Shemos 4:10. Moshe's Speech Impediment and Tefilla

At my son's last Sheva Brachos, an old acquaintance of the family who happened to be in town spoke.  This was Rav Shmuel Feivelsohn from Israel, the founder and head of Yeshiva Nachlas Naftoli in Tzfas.  When he was a child during WW II, his parents ran to a town right next to the border with Iran, because at that time Iran was a kingdom and the monarch was allowing Jews to go through Iran to Israel.  Instead of crossing over the Eretz Yisrael, unfortunately, his father died of Typhus and his mother of cancer, and he was taken in by his aunt and uncle, Reb Avrohom (son of Harav Naftoli) Trop and his wife.  Apparently, Reb Chaim Stein was there as well, and he wanted to go back back to Samarkand, where they met up with my parents and the other Bnei Torah.  When my parents got married, his aunt cooked for the wedding in Samarkand and his uncle and aunt were my mother's unterfihrers at their wedding.  (Reb Chaim Stein and his rebbitzen, Frida, were my father's unterfihrers.  That was the deal- whoever got married first would be the unterfirer for the other, and the Steins got married first.)  Rabbi Feivelsohn, who was a young man of around fifteen at the time, danced at my parents' wedding, so having him speak at my youngest son's last sheva brachos was a very moving experience, both for him and for us.  He said two things, and I will write the first.  The second was of a more personal nature in its focus on my father zatza'l.

The Ramban in Shemos 4:10 talks about Moshe's being a chvad peh, having a speech impediment.  The question is, why make such a big issue of Moshe Rabbeinu's defect?  Why didn't Hashem simply cure cure it and finished?  The Ramban has two approaches to this matter.
1.  The Ramban's own pshat.

ועל דרך הפשט יאמר כי אני כבד פה גם מתמול גם משלשום, כי מנעורי הייתי כבד פה, אף כי עתה כי אני זקן. וגם מאז דברך היום אל עבדך, כי לא הסירות כבדות פי בצוותך אותי ללכת אל פרעה לדבר בשמך, ואם כן איך אלך לפניו. 

והנה משה מרוב חפצו שלא ילך לא התפלל לפניו יתברך שיסיר כבדות פיו. אבל טען אחרי שלא הסירות כבדות פי מעת שדברת לי ללכת, אל תצווני שאלך, כי לא יתכן לאדון הכל לשלוח שליח ערל שפתים למלך עמים. והקב"ה כיון שלא התפלל בכך לא רצה לרפאותו, אבל אמר לו אנכי אהיה עם פיך והורתיך אשר תדבר, שיהיו דברי אשר אשים בפיך במלות נכונות שתוכל לבטא בהן יפה:
 Moshe Rabbeinu could very easily have davenned that Hashem should cure him of his problem.  The reason he didn't daven was because being cured would make him perfectly fit for the job of confronting Pharaoh and leading Klal Yisrael, and he didn't want the job.  So he didn't daven, and he said, Ribono shel Olam, I am still an aral sefasayim, and it's inappropriate that You, the Great King, should send a cripple to speak on Your behalf.  Hashem's reaction was that since Moshe didn't daven to be cured, he would not be cured, and Hashem would give Moshe words that he could manage even with his handicap so that he could do his job.

2.   The Medrash.

ובאלה שמות רבה (ג כ) אמרו: אמר לו אם אתה אינך איש דברים אל תחוש, הלא אני בראתי כל פיות שבעולם ואני עשיתי אלם מי שחפצתי וחרש ועור ופקח לראייה ופקח לשמיעה, ואם חפצתי שתהיה איש דברים, היית, אלא לעשות כך אני חפץ. ובעת שתדבר יהיו דבריך נכונים שאני אהיה עם פיך. הדא הוא דכתיב (בפסוק ב): ועתה לך ואנכי אהיה עם פיך. 

ולפי זה נראה בעיני שלא רצה להסיר ממנו כובד הפה בעבור שהיה בו ממעשה הנס שספרו רבותינו בשמו"ר א כו שאירע לו עם פרעה. 

(Based on the Medrash.)  Hashem told Moshe that those people that are handicapped and those that are naturally talented are all as they are because of the specific will of Hashem.  You, Moshe, have this impediment davka because I want you to have it, and I will make it happen that you will speak perfectly despite your handicap.  Why, then, didn't Hashem cure him and make his work easier?  The Ramban suggests that according to the Medrash, pshat is that Hashem didn't want to remove the handicap because it bespoke the miracle during Moshe's infancy when his life was saved by putting a hot coal to his lips.  Even though it was a disfiguring handicap, even though his scarred and immobile lips and tongue gave him constant pain, Hashem didn't want to remove it because they were the result of a miracle that was intended to save Moshe's life.


3.  The Ramban then goes back to his own pshat, different than the Medrash.

והנכון בעיני שאמר ה' למשה מי שם פה לאדם או מי ישום אלם הלא אנכי ה' עושה כל, ובידי לרפאות אותך, ועתה כיון שלא תרצה ברפואתך ולא התפללת לפני על זה, לך אל אשר אני מצווה לך, ואנכי אהיה עם פיך ואצליח שליחותי. גם אפשר שיהיה רמז מויחר אף ה' במשה";שלא רצה לרפאותו ושלחו על כורחו:

 Here the Ramban goes back and states his preference for his own pshat, which I numbered 1.  Hashem said, I can cure you. But since you aren't praying to be cured, I'm not going to.  So go without being cured, and I will make sure that you are successful.  Hashem was angry that Moshe intentionally refrained from davening in order to keep his 4-F.  But it didn't make a difference, because Hashem sent him as he was.

