Two Counts

The Gemorah Menachos 65b says וספרתם לכם tells us that every individual must count.  Tosfos explain that we would have thought there is an obligation only on בית דין like the counting of the years of shmittah, קמ"ל there is an obligation on every individual.  Why would we have thought there is only an obligation on the בית דין if it is a mitzvah like any other?  The Chizkuni in Behar says that in regard to shmittah the Torah mentions the counting once and its merely an obligation on the בית דין.  Siferas Haomer is mentioned in Reah and in Emor to tell us there is an obligation on the בית דין and an obligation on the individual.  He holds even at the end of the day there remains an element of obligation on the בית דין alone.  What is the nature of this obligation?

In regard to the counting of the shmittah cycle Reb Chaim explains that the mitzvah isn’t merely to count but that it is the count of the cycle that gives the kedusha to the year of yovel.  The Torah calls the holiday Shavout indicating that it is the חפצא of the counted weeks that give the kedusha to the holiday.  Therefore, we would have said (and according to Chikuni we do say,) that the counting is part of establishing the holiday and has to be done by בית דין just as they are entrusted with being מקדש the months. 

Based upon this idea we can understand the Gemorah in Menachot 66a that Amemar counted the days but not the weeks because it is a mere זכר למקדש.  It is צ"ע why not count the weeks as well because of זכר למקדש?  However, in light of the Chizkuni it is beautiful for the counting of the weeks is mentioned in Reah where it says וספרת לך meaning to ב"ד that they must count the weeks.  It is in Emor where the Torah says to count the days and it says וספרתם לכם, an obligation on every individual.  Therefore, the mitzvah onב"ד  is the weeks so there is no זכר למקדש for the individual to do it, is it only the mitzvah to count the days that there is זכר למקדש for every individual (Eretz Hatzvi (Shecter) siman 3 and footnote 3, see also Bad Kodesh on Moadim.)

Potential

The Sforno (22:27) notes that one may not sacrifice an animal that has a blemish even if its worth more than the complete animal that one will bring in its stead.  Why is something which is whole better than what’s incomplete if the incomplete animal is worth more?  The lesson is that everything is judged based upon its potential.  An animal which is complete has met its potential and is desired for a korban.  On the other hand, an animal which is incomplete even though its worth more the blemish represents the lack of reaching potential.  Hashem wants us to reach our heights.  That isn’t measure by the standards of others.  Even if someone else may be greater, if he hasn’t reached his potential, the one who has succeeded to the utmost is desired more.

The Sfas Emes writes in a letter that one who can only learn 2 hours a day and does is greater that one who can learn 12 hours but only learns 10.  One person reached his potential and the other didn't. 

Tochacha And Arvut

Targum Unkles (see Ramban as well) and Sharei Teshuva (3:72) explain (19:17) הוכיח תוכיח את עמיתך ולא תשא עליו חטא  refers to one that doesn’t rebuke his/her friend that they carry the burden of the sin as well.  Rav Elchonan Wasserman (Betzah #67) says we see that they are of the opinion that the mitzvah of תוכחה  is an outgrowth of the din of ערבות.  ערבות  is what teaches us that one bears the sin of another if one has the wherewithal to object to the sin (see Sanhedrin 27b.)  We see that they hold that תוכחה  is tied into the obligation of ערבות.  The Yad Shaul uses this principle to explain Rashi in Sanhedrin 75a ד"ה ואם איתא  that there is no mitzvah of תוכחה  for a גר תושב.  Why is there no mitzvah for a גר תושב?  He explains since they aren’t included in ערבות, there is no mitzvah to rebuke them.  

Last week I cited the Mishna Berura that brings the Yereim that even when one won’t be listened to there is an obligation of rebuke.  The Biur Halacha however, proves that there is no obligation of ערבות in that situation. 

The Shulchan Aruch Harav (608:5) says the opposite.  He says that its ערבות  that is the cause of the obligation to give rebuke even if it won’t be heeded (this is the opposite of the way the Beur Halacha understands the Yereim that there is no ערבות in that situation but there is a mitzvah of תוכחה.)  In fact, in 156:7 the Shulchan Aruch Harav rules that the mitzvah of תוכחה  applies only to a friend that will listen to the rebuke that s/he is being told.  This opinion runs contrary to the Yereim but it supported by the Ritva in Betzah 30a that explains the obligation to rebuke someone else if it won’t be heeded is because of the principal of ערבות.  That means in his view one is viewed as responsible for the sin as long as s/he doesn’t object to it.

Rebuke For Yourself

The Rambam in listing the commandment of תוכחה as #205 on his list (which I’m still looking for an explanation as to what kind of order the Rambam is using,) lists the commandment of תוכחה.  He explains the mitzvah is to stop someone else from sinning, למנוע אותו ממנו.  He follows this הגדרה in Daot 6:7 that the mitzvah is להחזירו למוטב.  Following this logic, it should come out that if one knows that the recipient of his/her rebuke will not adhere to the words being thrown at them, that there is no obligation of rebuke.  Indeed, that it the opinion of the Smag עשה  #11 (as cited in Beiur Halacha 608.)  In fact, it may be according to the Rambam that if one can stop the sinner via kind words instead of harsh words, then the mitzvah of תוכחה must be performed in that manner (heard from Rav Chayim Shalom Deutsh in the name of Rav Levi Ginzburg.)  

