Thursday, March 28, 2024

how will we know what to do? reviving lost mesorah; issurei achila -- issur gavra vs issur cheftza

1) One of the things I like about R' Shteinman's torah is that his questions/answers are not far-flung lomdus, but are, dare I say it, rooted in common sense.  On this week's parsha he quotes the Chofetz Chaim's charge to learn kodshim so that once geulah comes b'karov gedolei yisrael will be able to pasken on issues relating to the mikdash and kodshim.  R' Shteinman asks: how are these gedolim supposed to figure out what to do?  He quotes that the Ponivicher Rav dealt with this very question and responded that he will just follow the Chofetz Chaim's lead.  That just kicks the can down the road.  How is the Chofetz Chaim supposed to figure out how to pasken?  And if you say that we will have a techiyas ha'mesim and can just ask Moshe or Aharon, then why bother learning kodshim to try to figure everything out?  We can just ask Moshe and Aharon?  

I've had a similar thought since I began wearing techeiles.  When you order techeiles from the Ptil Tekhelet site they give you a whole menu of options to choose from as to which shita to follow in tying the tzitzis.  How do you know what to choose?  Any mesorah as to what to do has been lost for at least 1200 years or so!  We are halachically flying blind.  And that is assuming you even want to wear techeiles, which a large segment of the Jewish world, for one reason or other, has yet to be convinced to start doing.  Imagine we somehow finally fulfill the mitzvah of binyan beis ha'mikdash in our times.  Any mesorah as to what to do has been lost for even longer than the mesorah of techeiles.  Already in Mishnayos (Midot 2:5) we have Tanaim saying about lishkos of the azarah אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: שָׁכַחְתִּי מֶה הָיְתָה מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת that they forgot what the space was used for.  How are we supposed to know?

2) While on the topic of R' Shteinman's torah, here is another interesting question he raises:

 וּכְלִי־חֶ֛רֶשׂ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּבֻשַּׁל⁠־בּ֖וֹ יִשָּׁבֵ֑ר וְאִם⁠־בִּכְלִ֤י נְחֹ֙שֶׁת֙ בֻּשָּׁ֔לָה וּמֹרַ֥ק וְשֻׁטַּ֖ף בַּמָּֽיִם (6:21) 

Is this a mitzvah or a matir?  Meaning, what if you want to just throw the utensils in the garbage?  Is there an obligation of מֹרַ֥ק וְשֻׁטַּ֖ף בַּמָּֽיִם or is it just a matir if you want to use the kli? 

Another interesting one: Off the cuff I would have assumed that when you have a lav ha'nitak l'aseh, the aseh has to be done by the person who violated the lav in order to give him a ptur from malkos.  You see from our parsha that is not true   The gemara writes that there are no malkos for the issur nosar because it is a lav ha'nitak l'aseh, but it sounds like the mitzvah of burning nosar (6:17) can be done by anyone.  

And if you like a Brisker style chakira, R' Shteinman occasionally throws those out there too: The gemara (Zev 87) raises the question of whether something hung in the airspace above the mizbeiach counts as being on the mizbeiach itself or not.  Yesh lachkor whether the gemara means the airspace is the makom mizbeiach, or whether it's not the makom mizbeich, but it has the din of makom mizbeiach.  

I could go on all day quoting interesting points from the Ayeles haShachar, but I don't have all day so תן לחכם ויחכּם עוד.  That was just to whet the appetite.  Maybe I should do something like that every week.

3) וְהַנּוֹתֶ֣רֶת מִמֶּ֔נָּה יֹאכְל֖וּ אַהֲרֹ֣ן וּבָנָ֑יו מַצּ֤וֹת תֵּֽאָכֵל֙ בְּמָק֣וֹם קָדֹ֔שׁ בַּחֲצַ֥ר אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד יֹאכְלֽוּהָ

Based on the language of the pasuk the Malbim makes what sounds like a Brisker chiluk .  He writes that when the Torah uses the term אוכל, it is referring to the gavra, but תֵּֽאָכֵל֙, passive voice, nifal, refers to the cheftza, the item being eaten.  Nafka minah: whether or not you need to eat a shiur.  When the object is being referred to, the shiur is any amount; when it is the person eating being referred to, then אין אכילה פּותה מכּזית (see Beis haLevi quoted in this post.)