Rabbi Feivelsohn said that it was Reb Chatzkel Levinstein that pointed this Ramban out to him.  It's amazing; Reb Chatzkel said.  According to the Ramban, it was important that Moshe be cured, and Hashem wanted Moshe cured, but since Moshe didn't daven to be cured, Hashem did not cure him.  Amazing!  People think that tefilla is to change Hashem's mind, to convince Him of something, to advocate a point.  Here the Ramban is saying that there are things that a man might have coming to him, there are things that are important that he receive, but if the person will not daven for them, then no matter how important it is that he get them, he won't get them.  That's the way Hashem created the world for his servants.  You might be zocheh to great bracha, but if you don't daven, you're leaving all your brachos on the table.  Everyone wishes the Chasan and Kallah bracha and hatzlacha and the building of a bayis ne'eman, and all the brachos will be mekuyam, but you can never forget that you must be mispallel that your brachos should come into your hands, because without your tefilla nothing will happen.

Rabbi Faivelsohn used the Ramban's wording of the Medrash Rabba to make his main point.  Having suffered and seen others suffering through the privations of Soviet Asia, losing his parents, starving, being half frozen and desperately alone, he now looks back on the wedding he attended as a child, and with the same eyes he sees that couple's youngest grandchild getting married, and all the suffering that he experienced was like the wound on Moshe Rabbeinu's mouth- it was extremely painful, and the pain remains to this day, but now he sees it as all as a mazkeres haneis, as part of the Ribono shel Olam's plan and will, from the world turned upside down in the privations of far-off Samarkand, across seventy years and thousands of miles and unimaginable changes, all the way to the simcha of the Sheva Brachos.

Bo, Shemos 12:3 and 6. Bikkur of Mitzvos. בעשור לחודש הזה ויקחו

The Gemara in Pesachim 96a says that there is a concept of ביקור ד' ימים קודם שחיטה, of purchasing a korban four days before it is offered, and examining it on every one of the ensuing four days for blemishes that would render it unfit for avoda.  This rule applies only to the Korban Pesach offered in Mitzrayim and to the Korban Tamid.  The application to the Pesach Mitzrayim is derived from passuk 3, since they were told to purchase the animals that they would need on the fourteenth on the tenth of the month.  Rashi brings it down in passuk 6.  The rule by Tamid is derived from a gzeira shava of תשמרו by the Tamid and  למשמרת here by the Pesach Mitzrayim.  (See Note 1.)


We also find the din of Bikur in Hilchos Rosh Hashanna.  Ashkenazim begin Slichos no less than four days before Rosh Hashanna.  The Elya Rabba (see MB OC 581:SK6) says this is because by Rosh Hashanna it says (Bamidbar 29:1-2)  וּבַחֹדֶשׁ  הַשְּׁבִיעִי בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ, מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם כָּל-מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ:  יוֹם תְּרוּעָה, יִהְיֶה לָכֶם.  וַעֲשִׂיתֶם עֹלָה לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ, which we interpret to mean that you should make yourselves into a Korban Olah for Rosh Hashanna; since some Olos (namely, the Tamid,) require bikkur, you too should examine yourselves for spiritual blemishes no less than four days before you do your avoda of Rosh Hashanna.  


Rav Shternbuch in his Taam VaDaas here suggests that Bikkur is an expression of Chivuv Mitzvos, an expression of our love for the precious mitzvos.  In truth, you can examine the korban in one day just as well as you can in four days.  The additional days accomplish nothing. (See Note 2.)  But the additional examination shows a passion, an infatuation with the mitzva, that drives you to do the mitzva in the best possible way; it quadruples the preparation, and this is meritorious.  In fact, that is how Rashi uses the din Bikkur in Passuk 6, where he says that the reason Pesach Mitzrayim needed bikkur while Pesach Doros does not is because the Jews of that time lacked mitzvos or merits that would distinguish them from their Egyptian neighbors and that would justify doing a miracle to redeem them.  So Hashem gave them the din of Bikkur so that they would become involved and busy in preparing for the Mitzva four days before.  The zechus of that extra effort helped them merit Yetzias Mitzrayim. 


What I liked about Rav Shternbuch's observation was that he connects this Din Bikkur to peoples' behavior before Sukkos.  I know hilchos Dalem Minim, I've grown Esrogim, and I can confidently pick a Lulav and Esrog in ten minutes.  I always found the obsessive and minute checking people do on their daled minim to be odd.  He says that this is a minhag Yisrael, and it is the equivalent of Bikkur; check again, and again, and again, even though you know exactly what you're going to find, because this is hiddur mitzvah.  One might speculate as to why only particular mitzvos have this din; it's easy to surmise that it is found by daled minim because they have a special din of hiddur.  Tamid is still tzarich iyun.


By the way, if you are going to accuse me of baalebatisheh thinking because I'm speculating about Taamei Hamitzvos, go and look at the last Rambam in Hilchos Temura, to wit:

אף על פי שכל חוקי התורה גזירות הם כמו שביארנו בסוף מעילה ראוי להתבונן בהן וכל מה שאתה יכול ליתן לו טעם תן לו טעם הרי אמרו חכמים הראשונים שהמלך שלמה הבין רוב הטעמים של כל חוקי התורה

Another place you find the term bikkur is, of course, in Bikkur Cholim.  The Gaon (Aderes Eliahu Devarim 1:12) says that the reason the Gemara (Pesachim 30b and Sotah 12) derives Bikkur cholim from the word ילכו is because the tachlis of Bikkur Cholim is the הליכה, the walking, the preparation.  I never understood this Gaon.  I asked this question on an earlier post on this week's parsha which discusses S'char Halicha, here.  But it might be that this is the whole idea of Bikkur- overdo the preparation.  The הכנה is very important, the הכנה has independent significance.  Do more than would be necessary just to ensure that you can do the mitzva.  Plan it out, be super meticulous, ensure that you do it in the most perfect and thorough manner.  If this is what Bikkur means, then ילכו is indeed the paradigm of hachana.


