Parshas Zachor I: Emunah: The Key To Defeating Amaleik

This is adapted from a longer d’var torah that I wrote for Purim last year. A significant part of this d'var torah is based on the Sefes Emes.

The Emunah of Klal Yisroel

The gemara in Chullin (5B) says that the posuk “adam u’behaima toshia Hashem” refers to one who is “arumin b’da’as k’adam u’meisimin atzmom k’behaimah”. The Sefas Emes in his ma’amarim on Purim explains that this specifically referring to the status of B’nei Yisroel when they left Mitzrayim. The B’nei Yisroel were viewed as an animal that willingly follows his master wherever it may take him. This is also the kavanah behind the posuk “lechtech acharai bamidbar b’eretz lo zeruah”. The Navi is highlighting the emunah peshuta that the B’nei Yisroel possessed at the time of Yitziyas Mitzrayim. The Sefas Emes adds that this is also the pshat in the "na’aseh v’nishma" that the B’nei Yisroel said at the time of Ma’amad Har Sinai. The “hakdamas na’aseh l’nishma” doesn’t just refer to the fact that the B’nei Yisroel said “na’aseh” before “nishma”, but rather it is referring to the mesiras nefesh and emunah that Klal Yisroel showed by blindly following HKBH out of Mitzrayim. It is davka because of this koach of mesiras nefesh that the B’nei Yisroel were zocheh to receive the Torah.

Understanding Amaleik's Attack

With this understanding we can now understand the purpose behind Amaleik’s attack on Klal Yisroel right after Yitziyas Mitzrayim. Amaleik came to weaken the koach of emunah and mesiras nefesh that Klal Yisroel possessed. We can also now appreciate the order of events that occurred in Parshas Beshalach. Immediately preceding the attack, B’nei Yisroel had complained to Moshe saying “ha yesh Hashem b’kirbeinu”. Klal Yisroel had shown a weakness in their emunah and it was precisely at this point that Amaleik realized the B’nei Yisroel were vulnerable. Amaleik attacked for the purpose of further weakening the emunah and mesiras nefesh of Klal Yisroel. As Rashi points out on the posuk “asher karcha baderech”, Amaleik came to “cool off” Klal Yisroel. The B’nei Yisroel until now had demonstrated tremendous mesiras nefesh and had shown complete emunah in HKBH. Now that they slipped a little, Amaleik came to cool them off completely.

Defeating Amaleik

The B’nei Yisroel were able to defeat Amaleik at this time by regaining their emunah. The medrash explains that when Moshe raised his hands the B’nei Yisroel looked up to Hashem and they won. The pshat in this medrash is obvious. Both the Meor VaShemesh (Parshas Beshalach) and the Sefas Emes explain that Amaleik was only able to attack the B’nei Yisroel because of their chisaron in emunah. However, once the B’nei Yisroel lifted their eyes up to Hashem and reaffirmed their emunah they were able to be successful. Amaleik’s strength only comes from the weakness of B’nei Yisroel. (This is also the idea behind “u’L’om milom ye’ematz”, that when Eisav is strong Yaakov is weak and vice versa). Once the B’nei Yisroel were able to strengthen their mesiras nefesh and reaffirm their emunah in HKBH, then Amaleik had no koach over them. However, even though the B’nei Yisroel defeated Amaleik at Rifidim, the Sefas Emes explains that there was still a lasting effect. Amaleik weakened the B’nei Yisroel just enough that they would eventually sin by the chait haeigel. The B’nei Yisroel hadn’t yet reached their shlaimus and Amaleik’s attack ensured that this shlaimus would not happen.

Kafa Aleihem Har K'Gigis

The gemara in Shabbos explains that at Har Sinai HKBH was “kafeh aleihem har k’gigis” and forced the B’nei Yisroel to accept the Torah. Tosfos asks why was this necessary if the B’nei Yisroel had already said “na’aseh v’nishma”? The Sefas Emes presents a very interesting explanation. He explains that HKBH saw that the B’nei Yisroel would eventually sin by the chait haeigel. In order to ensure that the Torah would still stay with the B’nei Yisroel after the chait, HKBH felt it necessary to “force” them to accept the Torah. In other words “kafeh aleihem har k’gigis” was not a form of coercion but a zechus. HKBH was mezakeh them with this method so that the Torah would stay with them even after the chait. (This fits in very well with an idea from the Meshech Chachma that “kafeh aleihem har k’gigis” means was not a threat but rather there was such a gilui shechina and a revelation of HKBH, that it was impossible to deny the existence of Hashem. In other words, the B’nei Yisroel were infused with an overwhelming sense of emunah in HKBH that they had no other choice but to accept the Torah). Why were the B’nei Yisroel zocheh to this? Explains the Sefas Emes that it was because of the mesiras nefesh they exhibited by being makdim “na’aseh” to the “nishma”. As we explained above, this “hakdamas na’aseh l’nishma” refers to the bechina of emunah peshuta and “lechtech acharai bamidbar” that Klal Yisroel showed by Yitziyas Mitzrayim. It was because of this that the B’nei Yisroel were zocheh to the “kafeh aleihem har k’gigis” which ensured that the Torah would stay with us.

Divrei Torah for Purim

If you are interested in some nice lomdishe pieces on various sugyos on inyanei Purim, I would check out my friend Rabbi Chaim Brown's blog.

Rav Wolfson: Parshas Tetzaveh

In honor of Moshe Rabbeinu's yartzeit I am posting this excerpt from a shiur Rav Wolfson gave Parshas Tetzaveh 5764.

Haman was happy when the lottery fell out on 13th of Adar since this was the month Moshe died. The way mazalos work is that the constellations move one degree every 70 years. For example, during Yetzias Mitzrayim, the mazal during Nissan was the teleh (sheep). However, nowadays, this mazal is toward the end of Iyar since the mazal has moved in the last 3000 years.

There were 916 years between the year that Moshe died and the story of Purim. There were also 850 years in between the time B’nei Yisroel entered Eretz Yisroel until the destruction of the first Bais Hamikdash. (based on the possuk “v’noshantem”=850). The story of Purim occurred in the 66th year of golus, and 850+66=916. Based on the calculation that the mazal moves one degree every 70 years, it comes out that the mazal that existed on 13th Adar during the days of Haman, was equivilant to the mazal on Rosh Chodesh Adar in the year that Moshe died (916 years earlier). Haman thought that this mazal was bad for the Jews and therefore 13 Adar was the right time to destroy them.

However, Moshe was born 1036 years before Purim ( 916+120=1036) and given the calculation that the mazal moves one degree every 70 years, it turns out that the mazal of 13 Adar during Haman's time came out in Shevat of the year that Moshe was born. Esther took Haman’s goral and said it referred to Moshe’s birthday and not his death. M’meilah it comes out that in the year Moshe was born, the mazal that Haman was referring to came out in the month of Shevat and not in Adar. Therefore, Haman did not have the mazal of Adar to use against the Jews. Esther then made the Yom Tov on 14 and 15 Adar so that the mazal would coincide with whatever the mazal of Adar was in the year Moshe was born.

Rav Wolfson:Parshas Teruma Revised

I would like to thank the commenter Hankman for raising a kasha on my latest post from Rav Wolfson.

Hankman asked "Why the use of the same lashon of beis tefilla for both the second madreigah of “v’simachtem b’vais tefillasi" which refers to the lishkas hagazis and the fourth and highest madreigah of "ki veisi beis tefilla” which refers to the heichal?"

I asked Rav Wolfson this question and he said that Hankman is correct and he should have said there are only three madreifos in the Mikdash and not four.

Parsha Chabura Parshas Teruma: Bima In The Middle Of The Shul

This week's chaburah discussed the halacha that the bima in the shul must be in the middle of the shul.
The connection to the parshah is due to the reason of the Chasam Sofer which we will soon get to.

Here are the various shitos.

1) Rambam: The Rambam writes that the bima should be in the middle in order that everyone should hear k'riyas hatorah.

2) Kesef Mishna: Says that we see places where the bima is not in the middle. The Kesef Mishna concludes that "hakol l'fi haz'man v'hamamom". If the shul is small you can put the bima in the back since everyone can still hear.

3) Chasam Sofer (Orach Chaim Siman 28) : Brings a seond reason that the bima is comparable to teh mizbayach since a) we lein the parsha of korbonos on the bima and b) we do hakafos around teh bima like they did by the mizbayach. Just like the mizbayach haketores was in between the aron and menora, so too bima should be in the middle.

Many other teshuvos use the Chasam Sofer's reasoning and assume you have to have the bima in the middle.

For example, the Minchas Yitzchak says if you switch it then you are violating "al titosh toras emecha". Furtehrmore, he holds it is assur to daven in a shul where teh bima isn't in the middle.

Rav Moshe (OC 2 Siman 42 and 43) however doesn't like the Chasam Sofer's reasoning. Rav Moshe argues that all the korbonos were brought on the Outside Mizbayach (in the chatzar) yet the Chasam Sofer is comparing it to the Misbayach HaPinimi. He says teh Chasam Sofer's sevarah has no m'kor. That being said the ikar reason is the Rambam's reason (so everyone can hear). L'chatchila it should be in the middle but if it isn't you can daven there. However, if you have a choice you should daven in the shul where the bima is in the middle.
Rav Mosheh also adds that the reason other poskim were so against it was because they were fighting the reform. But in a situation where the threat from reform is not so great then b'd'ieved it is okay.

Rav Wolfson:Parshas Terumah

Note: HaRav Isser Wolfson shlita is a noted talmid chacham, dayan and posek. The shiurim were transcribed by me and reviewed by Rav Wolfson. What you are reading is just an excerpt and not the whole shiur. I have also taken the liberty of making some slight editorial changes to the original version in order to make it read better. This week's excerpt is from Terumah 5763.

