מרבה בשמחה in Adar Rishon

This Shabbos is Shabbos Mevorchim Chodesh Adar Rishon. There is a discussion as to if משנכנס אדר מרבין בשמחה in a leap year applies to Adar Rishon as well or only Adar Sheni. Reb Yaakov Emden in his sefer שו"ת שאילת יעב"ץ ח"ב סי' פ"ח says that it only applies in Adar Sheni. He brings a proof from Rashi in Taanis 29b on משנכנס אדר מרבין בשמחה, Rashi writes משנכנס אדר - ימי נסים היו לישראל: פורים ופסח. The reason why they are ימי נסים are because they are grouped together, Purim and Pesach. Since Rashi says מרבים בשמחה is based on Purim and Pesach, obviously it only applies to Adar Sheni which is next to Pesach and therefore there is no מרבים בשמחה in Adar Rishon.

However, the Chassam Sofer in שו"ת חושן משפט חלק ה סימן כ, signs off on a Tshuva in a way which indicates that he held משנכנס אדר מרבין בשמחה even in Adar Rishon. He writes the following:

ואחתום בברכה א"נ פ"ב כאור בקר ליום ג' שנכפל בו כי טוב א' דר"ח אדר ראשון שמרבים בו שמחה לסדר ושכנתי בתוכם תקפ"ט לפ"ק

The Chassam Sofer in OC Siman 160 brings Reb Yaakov Emdens explanation in Rashi about ימי נסים-פורים ופסח and he disagrees. Therefore, the way he signs off on the Tshuva is consistent.

Additionally, the Tosfos Yom Tov in his Sefer מגילת איבה (an autobiography about his experience when he was in prison, his sentence to death, and his eventual relase) also writes וביום הראשון אדר"ח אדר ראשון וכו' שמרבין בו בשמחה.

We see that these opinions took the position that in Adar Rishon, we are מרבים בשמחה.

(It’s noteworthy that there is another Chiddush in regards to when the חודש is נכנס. The Pri Megadim in the Eishel Avraham או"ח סימן תקנא ס"ק ב writes that the משנכנס אדר מרבים בשמחה begins at the time of the מוליד. However, the Tosfos Yom Tov and the Chassam Sofer both signed off withמרבים בשמחה on א' דר"ח אדר, indicating that the משנכנס אדר מרבים בשמחה begins even on the first day of Rosh Chodesh. This is a difficult things to understand because when there are two days of Rosh Chodesh, the first day of Rosh Chodesh is really שייך to the month before and only the second day, aleph, is שייך to the incoming month.)

We would like to prove, like the opinions of the Chassam Sofer and Tosfos Yom Tov, that מרבים בשמחה does already apply in Adar Rishon with the following.

One could ask that the concept of משנכנס אדר מרבין בשמחה is difficult to understand because other חגים don’t impacts the entire month. So what it the idea behind Purim that it impacts the entire month that we say משנכנס אדר מרבין בשמחה? It would seem that this is based on the Pasuk in the Megilah 9:22 that says והחדש אשר נהפך להם מיגון לשמחה ומאבל ליום טוב. From the fact that it says והחדש אשר נהפך להם shows that the whole month is really a Yuntiff. So much so that the Yerushalmi Megilah 1:1 says that a person can read the Megilah, starting from the beginning of the month until the 15th, because of the Pasuk והחדש אשר נהפך להם מיגון לשמחה ומאבל ליום טוב and the Shulchan Aruch in אורח חיים ס' תרפח סע' ז brings this as a יש אומרים and on that י"א, the Rama writes והכי נהוג. But the question is still why did the miracle of Purim have the impact to make the entire month into a Yuntiff?

The Pasuk mentioned above that says נהפך להם really shows that it was a month designated for יגון and אבל. The reason is because Haman, when he made a גורל, the Pasuk says הפיל פור הוא הגורל לפני המן מיום ליום ומחדש לחדש שנים עשר הוא חדש אדר (ג,ז). Rashi writes that there were two גורלות, one was to determine which month he would be successful and one was to determine which day he would be successful. Since it landed on the month of Adar which Haman thought it was a month that he would be successful, so it was a month of יגון and אבל. About the month being Adar, the Gemara Megilah 13b says the following:

תנא: כיון שנפל פור בחדש אדר שמח שמחה גדולה, אמר: נפל לי פור בירח שמת בו משה. ולא היה יודע שבשבעה באדר מת ובשבעה באדר נולד.