Here is the Gaon:
ילכו זה ביקור חולים מפני שבכל המצוות ההליכה אינה תכלית המצוה אבל כאן ההליכה עצמה היא המצוה


My problem is that in every mitzva, going is preparation, and doing is the fulfillment.  Here too, going is preparation, and visiting, standing there and commiserating or getting him something, or whatever you do when you're mevaker choleh, is the mitzva.  Evidently, the going is a greater part of this mitzva.  What does that mean?  Why is that true?  How does the Gaon know it, and how do Chazal know it?


Michael, in the comments, proposes that because Bikur Cholim is like קבלת פני השכינה, the walking has a special meaning (like by Aliya Le'Regel (see Teshuvos Chasam Sofer ChM 176, and the story with the lady and Reb Yochanan in  Sota 22a and Bava Metziah 107a as I mention in the post I cited above, both involving presenting one's self before the Shechina.)  I found that Harav Avraham Shapiro is quoted as having taken essentially the same approach, as follows:

בבבא מציעא (ל:) מבארת הגמרא את הפסוק: "והזהרת אתהם את החוקים ואת התורות והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה ואת המעשה אשר יעשון". (שמות י"ח, כ'). "דתני רב יוסף... 'את הדרך' זו גמילות חסדים,'ילכו' ביקור חולים". שואל ר' אברום: תינח 'את הדרך - זו גמילות חסדים' זה מובן שהרי הדרך של אברהם אבינו שהודיע לבניו אחריו, זוהי הדרך בכללות אותה משה רבנו צריך להודיע לעם ישראל, אבל מנין לנו לומר ש'ילכו - זה ביקור חולים'?     מה הקשר בין הליכה לביקור חולים דוקא

ר' אברום מבאר זאת על-פי דברי המהר"ל מפראג ב'נתיב העבודה' פרק ה', שהביא דברי חז"ל בילקוט שמעוני (משלי תת"ק) שאומר: "לכך אמר שלמה 'אשרי אדם שומע לי' מה כתיב אחריו 'כי מוצאי מצא חיים', אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אם הלכת להתפלל לבית הכנסת, לא תעמוד לך על פתח חיצון, אלא הוי מתכוין לכנוס דלת לפנים מדלת... ולמה כן? שהקב"ה מונה פסיעותיך ונותן לך שכר". ומבאר המהר"ל שלא על כל מצוה אמרו, שהקב"ה מונה פסיעותיך, אלא דוקא הליכה לבית הכנסת, "שהשם יתברך מצוי בבית הכנסת, ולפיכך כאשר הולך לבית הכנסת הוא נמשך אל השם יתברך להיות לו דביקות בו יתברך". "ולכן אמר שהקב"ה מונה פסיעותיך, כי אף פסיעה אחת יותר רחוק, הקב"ה מונה, כי הכל הוא לפי התנועה יש לו דביקות בו יתברך... ובזה מקבל פני השכינה גם כן". עד כאן מלשון המהר"ל בענין הליכה לבית הכנסת.

על פי זה מחדש מרן, שכיוון שהגמ' אומרת (מסכת שבת יב:): "שאני חולה דשכינה עמו... תניא נמי הכי, הנכנס 

לבקר את החולה לא ישב לא על גבי מיטה ולא על גבי כסא, אלא מתעטף ויושב לפניו, מפני ששכינה למעלה מראשותיו של חולה שנאמר ה' יסעדנו על ערש דוי". אם כן גם מצות ביקור חולים, יש לה ערך מיוחד של קבלת פני השכינה, שהרי השכינה נמצאת עם החולה, ובזה ההליכה לביקור חולים מתדמה להליכה לבית הכנסת. אם כן, גם במצוה זו יש לומר שהקב"ה מונה כל פסיעה ופסיעה שאדם הולך למצוה. בזה מובנת הדרשה של רב יוסף: 'ילכו - זה ביקור חולים'. יש ערך מיוחד להליכה לשם ביקור חולים

UPDATE:
I've been thinking about this, and I'm pretty convinced that this is a legitimate approach.  

• The reason Reb Yochanan agreed that there is special schar halicha for tefilla is because tefilla is the only moment where we are עומדים לפני המלך, where we are standing in the presence of the Ribono shel Olam.  
• Tefillos, as Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi in Brachos 26b says, כנגד תמידים תקנום, so it stands to reason that this aspect of   עומד לפני המלך was present in the Tmidim as well.  
• As Rav Hirsch says, the Temidim, in a sense, are an extension of the experience of the Pesach in Mitzrayim, which was the moment that Klal Yisrael met the Ribono shel Olam, when the Ribono shel Olam Himself was present to smite the Mitzrim and save the Ivrim.  
• And perhaps this is the pshat by bikkur cholim as well- that we should view bikkur cholim like aliyah le'regel, as if we're coming into Hashem's presence.  

In any case, the idea is be that just as the Kohen Gadol required seven days of Hafrasha (Yoma 2a) before avodas Yom Hakippurim, each experience of עומד לפני המלך requires special hachana, such that the hachana is, as the Gaon says, Tachlis Hamitzva, and should be done as if it were a mitzva itself.  Moving toward the Ribono shel Olam is as meaningful as standing before Him.


This is not like Rav Shternbuch's approach.

Notes.

