Balak, Bamidbar 23:9. Not Counted Among the Nations; Am Yisrael's Exceptionalism

The Gemara (Taanis 21b) says there was a plague in the city of Sura, but Rav's neighborhood was spared. People thought it was Rav's zechus that protected them, but in a dream, they were told that they were spared in the merit of another man, a lesser tzadik.  For Rav, who was far greater, this would be insignificant.

בסורא הוות דברתא בשיבבותיה דרב לא הוות דברתא סברו מיניה משום זכותיה דרב דנפיש איתחזי להו בחילמא רב דנפישא זכותיה טובא הא מילתא זוטרא ליה לרב אלא משום ההוא גברא דשייל מרא וזבילא לקבורה

Rashi-

הא זוטר ליה לרב. נס זה קטן הוא לפי גדולת רב:

The Maharsha understands the Gemara to mean that while the zechus of the other person saved them, certainly Rav's zechus would have been doubly effective.  But the Maharsha is bothered by the Gemara, because under the circumstances, why wouldn't it have been Rava's zechus?  What mistake did the message from Shamayim need to correct?  If there's the zechus of a great tzadik and the zechus of a regular tzadik, and a neis happens, isn't it logical that they both contributed, and that, in fact, the smaller zechus was not even necessary?  It's as if you protect a city by surrounding it with a wall.  Rav's contribution to the wall was ten feet thick, and the other tzadik's one foot thick.  True, to stop this danger, you only needed the one foot, but lemaaseh, the wall was built by both of them.  So the Maharsha says that it was because when a zechus brings a neis, something is deducted from the Zechus, as Rav Adda bar Ahava had taught on the previous daf (20b) based on Yaakov Avinu's words קטנתי מכל החסדים.  In reward for Rav's great zechus, his zechus wasn't used, so that nothing would be deducted from his account.

So according to the Maharsha, of course Rav's zechus would have worked, but it wasn't necessary to tap his zechus in this case, for whatever reason.

But other mefarshim understand the Gemara to be saying that Rav's greater zechus would not have worked.  It would not have protected his neighbors.  This, of course, is thoroughly counter intuitive.  Several mefarshim step up to the plate, and I think that the best way to describe their explanations is "clever" and enjoyable.  Whether their answers are a good pshat in the Gemara or in Hashkafa is a different question.

The connection to our parsha is from the Yismach Moshe in Parshas Balak:  He brings from the Targum that the passuk הן עם לבדד ישכן ובגוים לא יתחשב means that Klal Yisrael will inherit the world- that it is eternal- and that they will not be destroyed with the wicked nations at the final judgment.  Here are the words of the Targum:

הא עמא בלחודיהון עתידין דיחסנון עלמא ובעממיא לא ייתדנון גמירא

He asks, the two seem to be redundant; if it's eternal, then we know they won't be destroyed.  He answers that the passuk is teaching the causality- because of the first, therefore the second.  In other words, if all the nations of the world were judged together, then Klal Yisrael's zechusim would save everyone, because our zechusim outweigh whatever aveiros they have.  But since we're guaranteed eternity, and can't ever be destroyed, we will not be judged together with the others.  Only those that might possibly be destroyed will be judged, and we're exempted.  So the passuk is saying that davka because we're eternal, we won't be brought up for judgment together with them, and so our zechusim won't mitigate their sins.  As a result, they will be destroyed.

He brings a lomdishe tzushtell from the Rashba brought in the Beis Yosef at the end of YD 111.  If  a basket of teruma  fell into one of two baskets of chulin, one containing 100 times as much as the Teruma which is enough to be mevatel and the other has less than 100 times, which is enough for bitul miderabanan but not mid'oraysa, we say שאני אומר- since it would be battel midoraysa either way, and it's a safek derabanan, Chazal give us the right to halachically assume that the teruma fell into the bigger basket and was battel. The Rishonim ask, but who needs שאני אומר?  There's a ליטרא קציעות rule by issurim derabanan that allows you to combine the total volume of the two baskets of chulin even though it fell into one, so it's as if it fell into one basket holding 199 measures!  The Rashba answers that since the bigger basket would be mevatel the teruma, it can't count together with the other basket.  You only can combine them if neither alone would be mevatel, so they're both relevant to the problem.  Since if it fell into the larger one the Teruma would be irrelevant, it can't be counted together with the smaller basket.  Here too: since Klal Yisrael is not subject to the same potential din, we are not relevant to the judicial issue, and won't be judged all together.

Back to the Gemara in Taanis: Since Rava was a tzadik gamur, the plague was bichlal not relevant to him.  Therefore, his zechus could not save anyone.  Only a tzadik that's not a tzadik gamur, who Might be threatened by the plague, but would ultimately be saved by his zechus, can save his neighbors.  But Rav was so great, that the plague was totally irrelevant to him, so he couldn't save his neighbors.  It's like the opposite of grading on a curve.

The Yismach Moshe is hard to find, so here it is inside.

The Sfas Emes offers two answers.
Answer One:
The people in the area did not accord Rav the honor due such a great tzadik and talmid chacham, or perhaps they were lax in heeding his words.  As a result, they did not deserve to be saved in his merit- in a sense, they had thrown away the protection of Rav's zechusim through their insufficient kavod.

Answer Two from the Sfas Emes, based on a yesod from the Chidushei HaRim in Vayeira; this answer is also found in the Malbim in Vayeira 18:24 and also in the Anaf Yosef in the Ein Yaakov from Rav Yonasan Eibschutz:  AND, our anonymous commenter tells us, the Maharil in Va'eira, presumably regarding Makkas Bechoros, though it ought to be in Bo.
Chazal say (Shabbos 33b) כיון שניתנה רשות למשחית שוב אינו מבחין בין צדיק לרשע.  But this does not apply to a Tzadik Gamur, as we see in Gittin perek Cheilek.  So, if a tzadik less than gamur is in the neighborhood, and he would be threatened by כיון שניתנה רשות למשחית שוב אינו מבחין בין צדיק לרשע, Hashem holds back the mashchis in order to save the tzadik.  But if a tzadik gamur is there, then he is not endangered by כיון שניתנה רשות.  So Hashem can send the משחית in to do his work and not have to worry about the tzadik.  Here, Hashem kept the משחית out in order to spare the local tzadik.  If Rav were the only tzadik there, though, Hashem would have spared Rav even though the others would die.  So it was only because of the lesser tzadik that the neighborhood was spared.

This is not too far from the Yismach Moshe's answer, without the tzushtell to the Rashba in Toras HaBayis.

