Parshas Pinchas:Yerushas HaBas

Bloggong has been slow this summer due to vacations and the heta but I didn't want a whole month to go by without writing something

I discussed an interetsing shailah that is found in many poskim. According to the torah a daughter has no rights to the yerusha. The question is, what happens if her brothers come to her and ask her to sign a waiver relinquishing her claims to the yerusha. Al pi torah she has no rights so by signing she does not lose anything. The brothers might want her to sign for a couple of reasons. Either they want to make sure she won't cause trouble in the future or perhaps the secular law won't allow them to take possession of the property until those who are not getting anything will give up their claim. The shailah discussed is does the daughter have a right to ask for money in order to sign the waiver or is she obligated to do it for free.

Among the poskim that discuss this are the Shoeil U'meishiv, the Divrei Chaim, Maharsham, and the Minchas Yitzchak. The first to discuss this shailah was the Pnei Moshe who says it is a machlokes between the Maharit and Mahri Besson.

The poskim bring rayas from various gemaras for their opinion. For example, the Shoeil U'Meishiv (mahadura basra chelek 1 siman 1) brings a rayah from a Ran in Gittin (Perek 4) that she doesn't have to sign for free. The gemara says that if an eved runs away to EY the master can't take him back. However, the Ran says we don't force the master to write a shtar shichrur. The Shoeil U'Meishiv says from here we see you can't force the daughter to sign.

The tzad to say that she must sign is based on 2 reasons. The first reason is that it is midas s'dom not to sign. It is zeh nehneh v'zeh lochaseir. The only question is do we force someone to do a midas s'dom. The Divrei Chaim and Nachlas Tzvi (Shulchan Aruch Siman 276) write that if the daughter will not lose anything by signing we force her to sign. They bring a rayah from a sugyah in Baba Kama 102b. (ayin sham). The Mahatsham writes that if we know she could stand to lose we don't force her to sign. For example, it night be beneficial for her to make people think she has property coming to her. Teh second reason to make her sign is m'din hashavas aveida. If in secular law the brothers can't collect the property until she signs off then by signing off she is m'kayeim hashavas aveida. Again the Maharsham points out that you are not obligated to lose money for hashavas aveida so if she will lose out by signing she doesn't have to sign.

L'ma'aseh the Minchas Yitzchak writes there are 3 possible situations

1) if secular law requires one to make a claim otherwise they lose out, so we force her to keep quiet and m'meilah she loses the rights (al pi secular law). If she already put in a claim we make her take her claim back.

2) If secular law requires that she sign a waiver and by doing so she will realize some sort of loss, we verify if this is true and if it is she is not required to sign a waiver.

3) If she will not realize a loss by signing the waiver then it is a machlokes haposkim if she can demand money for her signature. The Maharsham writes she can ta'ana ""kim li"-I hold like the poskim that say I can ask for money and she can ask for money. (The Minchas Yitzchak himself feels she can't ask for money based on a Chasam Sofer).

Parshas Shelach: Mitzvos Beteilos L'Asid Lavo Part II

How to understand the machlokes whether mitzvos will be batul in the future is itself a machlokes Rishonim.

Ritva

The Ritva in Nidda (61b) says that it refers to the time of techiyas hameisim. The Ritva adds that even the opinion that says that there is no difference between the days of Moshiach and our tines, can still hold the mitzvos will be batul. There are two different time periods. One is the days of Moshiach where nothing will change and then there is the tekufah of techiyas hameisim where mitzvos will be batul.

It seems from the Ritva that the reason for the petur in mitzvos is that during this tekufah it will be a zman of neither zechus or chovah, and tehrefore there will be no point in commanding someone to do mitzvos.

There are however 2 ways to understand what is the reason why mitzvos are batul. The gemara writes that Yechezkel HaNavi was m'chayei meisim and these meisim wore tefillin. From here we see that even after someone dies he is still chayav in mitzvos. The Ritva gives 2 answers. The first answer is that the petur from mitzvos will only take place by the global techiyas hameisim. It is only at this time that there will be no need to be commanded in mitzvos. The 2nd answer is that really misa itself causes the petur, once a person dies he is "chofshi min hamitzvos". However, even though mitzvos will be batul, it doesn't mean that one can not do mitzvos. You can still do the mitzvos since there is an inherent kedusha in them. Just like the Avos were m'kayeim the mitzvos so too people brought back to life can do mitzvos.

These 2 mehalchim seem to also be found in the Koveitz Shiurim Chelek 2 Siman 29. Rav Elchanan asks how can mitzvos be batul if the torah can't be changed. He answers either it is built into the Torah that at a certain time (techiyas hameisim) mitzvos will no longer apply or the pshat is that misa causes the petur, but someone who doesn't die will still be chayav. He writes that the nafka mina is someone who comes alive before the final techiyas hameisim. The Radvaz says that tzaddikim will have their own techitas hameisim by zman Moshiach. According to the first mehalech, they would still be chayav in mitzvos and according to the second mehalech they would be patur. L'chorah, these are the 2 answers in the Ritva also.


Shittas HaRashba

The Rashba disagrees with this whole idea. In his Chiddushei Aggados (Berachos 18a) he says "mitzvos beteilos l'asid lavo" refers to the time of death. In other words, this opinion holds that when someone dies he is patur from mitzvos. However, once he is alive again he is chayav. The opinion that holds "mitzvos ain beteilos l'asid lavo" doesn't necessarily hold a meis is chayav in mitzvos but rather he holds that we can not cause a meis to do an aveirah. Just like we can't cause a katan to do an aveirah so too meisim. That is why you can't bury a meis in kelayim.

Understandably, this is a hard sevarah to understand, and the Ritva rejects it as making no sense.

The Rashba does add that after the z'man of techiyas hameisim there will be another tekufah called "olam haneshamos". During this tekufah there will ne no mitzvos and this is pshat in the gemara "hayom l'a'sosam u'l'machar l'kabeil schar"-at some future point we will not be doing mitzvos only getting reward. This is the tekufa of "olam haneshamos". (The Ritva says it refers to the zman of techiyas hameisim).

Parshas Shelach: Mitzvos Beteilos L'Asid Lavo

Although I ususually write up my chaburah after I give it , this week I decieded to start writing it up beforehand. I have not formulated the whole structure yet, but here is the basic idea.

(The connection to the parsha is the fact that the mitzvah of tzitzis is in Parshas Shelach)

The Rosh in Moed Katan (Perek 3 Siman 80) discusses whether one should put tzitzis on the tachrichin of a meis. (ayin Menochos 41A). The Rosh says that the opinion that we do put tachrichin on a meis holds like Shmuel that mitzvos won't be batul l'asid lavo. The reason for this is that if you hold mitzvos won't be batul l'asid lavo, so by techiyas hameisim, the meis will come back to life without wearing tzitzis and it will be a problem of "loeig l'rosh". The Rosh paskens that we don't put tzitzis on a meis because we hold that mitzvos will be batul l'asid lavo.

