מל ולא טבל - Yisro 5775

 ויחד יתרו - Yisro rejoiced. The Gemara in Maseches Sanhedrin 94a (in the 5th wide line) relates a different translation to the Posuk. אמר רב שהעביר חרב חדה על בשרו that he passed a sharp sword on his flesh. Rashi says ונתגייר את עצמו שמל He was Mal himself, he performed a Bris Milah on himself in order to be a Ger. That is the Gemara. The question is that the Gemara in Maseches Avodah Zora 27a (top of Amud) says that a Goy is not eligible to perform a Bris Milah. That the Bris Milah must be done by someone who himself is obligated in Milah. As a matter of fact, Rav is the Baal Memra there that says that a non-Jew is ineligible to perform a Bris Milah. Halo Davar Hu! How could Yisro perform a Milah on himself? In Maseches Avoda Zora on Daf 10b (those who are learning with the Mishmar will get there shortly), we have the story of (שלום בר קטיעה (who is someone who also performed a Milah on himself. In the back of the Gemara, the Poras Yosef (one of the Meforshim) asks the same Kasha, how could he perform a Milah on himself? A non-Jew is not eligible to perform a Bris Milah? He answers that a non-Jew is not eligible to do a Bris Milah on a Jew. When he does it on himself for Gairus that itself is turning him into a Jew and therefore, he is eligible. It is sort of Gito V'yado Ba'in K'echad. An idea that the Bris Milah and the Gairus come simultaneously and therefore, to do a Bris Milah on himself he is eligible. Wonderful Dvar Torah. Yisro was Mal himself and a Ger can do Milah on himself because he becomes a Jew as the Milah is performed. Great! Not so great. There is a problem. The Gemara in Yevamos 46a (7 lines from the bottom) teaches us that Mal V'lo Toval K'ilui Lo Mal 

That somebody who is a Ger that had a Bris Milah for Geirus but he didn't go to the Mikvah it is as if he didn't have a Bris Milah. It doesn't count and he is not a Ger. The Shita of Tosafos (there in Yevamos) is that it has to be done in that order Bris Milah first and Tevillah second. If so, this entire episode is very difficult. How could Yisro perform a Bris Milah on himself? The Poras Yosef's Teretz that he became a Jew as he did the Milah is not true as he was still lacking Tevila in a Mikva. He wasn't a Jew at the end of the Milah. It is a tremendous Kasha. To answer this I would like to tell you one of my favorite stories, a story that I got from a Teshuva Sefer, the Aruch Laner's Teshuva Sefer. The Aruch Laner was asked a Shaila that was sent to him from Yerushalayim. There was a gentleman who was Megayeir and he had his Bris Milah. Typically, a Ger has his Bris Milah but doesn't go to the Mikvah until the Milah heals. So usually there is time, maybe a week between Milah and Tevilla. This non-Jew now a Ger had a Bris Milah but not yet a Tevilla. He came to Shul on Shabbos with his new Shtreimal and Bekeshe all proud to be a Jew. When he got to Shul someone there said, what? You are not a Jew yet. You had a Bris Milah but you didn't yet go to the Mikvah for Geirus. Mal V'lo Toval K'ilui Lo Mal. Someone who had Milah and not Tevilah is not a Ger. Not only shouldn't you be observing Shabbos but you are prohibited from keeping Shabbos. A Goy Sheshavas is Chayuv Misah. Therefore, go home and do Melacha. That he did. This (middle of Geirus ) gentleman went home and did Melacha and came back to Shul. When he came back to Shul, the Bais Din that was in the process of being Migayeir him said one minute. You did Melacha, no. we have a Kabbalah that once you do Milah even though you don't do Tevillah you are still supposed to keep Shabbos. Confusing introduction to Judaism. Others said no, what kind of Kabbalah is that as he is still a non-Jew. There was a dispute in Yerushalayim. It was sent to Rav Yaakov Elltinger (1798 - 1871) the Aruch Laner to resolve. He responded that it is true, after Milah he is still not yet a Jew and it is also true that we have a Kabbalah that he should keep Shabbos. Therefore, both are true. It must be that he is no longer a nonJew but he is not yet a Jew. That needs explanation. The Shoel Umaishiv explains that after Milah before Tevillah he is like the Jewish people before Mattan Torah. Before the Torah was given the Jews were commanded about Shabbos at Marah. He too, at that point is partially on his way to being a Jew just as Klal Yisrael were on the way to Har Sinai and therefore, he keeps Shabbos even though he is still not yet a full-fledged Jew. Taking this idea from this episode we can extend it here as well. The Jewish people were already obligated in Bris Milah as they performed Bris Milah in Mitzrayim. Therefore, a Ger with Bris Milah without Tevilah is a Jew for the Mitzvah of Bris Milah.

With this we can explain Yisro. Yisro could perform Bris Milah on himself. Why? For Bris Milah the Milah itself is Gito V'yado Ba'in K'echad or Milosoi V'geiruso Ba'in K'echad. Therefore, Gairus like Shabbos is something that a Ger post Milah pre Geirus (Tevilah) could keep.

