Monday, February 23, 2009
Parshas Mishpatim:One Parsha or Two?
I happened to see an interesting footnote in the MAchon Yerushalayim edition of the Minchas Chinuch. The Chinuch splits Parshas Mishpatim into two sections. Teh first section is from the beginning until the mitzvah of "kesef talveh" and the second section is from this mitzvah until the end. The footnote explains that in certain communities they were makpid to read Parshas Tazria before Pesach. In a leap year there are 29 weeks from Beraishis until Pesach but only 28 parshiyos. In these communities they split Mishpatim into two parts to make up for the extra week. According to the footnote, this is currently done in Algiera and Tunisia.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Parshas Va'Eira: Davening among idols
In this week's parsha Moshe tells Pharoah that in order to stop the makka of Barad he has to daven outside the city. Rashi brings the mechilta that Moshe coulkdn't daven in the city because it was filled with avoda zara. The obvious question is, how about the other makkos? How come we don't find that Moshe left the city to daven for the other makkos?
There are several approaches to answer this question.
Ramban/Sifsei Chachamim
The Ramban says that ain hachi nami, Moshe did leave the city for the other makkos. However, by all the other makkos Moshe was able to wait until the next day to daven. By Barad, Pharoah wanted Moshe to daven right away. Moshe tehn had to explain to him that he had to first leave the city.
Da'as Zekainim
The Da'as Zekainim says that the avoda zara were the sheep. Until now all the sheep were outside the city limits. Before Barad, HKBH warned Mitzrayim to bring the animals into their houses or they would be killed. Consequently, all the sheep were now inside the city limits and Moshe had to leave the city to daven.
Netziv
The Netziv in his Shut Meishiv Davar (end of Chelek 1 Siman 10) writes that until now Moshe davened in his house. The house served as a mechitzah between Moshe and the avoda zara. Now that Moshe was davening outside he had no mechitza and had to leave the city.
Chevtzelas HaShoron
I also saw a teretz in the Chevtzelas HaShoron where he wants to distinguish between a bakasha and tefilla. Until now Moshe's davening was a bakasha but now it is a tefilla. Only tefilla has a problem of avoda zara. ayin sham to see his rayos and how he develops the mehalech.
Halacha L'Ma'aseh
How does this play out l'ma'aseh?
Terumas HaDeshen (Siman 6)
The Terumas Hadeshen discusses a case where someone is traveling. His two options for davening are either daven on the road or go to a non Jewish hotel that is full of idol worshippers. The Terumas HaDeshen answers that if one can daven on the road without anyone bothering him, he should daven on the road since the hotel will be full of avoda zara. He brings a rayah from MOshe Rabbeinu who went outside the city to daven. However, if he will be bothered on the road and he can fond a corner in the hotel in which he won't be disturbed , then he should daven in the the hotel. As far as the problem of davening among avoda zara, he says, since anyway our cities are filled with avoda zara it is okay to daven in the hotel.
Rema (Siman 94:9)
There are several approaches to answer this question.
Ramban/Sifsei Chachamim
The Ramban says that ain hachi nami, Moshe did leave the city for the other makkos. However, by all the other makkos Moshe was able to wait until the next day to daven. By Barad, Pharoah wanted Moshe to daven right away. Moshe tehn had to explain to him that he had to first leave the city.
Da'as Zekainim
The Da'as Zekainim says that the avoda zara were the sheep. Until now all the sheep were outside the city limits. Before Barad, HKBH warned Mitzrayim to bring the animals into their houses or they would be killed. Consequently, all the sheep were now inside the city limits and Moshe had to leave the city to daven.
Netziv
The Netziv in his Shut Meishiv Davar (end of Chelek 1 Siman 10) writes that until now Moshe davened in his house. The house served as a mechitzah between Moshe and the avoda zara. Now that Moshe was davening outside he had no mechitza and had to leave the city.
Chevtzelas HaShoron
I also saw a teretz in the Chevtzelas HaShoron where he wants to distinguish between a bakasha and tefilla. Until now Moshe's davening was a bakasha but now it is a tefilla. Only tefilla has a problem of avoda zara. ayin sham to see his rayos and how he develops the mehalech.
Halacha L'Ma'aseh
How does this play out l'ma'aseh?
Terumas HaDeshen (Siman 6)
The Terumas Hadeshen discusses a case where someone is traveling. His two options for davening are either daven on the road or go to a non Jewish hotel that is full of idol worshippers. The Terumas HaDeshen answers that if one can daven on the road without anyone bothering him, he should daven on the road since the hotel will be full of avoda zara. He brings a rayah from MOshe Rabbeinu who went outside the city to daven. However, if he will be bothered on the road and he can fond a corner in the hotel in which he won't be disturbed , then he should daven in the the hotel. As far as the problem of davening among avoda zara, he says, since anyway our cities are filled with avoda zara it is okay to daven in the hotel.
Rema (Siman 94:9)
The Rema seems to bring this Terumas HaDeshen down l'halacha. However, as the Pri Megadim points out there is one major difference between the Terumas HaDeshen and the Rema. Whereas the Terumas HaDeshen is clearly concerned about davening among avoda zara, the Rema doesn't mention it at all. All the Rema says if you will not be disturbed on the road, then you should daven on the road since you will probably be disturbed in the hotel. He is not worried at all about avoda zara. It seems from the Rema that there is no issur to daven in a place filled with avoda zara.
Magan Avraham/Mishna Berura
The Magan Avraham however does bring down the reason of avoda zara. The Mishna Berura also brings it down. The Mishna Berura based on the Magein Geburim switches around a few words in the Rema in order that the Rema should be like the Terumas Hadeshen. He does add that you should daven in a different corner than the avoda zara even if it means not davening toward the east.
The way I understand the MIshna Berura is that if you can avoid davening in a room with avoda zara you should. But if you have no choice or your kavana will be disturbed it is mutar.
Hospital Rooms
A common shailah is daveing in a hospital room with avoda zara in it. I saw in the Piskei Teshuvos that he brings from the Atzei Chaim (Siman 1) and Chelek Levi that it is muttar. In fact the Cheelk Levi goes a step farther and says that if you work in such a building you don't have to leave to daven.
I would think based on the Mishna Berura it is also muttar. You can't be expected to leave the room and daven in the hallway. First of all if you are sick or just had a baby, your kavana would definately be better in the room. Second of all you will most probably be interrupted in the hallway and that is quivilant to the Terumas Hadeshen.
Building with two rooms
A case which I am not sure about is if you are in a hotel or building and the room you are in has avoda zara but another room doesn't. Furthermore, it is just as easy for you to go to one room over the other and noone will disturb you in either room, Would you be m'chuyav to switch rooms. On the one hand you do have the sevara that the whole city has avoda zara so what difference does it make which room you daven in. However, the mashmaos of the Terumas Hadeshen (and Mishna Berura) seems to be that l'chatchila you should avoid it if possible.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Parshas Shemos:Shnayim Mikrah V'eched Targum
Divrei Machshava
The Levush writes that the first words of this week’s parsha “V’Eileh Shemos” is an abbreviation for “V’chayva Ish L’kros Haparsha, Shenayim Mikrah V’echad Targum” Before I discuss the lomdus behind this haalcha, I just want to start with some divrei machshava.
Why did the Levush pick this possuk to teach us the halacha of shanyim mikra? Theis is not the first time the words “V’Eileh Shemos are found in the Torah. For example, in Parshas VaYigash when Ya’akov goes down to Mitzrayim, the Torah writes “’Eileh Shemos”. I thought one can answer based on an idea found in the Ramchal and the Nefesh HaChaim. (This idea is discussed at length in the Sefer Mimamakim on Parshas Shemos). The Nefesh HaChaim writes that there are 600,000 letters in the Torah k’neged the 600,000 neshamos of Klal Yisroel. (Whether or not there are actually 600,000 letters in the Torah is irrelevant. The Maharal explains that 600,000 represents shlaimus-it is the most complete number. That is why Klal Yisroel are always referred to as having 600,000 people. This represents the fact that Klal Yisroel is shaleim. Anything more than 600,000 is just a tosefes bracha. What the Nefesh HaChaim means is that the shlaimus of Klal Yisroel is represented by the shlaimus of the Torah). The Ramchal in Derech Eitz Chaim writes that the 600,000 nefashos of Klal Yisroel are k’neged the 600,000 peirushim found in the Torah. Each member of Klal Yisroel has their own peirush in the Torah. L’aniyas da’ati the Nefesh HaChaim and Ramchal are driving at the same point. They are both explaining that there is a deep connection between Klal Yisroel and the Torah, as we say “Yisroel, V’o’reisa, V’Kudshah Brich Hu Chad Hu”.