The Rosh in Meseches Tamid says that Shlomo HaMelech built the Beis HaMikdash to be used as a mokom tefillah. In fact, in between the avodah, the kohanim would daven in the lishkas hagazis which was the same place the Sanhedrin sat. The lishkas hagazis had a status of being “chatzi kodesh v’chatzi chol”. The possuk (Yeshaya 56:7) says “v’haviosem el har kadshi v’simachtem b’vais tefillasi oloseihem v'zivcheihem l'rotzon al mizbichi ki veisi beis tefilla...”. Based upon the Rosh, we can say that this possuk is referring to four different madreigos that existed in the Beis HaMikdash. “V’haviosem el har kadshi ” refers to the machaneh leviah which is the lowest madreigah located in the Beis HaMikdash. The second madreigah is “v’simachtem b’vais tefillasi ” and this refers to the lishkas hagazis, which is chatzi kodesh and chatzi chol. The third madreigah is “oloseihem v'zivcheihem l'rotzon al mizbichi ” which refers to the mizbayach, which was totally kodesh. Finally, the fourth and highest madreigah is “ ki veisi beis tefilla” and refers to the heichal, which had more kedushah than the mizbayach.

With this we can have a better understanding of a phrase that we say in Maoz Tzur. We say “tikun beis tefillasi v’sham todah nizabayach”. The paytan is saying that by Bayis Shilishi we will extend the azarah and make a new chanukas habayis. The first thing that will be extended is the beis tefillah, which is the lishkas hagazis. Until now it is chatzi kodesh and chatzi chol but by Bayis Shilishi it will become kulo kodesh.

Mazal Tov

Mazal Tov to my "baby" brother and sister in law on the birth of their first two children. They had twins early this morning - a boy and a girl.

Teruma I: Vayikchu Li Teruma

I first heard this d'var torah from my good friend Rabbi Chaim Brown around 16 years ago.

The Shev Shma’atsah in his hakdama has the following vort on this week’s parsha.

Rashi writes that "vayikchu li trumah" means "li-l’shmi", that the giving of the terumah must be done l’shma. The Shev Shma’atsah asks, why does this mitzvah need to be done l’shma more than any otehr mitzvah? By other mitzvos we find that we are told one should do them sh’lo lishma and eventually you will do them lishma.?

The Alshich asks, why does the Torah say "vayikchu li teruma", if the B’nei Yisroel gave the terumah to Hashem. It should have said "vayitnu li terumah". The Alshich answers that when B’nei Yisroel gave the terumah to HKBH, it is as if they are giving a present to an adam chashuv. The halacha is that if a woman tells a man to give a present to an adam chasuv, then she is married to the man thru the ha’na’ah she gets when the adam chashuv accepts the present. Therefore, when HKBH accepted the terumah, the B’nei Yisroel got ha’na’ah and it was as if they were really receiving a present from HKBH. That is why it says "vayikchu li teruma", because B’nei Yisroel really took from Hashem.

However, by the case of the adam chashuv if he will eventually return the present then thereis no hana’ah and the kidushin isn’t chal. Therefore, the answer of the Alshich only works if the terumah was given lishma. If the teruma was given sh’lo lishma (i.e. the B’nei Yisroel gave the terumah to receive something back) , then it is as if the adam chashuv (HKBH) returned the present. If HKBH returned the present then the B’nei Yisroel were not receiving any ha’na’ah from HKBH it it would no longer be "vayikchu li" but "vayitnu liu". This is why the teruma had to be totally lishma.

Parsha Chabura Mishpatim:Bishul Basar B'Chalav

This week’s shiur was about the issur of cooking milk and meat together. Besides the issur of eating and deriving benefit from a milk and meat mixture, there is also a prohibition of cooking milk and meat together.

The Chakirah

There are two ways one can understand this issur. Is the issur the "ma’aseh bishul", in other words it is assur to cook the milk together with the meat or maybe we can say that the issur is the creating of a milk/meat mixture ("yetziras ha’ta’aroves"). It should be noted that even if the issur is the creation of this mixture, it is only assur if it is done thru cooking. The cooking process is a t'nai ( a condition) of the issur.

Nafka Mina
1) Is it assur to recook a meat and milk mixture. One is not allowed to let meat sit in milk for more than 24 hours. This is called "kavush" and is a form of cooking. However, it is only assur m’d’rabanan. The Sha’arei Dura writes that one is not allowed to cook the mixture aftrewards.. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Yoreh Deia Siman 87) infers from here that if the meat/milk mixture was previously cooked it would not be assur to recook it. This is because "ain bishul acher bishul". Once something is cooked it can not be recooked. However, we pasken on Shabbos that by liquids there is bishul acher bishul. If so, maybe by basar b’chalav it should be assur to cook a basar b’chalav liquid mixture. How come Rabbi Akiva Eiger doesn’t differentiate between solids or liquids?

We can say that it depends on our chakirah. If the issur bishul is the act of cooking, so maybe it should be assur. But if the issur is to create a mixture of meat and milk, so in our case the milk/meat mixture is already created so there would be no issur to re-cook it.

2) Can I take a piece of cooked meat and a piece of cooked milk and cook them together. The Gilyon Maharsha (Siman 87) says it would be assur. Maybe it depends on our chakirah. If the issur is the ma’aseh bishul so ain bishul acher bishul and it is muttar. But if the issur is creating the mixture so I am now creating a mixture and it should be assur.

3) Can I perform a chemistry experiment which requires cooking meat and milk. In Pininei HaRav , Rav Schachter brings down a ma’aseh with Rav Moshe Soloveitchik where he was asked this question. Rav Moshe Soloveitchik answered that the issur of bishul basar b'chalav is in order that you shouldn’t eat it. In our case you aren’t going to eat it so it is muttar. Clearly, if you hold like the first tzad of the chakirah (that the issur is the ma’aseh bishul) then it should be assur.
4) The Chsam Sofer (YD siman 92) has a shailah if you can use basar b’chalav to light the chanukah candles. He says since the issur is the ma’aseh bishul it is assur. According to our second tzad, it should be muttar since you are not creating a mixture- the oil/wax will be burned up.

The Four Parshiyos: What's The Connection?

Various seforim try to understand the connection between the four parshiyos that we read this time of year. I would like to offer the following mehalach that I had previously developed.

Haman Buys The Jews

The Yalkut writes that Haman came to Achashveirosh with an offer of 10,000-kikar kesef in order to kill the Jews. The Yalkut explains that Haman wanted to buy the Jews from Achashveirosh and the 10,000-kikar kesef represented the value of 600,000 Jews. (The Maharal (Ohr Chadosh) and the Chizkuni (Parshas Pekudei) give two different explanations how this adds up). What does it mean that Haman wanted to buy the Jews? What was he trying to accomplish. We know that the B'nei Yisroel are not limited by the laws of nature. This is the meaning behind "ain mazal l'Yisroel". Perhaps we can say that Haman wanted to show that the B’nei Yisroel are bound by the laws of nature. To be bound by nature means you can be quantified. If you can be quantified, then that means you can be bought. I can’t buy something that transcends time and space, since there is no way to put a price tag on it. If I can price an object that means the object is limited. Haman’s intention was to show that B’nei Yisroel fall under the rules of nature and are bound by the mazalos. However, the gemara in Megilla says that HKBH responded to Haman's plan by stating “k’var hikdimu shekalim l’shkalav”. The B’nei Yisroel had already given shekalim thru the machatzis hashekel and this was enough to overturn Haman’s plan. What is the meaning behind this?

The Meaning Of The Machatzis HaShekel

One of the purposes of bringing the shekalim was so that Klal Yisroel would not be counted directly. The reason for this is because when you count an object, you are giving that object limitations. You are saying this object is quantifiable and is constrained by the laws of nature. If Klal Yisroel would be counted, that would in effect be saying that Klal Yisrael is limited. This would go against the very essence of what Klal Yisroel is about. What HKBH was telling Haman was that the B’nei Yisroel already showed they transcend time and space by the fact that they are not counted directly, but rather through the shekalim. The shekalim represent the idea that B’nei Yisroel are above the mazalos and nothing Haman can do will change that. Haman’s shekalim won’t work to limit the B’nei Yisroel since they have already shown through their own shekalim that they are l’ma’alah min hateva.

The Link Between The Four Parshiyos

We can now begin to explain the connection between the daled parshiyos. First we read parshas shekalim. As we explained the shekalim represent the idea that B’nei Yisroel can’t be counted and are above time and space. This is the koach that gives us the ability to defeat Haman and Amaleik. This is why immediately after parshas shekalim we read parshas zachor. Once we have the koach of being above teva (shekalim) we can defeat Amaleik (zachor). Finally the last two parshiyos we read are parshas para and parshas hachodesh. Within the bechina of being l’maaleh min hateva, there are two ways that this idea shows itself. One way is in how HKBH acts towards us by saving us when b’derech hateva we should be destroyed. There is no rhyme or reason why we should be here other than the fact that we defy natural law. This derech is represented by parshas para. The para aduma is a chok whose laws make no sense. The fact that the one who makes others tahor becomes tamai defies logic. Why should this be so? The answer is that the para aduma is a chok and above the rules of nature. The second way in which the concept of “ain mazal l’Yisroel” is apparent is in the way we can control the laws of nature. Parshas Hachodesh begins with a commandment that the sanhedrin has to sanctify the new month. Chazal tell us that even if the sanhedrin makes a mistake regarding wich day is Rosh Chodesh, , the month sill starts based on the psak of the sanhedrin. We see from here that as a nation we have the ability to change nature to the extent that we can even go against nature in determining when the month begins. Both parshas para and parshas hachodesh represent the idea of "ain mazal l'Yisroel" and therefore they are read after parshas shekalim and parshas zachor.

Rav Isser Wolfson: Parshas Mishpatim

Note: HaRav Isser Wolfson shlita is a noted talmid chacham, dayan and posek. The shiurim were transcribed by me and reviewed by Rav Wolfson. What you are reading is just an excerpt and not the whole shiur. This week's excerpt is from Mishpatim 5764.

