abukspan

Wow, great question (gotta look that up) and a nice and meaningful answer. Thank you for both and may Her neshama truly be elevated.

Well according to the Medresh Rabbah that bnei Yisroel had davened to Hashem by Yam Suf (see Shemos Rabbah on MaTitzak Eilai) i do not see the question. But I always like a good answer to a compelling question. Do you think this one is?

yes, a famous and somewhat controversial Or HaChaim

Reb Eliezer, thank you for the address of the Ksav Sofer and the comments

yes, i thought that would have been appearent from the totalaty of what I cited from the Rizhiner

very good

thank you for your comment.
While I have seen or thought about Yaakovs possibility of returning “quitely” or un-noticed, it seems from the pessukim that Esav was already on his way, with the 400 men, even before the malachim came to him.

shein

Thank you. if you figure out how to contact me by email i can send you a pdf of a pretty nice sefer with many nice verter. and im not at gmail.

abukspan

wow, your right. i only posted it because on the other one that had to do with another aspect of lo sisna and justified hatred, you started mishing in meforshim about tochacha and sina. i just wanted to show you that those unrelated things were something that i was BH well aware of. My mistake for not realizing that i had even put it up. Hope the Mods do not get upset. thank you

“Maybe because of lack of time, Moshe Rabbenu overestimated his children and expected more from them.”

I would be wary of saying such about Moshe Rabbeinu. It is treating him like you or me. Regarding his sons: it is far from true to say that they were “bad” or not accomplished. Do not have it handy, but Yalkut Lekach Tov (Rav Byfus) in pinchus brings a chusheva pshat based on medroshim that his sons were gedoilei yisroel but they did not accomplish as much as they could. I think the lashon was that they were Chachomim but “were not miyageia”. Far from being failed children do to C’v Moshe’s neglect (as per a favorite sefer of mine, the Ksav Sofer) it was their not working as hard as they could, in contrast to Yehoshua who was Lo Yamush, that led to not being selected for leadership.

I be honest. I should not have posted the Chasam Sofer because it puts The two Kedoshim in a bad light. Are they like us, they did not have pusheta derech eretz? It is a nice chasam sofer but I hope not true. The Ksav Sofer you mention again sounds nice but is also so uncomplementory. I know the vort very well, I have discussed it with big people. Are we ready really to believe that there must be a trade off. You are either a good father (Aharon) with good kids, or a good Manhig (Moshe) with not great kids? That is clearly the yesod the Ksav Sofer presents and therefore the dilemma that Nadav and Avihu faced. They were to be the next Manhigim (that is his up teich of the gemora in Sanhedrin) so they were stuck about what to do, and ended up choosing to serve as great manhigim f or the Klal and not have children. As a bochur I liked the vort but have been explained and agree that it is hard to believe. Do we not have gedolim who can be machanech their children? Are we saying it is either or? Are we saying Chas VeShalal that Moshe Rabbeinu was a lousy father?

Reb Eliezer, I am not writing this to criticize you. It’s just that I posted a vort that does go over well, but may truly be insulating and therefore wrong and wrong to say, and you go a cite the one vort that is so much more insulting or disrespectful to Moshe. This has nothing to do with you. It has been what I was mekabel from my rebbeim and which has now been naase.delee

” A similar situation could have occurred over here. ”

what is the point? Do you need me to agree with you and remove my post? Need I say that the words of chazal -in their entirety are wrong because Rav E. Feigu says a pshat in a gemora in Yoma?

I accept that you do not like what was written. Bigger people than me have written this pshat and said over
this pshat.
Its fine if you dont but perhaps have one more patient go at what was written.