The reason why Haman was thrilled with the Month of Adar was because it was the month that Moshe Rabbeinu was nifter in. But he didn’t know that it was also when he was born. We see from this Gemara that the צרה and the ישועה are directly connected to the month. This is the idea of והחדש אשר נהפך להם מיגון לשמחה ומאבל ליום טוב that the entire month was initially a month of יגון and אבל because of the death of Moshe Rabbeinu but was נהפך להם to a month of שמחה ויום טוב because of the birth of Moshe in that month. Therefore, about Adar it says משנכנס אדר מרבין בשמחה and it’s a time where yidden have בריא מזליה and not ריעא מזליה.

The שו"ע הל' תענית סי' תק"פ ס"ב writes that ז' אדר, the day Moshe Rabbeinu was niftar, is a day that people should fast. The Magen Avraham writes that in a leap year, the Minhag is to fast in Adar Rishon even though the year Moshe Rabbeinu died was not a leap year. This discussion is used to determine when a person should fast during a leap year for a Yahrzeit of a parent who died in Adar in a regular year. Should they fast in Adar Rishon or Adar Sheni. Some want to learn from the fast on the Yahrzeit of Moshe Rabbeinu to all other Yahrzeit fasts that they should be done in Adar Rishon and some want to suggest that fasting on the Yahrzeit of Moshe in Adar Rishon is the exception and for everyone else, it should be done in Adar Sheni.

According to this, we can understand why משנכנס אדר מרבין בשמחה should already start by Adar Rishon in a leap year. Being that the ישועה of Purim is connected to the fact that the birth and death of Moshe Rabbeinu happened in the month of Adar, and the fast for Moshe Rabbeinus Yahrzeit is in Adar Rishon, so the שמחה of the היפוך מיגון לשמחה applies to both months of Adar.

Embracing Uncertainty

The fact that there are so many ספיקות in Halacha that surround the holiday of Purim is very appropriate. Besides for the ספיקות about Adar Rishon and Adar Sheni, Purim is the only holiday where there is a ספק about עיירות מסופקות in regards to which day to read the Megilah. Additionally, the Gemara in Yoma 52b discusses ה' פסוקים שאין להם הכרע, one of them being the Pasuk by מלחמת עמלק in Beshalach that saysויאמר משה אל יהושע בחר לנו אנשים וצא הלחם בעמלק מחר אנכי נצב על ראש הגבעה ומטה האלהים בידי. There is a ספק as to how to read the Pasuk. Is the מחר going on the first part of the Pasuk and it reads וצא הלחם בעמלק מחר, or is it going on the end of the Pasuk and it reads מחר אנכי נצב על ראש הגבעה ומטה האלהים בידי. And lastly, the only ספק in קריאת התורה, in how to pronounce a word, is in מחיית עמלק on the word זכר. What is the idea behind all these ספיקות that surround Purim and עמלק?

Many want to suggest that the Gematria of עמלקis ספק and the Avodah is to have no ספק. But it’s hard to say that there should be no ספק because its human nature and the human condition to have doubt so it can’t be that the goal and focus is to live without doubt. But really a person is not supposed to get rid of the ספק rather he is supposed to learn how to deal with ספק, tolerate ספק, and even to embrace ספק. There are people that can’t live with uncertainty and they have to know everything but it’s those people that can’t move forward in life.

The חטא of Adam was that he needed to know-ידעי טוב ורע and he couldn’t live with uncertainty. The Gemara in Shabbos 146a says the זוהמא that came into the world at the time of the חטא was פסקה by Matan Torah because when Klal Yisrael said נעשה ונשמע, they were accepting something without certainty.

