פרשת נח

According to all minhagim, after we complete the recitation of the Amida, be it weekday or special day, we add a paragraph of tachanunim-supplications1. These supplications are so ingrained in our prayer that we sometimes forget that they are not a part of the formal Amida which concludes with the Brachah of .המברך את עמו ישראל בשלום

In fact, there is a clear Halachic status to the standard tachanunim that one says always. There are some errors in the recitation of the Amida which render its recitation invalid.

Sometimes, errors can be corrected while the Amidah is still being recited. For example, the recital of on Rosh Chodesh at יעלה ויבוא Shacharis or Mincha is indispensable. If-מעכב it is omitted, the entire Amida must be repeated. If, however, one has not completed the Amida, it is sufficient to return to the Brachah of יעלה ויבוא which begins with רצה and then recite from there until the end. This way, instead of repeating all nineteen Brachos of the weekday Amida, three are recited.

The Halachah teaches that even if the formal Amida has been concluded, if one is accustomed to recite Tachanunim it is as if he is still within the Amida and can return to רצה rather than repeat the entire Amida.

We thus read in Shulchan Aruch Siman 422 (s’if 1):

ערבית, שחרית ומנחה מתפלל י"ח ברכות ואומר יעלה ויבא ברצה. ואם לא אמרו בערבית, אין מחזירין אותו...אבל אם לא אמרו שחרית ומנחה מחזירין אותו...אם נזכר קודם שהשלים תפלתו חוזר לרצה. ואם לא נזכר עד שהשלים תפלתו, חוזר לראש. ואם הוא רגיל לומר תחנונים אחר תפלתו ונזכר אחר שהשלים תפלתו קודם

. שיעקור רגליו, חוזר לרצה

[On Rosh Chodesh] in the evening, in the morning and in the afternoon a person recites the Amida and says יעלה ויבוא in רצה. If he did not say it in the evening, we do not require him to repeat it [the entire Amida]. But if he did not say it in

1 Their source in Chazal will be note later.

the morning or afternoon2, we require him to recite it [the entire Amida again]. If he remembered prior to finishing the Amida he returns to and רצה if he completed the entire Amida he starts it from the beginning. Ifhe usually recites Tachnunim after his Amida and remembered after completing the Amida, but before moving his feet, he can return to רצה.

Universally, the Tachanunim that is recited begins and א...לקי נצור לשוני מרע concludes with עושה שלום... when we take three steps backwards.

However, there are additional Tachanunim, some of which are found in the Siddur and thus more likely to be recited and some not found in the Siddur.

One example of the above is a Tachanumim that is written in the Siddur but is found at the beginning of davening. It is placed immediately after ברכות השחר. Evidently, it was viewed as significant, worthy to be said regularly but not to be a conclusion to the Amida.

This supplication reads as follows:

יהי רצון מלפניך ה' א...לוקינו וא..ל'קי אבותינו שתצילנו מעזי פנים ומעזות פנים, מאדם רע ומפגע רע, מיצר רע, מחבר רע, משכן רע, ומשטן המשחית, ומדין קשה

.ומבעל דין קשה, בין שהוא בן ברית בין שאינו בן ברית

May it be Your Will Hashem, our3 G-d and G-d of our Fathers that you should save us from brazen people and brazenness, from an evil person and from an evil calamity, from Yetzer Ha’ra’ from evil companions, from evil neighbors, from the

2 The Shulchan Aruch explains here that since Beis Din did not sanctify the new moon at night, the omission of יעלה ויבוא at night on Rosh Chodesh does not invalidate the Amida. This Halachah regarding the lesser importance of the recitation of יעלה ויבוא on Rosh Chodesh is not relevant on Chol HaMoed. There, the omission of .renders the Amida invalid יעלה ויבוא3 The text in the Gemara is in the plural, including all of Israel and not just for the person who is offering the prayer. In all of the Siddurim I have seen it is recited in the singular. I found that the Siddur of Rav Amram Gaon has this prayer and it is in the singular there.

destructive Soton from a harsh judgment and from a harsh opposing litigant in court whether he be Jewish or not Jewish4.