I say with all sincerity עפר אני תחת כפות רגליהם, but לעניות דעתי הקלושה the hashkafa seems twisted.  But the lomdus is nice.

Family Loyalty - ומבשרך לא תתעלם

Reb Akiva Eiger once visited a widowed relative, and while he was there, he cooked her something for dinner (according to Reb Chaim Kanievsky's version.)  His talmidim protested and said that this was undignified, it was אינו לפי כבודו.  Remember, this was in Europe, where most men had no idea what went on in the kitchen, and men certainly did not cook.  As R Avigdor Miller once said, he did not know what side of the door the handle of his refrigerator is on.  (My father zatzal, also a talmid of Slabodka, who agreed with R Miller on few things, could also have said this.  I make breakfast for my mother shethichyeh, and she still thinks it's something between laughable and stam odd.)

Reb Akiva Eiger answered that the rule of זקן ואינה לפי כבודו is derived from the parsha of השבת אבידה, where it says והתעלמת, and we darshen  פעמים שאתה מתעלם.  But regarding relatives, the passuk in Yeshaya says (58:7)  ומבשרך לא תתעלם;

הלוא פרס לרעב לחמך ועניים מרודים תביא בית כי תראה ערם וכסיתו ומבשרך לא תתעלם 

 לא תתעלם means there's no pettur of זקן ואינה לפי כבודו.

There is a question on this story, though, from the Gemara in Ksuvos 52b, where it says

תנו רבנן אלמנה ניזונת מנכסי יתומין וצריכה רפואה הרי היא כמזונות רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר רפואה שיש לה קצבה נתרפאת מכתובתה שאין לה קצבה הרי היא כמזונות אמר רבי יוחנן עשו הקזת דם בארץ ישראל כרפואה שאין לה קצבה קריביה דרבי יוחנן הוה להו איתת אבא דהות צריכה רפואה כל יומא אתו לקמיה דר' יוחנן אמר להו איזילו קוצו ליה מידי לרופא אמר רבי יוחנן עשינו עצמינו כעורכי הדיינין מעיקרא מאי סבר ולבסוף מאי סבר מעיקרא סבר ומבשרך לא תתעלם ולבסוף סבר אדם חשוב שאני:

From Rash in a similar Gemara in Kesuvos 86 we can answer the question, because Rashi there explains
אדם חשוב שאני - לפי שלמדין הימנו ויש שיעשו אף שלא לקרובים:, that his concern was that others would do as he did for friends or influential people, and not only for relatives.  Even without Rashi's pshat, there are pretty obvious distinctions between what we're talking about and the case of Rav Yochanan.  Whatever we do with the Gemara, the story of Reb Akiva Eiger is still a touchstone.

Who is called בשרך ?  It certainly is broader than שאר בשרו by arayos.  Is it like the seven called שְׁאֵרוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו by Tumas Kohanim?  Is it the same as people who are not כשר לעדות, so sheini b'shlishi- first cousins once removed and farther- are not included?  I don't know, so all I can do is think about the places where the term is applied.  As it turns out, that doesn't do any good at all.

Here are some cases where Chazal apply the passuk in Yeshaya.

1.  A niece and nephew
Based on Sanhedrin 76a, as brought in the Rambam 2 Isurei Biah 5:0

ומצות חכמים שישא אדם בת אחותו והוא הדין לבת אחיו שנאמר ומבשרך לא תתעלם

2.  An ex-spouse, even if she was a machasheifa:
ירושלמי כתובות פי''א ה''ג, but the story's much better in the Medrash Rabba Breishis 17:3, as follows:

אעשה לו עזר כנגדו אם זכה עזר ואם לאו כנגדו אמר רבי יהושע בר נחמיה אם זכה כאשתו של רבי חנינא בר חכינאי ואם לאו כאשתו של רבי יוסי הגלילי רבי יוסי הוה ליה אנתתא בישא והות ברתא דאחתיה והות בזית ליה קדם תלמידוי אמרין תלמידיו שבקא להדא אנתתא בישא דליתא מיקרך אמרר להון פורנא רב עלי לית בידי מה אשבוק לה חד זמן הוון יתבין פשטין הוא ור"א בן עזריה דמן חסלין א"ל משגח רבי ואנן סלקין בביתא א"ל אין סליק כי סליק אמכת לאפה ונפקת לה צפה בההיא קדירה אמר לה אית בההיא קדריה כלום א"ל אית פרפריין אזל גליתה ואשכח פרגיין ידע ר"א בן עזריה מה הוא שמע יתבון להון אכלין א"ל רבי לא אמרת אלא פרפריין והא אשכחנן בגוה פרגיין א"ל מעשה נסים הן מן דחסלין א"ל רבי שבוקא ההיא אנתתא מינך דלית היא עבדא ליקרתך א"ל פורנא רב עלי ולית בי מה אשבוק לה א"ל אנן יהבינן לה פורנא ושבקית מינך עבדון ליה כן פסק לה פורנא ושבק יתה מיניה ואסבון יתיה איתתא אחרא טבא מינה גרמון חובין דההיא איתתא ואזלת ואתנסבית לסנטרין דקרתא לבתר יומין אתון יסורין עליו ואיתעוור והוות ציירת בידיה ומחזרא ליה על שקקיא דקרתא כיון דהות מטיא בשקקיא דרבי יוסי הגלילי הות קיימא לה וחזרה לאחורה מן דהוה ההוא גברא חכים קרתא אמר לה למה את לא מובלת לי לשכונתיה דרבי יוסי הגלילי דאנא שמע דההוא עביד מצוה אמרת ליה משבקתיה אנא ולית בי דליחמי סבר אפוהי חד זמן אתון קרון בשכונתיה דרבי יוסי ארגיש בה יום קדמוי ויום תניין ושרי מחי לה ואזיל קלהון והוון מתבזין בכל קרתא אודיק ר' יוסי לקלהון וחמהון מתבזן בגו שוקא א"ל למה את מחי לה א"ל כל יום היא מובדה פרנסתיה דהדין שקקיה מיני כיון דשמע רבי יוסי כן נסביהון ויהיב יתהון בחדא ביתא מן דידיה והוה מפרנס יתהון כל יומי חייהון על שם (ישעיה נח) ומבשרך לא תתעלם:

Although in the Medrash version of the story she was his niece, so it shouldn't be a raya to another grusha, the Rema applies to in general, probably based on the Yerushalmi version, in which her family relationship is not mentioned.
This is brought lehalacha by the Rema from the Hagahos Maimonos in EH 119:8, and, strangely, in the first Shach in Hilchos Tzedaka, YD 247.  I guess he decided to put it in the beginning to remind us that the mitzva of tzedaka applies even if you dislike the recipient.