Based on this we can understand why the remez for shnayim miukrah is davka in Parshas Shemos. Whereas Sefer Beraishis is the story of the avos-the foundation of Klal Yisroel, Sefer Shemos is the story of the development of Klal Yisroel. This development starts with Parshas Shemos with the story of shibud Mitzrayim. Therefore, since as we explained the Torah and Kal Yisroel are connected, the hint to shanyim mikrah is found in the place where Klal Yisroel starts.
Now onto the shiur…
Chakirah
(I heard this chakirah from my Rebbe along with the nafka minas).
Yesh Lachkor, what is the purpose behind the takana of shnayim mikra v’eched targum. Is it a halacha in Talmud Torah, that Chazal wanted us to finish the whole Torah once a year? Or is it a halacha in Kriyas HaTorah, in order to be prepared for that weeks leining, we are told to review the Parshah every week.
This chakira is actually found in the Terumas Hadeshen (Siman 22). The Terumas HaDeshen brings a machlokes whether one has to do shnayim mikra for Yom Tov. The Terumas Hadeshen quotes Rabbeinu Simcha that one does not have to do it. He says form here we see that the ikkar takanah of shnayim mikra was in order to learn the Torah once a year. Since the section leined on Yom Tov are already learned during the week of that Parshah, there is no need to learn them again. He then adds that those who hold that one must do shnayim mikra on Yom tov hold that it is a din in preparing for kriyas hatorah.
Nafka Minah
1) Yom Tov
As mentioned from the Terumas Hadeshen, one nafka mina is whether one must do shnayim mikra on Yom Tov or the four parshiyos.
2) Possuk by Possuk or Parsha by Parsha
The Magan Avraham (285:1) brings a machlokes between the Shlah and Lechem Chamudos whether one learns each possuk rwice and then targum or does one read an entire parsha twice (stopping by each pesucha or stumah) and then the targum. The Mishna Berura actually paskens one can do either way.
L’chorah this is based on our chakirah. If it is a halacha in talmud torah so the derech to learn is each possuk at a time. If it is preparation for leining, one would lein parsha by parsha.
(Rav Ya’akov Kamenetzky in the hakdama to Emes L’Ya’akov suggests reading an entire parsha once and then doing it possuk by possuk with the targum).
3) Being Mafsik
The Sha’ar Tzion writes that l’chatchila one should follow the opinion not to be mafsik at all. However, b’dieved one can follow the opinion to be mafsik after each parsha or inyan.
If it is a din in learning, so when we learn we are mafsik. If it is a din in kriyas hatorah so we aren’t mafsik at all and one shouldn’t be mafsik.
4) When must you finish
We find different opinions when you have to finish the shnayim mikra. One opinion is that it must be done before Shabbos day. This makes sense if it is a din in preparing fro kriyas HaTorah. The opinions that hold you have until Wednesday of the following week or even until Shimini Atzeres would hold it is a din in learning the Torah over the course of the year.
5) Using a Sefer Torah for shanyim mikrah
There is an shittah that one should try and learn shnayim mikra with the trup and inside a sefer torah. This shittah would hold it is preparation for Keriyas HaTorah
The Levush writes that the first words of this week’s parsha “V’Eileh Shemos” is an abbreviation for “V’chayva Ish L’kros Haparsha, Shenayim Mikrah V’echad Targum” Before I discuss the lomdus behind this haalcha, I just want to start with some divrei machshava.
Why did the Levush pick this possuk to teach us the halacha of shanyim mikra? Theis is not the first time the words “V’Eileh Shemos are found in the Torah. For example, in Parshas VaYigash when Ya’akov goes down to Mitzrayim, the Torah writes “’Eileh Shemos”. I thought one can answer based on an idea found in the Ramchal and the Nefesh HaChaim. (This idea is discussed at length in the Sefer Mimamakim on Parshas Shemos). The Nefesh HaChaim writes that there are 600,000 letters in the Torah k’neged the 600,000 neshamos of Klal Yisroel. (Whether or not there are actually 600,000 letters in the Torah is irrelevant. The Maharal explains that 600,000 represents shlaimus-it is the most complete number. That is why Klal Yisroel are always referred to as having 600,000 people. This represents the fact that Klal Yisroel is shaleim. Anything more than 600,000 is just a tosefes bracha. What the Nefesh HaChaim means is that the shlaimus of Klal Yisroel is represented by the shlaimus of the Torah). The Ramchal in Derech Eitz Chaim writes that the 600,000 nefashos of Klal Yisroel are k’neged the 600,000 peirushim found in the Torah. Each member of Klal Yisroel has their own peirush in the Torah. L’aniyas da’ati the Nefesh HaChaim and Ramchal are driving at the same point. They are both explaining that there is a deep connection between Klal Yisroel and the Torah, as we say “Yisroel, V’o’reisa, V’Kudshah Brich Hu Chad Hu”.
Based on this we can understand why the remez for shnayim miukrah is davka in Parshas Shemos. Whereas Sefer Beraishis is the story of the avos-the foundation of Klal Yisroel, Sefer Shemos is the story of the development of Klal Yisroel. This development starts with Parshas Shemos with the story of shibud Mitzrayim. Therefore, since as we explained the Torah and Kal Yisroel are connected, the hint to shanyim mikrah is found in the place where Klal Yisroel starts.
Now onto the shiur…
Chakirah
(I heard this chakirah from my Rebbe along with the nafka minas).
Yesh Lachkor, what is the purpose behind the takana of shnayim mikra v’eched targum. Is it a halacha in Talmud Torah, that Chazal wanted us to finish the whole Torah once a year? Or is it a halacha in Kriyas HaTorah, in order to be prepared for that weeks leining, we are told to review the Parshah every week.
This chakira is actually found in the Terumas Hadeshen (Siman 22). The Terumas HaDeshen brings a machlokes whether one has to do shnayim mikra for Yom Tov. The Terumas Hadeshen quotes Rabbeinu Simcha that one does not have to do it. He says form here we see that the ikkar takanah of shnayim mikra was in order to learn the Torah once a year. Since the section leined on Yom Tov are already learned during the week of that Parshah, there is no need to learn them again. He then adds that those who hold that one must do shnayim mikra on Yom tov hold that it is a din in preparing for kriyas hatorah.
Nafka Minah
1) Yom Tov
As mentioned from the Terumas Hadeshen, one nafka mina is whether one must do shnayim mikra on Yom Tov or the four parshiyos.
2) Possuk by Possuk or Parsha by Parsha
The Magan Avraham (285:1) brings a machlokes between the Shlah and Lechem Chamudos whether one learns each possuk rwice and then targum or does one read an entire parsha twice (stopping by each pesucha or stumah) and then the targum. The Mishna Berura actually paskens one can do either way.
L’chorah this is based on our chakirah. If it is a halacha in talmud torah so the derech to learn is each possuk at a time. If it is preparation for leining, one would lein parsha by parsha.
(Rav Ya’akov Kamenetzky in the hakdama to Emes L’Ya’akov suggests reading an entire parsha once and then doing it possuk by possuk with the targum).
3) Being Mafsik
The Sha’ar Tzion writes that l’chatchila one should follow the opinion not to be mafsik at all. However, b’dieved one can follow the opinion to be mafsik after each parsha or inyan.
If it is a din in learning, so when we learn we are mafsik. If it is a din in kriyas hatorah so we aren’t mafsik at all and one shouldn’t be mafsik.
4) When must you finish
We find different opinions when you have to finish the shnayim mikra. One opinion is that it must be done before Shabbos day. This makes sense if it is a din in preparing fro kriyas HaTorah. The opinions that hold you have until Wednesday of the following week or even until Shimini Atzeres would hold it is a din in learning the Torah over the course of the year.
