Devarim 1:6. Fixing a Mistake in a Bracha

To say Hashem's name in vain is a sin.  Making an unneeded or incorrect bracha is also considered enunciating Hashem's name in vain.  This is reason enough for us to avoid making brachos by rote or while distracted, because you're asking for trouble- we so often wake up in middle of a bracha and realize we've made a mistake.  Here's an example:  the halacha is that if you had already davenned e.g. mincha, and started shmoneh esrei again without remembering that you had davenned already, you are making a bracha le'vatala, and you stop in middle of a bracha.  (Thank you, Tzvee, for reminding me to put the cite in.  OC 107:4.)  This happened to me more than once after saying my shiur, when my mind was not really on the davening, and I only realized it when I got to Atta chonein l'adam daas.  I think it was a kind of ironic answer to my prayer-  "You're asking for Da'as?  OK, here's some Da'as.  You already davenned mincha today, Chochom Atik."

(The Darkei Moshe in Hilchos Tzitzis discusses why the bracha we make on a talis kattan is "al mitzvas," which is a rare nusach for a bracha.  He says that many people wear a tallis kattan that is smaller than the requisite measurement, and so the bracha might be a bracha le'vatala.  To avoid this problem, he says, we use the nusach "al mitzvas," because then it can function as a general bracha of praise, a birkas shevach on the fact that Hashem gave us this mitzvah.  If we would say La'asos tzitzis, or lilvosh beged metzuyetzet, it would be an unequivocal birkas hamitzvos, and absent kiyum mitzva, it would be le'vatalah.)

But, sometimes  you can save yourself from the sin by converting what you said into something useful.  If you realized your mistake after you said  ברוך אתה ה, you can finish off your sentence with the words למדני חוקיך, because in Tehillim (119:12) there is a passuk that says  ברוך אתה ה' למדני חוקיך, so you've done a fine thing- you said a passuk in Tehillim.  This is the advice of the Mechaber in OC 206:6, where he says:

נטל בידו פרי לאוכלו ובירך עליו ונפל מידו ונאבד או נמאס צריך לחזור ולברך אף על פי שהיה מאותו מין לפניו יותר כשבירך על הראשון.  וצריך לומר ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד על שהוציא שם שמים לבטלה ואם אמר כשנפל ברוך אתה ה' ולא אמר אלהינו יסיים ויאמר למדני חוקיך שיהא נראה כקורא פסוק ואין כאן מוציא שם שמים לבטלה אבל העומד על אמת המים מברך ושותה אף על פי שהמים ששותה לא היו לפניו כשבירך מפני שלכך נתכוין תחילה.

The Noda B'Yehuda, in his Tzlach (Brachos 39a, here,) adds another save.  He says that if you began your incorrect bracha, and realized the problem after you began the word Elokeinu, but you haven't said the whole word and only said "Elokei,"  you can convert your bad bracha into the passuk in Divrei Hayamim I 29:10, where it says ויברך דויד את ה לעיני כל הקהל ויאמר דויד ברוך אתה ה אלוקי ישראל אבינו מעולם ועד עולם.  Since, however, you will have begun in middle of the passuk by saying only ברוך אתה ה אלוקי ישראל אבינו מעולם ועד-עולם, you should still says Baruch Sheim, as required by the Mechaber in OC 206:6 in cases of Shem Shamayim Levatala.

Recently, some people (e.g., חבצלת השרון מהרב מרדכי קרליבך on this week's parsha) have suggested a further save.  If a person has already said Baruch Atta Hashem Elokeinu, what can he do?  He should say our passuk, ה אלקינו דבר אלינו בחרב לאמר רב לכם שבת בהר הזה, because then, we can ignore the Baruch Atta, and the words Hashem Elokeinu will be the beginning of our passuk.

It could be that this is simply a case where nobody thought of this before.  Indeed, he says that he brought the suggestion to Harav Eliashiv and Harav Kanievsky and they approved of the idea.

On the other hand, one might argue that this suggestion is flawed, because in a bracha, the Sheim Hashem is an Object, while in our passuk, it is the Subject.  (In the sentence "Bless You, Hashem," the word "you" is the Object of the sentence.  In "Hashem told us...," the word "Hashem" is the Subject.)  Does this matter?  Sometimes words might be intended either as subject or an object, such as in the five pesukim listed in Yoma 52a ( שאת משוקדים מחר ארור וקם).   But in those cases, they are either one or the other.  There are, though, some cases where Chazal darshen that a word as inherently intended to be both object and subject, as in the hava amina in Menachos 19 in Reb Shimon (and as the Sfas Emes suggests in Yoma as well).  But here, if  you change the Sheim from object to subject,  you are attempting to change the essential meaning of the Sheim, and that cannot be done.

great unknown, in the comments, brings the Gemara in Brachos 12a, 

פשיטא היכא דקא נקיט כסא דחמרא בידיה וקסבר דשכרא הוא ופתח ומברך אדעתא דשכרא וסיים בדחמרא יצא דאי נמי אם אמר שהכל נהיה בדברו יצא דהא תנן על כולם אם אמר שהכל נהיה בדברו יצא אלא היכא דקא נקיט כסא דשכרא בידיה וקסבר דחמרא הוא פתח ובריך אדעתא דחמרא וסיים בדשכרא מאי בתר עיקר ברכה אזלינן או בתר חתימה אזלינן ת"ש שחרית פתח ביוצר אור וסיים במעריב ערבים לא יצא פתח במעריב ערבים וסיים ביוצר אור יצא ערבית פתח במעריב ערבים וסיים ביוצר אור לא יצא פתח ביוצר אור וסיים במעריב ערבים יצא כללו של דבר הכל הולך אחר החתום שאני התם דקאמר ברוך יוצר המאורות הניחא לרב דאמר כל ברכה שאין בה הזכרת השם אינה ברכה שפיר אלא לר' יוחנן דאמר כל ברכה שאין בה מלכות אינה ברכה מאי איכא למימר אלא כיון דאמר רבה בר עולא כדי להזכיר מדת יום בלילה ומדת לילה ביום כי קאמר ברכה ומלכות מעיקרא אתרוייהו קאמר ת"ש מסיפא כללו של דבר הכל הולך אחר החתום כללו של דבר לאתויי מאי לאו לאתויי הא דאמרן לא לאתויי נהמא ותמרי ה"ד אילימא דאכל נהמא וקסבר דתמרי אכל ופתח אדעתא דתמרי וסיים בדנהמא היינו בעיין לא צריכא כגון דאכל תמרי וקסבר נהמא אכל ופתח בדנהמא וסיים בדתמרי [יצא] דאפילו סיים בדנהמא נמי יצא מאי טעמא דתמרי נמי מיזן זייני:

which discusses whether a person who thinks he has a glass of wine, and says Baruch Atta Hashem, and realizes it is beer, and finishes with Shehakol, whether this person fulfills his chiyuv bracha.  The Gemara does not state a conclusion.
In OC 209, MB SK 6, he says that although by brachos that are miderabanan we rely on the kula, and you are yotzei, by brachos that are de'oraysa we are machmir and require that he repeat the bracha, because, apparently, we lean toward the opinion that the kavana while he says the Sheim Umalchus is the main part of the bracha, and kavana for one purpose cannot be recharacterized.  


