Safeik Neifel - Bamidbar 5771

The third Vort for today involves a slight contradiction between 2 Rashi’s. 3:15 & 3:40 (טו פְּקֹד אֶת-בְּנֵי לֵוִי, לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם: כָּל-זָכָר מִבֶּן-חֹדֶשׁ וָמַעְלָה, תִּפְקְדֵם). We have Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s command to count the Leviim and then the command to count all the Bechorim of the Jewish People and then do a Pidyon Haben of sorts where each Levi would redeem one B’chor of Bnei Yisrael and would take his place in the Kedusha of Sheivet Levi. That was the command, count the Leviim from one month and older, count the Bechorim from a month and older, and then we will see how many Leviim and how many Yisraeilim and the Leviim will be in the place of the Bechorim and whatever remains they will have to be Po’de themselves using money. This is the theme of this part of Perek Gimmel. Here we find a nuance of a difference in Rashi and as we know Rashi is Midakdeik M’od. Rashi is very careful to do things exactly so and that is the Mussar of the Dvar Torah which we are going to share now. 
In 3:15 where the Posuk says to count the Leviim from one month and older Rashi is bothered why from a month and older why not from a day and older, why are you staring from Ben Chodesh? (מבן חדש ומעלה: משיצא מכלל נפלים הוא נמנה ליקרא שומר משמרת הקדש. אמר ר' יהודה ברבי שלום למוד הוא אותו השבט להיות נמנה מן הבטן, שנאמר (במד' כו, כט) אשר ילדה אותה ללוי במצרים, עם כניסתה בפתח מצרים ילדה אותה. ונמנית בשבעים נפש, שכשאתה מונה חשבונם לא תמצאם אלא שבעים חסר אחת, והיא השלימה את המנין:) Rashi explains that a neifel is someone who is not well enough in order to live for 30 days and is not considered a living human being. So you have to make sure that he is 30 days in order to make sure that he is not a Neifel. 
Later in 3:40 the Posuk says to count the Bechor Zachar of Bnei Yisrael and that they are counted from a month and older. (וַיֹּאמֶר יְרוָר אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, פְּקֹד כָּל-בְּכֹר זָכָר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִבֶּן-חֹדֶשׁ, וָמָעְלָה; וְשָׂא, אֵת מִסְפַּר שְׁמֹתָם). Rashi says (פקד כל בכור זכר וגו' מבן חדש ומעלה: משיצא מכלל ספק נפלים) that they are counted from a month and older so that they should be out of Safeik Nefalim. That needs explanation. Rashi shouldn’t have mentioned the word Safeik (ספק). That when they are 30 days old they are no longer Nefalim. Why does Rashi change the language from (משיצא מכלל נפלים) to (משיצא מכלל ספק נפלים) when the Posuk switches in 3:15 from talking about Leviim to 3:40 where the Posuk is talking about Klal Yisrael? 
The Har Tzvi (Rabbi Tzvi Pesach Frank (1873–1960)) says an absolutely brilliant Vort. In order to
understand this I have to be Makdim a Halacha in Hilchos Pidyon Haben. In the rule of Pidyon Haben we say Hamotzi Maichavairo Alav Haraya. The Kohen only gets his money if it is absolutely certain that he is entitled to the money. If there is any Safeik, we treat Safeik Pidyon Haben different than almost every other Safeik D’oraissa. Every Safeik D’oraissa is L’chumra, however, for reasons that we are not going to go into today, a Safeik in Pidyon Haben is Hamotzi Maichavairo Alav Haraya. There is no Pidyon Haben unless it is certain that there is an obligation. 
Mimeila says the Har Tzvi, it is beautiful. In a case of Yisraeilim the Bechor Yisrael, these are people who needed Pidyon. From when do they need Pidyon? They have to be Yatza Michlal Safeik Neifel (משיצא מכלל ספק נפל). Even if they are Safeik Neifel they still are Patur from Pidyon Haben. They have to go out and not only shouldn’t they be a Vadai Neifel they should also not be even a Safeik Neifel. Once they are not a Safeik Neifel then and only then do they need a Pidyon.  
In the case of the Leviim the reverse is true. Each Levi worked to Patur a Yisrael. So that the Hamotzi Maichavairo Alav Haraya would make that there should be more Leviim that are counted. In other words, if you have a Levi and he is a Safeik Neifel he could Patur a Yisrael from Pidyon. Because Hamotzi Maichavairo Alav Haraya a Yisrael could say it is a Safeik and I will consider it that he Paturs me. So by the Leviim they had to be Yatza Michlal Neifel (יצא מכלל נפל). If they are a Vadai Neifel then they can’t Patur. However, a Safeik Neifel you don’t need (משיצא מכלל ספק נפל) all you need is Yatza Michlal Vadai Neifel. 
As a PS what is a Safeik Neifel? The Gemara in Maseches Bechoros 49a (it is a discussion, Ayin Sham) says that on the 30th day itself a child is a Safeik Neifel. So that there is a category of exactly 30 days old and in that category this would be the difference between the two counting’s that is what is says in the Har Tzvi. 