The Pasuk in the Parshah 24:3 says ויבא משה ויספר לעם את כל דברי ה' ואת כל המשפטים ויען כל העם קול אחד ויאמרו כל הדברים אשר דבר ה' נעשה. On the words ואת כל המשפטים, Rashi writesשבע מצות שנצטוו בני נח ושבת וכבוד אב ואם ופרה אדומה ודינין שניתנו להם במרה. They heard and understood what they were already told and made an intelligent decision based on what they knew that they were willing to accept what will be coming, whatever the Ribbono Shel Oilam would be telling them. That was the נעשה ונשמע.

The Halachos of Geirus are learned from Matan Torah. The Rambam in Hilchos Issurei Biah 14:2 writes that ומודיעין אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות ואין מאריכין בדבר זה. Many people understand this Rambam as a leniency, that when a person comes to convert, he doesn’t need to know everything. But really it’s a חומרא, that by not telling him everything, he is being left with a certain doubt. He must decide if he wants to go through with it with the limited amount of knowledge he was given like Klal Yisrael was given when they said נעשה ונשמע.

However, the Zohar says that by the חטא העגל, that זוהמא came back because Klal Yisrael said האיש משה לא ידענו מה היה לו and they weren’t able to live with that uncertainty. Therefore, the message that Moshe Rabbeinu instilled in Klal Yisrael when he died on the seventh of Adar is no less than what he gave us with his presence when he was born. The reason is because there was a lack of certainty with his death because the Gemara in Temurah 16b says the day Moshe died, 3,000 Halachos we forgotten and עתניאל בן קנז was mechadesh them through pilpul. It was a message of being able to deal with uncertainty.

נעשה ונשמע

In the end of Parshas Mishpatim, Klal Yisrael proclaimed נעשה ונשמע. The Pasuk says ויקח ספר הברית ויקרא באזני העם ויאמרו כל אשר דבר ה' נעשה ונשמע. A similar proclamation was made a few Psukim earlier ויען כל העם קול אחד ויאמרו כל הדברים אשר דבר ה' נעשה and in Parshas Yisro the Pasuk says ויענו כל העם יחדו ויאמרו כל אשר דבר ה' נעשה (יט,ח). In one Pasuk it says נעשה ונשמע and in the other two Psukim, it just says נעשה. In the Psukim that just say נעשה, the Psukim say ויען כל העם קול אחד and ויענו כל העם יחדו emphasizing that it was everyone, in unison, saying נעשה. However, in the Pasuk that Klal Yisrael said נעשה ונשמע, it says ויקרא באזני העם without any emphasis on it being everyone and in unison. Why is this?

An explanation could be that נעשה is about doing and in that regard, all of Klal Yisrael is equal. Everyone puts on the same Teffilin and everyone eats the same Matzah. But the נשמע means we will understand and we will internalize. Everyone internalizes, understands, and is impacted by Mitzvos in an individual and personal way. So when the Pasuk only talks about the נעשה, it says ויענו כל העם יחדו and קול אחד because in doing, there is uniformity. But in understanding, absorbing, and internalizing-the נשמע, every individual takes it in his own way and therefore it doesn’t say everyone and in unison by נשמע.

The Gemara in Chagigah 14a says משען לחם - אלו בעלי תלמוד and כל משען מים - אלו בעלי אגדה. When it comes to eating Halachos, the שיעור is כזית וכביצה which are one size fits all שיעורים. However, when it comes to drinking, there is a שיעור of a מלא לוגמיו which ranges depending on the size of the individual. The reason could be because Halacha, what we do, is one size fits all and it’s therefore compared to לחם which has a one size fits all שיעור. Where as אגדה, which is about developing a relationship with the Halachos and the גופי תורה and absorbing it, being that it’s an individualized and personal experience, therefore it’s compared to water which has a שיעור that depends on the individual.

