Va'eira, Shemos 7:19. Gratitude to Inanimate Objects

I posted this as I have it in my notes, and it is a journal of what I thought about this question over several years.

The first three makkos, that involved the Nile and the sand of Egypt, were done by Aharon, not Moshe.

אמר אל אהרן: לפי שהגין היאור על משה כשנשלך לתוכו, לפיכך לא לקה על ידו לא בדם ולא בצפרדעים, ולקה על ידי אהרן:

The reason (Rashi in 7:19 from the Tanchuma 14) is because the Nile had protected Moshe when he was an infant, 

אמר אל אהרן: לא היה העפר כדאי ללקות על ידי משה לפי שהגין עליו כשהרג את המצרי ויטמנהו בחול ולקה על ידי אהרן:

and the earth protected him by hiding the Mitzri that he had killed (Rashi 8:12 from the Tanchuma 14 and Medrash Rabba 10:7,) and therefore they did not "suffer" by his hand.

  

There is a similar idea expressed in the Gemara (BK 93b),  "Don't throw mud into a well from which you've drunk."

 אמר ליה רבא לרבה בר מרי מנא הא מילתא דאמרי אינשי בירא דשתית מיניה לא תשדי ביה קלא א"ל דכתיב (דברים כג) לא תתעב אדומי כי אחיך הוא ולא תתעב מצרי כי גר היית בארצו

It seems that this is expresses a gratitude, a sense of personal indebtedness, hakaras hatov, to these inanimate and insensate objects, which is difficult to understand.  Many say that this is a mussar haskeil to us-if there is hakoras tov to objects, how much more so to people.  This is fine, but does not explain why Moshe Rabbeinu felt this way toward the Nile and the dirt.

Of course, we can talk about how there was a dialogue between Moshe and the Yam by krias yam suf, or between Hashem and the yam when Hashem wanted the Yam to throw out the bodies of the Mitzrim, which shows that the Yam and other inanimates need to be convinced to do things.  But I assume that is all allegorical, and would not explain hakoras tov.  Maybe it helps to talk about the ‘Sar’ shel Yam or of the sand.  Maybe we can use the idea of ‘ein kateigor ne’eso saneigor,’ although here it would be something like ‘ein saneigor ne’eso kateigor.’

My son Moshe sheyichyeh said (Jan 2000/5760) that the Nile and the sand were the way that Hashem manifested his Middas Harachamim, and so to Moshe they were the Yad Hashem.  In other words, the object through which Hashem acts in the world is very similar to the way our own hands do our deeds.  Thus, an object which Hashem used to do his will is like Hashem’s hand.  So the Yam and the sand were, to Moshe, the hands of the Middas Harachamim.

If you want, you can say this a little differently.  You can say that since Hashem had shown His Middas Harachamim through this object, the object is like a davar shebikdusha.  An object that has been used for a mitzva or for kedusha gets chashivus of the mitzva or the kedusha and you have to be machshiv the object, the same is true when an object is used as a means of rachamim, it gets the chashivus of rachamim.  This is similar to kavod Shabbos, for example.  Since Hashem rested on Shabbos and was m’kadeish it, we have to be m’chabeid Shabbos.  It is not Shabbos that we are being m’chabeid, it is the Ribbono Shel Olom that we are being m’chabeid.

When I spoke in Jan 24 ‘04/’64, this is how I said it:

This parsha teaches very interesting lessons about hakoras tov.  First, we find that Moshe was not commanded to execute the first three makkos, because the yam and the sand had saved him, and he could not be the one to cause the to pervert their nature.  How do we understand the idea of Hakoras Tov to an inanimate object?  Second, we find that we cannot be ‘mesa’eiv’ Mitzrim, because they gave us a place to come to when we needed it.  But they enslaved us afterwords, and tried to kill us!

We have to understand that gratitude, the feeling that I have to a person who has done good to me, that I hold him dear in my heart and look forward to an opportunity to return the favor, is logically identical with resentment and vengeance, where someone harms us and we hold resentment in our hearts and look forward to the opportunity to pay him back— with interest.  But Hakoras Tov is a mitzvah, and a fundamental middah (to the extent that Chazal say that a person who is not makir tov will eventually be kofeir betovoso shel Hakodosh Boruch Hu), while the other is called ‘nekomo and netiroh’ and is an issur de’orayso.  The Chinuch (451) explains why one should not take revenge:

משרשי המצוה שידע האדם ויתן אל לבו כי כל אשר יקרהו מטוב ועד רע הוא סיבה שתבוא אליו מאת הש"י, ומיד האדם מיד איש אחיו לא יהיה דבר בלתי רצונו ב"ה, על כן כשיצערהו או יכאיבהו אדם ידע בנפשו כי עונותיו גרמו לו והש"י גזר עליו בכך ולא ישית מחשבותיו לנקום ממנו כי הוא אינו סיבת רעתו כי העון הוא המסבב וכמו שאמר דוד ע"ה הניחו לו ויקלל כי אמר לו ה', תלה הענין בחטאו ולא בשמעי בן גרא

that one should remember that whatever harm comes to him is by Hashem’s will, and the actor is merely a stick in Hashem’s hand, and it makes no sense to be angry at a mere stick.  So what logic will support the the mitzva of gratitude to fellow humans that did good to you, but still preclude being angry and taking revenge from fellow humans that did bad to you?

A possible answer is that when we receive good, we do not say we deserve it, but rather we thank Hashem for an undeserved chessed.  When we receive bad, we know that it is not arbitrary, but instead comes to be memareik for an aveirah.  If so, we must appreciate chessed as a gift, but view harm as the earned result of our own behavior.  Therefore, we thank a ba’al chessed and disregard the ba’al avlah.

Another teretz is that we must emulate Hashem’s middos (and hope that Hashem acts toward us with middah keneged middah), as explained in the Tomer Devorah:  therefore, we look at the good that is done, and are ma’alim ayin from the bad.

When I spoke again in Jan ‘05/Teiveis ‘65, I assayed a possible approach.  

I have wondered elsewhere what the difference is between nekama, which is assur, and hakaras tov, which is vital.  But when you realize that Moshe was makir tov to inanimate objects, you realize that hakoras tov is not gratitude to the other person for choosing to do something good to you, because then it would make no sense here.  It must be a way of expressing hakoras tov to Hashem by being makir tov to the instrument, something like Moshe said.  Or as I added, the same way we are m’chabeid Shabbos because Hashem rested on that day and was m’kadeish it, we are m’chabeid a person or an object that was used by Hashem as a shli’ach of His rachamim.  (Of course, it is only good people that will be used by Hashem to further His middas harachamim, because m’galgelim zchus ahl y’dei zakkai.)  If that’s true, we understand the difference between nekama and hakaras tov.

When I repeated this to my mother Shetichyeh, she made a very nice observation.  Mitzvos are to inculcate middos tovos and adinus.  Hakaras tov is a middah tovah v’adinah, while nekama is the opposite.  This explains why every opportunity to express hakaras tov is valuable, while we avoid nekama wherever possible.  Where nekama is has meaningful significance, such as, perhaps, tzaar haguf, or go’eil hadom, or from a goy, the need to inculcate middos tovos is no longer a factor.  Note that this is not the usual teretz people say, that Moshe’s hakaras tov was meaningless and it was just an exercise in habituation of hakaras hatov.  My mother's vort is different and better, though it might take a moment to see the difference.  Her vort is that this itself was a valuable exercise in creating a midda tova, while the other teretz is that this was an empty gesture used to inculcate the habit of hakaras tov.

In Jan ‘06/Teiveis ‘66, I spoke again, and the way I said it was:

First three makos– how is it shayich hakaras hatov to inanimate objects?

Another kasheh– why isn’t it ASSUR to be makir tov according to the Chinuch?  The same way a man who hits his thumb with a hammer doesn’t curse the hammer, and anyone who attacks the person who harmed him is showing he thinks the person is the cause, when in truth the person is only an instrument, a person who benefits from a matonoh, for example, should remember that mezonosov shel odom k’tzuvim meirosh hashonnoh, and he got absolutely nothing from the apparent benefactor!

Answer on both questions begins with answer on first question.  Hashem uses objects to effect His din of schar v’onesh, of rachamim and din.  An object that is used for tashmishei kedushoh or for a mitzvoh is to’un genizah.  This is because the object represents, and becomes imbued with, the kedushoh or the chashivus mitzvoh.  So we have to be m’chabeid the object.  Similarly, an object that has been used by Hashem to effect his rachamim is TASHMISHEI RACHAMIM.  It therefore calls for honor and respect in its capacity as tashmish rachamim.