5) Using a Sefer Torah for shanyim mikrah
There is an shittah that one should try and learn shnayim mikra with the trup and inside a sefer torah. This shittah would hold it is preparation for Keriyas HaTorah
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Parshas VaYichi:Snow onShabbos
It snowed in my hometown this Shabbos and I would like to take credit for it. Early last week I couldn't figure out what to talk about this Shabbos. Then I noticed a few posts discussing snow and shoveling snow on Shabbos. I had briefly looked into it a few years ago and I figured I might as well talk about it this week even though there was no connection to the parsha. Then, on Shabbos it snowed and I had my connection. It must have been hashgacha that caused it to snow just so my shiur would be inyanei d'yoma. (and for all you rationalists out there, yes I know the Rambam's shitta on hashgacha). After opening shiur with the above remarks, one of the people in the shiur told me that maybe I should have spoken about Moshiach. I guess there is always next week. anyway,onto the shiur.
I already wrote about it over here , but I will repost it with some additional he'aras.
Is Snow Muktzeh?
Most poskim hold snow that fell before Shabbos is not muktzeh. If it fell on Shabbos, then there is a question of nolad.
1) The Pri Megadim says that rain is nolad. According to this snow should also be nolad.
2) The Minchas Shabbos and other achronim ask on the Pri Megadim that this is against a gemara mefureshes. The gemara in Eiruvin 46b concludes that rain is not nolad because it is contained in clouds. The clouds act as a container that holds the rain and the rain is in existance before Shabbos. The Mishna Berura paskens this way in Siman 338.
Based on this, most poskim that I saw learn that snow is also not nolad. This includes the Be'er Moshe (chelek 1 siman 20) and the Shmiras Shabbos K'hilchaso (SSK) in Perek 15.
The SSK does bring an interesting question from Rav Shlomo Zalman zt"l in Perek 10 (where he discusses the issue of making ice). Rav Shlomo Zalman asks that even if rain is not nolad, the snow is not formed until after it leaves the clouds. Therefore, why isn't snow nolad? He answers that if item A turns into item B and item B is worse than item A, there is no issur of nolad. Since snow is worse than rain, there is no nolad. I can't say I fully understand this sevara but ayim sham where he discusses this at length.
3) Rabbi Bodner in his muktzah book quotes Rav Moshe zt"l that snow is nolad and also muktzeh machmas gufo because it is not used by anyone. Therefore, even if snow fell before Shabbos it is muktzeh.
When it comes to shoveling snow, muktzeh should not be a factor in determing if you can shovel snow. Even if you hold snow is muktzeh, you can move muktzeh that will cause harm. If the snow will cause people to slip you would be allowed to move it.
Shittas Lev Avraham (Siman 49)
The Lev Avraham is one poseik who I saw is machmir on this issue and he brings three reasons to assur shoveling snow.
a) Tircha
There is a halacha in Shulchan Aruch (siman 333) that one is not allowed to clean out your storehouse on Shabbos because it involves tircha. The Lev Avraham says that shoveling snow would violate this issur.
My only question on this is what exactly is the geder of Tircha? It seems that according to this halacha one would not be allowed to move tables and chairs on Shabbos either. Rabbi Ribiat in his sefer addresses this issue and he wants to say that the issur of tircha only applies to actions that are not part of day to day activity. Therefore, since people will move tables and chairs when necessary, it is considered a daily activity and not subject to this issur. Cleaning out a warehouse is not done everyday and therefore it is assur.
According to this hagdara maybe one can argue that shoveling snow is not tircha. Granted we don't do it everyday but that is only because it doesn't snow everyday. If it snowed everyday, maybe it would be a daily activity and be comparable to moving tables and chairs.
Uvda D'Chol
The Lev Avraham also writes that shoveling snow is uvda d'chol.
My question on this is what makes it uvda d'chol. I would not call snow shoveling an activity that you would only do during the week. You shovel when snow falls, regardless of when it happens. However, I did see the Mishna Berura writes that playing chess with a set you use during the week is uvda d'chol, and therefore, you should have a set used exclusively for Shabbos. According to this maybe snow shoveling would also be uvda d'chol. I think one would first have to define the geder of u'vda d'chol and see if shoveling snow fits into that geder. (obviouslly, the Lev Avraham felt it did)
Mashva Gumos
The 3rd reason to assur it is that by shoveling snow you might come to level the ground (ayin siman 337). Even if the ground is paved we are still gozeir because you might do it on a dirt floor.
The problem with this reason is that the Biur Halacha points out if most of the city's streets are paved, this gezeirah doesn't apply. The Machzeh Eliyahu (siman 68) asks this question and says that this reason would not apply.
Bottom Line
I only saw a few poskim discuss this issue. The Nishmas Shabbos was meikil when there is hezek d'rabbim. However, I don't have the volume where he discusses his reasoning so I don't know what he does about the tircha or uvda d'chol issue.
The Lev Avraham as mentioned was machmir. The Machzeh Eliyahu was also machmir based on the reasons of the Lev Avraham.
Rabbi Frand has a tape on it which I was able to download from his website. I believe he concludes that b'sha'as hadchak if it is a real tzorech you can be meikil and shovel.
I didn't address the Har Tzvi, which I mentioned over here .
The other 2 issues are having a non-Jew do it for you and putting down salt. In both these cases even the machmirim are matir it. I'll try and discuss it later.
I already wrote about it over here , but I will repost it with some additional he'aras.
Is Snow Muktzeh?
Most poskim hold snow that fell before Shabbos is not muktzeh. If it fell on Shabbos, then there is a question of nolad.
1) The Pri Megadim says that rain is nolad. According to this snow should also be nolad.
2) The Minchas Shabbos and other achronim ask on the Pri Megadim that this is against a gemara mefureshes. The gemara in Eiruvin 46b concludes that rain is not nolad because it is contained in clouds. The clouds act as a container that holds the rain and the rain is in existance before Shabbos. The Mishna Berura paskens this way in Siman 338.
Based on this, most poskim that I saw learn that snow is also not nolad. This includes the Be'er Moshe (chelek 1 siman 20) and the Shmiras Shabbos K'hilchaso (SSK) in Perek 15.
The SSK does bring an interesting question from Rav Shlomo Zalman zt"l in Perek 10 (where he discusses the issue of making ice). Rav Shlomo Zalman asks that even if rain is not nolad, the snow is not formed until after it leaves the clouds. Therefore, why isn't snow nolad? He answers that if item A turns into item B and item B is worse than item A, there is no issur of nolad. Since snow is worse than rain, there is no nolad. I can't say I fully understand this sevara but ayim sham where he discusses this at length.
3) Rabbi Bodner in his muktzah book quotes Rav Moshe zt"l that snow is nolad and also muktzeh machmas gufo because it is not used by anyone. Therefore, even if snow fell before Shabbos it is muktzeh.
When it comes to shoveling snow, muktzeh should not be a factor in determing if you can shovel snow. Even if you hold snow is muktzeh, you can move muktzeh that will cause harm. If the snow will cause people to slip you would be allowed to move it.
Shittas Lev Avraham (Siman 49)
The Lev Avraham is one poseik who I saw is machmir on this issue and he brings three reasons to assur shoveling snow.
a) Tircha
There is a halacha in Shulchan Aruch (siman 333) that one is not allowed to clean out your storehouse on Shabbos because it involves tircha. The Lev Avraham says that shoveling snow would violate this issur.
My only question on this is what exactly is the geder of Tircha? It seems that according to this halacha one would not be allowed to move tables and chairs on Shabbos either. Rabbi Ribiat in his sefer addresses this issue and he wants to say that the issur of tircha only applies to actions that are not part of day to day activity. Therefore, since people will move tables and chairs when necessary, it is considered a daily activity and not subject to this issur. Cleaning out a warehouse is not done everyday and therefore it is assur.
According to this hagdara maybe one can argue that shoveling snow is not tircha. Granted we don't do it everyday but that is only because it doesn't snow everyday. If it snowed everyday, maybe it would be a daily activity and be comparable to moving tables and chairs.
Uvda D'Chol
The Lev Avraham also writes that shoveling snow is uvda d'chol.
