1) In his weeks parsha the B'nei Yisroel complain about the mon calling it "lechem haklokeil".
Rav Dovid Feinstein had an interesting p'shat on why it is called "lechem haklokeil". The mon fell every day and in order to receive the mon the B'nei Yisroel had to constantly make sure they deserved it through teshuva and tefillah. On Rosh Hashana we say "teshuva, tefillah and tzedakkah ma'avirin hagezeirah". In most machzorim, above the word "teshuva" is the word "tzom" and above the word "tefillah" is the word "kol". The gematria of "tzom" and of "kol" is 130. The word "haklokeil" is "kuf","lamed","kuf","lamed" which is 130 twice. This hints to the teshuva and tefilla the B'nei Yisroel had to do everyday. They were complaining why do we need to be on our best behavior everyday, just give us a whole week's portion once a week (like on "Mon" day -that was Rav Dovid's pun not mine) and then we won't have to do teshuva everyday, just once a week.
2) Moshe sent Malachim to Edom with a message asking to cross through the land (20:14). Moshe ended the message "atta yada'ata kol hat'la'ah ha'zos". Rav Dovid Feinstein explained that the gematriah of hat'la'ah is 441. Ya'akov and Eisav both knew that whoever got Eretz Yisroel would have to be in golus 400 years. Eisav didn't want that and he gave away his right to Eretz Yisroel. In reality the B'nei Yisroel were in golus for 441 years beacuse they spent an extra 40 years in the midbar. (although they only spent 210 years in Mitzrayim it was as if they spent 400 years there). This was the message to Edom-you know we were in golus for 441 years and now we came to get Eretz Yisroel.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Covering Tefilin Shel Yad
There is a concept that tefilin must be uncovered. Tosafos in Menachos 35a has a question whether this only applies to the Shel Rosh or even the Shel Yad. The Rema writes that we are not makpid to keep the shel yad uncovered. However the Arugas Habosem says we should be machmir for that opinion in Tosafos. However, Tosafos does say that you can avoid the problem by leaving two sides uncovered.
Most people have a cover that goes on top of the Shel Yad. Should one be makpid not to use it? Since our cover has a hole where the kesher meets the bayis this could solve the problem. Especially since the space opens up two sides of the Shel Yad. It is not clear to me from Tosafos if he needs two opposite sides uncovered or any 2 sides. Also, some covers have a hole on top. I saw in the Sha'arei Aharon on Hil Tefillin that the Steipler said that this is suffcient to avoid the problem. However, he also brought down that the Chazon Ish was makpid to remove the covering.
Most people have a cover that goes on top of the Shel Yad. Should one be makpid not to use it? Since our cover has a hole where the kesher meets the bayis this could solve the problem. Especially since the space opens up two sides of the Shel Yad. It is not clear to me from Tosafos if he needs two opposite sides uncovered or any 2 sides. Also, some covers have a hole on top. I saw in the Sha'arei Aharon on Hil Tefillin that the Steipler said that this is suffcient to avoid the problem. However, he also brought down that the Chazon Ish was makpid to remove the covering.
Gold Tefilin
The mishna in Megillah says that if you cover your tefillin with gold it is posul. I always thought that it meant that you put a layer of gold over your batim. I just saw that although the Tur holds it means you painted it gold, Rashi and the Ran hold it means you made gold batim. This is nogeia to the question whether you can paint your tefilin with black paint or dye. The Chayei Adam in the Nishmas Adam Klal 14 has a machlokes with his rebbi the Noda B'Yehuda. The Noda B'Yehuda (Siman 1) writes that Rashi and the Ran is a rayah that you can put a black paint on your tefillin. The only problem with gold tefillin is when the batim are gold, but not when the batim are leather and you paint it gold.
The Nishmas Adam argues and says that the Tur is against this. Plus there is a separate issue that the tefillin have to "see" the air and can't be covered. Putting on a black paint that can't be scraped off is a problem. Also, even if it can be scraped off, the Nishmas Adam feels it is a problem. The Nishmas Adam at the end writes that he sent his teshuva to the Beis Meir who agreed with a lot of what he wrote and the Beis Meir also told him that Rabbi Akiva Eiger also held similarly.
The Nishmas Adam argues and says that the Tur is against this. Plus there is a separate issue that the tefillin have to "see" the air and can't be covered. Putting on a black paint that can't be scraped off is a problem. Also, even if it can be scraped off, the Nishmas Adam feels it is a problem. The Nishmas Adam at the end writes that he sent his teshuva to the Beis Meir who agreed with a lot of what he wrote and the Beis Meir also told him that Rabbi Akiva Eiger also held similarly.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Gabbai Shailos IV
This past Shabbos an interesting question came up during leining. The ba'al korei said "posach" (with a kametz) instead of "pesach" (with a segel). He then started the next posuk, stopped and went back to the word "posach" in the previous posuk and corrected his mistake and continued from there. Towards the end of the aliyah someone came over to me and said that since the ba'al korei had started the next posuk before correcting his mistake, he should have gone back to the beginning of the previous posuk and not just start from the word "posach". Being that I really had no idea if this was a legitimate ta'anah and since this person was adamant that he knew what he was talking about, I made the ba'al korei go back. (I always try to err on the side that will give me the least amount of grief and preserve shalom).
Anyway, the question is what should I have done?
After looking into it, I decided there were really 3 issues.
1) Was it necessary to go back for that mistake.
Answer: NO.
The Shulchan Aruch/Mishna Berura is quite clear that for a mistake that does not change the meaning of the word, there is no need to go back. A mistake of "posach" and "pesach" seems to fit that catagory. Even though the Sha'ar Tzion quotes the GR"A who is makpid, most poskim hold there is no need to go back and b'dieved you are definately yotzei. Certainly in this case where the next posuk had already been started it probably would have been better to just continue.
2) In general if you are correcting a mistake do you have to repeat the full possuk or just go back to that word.
Answer: I didn't find anyone in the Shulchan Aruch or Mishna Berura who discusses this. However, I found a Chayei Adam (quoted in a Shut Tzitz Eliezer) that discusses this . He says one might think that you have to start from the beginning of the posuk because of "kol pasuk d'lo pasak Moshe anan lo paskinan"-basically we can't create our own pesukim and we must follow the pesukim that Moshe set up. However, in this case you are only repeating the words "l'hashlim" to finish the posuk and it would not be considered as creating your own posuk. Therfore one could just go back to the word you made a mistake in.
I would say that based on this, the ba'al korei should have finished the posuk he was in the middle of before going back since by stopping in the middle of the posuk he was creating his own posuk.