So, the bottom line is, that the reason the Mechaber's idea and the Tzlach's idea work, is because the switched ending is consistent with the idea of bracha in general- lamdeini chukecha, or Dovid Hamelech's bracha of Hashem.  But here, forget about the minor change from Object to Subject.  We're trying to change it from Bracha to recitation of history.  That kind of change doesn't work even toch kdei dibbur.


Yasher koach, great unknown.  However, as great unknown points out in his comment, although the tzushtell to the Gemara is excellent, once you bring in the Mishna Berura who says you can't even repurpose a bracha de'oraysa once you've said the sheim umalchus, then we have a problem with the advice about Lamdeini Chukecha!  Because if  you can't change the kavana of the Sheim from Hagafen to Shehakol, you certainly can't change it from Shehakol to Lamdeini Chukecha..

Devarim, Shabbos Chazon. Guest Post by Rabbi Pinches Friedman, the Shvilei Pinches

Rabbi Pinches Friedman
Parshas Devorim - Shabbos Chazon 5771
Translation by Dr. Baruch Fox

(Formatting changes resulted in some missing spaces, but it's easy enough to read.  Please see my end  note.)

This upcoming Shabbos, on which we read parshas Devorim, is referred to as “Shabbos Chazon.” This name derives from the fact that the haftarah designated for this special Shabbos is taken from the words ofthe prophet Yeshayah, who prophesied about the destruction of the Beis HaMikdosh (Yeshayah 1, 1): ”חזון— ישעיהו בן אמוץ אשר חזה על יהודה ועל ירושלים”the vision of Yeshayahu the son of Amotz, whichhe saw concerning Yehudah and Yerushalayim. This parsha and this haftarah are always read, without exception, on the Shabbos before Tisha B’Av — or on the actual Shabbos of Tisha B’Av, in which case the fast is postponed to the following day, Sunday.

It is a well-known fact that the parshas we read on Shabbos, were arranged specifically by Ezra HaSofer to conform to an annual cycle (Megillah 31:). It is worthwhile, therefore, to investigate why Ezra HaSofer saw fit to institute the recitation of parshas Devorim on the Shabbos before Tisha B’Av.

Addressing this issue, the Levush (O.C. 428, 4) cites the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch(ibid.): " תשעה באב קודם ]פרשת[ ואתחנן “ — TishaB’Av precedes parshas Voeschanan; then he adds: “כדי שיקראו פרשת דברים שמתחלת תוכחותיו של משה קודם ט’ באב, כדי להפטיר בה בחזון שהיא תוכחת על חורבן”— so that Moshe’s rebuke of the people, which begins in parshas Devorim, will be read before Tisha B’Av along with the haftarah of “Chazon,” which is a rebuke concerning the destruction of the Temple.In other words, we wish to connect these two rebukes— Moshe’s rebuke of Yisroel before his death with the prophet Yeshayah’s rebuke of Yisroel concerning the destruction of the Temple. Since we read Yeshayah’s rebuke on the Shabbos before Tisha B’Av, it was arranged that parshas Devorim would coincide with thereading of this haftarah.איכה אשא לבדי” “ Is a Rectification for“איכה ישבה בדד”  Let us begin our journey by following the Levush’s  lead. What is the deeper connection between MosheRabeinu’s rebuke in parshas Devorim and Yeshayah’s rebuke concerning the destruction of the Temple?

Let us refer to the following Midrash (Eichah Rabbah; Intro.”אילו זכיתם הייתם קוראים בתורה איכה אשא לבדי,:( 11ועכשיו שלא זכיתם הרי אתם קוראים )איכה א א( איכהישבה בדד" — had you been meritorious, you would have recited from the Torah, “How can I carry alone?”;now that you were not meritorious, you are required to recite, “How is it that she sits alone?”The following requires explanation: (a) clearly, both rebukes employ the term ” איכה “; nevertheless, why would the recitation of ” איכה אשא לבדי “--“How can I carry alone?” preclude the necessity of reciting “איכהישבה בדד” --“How is it that she sits alone?” (b)Today, in our times, although we recite from the Torah:איכה אשא לבדי” “--“How can I carry alone?”, due to our multitudinous sins, we still mourn the destruction of the Temple, on the night of Tisha B’Av, by reciting:איכה ישבה בדד” “--“How is it that she sits alone?”To clarify our sages’ riddle and deeper message, let us examine the following words of rebuke uttered by Moshe,in our parsha:, ”איכה אשא לבדי טרחכם ומשאכם וריבכםהבו לכם אנשים חכמים ונבונים וידועים לשבטיכם ואשימםבראשיכם” — how can I alone carry your trouble, your burden, and your quarrels? Provide for yourselves distinguished men, who are wise, understanding, and well known to your tribes, and I shall appoint themas your heads. Rashi comments: ”ואשמם, חסר יו”ד לומר שאשמותיהם של ישראל תלויות בראשי דייניהם, שהיהלהם למחות ולכוון אותם לדרך הישרה” — the word ואשמם" “ is written without the letter “yod” (changing the meaning of the word from “I will appoint” to “their guilt”) to teach us that the sins of Yisroel hang on the heads of their judges; for they should have protested and directed them to the proper path. Why, according to Rashi’s insight, did Moshe Rabeinu emphasize this point here — that the judges bore responsibility forthe people’s sins?