My question on this is what makes it uvda d'chol. I would not call snow shoveling an activity that you would only do during the week. You shovel when snow falls, regardless of when it happens. However, I did see the Mishna Berura writes that playing chess with a set you use during the week is uvda d'chol, and therefore, you should have a set used exclusively for Shabbos. According to this maybe snow shoveling would also be uvda d'chol. I think one would first have to define the geder of u'vda d'chol and see if shoveling snow fits into that geder. (obviouslly, the Lev Avraham felt it did)
Mashva Gumos
The 3rd reason to assur it is that by shoveling snow you might come to level the ground (ayin siman 337). Even if the ground is paved we are still gozeir because you might do it on a dirt floor.
The problem with this reason is that the Biur Halacha points out if most of the city's streets are paved, this gezeirah doesn't apply. The Machzeh Eliyahu (siman 68) asks this question and says that this reason would not apply.
Bottom Line
I only saw a few poskim discuss this issue. The Nishmas Shabbos was meikil when there is hezek d'rabbim. However, I don't have the volume where he discusses his reasoning so I don't know what he does about the tircha or uvda d'chol issue.
The Lev Avraham as mentioned was machmir. The Machzeh Eliyahu was also machmir based on the reasons of the Lev Avraham.
Rabbi Frand has a tape on it which I was able to download from his website. I believe he concludes that b'sha'as hadchak if it is a real tzorech you can be meikil and shovel.
I didn't address the Har Tzvi, which I mentioned over here .
The other 2 issues are having a non-Jew do it for you and putting down salt. In both these cases even the machmirim are matir it. I'll try and discuss it later.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Parshas Miketz/Shabbos Chanuka:Women saying Hallel on Chanuka
There is an interesting shailah discussed in the poskim whether women have a chiyuv to say hallel on Chanukah.
Shittas Tosafos
The mishna in Sukka 38a says that a woman can not be motzi a man in Hallel. Tosafos writes that from here we see that a woman is patur from saying Hallel on Yom Tov. However, he says that women would be m'chuyav in Hallel during the seder on Pesach night. The fact that they are m'chuyav in the 4 cups of wine means they have a chiyuv Hallel, since the cups of wine were set up to be said over Hallel. The sevara to be m'chayev them is "af hein b'oso haneis"
Based on this Tosafos, the Toras Refael and the Shevet Sofer in Hisorirus Teshuva want to say that hu hadin on Chanukah. The sevara of "af hein" should be m'chayeiv women in Hallel as well.
However, the Beis She'arim (siman 359) says even according to Tosafos, women would be patur. The Ramban (in Sefer HamItzvos) quoting the Behag says Hallel is a mitzva d'oreisa. Tosafos in Pesachim holds that we don't say "af hein" on mitzvos d'oreisa (and that is why women are patur from Sukka). Therefore, the sevara of "af hein" does not apply to Hallel and women are patur. Hallel onPesach night is different because it is tafeil to the four cups of wine which is only
d'abanan.
Shittas HaRambam
The Rambam in Hilchos Chanuka Perek 3 writes that Hallel is only d'rabanan. Furthermore, he writes that women can not be motzi men in Hallel and he doesn't differentiate between Yom Tov and Chanuka. The pashtus is that even on Chanukah, women are not m'chuyav in Hallel. However, why doesn't the Rambam say women are m'chuyeves because of "af hein"?
The S'dei Chemed says that ain hachi nami. Women are m'chuyeves because of "af hein" but they are only m'chuyeves in one pasuk. Men are m'chuyav in the entire Hallel. Therefore, women can't be motzi men.
I saw in a sefer a letter from Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach zt"l who writes that women ar eatur from Hallel. He says the chiyuv Hallel is m'din Yom Tov. The gemara in Arachin says Shabbos is not z'man Hallel since it is not a moed. Therefore, even on Chanuah, the chiyuv of Hallel is m'din Yom Tov and not m'din shira for a neis. Only on Pesach night do we say Hallel m'din shira al haneis. Therefore, only on Pesach night can we say women are chayuv because of "af hein".
B'emes the Brisker Rav has this m'halech where he is m'chaleik between Hallel at the seder or b'zman haneis whichis m'din shira and Hallel on Yom Tov and Chanuka which is m'din Yom Tov.
Rav Shternbuch (Moadim U'Zmanim Siman 146) takes a slightly different approach and says
women are m'chuyeves. He quotes the Brisker Rav's chiluk. He explains that on Chanuka we don't say Hallel b'toras shira because we only say it b'toras shira if there is a ma'aseh that is m'orer simcha like shechitas korban pesach or hallel over a victory. Therefore, b'zman hazeh the hallel of Chanuka was established m'din Yom Tov.However, he is m'chadeish that since the shoresh of the chiyuv Hallel on Chanuka is m'din shira al haneis, there are certain halachos that apply to this Hallel. For example, Meseches Sofrim says it should be done b'n'imah just like Hallel on Pesach night. Therefore, Rav Shternbuch says it could be women would also be m'chyeves to say it. Although he is modeh the Rambam is mashma they are not m'chuyeves.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Third Year Anniversary
It's hard to believe that this week , my blog will have been up for 3 years. Althoough I have slowed down recently , looking at my old posts has inspired me to try and be more on top of it. (The key word being "try").
Also, Mazal Tov to my daughter who officially was Bas Mitzvah yesterday, 3 Teves.
Also, Mazal Tov to my daughter who officially was Bas Mitzvah yesterday, 3 Teves.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Parshas Vayeishev:Using Treife Food For The Menorah
I discussed an interesting question, whether one is allowed to use non kosher food as oil or candles for the Chanuka menorah.
This question can be divided into 2 groups; one group would be issurei ha'na'ah like basar b'chalav or orlah. The 2nd group would be your regular run of the mill treife food like candles made from pig fat. I'd like to focus on this second group first.
Shittas Magen Avraham
The issue starts with a Magen Avraham in Hilchos Shofar Siman 586. The Rema paskens that one can not use a shofar from a non kosher animal. The Magen Avraham explains that in Shabbos 28b the gemara learns that tefillin must be made from a kosher animal ("min hamutar sheh bificha"). Furthermore, the gemara in Kiddushin equates the mitzva of tefillin to the other mitzvos in the torah to prove that women are patur from z'man grama. Therefore, the Magen Avraham says that this hekesh between tefillin and other mitzvos can also be applied to the halacha that the item used in the mitzvah must be from a kosher animal. (ayin Machatzis HaShekel who understands the Magen Avraham this way). It would come out that according to the Magen Avraham, the neiros of Chanuka must also come from a kosher source.
Poskin who disagree
Not all poskim hold that this Magen Avraham applies to ner Chanuka.
1) The Beis Yitzchak writes that this halacha only applies to cheftzei mitzva which are still around. The Yerushalmi in Sotah has a machlokes whether megillas sotah can be written on a non kosher animal. The opinion who holds you can't says the reason is because maybe the sotah will not want to drink the water. The Beis Yitzchak asks, why don't we say the reason is because we need "min hamutar sheh bificha". He answers that this halacha only applies cheftzei mitzva which are still around and since the klaf of the sotah is erased you don't need "min hamutar sheh bificha". The Beis Yitzchak then says the same sevara applies to ner chanuka, since the oil/candle is burned it can come from a non kosher animal
2) The son of the Noda B'Yehuda discusses this issue in a teshuva in the Noda B'Yehuda Mahadura Tinyana Siman 3. He is m'chaleik between tashmishei kedusha (tefillin) and tashmishei mitzvah. Since ner Chanuka are only tashmishei mitzvah there is no problem. One of his proofs is from the chilazon used in the techeiles which according to some shittos is from a non kosher animal. We see for tashmishei mitzva you can use a non kosher animal.
3) Rav Shlomo Kluger in Shnos Chaim writes there might be a problem of miyus. But if you are mesupak if it is not kosher or you don't know about it it is not miyus and you can use the candles
more later on issurei ha'na'ah
This question can be divided into 2 groups; one group would be issurei ha'na'ah like basar b'chalav or orlah. The 2nd group would be your regular run of the mill treife food like candles made from pig fat. I'd like to focus on this second group first.
