why Nadav and Avihu had to be punished; how the opening of the parsha of kashrus is a response to their sin

1) Earlier this year  on parshas zachor I revisited the yesod the Meshech Chochma quotes from the Rambam many places: a nevuah l'tovah that is related to others can never be rescinded and must come true.   This is why Shaul could not do teshuvah for sparing Agag.  The punishment of  קָרַע ה׳ אֶת⁠ מַמְלְכוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ הַיּוֹם was linked to a promise l'tovah to David, וּנְתָנָהּ לְרֵעֲךָ הַטּוֹב מִמֶּךָּ, and a nevuah l'tovah cannot be undone.  R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson in Divrei Shaul uses this same yesod to explain why Nadav and Avihu had to receive punishment.  Their misa was linked to the positive outcome of creating a kiddush Hashem for the masses, as Moshe told Aharon  הוּא֩ אֲשֶׁר⁠־דִּבֶּ֨ר ה׳  לֵאמֹר֙ בִּקְרֹבַ֣י אֶקָּדֵ֔שׁ וְעַל⁠־פְּנֵ֥י כׇל⁠־הָעָ֖ם אֶכָּבֵ֑ד.  When there is a positive outcome involved, the nevuah must come to fruition. 

2) Rashi comments on  וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶֽל⁠־אַהֲרֹ֗ן קְרַ֤ב אֶל⁠־הַמִּזְבֵּ֙חַ֙  that שהיה אהרן בוש וירא לגשת, אמר לו משה: מה אתה בוש? לכך נבחרת.  I heard the following pshat a few weeks ago but can't recall who says it: When Moshe was first chosen to be a navi by Hashem at the burning bush, he had a whole back and forth argument with G-d.  Moshe insisted that he was not the right one for the job.  Finally, Hashem had enough.  We read  וַיִּֽחַר⁠־אַ֨ף ה׳ בְּמֹשֶׁ֗ה וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הֲלֹ֨א אַהֲרֹ֤ן אָחִ֙יךָ֙ הַלֵּוִ֔י יָדַ֕עְתִּי כִּֽי⁠־דַבֵּ֥ר יְדַבֵּ֖ר ה֑וּא וְגַ֤ם הִנֵּה⁠־הוּא֙ יֹצֵ֣א לִקְרָאתֶ֔ךָ וְרָאֲךָ֖ וְשָׂמַ֥ח בְּלִבּֽוֹ (Shmos 4:14).  Rashi there writes

ויחר אף – ר׳ יהושע בן קרחה אומר: כל חרון אף שבתורה עושה רושם, וזו לא נאמר בו רושם, לא מצינו שבא עונש עלא אותו חרון. א״ל ר׳ יוסי: אף זה נאמר בו רושם:⁠ב הלא אהרן אחיך הלוי – שהיה עתיד להיות לוי ולא כהן, והכהונה הייתי אומר לצאת ממך, מעתה לא יהא כן, אלא הוא כהן ואתה לוי, שנאמר: ומשה איש האלהים בניו יקראו על שבט הלוי

Moshe here in pour parsha is alluding to this episode from his past.  You know why you were chosen Aharon?  Because I made the mistake of protesting too much, of being too bashful and reluctant to take the job.  So why are you now doing the same, repeating my mistake?  מה אתה בוש?  The whole reason you were chosen, לכך נבחרת, is because you weren't guilty of my error.  Don't make it now.

 

3) The Rishonim address why the laws of kashrus appear in our parsha after the hakamas ha'mishkan, e.g. Abarbanel writes:

 

. אחר שהוקם המשכן והושמו בו כהני ה׳ וצוה להם שלא ישתכרו מפני שעיני ישראל עליהם להודיעם את דבר ה׳ להבדיל בין הקדש ובין החול ובין הטמא ובין הטהור. ולהורות חקי השם הוצרך ית׳ לדבר אל משה ואל אהרן יחד ולהודיעם מה הם הב״ח הטהורי׳ לאכילה

 

Others explain that once the mikdash and kohanim have been sanctified, the parsha can turn its attention to the sanctification of the rest of the nation, which begins with tumah and tahara of food. 

 

I think, in light of a Sefas Emes (5631), that at least the opening of this parsha is also a response to the sin of Nadav and Avihu.  

 

וַיְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֶל⁠ מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל⁠ אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר אֲלֵהֶם

דַּבְּרוּ אֶל⁠ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ מִכׇּל⁠ הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר עַל⁠ הָאָרֶץ.

 

Who is the לֵאמֹר אֲלֵהֶם in the first pasuk speaking about?  Rashi opines that it refers to Elazar and Itamar:

 

לאמר אלהם – אמור שיאמרו להם לאלעזר ולאיתמר, או אינו אלא לאמר לישראל? כשהוא אומר: דברו אל בני ישראל (ויקרא י״א:ב׳), הרי דבור האמור לישראל, הא מה אני מקיים: לאמר אלהםא – לבנים, לאלעזר ולאיתמר.

 

Rashbam disagrees and sees the phrase as reflexive, speaking about Moshe and Aharon לאמר אליהם – למשה ולאהרן.  He makes a general observation: ומזה יש להוכיח על כל לאמר הכתוב בוידבר ה׳ אל משה, כי פירושו לאמר למשה.