First, let us recall what we have learned in the Gemoreh (Yoma 9:):, ”מקדש ראשון מפני מה חרב מפני שלשה דברים שהיו בו עבודה זרה וגלוי עריות ושפיכות דמים... אבל מקדש שני שהיו עוסקין בתורה ומצוות וגמילות חסדים מפני מה חרב, מפני שהיתה בו שנאת חנם, ללמדך ששקולה שנאת חנם כנגד שלש עבירות עבודה זרה גלוי עריות ושפיכות דמים” — the first Beis HaMikdosh was destroyed because of the commission of the three cardinal sins — idol-worship, immorality and murder. During the period of the second Beis HaMikdosh, however, the people engaged in Torah study, the performance of mitzvot and acts of kindness. It was destroyed because of baseless hatred,“sinas chinam” — this teaches us that “sinas chinam”carries as much weight as the three cardinal sins. The Gemoreh proceeds to prove, from a possuk in Yechezkel(1, 27), that even during the period of the first Beis HaMikdosh, “sinas chinam” already existed among the leaders of Yisroel.“Sinas chinam” among the Leaders of Yisroel Led to “Sinas chinam” among the People of Yisroel We must note the alarming commentary of the Kli Yoker on our parsha (Devorim 1, 1). He states that the baseless hatred that existed among the leaders of Yisroel during the period of the first Beis HaMikdosh led to the baseless hatred that developed among the Parshas Devorim 5771 | 2people of Yisroel during the period of the second Beis HaMikdosh. Here are his sacred words:“ובט’ באב היה מעשה המרגלים, בו ביום נולדה מדת שנאת חנם בישראל, כמו שכתוב )דברים א כז ( ותאמרו בשנאת ה' אותנו הוציאנו וגו', פירש רש"י ]והוא היה אוהב אתכם אבל אתם שונאים אותו, משל הדיוט אומר [מה דבלבך על רחמך מה דבלביה עליך. כי המה סברו מאחר שכל אחד מהם שונא את חבירו, כך מסתמא שונא אותם גם הקב"ה... ותהר צרה זו ותלד מדה רעה זו אשר החריבה בית ראשון ושני, כי בבית ראשון היה שנאת חנם בין נשיאי ישראל, ובבית שני פשתה הנגע בין כל ישראל כדאיתא ביומא".The incident with the spies, the “meraglim,” occurred on Tisha B’Av. That very day, the negative characteristic of “sinas chinam” emerged amongst the people of Yisroel.They accused Hashem of hating them (Devorim 1, 27),although He truly loved them. This was an indication that they hated each other and, therefore, assumed that HKB”H hated them, as well. This incident gave birth to the negative characteristic that caused the destruction of the two Temples. During the period of the first Beis HaMikdosh, “sinas chinam” existed among the leaders of Yisroel; during the period of the second Beis HaMikdosh, this defect spread among the people themselves — as stated in the Gemoreh in Yoma.

Additionally, in light of the fact that the first Beis HaMikdosh was destroyed because the people were guilty of committing the three cardinal sins, where were their leaders? Why didn’t they take steps to prevent the people from committing these transgressions? The answer, sadly enough, is that there was a lack of unity among the leaders of Yisroel.

Due to their quarreling amongst themselves, they were incapable of presenting a united front and no longer represented a positive influence on the people.Furthermore, as we learned from the Gemoreh: ”ללמדך ששקולה שנאת חנם כנגד שלש עבירות עבודה זרה גלוי עריות ושפיכות דמים” — “sinas chinam” carries the same weight and gravity as the three cardinal sins.Consequently, the “sinas chinam” that prevailed among the leaders of Yisroel was just as serious a transgression as the three cardinal sins. Seeing as they were not free of guilt, and their offense was just as great, they were incapable of steering the people away from the sins of idolatry, immorality and murder.

As we discussed at length in our essay on parshas Masei,citing the Sefas Emes (5659), this is the reason thatHKB”H arranged for Aharon HaKohen to depart from this world on Rosh Chodesh Av — the commencement of the nine days on which we mourn the loss of the Beis HaMikdosh, which was destroyed because of “sinaschinam.” It is HKB”H’s wish that Aharon will influence usfrom above to follow in his ways and to love our fellow Jew. As we learned in the Mishnah (Ovos 1, 12), the disciples of Aharon were characterized as: ”אוהב שלום ורודף שלום, אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה” — loving peace, pursuing peace, loving all creatures and bringing them nearer to Torah.Moshe Rabeinu the Future Redeemer Yearned to Hasten the Redemption.

Let us now introduce an idea from the Megaleh Amukos(20). Moshe Rabeinu wanted to enter Eretz Yisroel so that he could build the Beis HaMikdosh. HKB”H told him that that was not possible; for, if he were to build theBeis HaMikdosh, it would be impossible for our enemies to conquer it or destroy it. The Gemoreh (Soteh 9.)explains that our enemies never captured the Mishkan,because it was the result of Moshe’s handiwork. Thisis evident from what we have learned: “משנבנה מקדש ראשון נגנז אהל מועד קרשיו קרסיו ובריחיו ועמודיו ואדניו” — once the first Beis HaMikdosh was built, the Ohel Moed (the Mishkan) was stored, including all of its structural components.The Midrash explains (Eichah Rabbah 4, 14) that in the process of the destruction of the Temple,HKB”H visited his wrath on the wood and stones of the structure rather than on Yisroel. This is implied inHKB”H’s response to Moshe: ” רב לך “ — you are on toohigh a level and your handiwork is beyond the realm and capacity of Yisroel’s enemies to conquer. Therefore,Moshe’s request to cross the Yarden and build the Beis HaMikdosh was denied; so that HKB”H would not be Parshas Devorim 5771 | 3forced to visit his wrath, chas v’shalom, on the people of Yisroel. This is what we learned from the Megaleh Amukos.

In fact, Moshe Rabeinu also knew that Yisroel’senemies had no power or control over his handiwork. Yet,according to the Megaleh Amukos (252), he prayed to enter Eretz Yisroel and build the Beis HaMikdosh in the hope of realizing the final and complete redemption —hageulah hasheleimah. As the Zohar hakadosh teaches us (Bereishit 25:), Moshe Rabeinu, himself, is destined to be the Melech HaMashiach. This is alluded to in the possuk (Bereishit 49, 10): “לא יסור שבט מיהודה, דא משיח בן דוד, ומחוקק מבין רגליו, דא משיח בן יוסף,עד כי יבא שיל”ה דא מש”ה” The possuk states thatthe royal scepter will not depart from the tribe ofYehudah — this is an allusion to Moshiach ben David;next it states that a lawgiver will not depart from his descendants — this is an allusion to Mashiach benYosef; until the arrival of Shiloh — this is an allusion to Moshe; the numerical value of שיל”ה is the same as the numerical value of the name מש”ה — both equal 345.Moshe’s entreaty to enter the land in order to build a Beis HaMikdosh that would endure forever is now easy to comprehend. For, at the time of the future redemption, HKB”H will slaughter the yetzer hara and exterminate it from the world, once and for all. In that event, there will be no need for HKB”H to pour out his wrath upon the wood and stones of the Temple’sstructure. Nonetheless, HKB”H informed Moshe that Yisroel were not yet worthy and the time for the future redemption had not yet arrived.Additionally, let us recall the words of the Tikunei Zohar (69, 112.): ”ואתפשטותיה דמשה בכל דרא ודראובכל צדיק וצדיק” — in other words, there is an extension of Moshe Rabeinu’s neshamah in every generation andin every tzaddik.

