How Much Challah? - Shelach 5770

The Posuk says 15:20 כ  רֵאשִׁית, עֲרִסֹתֵכֶם--חַלָּה, תָּרִימוּ תְרוּמָה:  כִּתְרוּמַת גֹּרֶן, כֵּן תָּרִימוּ אֹתָהּ  Rashi explain כתרומת גורן: שלא נאמר בה שיעור ולא כתרומת מעשר שנאמר בה שיעור, אבל חכמים נתנו שיעור, לבעל הבית אחד מעשרים וארבעה, ולנחתום אחד מארבעים ושמונה  Rashi is saying that there is no Shiur for Challah. The very next Posuk 15:21 says כא  מֵרֵאשִׁית, עֲרִסֹתֵיכֶם, תִּתְּנוּ לַירוָר, תְּרוּמָה--לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם  Rashi says תתנו לה' תרומה: לפי שלא שמענו שיעור לחלה, נאמר תתנו, שיהא בה כדי נתינה  Rashi here says that it is not like Teruma in that you can give just a Mashahu and that you must give a K’dei Nesina. So there seems to be something of an inconsistency between the two Rashis. There is a Teshuvas Noda B’Yehuda that discusses it, however, maybe you can find a Teretz in the Meforshei HaChumash.

Rav Pam's Matza Challah - Shelach 5770

Rav Pam was Noheg a Chumra for himself that when he opened a box of Matzos or if he went someplace to eat even though that place had a Hechsher, he would break of a small piece and say Zu Chalah and throw it out. It is really not possible to give a proper Hechsher on properly separating Challah. A Hechsher is based on coming into a store and catching someone using a Treif ingredient. This is Yotzi V’nichnas. By Challah it is difficult because you can’t catch someone in the act of not taking Challah. So as a personal Chumra or Hiddur, Rav Pam would break off a piece of Matza and put it aside. He was not Machmir to burn it in such a case. In that way he was Zahir in this particular Mitzvah. In Chutz L’aretz it helps that once you separate Challah even in your own home you can say this is Challah for all of the dough that was made together with this and in that way in case there was some error and Challah wasn’t taken, he would be Mesakein for others as well.

The Eyes Have It 2 - Shelach 5770

13:22  כב  וַיַּעֲלוּ בַנֶּגֶב, וַיָּבֹא עַד-חֶבְרוֹן, וְשָׁם אֲחִימַן שֵׁשַׁי וְתַלְמַי, יְלִידֵי הָעֲנָק; וְחֶבְרוֹן, שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים נִבְנְתָה, לִפְנֵי, צֹעַן מִצְרָיִם There is a Drasha from Chazal from Maseches Sotah 34b (20 lines from the top), ויעלו בנגב ויבא עד חברון ויבאו מבעי ליה אמר רבא מלמד שפירש כלב מעצת מרגלים והלך ונשתטח על קברי אבות אמר להן אבותי בקשו עלי רחמים שאנצל מעצת מרגלים. This is when Calev went to Daven at the Meoras Hamachpeila. From here we learn that there is a benefit in gong to Daven at the Kever of a Tzaddik and this is the only Mekor in Tanach for such an idea.

The question of course is how does it work and why is it better to Daven at the Kever of a Tzaddik as opposed to when one Davens wherever he is, in the Zechus of a Tzaddik or even asking that the Avos should be Mailitz Yosher?

Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz in his Sichos Mussar explains, (this is the Sichos Mussar that was printed in Taf Shin Samach Bais that has added the Shmuzzin that were delivered during the 6 day war.) There he discusses how a person gets inspired by that which he sees and he says an incredible thing. We find in Parshas Vayechi in 48:7 ז  וַאֲנִי בְּבֹאִי מִפַּדָּן, מֵתָה עָלַי רָחֵל בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן בַּדֶּרֶךְ, בְּעוֹד כִּבְרַת-אֶרֶץ, לָבֹא אֶפְרָתָה; וָאֶקְבְּרֶהָ שָּׁם בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶפְרָת, הִוא בֵּית לָחֶם This is when Yaakov Avinu excuses himself to Yosef for burying Rachel at the side of the road. The reason he did so is two parts. One is that the Yidden leaving to Galus would have a place to Daven and secondly and more primary that Rachel would cry for Klal Yisrael as is found in Yirmiyahu 31:14 - 15 יד  כֹּה אָמַר יְרוָר, קוֹל בְּרָמָה נִשְׁמָע נְהִי בְּכִי תַמְרוּרִים--רָחֵל, מְבַכָּה עַל-בָּנֶיהָ; מֵאֲנָה לְהִנָּחֵם עַל-בָּנֶיהָ, כִּי אֵינֶנּוּ As we know, Hashem responds in the next Posuk, טו  כֹּה אָמַר יְרוָר, מִנְעִי קוֹלֵךְ מִבֶּכִי, וְעֵינַיִךְ, מִדִּמְעָה:  כִּי יֵשׁ שָׂכָר לִפְעֻלָּתֵךְ נְאֻם-יְרור, וְשָׁבוּ מֵאֶרֶץ אוֹיֵב  So Rav Chaim says, a Neshamah is also more inspired to Daven better if it is in the place of the Tzar and sees the Tzar. The Koach Hari’iyah (seeing) inspires. Therefore, it wouldn’t be the same if Rochel was buried in Chevron which is not so far away as it is when Rochel is buried there and the Yidden gong to Galus were passing by. The Koach of Ri’iyah (seeing) is such that even after Petira the Neshamas Haguf is inspired when those in Tzar are standing right there. Of course this explains why standing at the Kever Hatzaddik is greater than Davening somewhere else and being Mispallel exactly the same way. This concept of the Koach Hari’iya Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz explains, certainly applies to people who are alive.

We find by Moshe Rabbeinu in Shemos 2:11 יא  וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, וַיִּגְדַּל מֹשֶׁה וַיֵּצֵא אֶל-אֶחָיו, וַיַּרְא, בְּסִבְלֹתָם; וַיַּרְא אִישׁ מִצְרִי, מַכֶּה אִישׁ-עִבְרִי מֵאֶחָיו  Moshe went out and saw the pain of Klal Yisrael. Rashi says וירא בסבלתם: נתן עיניו ולבו להיות מיצר עליהם Moshe put his eyes and his heart on the difficulties of his brothers.

This idea is explained by Rav Tzaddok in Tzidkos Hatzadik Os 205 where he says when someone gets information through his ears it affects primarily his mind. When one gets information with his eyes it is more than information, it inspires the persons imagination and Leiv and therefore has a greater Hashpa’a.

That is this idea. When one sees even if it only through the Neshamah it has a bigger Hashpa’a than it would otherwise have.

With this we can understand a Maharsha that we once discussed on Parshas Ki Sisa. The Maharsha asks why Moshe Rabbeinu broke the Luchos only after he came down if the Ribbono Shel Olam already had told him what had taken place. Moshe Rabbeinu undoubtedly believed the Ribbono Shel Olam. So if he felt that it was proper to break the Luchos he should have broke them right away, why did he wait until he came down?

The Maharsha answers that when he saw with his own eyes what was happening it inspired him even more and he broke the Luchos, as it says in Shemos 32:19 יט  וַיְהִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר קָרַב אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה, וַיַּרְא אֶת-הָעֵגֶל, וּמְחֹלֹת; וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה, וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו אֶת-הַלֻּחֹת, וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם, תַּחַת הָהָר 

Rav Moshe in a Teshuva in Orach Chaim Cheilek Gimmel Teshuva Nun wonders if it could be that Moshe Rabbeinu was more inspired from seeing than from hearing the same thing from the Ribbono Shel Olam himself.

Rav Tzaddok’s Yesod is yes, when someone sees something with his eyes, he is more inspired to move and to Daven and do things based on what he saw.