This point can be proven from a pasuk in Rus and the explanation of the Midrash based on that pasuk: “Vayehi bi’mei shefot hashoftim – And it happened in the days when the judges judged” (Rus 1:1). The Midrash (Rus Rabbah 1:1) explains that in those days, the judges were judged by the population. And the Midrash laments, “Woe to the generation that judges its judges.” The Gemara explains that when the judge would say, “Remove a splinter from between your teeth,” the accused would say, “First remove the beam from between your eyes” (Bava Basra 15b).
The judges themselves were more corrupt than the people they were judging. The judge would accuse a man of stealing a splinter and demand that he return it, while the accused would respond that the judge himself was guilty of much more than petty theft, since he had in his possession something as large as a stolen beam.
Thus, the people discounted the reproof the judges gave because the judges were greater sinners. Although the people could claim, “Why listen to him? He doesn’t practice what he preaches,” they were still criticized for judging their judges and discounting their reproof and authority.
The truth is still the truth, whether from the mouth of a saint or a sinner. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but if the message being preached is correct, I have no right not to accept it. The Rambam, in his preface to Shemonah Perakim, says, “Shema ha’emes mi’mi she’amrah –Listen to and accept the truth from the one who says it.”

I do not know what to say. The pshat pashut in shfot hashoftim is the the people were judging the judges. However bad they were, and they were, chazal are criticizing -certainly – those who are judging the judges. It would be great if we could shmooze on a phone if you so desire but i cannot keep this up. If you think i am wrong, so be it. I can cite near countless seforim that the people were being criticized for their criticism of the shoftim. is that not correct. Forgive me if I have to now go to class

And the Midrash laments, “Woe to the generation that judges its judges.” The Gemara explains that when the judge would say, “Remove a splinter from between your teeth,” the accused would say, “First remove the beam from between your eyes” (Bava Basra 15b).
Both things were occurring. The people judged the judges and were not mekabel thier words and the judges were worse than the people themselves. That is a way that the chazal can be understood. We see that even though the judges were perhaps hypocrites, the people are still wrong for judging them -d`hynu, not listening to them. Yes, a chiddush and not how we all were taught. see if it fits into the words of chazal.

As I wrote: “Although the ideal is “Keshot atzmecha ve’achar kach keshot acheirim – Adorn yourself and after that adorn others” (Bava Basra 60b), it does not mean that the other sinner’s advice can be discounted and ignored, even if the other brother does not practice what he is preaching.”

While it is appropriate to first correct yourself then others קשוט עצמך ואחר כך קשוט אחרים, that is the optimum. Yet, those same words are the criticism of a person who is unwilling to take tochocha. Tul Korah m`bein einecha…., why should I listen to you when you are no better or even worse.

But chazal are here, by nadav and avihu, saying (and as understood by Rav Dovid Soloveichik and others) that they are faulted for not hearing the tochocha of the other -even when the other, on his own, was doing the same wrong thing. that is the whole point/chidush here. and the same thing is seen from the medresh in Rus.

thanx for responding. teaching a class now, will look at later.

You are right. It all adds. . It was a very wrong of me to write what I did. I hope you will not stop adding to the discussion because of my arrogance. Sincerely sorry.

In truth, even chirping or speech cannot be at one extreme. We warn from the dead chirping bird to not have bad speech but the living one sent away teaches the need to have good and correct speech. Please read below.