Note 1.  Rashi and most mefarshim hold that the four-day-examination rule applies to all Pesachim and not only the Pesach Mitzrayim.  The only aspect of bikkur that distinguished Pesach Mitzrayim is that it was made Hekdesh on the tenth, a requirement not found by Pesach Doros, which you can and should be makdish right before you bring it in to the Azara.  I believe the Rambam argues and holds that there is no din Bikkur at all by Pesach Doros.  Support for this is found in פרי מגדים מש"ז סי' ת'ל,מנחת חינוך מצוה ה, and here.


Note 2.  Some honorable mefarshim say that the extra days allow you to decide whether a blemish is temporary or permanent.  I seriously don't know what he is talking about; 1. if this were so, it would apply to all korbanos; 2. even a temporarily blemished animal cannot be sacrificed while it is blemished; 3. it would only apply to animals with some blemish.

Note 3.  To a lesser extent, the din of Shimur by Matzas Mitzva is very similar: Shimur is not necessary to ensure that it's not chametz, because you can determine that by looking at the grain later.  It's just an example of extra chashivus given to hachana.

Bo, Shemos 12:34. משארותם צרורות בשמלותם על שכמם. Respect for Mitzva Leftovers.

The Pasuk says that they carried their packs on their shoulders. Rashi says that these packs contained the leftover matza from the seudas mitzva; Al shichmam—on their shoulders- even though they had many animals that could have carried the leftover matza, they carried it in their hands because of chivuv mitzva, an expression of love for the precious mitzva of Matza.

The Taz and Magen Avraham at the end of OC 167 bring from the Abudraham that you should not give animals (or goyim or birds, says the Mishna Berura,) the prusa of hamotzi, the bread upon which you had made hamotzi. So what do you do with it? Make a bread kugel, or put it into the cholent next week, I guess. The Taz there says that the Medrash Rashi quotes on our possuk is a good source for the Abudraham’s idea; if the concept of chivuv mitzvo goes to the extent that they carried the leftovers in their hands and did not allow their animals to carry them, then kal vachomer one should not feed the leftovers to animals.

We find a similar idea here: the Gemora in Brachos 39b and Shabbos 117b says that Rav Ami and Rav Assi, when they would have the Eiruv Chatzeiros bread available, would use that for Hamotzi. “ רב אמי ורב אסי כי הוה מתרמי להו ריפתא דערובא מברכין עליה המוציא לחם מן הארץ אמרי הואיל ואתעביד ביה מצוה חדא נעביד ביה מצוה אחריתי ” once it has been used for one mitzvah, let us do another mitzva with it. In fact, the Shibalei Haleket at the end of 246 says you should davka use a shaleim, an unbroken loaf of bread, for eiruv, so you will be able to use it for hamotzi.  We see that an item that is left over from being used for a mitzva, even a relatively very minor mitzva such as Eiruv Chatzeiros, should be shown respect and used in the most honorable manner possible.

Of course there is a difference between leftover matza from the Korban Pesach of Yetzias Mitzrayim and leftover bread from hamotzi.   Simply saying Hamotzi on a piece of bread is no different than saying Shehakol on a glass of water; we don't find anyone that says that you have to use the leftover water for a mitzva.  But in truth, you don't need a makor for this din. As we see from Rav Ammi and Rav Assi, it's a simple svara-- show respect to an object that was used for a mitzva. You don't have to put your leftover Cholent into Geniza. But when you have the opportunity to use it in doing another mitzvah, you should do so.  Hamotzi, apparently, is a more significant bracha than others, in that there is a hava amina in Brachos 35 that it is Mid'oraysa; so bread that you made hamotzi on is considered a cheftza shel mitzva.

Please note that these ideas are primarily minhagim; the Gemara in Megilla 26b allows us to throw away items used for Mitzvos.  It is on the authority of the Shi'iltos and the Kol Bo and the Maharil that we are machmir beyond the literal meaning of the Gemara.  The more commonly known application of this hanhaga is for items that are specifically for mitzvos, which have no meaning outside of the mitzva, and which have some special preparation for that use, such as making them Lishmah.  For example, in OC 21 we learn that tzitzis don't need geniza, but should not be subjected to disrespectful use, and even the garment to which the tzitzis were attached should not be used in a degrading manner.  Similarly, this is brought in Rama 664:9 on Hoshanos and in Mishna Berura 297 SK 8 on using the Hadas for Besamim for Havdala, and see Magen Avraham in OC 638 SK 2 regarding Schach.  The way the idea is used here is far broader than the those cases.   Also see Mishna Berura 673 SK 27 to use the wax that dripped from the candles in Shul for Chanuka, and Ritva Shabbos 117b that if you used a pas for hamotzi once, and it is still shaleim, (I guess you used a different piece for eating) you should use it for hamotzi another time, as brought by the Mishna Berura in 527 SK 11 and 48, that bread that was used for eiruv should be placed with the bread for hamotzi and eaten at Seuda Shelishis.