 יש הבדל בין פעל ׳אכל׳ בקל ובין הנפעל. שפעל ׳אכל׳ בקל מוסב על האדם האוכל ולא יקרא אוכל אלא בכזית; שפחות מזה נקרא ׳טועם׳ – ״כי טעמתי מעט דבש״ (שמואל א י״ד). וכמ״ש בספרא לקמן [(פרשה י מ״י) (אחרי מות פרק יב מ״ב) (אמור פרק ד מט״ז) (אמור פרק ו מ״ג) ובפסחים (דף לב.)] ״סתם אכילה בכזית״. אבל הנפעל מוסב על הדבר, ואף אם נאכל כל שהוא – הגם שלא יקרא ׳אכילה׳ מצד האוכל שלא אכל רק טעם – מכל מקום הדבר ׳נאכל׳ ואיננו. וזהו שאמר בספרא שלכן שינה ואמר ״מצות יֵאכל״ בנפעל ולא תפס הלשון שדבר בו עד עתה – ״יאכלו אהרן״ ״יאכלוהו״; והיה לו לומר ״מצות יֹאכלו״. ללמד שאף שלא נשאר רק מקצתה - בכל זאת תאכל.

With this he explains the Rambam (Cu"m 1:7) who writes that the shiur of the issur achilas chameitz is a kol she'hu:

האוכל מן החמץ עצמו בפסח כל שהוא הרי זה אסור מן התורה שנאמר לא יאכל

The Kesef Mishna asks two questions, the second of which is . ועוד קשה דאי מקרא איפכא ה"ל למילף מיניה דלא יאכל שיעור אכילה משמע וצ"ע. It uses the word achila, so how can the Rambam say you are chayav on less than a k'zayis?  Answers the Malbim: because it is nifal, passive voice, a din in the cheftza, not the gavra, so there is no shiur.

The problem is if this is correct, then the same chiddush should apply to other issurim as well written in lashon nifal:

וְכִֽי־יִגַּ֨ח שׁ֥וֹר אֶת־אִ֛ישׁ א֥וֹ אֶת־אִשָּׁ֖ה וָמֵ֑ת סָק֨וֹל יִסָּקֵ֜ל הַשּׁ֗וֹר וְלֹ֤א יֵאָכֵל֙ אֶת־בְּשָׂר֔וֹ וּבַ֥עַל הַשּׁ֖וֹר נָקִֽי׃ (Shmos 21:28)

 וְכָל-הַשֶּׁרֶץ, הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל-הָאָרֶץ--שֶׁקֶץ הוּא, לֹא יֵאָכֵל (Vayikra 11:41)

Is there an issur for eating less than a k'zayis of shor ha'niskal, or of a sheretz?!

Ohr Sameiach explains that the Rambam's chiddush may be unique to chametz based on the context of the pasuk:

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָעָ֗ם זָכ֞וֹר אֶת־הַיּ֤וֹם הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצָאתֶ֤ם מִמִּצְרַ֙יִם֙ מִבֵּ֣ית עֲבָדִ֔ים כִּ֚י בְּחֹ֣זֶק יָ֔ד הוֹצִ֧יאה׳ אֶתְכֶ֖ם מִזֶּ֑ה וְלֹ֥א יֵאָכֵ֖ל חָמֵֽץ׃ (Shmos 13:3)

The pasuk is talking about Pesach Mitzryaim, not Pesach as celebrated for future generations.  At the time of that Pesach, we had not undergone the geirus of mattan Torah and in effect, were still bnei Noach.  Rambam says in Hil Melachim that there is no concept of shiurim for a ben Noach (see this post); therefore, the issur chametz would be violated even on a kol she'hu.  Once the issur was established, it carried over the Pesach doros in the same way.    


Sunday, March 24, 2024

the original 180; shlichus on a mitzvah she'bgufo

1) My wife pointed out that the seudah of Achashveirosh was 180 days.  ונהפּוך הוא!  We needed to correct that to earn the holiday of Purim.  This may be the first instance of a 180 turnabout.

2) Likutei Sichos of the L Rebbe vol 21 page 492:



Pretty amazing chiddush -- if you can't fulfill drinking ad d'lo yada yourself, you can have a shliach do it on your behalf and sit back and watch them get drunk.  You don't get a full kiyum, but the Rebbe says it is better than nothing.