The question is what does it mean that the mitzvos will be batul in the future. This is a sugyah in Niddah 61B and there is a machlokes Rishonim how to understand this sugyah.

More to come...

Parshas Beha'aloscha: Backwards "Nunin"

Well it only took me 3 weeks to put up another post.

This weeks chaburah was concerning the backwards "nun"s in this weeks parsha. The gemara in Shabbos 115b has a machlokes why we have simanim by the parsha of "vayehi binso'a aron". Either it tells us that this parsha doesn't belong here or it tells us that it is a sefer b'fnei atzmo. However, the gemara doesn't tell us what these simanim are.

The Maharshal (Siman 73) writes that the simanim can not be referring to placing upside down or backwards nunin by this parsha. Writing a nun backwards before and after this parsha would make a sefer torah pasul. You can't just add letters into the sefer torah. Rather the Maharshal writes the m'kor seems to come from a zohar that writing the nun upside down/backwards teaches us that even when the aron is travelling the shechina stays with b'nei yisroel. Furthermore, the nunin the zohar is referring to are the nunin of the words "b'n'so'a" and "u'v'nucha". There are those who flip around the nunin of "mis'oninim" as well.

The Noda B'Yehuda argues and says adding extra letters does not pasul a sefer torah. The only extra letters that pasul a sefer torah ar eletters you add to a word. Adding symbols on the side of the torah is okay. Furthermore, the rishonim discuss these nunin. The halacha is one can not write 2 symbols on Shabbos. Rav Hai Gaon gives as an example the two nunin in our parsha. Therefore, writing 2 separate nunin is okay.

Parshas Behar: Gezel Sheina

Well, it's been over a month and I am sure noone really missed me. But even if you didn't miss me, I'm back for now. Here is this week's chaburah.

In this weeks parsha we learn out the issur of on'as devarim. The Rishonim discuss exactly what is included in this issur. For example, the Seforno includes the issur of geneivas da'as in this issur. The Chinuch explains that the issur is to cause someone tzar. In the sefer Pischei Choshen (on dinei Choshen Mishpat by Rav Ya'akov Blau) he writes that included in the issur of ona'as devarim is the issur of gezel sheina-waking someone up when they are sleeping. The sevara behind this is that ona'as devarim is the issur of causing someone tza'ar and when you wake someone up you cause him tza'ar therefore waking someone up is ona'as devarim.

The question is, why is it called "gezel sheina"-is there an actual issur of stealing and also how do the poskim view this issur.

1) The Shevet Levi (Rav Wosner) writes that it can't be a real issur of gezeilah. You are only chayav for gezeila if you cause someone a loss and here you are not causing anyone a loss. He does say that by waking someone up, you take away an intangible benefit from someone (this is my interpertation of his words, his actual loshon is "m'vateil to'eles v'tovas chaveiro). He says we see that this is an issur from the gemara in Bava Basra 20b and Choshen Mishpat Siman 156. I am not sure what he is referring to since I don't see any mention of there being an issur.

2) Rav Menashe Klein in Mishneh Halachos writes in a few places why it is called gezel sheina. In Chelek 12 Siman 443 he writes that the m'kor for gezel sheina comes from a gemara in Berochs 13a that says that Rav Nachman told his servant to be m'tza'eir him and wake him up in order to read the firsty posuk of Shema. We see from here that to wake someone up is called causing someone pain. Rav Menashe Klein then brings a gemara in Sanhedrin 59 that the ikkar inyan of gezel is because you are causing someone pain. Also, there is a tosefta in Babab Kama (3:7) that lists geneivas da'as as a type of geneiva even though you are not causing someone a loss. So you see you don't need to cause a loss to be called gezeila.
The truth is I am not sure if Rav Menashe Klein is trying to say that gezel sheina is real gezel or if he is just trying to explain why the term "gezel sheina" is used. The reason for my safeik is because in Chelek 14 Siman 199 he actually has a teshuva to Rav Wosner in which he writes that the ikkar issur of gezel sheina is m'dinei hezek and not gezel.

3) I found an article by Rav Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg in which he writes that gezel sheina is a hezek m'din tza'ar. Furtehrmore, he writes that a person can take someone to beis din for nezek, tza'ar, reepoi , sheves and boshes. Since waking someone up is a hezek of tza'ar, you could really take someone to beis din over it. However, b'zman hazeh we don't go to court over tza'a'r so you couldn't do it today. Also, it is only if you wake someone directly, making a loud noise and waking someone up is just a grama and you are patur.

4) I was told that Rav Chaim Kanievsky says it is assur m'din v'ahavata l'reiacha komocha.

Whether it is ever muttar to wake someone up, like for a minyan, will be discussed later.

Matzah Ashira Part II

As mentioned we are not allowed to eat matzah on Erev Pesach. However, this only applies to matzah that one can eat by the seder. What is the status of matzah ashira-matzah made from fruit juice.

The gemara in Pesachim 35a:b has a machlokes whether "mei peiros", fruit juices make something chametz. L'halacha it is a machlokes rishonim. Rashi holds that matzah ashira (matzah made with mei peiros) is chametz nuksha while Tosafos (35b) holds it is matzah. Everyone agrees that one can not use matzah ashira for the seder. Rashi obviously holds you can't use it because it is chametz and can't be eaten at all on Pesach. Tosafos holds (based on the gemara) that it is not "lechem oni" and therefore is pasul for the seder. In fact Tosafos writes that Rabbeinu Tam would eat matzah ashira on Erev Pesach since the only matzah one can not eat Erev Pesach is matzah that you can eat by the seder.

Shittas Rema

Halacha l'Ma'aseh the Mechabeir paskens that one can eat matzah ashira on Pesach while the Rema says it is not our minhag unless you are sick or old. The Rema doesn't indicate if he is being choshesh for Rashi or if it is for a different reason. However, the Aruch Hashulchan writes that the reason for the Rema is that we are afraid some water might have gotten mixed in and matzah ashira with water becomes chamtez very quickly.

Being that the Rema says that we don't eat matzah ashira on Pesach, he also says that one should not eat it after chatzos on Erev Pesach. In other words we should treat it as chametz and it is only muttar to eat as long as one can eat chametz.

Noda B'Yehuda

The Noda B'Yehuda has an interesting teshuva where he focuses on Rashi. He says that according to Rashi matzah ashira is chametz nukshah. The Noda B'Yehuda proves that chametz nukshah is only m'd'rabanan and being that is the case it is only assur to eat when Pesach starts. It is muttar to eat the whole day of Erev Pesach. According to the Noda B'Yehuda, both Rashi and Tosafos will allow you to eat matzah ahsira the whoel Erev Pesach and one can even use it for seudah shlishis in the afternoon. L'maskana the Noda B'Yehuda paskens that he doesn't want to go against the Rema but b'shas hadchak one can eat it all day Erev Pesach

Reasons to be machmir

There are a few reasons to be machmir, specifically with regard to egg matzah.