3) The 3rd question is that would the Chayei Adam apply in this case where you already started the next posuk. Would the Chayei Adam say that even here you can go back to the word you messed up, or maybe since you started the next posuk you need to go back to the beginning of the previous posuk.
Answer: I don't know. I can hear both sides of the issue and I didn't see anyone talking about it.
To sum up, l'chatchila, once the ba'al korei started the next posuk I should have told him not to go back. I still don't know if there was a problem of going back to the middle of the previous posuk after starting the next posuk. Anyone have any ideas?
Anyway, the question is what should I have done?
After looking into it, I decided there were really 3 issues.
1) Was it necessary to go back for that mistake.
Answer: NO.
The Shulchan Aruch/Mishna Berura is quite clear that for a mistake that does not change the meaning of the word, there is no need to go back. A mistake of "posach" and "pesach" seems to fit that catagory. Even though the Sha'ar Tzion quotes the GR"A who is makpid, most poskim hold there is no need to go back and b'dieved you are definately yotzei. Certainly in this case where the next posuk had already been started it probably would have been better to just continue.
2) In general if you are correcting a mistake do you have to repeat the full possuk or just go back to that word.
Answer: I didn't find anyone in the Shulchan Aruch or Mishna Berura who discusses this. However, I found a Chayei Adam (quoted in a Shut Tzitz Eliezer) that discusses this . He says one might think that you have to start from the beginning of the posuk because of "kol pasuk d'lo pasak Moshe anan lo paskinan"-basically we can't create our own pesukim and we must follow the pesukim that Moshe set up. However, in this case you are only repeating the words "l'hashlim" to finish the posuk and it would not be considered as creating your own posuk. Therfore one could just go back to the word you made a mistake in.
I would say that based on this, the ba'al korei should have finished the posuk he was in the middle of before going back since by stopping in the middle of the posuk he was creating his own posuk.
3) The 3rd question is that would the Chayei Adam apply in this case where you already started the next posuk. Would the Chayei Adam say that even here you can go back to the word you messed up, or maybe since you started the next posuk you need to go back to the beginning of the previous posuk.
Answer: I don't know. I can hear both sides of the issue and I didn't see anyone talking about it.
To sum up, l'chatchila, once the ba'al korei started the next posuk I should have told him not to go back. I still don't know if there was a problem of going back to the middle of the previous posuk after starting the next posuk. Anyone have any ideas?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Tumah and Korbon Pesach
Someone asked me an interesting question – we see that by the korbon Pesach in the Midbar the Bnei Yisroel were not tamei (since it was necessary for some to have a Pesach Sheini). How about in Mitzrayim? It seems that there was no halacha against being tamei while eating the korbon Pesach in Mitzrayim. Why not? Was it because tumah hutrah b’tzibbur, was it a special din by pesach Mitzrayim that tumah didn’t apply or maybe b’chlal there was no din tumah/taharah before Matan Torah.
Interestingly, if you look in the Chiuch and the Rambam you don’t see any special commandment not to eat the Korbon Pesach b’tumah. The way the Rambam formulates the halacha it seems the only reason not to eat the Korbon Pesach b’tumah was because in general all korbonos are not allowed to be eaten b’tumah. The only thing Pesach Sheini was m’chadeish was that if someone was tamei and couldn’t eat the Korbon Pesach he had a way of making it up.
It could be that since b’etzem there is no special halacha of tumah that applies to a Korbon Pesach so if before Mattan Torah there were no dinei tumah or taharah, then it wasn’t necessary for B’nei Yisroel to be m’taheir themselves before eating the Korbon Pesach in Mitzrayim.
Does anyone have a rayah either way if before Mattan Torah there were any dinei tumah or taharah,
Interestingly, if you look in the Chiuch and the Rambam you don’t see any special commandment not to eat the Korbon Pesach b’tumah. The way the Rambam formulates the halacha it seems the only reason not to eat the Korbon Pesach b’tumah was because in general all korbonos are not allowed to be eaten b’tumah. The only thing Pesach Sheini was m’chadeish was that if someone was tamei and couldn’t eat the Korbon Pesach he had a way of making it up.
It could be that since b’etzem there is no special halacha of tumah that applies to a Korbon Pesach so if before Mattan Torah there were no dinei tumah or taharah, then it wasn’t necessary for B’nei Yisroel to be m’taheir themselves before eating the Korbon Pesach in Mitzrayim.
Does anyone have a rayah either way if before Mattan Torah there were any dinei tumah or taharah,
Parshas Naso: Understanding Nezirus
This week’s shiur focussed on the status of a Nazir. The gemara and Rishonim discuss the difference between a neder and a shevuah. The gemara calls a Neder an issur cheftzah and a shevuah is called an issur gavrah. This means that when making a neder not to have hana’ah from a pieceof bread, the piece of bread is a davar hassur and is assur to you. However, if one makes a shevuah not to eat a piece of bread the whole day, the bread idoesn’t become a cheftzah shel issur. Rather, you have imposed on yourself certain restrictions-namely not ot eat bread. The question is, how do we view a Nazir. Is it an issur cheftzah, in that the wine becomes a cheftzah shel issur, or is it an issur gavrah, that you are imposing on yourself certain issurim?
Issur Gavra
The Maharit (Siman 52 and 53) has a lengthy arichus on this topic. He brings several Rishonim that seem to hold that Nezirus is an issur gavra. He quotes the Ran and the Rosh as both saying that a nazitr is an issur gavra. Tosafos in Shevuos 25a `also seems to hold it is an issur gavra. The gemara learns from two different pesukim that both nedarim and nezirus is chal on a davar mitzvah. Tosafos asks why do we need two pesukim, just learn nazir from nedarim. Tosafos answers that a nazir is an issur gavra and therefore you can’t learn it from nedarim which is an issur cheftzah..
Issur Cheftza
The Minchas Aher writes that the Rashba ssays nezirus is an issur cheftzah. (also ayimn Maharshdam Y.D. 76 that holds it is an issur cheftzah). The Rashba in answering Tosafos’ question above says that if I didn’thave a posuk I might think nazir is an issur gavra. Therefoere the posuk tells me it is chal a n a devar mitzvah to show it is an issur cheftzah.
Nafka Mina
There don’t to be too many nafka mina in this chakirah, but one nafka mina discussed in the poskim is where someone is m’kabeil nezirus using a loshon neder or using a loshon shevuah. Is the nezirus chal. The Mahrit and Maharshdam write that it could depend on this chakirah. If nezirus is an issur cheftzah then using a loshon shevuah won’t help. If it is an issur gavra than using a loshon neder won’t help. you hold
Shittas Maharit
Finally, there is a third shitta introduced by the maharit. The Maharit writes that nezirus is neither an issur cheftzah or gavrah. Rather it is a status one accepts upon himself that brings with it various dinim, namely that it is assur to drink wine, become tamei or get a haircut. This is similar to a kohein who has a certain status of kedusha and consequently is assur to become tamei.
