We read of what happened immediately after the incident of the golden calf – God’s displeasure, Moses’ anger at the Israelites, and then – God orders Moses to pitch his tent outside the camp, away from the people. This he does, after which God speaks with him “face to face,” and then – Moses returns to the camp of Israel and relays the message: “ומשה יקח את האהל ונטה לו מחוץ למחנה הרחק מן המחנה וקרא לו אהל מועד... ודבר ה׳ אל משה פנים אל פנים כאשר ידבר איש אל רעהו ושב אל המחנה.” There is one question: what really is the meaning of ושב אל המחנה? The peshat seems to be as stated above – that Moses returned from his tent to the Israelite camp. However, the Talmud at the end of Berakhot 63b gives the whole matter a quite different twist: “‘ודבר ה׳ אל משה פנים אל פנים’... איכא דאמרי, כך אמר לו הקב״ה למשה: כשם שאני הסברתי לך פנים – כך אתה הסבר פנים לישראל, והחזר האהל למקומו... עכשיו יאמרו הרב בכעס ותלמיד בכעס, ישראל מה תהא עליהם?” According to both interpretations, God wanted Moses to restore his tent to the machaneh Yisrael, to remain with his people – despite their backsliding and stiff-neckedness – and not remove himself from their midst. The first opinion rests on God’s demand to Moses for reciprocity: I was kind and gentle and forgiving with you, showing you sever panim yafot – now you must, for My sake, do the same toward your wayward people. The second opinion is more in the nature of a mutual decision in which God lets Moses share: look, if we’re both going to show our anger, they will be abandoned – what good will that do? Either way, the lesson is clear: God wants us to be with our people, no matter how distant they are from Him. He wants us to identify with all of them, with their destiny, to make them feel included in the God–Moses dialogue – and not to exclude them.

Adv: 1: reconcile ראשי ישיבה. 2. less pressure always oppose U. 3. unity of Orthx comm'y. Disadv: 1. if ראשי ישיבה in – כפוף לדעת גדולי התורה. 2. strangle-hold all future issues. 3. non-orthx cohost: OU = Satmar... other Orthx groups sub for vs SCA

A source for the resolve not to be triumphalistic, especially as it relates to the resurgence of Orthodox Judaism in our time: Avot 4:19 – שמואל הקטן אומר, בנפול אויבך אל תשמח ובכשלו אל יגל לבך. The old question about this mishnah is: why attribute this maxim to שמואל הקטן when it already appears verbatim in Mishlei, and obviously the former is only quoting the latter? I suggest: King Solomon was referring primarily to mortal enemies — those who wish to destroy or harm you physically, financially, etc. But what of those who wish you no physical harm or financial damage, but are your sworn enemies on the ideological plane — is it not legitimate to crow in triumph at your victory and their defeat? The answer is: no! And it is precisely this that our mishnah teaches us. For שמואל הקטן was famous in Talmudic literature primarily because, when the Sages of Yavneh were formulating the precise wording of the birkat haminim, they asked: “Is there anyone who can properly compose this blessing?” (i.e., against heretics). שמואל הקטן arose and composed it (Berakhot 28b). The authority to institute the birkat haminim resided only in one who could separate the personal element from the ideological — who could pursue the truth without involving his own ego or collective grievance. That was שמואל הקטן. The mishnah therefore adds considerably to the verse in Proverbs — namely, the need to scrupulously avoid triumphalism even with regard to ideological issues.

וימ״ש שענין בושת מבטלאת האסמכתא ולכן שפיר קונה, והראה לתוס׳ ב״מ ס״ו ולקצוה״ח סי׳ ר״ז ס״ק ז׳, הלא יש בקצוה״ח ב' שיטות. הא׳ בענין זה של בושת הוא תשלום בפ״ע, והאסמכתא אמנם במקומה עומדת לשולל את הקנין וע״ז התב הקצות דז״א דבוש דברים הוא ואינו מעשה דגוף המתבייש. אלא דבשית כזו מועילה לקיים את הקנין למרות האסמכתא, מפני שע״י הבושת הזו גמר ומקני. והנה דפי״ז, אדרבה ואדרבה שאינו ענין לנ״ד, בין לש״ך בין לקצוה״ח, בהתאם הלא המבייש הוא שמשלם את הבושת – לפני הש״ח.