There seems to be a machlokes what exactly the reason is for the halacha that we don't go to a din torah with non Jews during Av. The gemara in Taanis 29A says "mishenichnas Av mima'atin b'simcha". Immediately afterwards the gemara quotes Rav Papa that therefore we don't go to a din torah with non-Jews. The mashmaos is that because of "mishenichnas Av mima'atin b'simcha" we don't go to a din torah with non-Jews. Tosafos however says that Rav Papa is referring to an earlier gemara. The gemara earlier says that we know the second bayis was destroyed on 9 Av because "m'galgilin yom chov al yidei chayav"-since 9 Av is a yom chov we assume other bad things happened that day.
The Ritva seems to disagree with Tosfos. The Ritva puts the gemara of "mishenichnas Av mima'atin b'simcha" together with Rav Papa's haalcha of going to a din torah with non Jews. He seems to understand the gemara k'pushto and not like Tosafos.
Nireh Li that there are two nafka mina between Tosafos and the Ritva.
1) The Ritva asks why are we concerned with the bad mazal of the Jews, don't we say " ain mazal l'yisroel "?.
The Ritva gives two answers. a) The months of Av and Tamuz are different. b) mazal is lav davka but it means gezairos.
The Maharsha gives a different answer. He says that since "m'galgilin yom chov al yidei chayav", we have to be worried about losing a din torah. The Mahrsha seems to mean that this halacha has nothing to do with mazal but is a function of a different klal called "m'galgilin yom chov al yidei chayav".
It could be that the Ritva and Maharsha are l'shitaso. The Ritva holds this halacha of going to court in Av is a function of "mishenichnas Av mima'atin b'simcha". Therefore he gives his answer of why we don't say " ain mazal l'yisroel " as being due to the nature of the month. The Maharsha however holds like Tosafos that this halacha is a function of "m'galgilin yom chov al yidei chayav" and therefore his teretz is based on understanding how "m'galgilin yom chov al yidei chayav" works.
In general the Ritva is a little shver. Why is this halacha a function of miyut in simcha. L'chorah it is a "mazal related" halcha. How does simcha fit in. You could say that the miyut b'simcha isn't a siba but a siman. It is a siman for what kind of month it is. From here we see that this month is a bad time to go to court as well.
You could also ask on the Ritva why this halacha doesn't apply to Tamuz as well.
2) Another possible nafka mina is a machlokes MG"A and Korbon Nesanel. The MG"A quotes Rabbeinu Yeruchom that we don't go to a din torah the whole month of Av. The Korbon Nesanel disagrees and says this halacha is based on "mishenichnas Av mima'atin b'simcha" and the miyut in simcha is only until 10 Av. Therefore, the halacha of going to court is only until 10 Av.
Now it seems there are 2 ways to understand this machlokes. It could be both Rabbeinu Yerucham and the Korbon Nesanel learn this halacha is based on "mishenichnas Av mima'atin b'simcha". We already saw from the Ritva that the mazal of the whole month of Av is affected. Therefore, according to the Rabeinu Yerucham this halacha would apply to the whole month. The Korbon Nesanel would argue and say that it is a function of the miyut in simcha which only goes until 10 Av. The question on the Korbon Nesanel is why is this halacha a function of miyut in simcha. You couldn't necessarily give the same teretz I gave in the Ritva cause according to that teretz this halacha should apply to the whole month and not just until 10 Av.
The other way to explain the machlokes could be that Rabbeinu Yerucham holds like Tosafos. This halacha of going to court is tied to "m'galgilin yom chov al yidei chayav" and this affects the whole month. The Korbon Nesanel clearly holds like the Ritva that it is tied to miyut b'simcha and only applies until 10 Av.
I will admit that I am not sure if any of my lomdus will stand up to close scrutiny. I invite you to let me know if you think I am totally off base.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
The Mazal of Av
I am sure everyone is aware of the halacha that one should not go to court with a non-jew during Av. I was wondering how far this concept goes. For example, lets say someone has a salary review coming up, should one try and schedule it before Av? Another question that I was wondering about was whether this would apply to going to court against another Jew. On the one hand the reason for this halacha is that the mazal of the Jewish people is not positive. The mashmaos is that the non-Jew would win the court case not because it is a better time for non-Jews but rather because it is a bad time for Jews. That being the case, when 2 Jews go to court it is equally bad for both of them and they are on equal footing. However, could one argue that in a klaliyus sense it is a bad time time for the Jewish people, but in terms of how bad the mazal is for each individual, that is determined for each individual. Consequently, if you go to court against another Jew, who is to say that your mazal during this time isn't worse than your fellow litigant. (Although, you would also have the possibility that your fellow litigant has a worse mazal than you.)
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Lo Tohu Barah, LaSheves Yatzara
The gemara in a few places raises the concept of "lo tohu barah, lasheves yatzarah" which means the world was created to be inhabited. One place is in Gittin 41B where the gemara says that the master must free a chatzi eved chatzi ben choren since in his present state he can't marry anyone. The reason we want the eved to get married is because "lo tohu barah, lasheves yatzarah" Another gemara that discusses this concept is in Megillah 26B. The gemara says one can sell a sefer torah to learn Torah and get married. The importance of getting married is due to the fact that "lo tohu barah, lasheves yatzarah" The question is does this concept apply only to men or even to women?
One nafka mina is the halach in Orach Chaim Siman 152:6. The Mechabeir paskens that one can sell a sefer torah to help someone learn or to marry off an orphan. The nosei keilim understand that this is a corollary of the gemara in Megillah that one can sell a sefer torah so you could learn or get married. The question is can one sell a sefer torah to marry off an orphan girl? Thisis a machlokes between the Magan Avraham (O.C. 152) and the Chelkas Mechokeik and Beis Shmuel (Y.D. 254). The MG"A holds that "lo tohu barah, lasheves yatzarah" applies to women as well. Consequently, one can sell a sefer torah to marry off an orphan girl. The Chelkas Mechokeik and Beis Shmuel disagree. (Although truthfully the Beis Shmuel is a little unclear some achronim understand him to be disagreeing with the MG"A).
Interestingly enough both sides bring a rayah from the same Tosfos. Tosfos in Gittin 41b asks 'why did the gemara say you must free an eved because of "lo tohu barah, lasheves yatzarah" , why don't we say we should free the eved so he can be m'kayeim the mitzvah of peru u'revu? One answer of Tosfos is that an eved is patur from peru u'revu and therefore there is no reason to free the tzad avdus of the eved to be m'kayeim a mitzvah he doesn't even have. However, ""lo tohu barah, lasheves yatzarah" does apply to the eved and since in his present state he can't get married, we free him to be m'kayeim "lo tohu barah". The MG"A says we know that a woman and an eved have the same level of chiyuv. So just like an eved is in the parsha of "lo tohu barah, lasheves yatzarah" , so too is a woman.
The Chelkas Mechokeik argues and says from the other teretz of Tosfos we see not like that. The other teretz of Tosfos is that peru u'revu is not enough of a reason to free an eved. It has to be a mitzva rabba and only because of "lo tohu barah, lasheves yatzarah" does it turn into a mitzva raba.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger in Y.D. also brings a Teshuvas HaRan that is mashma a women is not b'geder "lo tohu barah". The Ran learns that a woman is m'chuyuv to marry from the 2nd perek in Kiddushin and doesn't bring the sevara of "lo tohu barah". It must be because he holds it doesn't apply to women.
The Chasam Sofer in O.C. writes an interesting idea. "lo tohu barah" applies to men and women. However, by a man "lo tohu barah" . turns the mitzva of peru u'revu into a mitzva rabba. Really if I sell a sefer torah I can't use the money for anything else because "ma'alin b'kodesh v'ain moridin". The only reason I can use the money to get married is because peru u'revu combined with "lo tohu barah" is a mitzva rabba and it is considered "ma'alin b'kodesh". This only works by a man. By a woman who only has "lo tohu barah" , it is not a mitzva rabba and because of "ma'alin b'kodesh" you can't use the money of a sefer torah to marry a woman off.
What really still needs to be discussed is the lomdus (if there is any) behind the two shittos. I'll leave it open for suggestions.