Shittas Magen Avraham
The issue starts with a Magen Avraham in Hilchos Shofar Siman 586. The Rema paskens that one can not use a shofar from a non kosher animal. The Magen Avraham explains that in Shabbos 28b the gemara learns that tefillin must be made from a kosher animal ("min hamutar sheh bificha"). Furthermore, the gemara in Kiddushin equates the mitzva of tefillin to the other mitzvos in the torah to prove that women are patur from z'man grama. Therefore, the Magen Avraham says that this hekesh between tefillin and other mitzvos can also be applied to the halacha that the item used in the mitzvah must be from a kosher animal. (ayin Machatzis HaShekel who understands the Magen Avraham this way). It would come out that according to the Magen Avraham, the neiros of Chanuka must also come from a kosher source.
Poskin who disagree
Not all poskim hold that this Magen Avraham applies to ner Chanuka.
1) The Beis Yitzchak writes that this halacha only applies to cheftzei mitzva which are still around. The Yerushalmi in Sotah has a machlokes whether megillas sotah can be written on a non kosher animal. The opinion who holds you can't says the reason is because maybe the sotah will not want to drink the water. The Beis Yitzchak asks, why don't we say the reason is because we need "min hamutar sheh bificha". He answers that this halacha only applies cheftzei mitzva which are still around and since the klaf of the sotah is erased you don't need "min hamutar sheh bificha". The Beis Yitzchak then says the same sevara applies to ner chanuka, since the oil/candle is burned it can come from a non kosher animal
2) The son of the Noda B'Yehuda discusses this issue in a teshuva in the Noda B'Yehuda Mahadura Tinyana Siman 3. He is m'chaleik between tashmishei kedusha (tefillin) and tashmishei mitzvah. Since ner Chanuka are only tashmishei mitzvah there is no problem. One of his proofs is from the chilazon used in the techeiles which according to some shittos is from a non kosher animal. We see for tashmishei mitzva you can use a non kosher animal.
3) Rav Shlomo Kluger in Shnos Chaim writes there might be a problem of miyus. But if you are mesupak if it is not kosher or you don't know about it it is not miyus and you can use the candles
more later on issurei ha'na'ah
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Parshas VaYeitzei:Hosafos to Ma'ariv when Davening Early: Part 2
To answer why one would say Ya'aleh V'Yavo even when davening early, the Mishnas Ya'avetz(Siman 2) has an interesting chiddush. I also found this idea in the Shut Mishnah Halachos. The halacha is that if you forget ya'aleh v'yavo at night you don'trepeat shemoneh esrei because we are not m'kadeish the chodesh at night and really one does not need to say ya'aleh v'yavo at night. However, why then do we see it? The Mishnas Ya'avetz says that we say it in reference to the next day which has kedushas Rosh Chodesh. It comes out that even when we daven ma'ariv after nightfall we are saying ya'aleh v'yavo because of the next day. Therefore, what difference does it make if we say it before tzais or after tzais-it is not a tefilla dependent on the night.
Regarding Al HaNisim, I saw in the Rivivos Ephraim that Rav Moshe held if one says Al HaNisim during mincha before Chanuka it is not a hefsek. The reason is that erev chanuka is also the z'man of commemorating the neis of winning the war. If this is so, then kal v'choomer one who davens ma'ariv early could say Al HaNisim. The Rivios Ephraim also quotes Rav Ovadiah Yosef who says this as well.
For V'sein Tal U'Matar I didn't find a clear reason why you would say it. The Ishei Yisroel just say swe do and he brings to sources but it is not clear why.
Regarding Al HaNisim, I saw in the Rivivos Ephraim that Rav Moshe held if one says Al HaNisim during mincha before Chanuka it is not a hefsek. The reason is that erev chanuka is also the z'man of commemorating the neis of winning the war. If this is so, then kal v'choomer one who davens ma'ariv early could say Al HaNisim. The Rivios Ephraim also quotes Rav Ovadiah Yosef who says this as well.
For V'sein Tal U'Matar I didn't find a clear reason why you would say it. The Ishei Yisroel just say swe do and he brings to sources but it is not clear why.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Parshas VaYeitzei:Hosafos to Ma'ariv when Davening Early
It's been awhile and I apologize to my legions of fans who have been anxiosly awaiting my next post.
I spoke abount an interesting shaylah this week. We paskin that one can daven ma'ariv starting from plag hamincha,like shittas Rabbi Yehuda in Berachos 26a. (whether this is l'chatchila or b'dieved is not nogeia this discussion). What happens if one davens ma'ariv early on Rosh Chodesh, does one say ya'aleh v'yavo? How about davening ma'ariv early on the 1st night of Chanukah or on December 3rd, when one would add v'sein tal u'mattar.
The halacha is we do add the various hosafos even when davening early. The question will be why.
The gemara in Berachos 27 says that one can daven ma'ariv for Shabbos early. The question is why. Most Rishonim hold that since there is a mitzvah of tosefes Shabbos, once you are m'kabeil Shabbos you can now daven a Shabbos shemoneh esrei before it is night. The Rambam however does not hold of tosefes Shabbos and he learns it is a special kulah in ma'ariv since ma'ariv is only a reshus not a chiyuv.
According to teh Rambam we can apply this chiddush of ma'ariv being a reshus to any ma'ariv and therefore that is why we add the hosafos despite davening early. The problem is the other Rishonim who learn the sugyah based on tosefes Shabbos. By these other hosafos there is no tosefes. We need to come up with other reasons why we add the hosafos before nightfall.
More to come...
A
I spoke abount an interesting shaylah this week. We paskin that one can daven ma'ariv starting from plag hamincha,like shittas Rabbi Yehuda in Berachos 26a. (whether this is l'chatchila or b'dieved is not nogeia this discussion). What happens if one davens ma'ariv early on Rosh Chodesh, does one say ya'aleh v'yavo? How about davening ma'ariv early on the 1st night of Chanukah or on December 3rd, when one would add v'sein tal u'mattar.
The halacha is we do add the various hosafos even when davening early. The question will be why.
The gemara in Berachos 27 says that one can daven ma'ariv for Shabbos early. The question is why. Most Rishonim hold that since there is a mitzvah of tosefes Shabbos, once you are m'kabeil Shabbos you can now daven a Shabbos shemoneh esrei before it is night. The Rambam however does not hold of tosefes Shabbos and he learns it is a special kulah in ma'ariv since ma'ariv is only a reshus not a chiyuv.
According to teh Rambam we can apply this chiddush of ma'ariv being a reshus to any ma'ariv and therefore that is why we add the hosafos despite davening early. The problem is the other Rishonim who learn the sugyah based on tosefes Shabbos. By these other hosafos there is no tosefes. We need to come up with other reasons why we add the hosafos before nightfall.
More to come...
A
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Parshas VaYeira:Tefillas Nedava
The gemara says that the Avos established tefillah. Now that we are in the parsha of the Avos, it is a good time to discuss aspects of tefillah. This week’s chabura discussed the idea of davening a tefilas nedava. The sugyah is found in Berachos 21a. One can have the following chakirah in tefillas nedava. How does one view a tefillas nedava. Is it really the same cheftzah of tefilla as a tefilla of chova and the only difference between a nedava and chova is in your kavanah. L’mashel, one can bring a korbon as a chova or nedava. Both korbonos consist of the same animal and the only difference is your kavana in bringing it. The other tzad is to say that a tefillas chova and nedava are different cheftza’s of tefillas and they are fundamentally different. We can explain a few machlokes rishonim with this chakira.
Chiddush in Tefillas Nedava
There is a machlokes between Rashi and Tosafos whether tefillas nedava requires a chiddush. This machlokes is also found between the Rambam and Ra’avad in Hilchos Tefillah (perek 1). L;chorah one can explain the machlokes based on our chakira. If you hold that a nedava and chova are the same cheftzah of tefilla then one would not need a chiddush to distinguish between the two. However, if you hold they are fundamentally different then you need to add something to your nedava to make it different then a chova, This is why you need a chiddush. In fact the loshon of the Rambam is that you need a chiddush to show it is a tefillas nedava.