This idea can be found in the Hakdama of Reb Shmuel Hanagid to Shas, where he writes the following:

והגדה הוא כל פי' שיבא בתלמוד על שום ענין שלא יהיה מצוה זו היא הגדה ואין לך ללמוד ממנה אלא מה שיעלה על הדעת. ויש לך לדעת שכל מה שקיימו חז"ל הלכה בענין מצוה שהיא מפי משה רבינו ע"ה שקבל מפי הגבורה אין לך להוסיף עליו ולא לגרוע ממנו. אבל מה שפירשו בפסוקים כל אחד כפי מה שנזדמן לו ומה שראה בדעתו ולפי מה שיעלה על הדעת מן הפירושים האלו לומדים אותם והשאר אין סומכין עליהם

Similarly in Kisvei Ramban, in the ספר הויכוח אות לט, the Ramban writes the following:

אנחנו יש לנו שלשה מינין של ספרים, האחד הוא הבב"ליה, וכולנו מאמינים בו אמונה שלימה. והשני הוא נקרא תלמוד והוא פירוש למצוות התורה כי בתורה יש תרי"ג מצות ואין בה אחת שלא נתפרשה בתלמוד, ואנחנו מאמינים בו בפירוש המצות. עוד יש לנו ספר שלישי הנקרא מדרש, רוצה לומר שרמ"וניש, כמו שאם יעמוד ההגמון ויעשה שרמון, ואחד מן השומעין היה טוב בעיניו וכתבו. וזה הספר מי שיאמין בו טוב, ומי שלא יאמין בו לא יזיק.

שור ולא אדם חמור ולא כלים

The Pasuk says וכי יפתח איש בור או כי יכרה איש בר ולא יכסנו ונפל שמה שור או חמור. Rashi, quoting the Gemara Baba Kama 10b, says שור ולא אדם חמור ולא כלים. These מיעוטים are difficult to understand because how do you see to exclude אדם from שור and כלים from חמור. Maybe כלים from חמור because a חמור carries כלים. But nevertheless, the question remains.

A הרגש to explain this could be based on the Pasuk ידע שור קנהו וחמור אבוס בעליו וכו' (ישעיה א,ג). Since the שור knows his קנהו and the חמור knows its אבוס בעליו, therefore שור in the Pasuk could be excluding אדם and שור in the Pasuk can be excluding כלים.

A Genuine Act

The Pasuk says אם כסף תלוה את עמי את העני עמך (כב,כד). Rashi writes רבי ישמעאל אומר כל אם ואם שבתורה רשות, חוץ משלושה וזה אחד מהן because giving Tzedakah is not optional rather it’s an obligation. On why the Torah wrote with the word אם even though it’s an obligation, the Maharal in Gur Aryeh in Parshas Yisro 20:22 writes the following:

יש לפרש מה שכתב לשון “אם” אף על גב דחובה הם, מפני שאם יעשה מחובה כאילו מקיים גזירת המלך - אין הדבר לרצון להקב"ה, וצריך שיעשה מרצונו, ואז כשיעשה מרצונו הוא מרוצה

The Maharal writes that if a person helps somebody else because it’s a Mitzvah, then he isn’t really doing the Mitzvah properly. In order to do the Mitzvah properly, he should do it as if it’s not a Mitzvah but because he really cares.


Emphasis of Mishpatim

The Parsha begins ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם. Rashi says:

אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה לא תעלה על דעתך לומר אשנה להם הפרק וההלכה ב' או ג' פעמים עד שתהא סדורה בפיהם כמשנתה, ואיני מטריח עצמי להבינם טעמי הדבר ופירושו, לכך נאמר אשר תשים לפניהם, כשלחן הערוך ומוכן לאכול לפני האדם.

Hashem told Moshe that he shouldn’t just teach Klal Yisrael the Torah a few times until they are well versed and not explain the טעמי המצות rather he should teach them with their טעמים. But this is quite surprising because every educator and teacher knows that the most important thing is that the Talmid should understand the underlying idea and then he will be able to retain what he is learning more than just reciting it over and over without understanding the idea behind what he is learning. So why would Moshe Rabbeinu think that he should just teach in a way of אשנה להם הפרק וההלכה ב' או ג' פעמים עד שתהא סדורה בפיהם without explaining the reasons?

