The Lomdus Of Mored B'Malchus - Bechukosai 5770

27:28 & 29 כח  אַךְ-כָּל-חֵרֶם אֲשֶׁר יַחֲרִם אִישׁ לַירוָר מִכָּל-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ, מֵאָדָם וּבְהֵמָה וּמִשְּׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ--לֹא יִמָּכֵר, וְלֹא יִגָּאֵל:  כָּל-חֵרֶם, קֹדֶשׁ-קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַיֶרוֶָר כט  כָּל-חֵרֶם, אֲשֶׁר יָחֳרַם מִן-הָאָדָם--לֹא יִפָּדֶה:  מוֹת, יוּמָת There is an idea of Cheirim. What is this Cheirim referring to? 

There is a Yesod Gadol here in the Ramban which is an important idea to know for the learning of Tanach. This point is then taken to explain many difficult Parshas in Tanach. The Ramban explains that this Posuk is teaching us a new Mitzvah in the Torah which is that Klal Yisrael as a whole is allowed to create new Issurin to the point of Mos Yumas. Meaning that you can give a Chiyuv Misah through a Cheirim. 

The Ramban himself explains with this a number of Parshiyois in Nach. We find at the end of Sefer Shoftim in Perek 21, That an entire city of Yaveish Gilad as brought down in 21:10 is killed out by soldiers of Klal Yisrael, י  וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ-שָׁם הָעֵדָה, שְׁנֵים-עָשָׂר אֶלֶף אִישׁ--מִבְּנֵי הֶחָיִל; וַיְצַוּוּ אוֹתָם לֵאמֹר, לְכוּ וְהִכִּיתֶם אֶת-יוֹשְׁבֵי יָבֵשׁ גִּלְעָד לְפִי-חֶרֶב, וְהַנָּשִׁים, וְהַטָּף  There was a specific cause that everyone was to join and this city didn’t join and was put into Cheirim. What right did they have to kill out an entire city? The Ramban says that right is based on our Posuk. 

We find also in Shmuel 1 Perek 14, that Yonason the son of Shaul is participating in a day of battle, and he ate during the day. In Posuk 44 Shaul says he is Chayuv Misah, מד  וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל, כֹּה-יַעֲשֶׂה אֱלֶֹרים וְכֹה יוֹסִף:  כִּי-מוֹת תָּמוּת, יוֹנָתָן מה  וַיֹּאמֶר הָעָם אֶל-שָׁאוּל, הֲיוֹנָתָן יָמוּת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה הַיְשׁוּעָה הַגְּדוֹלָה הַזֹּאת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל--חָלִילָה חַי-יְרוָר אִם-יִפֹּל מִשַּׂעֲרַת רֹאשׁוֹ אַרְצָה, כִּי-עִם-אֱלֹרים עָשָׂה הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה; וַיִּפְדּוּ הָעָם אֶת-יוֹנָתָן, וְלֹא-מֵת  There had been a Gezaira by Shaul not to eat on the day of battle. Yonason didn’t know about this Gezaira and ate. The Posuk has to tell us that the people had to come together and find a way how to save Yonason from this Cheirim. What was the thought to kill him for eating something? The Ramban says it is based on our Posuk. 

The Chasam Sofer in a Teshuva in Orach Chaim 208 has a letter to the Maharitz Chayes which explains the concept of Mored B’malchus. We all know that someone who rebels against the king is Chayuv Misah. Where in the Torah do we find such a concept? The Chasam Sofer says that it comes from this Posuk (quoted above 27:29), from this Ramban. Anyone who is Mored B’malchus is violating a Takanah that was made right after Moshe Rabbeinu’s death in Sefer Yehosua 1:18  יח  כָּל-אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-יַמְרֶה אֶת-פִּיךָ, וְלֹא-יִשְׁמַע אֶת-דְּבָרֶיךָ לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר-תְּצַוֶּנּוּ--יוּמָת:  רַק, חֲזַק וֶאֱמָץ This was a Cheirim made against any Mored B’malchus and the Chasam Soifer says that is the basis that gives the right to kill anybody who rebels against the king.  

