One Big Yetzer Hara - Ku Seitzei 5770

21:10 י  כִּי-תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה, עַל-אֹיְבֶיךָ; וּנְתָנוֹ יְ ר וָ ר אֱלֹ קֶיךָ, בְּיָדֶךָ--וְשָׁבִיתָ שִׁבְיוֹ  The Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh says this is a Remez of a person’s constant battle with the Yeitzer Hora. The usual idea is that when we do battle with the Yeitzer Hora we need help from Hashem. Our job is to go out to do battle and hope that Hashem will help us in the battle with the Yeitzer Hora.

Rav Gifter added a beautiful thought. It says  כִּי-תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה, עַל-אֹיְבֶיךָ; וּנְתָנוֹ the word אֹיְבֶיךָ  means many enemies, and וּנְתָנוֹ יְ ר וָ ר אֱלֹ קֶיךָ  Unisanoi is in the singular, and Hashem will give him into your hands.   Why the change from plural (going out to battle)to singular(being victorious in battle)?

Rav Gifter said, we try to Daven and we try to learn, we have many things that the Yeitzer Hora puts in our way. Some days he has us worrying about Parnasah and that distracts us from our Davening and Learning. Sometimes he tells us that we are very tired and we have a hard time staying up. Sometimes he makes us feel meaningless. Our Davening is meaningless. We have many enemies. We fight fatigue when we want to learn. We fight the business thoughts that come into our minds when we want to Daven Shemoneh Esrei. We fight the many distractions that exist. When you finally fight the Yeitzer Hora you realize it is all Narishkaitin. The Yeitzer Hora finds many things to throw in your way. It is one Yeitzer Hora. It is all about distracting us. After the distraction of Shemoneh Esrei he will find something else to throw at you. It doesn’t get easier. Something else then comes up. It is a roadblock that he puts up for you. When you finally do battle you realize it is all one Yeitzer Hora.

Zechor - Stay Connected - Ki Seitzei 5770

25:17 יז  זָכוֹר, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה לְךָ עֲמָלֵק, בַּדֶּרֶךְ, בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם  This weeks Parsha has the Mitzvah of Zechiras Mechiyas Amaleik. The Chasam Sofer in a Teshuva in Even Haezer Teshuva 119, writes a Hiddur Mitzvah or a Chumra of Zechiras Mechiyas Amaleik. A person has this Mitzvah once a year. Why is it once a year, it doesn’t say anything about once a year? The Chasam Sofer brings it down from a Gemara in Maseches Berachos 58b (27 lines from the bottom) אמר רב אין המת משתכח מן הלב אלא לאחר שנים עשר חדש שנאמר (תהילים לא) נשכחתי כמת מלב הייתי ככלי אובד and a Gemara in Bava Metzia 28 (that is brought further down). 12 months is a Zman of forgetting and therefore since the Torah says Zachar that you must remember, so every 12 months you are obligated to Lain Parshas Zachor.

So the Chasam Sofer asks what about in a leap year such as this year? This year where there are 2 Adars, so from last year Parshas Zachor until this year’s Parshas Zachor it will be 13 months. The Chasam Sofer says a person in a year such as this should have in mind Parshas Zachor during the Laining of Parshas Ki Seitzei. When they Lain Maftir many Shuls will announce that you should have in mind for the Mitzvah of Zechiras Maiseh Amaleik and the Mitzvah of Zechiras Mechiyas Amaleik at the time of the Laining. The Maram Shik quotes this as well in Mitzvah 605, the Chumra of his Rebbi the Chasam Sofer.

 The idea of the Chasam Sofer to connect the Gemara in Berachos that was quoted above to the Mitzvah of Zachor is questioned by the Satmar Rebbe in his Teshuva Sefer the Divrei Yoel Teshuva 33. The Gemara in Bava Metzia & Berachos says that Shicha is every 12 months. This is if someone loses something then the finder must announce it for 3 Regalim, one year.  דף כח, א משנה  ועד מתי חייב להכריז עד כדי שידעו בו שכניו דברי ר"מ ר' יהודה אומר שלש רגלים. After a year he no longer has to announce it.

