Two Sages Debate the Nature of Pharaoh's Evil - By Rabbi YY Jacobson

The opening of parshas Shmois possuk ches. The possuk says "Vayakam melech chadash al Mitzrayim, asher lo yada es Yosef." A new king who did not know Yosef arose on Egypt. "Vayomer el amo", he tells his nation, "Hinei am bnei Yisrael rav v'atzum mimenu." The nation of the children of Israel is great and stronger than us. "Hava nischaqma lo", let us be sly and clever with this people. "Pen yirbeh", they may increase. The people and the nation may grow. "V'haya ki sikhrenu milchama", and if a war occurs, "v'nisaf gam hu al soneinu", this people too will join our foes, our enemies, "v'nilcham banu", and will fight us, "v'ala min ha'aretz", and drive us out of our own country. And thus begins the sad and tragic story of galus Mitzrayim, the horrific subjugation of the bnei Yisrael, of the children of Israel under the Pharaoh in Mitzrayim. Zuga d'gemara, meseches Eruvin, daf nun gimmel, amud alef. The gemara explains this possuk. The same gemara is also elsewhere, meseches Sotah, daf yud alef, and also in Medrash Rabbah in Shmois. Those are the three sources where the chazal all bring the same argument. "Vayakam melech chadash al Mitzrayim, asher lo yada es Yosef." A new king arose on Egypt, somebody who did not know Yoysef. Says the Gemara, Rav U'Shmuel. There was a debate between two of the sages, Rav and Shmuel. What's the problem? What's the debate? Kha d'amar, one says khadash mamash. Melekh khadash means literally a new a new king. A new king, a new leader arose and took over on Mitzrayim, became the new monarch of Mitzrayim. V'kha d'amar, the other view is she'nishkhashukh ze Yoysef. It's not literally a new king, it's just he changed his attitude. He created new decrees. Melekh khadash in the sense, suddenly there was a new personality, somebody we didn't recognize before. A new king, a new style of leadership, new decrees, new edicts, which were unrecognizable before. So, the Gemara now is trying to understand why would they argue? It says "Vayakom melekh khadash" means a new king. So, the Gemara explains, just to argue for the sake of arguing? It says "Melekh khadash" is a new king. So, the Gemara says, man d'amar khadash mamash, the view that says that it was literally a new king, a new monarch, the old one died, or was dethroned, probably died and a new one took over, d'khiv khadash. His proof is quite simple. It says "Vayakom melekh khadash." Khadash in Lashon Kodesh in Hebrew means khadash, it means new, a new king, a new king who wasn't there before. Man d'amar she'nishkhashukh ze Yoysef, the one who says it wasn't a new king, it was just somebody who changed, he renewed, he created new decrees, new edicts, mid'like se "Vayamas Vayimlokh." Something was bothering him. Usually the terminology in Tanakh when a new king arises is "Vayimlokh melekh khadash al Mitzrayim." A new king started to reign. "Vayimlokh." You have in Parshas Vayishlakh at the end the whole list, "Vayamas Vayimlokh, Vayamas Vayimlokh, Vayamas Vayimlokh." Doesn't say that here. It says by Yocum Melech Hadash. Doesn't say by Yimloch Melech Hadash. Or as the Gemara puts it by Yimloch. One died and a new king took over. By Yocum Melech Hadash he says is a strange term and really what the possuk is trying to say is it wasn't a new king. It's just by Yocum. Melech Hadash. This king stood up. He arose. He developed a whole new attitude, a whole new philosophy, a whole new perspective on the Jewish people. He wasn't a new king. Frag the Gemara, one second. Ulaman in Shas Zera'im Hakasiva Shlo Yada Yosef. It says that it was a new king who did not know Yosef. If it was the same good old if it was the same I shouldn't say good old, but if it was the same old king who appointed Yosef as prime minister of Egypt, who was saved by Yosef HaTzaddik. His whole empire was saved. Who invited the Jewish people into his region, into his country. How do you say "Asher Lo Yada Yosef"? If it was literally a new king, it was a new guy on the block. He never knew Yosef. Yosef passed away. Maybe he was alive. He never knew Yosef. But if it's the old king, how do you say "Asher Lo Yada Yosef"? And for the Gemara, Maya "Asher Lo Yada Yosef"? According to this opinion it means that have a dummy command Lo Yada Yosef K'lal. It looked like as though he never knew Yosef. In other words, the way he behaved, it seemed like he would have never known Yosef. Such a lack of gratitude. Such a lack of appreciation. Such an absence of menschlichkeit, of simple human feeling of human reciprocity after what Yosef did. He made believe he never knew Yosef. You know they say the word we say in one of the Al Cheit, Al Cheit Shechatano Lefanecha Beyodim Uvelo Yodim. For the sin that we did Beyodim, that we knew, Uvelo Yodim, that we didn't know. The question is it already says we already we say because of the sudden So there's a tight be a them For the sin that we did for you be a them we don't give us be a them you know below you them you make believe you don't know. I want to ask the what are you doing you said I don't know anything. So it's NOT ANYTHING LAWYER HE KNEW THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW IT LOOKED LIKE HE NEVER KNEW that's that's how that's how he behaved. I want to ask a simple question. What do they have to argue? So he has a proof because it says this. He has a proof because it doesn't say by him look. But what is it that caused the rab to embrace this opinion and small to embrace this opinion? Now very often you're having the more I should say to put it in context. The gamora says I don't know this I don't know this rab or small one says this one says this but who who said which who said which? So there's a rab was commentator on the rab and he says my suggestion is I think it is who says that usually the cloud is the name who's mentioned first so the cloud Omar follows him which would mean in this case says rab or small one says this one says this usually that's the common way to understand it. Others argue that rab Ruben Margolius uh has a safer he has a different view although probably many of his questions could be answered but this is naturally what it seems. This is how rab explains. In this case it would mean rab says it was a new king. Small says it wasn't a new king it was just a change of attitude but I want to understand why does he go with this way and why does he follow this view? Each one had a question that bothered them. Rav was perturbed by the word hadash. Don't tell me it wasn't a new king. It was a new king. It says hadash. Why didn't that bother Shmuel? It should have bothered Shmuel. On the other hand, Shmuel is bothered by the vayakom. Doesn't say vayimlach. So, they both have something that works and something that is problematic. Yet, Rav chose this path and Shmuel chose this path. We want to try to understand, is there a way of knowing why Rav embraces this derech and Shmuel embraces this derech? There's obviously two ways of explaining it. Each one has a difficulty, and each one gives us some explanation and insight. What is the underlying plot, so to speak, behind their argument? Let's take a look at Rashi. Rashi on Chumash quotes the Gemara in Eiruvin and Sukkah. Zoch Rashi, vayakom melech chadash, Rav u'Shmuel. Rav and Shmuel argue, quoting the Gemara, chadan mai chadash mamash, chadan mai she'nischanchu zeirus av. One says literally new, one says the gezeiros, the decrees were new. Asher lo yada, continues Rashi, asa atzmo k'ilu lo yada. This is a new Rashi. He made believe he did not know. That's Rashi. When we read this Rashi and we study it well, we are perturbed by something. Rashi's pirush on Chumash, Rashi is called Rabbeinu Shel Yisrael. He is the great commentator on Chumash, and much many of his comments, most of his comments are taken from the Chazal. They're taken from Gemara and from all of the Midrashim. Yet, in most places, Rashi does not quote the manda amar, the person who said it either in gamara or in madras. There's approximately I think 130 places in humish that Rashi quotes a name. Most