However, the Beuiur Halacha also cites the dissenting opinion of the Rav Eliezer M’mitz and it is clear from the Rosh in the name of the Baal Haetur in Betzah 30a that they disagree and hold even if the rebuke won’t be accepted there still is an obligation of תוכחה.  What is their reasoning, what’s the point of shouting empty words? 

One approach (set forth by Dibros Moshe Shabbos siman 42 and Bircas Avrohom Betzah) is that they hold of any entirely different גדר of the mitzvah.  They don’t maintain the point of the mitzvah is to stop the sinner from sinning, rather the point is for the rebuke, he shall not stand idle and let his eyes see sin happening.  The point of the mitzvah isn’t to help the one being rebuked, it’s to help the one giving the rebuke so that he isn’t influenced by the negative behavior that s/he is witnessing. Hopefully more on this in the future so stay tuned.

Fab Five

התורה הקד' מלמד אותנו את האיסור שיש על פירות ערלה בג' שנים אחרי נטעיית האילן ועל דין מיוחד שלו בשנה הרביעית.  וכ' בפסוק (יט:כה) לגבי שנה חמישית כדי להוסיף לכם תבואתה.  ועל פי פשוטו היינו שיש שכר לשמירת מצות האלו שיוסיף לכם תבואה.  אבל יש פה גם משהו עמוק יותר, בפנימיות התורה מגלה לנו שתכלית מצות אלו הוא כדי להגיע לפירות של שנה החמישית.  עיקר המכוון והשיא הוא אכילת הפירות שהם חולין בעלמא.  ובאותיות הקבלה שהביא אדמו"ר הזקן בפרשתנו הוא שד' השנים הראשונים של האילן הן כנגד ד' אותיות שם הויה ושנה החמישית כנגד קוצו של י'.  איך אומרים שפירות של השנה החמישית שהם חולין בעלמא הם העיקר?  מסביר הרבי בלק"ש ח"ז שהקב"ה רוצה שגם בהחולין ימשיך קדושה.  זו היא המעלה גדולה הכי גדולה, שגם פירות של חולין יאכל אותם בקדושה.

וזהו היסוד של קדושה כדי להמשיך אור של אלוקות בתוך החולין

Love Thy Neighbor, Love God

רש"י מפרש כ' בריש פרשתנו דבר אל כל עדת ישראל משום שפרשה זו נאמרה בהקהל לפי שרוב גופי תורה תלויין בה הבעלי מוסר מעוררין שלמידין מכאן שאין פירוש של קדושה פירוד מבני אדם להיות סגור ומסוגרת אלא להיות מעורב אם הבריות.  למה קדושה שייך רק במי ששייך להכלל 

ידוע הסיפור אם הלל (שבת לא) שאמר לגר מה דעלך סני, לחברך לא תעבד והוא יסוד כל התורה כולה והשאר פירוש בעלמא הוא.  ובירושלמי (נדרים ט:ד) מבואר שאמר לו היסוד הוא ואהבת לרעך כמוך.  והכל שואלין תינח מצות שבין אדם לחבירו אבל איך זה יסוד של כל המצות שבין אדם למקום?  וי"ל ביאור הדברים הוא שמהות המימרא של ואהבת לרעך היינו ביטול האגו, ביטול היש של האוהב.  מי שאין לו מקום בלבו לאהוב איש אחר א"א לו לאהוב הקב"ה.  רק מי שמוכן לאהוב איש אחר ואינו מלא באהבת עצמו יש לו היכולת לאהוב את הקב"ה.  מי שפרוש מן העולם אולי אינו בגלל אהבה להקב"ה אלא לטובת עצמו שהוא רוצה להיות קדוש לטובת עצמו ולעלות במדרגות להקב"ה. האבן הבוחן לדעת אם האדם הוא קדוש לאלוקיו או קדוש לעצמו הוא אם האדם מוכן לתת לאחרים.  מי שמקיים ואהבת לרעך יודע שהוא קדוש לאלוקיו.

Weighty Measures

This is written with improper research.

The Chinich #258 says that the prohibition of having false weights applies even to less than a שוה פרוטה.  The Minchas Chinuch wonders where his source is. 

The Gemorah Babba Metzia (61b) says that this issur isn’t derived from the issurim of stealing for one violates it immediately when the false measurement is made, even before its used.  The Minchas Chinuch asks why didn’t the Gemorah answer that it teaches us even less than a שוה פרוטה is prohibited?  However, it is possible that the Chinuch is coming only after the conclusion of the Gemorah that we see one is obligated even before he causes a loss of money that it isn’t a monetary issur and the Gemorah in Babba Metzia is the source of the Chinuch.  

Tosfos in Babba Bathra (89b) ד"ה ובמשורה seems to say exactly like the Gemorah in Babba Metzia.  The Achronim ask what is Tosfos teaching us; it’s an open Gemorah?  They explain that the Gemorah is asking on the word משקל  and Tosfos is asking on משורה why is that needed and Tosfos answers there is a chiddush that one is obligated even though he didn’t change the actual measurement, he just didn’t measure properly.  The Achronim prove from Tosfos that didn’t answer less than a שוה פרוטה that they disagree with the Chinuch.  However, based upon what we said previously there is no proof for Tosfos answered in line with the Gemorah but he may agree there is an issur on less than a שוה פרוטה at the end of the day that its not viewed as a monetary issur.

Another issue that comes out of this discussion is regarding the chiddush of the Netziv ((19:25) and in his commentary on Shealta 102) that one can’t allow themselves to be cheated on measurements.  That only makes sense assuming its not a monetary prohibition.