 

Sefas Emes takes the position that לֵאמֹר אֲלֵהֶם is speaking about Bnei Yisrael.  What then are we to make of the next pasuk   דַּבְּרוּ אֶל⁠ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר ?  One of the two phrases must be redundant?

 

To answer this question Sefas Emes sets down a yesod based on the Chazal at the end of Makkos  ר' חנניא בן עקשיא אומר רצה הקב"ה לזכות את ישראל לפיכך הרבה להם תורה ומצות שנאמר (ישעיהו מב, כא) ה' חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר.  Rashi/Rivan explain כדי שיהו מקבלין שכר במה שמונעין עצמן מן העבירות לפיכך הרבה להן שלא היה צריך לצוות כמה מצות וכמה אזהרות על שקצים ונבלות שאין לך אדם שאינו קץ בהן אלא כדי שיקבלו שכר על שפורשין מהן.  What Rashi/Rivan is telling us is that R' Chananya ben Akashya didn't mean to say that Hashem dreamt up meaningless, arbitrary laws for us to obey just for the sake of giving us reward.  What he meant is that there are laws in the Torah that would seem to go without saying.  Do you really need a pasuk to tell you not to eat bugs?  Who in their right mind would have an appetite or want to do so anyway?  Nonetheless, Hashem gave us a mitzvah so that we get credit for doing what we might otherwise do anyway.  Ad kan Rashi/Rivan.  The Sefas Emes adds another layer.  If I wouldn't eat pig or bugs anyway, what is Hashem rewarding me for?  The answer is that I am being rewarded not for that what, but for the why. אל יאמר האדם אי אפשי בבשר חזיר רק אפשי ומה אעשה אבי שבשמים גזר עלי. Chazal tell us, "Don't say I don't like pig."  Don't do what you are doing because of your personal taste, your common sense, your intuition, your upbringing, social norms, etc.  Rather do it because Hashem decreed that this is what we have to do.  Do it for the sake of the mitzvah.  Attitude and intent make all the difference 

 

In our parsha, says Sefas Emes, the second pasuk of דַּבְּרוּ אֶל⁠ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ address the what.  The first pasuk is needed to address the why.  לֵאמֹר אֲלֵהֶם means don't just tell them what to do, but tell them that I, G-d, and the one telling them to do it.   

 

Nadav and Avihu wanted ruchniyus, so they offered "eish zarah" to achieve that goal.  They were guided by their own subjective intuition rather than the letter of the law.  Therefore, when it came to giving the laws of kashrus, the Torah stressed that even if you wouldn't eat it anyway, what should guide your behavior is not personal, subjective taste, but rather the fact that it is a mitzvah. 

R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's chiddush on what constitutes a hefsek

No she'hechiyanu is recited in kiddush on shevii shel Pesach.  What if a person made a mistake and accidentally said shehechiyanu?  Is it a hefsek?  Does he have to repeat kiddush?

I would have expected the MB to deal with this, but he doesn't (at least nowhere I could find).  When I raised the question my SIL suggested a parallel to kiddush on second night of R"H.  Even though according to some shitos there is no obligation to say shehechiyanu, which is why we try to have a new fruit or wear new clothes, we are not choshesh that doing so may be a hefsek.  I countered that this is not a good analogy.  Mei'ikar ha'din we pasken that on R"H there is an obligation to say shehechiyanu.  It's nice to be yotzei all shitos and try to have a new fruit, but it's not an absolute requirement.  Shevii shel Pesach is actually the flipside case, as on shevii shel Pesach mei'ikar ha'din there is no obligation at all to say shehechiyanu.

 

R' Shlomo Zalman addresses himself to this question and has an interesting sevara.  R'SZ suggests that hefsek, by definition, is a result of hesech ha'daas.  If you start talking about something else in the middle of making a bracha, it's not the interruption of the words themselves which are the issue, but rather it's the fact that in speaking about something else you are diverting attention and thought away from the bracha.  Therefore, if a person mistakenly thought they were obligated to say shehechiyanu in kiddush, since in their mind they are reciting kiddush as required, there is no hesech hadaas from the bracha, and hence the addition is not a hefsek.

 

Let me give you two sources, one in support of RS"Z's idea, one that poses a difficulty.  Let's say a person recited kiddush only to discover as they are about to drink that the kos was filled with water.  The MG"A (quoted by MB) writes that the person has to repeat kiddush, as they failed to fulfill the chiyuv of reciting kiddush al ha'kos.  However, so long as they intended to drink other wine during the meal which was available on the table, they cdo not repeat borei pri ha'gefen.  That bracha was chal on the wine on the table.  What does this have to do with RS"Z?  Even though the kiddush recited over the cup of water counted for nothing and was a hefsek of meaningless words, we see from the MG"A that it doesn't matter.  The the initial borei pri ha'gefen still stands and can combine with the kiddush now being repeated over the refilled kos.  This fits beautifully with RS"Z's reasoning.  The person was unaware the first time around that the kos had water in it, and so there was never a hesech hadaas from the first moment to the last. 

