Parshas VaYigash:Loshon HaKodesh

Thw Winner Is...

I decided to speak about Loshon HaKodesh this past week. Thanks for all the suggestions from everyone and especially to Chaim Brown (aka the Divrei Chaim) for suggesting this topic.

Why is it called Loshon HaKodesh

There are 3 opinions why the language is called loshon hakodesh.

Rambam

The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (2:8) writes that it is called loshon hakodesh because there are no words in this language that describe the reproductive organs of a person.

Ramban

The Ramban in Shemos (30:23) argues on the Rambam. HE says according to teh Rambam it should be called loshon nekiah or loshon taharah. Rather it is called loshon hakodesh because this language is used for devarim that are kodosh. HKBH created the world with this language, the Torah was given with this language, nevuah was said in this language and malachim speak this language.

Shelah

On a deeper level the Shelah writes that all the letters of loshon hakodesh have an effect in shamayim. The letters and the words which these letters make up form the essence of each object and it is an expression of what that object represents in shamayim. For example, a table is called a shulchan. The word shulchan is not just an arbitrary word, but rather the letters "shin", "lamed", "ches" and "nun" (and in that order) represent the spirtual force that makes up a table. This is why the language is called loshon hakodesh.

This idea of the Shelah is found in many sifrei machshava. This is also the explanation given to explain what it means that Adam named all the animals. Adam knew the essence and spiritual makeup of each animal and consequently he gave them the hebrew letters that correspond to them.

Mitzvah to learn loshon hakodesh

Is there a mitzvah to learn loshon hakodesh? There is a Sifri in Eikev on the possuk "v'dibarta bam" that one is obligated to teach his child loshon hakodesh and torah. The Torah Temima writes that from here we see there is a mitzva to learn loshon hakodesh and he expresses astonishment that it is not counted as one of the mitzvos nor is it brought in Shulchan Aruch.He references a sefer he wrote on the topic called "Sefah L'Ne'amanim" which I actually found here The Torah Temima brings a few rayos to his idea. One raya is from the Rambam on Avos 2:1 The mishna says one should be careful to fullfill a mitzva kala like a mitzva chamura. The Rambam says a mitzva kala is learning loshon hakodesh.

Although noone says it is a mitzva to learn loshon hakodesh, Rav Moshe in Even Ezer 3:35 does say that it is a mitzvah to speak loshon hakodesh. However, Rav Moshe also says there is no issur to speak other languages as we see many gedolim spoke other languages.

The Chavas Yair (Siman 120) also writes it is important to learn the laws of dikduk but one should not spend an inordinate amount of time on it.

Kedushas HaLoshon

Although the language is called loshon hakodesh, it is clear from the Shulchan Aruch and poskim that the language itself has no inherent kedusha. The Tashbetz and the Sh'ailas Ya'avetz both poin to out that the Shulchan Aruch (85:2) says you can speak loshon hakodesh in the bathroom. From here we see that unlike a sefer torah, there is nothing inherently kodosh about the language. The MG"A does write that the Sefer Chassidim says one should be makpid not to speak loshon hakodesh in the bathroom. The Chasam Sofer (notes to Shulchan Aruch Siman 85) says that there was an old minhag not to teach small children loshon hakodesh so they won't come to speak it in the bathroom.

Loshon Hakodesh in Halacha

One other are of halach that loshon hakodesh is discussed is in Siman 307:16, The Rema writes that even though certain books are not allowed to be read on Shabbos, if they are written in loshon hakodesh it is muttar since one can learn fromn the language. This is similar to the hetter to read a Get on Shabbos since one can learn Hilchos Gittin from it. The Taz and MG"A disagree with this Rema and the Mishna Berura is machmir.

An Experiment

I've never done this before but I thought I would try it as an experiment.

I am trying to come up with a topic for this week's shiur and I can't find anything that I haven't spoken about and grabs my attention.
Therefore, I am asking all my readers (which probably amounts to 1 or 2 people) for suggestions. The only requirement is that it has to somehow tie into the parsha and it should be halacha or lomdus oriented.

I can't promise that I will use any of the suggestions but I will definately consider any suggestion that I get.

