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.

Opportunities - Re'eh 5772

Rav Pam would say that to do Chesed to another person, you can give him Tzedakah that is Chesed or you can give him a job. That is a greater Chesed. When you give him a job and he is able to earn his keep himself. We all understand that Asakta Bo is a greater Mitzvah.

Says Rav Pam, the Ribbono Shel Olam works the same way. If a person is not deserving Hashem could give him Chesed. Hashem could give him something more than what he deserves. However, HKB”H treats human beings in the best way. What HKB”H does is he gives a person an opportunities to do Mitzvos. When a person is lacking in the Yemei Hadin HKB”H puts in his way an opportunity, perhaps an Aveida (a lost object) that he could pick up and could return. Perhaps he would walk in the street and see a woman and her children having a very hard time pushing a carriage and schlepping her bundles and you can help that person. HKB”H puts in the persons way opportunities to sort of have a job to keep. And that he explained, was the very special Derech of HKB”H as it says in the Parsha 13:18 (וְנָתַן-לְךָ רַחֲמִים וְרִחַמְךָ). HKB”H gives you Rachamim and HKB”H gives you opportunities and then he has Rachmanus on you. With this Rav Pam explained Hashem’s Midda of V’rav Chesed V’emes. Emes means the Ikkur Din. Chesed is more. What is the V’rav Chesed V’emes? Hashem’s Chesed is that he gives you opportunities. B’emes, then Hashem can do the Din Emes and you will have the Zechusim to be Soveil the Din. How beautiful.

This fits so nicely with something that I mentioned a year ago on Avinu Malkeinu Kasveinu B’sefer Zechuyos (write us in the book of merits). Very very mysterious. What is the book of merits? 

Rav Elyashiv said and I have seen this in other places that B’sefer Zechuyos (write us in the book of merits) in the things we do we should have the opportunity to have Zechusim, to have Zechuyos. If we go places and we have the opportunity to do Zechuyos then we will be Zoche to Din, the Ikkur Hadin.

Pre-Temple Regel - Re'eh 5772

Let me move on to a Ramban in this week’s Parsha. This Ramban is very important because it explains a mystery in Nach. The Ramban actually has two parts. One is in 12:8 where the Torah commands (לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן--כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנַחְנוּ עֹשִׂים פֹּה, הַיּוֹם: אִישׁ, כָּל-הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו). You should not do as we do today each man what is right in his eyes. What exactly is the Torah forbidding? It is very hard to understand. After all, Moshe Rabbeinu was saying to the people you are doing something wrong, he should have given them Mussar. He seems to be saying that today it is ok but when you enter Eretz Yisrael don’t do what you are doing today. (אִישׁ, כָּל-הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו). The Ramban explains as follows. (וכן אחרי זריקת הדם והקטר החלב בשלמים יאכל אותם במדבר בכל מקום שירצה, כי לא נתן בהם הכתוב מחיצה אבל אוכלים אותם במחנה וחוץ למחנה. והנה אין להם בכל עניין הקורבנות חובה, רק איש כל הישר בעיניו יעשה, על כן ציוה בכאן כי אחרי המנוחה והנחלה לא יעשו כן, אבל יבואו בחובה למקום ידוע ומיוחד נבחר מהשם ויביאו שם הזבחים והמעשרות והבכורות ויאכלום שם במחיצה לפני השם. ומה שאמרו רבותינו (ספרי טז): בדבר הנידר והנדב [שקרב בבמה ושאין נידר ונדב] שאינו קרב בבמה, מדרש מיתור המקרא, כמו שהוא מפורש בפרק בתרא דזבחים (קיז ב):) In the Midbar there was no obligation to bring Korbanos. If one wished he brought a Korban. When a person wanted to eat meat he brought a Korban and ate meat. There was no obligation. Even the Sholosh Regalim there was no obligation to bring a Korban on Yom Tov. Moshe Rabbeinu told them you are going to go to Eretz Yisrael and build a Bais Hamikdash (לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן--כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנַחְנוּ עֹשִׂים פֹּה, הַיּוֹם: אִישׁ, כָּל-הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו). Today is voluntary, you bring a Korban when you want. No, when you enter Eretz Yisrael there will be rules and obligations. Every Chag, every one of the Sholosh Regalim you will be Oleh Regel and you will be obligated to bring specific Korbanos.

