it uses a singular language for Klal Yisrael comes together as one group.  The Rogatchover understands the din of tzibbur, comprised of various individuals is only applicable to Klal Yisroel, not to gentiles.  It is שבעים נפש, one נפש of the body of the nation only for בני יעקב.
The Briskor Rav understands the same way and says it as peshat in a possuk in Vaeschanan.

The Gemorah in Berachos (8a) says אמר הקב"ה: כל העוסק בתורה ובגמילות חסדים, ומתפלל עם הציבור - מעלה אני עליו כאילו פדאני לי ולבני מבין אומות העולם.  Why is praying with the tzibbur equated with redemption?  The Maharal (Netzach Ch. 10) explains that when the Mikdash is standing, it unites as all.  It is what defines us as one unit of Klal Yisroel, one tzibbur.  In golus, there is nothing to define us as a tzibbur.  Even if an entire body of Jews gather together, they are separate individuals that happen to be under the same roof.  What defines Klal Yisroel as a tzibbur?  Praying together before Hashem.  The state of being in front of G-d unites us together as a tzibbur.   

Guard Your Soul

רק השמר לך ושמר נפשך מאד פן תשכח את הדברים אשר ראו עיניך

ונשמרתם מאד לנפשתיכם כי לא ראיתם כל תמונה

The Gemorah in Berachos (32b) brings a story תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּחָסִיד אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מִתְפַּלֵּל בַּדֶּרֶךְ. בָּא הֶגְמוֹן אֶחָד וְנָתַן לוֹ שָׁלוֹם, וְלֹא הֶחְזִיר לוֹ שָׁלוֹם. הִמְתִּין לוֹ עַד שֶׁסִּייֵּם תְּפִלָּתוֹ. לְאַחַר שֶׁסִּייֵּם תְּפִלָּתוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ: רֵיקָא, וַהֲלֹא כָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַתְכֶם ״רַק הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ וּשְׁמֹר נַפְשְׁךָ״, וּכְתִיב ״וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּם מְאֹד לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם״. כְּשֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְךָ שָׁלוֹם לָמָּה לֹא הֶחְזַרְתָּ לִי שָׁלוֹם? אִם הָיִיתִי חוֹתֵךְ רֹאשְׁךָ בְּסַיִיף, מִי הָיָה תּוֹבֵעַ אֶת דָּמְךָ מִיָּדִי?!  This is the source for the Rambam (Shmeris Hanefesh 11:4) says וכן כל מכשול שיש בו סכנת נפשות מצות עשה להסירו ולהשמר ממנו ולהזהר בדבר יפה יפה. שנאמר השמר לך ושמור נפשך. ואם לא הסיר והניח המכשולות המביאין לידי סכנה ביטל מצות עשה ועבר בלא תשים דמים.  There are numerous questions on this, see Maharsha in Berachos and Minchas Chinuch on the mitzvah of making a מעקה.  However besides all that , the simple read of the possuk is referring to a spiritual danger.
The Chofetz Chayim derives from here a lesson; when one's being careful to avoid physical harm, one must also avaid spiritual harm:

Prayer Points

A few points on prayer.
1.  The point of prayer isn't the result, its the act itself of coming close to Hashem. (See what my father wrote.)  Rav Chayim Kamil explains that is what we learn from Moshe's prayer.

2. The possuk in this week's parsha says כִּ֚י מִי־ג֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל אֲשֶׁר־ל֥וֹ אֱלֹקים קְרֹבִ֣ים אֵלָ֑יו כַּי״י֣ אֱלֹהֵ֔ינוּ בְּכׇל־קׇרְאֵ֖נוּ אֵלָֽיו.  The Targum leans that this means Hashem accepts our prayers all the time.  [The Rambam at the end of his count of the mitzvot in the intro. to Mishne Torah learns the possuk this way as well.  He says the holiday of Purim was enacted to demonstrate that prayer works!  .אלא כך אנו אומרים, שהנביאים עם בית דין תיקנו וציוו לקרות המגילה בעונתה כדי להזכיר שבחיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא ותשועות שעשה לנו, והיה קרוב לשווענו כדי לברכו ולהללו, וכדי להודיע לדורות הבאים שאמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה, "ומי גוי גדול, אשר לו אלוהים קרובים אליו" (ראה דברים ד,ז; דברים ד,ח).] The question is that there are many times we find that prayers aren't accepted?  Rav Kamil tries to justify their explanation, עיי"ש. Based upon his previous idea, he says a different peshat in the possuk, the possuk means we can come close to Hashem through prayer at any time.