Thank you in advance.

Kedushas Levi on AL HaNisim

I promised a machshava vort on Al HaNisim. Although this is not what I had originally intended to write, I really liked this vort.

The Kedushas Levi asks that we say in Al HaNisim, rabim b'yad ham'atim..reshaim b'yad tzaddikim. We can understand how rabim b'yad ham'atim is a neis but how is reshaim b'yad tzaddikim a neis-isn't that supposd to happen. He answers that there can be 2 reasons why HKBH decides to punish tzaddikim. Either it is because he is mad at them for being reshaim and he wants to punish them or it is because they are fighting the tzaddikim. He compares it to a father who sticks up for his sons when they are being beaten up. In teh case of Chanuka, HKBH destroyed the reshaim precisely for this reason-because they were beating up the tzaddikim. The message is that we see how much ahava Hashem had for us that he caused these nisim to happen precisely for our benefit. The reason HKBH showed this level of ahava is because we went out of our way to be moseir nefesh in keeping the Torah.

Al Hanisim in Hashkafah and Lomdus

Being that it is Chanukah here are 2 vorts on Al HaNisim. One b'toras lomdus and one b'toras hashkafa

first the lomdus.

There is an interesting difference between the addition of Al HaNisim. and the addition of Ya'aleh V'Yova which we add for Rosh Chodesh and Yom Tov. When we say Al HaMichya we add in a line for Rosh Chodesh/Yom Tov but we don't add anything in for Chanukah or Purim. Why not?

Rav Shirkin in the Harirei Kedem explains that Al HaNisim is added as an extension of the berachas hoda'ah. It is not a separate tefilla but rather Chazal lengthened the bracha of hoda'ah in tefilla and in bentching by including this prayer. Ya'aleh V'Yova on the other hand is an additional tefilla which was added as a stand alone prayer.
Al HaMichya is a shortened version of bentching. Chazal took the words of bentching and condensed it into a short paragraph. As we said Al HaNisim is just an extended part of berchas hoda'ah and therefore when Chazal shortened this beracha amongthe words that they took out (or left out) was the Al HaNisim part. Ya'aleh V'Yavo or mentioning Rosh Chodesh and Yom Tov on the other hand is an additional tefilla. Just like it was added to bentching it also has to be added to Al HaMichyah. That is why we have a line in there about Rosh Chodesh and Yom Tov.

Stay tuned for the Hashkafa piece.

Parshas VaYeishev:Ta'anis Chalom

The sugyah of ta'anis chalom is an interesting one. The gemara mentions it in 3 places. Ta'anis 12b and Shabbos 11a both say fasting over a bad dream is a good thing even on Shabbos. Teh gemara in Berachos 31b says if one fasts on Shabbos a gzar din of 70 years is torn up. Most Rishonim (the RAshba and Rivash) learn this gemara is referring to a ta'anis chalom and that otherwise it is assur to fast on Shabbos.

The obvious question is what is gained by fasting for a dream. The Ritva in Ta'anis (12b) provides a clear hesber. He says that we find some gemaras which indicate dreams are meaningless. However, from this gemara it seem that there is truth to dreams. He answers that when a dream personally affects a person then there is room to worry. It should lead a person to teshuva. Therefor, if one has a bad dream one has a right to worry that it is a message telling you to do teshuva. The appropriate response is to fast.

The question remains why one is allowed to fast even on Shabbos. The Ritva (as well as the Rashba in Berachos 31b) explains that not being able to fast over a bad dream will cause a person tzar. He will be so upset that he can't do teshuva that he will have no oneg Shabbos. For him fasting is an oneg Shabbos. However, according to the Rashba he must make up for not eating by fasting another day.

There is a machlokes Rishonim if this ta'anis is a chiyuv. The Rashba (Shut Rashba 132) says itis not but the Lechem Mishna (Ta'anis 1:12) understands the Rambam that it is a chiyuv.

As far as b'zman hazeh, the Aruch HaShulchan (Siman 120) writes how we are not on teh madreigah for our dreams to mean anything. At most it is not a message from HKBH but from "sheidim" created by our aveiros and therefore one does not need to fast. The Piskei Teshuvos brings the Chazon Ish and Steipler who say the same thing.