This issue arises in the discussion regarding inviting non-Jewish friends and colleagues to the Seder.  It should be obvious that there are many issues that should be discussed on this matter.  Besides the basic incongruity of such guests at a seder, about which the Torah says זאת חוקת הפסח כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו, and the oddity of saying and explaining Shfoch Chamascha, one of the more serious problems is the Halacha discussed in OC 512, and see Mishna Berura there SK 6.  There is also the matter of teaching Torah to non-Jews, as in Igros YD 2 :132.  Of course, an entirely different perspective comes into play if the guest is in the process of conversion, as discussed in Minchas Elazar 3:8.  But directly relevant to this question of non-Jewish guests, and giving Matza and items from any Seudas Mitzva to non-Jews, is the following Kaf Hachaim on Siman 167, starting with SK קמ:

וכתב שם הט״ז בשם ס׳ טעמי המצות להרקנטי שמזהיר מאד  במצה דמצוה שלא להאכילה

 למי שאינו בן ברית ונותן טעם הגון לזה. וכתב שכן ראיתי רבים נוהגים נזהרי׳ מזה בפסח  יעו״ש ואני שמעתי

 מעשה  נורא ע״ז כי בימי  הרב משה  חיים ז״ל זקנו של מהרי״ח ז״ל בעל המחבר בן יהוידע רב פעלים וכו׳ שזימן

 ישראל בפסח  את עכו״ם א׳ שהיה שכינו והאכילו מצה על שלחנו ואח״כ סיפר זה לפני הרב משה חיים ז״ל ואמר לו

 שיזהר ממנו בזאת  השנה כי אפשר שיזיקנו נזק גדול ויהי היום והישראל יושב ובא העכו״ם ההוא וחרבו שלופה בידו

 ונעשה לו נס  וברח מפניו ר״ל 

 קמא)  וכתב עו״ש הרו״ח ע״ש כלי יקר בפי׳ למלכים ב׳ סימן א׳ שלא

 נתן מסעודה מצוה שום דבר מאכל לגוים עע״ז יעו״ש. וסעודות שאומרים בהם ד״ת  כולם חשובים של מצוה

 וכאילו אוכלים לפני  המקום ב״ה כמ״ש  בפ״ג דאבוה ג׳ שאכלו על שלחן א׳ ואמרו עליו ד״ת  כאילו אכלו משלחנו

 של מקום וכו׳ וג׳ ל״ר אלא אפי' א׳ כמ״ש במס׳ ברכות דף ו׳ ע״א יעו״ש

(By the way, many people have the habit of never throwing out bread; they feel that disgracing bread by putting it into the garbage can bring poverty, as indicated in the gemara (Chulin 105b) about the guy who made a picnic and gathered the crumbs. I have a neighbor that throws all of their leftover bread into the alley, the small street behind our houses used for deliveries. It's ironic: to avoid bizayon of bread, they throw it where it will be stepped on and ground into the mud. This is not only stupid but also entertaining. On the other hand, they're still very wealthy, so maybe they're right and I'm wrong.
Another local oddity- a friend, Rav Shimon Kalman Goldstein, told me that he knows a nursing home operator who gives out hand shmura matzos to gentile business acquaintances before Pesach.  SK has told him that based on the Kaf Hachaim, this might be a misuse of Matza Shmura, but it didn't seem to have influenced that person.  I suggested that he most likely doesn't eat gebrokst, so he probably sprinkled them with water before giving them away and 'deconsecrated' them.  Reb Dovid Kronglas once said that every midda can be used for avodas Hashem.  How do you use the midda of krumkeit?  In being דן את כל האדם לכף זכות.  Usually, to be dan people l'kaf zechus, you need to use the midda of saying a krumeh svora.)

A reader wrote in a private correspondence that he once attended a shiur by Rabbi Heinemann on the topic of respect for items used in fulfillment of mitzvos, and another listener asked whether married couples need to show kavod to their mattresses in light of the mitzva of Piriah ve'Rivyah.  I assume the audience at that moment thought it a humorous question.  However, I would say that the concept applies there no less than it does to bread used at the table on Shabbos of to say hamotzi on.  It is, after all, הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, and while some people overeat, or eat with bad manners, or eat because they enjoy eating more than they desire to honor Shabbos with Lechem Mishna, it's still called a cheftza shel mitzva.  I would have answered that we are only mechabeid things that are used in fulfillment of mitzvos, while in that case, the item was used in the ma'aseh mitzva, not the fulfillment of the mitzva.  Which, of course, raises the question of whether it is a ma'aseh mitzva or a real kiyum hamitzva, and children are just the shiur for petur.  This is more something Chaim B. would address;  see, e.g., here, third paragraph.
Chaim disagrees in the comments.  He says that the bed is no more cheftza shel mitzva than the table at which you're eating the Shabbos meal.  To this I respond with Rabbeinu Bachaye in Parshas Teruma, who, in explaining the pasuk in Yechezkel 41:22, 'זה השולחן אשר לפני ה, tells us that the tzadikim of France would be buried in an aron made of the wood of their dining room table.  You want to be buried in an object that served you in your kiyum hamitzvos.  I remember Rabbi Weinberg telling me that he wanted his shtender, from which he said shiurim, to be buried with him.  Unfortunately, when I told this to his family, they didn't believe me.  He probably should have told them himself, or left instructions in his tzava'ah.  I wonder what I would want buried with me....the computer mouse?  Not a good idea.  Maybe a daf yomi calendar.  Or torah from my children and grandchildren.

Va'eira, Shemos 6:6. Sivlos Mitzrayim. The Chidushei HaRi'm and Martin Luther King

I was born in 1952, and I have personally seen the enormous change American society has undergone in the relationship between Caucasians and African Americans.  It is hard to imagine it now, but there was a time when blacks were considered not fully human- many saw them as part animal and part man, placed somewhere on the continuum between ape and human.  The natural thing for a black revolutionary would be to react with violence and anger, as many did.  Martin Luther King was the catalyst of such enormous change, change that in other societies would take centuries, or millennia, and he did it within thirty years and with non-violent methods.  This is a testament both to Dr. King and, Baruch Hashem, to the unique character of American society.

We were discussing at the table something the Chidushei Harim says on this week's parsha (also quoted in Ma'ayana shel Torah), and someone pointed out that Dr. King had made a very similar observation.  (I have a feeling that Abraham Joshua Heschel mentioned it to him, but I certainly can't prove it.  See here.)