How does that work?  Drinking is a מצוה שׁבּגופו, and you can't fulfill a מצוה שׁבּגופו through shlichus?  (The classic example is putting on tefillin -- you can't appoint a shliach to put on tefillin for you; they have to be placed on your own arm.)

My wife's cousin, R' Akiva Wagner a"h, has a hesber that hinges on two points:

a) You can have a partial kiyum ha'mitzvah.  For example, as we've discussed before, even though the shiur for mitzvos achila is a k'zayis, if you don't have the full shiur available there you may still get some credit for doing achila on a chatzi shiur.

b) Yesh lachkor: when we say you cannot fulfill a מצוה שׁבּגופו through shlichus, does that mean the shlichus is invalid, or does it mean the shliach is your shliach, i.e. the shlichus works, but the shlichus cannot result in a kiyum ha'mitzvah.

If you accept the second side of the chakira (which you need to prove), you at least have an opening to say that the shlichus may not be enough for a full kiyum mitzvah, but may be enough to get you a partial kiyum, akin to a chatzi shiur of a mitzvas aseh.  

Friday, March 22, 2024

Esther - Sarah link; the itzumo shel yom of Purim

1) See my wife's blog for a nice take on the relationship between Esther and Sarah.

2) There is a machlokes Rebbi and Chachamim whether עיצומו שׁל יום is mechapeir on Yom Kippurim or whether teshuvah is required as well.  R' Yaakov Moshe Charlap held that the machlokes is only viz a viz Yom Ki-Purim, but on Purim itself, everyone agrees that עיצומו שׁל יום is mechapeir.  

R' Yisrael Salanter is reported to have said that a wise person can accomplish as much in ruchniyus in his seudas Purim as an unintelligent person accomplishes with his tefilas ne'ila. 

Take advantage of the day!

Rabbah and R' Zeira's Purim seudah - an incredible take on an incredible story

The gemara (Meg 7b) follows up on Rava's statement

 אמר רבא מיחייב איניש לבסומי בפוריא עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי

with a story:

רבה ורבי זירא עבדו סעודת פורים בהדי הדדי איבסום קם רבה שחטיה לרבי זירא למחר בעי רחמי ואחייה לשנה אמר ליה ניתי מר ונעביד סעודת פורים בהדי הדדי אמר ליה לא בכל שעתא ושעתא מתרחיש ניסא

The Maharasha writes, דבר תמוה הוא לפרשו כפשטיה, taken at face value, the story is incredible.  Even granting the inebriation of Rava, or Rabbah according to some girsa'ot, could he really have committed murder?  Would an even keeled person (much less a tzadik like an amora!), out of the blue, without any prior animosity towards a person, jump up and kill them, no matter how drunk they might be?  Were that the case bars should be the scenes of a lot more murders.      

Some explain (see Baal HaMaor quoting Rabeinu Ephraim) the whole point of the story is in its shock value, as an illustration of the dangers of drinking עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי.  It could be that the Rambam and others who write that one should drink until one dozes off read the story as a rejection of Rava's extreme formulation. 

Others (e.g. see the Ben Ish Chai, or the Sichos of the L Rebbe) take the story less literally, and explain that Rabbah taught R' Zeira great esoteric secrets of Torah, which R' Zeira's soul could not receive while contained in his physical body, so his soul departed.  The Rebbe notes that the name Rabbah indicates rav=greatness, while Zeira is like the Aramaic word=smallness, indicating the gap between their knowledge.

Chasam Sofer in his teshuvos (OC end of 185) points out that the gemara (Shabbos 156a) tells us that someone born under the planetary influence of mars will have a proclivity to spill blood, הַאי מַאן דִּבְמַאְדִּים — יְהֵי גְּבַר אָשֵׁיד דְּמָא.  Guess who was born when mars was visible?  אָמַר רַבָּה: אֲנָא בְּמַאְדִּים הֲוַאי.  None other than Rabbah!  Therefore, says Chasam Sofer, it is davka Rabbah who ended up committing murder.  This is why the majority of poskim do not reject Rava's statement in the face of the story, as most people do not share that proclivity to blood lust.  