The Maharitz Chayes himself disagrees and the Netziv in Ha'emek She'eila Siman 142:9 agrees with the Maharitz Chayes and they have a second Pshat on Mored B’malchus. They hold that anyone who is Mored B’malchus is endangering the whole Klal Yisrael and we know that anyone who endangers Klal Yisrael has a Chiyuv Misah. 

So it turns out that we have 2 Peshatim in Mored B’malchus; 1) the Chasam Sofer who says it is a Din Cheirim and 2) the Netziv who says it is a Din of a Roidef. 

One of the differences (Nafka Minah’s) are if you have to go to Bais Din so that they Pasken that he is Chayuv Misah. Tosafos in a few places in Shas is Mesupeik. According to the Chasam Sofer’s Pshat that it is a Cheirim you have to go to Bais Din like any other Chiyuv and Pasken. However, according to the Netziv that it is a Din Rodef, you don’t have to go to Bais Din. 

With this we can explain beautifully a Gemara in Maseches Megilla Daf 14a where it talks about Dovid’s intention to kill Naval Hakermeli for being Mored B’malchus אמרה לו וכי דנין דיני נפשות בלילה אמר לה מורד במלכות הוא ולא צריך למידייניה אמרה לו עדיין שאול קיים ולא יצא טבעך בעולם. Naval’s wife Avigail argues that he should not be killed. First she says can Dovid Pasken Dinei Nifashois at night? To which Dovid replies Mored B’malchus Hu and we don’t have to sit in judgment. Avigail then says Shaul is still alive so even though you are legally the king as Shmuel had already appointed Dovid as a King, he had done it secretly, so since it is not known there is not a Din of Mored B’malchus. 

The question that everyone asks is, why did Avigail first ask how can Dovid Pasken Dinei Nefashos at night, which is an inferior argument and not say right away that you Dovid are not known as the king yet? 

According to what we just discussed the Gemara is so Geshmak. There are 2 Dinim in a Mored B’malchus. The Chasam Soifer’s Din of Cheirim and the Netziv and the Maritz Chiyus Din of Ridef. So what happened? Avigail came and said there is a Din Cheirim, then you need a Bais Din. Meaning will Dovid Pasken Dinei Nefashos at night? To which Dovid replied, no he is a Mored B’malchus and therefore, does not need to have a Bais Din to Pasken. Meaning he is a Rodef and doesn’t need a Din Toirah. On the Din Rodef Avigail answers that Shaul is still alive and it is not known that you are king, Dovid. 

When do we say a Mored B’malchus has a Din Rodef? Only when he is endangering the public, because then the people won’t have respect for the king. In this case Dovid, you may legally be king but since it is not known there is no Din Rodef. She couldn’t present this argument first because the Din Cheirim would still apply and she had to argue first on that, meaning will you Dovid Pasken Dinei Nefashos at night. It is a very Geshmake understanding of a concept of Mored B’malchus which explains this Gemara and others as well.

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.