 

R' Akiva Eiger is not a fan of this MG"A, and he more clearly spells out his shira in the following case in hil havdalah (interestingly also quoted by MB, in the Biur Halacha): one is not permitted to use a candle that was lit b'issur on shabbos for havdalah. The SA writes that the bracha of m'orei ha'eish needs to be repeated if one does so.  R Akiva Eiger jumps in and adds that in this scenario, one has to go back and repeat the borei pri ha'gefen as well.  Since the bracha of me'orei h'eish is invalid, it is a hefsek in the havdalah and invalidates the entire thing.  You can see why l'shitaso RAK"E doesn't like the previous MG"A, and you can see the difficulty this poses to R"SZ's sevara.  There was no hesech hadaas here.  The person intended to recite havdalah.  The only problem was the candle used invalidated the bracha.

 

According to many shitos a woman is not obligated to say the bracha of borei m'orei ha'eish in havdalah.  If she does so, is it a hefsek?  Halichos Beisa is medayek (against the view of R' Tukichinski) from the MB that women may add the bracha if they desire to do so and it is not a hefsek.  Unlike in the cases above where the bracha was invalid, or in the case of shehechiyanu where it is a completely inappropriate addition, in this case the addition is appropriate, just not obligatory.  

A far greater problem is the question of whether a woman answering amein to shehechiyanu in kiddush when she already said the bracha at the time of hadlakas neiros is a hefsek or not.   

back where we started from -- or (hopefully) not; interesting chiddush of the Ben Ish Chai re: isru chag

1) Chazal tell us that not only did Yam Suf split to allow Bn"Y to cross, but all the waters in the world split as well.  Some explain that water symbolizes all of our troubles.  הושיעני אלקים כי באו מים עד נפש (Teh 69).  Shevi'i shel Pesach is not just about getting across the particular obstacle of Yam Suf, but is about being able to get across all of the obstacles and difficulties in our path.

Some have the custom to stay up all night learning.  I want to suggest that water also symbolizes, as it does many other places, אין מים אלא תורה.  You are stuck on a difficult Tos?  You are breaking your head on a R' Akiva Eiger?  Shevi'i shel Pesach is for you.  You can break through the difficulty and get to the other side.

2) According to Tos (Archin 15) Bn"Y did not cross the Yam Suf from one side to the other, but made rather traverssed the sea in a U shape path to end up back on the same side that they started out on.  Even though Bn"Y ended up back where they started from, they had undergone a sea change (pun intended) in the course of their journey.  The Egyptians who had persecuted them were finally destroyed completely, never to haunt them again.  My wife suggested that this is the lesson of shevi'i shel Pesach.  We may find ourselves at the end of the chag back where we started from -- the same home, the same job, the same challenges and pressures -- but hopefully we have undergone change over the past week and are not the same people coming out of the chag that we were going in.

3) R' Shternbruch in his teshuvos (vol 2 #321) quotes an interesting chiddush of the Ben Ish Chai that on isru chag one should wear bigdei shabbos and only do melacha necessary for davar ha'aveid, like chol ha'moed.  I don't know if anyone accepts this shita l'halacha (I asked a Sefardi Rav yesterday about it and he was unfamiliar with this view), but even if it not lmaaseh, we can still take the message with us of clinging to the orot of the chag as it departs from us and not being too quick to rush back into the turmoil of the mundane world.

התיצ⁠בו וראו את⁠ י⁠שועת ה׳ - a challenge, not a promise

  וַיּ֨⁠וֹשַׁע ה׳ בַּיּ֥⁠וֹם הַה֛וּא אֶת⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִיַּ֣⁠ד מִצְרָ֑יִם  Why do we need the words בַּיּ֥⁠וֹם הַה֛וּא in that pasuk?  They obviously do not come l'afukei other days or times, as Hashem has saved us on many occassions and continues to do so.  Ohr haChaim answers that until this point Bn"Y were not secure in their salvation.  There had been a yetzi'as Mitzrayim, but they recognized that they were not out of the woods yet.  It was only בַּיּ֥⁠וֹם הַה֛וּא at the splitting of the sea that they could breathe a sigh of relief.  R' Levi Yitzchak mi'Berdichiv offers a different explanation.  There are certain points in time where Hashem reveals his love for the Jewish people and showers them with his goodness.  The days most mesugal for this are the days of Pesach.  וַיּ֨⁠וֹשַׁע ה׳ happened davka because it was בַּיּ֥⁠וֹם הַה֛וּא, *the* auspicious time for yeshu'a.  These last two days of Pesach are that special time, a mesugal time, so make the most of them.

We find the term בּנים used over and over in connection with the splitting of Yam Suf, e.g. מעביר בּניו בּין גזרי ים סוף, and וראו בּניו גבורתו שׁבּחו והודו לשׁמו.  Bn"Y could have just escaped Egypt and there did not have to be a splitting of Yam Suf and final destruction of Egypt.  That was just icing on the cake, an extra bonus.  Did we really even deserve it?  When a parent deals with his children, that is not a question that comes up.  We give our children plenty, and it's not because we think they are the greatest and deserve it -- often they don't.  It's because they are our children, full stop.  We want to give, whether they deserve it or not.  Yam Suf happened because we are Hashem's children.  Saving slaves from persecution is the morally correct thing to do.  That's doesn't prove G-d has a special relationship with the Jewish people.  Yam Suf is the icing on the cake, the bonus, the part that was not required.  It's because we are בּנים (see Sefas Emes 5638).