The Satmar Rebbe asks we are not talking about forgetting of an existence. A person who loses an object doesn’t forget that he lost it after 12 months. The Gemara is saying that after that point we are talking about losing hope and despair from finding something it again, and therefore, the Shicha here doesn’t mean that he forgot a fact, it means to give up on something.

The same thing, after 12 months a person doesn’t forget his relative, he forgets the connection he has to it. So the Satmar Rebbe asks that there is no Shaychus between the Mitzvah of Zechiras Mayseh Amaleik and this Gemara?

 The concept might be to forget a “connection” to a fact. Rav Hutner in Pachad Yitzchak at the end of Maimar 78 says that we put our idea of what forgetting is and compare it to the Schicha that Chazal mention. Rav Hutner is talking about forgetting as applied by Chazal its not about remembering that Amaleik existed the idea of remembering is about the connection to the loss. When we talk about a loss of a relative, after 12 months the newness of the loss is forgotten. That Shicha is what we want to avoid by Amaleik. Zechiras Mayseh Amaleik means to remember it not as a historical fact, but to have some type of connection to it, Shaychus to it, and concept to it, and therefore, that is this idea of Zichronos.

This idea has a tremendous connection to Rosh Hashana. There are 3 primary ideas, that of Malchiyos, Zichronos, and Shofros. The idea of Zichronos is often questioned because we know that Hashem remembers everything. So what does it mean Zichronos?

It means remembering the connection. A living connection, something that affects a person. Even the idea of Malchiyos it means to have a renewal of a connection of Malchiyos.

Zichronos doesn’t mean to remember as Rav Hutner said. We can’t take our idea of forgetting a fact and putting it into Chazal who is talking about remembering the connection.

The third area this is Shayich to is remembering Yerushalayim. We do many things Zeicher Yerushalayim and Zeicher the Churban. The idea is not to remember the historical fact that there was a Bais Hamikdash and that there was Yerushalayim, the idea is to connect to it and have a Shaychus to it. This is a rule that Zeicher is what affect it should have on the person and not just remembering a fact.

The Pink Umbrella - Ki Seitzei 5769

22:5  ה  לֹא-יִהְיֶה כְלִי-גֶבֶר עַל-אִשָּׁה, וְלֹא-יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה:  כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְרוָר אֱלֹקֶיךָ, כָּל-עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה  It says “Loi Yilbash Gever Simlas Isha” A man is not allowed to wear the Beged of a woman. It becomes a Nichshal on Purim when little children are dressed as the other gender, which is Sheloi K’din. Even for Ketanim it is a Shaila of an Issur D’oiraisa. Let’s say I have to go out and it is raining, can I take an umbrella that everyone would say was made for a woman? Is this included in Loi Yilbash? The Shittas Habach has an extraordinary Kullah and he holds that unless your Kavana is to pretend you are a woman you may wear women’s clothing. His Raya is, one of the things that are Assur is to look into a mirror. This is from the time of the Rishoinim when men didn’t look into mirrors. The Shulchan Aruch says it is Assur for a man to look into a mirror because of Loi Yilbash. Rav Akiva Eiger brings that nowadays is different, in that men also look into a mirror. Toisafos in Maseches Avoidah Zarah 29a D’H Hamistapeir Mei’oived Koichavim Roi’eh B’mar’eh says that if someone is getting a haircut by a Goy, he is allowed to have a mirror because we are Choi’shed Goyim for lifting weapons against Yidden when getting haircuts. This is like the Bach because he is not looking into the mirror to look like a woman. The Chochmas Adam in Binas Adam Ois 74 says the Bach is incorrect. One of the Issurim is for a woman to wear K’lei Zayin, arms. We find by Ya’el who killed Sisra, in Shoiftim 5:26, when she killed him with a peg of a tent, that Chazal say that was because she didn’t want to use Kley Zayin because of Kli Gever. She didn’t do it because she thought someone would think that she was trying to be a man? Clearly it is Assur. What about the Raya of looking in a mirror? The Chochmas Adam says there are 2 types of Loi Yilbash Gever Simlas Isha. One is when you wear a Malbush Gamur. A Malbush that you are wearing is always Assur, no matter what your Kavana is. Something that is not a Malbush, like for example looking into a mirror, since it has to do with how a person looks, Chazal understood to Assur that as well. So when it comes to wearing the arms of a rifle or a sword, that is something that is worn, and something that is worn, the Lashon of the Gemara is, Sheloi Teitzei Isha Bichlei Zayin Lamilchamah. If it is being carried and not worn than if there is no Kavana to dress like the other gender it is Muttar. The example given is a cane, where even if it is a woman’s cane a man can use it because it is not worn. This is a Heter to use a woman’s umbrella, because it is not worn and the Kavana is not to look like a woman. A woman would be able to carry a revolver as well. By clothing we don’t Pasken like the Bach and therefore, we can’t wear clothing of the opposite gender. However, we can rely on the Bach when it comes to carrying things that were meant for the other gender.     