Combining Nedava and Chova
There is a machlokes Rishonim what happens if one is in the middle of davening and remembers that he already davened. Can one finish the rest of davening b’toras chova. R’Chaim understands that it is a machlokes between the Rambam and Ra’avad. The Rambam paskens you must stop and you can not continue b’toras nedava. The reason is that you can’t combine a tefillas chova and nedava. The Ra’avad (according to R’ Chaim’s understanding) holds you can finish b’toras nedava. R’ Chaim adds that this machlokes is l’shitasam to the machlokes above about whether one needs a chiddush. R’ Chaim doesn’t explain himself but l’chorah according to our chakira it works out. If you hold that a nedava and chova are the same cheftzah of tefilla then one could combine them –like the Ra’avad holds. But if you hold they are fundamentally different then you would not be able to combine them, like the Ramabm holds.
Halacha L’Ma’aseh
What happens if you are in the middle of shemoneh esrei and you forget what beracha you are in. The Chayei Adam says you can not repeat the beracha you are mesupak about b’toras nedava because you can’t combine a nedava with chova and the rest of shemoneh esrei would be a tefillas chova. Rather, you skip to the beracha that you know for sure you didn’t say. Both the Steipler (Kehillas Ya’akov in Berachos) and Rav Ovadiah Yosef (Yabeia Omer Chelek 9 Siman 8) ask how can you skip a beracha. If it turns out that you never said the beracha you are mesupak in then it turnsw out you missed a beracha and you were never yotzei shemone esrei. Furthermore, all the rest of the berachos would be a bracha l’vatalah. Therefore they pasken you should repeat the beracha you are mesupak about.
Both the sefer Ishei Yisroel and Tefillah K’Hilchasa bring the Chayei Adam l’halacha and mention the Kehillas Ya’akov and Yabeia Omeir in the footnotes. When I asked a posek what to do I was told to follow the Kehillas Yaakov and repeat the beracha you are mesupak in, against the Chayei Adam.
Chiddush in Tefillas Nedava
There is a machlokes between Rashi and Tosafos whether tefillas nedava requires a chiddush. This machlokes is also found between the Rambam and Ra’avad in Hilchos Tefillah (perek 1). L;chorah one can explain the machlokes based on our chakira. If you hold that a nedava and chova are the same cheftzah of tefilla then one would not need a chiddush to distinguish between the two. However, if you hold they are fundamentally different then you need to add something to your nedava to make it different then a chova, This is why you need a chiddush. In fact the loshon of the Rambam is that you need a chiddush to show it is a tefillas nedava.
Combining Nedava and Chova
There is a machlokes Rishonim what happens if one is in the middle of davening and remembers that he already davened. Can one finish the rest of davening b’toras chova. R’Chaim understands that it is a machlokes between the Rambam and Ra’avad. The Rambam paskens you must stop and you can not continue b’toras nedava. The reason is that you can’t combine a tefillas chova and nedava. The Ra’avad (according to R’ Chaim’s understanding) holds you can finish b’toras nedava. R’ Chaim adds that this machlokes is l’shitasam to the machlokes above about whether one needs a chiddush. R’ Chaim doesn’t explain himself but l’chorah according to our chakira it works out. If you hold that a nedava and chova are the same cheftzah of tefilla then one could combine them –like the Ra’avad holds. But if you hold they are fundamentally different then you would not be able to combine them, like the Ramabm holds.
Halacha L’Ma’aseh
What happens if you are in the middle of shemoneh esrei and you forget what beracha you are in. The Chayei Adam says you can not repeat the beracha you are mesupak about b’toras nedava because you can’t combine a nedava with chova and the rest of shemoneh esrei would be a tefillas chova. Rather, you skip to the beracha that you know for sure you didn’t say. Both the Steipler (Kehillas Ya’akov in Berachos) and Rav Ovadiah Yosef (Yabeia Omer Chelek 9 Siman 8) ask how can you skip a beracha. If it turns out that you never said the beracha you are mesupak in then it turnsw out you missed a beracha and you were never yotzei shemone esrei. Furthermore, all the rest of the berachos would be a bracha l’vatalah. Therefore they pasken you should repeat the beracha you are mesupak about.
Both the sefer Ishei Yisroel and Tefillah K’Hilchasa bring the Chayei Adam l’halacha and mention the Kehillas Ya’akov and Yabeia Omeir in the footnotes. When I asked a posek what to do I was told to follow the Kehillas Yaakov and repeat the beracha you are mesupak in, against the Chayei Adam.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Lech Lecha:Milah Knife and Muktzah
This week’s chaburah discussed an interesting issue regarding muktzeh machmas chisaron kis. The Shulchan Aruch in Siman 308:1 says those items that one would not use because the owner does not want them to get ruined are muktzeh machmas chisaron kis. The example the Shulchan Aruch gives is a mila knife. The question is, if the milah knife would break and the owner would no longer be worried about ruining it, would it lose its status of muktzah. There are 3 opinions in this halacha.
Magan Avraham
The Magan Avraham (308:19) writes that if a utensil that is muktzeh breaks on Shabbos even though the reason for the muktzeh no longer applies, the item is still muktzeh. The Levushei Serad explains that the Magan Avraham is referring to muktzeh machmas chisaron kis and the reason it is still muktzeh is because of the rule that if it is muktzeh when Shabbos started it is muktzeh the whole Shabbos (migu d’itzkatzoi bein hash’mashos itzkatzoi l’kulo yoma).
Rabbi Akiva Eiger
Rabbi Akiva Eiger disagrees and says if a milah knife broke it is no longer muktzeh. We pasken like Rabbi Shimon who does not hold that if it is muktzeh when Shabbos started it is muktzeh the whole Shabbos. Furthermore, in the beginning of Siman 308, he writes that it might be possible to remove the muktzeh by changing your mind. If you decide to no longer use this knife as a mila knife it now loses its muktzah status. However, on this last part Rabbi Akiva Eiger is mesupak since maybe you need a ma’aseh to remove the chisaron kis from the object.
Chazon Ish
The Chazon Ish takes a middle of the road approach. He says that even Rabi Shimon holds if it is muktzeh when Shabbos started it is muktzeh the whole Shabbos unless there is a chance the muktzah would be removed on Shabbos. If such a chance exists then you are considered as waiting for the muktzah to fall off (yosheiv u’mitzapeh) and the object is muttar when the muktzeh is removed. By the milah knife, you are not yosheiv u’mitzapeh and therefore even when it breaks it is still muktzah. However, a milah knife that is damaged and might break would not be muktzeh if it broke on Shabbos . In this case we say you are yosheiv u’mitzapeh that it will break and the rule of migu d’itzkatzoi doesn not apply.
The real question is what is the sevara of Rabbi Akiva Eiger. Why does he say the knife is muttar without any qualifications.
Stay tuned...
Magan Avraham
The Magan Avraham (308:19) writes that if a utensil that is muktzeh breaks on Shabbos even though the reason for the muktzeh no longer applies, the item is still muktzeh. The Levushei Serad explains that the Magan Avraham is referring to muktzeh machmas chisaron kis and the reason it is still muktzeh is because of the rule that if it is muktzeh when Shabbos started it is muktzeh the whole Shabbos (migu d’itzkatzoi bein hash’mashos itzkatzoi l’kulo yoma).
Rabbi Akiva Eiger
Rabbi Akiva Eiger disagrees and says if a milah knife broke it is no longer muktzeh. We pasken like Rabbi Shimon who does not hold that if it is muktzeh when Shabbos started it is muktzeh the whole Shabbos. Furthermore, in the beginning of Siman 308, he writes that it might be possible to remove the muktzeh by changing your mind. If you decide to no longer use this knife as a mila knife it now loses its muktzah status. However, on this last part Rabbi Akiva Eiger is mesupak since maybe you need a ma’aseh to remove the chisaron kis from the object.
Chazon Ish
The Chazon Ish takes a middle of the road approach. He says that even Rabi Shimon holds if it is muktzeh when Shabbos started it is muktzeh the whole Shabbos unless there is a chance the muktzah would be removed on Shabbos. If such a chance exists then you are considered as waiting for the muktzah to fall off (yosheiv u’mitzapeh) and the object is muttar when the muktzeh is removed. By the milah knife, you are not yosheiv u’mitzapeh and therefore even when it breaks it is still muktzah. However, a milah knife that is damaged and might break would not be muktzeh if it broke on Shabbos . In this case we say you are yosheiv u’mitzapeh that it will break and the rule of migu d’itzkatzoi doesn not apply.