Do you know what the biggest miracle that occurred at Yam Suf was?  Was it really the splitting of the Yam Suf?  The Yam split other times.  The Yam even split for individuals, as the gemara in Chulin relates regarding R' Pinchas ben Yair.  There was something else that happened that was an amazing miracle that people don't even think about.  You go into any shul, sit somewhere in the back, in the talking section, and you will have 2 Jews and 3 opinions about everything.  Everyone is qualified to be Prime Minister of Israel, chief of the Army, head of the Federal Reserve, Rabbi and President of the shul, etc.  So much latent talent is in those back rows just waiting to be discovered!  And no one is bashful about giving their opinion and revealing their talents -- you don't even have to ask.  The same thing went on at Yam Suf.  Some people insisted they should return to Egypt, the frummies started davening, others wanted to fight.  Moshe's response demanded something entirely different from them: הִֽתְיַצְּ⁠ב֗וּ וּרְאוּ֙ אֶת⁠־יְ⁠שׁוּעַ֣ת ה׳.  That's what you have to do.   ה׳ יִלָּ⁠חֵ֣ם לָכֶ֑ם וְ⁠אַתֶּ֖⁠ם תַּחֲרִשֽׁוּן.  Stop with the advice.  Stop with the speeches.  Stop with the 2 Jews and 3 opinions.  Now is not the time for that -- it's a time to be quiet.  You have a bunch of opinionated Jews gathered together and you want them to be quiet?  Now that's a miracle!

Kidding aside, the Sefas Emes (5632) explains that הִֽתְיַצְּ⁠ב֗וּ וּרְאוּ֙ אֶת⁠־יְ⁠שׁוּעַ֣ת ה׳ is not just a promise -- it's an avodah.  We all like to be back seat drivers and we all have good advice not just for our fellow coreligionists, but for Hashem as well.  We would like Him to being an end to the hostage situation in a certain way, to bring geulah in the certain way (some people will tell you it must be through the State, other [misguided] people will say the State is an obstacle), to give us specific brachos and yeshu'os.  We have our agenda.  The Torah is telling us to put the agenda aside --  וְ⁠אַתֶּ֖⁠ם תַּחֲרִשֽׁוּן.  Our job sometimes is to talk about what we want, but to ask just for kavod shamayim in this world, to want to just see הִֽתְיַצְּ⁠ב֗וּ וּרְאוּ֙ אֶת⁠־יְ⁠שׁוּעַ֣ת ה׳ in whatever form it takes, however He decided to bring it about.  

We read in the shirah that the nation of the world tremebled in their boots after what happened at Yam Suf.  שָֽׁמְ⁠ע֥וּ עַמִּ֖⁠ים יִרְגָּז֑וּן⁠ ⁠חִ֣יל אָחַ֔ז יֹשְׁ⁠בֵ֖י פְּ⁠לָֽשֶׁת and אָ֤ז נִבְהֲלוּ֙ אַלּ⁠וּפֵ֣י אֱד֔וֹם⁠ ⁠אֵילֵ֣י מוֹאָ֔ב יֹֽאחֲזֵ֖מוֹ רָ֑עַד⁠ ⁠נָמֹ֕גוּ כֹּ֖ל יֹשְׁ⁠בֵ֥י כְ⁠נָֽעַן.  We would love for a miracle like this in our times.  We would love for Iran to be trembling, for the terrorists to be trembling.  But how did Bn"Y know what the nations in Canaan were thinking?  How did they know they had heard about the miracle and were afraid?  

The fight we are in is not just a geopolitical fight or a military fight.  The world opposes our ideology, our principles, our philosophy.  When you sit down to daven and can't focus, that's the outside world winning the battle against us.  When you feel Hashem close and your avodah soars, your Jewish pride soars, that's another victory.  Bn"Y didn't need to read the Canaan Times to find out what was going on with the nations.  They knew because they felt it within them.  They felt themselves on a high, and therefore knew that if that's the case, the enemy has no power over them.   Iran would be trembling, as would every single nation in the UN, if we understood fully what it means to be בּניו שׁל מקום and acted as such, if we put our bickering aside and in its place  וְ⁠אַתֶּ֖⁠ם תַּחֲרִשֽׁוּן, and if we stopped the backseat driving and focussed on the one task of הִֽתְיַצְּ⁠ב֗וּ וּרְאוּ֙ אֶת⁠־יְ⁠שׁוּעַ֣ת ה׳.  

If we want to see it, and pray to see it, we will see it.

why the GR"A objected to reading haggadah on shabbos ha'gadol

I've seen some folks referring to this Shabbos as Shabbos ha'Gadol.  Technically, next Shabbos is Shabbos haGadol, but the MB (430:2) writes that the Rav should give his derasha this Shabbos.  If the Rav starts teaching hilchos pesach in a derasha next Shabbos, it's too late to make a difference. 

The Rama writes that the minhag is to read the haggadah mincha time on Shabbos haGadol.  GR"A quoted in Biur Halacha objects.  We read in the haggadah יכול מר״ח...בּעבור זה- בּשעה שׁמצה ומרור מונחים לפניך .  On Shabbos haGadol there is no מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך.  The question is, "So what?"  Of course you can't fulfill the mitzvah of haggadah on Shabbos haGadol because it's not the time for matzah and maror, but that's not the intent.  It's just a minhag b'alma, to familiarize oneself with the text beforehand.  Why does the GR"A read the derasha as a *prohibition*?   