When attending to this prayer, I found one of its phrases to be very difficult to comprehend. One asks for G-d’s salvation from עזי פנים-brazen people and from brazenness. It would seem that the former phrase requests protection-עזות פניםagainst those who would act brazenly against us and the latter phrase beseeches G-d that we should not be brazen in our attitude and actions5.

The difficulty is that this format is in contradiction to Chazal.

In Masseches Sanhedrin (18 a) there is a discussion regarding those who are eligible to serve as judges and who, in certain cases, are not put on trial.

The Gemara writes:

( התקוששו וקושו, ואמר ריש6אי לא דיינינן ליה - איהו היכי דיין? והכתיב )צפניה ב/א. לקיש: קשט עצמך, ואחר כך קשט אחרים

If he cannot be judged, how can he serve as a judge? Is it not written, “Gather yourself together and then gather others”? Reish Lokish said [that this means] “validate7 yourself and then validate others”.

4 This is the text as it appears in the Gemara and in Ashkenaz Siddurim. In Nusach Sefard Siddurim there are a number of additions. I do not know their source.5 This is what Rabi Yaakov Emden writes on this phrase in this commentary in his Siddur Beis Yaakov: שלא אעיז פני נגד אחרים. May it be Your Will that I should not be brazen towards others.Rabi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenberg writes the same in his So, is the .עיון תפילה translation in the Siddur of Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch and Artscroll follows their lead.6 The entire verse reads: התקוששו וקושו הגוי לא נכסף. Gather yourself together and then gather [others], nation that does not desire Torah (Rashi).

As Radak writes: Search .התחפשו מומיכם וחפשו מומים אחרים אחר כך ובערו אותם your own defects and then search the defects of others and then rid them.

That is, a person should first improve himself and then improve others.

How could this prayer address the request of salvation from those who are brazen towards us before requesting that we should not be brazen in our attitude and actions?

In fact, while I checked what the commentaries in the Siddurim that I have, I neglected to go to the source of the Tachanunim with which we are familiar (and others with which we are not necessarily familiar).

In Masseches B’rachos (16 b) we have a series of prayers that are introduced with the following preface: הכי אמר צלותיה דמסיים בתר . When this sage finished8 his prayer9, he said the following10.7 The word קשוט has two possible translations. The first, as rendered here, means ‘be truthful” because that is the Aramaic word for אמת. Since it is in ‘command verbal form’, ‘validate’ is a proper translation. also means jewelry or ornamentation. Thus, this phrase could also be קשוטtranslated as ‘adorn yourself first and then adorn others.’8 These prayers are appropriate to add following the formal conclusion of the Amida. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim Siman 122 (s’ifim 1-2) discusses the laws regarding these additions and their precise status.9 That is, this is what he said following המברך את עמו ישראל בשלום.10 I was shown a very interesting explanation as to why these Tannaim and Amoraim found it necessary to author their own prayers.

The authors of the Artscroll edition on this page point out that later on in Masseches B’rachos (29 b) we read an idea that is very relevant here.The Mishnah (28 b) brings a statement from Rabi Eliezer:

רבי אליעזר אומר: העושה תפלתו קבע אין תפלתו תחנונים:Rabi Eliezer says, One who makes his prayer fixed, that prayer is not supplication.Since the statement is not understood on its own, the Gemara investigates its meaning. One explanation is:

:ורבנן אמרי: כל מי שאינו אומרה בלשון תחנוניםRabbanan said, this means one who does not say his prayers in a supplicatory manner.

The Artscroll commentary points out that since prayer was established by Anshei Knesses HaG’doloh, there is a ‘fixed’ form to it. In order to provide it with a supplicatory manner, these Tannaim and Amoraim, penned their own supplicatory prayers to insure that their Tefila would not violate the dictum of Rabi Eliezer.

The prayer upon which we are focusing was authored by Rabi Yehuda HaNosi and Rashi comments on the phrase that interests us:

מעזי פנים - שלא יתגרו בי

From brazen people-so that they should not goad me.

.ומעזות פנים - שלא יוציאו עלי לעז ממזרות

From brazenness-They should not spread rumors about me that I am a mamzer11.

It is not clear why the commentators on the Siddur did not adopt these explanations that eliminate the seeming contradiction to as קשוט עצמך תחילה well as being more in consonance with the theme of this prayer.