Hands Up - Naso 5771

There is a Chakira, is Nisias Kapaim, the raising of the hands a Tenai in Duchaning or is it the Guf Hamitzvah (the definition of the Mitzvah).

What I mean to say is this, Amida – standing is not the Guf Hamitzvah of Duchaning, it is a condition of Duchaning. The question is if Nesias Kapaim is like Amida – standing or no Nesias Kapaim is the definition of Duchaning. After all we call it Nesias Kapaim and we don’t call it Birchas Kohanim. The Gemara in Maseches Kesuvos 22 calls it Nesias Kapaim .

What is interesting is that this Chakira is the subject of a Machlokes in the Halacha L’mayseh world. All Berachos have to be said before the Mitzvah is done. So the question is the following, when the Kohen makes the Beracha should the Kohen already have their hand stretched out, make the Beracha and go directly into Nesias Kapaim, or should they first make the Beracha and then lift up their hands. If you hold that lifting up the hands is the Guf Hamitzvah then the Kohanim should first make the Beracha and then lift up their hands. However, if you hold it is only a Tenai then on the contrary lifting the hands should be done first so that they are ready for the Mitzvah.

There are 2 Minhagim in what the Kohen does first. Most Kohanim stretch out the hands first, make the Beracha and in middle of the Beracha turn towards the congregation. The Shulchan Aruch Harav (which is the Minhag followed by Chabad) says in 128:17 that Nesias Kapaim is the Guf Hamitzvah and therefore the Beracha should be said first, the arms are stretched out second. So we find here a major difference if the Inyan of Nesias Kapaim is a Tenai in the Mitzvah or if it is the Guf Hamitzvah.

The Biur Halacha at the beginning of 128 in Dibbur Hamaschil B’zor wonders how is it that we have a custom that a Father blesses his children with the same Nusach as the Kohanim on Erev Yom Kippur and most do it every Erev Shabbos. So the Biur Halacha asks a Zar, someone who is not a Kohen is not allowed to Duchan and he is Over an Issur if he Duchans?

If you hold like the Shitta of the Baal Hatanya this would be answered because putting the hands out is the Guf Hamitzvah and if you bless a child without putting out the hands you are not Over on Bal Tosef.

In fact the Torah Temima on this week’s Parsha writes that the Gra was Makpid not to Bentch somebody with two hands on the head because that is Nesias Kapaim with your arms spread out and he would only Bentch somebody with one arm spread out. In the Siddur HaGra it says that as well. This is controversial as there are those that say that it is inaccurate. But at any rate the point is the same. That if you hold that Nesias Kapaim is the Guf Hamitzvah then Avada if somebody doesn’t do it with the proper Nesias Kapaim then he is not Over on Bal Tosef.  Even though it is a minority Shitta, the Bal Hatanya, nevertheless it would answer the Biur Halacha’s Kasha and it would come out very Geshmak with that.

There is something else that comes out very Geshmak. Tosafos in Yevamos 7a asks a question. Why is it that a Kohen that kills someone even if it was B’shogeg can’t Duchan again and yet in the Bais Hamikdash this Kohen is not Posul to do the Avoda if he killed somebody if he is not a Rasha, meaning that he did Teshuva or he did it B’ones.

Tosafos in the second Teretz says (ואין קטיגור נעשה סניגור) the hands which cause someone’s death cannot be the same hands to bring Beracha. 

It is Mashma from Tosafos that the hands are what bring the Beracha itself, because after all if the hands are only something that is part of the ceremony then Zerikas Hadam, the spreading of the blood in the Bais Hamikdash also requires hands. However, if we understand Nesias Kapaim the use of the hands as the Guf Hamitzvah then that is a whole different story. So this is something else that would come out very Geshmak based on this Chakira.

Ashes, Maariv, & Haggada - Tzav 5769

There is a beautiful Chasam Soifer on the beginning of the Parshah that discusses the Terumas Hadeshen. Rashi says Tzav means a Zirus. The Chasam Soifer who was a Poisek, looks at it like a Halacha and says in the Bais Hamikdash there was a Goirel for who would do the Avoidah. Terumas Hadeshen was different in that whoever ran up would get the Z’chus. He goes on to explain why an Avoidah that seems to be the least significant like taking ash off the Mizbaiach and the fact that not the whole Avoidah was done in Bigdei Kehuna is the one that has a Zirus that is a part of it.

He is Makdim by explaining that Avraham Avinu introduced Shacharis, Yitzchak Avinu introduced Minchah and Yaakov Avinu introduced Maariv. Yaakov is also considered the chosen of the Avos. Yet we find that Maariv is a Rishus.

The Chovos Halevavois brings from Maseches Yevamos Daf Kuf Tes, The Gemara says someone who is only going to keep the Torah, meaning only what he is obligated to do, is missing the whole message of being someone who does Ratzoin Hashem. The Nikuda is that there has to be something more. From this the Chasam Soifer explains, that the burning of the Aivarim overnight in the Bais Hamikdash was not an Avoidah, no one had to do anything. However, the Kohanim who weren’t even required to be there as they could have gone to sleep, would make sure that the meat was turned over with pitchforks, in order that it would be burned thru and thru. The whole night was an opportunity to do something that they were not obligated to do. That has a special Chavivus because they went beyond their obligation. So in the morning the Deshen (ash) is taken away, that the Torah is saying, should be done B’derech Z’rizus.