 

My SIL Aryeh sent me a mareh makom to a Yaavetz who suggests there may be a problem of bal tosif here.  I don't understand how that can be.  Bal tosif does not apply outside the zman ha'mitzvah when one has no kavanah for a kiyum mitzah (see R"H 28).  Also, if that was the GR"As intent, he should say "bal tosif." 

 

Perhaps one can explain the GR"A based on a Terumas haDeshen quoted in Rama 471:2 (in the MB it says in parenthesis next to this din that it is in Th"D siman 7.  I'll save you a lot of time.  It's in siman 125 here.) that says if a katan is too little to really understand what is going on on pesach night you can feed him early.  However, if the katan is within chinuch age and understands, you should make him wait and not give him matzah too eat early.  Why?  Explains the Th"D: כיון שׁאין המצה חידושׁ הוא לקטן.  If he eats matzah early, what he sees at the seder is old news.  There is nothing striking that will elicit his curiosity.  (See as well the Th"D in 137 regarding starting the seder before nighfall: והשׁינוי נמי אין כּאן when the right time is reached.)

 

We see from the Th"D that eating matzah early is not just a chisaron in the kiyum of matzah, like Rashi writes in the beginning of Arvei Pesachim (99b) that you can't eat matzah on erev Pesach from mincha time onward כדי שיאכל מצה של מצוה לתיאבון, but it's a chisaron in the kiyum of sipur and haggadah because it turns the experience into something stale.  The sipur also has to be לתיאבון.

 

I don't want to repeat my entire post from 5 years ago, so I'll just give you the punchline from the Ramban at the end of P' Mishpatim (24:1): ולא יאמר ׳ויספר׳ אלא בחדשות אשר יגיד.  The word "sipur" means you are relating something new.  Old news doesn't count.  I wanted to suggest that based on this Ramban we have a new insight into what the goal of "sipur" yetzi'as Mitzrayim is.  It's not just to tell the story of what happened, but it is to make that story fresh, exciting, relevant – something new.   

 

R' Akiva Medlov suggests that this is pshat in the GR"A as well.  To come back to the Th"D:

 

דאין להאכילו מצה דדרשינן והגדת לבנך כו' ובעבור זה לא אמרתי אלא בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך ואם ימלא הבן כבר כריסו מן המצות היאך שייך לומר בעבור זה כיון דאין המצה חידוש לו לקטן:

 

Leil ha'seder is the birthday of the Jewish people.  If you got a peek at your birthday present in advance, it spoils the surprise when you open the box; kal v'chomer if you got a slice of birthday cake in advance, it's just not the same.  Matzah is our birthday cake or birthday present; sipur is like singing "Happy Birthday" at the party.  If you have a slice of matzah in advance and sing the song beforehand, whether it is the afternoon beforehand or the Shabbos haGadol beforehand, the party isn't much of a party.  The cake is not as fresh, the excitement of opening the presents and finding out what you got isn't there  That's what bothered the GR"A.  Don't ruin the party.  Don't ruin the freshness and excitement of leil ha'seder. 

 

Even if you follow the Rama and not the GR"A, that's a goal to keep in mind.

the avodah of the nasi vs the avodah of the eved

Rashi comments on the korban of a nasi/melech ⁠אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָשִׂ֖יא יֶֽחֱטָ֑א (4:22) that לשון אשרי, אשרי הדור שהנשיא שלו נותן לב להביא כפרה על שגגתו, קל וחומר שמתחרט על זדונותיו.  It's a wonderful thing when leaders own up to their mistakes.  Yet earlier in that same perek, in discussing the korban of the kohen gadol, Rashi comments on  אִ֣ם הַכֹּ⁠הֵ֧ן הַמָּ⁠שִׁ֛יחַ יֶחֱטָ֖א לְ⁠אַשְׁמַ֣ת הָעָ֑ם (4:3) that כשכהן גדול חוטא, אשמת העם היא, שזה שהםב תלוים בו להתפלל בעדם ולכפר עליהם, נעשה מקולקל, it's the people's fault if their leaders mess up.  Why by the nasi/melech is it "ashrei" when the leaders fess up, and no blame is assigned to anyone but themselves, but by the kohen it is "ashmas ha'am," a terrible thing and the fault of the people?  Two leaders, yet two very different reactions!