Making Havdalah For My Daughters II

As I mentioned previously the issue of making the beracha of borei mi'orei haeish for my daughters is more complicated.

Issue #1. Even if a woman is chayav in havdala is she woman obligated to make this beracha.

Issue #2: The Chazon Ish writes in Orach Chaim Siman 37 that there is no arvus by the beracha of borei minei besamim or borei mi'orei haeish. Therefore, by besamim someone who has already made havdala could not make this beracha for someone else unless he also smells the besamim. However, when it comes to the beracha on fire it is not a berchas hanehnin and therefore getting ha'na'ah from the fire would not help. According to this you could never make the beracha of mi'orei haeish for someone else if you already were yotzei in havdala.

I should point out that it seems the Mishna Berura would argue on this. The Mishna Berura writes in the Sha'ar HaTziyon in Siman 297 that one could make a beracha on the aish even if you already heard havdala.

It would seem the following would come out based on the above.

a) if you are making havdala for a woman, since anyway it is a shaylah if she should make the beracha on fire and according to the Chazon Ish there is no arvus by this beracha, perhaps she should make the beracha herself or don't make it at all.

b) if you are making havdala for a man, then according to the Chazon Ish there is no arvus by this beracha and the person you are making it for should say it himself. (whether you can answer amein is a shaylah in the Shmiras Shabbos due to hefsek). It would seem according to teh Mishan Berura that you could make the beracha for someone else.

c) Making it for kids: This same Chazon Ish points out there is a difference between making a berachas hanehnin for an adult and a child. By an adult unless you get hana'ah you can't be motzei someone else in this beracha. By a child you can make this beracha m'tzad chinuch even if yuo get no ha'na'ah at all. Therefore, by the beracha on aish even if there is no arvus you can make it for a child since you can make the beracha m'din chinuch.

It would seem thast even for a girl you can make this beracha m'din chinuch on the tzad that woman can make this beracha. The Children in Halacha book actually says you can make this beracha for kids and doesn't differentiate between girls and boys. It might be better for the girl to make this beracha herself but I can hear more of a reason to make it for a girl than for a woman.

Making Havdalah For My Daughters

I just realized I haven't posted anything since Parshas Lech Lecha. I have been busy at work and I was out of town last week. Hopefully, things are calming down and I should be posting more frequently.

This past motzei Shabbos my 2 older girls both under bas mitzvah missed havdala and I had to make it for them again. However, I initially wasn't sure if I could make it for them. (The truth is in retrospect I am not sure why I was so mesupak but here is what I found). The first question I had was the age old question of making havdalah for a woman when you have already heard havdalah. It is questionable if a woman has an obligation to hear havdalah. Therefore, if a man has already fullfilled his obligation, arvus might not apply and he might not be able to be motzei a woman. The Mishna Berura brings down both opinions and says it is better for the woman to make it herself. It wasn't clear to me what the Mishan Berura would say where the woman can't make havdalah. I wasn't sure which side the Mishna Berura liked better. (Maybe someone out there can convince me either way). The Aruch HaShulchan however is very adamant that if the woman can't make havdalah then a man can make it for her.

What was also interesting is how th e Mishna Berura and Aruch HaShulchan both viewed the "issur" of a woman drinking the wine. The Mishna Berura quoted an acharon that asked how can a woman make havadala if she can't drink teh wine. The obvious answer (at least to me) would be to say that what kind of question is that, not drinking wine is only a minhag and of course she can drink the wine when there is no other choice. This is what the Aruch HaShulchan says (using strong language). The Mishna Berura on the other hand seems to accept the question as legitimate.

The next question that I had was does the fact that my girls were not bas mitzvah make a difference. Again I am not sure why I thought this would matter but for some reason I was bothered by it. I found that when it comes to the beracha of besamim, if you are smelling the besamim then you can make the beracha. However, if for some reason you can't smell them, then the Shmiras Shabbos says that the ketanim should make the beracha after havdalah. Teh idea is that for them to make the beracha in the middle of havdalah would be a hefsek. (I have to look it up again to see what the sevarah is).

