Sunday, October 28, 2007

Parshas Lech Lecha: Safeik Mila on Yom Tov Sheini.

Last week for Parshas Lech Lecha I spoke about the halacha of a baby born bein hashemashos and the bris would fall out on Yom Tov Sheini. By Shabbos (for example the baby was born Friday night bein hashemashos) or the first day of Yom Tov we don't do the bris until after Shabbos or Yom Tov. How about a case where the 8th day would be Yom Tov Sheini (for example the baby was born Monday night bein hashemashos and Yom Tov Sheini is Tuesday).

This is a machlokes between the Rosh who holds we don't do the bris and the Rambam who holds we do the bris. The Mishna in Shabbos says clearly that wed on't do a safeik mila on the 2nd day of Rosh Hashana. The Rambam learns from here that this halacha only applies to the second day of Rosh Hashana but on any other Yom Tov Sheini we do the bris. The Rosh holds that the reason the mishna did not mention Yom Tov Sheini was because the mishna was written in Eretz Yisroel. They only had an issue with 2 days Rosh Hashana. Having 2 days for Pesach,Sukkos, Shavuous was never a problem and therefore the mishna did not address that issue. . However, in Chutz L'Aretz where we have Yom Tov Sheini we don't do a safeik bris.

L'ma'aseh the Shulchan Aruch paskens like the Rosh not to do the bris and the Shach paskens like the Rambam.

The gedolei haposkim like the Noda B'Yehuda, Chasam Sofer and Rabbi Akiva Eiger all say we should do the bris. Interestingly, their reasonings are all different but their conclusion is the same. The Noda B'Yehuda calls it a s'fek sfeika (safeik if bris is today or yesterday and even if bris was yesterday maybe today is not Yom Tov). The Chasam Sofer says that the safeik d'oreisa of a bris should be docheh the safek d'rabanan of Yom Tov. Everyone does agree that if it is a vadai mila shelo b'lo b'zmano ((for example the baby was born Monday night bein hashemashos and Yom Tov Rishon was Tuesday. We don't do the bris Tuesday and even on Wednesday which is Yom Tov Sheini we don't do the bris since on Wednesday it is definitely not the zman for the bris.)

I also saw that Rav Ahron Kotler (Mishnas Rav Aharon Siman 11) says l'chactchila the bris should be done on Yom Tov Sheini. The sefer Yom Tov Sheini K'hilchaso quotes both Rav Shlomo Zalman zt"l and Rav Elyashiv shlita as saying you should do the bris.

However, I spoke to a moheil and he told me noone does a bris on Yom Tov Sheini. I don't know why given the fact that most poskim hold you should do it.

Is anyone aware of a safeik bris that was done on Yom Tov Sheini?

A Mazal Tov and Catching Up

First of all I wqould like to wish a mazal tov to my sister in law (my wife's sister) on her recent wedding. May she and her chasan be zocheh to build a bayis ne'eman b'yisroel.

I have been very busy with work and I have not had a chance to post recently. I mentioned previously that I would discuss a Kresi U'Pleisi that is a nafka mina between the Rambam and Tosafos regarding whether Adam was able to eat meat. There is a machlokes rishonim whether a mifarcheses (shechted animal that is still moving) is assur to a ben Noach. It is mutar for a Jew to eat a mifarcheses, but it is a machlokes by a ben Noach. The RAmbam paskens it is assur for a ben Noach to eat a mifarcheses since it is eiver min hachai. The Kreisi U'Pleisi explains that there are two drashos how we know eiver min hachai is assur for a ben Noach. One drasha is from "ochal tocheil", a posuk by Adam and the other posuk is "ach b'damo lo yishafeich" which is by Noach. If you learn it from the 1st posuk, then it is only a remez and in order to figure out what the posuk is referring to, you have to look at what a Yisroel is allowed to eat. Since a Yisroel can eat a mifarchese, you can't say it is assur for a ben Noach. However, the Rambam holds Adam never had the issur of eiver min hachai and m'meilah he wouldn't use the posuk of "ochal tocheil" (which is by Adam). He must use the posuk by Noach. The posuk by Noach is self contained and we learn directly from that posuk without having to learn anything out from dinei Yisroel. M'meila, you can make a split between a Ben Noach and Yisreol and say mifarchese is mutar for a Yisroel and assur for a Ben Noach

Monday, October 15, 2007

Parshas Noach: The Heter To Eat Meat

So how long did Mesushelach have to wait before eating dairy?