The gemara in Brachos 34b relates as follows:

 

ת"ר מעשה שחלה בנו של ר"ג שגר שני ת"ח אצל רבי חנינא בן דוסא לבקש עליו רחמים כיון שראה אותם עלה לעלייה ובקש עליו רחמים בירידתו אמר להם לכו שחלצתו חמה אמרו לו וכי נביא אתה אמר להן לא נביא אנכי ולא בן נביא אנכי אלא כך מקובלני אם שגורה תפלתי בפי יודע אני שהוא מקובל ואם לאו יודע אני שהוא מטורף ישבו וכתבו וכוונו אותה שעה וכשבאו אצל ר"ג אמר להן העבודה לא חסרתם ולא הותרתם אלא כך היה מעשה באותה שעה חלצתו חמה ושאל לנו מים לשתות ושוב מעשה ברבי חנינא בן דוסא שהלך ללמוד תורה אצל ר' יוחנן בן זכאי וחלה בנו של ריב"ז אמר לו חנינא בני בקש עליו רחמים ויחיה הניח ראשו בין ברכיו ובקש עליו רחמים וחיה אמר רבי יוחנן בן זכאי אלמלי הטיח בן זכאי את ראשו בין ברכיו כל היום כולו לא היו משגיחים עליו אמרה לו אשתו וכי חנינא גדול ממך אמר לה לאו אלא הוא דומה כעבד לפני המלך ואני דומה כשר לפני המלך:

 

What is it that made R' Chanina's prayers more efficacious that those of R' Yochanen ben Zakai?  What is the meaning of the answer to Rabbanit ben Zakai's question  אמרה לו אשתו וכי חנינא גדול ממך? 

 

While a sar, a nasi, a member of the cabinet, has access to the king to discuss heady and weighty matters, there are always protocols to be followed.  Cabinet meetings are scheduled, there is an agenda drawn up, there are official minutes and records; because important matters are at stake, nothing is just done off the cuff. 

 

The palace janitor does not need to make an appointment to enter the king's office.  He has no protocol to follow as to when he can or cannot enter.  He goes where he wants, when he wants, doing his job as needed, privy to the most private discussions, able to enter the most private chambers as needed.  True, he does not get to weigh in on lofty matters of state like the sar or cabinet member, but he also suffers no restrictions on his access.

 

We look up to the sar as above us, not one of us.  The palace janitor, on the other hand, is just like you and me. 

 

Rav Kook, R' Tzadok (Pri Tzadik in P' Eikev) and others explain that R' Yb"Z's avodah was through limud haTorah.  That's the sar, the nasi, the member of the cabinet.  He was engaged in contemplating and opining on lofty things.  However, his access to the King was governed by strict protocol.  R' Chanina was the palace janitor.  He didn't need to follow protocol, he didn't need to make appointments to see the king. 

 

When Rav Chanina prayed הניח ראשו בין ברכיו. R' Yochanan ben Zakai's head was in the clouds working on the great problems that need addressing.  R' Chanina's head was down here on earth and his prayer came from the heart.

 

When Aharon and Miriam spoke against Moshe, Hashem came to them and said  וּמַדּ֙⁠וּעַ֙ לֹ֣א יְ⁠רֵאתֶ֔ם לְ⁠דַבֵּ֖⁠ר בְּ⁠עַבְדִּ֥י בְ⁠מֹשֶֽׁה׃.  The Chofetz Chaim (al haTorah) comments on the use of the double description -- בְּ⁠עַבְדִּ֥י בְ⁠מֹשֶֽׁה -- that Moshe's greatness was that he shared both qualities.  He was Moshe Rabeinu, the greatest teacher of Torah who ever lived, but he was also ְ⁠עַבְדִּ֥י, just like a simple servant of Hashem. 

 

R' Yosef Yehuda Leib Sorotzkin says that this is the difference between the nasi and the kohen gadol.  Because of his importance, when the nasi admits mistake, it is a real a blow to his ego and pride. It carries weight.  Therefore, אשרי הדור שהנשיא שלו נותן לב להביא כפרה על שגגתו.  It has nothing to do with the people because he lives in a world apart from them.

 

The kohen gadol, on the other hand, was a like the palace servant.  He was a man of the people.  The kohen's job was to be the oheiv shalom v'rodef shalom and be makareiv others and to daven for the nation.  The gemara in Makkos writes that a murderer b'shogeg had to stay in the ir miklat until the death of the k'g because the k'g is at fault for not davening better.  When you're just a regular Joe in the palace, if you make a mistake, it reflects on all the other regular Joes who are just like you and whom you represent.

5 years since the Covid outbreak -- have we learned anything? Has there been a hischadshus?

The name "parshas hachodesh" is somewhat of a misnomer given that there is exactly one pasuk that relates to kiddush hachodesh and the entire rest of the parsha is aboue the laws of korban pesach.  We call it "hachodesh" in recognition of the fact that the mitzvah of korban pesach would be impossible to receive or observe unless it was preceded by a hischadshus, a renewal -- of spirit, of outlook, of commitment.  That is what the mitzvah of kiddush hachodesh teaches us.  It's like when you want to paint an old wall.  You won't get the optimal results if you just slap a new coat of pain on top of all the old layers.  You have to scrape the all paint off, prime the wall, restore it to shape, and only then apply the new paint.

The 5 year anniversary of Covid has been in the news lately.  I don't want to revisit all the stupid things done and said by people back then.  (Those things should be revisited at some point, but it's not my job and it's not for now.)  I want to focus on hischadshus.  You remember all those weddings in backyards, in small halls, in all kinds of venues, sometimes with only a minyan present?  Remember when people said that it's about time we scale back simchas and do away with the lavish, expensive and unnecessary things that go into a simcha?  How long did that commitment last once Covid was over?  People who really can't afford it are back to going into debt to keep up with the Cohens, people are back to vorts and l'chaims that are the size of weddings, people are hiring party planners and decorators for halls for things like a weekday bris.  And where is the voice of the establishment, the rabbinical organizations?  Where are they when they should be decrying the return to ab-normalcy?