Maariv is a rishus, as it is K’neged the Aivarim that were burned overnight. It is a Klal Gadol, that you can never show love by doing something you must do. You have to do something that is above what you must or have to do.

This is the Vort of V’chol Hamarbeh L’sapeir Harei Zeh Meshubach. If you go beyond what you are obligated to do than you get praise.

With this we can explain something else. It says that when the Terumas Hadeshen was taken to the side of the Mizbaiach and dropped down that it miraculously disappeared into the floor of the Mishkan or the Bais Hamikdash. This is a Nais that seems to be purposeless. Yet we see that it occurred in the Bayis Sheini when a lot of the other miracles had stopped.

If Terumas Hadeshen is performed to show Ahava, to show a love, Hakadoish Baruch Hu reciprocated. Those ashes that came with this Avoida of love, became part of the floor of the Mishkan and part of the floor of the Bais Hamikdash and became Koidesh. That miracle was also something that was not needed Mitzad the Ribboinoi Shel Oilam to Klal Yisrael, but nevertheless this accepting of the Ashes shows the love that Hakadoish Baruch Hu was Mekabeil this small offering of Terumas Hadeshen and that is where the Chashivus comes from.  

Pesach is a time of Hiskarvus to Hakadoish Baruch Hu. All the different so called Chumras that we take on are all a sign of us wanting to do more than one is obligated to do and showing Ahavah. That is really what Pesach is all about.

Silence is Complicity - Ki Sisa 5771

Something that troubles many people about the Eigel is the contradiction (or the apparent contradiction) in the Divrei Chazal. On the one hand Chazal tell us that only 3,000 Jews served or bowed down to the Eigel. More than that, they were the Eiruv Rav and were not really the main body of Klal Yisrael. Chazal also tell us as the Ramban is Maarich, that the Eigel was never meant to be an Avodah Zorah. Klal Yisrael wanted the Eigel in place of Moshe Rabbeinu as an intermediary. There is something wrong but still it doesn’t seem to be as serious an Aveira as we find on the second hand that there is a tremendous punishment L’doros to Klal Yisrael for what had taken place during the Cheit Ha’eigel. Therefore this entire episode, everything that takes place here needs to be explained in a clearer light.

I saw a beautiful Vort from the Chasam Sofer here on this week’s Parsha that explains it although the Chasam Sofer is really coming to explain something else. We find that when Moshe Rabbienu comes down from Har Sinai right before he goes and destroys the Luchos and kills those who bowed to the Eigel, he has an exchange with Yehoshua. Yehoshua says in 32:17 ( וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת-קוֹל הָעָם, בְּרֵעֹה; וַיֹּאמֶר, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, קוֹל מִלְחָמָה, בַּמַּחֲנֶה) I hear the sound of battle in the camp. Moshe Rabbeinu responds in 32:18 (וַיֹּאמֶר, אֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת גְּבוּרָה, וְאֵין קוֹל, עֲנוֹת חֲלוּשָׁה; קוֹל עַנּוֹת, אָנֹכִי שֹׁמֵעַ) meaning it is not the sound of people winning the battle or losing the battle. I hear the sound of people speaking against G-d. Yehoshua’s mistake of thinking that is was the noise of battle does not seem to be important enough to be recorded in the Chumash. What does that have to do with the Cheit Ha’eigel?

Says the Chasam Sofer beautifully, Moshe Rabbeinu had heard from the Ribbono Shel Olam himself that Klal Yisrael sinned by creating a Eigel and bowing to it. Moshe Rabbeinu assumed that there must be some Tzaddikim, some righteous people who are not silent and stood up against those that are making the Eigel. He assumed that when he came down that there would be a battle taking place. It didn’t happen. Yehoshua assumed the same thing as is evident from the Posuk (קוֹל מִלְחָמָה, בַּמַּחֲנֶה), there must be some battle going on. To Moshe Rabbeinu’s great disappointment there was not. The Cheit of the multitudes of Klal Yisrael is that when this group created an Eigel and said 32:4 (אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל) the multitude of Jews didn’t speak up. They did not fight a battle against those who were creating the Eigel. That is the Cheit Ha’eigel.

Rabbeuin Yonah writes that someone who isn’t Mochiach when he sees a sin is considered as an accessory to the sin. That is what happened here, of course they on their lofty Madreiga were judged very seriously. Therefore, Klal Yisrael was judged for participating in the Cheit Ha’eigel because there was no Milchamah that had taken place at that time. This gives a new light of what took place. What took place was the silence of Klal Yisrael in the face of something terrible that was taking place and there should have been someone to speak up against what happened. For that they were included (so to speak) in the Cheit Ha’eigel.

