Frumkeit

 

Growing Through Breaking

Yosef reveals himself to the brothers, ויאמר אני יוסף אחיכם אשר מכרתם אתי מצרימה. Why does Yosef add אשר מכרתם אתי מצרימה? There are different approaches to this question. Some say it was a siman to prove he was Yosef, some say he was was saying he loved his brothers even though they hold him (see Or HaChayim, Kli Yakar.) The Safas Emes (5643) says כמ"ש חז"ל אשר שברת יישר כחך. כן ניחם יוסף אותם כי זכה לכל זה על ידי המכירה. He explains his point more in 5636 where he adds the possuk says כי נבהלו מפניו, literally מפניו from the face of Yosef since they say and sensed the kedusha that was present on the face of Yosef.  They could not fathom how they were so far off the mark. How did they not see this beforehand? Yosef adds the line אשר מכרתם אתי מצרימה as a way of consoling them. He explained I am Yosef, I was able to this obtain this kedusha only because you sold me. It was the low parts of my life, the sale, that led me to become greater in my life. It was the struggle through the difficulty that helped him soar to greater heights. The Sfas Emes cites as a template to this concept the breaking of the luchos, אשר כחך ששברת, the breaking of the luchos, the destruction gets a ישר כח. It was necessary to allow Klal Yisrael to go further beyond the chat haegel. The seed needs to be broken down in the ground before it can sproup into a tree bearing fruit. It is the breaking down that leads to the greatest growth.  

Yeshayeh (12:1) וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא אוֹדְךָ֣ ה כִּ֥י אָנַ֖פְתָּ בִּ֑י יָשֹׁ֥ב אַפְּךָ֖ וּֽתְנַחֲמֵֽנִי. It the future we will say thank to Hashem for the times of hardship of the golus for that is what paved the way for the geulah. Living through it one can can't see how the hardships are good. But looking back, when the story is complete, one can see how it led to the process of the geulah.

Chanukah Points

The Shu"t Shalmey Chova (#107) discusses can one say the ברכת הרואה on the lighting of a katan. He assumes the question is whether the action of the kid is considered a מעשה מצוה. He doesn't note the Butchatch (679) already raises the question. (It is interesting the Butchatch notes his missing the time to light the candles on Erev Shabbos.) Rav Tzvi Ryzman wants to say a different approach to the question, the question is not if the katan's lighting is a mitzvah lighting, but the question hinges on if the ברכת הרואה of שעשה ניסים is a birchas mitzvah of birchas hashevach akin to saying a beracha on a place that a miracle happened. If it's the first way, a birchas hamitzvah, there has to be an actual lighting of a mitzvah to say the beracha, which is not the case when a katan lights, but if it is a birchas hashevach, it would be possible to say the beracha even on the lighting of a katan. His explanation seems problematic for even if the geder of the beracha is a birchas hashevach, it needs to be recited over a חפצא של מצוה, would anyone contemplate saying a beracha on the lighting of a goy?

As mentioned by my father in the past, the Rambam's opinion is that the lighting of the menorah itself is a fulfillment of hodah, not a separate mitzvah.

The Gemarah Megillah (14a) says   ת"ר ארבעים ושמונה נביאים ושבע נביאות נתנבאו להם לישראל ולא פחתו ולא הותירו על מה שכתוב בתורה חוץ ממקרא מגילה מאי דרוש אמר רבי חייא בר אבין אמר רבי יהושע בן קרחה ומה מעבדות לחירות אמרי' שירה ממיתה לחיים לא כל שכן. Rashi asks but ner Chanukah was added? He says that wasn't an addition of prophets for there were no prophets any more. The Ritva asks but why did they add ner Chanukah? He explains it is the same reason as to why they added Megillah. According to the Ritva just as the Gemarah considers Megillah a form of shirah, ומה מעבדות לחירות אמרי' שירה ממיתה לחיים לא כל שכן, so too ner Chanukah. In other words the lighting is a form of shira. It is not just an act of a mitzvah.

The Rambam Chanukah (3:3-4) says וְהַדְלָקַת הַנֵּרוֹת בָּהֶן מִצְוָה מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, כִּקְרִיאַת הַמְּגִלָּה. כָּל שֶׁחַיָּב בִּקְרִיאַת הַמְּגִלָּה, חַיָּב בְּהַדְלָקַת נֵר חֲנֻכָּה. Why does the Rambam compare Chanukah to Megillah? In light of the Ritva, it is understood. The Rambam is explaining that in the same way Megillah is a mitzvah as a means of expressing shira, hoda to Hashem, so too ner Chanukah. The Rambam continues that all who are obligated in Megillah are obligated in ner Chanukah. Why does he connect it to expressing who the obligation is upon? Woman are obligated in these two mitzvot because אף הן היו באותו הנס. Tosfos asks why we don't employ the same logic to tell us women are obligated in sukkah, or for that reason, they should be obligated in the four cups of wine? The Rambam is telling us that אף הן היו באותו הנס doesn't create an obligation when the miracle is the mere reason for the mitzvah; it is only when the miracle itself defines the mitzvah as a cheftzah of hodah that אף הן היו באותו הנס creates an obligation on a woman (Rav Solevetchik in Mesorah Journal volume 13).