If a person benefits another person, the beneficiary must view the benefactor as the means through which Hashem was m’racheim on him, and he has to show gratitude and respect.  The person who benefited him is Hashem’s tashmish rachamim.  But if Hashem is ma’anish someone through the actions of a rasha, the person has to be m’kabeil with ahava, and the person who did the act, the rasha through whom judgment was exacted, is TASHMISHEI DIN.  But there is a difference between being m’kabeil b’ahavoh and commemorating the event.  I don’t think that the whip beis din uses needs geniza.  You don’t celebrate yesurim, but you do celebrate rachamim and yeshu’a and the objects through which they came about.

So we understand why it is assur to take nekama, but it is a mitzva to be makir tov.

We also understand why even inanimate objects have to be respected if they were used to carry out Hashem’s middas Rachamim.

On June 23, 2006, my nephew, Avi Feinstein, was in Chicago, visiting a child he had taken care of at Camp Simcha the year beforelast year, a child of seven with a severe skin problem that caused intense and unremitting itching.  His condition required that Avi shower him and put medicine on him four times a day, and which prevented him, and Avi, from getting any sleep.  Avi decided to visit the child because he was off from Yeshiva for a few days before going to his counselor’s job at a different camp, and the boy had called him almost every day since having him at camp.  I asked him how the parents were m’kabel panim, and he said they were endlessly grateful, and even had offered to pay his airfare, which he declined.  They know about Avi’s brother’s trouble and the challenges Avi had gone through, and that he had to leave Chicago a day early because the camp told him (after he made the ticket) that he had to be there two days before camp started, and so had to pay two hundred dollars extra on the ticket.  They asked him whether he resented how the camp behaved.  He answered, without thinking about how to couch it in less surprising terms, that it wasn’t them who did it, it was Hashem.  What he meant was that whatever we experience in life is what Hashem wants us to experience.  The means of having that experience really are irrelevant, so why would he resent their behavior?  He would have had to have the experience anyway.  I thought this was an excellent application of the idea of “lo sikom.”  

I asked him the kashe, that if he feels that way, why would he ever be makir tov to a person who did a chesed for him?  He answered that by a bad experience, the main reaction is “this needed to happen, and I have to think about why Hashem wants me to experience this.”  Thoughts of nekama against the actor contradict the primary feeling of introspection.  But in the case of a chessed, the feeling you should have is one of gratitude to Hashem.  In that case, feelings of gratitude to the baal chessed do not contradict the proper primary emotion, and so are they are not only appropriate, they reinforce the feeling you should be having.

Note:  
There is a Rif that is relevant to this question, as follows.

The Shittah in BK 92b brings a story about the Rif that can be read to indicate that he, too, felt this sense of gratitude to a place or a thing:

וכתב תלמיד אחד מתלמידי ה״ר יוסף הלוי ז״ל אבן מיגש וז״ל מועתק מלשון ערבי: אמרו בסוף החובל

בירא דשתית מיניה לא תרמי ביה קלא, פירוש: הבור ששתית ממנו לא תשליך בו אבן או דבר אחר, כלומר לא

תזלזל בו ולא תגמול אותו רע אחר שנתהנית ממנו. וזה על דרך משל לשאר הדברים, שמי שבא לאדם ממנו איזו

תועלת או נהנה ממנו אין ראוי לו לעשות שום מעשה שיבא לו נזק ממנו, ובבר הביאו שם בגמרא על ענין זה

משלים ופסוקים מענין מכות מצרים וגלו הסבה שנעשו קצתם על ידי אהרן ע״ה, וסיפר רבינו ז״ל על רבו הריא״ף

 ז״ל שאירע לו ענין זה עם איש אחד ולא רצה לדון אותו כלל כדי שלא ידון אותו במה שיבא לו היזק ממנו ונמנע זה מניעה  גמורה, וזה שהוא ז״ל חלה ונכנס אצל אדם  אחד במרחץ שהיה לו בביתו ונתהנה מהמרחץ הנזכר, אחר כך זימן אותו שישב אצלו עד שיבריא וכבד אותו הרבה ועשה עמו טובה והבריא, ובהמשך הזמן על האיש ההוא מטה ידו וירד מנכסיו ונשבר בערבונות וזולתם ונתחייב לתת ממון לבעלי חובות וירד עד שהוצרך למכור המרחץ הנזכר ולשום אותו לבעלי חובותיו, ואמר רבינו יצחק  ז״ל ״לא אדון ולא אורה במרחץ הזה לא במכר ולא בשומא ולא בשום דבר המתיחד בו לפי שנתהניתי ממנו״.

ואם היה זה בדומם שאין לו הרגשה, כל שכן וקל וחומר בני אדם המרגישים בהיזק ובתועלת שיהיה זה שנוי לעשותו

והעושהו יוצא משורת המוסר ודרך ארץ. ואמר, ואפשר לפרש במה שאמרו לא לידון איניש לא למאן דרחים ליה

ולא למאן דסני ליה, שיהיה סיבת מניעתם ז״ל לדון למאן דרחים לשתי סיבות. האחד שלא יטה לזכותו והשנית שאם

אפשר שיציל את נפשו וידון אותו כפי שורת הדין — היה בזה משלם רעה תחת טובה. ואם היה זה במי שקבל הנאה מבשר ודם — כל שכן וקל וחומר באלוה ית׳, שממנו נשפע הטוב הגמור, שראוי להודות לו הודאה גמורה ולא יעשה מה שיקניטנו ולא מה שהוא שנוי לו. עד כאן לשונו

The reason I read it as if the Rif was showing hakaras hatov to the merchatz is because Reb Moshe in a teshuva rejects the idea that the Rif was showing hakaras hatov to the owner of the merchatz.  He says that it is not hakaras hatov to refuse to judge him in a case of monetary liability.  On the contrary, you're doing him a favor by divesting him of money that he shouldn't have.  Igros CM 10:

הטעם שכתב מטעם בירא דשתית מיניה לא נכון כלל דלחייב למי שתייב ממון ע״פ דין אין זה שום רעה להאדם אלא אדרבה טובה גדולה כמפורש בסנהדרין ז׳ דאזיל מבי דינא שקל גלימא ליזמר וליזיל באורחא, ולעיל מזה בברייתא (דף ו׳) שרבי אמר על ויהי דוד עושה משפט וצדקה אע״פ שלא שילם מתוך ביתו זהו משפט וצדקה משפט לזה שהחזיר לו ממונו

 וצדקה לזה שהוציא גזילה מתה״י׳ ואיך יאמר שהוא כשדיית קלא בבירא דשתי מיניה, אך אולי מדין שוחד החמיר שהוא רק ממדת חסידות וכוי׳ ואין אצלי הספר לעיין בו אבל כפ״מ שהבאת דבריו לא נכון כלל עכ״ל

Shemos 3:14. Momentary Injustice

 כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם .ויאמר עוד אלקים אל משה כה תאמר אל בני ישראל יקוק אלקי אבתיכם אלקי אברהם אלקי יצחק ואלקי יעקב שלחני אליכם זה שמי לעלם וזה זכרי לדר דר. 

 In his Shaarei Orah II, Rav Bergman explains that the name of Hashem, as it is written, indicates that time doesn't progress for Hashem, only for us.  The Name combines present with future and it cannot be not read in this world:

After bringing the Ramban, Rabbeinu Yitzchak, the Rashbam, and the Baalei Tosfos, he says

הכוונה ברשב"ם ובבעלי התוס' בביאור אשר אהי' שהכוונה באהי' הי' אפשר לומר אלעתיד ולכך נתפרש: אשר אהי', שגם עכשיו בהוה אני במצב של אהי', כי אהי' בהוה זהו עומק פשוטו, וזהו קיצור שם יקו'ק אהי' בהוה וזהו יהי' בהוה

But we perceive events as taking place in sequence.  In our experience, the future and the present are discrete.  We cannot truly understand the divine perspective of simultaneity.  Since it is impossible for humans to understand this, we cannot read the Name as it is written, but rather as we are capable of perceiving it, that of mastery and lordship.  This is what the Gemara (Kiddushin 71a) means when it explains why in our passuk the word that is usually written לעולם is spelled without the vov, לעלם, by which the word "forever" acquires the additional implication of "hidden":

רבי אבינא רמי כתיב (שמות ג) זה שמי וכתיב (שמות ג) זה זכרי אמר הקב"ה לא כשאני נכתב אני נקרא נכתב אני ביו"ד ה"י ונקרא באל"ף דל"ת

 But we have to ask, why davka now?  What was the specific connection of this lesson to that moment in time?    

