The Dual Purpose Of Exile - Bechukosai 5771

When we read the Tochacha or the words of the Neviim Achronim we understand that going into Galus was a punishment. It is something which comes because Klal Yisrael is not deserving. Devarim 29:27 says (וַיִּתְּשֵׁם יְ רוָר מֵעַל אַדְמָתָם, בְּאַף וּבְחֵמָה וּבְקֶצֶף גָּדוֹל; וַיַּשְׁלִכֵם אֶל-אֶרֶץ אַחֶרֶת, כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה). Hakadosh Baruch Hu ripped Klal Yisrael off of its land in anger. Anger sounds like a punishment. Where as we say in this week’s Parsha 26:33 (וְאֶתְכֶם אֱזָרֶה בַגּוֹיִם) that I will scatter you amongst the nations. It certainly sounds like a punishment.

That doesn’t fit with the Baalei Machshava and in general in Torah She’bal Peh. That the Galus itself is purposeful and there is something to be accomplished in the Galus. As the Gemara says in Maseches Pesachim 87b (17 lines from the bottom) (ואמר ר"א לא הגלה הקדוש ברוך הוא את ישראל לבין האומות אלא כדי שיתוספו עליהם גרים שנאמר (הושע ב) וזרעתיה לי בארץ כלום אדם זורע סאה אלא להכניס כמה כורין ור' יוחנן אמר מהכא (הושע ב) ורחמתי את לא רוחמה). Klal Yisrael went to Galus to collect the holy souls among the nations of the world.

As Rav Tzaddok explains in Resisai Laila 84, it doesn’t only mean (גרים) people who convert, but even concepts or energy among the Umos Haolam. We go into Galus sort of to collect these things. The proof to that is that in the Bris Bain Habesarim Avraham Avinu is already foretold about the 4 Galuyos. According to this way of looking at Galus the Galus is purposeful and it is here for constructive reasons and not just a punishment.

That doesn’t fit well with the language of Torah She’b’chsav. For this we turn to Rav Schwab in the Halilukas of Pesukai D’zimra. He explains that Torah She’b’chsav is Middas Hadin and Torah She’bal Peh works with Middas Harachamim.

So to say in the Chumash it says in Parshas Mishpatim 21:24 (עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן, שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן, יָד תַּחַת יָד, רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל). An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. The Torah She’bal Peh says that is Middas Hadin which is what a person truly deserves, however, there is Middas Harachamim mixed in and therefore it is enough to pay.

In Parshas Ki Sai’tzai it says in 25:12 (וְקַצֹּתָה, אֶת-כַּפָּהּ) a punishment of cutting off a hand, and again the Torah She’b’chsav says cut off the hand while Torah She’bal Peh mixes it with Middas Harachamim and says to pay instead of cutting off a hand.

We find so too with the sins of Gedolei Olam of Klal Yisrael. Where the words of the Chumash say that Reuvain did one Aveira and the Torah She’bal Peh says no it is not quite the way it happened. So too with all of the Aveiras of the Gedolei Yisrael. The Torah She’b’chsav expresses it with Middas Hadin and Torah She’bal Peh is constantly a mixture of Middas Harachamim.

With this Rav Schwab explains that we say in Tehillim 149:8- 9 (לֶאְסֹר מַלְכֵיהֶם בְּזִקִּים; וְנִכְבְּדֵיהֶם, בְּכַבְלֵי בַרְזֶל לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהֶם, מִשְׁפָּט כָּתוּב-- הָדָר הוּא, לְכָל-חֲסִידָיו:
הַלְלוּ- כָּהּ) That Hakadosh Baruch Hu will punish the Umos Haolam with (מִשְׁפָּט כָּתוּב) the written judgment. What is the difference if the judgment is written or not? He explains that the punishment there is with the Middas Hadin. That is called (מִשְׁפָּט כָּתוּב) the written judgment.

We find similarly by Amaleik in Shemos 17:14 (כְּתֹב זֹאת זִכָּרוֹן בַּסֵּפֶר) that the erasing of Amaleik has to be written in the Sefer. That is with Middas Hadin. So that The Torah She’bal Peh is the mixture of Din and Rachamim and Torah She’b’chsav expresses it with Middas Hadin.

With this we can understand that the Tochacha and all of the Nivuos regarding the Galus are written with Middas Hadin. There is no Sheker in it. It is that Klal Yisrael deserves this as a punishment. So the Ribbono Shel Olam doesn’t do anything to Klal Yisrael unless there is Middas Rachamim mixed in as well.

One Big Yetzer Hara - Ku Seitzei 5770

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

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

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

Zechor - Stay Connected - Ki Seitzei 5770

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pink Umbrella - Ki Seitzei 5769

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

"The" Taz - Ki Seitzei 5769

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

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

2 Types Of Oness - Ki Seitzei 5768

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beis Meir siman 204 succinctly explain the distinction.

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.

J012 - 2-1 - Netzach - Permanent Change

התמיה על שילוח יהושע מרגלים. ולא למד ממשה.
הראשונים - שכוון לחזק העם.
לכאו' לא הצליחו שמיד נתגלו והוצרכו לנוס. ומ"מ מדבריהם בשובם משמע שכן הצליחו.
רמב"ם הל' תשובה איזהו תשובה שלמה הרי שבא לידו כו'
אבל לכאו יותר טוב שלא נבא לידי נסיון.
ר' צדוק בתקנת השבים מביא בשם הבעש"ט והכלי חמדה פרשת חקת שיש לבעל תשובה להביא עצמו לידי הנסיון כדי לקיים התשובה גמורה. ותמה עליהם.
ביאור מדת נצח. נצחון + צמיתות. ושייכותו למשה רבינו, שנשלל בחירה ממנו כיון שדבריו נעשו תורה.
(א"ה עי' הקדמת משך חכמה לספר שמות)
יש להבין ענין התשובה השלמה, שנצח על הנסיון עד שאי"ז נסיון אצלו.
ובזה ניישב הנהגת יהושע. בהגיעם לארץ היה הכרך שנסיון המרגלים יהיה מנוצח.
מ"מ ק' שאין להביא עצמו לידי נסיון? בצדקת הצדיק מפרש, שיש לנו להביא את עצמנו לכך, שנסיונותינו יהיו לגבי גדרים ודברי הרשות.
"כי תצא למלחמה" - במלחמת רשות הכתוב מדבר.
שכן עצם האיסור כבר מאחורינו.

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.)