The passuk says והוצאתי אתכם מתחת סבלת מצרים, I will take you out from beneath the crushing burden of Mitzrayim.  The word סבלות means burdens.  But it also can mean patience.  Over the years, the Jewish People had developed patience, the patience to tolerate their miserable life in Egypt.  As terrible as their life was, they had learned to cope with their condition, and it was the only life they knew.  They had lost the desire to be autonomous, the desire to breath as free men, the concept that this was not what life should be like.  They had lost any desire to be redeemed, they feared the instability and danger freedom might bring.   Hashem told Moshe to hint to the Jews that the first prerequisite to their salvation was to become impatient; to say "Enough!  This is unacceptable!  I refuse to despair; I will do whatever it takes to become free, despite the danger, despite the fear."  
Rabbi Oizer Alport (author of "Parsha Potpourri", available by writing to oalport@optonline.net) points out that Rav Gedalya Shorr makes a similar point.  Rav Shorr brings a Medrash that prior to Yetzias Mitzaryim, not a single slave had ever escaped from Egypt. One would think this was because of the hermetic efficiency of the Egyptian police state.  But Rav Schorr suggests that it was due less to physical control than to mind control. Mitzrayim had such an effective system of mental debilitation, of convincing the slaves that any other life was more dangerous or less meaningful, that by being good slaves that were accomplishing the greatest good that they were born to do.  It was their Tafkid!  It was a curse of complacency, and Moshe Rabbeinu's first task was to break away this destructive willingness to be subordinated.

In Dr. King's essay, Three Ways of Meeting Oppression, the first paragraphs are as follows:

Oppressed people deal with their oppression in three characteristic ways. One way is acquiescence: the oppressed resign themselves to their doom. They tacitly adjust themselves to oppression and thereby become conditioned to it. In every movement toward freedom some of the oppressed prefer to remain oppressed. Almost 2800 years ago Moses set out to lead the children of Israel from the slavery of Egypt to the freedom of the Promised Land. He soon discovered that slaves do not always welcome their deliverers. They become accustomed to being slaves. They would rather bear those ills they have, as Shakespeare pointed out, than flee to others that they know not of. They prefer the "fleshpots of Egypt" to the ordeals of emancipation.

There is such a thing as the freedom of exhaustion. Some people are so worn down by the yoke of oppression that they give up. A few years ago in the slum areas of Atlanta, a Negro guitarist used to sing almost daily: "Been down so long that down don't bother me." This is the type of negative freedom and resignation that often engulfs the life of the oppressed.

But this is not the way out. To accept passively an unjust system is to cooperate with that system; thereby the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor. Non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. The oppressed must never allow the conscience of the oppressor to slumber. Religion reminds every man that he is his brother's keeper. To accept injustice or segregation passively is to say to the oppressor that his actions are morally right. It is a way of allowing his conscience to fall asleep. At this moment the oppressed fails to be his brother's keeper. So acquiescence-while often the easier way-is not the moral way. It is the way of the coward. The Negro cannot win the respect of his oppressor by acquiescing; he merely increases the oppressor's arrogance and contempt. Acquiescence is interpreted as proof of the Negro's inferiority. The Negro cannot win the respect of the white people of the South or the peoples of the world if he is willing to sell the future of his children for his personal and immediate comfort and safety.

Elsewhere, in an essay titled The Meaning of Non-Violence, he repeats this theme with a slightly different focus:

One method is that of acquiescence there are those individuals who feel that the only way to deal with their oppression is to resign themselves to the fate of oppression. There are those who surrender and find themselves becoming conditioned to things as they are. They feel that it is better to live with these things than to go through the ordeals of changing the old order to the new order. There was a man who lived in one of the Negro communities in Atlanta some years ago; he used to play his guitar and sing various songs, and one day he was heard singing a song that went something like this: "been down so long that down don't bother me." I guess he had achieved a level of freedom-a freedom of exhaustion. He had given up the struggle.

So this is the method of acquiescence- but it is not the way. It may be the easy way at times, but it is not moral way and it is not the courageous way; it is a cowardly way for the individual who adjusts to an evil system, and he must take some of the responsibility for the perpetuation of the unjust system.

Obviously, Dr. King's approach would not have worked in Mitzrayim.  But his moral logic, and its success in the milieu within which he championed it, is undeniable.

Va'eira 6:26. Moshe and Aharon

Rashi says that the Torah sometimes mentions Moshe before Aharon and sometimes reverses the order to teach us that they were Shkulin, of equal weight.  This is impossible.  Moshe was unparalleled.  Obviously, there were some aspects in which they were equal, but that is irrelevant to us.  We are interested in Moshe and Aharon in their roles as teachers and leaders of Klal Yisrael and as intermediaries between the Ribono shel Olam and His people, and in those respects, Moshe was greater.  So we have to find an interpretation of what Rashi is telling us.


I heard this morning something very nice from the Chozeh of Lublin.  He says that it was only because Aharon brought peace to the Jewish People that Moshe was able to experience the level of Ruach Hakodesh that he did.  (See note.)  Moshe alone would not have been Moshe.  In that sense, they were shkulim.


Similarly: R’ Aharon Soloveichikin in “The Warmth and the Light” brings the Rambam in PH that Moshe was the greatest man in history in nevu’ah, in Chochmoh, and in Middos.  So it is impossible that he and Aharon were shkulim. He explains on the basis of a Medrash Shmos 4:27 that brings the possuk in Tehillim 85:11 “Chesed v’emes nifgoshu, tzedek v’sholom noshoku,” that Emes and Tzedek refers to Moshe, and Chesed and Sholom refers to Aharon.  He says that Moshe represents one side of Torah, while Aharon represents the other.  See there for a discussion of why Aharon was chosen to speak to the Jews, while Moshe was to speak to Pharaoh, and the difference between Tzedek and Emes.