Furthermore, in the beginning of this passuk Rashi (from Brachos 9b) says that Hashem told Moshe that in the future, there would be many other times of exile and suffering, and that even then Hashem would be with them: 

אהיה אשר אהיה:אהיה עמם בצרה זו אשר אהיה עמם בשעבוד שאר מלכיות. אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם, מה אני מזכיר להם צרה אחרת דיים בצרה זו. אמר לו יפה אמרת, כה תאמר וגו'

Why did Hashem want to tell Moshe about the future galuyos at this moment?  What did that have to do with introducing Himself to Klal Yisrael?

Rav Bergman focuses on the relevance of this lesson to the issue of ידיעה ובחירה and the guilt of the Egyptians for enslaving the Jews.  I want to offer a different interpretation.

I propose that temporary injustice is also unjust, but only if a moment exists as a separate entity.  If the past and the future all exist simultaneously, then all events exist as a combination.  If reality is not temporal, then the concept of temporary is meaningless.  Momentary injustice is unjust, but if moments are not discrete entities, then examining a moment in isolation is an error.

Hashem was telling Moshe Rabbeinu that the harsh servitude of Mitzrayim is- and indeed must be- incomprehensible to Klal Yisrael.  Yes, of course it stemmed from Avraham Avinu's words at the Bris bein habesarim, but it would seem that this was an extreme reaction to the act of an ancestor that lived al pi middas hadin and who had died many years before.  Hashem said you should know that this is not the last time: there will be many such perplexing experiences for Klal Yisrael, and it will only be an awareness that Hashem's justice spans the past and the present and the future that will make it possible for them to comprehend, albeit as a matter of faith.  After all, humans cannot truly understand what it means for all events to exist simultaneously.   But at least if one does accept that postulate, the apparent injustice of an isolated moment loses its significance.  Moments in time are not isolated.  Taken as a whole, combining the cause and the effect and the innumerable intermediate steps, all is crystal clear.

In the comments, great unknown makes the point that such theology is a cold comfort to the suffering.  I agree with him, and I realized that the way it's written, it sounds like the platitudes about omniscience and perfect knowledge and the millennia-long cycle of din v'cheshbon yielding results that our blinkered eyes cannot understand.  That's not what I mean.

What I meant is this: I don't believe that life is an accounting book of debits and credits, where all that matters is whether at the end of the month there is a profit or a loss.  A person that eats something that is extremely bitter is not helped by the fact that he later eats something else that is divinely sweet.  A moment of injustice, a moment when the wicked torture the just and the innocent suffer is an injustice that is neither rectified nor mitigated by some future retribution to the sinner and reward to the saint.    Contemplating the suffering of Mitzrayim, and looking forward to thousands of years of galus, Hashem told Moshe Rabbeinu that from the human perspective, it will have to appear that injustice is taking place.  But at least we were taught that this apparent injustice is an artifact of our narrow experience of time as sequential and ephemeral.  of our perception of each moment as an independent entity.  But the deeper truth is that all the events we perceive as sequential and ephemeral exist simultaneously and irrevocably, and so there is no "moment" of injustice.  The bitter and the sublime are both taking place together, and in the combination of all events, justice and good are absolute.

Fava Beans, Purim, Rosh Hashanna, and the Dangers of Crock Pot Cholent

I     What are Pullin?
We were learning the Mishna in Shabbos in Hamotzi (76b) that talks about minimum amounts that would trigger a korban for carrying on Shabbos.  The Mishna says that only the edible parts of fruits count toward the shiur/volume.  Example- עדשים אין פולין לא והתניא ר' יהודה אומר חוץ מקליפי פולין ועדשים לא קשיא הא בחדתי הא בעתיקי עתיקי מ"ט לא אמר ר' אבהו מפני שנראין כזבובין בקערה - Rav Yehuda says that if you carry lentils, whose peel is generally not eaten, the peel doesn't count.  The Gemara asks that he should have mentioned Pullin, too, because Rav Yehuda in the Braisa does mention Pullin together with Adashim.  The Gemara answers that it depends on whether they're new or old.

So I told the Shiur that in Arabic, Fava beans are called Ful.  So what we call Pul, Pul Hamitzri, or Pul Halavan, and so forth, is Ful, a very common food in Egypt and no doubt all over the area.  Unfortunately, almost nobody in my shiur ever heard of Fava beans, so I brought a can in to the shiur.

If you'll check  online here and here, you'll see that dried Fava/Broad beans are often peeled before eating because their skin is leathery and tasteless, but young Favas can be eaten as is, precisely as the Gemara reports.  I don't know what the Gemara means by looking like flies.  It's probably an idiom, like אוכל קורצה (Gittin 55b, Onkelos Vayikra 19:16, Daniel 3:8).

II     Fava Beans and Purim
In our house, Fava beans were an annual Purim food.  My mother soaked big pans of Fava beans and Chickpeas overnight, cooked them, and wrapped a handful in Saran Wrap and sent them out with the Shalach Manos.  She says that everyone did this in her part of Litteh.  What we call Fava beans and Chickpeas, they called Bubb and Nahit.  Bubb is to Bebblach, regular beans, as Moid is to Meidel, because Fava beans are much bigger than other beans.  Nahit was the local word for Chickpeas (I was just at the local ethnic fruit and veg store, and saw a bag of Chickpeas labeled Nohut; I think it was from Turkey.  )  The Minhag probably doesn't exist any more, but maybe they still do this in South Africa.  Something to add to your Litveshe cookbooks, along with ginger and carrot things called Ingberlach (not for the faint hearted,) rock-hard Teiglach, and Shaltenosses.  
Hedonism did not make much headway in Litteh.
In any case, I found that the minhag of using Fava beans, and the name Bub, is mentioned here, in the second column on page 191.  (This link is to Gil Marks' Encyclopedia of Jewish Food, a thorough and engaging compendium that I found particularly interesting in its tracing of similar dishes in disparate communities.)  He also says they used to serve them at Shalom Zachars.  And he also notes that their use has practically disappeared among Ashkenazim.

Eli, in the comments, tells us that in Bnei Brak, Ful is still sold every erev Shabbos, and more for Purim, so apparently the minhag does still exist.  He also sent a link that tells us that the Chasam Sofer used to have Ful cooked with honey at the meal after Taanis Esther.   My initial reaction was that beans and honey are an odd combination, but I realized that Heinz sells millions of cans of baked beans every month, and that's essentially what they are.



III     Fava Beans and Kapparos
I would like to add that Rashi in Shabbos 81b brings an old minhag from the Teshuvas HaGeonim that people would plant a fava bean- pul hamitzri- in a pot for each child (why only children?) in their household 15 or 22 (what does 15 or 22 mean?) days before Rosh Hashanna, and they would use it for Kapparos, and then toss the pot and the bean plant into a river.  The similarity to the British slang term tosspot is just an entertaining accident.

