.יד Moshe's Burial Location

[2015]

It is somewhat ironic that while in my car this day, one of the songs that popped up on my stereo was Tzadikim by Yaakov Shwekey. You can hear it here. From my research, it appears the words come from the עין יעקב on our very דף and go as follows:

(א"ר חמא בר חנינא) מפני מה נסתתר קברו של משה מעיני בשר ודם, מפני שגלוי וידוע לפני הקב"ה שעתיד בית המקדש ליחרב ולהגלות את ישראל מארצם שמא יבואו לקבורתו של משה כאותה שעה ויעמדו בבכיה ויתחננו למשה ויאמרו לו משה רבינו עמוד בתפלה בעדנו ועומד משה ומבטל את הגזרה, מפני שחביבין צדיקים במיתתם יותר מבחייהם.

I happen to think it's a very nice song and the words are most intriguing. There's certainly much to discuss regarding praying to intermediaries but ... not now.

The Egyptian Holocaust

The end of the first פרק goes into great detail in expounding upon the פסוקים in the beginning of שמות. It is therefore appropriate to point you to an essay written by my good friend and scholar, David Farkas, entitled The Egyptian Holocaust, detailing the many chilling correlations between the machinations of פרעה thousands of years ago and those of Hitler and the Nazis, ימח שמם וזכרם.

.ו Enlighten Us

אמר רב עמרם הא מילתא אמר לן רב ששת ואנהר לן עיינין ממתניתין

It would seem that רב עמרם chose these specific words, "he enlightened our eyes," very deliberately. רב ששת was blind. This is not ח"ו to insult רב ששת but rather as a form of extended praise, as if to say "we can physically see and he cannot. Nevertheless, it is he who enlightens our eyes with his exposition of the משנה. In fact, שוב מצאתי, in the Artscroll that they make the very same observation and also point out that this terminology is actually used quite often, specifically with regards to רב ששת.

.ה In the Right Time

ואם חוזר בו נאסף בזמנו כאברהם אבינו שנאמר והומכו ככל יקפצון כאברהם יצחק ויעקב דכתיב בהו בכל מכל כל

I am somewhat puzzled as to the exact meaning of נאסף בזמנו. Does it mean they will die in their proper time? If so, that is slightly troubling per the well-known רש"י in next week's  פרשה (כ"ה:כ"ט) which states that אברהם passed 5 years before his time so as not to see his grandchild stray from the path. Regarding יעקב as well, we are told that years were taken off his life. What, then, is the meaning?

.ה An 1/8 of an 1/8

א״ר חייא בר אשי אמר רב ת״ח צריך שיהא בו אחד משמונה בשמינית א״ר הונא בריה דרב יהושע ומעטרא ליה כי םאםא לשבולתא

The גר”א asks why the גמרא chose that specific number. Doubling up the number has a certain poetic effect. But why not a seventh of a seventh, or a ninth of a ninth? (Indeed, the number 7 is more commonly used in Talmudic hyperbole.) He answers that an eighth of an eighth is 1/64, just less than 1/60. In other words, the גאווה should be בטל בשישים. It should be there but not even noticeable. I have used this approach to understand .גמרא ברכות לד.

It is also intriguing that the imagery of a םאםא לשבולתא is used here in a positive context. Just above on this very עמוד, it is used to portray the downfall of the haughty. רש"י there, however, indicates that the metaphor is in reference to how this part of the שבולת falls off on his own. This later reference is not to the behaviour of this "beard" but rather to its stately appearance when it is still intact.

:ד How did he know?

והאיכא בן עזאי דלא נסיב איבעית אימא נסיב ופירש הוה ואיבעית אימא מרביה שמיע ליה ואיבעית אימא סוד ה' ליראיו

תוספות ד. ד"ה בן עזאי אומר. האי דמקדים בן עזאי לרבי עקיבא אע"ג דרבי עקיבא היה רבו כדאמר בפרק הרואה

The first difficulty here is that, as תוספות clearly states, בן עזאי's rebbe was in fact רבי עקיבא. But רבי עקיבא was one of the other תנאים who weighed in on this matter. So how could their opinions differ? One must be forced to say that בן עזאי had yet another רב from whom he received this tradition.