The theme of this prayer is protection from outside harm that could come from many sources. It is not a prayer for personal wholesomeness. Thus, if the meaning of the request of avoiding עזות פנים referred to personal brazenness, that would be out of line with the theme of the prayer.

However, it behooves us to understand the meaning of brazenness. What-עזות exactly is its meaning, how does it express itself and from where do we learn that it is so offensive that Rabi Yehuda HaNosi added it to his short list of hostile actions that one must in particular pray from which to be saved.

In Hilchos Teshuva (Perek 2 Halachah 5), Rambam writes:

ושבח גדול לשב שיתודה ברבים ויודיע פשעיו להם ומגלה עבירות שבינו לבין חבירושב היום והריני וכך כך לו ועשיתי לפלוני חטאתי אמנם להם ואומר לאחרים ומתנחם, וכל המתגאה ואינו מודיע אלא מכסה פשעיו אין תשובתו גמורה שנאמר

It should be pointed out that the above discussion is brought in the Gemara immediately after the various Tachanunim prayers are noted and thus this explanation seems convincing.11 A child born of an incestuous or adulterous union is a and cannot ממזר marry a Jew of pedigree. Such slander affects the individual and his entire family.

( מכסה פשעיו לא יצליח, במה דברים אמורים בעבירות שבין אדם12)משלי כח/יג לחבירו אבל בעבירות שבין אדם למקום אינו צריך לפרסם עצמו ועזות פנים היא לו אם גילם, אלא שב לפני הקל ברוך הוא ופורט חטאיו לפניו ומתודה עליהם לפני

( אשרי נשוי13רבים סתם וטובה היא לו שלא נתגלה עונו שנאמר )תהילים לב/אפשע כסוי חטאה:

Great praise is due to the penitent who publicly confesses and makes known his sins against them and reveals his interpersonal transgressions and says, ‘In truth, I sinned against this person and I did such a wrong and I repent and regret. One who is conceited and does not inform others about his sins cannot reach full repentance as the verse says, ‘one who covers up his sins will not be successful. However, this is only in regard to interpersonal sins. But in regard to sins against G-d, one should not publicize himself and it is brazenness to do so if he reveals them. Rather, one should repent before G-d and mention each sin separately and confess about them in public in a general manner. It is to the penitents best interest not to reveal them as the verse says, ‘Happy is the one whose iniquity is lifted, sin covered.”

What is the brazenness involved in publicly specifying a sin that was ?בין אדם למקום

After completing the episode of the Flood and the most unpleasant aftermath with Noach and his sons, the Torah provides us with a genealogy of the developing nations of the world.

When we read about Noach’s descendants through his son Chom, the Torah writes (B’reishis Perek 10/ P’sukim 6-10):

ובני חם כוש ומצרים ופוט וכנען: ובני כוש סבא וחוילה וסבתה ורעמה וסבתכא ובני רעמה שבא ודדן: וכוש ילד את נמרד הוא החל להיות גבר בארץ: הוא היה גבר ציד

12 The entire verse reads: מכסה פשעיו לא יצליח ומודה ועזב ירחם. One who covers-up his sins will not be successful; one who confesses and abandons [his sins] will be dealt with mercifully.13 The entire verse reads: לדוד משכיל אשרי נשוי פשע כסוי חטאה. A psalm of Dovid said through an interpreter (Rashi)-Happy is the one whose iniquity is raised, whose sin is covered.

לפני ה' על כן יאמר כנמרד גבור ציד לפני ה': ותהי ראשית ממלכתו בבל וארך ואכדוכלנה בארץ שנער:

The sons of Chom were Kush14, Mitzrayim, Poot and K’naan. The sons of Kush were S’vo and Chavila, Savta and Ra’amah and Sav’t’cho; the sons of Ra’amah were Sh’vo and D’don. Kush gave birth to Nimrod; he began to be a warrior on the land. He was a hunting warrior before G-d; thus it would be said, ‘like Nimrod, a hunting warrior before G-d’. The beginning of his kingdom was Bovel, E’rech and A’kad and Kolneh in the Land of Shin’ar.

Now, the necessity for this genealogy is questionable. It is true that the Torah wishes to teach us regarding the development of the world and then the development of the Israel.