R' Menashe Klein (O.C. Tinyana 556) writes that Rabbah intended to channel his blood lust towards the fulfillment of a mitzvah and wanted to carry out mech'ias Amalek k'peshuto.  How did R' Zeira get involved in that?  He suggests that R' Zeira, as is our custom, came to Rabbah's feast dressed in costume.  Rather than dress up like Mordechai, like all other little boys, R' Zeira decided he would dress up like Haman, or an Amaleiki.  Overcome with drunkenness, in his zeal to fulfill mechi'as Amalek, Rabbah did not recognized his friend, thought it was really Amalek at his party, and took advantage of the opportunity.  

Just when you thought we've reached the limits of creative interpretation here, I found in the last piece of the "yoman" kept by R' Yisrael Be'eri (note for those who learned in Kerem b'Yavneh: this is R' Binyamin Be'eri's father), R' Yaakov Moshe Charlap's son in law, (well worth your reading in its entirety!) a pshat that I am not sure is not Purim torah, but you can decide.  R' Charlap writes that there must have been some friction between Rabbah and R' Zeira before this incident.  The murder was the culmination of the story, not the start of the story.  Who was R' Zeira?  Chazal tell us (Kesubos 110b) that R' Zeira avoided R" Yehuda because R' Yehudah held there was an issur of going from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael.  The gemara (BM 85) tells us that R' Zeira made aliya and then fasted so that he would forget the Babvli and could immerse himself completely in Talmud Yerushalmi, the torah of Eretz Yisrael.  (My son pointed out R' Zeira is highlighted in the last sugya in Horiyos as the exemplar of exceptional ability to be maksheh u'mefareik, so his transformation from a Bavli-Amora to a Yerushalmi thinker must have been a dramatic change.)  Not only was R' Zeira a confirmed Zionist, a lover of Eretz Yisrael, but he was also a great lover of the Jewish people.  The gemara (San 37) writes that he was mekareiv a bunch of outlaws in his neighborhood, against the wishes of the other Rabbis who wanted nothing to do with them.  Who was Rabbah?  The gemara (Shabbos 153) writes that Rabbah was so despised by the inhabitants of Pumbadita because of his criticisms that Abayei wondered if anyone would even come to his funeral אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַבָּה: כְּגוֹן מָר דְּסָנוּ לֵיהּ כּוּלְּהוּ פּוּמְבְּדִיתָאֵי, מַאן מַחֵים הֶסְפֵּידָא.  Rabbah and R' Zeira represent a clash of ideologies, two different approaches to avodas Hashem.  They met at the Purim seudah, things came to a head, and Rabbah, in the heat of the moment, struck R' Zeira.

Fast foward to modern times.  R Charlap quotes his rebbe, Rav Kook, as saying who is R' Zeira other than himself, a great lover of Eretz Yisrael, a great lover of even the most wayward of Am Yisrael.  Zeira is roshei teivos, the same letters as זירא = זה רב אברהם יצחק.  And Rabbah is of course those who stood against Rav Kook and did not follow in his footsteps.  

May we be zocheh this year to fulfill mechi'as Amalek k'peshuto mamesh, in the literal sense, and I make no apologies for choosing sides here, I hope we become a little more like R' Zeira, to come to greater love of Eretz Yisrael and drawing close those who need to be drawn close.  Just as Purim was the prelude to the return and aliya of Ezra and binyan ha'bayis, so too should our Purim be the prelude to our full return to Eretz Yisrael, culminating in binyan ha'bayis as well.

Thursday, March 21, 2024

eradicating Amalek -- chovas ha'yachid vs chovas ha'tzibur

This is more meaningful than anything I have to say about parshas zachor:


I originally had the idea for this post early in the week, but the more I thought about the topic the more questions I had.  Now I've reached the point where I think I've managed to at least partially put Humpty Dumpty back together again, but you can be the judge of that.  

