The Days Count

The Ramban says (23:15) וספרתם לכם – כמו: ולקחתם לכם שתהא ספירה ולקיחה לכל אחד ואחד, שימנה בפיו ויזכיר חשבונו כאשר קבלו רבותינו. ואין כן: וספר לו , וספרה לה  דזבין, [שהרי אם רצו עומדים בטומאתם,] אלא שלא ישכחוהו.  For sefiras ha'omer,  one must count orally, but a zav and zavah who do not have to become tahor, they don't need to actually count the days.  The Nodah B'Yehuda (YD #2 124 note from the son) asks what's the difference, when one wants to become tahor why don't they need to count, just as they say a beracha on going to the mikvah? 

The Meshech Chachma says תספרו חמשים יום. הענין כי ספירה הוא בכל מקום על שיהא משונה מזולתו במכוון. וזה בזב וזבה וספרה לה שבעת ימים, הוא כי תראה במכוון שיום זה טהור ולא ראתה נדה וכן הוא זיבה, וכן קרי ופליטת ש"ז, והרי ימים אילו נספרין במה שהם טהורים ומכוונים מזולתן, אבל השבע שבתות מה ענין ספירתם מכוון, שיהא נשתנה מזולתו, אם לא דזה הוי ספירה ממש בפה,  In other words, sefirah means to designate the days as unique.  For the counting of a zav/zavah the days are designated by the fact that they lead to taharah.  However, when it comes to the counting of the omer, there is no chalos to the day that should make it designated as part of a count toward anything.  Therefore it is the act of actually counting, of explicitly counting the day that creates a chalos of a counted day.  

In light of this idea we can say this may be the intent of the Ramban.  The Ramban starts by telling us that sefirah must be done by every individual.  That means that the sefirah is not merely to not forget the days for if that was the entire yesod of the count, there would not be a need for every individual to count.  That derasha tells us that there is a mitzvah to create a chalos to the day and therefore, to designate these days one must make a verbal count. 

This may be why there are opinions that one cannot fulfill sefira through שומע כעונה for that only helps when all that's necessary is just words but when the words come to create a chalos of a counted day, for that שומע כעונה does not suffice (Kovetz Migdal Or volume 9 by Rabbi Ezra Schochet.) 

The importance of counting every day, Rabbi Nason writes in Likutay Halachos (Pikadon #4-5) is to teach us that every day is important.  By counting the day, one realizes that the days count.  Every day of a person's life is there to accomplish and grow.  Through the days of coming free from the tumah of Egypt until we receive the Torah, we drill this message into our heads and its imprint lasts throughout the year.

No Self

וכל אדם לא יהיה באוהל מועד בבאו לכפר בקודש

The Midrash asks but is not the Kohan Gadol himself a person?  The Midrash answers בשעה שהיה רוח הקודש שרוי עליו היו פניו בוערות כלפידים עליו.  The simple understanding is that the Kohan Gadol was elevated to angelic status and was not considered a person.  In the post, 'Are Angels Men' it was pointed out this seems to disagree with the opinion that even angles are prohibited to enter.  However, the Matnos Kehuna on the Midrash says that is quite difficult for the very previous line in the Midrash by the same opinion, Rav Abahu, says the figure that Shimon Hatzaddik saw coming into the Kodesh Hakadashim with him was Hashem Himself.  Why is he forced to say this?  For he holds the prohibition encompasses angles as well and if so, it must have been Hashem Himslef entering with Shimon Hatzaddik.  So he holds the prohibition applies to angels as well, so what it the answer of the Midrash that the Kohan Gadol was like an angel?  Rav Tzaddok (Pri Tzaddik Erev Yom Kippur #7) explains that the Kohan Gadol lost all form of gashmios upon entering the Kodesh Kadoshim and was elevated even beyond the level of an angel who has a form, albeit very refined.  When the Kohan Gadol entered, he was in total sync with his neshama which is directly connected to Hashem unlike an angel who is a separate being.  

The Mei Hashiloach says וכל אדם means that the Kohan Gadol must remove all vestiges of his אדםness, of his own self, when entering באוהל מועד.  He is not bringing in himself to make an offering to G-d but is there to receive from Hashem that which is totally beyond the human grasp. 