places he will not quote a name. Sometimes he'll say Rabbi say no darshu. Sometimes he won't even say our Rabbi said. He'll just say the pshat of the pasuk. You'll look it up. You'll see who said it. But there are some places little more than 100 where he actually does quote a name. This is one of them, Rav Shmuel. Whenever you see Rashi was a great madayak, when you see that in most places he doesn't quote a name. In some places he does. He does tell us who is the author of this statement or the author of this argument. It means there was a reason he felt that you had to know the name. Now Rashi generally writes in Bereshit and a few times that there's many madroshim on the pasuk. Ani lo basi lefaresh ela pshuto shel mikra. That's his famous term term about himself. My role, my mission statement is not to give you all the madroshim, all the explanations. There's many different explanations. I am here to explain I speak to the ben chamish lemikra. I speak to the brilliant child. The child is always the brilliant the five-year-old who who gets it. And I'm trying to explain the literal interpretation of the pasuk. That's why the names is not relevant. I'm not here to give you an encyclopedia of madroshim. There's other sforim for that, other commentators for that. When he does say the name, it means he feels it's necessary somehow understanding it. But if this is true but this is true concerning all of Rashi when you study Rashi, it becomes dramatically true in this particular pasuk. Why does it become so dramatically true in this particular pasuk? Because I want to show you another two Rashis, one in parshas Vayeishev, one in parshas Vayeira, where there's also an argument of Rav Shmuel in gamara. And Rashi quotes the argument like he does here and also with the names. Take a look. Parshas Vayishlach Vayechi Kayom hazeh Vayavo Habayisah La'asos Melachto Vayein Ish Me'anshei Habayis Sham Babayis. It was one day, the the day, and Yosef comes home to the house of his master Potiphar in Egypt to do his work. Nobody in the house is there. La'asos Melachto, he comes home to do his work, and we all know the continuation of the story. Potiphar's wife is there. She grabs Vatispatzehu Bigdo, she grabs Yosef by his cloak. She says, "Shichvi Imi, lay with me." Vayonas Vayeitzei Hachutzah, he runs out, and she tears off part of his cloak, which she uses as evidence that he tried to do the unthinkable and has him arrested. We all know the rest of the story, the rest is history. Vayavo Habayisah La'asos Melachto Zach Drashi La'asos Melachto, and this is a quote from Maseches Sotah Daf Lamed Vav Amud Beis. Rav Shmuel, Rav and Shmuel argue. Amar Mar, Melachto Mamash. One says, "What does Melachto mean?" Melachto Mamash, work. Yosef came home to do his work. What type of work? Whatever labor he was involved in. He was in charge of the home. Vachada Amar, the other one says, La'asos Tzrachav Nichnas. He actually came home to do his needs, as Rashi explains, to fulfill her desires. Which this was the purpose of Yosef coming home. Finally, after such a long so many pleas and so many threats and so many requests, etc., Yosef Hatzadik surrendered. So then what happens? Ela Sheniras Lo Demus Diyukno Shel Aviv Bachulu Kedisra Bemaseches Sotah. It's just that at the last moment, he saw the image of Yakov his father, etc., as the Gemara says there, and Yakov spoke to Yosef in this image, and as a result, Yosef abstained, and he fled the home. So here again, we have a machlokes between Rav and Shmuel. It says malacha, he came home to do work. The first one, Rav says literally work. Shmuel says doesn't mean literally work, it's actually a euphemism for Yosef surrendering to her wishes. There's another Rashi in Parshas Vayeira. Avraham Avinu planted a garden in Beersheba. And that's where he called out in the name of Hashem, the God of the world. He publicized the awareness of Hashem. So, Rashi says eshel. What's eshel? Vayita eshel. I said a garden, but is that what eshel means? Rav and Shmuel Chadam one says pardes l'havino peiros l'orchim b'seuda. It was an orchard that he planted where fruits would grow and he could bring from this garden fruits to his guests at the meal. So, that's the connection to vayikra sham b'shem Hashem Kel Olam. Guests came and he had wonderful, delicious, fresh fruits that he gave to them. Chadam the other opinion says no. Pundak l'orchim shanyu boi kol minei peiros. Vayita eshel means Avraham Avinu built, he planted a hotel, a pundak. It was a Motel 6 or perhaps a Hilton. I'm not sure. But he he he built a hotel u'voi kol minei peiros. And in the hotel there were all types of fruits from this garden, from many other gardens. U'matzinu lashon netiya b'olam she'ne'emar vayita olah apadnah. I It says vayita, he planted. If it's a hotel, you don't plant a hotel, you plant you plant trees. So, he says we find in the Tanach in the Ne'im Perkei Avos the concept, the term planting even when it comes to a tent. Cuz it means so to speak he etched, he established, he created his his pundak, his hotel, his tent. So, in these three places, vayakam melech chadash, vayavei Aviasar l'asos malacha, vayita eshel b'Beersheba, in all of them we know from Rashi and Chumash an argument between Rava and Shmuel what the meaning is. Does Aish mean a garden orchard or does Aish mean a hotel, a pundit? Does Malachi mean literally his work or does Malachi mean he actually was about to engage her? And Malachi doesn't mean a new king or does it mean just a new style of a new style of leadership? What is so strange about this and where we see that Rashi had a to hear. Rashi had a philosophy which does demonstrate what I was said saying saying earlier is this. In partial Khai Sarah Avram Avinu goes to purchase from Ephron the Ma'aras Hamachpelah. So Rashi says, why is it called Ma'aras Hamachpelah? So he says there's an argument. One opinion is it's called Ma'aras Hamachpelah because there was a bias value al gabav. It was basically two floors. Another opinion is no, she full of Zugos. It the caves were made for peers, for couples. For four couples. Full of Zugos. That's what Rashi says, two opinions. Where did he get these two opinions? The same Gemara in Eruvin, Rava and Shmuel. Here there's no mention of the name. It's not relevant to you? The same Gemara in Eruvin that he quotes here. Melech Chadash. Here it's with the name, there it's not with the name. Vayikra. There's the same argument in Eruvin between Rava and Shmuel about Nimrod and Amraphel. There were two people associated by in Chazal they're seen as the same person, Nimrod and Amraphel. The argument between Rava and Shmuel is what was his authentic name? Was his authentic name Nimrod? And he was called Amraphel because he built he built he told Avram to go into he he he cast Avram into the the furnace, the fiery furnace? Or no, his natural name, his birth name that they gave him was Amraphel. Then Nimrod was the nickname because Himrod Himrod He caused rebellion, mutiny of the world against Hashem. Same Gemara in Eruvin, the same two people, Rav and Shmuel argue about it. Rashi brings the view, Rashi explains what Nimrod is according to this view. Rashi also explains Amraphel is according to this view and this is no name. He doesn't mention Rav and Shmuel. The question is even stronger. The argument by Eishal between Rav and Shmuel is in Gemara in Maseches Sotah daf yud. But not with Rav and Shmuel. Rebbe Yehudah and Rebbe Nechemiah. One says Eishal means a garden. One says Eishal means a hotel. So Rashi found probably a version, a girsa in a Medrash where it says Rav and Shmuel. But in our Medrash in our Gemara in Sotah it's not even Rav and Shmuel. So Rashi actually accepts a less popular version because he wants the name Rav and Shmuel in this place. So now we could clearly see that when Rashi quotes a name, it's not just Let me There's a name, I'll quote it. First of all, it's proven clearly from the fact that in most Rashis he will not quote a name. You have to look it up yourself. Only as I said around 130 places does he quote a name and