Rashi:

 ובתשובת הגאונים מצאתי שעושין חותלות מכפות תמרים וממלאין אותם עפר וזבל בהמה וכ"ב או ט"ו יום לפני ר"ה 

עושין כל אחד ואחד לשם כל קטן וקטנה שבבית וזורעים לתוכן פול המצרי או קיטנית וקורין לו פורפיסא וצומח ובערב ר"ה נוטל כל אחד שלו ומחזירו סביבות ראשו שבעה פעמים ואומר זה תחת זה וזה חליפתי וזה תמורתי ומשליכו לנהר:

IV     The Danger that Lurks in Crock-Pot Cholent

Fava Beans are pretty safe, unless, of course, you suffer from Favism, in which case they can be deadly (the incidence of this or a similar syndrome varies from 0.1% in Germanic/Slavic/Baltic types to 50% in Kurdish Jews.  So don't serve Pullin to Kurdish Jews.)  But many of us are unaware of the serious danger of other beans, primarily kidney beans.  Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the dangers of kidney beans:

The toxic compound phytohaemagglutinin, a lectin, is present in many common bean varieties, but is especially concentrated in red kidney beans. White kidney beans contain about a third as much toxin as the red variety; broad beans (Vicia faba) contain 5 to 10% as much as red kidney beans.^[3]Phytohaemagglutinin can be deactivated by boiling beans for ten minutes; the ten minutes at boiling point (100 °C (212 °F)) are sufficient to degrade the toxin, but not to cook the beans. For dry beans, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also recommends an initial soak of at least 5 hours in water, which should then be discarded.^[3]If the beans are cooked at a temperature below boiling (without a preliminary boil), as in a slow cooker, the toxic effect of haemagglutinin is increased: beans cooked at 80 °C (176 °F) are reported to be up five times as toxic as raw beans.^[3] Outbreaks of poisoning have been associated with cooking kidney beans in slow cookers.^[3]The primary symptoms of phytohaemagglutinin poisoning are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Onset is from one to three hours after consumption of improperly prepared beans, and symptoms typically resolve within a few hours.^[3] Consumption of as few as four or five raw, soaked kidney beans can cause symptoms.^[3]Beans are high in purines, which are metabolized to uric acid. Uric acid is not a toxin as such, but may promote the development or exacerbation of gout. For this reason, persons with gout are often advised to limit their consumption of beans.^[4]

To underline this issue, here is what the FDA has to say about it:

The onset time from consumption of raw or undercooked kidney beans to symptoms varies from between 1 to 3 hours. Onset is usually marked by extreme nausea, followed by vomiting, which may be very severe. Diarrhea develops somewhat later (from one to a few hours), and some persons report abdominal pain. Some persons have been hospitalized, but recovery is usually rapid (3 - 4 h after onset of symptoms) and spontaneous

........................

Phytohaemagglutinin, the presumed toxic agent, is found in many species of beans, but it is in highest concentration in red kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). The unit of toxin measure is the hemagglutinating unit (hau). Raw kidney beans contain from 20,000 to 70,000 hau, while fully cooked beans contain from 200 to 400 hau. White kidney beans, another variety of Phaseolus vulgaris, contain about one-third the amount of toxin as the red variety; broad beans (Vicia faba) contain 5 to 10% the amount that red kidney beans contain.The syndrome is usually caused by the ingestion of raw, soaked kidney beans, either alone or in salads or casseroles. As few as four or five raw beans can trigger symptoms. Several outbreaks have been associated with "slow cookers" or crock pots, or in casseroles which had not reached a high enough internal temperature to destroy the glycoprotein lectin. It has been shown that heating to 80°C may potentiate the toxicity five-fold, so that these beans are more toxic than if eaten raw. In studies of casseroles cooked in slow cookers, internal temperatures often did not exceed 75°C.

Mussar Haskeil:

• Don't serve Pullin to Kurdish Jews.
• If you make your cholent in a crock pot, and you use kidney beans, you should first boil it for ten minutes.  I know it sounds absurd, but why would you want to be ממשכן yourself when the FDA says it's a real issue?

Vayechi, Bereishis 48:14. Hands and Brachos

The most straightforward lesson in this discussion is that when you give someone a bracha, you should place your hands upon him or her.  We all do this instinctively, for example, when a father gives the Kallah a bracha at the Badeken, and when parents give their children brachos Friday night and Erev Rosh Hashanna.  

Beyond that, I am just noting a group of interesting things about hands and brachos.  Perhaps there is an association among some or all of them, some unifying theme.  I haven't found it yet.  Maybe you will.  

Three Examples of the Hand as Instrument of Bracha  

•   The Blessing of Children

וישלח ישראל את ימינו וישת על ראש אפרים והוא הצעיר ואת שמאלו על ראש מנשה שכל את ידיו כי מנשה הבכור

Yaakov put his hands on the heads of Ephraim and Menashe when he gave them his Bracha.  This was anticipated by Yosef, and, judging by Yosef''s reaction to the crossing of hands, the precise manner of his doing so was apparently quite important.  I'm sure that all the brachos in the Chumash involved touch, and it was only mentioned here because of the surprise of putting the right hand on Ephraim.

• Birkas Kohanim

When Aharon gave Klal Yisrael the prototypical Birkas Kohanim (Vayikra 9:22), he raised his hands towards them:

וישא אהרן את ידו אל העם ויברכם

Rashi:  ויברכם: ברכת כהנים יברכך, יאר, ישא:

• The Semicha of Yehoshua

When Moshe confered Semicha and a Bracha upon Yehoshua (Bamidbar 27:18 et seq), he placed his hands upon him, as instructed by Hashem:

  יח ויאמר ה' אל משה קח לך את יהושע בן נון איש אשר רוח בו וסמכת את ידך עליו.  

 כ ונתת מהודך עליו למען ישמעו כל עדת בני ישראל. 

כב ויעש משה כאשר ציוה  ה' אותו; ויקח את יהושע ויעמידהו לפני אלעזר הכהן ולפני כל העדה.  

כג ויסמוך את ידיו עליו ויצוהו כאשר דיבר ה' ביד משה 

The inter-relatedness of these concepts is noted in Rabbeinu Bachay:

וזהו ביאור שכל את ידיו כו'   והיתה הברכה חלה עליהם בסמיכה כאשר כ׳ ביהושע (במדבר כ״ ) ויסמך את ידיו עליו כדי  שיאצל רוה״ק על הנסמך, ומזה הענין היתה הסמיכה בזמן החכמים גם ברכת  כהנים בנשיאת כפים כי לא יתכן לכהן הנושא  את כפיו שיסמוך את ידיו על כל אחד ואחד  לישראל וע״ז היה פורש כפיו למעלה כדי  להאציל כח הברכה למטה ממקור הברכה העליונה,  והוא שכל את ידיו מלשון שכל וחכמה כי  נתכוון בעשר אצבעות ידיו להמשיך הברכה  ממקור החכמה והשכל, וכן אמר התרגום אחכמינון  לידוהי כענין (תהליס קל״ד) שאו ידיכם קדש  וברכו את ה׳ קדש היא החכמה שהיא מקור  הברכה והבן זה.

Several interesting things.

1.  Two Hands or One?  
Let me start with a quote from the Risher Rov, who says in his Hadrash V'ha'Iyun as follows:

ובהיותי בזה אזכיר מה שראיתי בסידור בית יעקב להגאון יעב"ץ בהנהגת ליל שבת שכתב, דמנהגם של ישראל לברך הילדים בליל שבת אחר התפלה או בכניסה לבית, ומניחין ב׳ ידיהם על ראשם כדרך שמצאנו בכהנים שמברכים בשתי ידיהם, ומה שמצאנו ביעקב אבינו שברך אפרים ומנשה כל אחד ביד אחת, זה הי׳ מפני ההכרח שלא להטיל קנאה ביניהם מאחד שבאו לפניו בבת אחת לקבל ברכתו, ולא כחסרי ידעת שחושבין שיש ׳קפידא לברך דוקא ביד אחת עיי"ש. וחידוש גדול בעיני שדיבר כ"כ קשות נגד המקפידים שלא לברך בשתי ידים והקל בכבודם באופן מבהיל כזה לקראם חסרי דעת

(I have to say that I don't know why Harav Levin was surprised.  The  Yaavetz's writings are not famous for their temperance.)