Shlemiel - Bamidbar 5771

(וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה, וְאַהֲרֹן, אֵת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה, אֲשֶׁר נִקְּבוּ בְּשֵׁמֹת). Moshe and Aaron gathered these individuals who had been designated by their names. Rashi says something that is extremely strange and difficult to understand. Rashi says (אשר נקבו: לו כאן בשמות). That they were designated to him here by their names. What is Rashi adding more to the Posuk? A very puzzling Rashi.
I once saw a Teretz, however, I don’t recall where. Rashi is intending to answer a question as is always his style. The Nasi of Sheivet Shimon we will find later in the episode where he is killed by Pinchas, was Zimri Ben Salu who was the leader of Sheivet Shimon.  
We find in the Posuk that it is Shilumiel Ben Tzurishadoi. The Gemara in Maseches Sanhedrin 82b (17 lines from the bottom) says Shilumiel Ben Tzurishadoi is Zimri Ben Salu (א"ר יוחנן חמשה שמות יש לו זמרי ובן סלוא ושאול ובן הכנענית ושלומיאל בן צורי שדי). They are the same person. It may well be that that is why the custom in Yiddish is to refer to somebody who tends to make a lot of mistakes as a Shlimiel. Somebody who tends to drop things as he goes is a Shlimiel. Why such a nickname? Perhaps because Shilumiel Ben Tzurishadoi is Zimri Ben Salu an infamous individual. 
At any rate, Rashi here is bothered why was Zimri Ben Salu who was such a Rasha designated as a leader of Klal Yisrael? 
Rashi is saying ( אשר נקבו: לו כאן בשמות). We know that the Ribbono Shel Olam works with a person Ba’asher Hu Sham. So here they were designated by their names. At this time they were still people of stature and this is even though one of them in this case was Zimri Ben Salu who was not.   

Suspicion - Pekudai 5770

Parshas Pekudai is Moshe Rabbeinu’s accounting of the gold, silver, and copper that he took in and where it was used.  The idea of a person showing that he is honest to other people is something that is mentioned regarding Moshe Rabbeinu’s accounting here.

The Medrash Rabbah in Parshas Pekudai writes, that Moshe Rabbeinu said when the Mishkan was finished being constructed I should have a full accounting so that people shouldn’t say that Moshe Rabbeinu became wealthy from this. Moshe Rabbeinu had actually become wealthy from the etching of the Luchois. So Moshe Rabbeinu didn’t want people to suspect him so he made this Cheshbon.

Rav Pam in one of the Schmuzzin which is printed in Atara L’melech page 76-77 talks about this idea. Should a person care about what other people say? If a person is being honest and is doing things straight and there are people who want to be Choished him, is it important that he be a Naki B’Hashem Uvi’Yisrael. Some people might take a stand in Hashkafa that it is not important because it is the other person’s problem. Here we learn that it is not that way. A person must do what he can to show that he is a Naki Mai’Hashem Umi’Yisrael to be able to show that he is clearly honest in the eyes of other people.