The Even Ezra answers the question on the Targum by adding one word שיענהו תמיד בכל אשר יבקש ממנו בחכמה.   You have to ask properly to get answered.  (Interestingly, the online edition that I was looking at, mg.alhatorah.org doesn't have the word בחכמה there.  According to Mossad Harav Kook in some כת"י  it doesn't exist, but without it was is he adding more than the Targum?) 

3.  Rav Baruch Povorski asks why in Shemonei Esrai do we end the blessing שומע תפילה as opposed to the additional blessing of a fast day, עננו which ends העונה בעת צרה, why don't we end in Shemonei Esrai as well that Hashem answers our prayers?  He explains that there are two types of prayer.  As Rashi says in Berashis (2:5)  כי לא המטיר - ומה טעם לא המטיר? לפי שאדם אין לעבוד את האדמה ואין מכיר בטובתם של גשמים, וכשבא אדם וידע שהם צורך לעולם התפלל עליהם וירדו, וצמחו האילנות והדשאים .  One type of prayer is just to open the door for the beracha/shefa to enter the world.  For that it's enough to say שומע תפילה.  As long as the person prayed, it is fitting for the beracha which is already ready, to now come down into this world.  However, a fast day, a day of an עת צרה needs more than that.  Then prayer needs to remove a bad decree that is already standing.  In order to be מחדש something new, to remove that decree, one needs their prayers to be answered.

Love The Student

The Sifri in this week's parsha says לבניך - אלו תלמידיך. וכן אתה מוצא בכל מקום, שהתלמידים קרויים בנים, שנאמר "בנים אתם לה' אלהיכם", ואומר מלכים ב ב "ויצאו בני הנביאים", וכי בני הנביאים היו? והלא תלמידים היו! - אלא מכאן לתלמידים שהם קרוים בנים.  Why does the Torah not just spell out תלמידיך?  I heard in the name of Rav Meir Chadash that the Torah calls the talmiddim בנים to teach the melamed that he must have a relationship with his students like that of a father to his son.  He pointed out that actually the love for a talmid may and possibly should extend beyond the love for one's children.  The Gemorah says that Rav Yochanan would comfort mourners by saying דין גרמא דעשיראה ביר – זו העצם של בני העשירי because he lost 10 sons (Berachot 5b.)  Yet, despite having to bear the pain of losing so amny chidren in his lifetime, R.Y. moves on to become the great scholar that he was.  Yet, the Gemorah in Bavva Metzia (84a) says that when his talmid Reish Lakish, R.Y. was in such a state of anguish that the chachamim prayed for him to die.  We see that R.Y.'s loss of one talmud hit him much harder than the loss of 10 sons!
This obligation of a Rebbe to a talmid is highlightedin the Lev Eliyahu.  He cites from the Alter a diuk in the Gemorah, וכשחלה רבי יוחנן בן זכאי נכנסו תלמידיו לבקרו כיון שראה אותם התחיל לבכות.  Why did he cry specifically when he saw them?  Because it was when he saw the students that he thought maybe I didn't give them the proper care and devotion and because of that I will get punished.  With this principal, the alter explained the possuk אֵ֥ין צַדִּ֖יק בָּאָ֑רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר יַעֲשֶׂה־טּ֖וֹב וְלֹ֥א יֶחֱטָֽא:  Why the extra words אֲשֶׁ֥ר יַעֲשֶׂה־טּ֖וֹב?  He explains that it is possible for a person to be a tzaddik, separate from the world and avoid sin.  But a tzaddik אֲשֶׁ֥ר יַעֲשֶׂה־טּ֖וֹב, that teaches us others, gives to the world, is impossible to be be perfect and not be lacking in some manner in his mannerism with his students.