 אף שהמקפידים נתנו טעם לדבריהם עפ"י ההלכה, וכמ״ש בספר תורה תמימה פ׳ נשא שהגאון הנורא רבינו אליהו מווילנא זצלהיה גם הוא הי׳ נזהר מלברך בשתי ידים ורק ביד אחת וזה משום דברכה בשתי ידים הוה כעין ברכת כהנים ויש בזה חשש איסור לזר, דייל דזה הוה בכלל זר הנושא את כפיו שעובר בעשה כדאיתא בכתובות כד ע״ב  ומ"ש הגאון יעביץ שיש לברך בשתי ידים כדרך שמצאנו בכהנים שמברכין בשתי ידים, אדרבה משום זה עצמו יש לצדד שמהראוי למנוע מזה, כדי שלא יהי׳ יראה כנשיאות כפיס דהוה עובדא דכהנים, ואם אמנם כי בעיקר הדבר יש לפקפק, דאין זה ענין לנשיאות כפים לזר, שזה דוקא כשעולה לדוכן לברך את ישראל בברכת כהנים אבל לא כשמברך איש את רעהו, אכן עכ״פ אנו רואים שהמקפידים נתנו סמך לדבריהם עפ״י ההלכה וביניהם הי׳ גדולי הדורות ואדירי התורה

Serious questions have arisen about the reliability of the Torah Temimah's story regarding the Gaon's minhag.  For one thing, the sources that say this story are only the Torah Temima's friend and an equivocal statement in the Siddur HaGra.  The Torah Temima is in Bamidbar, פרק ו, כג אות קלא:

  ויש להעיר על מה סמכו העולם לברך איש את אחיו בנשיאות כפים על ראש המתברך, כמו שנוהגין בברכות חתנים וכדומה, אחרי כי כמבואר הוי סדר ברכה זו מיוחדת רק לכהנים, ולזרים יש בזה איסור עשה, ודוחק לומר כי לכהנים מסורה רק בנוסח הברכה שמבואר בפרשה יברכך וגו', יען כי כפי שמתבאר מסוגיא דמנחות י"ח א' הוי ענין נשיאות כפים עבודה כשאר עבודות שבמקדש. ואני שמעתי מאיש אמונים שהגר"א מווילנא ברך את הג"מ רי"ח לנדא מו"ץ דווילנא בשעת חופתו והניח ידו אחת על ראש הגרי"ח בשעת הברכה, ושאלוהו על ככה, והשיב, כי לא מצינו ברכה בשתי ידים רק לכהנים במקדש, וזולת זה לא ראיתי ולא שמעתי מי שיעיר בזה, והיא הערה נפלאה, ודוחק לומר דכל עיקר מצות נשיאות כפים היא רק בצבור בעשרה משום דבר שבקדושה, דזה הוי רק אסמכתא, כמש"כ הר"ן פ"ג דמגילה. 

and in his תוספת ברכה פרשת נשא עמוד ל, where he writes:

, שנראה לו בכוונת הגר״א שבהנחת שתי ידים על ראש המתברך יש בזה איסור עשה, שנאמר ״כה תברכו״, אתם ולא זרים, ולאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה. אבל כמדומה שהרבה חכמים וצדיקים אינם נזהרים בזה, ובברכותיהם מניחים שתי ידיהם על  

ראש המתברך.

and he makes it clear that he himself is not taking a position on the matter, only reporting what he heard from this person.  You can find it here on page thirty.

Additionally, in a sefer called מעשה אלפס from Rav Bentzion Alfas, he says that he personally knew the baal hamaaseh, Rav Yechezkel Landau, and he told him an entirely different story that shows that the Gaon held exactly the opposite.  (By the way, although some people make this error, this Yechezkel Landau is not the Noda Be'Yehuda.  The Noda Be'Yehuda was older than the Gaon, and wouldn't have come to him for a bracha as a young chassan.  Also, Rav Alfas, who was publishing in Bnei Brak in the forties, would not have met someone that passed away in 1793.  Also, this Yechezkel Landau is described as the Mo'Tz in Vilna.  The Noda Beyehuda never held any position in Vilna.)

וכן הכרתי את הגאון ר' יחזקאל לנדא זצ"ל, אב"ד דווילנא, שכאשר נעשה חתן הביא אותו מחותנו בשבת לפני הגר"א שיברך אותו, והגר"א ז"ל ישב בסעודה שניה של השבת ואכל את הקוגל, והחתן היה מלובש בשטריימיל, ורצה הגאון להניח ידיו על ראש החתן לברכו, ונסוג החתן לאחוריו שלא ישמין הגאון את השטריימיל בידיו השמינות מהפשטידא, והניח הגר"א ידו אחת על השטריימיל וברכו. והאריך ימים (ר' יחזקאל לנדא נפטר בגיל תשעים ואחד), ולמד עד סוף יומו האחרון בלי משקפים, והצטער ר' יחזקאל לנדא כל ימיו על קטנות המוח שלו שהוקיר את השטריימיל יותר מידיו של הגר"א.

From my experience with how the Gedolim of our times are at the "mercy" of anyone who claims to have spoken to them, and their words, even when understood, are as often twisted as they are honestly quoted, I would not put any weight at all on stories that impute a hanhaga to the Gaon, other than the maasim attested to in the Siddur HaGra, which was vetted by the Vilner Beis Din, or a story quoted by an Adam Gadol who saw it himself or says he relies on the legitimacy of the source.  In those cases, even if I don't believe the accuracy of the report, at least I know that a talmid chacham feels that it is a legitimate and serious possibility.

I once spent Rosh Hashanna with Reb Moshe, and someone brought him some grapes in the afternoon, which he declined.  The talmid, which happened to be Rav Moshe Meir Weiss, said, is this because the Rosh Yeshiva doesn't eat grapes on Rosh Hashanna, like the Gaon, as brought in the Siddur HaGra?  Reb Moshe said No, he simply didn't want grapes at the moment.  I said, maybe the story in the siddur HaGra is also a misunderstanding of a similar thing happening with the Gaon,?  Reb Moshe ignored me.   Then his Rebbetzin said the same thing, and Reb Moshe turned to her and said, with some energy, that the Siddur of the Gaon was cleared by the Vilner Beis Din, and they wouldn't make a foolish mistake like that.

Bottom line: the Gaon doesn't say this in any of his writings.  The Biur Halacha in 128, where the Rama brings the Gemara in Kesuvos 24b, 

ישראל הנושא כפיו ומברך ברכת כהנים, עובר בעשה. רש״י: שנאמר ׳כה תברכו את בני ישראל׳ אתם ולא זרים, ולאו הבא בכלל עשה, עשה.

and the Rama himself quotes Rishonim that say that it's hard to know what the problem is, brings the Bach that even duchenning mamesh would not be a problem for a non-Kohen unless it is done during davenning and with raised hands, and anyway most probably you're only over if you have davka kavana to do the mitzva of Birkas Kohanim.  Yes, many mekubalim say that one should use only one hand.  If you are noheig with the shittos found in Toras Hanistar, then you'll find some discussion about this, but absolutely no consensus.  For the rest of us, all you have is the Torah Temima quoting someone he thinks is reliable, אני שמעתי מאיש אמונים, but another source cites the same event so differently as to prove exactly the opposite, and the other source identifies who and where and how, not just איש אמונים, and the Siddur HaGra in Leil Shabbos where it says that שמעתי בשם הגר"א שאסור לברך בב' ידים לבד הכהן, which is far from an assertion of fact or a source for practical halacha.  So don't worry about it.

2.  The Inability to Use One's Hands Does Not Diminish the Bracha- אונס כמאן דעביד דמי.
If Bracha involves putting your hand on the misbareich, what good is Aharon's lifting up of his hands?  He wasn't touching anyone.  Of course, as Rabbeinu Bachay says, by Birkas Kohanim they can't go out and lay their hands on everyone's heads, but does this mean that there's no difference if there's actual contact?  If by Moshe Rabbeinu Hashem told him that one hand was adequate, and Moshe, out of his own chesed, used two, then did Ephraim and Menashe receive lesser brachos because they each had only one hand?  The Yaavetz in the siddur says that he had to do them both at the same time so as not to belittle the second, but the fact remains that each got only one hand.  Does it matter?  Is the pshat that you have to do the most that is possible, and אונס כמאן דעביד דמי  that what you weren't able to do is viewed as if you actually did do it, which would be exactly the diametric opposite of the rule of כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו וכל שאינו ראוי לבילה בילה מעכבת בו!  Is the pshat like Bas Pharaoh, who stretched out her hand even though it was humanly impossible to reach the child, because a person who really cares will do what he can even if it is impossible to accomplish what he wants to accomplish, and what really matters here is the desire to touch the person?

HOWEVER:  see below, #7, regarding using the hands in Birkas Kohanim, where most poskim hold that it is essential.

3.  Hands, Bracha, Water, and Fire

              A.    Water:  Netillas Yadayim Brings Bracha
R’ Shteinman in his Ayeles HaShachar brings the Gemara (Shabbos 62b, and OC 158) that Rav Chisda used to use more than the required measure of water for Netilas Yadayim, and he attributed his receiving bracha to this meritorious behavior. דאמר רב חסדא אנא משאי מלא חפני מיא ויהבו לי מלא חפני טיבותא .  But we don't find that it is of any merit to be tovel in a mikva that has more than forty sa'ah of water.  What's the difference?  Rav Shteinman suggests that the halacha may be based on the specific association of hands with bracha. 