R' Bachyei (last pasuk in Beshalach) that the property of Amalek is assur b'hanaah:

וע״ד הפשט כי יד על כס יה יאמר כי הש״י משביע לכל מלך ישראל שישב על כסא מלכות שיעשה מלחמה לה׳ בעמלק, באר כי המלחמה והשלל הכל יהיה אסור בהנאה ויהיה הכל לה׳ לא לבני אדם ומפני זה בא העונש לשאול ומדורו של שאול עד דורו של מרדכי וידע מרדכי כי שאול זקנו נענש בעונש גדול והיה עונשו מדה כנגד מדה כי תלה הכתוב שלמות הכסא בנקמת עמלק והוא לא נזהר בנקמתו ועל כן נענש שאבד השם והכסא כי לא נשאר לו שם אחריו אלא נהרג הוא ויהונתן בנו עמו ונפל כסא מלכותו, ומפני זה נזהר מרדכי בדבר שלא ליהנות משלל המן שהיה מזרע עמלק כענין שכתוב בפורענות המן (אסתר ט׳:י׳) ובבזה לא שלחו את ידם, לפי שהתורה הזהירה בכך (דברים כ״ה:י״ט) תמחה את זכר עמלק, וכן מצינו לעתיד המלחמה והשלל הכל לה׳ שנאמר (מיכה ד׳:י״ג) והחרמתי לה׳ בצעם וחילם לאדון כל הארץ.

The problem is that we read in the Megillah (8:1)  בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא נָתַ֞ן הַמֶּ֤לֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ֙ לְאֶסְתֵּ֣ר הַמַּלְכָּ֔ה אֶת־בֵּ֥ית הָמָ֖ן, that Achashveirosh turned over Haman's estate to Esther.  How could Esther have accepted a gift of issuei hanaah?

R' Chaim Kanievsky in Taama d'Kra suggests that the din of issurei hanaah applies only in a situation of war against Amalek, where preserving the property of Amalek preserves the zecher of Amalek.  Haman, however, was killed by Achashveirosh, not in battle.  The property of someone killed by royal edict belongs to the king (I'm not sure why R' Chaim quotes this din which lichorah applies to a melech yisrael).  It was not Haman's property that became Esther's gift, but rather Achashveirosh's.   

He adds that this is why the pasuk says בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא.  It was davka property taken on that day, when Achashveirosh was meting out justice, that Esther took possession of.  Once the full blown war against the hundreds and thousands of other Amalkites in the kingdom started on the next day, nothing else could be taken.  

This answer follows the same basic outline of the Oneg Y"T's explanation of why Shaul thought it was OK to keep the livestock of Amalek.  Shaul thought that so long as the animals were made hefker before the battle the issur hanaah no longer applied to them -- they are not the property of Amalek at the time of war.  The common theme of both answers is that technically, the property in question no longer belonged to Amalek at the time possession was taken by a Jew.

There is a more fundamental chiluk that emerges from a chiddush of the Meshech Chochma, and this is where the picture began to get muddled for me.

The Sefer haChinuch in mitzvah 604 writes that the mitzvah of destroying Amalek does not only apply to the tzibur fighting a battle, but applies to any yachid who chances upon an Amaleiki:

וְזֹאת מִן הַמִּצְוֹת הַמּוּטָלוֹת עַל הַצִּבּוּר כֻּלָּן, וּכְעִנְיָן שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (סנהדרין כ, ב), שָׁלֹשׁ מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּשְׁעַת כְּנִיסָתָן לָאָרֶץ, לְמַנּוֹת לָהֶם מֶלֶךְ, וְלִבְנוֹת לָהֶם בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה, וּלְהַכְרִית זֶרַע עֲמָלֵק. וּבֶאֱמֶת כִּי גַּם עַל כָּל יָחִיד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הַזְּכָרִים מוּטָל הַחִיּוּב לְהָרְגָם וּלְאַבְּדָם מִן הָעוֹלָם, אִם יֵשׁ כֹּחַ בְּיָדָם בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן, אִם יִמָּצֵא אֶחָד מִכָּל זַרְעָם. וְהָעוֹבֵר עַל זֶה וּבָא לְיָדוֹ אֶחָד מִזֶּרַע עֲמָלֵק וְיֵשׁ סִפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לְהָרְגוֹ וְלֹא הֲרָגוֹ, בִּטֵּל עֲשֵׂה זֶה.

Rav Yaakov Ilan in his sefer Masa Yad (vol 1) suggests that the dual nature of the chiyuv is reflected in the two different parshiyos  that speak about destroying Amalek.  The parsha at the end of Beshalach speaks about  מִלְחָמָ֥ה לַה׳ בַּֽעֲמָלֵ֑ק; the parshas in Ki Teitzei speaks about תִּמְחֶה֙ אֶת־זֵ֣כֶר עֲמָלֵ֔ק, but no mention of war.  The chiyuv to wage war is incumbent on the tzibur; the chiyuv to destroy any zeicher of Amalek is incumbent upon every individual. (I'm not sure based on this why Rashi quotes the din at the end of Ki Teitzei and not in Beshalach.)