For that purpose, we read of the descendants of Sheis, the son of Odom HoRishon because it was only his offspring that survived following the Flood. When the Mishnah in Ovos (Perek 5/Mishnah 2) tells us that there were ten generations between Odom and Noach, it is through the offspring of Sheis that those generations are enumerated.

For the purpose of enumerating the ten generations between Noach and Avraham Ovinu (ibid. Mishnah 3), it is enough to tell us the lineage from Shem the son of Noach through his great-great etc. grandchild Avraham. What is the purpose of detailing the other families of the world? The answer is that they become most significant in the history of the development of the Jewish People.

Certainly, we easily identify Canaan and Egypt among the names above and we know their indelible role in our annals and we understand why they are there. Other names seem to be completely foreign to us.

What is particularly noteworthy here is that Nimrod is not mentioned by name only, like the others were. He is given the spotlight as an important personage who brought about changes in the world and made a name for himself that was viewed as paradigmatic.

14 Kush is the name given to Ethiopia of today.

Rashi teaches us that the translation, in and of itself, could be misleading. Let us see what he writes about these descriptions of Nimrod.

:להיות גבור - להמריד כל העולם על הקדוש ברוך הוא בעצת דור הפלגה

To be a warrior-to cause the world to rebel against G-d15 in the advice [he gave] to Dor HaPalagah-the generation of division caused by the Tower of Bavel16.

:גבור ציד - צד דעתן של בריות בפיו ומטען למרוד במקום

A hunting warrior-he captured the minds of people with his mouth17 and he caused them to err in rebelling against G-d.

:לפני ה' - מתכוין להקניטו על פניו

Before G-d-he intended to directly affront G-d.

על כן יאמר כנמרד - על כל אדם מרשיע בעזות פנים, יודע רבונו ומתכוין למרוד בו,:יאמר זה כנמרוד גבור ציד

Thus it would be said, ‘like Nimrod’-this was said about anyone who caused wickedness with brazenness. Regarding anyone who recognized his Master and

15 Mizrachi explains that Rashi’s take-off point is the word החל in the verse. He understands that Rashi reads the word as profanation-from the word .is not complimentary גיבור It would then follow that the description of .חילולMizrachi has a long discussion regarding Ramban’s questions on Rashi.16 This is implicit from the final verse of this section in which Bavel is noted as the beginning of his kingdom. Of course, Bavel became a distinct kingdom only after the nations were separated. Since the Torah comes to explain, not to hide information, it can be deduced that Nimrod was the primary instigator for the Tower. See Rashi in our Parsha Perek 10/Posuk 25: לא בא הכתוב לסתום אלא לפרש. The Torah does not come to occlude; it comes to clarify.17 The connection here is with Eisav. Regarding Eisav the Torah writes (B’reishis Perek 25/Posuk 28): -כי ציד בפיו there was hunting in his mouth. Rashi writes there,

:שהיה צד אותו ומרמהו בדבריוEisav captured his father and misled him with his words. His cousin, Nimrod, provided the pattern for his behavior.

intended to rebel against him it was said ‘he is like Nimrod, who captures people with his words.

Here, Rashi provides us with a definition of brazenness. Brazenness is an action that reflects an attitude in which a person wishes to oppose that which is correct for the purpose of opposing of that which is correct. There is no ulterior motive, per se. A person is not pursuing pleasure or a way to make money. There is not necessarily any personal gain. The very fact that there exists an authority that represents moral and ethical values is the reason to oppose it18.

This is the reason why it is forbidden to publicize one’s sins against G-d. a sin against Hashem is a confrontation with him. The more that the sin is known, the more that its confrontational nature becomes emphasized. Keeping such sins private, reduces the nature of the affront to Hashem.

In order to better understand how strongly the Torah rejects these attitudes and actions of brazenness, let us look again at the final verse in the section cited and the one (11) in our Parsha that immediately follows it.

מן הארץ ההוא יצא: ותהי ראשית ממלכתו בבל וארך ואכד וכלנה בארץ שנער: אשור ויבן את נינוה ואת רחבת עיר ואת כלח

18 This is reminiscent, but not the same, as another Halachic distinction. When discussing transgressors, the Halachah distinguishes between one who is a לתאבון ,מומר who constantly violates Halachah because he derives pleasure or benefits from the results of the transgression and a מומר להכעיס, one who violates Halachah because he denigrates it.