The Pirush HaGRA on Megillas Esther Perek 5footnote 18 says this idea that emotions are mostly influenced by the eye. He actually brings that that is why Moshe Rabbeinu broke the Luchos there. This idea that the eye has a separate ability to be Mashpia, Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz writes it regarding the Koach Hatefilla, that if you see a need and see a Tzorech you will daven better for it and that concept is probably the reason a miracle took place at Har Sinai as it says in Shemos 20:14 יד  וְכָל-הָעָם רֹאִים אֶת-הַקּוֹלֹת וְאֶת-הַלַּפִּידִם, וְאֵת קוֹל הַשֹּׁפָר, וְאֶת-הָהָר, עָשֵׁן; וַיַּרְא הָעָם וַיָּנֻעוּ, וַיַּעַמְדוּ מֵרָחֹק Why did Klal Yisrael have to see the voces and the sound? The idea is that when a person sees it has a special effect on a person. We see it is even so regarding a Neshamah L’Acher Petira as well.

A second thought regarding the Koach Hari’iya is brought in Rav Schwab’s Sefer Maayan Beis Hashoeiva on Parshas Shelach (pg # 324 on Perek 14:1) it refers to the Gemara in Maseches Sanhedrin 104b (12 lines from the bottom) (פצו עליך פיהם אמר רבא אמר רבי יוחנן בשביל מה הקדים פ"א לעי"ן בשביל מרגלים שאמרו בפיהם מה שלא ראו בעיניהם) that asks why in Megillas Eicha where the Pesukim are written in the order of the Aleph Bais does it have two letters out of order, the Pei and the Ayin. In the first Perek the Ayin is first and the Pei is second. In the subsequent Perakim the Pei is first and the Ayin is second. Why? The Gemara explains that Eicha happened because of the Meraglim’s sin that they said with their mouth things that they did not see with their eyes.

Rav Schwab asks that this is not so, we don’t see in the Pesukim that they said any lies. You can see the exchange that takes place at the end of Perek 13. They reported that there are giants there and powerful people there which were true. The Aveira was that the Meraglim lacked Bitachon that Hashem couldn’t conquer the land.

Rav Schwab answers that it all has to do with sight. A person can look at something with physical eyes or with a view that is spiritually inspired. When Avraham Avinu came with Yitzchok, Yishmael, and Eliezer to perform the Akeida, in Beraishis 22:4 when he saw the mountain from the distance ד  בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת-עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת-הַמָּקוֹם--מֵרָחֹק  Rav Schwab brings that Avraham saw that this mountain has the Shechina. He asked Yitzchok what do you see? He answered I see it has the Shechina. Then Avraham asked Yishmael and Eliezer what do you see? They answered that they see stones, trees, and perhaps buildings on the mountain. Two people can look at the same thing and see totally different things. It depends how one looks at it.

 It is the same thing with the Meraglim. The Meraglim came to Eretz Yisrael and saw with Gashmiyusdika eyes and everything they reported was true. However, what they said with their mouth is not what saw with their eyes. They said what they failed to see which was that they failed to see the great Ruchniyos of Eretz Yisrael. This is another lesson about what one sees. The Cheit Hamiraglim is very much alive today. People who visit Eretz Yisrael today can see very different things. Some people see the shops, the tours, and the fun while others see only the Kedusha. This is another tremendous insight into the Koach Hari’iya.

A third insight into the Koach Hari’iya. 15:39 לט  וְהָיָה לָכֶם, לְצִיצִת, וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת-כָּל-מִצְו‍ֹת יְרוָר, וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם; וְלֹא-תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם, וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-אַתֶּם זֹנִים, אַחֲרֵיהֶם The next Dvar Torah is said over from Rav Mordechai Druk the late Maggid of Yerushalayim in his Sefer Darash Mordechai (pg # 136). Rashi explains the Posuk by saying העין רואה והלב חומד והגוף עושה את העבירות The eyes sees and the heart desires based on what the eyes sees. The problem is shouldn’t the Posuk be in the reverse order that Lo Sasuru Acharei Eineichem V’acharei L’vavchem? The order of the Posuk does not seem to be consistent with the Drasha that Rashi is bringing?