Interesting point in Rav Eliyahu Baruch's sefer on this possuk:

Two Facets Of Tefillin

The Rambam in Laws of Tefillin (4:25) says קְדֻשַּׁת תְּפִלִּין קְדֻשָּׁתָן גְּדוֹלָה הִיא. שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַתְּפִלִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם וְעַל זְרוֹעוֹ הוּא עָנָו וִירֵא שָׁמַיִם וְאֵינוֹ נִמְשָׁךְ בִּשְׂחוֹק וּבְשִׂיחָה בְּטֵלָה וְאֵינוֹ מְהַרְהֵר מַחֲשָׁבוֹת רָעוֹת אֶלָּא מְפַנֶּה לִבּוֹ בְּדִבְרֵי הָאֱמֶת וְהַצֶּדֶק. לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ אָדָם לְהִשְׁתַּדֵּל לִהְיוֹתָן עָלָיו כָּל הַיּוֹם שֶׁמִּצְוָתָן כָּךְ הִיא. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַב תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל רַבֵּנוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ שֶׁכָּל יָמָיו לֹא רָאוּהוּ שֶׁהָלַךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בְּלֹא תּוֹרָה אוֹ בְּלֹא צִיצִית אוֹ בְּלֹא תְּפִלִּין:  The Rambam seems to be giving a reason why one should wear tefillin all day long.  Why is any explanation necessary; that is the mitzvah?  There are mitzvot that one does in one action like taking a lulav, blowing shofar etc. but then there are mitzvot that are constant like the mitzvah of loving and fearing G-d.  The mitzvah of tefillin is in the second category; it applies all day, so why does the Rambam need to add a reason that tefillin on a person leads to יראת שמים?  Rav Solovetchik explains that there are two aspects to the mitzvah of tefillin.  There is the fulfillment of placing tefillin of one's body.  There is a second fulfillment to the mitzvah and that is the person becomes sanctified by the tefillin being on him.  The idea of this second aspect is understood from the possuk in Ki Savo (28:10)  וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך ויראו ממך and the Gemorah Menachos (35b) explains תניא ר"א הגדול אומר אלו תפילין שבראש.  The tefillin affect a change in the person that is recognizable even to outsiders that there are תפילין שבראש, in the person.  These two fulfillment's are reflected in the two berachos that one says on the tefillin according to Rabbenu Tam.  The first beracha, להניח is on the fulfillment of placing tefillin on one's arm.  The second beracha, כל מצות תפילין which goes on the head tefillin is another beracha for the additional fulfillment of adorning the individual with tefillin.
With this idea, he explains the aforementioned Rambam.  The Rambam held had tefillin been a mitzvah just to put tefillin on one's body then the mitzvah would be just to to the action once a day.  It is the second aspect of the mitzvah, the fulfillment in the person that makes it a mitzvah to be adorned all day long.  That is the explanation of the reason the Rambam gives for it being a all day mitzvah.  The Rambam is describing the affect tefillin has on the individual and that's what transforms the mitzvah into a all day mitzvah (שעורים לזכר אבא מרי volume 1 pg. 180-181 בענין קריה"ת בשבת שני וחמישי.) 

More Than Just Seeing

Rashi V’zos Haberacha (34:4) says לאמר לזרעך אתננה הראיתיך בעיניך – הראיתיך כדי שתלך ותאמר לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב: שבועה שנשבע הקב״ה לכם קיימה. וזהו לאמר, לכך הראיתיה לך. אבל גזירה היא מלפני שמה לא תעבור, שאילולי כן הייתי מקיימיך עד שתראה אותם נטועים וקבועים, ותלך ותגיד.  What does Rashi mean, how is Moshe’s seeing of the land a fulfillment of the oath to give Eretz Yisroel to Klal Yisroel? Furthermore, the land is already considered acquired by the walking of Avrohom (Babba Bathra 100a,) so why is the oath not considered already fulfilled then?  Seemingly, because the oath means to actually conquer it and live in it.  If that’s the case, how does Moshe’s seeing accomplish this?  Rashi in Vaeschanan (3:26) says וראה בעיניך – בקשתה ממני: ואראה את הארץ הטובה (דברים ג׳:כ״ה), אני מראה לך את כולה, שנאמר: ויראהו י״י את כל הארץ (דברים ל״ד:א׳).  Why would Moshe have a separate request just to be able to see the land, what is the point of that?

The Gemorah in Babba Bathra (56a) says the only lands obligated in terumos and maaserot are the lands that were see by Moshe Rabbenu.  Why is this the means of determining the obligation in tithes, it should be determined by what lands are conquered (see Tosfos)? The Mikdash David Terumot siman 7 explains that there are two stages in making land part of Eretz Yisroel vis-à-vis the obligations of the land.  The first stage is to bring the kedusha of the land and then the second stage is the conquest.  The sight of the holy eyes of Moshe is what brought kedusha to the land and hence once conquered it would be obligated in tithes.  Other lands, it would not suffice to merely conquer them, they would also have to be made kadosh. 