Metzora 1 — Two Chirping Birds
וצוה הכהן ולקח למטהר שתי צפרים חיות טהרות ועץ ארז ושני תולעת ואזב: וצוה הכהן ושחט את הצפור האחת אל כלי חרש על מים חיים: את הצפר החיה יקח אתה ואת עץ הארז ואת שני התולעת ואת האזב וטבל אותם ואת הצפר החיה בדם הצפר השחטה על המים החיים:והזה על המטהר מן הצרעת שבע פעמים וטהרו ושלח את הצפר החיה על פני השדה
The Kohen shall command; and for the person being purified there shall be taken two live, pure birds, cedar wood, a crimson tongue of wool, and hyssop. The Kohen shall command; and the one bird shall be slaughtered into an earthenware vessel over spring water. The live bird, he shall take it and the cedar wood and the crimson tongue of wool and the hyssop, and he shall dip them and the live bird into the blood of the bird that was slaughtered over the spring water. Then he shall sprinkle seven times upon the person being purified from the tzaraas; he shall purify him, and he shall set the live bird free upon the open field” (Vayikra 14:4-7).
The metzora’s purification process includes two birds, one of which is slaughtered and one of which is sent away alive. Rashi (v.4) explains why birds are used in the purification of the metzora: Like the person who spoke lashon hara, birds are constantly twittering. Accordingly, chirping birds are used as a kapparah for the one who “chirped too much” and shared derogatory information about others.
Unlike all other occasions when two birds are required, here the Kohen does not kill both; the second one is released. As mentioned earlier (Vayikra, Tzav), the Ramban (Vayikra 1:9) maintains that animal sacrifices are intended to cause the one bringing the korban to imagine that he is the one slaughtered, for this will bring him to repent. But what value is there in setting one of the birds free?
The Kli Yakar (v.4: “Ve’taam lishtei tziporim…”) writes that the two birds represent two types of speech: that which is forbidden and that which is a mitzvah, that which must not be said and that which must be said. By engaging in proper and positive speech, the metzora remedies the sin of the improper speech. The forbidden speech, as represented by the first bird that is killed, must cease and desist. True expiation of sin requires that the sinning stop. But that is only half the battle. To atone for the misuse of speech, what is now required is the proper use of speech.
The Kli Yakar specifies just what kind of speech will bring kapparah to the metzora. By using his mouth for Torah and tefillah, he is able to undo the ill effects of causing hurt and harm through that mouth. So while the bird that represents the harmful speech is killed, the second bird must live on, to demonstrate that the antidote for lashon hora is not a vow of silence but a commitment to speak properly. The second bird represents judicious and good chirping: engaging one’s mouth in Torah, tefillah, and constructive talk, which must be strengthened and nurtured.
In his sefer Apirion (cited in Yalkut Lekach Tov), Rav Shlomo Gantzfried brings the same point; to that end, he cites the Gemara (Chullin 89a), where Rabbi Yitzchak quotes the pasuk, “Ha’umnam eilem tzedek tedabeirun — Is there indeed silence when you should be speaking righteousness?” (Tehillim 58:2). While it is true that at times a person is obligated to be silent like a mute (eilem), this does not apply to a discussion of Torah, as it says, “Tzedek tedabeirun — Speak righteousness,” meaning the words of Torah. This is as we see in the Gemara (Erchin 15b): What is the remedy for one who has spoken lashon hara? If he is a talmid chacham, he should toil in Torah. As Shlomo teaches us (Mishlei 15:4): “Marpei lashon eitz chaim —The remedy for the tongue is the Tree of Life”; the tongue is referring to lashon hara and the Tree of Life is the Torah. So we see that one cure for lashon hara is limud Torah.
The Zohar (Vayikra 46b) adds another dimension. Just as a person is punished for malicious gossip and speaking inappropriately, he is also punished for not speaking appropriately. The Zohar quotes the words of Tehillim (39:3) to corroborate this: “Ne’elamti dumiah hechesheisi mi’tov u’cheivi nekar — I became mute with stillness, I was silent even from good; my pain was intense.” According to the Gemara (Berachos 5a), “tov — good” means the Torah. Thus, David HaMelech is telling us that because he was silent and did not speak words of Torah, he was punished, his pain intense.
The Sfas Emes (Metzora 5661) brings the words of the Zohar, along with the words of Shlomo HaMelech in Mishlei (18:21), “Mavess ve’chaim be’yad lashon — Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” He then adds that a person must be careful not only to avoid lashon hara, but to stay away from any speech that will take him away from his true objective — of learning Torah. The two birds are there for two separate purposes: The slaughtered one removes the sin of unnecessary talk, and obviously lashon hara, while the other one is sent away in order to prepare the mouth of the metzora to be used only for divrei Torah.
When stating that death and life are in the hand of the tongue, Shlomo HaMelech is informing us that just as the tongue can cause death and destruction when not used properly, it also brings life, when used for Torah and mitzvos. Words not only take away life, but also give life. This concept is illustrated in a well-known Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 33:1). Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel sent his servant to the market, instructing him, “Bring me the best thing you can find.” The servant brought him a tongue. On another occasion, Rabbi Shimon told the same servant to purchase the worst thing he could find. This time, too, the servant returned with a tongue. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel was startled and asked his servant, “How can the same item be the best thing and also the worst?” The servant responded, “There is nothing better than a tongue that speaks good and nothing worse than a tongue that speaks evil.”