"The" Taz - Ki Seitzei 5769

21:15  טו  כִּי-תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, הָאַחַת אֲהוּבָה וְהָאַחַת שְׂנוּאָה, וְיָלְדוּ-לוֹ בָנִים, הָאֲהוּבָה וְהַשְּׂנוּאָה; וְהָיָה הַבֵּן הַבְּכֹר, לַשְּׂנִיאָה  There is a Shittah of the Taz who holds that any Davar that is Mifurash Bik’ra, meaning any Heter that is says Mifurash in the Pasuk, is something that remains Muttar and Chazal has no right to totally Assur it. The case is in Yoreh Daya in 117, Chazal made it Assur to have business dealings with Ma’achalois Assurois, and yet the Mechabeir says that Cheilev is Muttar because it says in the Pasuk by Cheilev, Kal Melacha Yei’asa Lachem. The Taz explains that the Kavana of the Shulchan Aruch is this idea, that Chazal have a right to make Gizairois D’rabannan, however, they cannot make something totally Assur, something that is Mifurash in a Posuk as a Davar Hamuttar. There are a number of cases where Chazal made D’rabannans which seems to touch upon something that is a D’oiraisa. In this week’s Parsha we actually have 2 questions. 1) The Chasam Sofer has a Teshuva in Cheilek 6 Siman 52, where he asks the following Kasha. It says in the Pasuk, “Ki Siyena L’ish Shtei Nashim Ho’achas Ahuva V’ho’achas S’nua.” How can Rabbeinu Gershoin make an Issur on taking 2 wives, it is a Davar Hamifurash Bik’ra? Who says this Pasuk is talking about a man who is married to 2 women at the same time? The Pasuk is talking about the Bechor coming from the woman who is not beloved. He still remains the Bechor, and the son from the Ahuva can’t go before the son from the S’nua. L’choira, it is not Mifurash Bik’ra. The scenario can be that he was married to them at different times and he has a Ben from the Ahuva and a Ben from the S’nua. 

23:4 &5  ד  לֹא-יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי, בִּקְהַל יְרוָר:  גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי, לֹא-יָבֹא לָהֶם בִּקְהַל יְרוָר עַד-עוֹלָם  ה  עַל-דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא-קִדְּמוּ אֶתְכֶם, בַּלֶּחֶם וּבַמַּיִם, בַּדֶּרֶךְ, בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם; וַאֲשֶׁר שָׂכַר עָלֶיךָ אֶת-בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעוֹר, מִפְּתוֹר אֲרַם נַהֲרַיִם--לְקַלְלֶךָּ   The Sefer Bishalal Rav asks, it says “Loi Yavoi Amoini Umoiavi Bikhal Hashem” “Al D’var Asher Loi Kidmu Eschem Balechem Uvamayim.” The Pasuk is saying B’feirush that we should have been given bread and water by Ammon and Moav. The Kasha is, how did Chazal make a Gezeira against Pas Akum, it says here B’feirush “Asher Loi Kidmu Eschem Balechem Uvamayim.” Meaning, it is B’feirush in the Pasuk that Pas Akum is Muttar? He answers, Amon and Moav were not punished because the Bnei Yisrael needed their bread and water. Klal Yisrael had plenty to eat. The Oinesh was because they didn’t offer any bread and water. They should have shown friendship to Klal Yisrael. Even had they offered, we wouldn’t have eaten it.