1) The Rambam does not count eggs as mei peiros and therefore egg matzah would not be matzah ashira

2) The Bach and Maharal hold one could use matzah ashira for the seder

3) If the matzah ashira has water in it it might be considered real chametz

4) The beracha is mezonos and it is not lechem for a seudah

Rav Moshe

Rav Moshe (chelek 1 siman 155) holds one can use matzah ashira, even egg matzah made with water. He says most Rishonim and Poskim hold eggs are mei peiros. Also, based on a Magan Avraham he understands that matzah ashira with water is still matzah ashira. Finally, although the beracha is mezonos if you are koveia seudah it is hamotzi and you can use it for a seudah.

One final note: I noticed in the sefer Erev Pesach Sh'Chal B'Shabbos that he quotes from the journals in HaPardes and HaMaor various discussions that took place in 1950's on this topic. In fact Rav Moshe's teshuva appears in HaPardes Shevat 5718/Feb 1958. The other issue of HaPardes is Nissan 5714/April 1954 where Rav Moshe Rozen says you can't use egg matzah. Both journals are available at hebrewbooksw.org

Parshas Metzora:Matzah Ashira on Erev Pesach

I know I have not written anything in a while and I am sure all my fans have been suffering from withdrawel. I don't know how much I will be posting over the next few weeks because of Pesach but here is my chaburah from this past week.

I spoke about eating matzah on Erev Pesach and whether one can use egg matzah. As a side note there are a number of interesting options of what type of matzah one can eat on Erev Pesach, that are discussed in the achronim. I had actualy originally intended to talk about matzah mevusheles, cooked matzah and matzah baked shelo lishma but I wasn't able to look into it. I guess I'll save it for the next time this happens which according to our calandar is in 13 years. However, I am sure Moshiach will be here before then so it might occur even earlier. (Interestingly, Erev Pesach is either a Monday or a Friday in the next 12 out of 14 years.) Also, Rav Asher Weiss in his haggadah has a nice summary of the various options of what matzah one could possibly eat on Erev Pesach.

Zman of the Issur

The Ba'al Hameor holds it is only asssur to eat matzah from the 6th hour onward which is the time when one can no longer eat chametz. The Ramban disagrees and says it is assur the whole day. According to both shittos one could eat matzah at night i.e. Friday night. However the Magan Avraham says that we don't eat matzah even the night of the 14th.

Rav Moshe zt"l (Igros Moshe chelek 1 siman 155) explains that the machlokes between the Ba'al HaMeor and Ramban is based on how you understand the reason for the issur. The Yerushalmi (Pesachim perek 10) says if you eat matzah on Erev Pesach it is as if you had relations with the woman you were engaged to in your father in laws house, meaning you lived with her before you did nisuin and were fully married. Rav Moshe says there are 2 reasons why this is assur, either because she is a p'nuyah, unmarried lady, and there is an issur to live with a p'nuyah. Or it is because before marriage it is a reshus and after marriage it is a mitzvah (of onah) and since you din't wait untilit was a mitzvah there is an issur.

According to the reason of p'nuyah, there really is no comparison to matzah. Rather they are only alike in metziyus, by arusa there are dinei ishus yet she is still assur so too by Erev Pesach there exists dinei Pesach yet matzah is still assur. The dinei Pesach that exist is the fact youmust get rid of your chametz. However, these dinim do not start until the 6th hour and therefore, there would be no reason to assur matzah until the 6th hour. However, according to the 2nd reason it is a perfect comparison-you are eating matzah in a z'man shel reshus and not waiting until the z'man chiyuv. This is why the Ramban holds it is assur the whole day. In fact Rav Moshe says this is the basis fort not eating chametz from Rosh Chodesh. An arguement can be made not to eat it 30 days before Pesach since that is when preperations for Yom Yov start but chazal weren't matriach everyone so early.

Matzah Ashira

to be continued ...

Purim Thought from Rav Yonason Eibshitz

I was going through the peirush of Rav Yonason Eibshitz on the Megillah and noticed a few interesting ideas.

1) When Haman made his lottery it says "m'yom l'yom u'm'chodesh l'chodesh". Rav Yonason Eibshitz explains that Haman made two sets of lotteries. He first wrote the 12 months on 12 pieces of paer and picked as month. Then he wrote the numbers 1-354 on 354 pieces of paper. This represented each day of the year. He then picked a day. If the day of the year fell out in the month he picked then he would know the lottery was correct. In this case the day he picked fell out in the 12th month so he knew the lottery was going to work.

2) From the time that Haman sent out his letters until he was hanged was 4 days. Yet Mordechai didn't send outhis letters until Sivan, 70 days later. Why did Mordechai wait so long to do this?

Rav Yonason Eibshitz gives a few answers.

1) He shows that Haman waited 70 days from the day he came to power until he came to Achashveirosh with his plan (I forget his cheshbon, but it was an interesting cheshbon). It must be that the reason Haman had to wait was because when a person first comes to power, he is not really accepted until 70 days into his rule. So too with Mordechai. He took over for Haman and he also had to wait 70 days until people accepted him. Once he was accepted he could send out his letter.

2) The 2nd answer he brings is that Mordechai wanted there to be an Adar Sheini. Adar Sheini has no mazal so teh koach of Haman would be diminished. (I saw the B'nei Yissascher says the same idea). However, in order for there to be an Adar Sheini he had to have the Sanhedrin in Eretz Yisroel do it. It took 70 days for his request to reach Eretz Yisroel and to get a reply back. Only after he knew for sure that there was an Adar Sheini did he send out his letters.

One ha'arah on this is that my chavrusah told me that there is a Levush that says Adar Rishon has no mazal. This is based on the metzius that if there was no extra month then all the constellations that makes up the mazalos would be off and the mazal of dag would be in Nisan. By adding an extra month we ensure that Adar Sheini gets the mazal of dag while Adar Rishon would fall out partially in Shevat's mazal (d'li).

The kasha on Rav Yonason Eibshitz and the B'ne i Yissascher would be that how could you say Adara Sheini has no mazal-the metzius is that the constellation of dag falls out in Adar Sheini.

A simple teretz is that when the seforim discuss mazalos they don't necessarily have to tie it into the constellations. However, I am not sure if this is a correct understanding of mazalos.

Another possible teretz could be based on a Chasam Sofer. The Chasam Sofer writes that Tu B'Shvat is thetime when the sap begins to flowe in the trees. In a leap year al pi teva this should happen in February which is Adar Rishon and not Shevat. However, teva follows the Torah, and in a leap year the sap will flow in January/Shevat. We could say the same for the constellations. Al pi teva the constellation of dag should be in Adar Sheini but since al pi torah there is no mazal it is in Adar Rishon.

