Haazinu. The Rock! His Deeds are Perfect.

הצור תמים פעלו   כי כל דרכיו משפט 

אל אמונה ואין עול   צדיק וישר הוא 

The Rock!—His deeds are perfect, Yea, all His ways are just;

A faithful God, never false, True and upright is He.

Just out of the goodness of his heart, Michael Kirshner, the owner of Star Catering, provides a kiddush in the shul kitchen after the early minyan.  I prefer to make kiddush at home, so I can eat something with my wife, but sometimes I go in to catch up on local news. Last week, I jokingly said to Michael, "Since you're sponsoring the kiddush, you really should say a dvar Torah." He shrugged and said "I'm not sponsoring! 'Ploni' is sponsoring this week!" 

I'm not friendly enough with Ploni to needle him for not saying a dvar Torah. But he said "I have something I want to say."  And this is what he said.

"I just spent Rosh Hashannah in West Palm Beach, and after Maariv, we wished each other "לשנה טובה תכתב ותחתם לאלתר לחיים טובים ולשלום"   and we went home. A while later, one person's wife came knocking on the Rabbi's door, because her husband had not come home.  They went to look for him, and they found out that he had been hit by a car crossing the street and was killed on the spot.  This young man, his name is Baruch, he was an unbelievable baal chesed. Many people come to the local hospital for medical procedures, and they stay at Gershon Bassman's (also at the kiddush,) Hachnasas Orchim, and Baruch would drop everything he was doing to take care of them - he picked them up, he found them food that was up to their kashrus standards - just Chalav Yisrael was not enough, one guy needed Super Chalav Yisrael - and he gladly did whatever he could to make them comfortable. And just after I wished him le'alter lechaim, he got killed crossing the street." 

And now, Rabbi Eisenberg is going to tell us how the Ribono shel Olam could do such a thing to this tzadik and to his family on Rosh Hashannah."

To make terrible even worse, this shul in West Palm Beach is across the street from Century Village, and there's an island in middle of the street. There is traffic on the street directly in front of Century Village, and there's a stoplight, but there's very little traffic on the street in front of the shul. So the light changes to go right and left out of Century Village, but you don't get a green to cross in front of the shul unless you press a button. So they have a security guard, who waits for the people and presses the button so they can safely cross. Baruch always stayed after davening to put sefarim back and straighten the place out, just for kavod beis haknesses. Rosh Hashannah night, the shul was full and people are in a hurry to get home, so he had extra straightening out to do, and by the time he finished, the security guard had left. That is why he was hit by the car - because on Rosh Hashannah night, he stayed late so that the mispallelim the next day would come in to a clean and beautiful shul.

This man, Ploni, had suffered a personal tragedy several months ago. His son, who lived in Detroit, was a rebbi, he learned Daf Yomi five times a day, and, as Rav Bakst said in his hesped, he was not just a Baal Chesed, he was beyond any definition of Baal Chesed, he was a gadol in chesed.  A young man, he died while learning the daf yomi.  After he said what happened to Baruch on Rosh Hashannah, he said that since his son died, his heart has been a block of ice.  So you realize that when he threw this question at me, it was not just because of Baruch. 

I was not in a good place. I had lightheartedly pushed someone to say a vort, as a result this man said what was on his heart, and then he throws the question at me, the question that bothered Moshe Rabbeinu and Iyov and all the tzadikim since Briyas Haolam.

In Melachim I 18:37, Eliahu prayed for a neis to show Hashem's power over the Neviei haBaal on Har HaCarmel and said

ענני ה' ענני וידעו העם הזה כי אתה ה' האלהים ואתה הסבת את לבם אחרנית

Rashi explains, 

וְאַתָּה הֲסִבֹּתָ אֶת לִבָּם. נָתַתָּ לָהֶם מָקוֹם לָסוּר מֵאַחֲרֶיךָ, וּבְיָדְךָ הָיָה לְהָכִין לְבָבָם אֵלֶיךָ. וּמִדְרַשׁ אַגָּדָה: אִם לֹא תַּעֲנֵנִי, אַף אֲנִי אֶהְיֶה כּוֹפֵר וְאוֹמֵר, אַתָּה הֲסִבּוֹתָ אֶת לִבָּם, וְכֵן אָמַר משֶׁה: אִם כְּמוֹת כָּל הָאָדָם יְמוּתוּן אֵלֶּה, אַף אֲנִי כּוֹפֵר וְאוֹמֵר, לֹא ה' שְׁלָחַנִי לְדַבֵּר אֶת הַתּוֹרָה וְהַמִּצְוֹת, וְכָךְ אָמַר מִיכַיְהוּ: אִם שׁוֹב תָּשׁוּב בְּשָׁלוֹם, לֹא דִּבֵּר ה' בִּי.

The Ribono shel Olam will not put a man in a position where he can not be expected to withstand the Sattan, the Yetzer Hara.  I think that in Beis Din shel Maalah, they decided that this Ploni had experienced things that would make it unfair to expect him to remain a maamin, and I had been maneuvered into the position to tell him what he needed to hear, to deliver a message that might help him deal with the terrible and tragic things he had seen. 

My mother in law, Rebbitzen Shelia Feinstein, עליה השלום, was a passenger in a car that had an accident.   When the first responders came and took her out of the car, she sat down waiting for the ambulance, and she asked my father in law Shlitah, "We're on our way home from a Bris and Nichum Aveilim. It says that שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזקין. How could something like this have happened?"  Soon after being taken by the ambulance, she lost consciousness and passed away ten days later, never having fully awoken. 