Rav Druk explained that two people can be walking down the street at the same time and one sees something improper and notices it while another person doesn’t notice it. It is true that when you see something with your eyes as a result the heart desires. But what a person chooses to see and notice is based on his Hakdama of preparing his Leiv to be a Leiv Chomeid. It is a cycle the eyes see and the heart desires and then the eyes see and notices again. A person who prepares his heart properly has a Siyata Dishmaya not to see things that he should not be seeing.

Eisav goes out to fight and the Posuk says in 33:5 ה  וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת-עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא אֶת-הַנָּשִׁים  Eisav noticed the women. When Yitzchak went out to Daven Mincha and Rivka was coming back with Eliezer the Posuk says 24:63 סג  וַיֵּצֵא יִצְחָק לָשׂוּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶה, לִפְנוֹת עָרֶב; וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה גְמַלִּים בָּאִים  Yitzchak didn’t even notice that Rivka was there. He didn’t see anything he should not have seen. Depending on where a person is that affects what a person sees.

Rav Druk said over that the Nesivos when he would walk into the Bais Medrash would do Teshuva on what he had seen before he started to learn so that what he saw on the streets wouldn’t affect his learning. We who walk through streets that are far less pure than what the Nesivos saw just sit down and start to learn right away. It has to do with where a person is coming from and the orientation of a person. We see all the time that two people can go through the same experience and can see, observe, feel, or even Daven for very different things.

Why is the Parsha of Tzitzis together with the Parsha of the Meraglim? The idea of Tzitzis is Uri’isem Oso to see the Tzitzis. Two people can look at Tzitzis and see different things. One person can see just strings and someone else sees the Taryag Mitzvos, the Mitzvos of Hashem in the Tzitzis.

 Rebbi mentioned how he used to see Rav Moshe say Uri’isem Oso and lift the Tzitzis before his eyes and look at them. He saw more than just strings in the Tzitzis. People who only see strings stop looking at their Tzitzis by Uri’isem Oso because they don’t even realize that they are saying Uri’isem Oso. You have to train yourself. When the Leiv has the right desire than the Ayin Ro’e, then the eye sees properly.

Overcoming - Shelach 5769

V’avdi Choleiv Eikev Hoןsa Ruach Acheres Imo, that Calev because he possessed in him a different spirit and followed Hashem fully, will be brought into Eretz Yisrael. The obvious question is, Yehoshua is missing. The Aruch Chaim Hakadosh has a wonderful Vort. Moshe was Mispallel for Yehoshua, and therefore the Ruach Shtus that came into all of these Meraglim didn’t affect Yehoshua because he had the protection of Moshe Rabbeinu. Calev on the other hand, did have this Ruach Shtus or Yeitzer Hora to rebel against the Ribbono Shel Olam, and that is why Calev went to Chevron to Daven. Yehoshua didn’t go to Daven. So Calev is an Odom Gadol. Yehoshua, ok, he deserves to live, he didn’t do a Cheit, but his Gadlus is not recognized. The Gadlus is when someone has within him a Ruach Shtus a Yeitzer Hora and he overcomes it. That is the Teitch of Eikev Hoisa Ruach Acheres Imo, typically you would Teitch it, that is was a Ruach of Good. The Aruch Chaim Hakadosh says no, it means he had a Ruach from the Sitra Achara, a Ruach to do Aveiros. He overcame it. So he Davka will have the extra level of Schar. Takeh, the Bnei Calev got an extra Cheilek in Eretz Yisrael which was Chevron. Yehoshua did not receive an extra Cheilek. The lesson from this is, the Gadlus of a person is not one who does not have a Yeitzer Hora. A person for whom it is hard for him to battle his Yeitzer Hora and he overcomes, that is the Choleiv Eikev Hoןsa Ruach Acheres Imo.