Rav Pam brings a Chasam Soifer in Cheilek 6 Teshuva 59. He writes to a Talmid that he is failing in V’hiyisem Li Nekiyim Mai’Hashem Umi’Yisrael and that he must be more careful. Then he writes that it easier to be a Tzaddik in the eyes of Shamayim than to be a Tzaddik in the eyes of people. It is far more important to avoid a potential Chillul Hashem and to be a Naki B’yisrael as well. He writes that for that all should be worried. It is interesting that the Chasam Soifer says over the Posuk that everybody in the world has to sin sometime and maybe Shlomo Hamelech meant that regarding V’hiyisem Li Nekiyim. It is a Pele because I would think that the Posuk means that it is impossible to avoid sin all the time, however, the Chasam Soifer must of held that it is possible to avoid sin all the time from the standpoint of Shamayim, however, it is in the eyes of people that it is most challenging to avoid sin all the time. He writes that this is the reason that Gad and Reuvein went to Galus first, because when they asked for land Mai’eiver Hayarden, they failed in this area of V’hiyisem Li Nekiyim and that was the Aveira that caused them to go to Galus first.

Rav Pam ends this piece with a story of a man who was Chayuv a Shevua (oath) in Beis Din. After he swore he paid anyways. The question was if he was paying anyways why did he swear? The person said I want to pay Lifnei Mishuras Hadin. I want to pay you because you think that I am a Ganuf. Had I paid and not swore you would have said, look he really is a Ganuf. Therefore, I swore and I will pay Lifnei Mishuras Hadin because of Vihiyisem Li Nekiyim Mai’Hashem Umi’Yisrael. This is an important Hanhaga that we can learn from Parshas Pekudai.

If you pay attention to the Pesukim you see that Moshe Rabbeinu only gives an accounting of the silver and the copper. Why didn’t he give an accounting of the gold as well? The Divrei Yoiel says that in general, generous people don’t accuse other people of being Ganavim, it is the stingy people that do. People who chose to give the gold were generous people and Moshe Rabbeinu wasn’t afraid of being accused by them. He gave a Cheshbon of only the silver and the copper.

What is troubling with this is that the first Rashi on Parshas Pekudai says that the accounting is for everything including the gold and we don’t find that in the Parsha. 

Were the Bechorim Kohanim? - Ki Sisa 5771

In the Parsha we learn that Aharon Hakohen participated in the creation of the Eigel. Chazal are troubled by Aharon’s participation. What is often quoted is a Gemara in Maseches Sanhedrin 7a (7 lines from the top) (ופליגא דרבי תנחום בר חנילאי דאמר רבי תנחום בר חנילאי לא נאמר מקרא זה אלא כנגד מעשה העגל שנאמר וירא אהרן ויבן מזבח לפניו מה ראה א"ר בנימין בר יפת א"ר אלעזר ראה חור שזבוח לפניו אמר אי לא שמענא להו השתא עבדו לי כדעבדו בחור ומיקיים בי אם יהרג במקדש ה' כהן ונביא ולא הויא להו תקנתא לעולם מוטב דליעבדו לעגל אפשר הויא להו תקנתא בתשובה). The Gemara Darshuns the Posuk 32:5 (וַיַּרְא אַהֲרֹן, וַיִּבֶן מִזְבֵּחַ לְפָנָיו; וַיִּקְרָא אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמַר, חַג לַירוָר מָחָר)

Aharon saw, the Gemara asks what did Aharon see? The Gemara relates that Chur had refused to participate and Chur was killed by the mob. Aharon was afraid that if he too would be killed, there would be terrible repercussions on Klal Yisrael. There is a concept of (אם יהרג במקדש ה' כהן ונביא).

There is an Inyan if the Kohen and Navi are killed in the Mikdash Hashem it is a terrible thing. Therefore Aharon Hakohen chose to participate rather than to be killed as this would be a terrible Kitrug on Klal Yisrael. This is a well known Vort and is actually a Gemara in Sanhedrin 7 as has been stated already.