3.  A Talmid Chacham that needs help
Eliah Rabba 27:4, probably based on the din that הכל קרוביו (MK 25:a)

ומבשרך לא תתעלם מי שיש לו ת"ח בשכונתו ויודע בו שהוא קורא לש״ש והוא שונה לש״ש והוא זן ומפרנסו ומכלכלו נמצא שהוא מקיים ומחייה לאותו ת"ח ואת אשתו ובניו ואת כל אשר לו ואת כל חקרובים עמו במשפחה לכך נאמר ומבשרך לא תתעלם

Chukas, Bamidbar 21:8. The Mishna in Rosh HaShanna about the Brass Serpent

Mishna Rosh Hashanna 29a

 עשה לך שרף ושים אותו על נס והיה כל הנשוך וראה אותו וחי וכי נחש ממית או נחש מחיה אלא בזמן שישראל מסתכלין כלפי מעלה ומשעבדין את לבם לאביהם שבשמים היו מתרפאין ואם לאו היו נימוקים

In  order to stop the plague of deadly snakes (Bamidbar 21:8,) Hashem told Moshe to place  a brass serpent on top of a pole in the encampment.  The Mishna in Rosh Hashanna asks, rhetorically, "Does a brass serpent cause death?  Does a brass serpent give life?  Rather, if the Jews looked upwards and devoted themselves to their Father in heaven, they were healed, and if not, they would decline."

The Mishna expresses the same thought in connection with Moshe Rabbeinu's hands in the battle against Amalek (שמות יז).  Hashem had told Moshe to stand with uplifted hands over the battlefield and the Jews would be victorious.  The Mishna asks, "Do the hands of Moshe make or break a battle?  Rather, when the Jews looked up and remembered their Father in heaven, the battle turned in their favor.  If they hadn't, they would have fallen."

  והיה כאשר ירים משה ידו וגבר ישראל וגו' וכי ידיו של משה עושות מלחמה או שוברות מלחמה אלא לומר לך כל זמן שהיו ישראל מסתכלין כלפי מעלה ומשעבדין את לבם לאביהם שבשמים היו מתגברים ואם לאו היו נופלים

When I taught this Mishna to my shiur, someone expressed surprise, and said, "So it wasn't a miracle."  I responded that he was incorrect.  The fact that it wasn't the hands, or the serpent, made it a greater miracle.  If it were the hands of Moshe or the brass serpent, it would just be a mighty magical object.  But instead, it was the inspiration to do teshuva that saved the Jews- remembering that our life and death is in Hashem's hands, and that we need to do teshuva for our failings- that inspiration brought victory and healing.  Why is that less of a miracle?  That's a greater miracle.  A mental decision alone, a dedication to Hashem, a decision to do Teshuva, turned the world upside down, it changed the teva.  It's interesting, though, that a ma'amin sees the effect of tefilla and teshuva to be teva, but a magical serpent to be lema'ala miderech hateva!

But it's important to realize that his remark was incorrect for another reason as well.  Despite the fact that the Mishna uses a rhetorical question, "Was it the hands of Moshe?  Was it the brass serpent?" to elicit a negative answer and emphasize the essential role of bitachon and teshuva, the fact remains that yes, it was Moshe's hands, and yes, it was the brass serpent.  If these things only served to inspire emuna and teshuva, some other method would have sufficed.   Hashem davka wanted Moshe with uplifted hands on the rock over the battlefield, and davka the brass serpent, and these specific elements were essential in bringing about the victory and the healing.  So don't let a superficial reading of the Mishna mislead you.  The yeshuos were brought about by the combination- uplifted hands+bitachon, serpent+teshuva.  Both elements are necessary, neither alone would be sufficient.  They hands and the serpent were symbols, but they were not only symbols.

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

Our Mishna is not discussing Mitzvos in general, and it is not directly related to the discussion in the Rishonim about Taamei Hamitzvos as opposed to doing mitzvos without thinking of their rationale.  Our Mishna is only talking about the cases where the Ribono shel Olam told us to do something specific in order to yield a specific and immediate result.

In another case in the Torah that fits into this category, the lesson of the Mishna is evident as well- in Kri'as Yam Suf.

Let's write our own Mishna.

ואתה הרם את מטך ונטה את ידך על הים ובקעהו.  וכי מטה של משה מציל או אינו מציל?  אלא עכשיו שקפץ נחשון ואמר הושיעני אלהים כי באו מים עד נפש הם ניצולים, ואם לאו היו אובדים.  הוי דבר אל בני ישראל ויסעו- ואתה הרם את מטך ונטה את ידך על הים ובקעהו

There is no such Mishna.  I just Friedlaendered the Gemara in Sotah 37a into an addendum to the Mishna in Rosh Hashanna.  But it is clearly true.

Sotah 37a:

זה אומר אין אני יורד תחילה לים וזה אומר אין אני יורד תחילה לים קפץ נחשון בן עמינדב וירד לים תחילה שנאמר סבבוני בכחש אפרים ובמרמה בית ישראל ויהודה עוד רד עם אל ועליו מפרש בקבלה הושיעני אלהים כי באו מים עד נפש טבעתי ביון מצולה ואין מעמד וגו' אל תשטפני שבולת מים ואל תבלעני מצולה וגו' באותה שעה היה משה מאריך בתפלה אמר לו הקב"ה ידידיי טובעים בים ואתה מאריך בתפלה לפני אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם ומה בידי לעשות אמר לו דבר אל בני ישראל ויסעו ואתה הרם את מטך ונטה את ידך וגו'

First the Ribono shel Olam wanted to see Klal Yisrael jump into the sea with perfect faith- דבר אל בני ישראל ויסעו.  Only then was Moshe told to raise up his staff and split the sea- ואתה הרם את מטך .  It wasn't Moshe's staff alone, and it wasn't Nachshon's self-sacrificial faith alone.  It was the staff plus the faith of Klal Yisrael.

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

We've established that the theme our Mishna applies to Moshe's hands in the battle against Amaleik and the brass serpent applies equally to Moshe's matteh at the Yam Suf.   But there are cases when an object itself brought about a miraculous effect, without any "Ella shekol zman...."  Moshe's matteh brought about the makkos in Mitzrayim.  There, if the Mishna would ask "Do you think that the matteh of Moshe brings frogs or ends frogs?" the answer would be, "Yes, it did."  Similarly, Moshe's staff brought water from stones in Massa and Meriva, he used a piece of wood to sweeten the water in Mara, Eliyahu's cloak split the Yarden once for him (Melachim II:2:8) and once for Elisha (there passuk 14,) and Elisha's staff could have revived the בן השונמית had Geichazi not spoiled it (Melachim II:4:39.)  So why does the Mishna pose the question as if it were rhetorical with the answer being "No, of course not," when in some cases the answer seems to be "Yes, it was the object that caused the miracle"?