At the end of Parshas Re’ey in 16:11 (בַּמָּקוֹם, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְרוָר אֱלֹריךָ, לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ, שָׁם) the Ramban says even more. He says (וכן אמר (פסוק טז): שלוש פעמים בשנה יראה כל זכורך וגו' במקום אשר יבחר.
ולא ידעתי, אם לומר כי לאחר שיבנה בית המקדש לא נאסף להקריב קורבנות הרגלים אלא במקום ההוא אשר יבחר ר', כטעם שיאמר (פסוק ה): לא תוכל לזבוח את הפסח באחד שעריך, או שיבאר כאן שלא יתחייבו לעלות לרגל עד אשר יבחר השם מקום לשכנו שם) B’lashon Efsher that even when the Jews entered Eretz Yisrael for the first 440 years there was no Bais Hamikdash and during those years there was no obligation to be Oleh Regel on the 3 Chagim. 16:16 (שָׁלוֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה יֵרָאֶה כָל-זְכוּרְךָ אֶת-פְּנֵי יְרוָר אֱלֹריךָ, בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחָר--בְּחַג הַמַּצּוֹת וּבְחַג הַשָּׁבֻעוֹת, וּבְחַג הַסֻּכּוֹת; וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה אֶת-פְּנֵי יְרוָר, רֵיקָם). The Mitzvah to be Oleh Regel is only when there is a Bais Hamikdash, however, when there is no Bais Hamikdash there is no obligation to be Oleh Regel. There is a tremendous Chiddush in these 2 Ramban’s. That the Mitzvos that we take for granted, Aliyah L’regel, and many of the Korbanos, the Ramban even mentions the Korban of a B’chor that one was not obligated to bring it to the Bais Hamikdash until the Bais Hamikdash was built. These are the words of the Ramban.

What does this have to do with Nach? Well obviously it teaches us a Chiddush that for 440 years there is no obligation to be Oleh Regel. More than that it explains a mystery. In the beginning of Shmuel Aleph we are told that a man named Elkana would be Oleh Regel, would go to the Bais Hamikdash. A well known Medrash tells us that every year he would take a different route. The reason for this was because people were not being Oleh Regel. By going a different route every time, Elkana who was known as a Gadol B’yisrael would encourage others to follow him and others would come along with him to be Oleh Regel. We wondered this was a great generation, why weren’t the people being Oleh Regel? They needed Elkana? According to the Ramban it is beautiful. There was no obligation to be Oleh Regel it was totally voluntary. Therefore, we understand why Elkana went out of his way to encourage the people to go.

More than that. The Posuk says at the beginning of Shmuel Aleph 1:3 (וְעָלָה הָאִישׁ הַהוּא מֵעִירוֹ מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה). This man would go up from his city from year to year. Chazal Darshun (מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה) as the Metzudas Tzion brings on the spot, that once a year he was Oleh Regel. We always wonder what in the world is going on, Elkana the Gadol Hador is only Oleh Regel once a year? It is a Pliya!

According to the Ramban we understand. There was no obligation to be Oleh Regel and therefore, he would go once a year to be Oleh Regel and in that way to keep the Mitzvah of being Oleh Regel which was not obligatory on a voluntary basis. Obviously this Ramban is a big Yesod in understanding the beginning Pesukim in Sefer Shmuel.

Half-Kosher People - Re'eh 5772

Today the 28th day of the month of Av is the Yahrtzeit of our Rebbi, Moreinu HaRav Pam and I would like to share with you some thoughts connected to ideas that he said.

One of the things that was Margila P’pumai (things that he said very often) regarding the Parsha of Behaimos Temaios in this week’s Parsha we have the Parsha of the Simanim of the animal that is Kosher. Of course the 2 Simanim are that an animal that swallows its cud and has split hoofs is Kosher. The Torah lists the 4 animals that have only one Siman that is Kosher and therefore, are Treif. It appears from the Posuk that these 4 animals are somehow worse because they have one of the Simanei Kashrus.