My question for the week is, this Gemara that says Aharon and Chur would be the Kohen and Navi seems to be inconsistent to something that we all know.

It is well known that until the time of the Eigel, the Kehunah was supposed to be given over to the Bechorim of Klal Yisrael (the first born). It was only as a consequence of the Cheit Ha’eigel that it was taken away from the Bechorim.

This idea is almost B’feirush in the Pesukim in Parshas Bamidbar and Behaloscha. There we read that Moshe Rabbeinu counts the number of Leviim and counts the number of Bechorim and is Podeh (makes an exchange) one for the other. As Rashi says in Parshas Bamidbar 3:12 (מתוך בני ישראל: שיהיו ישראל שוכרין אותן לשירות שלי. על ידי הבכורות זכיתי בהם ולקחתים תמורתם, לפי שהיתה העבודה בבכורות, וכשחטאו בעגל נפסלו, והלוים שלא עבדו עבודה זרה נבחרו תחתיהם) the Bechorim should have done the Avodah up until this point. Therefore we have a major problem. If Aharon would be killed, that would not be the death of a Kohen and Navi. Aharon at that point before the Cheit Ha’eigel was not yet a Kohen, so it is not a case of Kohen V’navi. This seems to be an exceedingly difficult problem and a Kasha that begs resolution.

I had this Kasha and as I continued learning the Parsha I came to something else that will shed light on this. So let’s begin a second discussion.

Was the Cheit Ha’eigel something that took place before the building of the Mishkan, before the commandment to build the Mishkan or is it something that took place afterwards. As you know Parshas Ki Sisa is sandwiched between the Parshios of Terumah and Tetzaveh that discuss the Mishkan and Parshas Vayakhel Pekudai that discusses the Mishkan. Which took place first? The Cheit Ha’eigel or the commandment to build the Mishkan?

This is a Machlokes Rashi and Ramban. In 31:18 Rashi (ויתן אל משה וגו': אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה. מעשה העגל קודם לצווי מלאכת המשכן ימים רבים היה, שהרי בשבעה עשר בתמוז נשתברו הלוחות, וביום הכפורים נתרצה הקב"ה לישראל, ולמחרת התחילו בנדבת המשכן והוקם באחד בניסן) brings a Medrash Tanchuma that says the Cheit Ha’eigel preceded the commandment to build the Mishkan. So according to Rashi the Cheit Haeigel took place before the Parsha of Terumah and Tetzaveh and we use the principle of (אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה) and the Parshiyos are not always in order of the sequence of events.

The Ramban however in many places including the beginning of Parshas Vayakhel disagrees and says that the commandment to build the Mishkan was before the building of the Eigel. Klal Yisrael was commanded to build the Mishkan and after the Cheit Haeigel they were deemed unworthy of the Mishkan residing among them and only later when Moshe Rabbeinu came down on Yom Kippur with the second set of Luchos was the commandment actually fulfilled and the people built the Mishkan. This Ramban is the Shitta of the Zohar.

So we have 2 opinions. Rashi says the Cheit Ha’eigel was before the commandment to build the Mishkan and the Ramban says that the commandment to build a Mishkan preceded the Cheit Ha’eigel. Of course the Ramban fits better with the order of the Parshiyos of the Torah.

There is a problem here because in Parshas Tetzaveh when there was a commandment to make the Bigdei Kehunah we have mentioned numerous times that it was for Aharon and his children as Kohanim. According to Rashi it is fine, after the Eigel Aharon and his children are going to be Kohanim. However, according to the Ramban where the Parshiyos of Terumah and Tetzaveh preceded the Cheit Ha’eigel we have a serious difficulty. Before the Eigel was built, the Bigdei Kehunah were going to be for the Bechorim. So the question then is, why does it say for Aharon and his children? This is a Kasha on the Shitta of the Ramban.

The grandchildren of the Steipler printed some of his notes and letters in a Sefer called Rishumai Kehillas Yaakov. In there, there is a letter that addresses this and the Steipler says something that is an extraordinary Chiddush, not something that we would have understood on our own, but once we hear it many things come out good.