Tosfos Shabbat (21b) asks how the seal on the bottle of oil helps; it should still have been tameh since there is a gezerah that goyim are tameh like a zav. The movement of the jug would have made it tameh? There are a few answers to the question. The Bach (670) suggests that it had a small opening that one could not fit their finger into, and something that cannot be tameh through touching when in the vessel does not acquire tumah through movement either (Shabbat 84b). He adds that it still had to be sealed; otherwise, we would need to be concerned that maybe the oil had been removed and replaced, or it had become tameh through tumas ohel. Therefore, there must have been a צמיד פתיל on it. R. Akiva Eger asks that this contradicts an open Gemara in Chagigah (25a) that צמיד פתיל does not work for hekdesh. In שו"ת קרית חנה דוד  he suggests answers based upon the assumption that the din that צמיד פתיל doesn't work by hekdesh is only Rabbinic, and in this case, they did not impose the gezerah. As discussed in an article about preparing oil nowadays, there is a machlokes Rishonim about what level of kedusha is necessary for the law of צמיד פתיל not to apply. The Rashash in מדייק from the Rosh on Kelim (10:2) that only on kedushas haguf the צמיד פתיל doesn't help, but it does say something that only has קדושת פה. Tosfos Temurah (14a) says the oil for the menorah did not have kedushas haguf. The Chazon Eish (Menachot 30:7) says it is not logical that the oil never obtained kedusha at all. Tosfos means it didn't have kedushas haguf, but did not have kedushas peh. Putting that together, the oil for the menorah would be eligible to be saved by a צמיד פתיל (From here.)

Twins Of Sun And Moon

Rashi (Bereishis 38:27) notes the difference between the term תאומים used for Tamar’s pregnancy and תאמים used for Rivka’s. In Tamar’s case, both children were righteous, whereas Rivka bore Yaakov, a tzaddik, and Esav, a rasha. The Torah’s need to highlight this distinction suggests that there is a fundamental similarity between these two pregnancies. What is that comparison?

Regarding Zarach’s birth, Rashi comments that the phrase “ארבע ידות” appears, alluding to the four acts of treachery committed by Achan, who descended from Zarach. Others explain that it refers to the four items Achan took: a Shinar garment, two silver pieces totaling 200 shekels, and one golden tongue. Why is Achan’s sin hinted at here?

The Ramban, citing the Bahir, explains that Peretz and Zarach correspond to the sun and the moon. Zarach, whose name suggests “shining,” represents the sun—constant and unwavering. Peretz, whose name implies “breaking through,” parallels the moon, which waxes and wanes. What does this symbolism mean? Zarach embodies the tzaddik, whose light shines steadily and whose path is straightforward. Peretz represents the baal teshuva, whose spiritual journey includes ups and downs but ultimately reaches greater heights. This is why Mashiach descends from Peretz for the transformative power of teshuva surpasses the static righteousness of the tzaddik (see Likkutei Sichos vol. 30).

The Torah distinguishes between Yaakov and Esav, and between Peretz and Zarach, because the potential dynamic was similar. Yaakov parallels Zarach—the tzaddik—while Esav could have mirrored Peretz, becoming a baal teshuva. Instead, Esav succumbed to his lows and never rose above them.

The Maharal expands on the Ramban’s sun-moon analogy, noting that Achan’s four transgressions correspond to the four acts of betrayal against the four designated cherem items, reflecting the power of the sun created on the fourth day. Unlike the moon, which fluctuates, the sun is fixed and limited. Achan’s sin lay in trying to emulate Peretz—seeking expansion beyond his boundaries and taking what was not his. This overreach led to his downfall.

Self, Non-Self

 קטנתי מכל החסדים ומכל האמת אשר עשית את עבדך

The Gra (cited in Pardes Yosef) says this is the 8^th possuk in the 8^th parsha and that is where Chazal see to say a talmud chacham should have an eighth of an eighth of haughtiness (Sotah 5a.) The question is that this possuk seems to be the opposite of haughtiness, Yakaov is saying how small he is?  The Gemarah in Sotah is difficult for the Gemarah says haughtiness is a terrible middah and then throws in the statement about a talmud chacham, why is he given an allowance for a bit of haughtiness? The Gemarah compares this bit of haughtiness to the crown of the bristle-like growth on the top of the husk. What is the meaning of this comparison? 