The beracha on the fire was also a little complicated and I need to look it up again before writing it down here. Stay tuned. Hopefully I will get back to it.

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

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.

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.

More On Eating The Azazeil

Just one quick follow up to my previous post.
I saw some achronim discuss the Minchas Chinuch's shailah. Notably the D'var Avraham (cheilek 2 Siman 8 anaf 4) and the Kehillas Ya'akov (Chullin Siman 11 and Asher L'Shlomo Siman 1) . The Steipler quotes the Achiezer who has a whole piece on the nature of Melika in Y.D. Siman 7. The Achiezer says that b'etzem melika is not a mattir l'achila like shechita. Rather it is a gezeiras hakasuv that allows the kohanim to eat the korban. However, the bird is still not a neveilah because we have a rule that anything done "derech avoda" is not m'tamei. The Steipler applies this reasoning over here and therefore even though pushing the goat off the cliff is not a ma'aseh shechita to allow you to eat it, it is derech avodah and therefore not m'tamei.

The assumption that the dechiyas ha'sa'ir is called derech avoda might be debatable, but that will have to wait for another time.

Anyway wishing everyone a g'mar chasima tova. If a somehow insulted anyone through these posts and/or comments ask mechillah,

Eating The Sair L'Azazeil

The Rambam paskens (Hil Avodas Yom Kippur 5:17) that throwing the sa'ir off the cliff was a form of shechita (d'chiyaso hi shechitaso)? Therefore, there is an issur of "oso v'es b'no" and if the mother of the azazeil was shechted for a choleh on Yom Kippur, the azazeil could not not be used.

The Minchas Chinuch raises 2 interesting points.

1) There should be no tumas neveilah either The Rambam paskens by eglah arufa (Hil Avos HaTumah 3:13) that there is no din neveilah. The question is why teh Rambam didn't mention this by the azazeil as well.

2) Would one be allowed to eat the azazeil. If the azazeil doesn't die after being thrown off, you kill it anyway you want to. The Minchas Chinuch writes you can even shecht it and eat it since it is muttar b'hana'ah. The Minchas Chinuch then is mesupak that even if it died after being thrown off, you could still eat it since the Rambam paskens that d'chiyaso hi shechitaso. This should be similar to melika where you can eat the bird even though shechita wasn't done-the Torah tells us melika is enough. The Minchas Chimuch leaves it as a kasha.

Post Rosh Hashana Thoughts

I don't really have too many he'oros on Rosh Hashana since for the most part I was busy with my children while my wife took care of the baby and rested. But I figured I had to post something.

1) I bought an interesting sefer this year called Moadim L'Simcha that was put out by the editors of Otzar HaPoskim. It has a collection of essays on the various minhagim of the Yomim Tovim (selichos, tashlich, kapporos, hakafos etc). One of the articles was on the tekios d'm'umad and tekios d'm'yushav. Here are a few interesting points

a) There is a machlokes rishonim exactly when this taknah was developed. The Ramban understands it started with the amoraim while other rishonim hold it started with the tanaim.

b) The reason given for having 2 sets of tekios is "l'arveiv hasatan"-confuse the Satan. The Ramban explains that the point of confusing the Satan is so that he should not be m'katreig on our tefillos. In other words, we blow before musaf so that when it comes time for musaf the Satan will have already been m'katreig on us and he won't be around to stop HKBH from hearing our tefillos.

c) Many Rishonim (the Ramban and others) hold that there are really 2 issues going on. One is the mitzva d'oreisa to hear the shofar and the other is a takana d'rabanan of blowing shofar in the middle of davening but lav davka 30 kolos. This takana is not limited to Rosh Hashana but also applies to a ta'anis tzibbur as well. Originally, once Chazal set up this takana of blowing shofar in the middle of davening, they decided that we should blow 30 kolos to be yotzei the d'oreisa as well. These tekios are known as tekios d'm'umad. At a later point in time, Chazal also instituted tekios d'm'yushav in order to confuse the Satan.

For a more lomdishe approach to this sugyah take a look at my friend the Divrei Chaim.