Parshas Vayikra/Zachor:Milchemes Amaleik

This weeks' shiur was on the nature of Milchemes Amaleik

There is a machlokes rishonim what exactly is the geder of this mitzvah.

1) The Yeraim (435) holds it is a mitzvah on the king. His rayah is from the fact that there are 3 mitzvos that apply when B'nei Yisroel entered Eretz Yisroel. 1) set up a king 2) wipe out Amaleik 3) buiild the Beis HaMikdash. From the fact that you need a king to defeat Amaleik we see it is a mitzvah on teh king

2) The Chinuch writes it is a mitzvah on the tzibbur as well as on each individual.

Rav Yitzchak Sorotzkin in his sefer Gevuras Yitzchak writes that the mekor for the Chinuch is the fact that there are 2 parshiyos. Beshalach discusses the idea of waging war on Amaleik. This is a miyzvah for the tzibbur. Parshas Ki Tzeitzei just says to destroy Amaleik. This is a mitzvah on the individual.

3) The Rambam seems to pasken that it is a chiyuv on the tzibbur. At the end of Sefer HaMitzvos the Rambam writes that the three mitzvos of 1) setting up a king 2) wiping out Amaleik 3) building the Beis HaMikdash are mitzvos on the tzibbur.

There is also a diyuk in the Rambam Hil Melachim Perek 5. The Rambam says by the 7 nations who inhabi ed Ertez Cana'an if an individual has the opportunity to kill one of the members of these 7 nations and you don't you are m'vateil an aseh. However, by Amaleik the Rambam doesn't say anything. This implies that Amaleik is only a mitzvah on the tzibbur.

However, there are some who learn the Rambam that it is also a mitzvah on the individual.

One nafka mina can be found in Kovetz Chiddushei Torah from Rav Soloveitchik zt"l in the piece on Milchemes Mitzvah. The Rambam says that even by a milchemes mitzvah (a war against Amaleik or the 7 nations) we tell people they don't have to fight. The question is that by a milchemes mitzvah everyone is obligated to fight. So why do we read the pesukim letting people know that they don't have to go. The answer is that there are 2 dinim to a milchemes mitzvah. There is a chiyuv m'din milchama but there is also an individual chiyuv that the king can force people to go. The reason we read these pesukim is because m'dinei milchama certain people don't have to go. They only have to go because of the individual chiyuv that comes from the king forcing them.

Early Purim thoughts

I thought I would just mention a couple of thoughts that came to me this week regarding Purim.

1) Most people are familiar with the shitta of Rabbeinu Tam (brought in the first Rosh on Megilla) that Ta'anis Esther commemorates the fasting the B'nei Yisroel did on 13 Adar before they fought their enemies.

It just occurred to me (and I don't know why I never made this connection before) that this means they were fasting while they were fighting. Imagine fighting on an empty stomach.

2) My daughter asked me this week why it is called Megillas Esther as opposed to Megillas Mordechai or some other name. I number of answers come to mind but what I found more interesting is that at the end of the megilla the possuk says that Mordechai wrote evrything down. Rashi says that this refers to our megilla-meaning that Mordechai wrote the megilla. However, the gemara writes that it was Esther who had an arguement with the Chachamim regarding what status the megilla should have. I found it interesting that it was Esther who made the arguements even though Mordechai wrote the megilla.

Parshas Pekudei/Shekalim:Katan Donating Shekalim

The Mishna in Shekalim (1:3) says that a katan is patur from donating a 1/2 shekel to teh beis HaMikdash. The Bartenura says it is referring to someone under 20 years old. This is the Chinuch's opinion as well. Tosafos Yom Tov argues and says it refers to someone under 13. Anyone over 13 must contribute. The Rambam (Hilchos Shekalim) and the Ramban also hold anyone over 13 must contribute. The mishna also says that if a katan donates we accept it from him. The achronim ask how can we accept the money from a katan, m'd'oreisa he can't be makneh an object and therefore the money m'd'oreisa will never belong to hekdesh. It would then come out that the korbonos bought with the money are korbonos yachid and not korbonos tzibbur.

There are a few mehalchim to answer this question.

Sha'ar HaMelech

The Sha'ar HaMelech (Shekalim 1:5) writes that the coin the katan gives is batul with all the other coins. Even though Tosafos in Me'ilah says money is not batul, nevertheless this is only m'd'rabanan. The Rashba says that m'd'oreisa bitul applies to everything. Therefore, in our case the katan's kinyan works m'd'rabanan and on a d'oreisa level we can rely on bittul.

Avnei Miluim I

The Avnei Miluim (siman 28) argues on the Sha'ar HaMelech. He says that bittul does not work by money. The reason is because by money we are dealing with ownership and you can't be m'vateil someones ownership of something. (There is no bittul of teh cheftza like by issurim). The Avnei Miluim answers that at worst the coin the katan gave to hekdesh doesn't belong to hekdesh and hekdesh is stealing the coin. However, when hekdesh buys something with that coin whatever it bought belongs to hekdesh. For example, when you buy a lulav, there is no chiyuv to make sure the mony you use belongs to you. The reason is because if the money is not yours, the lulav becomes yours. Whether the money is yours or not is irrelevent. The same thing here and therefore the animal hekdesh buys is korbon hatzibbur.

(it is not so pashut whether the Avnei Miluim is correct in understanding bittul by money. The Bikurei Ya'akov on Sukka disagrees)

Avnei Miluim II/Ketzos

The Avnei Miluim (also found in the Ketzos) suggest a different answer. He raises the question whether a kinyan d'rabanan can work for a d'oreisa. (For example, ma'mad shalshtan is a kinyan d'rabanan and the question is raised whether you can use the object to marry a woman). He brings a rayah from our case that it works. The kinyan from the katan is only d'rabanan yet it works to make it a korbon tzibbur m'd'oreisa.

Parshas Vayekheil: Women Building The Beis HaMikdash

The Rambam paskens in Hil Beis HaBechira 1:11 that women are obligated to help build the Beis HaMIkdash. The Kesef Mishna writes that the m'kor is from Parshas VaYekheil which states that women contributed to the Mishkan. However, the Rambam also paskens that you can't build the Beis HaMikdash at night nor on Shabbos and Yom Tov. If so that would mean building teh Beis HaMikdash is a mitzvas aseh sh'hazman grama and women should be patur. Why then are they chayav.

There are a number of approaches to this question

Sefer HaChinuch

The Sefer HaChinuch writes that building the Beis HaMikdash is a mitzvah on teh whole tzibbur and not on individual. Also, the Rambam at the end of Sefer HaMitzvos counts this mitzvah as one of those mitzvos applying to the whole tzibbur. If so one can argue that it is irrelevent whether this mitzvah is a mitzvas aseh sh'hazman grama, since it applies to the tzibbur.