The Midrash says קָטֹנְתִּי מִכָּל הַחֲסָדִים א"ר אבא ב"כ איני כדאי ר' לוי אמר כדאי אני. How can there be an opinion כדאי אני if this is the ultimate statement of humbleness on the part of Yaakov? 

Sfas Emes (5648) אך עי"ז עצמו שקטנתי. עי"ז כדאי אני. ואם אמנם לעיני בשר האומר קטנתי נראה כי הוא מתגאה. אבל מי שאומר לפני הבורא ית' קטנתי הוא שהכיר את עצמו וראה שיודע הוא שכל החסדים ואמת שעשה עמו הבורא ית' אינו בזכותו. ולכן באמת לא יגרע מזכותו כלום. וזה הכלל אם אדם תולה בעצמו נעשה לו באמת בזכות מעשיו.

When Yaakov says קטונתי it means that he felt so small, so nothing, that all he felt was his connection to Hashem. By totally negating himself he was able to say כדאי אני because the אני was not a אני of self merit but rather an אני of the Godliness within himself  being fit for anything. When there is the ultimate self negation that leads one to have a haughtiness, not of self inflation but due to the connection to The Infinite. 

The Alter Rebbe explains that the haughtiness of the talmud chacham is compared to the part of the chaff that guards the wheat for it is only a protective stage that the haughtiness is needed to inspire one to have the ability to increase one's avodah but after one reaches a greater level all haughtiness should be dropped. But as we see from Yaakov Avenu there is a third level of a haughtiness from the feeling of tremendous smallness. This is when haughtiness is desirable. That is why the Gra is pointing to this possuk as explanation of the Gemarah (based upon sicha of Rebbe 5749.) 

The Alter Rebbe after his redemption on 19 Kislev wrote a letter (Igros Kodesh Tanya letter 2) starting with this possuk emphasizing that the more chesed one receives from Hashem, the closer one seems, the more one sees their own smallness. This allows one to push aside their own self and be in tune with the Godliness within themselves.   

In terms of Rambam in Gemerah Sotah, see letter of Rebbe. 

Oneg Shabbos And Yaakov

א"ר יוחנן משום רבי יוסי כל המענג את השבת נותנין לו נחלה בלי מצרים שנאמר (ישעיהו נח, יד) אז תתענג על ה' והרכבתיך על במתי ארץ והאכלתיך נחלת יעקב אביך וגו' לא כאברהם שכתוב בו (בראשית יג, יז) קום התהלך בארץ לארכה וגו' ולא כיצחק שכתוב בו (בראשית כו, ג) כי לך ולזרעך אתן את כל הארצות האל אלא כיעקב שכתוב בו (בראשית כח, יד) ופרצת ימה וקדמה וצפונה ונגבה (שבת קיח)

What is the connection between עונג שבת and meriting a נחלה בלי מיצרים? What is the נחלה without boundaries? Why is the beracha associated with עונג שבת said explicitly in the dream of Yaakov? Why is it said to Yaakov specifically? 

As explained in 'Two Yaakovs', the beginning of Veyetzei marks the transformation of Yaakov, the איש תם יושב אוהלים, into Yaakov, who is now engaged with the world at large. Yaakov takes the years of his involvement in purely holy work, and it gives him the ability to bring kedusha into חרן. It is at this juncture that Yaakov experiences his dream. The ladder is the ladder of connection between this world and the higher worlds, between Yaakov on earth and Yaakov of the כסא הכבוד, between kodesh and chol. The message to Yaakov is that it is time for him to take the spiritual heights he has developed and use them to transform the greater world. Chazal connect the סולם with סיני (minus the ו it is the same gematria.) The סולם alludes to Sinai, the giving of the Torah, and the connection of heaven and earth. The Torah is the ladder that connects heaven and earth; the ability to bring kedusha into the chol stems from the Torah. Yaakov is the Av associated with Torah. He sees the vision of the ladder; he is instructed to spread the kedusha through his power of Torah. 