The Steipler says the following Chiddush. Aharon and his descendents were going to be Kohanim in any event. We learn this in Parshas Shemos 4:14 when Rashi says (וראך ושמח בלבו: לא כשאתה סבור שיהא מקפיד עליך שאתה עולה לגדולה. ומשם זכה אהרן לעדי החשן הנתון על הלב) that Aharon saw Moshe Rabbeinu when he was returning to Mitzrayim and he rejoiced with the good fortune of Moshe Rabbeinu. The Schar for that was that the Kehuna went to Aharon.  

Aharon was going to be Kohen anyway. The whole issue of Bechor or Sheivet Levi had to do with the Leviim alone. Only the Leviim were people who achieved their status because of the Cheit Ha’eigel, because they refrained from participating. So that Aharon would have been Kohen anyway. The whole Parshas Bamidbar and Parshas Behaloscha was a tradeoff of Bechorim against Leviim. It was only the Leviim who were Zoche after the Cheit Ha’eigel.

A Raya to this is if the Bechorim were to be Kohanim why were the Bechorim of Sheivet Levi deprived of that privilege? If the Bechorim were supposed to be Kohanim so then a Bechor from Sheivet Levi should have been a Kohen even after the Cheit Ha’eigel?

Therefore says the Steipler, it must be that the Kohanim were going to be Kohanim anyway and it had nothing to do with the Cheit Ha’eigel and the whole issue is a tradeoff of Leviim and Bechorim and that is it. This of course answers both questions the question (that was supposed to be the question of the week) of (אם יהרג במקדש ה' כהן ונביא) and the question of Aharon and his children from Parshas Tetzaveh.

There is a bonus, because it answers something else as well. It is known in the name of the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh that the Bechorim will return to do the Avodah when Moshiach comes. We don’t know where the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh learned that from because we don’t have Midrashim that say it. However, we are relying in the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh. 

It is a problem because the Gemara says how do we know that there will be Techiyas Hameisim? We know it because the Posuk says Terumah will be given to Aharon Hakohen. The problem is that Aharon never lived to enter Eretz Yisrael to receive Terumah. The Gemara says in the Yemos Hamashiach he will receive Terumah. If Kohanim will no longer be Kohanim after Moshiach comes as the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh seems to say, why would Aharon get Terumah? According to the Steipler’s Yesod it is beautiful, the Kohanim are Kohanim. The entire issue is an issue of Leviim alone.

There are other questions that are answered by this. If you bear this in mind in Parshas Bamidbar and Parshas Behaloscha you will see that other difficulties are answered as well. It is a beautiful Yesod.

(See Shemos 5772)

Yisro Riddle - Yisro 5771

The question of the week is: 18:5 (וַיָּבֹא יִתְרוֹ חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, וּבָנָיו וְאִשְׁתּוֹ--אֶל-מֹשֶׁה:  אֶל-הַמִּדְבָּר, אֲשֶׁר-הוּא חֹנֶה שָׁם--הַר הָאֱלֹ קִ ים) Rashi says (אל המדבר: אף אנו יודעין שבמדבר היו, אלא בשבחו של יתרו דבר הכתוב, שהיה יושב בכבודו של עולם ונדבו לבו לצאת אל המדבר, מקום תהו, לשמוע דברי תורה)

He came to the Midbar and we are talking about his praise because he lived in Midyan with great honor and nevertheless he came to the Midbar. Is that so that Yisro was living in Midyan with great honor?

Rashi tells us in 2:17 (ויגרשום: מפני הנידוי) that the other shepards chased away Yisro’s daughters from the well because Yisro was put into Cheirem as the Sifsei Chachamim there explains. Since he abandoned their Avodah Zorah he was put into Cheirem. What is Rashi here saying that he is living in Midyan in great honor? It is a Pliya.