The Gemara in Shabbos (88) says that HKBH forced the B’nei Yisroel to accept the Torah by threatening to drop Har Sinai on top of them (kafa aleihem har k’gigis). Tosfos asks, if the B’nei Yisroel had already said "na’aseh v’nishma", why was it necessary to do this? Tosfos answers that HKBH was afraid that when the B’nei Yisroel saw the tremendous fire surrounding the event they would change their minds out of fear. A second teretz is given by the Medrash Tanchuma in Parshas Noach. The medrash says that when the B'nei Yisroel said na’aseh v’nishma, they were only referring to Torah Sheh Bichsav. However they were not willing to accept upon themselves Torah Sheh Ba’al Peh. For this the the B’nei Yisroel had to be forced into accepting it.

The Medrash Tanchuma further explains that there is a difference between the effort needed to learn Torah Sheh Bichsav and the effort needed to learn Torah Sheh Ba’al Peh. Torah Sheh Bichsav is very easy to learn and does not require a lot of exertion. Torah Sheh Ba’al Peh on the other hand requires a lot of yegiah and ameilus to understand it properly. The medrash concludes that this ameilus can only come about through ahavas Hashem. This madreigah was not included in the kabbala of na’aseh v’nishma.

In Parshas Va’eschanan (5:21-24), the Torah describes how the B’nei Yisroel were afraid of the fire on Har Sinai. Rashi (5:24) explains that the ta’anah on the B’nei Yisroel was that they should have let their ahavas Hashem overcome their fear of the fire of Har Sinai. From here we see that B’nei Yisroel experienced a chisaron of ahavas Hashem. With this we can suggest that the two answers mentioned in Tosfos are really the same answer. Tosfos said that HKBH was afraid that when the B’nei Yisroel saw the fire, they would be afraid and change their minds. We see from Rashi that this fear comes from a lack of ahavas Hashem. Furthermore, we see from the Medrash Tanchuma that a chisaron in ahavas Hashem causes a chisaron in learning Torah Sheh Ba’al Peh. This fits with the second teretz, that B’nei Yisroel originally didn’t accept Torah Sheh Ba’al Peh. Since there was a lack of ahavas Hashem, mimeilah they couldn’t be mikabeil Torah Sheh Ba’al Peh.

We can also explain why in Va’eschanan the parsha of shema immediately follows the parsha of mattan torah. Shema talks about ahavas Hashem, which leads to learning Torah Sheh Ba’al Peh (V’Shinantam). After the kafa aleihem har k’gigis, the B’nei Yisroel said shema and through the ahavas Hashem they were then able to grasp Torah Sheh Ba’al Peh.

Parsha Chabura Yisro:Beracha Sh'eino Tzricha

This week’s shiur was about the issur of “lo sisa es shem lashav”. Everyone agrees that this issur includes the prohibition of making an unnecessary or false shevuah with Hashem’s name. However, there is a machlokes whether this issur also includes saying Hashem’s name for no reason or making an unnecessary beracha.

Source In Gemarah

The gemara in Berachos 33a says that if one makes a beracha sh’eino tzricha (an unnecessary beracha) then one violates the prohibition of “lo sisa shem lashav”. The gemara in Temurah (4a) also says that if one says Hashem’s name for no reason then one is oveir an issur aseh of “es hashem elokacha tirah” (fearing Hashem). From here it would appear that a beracha sheino tzricha is an issur m’d’oreisa.

Shittas Rishonim

1) Tosofos in Rosh Hashana (33a) and the Rosh in Kiddushin (Perek 1 49) quote Rabbeinu Tam that a beracha sheino tzricha is only an issur m’d’rabanan. Even though the gemara says there is an issur of “lo sisa”, this is only an asmachta. Furthermore, Tosfos explains that the issur aseh mentioned in the gemara in Temurah only applies when one is not saying Hahsem’s name in a beracha. If one says Hashem’s name in a beracha then there would be no issur aseh of “hashem elokecha tira”.
2)The Rambam disagrees. The Rambam says in a few places that making an unnecessary beracha is assur min hatorah because of “lo sisa”. The Rambam writes this in Hil Berachos (1:15) as well as in Hil Shevuous (12:9). The Rambam also writes this in Shut Rambam Siman 84 where he says that those places that read the megillah on the 14th and 15h of Adar, do not make a beracha on the 15th since it is a safeik and to make an unnecessary beracha is assur min hatorah.

Nafka Mina

1) Women making a beracha on mitzvos aseh she’ha’zman grama. Everyone holds that even though women are patur from mitzvos aseh she’ha’zman grama they can still do the mitzvah. The question is what about making a beracha. Tosfos holds that women are able to make the beracha since making an unnecessary beracha is only an issur d’rabanan. The Rambam however paskens (Hil Tzitzis 3:9) that women can not make a beracha. This is l’shitaso that a beracha sheino tzricha is assur m’d’oreis.

2) The Rambam paskens (berachos 1116) that if one is mesupak whether something requires a beracha one does not make a beracha. This includes the halacha that an androganus (safeik male or female) does not make a beracha on Milah (Rambam Mila 3:6). This is the Rambam l’shitaso that since a beracha sheino tzricha is assur m’d’oreisa, one should not make a beracha m’safeik. However, the Kesef Mishna points out that the Rambam holds if one is not sure if he said k’riyas sh’ma you repeat it with the beracha. The reason is because in a case where you are obligated in the asiyas hamitzvah then you cam make a beracha. By k’riyas shema you have to say k’riyas shema and therefore you can make a beracha. By the case of the androganus and mila, the safeik is in the etzem hachiyuv. (The Mishna Berura in Siman 67:1 writes that not everyone agrees with this chiluk)

3) The Magan Avraham (216:6) brings down different opinions whether one can obligate himself in an extra beracha on Shabbos in order to recite 100 berachos. For example, can one purposely hold off on having desert until after bentching in order to make another beracha acharona. (Note: if one does not want to eat desert now but wants to eat it later, you can do so. The question is where you want to eat it now but the only reason you are not is to get an extra beracha). According to the Rambam that beracha sheino tzricha is assur m’d’oreisa, one probably would not be allowed to do this. (ayin sham for halacha l’ma’aseh).

Yisro I:Yisro's Motivation

Why Yisro Came

Rashi quotes the gemara in Zevachim (115a) that Yisro joined the B’nei Yisroel because he heard about K’riyas Yam Suf and Milchemes Amaleik. (In reality these are two different opinions, but Rashi brings down both). The question is why didn’t Yisro come because of the ten makkos and Yitziyas Mitzrayim? L’chorah, the whole experience of Makkas Bechoros and leaving Mitzrayim in broad daylight should have been enough to cause Yisro to recognize the emes and join B’nei Yisroel. What was it about K’riyas Yam Suf and Milchemes Amaleik that motivated Yisro to come? Furthermore, there is an opinion in the gemara that the whole story of Yisro occurred after Matan Torah and Yisro came because he heard about Kabbalas HaTorah. Rashi holds that Yisro came after Matan Torah (against the Ramban). If so, why did Rashi not bring down this third reason as well. ( Ayin Ramban and mefarshei Rashi who deal with this question as well).

Two Types Of Ge'ulah

I would like to suggest the following answer based on an idea brought down by Rav Chaim Ya’akov Goldvicht zt”l in his sefer Asufas Ma’areches on Parshas Beshalach. Rav Goldvicht explains based on a S’fas Emes that there were two types of ge'ulos that took place from Mitzraym . The first ge'ulah was when the B’nei Yisroel actually left Mitzrayim. This ge'ulah was a bechina of “atra’usa d’l’eila”, meaning it all came from HKBH. The B’nei Yisroel were not worthy of leaving and it was only due to the chesed of HKBH, that they left. (Although they needed a zechus of dam Pesach and dam mila, this still doesn’t take away from the fact that B’nei Yisroel didn’t initiate the process but rather it all came from Hashem). The second ge'ulah took place by K’riyas Yam Suf. This ge'ulah was “atra’usa d’l’tata”, meaning that the B'nei Yisroel originated the redemption process. The B’nei Yisroel took the first steps towards being saved by jumping into the Yam Suf. It was only after they jumped in and the water was up to their necks that the sea split. (I would recommend looking up this piece inside to see how Rav Goldvicht develops this idea further, but ain kan mokom l’ha’arich).

Geulah From Amaleik

I would like to add that the yeshua from Amaleik was also a geder of “atra’usa d’l’tata”.The posuk says that when Moshe held up his hands the B’nei Yisroel won and when he rested his hands they lost. The Mishna in Rosh Hashanah as well as the Medrash Tanchuma explain, that the Torah is telling us that every time Moshe raised his hands the B’nei Yisroel looked up to Hashem and they won. Every time Moshe’s hands were lowered, B’nei Yisroel were not looking toward Hashem and they lost. We see from here that the salvation was initiated by B’nei Yisreol. It was only after they davened to Hashem that they were saved.

Understanding Yisro's Motivation

With this I believe we can answer the original question. If we look carefull at the loshon of the gemara that Rashi quotes, the gemara says "What did Yisro hear that made him come". The key words are "made him come" (ayin Klei Yakar who makes a similar diyuk). Certainly, Yisro heard about Yitziyas Mitzrayim and most probably was very been impressed by what he heard. However, this wasn’t enough to "make him come". It wasn't enough to cause him to join the B’nei Yisroel because this ge'ula was “atra’usa d’l’eila”-it was initiated by HKBH. It was only after he saw that B’nei Yisroel had the koach to initiate their own salvation b’geder “atra’usa d’l’tata”, by K'riyas Yam Suf and Milchemes Amaleik, that he decided to join Klal Yisroel. This answer will also explain the second half of our question. Kabbalas HaTorah was also a bechina of “atra’usa d’l’eila” and as such Rashi did not feel that it was enough to motivate him to come. (L’chorah this is also the difference between luchos rishonos and luchos shniyos. The former represents Torah She’BichsavBa’al Peh which is “atra’usa d’l’eila” and the latter represents Torah She’Ba’al Peh which is “atra’usa d’l’tata”. V’ain kan mokom l’ha’arich).[Also, this mehalach would not explain the shitta that he did come because of Kabbalas HaTorah]

We still have to explain why exactly Yisro was only motivated by a ge’ulah of “atra’usa d’l’tata” as opposed to a ge’ulah of “atra’usa d’l’eila”. I will leave this part open for suggestions.