you always have to understand why he feels that you need to know the name. But here it becomes dramatically clear. It's the same Gemara. You bring other arguments from the same Gemara in Eruvin because Rav and Shmuel have a bunch of arguments here in the Gemara. And yet in three places you bring the name, in other places you don't bring the name. Two places you don't bring the name. So we're going to explore today one Mahalak, one perspective in this space of Hashem. It's a Mahalak, it's a Derek. That was shared by the Rebbe, by the Lubavitcher Rebbe once at a farbrengen Shabbos Shmois Taf Shin Lamed Vov, 1976. In one of his famous Rashi sichos. In which he analyzed and explored in detail the Derek, the Mahalak, the shita of Rashi and in toda in every word in the diuk of Rashi. So although there's a long discussion that that goes over into another sugya about Rav and Shmuel, but I want to focus on one I'm taking I'm I'm gleaning out, I'm extracting one component of a long shmuos, of a long talk that's directly relevant to this. When we learn Shas or we learn Medrish, we come across constantly the same we often come across the same great sages arguing. Whether it's Abaye and Rava. Whether it's Rav and Shmuel. Whether it's Rav and Reb Yosef. Whether it's Reb Akiva and Reb Yishmael. Whether it's Reb Yehuda and Reb Meir. Whether it's Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. And it's hundreds of arguments between some of them, dozens of arguments between others. We can assume that each argument is completely self-contained. They're discussing this halacha, they have an argument, they're discussing another halacha, they have another argument. Yet yet when one looks deeper, we can often find what the Gemara calls letame or leshitase. Meaning, there's a common thread that pervades maybe not all of the arguments, but many of the arguments. In other words, you can trace back distinct arguments to a general theme, philosophical theological, psychological, spiritual, legal, or a particular shita in life. And from this from this core argument from this core argument branch out many different details and even though at first glance they may not seem connected, but when you get in a quota when you trace it back to the core you can often see how many arguments are like branches of one tree. Which of course gives a new depth of learning because it demonstrates it's not just you know, we always have to argue. So I hold this, you hold this. Why does Why do I hold this and you hold this? Rather we see that there's real central ideas of how they saw what Yiddishkeit is, what Torah is, what Halakha is. And now their arguments expressed that Ki hi chachmaschem uvinaschem le'einei ha'amim means that every nekuda of Torah has tremendous wisdom. It's not just I understand, okay. He says this, he says this. If you glean, if you go into it, you'll be able to find your yesodos ha chaim, fundamentals in life, even though it seems like it's an individual argument about an individual topic in life. There were those in later generations acharonim who really focused on this, developed it a lot, particularly Reb Yosef Engel, the Rogatchover Gaon, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and a few others, Ephraim Yosef Zevin, a little in a few places, who really focused a lot on the shita of leshitoso. And in their seforim you have many different leshitosos, which are fascinating. So I'm going to explore with you today a leshitoso, a view of Rav Shmuel that the Rebbe suggested. There is another leshitoso of Rav Shmuel that he explained, and another leshitoso of Rav Shmuel that Reb Reuven Margolies, who also was into leshitoso as a sefer shem olam, that he explains in Rava and Shmuel. But I'm not discussing that. That's a big machlokes if Rav follows always the literal Rav usually follows the literal interpretation of the word and Shmuel follows context. Shmuel looks at context toichen ha'inyan and Rav follows the literal interpretation of the word that you see in many many machlokes in in Shas, but today we want to focus on another possible shittosai between Rav and Shmuel. And for this we have to learn a line in Gemara Chayrus daf mem tes mem beis. It says the Gemara in Chayrus kaim alon we have a halacha d'chal haicha d'pligi Rav u'Shmuel. Whenever there's an argument between Rav and Shmuel hilchesa k'Rav b'issura v'Shmuel b'dina. The halacha follows Rav when it comes to issura and Shmuel when it comes to dina. Issura means all issues between man and Hashem. For example, hilches t'fillin, hilches mezuzah, hilches sefer Torah, hilches Shabbos, hilches Yom Tov. Hilches mikvah. These are hilches lulav etc. These are halachas between issurim. Hilches kashrus, hilches shchita. All the dinim of kosher food etc. Mamonah dina is monetary issues. Choshen Mishpat, Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia, Bava Basra. Civil law, relationships between people. When it comes to issurim questions is it kosher? Is it treif? Is it muttar? Is it assur? Whether in kashrus or Shabbos or tzitzis or mikvah etc. The halacha follows Rav. All issues that are monetary issues, monetary debates, civil law, there the halacha follows Shmuel. Hilchesa k'Rav b'issura u'Shmuel b'dina or as it's quoted in some places u'Shmuel b'mamonah. WHY? WHY is this? Now Rav and Shmuel were contemporaries. Rav was older than Shmuel, but they lived in the same generation. They lived in the second they were born in the second century after the common era. Meaning a little more than 100 years after the destruction of the second base hamikdash to the point that Rav Shmuel is the first generation of Amoraim. Rav and Shmuel are the bridge between the generation of Tanaim and the generation of Amoraim to the point that the Gemara says Rav Tam lo hu apalik. Rav is still, so to speak, the last one who could still be considered a TANNA AND CAN ARGUE WITH Tanaim even though Amoraim usually never found a justification to argue with Tanaim. Shmuel is considered the first generation of Amoraim. They were both born in the holy land in Eretz Yisrael already under Roman Roman rule, Roman oppression. As I said, it's the second century after the common era and they both, Rav is a talmid of Rebbe, Rebbe Yehudah HaNasi, the editor of Mishnayos. Rav learns under Rebbe, Rebbe Yehudah HaNasi. The Rashbam writes, I think the Rashbam writes in Bava Basra that when Rebbe was in Eretz Yisrael, Rav became in Babylonia. Yeah, he's called Rebbe with a Yud, he's called Rav without a Yud. His name wasn't Rav, his name was Abba. Reb Abba Arikha they called him, Abba the long one, probably because of his height, although it's not so clear, but probably Abba Arikha, but as respect they named him Rav, the Rav, the Rabbi of Klal Yisrael, like Rebbe is the Rabbi of Klal Yisrael, Rebbe Yehudah HaNasi. Rav learned by Rebbe, he learned by his uncle Reb Chiya, he had an uncle Reb Chiya from his father's side, his mother's side, he learned by them. And ultimately he descended to Babylonia to Bavel. In Bavel lived at the time another sage who was a little younger than him, his name was Shmuel. Shmuel was the Rosh Yeshiva in a city called Nehardea. The Gemara says about Shmuel that his brilliance was unique. Shmuel said about himself, "Nehirna li shvilei di rakia kashvilei di Nehardea." The pathways of heaven are as clear to me as the pathways of Nehardea. He was a tremendous great astronomer and a great physician and a great scholar, even though he never got smicha. He never got smicha, Shmuel. That's why we call him Shmuel. And Shmuel was the Rosh Yeshiva of Nehardea. Rav didn't want to go to the same place. Rav established a Yeshiva in a city called Sura. Both on the Euphrates River, on the Euphrates in in Iraq. The geography of Iraq is very important for Jewish history, especially for Talmud Bavli. And I don't know if I'm allowed to say parsha parsha Bereishis, too. A lot of interesting things happened around Iraq, in Iraq. So, he was in Sura, he was in he was in Nehardea. Rav passed away before Shmuel, and they did not stop arguing. Throughout Shas, the two