One nafka mina is the halach in Orach Chaim Siman 152:6. The Mechabeir paskens that one can sell a sefer torah to help someone learn or to marry off an orphan. The nosei keilim understand that this is a corollary of the gemara in Megillah that one can sell a sefer torah so you could learn or get married. The question is can one sell a sefer torah to marry off an orphan girl? Thisis a machlokes between the Magan Avraham (O.C. 152) and the Chelkas Mechokeik and Beis Shmuel (Y.D. 254). The MG"A holds that "lo tohu barah, lasheves yatzarah" applies to women as well. Consequently, one can sell a sefer torah to marry off an orphan girl. The Chelkas Mechokeik and Beis Shmuel disagree. (Although truthfully the Beis Shmuel is a little unclear some achronim understand him to be disagreeing with the MG"A).
Interestingly enough both sides bring a rayah from the same Tosfos. Tosfos in Gittin 41b asks 'why did the gemara say you must free an eved because of "lo tohu barah, lasheves yatzarah" , why don't we say we should free the eved so he can be m'kayeim the mitzvah of peru u'revu? One answer of Tosfos is that an eved is patur from peru u'revu and therefore there is no reason to free the tzad avdus of the eved to be m'kayeim a mitzvah he doesn't even have. However, ""lo tohu barah, lasheves yatzarah" does apply to the eved and since in his present state he can't get married, we free him to be m'kayeim "lo tohu barah". The MG"A says we know that a woman and an eved have the same level of chiyuv. So just like an eved is in the parsha of "lo tohu barah, lasheves yatzarah" , so too is a woman.
The Chelkas Mechokeik argues and says from the other teretz of Tosfos we see not like that. The other teretz of Tosfos is that peru u'revu is not enough of a reason to free an eved. It has to be a mitzva rabba and only because of "lo tohu barah, lasheves yatzarah" does it turn into a mitzva raba.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger in Y.D. also brings a Teshuvas HaRan that is mashma a women is not b'geder "lo tohu barah". The Ran learns that a woman is m'chuyuv to marry from the 2nd perek in Kiddushin and doesn't bring the sevara of "lo tohu barah". It must be because he holds it doesn't apply to women.
The Chasam Sofer in O.C. writes an interesting idea. "lo tohu barah" applies to men and women. However, by a man "lo tohu barah" . turns the mitzva of peru u'revu into a mitzva rabba. Really if I sell a sefer torah I can't use the money for anything else because "ma'alin b'kodesh v'ain moridin". The only reason I can use the money to get married is because peru u'revu combined with "lo tohu barah" is a mitzva rabba and it is considered "ma'alin b'kodesh". This only works by a man. By a woman who only has "lo tohu barah" , it is not a mitzva rabba and because of "ma'alin b'kodesh" you can't use the money of a sefer torah to marry a woman off.
What really still needs to be discussed is the lomdus (if there is any) behind the two shittos. I'll leave it open for suggestions.
Monday, July 17, 2006
HaShomer Shabbos Meichalilo-Al Tikri Meichalilo Ella Machul Lo
Last week I mentioned a chiddush from the Chovos HaLevovos in Hilchos Teshuva that I saw brought down by the Sidduro Shel Shabbos. The basic idea is that even if it is not in a person's power to do a complete teshuva, HKBH will soemtimes help you out. The Sidduro Shel Shabbos uses this idea to explain the gemara in Shabbos 118B. The gemara quotes the possuk in Yeshaya (56:2) "'hashomer shabbos meichalilo'-al tikri meichalilo ella machul lo". The meaning of the gemara is that Shabbos has the koach to have a person's aveiros forgiven. The Sidduro Shel Shabbos explains that we are talking about someone who prepares himself before Shabbos and does teshuva before Shabbos (This is the geder of "one who prepares Erev Shabbos will eat on Shabbos). However, even if someone does teshuva, there are certain aveiros that don't have a kapparah until Yom Kippur, so how can it be that Shabbos alone can cause your aveiros to be forgiven? He answers that this is where the idea of the Chovos HaLevovos comes in. As long as you do everything in your power, thru the koach of Shabbis, HKBH will forgive you for all your aveiros.
The question remains what happens after Shabbos? So if you are able to refrian from other aveiros then you will be able to tain the kedusha of Shabbos and your aveiros will be forgiven. Otherwise, when you go back to doing aveiros the kedusha of Shabbos will leave and the ramifications of your previous aveiros will come back. The kitrug of ones aveiros are onlyheld in check kol z'man you have the kedusha of Shabbos. Once the kedusha of Shabbos leaves the kitrug comes back.
This is also the idea of the ma'amar chazal that Moshiach will come when we keep two Shabbosim. The idea is that the first 3 days after Shabbos are tied to the previous Shabbos. The last 3 days of teh week are tied to the following Shabbos. If you refrian from aveiros the whole week, then the kedusha of the previous Shabbos joins with the kedusha of the following Shabbos to create one long week of kedusha. This week of kedusha is strong enough to be mesakein the cheit of Adam who created a p'gam in the 6 days of the week and this kedusha can bring Moshiach.
The question remains what happens after Shabbos? So if you are able to refrian from other aveiros then you will be able to tain the kedusha of Shabbos and your aveiros will be forgiven. Otherwise, when you go back to doing aveiros the kedusha of Shabbos will leave and the ramifications of your previous aveiros will come back. The kitrug of ones aveiros are onlyheld in check kol z'man you have the kedusha of Shabbos. Once the kedusha of Shabbos leaves the kitrug comes back.
This is also the idea of the ma'amar chazal that Moshiach will come when we keep two Shabbosim. The idea is that the first 3 days after Shabbos are tied to the previous Shabbos. The last 3 days of teh week are tied to the following Shabbos. If you refrian from aveiros the whole week, then the kedusha of the previous Shabbos joins with the kedusha of the following Shabbos to create one long week of kedusha. This week of kedusha is strong enough to be mesakein the cheit of Adam who created a p'gam in the 6 days of the week and this kedusha can bring Moshiach.
Fixing a pool on Shabbos
This past Shabbos an interesting shailah came up in our bungalow colony. Apparently there was a leak in the pool and the owner of the colony had asked the pool repairman to come on Sunday and fix the pool. Well, instead of coming on Sunday, he decided to come on Shabbos. The only reason we knew about it was because after he fixed the pool he turned on the water to refill the pool. In this particular colony our water pressure is so great that when you fill up the pool noone has water in the bungalow. When we saw that we had very little water in the bungalow we checked the pool and sure enough it was being filled up. A little investigation revealed that some kids had seen the repairman come in and fix the pool. The shailah that I raised was could one use the pool after Shabbos being that it was fixed on Shabbos.
The halacha is that you can give work to a non-jew to do on Erev Shabbos as long as you don't need him to do the work on Shabbos. For example, you can bring clothes to the cleaners right before Shabbos since you don't need it until Monday and he could do the work on Sunday. However, the Rema paskens that if you know the non-jew did the work on Shabbos then l'chatchilah you can't get benefit until k'dei sh'ya'su. The Biur Halacha points out that this is only for issurei d'oriesa but for an issur d'rabanan you can get benefit right after Shabbos.
In our case of the pool, I think there are two issues here. The first is the actual repair of the pool which could involve an issur d'oreisa (depending on what was done). The second issue is filling up the pool which in my opinion should be an issur hachana. However, I think hachana is only a d'rabanan. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). Now, the actual repair took no more than 1 hour so for that you would only have to wait an extra hour after Shabbos intil the pool is used. (and since noone was going swimming until the next day it wasn't a problem). Regarding the hachana issue, since it is only a d'rabanan you would not need to wait at all and you could use the pool right away.
I was also wondering that maybe there is even a better heter. You can't get hana'ah from a melacha a non-jew does for you on Shabbos. But maybe swimming in the pool is not called getting hana'ah from the melacha. The melacha was fixing the pool. Maybe swimming in the pool is an indirect hana'ah and not tied to teh melacha at all. Especially in this case the pool had a leak the last few weeks and was usuable even with the leak. The owner just decided to fix it now for some reason.