The Megaleh Amukos on Voeschanan(45) finds an allusion to this phenomenon in Moshe’sproclamation to Yisroel (Devorim 3, 26): “ויתעבר ה’ בי למענכם” — the word ” ויתעבר “ derives from the word“ibur,” which is a form of reincarnation. Thus, Moshe is telling the people that due to their transgressions and unworthiness, he will have to reincarnate in every generation and into every tzaddik--instead of bringing in the redemption himself, during his lifetime.“How Will I Be Able to Bear the Burden Alone”after My Brother Aharon’s Decease. We can now begin to comprehend, to some small degree, Moshe Rabeinu’s heartfelt outpouring and open rebuke of Yisroel: “איכה אשא לבדי טרחכם ומשאכם וריבכם” — how can I bear your trouble and your burden and your quarrels alone? In other words, so long as my brother Aharon — the ultimate peacemaker —was alive, he assisted me by promoting peace between the members of Yisroel.Now, however, that Aharon has passed away onHor HaHar, I have been left alone; how am I to bear this burden alone? I am not capable of eradicating the “sinas chinam” and resolving the disputes alone.Notwithstanding, I will not abandon you, but rather:“הבו לכם אנשים חכמים ונבונים וידועים לשבטיכם”— appoint for yourselves wise, capable men, i.e. the tzaddikim and leaders of each and every generation;ואשימם בראשיכם” “ — and I will reincarnate into them.Through them, I will teach you the ways of Hashem and how to overcome the nasty attribute of “sinas chinam,”senseless hatred.By means of his faculty of divine inspiration —“ruach hakodesh” — Moshe foresaw the causes ofthe destruction of the two Temples. He realized that“sinas chinam” would prevail among the leaders of Yisroel during the period of the first Beis HaMikdosh;outwardly, they acted friendly toward one another,but, in reality, they did not hesitate to stab each other in the back. This “sinas chinam” among the leaders of Yisroel led to the prevalence of “sinas chinam”among the people of Yisroel during the period of the Parshas Devorim 5771 | 4second Beis HaMikdosh.

Therefore, Moshe cried out from the depths of his being: ” “ואשימם בראשיכם— the blame for the people’s tragic failure, their baseless hatred, lies with the leaders; the leaders failed to guide the masses properly due to their own shortcomings in this matter.We can now shed light on the meaning of the Midrash: ”אילו זכיתם הייתם קוראים בתורה איכה אשא לבדי” — had you been meritorious, it would have sufficed for you to recite from the Torah the possuk relatingMoshe’s rebuke of the people concerning quarrels and“sinas chinam”; had you taken the message to heart,by putting aside your differences and learning to love and appreciate one another, the Beis HaMikdosh would not have been destroyed. ” ועכשיו שלא זכיתם “ — now,however, that you were not meritorious and did not heedMoshe’s words of rebuke: “הרי אתם קוראים איכה ישבהבדד” — you are forced to recite the lamentations of Eichah, in the aftermath of the destruction of the Beis HaMikdosh due to baseless hatred, “sinas chinam.”

Alas, we can also understand why parshas Devorimis always read on the Shabbos before Tisha B’Av.This parsha contains Moshe’s Rabeinu’s rebuke ofYisroel:” — ”איכה אשא לבדי טרחכם משאכם וריבכם how will I carry alone your trouble, your burden and your quarrels? Reading and hearing this rebuke, is intended to convey the lesson of the Midrash. Had we heeded Moshe’s words of rebuke: ” ,“איכה אשא לבדיwe would not have to recite on Tisha B’Av: “איכה ישבה בדד” . In the final analysis, we must comprehend the tragic consequences of “sinas chinam” and be motivated to perform teshuvah fully to eradicate “sinas chinam”from our midst. In this merit, we will realize the final and complete redemption and will no longer need to recite the lamentation of: איכה ישבה בדד .

NOTE:
I posted this because Dr. Fox is a good friend, a yarei shamayim who is both highly intelligent and very well educated, and I am certain that it is valuable and deeply meaningful.  I personally have no idea what this piece means; it is of a area of Torah that I never learned and for which I have not yet developed any understanding or patience or appreciation.  If you have comments, they will have to be discussed among yourselves without my participation.

Parshas Devarim: What Does Kibbud Av Have To Do With Tisha Ba'av?

This was first posted in 07.

In this week's Parsha, we are told that Hashem enjoined the Bnei Yisroel from any infringement upon the territory of Eisav, the land of Sei'ir, because, the passuk says, their land was granted to them as an inviolable heritage-- and we had no right to take it from them.

The Medrash Rabbah 1:15 here explains how Eisav merited this unique divine protection: Rav Shimon Ben Gamliel says that it was Eisav's exemplary "Kibud Av Ve'eim - the honor Eisav showed his parents, that protected his lands from being conquered. When serving and caring for his parents, Eisav would wear the same regal garments that he wore when he went out in public in his capacity as King of Sei’ir and when he conducted his business. This illustrated Eisav’s philosophy: that his behavior and appearance when he served his parents should express the same meticulous focus, respectfulness, and stateliness as he expected from his supplicants-- and as was expected from him-- when he held court in his royal chambers.

Note that Eisav’s kibbud was most likely, to some extent, duplicitous or self-serving, and Eisav’s legacy is primarily one of strife and imperialistic war.  But the fact remains that he honored and brought happiness to Yitzchak.

One thing is evident from this Medrash. The specific Zechus of Kibbud Av Ve'eim strengthens one's bond to his ancestral land. It was because of Eisov's mitzvas Kibbud that Hashem told us to leave his descendants alone, to let them remain at peace in their homeland.

Now, see the Gemora in Kiddushin 31b that discusses the gentile Dama ben Nesina: his mother, who evidently was demented, used to publicly assault him, and he would just say “Da’yeich, Imi,” enough, my mother. The same gemora brings the story that Dama’s father was sleeping on top of a key that would give him access to a gem he could have sold for a vast profit, but he refused to wake his father, and so he missed the fleeting opportunity for the great profit. The next year, Dama was rewarded with a unique opportunity for an even greater profit.