The brazenness under discussion here is far worse than this מומר להכעיס. As much as he is willfully and unnecessarily violating Halachah, the מומר להכעיס does not look G-d in the face (לפני ה'!) as it were to show that he can do what he wishes. He lives on wanton disregard. The one who displays wants to do away with the authority more עזות פנים than he wants to do away with the particular sin that he is committing. For a further discussion of this topic, begin with Masseches Horios 11 a.

The beginning of his [of Nimrod’s] kingdom was Bovel, E’rech and A’kad and Kolneh in the Land of Shin’ar. From that that land Ashur19 went out and built Ninveh and Rachavas ‘Ir and Ke’lach.

Rashi tells us the reason that Ashur went out.- כיון שראה אשור את בניו שומעין לנמרוד ומורדין במקום לבנות וגו' מן הארץ

:המגדל, יצא מתוכם

From the land etc.-When Ashur saw that his sons were listening to Nimrod and rebelling [against G-d] to build the Tower, he went out from their midst.

The Midrash Aggadah (Buber, Noach 10/11) prevents a more complete and slightly different version than that which Rashi brings.

מן הארץ ההוא יצא אשור. לפי שראה אשור שבניו מורדין בהקדוש ברוך הוא ובנו עיר ומגדל בארץ שנער במלכות נמרוד...יצא מעצתם והלך לו לארץ אחרת ולפיכך נתן בו הקדוש ברוך הוא רוח ובינה ובנה נינוה ורחובות עיר וכלה ורסן. ולפי שברח מהם ולא רצה להיות בעצתם למרוד בהקדוש ברוך הוא, לכך כשחטאו בני נינוה אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא ליונה בן אמתי שילך לשם וינבא עליהם. אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא אביהם יצא מארצו לכבודי, לכך לך בשליחות אל בני עירו מה שלא מצינופי שהיו מתנבאים על אף העולם, אומות לעיירות של הנביאים שהלכו בשאר

עליהם:

19 Ashur is Assyria.

Ashur20 went out from that land- because Ashur saw that his sons were rebelling against Hashem and they build the city and the Tower, he went out from their counsel and when to a different land. Therefore Hashem gave him spirit and understanding and he built Ninveh, R’chovos ‘Ir, Ka’lach and Re’sen21. Because he fled from them and did not wish to be part of their counsel to rebel against G-d, when Ninveh sinned Hashem told [the Novi] Yonah ben Amitai that he should go there and prophesy to them. Hashem [explained to Yonah] ‘their father left his land to give Me honor therefore I am sending you on this mission to the people of his city.’ This is something that we have not found with other prophets-that they went to other nations, even though they prophesized about them [they did not go to those nations and tell them the prophecy directly].

Of course, the reference here is to Sefer Yonah which is most familiar to all of us. The striking point that the Midrash makes is the distinction between prophesizing regarding a nation and telling that prophecy to that nation.

Already in the Torah we find that Bila’am foretold the eventualities that would befall many nations.

20 Ramban, with Malbim supporting, interprets the verse with Nimrod as its subject, not in reference to Ashur whatsoever. Malbim writes: מן הארץ ההיא יצא נמרוד אל אשור )כמו למלחמה אדרעי( כן פירש הרמב"ן, ובנה גם באשור

ערים חזקים שחשב פה...From that land-Nimrod went out to Ashur. So explains Ramban. Nimrod also built strong cities in Ashur that are mentioned here [in this verse and the next].In his parenthetical remarks, Malbim cites a verse that has a similar structure as ours in order to defend the interpretation of Ashur as a country, not an individual and that the subject of the Posuk is Nimrod.According to this explanation the cities mentioned in this verse and the next were built by Nimrod, not Ashur. It is for that reason that the next verse, not essential for the theme being developed, was not mentioned in the text.

Rashi and many Midrashim do not understand the meaning of the Posuk as referring to Nimrod as is clear.21 Resen is mentioned in Posuk 12. See the previous note in which opinions are brought that that city, and the others mentioned in these verses were built by Nimrod.

In Nevi’im we find numerous such references. Y’shaya prophesized regarding Moav (Perek 15), Damesek (Perek 17) and Egypt (Perek 19), to mention a few. That prophecy was not shared with them directly. Evidently they did not merit hearing the world of G-d directly.