Based on this distinction, the Meshech Chochma suggests that the mitzvah of obliterating the property of Amalek, inclusive of the livestock, applies only to the tzibur, but not to the chovas ha'yachid of eliminating Amalek:

 בספר החנוך כתב דעל כל יחיד שיקרה לפניו מזרע עמלק מצוה זו. ולרש״י שפירש זכר מאיש כו׳ משור ועד שה שלא יאמרו גמל זה של עמלק, והוא מהמכילתא דפרשה בשלח, ועיין הגהת הגר״א כאן בספרי מוכח דעל יחיד אין המצוה דהרי מפורש בשמואל א׳ כ״ז ויעל דוד ואנשיו כו׳ והעמלקי כו׳ ולקח צאן ובקר כו׳ הרי דביחיד אין מצוה לאבד הצאן ובקר. והא דאמרו במכילתא שהרג גר עמלקי שאין מקבלין גרים מעמלק, היינו לכן הרגו בהודאת עצמו כמו בן נח שנהרג עפ״י עצמו. וברור.

M'meila, since Haman was killed outside the context of war, his property was not assur b'hanaah.   

Sounds like a nice chiluk, but I was bothered by how the Chinuch makes sense l'shitaso. The Chinuch famously exempts women from the mitzvah of zechiras Amalek because he connects it to the mitzvah of mechi'as Amalek, and he holds that women are exempt from mechi'as Amalek because they do not have to participate in battle.  Putting aside the fact that when it comes to a milchemes mitzvah Chazal tell us that even "kallah mi'chupasa" has to go out to war (see Marcheshesh 1:22 who tries to explain the Chinuch), there is an additional chiyuv here that applies to the individual, not to a communal battle.  As the Chinuch writes,  גַּם עַל כָּל יָחִיד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הַזְּכָרִים מוּטָל הַחִיּוּב לְהָרְגָם וּלְאַבְּדָם מִן הָעוֹלָם. If you see an Amaleiki walking down the street, you take care of him.  Why are women exempt from this mitzvah? And why should the mitzvah of remembering Amalek be connected only to the communal obligation to wage war and not to the obligation on the individual to rid the world of Amalek?  

In order to put Humpty Dumpty back together I think we need to backtrack a bit, and here I found help in R' Gershuni's Mishpat haMelucha.  There are not 2 chiyuvim, a chovas ha'tzibur and a chovas ha'yachid, when it comes to eradicating Amalek.  There is one chiyuv of milchama, and that chiyuv is ongoing -- milchama ba'Amalek m'dor dor.  Sometimes that chiyuv is fulfilled on the battlefield.  Sometimes that chiyuv is fulfilled when you see an Amaleiki soldier walking down the street.  It's the same chiyuv that stems from fighting the war, just in this case you are attacking isolated soldiers.  

The chiluk of the Meshech Chochma as to when Amalek's property is off limits vs when it is not does not depend on the chiyuv being fulfilled, yachid v tzibur, as the same chiyuv milchama is being fulfilled by the individual killing an Amaleiki or by the tzibur fighting a battle.  What it depends on is the nature of the kiyum b'poel of the mitzvah.  For whatever reason, when Amalek is dealt with in the context of battle by the tzibur, his property is off-limits.  When Amalek is dealt with on an individual level, the property can be seized.  What the reasoning for this distinction might be still eludes me.

Either way, maybe with this background we can explains Shaul's mistake and Shmuel's criticism of him.  Shaul did not want the mantle of kingship; he therefore treated the command to fight Amalek not as a national battle incumbent onthe tzibur, but merely as a fight of individuals.  When individuals strike at Amalek, their property is permitted to be seized. 

Shmuel make clear that this was a tragic error. וַיֹּ֣אמֶר שְׁמוּאֵ֔ל הֲל֗וֹא אִם־קָטֹ֚ן אַתָּה֙ בְּעֵינֶ֔יךָ רֹ֛אשׁ שִׁבְטֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אָ֑תָּה  One cannot shirk leadership when called upon to serve the Jewish people.  One must act in a way that reflects the greatness of the Jewish people, and help fulfill our national mandate.