Putting the two Rav Tzadook with the Ishbitzer, the Kohan Gadol is not entering the Holy of Holies due to his great preparations but instead, he is entering into a complete state of negation of self to receive Divine inspiration way beyond one's own grasp.  

There is a discussion on otzer hachama forum as to the geder of this issur with some interesting stories. 

Learning To Speak

Why do the parshios of Tazria and Metzorah come in between the parsha of the inauguration of the Mikdash and the avodah of Yom Kippur? 

The Kabbalists tell us that the word פסח can be read as פה סח, the mouth was able to talk.  On  Pesach there was a redemption to the power of speech.  Previously, Klal Yisrael was under the rulership of פרעה which can form the letters פה רע, a bad mouth (Meor VaShemesh Pesach.)  On פסח there was a redemption of the power of speech.  The korban omer, offered on the second day of Pesach is referred to as the omer התנופה, of waving for the offering had to be waived in all directions.  The word תנופה can also be read as תנו פה, give a mouth, for the offering of the omer is the start of the bridge period between Pesach and Shavuot where we perform the mitzvah of sefiras ha'omer which is done with the mouth.  We refer to the written Torah as תורה שבכתב but the oral Torah as תורה שבעל פה, why not תורה שבפה, the Torah of the mouth?  The Noam Elimelech (Bechukosai) explains that in order to properly understand Torah, one must a  בעל פה, one must have proper control, rule over their mouth.  The Gemarah Yevamot (62b) says that the students of Rebbe Akiva died of diphtheria during the period between Pesach and Shavuot. because they did not have proper respect for each other.  The Maharsha explains that they died due to a disease of the throat since they spoke lashon harah about each other.  So why did they die specifically at this time of the year?  Because it is during this time that we are meant to work on having proper speech. 

Chazal tell us one of the reasons for the affliction of tzaaras is for speaking lashon harah.  In the Patach Eliyahu (printed in the opening pages of the Nusach Sefard siddur) it says מלכות תורה שבעל פה קרינן ליה.  The sefirah of malchus is associated with speech for malchus is how one rules over others and the power of speech is used when interacting with others.  The power of speech is needed when there is a need to create  a connection between two different people.  The Mikdash is the place where the presence of the Shechina meets with the earth which is the connection of the greatest divide, between the Divine and the mortal.  Therefore, as the Mikdash's inauguration is complete the Torah tells us the parsha of tzaraas for having a Mikdash, having a connection with the Infinite, demands one to improve their connection, their power of speech, with their peers.  This may be some of the intent that there was a redemption to the power of speech on Peach for coming out of Egypt is what formed Klal Yisrael from a bunch of families into a nation.  There was a cohesiveness, a newfound connection due to being part of a nation that did not exist beforehand.  

The Maharal (Netzach Ch. 4) explains that sinas chinum (which the Chofetz Chayim explains was the sin of lashon harah) destroyed the second Mikdash because the Mikdash was built in the merit of the body of Klal Yisrael and if people are not getting along, there is no sense of togetherness, no klal,  then the Mikdash ceased to exist.  Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook said that is why right before the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel, Hashem sent us the Chofetz Chayim to teach us how to speak properly for to be able to be to have a Jewish nation running their own country, to be a tzibbur, there is first a need to fix our speech.  

Kedushas Ha'aretz And Omer

ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים לה.  The Toras Kohanim has a derash on the word אם indicating the omer may or may not be offered that עתידה שתפסוק ותחזור, for now we don't have a korban omer but it will return.  But all korbanot are not offered now so why single out the omer?  The Meshech Chachma explains when it comes to korbanot מקריבין אע"פ שאין בית, the kedusha of the original Mikdash lasts forever after it was erected but in regard to the kedusha of the land itself the first kedusha of the land was batel and only came back to be everlasting through the conquest of Ezra.  Therefore, the omer which must be offered from grain of E.Y., in between the first golus and the conquest of Ezra would not be able to be offered because the kedusha of the land did not exist at that time and it is that timeframe which the Sifri is referring to. 