The achronim us ethis Maharit to explain several sugyas.
The lav of Bal Yeichal
The Rambam paskens that if a nazir violates his nezirus by l’mashel drinking wine , not only is he oveir the lav of drinking wine, but he is also oveir the lav of bal yeichal-which is the lav for violating a neder or shevuah. Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks (Michtavim in Derush v’Chiddush siman 5) why are you also not chayav a korbon? If one violates a neder or shevuah he is oveir on bal yeichal and chayav a korbon. Why does this not apply by Nezirus?
Rabbi Akiva Eiger answers using the yesod of the Mahrit. (He doesn’t quote the Maharit but it is the same yesod). Nezirus is not a shevuah or neder, rather you have accepted upon yourself a certain status. Violating this status is not considered violating your neder or shevuah since nezirus was never a shevuah or neder in the first place.
Of course the question is if nezirus was never a shevuah or neder, why are you oveir on bal yeichal? Rabbi Akiva Eiger says it is a gezeiras hakasuv that the torah imposes upon you this lav.
Miktzas Nezirus
The halacha is if you say “I am a nazir not to drink wine” you are a nazir for everything since “ain nezirus l’chatzain”-there is no such thing as a half nezirus. The Minchas Chinuch asks, if you become tamei, why are you oveir on bal yeichal? Bal Yeichal is an issur for violating what you said. You only mentioned nezirus on wine not on being tamei. So why is there an issur bal yeichal on being tamei? The Kehillas Ya’akov (Nazir siman 2) answers with the Maharit. Nezirus is a status and not a shevuah. In truth there should never be an issur bal yeichal-but the torah imposes it upon someone who violates his nezirus. So here too it is imposed by the Torah even though you didn’t specifically mention tumah.
Issur Kollel
If one says “I am assur to wine” and then says “I am a nazir” he is not a nazir since he is already assur to wine and ain issur chal al issur. The achronim ask why don’t we say issur kollel-that by being a nazir he is adding tumah and haircutting so the nezirus should be chal. The Shut Avnei Miluim writes in Siman 15 that we only say issur kollel when the additional issurim are imposed by the person.. But if they are imposed by the Torah we don’t say issur kollel. Acording to the Maharit that Nezirus is just accepting a status so it comes out the issurim are imposed by the Torah-once you accept this status, m’meilah you have these issurim. Since you never imposed them upon yourself we don’t say issur kollel.
Issur Gavra
The Maharit (Siman 52 and 53) has a lengthy arichus on this topic. He brings several Rishonim that seem to hold that Nezirus is an issur gavra. He quotes the Ran and the Rosh as both saying that a nazitr is an issur gavra. Tosafos in Shevuos 25a `also seems to hold it is an issur gavra. The gemara learns from two different pesukim that both nedarim and nezirus is chal on a davar mitzvah. Tosafos asks why do we need two pesukim, just learn nazir from nedarim. Tosafos answers that a nazir is an issur gavra and therefore you can’t learn it from nedarim which is an issur cheftzah..
Issur Cheftza
The Minchas Aher writes that the Rashba ssays nezirus is an issur cheftzah. (also ayimn Maharshdam Y.D. 76 that holds it is an issur cheftzah). The Rashba in answering Tosafos’ question above says that if I didn’thave a posuk I might think nazir is an issur gavra. Therefoere the posuk tells me it is chal a n a devar mitzvah to show it is an issur cheftzah.
Nafka Mina
There don’t to be too many nafka mina in this chakirah, but one nafka mina discussed in the poskim is where someone is m’kabeil nezirus using a loshon neder or using a loshon shevuah. Is the nezirus chal. The Mahrit and Maharshdam write that it could depend on this chakirah. If nezirus is an issur cheftzah then using a loshon shevuah won’t help. If it is an issur gavra than using a loshon neder won’t help. you hold
Shittas Maharit
Finally, there is a third shitta introduced by the maharit. The Maharit writes that nezirus is neither an issur cheftzah or gavrah. Rather it is a status one accepts upon himself that brings with it various dinim, namely that it is assur to drink wine, become tamei or get a haircut. This is similar to a kohein who has a certain status of kedusha and consequently is assur to become tamei.
The achronim us ethis Maharit to explain several sugyas.
The lav of Bal Yeichal
The Rambam paskens that if a nazir violates his nezirus by l’mashel drinking wine , not only is he oveir the lav of drinking wine, but he is also oveir the lav of bal yeichal-which is the lav for violating a neder or shevuah. Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks (Michtavim in Derush v’Chiddush siman 5) why are you also not chayav a korbon? If one violates a neder or shevuah he is oveir on bal yeichal and chayav a korbon. Why does this not apply by Nezirus?
Rabbi Akiva Eiger answers using the yesod of the Mahrit. (He doesn’t quote the Maharit but it is the same yesod). Nezirus is not a shevuah or neder, rather you have accepted upon yourself a certain status. Violating this status is not considered violating your neder or shevuah since nezirus was never a shevuah or neder in the first place.
Of course the question is if nezirus was never a shevuah or neder, why are you oveir on bal yeichal? Rabbi Akiva Eiger says it is a gezeiras hakasuv that the torah imposes upon you this lav.
Miktzas Nezirus
The halacha is if you say “I am a nazir not to drink wine” you are a nazir for everything since “ain nezirus l’chatzain”-there is no such thing as a half nezirus. The Minchas Chinuch asks, if you become tamei, why are you oveir on bal yeichal? Bal Yeichal is an issur for violating what you said. You only mentioned nezirus on wine not on being tamei. So why is there an issur bal yeichal on being tamei? The Kehillas Ya’akov (Nazir siman 2) answers with the Maharit. Nezirus is a status and not a shevuah. In truth there should never be an issur bal yeichal-but the torah imposes it upon someone who violates his nezirus. So here too it is imposed by the Torah even though you didn’t specifically mention tumah.
Issur Kollel
If one says “I am assur to wine” and then says “I am a nazir” he is not a nazir since he is already assur to wine and ain issur chal al issur. The achronim ask why don’t we say issur kollel-that by being a nazir he is adding tumah and haircutting so the nezirus should be chal. The Shut Avnei Miluim writes in Siman 15 that we only say issur kollel when the additional issurim are imposed by the person.. But if they are imposed by the Torah we don’t say issur kollel. Acording to the Maharit that Nezirus is just accepting a status so it comes out the issurim are imposed by the Torah-once you accept this status, m’meilah you have these issurim. Since you never imposed them upon yourself we don’t say issur kollel.