Based upon this, we can understand our parsha. Yes, Eretz Yisroel in a monetary aspect is already considered מוחזק from Avrohom, but there was no kedusha to Eretz Yisoel yet.  It is only through the seeing of Moshe that the land becomes kodesh and that is already considered a fulfillment of the oath to give us Eretz Yisroel.   

The Sifri Pinchas (136:1) says ויאמר ה' אליו זאת הארץ. ר' עקיבא אומר: מגיד הכתוב, שהראהו המקום למשה את כל חדרי ארץ ישראל, כשלחן ערוך, שנא' ויראהו ה' את הארץ.  The Nitziv explains that that as opposed to Avrohom, Moshe saw the entire land.  Why did Moshe need to see the whole land?  Because he needed to bring kedusha to the land (Kuntres Meorah Or in the back of Rav Dovid Solevetchik’s sefer on Moadim, Meoray Hamoadim.)

Don't Add

The possuk in Vaeschanan says (4:2) לֹ֣א תֹסִ֗פוּ עַל־הַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְלֹ֥א תִגְרְע֖וּ מִמֶּ֑נּוּ.  A similar verse appears in our parsha (13:1) .לֹא־תֹסֵ֣ף עָלָ֔יו וְלֹ֥א תִגְרַ֖ע מִמֶּֽנּו.  The Gra says that the first possuk is referring to beis din not to add onto the mitzvot, hence it’s said in the plural tense, referring to the collective beis din.  The possuk in our parsha is talking to the individual not to add to the specific mitzvah that he does.  (See the Ktav V’kabbalah in both places.)

This would be the source for the Rishonim that assume that it’s a prohibition to add to the number of the mitzvot (see Ramban on the possuk here, Rambam Ch. 2 of Mamrim etc.)  The Gemorah only assumes בל תוסיף in the context of adding to a mitzvoh, we don’t see that adding to the number of mitzvot is בל תוסיף?  According to the Gra the source is the possuk in Vaseschanan.  [Though it is noteworthy that the Rambam reverses the pessukim, in Birchat Kohanim (14:12) regarding adding to a mitzvah, he cites the verse in Vaeschanan, in Mamrim he cites the verse in our parsha.  See more in Minchas Asher Vaeschanan.]   

The Rashba in Rosh Hashana (16a) asks when Chazal said not to blow shofar on Rosh Hashana that falls out on Shabbos, why is it not a violation of בל תגרע?  The Turay Even questions that seemingly according to the Rashba , every time one doesn't fulfill a positive commandment, it will be a violation of בל תגרע as well?  The Baruch Taam and Rav Peurlo (on Rav Saisai Gaon pg. 81b) explain that the Rashba doesn't mean anyone who doesn't fulfill a commandment it will be a violation of בל תגרע; he is questioning that Beis Din should be violating the issur by cancelling out the mitzvah.

The Raavad (Mamrim 2:9) says א''א כל אלה ישא רוח שכל דבר שגזרו עליו ואסרוהו לסייג ולמשמרת של תורה אין בו משום לא תוסיף אפילו קבעוהו לדורות ועשאוהו כשל תורה וסמכוהו למקרא כדאשכחן בכמה דוכתי מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא ואם גרע לפי צורך שעה כגון אליהו בהר הכרמל אף זה דבר תורה הוא עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך. ולא תמצא איסור מוסיף אלא במצות עשה כגון לולב ותפילין וציצית וכיוצא בהן בין לשעה בין לדורות בין שקבעה בדבר תורה בין שלא קבעה:  Many understand the Raavad to mean that he disagrees with this additional principle of the Rambam and holds בל תוסיף is only when an individual adds to a mitzvah.  The Briskor Rav said that's not the peshat.  The words of the Raavad, בין לשעה בין לדורות בין שקבעה בדבר תורה can only be referring to Beis Din adding a mitzvah.  What he disagrees is that he holds the issur is only when adding a positive  command, not when adding a negative command (like the Rambam talks about, adding to the issur of milk and meat.)  However, the Rambam holds the issur is any addition. (Yeshurin volume 11 pg. 494.)