Rav Pam would repeat the Klei Yakar. The Klei Yakar says that a human being too has 2 Simanei Kashrus and they are 1) Bain Adam L’chaveiro and 2) Bain Adam Lamakom.  Serving HKB”H with things that have to do with the direct service of Hashem such as Davening and Learning and serving HKB”H in Bain Adam L’chaveiro in the service of other human beings and dealing with other people. These are two Simanim of a Kosher Jew. If a person has one Siman and not the other said Rav Pam, is worse. In other words if you have a person who Davens well and Learns well but when it comes to dealing with his fellow man, he is cruel, he is miserable, or he is dishonest, it would be better if he didn’t Learn and Daven well. He brings Chillul Hashem, a shame on the name of Bnei Torah because people look at him as a Ben Torah who Davens and Learns and yet in his Bein Adam L’chaveiro he is disgusting and he is not behaving properly. The reverse is also true. You have people who are very good, very kind, and very nice to others. However, when it comes to serving HKB”H and being careful in Mitzvos there is something missing. They are not careful to Daven and they are not careful to Learn. Such a person too brings down Sheim Shamayim because people will admire his kindness to other human beings and will somehow feel that it is not as important to serve HKB”H in the Bain Adam Lamakom. This was Margila P’pumai, a common expression of Rav Pam in teaching us. You have to have both, be kind to human beings and faithful in serving HKB”H.

The Rambam expands on this idea in Shemoneh Perakim. The Rambam says in serving HKB”H there is an attitude of Rotze Ani U’ma E’se V’avinu Shebashamayim Gozar Olai. I would like to do an Aveira but I won’t because HKB”H said don’t do it. This attitude of Rotze Ani that I would love to do the Aveira but HKB”H said don’t do it, says the Rambam is not an appropriate attitude in Bain Adam L’chaveiro, in Mitzvos Sichliyos. For a person to say I would be cruel to someone else but I am not going to be because the Torah forbids it this is a wrong attitude. A Mitzvas Sichli, a logical Mitzvah, something a person should ingrain in his nature, should do naturally. On the other hand a Mitzva of Bain Adam Lamakom (a Mitzva between man and Hashem) such as shaking a Lulav or eating only Kosher food, there a person should say Rotze Ani I will be happy to eat Treif food or I would be happy not to shake a Lulav U’ma E’se Avinu Shebashamayim Gozar Olai, but what will I do as Hashem commanded me to do as he commanded and that I will do. This is a strong distinction between Bain Adam L’chaveiro Mitzvos (logical Mitzvos) and Bain Adam Lamakom Mitzvos.

We by our nature twist things around. Most people today when it comes to stealing they will say well I would love to steal but what should I do Hashem forbade it and Boruch Hashem they won’t steal. When it comes to Treifos they say pig I would never eat bacon. It is something that goes against the nature of a Jew. This is the reverse of the way it should be. Someone who serves HKB”H properly when it comes to stealing it is disgusting to him, to take someone else’s thing. When it comes to eating Chazeir though, Chazeir is delicious. U’ma E’se V’avinu Shebashamayim Gozar Olai.

In the Sefer Tuvcha Yabi’u on this week’s Parsha he relates that there were some Jews who lived in an apartment house and on the ground floor of the apartment house there was a store that was rented by someone who sold (Nevailos & Treif) forbidden food and even bacon (Chazeir).  It disgusted them every day when they walked in and out of their apartment building to pass this place with the aroma of Treif food. They went to an Adom Gadol to ask for an Eitza. The Adom Gadol said what do you mean? He showed them a Chasam Sofer. The Chasam Sofer says how is one to accomplish the Mitzvos of this week’s Parsha. 14:8 (טָמֵא הוּא, לָכֶם; מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ). A commandment not to eat Treif food. How does one actually actively go and perform a Mitzvah which is Shev V’al Taaseh, which is a bad action? Says the Chasam Sofer when a person sees it he should say to himself wow that is good but I am not eating it because the Torah forbids it. Now these people had a brand new attitude. Every time they walked in and out of their apartment building and they passed the store selling Treif food they would say Harini Muchan U’mizuman L’kayeim Mitzvah, I am now going to perform the Mitzvah of telling myself Avi Shebashayim Gozer Olai.