Beis Yitzchak/Turei Even

The Beis Yitzchak (Orach Chaim Siman 3) answers the question based on a Turie Even. The Turei Even in Chagiga 15b says that the issue of mitzvas aseh sh'hazman grama only applies when teh zman is mevateil the mitzvah. However, when it is only mafsik/interrupts the mitzvah then mitzvas aseh sh'hazman grama doesn't apply. For example, there is a question whether women are chayav to do semicha on a korbon. The Turei Even asks why don't we say it is a mitzvas aseh sh'hazman grama since you can't do it at night. He answers that the mitzvah of semicha on a particular korbon only applies once in a person's lifetime. Once you do the semicha on an animal you never need to do it again. Therefore, if you don't do semicha on Monday and Monday night comes, the semicha of Tuesday is not a new mitzva-it is the same mitzvah which you didn't do yesterday. The only reason you couldn't do it Monday night was because the nigt interrupted your performance of the mitzvah. However, by tefillin, the mitzvah of Monday is notthe same mitzvah as Tuesday. It is a totally new mitzvah. When Monday night comes, the night is mevateil your Monday mitzvah-you can never do it again.

The Beis Yitzchak says that building the Mikdash is like semichas hakorbon. It only applies once-after it is built the mitzvah is over. Night is just an interruption not a bittul.

Kehillas Ya'akov

The Steipler has a similar mehalach in regards to why the petur of Shabbos doesn't make it a mitzvas aseh sh'hazman grama. He quotes a Sha'ar HaMelech at the end of pesulei hamukdashin (in discussing nosar) that if the mitzvah applies on Shabbos just that you can't do it because of issurei Shabbos then it is not a mitzvas aseh sh'hazman grama. In theory the mitzvah to build the Beis HaMikdahs exists on Shabbos it is only because of issurei Shabbos that we can't. This is not like tefillin where there are no issurei Shabbos preventing you from putting tefillin on. Rather, the Torah says the mitzvah itself doesn't apply on Shabbos.

Klei Chemdah (Ki Sisa)

The Klei Chemdah answers that it is only a mitzvah to have the Mikdash built and not too build it. Therefore, it can apply to women. (He actually rejects this answer but I mentioned it anyway)

Parshas Tetzave: The Urim V'Tumim

There are a number of interesting questions that revolve around the Urim V'Tumin. The first and perhaps most important question is , what is the Urim V'Tumim made of?

This is actually a machlokes Rishonim.

Shittas Ramban

The Ramban (Shemos 28:30) as well as Rashi say that the urim v'tumim was the shem hameforash that was put into the Choshen Mishpat. The Ramban adds that there were two parts to the name-the urim and the tumim. First the kohein concentrated on the "urim" part of HKBH's name and the letters lit up. Mishpat. The Ramban adds that there were two parts to the name-the urim and the tumim. Then the kohein concentrated on the "tumim" part of HKBH's name and the kohein understood how to put the letters together. This shitta is also found in the Ritva in Yoma 73b. The gemara in Yoma has a machlokes between Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish if the letters stood out or just joined together. The Ramban and Ritva explain that according to their mehalach the opinions don't argue, they are just referring to different parts of the process. Although they don't spell it out, it makes sense to say that a kohein could be zocheh to the "urim" part (letters jutting out) and not the "tumim" part-the letters joining togther. This would explain what happened to Eli HaKohein when he misunderstood the answer he received. He though Chana was drunk and the letters really meant she was kosher.

Shittas Rambam

The Ramabm seems to hold that the Urim V'Tumim refers to the actual choshen. This is also the opinion of the Ibn Ezra (28:6). The Rambam in Hil Beis HaBechira (4:1) writes that ruach hakodesh was missing from Bayis Sheini but they made the urim v'tumim anyway since it was part of the bigdei kehuna. The Ra'avad asks 1) the gemara says both ruach hakodesh as well as the urim v'tumim were missing and 2) where do we see that the urim v'tumim was part of the bigdei kehuna.

The Kesef Mishna answers the Ra'avad that the Rambam held the urim v'tumim was the actual choshen. The way it worked was through ruach hakodesh (as the Rambam himself writes in Klei Hamikdash 10:10) but the actual urim v'tumim was the choshen. Rav Avraham ben HaRambam is also quoted as saying this opinion and there is a medrash that also holds this was (look in footnotes to the Mossad Rav Kook Ritva in Yoma 73b).

The Rambam also seems to pasken like Rav Yochanan against Reish Lakish that the letters stood out (as opposed to teh Ritva who saysthey don't argue). The Rambam is probably l'shitaso that the urim v'tumim refers to the actual choshen and therefore, he understands that there was only one way for it to work.

Brisker Rav

The Brisker Rav (Hil Klei Hamikdash 10:10) answers the first kasha of the Ra'avad. The Ra'avad had asked that the gemara says both ruach hakodesh as well as the urim v'tumim were missing. The Brisker Rav answers that there are two aspects to the urim v'tumim, the ability to ask it questions and the ability to receive answers. As long as the madreiga of Ruach Hakodesh existed, the kohein gadol had the ability to ask a question. However, just because he asked a question doesn't mean HKBH would give him an answer. In fact towards the end of Bayis Rishon, the B'nei Yisroel lost the zechus of receiving an answer from the urim v'tumim. This did not preclude the kohein from asking, since as long as he had his madreiga of ruach hakodesh he could ask. At a later point in time the madreiga of ruach hakodesh was also lost. After this the kohein gadol could no longer ask. This is what the gemara meant by the fact that we didn't have the urim v'tumim or ruach hakodesh during bayis sheini. The "urim v'tumim" refers to the ability to receive an answer and ruach hakodesh refers to the ability to ask. (ayin sham where the Brisker Rav shows how this is meduyak in the Rambam)

New Website

I would just like to promote a new website that has just been created. The website is http://www.hochheimer.net/. It contains the shiurim and divrei torah of HaRav Mordechai Hochheimer shlita, a respected Rav from Rochester as well as shiurim from his wife, a noted mechaneches and educator, Rebbetzin Shira Hochheimer.

(For those who must know, they are my brother -in-law and sister).

Parshas Teruma: Why we have an Adar Sheini

Before I start, I would just like to dedicate this post to "JL" and "Brother Ben". "JL", make sure you tell "Brother Ben" about this.

Okay, now that I've gotten that out of the way, here is the shiur.

In a nutshell, this shiur is just the Brisker Rav in Hilchos Kiddush HaChodesh 5:1.

The gemara in Sanhedrin 11a-12b discusses all the reasons why we are m'abir the year. The main 3 reasons quoted in the gemara is "aviv", "peiros ha'ilan" and "tekufa". The Brisker Rav explains that if we look at the Rishonim we see there is a fundamental difference in how to understand these reasons.