people who argue constantly is Rav and Shmuel. Rav and Shmuel, although they had tremendous respect for each other, to the point that Shmuel said about Rav, the Gemara says, "Lo ye'uneh letzaddik kol avon." When he's a tzaddik, mistakes won't happen to him. When Rav passed away, Shmuel tore his garment 13 times. But nonetheless, their arguments are constant. So, the Gemara says in Kerisus, the halacha is like Rav when it comes to issurim, to mitzvos between man and Hashem, the halacha is like Shmuel when it comes to monetary issues. Why? So, the Rosh, Rabbeinu Asher, in Maseches Bava Kamma tells the reason. Says the Rosh, Rosh Bava Kamma perek dalet siman dalet, "Shmuel hayah ragil tomid liffsig dinin." In Shmuel's Beis Din, he was always involved in giving halachos concerning monetary disputes. "Velachein hayah medakdek bahem." So, he was very meticulous. He was precise. He had the opportunity to descend into the depths of all the halachos concerned with mammon, with civil law. "Vechein Rav hayah ragil ledakdek be'ir'os issur veheter. Lachach sam kol rosho Ravin his best then this became the best then that was the best the TRACK THE BEST PLACE for Easter the head to grab was completely entrenched in this of a head to so simply because Rav was so involved in this world he fine tuned he fine tuned his skills in this and small and the name of an S so that's why when the hazard had to decide so this is not a blanket statement you never make a blanket statement in a locker every case has to be analyzed independently right to the point that the camera says in a few places usually the is like Rav or the is like small the bar mitzvahs besides a few exceptions we don't go that's way we don't go this way in other words we analyze it but generally there was a rule unless it was specified and they did analyze every case but unless it was otherwise specified this was usually the way that the birthday dinner in the majority of asking and therefore it became the that way according to the formula that my gave us of Robin or whatever the formula on this specific a specific situation of an argument is what do we see from here we see from here that they were really involved although obviously small was a great back in Easter and Rav was a great back in moment that goes without saying but nonetheless this was his main as he would say in Yiddish his main I don't know how to how you translate in English I can't say his main cooking but this was this was where Rav is going to begin this is where Rav's soul was where his mind was primarily and this is where small's primary mind was comes the Rebbe and says if this is the case it would seem perhaps that when you study many arguments of Rav and Shmuel, you could see that if there is a choice of explaining the Sugya in a way that it will strengthen the relationship in Adam la Makom, Rav will follow that view. If you can explain it in a way that will strengthen the relationship, not the vertical relationship, but the horizontal relationship between man and man, ben Adam la Chaveiro, man man, woman woman, people, that's where Shmuel is going to embrace it. So, in other words, even though we all know, or we should all know, that the Aseres Hadibros, the Ten Commandments, have five mitzvahs that relate to ben Adam la Makom and five that relate to ben Adam la Chaveiro, and both were given by Hashem himself, and when somebody chooses this over this or this over this, it doesn't represent authentic Judaism. The person who's very religious ben Adam la Makom, when it comes to ben Adam la Chaveiro, is not so. The same Aseres Hadibros says both. And uh conversely, conversely, but Rav nonetheless had a unique kinship with ben Adam la Makom and Shmuel had a unique kinship with ben Adam la Chaveiro. So, therefore, when there's a choice, his mahalach, his mind, HIS SOUL, NATURALLY GRAVITATES THERE. That's who he is. And Shmuel's natural soul gravitates there to ben Adam la Chaveiro. And when you reflect on it, I want to show you a few arguments before we get back to our Rashis that I think you could see this quite clearly. You could see this quite clearly. Let's take a look. First of all, two statements of Shmuel. The Gemara says in Shabbos daf mem tes amud beis, Shmuel says lo oilam al yotzi Adam es atzmo min haKlal. Famous expression of Shmuel, never exclude yourself from the community, from the clan. Shmuel also says in Chullin daf tzadik gimmel, this should be memorized, assur lignov daas habriyos afilu daas shel A person is never allowed to deceive somebody else's mind. No difference, a Jew, a non-Jew, to do anything that will fool, trick somebody. Gneivas daas doesn't mean you steal something. That he's not talking about. He That's for sure. He means gneivas daas means you make a false impression. It's conniving. It's lying. You don't steal anything. But gneivas daas. You want to come eat by my house tonight for Shabbos? I know, of course, that you're going somewhere else. You're going to be out of town. But why not? They're ready. I can have the cake and eat it, too. You could see that I'm a great man. I'm inviting you to my house, and I never have to have you because I know you're not going to be available for Shabbos. That's a classic case that Chazal give for gneivas daas. LET ME OPEN THE BOTTLE of wine, as I choshev like you. Let me open the bottle of wine. Of course, the bottle of wine was either open that you would have opened it even if he wasn't there. You're not do harming anything, but it's gneivas daas. It's dishonesty. It's dishonest. So, Shmuel says you're not allowed to do this to anybody, not even a Gentile. The Rambam writes in Hilchos De'os, the Kesef Mishneh says I don't know where the Rambam got it, but we could rely ON THE RAMBAM, RAV LEISACH SICHA BETEILAH kol yamav. Usually when you have relationships with people, it's hard. But the Rav was a person that in his whole LIFE LEISACH SICHA BETEILAH, he didn't have a conversation that was idle. That was idle with another person. He always retained a sense of seriousness and holiness. I said before, Shmuel said about Rav Leisach, you only a tzaddik kol oven. Now, let's see a mach- machlokes in Pesachim daf kuf tes zayin amud aleph. Fascinating Mishnah. We all know the Mishnah. The Mishnah is talking about Pesach. Zog the Mishnah, maschil bignus umesayem beshvach. When you tell the story of Pesach you begin with Gnus. Gnus means Gnus. You begin with disgrace, with shame, and you conclude with praise. Rav and Shmuel have an argument. What does this mean? My big nose. My big nose. So Rav says In the beginning our parents, our forefathers were idol worshipers. That's how you begin. We of course do both. Right after the Man Ishtana, we tell our kinderlach let's start telling you the story. So first we follow Shmuel, we say we used to be slaves in Egypt. That's the Gnus. And the Shvach is Hashem took us out. That's going to be the end of the Haggadah. Rav says no, the Gnus is not that. The Gnus is what? In the beginning our forefathers were idol worshipers. Why do they have to argue? It says what's the argument? Comes the Netziv. And the Netziv says the argument is not about the order of the Haggadah. The argument is about what the author meant when he wrote Gnus. Either we were idol worshipers or we were slaves. The Netziv says they're not actually arguing what should be in the Haggadah. And perhaps they both said it in their Haggadah. They're arguing what Gnus means. When the Tanna said Gnus, what did he mean? What's the argument? So the Maharal says in Hashem chapter 2. The Maharal says idol worship is Gnus of the soul. Slavery is Gnus of the body. Somebody can be a slave but spiritually he's free. Somebody could be an idol worshiper. Physically he's a free man but spiritually he's enslaved. Spiritually he's depraved. Morally he's depraved. He's enslaved to a popular culture. He's enslaved to his own addictions. He's enslaved to his own habits. He's enslaved to his own fears. He's enslaved to distorted cultish beliefs. He's a free person physically. He could move. But, internally, he's a slave. We