My son Harav Shlomo said in Reb Chaim Kanievsky's name that when a person's allotted years come to an end, (or if for whatever reason his time has come,) if that person was a tzadik the Ribono shel Olam will arrange that he will die in the midst of doing a Mitzva. It's not the pshat that the mitzva was not meigin. The pshat is that a mitzvah is meigin on a live person, but it is not meigin on a gavra ketilla. If the person has to die no matter what. Hashem gives him the great zechus of dying mitoch dvar mitzvah.

ויבוא אברהם לספוד לשרה (בראשית כ"ג ב') פירש רש"י שעל ידי בשורת העקידה מתה שרה. ויש לעיין הא קי"ל שלוחי מצוה אין נזוקין ולמה סבבו מן השמים שתמות עי"ז, 

וכעין זה יש להקשות בריש מדרש אסתר גבי אנשי אלכסנדריא שאמרו נדליק או לא נדליק ואמרו נדליק וכל דבעי ימטי עלן ועי"ז נתגלגל שנהרגו כולן, וקשה נהי שהיו חייבים עונש כדאמר בגמ' דעברו על לא תוסיפון לשוב וגו' אבל למה גלגלו שימותו דוקא ע"י מצוה שמסרו נפשם על זה. וכן קשה בשבת קי"ח ב' יהי חלקי ממתי בדרך מצוה וקשה הא שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזוקין. וקשה לומר דכל הני מקרי שכיח הזיקא. 

ונראה דהא דשלוחי מצוה אינן נזוקין היינו דהמצוה לא תגרום להם שום היזק, אבל אם הגיע זמנו למות בלא"ה, א"כ אדרבה זכות הוא לו שמסבבין מן השמים מיתתו ע"י מצוה, דהוי כמוסר נפשו על קידוש ה'. ולכן אנשי אלכסנדריא שהגיע זמנם ליענש ולפי שהיו צדיקים סבבו מן השמים שימותו ע"י מצוה, דהוי כמסרו נפשם עבור המצוה, דשכרו מרובה מאד, וכן הענין בשרה וכן בהא דכל כתבי, ובזה יתיישב בכמה דוכתי. 

(See addendum for text of the Medrash about the Jews of Alexandria.)

R' Shlomo added that it seems to him that it would not be stam a mitzva, it would be a mitzva that specifically reflects that person's gadlus in Avodah. (He said that in his grandmother's case, her gadlus was helping people make an honest assessment of who they are and what they are capable of doing, of making an honest cheshbon hanefesh. This is the greatest chesed anyone can do for another, holding up a mirror so they can see who they truly are and what they can become, like the Brachos of Yaakov and of Moshe Rabbeinu.  If her time had come, how appropriate it was that it came while she was oseik in a mitzvah that is a chesed with the living and with the dead, nichum aveilim.)

Sara did not die before her time. Sarah's years were over and her time had come. The Satan just used the Akeida as the instrument of bringing about that death (borrowing Reb Yaakov Kamenetzky's words as brought in the Tallelei Oros page 248. Reb Yaakov adds that this is why the words Chayei Sara are repeated - this was the number of years she was allotted and her time had come. When she was born, she was given 127 years. Those years had run out. This is also brought in the Kol Rom as something Reb Yaakov said to Reb Moshe when he came to be menachem aveil at his Shiva on his sister, Rebbitzen Small. I also just saw it in the Emes L'Yaakov, where he proves this is true, because later it says that when Yitzchak turned 123, he realized that he had to get moving on a shidduch for Yaakov, because a man needs to worry when he reaches a parent's age of death, and it was a couple of years before his mother's life span. All this proves that her death was not the result of a malicious act of the Satan, it was her predestined lifespan.)

Please note: According to Reb Chaim, this applies not only when a man reaches the end of his alloted years. In the case of the men of Alexandria, Hashem had made a gzeira that because the community was founded in contradiction to the passuk prohibiting choosing to settle in Egypt, it was to be destroyed; despite that sin, and in balance, they were tzadikim.  Although the destruction and death was inevitable, Hashem chose such circumstances that allowed them to die al kiddush Hashem.

When a man's time comes, there are many ways to die. He might die in middle of something absurd or embarrasing. One beautiful soul I know died of a heart attack in the shower, and remained there for twelve hours under a spray of hot water. Another person was shot and killed in middle of the night on Yomtov while playing Pokemon in the park off of Lake Shore Drive. But there are a lucky few, yedidei Hashem, whose end draws close, and the Ribono shel Olam gives them the opportunity to do a perfect mitzvah with ahava and dveikus just as their time runs out.  As Rav Avraham Bukspan said,  

רגלוהי דבר איניש אינון ערבין ביה - לאתר דמיתבעי תמן מובילין יתיה..

Addendum: 

This is the Medrash (Eicha 4:22) Reb Chaim Kanievsky brought.