The last answer is also puzzling. It must be that the סוד ה' ליראיו in this case is what the שיעור would have been had בן עזאי married. It could not be a transmission that this is the true measure for if so, what does that mean for all the other opinions?

שוב מצאתי that the Artscroll makes both these points.

.ב Did you see that?

דתניא רבי אומר למה נסמכה פרשת נזיר לפרשת סוטה לומר לך שכל הרואה סוטה בקלקולה יזיר עצמו מן היין

רש"י ד"ה בקלקולה. בניוולה ובבשתה שמנוולין אותה כדקתני מתני' (לקמן דף ז:) קושר חבל למעלה מדדיה:

This is just a minor pet peeve but I have encountered a number of individuals who seem to misunderstand the גמרא to be referring to someone who has seen a סוטה who fails the test and all the frightening consequences that follow. According to רש"י, at least, that is clearly not the case. This suggestion applies even to someone who witnesses an innocent סוטה who successfully drinks the water and survives. The exposure and public humiliation she endures is enough to suggest that the onlooker should withdraw himself from drinking wine.

.ב Bashert

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ארבעים יום קודם יצירת הולד בת קול יוצאת ואומרת בת פלוני לפלוני

רש"י ד"ה מזווגין אשה לפי מעשיו. צנועה לצדיק ופרוצה לרשע:
תוספות ד"ה קודם יצירת הולד. נראה לרבי קודם יצירת הזכר בין אם לא נולדה הנקיבה עדיין בין אם נולדה:

A number of interesting observations here. First, it is interesting that the בת קול does not say פלונית לפלוני but rather בת פלוני לפלוני. One might suggest that the male is predestined to marry into a specific family but the exact identity of the daughter is not predestined. I find that to be kind of a stretch. I had thought, perhaps this is an indication that the husband should be older than the wife. In other words, the female is not identified directly because she is not yet conceived. תוספות here would seem to indicate otherwise. It is also intriguing, especially considering תוספות's approach that this declaration seems to be tied to the male. In a biblical world where males may marry more than one woman, the idea of destiny would seem more applicable to the female.

רש"י's comment, in its subtlety, is also quite telling. He does not say צנועה לצנוע or צדקת לצדיק. This would seem to be prime fodder for a schmooze on the relative roles of men and women. I don't think any elaboration is necessary at this point.

:נא Ancient Psychology

ודאי שבקינהו ואזלן מנפשייהו אסירן

ודאי אי שבקינהו. גנבים ללכת אל בעליהן ואינון אזלן מנפשייהו אל הגנבים אסירן:

It seems the gemara does not believe in the Stockholm Syndrome, or at the very least does not believe it is strong enough to consider such actions to be coerced.
 

.נ Maaser x 2

א"ר אילעא באושא התקינו המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש תניא נמי הכי המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש שמא יצטרך לבריות ומעשה באחד שבקש לבזבז [יותר מחומש] ולא הניח לו חבירו ומנו רבי ישבב ואמרי לה רבי ישבב ולא הניחו חבירו ומנו רבי עקיבא אמר רב נחמן ואיתימא רב אחא בר יעקב מאי קרא וכל אשר תתן לי עשר אעשרנו לך והא לא דמי עישורא בתרא לעישורא קמא אמר רב אשי אעשרנו לבתרא כי קמא

I once heard a cute gematria from an uncle of mine to shed some light on this gemara. The gemara learns (acc to Rashi) that since the pasuk said אעשרנו instead of אעשר, we learn that the second מעשר is like the first. My uncle explains that the gematria of עשר is 570. The word אעשרנו is made up of the word aser and three more letters: א, נ, ו. The gematria of those three letters is 57, exactly 10% of 570. Perhaps this is what shows that the second מעשר is 10% of the original, not 10% of the remainder.

:מח One Night

או שהיתה לה חצר בדרך ונכנסה עמו ללין

ונכנסה עמו. עם בעלה ללון כשאר לינה בדרך בעלמא ולא לשם נשואין:

Throughout the daf, the gemara always uses the term ללין and רש"י consistently uses ללון instead. This is somewhat puzzling considering רש"י's own comment to בראשית כ"ד:כ"ג in which he states that ללין connotes one night's stay whereas ללון implies many nights. In the cases with which our gemara is dealing, it seems to be pretty clear we are talking about just one night. Why would רש"י change the text?