Shittas HaRambam

The Rambam on the other hand explains these 3 things as being centered around ensuring that Pesach falls out in the spring season and the lunar year match up to the solar year. "aviv" refers to the fact that it will still be winter, "tekufa" means that we want tekufas nissan to be after Pesach and "peiros ha'ilan" means that the fruits are not ripening on time. The Rambam refers to these reasons as "simanim", meaning that the main factor is that we want Pesach to be in the spring and the solar and lunar year to be in sync. The signs that we look for to tell us if this will happen are these 3 signs.

Shittas Rashi

Rashi on the other hand expains these reason as being 3 independent reasons relating to the 3 regalim. "aviv" refers to the fact that we want the grain to be ready so we can bring a korbon omer, "peiros ha'ilan" refers to the fact that we wantthe fruits to be ready so we can bring bikkurim and "tekufa" refers to the fact that we want Sukkos to fall out after tekufas tamuz.
According to Rashi, adding an extra month isn't just to ensure that Pesach is in the spring but rather we have 3 different reasons.

Nafka Mina

1) How many simanim do you need?

Rashi holds you need 2 simanim. The Rambam holds tekufa alone is enough of a siman but if you are using the other simanim then you need two. The reason is that according to the Rambam, these reasons are only simanim that he year is not in sunc. Tee siman of tekufa is a strong enough siman by itself. The other simanim are weaker and you need both of them. Rashi holds these 3 reasons are actual reasons and you need 2 reasons to add an extra month.

2) Adding a month during shemitta.

Besides these three reasons, the gemara lists certain tzarchei tzibbur which would allow Sanhderin to add an extra month. For example, if the roads need to be fixed up to allow people to be olah regel, you can dd an extar month. The gemara also says we don't add an extra month during Shemitta. The Rambam paskens that regarding Shemittah it depends why you are adding the month. If it is because of teh three main reasons, we add a month even in Shemitta. But if it is for tzarchei tzibbur we don't add a month.

The Brisker Rav explains that when it comes to ensuring the lunar year and solar year is in sync, so that supersedes Shemitta because that is a din. But when it comes to tzarchei tzibbur, just like we are m'abbir the year l'tzorech so too we can refuse to add a month l'tzorech and in Shemitta it is l'tzorech not to add a month (either so people can plant earlier or so there will be grain for the korbon omer).

Rashi who holds all the reasons are "tzorech" based, will tell you you can never add a month in Shemitta.

The Brisker Rav has a couple more nafka mina's ayin sham

Parshas Yisro: Eating and Working before Havdala

It is assur to eat or do any melacha before one makes havdala. The question is what is the geder of this issur? We find by mitzvos in general that it is assur to eat 1/2 before the zman of the mitzvah (ayin siman 235 by davening). However, if one had started eating b'heter it is mutar to continue. On the other extreme we find by Kiddush (siman 271) that even if one started eating b'heter one must stop for kiddush. The difference is that the seudah of Shabbos needs to be proclaimed a "Shabbos seudah" which one does by making kiddush therefore one must stop eating regardless of when you started. (ayin the Magan Avraham 271:6 and Rabbi Akiva Eiger for diff ways to explain this). The question is, what status does havdala have? In this we can possibly differentiate between doing work and eating.

Melacha before Havdala

The Griz Al HaRambam (Shabbos 29:5) writes that the geder of issur melacha before havdala is a machlokes Rishonim. The gemara in Shabbos 150B says one can say "Hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol" and do melacha. The Rif in Pesachim says you must make a full havdala and the Ran adds this includes making it over wine. The Brisker Rav writes that the Rif holds the issur melacha before havdala is like any other mitzvah-it is a gezeirah maybe you'll forget to do the mitzvah. Therefore, in order to do melacha a full fledged havdala must be made. This is also the Rambam's shitta since the Rambam equates the issur achila to issur melacha. It would appear the Rambam holds just like the issur achila is a gezeira maybe you'll forget to do the mitzvah, so too is the issur melacha. Other Rishonim hold that the issur melacha is an inyan of kavod Shabbos. Rahsi writes that you say "Hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol" as a way of escorting the king home. Making a clear break between Shabbos and Chol is a form of kavod Shabbos. This is enough to allow you to do melacha.


Achila before Havdala

From the Brisker Rav it seems he holds the issur achila is a gezeira maybe you'll forget to do the mitzvah. However, I saw in the Harirei Kedem (vol2 sman 67) that the issur achila is similar to issur achila before kiddush. The point of havdala is to differentiate between seudas Shabbos and seudas chol. Therefore, one can't eat his seuda of chol until he makes this distinction. He brings a raya from Pesachim 105 ayin sham.


nafka mina coming soon...

Parshas Va'Eira:Moshe's Nevuah

Everyone know that teh Torah proclaims Moshe as the greatest navi whoever lived or will live. The question though is when did Moshe attain his status as a navi. This question can really be divided into two parts. First of all when did Moshe become a navi and second of all when did the B'nei Yisroel accept him as a navi.

Regarding the first question it seems pretty straight forward to say that when Hashem spoke to Moshe by the burning bush that his nevuah career began. It is the second question, when did the B'nei Yisroel accept him, that is not so simple.

The Rambam in Hil Yesodei HaTorah Perek 7-9 discusses the idea of nevuah. The Rambam writes that the B'nei Yisroel's emunah in Moshe did not come from the osos and mofsim which he performed but rather through the experience of Matan Torah. To me it is not clear exactly what the Rambam means. If one looks in the Rishonim you will find two mehalchim and I am not sure which one the Rambam holds like.

Sefer Ikkarim

The Sefer Ikkarim in Ma'amar 1 Perek 18 states very clearly that the B'nei Yisroel did not believe in the metzius of nevuah before Matan Torah. They viewed Moshe as someone who was close to Hashem and could perform miracles when needed. However, Moshe was no different then Nakdimon ben Gurion who caused the sun to stand still or Pinchas ben Yair who split the Jordan. These people were not neviim but rather due to their special relationship with HAshem, they could perform miracles. This is how the B'nei Yisroel saw Moshe.
I would like to point out that I don't think this means that Moshe didn't receive nevuah before Har Sinai-he clearly did, it just means the B'nei Yisroel didn't believe it could have happened.

However, at Har Sinai, the B'nei Yisroel themselves experienced nevuah. Once this happened they realized it was possible for Hashem to "speak" to someone and from that point on they viewed Moshe as a Navi. Furthermore, the second revelation the B'nei Yisroel had at Har Sinai was that they heard HKBH give the Torah to Moshe. From this point on they realized that Moshe was HKBH's direct shaliach to give over the Torah and consequently noone had the right to add or subtract to Toras Moshe.