קַלִּים הָיוּ רֹדְפֵינוּ מִנִּשְׁרֵי שָׁמָיִם, טְרַכִינוּס שְׁחִיק עֲצָמוֹת יָלְדָה אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּלֵיל תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב, וְהָיוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבֵלִים. נִשְׁתַּתֵּק הַוְּלַד בַּחֲנֻכָּה, אָמְרוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נַדְלִיק, אוֹ לֹא נַדְלִיק, אָמְרוּ, נַדְלִיק, וְכָל מַה דְּבָעֵי לִימְטֵי עֲלָן יִמְטֵא. אַדְלִיקוּ, אֲזַלוּן וַאֲמָרוּן לִישָׁן בִּישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל טְרַכִינוּס, אִילֵין יְהוּדָאִין כַּד יְלִידַת הֲווֹן מִתְאַבְּלִין, וְכַד מַיְית וְלָדָא אַדְלִיקוּ בּוֹצִינַיָיא. שָׁלְחָה וְכָתְבָה לְבַעְלָהּ, עַד דְּאַתְּ מַכְבֵּשׁ בַּרְבָּרְיִין בֹּא וּכְבשׁ אִילֵין יְהוּדָאין דְּמָרְדוּ בָךְ, סְלִיק לְאִילְפָא וַחֲשִׁיב לְמֵיתֵי בַּעֲשָׂרָה יוֹמִין וְאַיְיתִיתֵיהּ רוּחָא בְּחַמְשָׁא יוֹמִין, אֲתָא וְאַשְׁכְּחִינוּן דַּהֲווֹ עָסְקִין בַּהֲדֵין פְּסוּקָא (דברים כח, מט): יִשָֹּׂא ה' עָלֶיךָ גּוֹי מֵרָחֹק מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ כַּאֲשֶׁר יִדְאֶה הַנָּשֶׁר, אֲמַר לְהוּ אֲנָא הוּא נִשְׁרָא דַּחֲשֵׁיבִית לְמֵיתֵי בְּעַשְׂרָה יוֹמִין וְאַיְיתֵתַנִי רוּחָא בְּחַמְשָׁא יוֹמִין, הִקִּיפָן לִגְיוֹנוֹתָיו וַהֲרָגָן. אָמַר לַנָּשִׁים הִשָּׁמְעוּ לְלִגְיוֹנוֹתַי וְאִם לָאו אֲנִי עוֹשֶׂה לָכֶם כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי לָאֲנָשִׁים, אָמְרוּ עֲבֵיד בְּאַרְעָאֵי מַה דְּעַבַדְתְּ בְּעִילָאֵי, מִיָּד הִקִּיפָן לִגְיוֹנוֹתָיו וַהֲרָגָן, וְנִתְעָרְבוּ דָּמִים שֶׁל אֵלּוּ בְּדָמִים שֶׁל אֵלּוּ, וְהָיָה הַדָּם בּוֹקֵעַ וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְקִיפְרוֹס נָהָר.

Haazinu. Thoughts on a Yohrtzeit. Passing Away and Dying.

My father's זכר צדיק לברכה Yortzeit is Rosh Hashanna. This Rosh Hashanna marks ten years since he was niftar. With that in mind, I'd like to share something Reb Meir Simcha says about death and life.

Reb Meir Simcha addresses a change in describing Aharon's death. In Parshas Pinchas, it says כאשר נאסף אהרן . Here, in Haazinu, it says כאשר מת אהרן. He explains that when Aharon died, his son, Elazar, was a fitting replacement. .הניח בן כמותו: because Elazar could step into Aharon's shoes, Aharon's passing was not a "death." But later, Elazar failed a test (when he did not show sufficient respect for Moshe Rabbeinu's authority after the war with Midian.) At that point, the matzav changed to לא הניח בן כמותו . Elazar no longer could be considered an equal of his father's.  After that point, Aharon, not having a son that could be considered his equal, was said to have "died." 

So Reb Meir Simcha is telling us that הניח or לא הניח is not just a din at the moment of death. It is ongoing.  A man might pass away, but life goes on, he left a worthy legacy. It's sad, but it is not a tragedy.  But years later, when his son behaves in a manner unfit for his father's successor, then the father dies, and misfortune changes to tragedy. Maybe his son should sit shiva again, on his father and on himself.  

Another insight we may glean is that a son that fails to fill his father's place is responsible for his father's death - at least to the extent of the difference between "gathered unto his people" and "dead." That's probably not רציחה, but maybe it's enough to qualify for מכה אביו, or at least  מקלה אביו.

I suppose that it works the other way, too. If, at the time of death, the sons are nothing, and they later achieve greatness, their father becomes less dead. Or there are cases where it is obvious at the moment of death that one's children are not nearly either as good or as great as the father. In that case, at least, there's the finality of dying and being done with it.  I can only speak from experience about one of the types and not the other two.

(לב:נ) והאסף אל עמיך כאשר מת אהרן אחיך ובפרשת פנחס (כז יג) ונאספת אל עמיך גם אתה כאשר נאסף אהרן אחיך ונראה דאמרו [בבבא בתרא] (קטז א) יואב שלא הניח בן כמותו נאמרה בו מיתה דוד שהניח בן כמותו לא נאמרה בו מיתה והנה אמר (שמות ז א) ואהרן אחיך יהיה נביאך ן ואמרו (שמות ז כו) משה ואהרן אהרן ומשה מלמד שהיו שקולים זה לזה (ויקרא רבה לו א) והנה מקודם אמר השי"ת (במדבר כז כא) ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמוד ושאל לו במשפט האורים ועל מנת זה הלא היה אלעזר במעלת אהרן וקם תחתיו ולכן לא נאמר בו מיתה ונאמרה בו אסיפה אבל אחרי זה השיב אלעזר לפני משה בגיעולי מדין במדבר לא כא וכפי מה שאמרו בפרק הדר (עירובין סג א) המורה הלכה בפני רבו מורידים אותו מגדולתו שנאמר ויאמר אלעזר הכהן אל אנשי הצבא וגו"' אע"ג דאמר להו לאחי אבא צוה ואותי לא צוה' אפילו הכי איענש דכתיב ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמד ולא אשכחן דאיצטריך ליה יהושע עכ"ל הגמרא ואינו במעלת אביו לכן אמר כאשר מת אהרן אחיך שלא הניח בן כמותו 