Harav Rabinovich za’l, of Chicago, once pointed out that everyone knows the story on amud aleph, that Dama got a reward of a great fortune, but nobody remembers the Gemara on amud beis that talks about R’ Avimi bar Avuha.

R’ Avimi bar Avuha was another exemplar of perfect kibud av ve’eim. His reward was the divine inspiration to understand the meaning of “Mizmor Le’asaf, Elohim, ba’u goyim benachalasecha....”

R' Avimi's reward of an insight into a chapter of Tehillim may seem much less exciting than Dama's reward of great wealth. In fact, however, the story of R' Avimi is far more important and, indeed, teaches a lesson that is relevant to our unbearably long Galus.

Rashi says that R Avimi's inspired pshat was the one which is brought in the Medrash in Eicha Perek 4. The Medrash asks, this perek of Tehillim talks of the churban, “Elokim ba’u goyim b’nachalasecha, tim’u es heichal kodshecha, samu es Yerushalyaim l’iyim.” Hashem, the nations have trespassed upon Your heritage, they have profaned Your holy edifice, they have turned Jerusalem into furrowed land.  Mizmor means "song of gratitude"; why say a mizmor on the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh? It should say “Kina (Elegy) Le’asof”! But the explanation is that Hashem expended his anger on earth and wood, on inanimate objects, and thereby allowed Klal Yisrael to exist and have another chance to achieve their (our!) sublime national destiny.

Tosfos says that it was a different pshat that R' Avimi understood: he brings a different Medrash that 'Asaf' was a descendant of Korach, and Asaf was happy when he saw that the gates of Yerushalayim sank into the ground, because he then realized that just as we know that ultimately the ground will open up again and the gates of Yerushalyim will reappear, his ancestor, Korach, will also be brought back.

The Mahrsha says that according to Tosfos’ pshat, we see a connection between R' Avimi's mitzva of kibbud Av and the pshat he was given to understand, since Asaf was concerned about the kavod of his ancestor. But according to Rashi’s pshat, it seems that R' Avimi's interpretation has no thematic connection with his kibbud Av. However, with the Medrash on this week's parshah, we can say that Rashi’s pshat is also connected to kibbud av: As we see in the Medrash with Eisav, kibbud strengthens a nation's bond with their ancestral land. R’ Avimi was shown a pshat that illustrates our unseverable bond to the land of Israel. Despite the terrible churban, our national identity and our connection to Eretz Yisroel remains firm. Hashem expended His anger on the Beis Hamikdash, but the time will come that we return forever to the land and rebuild an even greater Bayis Shlishi.

The Mitzvah of Kibbud Av, in the Aseres Hadibros, is followed by "le'maan ya'arichun yomecha...ahl ha'adama asher nishba Hashem la'avoseichem...." so that your days will be long upon the land Hashem promised your fathers.  The Netziv asks, why is "ahl ha'adamah" appended to the guarantee of arichus yamim? Why would kibbud be tied to the land of Israel?  He answers that although kibbud is a mitzvah sichlis, the Torah teaches us that it, like all mitzvos, should be fulfilled not because of the sichli aspect, but instead because it is a divine commandment, and this is underlined by stating that the primary locus of even this mitzvah is in the land of Israel, as is the case with all mitzvos. According to the Netziv, Kibbud is dependent on Ha'adamah. However, with this Medrash, we can give a new answer to the Netziv's question. The reason the Torah says "ahl ha'adamah" is because the Mitzva of Kibbud is directly tied to our ability to safely and confidently dwell in the land of Israel. According to the Netziv, Kibbud is talui on Ahl Ha'adama. According to this pshat, Ahl Ha'adama is talui, dependent, on Kibbud!

On the most basic level, the relationship between the inviolable right to a homeland and kibbud av is straightforward: The most fundamental patrimony is ancestral land. If one properly respects his parents and their legacy, he is entitled to enjoy their patrimony, the land they made their own for themselves and their children. If one disrespects one's parents, he undermines the legitimacy of his own claim to a heritage.

Perhaps there is a deeper relationship between kibbud Av and deserving Eretz Yisroel. The underlying middos of Kibbud Av are hakkaras hatov and anivus. In Yeshi’ah 47:8, Klal Yisroel were called “adinah...ha’omeres Ani v’afsi ohd,” I, and nothing else- the sin of solipsism.  The idea of “Ani v’afsi ohd” as a yesod of the Churbon bayis rishon, might also underlie the sin’as chinom of the times of the bayis sheini. A person who thinks “Ani v’afsi ohd” will not even perceive what others have done for him, and he certainly will not be makir tov for it, whether through kibud ahv or ahavas Hashem or ahavas Yisrael, and he is also fundamentally incapable of doing chesed for other people.

And perhaps we can also add another point. What is the midda k’neged midda for Kibbud Av? The answer is, if you treat your father like a father, you will be treated like a son. So the Ribbono shel Olam told R Avimi, since you showed gadlus in Kibbud Ahv, I’m going to show you how my relationship with Klal Yisrael is like that of a father to a son. When I had to punish them, I made sure to do it in a way that inflicted the least possible permanent damage on them, and I did it by destroying eitzim v’avonim. This is because I am their father, and I am treating them like a son.

During the Nine Days that culminate in Tisha Ba'av, it is very important to remember the lesson taught by the Medrash and the Gemara of R' Avimi. They illustrate that along with the other things we need to do to end the galus, honoring our parents is essential to our claim to a homeland. On Tisha Ba'av, perhaps we should think about our personal relationship with our parents, and our relationship with the tradition they represent. Kibbud Av Ve'eim is the bedrock of our claim and our bond to Eretz Yisroel. It protects against Golus and it can hasten the coming of Moshiach.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This week, Chicago mourned the death of one of its benefactors, Moshe Menora.  He was a benefactor both in that he was a founder and supporter of many chesed organizations, and also in that he raised children who are ehrliche yidden and role models in the communities they live in.  The compound tragedy of his death and the death of three of his granddaughters is of a scope far beyond what any family is capable of bearing.  

Several thoughts occurred to me, none of which is adequate to address this horrible event.
One: we do not have to wait for the death of innocents to remember that we care for them.  Let this be a reminder that there are fellow Jews who suffer every day, who are in desperation for lack of medical care or food or shelter.  Some are depressed, almost suicidal, out of the shame of failure.  Others are just hungry and in pain.  We need  to seek out and sympathize with all those that need our help-- even if they're still alive.  Don't wait for them to die before you cry for them.
Two:  Mourning is a privilege earned by loving someone.  One who is indifferent never mourns; it is only when you care for someone does his absence cause pain.  In the balance, the privilege of having known and loved someone more than outweighs the pain of his passing.
Three:   Even Malachei Hashareis cannot understand such terrible tragedies.  The holocaust was followed by the establishment of the State of Israel, and it is beyond us to even faintly perceive the relationship between the two events.    Still, one thing we do know: that a korban Olah Temimah involves pain and redemption, and sometimes several Olos are brought on the mizbei'ach together.