I enjoy Rav Shteinman's clarity in writing, a style that was either the basis or a result of his career in Chinuch, so I'm bringing it verbatim, even though I found that he discusses many of the same things we do here:

וישלח ישראל את ימינו וגו' . בכמה מקומות רואים שיש לידים שייכות עם הברכה , ועי' רבינו בחיי שהיתה הברכה חלה

עליהם בסמיכה זו , כאשר כתוב ביהושע ויסמך את ידיו עליו כדי שיאצל רוה" ק על הנסמך , ומזה הענין היתה הסמיכה

בזמן החכמים אמנם הרמב"ם בהל' סנהדרין פ" ד ה"א כתב שלדורות לא צריך לסמוך ביד גם ברכת כהנים עכ" ד .

והנה בשו"ע או"ח סימן קנ" ח סעיף י' כתב דאע" פ ששיעור נטילת ידימ הוא ברביעית יוסיף ליטול בשפע ,דאמר רב חסדא אנא משאי מלא חפני מיא ויהבו לי מלא חפני טיבותא, והנה על המחויב לטבול במקוה לא כתוב שיש מעלה לטבול במקוה שיש בה יותר מארבעים סאה , ומ"ש נטילת ידים שיש ענין להוסיף , ולהנ"ל דהידים שייך לברכה י"ל דמשו"ה תוספת בנטילה תוסיף ברכה , אבל טבילה לא שייך דוקא לידים .

 שמעתי שהמהרי" ל דיסקין זצ"ל סיפר על האחים הגר"ש והגר"א קצננלבויגען זצ"ל , שאמם הביאה אותם להגר"א ואמרה שאחד לא ישן ואחד לא אוכל , והניח ידו עליהם ובירכם שיהיו גדולים בתורה , ואחד שאל למהרי" ל אם כשבירכם הניח עליהם את שני ידיו ורצה לפשוט מזה אם מותר לזר לברך עם הנחת ב' ידים , ועי' ביאור הלכה סימו קכ"ח סעיף א' , וענה לו וכי אתה סבור שביד השניי הוא לקח כסף , והי'משמע שהגר"א בירך בשני ידיו , אבל אין לפשוט לדינא ממה שמספרים

 . 

ובאמת בסידור הגר"א בליל שבת כתוב, שמעתי בשם הגר"א שאסור לברך בב' ידים לבד הכהן , וכן בתורה תמימה פרשה 

נשא ו' כ"ג מביא ששמע מאיש אמונים שהגר"א בירך חתן בשעת חופתו והניח רק יד אחת , ושאלוהו על ככה ואמר כי לא מצינו ברכה בשתי ידים רק במקדש 

                B.    Water:  Kohanim are Required to Wash Their Hands Before Birkas Kohanim

See the Gemara in Sotah 39a, and Tosfos there, that Kohanim must wash their hands before Duchenning, even if their hands are clean.  Duchening requires a washing that is specifically for the Bracha and that is immediately before the bracha. 

Gemara:

ואמר ר' יהושע בן לוי כל כהן שלא נטל ידיו לא ישא את כפיו שנאמר (תהלים קלד: ב) שאו ידיכם קדש וברכו את ה 

Tosfos:

דמייתי גמרא קרא שאו ידיכם קדש וברכו משמע תיכף לנטילת ידים ברכת כהנים דמשמע ליה השתא דבברכת כהנים משתעי קרא דהיא בנשיאות ידים

This netilla has nothing to do with the regular halacha of needing clean hands for Tefilla.  The Kohanim just finished Shmoneh Esrei.  The implication is that this additional netilla imparts a special kedusha to the hands for Birkas Kohanim and this helps the bracha to be Chall.

                C.      Fire:  Hands and Bracha and Lighting a Candle 

There's an interesting Medrash (במדבר רבה כא טו) that says, regarding Moshe Rabbeinu's semicha of Yehoshua,  וסמכת את ידך" עליו כמדליק נר מנר "ונתת מהודך" כמערה מכלי לכלי".  I don't understand what the Medrash means to say, but it has potential. 

4.  Only the Semicha of Yehoshua Involved Actual Semichas Yadayim

The Semicha of Yehoshua was the only ordination that involved actual Semicha.  The ensuing ordinations that we call Semichos, even the ones that continued the chain of the Semicha of Moshe Rabbeinu, did not involve placing hands on the head of the musmach.  We call it Semicha, but there is no act of Semicha.

Sanhedrin 13b-

תנא סמיכה וסמיכת זקנים בג' מאי סמיכה ומאי סמיכת זקנים א"ר יוחנן מיסמך סבי א"ל אביי לרב יוסף מיסמך סבי בשלשה מנלן אילימא מדכתיב ויסמוך את ידיו עליו אי הכי תסגי בחד וכי תימא משה במקום שבעים וחד קאי אי הכי ליבעי שבעים וחד קשיא אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי בידא ממש סמכין ליה אמר ליה סמכין ליה בשמא קרי ליה רבי ויהבי ליה רשותא למידן דיני קנסות

Rambam 4 Sanhedrin 1,

אחד בית דין הגדול ואחד סנהדרין קטנה או בית דין של שלשה צריך שיהיה אחד מהן סמוך מפי הסמוך. ומשה רבינו סמך יהושע ביד שנאמר ויסמוך את ידיו עליו ויצוהו. וכן השבעים זקנים משה רבינו סמכם ושרתה עליהן שכינה. ואותן הזקנים סמכו לאחרים ואחרים לאחרים ונמצאו הסמוכין איש מפי איש עד בית דינו של יהושע ועד בית דינו של משה רבינו. ואחד הנסמך מפי הנשיא או מפי אחד מן הסמוכין אפילו לא היה אותו סמוך בסנהדרין מעולם:

Rambam 4 Sanhedrin 2,

וכיצד היא הסמיכה לדורות לא שיסמכו ידיהן על ראש הזקן אלא שקורין לו רבי ואומרים לו הרי את סמוך ויש לך רשות לדון אפילו דיני קנסות

I think it's interesting that only the original Semicha of Moshe Rabbeinu involved the hands, and not the subsequent semichos.  You would think that they would require a replication of the original ma'aseh.  Although anointing a king with Shemen Hamishcha is not required for the descendants of David Hamelech, that's only because the Meshicha of David was a Meshicha of all his descendants that are worthy, and malchus became their kinyan through yerusha.  But here, the next generations of Rabbanim Musmachim ought to need actual semicha. There is no Yerusha of Torah, it's only Morasha.  The Tosfos Yomtov (Sanhedrin 1:3) leaves this with a question mark; he says "no reason has been given"- ולא אתפרש טעמא.

5.  The Hands are the Cheftza of the Avoda, Not Just Machshirim
This is not sophistry and it is not yeshivisheh obscurantism.  It's the best way I can think of saying it.  If you can think of a way to make it more clear, please let me know.   

Both the Avoda in the Beis Hamikdas and Duchenning requires the hands of Kohanim.  But the role of their hands in Duchening is fundamentally different than the role of their hands in Avodas Beis Hamikdash.

The proof is from Tosfos in Sanhedrin 35b.    The Gemara there says that a Kohen that had killed someone cannot duchen.  Tosfos asks, why does he remain kasher to do avoda in the Beis Hamikdash but becomes passul to duchen?  Tosfos answers with that Ein Kateigor, אין קטיגור נעשה סניגור, and that only applies to duchening, not to the Avodah.  the ekns thing and says that it only applies for duchening, not avoda.  

The Aruch Laner there ( here, end of the page) asks, what's the difference?  Avoda needs the Kohen's hands, too.  He answers that by avoda, the hands are a machshir of the avoda; The hands are like a Kli Shareis.   But by duchening, the hands themselves are the object of the avoda.  He says that we find that one should not look at the hands of the Kohen during Birkas Kohanim because the shechina is on them.  Whereas by avoda, the shechina is on the things you're using for the avoda.  Here it's on the hands themselves, and hands that were a קטיגור cannot themselves have the hashra'as hashechina to be a סניגור.