It’s interesting the Yerushalmi in Avoda Zarah Chapter 2:7 is דורש the Pasuk ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם מה הסימה הזאת אינה נגלית לכל בריה כך אין לך רשות לשקע את עצמך בדברי תורה אלא לפני בני אדם כשרין that just like a שימה-a precious stone/treasure is not revealed to all, so too the Torah should not be revealed to all rather it should be concealed and only reveled in certain circumstances. We see from the same exact words, תשים לפניהם, that the Mechilta learns Torah should be made accessible and explained in its fullest כשלחן הערוך ומוכן לאכול לפני האדם, Reb Shimon Bar Yochai learns that Torah should be concealed.

Reb Yishmael in the Mechilta, as quoted by the first Rashi, says ואלה מוסיף על הראשונים, מה הראשונים מסיני, אף אלו מסיני that just like those, the Aseres Hadibros were given at Sinai, so to the Mishpatim were given at Sinai. There is a Machlokes between Reb Akiva and Reb Yishmael in Chagigah 6a if only the כללות were given at Har Sinai and the פרטים were given באהל מועד and it was repeated in ערבות מואב or everything was said at Sinai. Reb Akiva holds that both כללות ופרטים were given at Sinai and they were repeated באהל מועד and a third time at ערבות מואב. But Reb Yishmael holds that only the כללות were given at Sinai and the פרטים were given באהל מועד. Therefore it can be understood why Reb Yishmael was the one to be דורש the ואלה to say מה הראשונים מסיני, אף אלו מסיני that just like the Aseres Hadibros were said כללים ופרטים so to the following Mishpatim were said כללים ופרטים unlike the rest of the Mitzvos. However Reb Akiva in the Mechilta disagrees with Reb Yishmael and has a different drashah and says מה הראשונים באתה הראת לדעת אף אלו באתה הראת לדעת. We don’t understand the meaning of this drashah but it’s clear that he is not making Reb Yishmael’s drashah because according to him, there is not room for that drashah.

However according to this, the Ohr Hachaim asks on Rashi that bringing the drashah ואלה מוסיף על הראשונים, מה הראשונים מסיני, אף אלו מסיני is going along the opinion of Reb Yishmael. However, in the beginning of Parshas Behar, Rashi, quoting the Toras Kohanim, says מה ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני, והלא כל המצות נאמרו מסיני, אלא מה שמיטה נאמרו כללותיה ופרטותיה ודקדוקיה מסיני, אף כולן נאמרו כללותיהן ודקדוקיהן מסיני-just like Shmitaנאמרו כללותיה ופרטותיה ודקדוקיה מסיני so too all the Mitzvos נאמרו כללותיהן ודקדוקיהן מסיני. This drashah seems to be going with the opinion of Reb Akiva that כללותיה ופרטותיה נאמרו בסיני and therefore Rashi is contradicting himself from the beginning of Mishpatim and Behar?

It would seem that Rashi holds that which Reb Yishmael holds in the Mechilta אף אלו מסיני is not only according to his own opinion but even if we hold that all the כללים ופרטים ודקדוקים were said at Sinai, there it still room to be דורש the ואלה המשפטים to teach us that the Mishpatim were said at Sinai. The reason is because in Parshas Beshalach, the Pasuk says שם שם לו חק ומשפט ושם נסהו (טו,כה) and Rashi says במרה נתן להם מקצת פרשיות של תורה שיתעסקו בהם, שבת ופרה אדומה ודינין. One could’ve thought that the דינין-the Mishpatim that were said in מרה were not repeated at Sinai and therefore the Pasuk ואלה המשפטים needs to tell us that they were repeated at Sinai.

However, this explanation is difficult because Para Aduma and Kibud Av were also said at מרה. Therefore by the same means that there needed to be a special drashah to teach us that the Mishpatim were repeated at Sinai, there should also be a special drashah teaching us that Parah Aduma and Kibud Av were repeated at Sinai even though they were already taught in מרה.