Of course, Rashi doesn’t learn this way and holds both pessukim are an issur not to add to a mitzvah being done.  What is noteworthy, is the differences in the Rashi.  In Vaeschanan, he says כגון: חמש פרשיות בתפילין, חמשת מינין בלולב, חמש ציציות.  In our parsha, he says חמש טוטפות, חמשה מינין בלולב, ארבע ברכות לברכת כהנים.  Why switch the third ex. from tzitzit to birchas kohanim and why switch terminology from פרשיות  to טוטפות?  You can find answers yourself.

Beyond The Law

The Gemorah Berachos (35b) says according to Rashbi, one should be learning all day long.  The gemorah asks from the second parsha of shema where it says ואספת דגנך ותירשך ויצהרך.  The Gemorah answers that the possuk is talking about אין עושין רצונו של מקום.  Tosfos asks how can this be, it says והיה אם שמע תשמעו אל מצותי אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם היום, it’s talking about when we are doing the רצון of Hashem?  My father always likes to say the answer is that yes, all the mitzvot are being fulfilled but its not considered עושין רצונו של מקום.  There can be someone that keeps every letter in the Shulchan Aruch but is still not doing all that Hashem wants.  There is more than just the letter of the law; that is what’s missing.

Everyone asks that in the first parsha of Shema it says ובכל מאודך but in the second parsha it doesn’t appear; why?  In this vein we may suggest that בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך, albeit a great level, but it still it not going above and beyond the basic law.  It is בכל מאודך, which the Ramban explains as giving all your מאד, giving above and beyond what the law requires which shows a person’s true service of Hashem.  That is in the first parsha only which is עושיו רצונו של מקום. 

The possuk says (11:14) וְנָתַתִּ֧י מְטַֽר־אַרְצְכֶ֛ם בְּעִתּ֖וֹ יוֹרֶ֣ה וּמַלְק֑וֹשׁ וְאָסַפְתָּ֣ דְגָנֶ֔ךָ וְתִֽירֹשְׁךָ֖ וְיִצְהָרֶֽךָ.  In Bechukosai, it says (26:4,) וְנָתַתִּ֥י גִשְׁמֵיכֶ֖ם בְּעִתָּ֑ם וְנָתְנָ֤ה הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ יְבוּלָ֔הּ וְעֵ֥ץ הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה יִתֵּ֥ן פִּרְיֽוֹ.  The Likutay Sichos volume 19 sicha 4 has a דיוק in the possuk; here it says ונתתי מטר ארצכם, the rain of the land, it fits with the nature.  In Bechukosai, it says וְנָתַתִּ֥י גִשְׁמֵיכֶ֖ם בְּעִתָּ֑ם, your rain, not built into the nature, rain specific for you.  What's the difference?  In Ekev, the rain is good, but fits with the nature just as you are fulfilling the laws of Hashem according to your nature, following the law exactly.  However, in Bechukosai, its referring to one who goes above the requirement of the law, one who is עמל בתורה.  Therefore, the rain is not rain for the land, rain of nature, it's your rain, a miracle rain tailor-made for your needs.  See there how he explains the differences in Rashi based upon this. 

In the words of the Maggid of Mezeritch:

Shema: One Mitzvah

Rambam Sefer Hamitzvot #10, the mitzvah of krias shema: היא שצונו לקרוא קריאת שמע ערבית ושחרית והוא אמרו ודברת בם. וכבר נתבארו משפטי מצוה זו במסכת ברבות (דף כ"א) ושם נתבאר דקריאת שמע דאורייתא. וכתוב בתוספתא כשם שנתנה תורה קבע לקריאת שמע כך נתנו חכמים זמן לתפלה, רוצה לומר שזמני התפלה אינם מן התורה אמנם חיוב התפלה עצמה מן התורה כמו שבארנו, וחכמים ז"ל סדרו להם זמנים. וזהו ענין אמרם (ברכות כ"ו:) תפלות כנגד תמידים תקנו, רוצה לומר שתקנו זמניהם כפי זמני הקרבן. ומצוה זו אין הנשים חייבות בה. (בפרשת ואתחנן, אהבה הלכות קריאת שמע פ"א):  Why does the Rambam start discussing the times of prayer in the middle of this mitzvah?