Gloves - Chukas 5770

On the topic of the Parah Aduma we have to understand a little bit about Tumah. When Moshiach will come Bim’heira B’yamainu, we will once again be Noiheg Tumah and Taharah and everything will be divided between things that are Tamei and things that are Tahor. We will have to have a separate set of dishes for the days of Tumah and Taharah unless you want to use plastic. We will have to have a separate car for Tumah and Taharah.
At the end of Megillas Rus in 4:7 we learn  ז  וְזֹאת לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל-הַגְּאֻלָּה וְעַל-הַתְּמוּרָה, לְקַיֵּם כָּל-דָּבָר, שָׁלַף אִישׁ נַעֲלוֹ, וְנָתַן לְרֵעֵהוּ; וְזֹאת הַתְּעוּדָה, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל The custom was to do a Kinyan Chalipin which today we do with a handkerchief that is used when you sell your Chameitz or by the Kesubah and that exchange creates a Kinyan. The custom in those days was to use a Na’al as is used in the Posuk which some want to say means a shoe, however, others like the Even Ezer here  and Rabbeinu Bachye in Parshas Shemos want to say it means a glove. If it meant a shoe it would have said Na’aloi Mei’al Ragloi so here it means a glove. The question is why was everyone wearing gloves? The Teretz is that in a world of Tumah and Taharah you want to wear gloves.
Let’s say you have a friend who went to a Levaya, he is now an Av Hatumah. The Meis is an Avi Avois Hatumah and he became an Av Hatumah. If you shake his hand you become a Rishoin L’tumah. A person can’t become a Sheini, however, as just illustrated; it can happen that a person becomes a Rishoin. For that reason it was common to wear gloves. If a person who was at a Levaya shakes your hand and you are wearing a glove than the glove becomes a Rishoin and the Tumah is not transmitted to the person wearing the glove. So it was a wise practice in those days to always wear a glove.
We read in the Haftoirah to Parshas Zachar that Shmuel kills Agag. Shmuel 1 15:33 לג  וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל--כַּאֲשֶׁר שִׁכְּלָה נָשִׁים חַרְבֶּךָ, כֵּן-תִּשְׁכַּל מִנָּשִׁים אִמֶּךָ; וַיְשַׁסֵּף שְׁמוּאֵל אֶת-אֲגָג לִפְנֵי יְרוָר, בַּגִּלְגָּל  If Shmuel was a Nazir how could he become Tamei by killing Agag? The answer may be the same that he wore perhaps 2 gloves and the outside glove became the Av Hatumah and the inside glove became the Rishoin L’tumah and the Tumah is not transmitted then to a human being as a Sheini.

Yisro The Man - Yisro 5772

There are mysteries regarding Yisro. These are mysteries that we can try to answer with a thought from Rav Shimon Schwab. Yisro becomes a Ger as it says in Rashi to 18:1 (יתרו: שבע שמות נקראו לו רעואל, יתר, יתרו, חובב, חבר, קיני, פוטיאל. יתר, על שם שיתר פרשה אחת בתורה (להלן פסוק כא) ואתה תחזה. יתרו לכשנתגייר וקיים המצות הוסיפו לו אות אחת על שמו. חובב שחבב את התורה. וחובב הוא יתרו, שנאמר (שופטים ד יא) מבני חובב חותן משה. ויש אומרים רעואל אביו של יתרו היה, ומה הוא אומר (שמות ב יח) ותבאנה אל רעואל אביהן, שהתינוקות קורין לאבי אביהן אבא. בספרי). Yisro was clearly Migayeir. What is very mysterious about Yisro is what he does afterwards. We know that Yisro did not stay with Klal Yisrael. Yisro travelled back to Midyan. If he is a Jew why is he going back to Midyan? Where is he going to find anything that a Yid needs to live? It is very strange that he goes back.

We find in Parshas Behaloscha in 10:29 (לְכָה אִתָּנוּ וְהֵטַבְנוּ לָךְ) where Moshe Rabbeinu begs Yisro to stay with Klal Yisrael and Yisro answers back in Posuk 30 (לֹא אֵלֵךְ) I refuse to go (כִּי אִם-אֶל-אַרְצִי וְאֶל-מוֹלַדְתִּי, אֵלֵךְ). Moshe Rabbeinu begs in Posuk 31, (אַל-נָא תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָנוּ) don’t abandon us and Yisro does not accompany Klal Yisrael. Why did he go back? This is something of a mystery.