This brings us to another famous incident mentioned in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 16:2). As a peddler made his way through the towns near the city of Tzipori, he called out, “Who would like to purchase a life-giving potion?” People crowded around him to see what he had to offer. Rabbi Yanai, who was nearby and heard and saw the commotion, told the peddler to come show him his wares. At first, the peddler answered, “Neither you nor those like you have need for it.”
When Rabbi Yanai persisted, the peddler quoted from Sefer Tehillim (34:13-15), “Mi ha’ish he’chofetz chaim oheiv yamim liros tov. Netzor leshoncha mei’ra u’sefasecha mi’daber mirmah. Sur mei’ra va’aseih tov bakeish shalom ve’radfeihu — Who is the man who desires life, who loves days of seeing good? Guard your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit. Turn from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it.”
The Kli Yakar (v.4: “Aval rocheil zeh… “) points out that this peddler, this rocheil, had himself been a baal lashon hara, one who peddled his wares of gossip, causing arguments and breaking up friendships along the way. But now he had resolved to do teshuvah and he had succeeded. As such, he wanted to share his success with others and bring merit to the tzibbur and help them do teshuvah, as well. Therefore, he went to the cities surrounding “Tzipori,” meaning those cities that were similar to a tzipor — the bird that chirps and chatters — with the express purpose of educating those towns where people had stumbled through evil speech and were chattering like birds. Thus he used his tongue for good instead of bad, and went from being the itinerant gossip to the itinerant maggid. He killed his bad bird by releasing his good bird.
We see that this peddler, this recovering gossip, did not merely stop speaking. Rather, he taught others the lessons he had learned. The end of the pesukim the peddler cited instruct: “Sur mei’ra va’aseih tov bakeish shalom ve’radfeihu — Turn from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it.” As mentioned, “tov” refers to Torah, so once again, as the Kli Yakar posits, the way to veer from evil is through learning and speaking words of Torah.
But there is more: We must also seek peace and pursue it: “Bakeish shalom ve’radfeihu.” If we constantly look for the good in others and look for ways to make peace, we will find that we automatically avoid evil speech and nasty gossip.
With this in mind, we can understand a citation in the Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim 60:2) when discussing the berachah of Ahavah Rabbah in Tefillas Shacharis. There we find a reference to Kavannos U’Kesavim, where it is taught that the Sheish Zechiros, six events we must constantly remember, are alluded to in Ahavah Rabbah. One of these events is: “Zachor eis asher asah Hashem Elokecha le’Miriam ba’derech be’tzeis’chem miMitzrayim — Remember what Hashem, your G-d, did to Miriam, on the way when you departed from Egypt” (Devarim 24:9). As Bnei Yisrael were traveling in the Midbar, Miriam spoke lashon hara to Aharon about Moshe and was punished with tzaraas (Bamidbar 12), and this is what we are to remember every day lest we, too, fall into the trap of lashon hara. The words that correspond to this reminder in the tefillah of Ahavah Rabbah are: “le’hodos lecha — to offer praiseful thanks to You.” As it says in the Kavanos U’Kesavim, “The mouth was only created to express gratitude and not to speak lashon hara, and this is the remembrance of the incident of Miriam.”
I heard from Rav Aharon Dovid Willner that lashon hara and expressing gratitude are flipsides of the same coin. One who speaks lashon hara is a person who focuses on the negative side of things, never looking at what is good and praiseworthy. He can’t appreciate that all Hashem does is for the good, and he feels entitled to have everything his way. Such a person will also be bothered by the faults he sees in man and will speak ill of him. On the other side of the coin, we have the person who lives up to the ideal of “le’hodos lecha,” of focusing on feeling grateful for all he does have, and of appreciating all of mankind. Such a person will be free from the bottomless pit of negativity — even if things don’t go his way or he finds something unfavorable in another individual. Consequently, he will never feel the need to express something negative about another, let alone Hashem, even at times when his expectations are not met.
Rabbeinu Yonah (Shaarei Teshuvah 1:18) cites the verse in Mishlei (28:12),”Ba’alotz tzaddikim rabbah sifares u’ve’kum reshaim yechupas adam — When the righteous exult, there is much splendor, but when the wicked rise, victims are sought.” Tzaddikim praise and honor others for every virtue and positive quality they find in each individual, while reshaim seek every blemish and fault within others in order to degrade and demean them.
Lashon hara… or divrei Torah? Critique and complaints… or praising Hashem and others? The choices are ours. Which will it be?