Finally, a second question that I had was a general question of how to define k'dei she ya'asu. Let's assume filling up the pool was d'oreisa and one needed to wait k'dei she ya'asu even on filling up the pool. When do you wait? It takes around 24 hours to fill a pool and the first 9 hours of the filling was done on Shabbos. For example, the pool was filled from 1 pm Shabbos afternoon thru 1 pm Sunday. Do you have to wait an additional 9 hours after the entire pool was filled (from 1 pm Sunday until 10 pm Sunday) or just wait 9 hours after Shabbos (9:30 pm motzei Shabbos until 6:30 AM Sunday morning) even though the pool was still filling up.
The halacha is that you can give work to a non-jew to do on Erev Shabbos as long as you don't need him to do the work on Shabbos. For example, you can bring clothes to the cleaners right before Shabbos since you don't need it until Monday and he could do the work on Sunday. However, the Rema paskens that if you know the non-jew did the work on Shabbos then l'chatchilah you can't get benefit until k'dei sh'ya'su. The Biur Halacha points out that this is only for issurei d'oriesa but for an issur d'rabanan you can get benefit right after Shabbos.
In our case of the pool, I think there are two issues here. The first is the actual repair of the pool which could involve an issur d'oreisa (depending on what was done). The second issue is filling up the pool which in my opinion should be an issur hachana. However, I think hachana is only a d'rabanan. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). Now, the actual repair took no more than 1 hour so for that you would only have to wait an extra hour after Shabbos intil the pool is used. (and since noone was going swimming until the next day it wasn't a problem). Regarding the hachana issue, since it is only a d'rabanan you would not need to wait at all and you could use the pool right away.
I was also wondering that maybe there is even a better heter. You can't get hana'ah from a melacha a non-jew does for you on Shabbos. But maybe swimming in the pool is not called getting hana'ah from the melacha. The melacha was fixing the pool. Maybe swimming in the pool is an indirect hana'ah and not tied to teh melacha at all. Especially in this case the pool had a leak the last few weeks and was usuable even with the leak. The owner just decided to fix it now for some reason.
Finally, a second question that I had was a general question of how to define k'dei she ya'asu. Let's assume filling up the pool was d'oreisa and one needed to wait k'dei she ya'asu even on filling up the pool. When do you wait? It takes around 24 hours to fill a pool and the first 9 hours of the filling was done on Shabbos. For example, the pool was filled from 1 pm Shabbos afternoon thru 1 pm Sunday. Do you have to wait an additional 9 hours after the entire pool was filled (from 1 pm Sunday until 10 pm Sunday) or just wait 9 hours after Shabbos (9:30 pm motzei Shabbos until 6:30 AM Sunday morning) even though the pool was still filling up.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Shlichus Causing A Siman Ra
I just noticed an interesting mishna in Berochos 5:5. The mishna says that if a shaliach tzibbur makes a mistake it is a siman ra for the tzibbur because "shlucho shel adam k'moso". Now without this last part of "shlucho shel adam k'moso" I would have said it is a siman ra for the tzibbur since the fact the chazzan made a mistake is a bad reflection on the tzibbur. But the mishna doesn't say that. Rather it says the reason is "shlucho shel adam k'moso" which implies that the siman ra goes on the tzibbur thru hilchos shalichus. How is this different than "ain shaliach l'dvar aveirah"? When you appoint a shaliach to do an aveirah we don't say that you get punished for the aveirah, but the shaliach gets punished. So over here why does the siman ra go on the tzibbur?
One possibility off the top of my head is that "ain shaliach l'dvar aveirah" is based on the idea of "divrei harav divrei hatalmid divrei mi shomin"-in other words if Reuvain tells Shimon to do an aveirah, who should Shimon listen to, HKBH (the rav) or Reuvain (the talmid). By the case of tefilla you don't have such a sevara. The tzibbur never told the chazzan to make a mistake, it was all accidental. Since the sevara of "divreri harav" doesn't apply the shelichus can kick in to cause the siman ra to fall on the tzibbur.
One possibility off the top of my head is that "ain shaliach l'dvar aveirah" is based on the idea of "divrei harav divrei hatalmid divrei mi shomin"-in other words if Reuvain tells Shimon to do an aveirah, who should Shimon listen to, HKBH (the rav) or Reuvain (the talmid). By the case of tefilla you don't have such a sevara. The tzibbur never told the chazzan to make a mistake, it was all accidental. Since the sevara of "divreri harav" doesn't apply the shelichus can kick in to cause the siman ra to fall on the tzibbur.
Teshuva with HKBH's help
I was learning a piece of Siddura Shel Shabbos recently and he quoted a very interesting idea from the Chovos HaLevavos. When a person does an aveirah, there are times when a person can not do a complete teshuva because the residue of the aveirah is still around. Teh examples brought are someone who has a relationship that creates a mamzer. You can do teshuva for the aveirah but there will always be a blemish on your record kol z'man the mamzer is alive. The Chovos HaLevavos says an incredible chiddush. HKBH can step in and cause the mamzer to die so that you will now be able to receive a complete teshuva. To me this is a big chiddush-someone will die so you can benefit from a complete teshuva. The Siddura Shel Shabbos brings a less radical example of someone who steals money and doesn't know who to return the money to. HKBH will cause the nigzal to decide to forgive the robber and be mocheil the money.
With this understanding the Siddura Shel Shabbos explains the pesukim in Netzavim of "lo nifleisi hi mimcha...". (I don't recall the exact place where it is discussed. I will look it up and add it here).
With this understanding the Siddura Shel Shabbos explains the pesukim in Netzavim of "lo nifleisi hi mimcha...". (I don't recall the exact place where it is discussed. I will look it up and add it here).
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Hilchos Techum Shabbos
For better or for worse, my family is spending the summer up in the Catskills or the "country" as native New Yorkers like to call it. (Derech agav, my Shabbos shiur is on hiatus until after the summer so I will no longer be posting summaries of my shiurim until after the summer). One of the more popular shailos wich comes up in the bungalow colony that you usually don't have the rest of the year are the halachos of techum Shabbos. B"H this year we are in Monticello so we don't have any major issues, but a few years ago we were in an isolated colony and we had to deal with it. Yesterday I went to hear a shiur from Rabbi Reisman on this topic and he had a couple of he'oros that I found interesting.
It might be a little confusing, but I will try and write it clearly. Also, I apologize if my drawings don't come out so well.
First a short hakdama.
When calculating the techum you start counting 2000 amos from the edge of the city. A city in halacha is defined as all the houses in an enclosure or an eruv as well as all the houses that are within 70.66 amos of each other. From the edge of the city you draw straight lines and "square off" the city. It should look something like this. (The "xx" represent houses within 70.66 amos. Your techum starts at the edge of the sides of the rectangle.
___________________
[ xx xx x x ]
[ x x xxxx ]]]]]
[xx xxxxxx]
1) What happens if you have a house (we'll call it House A) that is within 70.66 amos of the squaring off but it is more than 70.66 amos from the last house. In the diagram below, House A is more than 70.66 amos from House Y and Z but it is withon 70.66 amos of the edge of the rectangle.
___________________
[xx xx
[ Y
[Z xx
[
[
[A
Apparently this was a big machlokes in Lakewood about 10 years ago and the practical nafka mina was whether one could walk from Lakewood to the hospital on Shabbos.
2) When you have 2 cities whose squared off area overlap you can count them as one city.
This is one reason why you can walk from Brooklyn to Manhattan. Apparently, when you square off Manhattan you will wind up on Ocean Parkway and when you square off Brooklyn you will wind up on the Upper West Side. Since these areas overlap you can count Brooklyn and Manhattan as one city.
3) There is another reason why Brooklyn and Manhattan are counted as one city. There is a halacha of "triangulation", where you have 3 cities that from a triangle.
X
Y Z
The halacha is that even though city Y and city Z are more than 70.66 amos apart, we can "move" city X in between them and if by moving X, the distance between Y and X and X and Z would be less than 70.66 amos we can look at it as one big city.