Rav Isser Wolfson: Parshas Yisro

NEW FEATURE!!!

I used to attend a chumash shiur given by HaRav Isser Wolfson shlita who is a noted talmid chacham, dayan and posek. At the time I transcribed the shiurim and after Rav Wolfson reviewed what I had written, I distributed them via email. I b'li neder will be posting a sample of the divrei torah every week.

Enjoy.

Here is a sample from the shiur on Parshas Yisro given in 5763.


The Torah tells us that Miriam was punished for saying loshon hara about Moshe and questioning why Moshe separated from his wife when other nevi'im didn't. Rav Elchanan Wasserman zt"l (Koveitz Ma’amarim) asks that it would appear that Miriam was also kofer in one of the Ikkarim. One of the Ikkarim is the belief that Moshe was the greatest navi that ever lived. When Miriam spoke loshon hora about Moshe she was basically equating the nevuah of Moshe with the nevuah of other nevi'im. Why wasn’t Miriam punished for also being kofer b’ikkar? Rav Elchanan answers that the idea that Moshe was the greatest Navi did not become an ikkar until the Torah told it to us. Miriam spoke loshon hara before this happened and therefore she was not a kofer b’ikkar.

The kasha everyone asks on Rav Elchanan is that the Ramban (Yisro 19:9) says that “v’gam b'cha ya’aminu l’olam” teaches us that the Bnei Yisroel were told at Matan Torah that Moshe’s nevuah was on a higher madreigah than any other Navi. Therefore, Miriam should have already known this and again we can ask why wasn’t she considered a kofer b’ikkar?

The answer lies in understanding the difference between Moshe’s nevuah and the nevuah of the other nevi'im. Every other navi only received nevuah b’zechus Klal Yisroel. Moshe, on the other hand, received his nevuah b’zechus atzmo, based on his own merits. However, there appears to be a Mechiltah that contradicts this. The Mechiltah in Parshas Bo says Moshe only received his nevuah b’zechus Klal Yisroel and the rayah to this is the fact that during the 38 years in the midbar in which the Bnei Yisroel were in nidui, Moshe did not receive nevuah.

There is a machlokes between Rashi and Tosfos in Yevomos (72) over what was the reason that the B'nei Yisroel were put in nidui. Rashi learns that it was because of the cheit ha'eigel and Tosfos learns it was because of the cheit meraglim. Tosfos agrees with Rashi that Klal Yisroel was in cherem after the eigel, however, HKBH forgave them when he said “salachti”. According to Tosfos, the nidui that lasted for 38 years was from the cheit meraglim. In any event, we see that everyone agrees that from 17 Tamuz (the ma’aseh eigel) until Moshe went back up to shamayim and Hashem said salachti (19 Tammuz), that the Bnei Yisroel were in cherem.
During this period the Torah says that Moshe spoke to Hashem directly. This would seem to contradict the Mechilta mentioned above and would imply that Moshe’s madreigah of nevuah did come b’zechus atzmo and not b’zechus Klal Yisroel. What you have to say is that when Moshe was being m’kabeil the Torah, then indeed his nevuah came b’zechus atzmo. However, the Mechiltah was talking about the rest of the years and during those years his nevuah came only b’zechus Klal Yisroel.

With this we can understand why Miriam was not kofer b’ikkar. Miriam understood that Moshe’s nevuah was different than all other Neviim. However, Miriam thought that even though Moshe's nevuah was on a higher madreigah, nevertheless his nevuah still came b’zechus Klal Yisroel and not b’zechus atzmo. Consequently, there was no need for him to separate from his wife. Her mistake was that she should have realized from the short period after the cheit ha’eigel that Moshe was on the madreigah to receive nevuah b’zechus atzmo and in fact it was necessary for him to separate from his wife.

Parsha Chabura Beshalach:The Obligation Of Kriyas HaTorah

This week’s shiur was about the nature of the chiyuv of K'riyas HaTorah.

The Nature of the Obligation

Immediately after K'riyas Yam Suf, the Torah tells us that that the B’nei Yisroel went three days without water. The gemara in Baba Kama (82a) understands this to mean that they went three days without Torah. Subsequently, Moshe made a takanah that the Torah should be read every three days. The question is, what is the nature of this chiyuv? There are two ways to understand the nature of this chiyuv. It could be viewed as a chovas hatzibbur, meaning that it is an obligation on the community as one unit to read the Torah. The other way to understand it is that it is a chovas hayachid, meaning that it is an obligation incumbent on each individual. However, even if you say that it is a chovas hayachid, it would still be necessary to gather a minyan to read the Torah. The obligation would be on the individual, but the way in which this mitzvah is performed would have to be with a tzibbur.

Machlokes Rishinim

The achronim point out that this is really a machlokes between the Ba’al HaM’eor and the Ramban (Milchamos) in Megillah. (The two opinions are found in Daf 3 of the Rif). There is a machlokes in Megillah between Rav and Rav Asi over whether the megillah can be read privately. Rav Asi holds the megillah must be read with a minyan. The Ba’al HaMeor and Ramban have a machlokes over whether Rav Asi's opinion is l'chatchilah or even b’dieved. The Ba’al HaM’eor proves from a mishna that Rav Asi would agree that b'dieved one can read the megilla privately. The mishna lists those things which need a minyan and reading the megillah is not part of that list. The Ba’al HaM’eor proves that since mikrah megillah isn’t part of the list, we see that the megillah can be read privately according to everyone. The Ramban rejects the proof because that mishna only lists those things which are a chovas hatzibbur. Now among those items listed in the mishna is k'riyas hatorah. We see from this machlokes that the Ramban holds k'riyas hatorah (which is listed in the mishna) is a chovas hatzibbur while the Ba’al HaM’eor would hold it is a chovas hayachid.

Nafka Mina

There are a number of nafka mina in this chakirah.

1) The Birchas Shmuel (Yevamos Siman 21) quotes R’ Chaim as being mesuppak in this chakirah. R’ Chaim said if it is a chovas hatzibbur one would need 10 people who did not hear leining. Since the chiyuv is on the tzibbur, if only rov of the tzibbur needed to hear leining then you don't have a tzibbur and m'meila you can't lein. However, if it is only chovas hayachid then you can apply rubo k'kulo and if six people need to hear leining then you can lein. This safeik is mentioned in the Biur Halacha Siman 143 in the name of the Chayei Adam Klal 31.

2) What happens if you miss leining? In Nefesh HaRav (p. 130), Rav Schachter brings down how Rav Soloveitchik would be makpid to make up leining since he felt k'riyas hatorah was a chovas hayachid.
I would like to suggest that even if it is a chovas hatzibbur one might be obligated to make it up. A person only would fullfill his obligation if he is part of a tzibbur. If you have no tzibbur to attach yourself to then you still have a chiyuv. Therefore, if you don't go to shul at all then you have not attached yourself to a tzibbur and would need to make it up. (But if you were in shul and missed a word, you wouldn't have to make it up unless you held it was a chovas hayachid. ayin Emek Beracha k'riyas hatorah os 3). The Minchas Asher (Parshas Beshalach) writes a similar sevarah.

3) Is one allowed to learn during leining? The Mechaber (Siman 146) paskens one can learn quietly. The Biur Halacha brings the Shibolei HaLeket that one can not learn since it is a chovas hayachid and you must hear every word. For this reason the Biur Halacha assumes the Mechaber is referring to someone who already heard leining. Of course the Mechaber could hold it is a chovas hatzibbur.

He'oros In Yoreh Deia:Ta'am K'ikkar and Chanan

I am currently learning Chulin/Yoreh Deiah with my chavrusa. I will try and occasionally post some of our more interesting he'oros.

Ta'am K'ikkar
There is an important klal in Yoreh Deiah called ta'am k'ikkar. Simply put this means that food which is treife can transfer it's "ta'am" or taste into another food and make the second food assur. I simple example would be where a piece of neveila falls onto a piece of kosher meat. The tatse of the neveila gets absorbed into the kosher meat and makes the kosher meat treife. There is a machlokes Rishonim how exactly ta'am k'ikkar works and whether it is assur m'd'oreisa or only m'd'rabbanan. (There are also a couple pieces in R'Chaim on this but ain kan mokom l'ha'arich).

Shittas Rabbeinu Tam

One approach given is that of Rabbeinu Tam (R"T). (R"T is found in the Rosh in Chulin Perek 7). R"T holds that ta'am k'ikkar is m'd'oreisa and that it works thru a concept called "hetter nehepach l'issur", the kosher piece of meat which absorbs the issur turns into a treife piece of meat. For clarification, another way to understand ta'am k'ikkar would be to say that the kosher piece doesn't turn into a treife piece of meat but rather the treife piece has been absorbed by the kosher piece and when you eat the kosher piece you are eating part of the treife piece as well.
A nafka mina could possibly be whether you can ever remove the issur from the kosher piece of meat. If you hold like R"T that "hetter nehepach l'issur", so then we view the entire kosher piece as being a new entity of triefe (cheftzah shel tarfus). Just like I can't turn a piece of neveilah into kosher meat, so too I can't turn this piece of meat into kosher meat. However, if you hold that the kosher piece isn't a cheftzah of tarfus but rather just has tarfus absorbed in it, so maybe I can argue that if I remove the tarfus then the meat becomes kosher again. (This concept is called "efsher l'sochto"-is it possible to remove issur absorbed in kosher and is the subject of it's own discussion).

This leads us into another concept in Yoreh Deia called Chaticha Na'aseh Neveilah.

Stay tuned...

The Beracha Of Al Nitilas Yadayim

The halacha is that when we wash our hands for bread, we make the beracha "al nitalas yadayim" only after we wash our hands. The Mechaber explains that even though we have a rule to make our berachos "oveir la’asiyasan", before we do the mitzvah, this case is different. Since our hands might be tamei or have touched unclean places, we wait until after we wash our hands to make the beracha.
My 9 year old daughter asked me the following question. Why does this chashash only apply to al nitilas yadayim? Every time we need to make a beracha, we should have to wash our hands in case our hands are dirty. Yet we don’t find that we are makpid to wash our hands before making a shehakol or mezonos. Why not? Any Answers?