Og and Sichon-Were they brothers

This post has nothing to do with the Yomim Noraim or Aseres Yimei Teshuva. The only relevence to these days is that my son mentioned it at one of our Rosh Hashana meals. (Now why he mentioned it now as opposed to last month when he learned it in camp is beyond me, but being that my son is only 7 I'll give him some leeway).

My son mentioned that his rebbi in camp told them that Sichon and Og were brothers. (This is actually a gemara in Avoda Zarah 65a). The question is that Chazal tell us that besides Noach and his family, the only other person saved was Og who hung onto the side of the teiva. If that is so, how were Sichon and Og brothers? If Sichon was born before the mabul, then he would have died. If he was born after the mabul, then he would have had different parents (since Og's parents would have died in the mabul).

My son claims that his rebbi did not have an answer. However, when I told this kasha to a friend of mine, he pointed to the Da'as Zekeinim M'Ba'alei Tosafos at the end of Chukas. The Da'as Zekeinim says that Og's mother was pregnant with Sichon when she went to live with Cham. Since she was now Cham's wife she was allowed on the teiva and she was saved. Sichon was born on the teiva. I later found that the Maharsha brings down a similar answer as well.

Mazal Tov IV

Mazal Tov to Me! And my wife and children on the birth of a new baby girl. She was born
Thursday afternoon at 12:48 PM. For those keeping score at home that makes 4 girls and 2 boys. It looks like there won't be a Rosh Hashana bris after all. (For some strange reason, I was actually looking forward to a bris on Rosh Hashana but it was not meant to be)

Parshas Ki Tzeitzei:Shiluach HaKan In The Backyard

Well, the new z'man has started and I am back to giving my parsha chabura. This week's topic was on whether one can do the mitzvah of shiluach hakan on a nest in your backyard.

The gemara in Chullin learns out from the possuk "ki yikarei kan tzippur"-p'rat l'mezuman. A nest that is considered m'zemun is pattur from shiluach hakan. The question is, how does one define mezuman? One could argue that mezuman is a din in ownership. If you own the nest than it is mezuman and you can't do teh mitzvah. However, another way to look at it is that mezuman is a metzius-if the nest is right there for you to access, even if you don't technically own it, you are still patur from the mitzvah.

This question is a machlokes haposkim.

Mezuman=Kinyan/Ba'alus

Rav Shimon Sofer in Shut Hisorures Teshuva brings a rayah that mezuman is tied to ownership. The gemara in Chullin 142B says that if one has doves in his courtyard then you are chayav in shiluach hakan and you are also chayav for stealing them because of darkei shalom. The gemara asks, why are you chayav in shiluach hakan if we have a rule that "chatzar shel adam koneh sheloh mida'ato". The gemara answers that we are talking about a case where the mother is hovering over teh eggs. Since you can't be koneh the eggs while the mother is hovering over them, so too your chatzeir can't be koneh them either. Rav Shimon Sofer says from here we say a clear rayah that mezuman is tied to kinyan. It is only called mezuman if you own it, if you don't own the nest it is not mezuman.

Mezuman=Metzius

The Imrei Yosher (Rav Meir Arik) in a teshuva to Rav Shimon Sofer disagrees. He says that mezuman can't mean kinyan but rather it means that the nest is easily accessable. If this were true then why does the mishna say you are pattur if the nest is mezuman, the mishna should say that you are pattur if the nest is not hefker. Furthermore, why does the gemara say that in order to do shiluach hakan one should go into the mountains and valleys? Why don't you just go into your backyard and be mafkir your chickens. Finally, the rayah from the sugyah of "chatzeir shel adam koneh sheloh mida'ato" is not a rayah. In that case yuo were never aware that the eggs were laid. If you don't know the eggs are laid that is not called mezuman. However, if your chatzeir is koneh then that creates mezuman as well. In other words the main defintion of mezuman is access, however if you own them then it could also be mezuman.

Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach zt"l (Minchas Shlomo Chelek 2 Siman 97) also brings a rayah to this tzad from the fact that the gemara says if the nest is "b'yadcha" you are pattur. Acording to this, being mafkir the nest won't help since one could go into their backyard and acquire the nest at any moment. The nest is always considered "b'yadcha".