In our case, Roosevelt Island is between Manhattan and Brooklyn. If you moved Roosevelt Island down you would be able to create one big city from Manhattan and Brooklyn.
It might be a little confusing, but I will try and write it clearly. Also, I apologize if my drawings don't come out so well.
First a short hakdama.
When calculating the techum you start counting 2000 amos from the edge of the city. A city in halacha is defined as all the houses in an enclosure or an eruv as well as all the houses that are within 70.66 amos of each other. From the edge of the city you draw straight lines and "square off" the city. It should look something like this. (The "xx" represent houses within 70.66 amos. Your techum starts at the edge of the sides of the rectangle.
___________________
[ xx xx x x ]
[ x x xxxx ]]]]]
[xx xxxxxx]
1) What happens if you have a house (we'll call it House A) that is within 70.66 amos of the squaring off but it is more than 70.66 amos from the last house. In the diagram below, House A is more than 70.66 amos from House Y and Z but it is withon 70.66 amos of the edge of the rectangle.
___________________
[xx xx
[ Y
[Z xx
[
[
[A
Can you extend the city borders down to House A (the blue lines) ? The question is based on how do you view the area that is squared off? Is the corner area of the rectangle considered part of the city or do we say that it is not part of the city, but when it comes to measuring where the techum starts, Chazal tell us you don't have to start counting until the edge of the rectangle.
Apparently this was a big machlokes in Lakewood about 10 years ago and the practical nafka mina was whether one could walk from Lakewood to the hospital on Shabbos.
2) When you have 2 cities whose squared off area overlap you can count them as one city.
This is one reason why you can walk from Brooklyn to Manhattan. Apparently, when you square off Manhattan you will wind up on Ocean Parkway and when you square off Brooklyn you will wind up on the Upper West Side. Since these areas overlap you can count Brooklyn and Manhattan as one city.
3) There is another reason why Brooklyn and Manhattan are counted as one city. There is a halacha of "triangulation", where you have 3 cities that from a triangle.
X
Y Z
The halacha is that even though city Y and city Z are more than 70.66 amos apart, we can "move" city X in between them and if by moving X, the distance between Y and X and X and Z would be less than 70.66 amos we can look at it as one big city.
In our case, Roosevelt Island is between Manhattan and Brooklyn. If you moved Roosevelt Island down you would be able to create one big city from Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Lifnei Iveir On Shabbos
My brotehr in law asked me this interesting shaylah last week. Someone asked him if they could borrow his stroller on Shabbos. Now my BIL lives in Flatbush and does not hold of the eiruv. Obviously, his neighbor does hold of the eiruv. Is my BIL allowed to lend out his stroller knowing that it wil be used for what he feels is an issur?
Would it make a difference if you hold the other tzad is a shittah that you don't pasken like or if you hold the other tzad has no standing at all.
Would it make a difference if you hold the other tzad is a shittah that you don't pasken like or if you hold the other tzad has no standing at all.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Parshas Shelach:He'oros on Challah
I will be giving my shiur this week on the mitzvah of challah. Here are a couple of he'oros that I found.
Note: For some other he'oros on this mitzva check out here and here.
1) The Noda B'Yehuda (YD Tanyina Siman 201) discusses the issue of how is it that you are mikayeim the mitzvah of hafrasha with a chita achas yet the nesina (amount given to the kohein) needs to be a shiur chashuv ( by challah 1/24). He writes that he has a chiddush that is not found anywhere, namely that the mitzvah of terumah,challah etc is one mitzvah with 2 inyanim a) to be mafkia the tevel b) the nesina which is the ikar mitzvah. Therefore, to be mafkia the tevel you only need a hafrasha of chita achas but the nesina needs a shiur.
The hagahos from his son points out that the Noda B'Yehuda doesn't mean that I can be mafrish a chita and give more than that as the nesina. Rather, only what I am mafrish I need to give. It comes out that l'chatchilah in order to be m'kayeim the nesina of a davar chashuv I need to be mafrish a perutah also.
The Noda B'Yehuda uses this yesod to explain the Rashi's in this weeks parsha.
Ayin sham kol hadevorim.
2) The Minchas Asher points out that the Shoeil U'Meishiv in his hagahos to the Noda B'Yehuda writes that this chiddush of the Noda B'Yehuda is actually a Tosfos Rid in Kiddushin (Daf 58)
3) The Marginisa Tuva writes in interesting chiddush in Sefer HaMitzvos Shoresh 12. He says that the hafrashas teruma is really being given to Hashem. When the kohein gets his cheilek he is not getting it from teh Yisroel but rather he is getting it "m'shulchan gavoha". That is why there is no mitzvas nisana on the Yisroel, since the Yisroel doesn't gibe teh kohein anything.
4) There is a diyun in the Achronim whether hafrasha counts if you have no intention to give it. The Har Tzvi (Zeraim Siman 44) has a whole arichus on it. It is nogeia b'zman hazeh where we destroy the teruma we separate. The Har Tzvi understands that this is called doing a hafrasha w/out intent to give it to anyone.
Note: For some other he'oros on this mitzva check out here and here.
1) The Noda B'Yehuda (YD Tanyina Siman 201) discusses the issue of how is it that you are mikayeim the mitzvah of hafrasha with a chita achas yet the nesina (amount given to the kohein) needs to be a shiur chashuv ( by challah 1/24). He writes that he has a chiddush that is not found anywhere, namely that the mitzvah of terumah,challah etc is one mitzvah with 2 inyanim a) to be mafkia the tevel b) the nesina which is the ikar mitzvah. Therefore, to be mafkia the tevel you only need a hafrasha of chita achas but the nesina needs a shiur.
The hagahos from his son points out that the Noda B'Yehuda doesn't mean that I can be mafrish a chita and give more than that as the nesina. Rather, only what I am mafrish I need to give. It comes out that l'chatchilah in order to be m'kayeim the nesina of a davar chashuv I need to be mafrish a perutah also.
The Noda B'Yehuda uses this yesod to explain the Rashi's in this weeks parsha.
Ayin sham kol hadevorim.
2) The Minchas Asher points out that the Shoeil U'Meishiv in his hagahos to the Noda B'Yehuda writes that this chiddush of the Noda B'Yehuda is actually a Tosfos Rid in Kiddushin (Daf 58)
3) The Marginisa Tuva writes in interesting chiddush in Sefer HaMitzvos Shoresh 12. He says that the hafrashas teruma is really being given to Hashem. When the kohein gets his cheilek he is not getting it from teh Yisroel but rather he is getting it "m'shulchan gavoha". That is why there is no mitzvas nisana on the Yisroel, since the Yisroel doesn't gibe teh kohein anything.
4) There is a diyun in the Achronim whether hafrasha counts if you have no intention to give it. The Har Tzvi (Zeraim Siman 44) has a whole arichus on it. It is nogeia b'zman hazeh where we destroy the teruma we separate. The Har Tzvi understands that this is called doing a hafrasha w/out intent to give it to anyone.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Parshas Be'ha'alosecha: The Chashivus Of Limud HaTorah
In this week's parshas we read about Pesach Sheini. A few members of Klal Yisroel who did not partake in teh 1st korbon pesach came to Moshe with a ta'anah of "lama nigara". Rav Gedaliah Schorr (Ohr Gedalyahu Chelek Moadim Pesach Sheini) has a very interesting p'shat in their ta'anah.
Rav Schorr quotes a zohar that brings the following story. A child once met some Tanaim who were coming back from doing a pidyon shevuyim. The child accused them of not having read kriyas shema. The Tanaim answered that they were patur because of oseik b'mitzvah patur min hamitzvah. The child responded you might have been patur but I can still see on your faces that you didn't read shema. Rav Schorr explains this zohar that even if you are patur from a mitzvah, you are still missing out on not being able to perform that mitzvah. In fact the only reason HKBH put you in a matzav in which you were patur is because of your chisranos. If you didn't have any chisaron HKBH would have removed the petur and enabled you to perform the mitzvah. RAv Schorr goes on to explain that this idea especially applies to limud hatorah. Limud HaTorah is the ultimate form of serving HKBH. Granted there are times when other tzrachim or mitzvos come up which make you patur from learning. However, sof kol sof you are still missing out on the zechus of learning and you are affected. Furthermore, as we see from the zohar it is only cause of your chisronos that you were put in a situation where you became patur from learning.