When I said this at the table, my just-married-off son Moshe said that this could be pshat in the Gemara (Brachos 32) that reads the passuk in Tehillim 99 to mean that Shmuel was "Shakul" with Moshe and Aharon.  Again, that is not possible.  It might be that while Moshe and Aharon divided the responsibilities of leadership into pastoral and royal, Shmuel's leadership comprised both elements.

Note:
See, e.g., Shemos 19:2 and Rashi, כאיש אחד, בלב אחד, and Sotah 17a, שלום ביניהם שכינה שרויה ביניהם.


Notice:
Now that I've married off my youngest child, Baruch Hashem, things are going to change around here.  I will be moving the divrei Torah to another blog, perhaps another website, this time with my real name.

F. Scott Fitzgerald and Parshas Vayechi

Fitzgerald once said, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."  He may have been a dissipated lush, but, I asseverate based on personal experience, that does not mean he couldn't occasionally say a good thing.

Dealing with contradiction is a hallmark of sophistication, and I do not mean that word to reflect its etymological sense of sophistry.  The examined life inevitably exposes us to the innumerable inconsistencies of reality, and, I believe, intelligently embracing these contradictions engenders mental flexibility and perspective.  Light is a particle and not a wave; light is a wave and not a particle.  Time is immutable; time is relative and specific to every particular place.  Hashem knows what we will choose: Hashem's knowledge does not mandate that we make any particular choice.  Hashem determines whether we have what to eat and wear; we are obligated to do hishtadlus.  The universe was created from nothing five thousand seven hundred and seventy two years ago; the universe is 14 billion years old, and the Earth is four and a half billion years old.  The mabul wiped out all living creatures; no archaeological record of any such world-wide deluge exists, and the Chinese have uninterrupted bureaucratic records going back to before, during, and after the date of the mabul.  Hashem loves Klal Yisrael, His chosen People, and will redeem them, and Hashem rewards good deeds and punishes wickedness; the history of the Jews and the fate of Rav Akiva (כל דעביד רחמנא לטב עביד) and Nachum ish Gamzu (גם זו לטובה) would make Dr. Pangloss run out and swallow poison.  שכר מצוה בהאי עלמא ליכא; but you can be sure that עונש עבירה בהאי עלמא איכא.  (see Rashi Shemos 6:9)

Yaakov Avinu did not die; Yaakov Avinu was embalmed, mummified, and buried.

That Gemara in Taanis (5b) is the classic illustration of this idea; it has been used for that purpose by many thinkers- believers and apostates and various combinations thereof.

הכי א"ר יוחנן יעקב אבינו לא מת א"ל וכי בכדי ספדו ספדנייא וחנטו חנטייא וקברו קברייא א"ל מקרא אני דורש שנאמר (ירמיהו ל) ואתה אל תירא עבדי יעקב נאם ה' ואל תחת ישראל כי הנני מושיעך מרחוק ואת זרעך מארץ שבים מקיש הוא לזרעו מה זרעו בחיים אף הוא בחיים

I think the lesson of this Gemara is that all such contradictions are only apparent.  Every such enigma has an explanation that will resolve the contradiction.  A humble man of faith will accept his inability to understand, and the question will not bother him, other than to stimulate thought and a sense of awe at the complexity of Hashem's bri'ah.  

I recently talked to a young man that is attending Harvard Law.  He said that every good law school has mostly Jewish professors.  Harvard has to have a higher quality of professor, so they have not only Jewish professors, but Jewish professors that are Shana U'Piresh, who learned in Yeshivos and went off the derech.  He added that from the eight young men and women that entered his class, four had already abandoned the faith of their upbringing.  (He, Baruch Hashem, was well raised, with an exemplary father, who gave up a high level legal career in favor of teaching children Torah.)

Why is this?  Why is Harvard Law so deadly to faith?  I believe that it is because the first thing you learn at Harvard is that you are the intellectual elite: that there is no field of human knowledge, regardless how complex and arcane, that is beyond your ability to research for a week or two and render upon it a wise and expert opinion.  You learn that if you have a question that cannot be answered, then the problem is not that you are inadequate; the problem is with the axioms that underlie the problem.  If you don't understand it, then it is wrong.  If Yaakov was mummified and buried, he was absolutely Dead, and he was not at all alive.  Harvard Law cauterizes humility.  Without humility, unanswerable questions become impossible; without humility, there cannot be faith.

Here is something from Reb Leib Chasman on the subject, with the usual OCR issues:

ובהקדם גם דברי ספר אור יהל להגר״ל  חסמן ז״ל  פ׳ ויחי שכותב לבאר

 מאמר  חז״ל  בתענית דף  ה׳  ע״ ב  דאיתא : רב  נחמן ורב  יצחק  הוו  יתבי  בסעודתא  וכו׳  א״ל  הכי  א״ר  יוחנן

 יעקב  אבינו  לא מת, א״ל וכי  בכדי  ספדו   ספדנייא  וחנטו  חנטייא  וקברו  קבריא,  א״ל  מקרא  אני  דורש  שנא׳  ואתה  אל  תירא  עבדי  יעקב  נאם ה׳  ואל  תחת  ישראל  כי  הנני  מושיעך  מרחוק  ואת  זרעך  מארץ  שבים

 מקיש  הוא  לזרעו  מה זרעו  בחיים אף  הוא  בחיים,  וכתב  לבאר  וללמד  מזה  יסוד  נפלא,  דהנה  אם  אדם