I asked my kids this question at the Shabbos table. The answer depends on the shiur I gave this past Shabbos.

In Parshas Noach, Noach was given the heter to eat meat. What exactly was teh nature of teh issur before the mabul is a machlokes Rishonim.

Tosafos and Rashi
The gemara in Sanhedrin 59B says that Adam wasnot allowed to eat meat. Tosafos (56b) as well as Rashi ask that if Adam was not allowed to eat meat, why was he given the issur of eiver min hachai? Tosafos answers that it was only assur to kill an animal but if the animal died on its own then you could eat it. However, if the limb of an animal fell off while it was alive then it would be assur because of eiver min hachai.

Shittas HaRambam/Yad Rema

The Rambam paskens that only Noach had the issur of eiver min hachai. Adam was only given the other six mitzvos B'nei Noach. The Kesef Mishna explains that the Rambam based himself on Tosafos' kasha. However, the Rambam did not like Tosafos' teretz since the Rambam held all meat was assur to eat even if it died by itself.

Shittas Yidei Moshe al HaMedrash

The Medrash Rabba in Beraishis 16:6 brings a drasha on the possuk "ochal tocheil" that from here we see the requirement of shechita and the issur of eiver min hachai. The Yidei Moshe explains that we learn two things from this medrash 1) only basar ta'avah was assur to Adam but meat from a korbon was muttar and 2) every korbon required shechita otherwise you couldn't eat it.

Nafka Mina

There are several interesting nafka mina between the shittos.

a) Ta'am HaIssur: There are different reasons given why Adam couldn't eat meat. The Ramban writes that before the mabul the animals had a ma'alah to them. However after the mabul since they were only saved through Noach they lost this ma'aleh and Noach could eat them. The Klei Chemda points out that this reason works well with Tosafos. I think what the Klei Chemda means is that since these animals had a ma'alah it wasn't right for Adam to kill them. However, if they are already dead then there is no reason not to eat them.

b) Mashkeh Yisroel: There is a concept found in Pesachim 56 called "Mashkeh Yisroel". This means that food that can not be eaten can not be brought as a korbon. The achronim ask, (ayin Rav Menachem Zeimba in Zera Avraham siman 13) how could Adam, Hevel or Noach before the hetter bring a korbon, they couldn't eat the meat.

If you hold like Tosafos or the Yidei Moshe then it is not a kasha, the meat was not totally assur, there were times it was muttar. However, according to the Rambam and Yad Rema you have a problem.

i) You could say that Adam only brought an Oleh and not a Shelamim. This is a machlokes in the gemara. You would also have to say that the only issur was to eat the animal, but to kill it for any other reason is muttar. The Aruch LaNer in Sanhedrin says this. He holds Adam was allowed to kill animals for their skin.
ii) The Klei Chemda answers that the reason Adam could not eat meat was because he first needed permission from HKBH. To take meat without reshus is stealing, similar to the gemara in Berachos about why we make a beracha. However, when you bring a korbon, you are not taking the meat from Hashem but rather you are giving it back to Him. Therefore it is muttar.

(I am not sure if this totally answers the question since how could Adam eat the meat? You could say that Adam only brought an Oleh but then that itself answers the question)

iii) In the sefer Chavtzeles Hasharon, he has a whole diyun on this topic. One approach he takes is that the issur of "mashkeh Yisroel" is an issur cheftzah. Meaning if the meat itself is assur (like treifa) then you can't bring it as a korbon. But if there is nothing wrong with the animal but the issur is on the person then you can bring it as a korbon. By Adam, there was nothing b'etzem wrong with the meat, it was just an issur gavrah on Adam. Therefore, the issur of "mashkeh Yisroel" doesn't apply
iv) Finally, a fourth teretz is the the issur of "mashkeh Yisroel" is based on what is muttar or assur to a Yisroel. Since meat is muttar to a Yisroel it doesn't apply to Adam. The Chavtzeles Hasharon eventually brings ra'ayos to reject this teretz.