Parsha Chabura Bo: The Jewish Months Of The Year

This week’s shiur was about naming the Jewish months.

Shittas HaRamban

The Ramban in his peirush al hatorah (Parshas Bo perek 12) says that the mitzvah of "hachodesh hazeh lachem" includes referring to the months in numerical order with Nisan being month 1. Just like there is a mitzvah to refer to the days of the week as they relate to Shabbos (i.e. Sunday is day one and Monday is day two etc.) so too there is a mitzvah to order the months based on Yitziyas Mitzrayim. Even though the year starts in Tishrei, we still call Nissan the first month since that is the month we left Mitzrayim and Tishrei would be month 7 since it is 7 months since we left Mitzrayim. According to the Ramban if one would refer to Tishrei as month 1, you would be mevateil a mitzvas aseh. The Ramban then writes that when we came back from Bavel, Ezra changed the names of the month. Until this time they had been referred to as month 1,2 and3 and now as a zecher for the geulah from Bavel they were given Babylonian names, Nisan, Iyar, Sivan….

Other Shittos

Not everyone agrees with the Ramban. Rav Yerucham Fishel Perlow in his peirush to Rav Sa’adiah Gaon’s sefer hamitzvos writes that both the Rashba and Ran in Rosh Hashana (7a) argue on the Ramban. The gemara in Rosh Hashana (7a) says that Nissan is the Rosh HaShana for the months. Both the Ran and Rashba ask, what is the nafka mina? They answer the nafka mina is so that we know in which the Yomim Tovim occur. The Torah tells us that Pesach is in the first month, so once we know that Nisan is the first month we know that Pesach is in Nisan. Rav Yerucham Fishel Perlow asks, why didn’t they answer that the nafka mina is because it is a mitzvas aseh to count the months in the correct order, like the Ramban? It must be they argue on the Ramban.

There are two nafka mina that come out of this Ramban.

Nafka Mina 1:The Sefer Ikkarim

The Sefer Ikkarim (Ma’amar 3 Perek 16) writes that it is not an ikkar to believ the Torah can never change. (This is against the Rambam who lists the nitzchiyus of the Torah as one of the 13 ikkarim). One of his rayos is from the Ramban. The Ramban wrote that originally there was a mitzvah to refer to the months as month 1 ,2, 3 from Yitziyas Mitzrayim. However, when they came back from Bavel they changed the months and called them Nissan, Iyar and Sivan. Clearly you see that the mitzvos can become batel.

There are 3 answers given to be docheh this rayah.

1) The B’nei Yissacher (Nissan Ma’amar 1 ) says that names were already known to them al pi mesorah, they just never used them. During the days of Moshe Rabbeinu the names Nissan, Iyar etc were part of torah sh’b’al peh. And after golus Bavel they were part of Torah She’Bichsav. Rav Schachter in Eretz Tzvi Siman 2 has a similar mehalach. Rav Schachter assumes that they found a hint to the names of the months in the Torah.
2) The Binyan Shlomo (Siman 23) says that all the Ramban means is that there was a mitzvah on Beis Din to use the number of the month when they were m’kadeish the chodesh. They would have to say "Tamuz the fourth month is mekudash". The Binyan Shlomo points out that the chiddush that would come out of this is that when we are mevarech the chodesh every month we should also need to mention what number month it is.
3) The "Koseiv" (a peirush in Ain Ya’akov) in Megillah explains that the Ramban didn’t mean that the numbering of the months became batel. Rather, in addition to mentioning the numerical order, they also included names. The Abarbenel in Bo says the same idea. According to this they would refer to Tamuz as tamuz the fourth month.

Nafka Mina 2: Using A Secular Month
Another nafka mina that comes out of this Ramban is whether one would be allowed to reference the month by the secular calandar. In other words would one be allowed to call February as month 2. (and write l’moshel 2/7/06). The Chasam Sofer in Toras Moshe on Parshas Bo says that according to the Ramban you are not allowed to refer to any month in the wrong order. Therefore, by calling this month "Month 2" (referring to February) you are being mevatel an aseh since this month is really Month 11 (Shevat). It would also seem that the "Koseiv" understands the Ramban this way.

Rav Shternbach in Teshuvas V’Hanhagos (Chelek 1 Siman 830) disagrees. He says that the halacha of the Ramban would only apply to our Jewish months. In other words to refer to Tishrei as Month 1 is a problem. However, to refer to the secular months as month 1, 2 or 3 is not a problem. By daying February is Month 2 you are not saying it is the second moth from Yitziyas Mitzrayim. You are just saying it is the second moth of the secular calandar. Other poskim seem to be more machmir=ayin Titz Eliezer (Chelek 8 Siman 8 and Chelek 9 Siman 14) and Yabeia Omer (Chelek 3 YD Siman 9).

BO III: Rechush Gadol

HKBH tells Moshe that the B’nei Yisroel should ask the Eygptians for money in order that Avraham shouldn’t have any ta’anos that Hashem didn’t fulfill part of his havtacha that "yeitzu b’richush gadol". The GR"A asks the obvious question. The reason to make the B’nei Yisroel wealthy should not have been to placate Avraham, but rather in order to fulfill the promise of "yeitzu b’richush gadol". The GR"A answers that really the rechush gadol was the "bizas hayam"-the spoils they picked up by kriyas yam suf. This also fits into the order of the pesukim. The pesukim say "v’gam es hagoy…dan anochi. v’acharei chein yeitzu b’rechush gadol". First there will be a din on Mitzrayim and then the B’nei Yisroel will get the wealth. The GR"A explains that the actual din didn’t take place until kriyas yam suf, when everyone waas killed. (In fact I saw that Rav Dovid Cohen brings down in his sefer Ma’aseh Avos Siman L’Banim that the Targum Yonason Ben Uziel translates "dan anochi" as referring to the 250 makkos that took place at the yam suf.) Therefore, it comes out that the rechush gadol HKBH was referring to had to have been the bizas hayam. However, if the B’nei Yisroel had left Mitzrayim without any wealth it would have appeared as if Hashem wasn’t keeping his promise. Therefore, HKBH ensured B’nei Yisroel would leave wealthy so Avraham wouldn’t have a ta’anah.

BO II: The Matzah Of The First Seder

Two people asked me the following question. It is such an obvious question that I am sure that the seforim talk about it. I personally don’t have an answer and I haven’t had a chance to look around. So if anyone has a teretz, feel free to comment.
The Torah says that the reason we eat matzah on Pesach is because the B’nei Yisroel didn’t have a chance to le the dough rise before they left Mitzrayim. However, we find that they were commanded to eat matzah with the korbon pesach even before they left Mitzrayim. What was the reason why they were commanded to eat the original matzah?

Medrash Shiur Audio

My father in law has been running a chaburah in Medrash Rabba every Friday night for the last 15 years. Recently, he has created a short audio shiur on a portion of the Medrash from the weekly parsha. You can click on the link here or on the sidebar to hear the shiur.

Furthermore, the shiur now has expanded to 5 different locations in Boro Park and Flatbush. Each location is organized by a former member of the original chaburah. If you live in Boro Park or Flatbush and would like information about the shiur, leave me a note in the comments with an email address and I will contact you.

Enjoy

BO I:The Purpose Of The 400 Year Golus

WHY MITZRAYIM?

During the bris bein habesarim, HKBH promises Avraham that his children will be strangers in a foreign land for 400 years. Interestingly, which land this will be in is never mentioned. It seems that all that was being promised was some form of golus. The specifics of that golus, the how, when and where was not determined at that time. In fact, according to one p’shat we see that the golus was actually split into two parts. The first 190 years took place in Eretz Cana’an from Yitzchak’s birth until Ya’akov went down to Mitzrayim. The last 210 years were spent in Mitzrayim. The question is why was Mitzrayim chosen? If part of the 400 years was spent in Cana’an then why couldn’t all 400 years be spent there?

I would like to suggest that this question is actually the gemara’s question in Nedarim 32a. The gemara asks “Why was Avraham punished and his children enslaved in Eygpt for two hundred and ten years?”. I think that what the gemara is really asking is that ain hachi nami the B’nei Yisroel had to be in golus for 400 years, but why did 210 of those years take place thru being enslaved in Mitzrayim? Let it take place in Cana’an and not thru slavery just like the first 190 years took place. One answer the gemara gives in the name of Shmuel is because Avraham went too far in testing HKBH by asking ‘how will I know that I will inherit Eretz Yisroel’. What is the p’shat in this answer? What is the connection between Avraham’s request and golus Mitzrayim?


THE YESOD OF MITZRAYIM

The gemara in Menachos 85 says the following:

When Moshe (first) performed wonders in Mitzrayim, two of the most expert witches remarked 'Do you bring straw (to sell) to Aforayim?!' (It is already full of grain - likewise, Mitzrayim is already full of witchcraft.). Moshe replied: One goes to the vegetable market to sell vegetables.

The Netziv (Harchev Davar 7:11) explains p’shat in the gemara that if one wants to sell straw, you can sell it anywhere. This is because people don’t care about the quality of the straw, they just want to buy straw. However, when it comes to fruits and vegetables, people want good quality fruit. If you sell high quality produce, the place where you will sell it for the highest price is in a place that appreciates what good fruit is. People who live in a place that doesn’t understand what good fruit is will not spend top dollar for the fruit because they won’t understand how valuable the fruit really is. The same thing was true with the makkos. The reason all the mofsim were done in Mitzrayim is because it was davka the people of Mitzrayim who could appreciate that the makkos were Yad Hashem and not just some advanced form of kishuf. The gemara says that 9/10 of the world’s kishuf was given to Mitzrayim. Therefore, it was only Mitzrayim, who practiced kishuf par excellance and knew what real kishuf was, who could realize that the makkos were actual nisim and not a form of kishuf. All the other nations would just explain it away as a form of kishuf.