I think we're forced to say that although our Mishna illustrated the rule with these two clear examples, it is a rule of general application.  If that's the case, we have to say that the objects used for the makkos, for sweetening the water, for bringing water from stone, for splitting the Yarden, for reviving the בן השונמית, and for making the iron axe float (II R 6:6,) all were secondary, and in every one of those cases the primary ingredient was the emuna and bitachon of the person doing the neis (which explains why Geichazi's attempt failed.)

Assuming that the rule of our Mishna is general, I don't know why our Mishna had to use two examples, and why these examples were chosen.  It's a  "תנא ושייר" but I wonder what the צריכותא of davka these two cases is.

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

In review, I think these he'aros in the Mishna need to be highlighted, because they are easy to miss.

1.  The Mishna is not detracting from the gadlus of the nissim of the war on Amaleik and the Nechash Hanechoshes.  By showing that the key of miracles was teshuva and emuna the Mishna multiplies the gadlus and significance of the nissim.

2.  While the teshuva and emuna (the  כוונה) were essential, the hands of Moshe and the Nechash Hanechoshes (the פעולה) were also necessary.  Neither the פעולה nor the  כוונה alone would have been sufficient.

3.  The Chiddush of the Mishna is evident in the story of Krias Yam Suf as well.

4.  I think that it's clear from the Mishna that the rule is global; in every case in Tanach where an object was used to bring about a neis, the object was only part of the formula.  The other part is always emunah or teshuva.



Although I made the point that our Mishna is not discussing mitzvos in general, and is only talking about a tzivui to take an object and use it to cause a specific immediate result למעלה מדרך הטבע, I think perhaps that our Mishna is a remez to the hashkafa question much discussed among the Rishonim- the significance of contemplating Ta'amei HaMitzvos, the symbolic meaning and the rationale of mitzvos, in contradistinction to viewing mitzvos as inherently significant exclusively because they are the tzivui of Hashem, and doing them without analysis because whatever their rationale may be, it is unknowable to anyone but the Ribono shel Olam.  Taamei hamitzvos only cover the rationale or the symbolic aspect, but they don't address the inherent significance of the ma'aseh mitzva as a tzivui of Hashem.  There is a great deal of discussion about the weight we should assign each aspect (Rambam in the Moreh ג:כ"ו leaning toward rationales, while in the Yad in 3 Teshuva 4 he leans toward doing it because it is a tzivui; Reb Yehuda HaLevi כוזרי ח"א עט and the Tur in the beginning of YD 181, who advocate emuna peshuta in kiyum ma'aseh hamitzva because it is a tzivui, and Chinuch מצוה טז).

If this is the case, we must point out the irony of this Mishna telling us the pshat in the Nechash HaNechoshes when Parshas Chukas begins with the lesson of Para Aduma, which teaches us that Hashem's mitzvos are gezeiros; as Rashi says, גזרה היא מלפני ואין לך רשות להרהר אחריה.  All the achronim ask, why was Para Aduma given in Mara, what is so fundamental about it.  They all answer that the Mitzva of Para Aduma was intended to teach Klal Yisrael that every mitzva should be viewed as a chok.  The first Maharal on the parsha asks, why is this lesson taught at this late date in the Torah?  It applies to every single mitzva, they are all Gzeiros, as we see in Brachos 33b, that if one davens and asks for mercy just as Hashem showed mercy by Shiluach Hakan, we silence him, because he's matil kin'a in maasei Breishis, or it makes middos of the Ribono shel Olam Rachamim when in fact they are only Gzeiros.  The Maharal answers that of course Mitzvos have a taam, but the taam is not the Rachamim of the Ribono shel Olam.  True, the Rambam holds like the first answer, kin'ah, because he holds we don't pasken like the second teretz to look at Mitzvos as if they're Gzeiros, but it's still ironic that davka in Chukas Chazal read a rationale into a mitzva.

Again, the fact is that Chazal in our Mishna are focusing on these actions because they weren't stam mitzvos, they were actions Hashem commanded explicitly in order to generate a specific effect.  Only here do Chazal say that it's not mistavra that it was the act alone that brought the effect, because if it were, then Hashem would just do it Himself.  There must have been some result within Klal Yisrael that was necessary for the result to occur.  What the Ribono shel Olam was looking for was a strengthening of emuna and teshuva.  So it's not exactly the same as the general discussion of Taamei HaMitzvos.  But I still say that it is very similar to the discussion of Taamei HaMitzvos.


Here is a good example of the Rambam using our Mishna's approach in order to read a rationale into a mitzva:

• The Trumpet of Taanis- Rambam 1 Taanios 1-3, discussing the Mitzva Deoraysa to blow a trumpet in times of danger.

מצות עשה מן התורה לזעוק ולהריע בחצוצרות על כל צרה שתבא על הצבור. שנאמר על הצר הצורר אתכם והרעותם בחצוצרות. כלומר כל דבר שייצר לכם כגון בצורת ודבר וארבה וכיוצא בהן זעקו עליהן והריעו:

ודבר זה מדרכי התשובה הוא. שבזמן שתבוא צרה ויזעקו עליה ויריעו ידעו הכל שבגלל מעשיהם הרעים הורע להן ככתוב עונותיכם הטו וגו'. וזה הוא שיגרום להסיר הצרה מעליהם:

אבל אם לא יזעקו ולא יריעו אלא יאמרו דבר זה ממנהג העולם אירע לנו וצרה זו נקרה נקרית. הרי זו דרך אכזריות וגורמת להם להדבק במעשיהם הרעים. ותוסיף הצרה צרות אחרות. הוא שכתוב בתורה והלכתם עמי בקרי והלכתי גם אני עמכם בחמת קרי. כלומר כשאביא עליכם צרה כדי שתשובו אם תאמרו שהיא קרי אוסיף לכם חמת אותו קרי:

The Pri Megadim/Mishbetzos in 575:2 uses this to explain why the Rambam puts the trumpets of tzaros and of korbanos together in one mitzva- because the rationale is identical:

ועיין מגיד משנה פרק א' מהלכות תענית הלכה א' ומשנה למלך (סימן תקע"ו ותמה למה אין תוקעין היום יע"ש ועיין משנה למלך (בפרשת דרכים דרך מצותיך ריש חלק ראשון ד"ה הן אמת) שהר"מ ז"ל כלל מצות עשה אחת (עשה נט) לקרבנות ולצרה ותמהו שם למה לא מנה לשתי מצוות עשה אחר שהם זמנים מתחלפים כמו שופר ראש השנה (עשה ק'ע) ויובל ביום הכיפורים (עשה קל'ז) יע"ש ועיין בספר החינוך פרשת בהעלותך (מצוה שפד) למדתי קצת תירוץ שהכוונה להם אחת שאדם צריך כוונה גדולה בקרבן (ושלא יקריבהו רק לשמים לא לשום מזל וכוכב כמו שהורגלו מקודם לכן ועיין בר"מ ז"ל (מורה נבוכים ח"ג פרק מו) ובשאר ספרים טעם קרבנות) וכן בעת צרה צריך כיוון גדול לה' והיינו נמי כמו שכתב נהחינוך בסמוך שלא יאמר מקרה הוא או ממערכת השמים, האדם חומר צריך התעוררות רב, ולזה נצטוינו להריע בחצוצרות וכיון שהכוונה אחת מנה במצות עשה אחת כך יש ליישב קצת ושופר ראש השנה ויובל שתי כוונות להם זה לחירות וזה לשבור לבינו ולשוב בתשובה ולזכור עקידת יצחק ותענית בחצוצרות ושופר בראש השנה משום הכי אתי שפיר 

Since the כוונה is so central that the Rambam combines the teru'ah of korbanos and tzaros, it is like our Mishna that says that the פעולה alone is not the only thing that matters.

• Finally, we find the same idea by the Shofar of Rosh Hashanna- Rambam 3 Teshuva 4

אע"פ שתקיעת שופר בראש השנה גזירת הכתוב רמז יש בו כלומר עורו ישינים משנתכם ונרדמים הקיצו מתרדמתכם וחפשו במעשיכם וחזרו בתשובה וזכרו בוראכם.

Our Mishna presented the physical act, the מעשה מצוה, as being less significant than the effect on the person's heart and mind, but here, the Rambam begins by saying אע"פ שתקיעת שופר בראש השנה גזירת הכתוב, that we must first recognize that our primary motive in doing Mitzvos is to do the מעשה מצוה as commanded by the Ribono shel Olam, and then, as a secondary matter, we can contemplate the "Remez" of the effect of Tekias Shofar on our heart and mind (unlike his approach in the Moreh, as noted.)  



IMPORTANT ADDENDUM, 10/23/17
I'm thinking about segulos for victory in war, such as kviyus makom for tefilla or Torah (different girsos, see OC 155 and Gra there,) and putting on the shel yad first and not being mafsik between it and the shel rosh. I think that the Mishna in RH is asking the question because other cases involve a mitzvah. A mitzva done at a certain time or in a certain way might become a segula. But stam an action, like lifting hands, or a copper serpent on a stick, is not an inherently meaningful act, so it can't be a segula on its own. It has to ACQUIRE meaning. So now that it brought teshuva, or emunah, the act becomes meaningful, and AS A RESULT IT CAN FUNCTION AS A SEGULA.  Yes, these things brought about the yeshuva. But a meaningless act cannot do that. It has to be an act that has an element of kedusha. Once it's a meaningful act, it can, sometimes, become a lemaalah min hateva instrument.

Korach. Twelve Divrei Torah, and an Observation on the Progress of Human Morality

Here are twelve Divrei Torah I've posted over the years on Parshas Korach.  Following the links will be a little observation about religion and progress..

2006
Ahf Ki Amar Elokim; an amazing Chasam Sofer.

2008
16:15. Al taifen el minchosom. Moshe Rabbeinu's Request that the Rebels Not Benefit from the Community Korbanos.

2008
16:1. Vayikach Korach. What a Difference a Good Shidduch Makes

2008
The Doors of Gehinom

2009
16:1. Achdus I: All You Need is Love, and Other Symptoms of Dementia

2110
17:5. Good Tzara'as, Bad Tzara'as

2011
18:8. Counting Resurrected People to a Minyan

2112
Respect for Gedolei Yisrael

2112
18:19. Separating Challa from Play Dough

2113
17:3. When People Who Sin Become Sinners את מחתות החטאים האלה.

2113
How are We Supposed to Know?

2113
The Makriv is Part of the Korban.


2114
An observation of the progress of human morality.

Why did Moshe show so much anger against Korach for attempting to take over the leadership of Klal Yisrael (assuming that he wanted the malchus and not just the kehuna)?  There are two kinds of leaders.  One kind has leadership thrust upon them, despite a conviction that they are unworthy, as we find with Moshe.  The other is driven by his ego and seeks leadership because he wants and deserves it.  Korach’s quest was “vayikach,” he wanted to take it.  Moshe knew that a ego-driven leader would be a calamity for the Jews.

Rav Noach Weinberg said the following. Chazal say that we should serve the Ribono shel Olam with both our personality traits, with the Yetzer Hatov and the Yetzer Hara, “bishnei yetzirecha.”  We understand the chidush of serving Hashem with the Yetzer Hara.  We can serve Hashem with our desire to be great, with our non-spiritual appetites, turned to the service of Hashem.  But what is the chidush of the admonition to serve Hashem with the Yetzer Hatov?  Isn't this what the Yetzer Hatov naturally does?

The answer is that Yetzer Hatov can mean self-sacrifice for the greater good, or building things for lasting use.  This character trait, while tending to good, can be used for bad as well.  The suicide bombers, the nationalists that endanger themselves for their people, they are using their Yetzer Hatov powers, but they are using them badly.  The same way the Yetzer Hara can be used for good, the Yetzer Hatov can be used for bad.  Just as one can serve Hashem by enlisting his Yeitzer Hara, the reverse is equally true– one can enlist the Yetzer Hatov to do evil.

When Korach said 'מדוע תתנשאו על קהל ה; when the tzeduki said (Yoma 19b) כל ימי הייתי מצטער על המקרא הזה (ויקרא טז, ב) כי בענן אראה על הכפורת אמרתי מתי יבוא לידי ואקיימנו; when Dassan and Aviram said “לא נעלה....העיני האנשים ההם, תנקר--לא נעלה...," and Rashi says they meant “even if our refusal to come will result in our eyes being plucked out, we will not come,” ) they all had turned selflessness and self-sacrifice for the greater good to the service of the Yetzer Hara.

Ambition is a double edged sword.  Informed by empathy and restrained by humility, it is a powerful motivator.   Moshe Rabbeinu saw through Korach's duplicitous pronouncements of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité and knew that Korach's leadership would be a national disaster.