The Satmar Rebbe in Divrei Yoel brings a Chasam Sofer who says now he understands a Gemara. The Gemara in Maseches Yevamos 62a (12 lines from the top) says (שיבר את הלוחות מאי דרש אמר ומה פסח שהוא אחד משש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות אמרה תורה כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו התורה כולה וישראל מומרים על אחת כמה וכמה והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום דכתיב אשר שברת ואמר ריש לקיש אמר ליה הקב"ה למשה יישר כחך ששברת) Moshe Rabbeinu broke the Luchos because he made the following calculation. The Korban Pesach is one Mitzvah out of 613 and it says (כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו), that Jews who are not true to the Torah can’t participate. So all Taryag Mitzvos certainly, and he broke the Luchos. So it was a Kal V’chomer from Korban Pesach. The Maharsha asks by Korban Pesach if the Korban is Shechted for Keshairim and Mumrim together. If there are eligible and ineligible people participating in the Korban Pesach, the Korban Pesach is Kosher. So too the Luchos should have been acceptable because there were some who were not eligible because of this Kal V’chomer but many who were eligible. So the Maharsha says if the Kal V’chomer is from Korban Pesach it shouldn’t be a good Kal V’chomer.

Says the Divrei Yoel the Satmar Rebbe, according to the Chasam Sofer it is Geshmak. Everyone was included in the Onesh of the Eigel. All the participants were included because they didn’t take up a Milchamah against those who were bowing to the Eigel. They had no right to be counted separately. A beautiful Vort. R’uyim L’mi Amorom. The Satmar Rebbe who fought the Milchemes Hashem all of his life.

Angel Shoemaker - Mishpatim 5771

23:20 – 23:21 ( הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחַ מַלְאָךְ, לְפָנֶיךָ, לִשְׁמָרְךָ, בַּדָּרֶךְ; וְלַהֲבִיאֲךָ, אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר הֲכִנֹתִי) After Shishi we are told that there would be a Malach accompanying Klal Yisrael in their journey. Then the Ribbono Shel Olam warns us (הִשָּׁמֶר מִפָּנָיו וּשְׁמַע בְּקֹלוֹ, אַל-תַּמֵּר בּוֹ:  כִּי לֹא יִשָּׂא לְפִשְׁעֲכֶם, כִּי שְׁמִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ) Be careful with this Malach, he won’t forgive you, and somehow Hashem’s name is in this Malach.

Which Malach is this? Rashi tells us (כי שמי בקרבו: מחובר לראש המקרא, השמר מפניו כי שמי משותף בו, ורבותינו אמרו זה מטטרו"ן ששמו כשם רבו. מטטרו"ן בגימטריא שקי) That there is a Malach (מטטרו"ן) whose name is the numerical value of (שקי) which is the numerical value of Hashem’s name.

Who is this Malach (מטטרו"ן)? The first thing I will tell you is that this name should not be pronounced. This is something brought Al Pi the Arizal and is also mentioned in some Halachah Seforim including the Kaf Hachaim Siman 5 Os 10. The Chayei Adom is at the end of Klal 5 and brings this concept as well. Therefore, this Malach is called by his nickname Matat which are the first three letters of his name.

Who is this Malach, we have never heard of him? Rabbeinu Bachye here on the Parsha writes that this is Hashem’s beloved Malach.

The Maral in Maseches Sanhedrin 39 explains that every Malach has only one Shlichus and this Malach Matat does the Shlichus of whatever the Ribbono Shel Olam has going on at that time. In a sense, when a builder builds a building he has many workers and each one has a job. He also has a supervisor. In a very crude example, Matat is Hashem’s supervisor.

Who is this Malach? In Maseches Yevamos 16b (11 lines from the bottom) (אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן פסוק זה שר העולם אמרו (תהילים לז) נער הייתי גם זקנתי מאן אמריה אילימא קודשא בריך הוא מי איכא זקנה קמיה ואלא דוד אמריה מי קשיש כולי האי אלא ש"מ שר העולם אמרו) The Gemara here refers to the Sar Haolam (שר העולם) which means a Malach called the Sar of the world. Tosafos writes there that it is this Malach Matat. (פסוק זה שר העולם אמרו. קשיא לר"ת דעשה הפייט השר המשרת נער נקרא הוא מטטרון הנכבד והנורא אלמא מטטרון הוא שר העולם שנקרא נער ובפיוט אחר יסד תוקף מטטרון שר הנהפך לאש מבשר משמע דחנוך הוא מטטרון ואי אפשר שיהיה חנוך שר העולם דבפרק אלו טרפות (חולין ס. ושם) אמר דבששת ימי בראשית פתח שר העולם ואמר ישמח ה' במעשיו וחנוך לא היה במעשה בראשית וי"ל דמטטרון אין זה שר העולם והא דנקרא נער לא משום דכתיב נער הייתי וגם זקנתי אלא (ה) נער שכן היה שמו ובפסיקתא בח' שמות של מטטרון מונה נמי נער ועוד דאגדות חולקות זו על זו דבבראשית רבה י"א דחנוך מת כדמתרגמי' כי לקח אותו (בראשית ה) המית יתיה ובריש מסכת דרך ארץ משמע דנכנס לג"ע בחייו). Not much is known about this Malach by most people.