THE PURPOSE OF THE GOLUS

The sifrei machshava ( I think the Maharal talks about this in Gevuros Yisroel) all point out that Mitzrayim was the "kor habarzel" for Klal Yisroel. It was in Mitzrayim that the Jewish people were refined and molded into an am kodosh. The seforim also explain that it was precisely in Mitzrayim that this process had to happen because Mitzrayim was the epitome of a nation that denied HKBH and the antithesis of what the B’nei Yisroel stood for. It was only in such an environment that the B’nei Yisroel could become an am kodosh. As the Ramban points out the main yesod of Yitziyas Mitzrayim was developing a sense of emunah and bitachon in HKBH. This could only be accomplished in the country that stood for the exact opposite of emunah b’HKBH.

TWO FORMS OF REDEMPTION

Now that we understand what the golus Mityzrayim accomplished, we can answer our question above. The cheit of Avraham was that he demonstrated a “chisaron” in emunah by asking for proof that we would inherit EY. However, this chisaron wasn’t just a chisaron in Avraham. Avraham was the father of Klal Yisroel and his chisronos (and ma’alos) impacted all future generations. Ma’aseh Avos siman Labonim and Avraham’s weakness in emunah was transmitted to his descendants. In order to become the nation that we were supposed to be, we needed to eradicate this chisaron. The only place where we could get rid of this chisaron in emunah was in place that stood for the opposite of emunah. This was in Mitzrayim.
I would also add one more idea. Maybe one can say that this chisaron in theory could have been eradicated by the shevatim without Mitzrayim. It was only when the shevatim were not able to be mashlim the chisaron, that golus Mitzrayim became necessary. (Although I have no rayah’s for this maybe if they hadn’t sold Yosef they could have fixed the chisaron in Eretz Cana’an). This is why the havtacha of golus was so open ended. It was not set in stone how to accomplish the tikun, but rather it was up to the shevatim and the Bnei Yisroel to do it. Once they didn’t accomplish the task, HKBH had no choice but to bring golus Mitzrayim.
Finally, the seforim also say that golus Mitzrayim is the model for our current golus. Just like by golus Mitzrayim there were two options on how to go thru the golus, we also seem to have two options. There is the “b’itta” and the “achishena”. If we are zocheh, we can bring the golus to an end right away. But if we are not zocheh then we will have to wait for the ultimate end when Moshiach will finally come. Let us daven that we should be zocheh to see the geulah b’miheirah b’yameinu.

Va'Eira II: Black Magic or Sheidim, Which Is More Powerful

The gemara in Sanhedrin 67b explains that the chartumei Mitzrayim used both kishuf and sheidim. When the Torah describes how they turned a stick into a tanin, it uses the term "belahatehem" However, when describing how they attempted to replicate the makkos the Torah uses the term "belatehem". The gemara explains that "belahatehem" refers to kishuf and "belatehem" refers to sheidim.
The question is, which koach is more powerful? The Maharsha (based on the gemara later on) understands that you can accomplish more using sheidim than by using kishuf. One can not create whatever he wants thru kishuf because if that were the case then one can in theory recreate the whole world. However, using sheidim one can have them collect the items that you wish to appear. For example, when it came to the makkah of tzifardeia the Egyptians could not use kishuf to create the frogs because kishuf didn't allow them to do that. Rather they had the sheidim collect the frogs and bring them to Mitzrayim. (The gemara actually implies this later on in the name of Rav Papa). Also, the reason the Egyptians were stymied by kinim is because sheidim can not collect items that are very small.
With this idea the Maharsha explains a machlokes between R' Eleazar and R' Akiva regarding how the makka of tzifardeia occurred. R' Akiva held that there was one frog and one that frog was hit other frogs came out. R' Eleazar held that that one frog croaked and called the other frogs. The Maharsha explains that R' Eleazar's objection to R' Akiva was based on his understanding of sheidim. Sheidim only have the ability to bring other objects. Therefore, it makes sense to say that it appeared as if one frog croaked and the other frogs came because in reality it was the sheidim that brought the other frogs. However, how can you say the other frogs were created from one frog? The sheidim didn't have the ability to create new objects so how would the frogs have been created.

Va'Eira I: Exactly What Is A Tanin?

The Torah describes how the staff that Aharon threw down on the ground turned into a tanin. What exactly is a tanin? The truth is that growing up I was always taught that it was a snake. This is how Rashi (7:10) defines it. However, one could ask that if it is a snake why does the Torah use the term tanin and not “nachash”, especially since in Parshas Shemos the Torah uses the term “nachash”. The Sifsei Chachamim seems to answer this question by saying that a nachash is a snake found on dry land and a tanin is found in the water. Presumably, what he means is that when Moshe was in the desert, the stick turned into a “nachash”, but now that Moshe is in Mitzryim which is near the Nile, it turned into a tanin. (The Da’as Mikra has a similar p’shat).
However, there is another p’shat given to the word “tanin”. Rav Hirsch translates it as a crocodile. This p’shat is based on a pasuk in Yechezkel (25:28) which is the Haftorah for Parshas Va’Eira. The posuk compares Pharoah to the “tanin hagodal” found in the water. Rav Hirsch understands this to be referring to a crocodile. This p’shat also fits in very well with a Malbim I alluded to at the end of my earlier post. The Malbim writes that the chartumei Mitzrayim were a bunch of charlatans who were very good at deceiving the people. In order to replicate what Aharon did , some of the chartumim brought out taninim skins and hid under them. When some of the chartumim threw down their sticks, the other chartumim jumped out hidden under the taninim skins and crawled around. People thought the sticks (which were also now hidden under the skins) had turned into taninim. The Malbim adds that later when Aharon’s stick swallowed the other sticks, it also swallowed the people under the taninim skins. The malbim’s pshat is more understandable if you assume a tanin is a crocodile as opposed to a snake.

Parsha Chabura Va'Eira:Understanding Kishuf and Black Magic

This week's shiur was about understanding exactly what kishuf is.

The chumsh tells us that Pharoah’s magicians used kishuf/black magic in order to imitate the mofsim that Moshe did. The question is, is there any meaning to black magic or is it just a bunch of sheker.
There are 2 mehalchim found in the Rishonim/Seforim.

1) The first mehalech is found in Sefer HaChinuch (Mitvah 65), the Ramban (Parshas Shoftim 18:9 ) and the Nefesh HaChaim (Sha’ar 3 Perek 12).
The gemara in Sanhedrin (67b) discusses the idea of kishuf. The gemara says, it is called kishuf because the act of kishuf contradicts ("machish") the events that go on in shamayim (a loose translation of "pamalya shel ma’alah"). The Chinuch explains that HKBH set up the world to run according to the laws of nature. HKBH also created the mazalos and malachim whose job is to control the laws of nature. This is the p’shat that every blade of grass is controlled by a malach. However, it is possible to subvert these laws of nature. The Chinuch describes that one can take two types of mazalos and mix them together to create a third mazal. This new mazal will have certain kochos to enable you to do things against the natural laws of the world. This is the essence of kishuf. The reason HKBH said that it was assur is because usually the kishuf produces a harmful result. Also, using kishuf is considered contradicting the heavens because you are going against the natural order of creation that HKBH set up to run the world. The Ramban in Shoftim (18:9) says the same basic idea although he describes the process a little differently.

The Nefesh HaChaim adds in one important point. The gemara in Sanhedrin (67b) says that the posuk "Ain Od Milvado" teaches us that ultimately one has the koach to nullify kishuf. The Nefesh HaChaim explains that this means that ultimately everything is controlled by HKBH. Kishuf does not give one the ability to go against Hashem. All kishuf is, is a mechanism to use the kochos hatumah that HKBH put in this world. Therefore, by truly believing "Ain Od Milvado" and having emunah shlaima that everything comes from Hahsem, you can defeat the kochos of kishuf.

2) The second mehalach is the Rambam. The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (Perek 37) and Hil Avoda Zara (11:16) says that kishuf is sheker and hevel. If one believes in the powers of kishuf you are a fool and a simpleton. According to the Rambam what is the issur of kishuf? The Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvos (Lo Saseh 32) explains that the sorcerers would decieve people by playing sleight of hand tricks. This is called "achizas ha’enayim". One example he brings is where you pretend to take a coin out of someone’s mouth. These slight of hand tricks are assur mid'oreisa and involve an onesh of malkos.
The problem is that the Rambam paskens (Avadah Zara 11:15) that if you perform kishuf then you are chayav misa. This implies there is a difference between kishuf and achizas ha’enayim. The way I understand the Rambam is that if you do an act which people think is witchcraft, (even though you are really deceiving them), then you are chayav misa. However, if you just deceive them by sleight of hand tricks, but you don’t do an act which people associate with kishuf (eg. the example the Rambam brings in Sefer HaMitzvos quoted above) , then you are only chayav malkos.

[Note: There is a whole discussion in the mefarshim and poskim how to understand Shittas HaRambam. A nafka mina l’ma’aseh is whether one is allowed to do magic tricks. The Chachmas Odom (YD 179) is machmir and Rav Moshe (YD 4:13) seems to be meikel. V’ain kan mokom l’ha’arich.]
According to the Rambam, exactly what did Chartumei Mitzrayim do? The Sha’arei Ahron quotes many opinions that it was all achizas einayim (sleight of hand tricks). Among those that hold this way are Rav Sa’adiah Gaon, Abarbanel, Ibn Ezra, and the Malbim. The Malbim has a very interesting pshat on the taninim. Ayin sham.

Parsha Chabura Shemos: The Importance Of A Jewish Name

This week's shiur was about whether one is allowed to give his child a non-Jewish name. The medrash (in Shemos Rabba and Vayikra Rabba 38) says that one of the reasons the B'nei Yisroel were redeemed was because they did not change their Jewish name. There is a machlokes haposkim how to apply that concept now-a-days

1) The Maharam Shik (Even HaEzer 169) holds that it is an issur m'd'oreisa to give a non-Jewish name based on chukas hagoyim. He feels that when the Rambam in Hil Avoda Zara write sthat it is a mitzvah to be separate from the goyim that this includes the issur of giving a non-Jewish name. It also seems clear from the context of the teshuva that to give a secular name to one who already has a Jewish name is also assur.

2) The Tzafnas Paneach (Siman 275) paskens that to give a name that is a translation of a Jewish name is not a problem. The only problem arises when you give the child a new non Jewish name.