2 Types Of Oness - Ki Seitzei 5768

22:26  כו  וְלַנַּעֲרָ לֹא-תַעֲשֶׂה דָבָר, אֵין לַנַּעֲרָ חֵטְא מָוֶת:  כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר יָקוּם אִישׁ עַל-רֵעֵהוּ, וּרְצָחוֹ נֶפֶשׁ--כֵּן, הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה  That someone who does an Aveira B’ones is Patur. There is an interesting Stiras Harambam. In Hilchos Avoda Zorah, the Rambam writes that if someone is forced to be Oved Avodah Zora B’ones, of course the Halacha is Yeihareig V’al Ya’avor (to get killed and not perform the sin of idol worship). However, the Din is if someone didn’t withstand the test and did perform idol worship that he is not Michuyav Misah. Ones Rachman Patrei applies even in a case of Avodah Zorah that you are Patur from an Onesh. He failed to be Mekayeim the Mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem for which he was Mechuyav, however, Ones Rachman Patrei applies even in a case of Avodah Zorah and he has the Heter of Ones.

There is another Rambam in the 5^th Perek of Hilchos Yesoidei Hatorah. The Rambam there says that if a person is ill and the only way to be healed is to eat from the fruit of an Asheira tree, which is Abaz’rai’hu of Avoida Zorah, that you must be killed and not to eat the fruit. The Rambam says if that person were to eat the fruit from that tree than he gets Malkus. This contradicts the person who bowed down to Avoida Zorah and didn’t receive a punishment. The Ohr Sameach asks this question on the Rambam and gives the same Teretz as Rav Elchanan.

Rav Elchonon is Mechaleik between 2 types of Oines. There is one type of Oines that a person is forced physically, meaning someone points a gun at him and forces him to do something. There the act is not really his act. If someone would take a person and physically bend his body in front of an Avoida Zorah, we wouldn’t say that the person is bowing. The other person is using this person’s body to bow. So too if someone points a gun at someone and asks him to bow to an Avoida Zorah, the Rambam considers it the man with the gun who is doing the Mai’se. So it is an Oines and he is Patur.

This is not so with eating from the Asheira tree. This is not the same type of Oines. In the case of the Avoida Zorah, this person would be delighted if the Avoida Zorah would just disappear. Not so the person who is ill and needs the food of the tree for his Hatzolah. If someone would take that fruit away, the person would be distraught. So someone who does a Hatzolah because of Pikuach Nefashois does not have the same rules of Oines and he is punished.

This is the Pshat with Esther. All along when Esther was married to Achashveiroish when she was physically forced to live with Achashveiroish, and we know that since Isha Karka Oilam Hi that she is not required to let herself be killed instead of Znus, and therefore since it was an Oines, she didn’t become Assur to her husband.

Not so when she went to Achashveiroish as a means of Hatzolah for Klal Yisrael.This would be comparable to eating from the Asheira tree. She did it and she is still Assur to her husband Mordechai.

This Pshat actually helps us appreciate the Gadlus of the Chofetz Chaim. This Rav Elchonon and Ohr Sameach, the Mishna Berura says in half a line. In the Halacha of Brocha Rishonah of Birchas Hapeirus in Siman (204) Raish Daled, the Taz asks a Stira between two Se’ifim. In 240:8 the Rama says if someone forces you to eat something, you don’t make a Brocha. In 240:9 it says, if someone eats Treif because of a Sakana, you do make a Brocha. The Taz asks that it is a Stira because both are Oines and yet by someone forcing you to eat you don’t make a Brocha and when you are an Oines to eat Treif for a Refua you do make a Brocha? The Mishna Berura says when you are forced to eat something you are an Oines in the Mai’se itself, which is like Esther all the years living with Achashveiroish. On the other hand when someone is ill and takes something to eat that is Hatzalah through an Issur and you do make a Brocha because it is not called an Oines Gamur.

Beis Meir siman 204 succinctly explain the distinction.