I think that most evil done in the world today is done by using the Yetzer Hatov.  There is an ironic historical lesson here: it used to be that wholesale violence was committed unabashedly by people ruled by their Yetzer Hara, like Attila the Hun, or Genghis Khan.  They enjoyed pillage and murder and rape.  It was a very satisfying way of life.  But history has moved forward, and people rarely commit genocide only because they love violence.  Now, they commit genocide only with a teretz, they have to enlist the Yetzer Hatov to their service.  The degree and efficiency of the violence has increased, but now it is ostensibly motivated by, and always abetted by the Yetzer Hatov, either in the service of god or for the political betterment of society.  Boko Haram, al Shabab, and ISIS are born murderers and rapists and pederasts.  They enjoy murdering people, just as pre-adolescent boys have a forbidden thrill when they pull the wings off of flies.  But they're adults, and would be slightly uncomfortable satisfying their desires stam.  So they find a teretz in their religious or political beliefs.  The blood lust and pleasure is the same, and maybe even enhanced by their delusion that they are serving god and man.

Onwards and Upwards.  Now, we generally don’t commit murder on the larger scale unless we have coopted/subverted our Yetzer Hatov to the service of violence. One difference is that the lifestyle of honest rapine and violence ultimately becomes tiresome, but rationalized violence is forever fresh.   When one convinces ones self that the ideal is  an ultimate good, be it heaven or utopia, one can silence his conscience and engage in the worst and most heartless viciousness, just as a surgeon or dentist that sometimes has to cause pain does not suffer from remorse.  Unfortunately, not all that rises will converge.

Reb Chaim B. said a good he'ara.  We have the Gemara (Kiddushin 30b) תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל בני אם פגע בך מנוול זה משכהו לבית המדרש.  Here's a chidush: the same way shlepping the מנוול Yetzer Hara into a Beis Medrash melts him into nothing, shlepping the Yetzer Hatov into a makom metunaf will destroy him equally well.  Maybe that's what Yaakov and Eisav were doing.  It wasn't just that Yaakov was drawn to the Beis Medrash and Eisav to the other places.  Yaakov was trying to shlepp his menuval twin into the Beis Medrash in order to make him into a mentsch, and Eisav was trying to shlepp Yaakov into the other places in order to make another Eisav out of him.

This is not as cynical as it may seem.  I do think that while resha'im will use even the Bible to rationalize acting out their horrible desires, many others who might have otherwise have been drawn to the dark side are influenced positively by monotheism and the Bible and turn away from that inclination.  The only question is which side will dominate.  As G. K. Chesterton once said, “As for our own society, if it proceeds at its present rate of progress and improvement, no trace or memory of it will be left at all.”

Shlach. Reb Yerucham on the Meraglim

I heard a strong vort in Reb Yerucham's name.  Everyone is perplexed by the fall of the Meraglim, the greatest in the Dor Dei'ah, a fall of מאיגרא רמא לבירא עמיקתא.  On the other hand, you have Rachav, who was, as Reb Yerucham puts it, the lowest of the low.  Rachav realized that the Ribono shel Olam would give victory to His people, and that they were a nation to whom to cleave.  She became such a tzadeikes that Yehoshua, who could have married the biggest meyucheses in Klal Yisrael, davka wanted her for a wife.  What a contrast between precipitous fall from heaven to hell and a instantaneous ascent in the opposite direction!  You can even imagine that their neshamos passed each other in the elevator shaft.

Reb Yerucham says that every farmer knows that the most vigorous and beautiful tree that has a speck of rot deep inside is doomed.  The tree might be beautiful and vigorous, but if rot has taken hold in the heartwood, the beauty and vigor and majesty of the tree do not matter at all.  On the other hand, you can have the most putrid decayed material, but if there's a seed that has sprouted in it, all the decay will be absorbed into a flourishing and beautiful tree.

It doesn't matter who you are.  What matters is whether there is a spot of rot in your heart, or if you are planting seeds of growth in emuna and yiras shamayim.

Here are Reb Yerucham's words.

לעומת זה רואים אנו ברחב הזונה, שלבד מה שהכניסה עצמה בסכנה גדולה בהצפינה את המרגלים, כי לו לא היו מאמינים לה ומחפשים, הלא היה אחת דתה להמית, אלא שהיתה כל כך בטוחה בנצחון של ישראל כאילו היה זה דבר שנתהוה כבר. וכל זה בא לה מזה ששמעה אודות קריעת ים סוף ומלחמת סיחון ועוג. וזה הספיק לה כבר בכדי שלא לנטות אפילו במשהו מהדרך הישר, שהכל היה כל כך ברור אצלה כשמש בצהרים, ששוב אין להסתפק בזה כלל

ויש לנו כאן מחזה מול מחזה, מצד אחד המרגלים, המסולתין שבישראל, עדי ראיה של כל האותות והמופתים והגילויים שביציאת מצרים, ואף על פי כן מה"בא לטמא" שתבעם הכתוב לפי מדרגתם הרמה נכשלו וטעו. ולעומת זה רחב הזונה והטמאה, גויה פשוטה, לא ראתה ולא ידעה כלום, ואף על פי כן מה"בא לטהר" שלה, מה"כי שמענו" הגיעה לאמונה כל כך חזקה עד כגון מעשה זה... (דעת תורה דברים עמוד צ) צ

A Ribbis Question

An expert in Dinei Mamonus, a Yadin musmach, posed the following question to me.  A son asks his father for a loan.  The father says he will lend him the money, but only on the condition that the son start treating him with respect.  That would mean greeting him civilly, bringing him something to drink when he's thirsty, and so forth.  Is this Ribbis?

(I suspect this was not a theoretical question.  My friend is the Rabbinic/executive/counseling services director of an organization that deals with the sick and the poor, cholei nefesh and cholei haguf, and I think this actually came up.)

The natural reaction is that because the son is already obligated to do these things, it cannot be ribbis.  Ribbis is only when the borrower gives/does something that he is not otherwise obligated to give or do.  The fact that the lender is receiving something is not the problem, the problem is that the borrower is giving something.  Here, he is not giving anything- he is just fufilling his mitzva.   Furthermore, ribbis cannot be worse than the din of a Mudar hana'ah, and just as a mudar hana'ah can blow the shofar for the other person, because he is motivated by the mitzva, not the benefit to the other, here too the son can do his mitzva even though the father benefits.  By the shofar, it is not seen as the tokei'a is giving anything to the other person.  Here too, it should not be seen as if the son is giving anything to his father.