The heroism of Ashur brought them a unique standing, Yonah transmitted the prophecy directly and they listened22.

It is remarkable to note in this regard that Ashur is mentioned before we know his identity. Only a number of verses later (Posuk 22) do we know that there is such a person and his family tree: ולוד וארם וארפכשד .בני שם עילם ואשור The children of Shem [ben Noach] were Ei’lom, Ashur, Arpach’shad, Lud and Aram.

It would certainly seem that since Ashur is given such prominence here that he should have been introduced properly first and then we would recognize the individual who demonstrated such greatness of character.

The answer is, though, that the Torah chose precisely not to list the lineage of Ashur prior to telling us of his personal courage. Were the Torah to have done that, I might have attributed the vast expanse between the attitudes and behaviors of Nimrod and Ashur to their family upbringing.

Nimrod came from Chom and Canaan and thus he was evil; Ashur was the son of Shem and thus he was uniquely righteous.

By keeping the identity of Ashur a secret, the Torah is telling us that a person is judged by his actions, not his parentage. A person has to take responsibility for himself and not blame his life on family and environment.

Nimrod demonstrated extreme brazenness and Ashur made himself modest before G-d.

22 The Midrash does not say so, but it could very well be that the fact that the people of Ninveh listened and accepted the Word of G-d is also a proportional reward that was given because Ashur did not listen to the rebellious words that were spoken by Nimrod.

This extremity of differences that the Torah emphasizes regarding עזות so early on, not waiting for Avraham Ovinu or his descendants to demonstrate the evil of brazenness, tells us that it is a basic personality trait. It is not a trait that is associated with sanctity alone. It is a building block for the human environment.

Thus, we can understand the comments of the Rama and Mishnah Brurah at the very beginning of Shulchan Aruch.

In Orach Chaim Siman 1(s’if 1), we read the words of Rama:

ולא יתבייש מפני בני אדם המלעיגים עליו בעבודת השם יתברך.

A person involved in the service of G-d should not be embarrassed before those people who mock him.

Mishnah B’rurah (s’if koton 5), citing the Beis Yosef, writes:

מפני בני אדם – ועל כל פנים לא יתקוטט עמהם מפני שמדת העזות מגונה מאד ואין ראוי להשתמש ממנה כלל אפילו בעבודת השם יתברך כי יקנה קנין בנפשו

:להיות עז אפילו שלא במקום עבודתו יתברך )בית יוסף( ועיין בביאור הלכה

Before those people-Certainly he should not get into a [verbal] fight with them because the trait of עזות-brazenness is very bad and it is never appropriate to use it, even for purpose of Service of G-d. [The reason for this ban is] that he will acquire [this trait] as part of his nature to be brazen and impudent even when it is not for the purpose of Service of G-d. See Biur Halachah23.

The denigration of brazenness and impudence is not surprising, in and of itself. There is no chiddush in teaching it to us. The chiddush is in its placement, among the very words of the Chofetz Chaim, explaining the very first words of Shulchan Aruch.

23 In this seminal Biur Halachah, the Chofetz Chaim teaches us that one may act with when there is communal, organized opposition to Torah and עזות actively seeks to thwart it.

The chiddush is derived from the fact that the Mishnah Brurah shares a long essay24 with us regarding proper middos, attitudes and behavior in Siman 156.

The placement of this particular warning, and the powerfulness of that warning, is most significant.

Mishnah Brurah is teaching that עזות is not just ‘another’ bad trait that one needs to guard against.

in its extreme, represents a basic revolt, a fundamental rejection of G-d and ,עזותthus it is a rejection of everything. One cannot reject G-d and say ‘everything else that I do is fine” just like one cannot be an idolater and say, ‘but I am shomer Shabbos’.

By placing this law in Siman Alef of Shulchan Aruch, its special place infers its special prominence.

In this way, we can have a new understanding of the Tachanunim-supplication that is found in our daily Siddur-not at the end of the Amida, but at the very beginning of prayer.

I pray for G-d to spare me from those who would attack me with עזות, who want to undermine my very existence, threaten my stability. The discussion is not about something that is disturbing or unpleasant. To be attacked by an individual who is עז פנים is to be threatened at our essence.