Wednesday, March 20, 2024

kaparah without korbanos

R' Chaim Elazari in his sefer Darkei Chaim (p 172) quotes the Mabi"T who asks how it is that we achieve kaparah when the Torah says that an aveira b'shogeg requires a korban for kaparah.  The pashtus is that we have a concept of u'nishalma parim sifaseinu.  Hashem allows studying the parsha of the korban to serve as a substitute for actually offering the korban. R' Yonah in Shaarei Teshuvah (4:8) writes

   כִּי מִקְרָא פָּרָשַׁת הַקָּרְבָּן יִהְיֶה לָנוּ בִּמְקוֹם הַקְרָבַת הַקָּרְבָּן בֵּין שֶׁנִּקְרָא בִּכְתָב בֵּין שֶׁנִּקְרָא בְּעַל פֶּה. כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה כָּל הָעוֹסֵק בְּפָרָשַׁת עוֹלָה כְּאִלּוּ הִקְרִיב עוֹלָה. בְּפָרָשַׁת חַטָּאת כְּאִלּוּ הִקְרִיב חַטָּאת. בְּפָרָשַׁת אָשָׁם כְּאִלּוּ הִקְרִיב אָשָׁם.)

Mabi"T gives a different answer.  When does sin need a korban for kaparah?  Only when there is a Beit haMikdash standing when you do the aveira.  Ignoring the hashra'as haShechina compounds the wrongdoing and therefore makes kaparah impossible without a korban.  However, when there is no Mikdash, when the hashra'as haShechina is not manifest for all to see, one's sin is less weighty, and hence the bar to achieve kaparah is lower.

Friday, March 15, 2024

could AI build a better mishkan?

Rashi in our parsha alludes to the gemara in Brachos (55a):

א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן בצלאל על שם חכמתו נקרא בשעה שאמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה לך אמור לו לבצלאל עשה לי משכן ארון וכלים הלך משה והפך ואמר לו עשה ארון וכלים ומשכן אמר לו משה רבינו מנהגו של עולם אדם בונה בית ואחר כך מכניס לתוכו כלים ואתה אומר עשה לי ארון וכלים ומשכן כלים שאני עושה להיכן אכניסם שמא כך אמר לך הקב"ה עשה משכן ארון וכלים אמר לו שמא בצל אל היית וידעת

Even though, says the gemara, that Moshe told Betzalel to first make kelim and them the mihskan, Betzalel intuited that Hashem had actually instructed to first make the mishkan and then kelim.  This has to be the case because where would you put kelim if you don't already have a mishkan.

There are two problems with the sugya (see Tos on the spot):

1) How can it be that Moshe misunderstood or did not properly communicate the dvar Hashem?  Chazal tell us that in a small handful of places "nisalma mi'menu halacha," that Moshe did not know something, but this instance is not on that list, not to mention that to admit the possibility of this type of error calls into question the whole mesorah.  

2) In point of fact, Hashem first gave the command to make kelim and then the command to make the mishkan, as we read in parshas Terumah.  Moshe got it right; Betzalel's surmise that שמא כך אמר לך הקב"ה עשה משכן ארון וכלים was in fact wrong.  So why did Moshe respond אמר לו שמא בצל אל היית וידעת?  Why did he accept Betzalel's interpretation of Hashem's command as being more accurate than his own?

Maharal in Gur Aryeh (and similarly, GR"A) answer that Hashem told Moshe about the kelim first because the kelim, starting with the aron, were the most important things in the mishkan.  The building existed for the kelim, not the other way around. However, when it came to the actual construction of the mishkan, which was Betzalel's domain, the process was reversed.  First the building had to be assembled, and only then the kelim put inside.  The difference order in the parshiyos reflects these different perspectives, that of theory vs that of practice.

The Alter of Kelm says a beautiful yesod here to answer the questions: 

When Bn"Y committed the sin of cheit ha'eigel, Hashem told Moshe (32:10)  וְעַתָּה֙ הַנִּ֣יחָה לִּ֔י וְיִֽחַר־אַפִּ֥י בָהֶ֖ם וַאֲכַלֵּ֑ם וְאֶֽעֱשֶׂ֥ה אוֹתְךָ֖ לְג֥וֹי גָּדֽוֹל.  In a nutshell, Hashem's message was, "Leave me alone -- we are ending this show now."  So why didn't Moshe do that?  The very next pasuk says that Moshe began to daven וַיְחַ֣ל מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶת־פְּנֵ֖י ה׳ אֱלֹהָ֑יו -- the exactly opposite of the plain meaning of Hashem's request!