 

Remember when shuls re-opened and people were talking about making a commitment to respecting kedushas beis ha'knesses, a commitment to showing how much we value our places of worship?  How quickly that faded as well.  How many times is your shmoneh esrei interrupted by the sound of a cell phone going off?  I happened to see on shabbos -- and this is not a yotzei min haklel -- someone who had a giant cup of iced coffee parked right there at their makom, right next to the siddur.  There is no sense of busha about it, and why should there be?  This has become the new normal.  (The truth is that if you don't teach proper behavior when your kids are chinuch age, I fear it is a lost cause.)  You think the Rav or a gabbai is going to dare come over and tell that person this is not how to behave in a shul?  Yet during Covid when shuls finally started to have minyanim you can bet that in certain places the gabbai or Rabbi would come over bounce you out if you had no mask.  Mai sh'na? 

 

Remember when people made pesach at home, surrounded by their immediate family members?  These days people like myself who do that must seem nuts.  There is the l'chatchila of spending thousands of $ per person to go to some exotic hotel, and bdieved, there is Orlando, where instead of staying in your own kosher home, shopping in your own local kosher grocery, you ship your kitchen kelim to some 100& treif home, kasher it, ship your food and wine, all so that you don't have to be in your own neighborhood.  When I say "kol dichpein..." I don’t have no worry lest anyone will actually show up at the door because where I live, there is hardly a soul left in town over the chag.  What Rav is going to tell people to stay home when many of them also look to grap a slot on the lecture circuit at these hotels?  Who doesn't want a free vacation in exchange for a "lecture" given between the cabaret show and the golf?

 

Covid should have been a renwal.  The old paint should have come off, new primer put on, our house should look like new.  But instead, what happened is a thin coat of cheap paint got thrown on top of all the old layers, with all the same cracks still there, all the flaws inevitably set to resurface -- and indeed, in many places, they have.

It's always dangerous to write critical posts, so I hope everything here is just hyperbole and exaggeration and none of it applies to any of our shuls or communities and we should all be zocheh to daven in quiet, mekomos kedoshim, to have simchas that fulfill the spirit of "hatzne'a leches," and we should all enjoy Y"T in whatever wonderful kosher places we find ourselves.  

singing the praises of the mishkan

 The Midrash comments on the opening of our parsha:

 אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעֲשִׂיתֶם אֶת הָעֵגֶל הִכְעַסְתֶּם אוֹתִי בְּאֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁעֲשִׂיתֶם הַמִּשְׁכָּן בְּאֵלֶּה אֲנִי מִתְרַצֶּה לָכֶם, הֱוֵי: אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן.

 

What does the Midrash mean that Hashem was angered by the words אֵלֶּה אֱלֹקיךָ by the eigel and אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן is the kapparah?  The problem with the eigel is not a particular word -- it's the fact that the people engaged in idolatry.  

 

Secondly, isn't it the donations that were given toward the mishkan and the effort put in to build it which served as the kapparah?  Our parsha is just the finish line, the end result of all those efforts.

 

The Peirush Mahara"Zu sends you to a passage in Braishis Rabbah 12:1:

 

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר מֶרְיוֹן, כְּתִיב (בראשית ב, ד): אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם, בּוֹרְאָן מְשַׁבְּחָן, וּמִי מְגַנָּן. בּוֹרְאָן מְקַלְּסָן, וּמִי נוֹתֵן בָּהֶם דֹּפִי. אֶלָּא נָאִין הֵן וּמְשֻׁבָּחִין הֵם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם בְּיוֹם עֲשׂוֹת ה' אֱלֹהִים אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם

 

Chazal undestand that when you say אֵלֶּה it doesn't just mean to identify what you are talking about, i.e. "these" to the exclusion of other things, but it means to connote praise, as if to say, "Take a look at these -- aren't they great?! 

 

The sefer Nachalas Eliezer by the mashgiach of Gateshead, R' Eliezer Kahan, explains that Hashem was telling Bn"Y that it's not just the avodah zarah of the eigel that needed kapparah, but it's the fact that they thought it was a great thing.  We read in Teh 10:3 כִּי-הִלֵּל רָשָׁע, עַל-תַּאֲוַת נַפְשׁוֹ ובֹצֵעַ בֵּרֵךְ נִאֵץ ה׳.  It's not just the fact that the rasha is ensnared by taavah which is a problem, but it's the fact that he boasts and sings the praises of wrongdoing.  They say that while it's possible that there were talmidim who learned by the Alter in Slabodka who went astray, it's impossible that after learning by the Alter that they enjoyed their aveirah the way other people might.  To be a rasha -- maybe; to be כִּי-הִלֵּל רָשָׁע, עַל-תַּאֲוַת נַפְשׁוֹ, that for sure not.  