Friday, May 25, 2007
The 70 nations and Matan Torah
I am sure most people are familiar with the ma'amar chazal that HKBH offered the Torah to the other nations first. The gemara in Avodah Zara (2b) has the girsa that HKBH went to all teh nations. However there is another girsa that says HKBH went to Eisav and Yishmael. This is based on the possuk in V'Zos HaBeracha of 'v'zarach misa'ir lamo...". I haven't found where this girsa is but I saw it quoted from a Zohar in Balak. (derech agav if anyone knows where this ma'amar is please let me know).
Anyway, over Yom Tov someone commented to me that the nations that HKBH went to were specifically Eisav, Yishmael, Amon and Moav. This person wanted to say that the reason these nations were chosen is because these nations are not part of the 70 nations. The 70 nations were defined at the Dor Haflagah and these nations didn't exist until afterwards.
This leads me to my question. (Actually 2 questions)
a) Is there such a ma'amar Chazal that HKBH only went to Eisav, Yishmael, Amon and Moav. The gemara in AZ mentions all the nations and the Zohar I saw quoted only mentions Eisav and Yishmael.
b) Is true that Eisav, Yishmael, Amon and Moav are not part of the 70 nations. Intuitively it doesn't make sense to say they are excluded from the 70 nations, but m'sevarah it seems they are not part of the 70 nations. To add to this question, there is a GR"A that writes that Eisav was the head of 35 nations and Yishmael the head of the other 35. This is based on the posuk "eileh varechev v'eileh basusim", eileh= 1+35. This implies that in fact Eisav and Yishmael are not part of the 70 nations. But I am not sure if I am remembering the GR"A accurately and it could be the GR"A means they are part of the 70 but they are the leaders. Also. what about Amon and Moav?
Furthermore, the Ramchal in Derech Hashem writes that the spiritual status of the 70 nations was sealed at the Dor Haflagah. As a chesed at Mattan Torah, HKBH opened up the opportunity for them to improve their status by offering them the Torah. Again, how does Eisav, Yishmael, Amon and Moav fit in to this if they were not around by the Dor Haflagah.
Any suggestions?
Anyway, over Yom Tov someone commented to me that the nations that HKBH went to were specifically Eisav, Yishmael, Amon and Moav. This person wanted to say that the reason these nations were chosen is because these nations are not part of the 70 nations. The 70 nations were defined at the Dor Haflagah and these nations didn't exist until afterwards.
This leads me to my question. (Actually 2 questions)
a) Is there such a ma'amar Chazal that HKBH only went to Eisav, Yishmael, Amon and Moav. The gemara in AZ mentions all the nations and the Zohar I saw quoted only mentions Eisav and Yishmael.
b) Is true that Eisav, Yishmael, Amon and Moav are not part of the 70 nations. Intuitively it doesn't make sense to say they are excluded from the 70 nations, but m'sevarah it seems they are not part of the 70 nations. To add to this question, there is a GR"A that writes that Eisav was the head of 35 nations and Yishmael the head of the other 35. This is based on the posuk "eileh varechev v'eileh basusim", eileh= 1+35. This implies that in fact Eisav and Yishmael are not part of the 70 nations. But I am not sure if I am remembering the GR"A accurately and it could be the GR"A means they are part of the 70 but they are the leaders. Also. what about Amon and Moav?
Furthermore, the Ramchal in Derech Hashem writes that the spiritual status of the 70 nations was sealed at the Dor Haflagah. As a chesed at Mattan Torah, HKBH opened up the opportunity for them to improve their status by offering them the Torah. Again, how does Eisav, Yishmael, Amon and Moav fit in to this if they were not around by the Dor Haflagah.
Any suggestions?
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Parshas Naso/Shavuous: The Status of B'nei Yisroel at Mattan Torah
The Rambam in Perek 13 of Issurei Biah writes that there were three things necessary for B'nei Yisroel to enter into teh bris with HJBH. 1) bris mila which took place by Mitzrayim 2) tevillah before Mattan Torah 3) bringing a korbon before Mattan Torah. The Rambam then writes that from this we learn that anyone who wants to be come a ger must have these three things. The mashmaus is that the B'nei Yisroel became geirim at Mattan Torah. If this is true then there are a couple of questions that can be asked regarding this geirus.
a) In Parshas Behaloscha the Torah tells us that the B'nei Yisroel complained about the mann and their families. The gemara in Shabbos 130 says that this refers to the fact that the B'nei Yisroel were upset that some of their wives were now assur to them and that they had to divorce them. (In fact the Da'as Zekainim writes that Amram divorced Yocheved since she was his aunt and she was now assur to be married to him).
The question is that we have a klal "ger sh'nisgayeir k'katan shenolad dami". A ger is considered like a newborn child with respect to the fact that he is no longer halachically related to any of his previous relatives. If this is true then after the geirus of Mattan Torah, each and every Jew should not be related to any other Jew and they should be able to marry whomever they want. So why did they cry over the wives they would have to divorce?
b) The second question is regarding the k'tanim. We have a concept in Kesuvos 11a that "ger katan matbilin oso al da'as beis din"-a katan becomes a ger through beis din. There is a machlokes rishonim if this is a dinm'd'oreisa or only m'd'rabanan. The Ramban asks that if one holds it is only m'd'rabanan how were the k'tanim able to become geirim m'd'oreisa at Mattan Torah?
There are four different m'halchim to answer this question. (found in Sefer Mo'adim U'Zmanim)
Meshech Chochma
The Meshech Chochma in Parshas V'Eschanan writes that ain hachi nami, the B'nei Yisroel were geirim and the concept of "ger sh'nisgayeir k'katan shenolad dami" does apply. The reason the B'nei Yisorel were crying was because in the future they couldn't marry certain women.
Maharal/Shev Shmaytsa
The Shev Shmaytsa in his hakdama (os 9) quotes the Maharal in Gur Aryeh parshas VaYigash that asks this question. The Maharal answers that the only time we say "ger sh'nisgayeir k'katan shenolad dami" is when the geirus was done willingly. Since the geirus of Mattan Torah was against the will of the B'nei Yisroel, we don't say "ger sh'nisgayeir k'katan shenolad dami".
The Shev Shmaytsa explains that what the Maharal means is that they realized the world could not surevive without the Torah and therefore in a sense they had no choice in tha matter. He adds that with this we can understand why the complaint happened at the same time they complained about the mon. The mon was a spiritual food which gave them the ability to see things clearly and realize they had no choice but to accept the Torah. Since the mon was the cause of why "ger sh'nisgayeir k'katan shenolad dami" didn't apply, the complained about both things together.