The Toras Hakodesh (volume 3 siman 30)  goes a step further.  The Or Sameach (Temidim 8:3) explains that the omer and shtei halechem are exempt from the obligation of terumot since they are called ביכורים which are exempt from terumot.  In other words, sometimes the omer korban has the status of bikkurim.  Nowadays, even though the kedusha of Eretz Yisrael remains, there is no obligation on a Biblical level of terumot since the obligation of teruma is only when the majority of Jews come into Eretz Yisrael, ביאת כולכם (Rambam Terumot 1:26.)  What about other obligations that stem from the kedusha of the land, would they also have this condition of ביאת כוכלם or is it limited to teruma and challah?  Simply understood it should be a גזירת הכתוב for terumah and challah but one could argue that it is not a mere halacha in the obligation of terumah and challah but is a halacha in defining when the kedushas ha'eretz is complete and would apply to other agricultural obligations well.  Argues the Toras Hakodesh, in that case we can say that the bikkurim would not apply unless there is ביאת כולכם and the omer offering having the status of bikkurim will not apply as well.  In this vein the Sifri is not just talking between the time of the two בתי מקדש but nowadays as well even though מקריבין אע"פ שאין בית but the omer can't be offered for it needs ביאת כולכם to establish the kedusha of the land regarding agricultural obligations.   

The Gemarah Rosh Hashana (13a) asks how the omer was offered immediately after entering Eretz Yisrael is if grew to be a third of its growth in the hands of gentiles?  The Minchas Chinuch (302) asks why did the Gemarah asks that it grew in chutz laeretz since Eretz Yisrael was not imbued with the kedush of כיבוש yet?  The Minchas Avraham on the Toras Kohanim suggests that for the omer there was no need for the formal קידוש of the land through כיבוש but it suffices that the land had the status of the promised land of Eretz Yisrael and for that there is no need for an act of כיבוש to establish the obligation.  It comes out according to his argument that there is no need for כיבוש to offer the omer but rather the status of Eretz Yisrael which applies even without the formal kedusha (as explained by my father, 'kedushas eretz yisrael'.  In that case, the Mesech Chachma's assertion that there is a need for kedushas ha'aretz to offer the omer would be incorrect.       

The Mishna in Kelim (1:6) says ארץ ישראל מקודשת מכל הארצות. ומה היא קדושתה? שמביאים ממנה העומר והביכורים ושתי הלחם.  Why does the Mishna not list terumot and maasarot?  And the Gra takes out bikurim from the list, why?  Rav Aharon Kotler (Osef Chidushay Torah #33) explains that the Mishna is referring to halachot that apply because of the kedusha of Eretz Yisrael itself as the promised land not halachat that are established due to the kedusha of כיבוש.  If so, the obligation of the omer and shtei halechem does not depend on the kedusha of כיבוש but will be limited to the actual promised land.  That is why the Ran Nedarim (22a) says that one can not bring the omer from grain of עבר הירדן because even if it has kedusha, it is not part of the actual promised land. The Gra removes bikurim from the Mishna since he holds it is a mitzvah that depends on the the kedusha of the land which depends on כיבוש, not on the actual land of Eretz Yisrael proper (it depends on who to rule like in a Mishna Bikurim 1:10.)

Shecheyanu on Sefirah

Why don't we say a beracha of shecheyanu on sefiras haomer?  There are many answers given, Rav Michael Yammer lists eight.  The Rabbenu Yeruchim that says the answer is since the days of the omer are a time of din it is not fitting to say shechyanu can be found here.  (It is interesting that Rabbenu Yeruchem firsts asks why we don't say the beracha of zman which is normally used to refer to shecheyanu and he gives this answer but then he proceeds to ask why don't we say שהחיינו and gives other answers.  Why did he switch in the terminology of his question?)  Rabbenu Yeruchem cites another answer that we only say שהחיינו on a complete mitzvah and this mitzah is completed only after all 49 days.  R' Yeruchem asks but we say שהחיינו on the mitzvah of sukkah even though the mitzvah is only completed after a week.  He seems to have understood they meant to say shechyanu can only be said when a mitzvah is finished and hence asks from sukkah.  However, it is logical to assume they meant that shecheyanu is said on a complete mitzvah and each day of sitting in the sukkah is a complete mitzvah but sefirah is a buildup of a 49 day count.  The Radvaz (end of teshuva) likes this approach. 