Getting back to our parsha, these people involved in Pesach Sheini were tzaddikim. Because they were oseik b'mitzva acheres, they were patur from the 1st korbon pesach. However, they looked into their actions and couldn't discover in themselves any chisaron which would have caused HKBH to make them miss out on the 1st korbon pesach. Therefore they came to Moshe with the ta'anah of "lama nigara".
Rav Schorr quotes a zohar that brings the following story. A child once met some Tanaim who were coming back from doing a pidyon shevuyim. The child accused them of not having read kriyas shema. The Tanaim answered that they were patur because of oseik b'mitzvah patur min hamitzvah. The child responded you might have been patur but I can still see on your faces that you didn't read shema. Rav Schorr explains this zohar that even if you are patur from a mitzvah, you are still missing out on not being able to perform that mitzvah. In fact the only reason HKBH put you in a matzav in which you were patur is because of your chisranos. If you didn't have any chisaron HKBH would have removed the petur and enabled you to perform the mitzvah. RAv Schorr goes on to explain that this idea especially applies to limud hatorah. Limud HaTorah is the ultimate form of serving HKBH. Granted there are times when other tzrachim or mitzvos come up which make you patur from learning. However, sof kol sof you are still missing out on the zechus of learning and you are affected. Furthermore, as we see from the zohar it is only cause of your chisronos that you were put in a situation where you became patur from learning.
Getting back to our parsha, these people involved in Pesach Sheini were tzaddikim. Because they were oseik b'mitzva acheres, they were patur from the 1st korbon pesach. However, they looked into their actions and couldn't discover in themselves any chisaron which would have caused HKBH to make them miss out on the 1st korbon pesach. Therefore they came to Moshe with the ta'anah of "lama nigara".
Friday, June 16, 2006
The Uniqueness of Geirim
I just came back from Rav Dovid Feinstein's chumash shiur and he had two interesting he'oros on geirim.
1) Moshe Rabbeinu tells Yisro that he should come to Eretz Yisroel with the B'nei Yisroel. Why was Moshe so insistent that Yisro come? Since when is there a mitzvah to activelly encourage geirim to join Klal Yisroel?
Rav Dovid answered that when Moshe told Yisro ""al kein ya'data" he was saying that you can't leave us because Hashem has gone out of His way to show you all the nisim that have happened in the Midbar. If HKBH took teh time to show you His gadlus and to be m'orer you, you are not allowed to turn away. If HKBH didn't want to give you teh zechus of being m'gayeir, he would never have ensured that you witness His gadlus.
Rav Dovid added that HKBH (for reasons only known to Him) will select the people who he wishes to become geirim and gives them the hisorurus to make the decision. In fact the gemara says if a person receives this hisorurus and doesn't become a ger, even if he becomes a ger at a later point intime, he loses the zechus and schar that he would have gotten. Even Rus was on some level selected by HKBH to recieve the hisorus that led her to becoming a geyores. If HKBH goes out of his way to give you the hisorurus you have to take the plunge.
Side note: I asked Rav Dovid why this doesn't go against the idea of bechira. He answered that ultimately the decision is yours but the hisorurus to even consider such a decision is given by HKBH.
2) Moshe tells Yisro "v'hayisa lanu l'anayim".
Rav Dovid explained this to mean that geirm help us recognize the nissim and special gifts we get from HKBH. During the z'man of the Beis HamMikdash, when nissim happened everyday it was hard to appreciate the specialness of it. A ger who has not experienced it before can help us realize that what we have is truely special. This is why Yisro was the first to give HKBH a bracha over the nissim in the Midbar. B'nei Yisroel were so used to the nissim that they didn't fully appreciate them and consequently did not thank Hashem properly. It was only Yisro who came as an outsider who was able to fully appreciate the nissim and give proper thanks.
Dovid HaMelech was able to write Sefer Tehillim which praises HKBH, only because his grandmother was RUs, a geyores. She taught him to appreciate all the things that HKBH does for us. Although Dovid was the one who wrote the Tehillim on paper , it was Rus who was the spirit behind it.
Side note: I asked Rav Dovid if both ideas above would apply to Ba'alei Teshuva as well and he said certainly it would.
1) Moshe Rabbeinu tells Yisro that he should come to Eretz Yisroel with the B'nei Yisroel. Why was Moshe so insistent that Yisro come? Since when is there a mitzvah to activelly encourage geirim to join Klal Yisroel?
Rav Dovid answered that when Moshe told Yisro ""al kein ya'data" he was saying that you can't leave us because Hashem has gone out of His way to show you all the nisim that have happened in the Midbar. If HKBH took teh time to show you His gadlus and to be m'orer you, you are not allowed to turn away. If HKBH didn't want to give you teh zechus of being m'gayeir, he would never have ensured that you witness His gadlus.
Rav Dovid added that HKBH (for reasons only known to Him) will select the people who he wishes to become geirim and gives them the hisorurus to make the decision. In fact the gemara says if a person receives this hisorurus and doesn't become a ger, even if he becomes a ger at a later point intime, he loses the zechus and schar that he would have gotten. Even Rus was on some level selected by HKBH to recieve the hisorus that led her to becoming a geyores. If HKBH goes out of his way to give you the hisorurus you have to take the plunge.
Side note: I asked Rav Dovid why this doesn't go against the idea of bechira. He answered that ultimately the decision is yours but the hisorurus to even consider such a decision is given by HKBH.
2) Moshe tells Yisro "v'hayisa lanu l'anayim".
Rav Dovid explained this to mean that geirm help us recognize the nissim and special gifts we get from HKBH. During the z'man of the Beis HamMikdash, when nissim happened everyday it was hard to appreciate the specialness of it. A ger who has not experienced it before can help us realize that what we have is truely special. This is why Yisro was the first to give HKBH a bracha over the nissim in the Midbar. B'nei Yisroel were so used to the nissim that they didn't fully appreciate them and consequently did not thank Hashem properly. It was only Yisro who came as an outsider who was able to fully appreciate the nissim and give proper thanks.
Dovid HaMelech was able to write Sefer Tehillim which praises HKBH, only because his grandmother was RUs, a geyores. She taught him to appreciate all the things that HKBH does for us. Although Dovid was the one who wrote the Tehillim on paper , it was Rus who was the spirit behind it.
Side note: I asked Rav Dovid if both ideas above would apply to Ba'alei Teshuva as well and he said certainly it would.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Parsha Chabura Naso: Does A Non-Kohein Have A Mitzvah To Hear Birchas Kohanim?
This weeks chabura discussed whether a zar (non-kohein) has a mitzvah to hear birchas kohanim.
NOTE: Thi seems to have been a "hot" topic this past week. See here and here
The Biur Halacha (Beg of Siman 128) quotes a Sefer Chareidim that says it is a mitzvah for a Yisroel to be be bentched by the Kohanim. There are actually three different ways to understand this Sefer Chareidim.
1) Hafla'ah (Kesuvos 24B): The Hafla'ah seems to understand that there is a chiyuv for a yisroel to go and here birchas kohanim. This means that if you are at a minyan which has no kohanim you should go to a minyan that does. The Hafla'ah seems to learn this from a drasha of "Emor Lahem". This implies that you need a conversation between the kohan and the yisroel. The kohein gives the bracha and the yisroel listens.
(The Hafla'ah uses this to answer a stirah from gemara in Kesuvos 24B and Shabbos 118B. ayin sham. Also, teh Hafla'ah has an interesting dimyon to yibum-there is a mitzvah on yavam and yavama even though the Torah only mentions the mitzvah on the yavam. Same thing here.)
The Chasam Sofer (OC Siman 22) also understands there is a chiyuv on the yisroel to go and here birchas kohanim. This is why there is no issur of beracha l'vatalah if a kohein would duchen at two different Shachris minyanim provided that the people at the 2nd minyan had not heard birchas kohanim. Since the kohein is helping the yisroel be yotzei his chiyuv there is no beracha l'vatala.