In such a situation, my tendency will be ‘to fight fire with fire’, to strike back in the same way in which I was attacked. Thus, we ask that we be spared from personal

24 This is what he writes: והנה יש כמה מצות תדיריות ]עשין ולאוין[ שמוטלות על האדם לעשות ולהזהר בהן בכל עת ואינן מובאות בהשולחן ערוך וכמה מהן העתיקן המגן אברהם מדברי הרמב"ם ושארי הראשונים וכן

.כמה הנהגות טובות המוזכרים בדברי חז"ל לכן לא אחדול גם כן מלהעתיק מקצת מהדברים פהThere are many Mitzvos that are always applicable, Mitzvos Aseh and Mitzvos Lo Sa’aseh that a person must perform or avoid always but the Shulchan Aruch does not bring them. Many of them are brought by the Magen Avraham (in this Siman) from the Rambam and other Rishonim as well as noting many good practices that are mentioned by Chazal. Therefore, I will not refrain from bringing some of these points here.

.as a response to an attack עזות פנים Such ,עזות פנים even if not a natural tendency, even as a response, remains profoundly incorrect.

If extreme עזות פנים is an act tantamount to idolatry, then, even its less extreme forms, is tantamount to what Chazal label as אביזרייהו דעבודה זרה, a phrase that is translated as appurtenances25 of idolatry.

25 This is not a term that is associated with idolatry in particular. It means that which is related to the central item under discussion. In general, however, the use of this term is with prohibitions, in particular the most severe of them, and extends the requirement of avoidance past the specific act.

A basic source for this explanation is found in Masseches Sanhedrin 74 a-b where we learn that there are times that minor acts, in and of themselves far from being a deed if idolatry, can have the status of אביזרייהו דעבודה זרה in a particular context. Perhaps the most famous example is when the pagan ruler is unsuccessful in his coercive attempts to have the Jew prostrate himself before his personal idol so, in order to save face, he drops an object in front of the idol and commands his subject to retrieve it for him.Under normal circumstances, the subject would certainly be obligated to do the bidding of his king. But, since this is not a normal circumstance and the motivation was to have it appear as if the Jew was bowing down, the Jew must refuse, even under penalty of death.

The Gemara there questions if a non-Jew has an obligation of Kiddush Hashem regarding idolatry. Since a non-Jew is forbidden to worship pagan gods, is he required to forfeit his life to avoid idol-worship?

The initial opinion in the Gemara is to reject the premise. Were there to be a requirement of Kiddush Hashem for B’nei Noach, then they would have eight Mitzvos, not the seven that they were commanded.

The Amora, Rovo, responds: Rovo said, They .אמר ליה רבא: אינהו וכל אבזרייהו [the seven Mitzvos of B’nei Noach] and their appurtenances.

That is, inherent in each and every Mitzvah, including the seven given to non-Jews, is to sanctify G-d’s Name, thus each of the נח בני מצוות is שבע accompanied by this obligation, not as a separate command but as an integral part of each and every one of their Mitzvos.

That is, there are acts that are accessory to idolatry and just like one is commanded to give up his life to avoid idol-worship, so one must avoid these appurtenances with the same determination.

How do we guard ourselves against such tendencies? How can we insure that in the heat of the moment I will let my guard down and speak and behave in such an inappropriate way?

I think that the answer can be found in the Rambam. As he consistently does, Rambam uses the occasion of the completion of one of his fourteen books of Mishneh Torah to offer mussar insights that remind us that the Halachah teaches us moral and ethical behavior.26

Sefer Kinyan deals with rights of possession and ownership and the final section of that book is Hilchos Avodim that deals with Jewish and non-Jewish slaves. The final sections of Hilchos Avodim has as their focus the עבד כנעני, the non-Jewish slave.

The relationship of the Jewish owner to his non-Jewish slave is far different than his relationship to his Jewish slave.

Regarding the עבד עברי the Torah writes (Vayikro Perek 25/Posuk 43):

לא תרדה בו בפרך ויראת מא...ל'קיך:

Do not work him with breaking labor; fear G-d.