Drashos HaRan/Ramban

Both the Drashos HaRan (Drasha 11 and 12) and the Ramban (Shemos Perek 19) argue on this approach. The Ramban arguing on an Ibn Ezra who is ismilar to the Ikkarim asks, how can you say B'nei Yisroel didn't know about nevuah. The Avos had nevuah and there was a mesorah that the Avos were neveiim. The Derashas Haran also writes that in Parshas Shoftim Moshe says you can test a navi "kamoni". "kamoni" means just like Moshe showed B'nei Yisroel osos and mofsim before taking them out so too a Navi should show osos and mofsim. Clearly the Ran holds that the point of the osos and mofsim were to convince the B'nei Yisroel he was a navi.

The Ramban and Ran would agree to the second point of the Ikkarim. Namely, that the point of Har Sinai was so that teh B'nei Yisroel would relaize that Moshe was HKBH's direct shaliach to give over the Torah and consequently noone had the right to add or subtract to Toras Moshe.

Nafka Mina

The nafka mina between these two approaches would be the following. Were the B'nei Yisroel required to listen to Moshe b'toras navi before Matan Torah. The Rambam paskens that a person who is fit to be a navi and proves he is a navi has to be listened to. Did this apply to Moshe before Matan Torah? According to the Ikkarim, l'chorah not. Since the B'nei Yisroel didn't even believe in the metzius of nevuah, one can't expect them to have a chiyuv to listen to Moshe b'toras navi.

According to the Ran and Ramban, the B'nei Yisroel were required to listen to Moshe b'toras navi before Matan Torah. However, they would agree that before Matan Torah there was no such thing as Toras Moshe. Therefore, if another navi got up to contradict Moshe then one could presumably listen to that other navi. The Chiddush of Har Sinai was that the Torah became Toras Moshe and a navi can no longer get up and permanently change it.

Question on Ikkarim

I do have 2 kashas on the Ikkarim.

1) First of all the gemara in Sanhedrin 88 says a navi muchzak can be okeir the Torah temporarily. The 2 examples the gemara gives is Eliyahu bringing shechutei chutz and Avraham bringing Yitzchak on the akeida. Yitzchak had to listen to Avraham since he was a navi muchzak. According to the Ikkarim, how did Yitzchak know about nevuah. If he knew about it why didn't the B'nei Yisroel know about it in Mitzrayim.

Maybe one could answer that Yitzchak himself experienced nevuah. Therefore, since he knew about nevuah and since Avraham was a navi muchzak, he had a chiyuv to listen to Avraham.

2) The second kasha is that Moshe told the B'nei Yisroel the mitzva of Kiddush Hachodesh. If he wasn't viewed as a navi what chiyuv was there to listen this mitzvah?

Hitting a Jew: Part II

Three Catagories of Hitting

The Rambam in Hilchos Choveil U'Mazik lists 3 catagories in the issur of hitting a Jew.

1) If you hit someone and don't cause damage more than a perutah you get malkos.

2) If you hit someone and cause damage more than a perutah you pay the damages and m'meilah you are patur from malkos.

These 2 catagories are learnt from the lav of "lo yosif l'hakoso" in Ki Tzeitzei. As the Rambam and Chinuch write "if it is assur to give a rasha an extra malkos then kal v'chomer it is assur to hit another Jew".

One could ask that "ein onshin min hadin" and therefore why would someone get malkos based on this kal v'chomer. One answer is found in the Bach (Siman 420) that there are 2 lavin in the possuk , "lo yosif" and "pen tosif". "lo yosif tells us you get malkos for giving extra malkos. We then have a kal v'chomer that it is assur to hit another Jew and the chiyuv malkos for that is from "pen tosif"

3) The third catagory is the issur of raising your hand to strike someone. The m'kor for this is Sanhedrin 58B and is learnt from Moshe's response to Dasan and Aviram "Rasha, lama sakeh rei'echa".

Issue D'Rabanan or D'Oreisa

The question on this third catagory is whether it is an issur d'rabanan or an issur d'oreisa. The Chinuch and the Ramabm in Lo Saseh 300 seem to imply it is only d'rabanan and that is the way the Birkas Avraham in Sanhedrin learns these opinions. The Mordechai in Sanhedrin also leanrs it is only m'd'rabanan.

However, the GR"A and the Sema in Choshen Mishpat 30 seem to hold it is an issur m'd'oreisa as we will explain.

The Rema paskens that if one raises his hand against his friend you are pasul l'eidus m'd'rabanan. The question is why are you only posul m'd'rabanan.

The Mordechai in Sanhedrin writes that you are only posul l'eidus m'd'rabanan because the issur is only d'rabanan. The Shut Beis Yosef also learns this way.

However the Beis Yosef in Siman 30 says that this is an issur d'oreisa however, the only time you are posul l'eidus is if you are chayav malkos. Therefore, since you are not chayav malkos for raising your hand, you can't be posul m'd'oreisa. At the same time it doesn't make sense to say that you are better than someone who does an issur d'rabanan and is posul m'd'rabanan. Therefore, the Beis Yosef says you are at least posul l'eidus m'd'rabanan. This is also the opinion of the Sema and the GR"A.

Chiyuv Malkos and Posul L'eidus

A similar question arises with one who hits his friend and causes damage more than a peruta. You are patur from malkos so would we say that you are not posul l'eidus? The Shut Beis Yosef says it would not make sense to say that if you don't damage the person you are chayav malkos and posul l'eidus but if you damage the person you are kosher l'eidus. Rather since the lav has a chiyuv malkos you are always patur l'eidus. The Maharit however seems to hold that if there is no chiyuv malkos there is no pesul eidus and therefore, if you cause damage you are still kosher l'eidus. The Shiuri R' Shmuel on Sanhedrin learns the Maharit like this and I think that is pashut p;shat in the Maharit. As far as the lomdus why you need a chiyuv malkos to create a p'sul eidus, ein kan m'komo but the Chavtzeles Hashoron on Parshas Shemos delves into it.

Cheirem and Pasul L'Minyan

Interestingly, the Rema in Choshen Mishpat Siman 420 writes that there is a "cherem hakadmonim" on someone who hits his friend and he is posul for a minyan. (The m'kor is a Maharam Rottenberg). The Chasam Sofer was asked if one should make a macha'ah against such a fellow. The Chasam Sofer answered that ein hachi nami you should but now a days it is not practical. Noone will listen to you and they will make fun of you instead. Furthermore, if we were going to be makpid on charamim we could pasul plenty of people. L'ma'aseh he suggests not doing anything since it would be counter productive. He uses very strong language in describing how we live in a time where people don't listen to leadership.

Nireh li, that I now understand why on Erev Rosh Hashana people do a hataras charamim. We see that there are things people could do that put themselves in cheirem and it could even passul you for a minyan.