Eli, in the comments, made a  point that I have to anticipate here.  There is a difference between a mudar hearing tekias shofar and a mudar getting a drink of water.  Indeed, the Gemara in Nedarim 38b המדיר בנו לת"ת makes it clear that Neder (of the father) could overrule כבוד או"א, and the hetter for a mudar son to serve his father is only where we assume the father never meant to prohibit minor things, which indicates that a father's issur hana'ah would preclude the son from serving him.    This, however, is not germane to our question.  In Nedarim, the issue is "Is the father/muddar receiving."  Here, in Ribbis, the issue is not whether the father/lender received.  The issue is whether the son/borrower is giving.  The fact that the father is receiving, or has hanaas haguf, is not relevant.  As long as the son is considered to be giving something to the father because of the loan, it might be assur.  To that, we said that the natural inclination is to say that a son that is merely fulfilling his Torah mitzva of Kibbud cannot be said to be "giving," irrespective of the fact that he would not have fulfilled his Torah obligation if not for the terms of the loan.

(Although the Torah puts lavin on the lender, that doesn't mean that the din of ribbis is created simply by his receipt of a benefit from the borrower.  The din of ribbis is created when the borrower gives.  When the borrower gives due to the loan, and the lender receives, the lender is over on three lahvin.)

The complication is the Ran in Rosh Hashanna.  The Ran (7b of the Rif) says that even though a muddar can blow shofar, that is only when he does the tekiah of his own volition.  But if the other asks him to blow and be motzi him, it's assur.

The Ran:

ומיהו מסתברא לי דכי אמרינן מותר לתקוע לו דוקא כגון שהוא תוקע מאליו להוציא המודר הנאה אבל כל שאמר ליה המודר תקע לי והוציאני אסור דשליחותו קא עביד וראיה לדבר מדאמרי' בפרק אין בין המודר כו' ואמרינן נמי אלא לדעתיה דבעל הא קא מהני ליה דקא עביד שליחותיה אלמא כל היכא דעביד שליחותיה אסור 

The Ran is brought in the Beis Yosef in 589 without any other opinions.  But the Shaar HaMelech 1 Shofar 3 shows that this is really a machlokes rishonim that is brought elsewhere in the Beis Yosef, and he doesn't understand why the Beis Yosef doesn't mention it in 589.

ולע"ד דבר זה נראה שבמחלוקת הוא שנוי והוא שהטור ז"ל חי"ד סימן רכ"ח גבי ההיא דקי"ל המודר הנאה מחבירו מלמדו מקרא מדרש כתב וז"ל הילכך אפילו אם הנאסר אומר לו שילמדנו מותר והרמב"ן ז"ל כתב שאם הנאסר אומר לו שילמדנו שאז הוא כשלוחו ואינו מותר אלא אם כן ילמדנו הוא עצמו וא"א הרא"ש כתב כסברה הראשונה עכ"ד ומבואר מדברי מרן ז"ל דה"ט דהרא"ש ז"ל דע"כ לא אמרינן בגמרא דלמעבד שליחותיה אסור היינו דוקא בדבר שצריך דעת ושליחות כגון תרומה וקרבן אבל מחזיר אבידתו ומלמדו מדרש כיון דאין צריך דעת ושליחות אפי' אם מצוה לעשות מותר כו' יע"ש ואם כן מינה נשמע גבי שופר כיון דאין צריך דעת ושליחות אפילו באומר לו תקע והוציאני מותר לדעת הרא"ש ז"ל ויש לי מן התימה קצת על מור"ם ז"ל בהג"ה דבי"ד סי' הנז' ס"ב על מה שפסק מרן שם כדעת הרמב"ן כתב ויש חולקים ומתירין אפילו אומר לו שילמדנו כו' יע"ש ואילו כאן בסי' תקפ"ט פסק מרן דברי הר"ן ז"ל ולא הגיה עליו כלום וצ"ע 

So, assuming that ribbis is similar to mudar hana'ah, there might be a problem.

An Oral History of the Invasion at Normandy

I've had the great honor of Mr. Lothar Kahn attending my shiur for the past twenty seven years.  Before coming to my shiur, he had attended my father's shiur for fifteen years.  Mr. Kahn came to the US from Germany in 1940, and three years later, at nineteen, he found himself on the beach in Normandy as a member of the combat engineers.

The recent article about Mr. Kahn in the Huffington Post is good, but there are many, many other amazing and wonderful stories about his years in the army that are not in the article.  While part of the Allied government, he founded the post war Jewish community in Bamberg, and as a native German speaker was a tremendous asset to the Jews and to the Allies.

One example of a story that didn't make it into the article- Mr. Kahn had the bad luck to be assigned to a unit that was entirely composed of Southerners- from Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and so forth.  Picture a young man with a German accent, coming from New York, joining this cadre of rebels.  He was immediately labeled a "Damn Yankee."  But this was only until they found out he was a Jew.  At that point, he became a Damn Yankee Jew."  They did everything to make his life miserable, until he finally picked out the biggest one among them, who hated him more than any of the others, and told him, look, we're going to fight it out.  So the other one put up his hands and began boxing.  Mr. Kahn said, if we want to prove who's strongest, we really ought to wrestle, because that proves strength more than boxing.  The guy said fine, I'll kill you either way.  Mr. Kahn was an athlete who had a great deal of experience wrestling, and he soon had the man on the ground with his boot on his neck.  He said, "Am I still a damn Yankee Jew?"  The guy said, no, not any more you're not.

Here's the article, from the Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-karras/dday-veterans-brother-was_b_5440492.html

D-Day Veteran's Brother Was Holocaust's First Jewish Victim

Lothar Kahn, D-Day Plus 70 Years

Lothar Kahn's backstory has all the ingredients of a Hollywood movie -- the Jew from Nazi Germany who returns in the vanguard of war to face his sworn enemies on D-Day. Inglorious Basterds proved it a marketable plot-line, but the reality is far more tragic, complex, and even unremarkable. But Kahn has, in fact, lived two of the most compelling narratives of the 20th century: the Holocaust and the D-Day invasion.

Seventy years ago, on June 6, T/3 Kahn approached the Normandy coast in an LCM filled with 28 seasick army engineers from the 146th Engineer Combat Battalion and sailors from a Naval Combat Demolition Unit. Orders were to land at low tide on "easy green" and destroy all obstacles -- Belgian Gates, posts capped with Teller mines, and rows of steel hedgehogs -- and create gaps for the infantry.