Devarim. From "Lo Ish Devarim" to Sefer "Devarim." A Guest Post by Rabbi Joshua Hoffman. (annotated)

Rabbi Hoffman kindly consented to contribute this Dvar Torah, which addresses the evolution of Moshe Rabbeinu from "Lo ish devarim anochi" to "ve'eileh hadevarim asher diber Moshe." Whence this uncharacteristic eloquence? (See Medrash Rabba here and Shem MiShmuel.)

The simple answer, of course, is that Hashem cured Moshe Rabbeinu of his impediment either before yetzias Mitzrayim, or along with all the other physical flaws that were cured at Mattan Torah. The simplest answer, as usual, is not the correct answer. For one thing, Moshe Rabbeinu was not a ba'al mum (see Sotah 12b and Bechoros 45a). Secondly, we find that Hashem agreed with Moshe and sent Aharon to represent the Jews before Pharaoh, which indicates that whatever flaw Moshe Rabbeinu perceived in himself, there was no divine intention to reverse it by fiat. Rabbi Hoffman here presents an entirely new perspective on what, exactly, Moshe's difficulty was, and what changed between Mitzrayim and Arvos Mo'av.

Thank you, Rabbi Hoffman, for your contribution to our blog.

The book of Devarim consists of orations given by Moshe to the Jewish people shortly before his death as they prepared to enter the Holy Land. Some of these orations rebuke to the people for their past deeds, some instruct them on the performance of various mitzvos, and some are blessings and curses that will come to the nation in the future depending on the loyalty it demonstrates to these mitzvos and to God's covenant with them.

What stands out in all of these orations is Moshe's adeptness of speech. Lest one think that everything he said was simply a repetition of what was placed in his mouth by God to say, as was the case in regard to the first four books of the Torah, the Talmud tells us that Moshe said the section of blessings and curses in the book of Devarim on his own. The commentators explain that God later told him to write down in the Torah what he had said. Thus, the integrity of the divine nature of the Torah is still maintained. Some commentators take this Talmudic statement in a broader sense, and understand it to mean that the entire book of Devarim was said by Moshe on his own, and was later said over to him by God to be written in the Torah.

Whether we understand this Talmudic statement in a strict, limited sense, or in a broader sense, it certainly tells us that Moshe did not suffer from a lack of communication skills. This seems to be in conflict with what Moshe himself told God when He first asked him to speak to the Jewish people, as recorded in parshas Shemos and again in parshas Vaeira. There, Moshe told God "I am not a man of words… I am heavy of mouth and heavy and speech" (Shemos 4:10). How can we reconcile these contradictory messages?

Rabbi Boruch Epstein author of the Torah Temimah, discusses this issue in his work Tosefes Beracha, which originally appeared as a series of newspaper columns on the weekly Torah reading, He writes that when Moshe expressed reluctance to serve as God's messenger to Pharaoh, it wasn't because of a total inability to speak, but because of his unfamiliarity with royal protocol.

As an illustration, he mentions a story he heard from his father in the name of Rabbi Ya'akov Berlin, who was the father of Rabbi Epstein's illustrious uncle, the Netziv. Rabbi Berlin related that Rabbi Eliezer Fleckles, illustrious author of responsa Teshuvah MiAhavah and a student of the famed Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, chief rabbi of Prague, witnessed the scene of the audience that Rabbi Landau's son and successor, R. Shmuel, had with the Austrian monarch, Joseph I, who had been a great admirer of his father's. When Joseph asked R .Shmuel if he was as wise as his father, he answered 'much less.' The monarch was not pleased with this answer, because it implied that R. Yechezkel was deficient in knowledge and R. Shmuel was even more deficient. The correct thing for R.Shmuel to have said was 'my father was much wiser than I am.'

It was knowledge of this kind of scrupulously ceremonious protocol that Moshe felt he was lacking. Even though he had grown up in Pharaoh's house, it had been many decades since he left, and, therefore he was unfamiliar with the workings of the royal court. However, when it came to speaking to his own people, Moshe was certainly able to convey the message properly, as we see throughout the book of Devorim.

Actually, Rabbi Epstein's explanation is somewhat similar to that of the Rashbam in his commentary to parshas Shemos (4:10). He writes that Moshe was not able to pronounce Egyptian, which was the royal language, properly. It is inconceivable, continues the Rashbam, to say that Moshe, through whom the Torah was given, had a speech impediment and could not speak properly in any language at all. Rashbam then goes on to say that we should not pay attention to outside books. The Rashbam is probably referring to the medieval midrashic-style compilation, Divrei HaYamim D'Moshe, which does include a story according to which Moshe did have a physical speech impediment.

(It is interesting to note, however, that Rashbam does accept, in his commentary to parshas Beha'aloscha, the account - also included in that compilation - that Moshe was married to the queen of Kush, and it was about that marriage which Miriam and Aharon were complaining when they spoke of Moshe's wife, the Kushite woman. Rabbi Avrohom Ibn Ezra, however, in parshas Shemos (2:22) writes that the Kushite woman mentioned in parshas Beha'aloscha is Tzipporah, daughter of Yisro, mentioned in parshas Shemos, and adds that one should not pay attention to what is written in Divrei Hayomim D'Moshe.)

In regard to Moshe's argument that he was heavy of mouth and of speech, Ibn Ezra explains, similarly to Rashbam, that he had trouble pronouncing the Egyptian language. According to Ibn Ezra, then as well, Moshe's reason for not wanting to speak to Pharaoh had no relevance to his ability to speak to his own people.