 

:ח Opening one's mouth to Satan?

א"ל קום אימא מלתא כנגד אבלים פתח ואמר אחינו המיוגעים המדוכאין באבל הזה תנו לבבכם לחקור את זאת זאת היא עומדת לעד נתיב הוא מששת ימי בראשית רבים שתו רבים ישתו כמשתה ראשונים כך משתה אחרונים אחינו בעל נחמות ינחם אתכם ברוך מנחם אבלים אמר אביי רבים שתו לימא רבים ישתו לא לימא משתה ראשונים לימא משתה אחרונים לא לימא דאר"ש בן לקיש וכן תנא משמיה דר' יוסי לעולם אל יפתח אדם פיו לשטן

As evidenced in a number of other instances (:ברכות י"ט., ס) , it was not uncommon for אביי to object to תפילות which, by his assessment, improperly foreshadowed a coming calamity. However, this example is decidedly different.

First, in our case, אביי is objecting to the mentioning of "drinking" from the cup of death both as fact of the past and an inevitability of the future. As the way of the world goes, death is indeed an undeniable reality (as opposed to, for example, a demonic force in a bathhouse.) It is difficult to understand what one might be bringing upon himself with these statements that is not already part of the reality of human existence.

What is more puzzling, however, is that אביי's objections are based upon the teaching which comes from one of two sources, one of which is ריש לקיש who was standing right there when his מתורגמן delivered these words! If he himself did not appear to object to these phrases based on his own teaching, why would אביי see the need to be more vigilant?

:ז New face(s)?

Good to be back.

ת"ר מברכין ברכת חתנים בעשרה כל שבעה אמר רב יהודה והוא שבאו פנים חדשות

There is an anonymous opinion mentioned in the שיטה מקובצת that since פנים חדשות is in plural, we require two new individuals in order to make all of the ברכות. Shockingly, this opinion is invalidated based on the explanation that the pluralization of פנים חדשות is applied to all of the days of שבע ברכות and doesn't imply a plural number of faces on one given night.

So what's so shocking about that? What's shocking is that the word פנים is always plural. There is no singular. I recall this question being posed of one of the rebbeim in נר ישראל some 20 odd years ago. Quite an intriguing answer was given. The reason (source unknown) why פנים is plural is because a face is capable of expressing many various different feelings and emotions. While most of your body parts look exactly the same no matter the situation, the face is multi-faceted. During the week of שבע ברכות, however, it is demanded of us to restrict our expressions to only one emotion - that of sheer joy and happiness with the new union. Since the face is not expected to be multi-faceted during this week, it is conceivable to suggest that the pluralization of פנים might imply more than one individual.

:ב Why are we here?

תקנתם את רבו ואת עצמו לא תקנתם לישא שפחה אינו יכול בת חורין אינו יכול ליבטיל והלא לא נברא העולם אלא לפריה ורביה שנאמר לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה

תוספות (חגיגה ב:) ד"ה לא תהו בראה. האי עשה אלים טפי מפרו ורבו כדאמר במגילה בפרק בתרא (דף כז.) מוכר אדם ס"ת לישא אשה וללמוד תורה ומייתי לא תהו בראה

Surely, the very first מצוה in the תורה is פרו ורבו. However, תוספות here indicate that the פסוק of לא תהו בראה is of some greater value. It doesn't seem that תוספות actually go into detail as to how that is, only to dispel the notion that this פסוק is used due to the absence of the real מצות פרו ורבו. 

I believe the following is the utility of the פסוק in ישעיה - either as an explanation of תוספות or an alternate approach: The main source for the מצוה is surely from בראשית. However, it is only one מצוה among 613. The פסוק in ישעיה is brought into play when the מצוה of פרו ורבו finds itself in a conflict with another מצוה, in order to establish the supremacy of the מצוה of פרו ורבו. Once we understand that the very purpose of the creation of the world was for us to inhabit it, the מצוה of פרו ורבו can take precedence over certain other מצוות.