When you learn Nach you learn about the descendants of Yisro who did come to Eretz Yisrael. But again, it is somehow mysterious on how they lived. You would think that Yisro’s children were full-fledged Jews as they were children of Yisro who was a Ger. We find in the first Perek of Shoftim that they lived in Yericho as it says in 1:18 (וּבְנֵי קֵינִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה עָלוּ מֵעִיר הַתְּמָרִים, אֶת-בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה, מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה, אֲשֶׁר בְּנֶגֶב עֲרָד; וַיֵּלֶךְ, וַיֵּשֶׁב אֶת-הָעָם). Yet it is very strange, we just Lained in the Haftorah of Parshas Beshalach that one of the families that descended from Yisro was a woman named Yoel. Of course she is the one who killed Sisra. The Posuk says when Sisra comes to Yoel that Sisra felt safe in the house of Yoel. Why? This is a Jewish home? The Posuk says in 4:17 (וְסִיסְרָא, נָס בְּרַגְלָיו, אֶל-אֹהֶל יָעֵל, אֵשֶׁת חֶבֶר הַקֵּינִי: כִּי שָׁלוֹם, בֵּין יָבִין מֶלֶךְ-חָצוֹר, וּבֵין, בֵּית חֶבֶר הַקֵּינִי). (חֶבֶר הַקֵּינִי) are the descendants of Yisro as it says in Shoftim Perek 1 in the Posuk brought above. Even though the (מֶלֶךְ-חָצוֹר) was in battle with Klal Yisrael the descendants of Yisro somehow lived separately. It is a very strange idea.  

We find this again when Shaul goes to do battle against Amaleik in Shmuel 1 15:6 (וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל אֶל-הַקֵּינִי לְכוּ סֻּרוּ רְדוּ מִתּוֹךְ עֲמָלֵקִי, פֶּן-אֹסִפְךָ עִמּוֹ, וְאַתָּה עָשִׂיתָה חֶסֶד עִם-כָּל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּעֲלוֹתָם מִמִּצְרָיִם; וַיָּסַר קֵינִי, מִתּוֹךְ עֲמָלֵק). We find here again that the Bnei Yisro lived separately. This is something of a mystery that I have never seen addressed at all.

Let me discuss with you something that Rav Schwab says about Yisro and then perhaps we can come back to understand. Rav Schwab writes that Yisro had a Shittas Hachaim. We know that different Jews had different paths in Avodas Hashem.  Even the Shevatim had different paths. Rav Schwab describes the Mehaleich (the approach) of Yisro as holding that the Derech to Avodas Hashem was with faith, Emunah that comes from Chakira. There is a difference of opinion among Rishonim as to the optimum way of serving the Ribbono Shel Olam. Whether with an Emunah Peshuta which is an Emunah based on a Mesora that we have from our ancestors who stood at Sinai. Or in an Emunah B’derech Chakira, or in an Emunah that comes from an understanding, a recognition, a knowledge of the Borei Olam. While there is a disagreement as to what is the best way to serve Hashem, there is a general consensus that for the Hamon Am the approach is Emunah Peshuta. Certainly we raise children with Emunah Peshuta and if they reach a level that they could come to Emunah Al Yedai Chakira then they reach that level.

Rav Elchonon in the beginning of Kovetz Mamarim in his Maimar Al HaEmunah explores the idea of Emunah B’derech HaChakira. At any rate, for the average Jew we raise our children with Emuna Peshuta. If they will reach the level of intelligence in order to understand they will come to a level of Emunah Al Yedai Chakira. Yisro on the other hand held that his Derech in Avodas Hashem was Emunah through Chakira. We know that Yisro was someone that tried all the Avodah Zora and ultimately came to a recognition of the Borei Olam.

Rav Schwab says this is the Pshat when Moshe Rabbeinu swore to Yisro that his first child would be given to an Avodah Zora. Now of course this didn’t mean for his first child to be given to an Avodah Zora in any complete way. But it means that he would come B’derech Hachakira to a recognition of Hashem. That would be his first child.

Rav Schwab explains that that is why in the beginning of this week’s Parsha it says 18:3 – 18:4 (שֵׁם הָאֶחָד, גֵּרְשֹׁם) and (וְשֵׁם הָאֶחָד, אֱלִיעֶזֶר). Each of his children is called Echad first. Gershom was his Bechor and he was to be raised B’derech Hachakira. And (וְשֵׁם הָאֶחָד, אֱלִיעֶזֶר) and the first child outside of that Shevua was Eliezer. This was Yisro’s Derech in serving Hakadosh Baruch Hu, to come to a recognition B’derech Hachakira.