This Tos. Yom Tov (Negaim 12:5) mentions five or so Terutzim including what you mentioned

כנגע נראה לי בבית. אפילו ת”ח ויודע כו’. דאי אינו יודע. מהיכי תיתי שיאמר נגע נראה לי והא לא ידע. וא”ת למה אסרה התורה מלומר נגע. והלא עד שיאמר הכהן טמא. עדיין אין כאן טומאה. כדתנן ברפ”ג. והרא”ם כתב בשם רבותיו. דכיון דבדבורו לא יוכל לשפוט. הלכך לא יאמר בלשון ברור. ע”ד אמרם. ולמד לשונך לומר איני יודע. ולי נראה מפני דרך ארץ שצריך לנהוג עם הכהן כו’. א”נ שלא ימהר הכהן ויגזור טומאה. ע”כ. וג”א כתב. משום דובר שקרים לא יכון. דהא כל זמן שלא נזקק הכהן לאו נגע הוא. ואיך יאמר נגע כו’. וכתב בעל קרבן אהרן. דלא דק בזה. שהכהן אינו עושה אותו נגע. אבל הטומחה עושה בו. וקודם שיבא הכהן. נגע הוא. ע”כ. ואפשר לתרץ שכשיאמר נגע. המכוון ממנו מה שקוראין נגע. והיינו נגע טמא. ומכיון שעדיין אינו טמא. הרי דובר שקרים. ולי נראה בהפך. דלהכי הקפידה התורה מלומר נגע. כדי שלא לפתוח פיו לשטן לו כדדרשינן בפרק מי שמתו (ברכות דף י”ט) מאמרו שמעו קציני סדום וגו’ הרי אפשר שיחזור ויכהה טרם בוא הכהן. ולכל הטעמים נראה לי שבכל הנגעים הדין כך. שלא יאמר נגע עד שיטמאנו הכהן. ואפילו את”ל דאין הדין הזה. אלא בנגעי בתים. וכן הרמב”ם לא כתב שיהא נוהג גם בשאר הנגעים. י”ל דנגעי בתים הואיל וקודמין בזמן כדלקמן לכך הקפידה התורה ביותר. משא”כ בשכבר בא עליו נגע הבית כשאח”כ בא עליו נגע בגדיו. וכן גופו שוב לא הקפידה בכך:

…It is for this reason that the Torah was exigent about not saying, “A blemish [has appeared…]”: In order that he not open his mouth to prosecute himself, as we derive in the chapter, Me SheMeto (Berakhot 19), from [Isaiah’s] saying, “Listen, you captains of Sodom,” etc. Behold, it is possible that it proceed to lighten up before the priest comes…

Thank you, that is exactly the point I was making by writing that word. Even without your comment, the facts presented in the vort are clearly not what occurred. The kids did not walk separate from their mothers, the animals could not be left to follow them. The chushiva rav (look him up) clearly was saying something clever: explaining Pharaohs words based on Moshes. There is an old zug: A nice vort is 15 steps away from the truth. Emes, Vyatziv, Vnachon.........VYUFE.

not showing off but you might enjoy the other pesach verter i posted under aviaviavi avraham bukspan

Yes. While not mentioning her specifically I cited above the Zohar regarding Lots family. The reason is as y ou wrote