As תוספות reference, one may sell a ספר תורה to enable the מצוה of פרו ורבו. In our case here, the emancipation of the second half of the servant is problematic with the מצוה of לעולם בהם תעבדו, prohibiting the freeing of an עבד כנעני. Neverheless, since פרו ורבו has been established as the "purpose of our creation," it is preferable to transgress לעולם בהם תעבדו or to sell a ספר תורה in order to enable its performance. 

.ל"א The reading for מחר חדש

חל להיות באחד בשבת מאתמול מפטירין ויאמר לו יהונתן מחר חדש

Yehonasan tells David that tomorrow is Rosh Chodesh and there will be a seudah. (For a discussion on how exactly Yehonasan knew it would be Rosh Chodesh since it was based on testimony, see AstroTorah.) They devise a whole plan to confirm whether Shaul still bears mortal enmity towards David. R' Shimon Schwab, in Maayan Beis HaShoeiva, is bothered, is it only because of the fact that Yehonasan mentions the words machar chodesh that we read this haftara? Surely there is a greater reason to push aside the regular haftara in favour of this one. 

Rav Schwab explains that Yehonasan's intentions in telling David not to escape until after the seudah of Rosh Chodesh were because Rosh Chodesh, as the moon enters a new cycle around the Earth, symbolizes a time of renewal, on opportunity for repentance and atonement. Yehonasan was telling David to wait and see if Rosh Chodesh will possibly have this positive effect on Shaul and he will change his mind. Therefore, we read this haftara to impress upon the masses this important aspect of Rosh Chodesh. Additionally, Rosh Chodesh is a time destined for geula which is why we recite in Mussaf, Mizbeach chadash b'Tzion tachin. And if Moshiach doesn't come, we are left wondering "why has ben Yishai not come, not yesterday and not today" (20:27, apasuk in the haftara.) The Navi remarks, vayipaked mekom David, David's place was vacant, an allusion to the fact that we, too, are lacking the presence of ben Yishai. And just as it was gratuitous hatred that caused David's absence from the party, it is exactly that that causes Moshiach to be absent today.

.ל"א What to read on חנוכה

בחנוכה בנשיאים ומפטירין בנרות דזכריה ואי מיקלעי שתי שבתות קמייתא בנרות דזכריה בתרייתא בנרות שלמה

If you had to choose which of these two הפטרות were more directly pertinent, which would you intuitively choose? Would it not be the מנורות of שלמה? After all, they do speak of actual מנורות in the בית המקדש whereas זכריה speaks only of a מנורה he saw in a dream. And wouldn't the "אחרונים" defer to the "ראשונים"? Why then is the הפטרה of זכריה given precedence and we only read that of שלמה if we have to שבתות חנוכה?

Perhaps there is more to the הפטרה of זכריה. On חנוכה we are not just celebrating the נס of the מנורה but also השם delivering us from the hands of the mighty Syrian Greeks who sought to completely destroy Judaism. The נבואה of זכריה foretells the eventual return to ירושלים and rebuilding of the second בית המקדש following the 70 bitter years of גלות בבל. Therein lies the message to never lose hope even in the darkest of days for השם's salvation is just around the corner, a pertinent theme indeed for חנוכה. 

:ל What to read on הושענא רבה

רש"י ד"ה בקרבנות החג. ...יום ראשון של חול המועד שהוא ספק שני ספק שלישי קורא ראשון ביום השני ותניינא ביום השלישי תליתאה ביום הרביעי הרביעי שהוא נוסף בשביל חש"מ הוא קורא את ספיקי היום ומה הן ספיקי היום ביום השני וביום השלישי וכן למחר קורא ראשון ביום השלישי שני קורא ביום הרביעי שלישי קורא ביום החמישי והרביעי ביום השלישי וביום הרביעי שהן ספיקי היום וכן תמיד הרביעי קורא מה שקרא ראשון ושני חוץ מיום אחרון של חש"מ שא"א לקרות ביום השמיני לפי שאינו מימי החג אלא רגל לעצמו לפיכך יום ז' של חש"מ ראשון קורין ביום החמישי שני קורא ביום הששי שלישי קורא ביום השביעי והרביעי קורא ביום הששי וביום הז' שהן ספיקי היום:

A number of years ago, I was puzzled by this רש"י, specifically as it pertains to what we end up reading on הושענא רבה. I did receive some answers but I'm still unsure. See for yourself.