Gap Assault Team from the 146th ECB prior to the invasion

"[The 146th] landed in the first wave with floating tanks from the 741st and 743rd Tank Battalions, literally, in the first minutes of the invasion," said Joseph Balkoski, author of Omaha Beach: D-Day, June 6, 1944.

After weeks of rehearsals in Devon, the army's V Corps selected the Kahn's outfit to lead the initial assault on D-Day.

Some may even call it poetic justice, but Kahn's Gap Assault Team No. 7 could not effectively perform their tasks.

"The engineers knew very well that they would have 30-40 minutes to blow the obstacles because the tide was rising."

The settling smoke and dust from the massive Allied bombardment, which ended minutes earlier, afforded a clear view of Omaha Beach, but not the catastrophe that awaited them.

"The minute we jumped out of the boats the shooting started," Kahn told us. "Two or three German machine guns, overlapping, and raking the beach. All you heard was, 'Get off the beach, you're gonna be dead ducks' and then I was on my own."

The 19-year-old combat engineer lumbered under the weight of a rifle, helmet, a Hagensen pack crammed with wire cutters, gas mask, cartridges, an inflatable life belt, a canteen, drenched fatigues, and 50 pounds of C2 plastic explosives, with hooks and rope. He miraculously made it in one piece, beside a cluster of drenched and petrified Americans.

"I got against a cliff with six, eight people and there were guys lying around. I said to someone, 'Boy these guys must be tired' ... 
'Tired? These are dead people.' When I heard that, I jumped up and the guy pulled me down and yelled, 'Don't jump up you'll get shot.' I had never seen a dead person before and they were all around me."

Gemünden am Main, Germany

Kahn's path to D-Day was an odyssey in itself, which began in the lower Franconia region of Germany in a small town called Gemünden. The youngest son of Levi and Martha Kahn's four children, Kahn was expelled from public school the year he turned nine.

"The Jewish boys and girls were put in the last row, the teachers didn't ask us anything, and then they kicked us out of school altogether." Kahn told us. "I had to get up at 5 a.m. to catch an hour-long cattle train to a Jewish school in Thüngen, when it was dark and cold in winter time."

Like most Jewish youngsters who once imagined intellectual and professional careers at the time, Kahn instead traded his books for practical vocational training -- first becoming a locksmith and then a machinist.

The extermination of European Jews may have been formally outlined at the Wannsee Conference in 1942, but the Holocaust was immediate for the Kahn family when the eldest son, Arthur, was murdered in Dachau 10 weeks after Hitler became chancellor.

Arthur Kahn, and his gravestone

"Apparently [Arthur Kahn] was involved in anti-Nazi movements at the University at Wurzburg -- which was very typical of Jewish students at the time," said Timothy Ryback, author of Hitler's First Victims.


"The astonishing story is that he was planning on going into medicine -- cancer research -- had been studying abroad at Edinburgh University, and while back at Wurzburg getting his student records, was spotted by some brown-shirted SA, was snatched and put into a detention center. During Easter week, 1933, Arthur Kahn and three others, Ernst Goldmann, Rudolf Benario and Erwin Kahn arrived at Dachau. They were identified as Jews on arrival and beaten terribly. Five minutes after five o'clock on the afternoon of Wednesday, April 12, these young men were given shovels, marched out into the woods, and just gunned down. Arthur was the first one shot. These were the first four victims of the Holocaust. Their deaths involved intentionality, chain of command, selection, and execution, which are the constituent components for these processes we call genocide, and ultimately related to the Jewish population, the Holocaust."

Levi Kahn had to pay money to get his son's body out of Dachau for a proper Jewish burial. Even worse, Arthur's mother insisted that his sister, Fanni, an Au pair in England, return to Germany immediately. She eventually married and was later killed with her 7-year-old son in Minsk.

Thanks to relatives in the U.S., the family managed to obtain visas and emigrate to New York, minus two children, four weeks before the war broke out. Kahn immediately went to work to support his family and, like his brother Herbert, was drafted into the military in 1943.

Lothar and Herbert Kahn

Just as his Jewishness was sufficient to designate him a pariah in Germany, his vocational training there had everything to do with his eventual M.O.S (Military Occupation Specialty) and assignment to an engineer outfit.

"In England they put us in control of Assault Training Center in Saunton Sands. All of the divisions preparing for the invasion came through us. We built obstacles, they blew them up and we built them again. It was very hard work. During training I was carrying a full pack of dynamite and collapsed when a captain stood over me and asked, 'Soldier, do you smoke?' I told him that I did and he said, 'well, you have a choice. You can keep on smoking and get your ass shot off on the beach or you can stop smoking and you have a chance of getting off the beach.' That scared the daylights out of me and I stopped."

After weeks of rehearsals in Devon the army's V Corps of Engineers selected the Kahn's outfit to lead the initial assault on D-Day.

The irony of one brother being the first Jew murdered by Nazi policy, and his baby brother landing at H-Hour in possibly the key event to bring about Hilter's defeat is nothing short of ironic. Some may even call it poetic justice, but Kahn's Gap Assault Team No. 7 were unable to function once they jumped out of the landing crafts and infantry took cover behind the obstacles they were tasked to destroy. The first 30 minutes of the invasion amounted to total disaster. Hundreds of bodies of dead combat engineers, tankers, sailors, and infantryman peppered nearly three miles of Omaha Beach's tile flat. Wounded men drifting in the rising tide were too weak to fight the current and drowned in the surf, as German artillery and small-arms fire mowed down wave after wave of infantry.

"All I could hear was, 'Help me, help me,'" said Kahn. "We couldn't blow anything because behind us were Americans and they'd be killed. The floating tanks were picked off like ducks and the Rangers couldn't get through either. All I could do was try and stay alive until the infantry could eliminate the small-arms fire."

At 90, Kahn, who lives in Lincolnwood, Illinois, still speaks with a slight German accent, but his D-Day account reads like any other American veteran who landed on Omaha Beach at H-Hour. And by 1944, he was every bit the "citizen soldier" -- a term the late Stephen E Ambrose ascribed to Americans he dramatically asserted "wanted to throw baseballs, not grenades, shoot a .22 rifle, not an M-1." However entertaining the prose, the late historian wasn't entirely accurate.

Questions about revenge naturally arise when hearing the stories of veterans such as Kahn, who had long suffered under Nazism before fleeing Germany. 

"I knew they killed my brother. That I knew. Revenge, certainly, but I didn't want to get killed either. In those moments, especially on D-Day, it's a matter of preserving life. In fact, a day after the invasion they got me to interview some German prisoners (machine gunners) who told me, 'We killed them and they kept coming, there was nothing we could do.'"