2) The D'var Avraham (Siman 32) disagrees with the Hafla'ah. He brings a Ritva in Sukkah that states there is no chiyuv for a yisroel to hear birchas kohanim. This seems to be against the Chareidim. He answers that ain hachi nami, it is against the Hafla'ah's understanding of the Chareidim, but that is not p'shat in the Chareidim. The actual p'shat in the Chareidim is that only if the yisroel is standing by birchas kohanim is there a mitzvah to listen. But there is no mitzvah to search out birchas kohanim. This p'shat is not against the Ritva.
3) Rav Asher Weiss in MInchas Asher quotes a Mahari Asad that a yisroel's chiyuv is just to help the kohein fullfill his chiyuv. I was told that the Torah Temima says something similar but I didn't see it.
The kasha is asked (by the D'var Avraham and Minchas Asher) that if noone is in shul, the kohanim bentch the people in the fields. According to the Hafla'ah's understanding how are you doing the mitzvah since l'chorah you need to be tehre. Rav Weiss wants to say that there is a chiluk between the beracha and the kiyum hamitzva. The kiyum hamitzva requires you to be there but the berach is chal even if you are in the fields. The D'var Avraham suggests this but says it is dochek without explaining why.
NOTE: Thi seems to have been a "hot" topic this past week. See here and here
The Biur Halacha (Beg of Siman 128) quotes a Sefer Chareidim that says it is a mitzvah for a Yisroel to be be bentched by the Kohanim. There are actually three different ways to understand this Sefer Chareidim.
1) Hafla'ah (Kesuvos 24B): The Hafla'ah seems to understand that there is a chiyuv for a yisroel to go and here birchas kohanim. This means that if you are at a minyan which has no kohanim you should go to a minyan that does. The Hafla'ah seems to learn this from a drasha of "Emor Lahem". This implies that you need a conversation between the kohan and the yisroel. The kohein gives the bracha and the yisroel listens.
(The Hafla'ah uses this to answer a stirah from gemara in Kesuvos 24B and Shabbos 118B. ayin sham. Also, teh Hafla'ah has an interesting dimyon to yibum-there is a mitzvah on yavam and yavama even though the Torah only mentions the mitzvah on the yavam. Same thing here.)
The Chasam Sofer (OC Siman 22) also understands there is a chiyuv on the yisroel to go and here birchas kohanim. This is why there is no issur of beracha l'vatalah if a kohein would duchen at two different Shachris minyanim provided that the people at the 2nd minyan had not heard birchas kohanim. Since the kohein is helping the yisroel be yotzei his chiyuv there is no beracha l'vatala.
2) The D'var Avraham (Siman 32) disagrees with the Hafla'ah. He brings a Ritva in Sukkah that states there is no chiyuv for a yisroel to hear birchas kohanim. This seems to be against the Chareidim. He answers that ain hachi nami, it is against the Hafla'ah's understanding of the Chareidim, but that is not p'shat in the Chareidim. The actual p'shat in the Chareidim is that only if the yisroel is standing by birchas kohanim is there a mitzvah to listen. But there is no mitzvah to search out birchas kohanim. This p'shat is not against the Ritva.
3) Rav Asher Weiss in MInchas Asher quotes a Mahari Asad that a yisroel's chiyuv is just to help the kohein fullfill his chiyuv. I was told that the Torah Temima says something similar but I didn't see it.
The kasha is asked (by the D'var Avraham and Minchas Asher) that if noone is in shul, the kohanim bentch the people in the fields. According to the Hafla'ah's understanding how are you doing the mitzvah since l'chorah you need to be tehre. Rav Weiss wants to say that there is a chiluk between the beracha and the kiyum hamitzva. The kiyum hamitzva requires you to be there but the berach is chal even if you are in the fields. The D'var Avraham suggests this but says it is dochek without explaining why.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Beis Medrash or SHul:Which has greater kedusha
The gemara in Megilla (27A) brings a machlokes between Rav Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi over which has more kedusha a beis keneses or a beis medrash. The nafka mina is the question they deal with over whether you can turn a shul into a beis medrash or a beis medrash into a shul. If you hold a shul has more kedusha you can only turn a beis medrash into a shul (Rav Yochanan) and similarly if you hold a beis medrash has more kedusha then you can only turn a shul into a beis medrash (RYBL).
The main question on this sugya is what is the nekudas hamachlokes. To that I have no answer.
However, there is an interesting Meshech Chochma in Parshas Titzave (29:42). There is a machlokes between Rav Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi whether HKBH spoke to Moshe from the koperes on the aron or from the mizbayach. The Meshech Chochma explains that they are l'shitaso. Rav Yochanan held tefilla is more important and therefore HKBH spoke from the mizbayach (mokom tefilla). Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi held torah is more important and therefore HKBH spoke from the kapores (mokom torah).
The main question on this sugya is what is the nekudas hamachlokes. To that I have no answer.
However, there is an interesting Meshech Chochma in Parshas Titzave (29:42). There is a machlokes between Rav Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi whether HKBH spoke to Moshe from the koperes on the aron or from the mizbayach. The Meshech Chochma explains that they are l'shitaso. Rav Yochanan held tefilla is more important and therefore HKBH spoke from the mizbayach (mokom tefilla). Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi held torah is more important and therefore HKBH spoke from the kapores (mokom torah).
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Tashmishei Kedusha:The Status of an Aron HaKodesh
The nosie keeilim in Shulchan Aruch (OC 154) and the poskim try to understand why an aron hakodesh is considered tashmishei kedusha. from the gemara in Megillah (26B) it is clear that in order to qualify as tashmishei kedusha the object must touch the davar she'b'kedusha. An aron does not touch the sefer torah, so how does it become tahsmishei kedusha.
Some achronim (Pri Megadim) make a chiluk between something used for kavod and something used for shemirah. The gemara in Megillah is only referring to an object that is used for shemirah. In such a case it must touch the sefer torah. But if it is used for kavod it doesn't need to touch. (A possible nafka mina would be a safe used to store a sefer torah-the poskim discuss does it have a din of tashmishei kedusha).
I saw in the Harirei Kedem (vol 2) that Rav Shirkin brings a different approach from Rav Soloveitchik zt"l. (Interestingly, my chavrusah pointed out that Rav Shirkin also has a similar piece in the sefer zikaron for Rav Moshe zt"l, but there it is not attributed to Rav Soloveitchik zt"l)
The Rav zt"l wanted to say that an aron has a special din of being the makom of the sefer torah. This is learned out from the aron in the mishkan which had a unique status as being the mokom for the luchos, besides being one of the klei mishkan. Consequently, the fact that the aron is designated as the mokom of the sefer torah gives it a status of tashmishei kedusha even if the torah doesn't touch the aron.
Some achronim (Pri Megadim) make a chiluk between something used for kavod and something used for shemirah. The gemara in Megillah is only referring to an object that is used for shemirah. In such a case it must touch the sefer torah. But if it is used for kavod it doesn't need to touch. (A possible nafka mina would be a safe used to store a sefer torah-the poskim discuss does it have a din of tashmishei kedusha).
I saw in the Harirei Kedem (vol 2) that Rav Shirkin brings a different approach from Rav Soloveitchik zt"l. (Interestingly, my chavrusah pointed out that Rav Shirkin also has a similar piece in the sefer zikaron for Rav Moshe zt"l, but there it is not attributed to Rav Soloveitchik zt"l)
The Rav zt"l wanted to say that an aron has a special din of being the makom of the sefer torah. This is learned out from the aron in the mishkan which had a unique status as being the mokom for the luchos, besides being one of the klei mishkan. Consequently, the fact that the aron is designated as the mokom of the sefer torah gives it a status of tashmishei kedusha even if the torah doesn't touch the aron.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Rav Wolfson: Shavuous
Note: HaRav Isser Wolfson shlita is a noted talmid chacham, dayan and posek. The shiurim were transcribed by me and reviewed by Rav Wolfson. What you are reading is just an excerpt and not the whole shiur. I have also taken the liberty of making some slight editorial changes to the original version in order to make it read better. This week's excerpt is from 5763.