all know it can be a much worse worse kind of slavery. That's what the Maral says. So, in fact, the Maral oop ligi as a gnus nesh of gnus yoister. What's called a greater gnus? Le daas Rav, gnus hanefesh hu iker. V'lachein mashcha b'chilei avodah zarah aviseinu. Le daas Shmuel, gnus haguf hu iker. V'lachein mashcha l'vadei mayeinu. Rav says, gnus hanefesh. Gnus haguf. In many ways, you could say gnus hanefesh, this is man's relationship with Hashem. As a slave, mai bein adam l'chaveiro. It's a horrible situation. I'm being oppressed. I'm being abused by another person. The other person has control over me. Shmuel says this is a far greater gnus. Comes the Gemara in Megillah daf yud gimmel, and they have an argument on the pasuk, Achashveirosh really appreciates Esther, vayishanev es naarei harei selach l'toiv beis hanashim. He does special changes for Esther, positive changes. Sagi d'Gemara, Rav Amar, sheshino is al toiv bazeh she'echilo maachal Yehudi. He gave Esther, he allowed her to eat kosher food. Shmuel says, he'echila What's the toiv? He gave her, as Rashi says, chtichos shuman chazer. Fat pieces of swine. In other words, all the other girls that he had there, he fed them, you know, tuna and sardines. Canned gefilte fish. And Esther Hamalka, she got to order out every night or he ordered for her cutlet of khazir. There's an argument Rashi and Tosfos there. Rashi says, "And it was an issue of life and death, so she ate it." And Tosfos writes, "Chas v'shalom she ate so I ate khazir. Achashverosh served it. It was there on the plate, but Esther didn't eat it." Asks the Manos Halevi. The Manos Halevi is a great commentator on Megillas Esther written by the author of Lech Dodi, Reb Halevi Alkabetz from Tzfas, a brother-in-law of the Ramak, Rabbeinu Moshe Cordovero, 16th century Tzfas. He asks, "What's the difference?" Rav, when it says tov, he right away looks, I would say bein adam l'makom, between you and God, what's good? A kosher stick of assam. Shmuel is looking tov from a more earthly point of view, you would say bein adam l'chaveiro, between man and man, what's pshat? He gave a good meal. When you say I went to his house, I went to the chasunah, oh, he's given a seudah, it means it was a good hechsher. When people say it was a good meal, bein adam l'chaveiro, it's referring to delicious, fatty, or as they would say today, unhealthy. In Sanhedrin daf tzadik daled, Rav and Shmuel argue va'yichad Yisro. Yisro comes to visit the Jewish people. Moshe tells him the whole story, va'yichad Yisro. What's va'yichad Yisro? Rav Amar shehevir cherev chad al tzaro. He took a sharp, va'yichad is from the word chad, cherev chad, sharp sword, and he circumcised himself, he converted. Shmuel Amar she'nasa chidudin chidudin k'tzaro. His whole flesh began trembling, he got the chills, chidudin chidudin. He got butterflies, so to speak, all over his body. AMAR RAV, RAV SAYS EXPLAINING SHMUEL, hainu d'amrei in she. This is what people say do you order the sort of those dollar a lot of Shivaji are my Bobby. A convert till 10 generations don't embarrass somebody of his ancestry just because he became Jewish doesn't mean you have a right to start speaking about his nation in a disgraceful way because ultimately these are his biological parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so forth. Mistake sometimes people marry a spouse and the spouse gets upset at their parents and the son-in-law wants to add a little kerosene. So he starts explaining to her even better the nature of her mother or her father and doesn't realize what a terrible mistake it is because for you you're an in-law and tomorrow you'll be an outlaw but but but for her it's her parents. Even if she's upset it's her parents. You have to be very careful with these things and not just careful because the consequences careful because it's it's not right. It's insensitive. Even if you have even if you have a struggle in issue but that's a separate subject. But the point IS WHAT'S THE ARGUMENT? ROUGH SAYS BEEN OUT OF MY MIND. By you HE HAD HE HAD A BREEZE. SMALL SAYS NO BY YOU HE HAD IT he felt bad. You know why? He came from there and when he heard what happened to the Egyptians, when he heard what happened to pirate, when he heard about the plagues, when he heard about them all drowning, he was talking a Jew and he loved Judaism and he loved God and he loved my sure about him and he loved to pirate. But they know the camera he was sensitive these are his people and rough even explains it to small. So here again we see a similar argument. It's interesting. It's interesting in him there's another argument between them. There's a famous argument in him that I involve. We won't spoke about it at length. If something non kosher falls into something kosher or something kosher falls into something that non kosher part, so there's an argument between rough and small. Rough Omar he law govern. Shmuel Amar, ta ta gavar. What prevails? If the higher piece of meat, the top piece of meat is hot and the lower one is cold or conversely. Rav says it's determined by the il la, by the one on the top. And since heat causes flavor to travel, we know that heat expands the molecules and therefore the the flavor travels. So, if the higher piece is hot, the whole pot becomes treif. Shmuel says ta ta gavar, the lower one prevails and therefore you follow the lower one. If the lower one is hot, then the pot is treif because we assume that the whole thing became hot and therefore the taste traveled. But if not, if the higher one is hot according to Shmuel, you have to peel off the place that's touching, but you don't make the whole pot treif if the one on the bottom was cold and therefore he assumes that case rather the halacha here is like whom? The halacha here is here you have an example with halacha in issurei is like Shmuel. The halacha in Yoreh De'ah in Hilchos Ta'arovos is ta ta gavar. If you remember before Shavuos, we once explained the whole mahalacha of the Baal HaTanya in the machlokes il la gavar and ta ta gavar, it's not just an argument about meat. It's an argument about two hashkafos. Bein adam la makom is il la, bein adam la chaveiro is ta ta. Bein adam la makom is you focus on the above higher. Bein adam la chaveiro is not vertical but horizontal. Shmuel says ta ta gavar. You have in the same maseches Pesachim daf kuf dalet an interesting argument about Havdalah. How do you finish the bracha of Havdalah? Rav Amar, mekadesh Yisrael. Shmuel Amar, ha'mavdil bein kodesh l'chol. Why is there an argument? Rav says we finish Havdalah Baruch Ata Hashem mekadesh Yisrael. What's the connection to Havdalah? We're not talking about making the Jews holy. We're talking about saying goodbye to Shabbos. Ha'mavdil bein kodesh l'chol, that's what Havdalah is. Havdalah is part of the mitzvah of honoring Shabbos, remembering Shabbos. Zochreihu biknisosai uv'itzi'osai. So, Rebbe Yosef Engel has a safer called Beisa Otzar and he quotes from the one of the great Kabbalists of Italy, Rebbe Menachem He quotes Rebbe Menachem Azariah of Fano in Shaalos U'Tshuvos HaRame. Siman Yud Ches, and this is what he says, "B'perek Erev Pesach im sover Rav she choiseimin hahavdala kol motzei Shabbos mikadesh Yisrael. The ta'amei the reason is the keivan d'nafka l'kedushas Shabbos." It's a beautiful interpretation. Because the kedusha of Shabbos left, lo tisak da'atan d'poka l'kedushasaihu d'Yisrael. Don't think that the kedusha of the Jewish people also left. So, right now when you're saying goodbye to Shabbos, the kedusha of Shabbos ceased till next week. We say "Baruch Atah Hashem mikadesh Yisrael." The kedusha of the Jew remains. What's the idea? Rabbi Yosef Engel explains, because the kedusha of the Jew is so intimately connected to Shabbos, so you would THINK THAT IT'S SHABBOS that makes the Jew holy. Shabbos is the gift that Hashem gave the Jew to make him holy. So, we say "Shabbos is over." Al ba'd'vusta chaltzei'id. Motzei Shabbos is here, doesn't mean you have to be a ben Adam. Shabbos is over. Saturday night live. Mit hagbalos. Mit Shabbos is over, but you