Reshus to Hit

Rav Moshe writes that if someone gave you reshus to hit him, if it is a chavala k'tana it is not derech b'zayon and would be muttar. If it is a chaval g'dolah and would cause monetary damage that it is assur even with reshus, after all it is assur to even hurt yourself. I guess according t o this boxing would be assur. I wonder what Rav Moshe would say about tackle football on an organized level (high school or college) -is it a p'sik reisha to cause monetary damage or maybe most people don't get seriously injured so if you do seriously injure someone maybe it is a davar sh'eino miskavein.
Just food for thought.

Parshas Shemos: Hitting Another Jew (Part I)

Due to the recent vacation I haven't had a chance yet to post last week's shiur, but better late than never.

This week's shiur was given l'iluyei nishmas my Zaidy, Michoel ben Dovid who was nifter last week on Shabbos Kodesh Parshas VaYichi. The levaya was on Monday December 24th.

In memory of my Zaidy, I just want to share one story that happens to tie into the shour. (It's not coincidental since I decided on this topic after hearing this story). My Zaidy, who grew up in Poland, was in the concentration camps during the war. He never spoke about his years duringthe war but I few stories did get out. Here is one story:

There was a capo in the concentration camp that was mistreating the Jews and my Zaidy got very upset. He wound up punching the capo in the face. Miraculously, nothing happened to him and the Germans didn't retaliate. Afterwards, all the Jews in the camp came over to him and gave him a beracha that the same hands that hit the capo should bring him hatzlacha. After the war my Zaidy became a glazer (he installed windows and glass) and he was very successful in running his own buisness. It seems the beracha came true.

After wriying this I decided to split up the post into two pieces. The next post will be a summary of the shiur.

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).

Mazal Tov IV

I just wanted to wish a Mazal Tov to my other sister ( not this one, but this one) on the birth of a baby boy and his bris which will be tomorrow. May they have much nachas from him and he should grow l'torah v'chupah u'ma'asim tovim.

For the record this is Mazal Tov IV since this blog started.

Mazal Tov I, Mazal Tov II, Mazal Tov III

UPDATE: The Bris was this past Friday. Mazal Tov to Chaim Shlomo and his parents on his bris.

The Ramban and "al pi derech hapshat"

I noticed this week that there is an interesting machlokes how many aronos were made in the Midbar. (which hopefully will be the topic of another post). The Ramban brings a pshat based on Chazal that there were 2,1 Moshe made temporarily and one that Betzalel made. Once Betzalel made his , the aron Moshe made was hidden.

The Ramban then says "al pi derech hapshat..." there was only one aron -the one Betzalel made.

How is one to understand the Ramban when he says "al pi derech hapshat". Is he arguing that the metzius was not like Chazal?

Coincidentally (although it is probably more of a case of hashgacha than coincidence) for an unrelated reason I decided to take a look in the Sifsei Chaim on Emunah and Hashgacha this week and lo and behold he discusses this issue. He brings another case where the Ramban argues on Chazal al pi derech hapshat-in Vayigash when Ya'akov comes down to Mitzrayim. Chazal say that the famine stopped when Ya'akov came down and the last five years started after Ya'akov died. The Ramban says al pi derech hapshat it doesn't make sense but rather even after Ya'akov came down the famine went on for 5 years.

The Sifsei Chaim asks, hayitachen that the Ramban would argue on Chazal ? He goes onto explain that even when the pashut pshat in the posuk contradicts the halacha or the metzius, it is still important to know the pashut pshat so we can learn a lesson from it. For example, by the eved nirtza-it says bring the eved to the mezuza or door. Halacha l'ma'aseh we bring him to the door not the mezuzah. If that is so why does the pashut pshat tell us to bring him to the mezuzah? The answer is to remind us of the mezuzah by yetzias mitzrayim that had dam pesach and that we should be an eved l'hashem and not to people.

In a nutshell the Sifsei Chaim understands that even the Ramban would be modeh that the metzius is like the drashas Chazal i.e. the famine stopped right away when Ya'akov came down or in our parsha that there were 2 aronos. The only reason the Ramban writes al pi derech hapshat is to help us learn a lesson from the pshat. (although what exactly the lesson is in these 2 cases isn't clear)

I told this over to someone and he said it makes no sense - how can you say the drasha is more emes than the pshat. I figure that the academics, intellectuals and rationalists would totally reject this approach especially the part where he says that the Ramban would never argue on a drashas Chazal. I am curious what people have to say about this.

Laylah Lav Z'man Teffillin-Shittas HaRambam

The gemara in Menachos (36b) has a discussion whether one can wear tefillin at night. L'ma'aseh there is a machlokes rishonim over how to pasken. Tosafos (among others) holds "laylah z'man tefillin" while the Rambam paskens "laylah lav z'man tefillin". However, even according to the Rambam this halacha only applies to putting on tefillin at night. If one is already wearing tefillin then one can keep it on, but this is "halacha v'ein morin kein"-we don't tell someone they can keep it on but m'ikar hadin one is not obligated to take them off.

One interesting kasha that is asked on the Rambam is from a gemara in Berachos 44B. The gemara says that the b'nei ma'arava (people in Eretz Yisroel) would make a beracha before taking off their tefillin. Tosafos says that we don't make a beracha because laylah v'Shabbos z'man tefillin and there is never any chiyuv to take off our tefillin. However, the Rambam paskens laylah lav z'man tefillin so why doesn't he say to make a beracha on removing tefillin?

There are a few answers to this question.

1) The Beis Yosef (Siman 29) and Yam Shel Shlomo (Chullin Perek 6 Siman 2) answer very simply that since according to the Rambam you can leave on your tefillin that you were already wearing, no beracha is recited upon removing them. The B'nei Ma'arava held that it is even assur to keep your tefillin on when it becomes night.

2) The Netziv in Parshas Lech Lech Perek 17:13 in the Harchev Davar has another answer. According to one shitta in the gemara the chiyuv to remove tefillin at night is learned from a posuk "v'shamrata chuka m'yamim yamima". The gemara then has a machlokes whether "v'shamarta" is an issur aseh or a lav. The Netziv says that the B'nei Ma'arava held that it is an issur aseh and therefore you make a beracha on it. The Rambam holds it is a lav and therefore you don't make a beracha.

What is this Netziv doing in the middle of Parshas Lech Lecha in the parsha of mila?

The Netziv writes that there are 2 mitzvos in mila 1) to do the mila 2) an issur aseh on the father not to cover up the mila. The beracha of "l'hachniso l'briso shel Avraham Avinu" is a beracha made on this second mitzvah. The Netziv then asks, that this mitzvah is a shev v'al ta'aseh and where do we find that one makes a beracha on an aseh that is shev v'al ta'aseh?
The answer is from the sugyah of tefillin. We see the B'nei Ma'arava made a beracha on the aseh of not putting on tefillin. Even though it is shev v'al ta'aseh we can still make a beracha.