3) Rav Moshe zt"l (Igros Moshe Orach Chaim Chelek 4 Siman 66 and Chelek 5 Siman 10) writes that if the non-Jewish name has become part of Jewish culture (nisragel b'kach), it is totally mutar. For example, many names come from the yiddish language. Even though these names are not from loshon hakodesh, they are allowed to be used because they have become accepted in Jewish society. Examples of such names are "Volf", "Gittel", "Baer", etc. If thr name is not nisragel, it is not assur, but it is a "davar meguna". Also, Rav Moshe doesn't address a case where one wishes to give a secular name to one who already has a Jewish name. Furthermore, Rav Moshe adds that the medrash quoted before does not apply today. in Mitzrayim they had no milah and no Torah. There was nothing identifying them as Jewish. Therefore, they did not change their names in order that people should know they are Jewish. We don't have that problem today.

Parshas Shemos I: Miriam's Name

Why did Amram and Yocheved decide to call their daughter Miriam? Although I haven’t seen it anywhere, I am assuming that she was named for the bitter golus that the B'nei Yisroel were enslaved in. (Miriam = Mar= bitter). The question then is why name her after the bitterness of golus. If you want to make reference to the situation, why not reference the positive and call her Tikveh (hope), Nechamah (comfort) or even Geulah (redemption). At least this way the galus would be remebered in a positive light.

I think you can answer this question with the following idea. We say in Hallel, “odecha ki anisani...”-I thank Hashem for aflicting me”. Why do we thank Hashem for the affliction? It is understandable that we thank Hashem for saving us, but what is there to thank about affliction? The teretz is that the affliction itself has a purpose. It is not just a form of punishment, but all yesorin are there to mold us and shape us. We grow stronger and closer to Hashem thru our nisyonos. This idea is never more applicable than to Golus Mitzrayim. The golus in Mitzrayim was not just an onesh because Avraham did not show the proper emunah. Rather, it is referred to as the “kor habarzel”, the fiery furnace thru which the nation of Klal Yisroel was shaped and molded. The bitterness and pain we went thru was an essential part of who we were and what we became. It is perhaps for this reason that Amram chose to name his daughter Miriam and remember the bitterness of the golus. He wanted to eternalize this idea, that without the trial and tribulations of Mitzrayim we would never have become a nation.

Addendum:

1) I looked in Ishei HaTanach and sure enough I was right! The Yalkut Shemoni as well as other medrashim explain that Miriam was named for the bitter golus.

2) L'chorah, my p'shat will also explain why we eat marror on Pesach.

Vayichi III: Ya'akov Mitaso Shlaima (continued)

Continued from here


The Avos had a unique role in life. Avraham’s middah was chesed. His role was to develop this middah and bring it out into the world. Yitzchak on the other hand had the exact opposite role. His middah was gevurah, which is represented by middas hadin and yirah. The difference between Avraham and Yitzchak can best be illustrated by the why the Torah presents each of them. Avraham had an open tent and went out in the world to spread the word of HKBH. Yitzchak on the other hand stayed home and presumably focussed on himself and his family. Now we come to Ya’akov. What was Ya’akov’s role in life? Ya’akov’s middah is Tiferes. Rav Chaim Yaakov Goldvicht (Asufos Ma’Areches VaYeitzei) explains that Tiferes represents harmonizing and synthesizing two extremes. Ya’akov’s role was to take Avraham’s middas hachesed and Yitzchak’s middas hagevurah and to synthesize them. Being that the middos of chesed and gevurah are opposite middos, it is necessary for a person to be able to understand when to utilize each middah. This was Ya’akov’s role. He had to teach his children and by extension all of Klal Yisroel how to combine both middos.
Understanding when and how to use one’s middos is represented by shlaimus. Ya’akov knew that he would only be successful if all his children were shlaimim and worthy of being part of the shivtei-kah. Unlike Avraham who had Yishmael, and unlike Yitzchak who had Eisav, Ya’akov knew that he was destined to have 12 children who were shaleim. If any of his children were not worthy of being part of the 12 shevatim, then Ya’akov would have felt that he failed in his mission.
With this we can now have a better insight into the Tzlach’s pshat. When Ya’akov sensed that his children were not fit to be the shevatim, he felt his whole mission in life had failed. The shevatim had to reassure Ya’akov that they were ra’oi l’kach and even more than that they had learned their lessons well. When they said Shema Yisroel, they weren’t just being m’kabeil ol malchus shamayim. But, rather like the Tzlach explains, they were explaining that they understand both the middas hachesed (shem havayah) and the middas hagevurah (shem Elokim) and how to use them together. They were assuring Ya’akov that they were indeed zocheh to be the shivtei-kah and Ya’akov had in fact succeeded in fullfilling his tafkid in life

Parsha Chabura VaYichi:The Geder of Baruch Shem K'vod Malchuso

Note: I give a parsha chabura every Shabbos in my shul. The chabura explores either a topic in halacha and/or lomdus that has it's roots in the weekly Parsha. Bli neder, I will try to post a synopsis of what I spoke about each week.

The m'kor for saying "baruch shem k'vod malchuso l'olam va'ed" comes from this week's parsha. The gemara in Pesachim 56a relates that on Ya'akov's deathbed, the Shevatim said "Shema Yisroel". In response to this Ya'akov Avinu answered "baruch shem k'vod malchuso l'olam va'ed. Because of this chazal were m'sakein that we should say "baruch shem k'vod malchuso l'olam va'ed" every day in Shema.

The Shivivei Aish al haTorah asks the following question. How do we understand the geder of this takanah. Is "boruch shem" a part of Shema and is to be viewed as an extension of the posuk of "Shema Yisroel. Just like "Shema Yisroel" is an expression of kabbalas ol malchus sham, so too "boruch shem" is also a form of kabbalas ol malchus shamayim? Or maybe "boruch shem" is a new taknah that has nothing to do with kabbalas ol malchus shamayim. It is not really part of Shema. but rather is something chazal were m'sakein
becuase Ya'akov said it.

One nafka mina would be what would happen if you forgot to recite "boruch shem". Would you have to go back and repeat it? This is a machlokes between the Bach and the Magan Avraham (OC siman 61). The Shiltei Geborim in Berachos (perek 2) says that if you forget "boruch shem" you don't have to go back. The Bach (OC siman 61) explains the reason is because krias shema is a mitzva d'oreisa and therefore if you don't say it you are not yotzei, however "boruch shem" is just a takana based on Ya'akov Avinu and therefore you don't need to repeat it if you forgot it. The Magan Avraham based on a Levush says one must go back if you forgot "boruch shem". What does the Levush say? The Levush (siman 63:5) says that after the first possuk one does not need to be fully awake when reciting shema because kavanah is not necessray after the first possuk. However, "boruch shem" has the same din as the first possuk because "boruch shem" is also a part of kabbals ol malchus shamayim. We see from the Levush that "boruch shem" is a part of kriyas shema and therefore the Magan Avraham paskens you have to go back if you missed it.

Halacha L'Ma'aseh

This is actually a machlokes between the Biur Halacha (siman 61) and the Igros Moshe (OC chelek 5 siman 5). The Mishna Berura paskens that boruch shem is not a chelek of shema and therefore one does not have to go back. Rav Moshe zt"l paskens it is a chelek of kriyas shema. ayin sham in both places for their proofs. Although rav Moshe feels boruch shem is part of kriyas shema, he does say at the end of the teshuva that one should follow the p'sak of the Aruch HaShulchan. The Aruch HaShulchan paskens that if you have not started saying "v'ahavta" then you should go back and say "boruch shem". However, if you already started saying v'ahavta one does not need to go back. (This seems to straddle both sides of the fence but this is how Rav Moshe comes out).

Vayichi II: Yaakov Mitaso Shelaima

The gemara in Pesachim 56a relates that when Ya'akov was on his deathbed he wanted to reveal the z'man geulah. However, at that moment the shechina left hm and he could not tell it over. Ya'akov was then nervous that one of the shevatim had sinned and was not worthy of being part of the shitei-kah. When the shevatim responded with Shema Yisroel, Ya'akov realized that all his children were tzaddikim.
The Tzlach (Pesachim 56a) asks what is the significance of the shevatim saying Shema Yisroel? Why davka that possuk? He answers with a beautiful teretz that (in my opinion) gets to the root of what Ya'akov's tafkid was. The Tzlach says that we know that Avraham represented middas hachesed, while Yitzchak represented middas hagevurah. Furthermore, both Avraham and Yitzchak had children who were p'soles come out from them. Avraham had Yishmael and Yitzchak had Eisav. Ya'akov was concerned that one of his children was also "p'soles" similar to Yishmael and Eisav. The Shevatim responded to Ya'akov's concern by saying "Shema Yisroel Hashem Elokeinu Hahsem Echad". The shem havyah ("Hashem") of HKBH represents the middas chesed of HKBH while the shem "Elokim" represents the middas hadin of HKBH. The Shevatim were telling Ya'akov that unlike Yishmael who was the p'soles of chesed , and unlike Eisav who was the p'soles of gevurah, they were shaleim both in their middas hachesed and in their middas hagevurah.

Why do I feel that this vort gets to the root of what Ya'akov was all about? Stay tuned...

Vayichi I: The Connection Between Ephraim u'Menashe and A Bris

Personal note: I said this vort over at my son's bris six years ago and in honor of my nephew's bris later today (Wednesday 1/11) I am presenting it here.