Who is he? The Michtav Eliyahu writes in Cheilek Aleph page 34 about this Malach. Most people are aware that Eliyahu Hanavi never died and he went up to Shamayim and returned as a Malach. There is a second human being who had the same Zechus, a human being before Matan Torah. In Beraishis 5:24 it says (וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ חֲנוֹךְ, אֶת-הָאֱלֹקִים; וְאֵינֶנּוּ, כִּי-לָקַח אֹתוֹ אֱלֹקִים). Rashi explains (ויתהלך חנוך: צדיק היה וקל בדעתו לשוב להרשיע, לפיכך מיהר הקב"ה וסילקו והמיתו קודם זמנו [וזהו ששינה הכתוב במיתתו לכתוב ואיננו בעולם למלאות שנותיו). That this Chanoch too went up to Shamayim alive and he became this Malach Matat. So what I told you until now is a basic Yedia in Yahadus that there was such a person Chanoch who became a Malach Matat which is a beloved Malach.  

A Vort regarding this Malach. The Michtav Eliyahu there brings regarding Chanoch, what was his greatness? Chanoch had a job as a shoemaker. Every stitch that he made he was Miyacheid Michudim. I don’t know exactly what this means but it means something extraordinary. In his work he did something fantastic and that brought him to a great Madreiga.

R’ Yisrael Salanter is quoted in the Michtav Eliyahu as saying the following. He says don’t think that Chanoch had Kavonos Elyonos, that his main focus was on Heiche Kavanos. When you are working for someone you are not allowed to do that. He says that Chanoch in his work as a shoemaker was extra careful with every stitch to do his work faithfully. To do his work and give his employer the full day’s work that he was entitled to. That was his main Kavana. It was not Kavonos Elyonos that would distract him from his work. He did his work faithfully. This is a Vort of R’ Yisrael Salanter printed here in the Michtav Eliyahu.

The Michtav Eliyahu, R’ Dessler has a son in law who should live and be well R’ Yehoshua Gelbzahler Shlita, who is an extraordinary Talmid Chochom and lives today in Monsey. In 1952 Rav Dessler visited R’ Yehoshua Gelbzahler and R’ Yehoshua Gelbzahler complained about this Vort from R’ Yisrael Salanter which his father in law brought. He said how can you make Chanoch into a trustworthy employee, that was his greatness? For that he became a Malach? He complained and he brought that on the contrary that Chanoch was into Yesodos Elyonos. He understood Yechudim of Hashem.  Why do you make him into a regular employee? This was his question to Rav Dessler.

Rav Dessler responded in a letter that is printed in R’ Gelbzahler’s Sefer, Kodshei Yehoshua at the end of Krach Hei (the fifth volume). I saw this Sefer in the Azat in the Mir Yerushalayim and if you can get it, it is definitely worthwhile to learn through this exchange of letters.

As I understand, Rav Dessler’s response is the following. R’ Yisrael Salanter was trying to teach us that there is a concept of extraordinary Kavanos that great people can reach. But you should know one Yesod says Rav Dessler. That any Heiche Kavanos, any greatness can only come if it is tied to Kiyum Hamitzvos. You have to keep one of the Taryag Mitzvos and then you can go to higher levels. For example someone who puts on Tefillin with great Kavana but those Tefillin are Posul, will achieve zero, so you have nothing. Heiche Kavanos must be attached to Mitzvos. That was R’ Yisrael Salanter’s focus. That Chanoch in his first step of Avodah made sure that whatever Kavanos he would have would not detract in any which way from his Avodah to the Ribbono Shel Olam. From the things that he was doing and being Mekayeim the Mitzvah of being a faithful employee. R’ Yisrael Salanter was teaching us that if you see a great man, you want to learn from him? Know that even in his greatness, in his extraordinary level that he had, you should know that his first and foremost Kavana was to be a loyal employee who did the work that he had to do the way he had to do it. An extraordinary exchange of letters and certainly an extraordinary piece of Mussar.