The Shibalay Haleket (234) says ועוד כתב מה שלא נהגו לברך שהחיינו לפי שזמן ספירה תלוי בקביעת פסח כמה דתימר וספרתם לכם ממחרת השבת לכן נראה שאין מברכין עליו זמן ודי לו בברכת זמן של יום טוב עצמו. ואינו דומה לסוכה ולולב שטעונין זמן ואינן נפטרים בזמן של יום טוב עצמו דהתם איתחייב בזמן משעת עשייה ואם לא בירך משעת עשייה מברך בשעת קיום המצוה ושופר נמי שטעון זמן שהרי יש בו מעשה של תקיעות ובכל הני סוכה ולולב ושופר אית בהו מעשה מה שאין כן בספירת העומר.  In the beginning of his words he seems to say there is no shecheyanu for it is covered by the shecheyanu of Pesach but at the end of his words he says a new sevarah since there is no action done?  There is a discussion about this on otzar hachachmah forum. 

The Abudraham says וכן בספירת העומר כיון שהספירה אינה אלא לצורך הבאת הבכורים כמו שנאמר וספרתם לכם וגו' עד ממחרת השבת די לו בזמן שאומר על הכוס במועד.  Rabbi Yammer interprets this to mean since the count is to reach Shavuot the shecheyanu on Shavuot covers the omer.  However, the Abudraham says not that we are counting to Shavuot but to offering the bikkurim meaning the shtei halachem, why does he put the focus on the korban?  See also Encyclopedia Talmudit footnote 25. Though the Eschol says it is covered by the beracha of shecheyanu of Shavuot without mentioning the shtei halechem. 

The כלבו (cited in ibid footnote 666) says למה אין מברכין שהחיינו לברכת העומר כמו לשאר ברכות. ויש לומר לפי שמצות העומר אינה נעשית שלמה בזמן הזה שעקר מצות העומר בזמן שבית המקדש קיים היה. להביא קרבן מן החדש כדמפרש בקרא ועכשו אין מקריבין ממנו קרבן ולפי שאין המצוה שלמה אין מברכין עליה שהחיינו דאין מברכין אלא כשהמצוה נעשית שלמה.  As noted in footnote 666 it is unclear what he means, is the mitzvah a Torah mitzvah but incomplete somehow, or does he mean it is only a Rabbinic mitzvah to remember the korban along the lines the Briskor Rav says?  Either way, his direction is that shecheyanu must be said on a complete entity which is the same yesod as the answer of the Radvaz that the count is incomplete until the end and shecheyanu needs to be said on a  complete mitzvah. 

The Ran in Sukkah (22b in the dafey HaRif) has a whole different answer. He says since if one does not count at night, they can not count during the day, therefore there is no beracha of שהחיינו.  It is difficult to understand what the Ran means, what does the fact that one can't count during the day have to do with shecheyanu?  In the Meoray Hamoadim of Rav David Solevetchik he suggests that the Ran means to say the reason that sefirah can't be done in the day is since the omer korban must be cut during the night, it can not be done during the day.  If so, the counting of the omer is not defined as bound by time but rather dependent on the action of the cutting of the omer, therefore, one can not say שהחיינו ... לזמן הזה.  It is quite a stretch to read all of this into the Ran.  The severah itself that the sefira depends not on time but on the action of the offering of the korban omer the Maharam Chalavah (teshuva end of Shittas Kadmonim Bava Kammah) says in explanation of why the Ramban understands sefirah is not a time bound mitzvah and woman are obligated in it, since it does not depend on time rather sefirah exists only due to the korban omer, it is not categorized as a time bound mitzvah. Another peshat in the Ran may be that he is saynig we can only say shecheyanu when one is starting a mitzvah and will continue doing the mitzvah but if there is a timeframe in the middle when one can't fulfill the mitzvah, then one it creates a break and the shechiyanu will not be connected to the end of the mitzvah (this is how Rav Wahrman explains the Ran.) 