(Also, ayin Rashi on b'yadcha that it means a) mezuman b) kinyan. )

Halacha L'ma'aseh

Can one be mafkir a nest in the backyard in order to do the mitzvah of shiluach hakan?

It seems this is a machlokes haposkim. As mentioned, the Imrei Yosher and Rav Shlomo Zalman both hold it isn't a halacha in kinyan and therefore hefker won't help-it is still mezuman. (Rav Asher Weiss also agrees with this).

However, Rav Moshe (Igros Moshe Y.D. cheilek 4 Siman 47), the Steipler, Chazon Ish, Rav Chaim Kanievsky and Rav Sheinberg all say hefker works. (the Steipler, Chazon Ish, Rav Chaim Kanievsky and Rav Sheinberg are brought down in Shiluach Hakan - A Practical Guide By Naftali Weinberger. This is a very nice sefer that includes written p'sakim from Rav Chaim Kanievsky and Rav Sheinberg). According to this tzad, a person can have in mind that he doesn't want his chatzeir to be koneh any nests and then he can do the mitzvah. Also, even after you do the mitzvah, you can be mafkir the nest and let someone else do the mitzvah. This seems to have been the practice of the Chazon Ish and the Steipler.

A more important chiddush mentioned by Rav Moshe and Rav Chaim Kanievsky is that b'zman hazeh one doesn't even need da'as that his chatzeir should not be koneh the nest. Since most people don't like nests in their yard because the birds make noise and cause a mess, we assume a person never wanted to be koneh the nest in the first place.

It would seem from the book I mentioned that the common practice is to follow the opinion that mezuman means kinyan and hefker works. (If anyone knows differently please let me know)

Yiras Shamayim While Sleeping

Can one be considered in a state of yiras shamayim while sleeping.? After all when you are sleeping you are removed from any "hevlei ha'olam" and not involved in any form of "kalus rosh".

Sounds like a big chiddush? Well this idea is actually found in the Emek Bracha on Hilchos Tefillin (p. 26).

The gemara in Menachos (36b) says that a person should touch his tefillin when wearing them. The Rosh and Rabbeinu Yona explain that there is a problem of having hesech ha'da'as while wearing tefillin. The reason for this is because if you are masiach da'as from your tefillin it will lead to kalus rosh. Tehrefore, by touching your tefillin you will not be masiach da'as and you will not come to kalus rosh.

The Shagas Aryeh (Siman 40) disagrees with this understanding of why hesech hada'as is assur. He brings a rayah from a Rambam and Ramban to show that the din of hesech hada'as is a halacha in tefillin, that you are always supposed to be conscious of wearing tefillin. It has nothing to do with kalus rosh. The Ramban writes that an aveil is pattur from tefillin since he will be masiach da'as from his tefillin while the Rambam also writes one who is mitztaeir is patur from tefillin since he will be maseiach da'as. In both cases there is no chashash of kalus rosh, yet there is still a din of hesach hada'as.

To answer this kasha the Emek Bracha says the whole point of teh Rosh is that one has to be in a state of yiras shamayim (his loshon is "matzav shel yiras shamayim"). In both the case of the Ramabm and the Ramban since you are not going to forget hevlei ha'olam there is a concern you won't be in this state of yiras shamayim. The Rosh does say that a temporary sleep (shinas arai) is muttar while wearing tefillin. The reason is that while you are sleeping you are forgettoing heveli ha'olam and you are in a matzav of yiras shamayim.

What comes out from this Emek Beracha is that on some level one is m'kayeim yiras shamayim while sleeping. I am not sure if he would say you fullfill a mitzva but at the very least there is no negative yiras shamayim.

(I am not sure what he would say about your dreams-why does that not have the potential to negate your yiras shamayim)

Mazal Tov V

Another Mazal Tov goes to my wife's sister on her recent engagement. May she and her chosson be zocheh to build a bayis ne'eman b'yisroel.

(I would put up a link to onlysimcha.com but I think she would not be too happy).