J015 - 2-11 - The Eyes Have It

רש"י רפ"ב ורד"ק רפ"ג כת' שלפי חשבון הלכו המרגלים תוך ימי אבל של משה שהתאבלו עליו שלושים יום.
שבי' ניסן עברו הירדן והשלשים תמו בז' ניסן.
הגר"א חולק עליהם דלא יתכן שילכו בתוך האבילות ועושה חשבון שאדר הי' מעובר ומקצת היום ככולו ע"ש.
זה דרכו של הגר"א שחולק על הראשונים ואפי' להלכה למעשה.
החיי אדם בהקדמת ס' זכרו תורת משה כת' עליו שהוא "כאחד מן הראשונים".
בס' הגאון החסיד מווילנא כת' ששאלו הגר"ח מוואלאזין אם הוא כאמורא והשיב ח"ו לא כאמורא, אולי כהרמב"ם.
החזו"א כת' באגרת ל"ב "אנו מתייחסין להגר"א בשורה של משה רבינו עזרא הסופר רבינו הק' ר' אשי הרמב"ם הגר"א... נחשב כא' מן הראשונים"
האגרות משה ח"א תשובה כ"ד: "הגר"א הוא בתראה והסכימו עליו כל העולם שהוא גדול טובא... והלכה כבתראה"
בחיי אדם (היה מחותנו) הביא דברי הגר"א ולפעמים חלק עליו. ובנשמת אדם נמנע מלהזכירו כלל. בהקדמתו (בכמה דפוסים) הסביר שאחרי שיצא החיי אדם שמע דבת רבים שרננו על שחלק על הגר"א. וכת' שהגר"א ניחא לי' כשמפלפלים בדבריו וזה דרך ההלכה.

צריך להבין מה שהבטיחו לרחב להחיותה בלי לשאול יהושע והסנהדרין.
על איסור לא תחיה כל נשמה כבר דיברנו בזה בשיטת רש"י ותוס'. אבל יש אזהרה בפרשת מסעי שהנשארים יהיו "לשיכים בעיניכם" ופי' רמב"ן שאין הכוונה שיצערו אותנו גופנית אלא שמעשיהם ישפיעו עלינו.
מהרש"א יבמות סו. הק' למה לא שבר משה את הלוחות עד שראה העגל, הרי כבר ידע שעשוהות שהקב"ה הגיד לו. ותי' הגר"א במגילת אסתר ה יד לא תהא שמיעה גדולה מראייה. (ראש השנה). ותמה האגרות משה יו"ד א רכג ואו"ח ג נ, אם הקב"ה אמר לו אז ידע בבירור גמור. הסביר ר' הוטנר בפחד יצחק סוכות שכוונת הגר"א אינה לענין בירור, אלא שראייה פועלת בנפש הרואה יותר מידיעה.
וביאר בזה הפח"י הטעם שנתעטף הקב"ה והראה דוקא למשה סדר תפלה. ובפרשת מקץ "את אשר ה' עושה הראה את פרעה."
דברי יואל פרשת ראה כת' שבתורה "ראה" פירושה ראה והתבונן.
ר' צדוק צדקת הצדיק רה כת' שהאזנים קשורים למח והעינים קשורים ללב. שורייקי דעינא בליבא תליא.
ובה מתרץ בספר אחרי רואי, קו' המנ"ח למה לא נמנו לא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם לשני לאווין. שהכל ענין א'.
ובלעם לא נסה לקלל בנ"י בביתו אלא הלך לראותם "וירא משם קצה העם". וכשלא הצליח עבר למקום אחר "אפס קצהו תראה". ובסוף ברכם כאשר "וירא את ישראל שוכן לשבטיו".
במדרש יורח את ריח בגדיו - ריח בוגדיו כגון יוסף משיתא אשר סירב ליכנס למקדש שנית ומסר נפשו עח קידוש השם. מה גרם הפוכו בן רגע ממועל בהקדש למוסר נפש? רגע א' של ראיית בית המקדש אפע' בחורבנה פעל זאת! (הרב מפונביז הובא בס' יקר תפארת).
הרינו רואים כח פעולת חוש הראייה לטובה. בגלל זה אנו מתפללים ותחזינה עינינו בשובך לציון.
מוסר בענין ראי'. שיהיו תמונות של גדולים בבית. ספרים על השלחן. מעשה עם ספרי משה רייזמאן ז"ל שהחליט להשאירם בבית אחר פטירתו. מעשה עם הדר"ח שמולאביץ ז"ל שבחור התלונן שאין מקום בבית  המדרש ומיד קם הגר"ח ללכת - לראות!
ר' יעקב קמנצקי אמר שהמלאכים הלכו אל לוט שאולי בראותם את המלאכים יושפעו לטובה. מעשה עם הסבא מסלבודקה.