It would therefore seem that there is a special emphasis on the fact that the Mishpatim in particular were repeated at Sinai. This could be because Mishpatim are שכלי-the logical Mitzvos and Sinai was about the divine revelation קולות וברקים וקול שופר and with all the supernatural effects. One would have thought that Mishpatim which are logical maybe weren’t given in such a dramatic context because they are something people understand on their own. Therefore the Torah emphasis ואלה המשפטים- מה הראשונים מסיני, אף אלו מסיני that even the Mishpatim were given at Sinai. Although they are logical and they are Mitzvos a person could seemingly figure out on his own, nevertheless they were given in the context of the supernatural revelation at Sinai.

People usually attach religious significance and meaning to the Mitzvos we don’t understand as if Religion is in competition with logic. As opposed to the other Mitzvos which we do understand usually doesn’t excite people as much. Regarding Mitzvos which are seemingly irrational, there is an appeal towards those Mitzvos. It would seem to be backwards because something that a person understands should sit well with him as opposed to something which is doesn’t understand. However it could be the reason is because things that we don’t understand we assume are above and beyond and more important. But the things which we do understand are less important and therefore have less of an appeal. Therefore there is an emphasis on Mishpatim, the laws we seemingly understand, to teach us that there is more to these Mitzvos than we really understand.

The רע"ב in the beginning of Avos says the following:

משה קבל תורה מסיני - אומר אני, לפי שמסכת זו אינה מיוסדת על פירוש מצוה ממצות התורה כשאר מסכתות שבמשנה, אלא כולה מוסרים ומדות, וחכמי אומות העולם ג"כ חברו ספרים כמו שבדו מלבם בדרכי המוסר כיצד יתנהג האדם עם חבירו, לפיכך התחיל התנא במסכת זו משה קבל תורה מסיני, לומר לך שהמדות והמוסרים שבזו המסכתא לא בדו אותם חכמי המשנה מלבם אלא אף אלו נאמרו בסיני

The idea is that even though all of Avos discusses Middos and things that are שכלי, nevertheless its משה קיבל תורה מסיני that even these principles were given to Moshe at Sinai.

This past week כה שבט was the Yahrzeit of Reb Yisrael Salanter and his Talmidim used to say that כה שבט can only fall out during the week of Parshas Mishpatim. They would say the reason is because Reb Yisrael’s life’s mission was to teach people about the importance of בין אדם לחבירו which is what Mishpatim is all about.

Reb Yisrael died in Konigsberg, Germany without any of his Talmidim and he was only with one simple Bachur who was taking care of him. After Reb Yisrael died, his Talmidim asked this Bachur what the Rebbe was dong before he died, was he saying viduy, etc. The Bachur responded nothing in particular and he didn’t have much to tell them until he reminded himself that Reb Yisrael was actually making joke with him. Reb Yisrael told him that people are afraid of a dead person and they think they are dangerous. But the truth is there is nothing to be afraid of because a dead person can’t do anything. After hearing that, the Talmidim understood that Reb Yisrael was worried after he dies, this Bochur would be alone with the dead body to watch it overnight and he will be afraid and panic. So he was trying to calm him down by telling him there is nothing to be afraid of with a dead body. We can see that Reb Yisrael even at the end of his life was preoccupied with בין אדם לחבירו and was willing to sacrifice his own personal viduy just to make sure another person wouldn’t suffer.

Therefore, even according to Reb Akiva who says all Mitzvos כללותיה פרטותיה were said at Sinai, there is a special emphasis on משפטים being given in the context of Sinai in order to stress this point that even the laws which are seemingly logical and שכלי were given at Sinai and it’s all part of Torah that was given at Sinai.

By Mitzvos that are שכלי, the idea is that the Ribono Shel Oilam reveals himself to us sometimes outside the context of our שכל and sometimes through our שכל. When the Gemara says למה לי קרא סברא היא, a סברא is also the divine revelation. Similarly, the Ibn Ezra in his Hakdamah writes והמלאך בין אדם ובין אלקיו הוא שכלו. Also in Tehilim 2:2, the Pasuk says יתיצבו מלכי ארץ ורוזנים נוסדו יחד על ה' ועל משיחו-they gang up against Hashem and his crowned prince. The Ibn Ezra explains what it means על ה'-that they gang up on Hashem: וטעם על ה' שיצאו מתחת יד שקול הדעת שנטע השם בלב כל אדם. Going against שקול הדעת is what is considered ganging up on Hashem so we see that שקול הדעת is the divine expression.