The real question is what is the sevara of Rabbi Akiva Eiger. Why does he say the knife is muttar without any qualifications.
Stay tuned...
Monday, September 29, 2008
Rosh Hashana: The Tekios
In case you were wondering I'm still around. I've just been swamped at work and it looks like it will continue this way through Sukkos.
I spoke this week about the different shittos in how we blow tekios. I'll just mention one thing I said. Rashi holds a teruah is three short blasts and Tosafos/Rosh hold it is nine. (We follow Tosafos). Since a tekiah is the same length as a teruah, according to Rashi, 1 blast of the tekiah can't be longer than the equivilant of three short blasts. Also, l'fi Rashi, we blow three shevarim and a shever is the length of 2 short blasts. If it would be the length of 3 short blasts it would be a tekiah.
Our shevarim are 3 blasts and each blast is l'chatchila the length of 3 short blasts. It comes out that according to Rashi we are really blowing three tekios and not 3 shevarim (and we are not yotzei). That is why some have the chumrah to be yotzei shittas Rashi by blowing after davening a set of shevarim where each shever is the length of 2 short blasts.
In the Nefesh HaRav it brings down that Rav Soloveitchik had the following eitzah which Rav Chaim agreed to. It never says you have to blow 3 shevarim. All the Rishonim say is that the total length of all the shevarim must equal the length of 9 short blasts. Why can't you blow 5 blasts with each blast being the length of 2 short blasts. This way even according to Rashi you have blown shevarim, nottekios and you have also blown the length of 9 short blasts.
Hope this wasn't too confusing.
Have a Kesiva V'Chasima Tova and a Healthy Sweet New Year!
I spoke this week about the different shittos in how we blow tekios. I'll just mention one thing I said. Rashi holds a teruah is three short blasts and Tosafos/Rosh hold it is nine. (We follow Tosafos). Since a tekiah is the same length as a teruah, according to Rashi, 1 blast of the tekiah can't be longer than the equivilant of three short blasts. Also, l'fi Rashi, we blow three shevarim and a shever is the length of 2 short blasts. If it would be the length of 3 short blasts it would be a tekiah.
Our shevarim are 3 blasts and each blast is l'chatchila the length of 3 short blasts. It comes out that according to Rashi we are really blowing three tekios and not 3 shevarim (and we are not yotzei). That is why some have the chumrah to be yotzei shittas Rashi by blowing after davening a set of shevarim where each shever is the length of 2 short blasts.
In the Nefesh HaRav it brings down that Rav Soloveitchik had the following eitzah which Rav Chaim agreed to. It never says you have to blow 3 shevarim. All the Rishonim say is that the total length of all the shevarim must equal the length of 9 short blasts. Why can't you blow 5 blasts with each blast being the length of 2 short blasts. This way even according to Rashi you have blown shevarim, nottekios and you have also blown the length of 9 short blasts.
Hope this wasn't too confusing.
Have a Kesiva V'Chasima Tova and a Healthy Sweet New Year!
Monday, September 08, 2008
Public Service Announcement
I just discovered that anypne who is a YU alumnus can get free access to the Bar Ilan and Otzar HaChochma database (along with other electronic periodicals). If you follow the link below you can register for this free service.
(I knew my YU education would come in handy one day)
http://www.yu.edu/libraryalumniportal/index.aspx?ID=4086
(I knew my YU education would come in handy one day)
http://www.yu.edu/libraryalumniportal/index.aspx?ID=4086
Shoftim:Cutting Down Fruit Trees
As previously mentioned, my shiur this week was on the topic of cutting down fruit trees. The Torah says that one can not cut down any fruit trees. However, the gemara in Bava Kama 91B and Bava Basra 26a qualify this that if the wood is worth more than the fruit one can cut it down. The Rosh adds that if one needs the mokom of the tree then one can also cut the tree down. Finally, the Rambam in Hil Melachim writes that the only issur is if it is cut down in a destructive manner. Therefore, the issur would not apply in the following scenarios a) if the wood is worth more than the fruit b) if one needs the mokom of the tree c) the tree is damaging the adjacent property d) the tree is old and not producing enough fruit (how much fruit is discussed by the Rambam).
The Taz brings this halacha down in Siman 117:6 and he mentions the heterim listed above. He also wonders why the Tur did not bring this halacha down at all.
Various poskim discuss this issue and they all seem to be in agreement that when one of the above situations apply it is muttar to cut down a tree. However, they do raise several interesting points.
Sakana
The gemara in Bava Basra mentions that Rav Chinina's son died because he cut down a fruit tree. From here we see that besides there being an issur to cut a tree down there is also an aspect of sakana. The question some poskin deal with is whether this sakana issue is separate from the issur or tied to the issur.
Sh'ailas Ya'avetz
The Sh'ailas Ya'avetz was asked about cutting down a tree to expand a shul. He says that it is a davar pashut that it is muttar since it is tzorech mitzvah and you need the mokom. However, he says even if it is muttar, it would still be a question of sakana. The rayah to this is from the gemara in Bava Basra. You can't say that Rav Chinina did an aveirah by cutting down the tree. It must have been a case where it was muttar. Yet we still see his son died. Therefore, even when it is muttar there is still a sakana.
L'ma'aseh, the Ya'avetz paskens that in this case the shul was being rented from a non-Jew and therefore you don't have to worry about the sakana since the tree was owned by the non-Jew. He also reccomends uprooting the entire tree and replanting it. Then there would be no problem of sakana either.
The Chasam Sofer disagrees. He paskens that if there is no issur then there is no sakana. As long as it is muttar one does not have to worry about a sakana. Howeevr, he does say that if you have any doubt whether it is muttar, you should not cut it down (for example you are not sure if the tree is dead) since it is a safeik sakana. He also says that uprooting and replanting the tree somewhere else only works if you have a reason to move the tree. Just to uproot it for no reason is still assur.
The Har Tzvi (O.C. Chelek 2 Siman 103/104) seems to follow the Sh'ailas Ya'avetz. He was asked about cutting down a tree to build a sukka. He says even though it is tzorech mitzvah and muttar, you still have to worry about the sakana. His eitzah is to have a non Jew do it so anu safeik sakana will be on his head. Rav Asher Weiss quotes a number of poskim who argue on the Sh'ailas Ya'avetz and say that if it is muttar there is no sakana. (also see the comments to my previous post)
Branches of a tree
There is a question if this issur applies to cutting branches off a tree. The Har Tzvi writes that it is a machlokes between the Mishneh L'Melech who is mattir and the Be'er Sheva who hold sit is assur. The Har Tzvi seems to lean towards it being muttar since even after cutting the branches, the nourishment extends to the rest of the tree. He still says have a non Jew do it.
One thought I had was that there is a whole industry of olive wood products (shtenders etc). I wonder where their wood comes from.
The Taz brings this halacha down in Siman 117:6 and he mentions the heterim listed above. He also wonders why the Tur did not bring this halacha down at all.
Various poskim discuss this issue and they all seem to be in agreement that when one of the above situations apply it is muttar to cut down a tree. However, they do raise several interesting points.
Sakana
The gemara in Bava Basra mentions that Rav Chinina's son died because he cut down a fruit tree. From here we see that besides there being an issur to cut a tree down there is also an aspect of sakana. The question some poskin deal with is whether this sakana issue is separate from the issur or tied to the issur.
Sh'ailas Ya'avetz
The Sh'ailas Ya'avetz was asked about cutting down a tree to expand a shul. He says that it is a davar pashut that it is muttar since it is tzorech mitzvah and you need the mokom. However, he says even if it is muttar, it would still be a question of sakana. The rayah to this is from the gemara in Bava Basra. You can't say that Rav Chinina did an aveirah by cutting down the tree. It must have been a case where it was muttar. Yet we still see his son died. Therefore, even when it is muttar there is still a sakana.
L'ma'aseh, the Ya'avetz paskens that in this case the shul was being rented from a non-Jew and therefore you don't have to worry about the sakana since the tree was owned by the non-Jew. He also reccomends uprooting the entire tree and replanting it. Then there would be no problem of sakana either.