 יראה  בעיניו  את  ראובן  חבירו,  ושומע  קולו  ונדמה  לו  לקול  שמעון, ודאי  ישפוט  שחוש  שמיעתו

 הטעהו,  ובאמת  ראובן  הוא  ולא  שמעון  כי  חוש  הראיה יותר  חזק  מהוש  השמיעה,  כ״ש  אם יאמת  לו  על  אחד

 שמת  ורואהו  עומד  לפניו, מי פתי יחשוב אחרת שאמירה זו אינה מכוונת, והנה ראה זה פלא, שרב נחמן תמה ושואל: וכי   בכדי חנטו חנטיה?  בא  ר״י ומשיב לו מקרא אני דורש, ומה תשובה  היא זו? הא ראינו  שמת וחנטוהו  וקברוהו, אולם חז״ל  השמיענו  בזה, שאם נסתר  חוש  הגשמי  ע״י  מה  שמצאנו  בתוה״ק  איפכא ,

 ע״כ  מסיקים  מזה  שחוש  הגשמי  הטעה,  ורק נראים כחונטים, כי מכיון שמקרא אני דורש עפ״י הכללים

 האמיתיים  שנתנו  לנו  מסיני,  הדי  שהקב״ה  אומר כן, וממילא  ברור שרק נדמה להם שמת, אבל הי היה ,

 ככה  למדו  הז״ל  תורה, וזהו  ההבדל הגדול והריחוק  הנורא שבין דעתנו לדעת חז״ל, מן החיפך אל  החיפך ,

 שאצלנו  בעניותנו  העוה״ז: הוא  מציאות  ״והתורה  נדרשת״ ,  משא״כ  חז״ל  בעיני  קדשם המת  ראו את התורח  בחושיחם כמציאות, וכשמקרא אני דורש בטלים כל החושים הגשמים

In other words, you can say  למה לי קרא- סברא היא, but you can't say  סברא היא- מאי איכפת לי קרא

Vayigash. In Retropect, It Wasn't So Bad

I will post this quickly, and try to come back and fix it up later.  My youngest son's aufruf is this Shabbos, and you'll have to forgive me for being a little hasty.  But it happens to be a good observation.

Rav Solomon, in his Ma'amarim, cites the Medrash  (91:10) that says that Yaakov, the paragon of human spirituality, only once in his life said a ill-considered thing:   

והרעב כבד וגו' ויהי כאשר כלו וגו' ויאמר אליו יהודה וגו' אם ישך משלח וגו' ואם אינך משלח וגו' אמרו לו מה הוא אומר לנו דברים של אמת ואנו משיבים אותו דברים של בטלה ויאמר ישראל למה הרעותם לי וגו' רבי לוי בשם רבי חמא בר חנינא מעולם לא אמר יעקב אבינו דבר של בטלה אלא כך אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אני עוסק להמליך את בנו במצרים והוא אומר למה הרעותם לי היא דהוא אמר (ישעיה מ) נסתרה דרכי מה' ומאלהי וגו' ויאמרו שאול שאל האיש וגו' אמר רבי אבא בר כהנא אפילו עצי עריסותינו גלה לנו ויאמר יהודה אל ישראל אביו מוטב תהא נפש אחת בספק ולא כולם בודאי אנכי אערבנו כל הימים זה העולם הבא שכולו יום:

When the brothers told Yaakov that they had told the Egyptian that they had a brother in Canaan, Yaakov angrily accusing his sons of doing him an evil by revealing what they didn't have to.  The point of the Medrash is that Yaakov shouldn't have reacted to this unpleasant news so negatively.  He should have realized that a baal bitachon must accept what happens more calmly, since Hashem orders all events, and all that we experience is purposeful and ultimately fulfills the will of Hashem.  The Medrash says that Yaakov's words were davar shel batalah, empty words, because Hashem was doing all of this to ensure the survival of Klal Yisrael, and it was not right for Yaakov to call the events "Ra."

In our parsha, too, Yaakov tells Pharaoh that his life was short and "Ra."  47:9- מעט ורעים, היו ימי שני חיי,

Rav Solomon points out that in Parshas Vayechi, from the perspective of his penultimate hour, Yaakov looked back and saw that Hashem had shepherded him from his earliest youth till that very day.  Yaakov used the words הרועה אותי.  These words, which echo the word הרעותם, indicate that Yaakov realized that while the event elicited despair in the moment of experience, in retrospect he saw that he had spoken hastily, that he now realizes that he was a sheep, and Hashem was his shepherd, and he was being lovingly guided by Hashem toward an ultimate good that required that he experience all those frightening and frustrating moments.

This is exactly the same idea the Beis Halevi says in Parshas Beshalach, when Moshe Rabbeinu said Oz Yashir.  He brings a Medrash (Shemos 23:3)

 אז ישיר משה. איתא במדרש (שמו"ר כג ג) אמר משה באז חטאתי שאמרתי (שמות ה) ומאז באתי לדבר אל פרעה הרע לעם הזה באז אני אומר שירה.

that Moshe said "I sinned when I complained "mei'oz bosi el Pharaoh": Moshe had said "from the moment (Me'Oz) I came before Pharaoh, he has made it bad for this people," and I do teshuva by singing to Hashem with the word Oz, that I now realize that all the apparent hardship was necessary to bring us to the point of this great Kiddush Hashem of Krias Yam Suf.  Please note that in Moshe Rabbeinu's precipitous words he also said Ra,  הרע לעם הזה.  Later, in retrospect, he realized that what seems like Ra in the moment might actually be the foundation of a great good.  Same vort, same words used by the Yaakov Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu, same ultimate realization.