The Rambam counts the tefillin of the hand and the head as two mitzvot (#12-13.)  He explains its counted as two mitzvot because one can do one without the other.  The Ramban asks if that’s the criteria, then krias shema should be counted as two mitzvot, once for the morning and a second for the evening?  Rav Solevetchik explains that the Rambam holds that even though the two times of saying shema are independent, if one does only one of them, he is lacking in the complete fulfillment of shema.  Why is that?  The Rambam at the beginning of Sefer Ahavah brings the possuk ofמה אהבתי תורתך כל היום היא שיחתי, the constant attachment to Torah shows one’s love for Hashem.  In the same vein, the two times of reciting shema are bookends to the kabbalas ol that should last throughout the day.  We read the words twice a day but the קיום lasts throughout the day.  Now we understand if one misses one of the times of shema, he is lacking in the complete kabbalas ol throughout the day. 

That is why the Rambam cites the times of tefillah in the mitzvah of shema.  Just as in tefillah there is one mitzvah to pray during the day, yet Chazal enacted that one should do it three times during the day, so too regarding shema, its one mitzvah with multiple parts during the day.  It is noteworthy that the Derech P'kudecha (from Bnei Yissoscher,) in his intro. suggests that one must have in mind by all three prayers to fulfill the mitzvah of tefillah because Chazal extended the mitzvah to three times a day.  

Teaching Torah

The Rambam counts the mitzvah of Talmud Torah as one mitzvah to learn and to teach, in his words mitzvah #11: היא שצונו ללמוד תורה וללמדה וזהו הנקרא תלמוד תורה, והוא אמרו ושננתם לבניך וכתוב בספרי לבניך אלו התלמידים שהתלמידים קרויים בנים שנאמר יצאו בני הנביאים, ושם נאמר ושננתם שיהיו מחודדים בתוך פיך כשאדם שואלך דבר לא תהא מגמגם לו אלא אמור לו מיד. וכבר נכפל זה הצווי פעמים רבות ולמדתם ועשיתם למען ילמדון, וכבר נתפזר הצווי והזרוז על מצוה זו במקומות רבים מן התלמוד.  Why does he count it only as one mitzvah and not two like the Smag (105-106)? 

It is uniquely in respect to Talmud Torah that we find the concept of a Yissocher-Zevulun pact.  By any other mitzah we don’t find a concept of supporting someone else to fulfill the mitzvah and sharing in the reward.  Why is this uniquely in respect to Talmud Torah?  The mitzvah of Talmud Torah isn’t just to do an act of learning, it is to guarantee the perpetuation of Torah.  That’s why one who supports Torah shares the reward for he is helping guarantee that Torah learning will continue to thrive.  That is why it is one mitzvah according to the Rambam for the yesod of the mitzvah is to make sure Torah continues, not learning per say.  That’s why the Gemorah in Kiddushin (30a) says: אמר ריב"ל כל המלמד את בן בנו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו קבלה מהר סיני שנאמר והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וסמיך ליה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב (דברים ד, י).  Once there is a three-generation chain, there is a promise that Torah will continue.  That is the point of the acceptance at Sinai.

The Ramban understands that the possuk, רַ֡ק הִשָּׁ֣מֶר לְךָ֩ וּשְׁמֹ֨ר נַפְשְׁךָ֜ מְאֹ֗ד פֶּן־תִּשְׁכַּ֨ח אֶת־הַדְּבָרִ֜ים אֲשֶׁר־רָא֣וּ עֵינֶ֗יךָ וּפֶן־יָס֙וּרוּ֙ מִלְּבָ֣בְךָ֔ כֹּ֖ל יְמֵ֣י חַיֶּ֑יךָ וְהוֹדַעְתָּ֥ם לְבָנֶ֖יךָ וְלִבְנֵ֥י בָנֶֽיךָ tells us a commandment not to forget the event of Har Sinai.  He explains this in his commentary on the possuk and in negative commandments that the Rambam forgot #2 שנמנענו שלא נשכח מעמד הר סיני ולא נסיר אותו מדעתנו אבל יהיה עינינו ולבנו שם כל הימים. והוא אמרו יתעלה השמר לך ושמור נפשך מאד פן תשכח את הדברים אשר ראו עיניך ופן יסורו מלבבך כל ימי חייך והודעתם לבניך ולבני 'בניך יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב וגו. Everyone asks on the Ramban that the Mishna in Avos (3:8) says the possuk tells us a commandment not to forget one’s learning?  Rav Dovid Povarski explains according to the Ramban the prohibition to forget one’s learning is part of the greater picture that one must remember the events of Har Sinai; part of the events was the giving of the Torah.  In light of the previous idea, we understand why remembering Sinai is vital.  It’s not just because that is the foundation of the nation, which is true of course, but it the passing down of the Sinai experience that gives life to the Torah and will enhance the acceptance of the next generation so that they don’t view as some archaic teachings. 