3) Rav Soloveitchik
In Harirei Kedem, Rav Shirkin brings a pshat from the Rav. The Rav wanted to say that the geirus of Mattan Torah was a geirus on teh entire tzibur together and not a geirus of individuals. Therefore, since the whole tzibbur was m'gayeir together the concept of "ger sh'nisgayeir k'katan shenolad dami" doesn't apply. His rayah for this is teh fact that the possuk the Rambam brings to show that the korbon they brought was part of the geirus is written in the plural form. The reason is because the geirus was on the tzibbur so the korbon was a korbon hatzibbur.
With this you can also answer how k'tanim became geirim. Since it was a geirus on the tzibbur, the whole tzibbur was involved including the k'tanim.
4) Moadim U'Zmanin
Rav Shternbach has another mehalach. His mehalach is different in that he says that in truth there never was a ma'aseh geirus at Mattan Torah. The Ramban at the end of Parshas Emor writes that once Avraham had a bris mila his children were m'yuchas as Yisroel. They didn't have the mitzvos but they still had a yichus of being "zera Avraham". Rav Shternbach explains further that there are two things that are accomplished by geirus. One is that you remove the tumas akkum and the second is that you become part of Yisroel. The Jews before Mattan Torah already had the yichus of being part of Yisroel. The only thing they needed was to remove the tumas akkum. Therefore, the whole concept of "ger sh'nisgayeir k'katan shenolad dami" did not apply since there was no geirus that needed to take place. Also, there is no question on k'tanim because since there was a yichus of zera Avraham they were Jews at birth.
He does point out that it could be the Erev Rav needed a formal ma'aseh geirus and their children might not have been able to be geirim until they grew up.
He also explains why this complaint took place by the complain about the mon. He says that even though the B'nei Yisroel separated from their assur wives, they didn't kick them out and these wives lived with them in teh vicinity. However, when the mon came down the mon did not fall for these wives since they were not really part of the family. It was only then that they were forced to send them away.
a) In Parshas Behaloscha the Torah tells us that the B'nei Yisroel complained about the mann and their families. The gemara in Shabbos 130 says that this refers to the fact that the B'nei Yisroel were upset that some of their wives were now assur to them and that they had to divorce them. (In fact the Da'as Zekainim writes that Amram divorced Yocheved since she was his aunt and she was now assur to be married to him).
The question is that we have a klal "ger sh'nisgayeir k'katan shenolad dami". A ger is considered like a newborn child with respect to the fact that he is no longer halachically related to any of his previous relatives. If this is true then after the geirus of Mattan Torah, each and every Jew should not be related to any other Jew and they should be able to marry whomever they want. So why did they cry over the wives they would have to divorce?
b) The second question is regarding the k'tanim. We have a concept in Kesuvos 11a that "ger katan matbilin oso al da'as beis din"-a katan becomes a ger through beis din. There is a machlokes rishonim if this is a dinm'd'oreisa or only m'd'rabanan. The Ramban asks that if one holds it is only m'd'rabanan how were the k'tanim able to become geirim m'd'oreisa at Mattan Torah?
There are four different m'halchim to answer this question. (found in Sefer Mo'adim U'Zmanim)
Meshech Chochma
The Meshech Chochma in Parshas V'Eschanan writes that ain hachi nami, the B'nei Yisroel were geirim and the concept of "ger sh'nisgayeir k'katan shenolad dami" does apply. The reason the B'nei Yisorel were crying was because in the future they couldn't marry certain women.
Maharal/Shev Shmaytsa
The Shev Shmaytsa in his hakdama (os 9) quotes the Maharal in Gur Aryeh parshas VaYigash that asks this question. The Maharal answers that the only time we say "ger sh'nisgayeir k'katan shenolad dami" is when the geirus was done willingly. Since the geirus of Mattan Torah was against the will of the B'nei Yisroel, we don't say "ger sh'nisgayeir k'katan shenolad dami".
The Shev Shmaytsa explains that what the Maharal means is that they realized the world could not surevive without the Torah and therefore in a sense they had no choice in tha matter. He adds that with this we can understand why the complaint happened at the same time they complained about the mon. The mon was a spiritual food which gave them the ability to see things clearly and realize they had no choice but to accept the Torah. Since the mon was the cause of why "ger sh'nisgayeir k'katan shenolad dami" didn't apply, the complained about both things together.
3) Rav Soloveitchik
In Harirei Kedem, Rav Shirkin brings a pshat from the Rav. The Rav wanted to say that the geirus of Mattan Torah was a geirus on teh entire tzibur together and not a geirus of individuals. Therefore, since the whole tzibbur was m'gayeir together the concept of "ger sh'nisgayeir k'katan shenolad dami" doesn't apply. His rayah for this is teh fact that the possuk the Rambam brings to show that the korbon they brought was part of the geirus is written in the plural form. The reason is because the geirus was on the tzibbur so the korbon was a korbon hatzibbur.
With this you can also answer how k'tanim became geirim. Since it was a geirus on the tzibbur, the whole tzibbur was involved including the k'tanim.
4) Moadim U'Zmanin
Rav Shternbach has another mehalach. His mehalach is different in that he says that in truth there never was a ma'aseh geirus at Mattan Torah. The Ramban at the end of Parshas Emor writes that once Avraham had a bris mila his children were m'yuchas as Yisroel. They didn't have the mitzvos but they still had a yichus of being "zera Avraham". Rav Shternbach explains further that there are two things that are accomplished by geirus. One is that you remove the tumas akkum and the second is that you become part of Yisroel. The Jews before Mattan Torah already had the yichus of being part of Yisroel. The only thing they needed was to remove the tumas akkum. Therefore, the whole concept of "ger sh'nisgayeir k'katan shenolad dami" did not apply since there was no geirus that needed to take place. Also, there is no question on k'tanim because since there was a yichus of zera Avraham they were Jews at birth.
He does point out that it could be the Erev Rav needed a formal ma'aseh geirus and their children might not have been able to be geirim until they grew up.
He also explains why this complaint took place by the complain about the mon. He says that even though the B'nei Yisroel separated from their assur wives, they didn't kick them out and these wives lived with them in teh vicinity. However, when the mon came down the mon did not fall for these wives since they were not really part of the family. It was only then that they were forced to send them away.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Parshas Behar-Bechukosai: Going to a doctor
This week's shiur discussed a very interesting Ramban. The Ramban in Bechukosai 29:11 writes that in an the ideal world, one should not be going to a doctor. Rather, one should search out a navi to ask him what aveirah you did to cause the sickness. The Ramban brings a rayah to this from the Navi's description of Asa HaMelech. In Divrei HaYamim the Navi rebukes Asa for going to the doctor when he got sick. The Ramban understands this to mean that Asa was not just rebuked for not davening to Hashem, but he was rebuked for actually going to a doctor.