Poshut Pshat - Va'eira 5772

Let me begin with Rav Moshe’s Vort which is at the end of the Parsha 9:33. At the end of the Parsha we find the last Makkah in Parshas Va’eira the Makkah of Barad. When it comes to an end the Posuk says (וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה מֵעִם פַּרְעֹה, אֶת-הָעִיר, וַיִּפְרֹשׂ כַּפָּיו, אֶל-יְרוָר; וַיַּחְדְּלוּ הַקֹּלוֹת וְהַבָּרָד, וּמָטָר לֹא-נִתַּךְ אָרְצָה). The hail came to an end and the rain did not hit the ground. Rashi explains (ואף אותן שהיו באויר לא הגיעו לארץ). Even the rain drops that were already in midair did not hit the ground. Moshe was Mispalel for the Makkah to end and it came to an abrupt end.
The question naturally is what is the purpose of this extraordinary Nais this is more of a miracle than the rain and Barad just stopping on its own. It is sort of a Neis B’soch Neis, a double miracle. What is the purpose? Why did Hakadosh Baruch Hu do this extra miracle and make it not hit the ground and what is the lesson for us?
Rav Moshe says that this comes to teach us a lesson. Hakadosh Baruch Hu behaves or Kavayochel the way Hashem reveals himself to us as behaving in a way that human beings should emulate. Moshe Rabbeinu made a request and said let the Makkah come to an end. The Ribbono Shel Olam showed that when the Tzaddik is Gozer, Hakadosh Baruch Hu is Mikayeim. That when the Ribbono Shel Olam does what is asked of him he does it completely and totally. He does it in a way that the request is formulated. Just as the request was formulated for it to come to an end which implies that even that which is in midair not hit the ground, the Ribbono Shel Olam did so despite the fact that it was not a necessary piece or necessary part of the request.
Rav Moshe brings another example that the Ramban says there was never another locust infestation in Mitzrayim of the type that happened here. That was for the same reason, because Moshe Rabbeinu Davened that the Arbe (the Makka of locusts) come to an end and it came to an end totally even for future generations. Again, Moshe Rabbeinu didn’t mean it, but nevertheless since that is what he requested that is what took place. The lesson is to be Mikayeim to do the words of the Tzaddik as they were requested even though it wasn’t meant to that degree.
Says Rav Moshe, it is meant to teach us that that is the way we too should behave. This small Vort of Rav Moshe actually touches on an extraordinary Yesod which it says in a number of sources. There is a Mitzvah L’kayeim Pashtei Dik’ra. That even when Torah She’bal Peh teaches us regarding certain Mitzvos that they don’t have to be done precisely in the way that it is spelled out in the Torah, nevertheless Mitzvah L’kayeim Pashtei Dik’ra.
A source for this is a Ritva in the last Perek of Yevamos. The Ritva there refers to a Gemara regarding the shoe that is used during Chalitzah. The Posuk says in Devarim 25:9 (וְחָלְצָה נַעֲלוֹ מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ). She removes his shoe from his foot. The Gemara says does it have to be his shoe? It doesn’t have to belong to him. It is adequate that it fit his foot. On that the Ritva comments that even though during the Chalitzah ceremony it is not necessary that the shoe belong to the man, nevertheless Mitzvah L’kayeim Pashtei Dik’ra. The simple meaning of the Posuk is that it be his shoe and that is the way it should be done. That is indeed what we do. We are Makneh the shoe to the man and the man is the technical owner of the shoe until after the ceremony.
We find a similar idea in Yoreh Dai’a in the Halachos of Shiluach Hakan. The Mitzvah of sending away a mother is found in Devarim 22:6 -7 (ו כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן-צִפּוֹר לְפָנֶיךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּכָל-עֵץ אוֹ עַל-הָאָרֶץ, אֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ בֵיצִים, וְהָאֵם רֹבֶצֶת עַל-הָאֶפְרֹחִים, אוֹ עַל-הַבֵּיצִים--לֹא-תִקַּח הָאֵם, עַל-הַבָּנִים ז שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת-הָאֵם, וְאֶת-הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח-לָךְ, לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ, וְהַאֲרַכְתָּ יָמִים). Taking the pigeon or the eggs. There is a Teshuva from the Chacham Tzvi which is brought in Yoreh Dai’a and in the Meforshim of Yore Dai’a. He was asked if it is necessary to take the babies or the eggs or is it enough to just send away the mother. He answered that the Mitzvah is just Shiluach, to send away the mother. Nevertheless it is a Mitzvah L’kayeim Pashtei Dik’ra. It is good to be Mikayeim the simple meaning of the Posuk and to pick up the eggs and acquire them. You can put them back afterwards. (וְאֶת-הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח-לָךְ), to acquire that which is in it. Again, Mitzvah L’kayeim Pashtei Dik’ra.
A third source is in the Mikraei Kodesh which is in the volume on Sukkos where it talks about the well-known Halacha that when one has Hadasim the leaves are supposed to be in groups of three. How much of the Hadas have to have Hadasim Mishulash (groups of three)?
The Halacha is Ruba K’kula, it is enough if most of the Hadas have it and you don’t need all of it. Nevertheless the Halacha says it is M’hudar (better) if the entire Hadas is Mishulash. Why? Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank in Mikraei Kodesh brings the same idea and he quotes the Ritva and says the same thing here. He says, the simple meaning of a Hadas is something that is Mishulash, something that is in 3’s and Mitzvah L’kayeim Pashtei Dik’ra.
By Hilchos Shechita we learn that it is enough to cut most of the Simanim, the required parts of the animal but L’chatchila we try to cut it entirely. Even though Ruba K’kula, Mitzvah L’kayeim the Pashtus of the Mitzvah which is to do it without an exemption of Ruba K’kula.
And so Rav Moshe’s Vort on the lesson of the Parsha ties in well with something that we do indeed find in Halacha, the idea of Mitzvah of Mitzvah L’kayeim Pashtei Dik’ra. Just as Hakadosh Baruch Hu showed us with his behavior towards Moshe Rabbeinu, he kept the words that Moshe Rabbeinu asked even though that wasn’t the intention of Moshe Rabbeinu to make the rain stop in midair, the same thing in our behavior and in our Hanhaga.