The Zohar says that the beracha of a person's week stems from Shabbos. Shabbos is the point of kedusha that can elevate the chol of the week around it. The Bnei Yissachar cites the Alshich, who states that it says מענג את השבת, not המענג בשבת, for it is the appreciation of the oneg of Shabbos that brings this reward. It is not about having oneg one the day of Shabbos, but that the Shabbos adds oneg to one's activities. One who can appreciate the kedusha of Shabbos and use that to enhance the physical needs of the person, to incorporate their actions as part of Shabbos, by turning it into an act of עונג שבת, is following in the footsteps of Yaakov, of taking the point of kedusha and using that to enhance the physical matter. The נחלה בלי מיצרים is that one's life will not be limited by boundaries of where kodesh ends and chol begins, but will become a seamless life guided by the boundless kedusha that is innately within a person.  

(See Likutay Sichos volume 15, Beis Yishai derashos #12, sicha of Rav Rav Zalman Baruch Melamed.)

Esau's Milah

The Rabbenu Yona, in his commentary to Sanhedrin, says that Esau did bris milah. He explains the reason is that he would be included in the command to Avraham that his descendants should do bris milah. Even though Esau is excluded from כי ביצחק ולא כל יצחק, that was only established later on. The idea of the establishment of ולא כל יצחק was not said yet is cited by the Briskor Rav in the name of Rav Chayim to explain why the Rambam (Melachim 10:7) cites a different verse to exclude Esau from milah, שהרי יצחק אמר ליעקב ויתן לך את ברכת אברהם לך ולזרעך, מכלל שהוא לבדו זרעו של אברהם המחזיק בדתו ודרכו הישרה והם המחוייבין במילה. Why does he not cites ולא כל יצחק? Because the possuk itself doesn't say Esau is out, maybe Yaakov is out; it is only from the fact that Yaakov is given the mantle to carry on the legacy of Avraham that we know to read ביצחק ולא כל יצחק to exclude Esau, but that is not a given in itself. 

The Daas Zekanim (25:25) cites a Midrash כשראהו אביו אמר עדיין לא נבלע בו דמיו ולא רצה למולו לשמונה ימים כדאמרינן גבי מעשה דשתי נשים שבאו לפני נתן הבבלי וכו׳. כשעבר שנה או שנתיים וראה יצחק שלא החליף מראיתו ידע שזו תולדתו ואפ״ה לא מל אותו אמר הואיל ולא מלתי אותו לשמנה כמוני אמתין עד שיהיה בן י״ג כמו ישמעאל אחי ואמול אותו וכשהיה בן י״ג שנה הוא עכב בעצמו ולא רצה למול והיינו דכתיב אם לא דם שנאת ודם ירדפך. According to the Midrash Esau never obtained a bris milah. But it is clear that Yitzchak did want to give him a bris milah. According to Rabbenu Yona presumably there was no danger in doing the milah, however, if there is a machlokes, it may be explained in multiple ways. 

The Mizrachi (Shemos 4:24) asks how Moshe could delay giving milah to his son, even if there is sakanah, there is no heter of וחי בהם for a gentile to not put himself in danger for the fulfillment of a mitzvah? He clearly assumes that וחי בהם is not said for a gentile, and hence, for a positive fulfillment of a mitzvah, there is no exemption even for life-threatening situations. The Parashas Derachim (Derech Ha'esarim #2) presents several points of argument against the Mizrachi's assertion. He argues on his principle, for he holds even without וחי בהם one does not have to put themselves in danger to fulfill a mitzvah, וחי בהם is only necessary to remove a possible limmud from the cardinal sins that one would have to give up their life (see more about the discussion in הרחבות לפניני הלכה.) Another point he raises is that even if the Mirachi is correct, how can Moshe put someone else in danger to fulfill his obligation? (The Chemdas Yisrael mitzvah 215) says this objection hinges on the nature of the father who does the milah for his son. If it is the obligation of the father, the Parashes Derachim is right, that wouldn't allow him to put his child in danger but if the mitzvah is on the father to fulfill the obligation of his son since he is to young to do it himself, then the father is just acting as the agent of his son who would be obligated himself to put himself in danger to fulfill his obligation and the father can do the milah for him.)  Either one of these points would be in play regarding Yitzchak giving a milah to Esau.  

According to the Midrash why did Yitzchak not do the bris on Esau once he saw there was no more danger, why did he wait untill he was 13? Rabbi Shulman has a fancy approach here.    

The simple read of the Ramban (Lech Lecha 17:6) איננו נכון בעיני שיבשרנו בעת ברית המילה על עשו, והוא אינו מקיים המילה וגם לא נצטוה עליה, כמו שדרשו בסנהדרין (בבלי סנהדרין נ״ט:) כי ביצחק – ולא כל יצחק sounds like Esau did not have any command of milsh. However, he may be referring to after it was established ולא כל יצחק which was not at birth. Either way, the Ramban assumes that Esau did not have a bris at all like the Midrash.