The Tzitz Eliezer in the beginning of his kunteres Ramat Rochel writes that the Chovos HaLevavos disagrees with the Ramban. The Chovos HaLevavos in Sha'ar Bitachon Perkek 3 (Hakdama Shlishis) that one should only place their trust in HKBH and not view people as partners with Hashem. This was Asa's mistake. Rather than viewing the doctor as a shaliach of HKBH, he raised the doctor to a level of a shituf with HKBH. According to the Chovos HaLevavos, there is nothing wrong with going to a doctor, you just have to have the right perspective.
(More to come)
The Tzitz Eliezer in the beginning of his kunteres Ramat Rochel writes that the Chovos HaLevavos disagrees with the Ramban. The Chovos HaLevavos in Sha'ar Bitachon Perkek 3 (Hakdama Shlishis) that one should only place their trust in HKBH and not view people as partners with Hashem. This was Asa's mistake. Rather than viewing the doctor as a shaliach of HKBH, he raised the doctor to a level of a shituf with HKBH. According to the Chovos HaLevavos, there is nothing wrong with going to a doctor, you just have to have the right perspective.
(More to come)
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Looking for a possuk
I am wondering if anyone out there can help me out. I am looking for a possuk that describes the following characteristic.
"Her capacity for help (kindliness, strength) is boundless"
It should reflect an essence of character of someone who is driven to help others and uses their energy and adaptability to help others.
This is for a matzeiva.
Thanks for your suggestions.
"Her capacity for help (kindliness, strength) is boundless"
It should reflect an essence of character of someone who is driven to help others and uses their energy and adaptability to help others.
This is for a matzeiva.
Thanks for your suggestions.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Standing Up: Part 2
Yesterday I mentioned a chakirah (found in the first Brisker Rav) regarding the halacha of standing up for a rebbi muvhak. Is it an extension of "mipnei seiva takum" or an independent chiyuv of kibud/moreh rav. There are a couple of nafka minas to this chakira.
Mechila
The Rambam writes that a rebbi muvhak can be mocheil on his kavod while a regular talmud chacham can not. The Brisker Rav explains that the kavod of a rebbi muvhak is an independent chiyuv of kavod. Therefore, the rebbi muvhak has the right to be mocheil. However, the kavod shown to a regular talmud chacham is a gezeiras hakasuv of "mipnei seiva takum" and it is imposed by the Torah. It is like any other mitzvah a person is obligated to do. Therefore, he can't be mocheil.
It also comes out that the talmid of the rebbi would still have the chiyuv of standing for his rebbi muvha b'geder "mipnei seiva takum" but would not have the additional chiyuvim that apply to a rebbi muvhak.
Someone pointed out to me that this could also explain the GR"A's shitta that a kohein can't be mocheil on his kavod. It is not his kavod-it comes from "v'kidashto" and therefore he can't be mocheil.
Just to note that l'ma'aseh the Shulchan Aruch paskens any rebbi can be mocheil not just a rebbi muvhak.
Requirements of Standing Up
The chiyuv to stand up for a rebbi muvhak is from the time you first see him in the distance. The chiyuv for a talmud chacham is only when he gets within 4 amos. What is the difference? The Ran explains that the possuk says "mipnei seiva takum v'hadarta p'nei zakein" which teaches us the standing up has to show hiddur. Hiddur for a rebbi muvhak is when you see him and for a regular talmud chacham it is 4 amos. The Ran learns these 2 halachos are from the same source. However, according to the Rambam we could say that there are 2 different chiyuvim. In fact the Rambam writes that the chiyuv for a parent is patterned after rebbi muvhak-so we see he holds rebbi muvhak is a kovod/yirah issue.
Father Standing Up For Son Who Is Rebbi
The gemara discusses whether a father must stand up for his son when the son is his rebbi and whether the son must stand up for his father. The gemara never answers the question and the Rosh paskens l'chumrah in both cases. The Ran paskens that the son must stand for his father but a father does not have to stand for his son. His rayah is from a Yerushalmi that says how Rav Tarfon showed kavod to his mother and his mother allowed it and didn't show kavod to him. The Ran then writes that a rebbi muvhak is the same as a regular chacham. I believe the Ran is saying that clearly Rabbi Tarfon was not his mother's rebbi muvhak. However, since a regular talmud chacham and rebbi muvhak have the same din we can learn the halachos of rebbi muvhak from the Yerushalmi. The Rosh might argue and say there is no rayah from teh Yerushalmi to a rebbi muvhak because a rebbi muvhak has a different din then a regular talmud chacham.
The only problem with this is the Rambam paskens like the Ran and based on my explanation, he should not have a rayah from the Yerushalmi.
Mechila
The Rambam writes that a rebbi muvhak can be mocheil on his kavod while a regular talmud chacham can not. The Brisker Rav explains that the kavod of a rebbi muvhak is an independent chiyuv of kavod. Therefore, the rebbi muvhak has the right to be mocheil. However, the kavod shown to a regular talmud chacham is a gezeiras hakasuv of "mipnei seiva takum" and it is imposed by the Torah. It is like any other mitzvah a person is obligated to do. Therefore, he can't be mocheil.
It also comes out that the talmid of the rebbi would still have the chiyuv of standing for his rebbi muvha b'geder "mipnei seiva takum" but would not have the additional chiyuvim that apply to a rebbi muvhak.
Someone pointed out to me that this could also explain the GR"A's shitta that a kohein can't be mocheil on his kavod. It is not his kavod-it comes from "v'kidashto" and therefore he can't be mocheil.
Just to note that l'ma'aseh the Shulchan Aruch paskens any rebbi can be mocheil not just a rebbi muvhak.
Requirements of Standing Up
The chiyuv to stand up for a rebbi muvhak is from the time you first see him in the distance. The chiyuv for a talmud chacham is only when he gets within 4 amos. What is the difference? The Ran explains that the possuk says "mipnei seiva takum v'hadarta p'nei zakein" which teaches us the standing up has to show hiddur. Hiddur for a rebbi muvhak is when you see him and for a regular talmud chacham it is 4 amos. The Ran learns these 2 halachos are from the same source. However, according to the Rambam we could say that there are 2 different chiyuvim. In fact the Rambam writes that the chiyuv for a parent is patterned after rebbi muvhak-so we see he holds rebbi muvhak is a kovod/yirah issue.