The Chasam Sofer disagrees. He paskens that if there is no issur then there is no sakana. As long as it is muttar one does not have to worry about a sakana. Howeevr, he does say that if you have any doubt whether it is muttar, you should not cut it down (for example you are not sure if the tree is dead) since it is a safeik sakana. He also says that uprooting and replanting the tree somewhere else only works if you have a reason to move the tree. Just to uproot it for no reason is still assur.
The Har Tzvi (O.C. Chelek 2 Siman 103/104) seems to follow the Sh'ailas Ya'avetz. He was asked about cutting down a tree to build a sukka. He says even though it is tzorech mitzvah and muttar, you still have to worry about the sakana. His eitzah is to have a non Jew do it so anu safeik sakana will be on his head. Rav Asher Weiss quotes a number of poskim who argue on the Sh'ailas Ya'avetz and say that if it is muttar there is no sakana. (also see the comments to my previous post)
Branches of a tree
There is a question if this issur applies to cutting branches off a tree. The Har Tzvi writes that it is a machlokes between the Mishneh L'Melech who is mattir and the Be'er Sheva who hold sit is assur. The Har Tzvi seems to lean towards it being muttar since even after cutting the branches, the nourishment extends to the rest of the tree. He still says have a non Jew do it.
One thought I had was that there is a whole industry of olive wood products (shtenders etc). I wonder where their wood comes from.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Welcome Back
I'd like to welcome myself back to my blog. At least I haven't gone 30 days without blogging otherwise I might have had to make a Shehechiyanu.
My parsha chabura picks up again this week and I will be discussing the issur of cutting down fruit trees. You will have to tune in next week (or come to my shiur) to find out what I said . However, I will mention one teshuva I found that I was very excited to find since it dealt with a shaylah I actually had 7 years ago. The Har Tzvi discusses whether one can cut down a fruit tree to make room for a sukkah. Seven years ago when we first got our sukka I decided that the ideal spot was in a certain spot in our backyard. However, we had an apricot tree growing and one of the branches was hanging over into the spot where I wanted to put the sukkah. At the time I wasn't aware of this Har Tzvi and in the end I managed to put the sukkah there despite the branch rubbing against the wall.
My parsha chabura picks up again this week and I will be discussing the issur of cutting down fruit trees. You will have to tune in next week (or come to my shiur) to find out what I said . However, I will mention one teshuva I found that I was very excited to find since it dealt with a shaylah I actually had 7 years ago. The Har Tzvi discusses whether one can cut down a fruit tree to make room for a sukkah. Seven years ago when we first got our sukka I decided that the ideal spot was in a certain spot in our backyard. However, we had an apricot tree growing and one of the branches was hanging over into the spot where I wanted to put the sukkah. At the time I wasn't aware of this Har Tzvi and in the end I managed to put the sukkah there despite the branch rubbing against the wall.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Making a Siyum during the 9 Days
This week I attended a family yartziet siyum seudah and the discussion arose whether someone who missed the actual siyum could eat the meat at the seudah. Someone pointed out a Chayei Adam quoted by the Mishna Berura that says you can not send food from the seudah to someones house. This person wanted to prove from here that you need to hear the siyum. L'aniyas da'ati I am not convinced it is a good rayah, since it is not clear to me what exactly is the point of the Chayei Adam. He could be saying that you have to be present at the siyum but he could also be saying that the food doesn't fall into the catagory of eating at a seudas mitzvah unless you are present at the actual meal. Especially during the nine days when there is a hakpadah to only invite friends and relatives, it could be the Chayei Adam feels to send the food to a person is not good enough. To me it is a tzarach iyun on how to understand the implications of this Chayei Adam.
I did look in the Pischei Teshuvos and he directs you to the siman on Ta'anis Bechorim. Although maybe one can be m'chaleik between the siyum of 9 days and the siyum of ta'anis bechorim, the Piskei Teshuvos obviously feels you can equate the two. The pashtus would be to equate the two cases since the heterim of both revolve around the idea that you are eating at a seudas mitzvah. If by ta'anis bechorim eating at the seudah even though you missed the siyum is allowed because al kol panim it is still a seudas mitzvah so too it should be the same thing by the 9 days.
In any event, by Ta'anis Bechorim he brings a machlokes haposkim whether one has to be at the siyum or is just being at the seudas mitzvah enough.
The Minchas Yitzchak in cheleik 9 siman 45 says by Ta'anis Bechorim if you missed the siyum you can still eat at the seudah. His rayah is from a Biur Halacha in 551:10 which deals with the halachos of the 9 days. Clearly, from the fact the Minchas Yitzchak brings a rayah from the 9 days to ta'anis bechorim he holds that in both cases one does not have to be at the siyum.
I did not get a chance to look at the other mareh m'komos brought in the Piskei Teshuvos and nor is it clear to me if the other matirim by Ta'anis Bechorim would also be matir by the 9 days.
Eating before the siyum
The other question that arose is whether one can eat the meat before the siyum takes place or must one wait for the siyum. L'mashel if one washes and eats bread before the siyum must you wait for the siyum before eating the meat or can you eat the meat right away. I think one can say it depends on what gives the seudah a shem "seudas mitzvah". Is it the potential siyum that will take place or is it like kiddush on Shabbos where the kiddush is koveia the seudah as a seudas Shabbos (acc to one approach in kiddush). I once asked a poseik by any siyum can one wash before the siyum and still be considered as eating a seudas mitzvah or must one wait for the siyum in order to call the meal a seudas mitzvah. He told me (if I remembr correctly) that one can wash before the siyum and it is stil a seudas mitzvah. If that is case maybe we can apply the same sevarah here too and say that you can eat the meat before the actual siyum took place. (although what would happen if the siyum wound up never happening-do we say l'mafreia you ate meat b'issur during the 9 days).
I did look in the Pischei Teshuvos and he directs you to the siman on Ta'anis Bechorim. Although maybe one can be m'chaleik between the siyum of 9 days and the siyum of ta'anis bechorim, the Piskei Teshuvos obviously feels you can equate the two. The pashtus would be to equate the two cases since the heterim of both revolve around the idea that you are eating at a seudas mitzvah. If by ta'anis bechorim eating at the seudah even though you missed the siyum is allowed because al kol panim it is still a seudas mitzvah so too it should be the same thing by the 9 days.
In any event, by Ta'anis Bechorim he brings a machlokes haposkim whether one has to be at the siyum or is just being at the seudas mitzvah enough.
The Minchas Yitzchak in cheleik 9 siman 45 says by Ta'anis Bechorim if you missed the siyum you can still eat at the seudah. His rayah is from a Biur Halacha in 551:10 which deals with the halachos of the 9 days. Clearly, from the fact the Minchas Yitzchak brings a rayah from the 9 days to ta'anis bechorim he holds that in both cases one does not have to be at the siyum.
I did not get a chance to look at the other mareh m'komos brought in the Piskei Teshuvos and nor is it clear to me if the other matirim by Ta'anis Bechorim would also be matir by the 9 days.
Eating before the siyum
The other question that arose is whether one can eat the meat before the siyum takes place or must one wait for the siyum. L'mashel if one washes and eats bread before the siyum must you wait for the siyum before eating the meat or can you eat the meat right away. I think one can say it depends on what gives the seudah a shem "seudas mitzvah". Is it the potential siyum that will take place or is it like kiddush on Shabbos where the kiddush is koveia the seudah as a seudas Shabbos (acc to one approach in kiddush). I once asked a poseik by any siyum can one wash before the siyum and still be considered as eating a seudas mitzvah or must one wait for the siyum in order to call the meal a seudas mitzvah. He told me (if I remembr correctly) that one can wash before the siyum and it is stil a seudas mitzvah. If that is case maybe we can apply the same sevarah here too and say that you can eat the meat before the actual siyum took place. (although what would happen if the siyum wound up never happening-do we say l'mafreia you ate meat b'issur during the 9 days).
Monday, July 21, 2008
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).
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).
Monday, June 23, 2008
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).
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).
Thursday, June 19, 2008
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...
(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...
Monday, June 16, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)