(In the first posting, I said that I don't know why Reb Meir Simcha mixes in the שהיו שקולים זה לזה discussion. As far as I can tell, it is totally irrelevant. More than irrelevant - it muddles the idea that he is discussing.  If Asifa as opposed to Misa means leaving a worthy successor, why does it say asifa by Moshe, whose sons were not like him at all? Maybe because of Yehoshua, who was like a son. But what's the point of bringing it up here at all?
But Reb Avrohom Wagner sent in an explanation that I think is 100% correct.  He said that Elazar's status as "equal to Aharon" was based on Aharon equals Moshe, and Moshe's talmid muvhak is equal to Moshe - because he viewed himself as totally batteil to his rebbi. A = M
Talmid Muvhak = Rebbi
E was TM of M
∴ E = M
∴ E = A. 
But as soon as he showed a pgam in that hisbatlus, he was no longer considered a cheilek of Moshe, and mimeila he was not considered "equal to Aharon.")

Rav Bergman, in his new edition of his Shaarei Orah, points out a slight consolation, if it can be described that way. When the Torah says (Breishis 48:5) אפרים ומנשה כראובן ושמעון יהיו לי, that means that grandchildren can reach a madriega of closeness to their grandparent, and greatness in manifesting what the grandparent stood for, that makes the grandchild equal to a child - and, it would appear, the grandchild can be the הניח בן כמותו. My father used to say from Reb Mottel Pagremansky that we see in linear time, so we think a father is most closely related to his son. But the truth is that sometimes, generations are connected non-linnearly, so a grandchild is more closely related that a child. Now there's an example of ניבא ולא ידע מה ניבא..

Haazinu 32:3 and the Nusach of Kedusha. כי שם ה' אקרא

The minhag of Ashkenaz is to begin Kedusha most of the time with the word נקדש, while minhag Sfard is to say נקדישך. Since I mentioned a teshuva from the Rogatchover the other day, I want to point out something else that he says.  In the Tzofnas Pa'anei'ach on this week's parsha, Haazinu, he says that it depends on the Tosefta in Brachos 1:11 and the Sifri in Haazinu.  It can be found here.  It was taken from here, with only trivial differences.  Good luck.  With some (a lot) siyata dishmaya, I will, bl'n, try to put down an intelligible precis here before Shabbos.  If anyone wants to volunteer, you are more than welcome.

********************************

I just realized how funny the idea of writing a precis of the Rogatchover's remarks is.  When we finish that, we're going to write an concise overview of Reb Meshulam Igra's top ten maarachos.

*********************************

Here's the way I understand it.  In a nutshell:  He says that "נקדש... כשם שמקדישים means that we are just quoting the Malachim, but we ourselves are not saying their Kedusha.    נקדישך...כסוד שרפי קודש, on the other hand, means that we ourselves are saying the Kedusha of the Malachim.  During the week, our kedusha is limited to the one sentence of ימלוך.  On Shabbos, we incorporate the Kedusha of the Malachim into our Kedusha by using the words they use.

Now to explain it as well as I can:  I'll start with the essential Marei Mekomos.

Tosefta in Brachos 1:11

אלו ברכות ששוחין בהן? ברכה ראשונה - תחלה וסוף ובמודים - תחלה וסוף והשוחה בכל ברכה וברכה - מלמדין אותו שלא ישחה.

אין עונים עם המברך.רבי יהודה היה עונה עם המברך:"קדוש קדוש קדוש ה' צבאות מלא כל [הארץ כבודו]ו"ברוך כבוד ה' ממקומו" כל אלו היה ר' יהודה אומר עם המברך.

Sifrei Haazinu on Passuk 32:3. 

 כי שם ה' אקרא • נמצינו למדים שלא הזכיר משה שמו של מקום אלא לאחר כ״א דבור ממי למד ממלאכי השרת שאין מלאכי השרת מזכירים אח השם אלא לאחר ג׳ קדושות שנאמר וקרא זה אל זה ואמר קדוש קדוש קדוש ה׳ צבאות אמר משה דיי שאהיה בפחות משבעה כמלאכי השרת

Tosfos in Sanhedrin 37b:

 מכנף הארץ זמירות שמענו. כתוב בתשובת הגאונים שאין בני א"י אומרים קדושה אלא בשבת דכתיב (ישעיה ו) גבי חיות שש כנפים לאחד וכל כנף הוא אומר שירה אחת ביום בששת ימי החול וכשיגיע שבת אומרים החיות לפני המקום רבש"ע אין לנו עוד כנף והקב"ה משיב להם יש לי עוד כנף אחד שאומר לפני שירה שנאמר מכנף הארץ זמירות שמענו:

The Tosefta says that Rav Yehuda said Kadosh and Baruch with the Shli'ach Tzibur.  The Rogatchover learned that to mean that the Rabanan argue with Rav Yehuda; the Rabbanan didn't say either Kadosh or Baruch; all they said was Yimloch, which is the kedusha that is specific to Klal Yisrael. Rav Yehuda, on the other hand, holds that the tzibbur does say the entire kedusha.  The basis of the machlokes is this: when you quote someone else's words, does it have the legal effect of your having said the words yourself.  For example, if you were a witness to someone's blasphemy, and you testify against him in Beis Din, and you repeat his words verbatim, are you guilty of blasphemy?  This, he says, is a machlokes between our girsa in the Gemara in Sanhedrin 56 and 60, which says that nobody is allowed to quote the blasphemer verbatim, against the Rambam in 2 Avoda Zara 8, who says אזהרה של מגדף מנין שנאמר אלהים לא תקלל. בכל יום ויום בודקין את העדים בכינוים יכה יוסי את יוסי. נגמר הדין מוציאין את כל אדם לחוץ ושואלים את הגדול שבעדים ואומרים לו אמור מה ששמעת בפירוש והוא אומר והדיינים עומדים על רגליהם וקורעין ולא מאחין.  