One final very interesting nafka mina is found in the Kreisi U'Pleisi Siman 27:2. Stay tuned.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Parshas Bereishis:Adam and the Onesh of Misa

Last week I spoke about the onesh of misa that Adam HaRishon recieved. Rav Elchanan in his Kovetz He'oros , Chelek Aggadata Siman 3 asks why wasn't Adam HaRishon's teshuva enough to remove the gezeirah of misa.

The answer can be based on the following chakira-was the gezeira of misa an onesh or was it just a change in the metzius of the world. Lmashel if one is allergic to nuts and eats nuts and then breaks out in a rash, would we say that the rash is an onesh? More likely we would say that it is a metzius-it is a reaction to the fact that you ate nuts. So too, when Adam ate from the Eitz HaDa'as he changed the metzius of the world and now al karchach there was misa.

Most mefarshim I saw held that misa was not an onesh but a change in metzius. However, ayin the Targum Yonasan ben Uziel that says it was a chiyuv misa.

1) Derashos HaRan: Rav Elchanan quotes the Ran to answer his question. The Ran learns that before the cheit, the nefesh was the dominant part of a person. Therefore, a person could live forever. After the cheit a person's nature changed and the guf became the dominant part and m'meilah people had to die.

Side note: I was told b'shem Rav Aharon Soloveitchik zt"l that this Drashos HaRan is a chiddush not found in Chazal and you only find this idea among the Spanish Rishonim as a reaction to the ideas found in society at that time.
I have no idea if Rav Aharon actually said this but this is what I was told. Clearly, Rav Elchanan had no problem with this Ran.

2) Nefesh HaChaim: The Nefesh HaChaim learns that after the cheit a zuhama shel ra entered a person. Since HKBH is a meitiv, he wanted to provide a tikkun for people. This tikkun is misa. Only through death can this zuhama shel ra be removed.

I would add that this is slightly different than the Ran. Acc. to the Ran a person's nature changed and misa was a direct by-product of this change. Acc. to the Nefesh Hachaim, it is a tikkun from HKBH.

3) The Netziv in Bereishis and in hi Sh'iltos has an interesting m'halach. He says (more clearly in the Sh'iltos) that misa was actually created during the creation of the world. We know that there are people like Chanoch and Eliyahu who can reach such a high madreiga that they can no longer be a part of the physical world. Before teh cheit, Adam was also on this madreigah but with one difference, He was able to be on this madreiga and still live in this world. This was possible due to the nature of the food available to him in Gan Eden (see the Ramban that it was a special type of food). If there was no cheit, Adam would have continued on this madreiga in this world and m'meila he would never had died (as long as he was on this madreiga). Also, anyone else who would reach this madreiga would also live forever (presumably everyone else would die). After the cheit, the only way to continue on this madreiga
was to leave the world (like Eliyahu). Since Adam sinned he was no longer on this high madreiga and al korchach he had to die.

Interesting Shailah from Sukkos

I haven't had a chance to catch up on my bloggiong since Sukkos so here is an interesting Sukkos question.

Someone made a mistake on Yom Tov and instead of davening Yom Tov mussaf they davened Yom Tov shachris/mincha (shachris and mincha is the same tefilla) . They then remembered and davened mussaf. It is now time for mincha.The question is that when this person mistakenly davened Yom Tov shachris/mincha instead of musaf, it was after zman mincha, therefore maybe this tefilla should count for mincha. Do they have to daven mincha again?

The Ishei Yisroel brings this halacha down. Interestingly, it is a teshuva in the Igros Moshe. R' Moshe paskens that one does not need kavanna for which tefilla you are davening, therefore the person would not need to daven mincha again. Rav Moshe bases this on a MG"A that says if you daven Shabbos musaf instead of shachris you don't need to repeat musaf. Even though when you davened mussaf your kavanna was for shachris, kavanna is not m'akeiv.
The Ishei Yisroel does mention that the Shoeil U'Meishiv argues on this point.