Rav Ya'akov Moshe Charlop, in his Mei Marom to parshas Devarim, offers a completely different approach to the phenomenon of Moshe's great oratorical skills, as demonstrated in the book of Devarim, in contrast to his earlier reluctance to speak, as advanced in the book of Shemos. Moshe, writes Rav Charlop, believed, in his humility, that all of the abilities he had, including his ability to speak, came through the merit of the Jewish nation. Because of this, he did not want to use his special talent of speech until it was fully relevant to them. Rav Charlop explains that the exile in Egypt was really an exile of the power of speech. Although Moshe did use his power of speech to some extent once the Torah was given, since redemption had come to a certain culmination at that point, the complete redemption would not come until the people were ready to enter Eretz Yisroel. This is so, he continues, because the purpose of the Jewish nation is act as God's witnesses in this world, to speak of God's wonders, as the prophet Yeshaya says, " You are my witnesses, the word of God " (Yeshaya 43:12) and, again, in a later verse, "this nation which I have fashioned for Myself, that they might declare My praises" (Yeshaya, 43,:21). Because the optimum location for the fulfillment of Israel's task of relating God's praises is Eretz Yisroel, their complete redemption could not take place until they entered the land, at which time the power of speech could be used to its maximum effect. It was, therefore, only in connection with that step of the conclusion of their redemption from Egypt that Moshe believed he would have the ability to fully exercise his power of speech, which he derived from the nation.

We may add that this explanation is particularly meaningful according to the Ramban, who writes in his introduction to devarim that the entire book is geared toward the life of the nation is eretz Yisroel. Moreover, it is the Ramban who says that the the entire book of Devarim was said by Moshe, and later repeated to him by God.

The notion that the exile in Egypt was an exile of speech is actually found in the Zohar (Raya Mehemna, Vaeira), and is elaborated upon by Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik zt"l in his essay " Redemption, Prayer and Talmud Torah," (Tradition, Spring 1978, pps. 55-72).The Zohar, cited by R. Soloveitchik, says that although God told Moshe that He would be with him when he went to Pharaoh, Moshe countered that he was on the level of 'voice,' but his utterance was in bondage to Pharaoh. R.Soloveitchik explained that before Moshe appeared, the Jewish people had no voice at all, and were unable to express even their fundamental human needs. All they could do was give out a shriek, much like an animal in pain. When Moshe appeared on the scene, he gave voice to their suffering, and defended them. However, they were still unable to bring out the meaning behind their existence, their teleological destiny. This could not happen until they received the Torah at Sinai. Only through study and prayer, writes Rabbi Soloveitchik, can the nation express and realize its true, ultimate needs. "A history-making people," he writes, "is one that leads a speaking, story-telling, communing, free existence" (page 55).

Rav Soloveitchik's approach to the exile and redemption of speech, as presented in the Zohar, provides us with an insight into Moshe's contention that he was not able to speak to Pharaoh, but it does not explain why Moshe waited to exhibit his great oratorical skills until the end of the nation's sojourn in the wilderness. Rav Charlop's approach introduces the added elements of Moshe's belief that his individual talents drew their source from the nation and should be used only in connection with their national purpose, and the importance of Eretz Yisroel as providing the stage for the fulfillment of Yisroel's national purpose of declaring the praises of God. By bringing these two elements into the equation, Rav Charlop shows that it was only in connection with the nation's development as a dynamic gestalt entity in Eretz Yisroel that speech would be used for its ultimate purpose, and true redemption would finally be achieved. Therefore, Moshe waited until the nation was about to enter the land that until he demonstrated his oratorical skills, in service of the nation from which he drew those skills. Although Rav Charlop does not say this, perhaps we can add that it is because of the crucial role that speech plays in the destiny of the nation, that it was the misuse of speech in the incident of the spies, as recalled by Moshe in parshas Devarim, that prevented them from entering the land for forty years until a new generation, untainted by that sin, arose. Perhaps, too, this is why we read of this sin on the Shabbos before Tisha B'Av, the day on which we mourn the destruction of the Temple, the focal point of our connection to God and our destiny as a nation created to declare His praises. May it be speedily rebuilt in our days.

(editor's note: There's a difference between "don't really know" and "really don't know."
I really don't know what Rav Yosef Ber means, and I don't really know why Rav Charlop says that Yetzias Mitzrayim was not an optimum opportunity for Moshe Rabbeinu to use his Ko'ach Hadibbur.

Even so, I think I can try to elaborate on the idea that Moshe Rabbeinu's power of speech stemmed from his relationship with Klal Yisrael:

In the parsha of Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven, R' Berel Povarsky (in his Bahd Kodesh Bamidbar 32:1) brings the Medrash (Bamidbar 22:7) to the effect that there are three matonos in the world; wisdom, might, and wealth. One who has any one of these has everything. But that is only so when they are gifts from Hashem and come “b’ko’ach haTorah.” But “g’vuraso v’ashro shel basar vadam eino klum.” The Medrash gives as an example two chachamim who were utterly lost, because their matanah was not from Hashem, but rather “chotfin osoh lahem.”

He says that we see a chidush that there are two kinds of chochmah, one a gift from Hashem and miko’ach haTorah, and one of chatifah. He uses this to explain a Medrash in Vayishlach, Medrash Breishis 81:2, that someone was sent to be a poseik in a town, and they made him a big platform with a seat on top, and he totally lost his chachmas haTorah. When he went back, he explained to his Rebbi that the kavod caused him to become haughty and he forgot his Torah. Also, he brings Psachim 66b “kol hamisyaheir...chachmaso mistalekes mimenu.” He says that this is only true on Torah and Chachma that are a matas Hashem and come miko’ach haTorah. But the other type is less sensitive and will not necessarily be affected by gaivoh.

This is a useful insight which suggests several interesting things.

1. Not all great accomplishment is a matanah from Hashem. One can snatch these things.

2. The idea that certain bad behavior or middos deleteriously affects chachma might only apply to the chachma that stems from kedusha and tahara. But the other type of chochma is not necessarily affected by these things.

3. Just as Shimshon's strength was completely unrelated to his physical traits, Moshe Rabbeinu's talents were gifts from Hashem; when he became angry, the flow of wisdom became occluded and his wisdom departed. And, hanogei'ach le'inyaneinu, when he felt that his ko'ach hadibbur was not pivotal to an imminent geula of Klal Yisrael and to their greatest benefit, he became mute.

Devorim 2:5. What Does Kibbud Av Ve'Eim Have to Do with Tisha Ba'av?

In this week's Parsha, we are told that Hashem enjoined the Bnei Yisroel from any infringement upon the territory of Eisov, the land of Sei'ir, because, the passuk says, their land was granted to them as an inviolable heritage-- and we had no right to take it from them. The Medrash Rabbah 1:15 here explains how Eisav merited this unique divine protection: Rav Shimon Ben Gamliel says that it was Eisav's exemplary "Kibud Av Ve'eim - the honor Eisav showed his parents, that protected his lands from being conquered. When serving and caring for his parents, Eisav would wear the same regal garments that he wore when he went out in public in his capacity as King of Sei’ir and when conducting his business. This illustrated Eisav’s philosophy that his behavior and appearance when he served his parents should express the same meticulous focus, respectfulness, and stateliness as he expected from his supplicants-- and as was expected from him-- when he held court in his royal chambers.