Relevant to Kedusha, the Rabanan hold that what we say from the malachim is just a סיפור דברים בעלמא and doesn't carry to weight of a real kedusha, and that's why we say נקדש... כשם שמקדישים  the whole week.  Only on Shabbos does our kedusha acquire the significance of a real kedusha (and this is why we insert Shma- because Shma is our specific Kedusha-) and that is why we change the nusach to  נקדישך...כסוד שרפי קודש , which means we're doing the kedusha ourselves, not merely quoting the Malachim.

(This, by the way (not from the Rogatchover), is the reason that we use the נקדישך language for all the tefillos of Yom Kippur.  The special status that is usually reserved for Shabbos, when we say Shma, which is our specific Kedusha, also applies to the entire day of Yom Kippur.)

This is reflected in the Tosfos in Sanhedrin, which said from the Teshuvas Hageonim that in Eretz Yisrael, they only said Kedusha on Shabbos.  This means that the Shliach Tzibur's kedusha the whole week was just  סיפור דברים בעלמא.  Only on Shabbos is it really the kind of Kedusha that the Malachim say the whole week.  We also see it in the Sifri in Haazinu- that only after twenty one words could Moshe say Kedusha.  We, too, only say our own kedusha after six days of repeating the words of the Malachim and then doing it once ourselves- a total of twenty one repetitions of the word קדוש before we use Hashem's name in our own Kedusha.

Eli sent us a mareh makom to the Orchos Chaim (not the Rosh: he was a talmid of the Rosh and his Sefer was the predecessor to the Kolbo) here, an amazing tzushtell to the Rogatchover, exactly on point and using the Tosfos in Sanhedrin:

 וכתב הר׳ יוסף ז״ל ומה שאנו אומרי׳ בכל  התפלו׳ נקדש את שמך או נקדישך ונעריצך שאנו עושים המלאכי׳ עיקר ובקדושת מוסף אנו אומרים המוני מעלה עם עמך ישראל הרי אנו עושים ישראל עיקר על פי המדרש נתקן שש כנפים לאחד על כנף אומרים שירה ביומיה ובשבת אומר׳ החיה אין לי עוד כנף והקב״ה אומר יש לי כנף בארץ שאומר לי שירה אלו ישראל שנא׳ מכנף הארץ זמירות שמענו.  ושלא לחלק בתפלת יוצר לא תקנו כך אלא במוסף

This is also discussed in the Pachad Yitzchak (Lampronti) on Kedusha.

******************************

I found that the Medrash brought down in Tosfos is also mentioned in the אור זרוע.  The Ohr Zarua here (at the end of the first column, in Hilchos Motzei Shabbos) applies the Medrash to the Tzidkascha that we say at Mincha on Shabbos, not to Kedusha like Tosfos.  Please note the the Or Zarua was an early contemporary of the Baalei HaTosfos- he didn't get the Medrash from them.

******************************

Here's another interesting idea based on the Tosfos in Sanhedrin, from Rav Hirshprung of Montreal, a famous illui who knew Shas like I know Ashrei.  He notes that the Shaarei Teshuva in 268 brings from the Mor U'Ketzi'ah that although Maariv is a "Reshus," that's not true on Friday night.  (For a more thorough treatment, see Pnei Meivin #43, here.)  He says this also appears in the Zohar and the Tikkunim, I think here.  Why should this be true?  

The Gemara in Chagiga 12b says that the Malachim sing at night but are silent during the day in honor of the tefilla of Klal Yisrael.  The Mahrsha there explains that our main tefillos are those of the daytime, which are obligatory.  Since Maariv is voluntary, our saying maariv doesn't preclude the Malachim from saying their own shira.

Rav Hirshprung points out that:
Rav Hirshprung points out that:
a. the Teshuvas HaGeonim  in Tosfos in Sanhedrin shows that the shira of the Malachim does not take place on Shabbos.  
b. The Teshuvas HaGeonim says that Klal Yisrael has a shira on Shabbos that takes the place of what the Malachim do during weekdays, 
c. According to the Gemara in Chagiga and the Mahrsha, a whole week the Malachim are silent during the day in deference to Klal Yisrael and their Shira is only at night, 
d. therefore, the only change that occurs on Shabbos must be at night- Maariv.  
e. Since, as the Mahrsha says, the Malachim are silent only during our tefillos chova, then 
f. the change in our Maariv must be from Reshus to Chova.
QED, Maariv is a reshus on weekdays but a chova on Shabbos.

(Please note an irony that arises from saying that Maariv is a Reshus during the week and a Chova on Shabbos: Tosfos in Brachos 4b and 27b says בסדר רב עמרם פי' מה שאנו אומרים קדיש בין גאולה לתפלת ערבית לאשמעינן דלא בעינן מסמך גאולה דערבית לתפלה משום דתפלת ערבית רשות.  Combining the shitah of Rav Amram Gaon with the Zohar, the result would be that davka on Shabbos, you have to be masmich geula to tefilla during maariv, because on Shabbos it's a chova, so Shabbos would be  more chamur in the smichas geula le'tefila department.  Which is kind of ironic, because on the other hand, you have the opinion (brought in the Mishna Berura 111 SK 9) that you don't have to be masmich geula to tefilla on Shabbos at all, not even at Shachris, because it doesn't have a din of eis tzara, and Shabbos is more kal in the din of smicha.