40/40 - Shelach 5769

1) Regarding the Meraglim, Moshe davens to Hashem in Perek Yud Daled Posuk Yud Cheis, Hashem Erech Apaiyim  V’rav Chesed Nosai Avon Vofosha V’nakei Lo Yinakei Poked Avon Avos Al Bonim Al Shilashim V’al Ribai’im. It is quite similar to the Yud Gimmel Middos, however, it is not exactly the same. Isn’t it strange that we say Hashem Hashem Keil Rachum V’chanun Erech Apaiyim and Moshe just said Hashem Erech Apaiyim. We know that the Yud Gimmel Middos are the Middah by which we daven. Moshe skipped Hashem Keil Rachum V’chanun and goes straight to Erech Apaiyim V’rav Chesed. Why didn’t he use all the Yud Gimmel Middos?

2) After the Tefillah by Moshe regarding the Meraglim, we find in Posuk Chaf that Hashem says Solachti Kid’varecha. What happens after the Ribbono Shel Olam forgives? Hakadosh Boruch Hu says he will punish them. Ai, I thought Hashem was gong to forgive? Posuk Chaf Beis says Vayinasu Osi Zeh Eser P’amim that they have tested Hashem these ten times. Posuk Chaf Gimmel says V’chal M’na’atzai Lo Yir’uha that all those who have angered Hashem will not be Zoche to see Eretz Yisrael. Ai, I thought Hashem had said Solachti Kid’varecha? Posuk Chaf Tes says Bamidbar Hazeh Yiplu Figraichem V’chal P’kudaichem, that in the desert your corpses shall fall, all of you who were counted according to your numbers from 20 and above. Ai, I thought Hashem said Solachti Kid’varecha? It is a Pele.

3) Hashem says in Posuk Lamed Daled that the punishment will be B’mispar Hayomim Asher Tar’tem Es Ha’aretz Arbaim Yom, Yom Lashono, Yom Lashono Tisu Es Avonosaichem Arbaim Shanah, that According to the number of days which you scouted the land, forty days, a day for a year, a day for a year you will bear the burden of your iniquity forty years. So the punishment is for 40 years because one year for every day. Is that the Middah? One year for every day? This expression seems unfair? 

To answer all 3 of these difficulties, we will start with a Ramban. The Ramban says on Hashem Erech Apaiyim, which was our first Kasha, the reason Moshe didn’t use the Yud Gimmel Middos, is because Moshe understood that at this point Klal Yisroel would not escape without an Onesh. Therefore, he didn’t daven that there shouldn’t be an Onesh at all.

So what did he ask for? The Klei Yakar is Masbir, Moshe asked that instead of the punishment coming all at once, it should be spread over a period of time. Therefore, Hashem said Solachti Kid’varecha. Hashem forgave the way Moshe had asked, meaning the punishment should be spread over a period of time. The third question that was asked that it is not fair to have Yom Lashono, Yom Lashono, it was not a years punishment for each day. Chas V’shalom. Yom Lashono, it will be 40 days of punishment for 40 days of Cheit. However, the Erech Apaiyim is that it will be spread out over 40 years. It is a very Geshmake P’shat in what took place here with Moshe Rabbeinu’s Bakashos.

J020 -The Hei Hayediyah

שאו את ארון הברית

הארון נגנז בזמן בית ראשון ובבית שני לא היה ארון.

הגר"י קמנצקי הקשה שהרי יש מצוה לעשות כלי המקדש, ומצוה זו קיימת ועומדת שאם יאבד א' מן הכלים יעשו אחרת. א"כ בבית שני שעשו מחדש כל הכלים שלקחו האויב, למה לא עשו ארון חדש?

ותי', שמטרת הארון היתה להחזיק את הלוחות ולכן נקראת "ארון הברית" דוקא  ולכן כיון שנגנז הארון הראשון עם הלוחות לא היה ענין לעשות ארון חדש.