J022 - Water Damage - 3-12

ג-יג והיה כנוח כפות רגלי הכהנים.
יתבאר בכתובים לפנינו שעמידת המים היתה תלויה ברגלי הכהנים שכל עוד שעמדו בירדן עמדו המים. יש להתבונן אם היו הכהנים יוצאים מהירדן וישטפו המים ויזיקו, האם יתחייבו לשלם.
ב"ק ד: ואימא מבעה זה המים ועתוס' שם. היוצא מדבריהם שהמסיר מונע ממים, כח הראשון נקרא מעשיו ממש וכח השני פטור.
ד"ז אינו נוגע רק לחושן משפט אלא הובא באו"ח קנ"ט ט-י לגבי נטילת ידים, שצריך להיות כח גברא, והמסיר הברזא נקרא כח גברא אבל רק המים הראשונים, משא"כ השופך מים בידים שכל המים כשרים.
וגם ביו"ד בהלכות שחיטה שהקובע סכין בגלגל והסיר המונע מן המים ושחט בכח ראשון של המים כשר ואח"כ לא.

עוד נקודה הנוגעת לענינינו הוא אם המזיק באופן סגולי חייב. עי' קהילות יעקב סי' מה (לט בדפו"ר), שמביא הרבה ראיות שדבר הפועל מחוץ לטבע לא נחשב בעיני ההלכה.
דבר זה ראוי להתבונן בו, שהוא חידוש שאף אם בודאי פועל מ"מ פטור בנזקין וכן לשאר נפק"מ להלכה.
שמעתי מר' פאם כמה פעמים שלא להתחשב בענינים אל-טבעיים.
שאלתי אותו אם להפסיק לומר נוסח תפלת רמב"ן שמבקש זכרים, כיון שהיו לי אז בנים ולא בנות, ולכאו' מצות פו"ר מחייב להשתדל להוליד בנות, והשיב שאין לנו עסק בכגון דא.
וכן השיב ג"כ כששאלתי על הדין אל יבזבז יותר מחומש (כתובות נ. סז: ערכין כח.)  שמא יעני (עי' רמ"א יו"ד רמ"ט א), והרי בעצם מזונותיו קצובים, והרמב"ם (מתנת עניים י ב) כת' שאין מתעני מן הצדקה?
כשלא זכינו לילדים ואמרו שיש סגולה עם אבן, אמר שלא לעשותו כל עוד שיש סיכוי טבעי.

במדרש פר' עקב ג ח כל הניסים שעשה הקב"ה עשה על המים. מהו חשיבות ענין המים? דברי יואל פר' בשלח דף תג. מביא מרח"ו שער הקדושה (וכ"כ הגר"א) שד' יסודות הם נגד ד' מידות. אש - גאווה, כעס. רוח - דיבורים בטלים, ביטול זמן. עפר - עצלות ועצבות. מים - תאווה. תאווה הוא המזיק של מים בעולם הרוחני.
התאווה הזו יש לה צד טוב והוא האהבה להשי"ת שגם תשובה נמשלה למים ע"ש. הדבר"י שם מביא מהזוהר שחוץ מהתשובה הפשוטה של ווידוי וחרטה וכו' יש אופן אחר לשוב אל ה' והוא האהבה הגמורה, והוא תשובה מאהבה. וכמו שהמתקוטט עם חבירו להבדיל, כאשר יבין שאוהב אותו שוב אי"צ לכל מיני מעשים להראות חרטתו. וכת' עוד שם שמה שמובא מהזוהר שאין תשובה לחטא שז"ל הוא דוקא בתשובה מיראה אבל תשובה מאהבה מועיל. עש"ע שמפרש המדרש הנ"ל לפי דרכו.
בזה מובן טהרת המקוה לענינים אלו. וסגולת המים לשידוכים.
וע' משך חכמה יתרו כ י שמביא ומבאר הרבה מאמרי חז"ל בהא דעו"ע האמינו שאין ע"ז שולטת במים, והא דאין כשפים שולטים במים.
- דברי חיזוק לגבי עניני תאווה זאת שמתגברת בימינו.