Father Standing Up For Son Who Is Rebbi
The gemara discusses whether a father must stand up for his son when the son is his rebbi and whether the son must stand up for his father. The gemara never answers the question and the Rosh paskens l'chumrah in both cases. The Ran paskens that the son must stand for his father but a father does not have to stand for his son. His rayah is from a Yerushalmi that says how Rav Tarfon showed kavod to his mother and his mother allowed it and didn't show kavod to him. The Ran then writes that a rebbi muvhak is the same as a regular chacham. I believe the Ran is saying that clearly Rabbi Tarfon was not his mother's rebbi muvhak. However, since a regular talmud chacham and rebbi muvhak have the same din we can learn the halachos of rebbi muvhak from the Yerushalmi. The Rosh might argue and say there is no rayah from teh Yerushalmi to a rebbi muvhak because a rebbi muvhak has a different din then a regular talmud chacham.
The only problem with this is the Rambam paskens like the Ran and based on my explanation, he should not have a rayah from the Yerushalmi.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Parshas Acharei-Mos Kedoshim: Standing Up
Well after a short work related hiatus, I hope I am back to regular posting. I'd like to publicly thank my personal blog Mashgiach for making sure I get back into it.
This week's shiur dealt with the mitzvah of standing up for various people.
Standing For A Parent
The Shulchan Aruch paskens that one must stand up for a parent. The question is, what is th em'kor for this halacha? When the gemara in Kiddushin lists those actions which are considered a part of kibbud av v'eim and yiras av v'eim, standing up is not mentioned. However, if one looks in the Rambam, he lists it as part of showing kavod. The Beis Yosef writes that the m'kor is from a gemara in Kiddushin that mentions how Rav Yosef would stand up when he heard his father coming.
Standing For A Talmud Chacham/Zakein
There is also a mitzvah to stand up for a talmud chacham or zakein. The m'kor is this week's parsha, "m'pnei seiva takum". The gemara has a machlokes whether this halacha only applies to a talmud chacham or even a zakein who is not a talmud chacham. L'ma'aseh we pasken it applies even to a regular zakein.
The Chinuch gives an interesting reason why this halacha would apply to a regular zakein. The whole point of this mitzvah is to show honor to someone who has acquired wisdom, since acquiring wisdom is one of the primary purposes of being created. Someone who is elderly has lived a long enough life that he by default has acquired chachma and therefore we are supposed to stand up for him.
Standing For A Rebbi Muvhak
There is also a mitzvah to stand for a rebbi muvhak. The question is, what is the reason for this chiyuv. Is it an extension of the chiyuv of standing for any talmud chacham or is it a different chiyuv.
If one looks in the Chinuch and the Rambam Sefer HaMitzvos (Aseh 209) it seems that they learn the chiyuv of a rebbi muvhak is just an extension of standing for a regular talmud chacham. Part of this extension woud also include other areas where one is obligated to show respect to his rebbi muvhak (not arguing with him, sitting in is place etc). The Ran in Kiddushin (daf 14 in the Rif) also seems to hold this as well.
However, the Brisker Rav (1st piece in the sefer) that Tosafos in Bava Kama as well as the Rambam in Mishna Torah seem to learn standing for a rebbi muvhak is an independent chiyuv not related to satnding for a zakein/talmud chacham. This independent chiyuv is learnt from the drasha of "es Hahshem elokecha tira-es l'rabbos talmidiei chachamim". Tosafos in Bava Kama asks why do we need this drasha of "es l'rabbos talmidiei chachamim" why not use the possuk of "mipnei seiva takum" Tosafos answers that es l'rabbos talmidiei chachamim refers to a rebbi muvhak. The Rambam in Hilchos Talmud Torah writes that the chiyuv to show kovod and yirah to a rebbi muvhak is learned from kibud av v'eim. We see that they hold standing for a rebbi muvhak is a special din of kovod and yirah that is not related to standing for an elderly person.
Stay tuned for the nafka minas to these chakirah.
This week's shiur dealt with the mitzvah of standing up for various people.
Standing For A Parent
The Shulchan Aruch paskens that one must stand up for a parent. The question is, what is th em'kor for this halacha? When the gemara in Kiddushin lists those actions which are considered a part of kibbud av v'eim and yiras av v'eim, standing up is not mentioned. However, if one looks in the Rambam, he lists it as part of showing kavod. The Beis Yosef writes that the m'kor is from a gemara in Kiddushin that mentions how Rav Yosef would stand up when he heard his father coming.
Standing For A Talmud Chacham/Zakein
There is also a mitzvah to stand up for a talmud chacham or zakein. The m'kor is this week's parsha, "m'pnei seiva takum". The gemara has a machlokes whether this halacha only applies to a talmud chacham or even a zakein who is not a talmud chacham. L'ma'aseh we pasken it applies even to a regular zakein.
The Chinuch gives an interesting reason why this halacha would apply to a regular zakein. The whole point of this mitzvah is to show honor to someone who has acquired wisdom, since acquiring wisdom is one of the primary purposes of being created. Someone who is elderly has lived a long enough life that he by default has acquired chachma and therefore we are supposed to stand up for him.
Standing For A Rebbi Muvhak
There is also a mitzvah to stand for a rebbi muvhak. The question is, what is the reason for this chiyuv. Is it an extension of the chiyuv of standing for any talmud chacham or is it a different chiyuv.
If one looks in the Chinuch and the Rambam Sefer HaMitzvos (Aseh 209) it seems that they learn the chiyuv of a rebbi muvhak is just an extension of standing for a regular talmud chacham. Part of this extension woud also include other areas where one is obligated to show respect to his rebbi muvhak (not arguing with him, sitting in is place etc). The Ran in Kiddushin (daf 14 in the Rif) also seems to hold this as well.
However, the Brisker Rav (1st piece in the sefer) that Tosafos in Bava Kama as well as the Rambam in Mishna Torah seem to learn standing for a rebbi muvhak is an independent chiyuv not related to satnding for a zakein/talmud chacham. This independent chiyuv is learnt from the drasha of "es Hahshem elokecha tira-es l'rabbos talmidiei chachamim". Tosafos in Bava Kama asks why do we need this drasha of "es l'rabbos talmidiei chachamim" why not use the possuk of "mipnei seiva takum" Tosafos answers that es l'rabbos talmidiei chachamim refers to a rebbi muvhak. The Rambam in Hilchos Talmud Torah writes that the chiyuv to show kovod and yirah to a rebbi muvhak is learned from kibud av v'eim. We see that they hold standing for a rebbi muvhak is a special din of kovod and yirah that is not related to standing for an elderly person.