(אגב בכלי חמדה פרשת פקודי תי' ע"ז שהרי הארון בנס לא החזיק מקום,ולכן לא היה לו מקום מסויים רק שהיתה במקדש, והרי נגנזה הראשון במקדש, ועדיין היה שם ובזה מתקיים מצותו ולא היה צורך לעשות אחרת, ע"ש.)

כאן כתיב "ארון הברית" עם ה' הידיעה על המילה השניה מהתואר. וכן הוא בדרך כלל כמו "אשת האיש" "גיד הנשה" "בית המקדש". אמנם להלן פסוק יד כתוב "הארון הברית" בשני ה'. הגר"י קמנצקי (אמת ליעקב או"ח סי' תקפ"ב, וברכות יב) יישב ד"ז ע"פ הנ"ל. כיון שהארון היה להחזיק הלוחות, נמצא ששמו "ארון-הברית" הוא שם אחד ארוך ("אינו שם נסמך אלא השם עצמו"), וכשנוסף לו ה' שייך להוסיפו בתחלתו: ה"ארון-הברית."

עפ"ז מיישב גם הלשון "המלך המשפט", אשר לכאו' גם קשה למה לא נאמר רק "מלך המשפט". ותי' כנ"ל שאין הקב"ה מלך של משפט אלא מציאות של "מלך המשפט."

בעיקר היסוד הנ"ל שרק המילה השניה מקבלת "ה" כ"כ ר' צדוק בספר אור זרוע לצדיק.

אבל יש הרבה יוצאים מן הכלל כמו "המאור הגדול" "היד הגדולה" "הלילה הזה". וצריך ליישב מהי הכלל ומהי הימה"כ.

ובאמת בהכתב והקבלה דברים לג חולק וסובר שבעצם צריך להיות שני "ה". וכן כת ר' זלמן האנאו בסידור שערי תפילה שיש לומר "בזמן הזה" בפתח עמו "בהזמן הזה" שכן הכלל להיות בשני "ה" , ור' יעקב עמדין השיג עליו בזה.

בעולם המחשבה משמשת אות "ה" לענין יצירה. מנחות כט: - בראשית ב-ד "בהבראם - ב"ה" בראם", שהעוה"ז נברא מכח ה"ה".

וע' כלי יקר פר' לך לך (בראשית יז טו) שנתוסף "ה" לשרה בעבור שיש ב"ה" כח התולדה וסימנך "הא לכם זרע." ורבינו בחיי כת' ששרה רבקה לאה בלהה וזלפה היה להם "ה" אבל לא רחל וחסר לה כח התולדה. לכן אמרה ליעקב שיש לבלהה שני "ה" ולכן תבנה גם היא ממנה. (א"ה ע"ע רבינו בחיי עה"פ אב המון גוים ופסוק ותקרא שמו ראובן.)

ענין ה"ה" במחשבה קשורה לענין "ה" הידיעה בדקדוק. שכח היצירה והתולדה קשורים להחשק החשיבות וההתענינות ששמים בה. אדם מצליח בדבר כשהוא מחשיבו ומרגיש שההדבר ההוא מיוחד בחשיבותו - "ה" הידיעה.

באור גדליהו פרשת וירא דף לג כת' שה"ה" מורכבת מ"ד" ו"י", ה"ד" הוא העולם הגשמי, ד רוחות העולם, וה"י" הוא נקודת כח החיות. וכנ"ל שה"ה" הוא התולדה והחיות שבעוה"ז.

- דברי חיזוק בענין הנ"ל.

המשנ"ב סי' ח סע' ה הביא מהלבוש ועוד הרבה אחרונים שיש לומר "להתעטף בציצית" בשוא כדעת המחבר וכן מנהג הספרדים. סברת הלבוש שכיון שאין לנו תכלת אי אפשר לומר שאנו מתעטפים ב"ה"ציצית. אבל למעשה לא נהגו כן אלא כר' זלמן האנאו (א"ה וב"ח והרבה אחרונים) שחולק, ואמרים "בציצית" בפתח. אולי י"ל כנ"ל שכל מה שאנו עושים אפילו אינה ממש מושלם, צריך להיות "ה"מצוה.