 

A lot of people say this same vort.   Hashem told Moshe about the eigel when he was on Har Sinai, but it wasn't until he saw the celebration, the enjoyment, that people had that he blew his top   וַיַּרְא אֶת-הָעֵגֶל, וּמְחֹלֹת; וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה (32:19)

 

R' Eliezer Kahan expands on this and writes that the tikun has to fit the crime.  Just like you can have someone who is a rasha but is not  כִּי-הִלֵּל רָשָׁע, עַל-תַּאֲוַת נַפְשׁוֹ and therefore it's a different sin entirely, so too, you can have someone who contributes to a mishkan, who builds a mishkan, who sits say and night in a mishkan, but it's a differnet experience entirely from someone who really enjoys being there.  There are people who come to shul on shabbos morning and it's like a 2 hour jail sentence.  There are people learning in kollel and it's nebach like a lifetime jail sentence.  The kapparah only works if it's  אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן like  אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם, בּוֹרְאָן מְשַׁבְּחָן.  Are you singing the praises of what you are building and where you are at, or are you just there because it's a place to be?

 

In parshas Terumah, there is a description of the amudim: וְעָשִׂיתָ לַמָּסָךְ, חֲמִשָּׁה עַמּוּדֵי שִׁטִּים, וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם זָהָב, וָוֵיהֶם זָהָב (26:37).  Those same pillars are described in VaYakhel a bit differently:   וְאֶת-עַמּוּדָיו חֲמִשָּׁה וְאֶת-וָוֵיהֶם, וְצִפָּה רָאשֵׁיהֶם וַחֲשֻׁקֵיהֶם זָהָב (36:38)  Which is it: was the entire pillar coated in gold, or was it only וְצִפָּה רָאשֵׁיהֶם, the head coated on gold?  Chizkuni (see Netziv for a different approach) answers  הוא שפר״ש בפרשת פקודי אפילו דברים שלא אמר לו רבו, alluding to the Rashi in our parsha on the pasuk (38:22) וּבְצַלְאֵ֛ל בֶּן⁠־אוּרִ֥י בֶן⁠־ח֖וּר לְמַטֵּ֣ה יְהוּדָ֑ה עָשָׂ֕ה אֵ֛ת כׇּל⁠־אֲשֶׁר⁠־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ אֶת⁠־מֹשֶֽׁה that Betzalel figured out that he has to first make a mishkan and only then the kelim even though Moshe had conveyed the message in reverse order (see below).  Whatever the pshat, R' Shaul Alter explains that the Torah is teaching us a lesson in avodah.  If  וְצִפָּה רָאשֵׁיהֶם, your head is focussed on gold=mammon, and וַחֲשֻׁקֵיהֶם זָהָב, your cheishek = desire is all about gold (and gold is lav davka, fill in whatever other taavah you like), that's the entirety of who you are, it's the same as  וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם זָהָב, coating everything.  The fact that your body is in shul, or in the beis medrash, doesn't do anything if your mind and heart are somewhere else ,singing the praises of other place and other things. 

 

2) Regarding Rashi's comment that Betzalel was able to intuit what Hashem wanted even when Moshe conveyed the opposite,

 

כי משה צוה לבצלאל לעשות תחלה כלים, ואח״ך משכן. אמר לו בצלאל: מנהג העולם לעשות תחילה בית ואח״ך משים כלים בתוכו. אמר לו כך שמעתי מפי הקב״ה, אמר לו משה: בצל ק-ל היית, כי בודאי כך צוה לי הקב״ה. וכך עשה המשכן תחילה ואח״ך עשה כלים. 

 

How is it possible that Moshe reversed Hashem's instruction and got it wrong?  And if Betzalel somehow knew that Moshe had reversed what Hashem said, why didn't he just say that?  What difference does it make that מנהג העולם לעשות תחילה בית ואח״ך משים כלים בתוכו-- either Hashem said to do it that way or he didn't?

 

Maharal in Gur Aryeh explains that Moshe was the melamed, the rebbe, and he explained the dvar Hashem the way a teacher would, in order of importance of the subject matter.  The kelim were holier and thus more significant than the actual structure of the mishkan, and so Moshe taught those details first.  Betzlalel was the hands-on practicioner who had to translate theory into reality.  In his realm, building the building came before making the kelim.

 

The Sanz-Klausenberger, in Shefa Chaim, explains that the two views represent two different perspectives on avodah.  The mishkan is the place of hashra'as haShechina, where Hashem's presence was manifest.  Moshe thought before that could happen, one first needs kelim for avodah, one needs to put in one's own efforts.  Betzalel took the opposite view.  In theory, and for those on Moshe's level, avodah should come first.  A person should first bring to the table their motivation and hard work and through that earn the hashraas haShechina.  However, not everyone is self-motivated; not everyone is inspired; not everyone can get there.  Betzalel started with the mishkan first.  First give us hashraas haShechina.  First let us feel that Hashem's presence is with us.  That will provide the motivation and the inspiration, and the avodah, the klei ha'mishkan used to serve, will follow. 

 

That's why Betzalel used the argument מנהג העולם...  On Moshe's level, in theory, for those who can do it, of course put the kelim used for avodah first, put effort first.  But that's not how the world at large, unfortunately, operates. That's for the elite, but not for מנהג העולם. 

 

Moshe's response acknowledged the truth of Betzalel's argument.   אמר לו משה: בצל ק-ל היית.  When you are standing in the light of ispaklarya ha'meira, then demanding the kelim first does not seem like such a big deal.  But when you are standing in the shade, בצל ק-ל, where most of us are holding, where things are not so clear and shadows hiding the ratzon Hashem are everywhere, a different standard is required.