If we understand this then perhaps we can answer the mystery regarding Yisro. Why doesn’t he stay in the Midbar and why does he go back to Midyan. The answer would seem to be that anyone raised in the Midbar could not possibly have to come to a recognition of Hakadosh Baruch Hu B’derech Hachakira, in that Derech. Hashem’s miracles were evident all around on a daily basis. If Yisro felt that his path in Avodas Hashem was Emunah B’derech Hachakira, then we can understand that he needed to be in a place that he can serve Hakadosh Baruch Hu in the best possible way. This may also explain why in Eretz Yisrael the family of Yisro stayed separate. They had a Derech in Avodah which was not accepted by the rest of Klal Yisrael, was not even desirable to the rest of Klal Yisrael. This may explain why Yisro kept himself separate and his descendants kept themselves separate in Eretz Yisrael.

Concretizing Inspiration - Beshalach 5772

The word Man, the name of the Man is a strange name. As it says in the Posuk 16:15 (מָן הוּא--כִּי לֹא יָדְעוּ, מַה-הוּא). The Rashbam explains (של מה ולפי שהוא לשון מצרי ובאותו לשון היו רגילין שהוא כמו מה) that Man in the language of the Egyptians is the same as the word Mah in Hebrew. Mah as in what is this? The Torah gave the word Man because the Jews called it Man. That is strange. Why refer to the Man with the name that has no intrinsic meaning, no meaning on its own. Man what is this? So you give it the name Man.

To answer let me share with you an idea that is found in the Sichos Mussar from 5733 the 6^th Sichah. There is a Posuk in Yechezkel 46:9 which teaches us that in the Beis Hamikdash there was a rule. The rule was (הַבָּא דֶּרֶךְ-שַׁעַר צָפוֹן לְהִשְׁתַּחֲו‍ֹת יֵצֵא דֶּרֶךְ-שַׁעַר נֶגֶב, וְהַבָּא דֶּרֶךְ-שַׁעַר נֶגֶב יֵצֵא דֶּרֶךְ-שַׁעַר צָפוֹנָה: לֹא יָשׁוּב, דֶּרֶךְ הַשַּׁעַר אֲשֶׁר-בָּא בוֹ--כִּי נִכְחוֹ, יצאו (יֵצֵא).). If someone entered the Beis Hamikdash with one gate of the many gates he would have to go out with a different gate. This is found in the Haftorah of Parshas Hachodesh.

Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz explained that when one entered the Beis Hamikdash he would feel the awe of the place. It would be a tremendous feeling that overcame him, a sense of holiness and majesty of the place that he entered. It is important that that initial sense not go away and disappear. Although a human being is a human being and gets used to anything. Even if someone is in an awesome situation and setting, eventually if he is there long enough it loses that very special sense. The symbolism of not going out through the gate which you entered in the Beis Hamikdash was symbolic of the fact that it should not undue that which happened when we entered. We entered the Beis Hamikdash and the individual who entered felt overcome by awe. Don’t walk out that entrance.

In the words of Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz (translated into English). A person has to work on maintaining his first Hisorerus his first inspiration, a feeling that a person has. If at the Siyum Hashas a person is moved to learn Shas he has to keep that original inspiration and he will be able to keep it going. Many many people lose it, but keeping that inspiration is a very important step in Avodas Hashem.

We can take that idea that Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz says and explain with that the naming of the Man with the word Man. When the Man fell people were amazed. Man Hu, what is this, food coming down from heaven? Food that has this unbelievable property of being able to have any taste that a person desires. It is incredible. Of course, with time, one gets used to anything. To the Dor Hamidbar the Man falling every single day was the same thing as water which falls from heaven in the form of rain, which is something we see as ordinary and not miraculous. In order to get that Hisorerus they named it Man. To remind themselves of the original amazement, the awe, the fact that it was such an incredible miracle. To keep that Hisorerus the name Man remained.