Tosfos Megillah (20a) ask why we say שיבנה בית המקדש only after the mitzvah of counting sefirah but not after taking lulav?  Tosfos at face value seems to answer that when them mitzvah is an action we don't say anything but when it is just words we add this passage.  It is hard exactly to understand this severah.  The Alter Rebbe (489:11) explains the Tosfos that the concept of sefirah only exists when there is a korban omer and therefore our counting is merely a zecher liMikdash and we add שיבנה בית המקדש as opposed to lulav where the act of shaking lulav exists nowadays (see Kovetz Migdal Or volume 11 by R' Ezra Schochet.)   

The Kedushas Levi (first piece on sefirah) says that we don't say shecheyanu since the point of the omer is to bring Klal Yisrael up from the depths of impurity to the be able to קרבם תחת כנפי השכינה, therefore, we would be happier if we could skip the steps and be able to connect to Hashem immediately.  Interestingly enough the Levush (siman 489) already says a similar idea.   

Tosfos Menachot (66a) says one can count sefirah בין השמשות even though it is still a safek yom since safek diRabbanan likulah.  Tosfos adds that this is in fact preferable (Tosfos says to count מבעוד יום סמוך לחשיכה which is צ"ע how one can count before dark, see Devar Avraham #34:5) because of תמימות.  In other words, תמימות says the entirety of the day should be counted.  It sounds from Tosfos since we say ספק דרבנן לקולא allows you to count בין השמשות one is even allowed to then say the beracha.  The Achronim raise contradictions to many places where we do not say that safek diRannanan allows you to say the beracha, rather as the straight logic would indicate, you can do the mitzvah but one should not say the beracha which is a safek saying Hashem's name in vein?  Possible one can say based upon a yesod the Achronim say that the beracha of sefirah is pat of the kium of sefirah.  In other words, altohugh one fulfills sefirah without a beracha, when one says the beracha it adds to the kium mitzvah.  So it is specifically in the situation of sefirah where the beracha is not tacked on to say before the mitzvah but becomes part of the mitzvah that it follows the pesak of the mitzvah.  Since the mitzvah of sefirah is diRabbanan and we can say ספק דרבנן לקולא the beracha gets the same rule of the mitzvah, ועדיין צ"ע.

Change

In the Rav Shlomo Carlebach Haggadah it cites an idea in the name of the Izhbitzer that the reason the yam suf split for Klal Yisrael was able to change from being slaves to Pharaoh to the the heights of spirituality within a week, the sea was able to change its nature as well.  This is the meaning of the things Chazal compare to krias yam suf.  It order to accomplish a marriage or mezonos or go to the bathroom sometimes one is required to change their lifestyle to mesh with the new reality.  This is the lesson of krias yam suf.  This is a nice idea that encapsulates the essence of yitzias mitzraim.  Yitzias mitzraim is to go out from our מיצרים, out from all the forms and limitations that are imposed upon our selves and to be able to be unbridled from specific forms. 

Man is created in the image of G-d.  Rabbi Jonathon Sacks points out that G-d does not have an image.  In other words, man's life is not dictated.  We are not molded into a specific form but are given free choice to determine our lives.  It is when one sees himself as a fixed form that one loses his freedom.  Freedom is the ability to choose a new path.  

Questions

The Mishna in Pesachim (116a) says מזגו לו כוס שני וכאן הבן שואל אביו ואם אין דעת בבן אביו מלמדו מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות.  The Rashbam says (in first peshat) כאן במזיגת כוס שני הבן שואל את אביו אם הוא חכם מה נשתנה עכשיו שמוזגין כוס שני קודם אכילה.  In other words, the pouring of the second cup causes questions and the main question is about the pouring of the cup.  The questions of מה נשתנה of for the child that does not take the initiative and ask questions on his own.  Accordingly, the Rashbam understands the Gemarah (115b) that says when a question is asked by the child it exempts from מה נשתנה at face value for the מה נשתנה is only necessary if no questions have been asked.  