לדעת הגהות אשר"י ומהרי"ל, בשבת אינו צריך כ"כ לסמוך גאולה לתפילה, מפני שלפי הלימוד מהפסוק, החיוב לסומכן הוא רק ביום צרה, אבל בשבת שאינו יום צרה, אין צריך לסמוך. וכתב הב"י שדבריהם נראים. אולם כתב הרמ"א קיא, א, שלכתחילה טוב להחמיר ולסמוך גם בשבת, ובשעת הצורך אין צריך לסומכן. ובכה"ח קיא, ט, כתב שדין שבת כחול. אבל במ"ב ט, ובאו"ה שם, וילקוט יוסף קיא, ה, כתבו שאם שמע בשבת בין גאולה לתפילה קדיש וקדושה – יענה. אמנם אם איחר, לא יתפלל עם הציבור ואח"כ יאמר ק"ש ברכותיה כפי שנוהגים בערבית, אלא יתפלל כסדר כדי לסמוך גאולה לתפילה.)

*********************************

And finally, to bring everything together, let me tell you how I feel after going through these two Rogatchovers.  When I was in Ner Israel, I heard that Rav Hirshprung said that he knows the entire Reb Chaim al HaRambam by heart, milah b'milah, and he doesn't understand one paragraph.  Like Rav Hirshprung felt about Reb Chaim, I feel about the Rogatchover.  I have a pretty good head for lomdus and analysis of Gemara; at least I understand it if someone explains it to me.  I should, after all, considering all the time I've spent in and around Yeshiva limudim.  But reading the Rogatchover is like Gemara refracted, like reading in a different language.  He points to things and says "See?" and I look and look and have no idea of how he sees anything of the sort there.

Haazinu, Devarim 32:4, and Yom Kippur. Mishpat and Tzadka Yachdav. אין עול and צדקה יחדיו

I

No human, no Malach, can understand Hashem's judgment.  Avraham Avinu, Moshe Rabbeinu, the Malachei Hashareis, nobody can even begin to understand why and how.  Even so, Chazal and our baalei hashkafa discuss such things.  What follows is only in the spirit of Limud Hatorah, and is not an Icarus-like quest for the resolution of unanswerable questions (Chagiga 14b).

This first part is from Harav Meir Bergman, Rav Shach's son in law, in his sefer on Chumash, Shaarei Ora.

The discussion involves psukim, 32:3-4:

הצור תמים פעלו כי כל דרכיו משפט. אל אמונה ואין עול צדיק וישר הוא

The Gemara in Brachos 46b says that when Mar Zutra became an Aveil, a bracha was said.  This is the generally known bracha of Dayan Ha'emes.  The language of the bracha there, however, is much lengthier.  Part of the bracha is "שופט צדק לוקח במשפט", righteous judge who takes (life) with justice.  Tosfos there says that the Bahag (and the Rambam) excised the words "lokeiach bemishpat," because the Gemara in Shabbos 55b says יש נספה בלא משפט, even blameless men die, that men die without Mishpat, without justice.  Therefore, one should not say that the person died with mishpat, because maybe he was one who died "belo mishpat."  Tosfos ends by saying "however, that is not a reason to erase it."  Tosfos does not explain what he means.

The Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona there mentions that the Rif also redacted it out of his iteration of the Gemara.  Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona are not at all happy about this.  They end by saying אע"פ שיש מיתה בלא חטא... כל דרכיו משפט והוא יודע למה עושה כן, even though death can be without mishpat, He knows why He does so.
The Chidushei Anshei Shem there discusses this, and says other surprising things, not directly in line with this discussion but worth reading.

Rav Bergman asks, how did these rishonim- the Bahag, the Rambam, and the Rif- understand the beginning of the bracha, which they leave intact- dayan emes, Keil emes, and so forth?  And what do they do with our pesukim, that talk of ein avel and yashrus?

He answers that we have personal identities and a national identity.  Heavenly judgment can take national identity as the predominant field of Din and Schar V'Onesh, even when it results in a judgment incompatible with certain individuals in the klal.  Our dominant identity is as parts of an organism rather than as individuals; just as we judge a person as a whole, and not his individual parts, Hashem might judge Klal Yisrael as a whole, and not its individual parts.

Rav Bergman reads these two approaches to Din into the various interpretations of כל באי עולם עוברין לפניו כבני מרון in the Gemara in Rosh Hashanna 18a.  According to one pshat, this means judgment of each individual; according to another, it means judgment of the nation as a whole.


He ends by quoting the Rambam in Pirush Hamishnayos there in Rosh Hashanna who ends the Mishna with the words "this statement is self explanatory, but its hidden aspect is extremely difficult."  Rav Bergman says that the Rambam is alluding to the difficulty of correlating the judgment of individuals qua individual with judgment of Klal Yisrael as a whole.

The gist of this idea is that an individual might experience things that are not the result of his own behavior.  If he were ajudicated on his own merits, his judgment would be X.  But since he is a member of the klal, and the judgment on the klal was Y, he will (might?  always?  sometimes?) share in that judgment.  So from the individual perspective, the decree is not Mishpat.  But from the Klal perspective, it is perfectly just. 

Rav Bergman's dvar Torah ends here.  Now lets think about how this comports with Reb Yisrael Salanter's words about Din Shamayim.