Although every korbon has a requirement of tenufa, The requirement of tenufa by both the korbon omer and shtei halechem is differnet than the tenufa of other korbonos. By the omer, the Lechem Mishna writes that the parsha of tenufa is separate from the parsha of bringing the korbon. From here we see that the tenufas ha'omer is the major part of the mitzvah and is a special avodah that is different than all other tenufos that we find by other korbonos. Also, by the shtei halechem the tenufa on the animal is done while it is still alive., unlike other korbonos where the tenufa is done after the animal is dead. The reason for this is because the shtei halechem also has its own special avodah of tenufa.
The question remains however, what is the purpose of this special tenufa and what does it represent? The gemara in Menochos (62) explains that the tenufa represents a form of tefilla in that we are asking HKBH to send us good wind and dew to help our crops. Tosfos points out that this special tenufa was only done for the korbon omer and the shtei halechem since the korbon omer was brought on Pesach k’neged the tevuah and the shtei halechem was brought on Shavuos k’neged the fruits. With this we can now understand why the korbon omer and the shtei halechem each had a special avodah of tenufa. Unlike the other tenufos done year round which were just a minor part of the avodah, these special tenufos represent a ma’aseh tefillah. where we are asking HKBH to help out our crops.
We also find this idea in the Rambam. The Rambam (Ma’aseh Korbonos Perek 6) paskens that all the tenufos were done in the six directions. (From the Rambam we wouldn’t have the rayah we brought from Tosfos). The reason is because the yesod of the tenufos is that it is a bakashah that calamities shouldn’t happen. Again we see from here that the tenufa represents an inyan of tefillah. Furthermore, the Rambam (Ma’aseh Korbonos Perek 3) connects smichah to tenufa. We can say that just like smichah is a ma’aseh tefilla, since this is where vidui was done, so too the tenufa is a ma’aseh tefilla.
The complement to the is the lulav that we take on Sukkos. The possuk says that we should take the lulav in order to be “samechtem lifnei Hashem” and we learn out from here that there is a chiyuv d’oraisa to shake the lulav in the Bais HaMikdash as a form of simchah. We see from here that just like on Pesach and Shavuos there is an inyan of tenufa as a form of tefillah (through the korbon omer and the shtei halechem ), so too on Sukkos there is an inyan of tenufa through the lulav to show our simchah.
Finally, we can also add that the mitzva of Bikkurim can be done until Sukkos. So it comes out that from Pesach until Sukkos we have the tenufa b’derech tefillah and then starting on Sukkos we have a tenufa b’derech simchah.
Although every korbon has a requirement of tenufa, The requirement of tenufa by both the korbon omer and shtei halechem is differnet than the tenufa of other korbonos. By the omer, the Lechem Mishna writes that the parsha of tenufa is separate from the parsha of bringing the korbon. From here we see that the tenufas ha'omer is the major part of the mitzvah and is a special avodah that is different than all other tenufos that we find by other korbonos. Also, by the shtei halechem the tenufa on the animal is done while it is still alive., unlike other korbonos where the tenufa is done after the animal is dead. The reason for this is because the shtei halechem also has its own special avodah of tenufa.
The question remains however, what is the purpose of this special tenufa and what does it represent? The gemara in Menochos (62) explains that the tenufa represents a form of tefilla in that we are asking HKBH to send us good wind and dew to help our crops. Tosfos points out that this special tenufa was only done for the korbon omer and the shtei halechem since the korbon omer was brought on Pesach k’neged the tevuah and the shtei halechem was brought on Shavuos k’neged the fruits. With this we can now understand why the korbon omer and the shtei halechem each had a special avodah of tenufa. Unlike the other tenufos done year round which were just a minor part of the avodah, these special tenufos represent a ma’aseh tefillah. where we are asking HKBH to help out our crops.
We also find this idea in the Rambam. The Rambam (Ma’aseh Korbonos Perek 6) paskens that all the tenufos were done in the six directions. (From the Rambam we wouldn’t have the rayah we brought from Tosfos). The reason is because the yesod of the tenufos is that it is a bakashah that calamities shouldn’t happen. Again we see from here that the tenufa represents an inyan of tefillah. Furthermore, the Rambam (Ma’aseh Korbonos Perek 3) connects smichah to tenufa. We can say that just like smichah is a ma’aseh tefilla, since this is where vidui was done, so too the tenufa is a ma’aseh tefilla.
The complement to the is the lulav that we take on Sukkos. The possuk says that we should take the lulav in order to be “samechtem lifnei Hashem” and we learn out from here that there is a chiyuv d’oraisa to shake the lulav in the Bais HaMikdash as a form of simchah. We see from here that just like on Pesach and Shavuos there is an inyan of tenufa as a form of tefillah (through the korbon omer and the shtei halechem ), so too on Sukkos there is an inyan of tenufa through the lulav to show our simchah.
Finally, we can also add that the mitzva of Bikkurim can be done until Sukkos. So it comes out that from Pesach until Sukkos we have the tenufa b’derech tefillah and then starting on Sukkos we have a tenufa b’derech simchah.
Friday, May 19, 2006
A Brief Hiatus
Unfortunately, I will be traveling next week (work related) and will not have a chance to post anything. But don't worry I will return.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Rav Wolfson:Parshas Bechukosai
Note: HaRav Isser Wolfson shlita is a noted talmid chacham, dayan and posek. The shiurim were transcribed by me and reviewed by Rav Wolfson. What you are reading is just an excerpt and not the whole shiur. I have also taken the liberty of making some slight editorial changes to the original version in order to make it read better. This week's excerpt is from Bechukosai 5763.
In the parsha HKBH promises to destroy the bais hamikdash if the B’nei Yisroel doesn’t listen to the Torah. There is a machlokes in the Toras Kohanim whether Nevuchadnetzar destroyed the first bayis entirely or if he just knocked down the walls but he left the yesodos. The Rash (Para 3:3) brings a Yerushalmi that Nevuchadnetzar only destroyed the walls but he left the yesodos. This is actually hinted to in the possuk “zechor Hashem livnei Edom es yom Yerushalayim v'omru arur arur ad hayesod bah”. Only Edom/Rome was able to destroy the yesodos of the bais hamikdash while Bavel only succeeded in knocking down the walls.
The Gemara says that even after the first churban, Yerushalayim still retained its kedusha. Tosfos Zevachim (Daf 60) asks why is this so? If there is no bais hamikdash how could Yerushalayim still retain its kedusha? Perhaps we can answer that there were really two kedushos to the Bais HaMikdash. The first kedusha was done thru Dovid HaMelech when he built the yesodos of the mikdash. The second kedusha was done thru Shlomo HaMelech when he built the rest of the bayis. Based on what we said above, the yesodos of the bayis were never destroyed. Therefore, this kedusha was never batul and consequently Yerushalayim can also retain its kedusha. It wasn’t until Edom destroyed the yesodos by churban bayis sheini that Yerushalayim lost its kedusha. This is also meduyak in the possuk we quoted above. The possuk says “zechor Hashem livnei Edom es yom Yerushalayim v'omru arur arur ad hayesod bah". Not only were the yesodos destroyed thru Edom but also the “Yom Yerushalayim” or the kedusha of Yerushalayim was destroyed as well.
In the parsha HKBH promises to destroy the bais hamikdash if the B’nei Yisroel doesn’t listen to the Torah. There is a machlokes in the Toras Kohanim whether Nevuchadnetzar destroyed the first bayis entirely or if he just knocked down the walls but he left the yesodos. The Rash (Para 3:3) brings a Yerushalmi that Nevuchadnetzar only destroyed the walls but he left the yesodos. This is actually hinted to in the possuk “zechor Hashem livnei Edom es yom Yerushalayim v'omru arur arur ad hayesod bah”. Only Edom/Rome was able to destroy the yesodos of the bais hamikdash while Bavel only succeeded in knocking down the walls.