.ט"ו Magic Number 48

ואמר ר"א אמר רבי חנינא כל האומר דבר בשם אומרו מביא גאולה לעולם שנאמר ותאמר אסתר למלך בשם מרדכי

This idea appears (anonymously, ironically) in פרקי אבות ו:ו as the very last of the 48 ways in which תורה is acquired. 48 - that should sound like a familiar number. Indeed, on .י"ד the גמרא declared that there were 48 נביאים. And according to רש"י's enumeration, #48 was none other than מרדכי!

.י"ד The Most Effective Rebuke

אמר רבי אבא בר כהנא גדולה הסרת טבעת יותר מארבעים ושמונה נביאים ושבע נביאות שנתנבאו להן לישראל שכולן לא החזירום למוטב ואילו הסרת טבעת החזירתן למוטב

This is one of my favourite shtikles. I usually just link back to the original but in this case I'll reinsert instead:

At first glance, this passage seems to be delivering a very simple message. Actions speak louder than words. בני ישראל were never able to internalize the messages of the prophets and act upon them accordingly. But when they saw their imminent extermination before their very eyes, they knew there was only one answer.

But there is a grave difficulty with this approach. The rebukes of the נביאים were indeed ignored, on the whole. But the destruction of בית המקדש did not happen overnight. There were many events that led to its destruction, many steps along the way where בני ישראל ought to have taken heed more so than they did to the mere words of the prophets. So one can understand why אחשורוש's actions sent a stronger message than the rebukes of the prophets. But what about the siege on ירושלים? What about the breeching of the walls? In what way were they less inspiring than the removal of the ring.

To establish a direction on this, we must consider the מהרש"א's commentary on the above passage. He asks why the removal of the ring is singled out by the גמרא. After all, it could simply have stated that the המן's evil decree was greater than the prophets. What is the true significance of the removal of the ring? He answers that when a purchase is made between two parties, it is common for the buyer to make a deposit to ensure the seller of his commitment to the transaction. In this case, the buyer would have been המן. He was "acquiring" the king's consent and approval for his evil plan. And yet, it was אחשורו who gave his ring to המן. This gesture showed אחשורוש's true feelings towards the Jews and המן's plan. It was more content than consent, as if he was now asking המן to carry it out, not allowing it. With the supreme ruler of the inhabited world against them, the Jews realized they were doomed.

With this important point, we can suggest an approach to answer our question above. The prophets' warnings and calls for repentance leading up to the destruction of the בית המקדש were all during a time when בני ישראל were an autonomous nation in their homeland. They were facing invasion and incursion from forces from the outside. Even when נבוכדנצר was banging down the doors and ירושלים was ready to fall, this position gave them the false hope to believe that somehow they could simply beat back the invading forces. They were therefore unable to appreciate the true urgency and necessity for תשובה.

The circumstances were vastly different during the era of אסתר. They were strangers in a strange land. They didn't have their own leaders, their own army or their own land. They were fully aware that they were at the whim of their rulers. When they saw that the supreme ruler was bent on their destruction, they knew there was simply nothing they could possibly do - except תשובה!

This is, of course, a very important and prevalent lesson today. We certainly need an army as any other country does. We even need to invest in the Iron Dome and pursue the protection of our nation in every normal way. We simply cannot rely on these institutions and believe that everything will be okay because they are in place. We must understand that is השם who grants triumph to these endeavours and it is our תפלה and תשובה that fuels their continued success.

.י"ג Weight a Minute

אם על המלך טוב יכתב לאבדם ועשרת אלפים ככר כסף וגו' אמר ריש לקיש גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שעתיד המן לשקול שקלים על ישראל לפיכך הקדים שקליהן לשקליו והיינו דתנן באחד באדר משמיעין על השקלים ועל הכלאים

תוס' ט"ז. ד"ה דחי עשרה אלפי ככרי כספא. שמעתי שעשרה אלפי ככר כסף עולין חצי שקל לכל אחד מישראל שהיו שש מאות אלף כשיצאו ממצרים ואמר שיתן לאחשורוש כל פדיונם (ה) ודוק ותשכח:

A fascinating piece attempting to unlock the mystery of this תוספות.
(Get out your calculators.)