still a Jew. Mikadesh Yisrael. The Jew is still holy. Next effort in a Gemara, and nothing will kill you if you open a Gemara motzei Shabbos. So, this is Rav's view. Again, Rav believes that the kedusha of the Jew is deeply connected with Shabbos, which is Hashem's day, and therefore you have to say "Mikadesh Yisrael." Shmuel says, "I'm focusing on the havdalah bein kodesh l'chol." These are perhaps There's more, but I just chose a few possible examples. This is not what the Rebbe said, but these are a few possible examples to see Rav and Shmuel's view expressing itself this way. In other words, when you have a Musak and Yiddishkeit and you could focus primarily been Adam LaMakom, Rav might go more that way and Shmuel might gravitate more that way. There's a very good shmacha maisa that brings out the two sides. They say the story, it's a very it's it's it's a rich and it's a beautiful story. The Rav of Vilna was the legendary Reb Chaim Ozer Grodzinski zechor tzaddik livracha who was considered Rabbi was a one of the greatest leaders of Lithuanian Jewry. He was a great askan, a great leader, a great activist, a great gaon. He wrote Chalas Achuvas Achiezer. He passed away in Vilna in 1940. Tav Shin. He didn't leave any descendants. He had a daughter but she passed away during his lifetime. So he passed away without children. Reb Chaim Ozer Grodzinski once met another great luminary of Polish Jewry. This was the Ostrovtzer Rebbe. Reb Yechiel Meir. He was the Rebbe of the city of Ostrovtse in Poland at a yeshiva. He was considered one of the goanei hador and he was also a kodesh. He was a a holy a tzaddik. He wouldn't speak a lot. He is Meir Einayim Chachamim from the Ostrovtzer. I think the last name was Holstock, right? Yechiel Meir Holstock. He passed away 12 years before Reb Chaim Ozer. Tav Resh Peh Ches, 1928. The story is that the the the the Ostrovtzer fasted for 40 years. 40 years. He ate at night a little millet kasha, a little millet with milk. And some say that he had a a instinct of a tremendous churban coming and like the Gemara says about Reb Tzaddik in Gittin that he fasted 40 years before churban bayis sheini, they say the Ostrovtzer fasted 40 years. I once read, I don't know how reliable it is, that he used to do it even on Shabbos. And there was once a guy who had a store open on Shabbos in Ostrovtse and the the Ostrovtzer Rebbe came to him and said, you know, it's it's chillul Shabbos. You're not allowed to do this. So he was a chutzpanik. He says, "Rebbe, it's a toichen achallel Shabbos. Shabbos you have to eat. I hear that you fast. So he says, "No, no, there's a big difference." Nobody's going to copy my desecration of Shabbos. So I guess even according to our law here, the mitzvah is one Shabbos if if for somebody fasting is an one okay. But the stuff said just said for me nobody's going to learn. So he would not speak a lot. He would not speak a lot. They once asked him and they say that he he his father was a baker. His father was a baker and he grew up his father was a baker. And he said he would sit as a child in the room and he would watch his father turn over the bagels. And his father once turned to him and said, "You kill man, I want you to remember." As he closed the oven he says, "When the oven is closed and closed tight, the heat gets retained. When the oven is opened, you lose the heat." So he took that for a lesson in life. Perhaps I should also. So the stuff said once met him once. They met. So once he said to him asked the stuff said to say to her. It wasn't his day it wasn't his nature as I told you he wouldn't speak a lot so he was uh he was uh he was hesitant to do that. So the man was just saying to him I guess I got to go over there but they say about you that you're a great man so why don't you share to her? So the stuff said says, "Why do you say that I'm a great man? I'm a great man." They say they say you're a great you're a great scholar. So he says to him this is not a great man. He says that's not a great man. He says, "What do you mean?" He says I'll tell you. There's a message to Marcus I brought here the so you could see it inside Marcus base in the middle of the page. The passage says in when you give lashes, you give 40 lashes. But that's not the law. The law is we give 39. You're not allowed to give 40. It's an issue you get Marcus for that. So the explains if it would have said that the judge gives him 40 in number have a minute would mean 40 in number hashtag but since it says minion shows but minion means in the number that leads up to 40. In other words 39. How foolish are the people? They stand up on a safe comes in but they don't stand up in front of a great man. Who is even greater because the safe says give him 40 lashes and the rabbis say give him 39 and we accept that as a law. So how could you not STAND UP ON A GOVERNOR COMES IN? Turns turns I don't understand. Rather found one example from key with the sages give explanation to the title. You have it throughout the whole title. TAKE AWAY THE SAYS IT SHOULD BE BETWEEN YOUR EYES. BUT WE KNOW orally it means top OF THE HEAD MEANS not on your hand so over there you could say it's a law of Cena. So but we have an example that's identical to this. Where Emma? It says how many of them? You should count 50 days between how many days do we count? 49. THE RABBIS TOOK OFF ONE DAY AND THERE'S A WHOLE DISCUSSION IN THE about it and the law is. K'ASAV ACHAS DAY M'SHAVUA SHABBASOS, K'ASAV ACHAS day m'chamishim yom. Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, it's it WAS A WHOLE A WHOLE DEBATE, AND they proved that it means 49 days. And this is where in Parshas Emor. So, why does Rava have to wait to Parshas Ki Seitzei? And prove the greatness of the Talmud Chacham, the greatness of the Chachmei HaMasorah, the greatness of Chazal, AND HOW FOOLISH people are not standing up and respecting them. You have it already in Parshas Emor. No, he waits to Parshas Ki Seitzei, where from 40 lashes they made 39. So, the Shulchan Aruch says, "Rebbe, tells the Chaim Volozhin, "I'll explain to you." Rava is using the word gaver rabba, great man. He says, "You know what a great man is? A great man, a gaver rabba, is not somebody who can say p'shat, that even though the pasuk says 50, really it means 49. A gaver rabba is emes er vos nemt a up ein klap fun a Yid. Somebody who sees that a Jew might be lashed 40 times, and he proves and he demonstrates and removes one lash from a Jew, thus is a gaver rabba. That's a great person. Thus is a gaver rabba, that's a great person. Chaim Volozhin, he loved the vort. He says, "Ah, das is chassidus." Chaim Volozhin was a big Litvak. He said, "Ah, das is chassidus." He appreciated the vort. So, we have We have bein adam l'makom, bein adam l'chaveiro. You have the gaver rabba, the gaver rabba in bein adam l'makom, you have the gaver rabba in bein adam l'chaveiro. Now, let's come back to Melech Chadash. Melech Chadash. Rashi, in three places brings Rava and Shmuel. Not in any other places. Why? Because he actually feels that to understand the nature of the argument between them, why would they argue? You have to know the names of Rav and Shmuel. By Melech Chadash, by Yosef, and by Avraham Avinu, by the nation. There's an advantage in each interpretation. That's why he has to bring both. He wouldn't bring both if he felt one was pshat and the other one is not pshat. This is pshat and this is pshat. He brings one first, but he also brings the second one because the first one has problems. And yet, in order to explain to you, in order to explain to you the meaning of the argument, the nature of the argument, the reason for the argument, he brings the names cuz without the names there would be no way of understanding it. What are the names? Rav and Shmuel, Vayakam Melech Chadash. Let's understand. Why does the pasuk even say all of this? The pasuk is trying to tell a story. The Jews settled in Mitzrayim, Yosef passed away. A new king arose. He didn't know Yosef. However, we explain the new king. And he tells his nation, "Let's be clever." Why let us be