Reb Yisrael Salanter is widely quoted as having said that אין עול teaches an essential difference between Hashem's judgment and an earthly court's judgment.  If a man is guilty and deserves punishment, the consequences that his punishment will have on others are legally irrelevant.  That executing him or incarcerating him will result in grief or financial distress to innocent people matters not at all to an earthly court.  But Hashem takes all of this into consideration.  With this, the Sefer Chakal Tapuchin explains the Gemara in Shabbos 106a that if a member of a group dies, all the members of the group should worry; he explains that if their friend died, then it must be that the Beis Din shel Maalah decided that all the members of the group deserved to experience the grief of losing a friend, which shows that they need to do teshuva.  Reb Chaim Shmuelevitz in his Sichos here says that Reb Yisrael used this approach to explain the passuk in Tehillim (19:10) "משפטי ה' אמת צדקו יחדיו" Hashem's judgment is true, righteous together:  this means that Hashem only punishes an individual when all the people affected by the repercussions of the judgment deserve those consequences.  In fact, Reb Elia Lopian used to say that this is a good reason to develop a group of friends that love you and sympathize with you.  Even if you deserve punishment, you might be saved because your good friends don't deserve the emotional distress that would result from seeing you suffer.  (see, e.g., Mishulchan Gavoah and Lekach Tov on this passuk in Haazinu.)

It appears that Rav Bergman's and Reb Yisrael's ideas are fundamentally incompatible. Do you agree that they are inconsistent?  Yes?  I initially thought so too.  You, as I, have just been taught a lesson:  Instead of jumping to conclusions that there is a kashe, instead we should pay more careful attention.  There is an enormous difference between the two, and there is no contradiction at all.

Reb Yisrael Salanter said that Reuven cannot suffer an undeserved repercussion of Shimon's punishment.  Rav Bergman is talking about Reuven suffering as an undeserved consequence of a Tzibbur's sin.  Reuven is by no means a part of Shimon.  Reuven is, however, a part of the Tzibbur.  Reuven's personal identity is not necessarily as important a consideration as his "part of tzibbur" identity.  In fact, Reb Yisrael's pshat is based on the word יחדיו.  He interpreted that to mean that Shimon cannot be punished when the punishment will cause undeserved suffering to Reuven.  But the same word יחדיו tells us that we are not only individuals, we are also parts of a tzibur.  When a member of a tzibur sins, the tzibur as a whole might be punished, including innocent Shimon.


II
There is certainly no contradiction between Rav Bergman and Reb Yisrael Salanter.  But there is no evidence that Reb Yisrael would agree with Rav Bergman.  Having said this, there is one very important point that everyone would agree to.  There is one time when a person might be punished because his generation sinned, even when he himself did not share in their sin, and that is when he could have protested and he did not.  The concept embodied in Arvus, in Lo Saamod ahl dahm rei'echa, in Arur asher lo Yakim, creates an ethical and halachic parity between Noninterference and Aiding and Abetting.  Shabbos 54b-55a:

כל מי שאפשר למחות לאנשי ביתו ולא מיחה נתפס על אנשי ביתו באנשי עירו נתפס על אנשי עירו בכל העולם כולו נתפס על כל העולם כולו אמר רב פפא והני דבי ריש גלותא נתפסו על כולי עלמא כי הא דאמר רבי חנינא מאי דכתיב (ישעיהו ג) ה' במשפט יבא עם זקני עמו ושריו אם שרים חטאו

דף נה,א   זקנים מה חטאו אלא אימא על זקנים שלא מיחו בשרים רב יהודה הוה יתיב קמיה דשמואל אתאי ההיא איתתא קא צווחה קמיה ולא הוה משגח בה א"ל לא סבר ליה מר (משלי כא) אוטם אזנו מזעקת דל גם הוא יקרא ולא יענה א"ל שיננא רישך בקרירי רישא דרישיך בחמימי הא יתיב מר עוקבא אב ב"ד דכתיב (ירמיהו כא) בית דוד כה אמר ה' דינו לבקר משפט והצילו גזול מיד עושק פן תצא כאש חמתי ובערה ואין מכבה מפני רוע מעלליהם וגו' א"ל ר' זירא לר' סימון לוכחינהו מר להני דבי ריש גלותא א"ל לא מקבלי מינאי א"ל אע"ג דלא מקבלי לוכחינהו מר דא"ר אחא בר' חנינא מעולם לא יצתה מדה טובה מפי הקב"ה וחזר בה לרעה חוץ מדבר זה דכתיב (יחזקאל ט) ויאמר ה' אליו עבור בתוך העיר בתוך ירושלים והתוית תיו על מצחות האנשים הנאנחים והנאנקים על כל התועבות הנעשות בתוכה וגו' א"ל הקב"ה לגבריאל לך ורשום על מצחן של צדיקים תיו של דיו שלא ישלטו בהם מלאכי חבלה ועל מצחם של רשעים תיו של דם כדי שישלטו בהן מלאכי חבלה אמרה מדת הדין לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע מה נשתנו אלו מאלו אמר לה הללו צדיקים גמורים והללו רשעים גמורים אמרה לפניו רבש"ע היה בידם למחות ולא מיחו אמר לה גלוי וידוע לפני שאם מיחו בהם לא יקבלו מהם <אמר> [אמרה] לפניו רבש"ע אם לפניך גלוי להם מי גלוי והיינו דכתיב (יחזקאל ט) זקן בחור ובתולה טף ונשים תהרגו למשחית ועל כל איש אשר עליו התיו אל תגשו וממקדשי תחלו וכתיב ויחלו באנשים הזקנים אשר לפני הבית תני רב יוסף אל תקרי מקדשי אלא מקודשי אלו בני אדם שקיימו את התורה כולה מאלף ועד תיו ומיד (יחזקאל ט) והנה ששה אנשים באים מדרך שער העליון אשר מפנה צפונה ואיש כלי מפצו בידו ואיש אחד בתוכם לבוש הבדים וקסת הסופר במתניו ויבאו ויעמדו אצל מזבח הנחושת מזבח הנחושת מי הוה אמר להו הקב"ה התחילו ממקום שאומרים שירה לפני ומאן נינהו ששה אנשים א"ר חסדא קצף אף וחימה ומשחית ומשבר ומכלה ומ"ש תיו אמר רב תיו תחיה תיו תמות ושמואל אמר תמה זכות אבות ורבי יוחנן אמר תחון זכות אבות ור"ל אמר תיו סוף חותמו של הקב"ה דאמר רבי חנינא חותמו של הקב"ה אמת 