The Gemara says that even after the first churban, Yerushalayim still retained its kedusha. Tosfos Zevachim (Daf 60) asks why is this so? If there is no bais hamikdash how could Yerushalayim still retain its kedusha? Perhaps we can answer that there were really two kedushos to the Bais HaMikdash. The first kedusha was done thru Dovid HaMelech when he built the yesodos of the mikdash. The second kedusha was done thru Shlomo HaMelech when he built the rest of the bayis. Based on what we said above, the yesodos of the bayis were never destroyed. Therefore, this kedusha was never batul and consequently Yerushalayim can also retain its kedusha. It wasn’t until Edom destroyed the yesodos by churban bayis sheini that Yerushalayim lost its kedusha. This is also meduyak in the possuk we quoted above. The possuk says “zechor Hashem livnei Edom es yom Yerushalayim v'omru arur arur ad hayesod bah". Not only were the yesodos destroyed thru Edom but also the “Yom Yerushalayim” or the kedusha of Yerushalayim was destroyed as well.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Mazal Tov
MAzal Tov to my sister on the birth of a baby boy. May they have much nachas from him and he should grow l'torah v'chupah u'ma'asim tovim.
For those keeping score at home, that makes 3 nephews and 1 niece born since this blog started. In the last year (since July 8th when my daughter was born) my siblings and I have all had children born to us, 2 girls and 4 boys.
For those keeping score at home, that makes 3 nephews and 1 niece born since this blog started. In the last year (since July 8th when my daughter was born) my siblings and I have all had children born to us, 2 girls and 4 boys.
Parsha Chabura AchareiMos/K'doshim: Avoda of Kohein Gadol on Yom Kippur
This weeks chaburah discussed the role of the kohein gadol on Yom Kippur. The gemara in Yevamos (33a) learns from a g'zeiras hakasuv that the kohein gadol had to do the avoda on Yom Kippur. The question is, exactly which avoda is this referring to.
Shittas Ba'al Hamaor
The mishnayos in Perek 2 of Yoma discuss the four lotteries that were held everyday in the Beis HaMikdash. The Ba'al Hamaor in the beginning of Yoma asks why was it necessary to hold a lottery on Yom Kippur if the kohein gadol did all the avoda. He answers ain hachi nami there was no lottery on Yom Kippur.
Tosfos (20b) also quotes a shitta like this and brings the following rayah. The terumas hadeshen wasnormally done at alos hashachar. On Yom Kippur it was done at midnight due to the weakness of the kohein gadol. Tosafos writes that they didn't want to overtax the kohein gadol so they had a kohein hedyot do the terumas hadeshen and since a kohein hedyot couldn't do any avoda on Yom Kippur, they had to do it at midnight.
Shittas Ramban/Rambam
The Milchamos argues and says that the machshirei avoda was done by a kohein hedyot. The lotteries were to decide which kohanim got to do the machshirei avoda (ayin Tosfos Yom Tov 2:2 for a synopsis of the Ramban). Furthermore, the terumas hadeshen is an avodas liela and could be done by a kohein hedyot. They did it at midnight to give the kohein gadol more time to do the rest of the avoda on Yom Kippur.
The Rambam seems to agree with this but is mashma that there were only two lotteries not four (ayin avodsas yom kippur 4:1)
Shittas Ritva Yoma 12B
The Ritva says m'd'oreisa there was a chiyuv for the kohein gadol to do the special yom kippur avoda. It was only a mitzva for the kohein gadol to do the rest of the avoda which would have taken place even during the week (korbon tamid). However, Chazal created a chiyuv d'rabanan on the rest of the avoda but this chiyuv did not extend to the machshirei avoda.
He'oros/Nafka Mina
1) The Sha'ar HaMelech (Avodas Yom Kippur 1:1) has a long discussion whether a kohein hedyot who does the avoda on Yom kippur is chayav misa. Since he is considered a "zar" maybe this state of "zarus" creates a chiyuv misa (also see D'var Avraham Siman 23:14).
One could argue that according to the Ritva this kasha only applies to the avoda specifically done on Yom Kippur. For the other avoda even if it is a mitzva for teh kohein gadol to do it, a kohein hedyot could still do it and not be chayav misa.
2) The Chiddushei R' Aryeh Leib discusses the nature of kiddush yadayim v'raglayim on Yom Kippur. He writes that in actuality as long as you do one kiddush at the start of the day, the rest of the avoda isn't pasul even though you really need to do 10 kiddushins. However, the kiddush done for the treumas hadeshen (assuming the kohein gadol did it) would not work cause you need a kiddush yadyaim that was done for the Yom Kippur specific avoda-this is in line with the Ritva who he actually quotes.
3) I am not sure if the Ohr Sameach (Avodas Yom Kippur 4:1) agrees with this Ritva. The Ohr Sameach writes that when Yom Kippur falls on Shabbos, the musaf for Shabbos must be brought by the kohein gadol. The reason is that all the korbonos of that day get the status of a "Yom Kippur" korbon even if the reason they are brought is not because of Yom Kippur. This would imply that even the non Yom Kippur specific-avoda must be done by the kohein gadol and it is not just a mitzvah for the kohein gadol to do it.
Shittas Ba'al Hamaor
The mishnayos in Perek 2 of Yoma discuss the four lotteries that were held everyday in the Beis HaMikdash. The Ba'al Hamaor in the beginning of Yoma asks why was it necessary to hold a lottery on Yom Kippur if the kohein gadol did all the avoda. He answers ain hachi nami there was no lottery on Yom Kippur.
Tosfos (20b) also quotes a shitta like this and brings the following rayah. The terumas hadeshen wasnormally done at alos hashachar. On Yom Kippur it was done at midnight due to the weakness of the kohein gadol. Tosafos writes that they didn't want to overtax the kohein gadol so they had a kohein hedyot do the terumas hadeshen and since a kohein hedyot couldn't do any avoda on Yom Kippur, they had to do it at midnight.
Shittas Ramban/Rambam
The Milchamos argues and says that the machshirei avoda was done by a kohein hedyot. The lotteries were to decide which kohanim got to do the machshirei avoda (ayin Tosfos Yom Tov 2:2 for a synopsis of the Ramban). Furthermore, the terumas hadeshen is an avodas liela and could be done by a kohein hedyot. They did it at midnight to give the kohein gadol more time to do the rest of the avoda on Yom Kippur.
The Rambam seems to agree with this but is mashma that there were only two lotteries not four (ayin avodsas yom kippur 4:1)
Shittas Ritva Yoma 12B
The Ritva says m'd'oreisa there was a chiyuv for the kohein gadol to do the special yom kippur avoda. It was only a mitzva for the kohein gadol to do the rest of the avoda which would have taken place even during the week (korbon tamid). However, Chazal created a chiyuv d'rabanan on the rest of the avoda but this chiyuv did not extend to the machshirei avoda.
He'oros/Nafka Mina
1) The Sha'ar HaMelech (Avodas Yom Kippur 1:1) has a long discussion whether a kohein hedyot who does the avoda on Yom kippur is chayav misa. Since he is considered a "zar" maybe this state of "zarus" creates a chiyuv misa (also see D'var Avraham Siman 23:14).
One could argue that according to the Ritva this kasha only applies to the avoda specifically done on Yom Kippur. For the other avoda even if it is a mitzva for teh kohein gadol to do it, a kohein hedyot could still do it and not be chayav misa.
2) The Chiddushei R' Aryeh Leib discusses the nature of kiddush yadayim v'raglayim on Yom Kippur. He writes that in actuality as long as you do one kiddush at the start of the day, the rest of the avoda isn't pasul even though you really need to do 10 kiddushins. However, the kiddush done for the treumas hadeshen (assuming the kohein gadol did it) would not work cause you need a kiddush yadyaim that was done for the Yom Kippur specific avoda-this is in line with the Ritva who he actually quotes.
3) I am not sure if the Ohr Sameach (Avodas Yom Kippur 4:1) agrees with this Ritva. The Ohr Sameach writes that when Yom Kippur falls on Shabbos, the musaf for Shabbos must be brought by the kohein gadol. The reason is that all the korbonos of that day get the status of a "Yom Kippur" korbon even if the reason they are brought is not because of Yom Kippur. This would imply that even the non Yom Kippur specific-avoda must be done by the kohein gadol and it is not just a mitzvah for the kohein gadol to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)