Who stood Up? - Yisro 5770

18:7  ז  וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה לִקְרַאת חֹתְנוֹ, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ וַיִּשַּׁק-לוֹ, וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ אִישׁ-לְרֵעֵהוּ, לְשָׁלוֹם; וַיָּבֹאוּ, הָאֹהֱלָה  Rashi says וישתחו וישק לו: איני יודע מי השתחוה למי, כשהוא אומר איש לרעהו, מי הקרוי איש, זה משה, שנאמר (במדבר יב ג) והאיש משה This Posuk that is brought down by Rashi that uses the word Ish by Moshe is found in Bamidbar 12:3 where it says, ג  וְהָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה, עָנָו מְאֹד--מִכֹּל, הָאָדָם, אֲשֶׁר, עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה  So it must be that Moshe is the one that bowed.

Earlier in Parshas Shemos we find in 2:21 that כא  וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה, לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת-הָאִישׁ; וַיִּתֵּן אֶת-צִפֹּרָה בִתּוֹ, לְמֹשֶׁה  So Yisro is also called Ish so how is it a Raya? If it says Stam Ish shouldn’t Rashi bring the Raya from Parshas Shemos that is found earlier than in Parshas Behalois’cha? So how do we know that the Ish who bowed down was Moshe Rabbeinu?

The Chasam Soifer that is brought down in Toras Moshe says it is not a G’zeiras Shava Ish Ish. Rashi said that since the word Ish is used we don’t know who bowed down to whom. It is a Lamdisha Rashi. The Gemara in Maseches Kiddushin 33b (16 lines from the top) has a Kler. איבעיא להו בנו והוא רבו מהו לעמוד מפני אביו  Meaning, if the son is the Rebbi who stands up for who? The Gemara is not Poishet this Kasha and it stays a Safeik.

It is told over about the Maram Mei’Rutenberg that after he became a Gadol B’yisrael he went to visit his father and there was a Shaila who should stand up for who. This is a Shaila M’d’oiraissa.

So here Yisro is the father in law and Moshe Rabbeinu is the Manhig Yisrael so Moshe had a Chiyuv to stand up for his father in law and Yisro had a Chiyuv to stand up for the Gadol Hador. So Rashi is saying who stood up for whom? I can’t tell you because I can’t figure it out because the Gemara is not Poishet the Shaila of who gets up for who. So since the Posuk in Parshas Behaloischa says וְהָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה, עָנָו מְאֹד so it must be that Moshe stood up for Yisro.  So it is not a Gezairas Shavah Ish Ish that you would be able to ask that Yisro is called Ish earlier in Parshas Shemos than Moshe is called Ish in Parshas Behaloischa. 

We actually find the word Ish regarding Moshe earlier than in Parshas Behaloischa, and that is in Parshas Ki Sisa 32:1 where it says א  וַיַּרְא הָעָם, כִּי-בֹשֵׁשׁ מֹשֶׁה לָרֶדֶת מִן-הָהָר; וַיִּקָּהֵל הָעָם עַל-אַהֲרֹן, וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו קוּם עֲשֵׂה-לָנוּ אֱלֹ ק ים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ--כִּי-זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה-הָיָה לוֹ So why did Rashi go to a later Posuk to bring that Moshe is called Ish? It must be that Rashi wanted the context of this Posuk that calls Moshe an Ish and Anav in the same Posuk.

Besides for this being a beautiful Vort it is also a Mussar for us. Our generation has become lax in standing up for a Father and Father in Law and we should become more Zahir in this Inyan.

J014 - 2-4 - The Return Of Rachav Hazonah

סתירה לכאורה ברש"י אם רחב היתה זונה או פונדקאית.

קו' תוס' איך החיו את רחב והכתיב "לא תחיה כל נשמה"?
במגילה יד תירצו שרחב לא היתה מהשבעה עממין.
בסוטה לה וגיטין מו תירצו שהאיסור לא חל אז והתחיל אח"כ.
.
אולי י"ל בדעת רש"י שרחב היתה זונה בתחילה אבל כבר עשתה תשובה לפני זה ונעשית פונדקאית, ונתיישב הסתירה ע"ש.
עי' מכילתא פרשת יתרו שאמרה חטאתי בנדה חלה והדלקת הנר. ותמוה שלא היתה יהודיה. והי' נראה מזה שכבר נתגיירה. אלא דצ"ב דלא היו שם ישראל לגיירה.
נר' שכבר קיבלה המצות אף שלא טבלה לשם גירות. ודומיא דבאיש שייך מל ולא טבל ששייך במצות, (עמש"כ בזה בבנין ציון ע"פ תוס' בפרק הערל, לגבי מעשה שהיה בירושלים בדר שמל ולא טבל ודנו אם ישמור שבת או לא) ה"נ באשה דאין מילה יהיה דינה כך בקבלת מצות.