Of course the message is important for us. To try to keep the feeling of a Hisorerus that we get sometimes when something happens in our lives or sometimes when we are inspired by another individual. To try to keep it, to watch it. To have some sort of a reminder whether in a name or in an object to remind us of our original Hisorerus.

Rav Chaim Shmulevitz says as well that Palti Ben Laiyish used this tool. Chazal tell us that after Michal was married to Dovid, Shaul declared the marriage invalid and gave her instead to Palti Ben Laiyish. Naturally, Palti knew that she was an Aishes Ish and that he was not permitted to touch her. Shaul the king insisted that they were married, so Palti couldn’t show publicly that they were not married. So they lived in the same home and they had a bedroom, but the Gemara says in Maseches Sanhedrin 19b (6 lines from the bottom) says (כתיב פלטי וכתיב פלטיאל אמר ר'יוחנן פלטי שמו ולמה נקרא שמו פלטיאל שפלטו אל מן העבירה מה עשה נעץ חרב בינו לבינה אמר כל העוסק בדבר זה ידקר בחרב זה) that he stuck a sword between the 2 beds and said if I touch her I deserve to be destroyed by the sword. Rav Chaim Shmulevitz asks what is the purpose of the sword, the day he pulled out the sword it meant something, however, he left it there between the two beds for a number of years. What does that do?

The answer is the same idea. He had a Hisorerus and he wanted to concretize it on something, so he put in a sword in between the two beds and the sword was a reminder of the original Hisoreus. If you have a Hisorerus for something, do it and make it happen. So that is our Vort on the Man.

First Miracles - Beshalach 5772

We make a big fuss over Kriyas Yam Suf, an extraordinary miracle, yet we find in the first Perek of the Chullin 7a (18 lines from the bottom) (מאי בהמתן של צדיקים דרבי פנחס בן יאיר הוה קאזיל לפדיון שבויין פגע ביה בגינאי נהרא אמר ליה גינאי חלוק לי מימך ואעבור בך אמר ליה אתה הולך לעשות רצון קונך ואני הולך לעשות רצון קוני אתה ספק עושה ספק אי אתה עושה אני ודאי עושה אמר ליה אם אי אתה חולק גוזרני עליך שלא יעברו בך מים לעולם חלק ליה הוה ההוא גברא דהוה דארי חיטי לפיסחא אמר ליה חלוק ליה נמי להאי דבמצוה עסיק חלק ליה הוה ההוא טייעא דלווה בהדייהו אמר ליה חלוק ליה נמי להאי דלא לימא כך עושים לבני לויה חלק ליה אמר רב יוסף כמה נפיש גברא ממשה ושתין רבוון דאילו התם חד זימנא והכא תלתא זימנין ודלמא הכא נמי חדא זימנא אלא כמשה ושתין רבוון) that a Tanna was able to split the waters in order to cross. Pinchas Ben Yair was Chileik Nahar Gina’i. When he had to cross a river he caused it to split so that he would cross. Of course Pinchas Ben Yair was a great person one of the greatest Tannaim. Still the majesty of the event of splitting the Yam Suf is presented here in the Torah and is part of our Davening. It is a major event in the history of Klal Yisrael as something that is so extraordinary. Yet we find that a Tanna someone many generations later was able to do the same miracle. This is something that needs some sort of explanation.

When the Navi Shiur began many years ago, one of the first events that we learned about at the beginning of Shmuel Aleph was the taking of the Aron by the Pelishtim in battle. The Pelishtim captured the Aron Hashem which had been taken into battle by Klal Yisrael. That Aron was later returned because of different tragedies that befell the Pelishtim in every place that the Aron was kept.