The Targum Yonason ben Uziel says that the beracha of "yisimcha elokim k'ephraim u'menashe" is said at a bris. The peirush on the Targum explains that the Targum is referring to the beracha "zeh hakoton gogol yehiyeh k'shem shenichnas l'bris kain yechanes l'torah chupah u'maasim tovim", with the torah referring to Ephraim and "ma'asim tovim" referring to Menashe.
I think that we can really understand this based on the Netziv's comments in his commentary Hemek Davar on this .week's parsha The Netziv asks why did Yaakov go ahead and switch his hands so that his right hand would be on Ephraim. Why didn't Yaakov just go ahead and have them switch places.? He should have had Ephraim stand on the right and Menashe on the left. The Netziv answers that in reality Ephraim and Menashe represented two different ideas. Ephraim's purpose in life was to be strong in ruchniyus. This is seen from the fact that one of Ephraim's descendants was Yehoshua who replaced Moshe as the spiritual leader of Klal Yisroel.
Menashe on the other hand had a different tafkid in life. His purpose was to be strong in areas of gashmiyus, in particular the political arena. Menashe was by Yosef's side helping him rule Mitzrayim. Furthermore, one of the more famous descendants of Menashe was Gidon-a strong military leader. (Also see the Harchev Davar where the Netziv uses this mehalech to explain why sometimes Ephraim is mentioned first and sometimes Menashe is mentioned first).

The Netziv explains further that the feet represent the gashmiyus since the feet is what are used to move and take part in this world. Menashe had to be strong in the gashmiyus arena. Therefore, he had to stand on the right. Hands represent ruchniyus. Hands are always doing mitzvos and good deeds. Ephraim had to be strong in ruchniyus therefore Yaakov's right hand had to be placed on Ephraim.

With this Netziv, I believe we can now have a better understanding of the Targum Yonason ben Uziel. When we say "kain yechanes l'torah" we are referring to Ephraim who represents the Torah and inyanei ruchniyus. When we say "u'maasim tovim" we are referring to Menashe who represents the olam hagashmi and are interaction with this world on a physical level. We are blessing the child that he should be zocheh to be strong in both areas. However, we mention Torah/Ephraim first because ultimately that is the ikkar and the Torah is the detremining factor of how we should partake of the gashmiyus in this world.

ADDENDUM

1) I would like to add something my brother in law pointed out. He actually remembered what I had said 6 years ago (why he remembered it is an interesting story). Apparently, 6 years ago I ended the vort by saying the reason we give the child the beracha of Ephraim and Menashe is because we don't know how he will grow up-will he be an Ephraim or a Menashe.

2) The baby's name is Chaim Refael named after my sister on law's maternal grandfather.
It looks like there is one more CM in this world, which in my humble opinion is a good thing.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

K'balo Kach Palto II: Aggravation

I had a whole post written up on what contemporary poskim say on the subject and somehow it got lost. I am not in the mood to rewrite it now. I guess you will have to wait for a different time to see what they say.

However here are some mareh mekomos to keep you busy.

a)Article by Rav Schachter: Mesorah Journal volume 7 5752 p.74 os 2
b)Piskei Teshuvos vol 5 Siman 551 os 13 and 24.

VaYigash II:Avraham's Eishel

Chazal mention that the resason Yaakov went to Be'er Sheva before heading down to Mitzrayim was in order to take the eishel of Avraham with him. This eishel was then brought out of Mitzrayim and used to build the mishkan.
When I metioned this to my son, I told him that the gemara in Sota (10a) has a machlokes what exactly this eishel was. One opinion is that Avraham planted an orchard for people to eat from. Another opinion is that it was a hotel where guests could stay. My son then asked me an obvious question. If the eishel was a hotel, how did Yaakov "chop" it down and take it to Mitzrayim? If you say it was an orchard so then it makes sense. Yaakov uprooted the trees and replanted them in Mitzrayim and when they left Mitzrayim the trees were cut down and made into wooden beams for the mishkan. But if the eishel wasa hotel, what exactly happened? Did Yaakov take the hotel apart and store the wood somewhere for the next couple hundred years?
I have no answer. The only answer I can think of is that the opinion that holds the eishel was a hotel does not hold that Yaakov brought it down to Mitzrayim.
Any other answers?

K'Balo Kach Palto

We have a klal in kashrus called "k'balo kach palto". This means that the same way a utensil absorbs tarfus, that is the same way you need to take it out. L'mashel, if a pot became traif by cooking something over fire, then you need to kasher it with fire, a process called libun. If it only became traif because you boiled tarfus in it, then using boiled water, a process called ha'galah would suffice.
The Rema in Orach Chaim 552:1 says that ha'galah has to be done with water that is boiled (roschin)(which is 212 F/100 C). The question is what happens if something became traif by boiling tarfus at a temperature less than the boiling point. Do we say k'balo kach palto and you only need to do ha'galah at the lower temperature or do we say all ha'galah must be done at the boiling point. To put it in terms of lomdus, yesh lachkor, is the din ha'galah a din of k'balo kach palto and therefore a lower temperature suffices or is it a din in roschin, boiling water and kol z'man the water is not boiled ha'gala doesn't work?
This chakirah is brought down from Rav Soloveitchik zt"l in in Shiurei HaRav on Basar B'Chalav/Ta'aroves. The Rav says a nafka mina would be a pressure cooker which gets to a higher degree than boiling point. If you say ha'gala is a din in k'balo kach palto, then you would need to kasher the pressure cooker at a temperature higher than boiling point. However, if it is a din in roschin, that the water just has to be boiled, you only need to kasher the pressure cooker at 212 F/100 C.
Bli neder, next week I will mention what the contemporary halacha seforim bring down from today's poskim. Stay tuned...

Vayigash I: Who's In Charge?

After Yosef reveals himself to his brothers, he tells them that the whole situation was part of HKBH's master plan. Yosef says "V'ata lo atem sh'lachtem osi haina ki Elokim vaYisimani l'av l'pharoah u'l'adon l'kol baiso u'mosheil b'chol eretz Mitzrayim". Rav Chaim Yaakov Goldvicht asks why in the first half of the possuk does Yosef say " l'av l'pharoah u'l'adon" (with a lamed) while in the end of the possuk he just says "u'mosheil" without a lamed? Rav Goldvicht zt"l brings an interesting answer from Rav Yehoshua M'Belz zt"l. Rav Yehoshua M'Belz answers that we constantly see throughout these last few parshiyos that Yosef always attributed everything he acheived to HKBH. This was Yosef's intention in the first half of the possuk. When Yosef said "VaYisimani l'av l'pharoah u'l'adon", he meant to tell them that HKBH had made him in charge and he, Yosef had nothing to do with it. However, Yosef wanted to stress another point. Not only was everything ha had accomplished due to Hashem's guiding hand, but even more than that, HKBH himself was really running the show. When Yosef said "u'mosheil b'chol eretz Mitzrayim", he was not referring to himself but rather to HKBH. The real mosheil, the real ruler was Hashem.
With this Rav Yehoshua M'Belz says we can understand why Yaakov did not originally believe the brothers that Yosef was alive. When the brothers told Yaakov what Yosef said they originally misquoted him. The brothers said "Od Yosef chai v'chi hu mosheil b'kol eretz Mitzrayim". The implication of this statement is that Yosef felt he was the ruler and he was in charge. Yaakov had always known, based on the dreams, that Yosef had the potential to achieve the status of a melech. However, Yaakov knew that it had to be a malchus l'shen shamayim. Consequently, when Yaakov heard Yosef's words that didn't reference HKBH, he felt that this was not the kiyum of the dreams. It was only afterwards when the brothers repeated to Yaakov exactly what Yosef had said ("Vayidabru eilav kol divrei Yosef") and Yaakov heard how Yosef understood that HKBH was in charge, did Yaakov realize that it was truely Yosef.

Parshas Miketz III: Yehuda's Cheshbon

At the end of the parsha, Yosef wants to imprison Binyamin and let the other brothers go free. Yehuda steps up and says that Yosef should imprison everyone including Binyamin. Only when Yosef refuses and says that he will only take Binyamin, does Yehuda change his position and prepare for battle (vayigash elav Yehuda). The meforshim all explain that originally Yehuda thought they were being punished for having sold Yosef. If that is the case then there is nothing to do but except their fate. However, when he saw that only Binyamin was going to be punished, he realized that it had nothing to do with mechiras Yosef, and therefore he prepared for battle.
The question that remains is that if Yehuda originally thought that they were being punished for selling Yosef, then why did he agree to let Binyamin be taken as a slave as well? Binyamin was not involved in the mechira so why should he be punished.
L'chora you could answer based on a Sefer HaIkkarim. The Sefer HaIkkarim discusses why a tzaddik woud be punished in this world. One possibility he mentions is that when there is a gezairah on the tzibbur, then even the individual tzaddikim are not spared. It could be that this was Yehuda's cheshbon as well. Granted Binyamin was innocent but once HKBH made a gezairah on the 10 brothers, so even Binyamin had to be punished.
I subsequently saw this idea in the Netziv, The Emek Davar (44:16) says that Yehuda could not be moser nefesh to save Binyamin, because once this was ratzon hashem there was no hope.

Parshas Miketz II: And What Did Yaakov Suspect?

Did Yaakov suspect that the brotehrs might have harmed Yosef or did he believe them when they claimed that Yosef was killed by a wild animal?

The Seforno in Parshas Miketz explains that Yaakov was hesitant to send Binyamin down to Mitzrayim because he was afraid that the brothers would get rid of Binyamin just like they got rid of Yosef. Clearly, the Seforno understands that Yaakov was not totally convinced of the brothers' innocence. My esteemed friend Rav Eliyahu Ferrell also pointed out to me that the Ohr HaChaim comments in the beginning of Parshas VaYeshev that Yaakov was aware of the sinah the brothers had for Yosef. According to this Ohr HaChaim it is not so surprising thatYaakov suspected the brothers and did not fully trust them.

Parshas Miketz I: What Did Binyamin Know?

The pashtus is that Binyamin did not know what happened to Yosef. After all, he wasn’t there when Yosef was sold and moreover, the brothers had taken a shevuah that they wouldn’t tell anyone. Yet we find that the gemara in Sotah 36B (and quoted by Rashi in Parshas Miketz) says that Binyamin named his 10 sons in "honor" of Yosef. Two of his sons were named for the fact that Yosef was sold in captivity and living in a strange land. This would imply that Binyamin did know that Yosef was sold. How did Binyamin know? I checked the Artscroll (es chatai ani mazkir hayom) and in the footnotes it brings down from the Maskil L’Dovid and Tanchuma Yashan that Binyamin knew thru ruach hakodesh that Yosef was sold.