The True Meaning Of Shalom - Va'era 5771

9:24 (וַיְהִי בָרָד וְאֵשׁ מִתְלַקַּחַת בְּתוֹךְ הַבָּרָד), meaning there was fire miraculously in the Barad. A couple of thoughts on Makkas Barad which of course is the last Makka mentioned in this week’s Parsha. There is an absolutely wonderful Vort in the Sefer Davar Tov, a tremendous insight that comes from a Rashi here regarding the Barad.

Rashi on 9:24 says Neis B’soch Neis, it was a double miracle. Aish V’habarad M’uravin, V’habarad Mayim Hu, the fire and water are mixed. V’la’asos R’tzon Konam Asu Shalom Bainaihem, to do Ratzon Hashem, Shalom was created between them.

He makes a Diyuk here, Asu Shalom Bainaihem somehow implies that there was a new Shalom here. Now actually Kol Zman fire and water are in separate places there is no Machlokes between them anyway that they would need to make Shalom. By bringing them together you didn’t make Shalom, however, the miracle was that there was no fight between the fire and the water. Therefore, he suggests a tremendous insight into this.

What is Shalom, what is peace? Shalom is often thought of as a lack of Ketata, a lack of Machlokes, a lack of fighting. That would be a negative thing, a lack of something, something missing. Actually, Shalom is a Middah, a positive thing. The Gemara in Yevamos 62 mentions that a man who was not Zoche to get married is missing in joy, in Beracha, in Tovah. We understand those. Then the Gemara mentions that a man who does not marry is missing in Shalom. That is a Pliya? It would seem to us on the contrary, that marriage is an opportunity for dispute. The one thing a person who is not married and is living alone has is peace and Shalom. There are no 2 opinions in the house. So why does the Gemara say that one who is not married doesn’t live in Shalom? How does marriage create Shalom?

The answer is this Yesod. To have no dispute does not make Shalom. If a person is alone there is no one to fight with. It is not a Middah of Shalom, it is a lack of Ketata, but that is not what we are looking for as a Middah Tovah to have Shalom. On the contrary, the Middah Tovah of Shalom is possible only when there are two opinions, when there are 2 people. When there is a possibility of discord, then there can be Shalom. Then the Middah of Shalom can exist. Therefore, one who is not married is living without Shalom. Marriage is an opportunity for Shalom.

So too with the Barad and the Aish. When the Barad and the Aish are in two different locations that is not called Shalom as there is no dispute between the fire and the water.  But that is not yet Shalom. To say Asah Shalom Bainaihem means to bring them together, there is a potential for one to be fighting the other, water and fire fighting each other. When they don’t fight that is Shalom.

A Raya to this that Shalom is not only a lack of discord, a lack of argument is from the following. There is a Chakira whether darkness is just the absence of light or is darkness a creation onto itself?

There are those that explain that Choshech is a creation. I believe the GRA in Parshas B’reishis says so. He brings a Raya from Yotzer Ohr U’vorei Choshech. The Posuk says that Hashem created light and created darkness. We see that darkness is not just an absence of light but it is also a creation. With that we can go on. The Posuk continues Yotzer Ohr U’vorei Choshech Oseh Shalom. We see from the same Raya  that Shalom is a creation onto itself and not just an absence of argument. Shalom is something positive. Vayas Hashem. Hashem created something that is positive. Something that has to exist and places a potential for disagreement.

The Sefer Davar Tov adds a very nice thought. We have a rule that when a friend is leaving you say Leich L’shalom and when there is a Meis you say Leich B’shalom. The Gemara in Maseches Berachos says that the proper words with which to say goodbye to someone is Leich L’shalom, go to peace. If someone has passed away then the custom is to say Leich B’shalom, go in peace.

The explanation of the difference in wording is not to use the word Shalom as meaning peace. They talk about Shlaimus, go to Shlaimus. It is missing the literal translation of Shalom which means peace. In line of what we have been discussing he explains, Leich L’shalom, a living person can go to peace and still have a relationship with someone else and have Shalom. However, a Niftar who does not have a potential to have a disagreement with anyone, so it must be Leich B’shalom. Go to a place that there will be Shalom. This is a tremendous insight and a tremendous Mussar as well.

I remember seeing in the Maishiv Davar a Teshuvah that Shalom was created on the second day of creation. On the first day of creation when there is only an oneness, there is no potential for Machlokes and therefore, there is no Shalom. On the second day there is a potential for Machlokes so on the second day Shalom was created.

 That is why the Shir Shel Yom Sheini is Shir Mizmor Livnai Korach in Kapittal 48. It was written by the children of Korach who were involved in Machlokes. The Posuk Yifei Nof M’sos Kol Ha’aretz is in this Kapittal. The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah Darshuns that Yifei Nof, a good wife, M’sos Kol Ha’aretz, makes the whole world seem happy. Again that is the Inyan of Shalom. That is a beautiful thought that comes from this line here regarding Makkas Barad.