Sefirah Chinuch

Rashi explains the double language of emor ve’amrtah teaches us that the gedolim must warn the ketonim on the issurim to kohanim.  The word that Rashi uses to say warn is lehazher which can also be translated as zohar-shine.  Chinuch isn’t supposed to be superimposing additional rules on the katon, it is to bring out that shine that is buried within the child.  להזהיר גדולים על הקטנים, through teaching the teacher will gain rays of light as well.  It is by giving to others that the best of the teacher/parent is brought out (see Likutay Sichos volume seven.) 

Sefiras Haomer is the chinuch of Klal Yisroel for kabbalas hatorah.  The possuk (25:15) says usfartem lachem.  Why the extra word lachem?  Why is the korban omer called omer because of its measurement, why is this significant?  The Ksav Vekabalah explains that lachem means for your benefit (like Rashi says at the beginning of Lech Lecha.)  The word seferah is related to sappirah-sapphire, which is something clear and shiny.  The count of the omer is not just a count of a day, it is a count toward purity.  The possuk means וספרתם לכם, purify yourself in order to be ready to accept the Torah.  Hashem gives us the time of sephirah to reveal the pure, untainted holiness that exists within us.  Hashem is being mechanech us for the acceptance of the Torah.  That’s why the korban is called an omer.  Omer can mean servitude (as in לא תתעמר בה in beginning of Ke Tatzah.)  We are counting towards the day when we learn what we really should be applying ourselves too; the Torah.  On Peach the korban omer is waved to indicate that all the four corners of the world and the winds represented by the waiving is all a means to the end.  The success that is obtained in the material world is so that we have peace of mind in order to focus on the Torah.    

One of the famous questions asked about Shavous is why is there no mention in the Torah of it being the holiday where we accepted the Torah?  Rav Eliyah Lopian answers that the Torah wants to highlight that what is necessary for kabbalas hatorah is our preparation for it.  Therefore, it is referred to by the Torah as Shavous indicating that it’s the weeks of preparation that make the Yom Tov.  It is our acceptance of Hashem’s chinuch that matters.

Terumah Payment

The Mishna in Terumot 7:2 says that a kohanet that marries a yisroel (and now can no longer eat teruma,) and subsequently eats teruma pays the value of the teruma but not the additional value of the fifth that one must normally pay when eating teruma by accident.  She is exempt from the fifth because that obligation is only on one who is a זר their whole life, not one who becomes a זר.  If that is the case, why must she pay the value of the teruma?  The Rash explains that she must pay like any other stolen goods.  According to this explanation, she must pay only if she took the teruma from another kohan.  However, if she owned the teruma she wouldn’t need to pay.  Rav Chaim Kanievsky in Derech Emunah Terumot 10:12 ס"ק קפד cites Rishonim that indicate she must pay even if it doesn’t belong to a kohan (see Rashi Sanhedrin 51a , Ramah there and Ri ben Malki Tzedek on the Mishna.)  Why would they disagree, what other reason would there to have to pay? 

The Emunat Yehosha (#139) says that we see from the passukim that there are two reasons to pay for the teruma that is eaten.  It says in 22: 14 "And if a man unintentionally eats what is holy, he shall add a fifth of it to it and give the kohen the holy thing.  15 And they shall not desecrate the holy things of the children of Israel, those that they have set aside for the Lord,  16 thereby bringing upon themselves to bear iniquity and guilt, when they eat their holy things, for I am the Lord Who sanctifies them."  We see that there is a desecration of the chefta and a sin on the gavra. 

If one eats the teruma במזיד s/he only pays the value of the teruma, not the additional fifth.  The Rambam (perush hamishna 7:1) explains that the sin is too great to be atoned for by paying an additional fifth.  If could be that the sin that’s not atoned for is the sin on the gavra but the desecration of the cheftza of teruma requires one to pay the basic value of the teruma. 

In a similar vein we can explain the aforementioned din.  The daughter of the kohan doesn’t have to pay as atonement for the sin of the gavra but she must pay the base value of the teruma because of the desecration of the cheftza.

Forced Mazid

Rashi (24:21) says the Torah spells out the name Shlomis bas Divri to tell us only she was a zonah but no one else was.  The Mizrachi asks why is she called a zonah if Rashi in Shemos explains how she was אנוס?  He says even though she didn’t willingly violate an issur, there still was an act of znus so she is called a zonah.  Levush says since it happened because of her being too outgoing and speaking to everyone it called her fault.  Sounds like there arguing if one put himself into a situation where they are susceptible to sin if it’s called a מזידor not.

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.