The dinim of Arvus and Lo Saamod mean that we cannot sit back and watch as others go down in flames: even if we, through mighty discipline and diligent care avoid every sin and do every mitzvah, even if we escape the tides of the times and do not fall prey to contemporary stupidity and sinfulness, in Dinei Shamayim we pay for the sins of the community.  The only way to avoid this is by whole-heartedly throwing ourselves into an effort to improve the lives of others.  The only way to avoid being tarred by the failures of others, the only way to avoid being lumped together with the community as a whole, is by trying your hardest to teach others to avoid sin.  One might say that the only way to escape the community is by embracing it.

Ha'azinu, Devarim 32:1. Hashamayim v’ha’aretz.

Now, two hours before Shabbas, here's a vort on Ha'azinu. I hope you get some use out of it. I don't have time to change all the O kametzes to A kametzes.


Hashomayim v’ho’oretz. The Kli Yokor says that the existence of the shomayim and oretz are eidus that the Torah is being fulfilled, because the "yom hashishi" reference to Matan Torah tells us that if not for the kiyum haTorah, the world could not exist. The Kli Yokor explains why Matan and Kiyum haTorah are a tnai for the continued existence of the world. He says that gashmiyus and ruchniyus are contradictory, and could not co-exist naturally. It is only the talmid chochom, who combines both ruchniyus and gashmiyus, and who thereby is ‘oseh sholom’ in the world, that provides that middle ground where the two can co-exist, and so allows them to co-exist in the whole world. Implicit in the Kli Yokor is the assumption that gashmius has no kiyum without some element of ruchnius.
*
The Ksav Sofer also speaks about this, and talks about the fact that it is only the existence of the Torah that allows the world to continue. Reb Chaim Volozhiner in Ruach Chaim on Pirkei Avos in the first mishneh by "al shloshoh dvorim" says that the reason that avodah is essential to the existence of the world is that ruchnius comes down to our world of gashmius, and we in the Olam Hagashmi elevate dvorim gashmi’im through our korbonos and make them ruchni, so there is a constant two-way flow of ruchnius.
*
Along the same lines, Reb Meir Simcha says a very deep vort (his own words— "al derech muskol") in 32:3. He says that the tachlis of this world is to prepare for olam habo. The perfect world is one in which people plant and harvest and bring their bikurim and leave their homes unattended while they go to Yerushalayim, and who are mamlich Hashem with every act they do (like Avi Mori Zecher Tzadik Livracha's vort by Medrash Talpios according to the Michlol that "Chanoch tofer manolim hoyo, ve’al kol tefira omar Boruch shem kvod..." simply by making them the best he could for the benefit of the customer and by being scrupulously honest in his business.  Rav Dessler says it also-   מכתב מאליהו:  חלק א המשא ומתן הטוב, עמוד לד
בתורה כתוב "ויתהלך חנוך את האלקים", ואמרו חז"ל שהיה תופר מנעלים ועל כל תפירה היה מייחד יחודים לקונו. ושמעתי בשם רבינו ישראל מסלנט זצ"ל שביאר כי אין הכוונה שבשעת תיפרתו היה דבק במחשבות עליונות, שזה אסור על פי הדין, כי איך יפנה דעתו לדבר אחר, בשעה שעוסק במלאכת אחרים, אלא תוכן היחודים ששם על לבו בכל תפירה שתהיה טובה וחזקה, למען יהנו מהמנעלים אשר ינעלם. ככה דבק במדת קונו אשר ייטיב ויהנה לזולתו, וככה ייחד לו יחודים, כי אינו חפץ בדבר אחר זולת החפץ לדבק במדות קונו). He says that this is the pshat in the Gemora in Sanhedrin 20a, Sheker hachein zeh doro shel Moshe, vehevel hayofi, zeh doro shel Chizkiyahu, isha yiras hashem he tis’halol zeh doro shel Reb Yehuda bar Ilo’i, she’hoyu shisha miskasin betallis echad velomdim Torah. The nissim niglim, and the complete abeyance of teva by Moshe and Chizkiyahu are not olam hazeh: olam hazeh is supposed to be a preparation for olam habo. Their doros were olam habo mamash, so what purpose did that have? It is olam hazeh, in which people bend teva to kedusha and retzon Hashem, about which we say that ‘Yofe sho’o achas... mikol olam habo.’ Here, too, we see the idea that the greatness and opportunity of olam hazeh is to join gashmiyus to ruchniyus to create kedusha in this world.