This could also explain the concept עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי because what does it mean עד דלא ידע, one would think the difference between Haman and Mordechai is rather obvious. But really what we need to know and instill is that the obvious is not really obvious and what you see is not what you get and there is more to something than what meets the eye.

A Genuine Real Expression

כי תראה חמור שנאך רבץ תחת משאו וחדלת מעזב לו עזב תעזב עמו (כג,ה)

Rashi explains that the word עזיבה in this context means עזרה which reads very nicely into the Pasuk. However, the word עזב also means to abandon so how would that translation fit into the Pasuk?

On the words עזב תעזב עמו, Onkeles writes משבק תשבוק מא דבלבך עלוהי ותפריק עמיה which means that which you have in your heart against someone you should remove from your heart. The Targum Yonason Ben Uziel explains more as the Gemara in Pesachim 113b says that the Pasuk is referring to someone who did an עבירה and you should have שנאה towards him. However in the moment that you are helping him, you should remove any negative feelings towards him. The point is the Torah doesn’t want a person to just act properly towards someone else but that it needs to be a genuine real expression of one’s inner feeling and therefore in the בשעת מעשה, one must abandon his feelings.

In a similar vein, on the Pasuk אם כסף תלוה, the Maharal explains why the Torah uses the word אם if it’s really an obligation. He writes that if a person helps somebody else because it’s a Mitzvah, then he isn’t really doing the Mitzvah properly. In order to do the Mitzvah properly, he should do it as if it’s not a Mitzvah but because he really cares. Similarly, the Ksav Sofer says this idea on his own on the Pasuk אם כסף תלוה.

Not Giving Up Hope

וגנב איש ומכרו ונמצא בידו מות יומת (כא,טז)

גנבת נפש is always in the face of the person that you are stealing. Therefore, it should be defined as גזלה and not גנבה. The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzvah 36 writes וחיוב זה דוקא בגנב אבל לא בגזלן כי כתיב וגונב וגם לא תגנוב but he doesn’t explain why that it should be considered גנבה if it’s in front of the נגנב. There is also a ספק in the Gemara Sanhedrin 85b whether or not there is a חיוב of גנבת נפש by a sleeping person because he might have to be awake. So if to be חייב, he needs to be awake, then how could it be a גנבה and not a גזלה?

It could be possible to say that the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei 24:7 saysכי ימצא איש גנב נפש מאחיו מבני ישראל. The Gemara in Sanhedrin 86a learns from here that if the kidnapper sold the kidnapped kid to his family, then he is פטור because the Pasuk says מאחיו and the Gemara says עד שיבדלנו מאחיו-that he needs to be separated from his brothers and so Paskens the Rambam in Hilchos Gneivah 3:7. It would seem from this that the גנבה is not from the person himself but from his relatives and therefore it really could be דרך גנבה because his family is unaware. So says Reb Betzalel Asheknazi in שו"ת ס' לט.

However, the question is that the Gemara in Bava Kama 68b says by גנבת נפש that there is no יאוש. Rashi says the reason is becauseשאין אדם מתייאש על עצמו. According to this Rashi, it seems that when a person steals a person, the person himself is the בעלים and not the family that you are stealing him from himself and מאחיו is just another requirement. But at the end of the day, the person himself is the נגנב because we say שאין אדם מתייאש על עצמו.

על דרך דרוש it could be explained that really it’s like Reb Betzalel Ashkenazi that the נגנב is from his family. But the explanation of שאין אדם מתייאש על עצמו is that since a person doesn’t give up hope on himself, his family doesn’t either. So really his family is the נגנב but if they would be worried that the person kidnapped would be מתייאש על עצמו, then they would be worried that they’ll never see him again. But since אין אדם מתייאש על עצמו, then his family is confident that he will resurface one day because since he is not מיאש, they aren’t מייאש.


Thursday Night Parsha Shiur 5782


Thursday Night Parsha Shiur 5781


Revealing and Concealing Torah 5772