The Aron was returned by being put on a wagon and cows were attached to the wagon and left to walk wherever they desired. They went straight back to Beis Shemesh to a city of Klal Yisrael. Chazal teach us in Shmuel Aleph Perek 6:12 (וַיִּשַּׁרְנָה הַפָּרוֹת בַּדֶּרֶךְ, עַל-דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית שֶׁמֶשׁ, בִּמְסִלָּה אַחַת הָלְכוּ הָלֹךְ וְגָעוֹ, וְלֹא-סָרוּ יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאול; וְסַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים הֹלְכִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם, עַד-גְּבוּל בֵּית שָׁמֶשׁ) and Rashi brings that the animals miraculously sang Hallel as they came back to Beis Shemesh. The question we asked then was a very similar question to the one that I am asking here today. The Torah makes such a big deal about the speaking of Bilam’s donkey. Ad K’dei Kach, it is considered such an extraordinary miracle that the Mishnah in Maseches Avos says in the 5^th Perek (עשרה דברים נבראו בין השמשות--פי הארץ, פי הבאר, פי האתון, והקשת, והמן, והמטה, והשמיר, והכתב, והמכתב, והלוחות. ויש אומרין אף המזיקין, וקבורתו של משה, ואילו של אברהם. ויש אומרין אף צבת בצבת עשויה) a number of things were created Bain Hashmashos and one of them is the Pi Ha’ason (פי האתון). The idea that an animal can speak is considered to be so extraordinary and it is presented that way regarding Bilam, yet here we find that cows miraculously sang Shirah.

At that time we found in one of the Rishonim (I think it was the Chiddushei HaRaivad on Maseches Makkos) who said that the Ikkur of a miracle is the first time something happens. That such a thing can happen in the world. The fact that it repeats is not as miraculous because all of nature is a miracle that repeats itself. So every time it rains, water coming down from heaven is a miracle. But nature is a miracle that repeats itself. So although an animal speaking will forever be considered a miracle, still the first time it happens it has a special level of miracle. 

Now I have found that this Yesod is brought by Rav Shimon Sofer who printed the original printing of the Chasam Sofer’s Toras Moshe (Divrei Torah on the Chumash) and anywhere in the Toras Moshe that you have a paragraph with an asterisk at the beginning of the paragraph that asterisk denotes that the paragraph is a Chiddush of Rav Shimon Sofer.

Rav Shimon Sofer on the Posuk of V’shilachti Es Yadi discusses this Yesod on his own. He says anything that already had been before, that is the source of miracles that repeated themselves.  Then it is not as extraordinary when it repeats itself. With that he explains here by Kriyas Yam Suf. The fact that Kriyas Yam Suf is such an extraordinary miracle and yet we find that the miracle repeats itself by Pinchas Ben Yair. So this is the Yesod that he said.

I would add that based on this we can understand that the first time that the Man fell it was an extraordinary miracle and not so when it repeated itself and became nature to the people who grew up in the Midbar. That would explain why the first Man was put away (was hidden) L’doros. This is because the first Man was with an extraordinary miraculous power and therefore, that was hidden.

If you look at the Chasam Sofer he explains with this a Dvar Torah regarding Purim as well

Shoe Removal – Parshas Shemos 5771

3:5 ( וַיֹּאמֶר, אַל-תִּקְרַב הֲלֹם; שַׁל-נְעָלֶיךָ, מֵעַל רַגְלֶיךָ--כִּי הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עוֹמֵד עָלָיו, אַדְמַת-קֹדֶשׁ הוּא) In this week’s Parsha we find that Moshe Rabbeinu arrives at the Sneh and the Ribbono Shel Olam speaks to him and says ( שַׁל-נְעָלֶיךָ, מֵעַל רַגְלֶיךָ) remove your shoes from on your feet. Rashi explains (של: שלוף והוצא, כמו (דברים יט ה) ונשל הברזל, (דברים כח מ) כי ישל זיתך) that the word (שַׁל) is similar to the word (ונשל) which is a language of things falling off, so too (שַׁל-נְעָלֶיךָ, מֵעַל רַגְלֶיךָ) means take your shoes off your feet. The question is that we have a very common word for taking shoes off ones foot and that is the word Chalotz or Chalitzah which means to remove ones shoes specifically. Why here does the Posuk use (שַׁל-נְעָלֶיךָ, מֵעַל רַגְלֶיךָ)?