שבת קנא: "שנים אשר אין בהם חפץ (קהלת יב א) - אלו ימות המשיח שאין בהם לא זכות ולא חובה." ותמוה שאנו מתפללים לביאת המשיח ובגמ' אמרינן שאין בהם חפץ. אומרים בשם החפץ חיים שליחידים אה"נ אינו טוב שיבוא ומ"מ להכלל ולכבוד השכינה טוב. אבל בספר "ובא לציון גואל" הרבה להביא ראיות שיש זכות וחובה בימות המשיח. - רש"י שם כת' שאין זכות שכולם יהיו עשירים ולא חובה לקפוץ יד, משמע שבין אדם לחבירו לא יהי אבל בין אדם למקום יהיה. - הרמב"ם בתשובה ט-ב ומלכים ב-ד כת' שנתאוו החכמים לימות המשיח כדי שיוכלו לעבוד את ה' ויזכו לחיי העוה"ב.

ר' שוואב פרשת חיי שרה הק' סתירה דומה לזה בנוגע למלאכים, אם יש להם שכר ועונש. וכת' ליישב, שאה"נ אין בחירה למלאכים אם לעבוד את ה' אבל יש להם נסיון איך לעבוד את ה'. אם יעשוה עם חיות - "ה" הידיעה - או כלאחר יד. ובזה מבאר מה שהקב"ה נסה את אברהם, 60 שנה אחרי "ומצאת את לבבו נאמן לפניך וכרות עמו הברית." הקב"ה ידע שישמע לו, אבל ניסהו לראות אם ישכם בבקר לחבוש חמורו...

אולי י"ל כן לענין ימות המשיח ג"כ. הזכות וחובה יהיה באופן העבודה.

Chinuch For Nezirus - Naso 5772

(האיש מדיר את בנו בנזיר). A man can make his son a Nazir. The Gemara says on the top line of 29a (אמר ריש לקיש כדי לחנכו במצות) this is to train him in doing Mitzvos. This idea is a Pliya as I guess you will all appreciate and understand that a man is Mechaneich his son to be a Nazir. What does that mean? What in the world is that supposed to mean? A person doesn’t need Chinuch to be a Nazir. A child will never be a Nazir unless he makes himself a Nazir.

The Maritz Chiyus in Nazir 29 asks this Kasha. What’s Shayich in a Mitzvah that will likely never happen to the child and he certainly never has to do? I would ask a second Kasha. We have a rule Ain Chinuch L’Aveilos there is no obligation to be Mechaneich a child in being an Avel in practicing Aveilos because Aveilos is Lo Shichichi. One of the reason given by Rishonim is it is not a common thing that occurs. Nezirus is certainly less common (Shichiach). Tzorech Iyun Gadol?

In the Keren Orah on Nazir 29 he says a beautiful Pshat. It very much ties to what we spoke about earlier. He says we are not Mechaneich a child to be a Nazir, we don’t anticipate that he will be a Nazir. However, we are Mechaneich a child in Perishus. In being able to push away his physical needs and physical desires in order to follow the commandments of the Torah. Nezirus is an example of that Chinuch, however, it is an extreme example. The idea that we are Mechaneich a child is this idea of being  Mecheneich a child to understand this very basic very fundamental idea of being a Porush. Therefore, this makes a lot of sense that we have to be Mechaneich our children in Perishus. This is something that we in our generation have not succeeded in doing. We want the best for our children and we tend to follow our natural inclination to give them everything they want. To give them nice clothing, fancy clothing, even when they don’t need it. They are 3, 4, 5 years old and we tend to dress our children beautifully. For what? We dress them like dollies, what are we doing?

We are being Mechaneich them the reverse of a Nazir. We are Mechaneich them to need more and more and more. The message of the Nazir is that we should be Mechaneich our children from early on and teach them not to need more, not to need extra, not to need things that are really not required. For that reason it would be very good if we would take the lesson of Nazir to heart. Especially this lesson of Nazir.