A few verses later, when the subject is the עבד כנעני, the non-Jewish slave, we read (Posuk 46):

והתנחלתם אתם לבניכם אחריכם לרשת אחזה לעלם בהם תעבדו ובאחיכם בניישראל איש באחיו לא תרדה בו בפרך:

26 For a most forceful expression of this point, see Emunah UVitachon of the Chazon Ish, particularly Perek 3.

You should give them as an inheritance to your children after you as an eternal possession; you should always work them; with your brethren of B’nei Yisroel, a person should not work his brother with breaking labor.

The implication is that one is allowed to work the עבד כנעני with such labor-and the implication is correct.

Despite this, Rambam (Hilchos Avodim Perek 9/Halachah 8) writes:

מותר לעבוד בעבד כנעני בפרך, ואף על פי שהדין כך מדת חסידות ודרכי חכמה שיהיה אדם רחמן ורודף צדק ולא יכביד עולו על עבדו ולא יצר לו ויאכילהו וישקהו מכל מאכל ומכל משתה, חכמים הראשונים היו נותנין לעבד מכל תבשיל ותבשילאומר הוא הרי עצמן, לסעודת והעבדים הבהמות מזון ומקדימין אוכלין, שהיו

( כעיני עבדים אל יד אדוניהם כעיני שפחה אל יד גבירתה, וכן לא27)תהילים קכג/ב יבזהו ביד ולא בדברים לעבדות מסרן הכתוב לא לבושה, ולא ירבה עליו צעקה וכעס אלא ידבר עמו בנחת וישמע טענותיו ... ואין האכזריות והעזות מצויה אלא בעכו"ם עובדי ע"ז אבל זרעו של אברהם אבינו והם ישראל שהשפיע להם הקדוש

ד/ח )דברים אותם וצוה התורה טובת הוא צדיקים28ברוך ומשפטים בחקים ) רחמנים הם על הכל, וכן במדותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא שצונו להדמות בהם הוא

29אומר ורחמיו על כל מעשיו...

One is allowed to work his Eved K’na’ani with breaking labor. However, even though such is the law, an attribute of piety and an intelligent path is that a person should be merciful and pursue righteousness and not make the yoke of

27 The entire verse reads::הנה כעיני עבדים אל יד אדוניהם כעיני שפחה אל יד גברתה כן עינינו אל ה' א...ל'קינו עד שיחננו

Behold, just like the eyes of the male-servants are towards their masters, like the eyes of the maid-servant towards her mistress, so are our eyes to Hashem our G-d until he will favor us.28 The entire verse reads:

:ומי גוי גדול אשר לו חקים ומשפטים צדיקם ככל התורה הזאת אשר אנכי נתן לפניכם היוםWho is a great nation that has righteous statutes and laws like [there are in] all of this Torah that I am placing before you today?29 In his commentary Kesef Misheh on Mishneh Torah, Maran Rav Yosef Karo expresses complete agreement with these words of Rambam and writes:

.הם דברי רבינו ראויים אליוThese are the words of Rabbenu and they are worthy of him.

the Eved K’na’ani heavy and not cause him distress. He should give him food and drink from all types of food and drink. The early chachamim would give their servants from every type of dish that they would eat and they would feed their animals and their slaves before partaking of their food. The verse says, ‘like the eyes of the slaves to their masters, like the eyes of the maidservant to her mistress’. Do not disgrace him by hitting him or verbally. He was given to you to work, not for embarrassment. Do not yell at him a great deal or be angry at him often, but speak with him calmly and hear his complaints…

Cruelty and brazenness are found among the idolaters but the see of Avraham Ovinu, Israel, upon whom Hashem showered them with the goodness of the Torah and commanded them righteous laws…they are all merciful and such it is to make one’s middos like those of G-d as it says, ‘His mercy is upon all of His works…

Brazenness, in its ultimate stage, is an assault upon G-d.

Chazal (Masseches Eiruvin 53 a) teach us that he was called Nimrod:

נמרוד שהמריד את כל העולם כולו עליו במלכותו.

Nimrod-because he incited the entire world to rebel against G-d and His reign.

Rambam teaches us that when a person is a position of power and he refrains from acting god-like not only will he not be he will not even act with ,עז פנים .when the desire to do so is great עזות פנים

To pray for such a goal is to give expression to our willingness to subjugate ourselves to G-d and to His reign.

Shabbat Shalom

Rabbi Pollock