In Derech Sicha, Rav Chaim Kanievsky is quoted as answering the question as follows. There is a basic difference between Chalotz and Shal. The word Chalotz is used when a person takes off his shoes with his hands. There the word Chalotz is used as in the Chalitzah of a Yevamah when the Yevamah is required to remove the shoes off the foot of her brother in law and that is typically done with the hands. Here (שַׁל-נְעָלֶיךָ, מֵעַל רַגְלֶיךָ) is used because since we know that a person who touches his shoes is required to wash Netillas Yadaim (to wash his hands afterwards), Moshe Rabbeinu was not going to remove his shoes by touching them as here he was standing talking to the Ribbono Shel Olam, so rather (שַׁל-נְעָלֶיךָ, מֵעַל רַגְלֶיךָ) slip the shoes off your feet without touching them. The word Sh’al is used. This is the Vort said B’sheim Rav Chaim Kanievsky and it is a nice Vort for itself.

There is something else that I would add that is absolutely beautiful. In Navi, in Shmuel Bais Perek Gimmel we find the story of Yoav and Avner. As many of you know, Yoav killed Avner because Avner had killed Yoav’s brother and felt about himself as a Goal Hadam. However, he fooled Avner by speaking with him. In speaking to him he caught Avner not on guard and was able to kill him. The Posuk says 3:27 (וַיַּטֵּהוּ יוֹאָב אֶל-תּוֹךְ הַשַּׁעַר, לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ בַּשֶּׁלִי). Yoav called Avner to talk to him in the gateway, to speak to him with trickery. (בַּשֶּׁלִי) is an unusual word. Chazal Darshun in Maseches Sanhedrin 49a (11 lines before the end of the Perek) (לדבר אתו בשלי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב על עיסקי שלו). Yoav pretended that he had a Shaila to ask him and he went to speak to him about Chalitzah. In asking this Shaila he caught Avner by surprise and killed him.

The question is why is Sheli or Shal used there? The reason is that Shal is used to meaning to take off the shoe, Chalitzah. If he wanted to talk about Chalitzah why not use the word Chalitzah? It is actually very beautiful.

The Gemara in Maseches Sanhedrin tells us which Shaila did he ask him when he called Avner to the side. Which question of Hilchos Chalitzah did he ask him to fool him into being able to kill him? Rashi explains (על עסקי שלו. לשון של נעלך (שמות ג) שאל לו בערמה יבמה גדמת היאך חולצת התחיל שוחה מלפניו ומראהו כך היא חולצת בשיניה והוא שלף חרבו והרגו כדכתיב (מלכים א ב) בחגורתו אשר במתניו ובנעלו אשר ברגליו) If a woman has no arms Lo Aleinu, how does she do Chalitzah? To which Avner responded, she does Chalitzah with her teeth. He proceeded to bend down to show Yoav how it is done. Of course when Avner bent down, he was especially vulnerable and Yoav was able to kill him.

It is so beautiful because the word Shal means taking off a shoe without using ones hands. So Chazal understood (לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ בַּשֶּׁלִי) that this is what he asked him, about taking off shoes without using ones hands. It is a beautiful TzuShtel of the Yesod that Rav Chaim Kanievsky says. 

(א"ה - יל"ע במגילת רות דכתיב שלף איש נעלו ולא חלץ.
וע' בשוע או"ח סי ד' שה"חולץ" מנעליו חייב נט"י ומג"א ס"ק  י"ט כת' "פי' בידיו" שהחיוב הוא כיון שנגע בהם. ועפמ"ג שם שהעולת תמיד חולק שצריך ליטול אף אם לא נגע, דלא כתיב נוגע רק חולץ. אבל להנ"ל מתיישב פי' המג"א דאדרבא הלשון חולץ משמע בידיו.)