There's an interesting Chida on a similar topic:  he asks, who cares that אין קטיגור נעשה סניגור?  As the Gemara in Rosh Hashanna 26b says, that rule only applies within the Kodesh Kodoshim, not outside.  That's why the Kohen had to wear Bigdei Lavan only in the Kodesh Kodoshim on Yom Kippur, but he wore gold outside.  So what's the problem with a Kohein that killed someone?  I would have answered like the Gemara in Rosh Hashanna answers regading Tekias Shofar, that since it is coming for "Zikaron," it has the same status as Lifnim.  But that's not what the Chida says.  He says that the limitation of Ein Kateigor to Lifnim only applies where the objectionable element is reminiscent of a Kateigor, like gold is reminiscent of the Eigel HaZahav.   But where the object itself was the Kateigor, then it cannot be used as a Saneigor even Bachutz, just as Aharon was afraid to do the Avoda the first time he approached the Mizbei'ach.  Here, these hands themselves are the Kateigor, these hands shed blood, so they cannot be used for Duchenning.

We see from the Aruch Laner, and really from Tosfos and maybe from the Chida, that the use of the hands in Duchenning is more than the requirement of hands by Avoda.  The hands are not merely an element, a machshir, in the kashrus of the Avodah, they are the specific medium through which the Bracha flows.  By a korban, the Dam, the animal, is the medium of Kappara and Ritzui, it is the Cheftza of the Avoda.   By Duchenning, the hands are the medium of Bracha.

This concept is emphasized in the Maharsha in Sanhedrim 105b, who focuses on the different result of giving a bracha with one hand and giving a bracha with two hands.  If the hands were just a machshir, then the chalos Bracha would be the same with one or with two.

דאמר רב יוסי בר חוני בכל אדם מתקנא חוץ מבנו ותלמידו בנו משלמה ותלמידו איבעית אימא קטגוריה: ויהי נא פי שנים ברוחך אלי ואיבעית אימא קטגוריה:במדבר כז כג">במדבר כז, כג ויסמוך את ידיו עליו ויצוהו 

Maharsha

 ד׳ה: ואיבע״א ויסמוך. כמו שאמרינן בפרק החובל (ב״ק צב, ב) מנא הא מילתא דאמרי אינשי: חמריה למריה וטיבותיה לשקיה?  דכתיב: ״וסמכת את ידך עליו״ וגד, וכתיב:  ״ויהושע בן נון מלא רוח חכמה כי סמך משה  ידיו״ וגד. ועיין בתוספות שם. והוא מבואר,  כי מצינו במשה לשון יד א חד למלחמה,  שנאמר (שמות ת, ט): ״ומטה האלקים בידי״.  וכתיב (שם פסוק יא): ״והיה כאשר ירים משה  ידו״ זגד. ומציגו שתי ידיו לתורה ולחכמה,  דכתיב •(דברים ט, טו): ״ושני לוחות הברית על  שתי ידי״. והנה ביקש משה: ״יפקוד אלקי  הרוחות״ ונו׳. שהם שתי רוחות, דכתיב (ישעיה  יא, ב): ״רוח חכמה ובינה רוח עצה וגבורה״   ונענה לו הקב״ה על אחד וא״ל: ״קח וגד  וסמכת את ידך וגו׳ איש אשר  רוח בו״ —  שהוא יד אחד למלחמה ורוח גבורה, אבל  לחכמה אמר שלא יצא אלא ממשפחתו של משה, כמו שנאמר (במדבר מ, יט): ״והעמדת  אותו לפני אלעזר וגו׳ ושאל לו במשפט״ וגו׳.  ומשה הוסיף לו דבר התלוי בשתי ידיו דהיינו גם רוח חכמה. ולכך הביא בענין זה בפרק  החובל קרא זה דוזאת הברכה, דביה מפורש  ״רוח חכמה״, שאילו לא סמך שתי ידיו, לא  היה זוכה גם לחכמה רק (אלא) לגבורה וק״ל

6.   What Does ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל ואני אברכם Mean?

In Bamidbar 6:26, it says that the Mitzva of Birkas Kohanim requires that the Kohaim say the pesukim, and the parsha ends by saying ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל ואני אברכם.  What does "ve'samu" mean?  Every other word in the passuk is explained.  Regarding ואני אברכם, it is a machlokes (Reb Yishmael and Reb Akiva,Chulin 49,) as to who is the recipient of the אברכם in that passuk, whether it's the Yisraelim or the Kohanim.  שמי means that Birkas Kohanim needs the Shem Hameforash in the Mikdash.  But I want to know what ושמו means, and nobody talks about that word.  What is this Simah?  How are they "putting" the sheim Hashem on the people?   Is this with their hands, that שימה means  בידים, with a pe'ula, an act, as strongly indicated in Tosfos Kiddushin 34b (and all the Rishonim there- it's not just a lashon in Tosfos), and it would be another way of referring to Aharon's lifting of his hands towards the people? Or is it no different than לשום (את) שמו שם (Devarim 12:5, 12:21, and 14:24), and כתבו לכם את השירה הזאת ולמדה את בני ישראל שימה בפיהם (Devarim 31:19)?  Is לשום שמו שם just  another way of saying  לשכן שמו שם which appears six times in Devarim (יב: יא; יד: כג; טז: ב, ו, יא; כו: ב), to indicate that the שימה has to result in השראת השכינה?  (I am aware of modern "scholars" that say that this means that they used to actually write the Name of Hashem on the people, or touch the people with a metal plate with the Name on it.  Rubbish.)  Is it like  וירדתי ודיברתי עמך שם ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך ושמתי עליהם (Bamidbar 11:17) or ושמתי אני את פני באיש ההוא (Vayikra 20:5) which don't involve any ma'aseh that I can see?  But if it doesn't involve a ma'aseh, what do all the Rishonim mean in Kiddushin 34b?

7.    The Machlokes Whether the Kohanim Raising Their Hands is Essential
According to the Mishna Berura in 128:sk50, the majority of Achronim say that if the Kohen does not raise his hands, he does not fulfill the Mitzva of Birkas Kohanim/there is no Bracha.  For example, the Pri Megadim (EA121) says that if the Kohen does not raise both hands, it is passul.  The Noda BeYehuda (OC 1:5) proves this from the fact that a Kohen with blemished hands, or a Kohen that had killed someone, cannot duchen.   If use of the hands was not essential, they could duchen without using their hands.  But he brings that the Shevus Yaakov holds that it is kosher outside the Beis Hamikdash.  Also, the Radvaz is machshir an amputee.

8.     The Kohanim that Cover Their Faces and Hands
The Mor Uktziah in 128 (on the MA SK 54) says that it would be a mitzva to get Kohanim to stop covering their faces and hanging the Tallis over their hands, and also to get the people receiving the Bracha to not cover their faces.  He says that a bracha should be given with a direct face-to-face connection.  Regarding the hands, he says (starting at the end of the page):

כשנשים לב לדבר נוכל ליתן טעם פשוט שלא לכסות הידים  בשעת נ'כ כיון דאיתקוש לעבודה  וכן נ'ל מהך טעמא צריכין להיות יחיפי רגל כנז' כמו כהן משרת דמחיל עבודה כי עביד בחציצה 

9.    I'm Waiting to Hear From You.
I don't have a chiddush to say, or a unifying pshat in all these interesting things and questions.  But in my experience, when anomalies occur in groups, there is some concept or rule that joins them, as Reb Chaim says in the Gemara in Chagiga 3b by Shoteh, the rule known to the outside world as Occam's Razor.  Or, לכשתמצי לומר, they can be MADE to relate.  If you think of something, I would be happy to hear it.

Miketz, Bereshis 41:45. Asnas and Vittur

41:45- Yosef married Asnas, the daughter of Potiphera: 

יקרא פרעה שם-יוסף, צפנת פענח, ויתן-לו את-אסנת בת-פוטי פרע כהן אן, לאשה

The Daas Zkeinim asks why Yosef married Asnas, who was, apparently, a commoner, when he had the pick of all the aristocrats of Egypt.  

 וז״ל ויתן לו את אסנת  בת פוטיפדע תימה היאך נשא יוסף שהיה מלך בתו של הדיוט... עי״ל  שאסנת היתה בת דינה משכם כי בני יעקב הוציאוה וגרשוה מעמה כי אמרו  חס ושלום שיהא זרע פסול עם זרע כשר ובא יעקב ונתן לה ציץ זהב אשר  היה כתוב עליו קדש לה׳ והלכה וישבה בין הסנה ומצאה פוטיפר וגדלה  בביתו והמגדל יתום בביתו מעלה עליו הכתו׳ כאלו ילדו ולכך קראה הכתוב  בתו גם קראה אסנת על שם הסנה והיינו דכתיב בן פורת יוסף שהיו בנות  מצרים מטילין גורל על יוסף עד שהראתה לו אסנת הציץ שנתן לה יעקב  אמר יוסף ודאי זו ראויה לי עכ׳ל

He answers that she was an adopted daughter, and that her birth mother was Dinah, daughter of Leah, from the assault by Shechem.  Yosef discerned his familial qualities and a kindred spirituality in her, and realized that she was the right woman to be his wife and the mother of his children.