clever? Because they made the clear war against us. They will become our enemies. Vanilcham banu va'alom men ha'aretz. And as a result of that, vayashimu alav sarei misim, they begin to oppress the Jewish people. Now, let's understand this for a moment. Was this serious? Or was this pure vicious? Logically, was there a real concern for this? I don't understand. Pharaoh, you turn to your people and you tell them, "We have a new threat in our country, the Jews." Why? They have been killing people? No. They have been stabbing people in the streets? No. They have been doing suicide bombs? No. They have been blowing themselves up? No. What's the reason? The reason is pen yirbeh, they may grow and there may be a war and they may join our enemies and they WILL HELP THEM DRIVE US OUT OF THE LAND. OH, one second. You have been with them for many years. You have been with them for many years. You saw what their leader Yosef did for your country. You saw that they were loyal citizens. And not only that, they're grateful to you because Egypt ultimately became a safe haven for them. It fed them. It nurtured them. It gave them a place to settle in Goshen. And the nature of a functional normal person is you don't pay back a toivah with a rah. Somebody who saves my life, I don't go and when there's a war I fight you. We see already clearly in p'shat Avraham and Avimelech. Avimelech asks Avraham and it's obvious you have to swear to me that for generations none of your descendants will ever harm because I did with you a toivah. Already in the times of Avraham it's an obvious idea even by the gentile. Comes Paro and says no no no no no. They're going to declare war and destroy us. Why? What? So you have to assume this is what's called rishus. It's called rishus. It's not a fear that's really justified because the Jews have proven to be disobedient, disloyal, criminals, rebels trying to make a mutiny. Bolsheviks who are trying to revolt and overthrow the empire. It's pure rishus. It's pure rishus. Now the question is, okay, rishus. But what type of rishus? Is it a rishus, is it a wickedness bein adam lamakom? Or is it a wickedness bein adam lachaveiro? What type of rishus? Is it a wickedness between man and God? My moral responsibilities to the creator of the world to moral justice? Or is it primarily a wickedness between man and man? So Rav and Shmuel see the pasuk. Rav naturally gravitates. When you want to bring out rishus, what's the worst rishus? Bein adam lamakom. Shmuel says you want to bring out wickedness, what's the worst wickedness? Bein adam lachaveiro, between man and man. THIS IS WHERE HE GRAVITATES NATURALLY. THEREFORE THIS IS WHAT RAV sees in the possuk, Melech Chadash. Shmuel sees something else in the possuk. Each one has a problem. True, but the other one also has a problem. So, why am I choosing this, you're choosing this? This is his soul, and this is a reflection of his soul. So, now let's ask a question. IF YOU SAY THAT HIS MAIN RISHUS was bein adam l'chaveiro, the main rishus is between man and man, where would that be stronger? If he was a new king, a new kid on the block, or he was the old king? Where would the rishus bein adam l'chaveiro obviously the old king, because the old king was saved by Yosef, literally. His whole empire was rescued by Yosef. He he saved the situation from doomsday. There would have been a hunger that devast- that devastated the world and would have devastated Egypt completely. Even that which they stored away rotted, as Rashi says. And here is the man who single-handedly saved the superpower of the time. And these are his children and his grandchildren. How could you be such a kafri toyva? How could you be so ungrateful? Unless you're a rosha marusha, unless you're cruel, your bein adam l'chaveiro is so damaged that's on that level. If you say he was a new king, this doesn't mean he was a tzaddik bein adam l'chaveiro. You have to respect Egyptian history. But the rishus is not the same. I never knew Yosef. I never got anything from Yosef. I never had a relationship with Yosef. He never saved my country. That's bein adam l'chaveiro. If you look at the bein adam l'makom, it's the other way around. Why is it the other way around? Because let's think about it. If he was an old king, then he has an excuse to God. He says, "You know, one second. I'm the one who made Yosef prime minister. I told them you're under my jurisdiction. Raka kisa edomi meka, the throne remains greater than you. His family decided to move to Egypt and that means they accepted to be under my rulership my yoke. Perhaps they were forced, they needed food, but they came, they moved to Egypt. You move to my country, you accept on yourself to become my subject. Yaakov Avinu, their patriarch, came into me. He gave me kavod hamalchus as Rashi says, glory of a king. He blessed me when he came in, he blessed me when he went out. He gave me honor as a king. Therefore, according to his mindset, he has an amsala, he has an excuse that mishamayim, from heaven. Ben adam lamakom, I HAVE A RIGHT. NOW I'M CHANGING my policy, mishach zeirotav, I'm changing my policy. On the other hand, if you say he was a new king, completely a new king, the Jewish people never came into Egypt to accept his rulership, to accept him as a monarch. He never made a deal with Yosef. Yaakov never accepted him as a king. They were living there already when he became a new king. Who gave you a right to change the policy and suddenly turn free people into slaves? Why are you suddenly making new decrees against them? WHY? BEN ADAM LACHAVEIRO, MAYBE IT'S NOT SO BAD, YOU NEVER KNEW YOSEF, YOU NEVER HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM. But ben adam lamakom, morally speaking, what's your excuse? Who gave you a right to you say I'm taking over the previous KING AND HE HAD A RIGHT to control the Jews cuz they accepted his leadership. But one second, he never did this. Why are you doing this? Hence, Rav says what's melech? Melech is melech hadash. Shmuel says what's melech hadash? She nischatzeir Yosef. Shmuel looks at rishus ben adam lachaveiro is much worse. So therefore, if it's mamash a new king, ben adam lachaveiro, he wasn't so bad I mean he was pretty bad but not the worst he never knew Joseph. So what does Shmuel say? He knew Joseph. He made himself like he didn't know Joseph. Been Adam it's a crime. Rav says a deeper wickedness is Adam so Rav says it says Khadash means new and it works for me new. You know why? Because if it's new been Adam he's a great criminal been Adam his criminal his criminal record is a little less than by Shmuel. So Rashi brings the name Rav and Shmuel here because this follows their shita. Now come to the next Rashi. The next Rashi is Joseph Hadad. Joseph comes home to do his work. The the possuk obviously is telling us about the righteousness of Joseph Hadad. That's the story here. He came home. He runs away from her. He's accused of doing a horrible thing and he gets thrown into prison. Rav and Shmuel argue. Rav says what's the greatest who's the greatest been Adam so what does it mean? He came home to do his work. Say that he came home to do what the wife of Potiphar wanted. This would be as Joseph himself said it would be a terrible crime against God. Besides against Potiphar because she was a married woman. So Rav who sees the great as being been Adam he says what does it mean? What does it mean? What does it mean? Literally came home to do his work. Never would I think that he came home to surrender to the wish of the wife of Potiphar. Rav demonstrates the righteousness of Joseph in terms of the relation between man and God. Shmuel comes along and says one second. Take a look at the possuk. Whenever Shmuel has a chance to accentuate, to bring out that tzedek bein adam l'chaveiro, that's what he's going to bring out. So, that's what he does here. Vayavo habayis la'asos malachto v'ein ish me'anshei habayis. Nobody is in the house. Why is the possuk mentioning that? V'ein ish me'anshei habayis sham babayis. So, if you say Rav and Shmuel follow the above this difference I said, Rav