בס' אהבת יהונתן כת' דגבי רחב אנו רואים מדת השי"ת שהבא ליטהר מסייעין לו.
רחב באה לעזור למרגלים ונשכרה היא עצמה בהצלת חייה.

כעי"ז בגמ' המתפלל בעד חבירו והוא צריך לאותו דבר נענה תחילה. לכאו' הכוונה למי שבאמת מתכוון בשביל חבירו, ולא שיבקש מי שצריך לאותו דבר להסכים שיתפללו זל"ז כדי שיענה הוא עצמו, שנמצא שאינו מתפלל על חבירו אלא בשביל עצמו.

אבל במג"א סי' קל ס"ק ב כת' שיותר נכון הנוסח ביה"ר של ברכת כהנים "בין שחלמתי על אחרים בין שחלמו אחרים עלי" שמתפלל בעד חבירו תחילה. ובאמת חולקים עליו האליה רבה (מטעם שנוסחת הש"ס הפוך) והיד המלך בהל' תפלה. (מטעם שאמרנו שכוונת הגמ' למי שמתפלל מחמת שהיטיב לבו עד שטובת חבירו יקר בעיניו מטובת עצמו.)
והתורה תמימה פרשת וירא, וגם בספריו תוספת ברכה בפרשת נשא, ובברוך שאמר, הק' על המג"א קו' אחרת. שכוונת הגמ' למי שמתפלל רק בעד חבירו ולא בעד עצמו כלל.
והמשנה ברורה בהל' ברכת כהנים פוסק דלא כהמג"א.

עוד כת' מג"א בסי' ר"ל סק"ו עוד נ"מ שמי שהתעטש ואמר חבירו "אסותא" יענה הוא "ברוך תהיה" כדי שיהא מתפלל על חבירו.
וכאן כת' המשנה ברורה כדברי המג"א ונראים דבריו כסותרים פסקו בהל' ברכת כהנים?
נר' שהמ"ב לא הסכים לטענת יד המלך אבל הסכים לטענת התורה תמימה ואתי שפיר.

בטעם הדבר כת' החת"ס פר' וירא שדבר זה אינה שכר אלא מציאות בבריאה שהמתפלל לחבירו נענה תחילה.


רחב הורידה אותם בחבל והתפללה באלו חטאתי באלו תמחול לי. ר שוואב הק' שלא יתכן שהיתה זונה  מפורסמת 40 שנה (עי' מסכת תענית דף ה) וכולם עלו בחבל?
ותי' שבאמת באו אצלה בפירסום אבל היו כמה שהתביישו והיא העלה אותם בחבל. והיינו שלא היתה לה החוצפה של מצח אשה זונה טד שלא הבינה שיש בזה בושה, זה הי' "נקודה טובה" שלה. ומשם התחיל תשובתה. וזה יסוד חשוב בתשובה. התשובה מתחלת מנקודת הצלם אלוקים שנשאר שלם. אולי זהו כוונת המשנה "אל תהי רשע בפני עצמך". ומזה הטעם אין מתחילים עשי"ת עם "על חטא".

ובשם הבעש"ט: "אם יהיו נדחך בקצה השמים משם יקבצך... ומשם יקחך". אם יהיה נדחך בקצה הארץ הול"ל? אלא - "אם יהיה נדחך", אם תחטא ותהיה נידח, " בקצה השמים" - ונשאר איזה קצה שמימית בתוכך, "משם יקבצך..." - זוהי מקום התחלת התשובה...