This is also found in the Pirkei d"Rebbi Eliezer, as follows.

"שהיתה בתו של יעקב יושבת אוהלים, ולא היתה יוצאה לחוץ מה עשה שכם בן חמור הביא נערות משחקות חוצה לו מתופפות ויצאה דינה לראות בבנות הארץ המשחקות ושללה ושכב עמה והרתה וילדה את אסנת, ואמרו בני ישראל להורגה שאמרה עכשיו יאמרו בכל הארץ שיש בית זנות באוהלי יעקב, הביא (יעקב) שרץ של זהב שם הקדש כתוב בו ותלה על צווארה ושלחה והלכה, והכול צפוי לפני הקב"ה וירד מיכאל המלאך והורידה למצרים לבית פוטיפרע, שהייתה אסנת ראויה ליוסף לאישה, והיתה אשתו של פוטיפרע עקרה וגדלה עמה כבת, וכשירד יוסף למצרים לקחה לו לאישה, שנאמר 'ויתן לו את אסנת בת פוטיפרע'  (פרקי דרבי אליעזר פרק לז)

The great Talmid Chacham and Maggid HaRav Galinski of Bnei Brak once said that there are times that a person has to stand his ground, but there are times that concession is wiser.  To avoid machlokes, to avoid hurting a person, sometimes one should give in, and give up what is rightfully theirs.  This is called Vittur.  He said that from vittur you lose nothing.  He proved it from here.  Rashi (Bereishis 30:1) that talks about the birth of Dinah says 

פירשו רבותינו שדנה לאה דין בעצמה אם זה זכר לא תהא רחל אחותי כאחת השפחות, והתפללה עליו ונהפך לנקבה

According to this Medrash, when Leah became had become pregnant, she realized that if this would be a son it would be her seventh.  Apparently it was known there would be no more than twelve sons, and the Shfachos already had four, so if she were to have another son, Rachel couldn't have more than one son, diminishing her beneath the Shfachos.  She knew that this would cause Rachel terrible distress, so she prayed that if it was a boy that it change gender.  Her prayer was answered and the fetus turned into Dinah.  This was a tremendous example of Vittur.  

Because of this Vittur, Leah's gave up her descendant's additional share of Eretz Yisrael, since if she had another Shevet, she would gain an additional share of Eretz Yisrael.  But what happened in the end?  That one girl, Dinah, had a daughter, and the daughter married Yosef, and the daughter's two sons, Ephraim and Menashe, were given the status of shevatim, which doubled her descendants' portion of Eretz Yisrael.  Her Vittur ultimately was rewarded with a double portion.  It may not be immediate, one may not even live to see it.  But, as Harav Galinsky said, 

פון וויתור פארלירט מען ניט

Women that are Obligated to Wear Tefillin

*****************************************************
*******  WARNING: ACADEMIC HUMOR.  *******
*****************************************************

The Gemara in Shabbos 70b talks of a person that has lost track of time and does not know when Shabbos is.  היה מהלך בדרך או במדבר ואינו יודע אימתי שבת.  The Gemara says that he must do whatever is necessary to survive, but that in order to maintain his sense of Shabbos he should designate one day out of seven to be his Shabbos.  

The Gemara asks, but if every day might be Shabbos, his special circumstances that require him to do what is necessary for survival- no less and no more- applies every day, including his designated special day; אלא כל יום ויום עושה לו פרנסתו אפילו ההוא יומא.  So how would his special day be different?  וההוא יומא במאי מינכר ליה?  The Gemara answers   בקידושא ואבדלתא.  On the day that he calls Shabbos he should make kiddush and havdala.

The Achronim discuss whether and when he should wear Tefillin.  Assuming that it is assur to wear Tefillin on Shabbos, can this lost person wear Tefillin on any day, or not?

For the purposes of this post, I want to quote a comment of the Mishna Berura in the Biur Halacha in 344 DH אפילו, where he says:

ועוד יש סברא לחייבו דהלא פטור דשבת הוא מפני שהם עצמם אות וא"כ זה שעושה בו מלאכה לפרנסתו אין בו היכר

There is another reason to obligate him: After all, the rule that one does not wear Tefillin on Shabbos is because (Shabbos is an Os,a sign, and) Tefillin themselves are a sign, (and wearing the sign of Tefillin belittles the holy Os/sign of Shabbos.)  But for this person who is doing work on Shabbos, as is necessary to survive, Shabbos is no sign at all, (so Tefillin would be appropriate.)

But, you ask, doesn't he make Kiddush and Havdala?  So there is a sign pf Shabbos on that day, and that Os/sign should render his Tefillin superfluous and inappropriate!  To this he answers

דלא מסתבר לומר דבקידוש לבד הוא ההיכר דהא עיקר האות הוא דהקב"ה שבת ממלאכתו ביום השביעי והוא ג"כ שובת

that is is not reasonable to say that his Kiddush alone is a sign, because the main sign is that Hashem rested from work on Shabbos and he too rests from work, (and since this person is working on that day like every other day, his Kiddush is not much of a sign and does not interfere with wearing Tefillin.)

Of course, there is much to talk about regarding this opinion.  One might say that the rule of Os is a siman, not a sibbah, and the day is pattur no matter what this person is doing.  The Mishna Berura himself only uses this as a side thought, dicta, not the foundation of his opinion.  But again, for the purposes of this post, let us assume that this reasoning applies as he states it.

Now, why is it that women are not obligated to wear Tefillin?  Because it is a Mitzvas Asei She'hazman Gerama, a mitzva caused by time- it is operative only on a particular season, hour, or day.  We pasken that as far as the Torah rules, Tefillin are worn at night just as they are in the day.  It is only because the mitzva of Tefillin does not apply on Shabbos and Yomtov that it is Zman Gerama.

But what of a person that believes that one is allowed to do melacha on Shabbos and Yomtov, like Reform Jews?  They certainly don't believe that the Torah commands us to refrain from working, and they do whatever they want on Shabbos.  Tikkun Olam (even if it were limited to Saturday) is a beautiful thing, but I don't think it counts and an Os. So as far as Issur Melacha is concerned, Shabbos is no more of an Os/sign for them than it is for the hypothetical מהלך בדרך או במדבר.  Well, then, according to the Biur Halacha, Reform Jews are halachically obligated to wear Tefillin on Shabbos.

There was a time when open and total chillul Shabbos resulted in the transgressor being deemed a non-Jew regarding some areas of the law. However, many poskim of our time, including Reb Moshe and the Chazon Ish, hold that for various reasons this no longer pertains. And certainly the fact that the person does an aveirah does not mean that other mitzvos are no longer binding - that is only true for Korban Pesach and other Korbanos.

This realization leads to a cascade of consequences. The Gemara says that a sefer Torah, or Tefillin, written by a woman is passul, because of the equation generated by the juxtaposition of וקשרתם\וכתבתם . Just as they are not in the parsha of Tefillin, so too they are not in the parsha of writing Tefillin or Sifrei Torah. But now that we've learned that these women are in the parsha of Tefillin, they certainly should be able to write both Tefillin and Sifrei Torah. We find it amazing that the non-observant Jewish feminists of our time have instinctively realized this remarkable truth.

A We wear Tefillin only on days that are not otherwise an Os.
B. We do not wear Tefillin on Shabbos because the issur melacha is an Os.
C. If one does melacha on Shabbos no differently than any other day, Shabbos is not an Os, and he is obligated to wear Tefillin on Shabbos.
D. Therefore, a mechallel Shabbos be'farhesya is halachically obligated to wear Tefillin on Shabbos.
E. Women are not obligated to wear Tefillin because the petur on Shabbos makes it a  mitzvas assei she'hazman gramma.
F. A person who is mechallel Shabbos befarhesya (whether because of an ongoing pikuach nefesh, or because of sincere and beautiful religious conviction that the Torah is not min hashamayim or because it was cynically subverted from its original intent by ignorant and superstitious old men,) is obligated to wear Tefillin on Shabbos.
G. Therefore, a Reform Jewish woman is halachically obligated to wear Tefillin on Shabbos.
QED