follows always the literal wording. And Shmuel follows context, we can understand it on one level. Rav says, "Malachto means work. Malachto doesn't mean relationship." Shmuel says, "You're right. Malachto means work, but put it in the context of the story. Why would Yosef go into the house when nobody was there when he knew what the wife of Potiphar wanted? Why? The words, you're right, BUT GIVE ME THE CONTEXT. THE CONTEXT, why would he do that?" So, Shmuel says I have to say la'asos tzorcho. Or Shmuel will put it Let's put it in a different way. Says, "Vayavo habayis la'asos malachto v'ein ish me'anshei habayis sham babayis." What's the connection? He came home to do his work and nobody is home. How do you understand the context of the possuk? So, Shmuel says it had to be a type of malacha that if somebody is home, he can't do it. So, Shmuel says la'asos tzorcho. THAT'S IF WE EXPLAIN THAT with shitutzim, but now LET'S GO BEIN ADAM L'MAKOM BEIN ADAM L'CHAVEIRO. RAV SAYS TZEDEK BEIN ADAM L'MAKOM. SO, what does malachto mean? He would never engage in such a thing. Shmuel says the Torah is bringing out the tzedek bein adam l'chaveiro, not bein adam l'makom. And therefore, the Torah says Vayavo habayis la'asos malachto when v'ein ish me'anshei habayis. He was a servant of Potiphar. In that sense, he had an obligation bein adam l'chaveiro to his master, and he was loyal. He was very loyal. Vayifkidehu al beiso. He was in charge on the house. How can he engage in something else? V'ein ish me'anshei habayis. There was nobody home then. So therefore his job as a servant of Potiphar at that moment was suspended. There's nobody home. SO IN TERMS OF IT BRINGS OUT HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS, his loyalty to Potiphar in the sense that he would not violate his duty as a servant because right now he's not subject he's not COMMITTED TO POTIPHAR HE HAS NOTHING WHAT TO DO WITH POTIPHAR FOR POTIPHAR BECAUSE THERE'S NOBODY HOME. WHAT DOES IT BRING OUT? IT brings out the sensitivity that of so small says last THIS IS THE ONLY TIME he would do and yet of course he abstained when he saw the image of father obviously that the success they both agree on. Come now to he plants an Rav says he plants a garden. Shmuel says he builds a hotel. Why would they argue? Again, why would they argue? So you could look at it again in terms of word and context. The word means he planted. What do you plant? You plant a garden. But Shmuel says look in context. Context what are you trying to do? You want to publicize God. How will you publicize God more? Through a garden or through a hotel? Obviously through a hotel. You have rooms, you have programs, you have you do seminars. You give and you bring fruits, you bring food. It's a whole lot of So I understand Shmuel follows context Rav follows words. We're not getting into it today but there's a whole issue of Rav and Shmuel on this level throughout words versus context. But now let's talk about and Rav says In terms of where are you doing a greater favor service for people? Planting a garden or building a hotel? Planting a garden is a wonderful thing but building a community center is a far greater service Rav says You'll bring them fruits, you'll bring them other foods, you'll service them in many other ways. So, Shmuel says, "What's he show? He planted a hotel." But, the Rav says, "One second. I'm always searching for the La Makan." And here's the question. When I plant when I build the hotel, I build the hotel when I plant a garden, what happens? What do I have now? When I plant a garden, I have my sir. To whom? My sir to Hashem. To the coin, to those who serve Hashem. When I get when I make a garden, what does it say by even by Cain? By Yove? Right? By Yove Cain? Huh? Men Hashem from what? From his new fruits. Even Cain understood that. A hotel you can't do that. You built a hotel, beautiful, YOU'RE SERVING PEOPLE. SO, RAV ALWAYS looks to see there's a special special emphasis also on Adam and Hava. So, Rashi here also quotes Rav and Shmuel because Rav and Shmuel give explanation and insight to the reason they would argue. Yes, there's an advantage in this in this perspective there's an advantage in this one, but why would they argue in these three cases? Rashi feels you can understand the nature of the argument and what would cause you to go here, what would cause you to go here, and the advantage in each. And that's why in these three places he quotes the name. In conclusion, what we also learn from here is on a more general historic from a more general and historical point of view is that very often in the world of politics and in the world a new leader arises. Now is a very hot uh hot season of deciding who is going to be the new leader? Who should be the new leader? A new leader this arises. So that she's telling us here, of course, based on the Gamara in Maseches Sotah. He said, "No difference if it's a Melech Chadash or no difference if it's a Melech She'eino Chadash and it's not a Melech Chadash." Sometimes people think a new leader means everything of the past is erased and a whole new beginning emerges. And sometimes people think a new leader could be very, very dangerous. An old leader, if you get him to change the attitude, it's much better. So that she tells us here, as long as he's a Melech Mitzrayim, Mitzrayim means Lashon Meitzar, somebody who oppresses, who oppresses truth, who oppresses godliness, who oppresses Yiddishkeit, who oppresses or oppresses the Holy Land. So no difference if it's a Melech Chadash, if it's a new new king, or it's an old king She'eino Chadash, or so. If it's a Melech Mitzrayim, then don't be deluded and don't be deceived that you don't have to stand guard and you don't have to be careful, because Melech Mitzrayim could come in many different types of guises. Could be a new person with a new promise, with a new message, with a new perspective, but yet ultimately it's Havanas Ha'adam Eloi. Or it could be an old person who says in this Hadash Ze Oisev new things will happen, but it could be the same Melech Mitzrayim. What you do need is you need Be'al Deisa Ivri'us. You need Yiddishe Mamos. You need Yiddishe Tatus. That when the Melech Mitzrayim says, "Take your children and throw them in Ha'yor'a, throw them in what's your Oira, throw them into the Avodas Zarah of Mitzrayim." The Nile was the idolatry of Mitzrayim. That's what they worshipped cuz it was the source of their livelihood. When the king of Mitsrayim says, "Take your children and throw them into the god of Mitsrayim. Throw them into the deities of Mitsrayim. And even the daughters, make sure you give them life according to the what Egypt calls life." You have Jewish mothers who don't listen to Paro Melech Mitsrayim and raise a generation that's not entrenched in the Nile and the idolatry of Egypt. And then you have a Moshe Rabbeinu who comes to the king with a matteh Elokim. He respects a king. A king you respect, but he comes with a stick. And with a stick of God. Meaning he comes with confidence. He comes with Jewish pride. He comes with a sense of dignity that comes from Hashem. Matteh Elokim beyado. Rashi says he respects Paro, but he comes to Paro with a matteh Elokim. He comes as a servant, as a citizen of Egypt to the king. But how does he come? He comes with a stick of God, matteh Elokim. Not apologetic, not embarrassed, not ashamed, not lame, not meek. He has a divine stick in his hand, so he's respectful. He follows the laws of nature when you have to follow the laws of nature. He knows how to be diplomatic when you have to be diplomatic. But matteh Elokim beyado. He's not ashamed, he's not embarrassed to speak the truth. He's not embarrassed to say who he is and what his land is and what God is. And he could say shalach es ami veyavduni. That's the ultimate eitzah against all the types of Paros Melech Mitsrayim, whether it's a new kid on the block, whether it's an old kid on the block who changes his colors, but that's the ultimate solution of the Jewish people against Paro and all of his guises. Have a wonderful week. Woo.