Note that Eisov’s kibbud was most likely, to some extent, duplicitous or self-serving, and Eisav’s legacy is primarily one of strife and imperialistic war, but the fact remains that he honored and brought happiness to Yitzchok.

One thing is evident from this Medrash. The specific Zechus of Kibbud Av Ve'eim strengthens one's bond and one's connection to his ancestral land. It was because of Eisov's mitzvas Kibbud that Hashem told us to leave him alone, to let him remain at peace in his homeland.

Now, see the Gemora in Kiddushin 31b that discusses the gentile Domo ben Nesinoh: his mother, who evidently was demented, used to publicly assault him, and he would just say “Da’yeich, Imi,” enough, my mother. The same gemora brings the story that Domoh’s father was sleeping on top of a key that would give him access to a gem he could have sold for a vast profit, but he refused to wake his father, and so he missed the fleeting opportunity for the great profit. The next year, Domoh was rewarded with a unique opportunity for an even greater profit.

Harav Rabinovich za’l, of Chicago, once pointed out that everyone knows the story on omud aleph, that Domoh got a reward of a great fortune, but nobody remembers the Gemora on omud beis that talks about R’ Avimi bar Avuho.

R’ Avimi bar Avuho was another exemplar of perfect kibud av ve’eim. His reward was the divine inspiration to understand the meaning of “Mizmor Le’osof, Elohim, bo’u goyim benachalosecho....”

R' Avimi's reward of an insight into a chapter of Tehillim may seem much less interesting than Domoh's reward of great wealth. In fact, however, the story of R' Avimi is far more important and, indeed, teaches a lesson that is relevant to our unbearably long Golus.

Rashi says that R Avimi's inspired pshat was the one which is brought in the Medrash in Eichoh Perek 4. The Medrash asks, this perek of Tehillim talks of the churbon, “Elokim bo’u goyim b’nachalosecho, tim’u es heichal kodshechoh, somu es Yerusholyaim l’iyim.” Mizmor means "song of gratitude"; why say a mizmor on the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh? It should say “Kinoh (Elegy) Le’osof”! But the explanation is that Hashem expended his anger on earth and wood, on inanimate objects, and thereby allowed Klal Yisroel to exist and have another chance to achieve their (our!) sublime national destiny.

Tosfos says that it was a different pshat that R' Avimi understood: he brings a different Medrash that 'Osof' was a descendant of Korach, and Osof was happy when he saw that the gates of Yerusholayim sank into the ground, because he then realized that just as we know that ultimately the ground will open up again and the gates of Yerusholyim will reappear, his ancestor, Korach, will also be brought back.

The Mahrsho says that according to Tosfos’ pshat, we see a connection between R' Avimi's mitzvoh of kibbud Av and the pshat he was given to understand, since Osof was concerned about the kovod of his ancestor. But according to Rashi’s pshat, it seems that R' Avimi's interpretation has no thematic connection with his kibbud Av. However, with the Medrash on this week's parshah, we can say that Rashi’s pshat is also connected to kibbud av: As we see in the Medrash with Eisov, kibbud strengthens a nation's bond with their ancestral land. R’ Avimi was shown a pshat that illustrates our unseverable bond to the land of Israel. Despite the terrible churbon, our national identity and our connection to Eretz Yisroel remains firm. Hashem expended His anger on the Beis Hamikdash, but the time will come that we return forever to the land and rebuild an even greater Bayis Shlishi.

The Mitzvah of Kibbud Av, in the Aseres Hadibros, is followed by "le'maan ya'arichun yomecha...ahl ha'adama asher nishba Hashem la'avoseichem...." The Netziv asks, why is "ahl ha'adamah" appended to the guarantee of arichus yamim? He answers that although kibbud is a mitzvah sichlis, the Torah teaches us that it, like all mitzvos, should be fulfilled not because of the sichli aspect, but instead because it is a divine commandment, and this is underlined by stating that the primary locus of this mitzvah is in the land of Israel, as is the case with all mitzvos. According to the Netziv, Kibbud is dependent on Ha'adamah. However, with this Medrash, we can give a new answer to the Netziv's question. The reason the Torah says "ahl ha'adamah" is because the Mitzvah of Kibbud is directly tied to our ability to safely and confidently dwell in the land of Israel. According to the Netziv, Kibbud is talui on Ahl Ha'adama. According to this pshat, Ahl Ha'adama is talui, dependent, on Kibbud!

On the most basic level, the relationship between the inviolable right to a homeland and kibbud av is straightforward: The most fundamental patrimony is ancestral land. If one properly respects his parents and their legacy, he is entitled to enjoy their patrimony, the land they made their own for themselves and their children. If one disrespects one's parents, he undermines the legitimacy of his own claim to a heritage.

Perhaps there is a deeper relationship between kibbud Av and deserving Eretz Yisroel. The underlying middos of Kibbud Av are hakkoras hatov and anivus. In Yeshi’ah 47:8, Klal Yisroel were called “adinah...ho’omeres Ani v’afsi ohd.” The idea of “Ani v’afsi ohd” as a yesod of the Churbon bayis rishon, might also underlie the sin’as chinom of the times of the bayis sheini. A person who thinks “Ani v’afsi ohd” will not even perceive what others have done for him, and he certainly will not be makir tov for it, whether through kibud ahv or ahavas Hashem or ahavas Yisroel, and he is also fundamentally incapable of doing chesed for other people.

And perhaps we can also add another point. What is the middoh k’neged middoh for Kibbud Av? The answer is, if you treat your father like a father, you will be treated like a son. So the Ribbono shel Olom told R Avimi, since you showed gadlus in Kibbud Ahv, I’m going to show you how my relationship with Klal Yisroel is like that of a father to a son. When I had to punish them, I made sure to do it in a way that inflicted the least possible permanent damage on them, and I did it by destroying eitzim v’avonim. This is because I am their father, and I am treating them like a son.

During the Nine Days that culminate in Tisha Ba'av, it is very important to remember the lesson taught by the Medrash and the Gemora of R' Avimi. They illustrate that along with the other things we need to do to end the golus, honoring our parents is essential to our claim to a homeland. On Tisha Ba'av, perhaps we should think about our personal relationship with our parents, and our relationship with the tradition they represent. Kibbud Av Ve'eim is the bedrock of our claim and our bond to Eretz Yisroel. It protects against Golus and it can hasten the coming of Moshiach.