Tosfos takes a different approach.  Tosfos (115b) says even after a child asks a question on his own, there is still a requirement to say the מה נשתנה. In other words, Tosfos understands that there is a takkanah to say the מה נשתנה and that must be said even if other questions have been asked.  It would seem Tosfos holds that Chazal insisted specifically the questions of the מה נשתנה be used. 

That may be because in Tosfos's view the obligation of questions Or Tosfos may not hold that one needs specifically the 4 questions but one's questions but be based upon the mitzvot of the night not other events.  

The Alter Rebbe (473:40) says יִתְעוֹרְרוּ לִשְׁאֹל גַּם כֵּן שְׁאָר הַשְּׁאֵלוֹת: "מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה וְכוּ'", לְקַיֵּם לְבָנָיו מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: "כִּי יִשְׁאָלְךָ בִנְךָ מָחָר לֵאמֹר מָה הָעֵדֹת וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים וְגוֹ', וְאָמַרְתָּ לְבִנְךָ עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ וְכוּ'"  It is part of the mitzvah to have questions and answers at the Seder. Earlier (#14) in discussing karpas he says אֲמִירַת הַהַגָּדָה מִצְוָתָהּ לְאָמְרָהּ דֶּרֶךְ תְּשׁוּבָה עַל שְׁאֵלוֹת שֶׁשְּׁאָלוּהוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "כִּי יִשְׁאָלְךָ בִנְךָ וְגוֹ', וְאָמַרְתָּ לְבִנְךָ עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ וְגוֹ.'  Why does he change the pessukim of the source of the need for questions?  There are two different types of questions that can be asked at the Seder.  One is just bewilderment at the general strangeness of the events that we do and the other type are specifically related to the mitzvot of the night.  The karpas is not related to the mitzvot of the night, it is just something we do to evoke questions about the events of the Exodus.  That is the possuk of the generic עבדים היינו but questions specific to the mitzvot of the night are derived from מָה הָעֵדֹת וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים.  This is fulfilled by the מה נשתנה but can not be fulfilled by general questions and that may be why Tosfos requires the מה נשתנה to be asked (see Rishimos Shiurim siman 100.)    

The Alter Rebbe (473:43) says וְעִקַּר נֹסַח הַהַגָּדָה שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים חוֹבָה עַל הַכֹּל, הוּא מִתְּחִלַּת "עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ.  There is a precise text that Chazal enacted to said and that is the Haggadah which starts at עבדים היינו.  What about the מה נשתנה?  It would seem although the questions of מה נשתנה are a key part of the Seder, the precise wording of the questions is not part of the takkanah of Haggadah.   

The Rambam says in his seder Haggadah that the second cup is poured before the beginning of Maggid.  In addition, the Rambam (8:2) says the one leading the seder says the מה נשתנה.  This indicates that the Rambam is of the opinion that the questions of מה נשתנה are indeed part of the Haggadah (see also הוספות ללקו"ש חלק ג.)  Accordingly, the Rambam omits the Gemarah on 115b for he holds the מה נשתנה must be said as it is part of the Haggadah.  

Rav Chayim says that one of the differences between the general mitzvah of זכירת יצ"מ and סיפור is that the Haggadah must be said דרך שאלה ותשובה.  It would seem that he understands that is a Bibical difference.  It is clear from the Alter Rebbe that the שאלה is not part of the integral part of the Haggadah text that Chazal enacted but maybe one can suggest he may agree that it is a necessary component of the Haggadah but there is on defined text? 

The Yarech L'Moadim suggests a possibility according to the Shulchan Aruch who holds that one pours the cup of wine before עבדים היינו that he can agree in principle to the opinion of the Rambma that the Haggadah is said over the second cup of wine but he holds the questions of מה נשתנה are not part of the Haggadah.  He quotes from Derech Sicha that Rav Chayim Kanievsky said that in fact only the עבדים היינו has to be said after nightfall, not the questions for the questions are only a means of getting to the answer.  This line of reasoning for sure does not work with the Rav Chayim for the suggestion here is that the questions are not part of the Haggadah.