Two's

The Yalkut Shemoni Yeshayeh (#444) says: לפי שכתוב שתי בכיות: בכה תבכה - על בית ראשון ועל בית שני, לכך: נחמו נחמו עמי.  Why is there a need for a double נחמה for the two Batteh Mikdash, it should be enough with one nechamah, especially since the first Beis Hamikdash was greater than the second and its nechamah should include that of the second?  And what does it mean there will be a double nechamah, how can one have a double nechamah?  Furthermore, the haftorah is of course connected to the time, but what is the connection to the parsha?

In order to understand the double nechamah, we will first look at another round two in the parsha; the second luchos.  There is a tremendous difference between the two sets of luchos.  The first luchos were received when Klal Yisroel was on a tremendous high state and the luchos themselves were written by Hashem.  At Mattan Torah, Klal Yisroel reached the level of Adam pre-sin; they were complete tzaddikim.  These luchos were tzaddikim level luchos.  Klal Yisroel received a luchos of a tremendous אתערותא דלעילא, it was a great light from Hashem.  There was a מעלה to these luchos for they contained tremendous spiritual energy.  However, the downside is that such a great level of kedusha is very hard to absorb.  

The second luchos were of a completely different nature.  They were the luchos of baaleh teshuvah, of man’s climb back to Hashem.  These luchos were written by man, albeit Moshe Rabbenu.  They didn’t contain all the spiritual energy as existed in the first luchos.  That was a tremendous minus.  However, the upside is that the kedusha is easier to absorb.

The same thing occurred with the two Batteh Mikdash.  The first one has a greater level of the presence of the Shechina but it couldn’t be contained.  On the other hand, the second Beis Hamikdash was a lesser kedusha but the kedusha was able to be absorbed and contained.  The Gemorah (Babba Bathra 3) says that the second Beis Hamikdash was greater than the first for it stood for more years and was taller.  How do physical advantages make up for the lessened amount of kedusha?  The physical advantages are symbolic of the greater effect the Mikdash had on the world because its kedusha was able to be absorbed.  It is these two different aspects of the two Batai Mikdash that require a double nechamah. 

What is the double nechamah? The third Beis Hamikdash which will have the advantages of both.  There will be kedusha drawn down into the world, but it will be able to be contained (Based upon Likutay Sichos volume 9 and Machshavas Hachassidus by Rav Yoel Kahn volume1 chapters 7-10.)

Don't Covet

Back in Parshat Yisro, this blog discussed the question of the Even Ezra how can one be held accountable for לא תחמד, how can one control their thoughts?  In this week’s parsha, the Even Ezra focuses on another aspect of this question in his commentary on לא תתאוה.  Here, he focuses on the philosophical aspect of do our thoughts matter, is one punished for a mere thought?  His answer is yes, in his words:  ורבים אמרו: כי אין עון במחשבת בלב, ואין עליו שכר ולא עונש.

ויש עליו ראיות רבות להשיב עליהם ולא אאריך, רק אראה להם לב חורש מחשבות און (משלי ו׳:י״ח), אם ראית הטיבות כי היהד עם לבבך (דברי הימים ב ו׳:ח׳), ולישרים בלבותם (תהלים קכ״ה:ד׳). ומשה אמר בסוף: בפיך ובלבבך לעשותו (דברים ל׳:י״ד). ועיקר כל המצות ליישר הלב, ורובם זכר. והמזיד והשוגג יוכיחו.

In the blogpost there, it was suggested that according to the Rambam the question of the Even Ezra about how can one be punished for thought is a moot point for he holds the lav is only violated through an action.  However, The Rambam (Sefer Hamitzvot #265-266 and Gezelah Ch. 1 Laws 10-12) differentiates between לא תחמוד which he defines as cheppiring another person to sell you their object vs. לא תתואה which is a prohibition on even desiring that which belongs to another individual.  Based upon this, even the Rambam would have to deal with that question regarding לא תתואה.  However, the Smag lav 158 disagrees with Rambam and holds that both lavin apply only when there is an action; in which case the question of the Even Ezra in Yisro doesn’t start.