Says the Alter, Hashem does not want us to be robots or computers.  Hashem wants us to be human beings and use our brains.  When a computer gets the instruction הַנִּ֣יחָה לִּ֔י, it obeys to the letter.  When Moshe got that same instruction, he realized something was up.  As Rashi writes  עדיין לא שמענו שהתפלל משה עליהם, והוא אומר: הניחה לי? אלא כאן פתח לו פתח, והודיעו שהדבר תלוי בו, שאם יתפלל עליהם לא יכלם. 

Hashem wants us to read between the lines, to interpret, to go beyond the surface meaning, and in that way arrive at His true intent.  Sometimes what appears to be disobedience in fact demonstrates true fidelity to Hashem's wishes.

Hashem did give Moshe the command to make the kelim first.  Moshe heard Hashem's command correctly and relayed it to Betzlalel correctly.  However, that doesn't mean that's what Hashem wanted.  Betzalel had the insight to understand that the mishkan building had to be put together first rather than making the kelim.

Could AI build a mishkan better than a human?  Maybe, if all it took to build it was blindly following a blueprint.  But Hashem wanted more than that.  Hashem wanted human intuition and intelligence invested in the product, not just gold, silver, and precious metals.  AI cannot substitute for that.  

Hashem b'davka gave the instructions in the way he did, seemingly backwards, says the Alter, so that Betzalel would have the opportunity to use his brains to work out what Hashem wanted.  In this way, the mishkan would contain the most precious commodity of all: the חכמת לב of a human being.  

Monday, March 11, 2024

with friends like these...

Jonathan Tobin, editor in chief of JNS writes:

Regardless of whether you support the Democrats or the Republicans, with respect to Jewish interests, Biden’s State of the Union address was a disaster. While he deplored the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel and even invited relatives of the hostage families to be in the gallery of the U.S. House of Representatives for the speech, the fact that he went on to have more harsh words for the democratically elected government of Israel than the terrorists of Hamas was shocking.

So, too, was his unrealistic demand that Israel could wage a justified war against the Islamists without harming the Palestinians Hamas hides behind. And his demand that Israel accede to a Palestinian state at the end of the war is not only immoral, it will grant a reward to the terrorists and undermine U.S. interests in the region.

His plans to deploy U.S. troops and resources to create a floating harbor to facilitate the delivery of aid to Gaza was an ill-thought-out idea that will likely do far more to help Hamas, which is certain to steal most of the supplies that the Americans will deliver unless Biden foolishly breaks his promise and U.S. troops do land in the Strip.

Worst of all, the president had not a single word to say about the unprecedented surge of antisemitism sweeping through America, driven by his erstwhile intersectional allies on the left-wing of his party.

The headline of Philip Klein's article in NRO says sums it up: "Biden Delivers the Most Anti-Israel Presidential Speech in History."  (I personally am not sure about that given Obama's anti-semitic hatred of Israel).  He writes, "The overarching message was clear: The October 7 attacks were bad, but Israel’s response has been worse. Palestinians deserve our support, but Israel does not."

The Wall Street Journal editorial page writes today: "President Biden likes to say that no President has been a better friend to Israel, but of late he doesn’t sound like it. He beat up Israel’s leaders in his State of the Union speech, criticized its war strategy in Gaza with regularity, and on the weekend called Israel’s plans to clear Hamas from its last stronghold in the city of Rafah a “red line” that Israel shouldn’t cross."

Biden is even making Lindsey Graham look like a right-winger in an interview with NBC News:

Graham also responded to questions about the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, saying, “I literally about fell out of my seat” during the president’s State of the Union address to Congress on Thursday when Biden said Hamas could end the conflict by releasing all of the hostages they took on Oct. 7.

“Is the president saying that if the hostages are released by Hamas, they can stay in power?” Graham asked on Sunday.

“President Trump believes it’s non-negotiable when it comes to Hamas. They have to be destroyed militarily. They can’t be in charge. So I’m challenging the Biden administration today to clear this up. You cannot allow Hamas to stay in power,” Graham added.

With friends like these...