Stay tuned for the nafka minas to these chakirah.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Post Pesach Wrap Up.
I hope everyone had a nice Pesach. I saw and heard some interesting divrei torah over Pesach. Here are a couple of highlights.
1) If you rent a hotel room on Pesach that has a mini bar, are you a) chayav in bedika b) obligated to get rid of the chametz in the mini bar.
I saw that Rav Asher Weiss talks about this and he takes it as a davar pashut that not only are you chayav in bedika but you must get rid of the food in the mini bar. His reasoning is that you have been m'kabeil acharyus on the food and the halacha is that if a Jew has chametz of a non Jew in his reshus and he is m'kabeil achrayus on the chametz then he has a chiyuv bedika.
When looking into the sugya a little a did find that it is a machlokes Rambam vs Ra'avad where the non Jew imposes a chiyuv achrayus ba'al korcha. However, it might not be nogeia to this case because my understanding of that machlokes is that it is a situation where the non Jew is acting against the laws of the medina. (The case in the gemara is where the army forces the city to host the army against the laws of the land). It could be my understanding of the machlokes is not accurate and it is nogeia are case but on the surface it doesn't seem to be.
I spoke this issue over with a noted Talmud Chacham and he was mesupak. He said it probably depends on what exactly your obligations are to the hotel regarding the food.
2) I spent the last days in Flatbush and the Rav of my in-law's shul spoke a little about Yom Tov Sheini. He raised in an interesting shailah discussed in the Sha'arei Teshuva. Can a ben Chutz L'Aretz cook for a ben EY on Yom Tov Sheini. The two reasons the Rav mentioned was a) it is not "lachem". Just like you can't cook for a non Jew because it is not "lachem" so too you can't cook for a ben EY since it is not Yom Tov for him b) there is an issur hachana. For the ben Chutz L'Aretz it is Yom Tov and for the ben EY it is a weekday. When you cook for the ben EY you are cookimg on Yom Tov for a weekday.
I looked up the Sha'arei Teshuva and he just quotes this opinion withouit bringing the reasons so I didn't have a chance to see these reasons inside. (Although the Rav mentioned that it is discussed in the sefer Yom Tov Sheini K'Hilchaso. In any event I think one can be choleik on both reasons.
As far as the reason of "lachem", it would depend on how you learn the nature of the drasha. Is it excluding anyone who is not keeping Yom Tov, or is it excluding only those who are not in the parsha of Yom Tov. A ben EY has a mitzva of Yom Tov, just today it happens to be a weekday for him. So maybe it is still called "lachem".
Regarding the reason of hachana, I don't see how it is hachana. L'ma'aseh the ben Chutz L'Aretz is cooking on Yom Tov for today. Just because it is not Yom Tov for the ben EY doesn't mean you are cooking for a different day. Why look at the gavra you are cooking for, look at which day you are cooking for.
1) If you rent a hotel room on Pesach that has a mini bar, are you a) chayav in bedika b) obligated to get rid of the chametz in the mini bar.
I saw that Rav Asher Weiss talks about this and he takes it as a davar pashut that not only are you chayav in bedika but you must get rid of the food in the mini bar. His reasoning is that you have been m'kabeil acharyus on the food and the halacha is that if a Jew has chametz of a non Jew in his reshus and he is m'kabeil achrayus on the chametz then he has a chiyuv bedika.
When looking into the sugya a little a did find that it is a machlokes Rambam vs Ra'avad where the non Jew imposes a chiyuv achrayus ba'al korcha. However, it might not be nogeia to this case because my understanding of that machlokes is that it is a situation where the non Jew is acting against the laws of the medina. (The case in the gemara is where the army forces the city to host the army against the laws of the land). It could be my understanding of the machlokes is not accurate and it is nogeia are case but on the surface it doesn't seem to be.
I spoke this issue over with a noted Talmud Chacham and he was mesupak. He said it probably depends on what exactly your obligations are to the hotel regarding the food.
2) I spent the last days in Flatbush and the Rav of my in-law's shul spoke a little about Yom Tov Sheini. He raised in an interesting shailah discussed in the Sha'arei Teshuva. Can a ben Chutz L'Aretz cook for a ben EY on Yom Tov Sheini. The two reasons the Rav mentioned was a) it is not "lachem". Just like you can't cook for a non Jew because it is not "lachem" so too you can't cook for a ben EY since it is not Yom Tov for him b) there is an issur hachana. For the ben Chutz L'Aretz it is Yom Tov and for the ben EY it is a weekday. When you cook for the ben EY you are cookimg on Yom Tov for a weekday.
I looked up the Sha'arei Teshuva and he just quotes this opinion withouit bringing the reasons so I didn't have a chance to see these reasons inside. (Although the Rav mentioned that it is discussed in the sefer Yom Tov Sheini K'Hilchaso. In any event I think one can be choleik on both reasons.
As far as the reason of "lachem", it would depend on how you learn the nature of the drasha. Is it excluding anyone who is not keeping Yom Tov, or is it excluding only those who are not in the parsha of Yom Tov. A ben EY has a mitzva of Yom Tov, just today it happens to be a weekday for him. So maybe it is still called "lachem".
Regarding the reason of hachana, I don't see how it is hachana. L'ma'aseh the ben Chutz L'Aretz is cooking on Yom Tov for today. Just because it is not Yom Tov for the ben EY doesn't mean you are cooking for a different day. Why look at the gavra you are cooking for, look at which day you are cooking for.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Inyanei Pesach:Chametz In A Different Time Zone
This past Shabbos I discussed the question of what to do if you are in on etime zone and your chametz is in a different time zone. Does the issur of chametz follow the gavra or the cheftza?
This question is discussed in the Shut Oneg Yom Tov. He says that the issur follows the cheftza of chametz and therefore even if you are in a place that is not Pesach the chametz is still assur. His rayah is from the gemara that discusses what the halacha is if you eat chametz shel terumah. If you do it b'shogeg you pay keren and chomesh and b'meizid you are patur because of kim lei b'd'rabba minei. The gemara brings a rayah that you value teruma eaten based on volume eaten and not based on the value from the fact you pay for chametz teruma. If you paid based on value, teruma chametz has no value. The Oneg Yom Tov asks if the issur chametz follows the gavra then we can say the gemara is discussing a case where the teruma was eaten on 7th day of Pesach and the owner of teruma was in a location where Pesach was over. For the owner the teruma does have value. From the fact the gemara doesn't say this you see we follow the cheftza shel chametz.
The Chessed L'Avraham disagrees and says the issur of ba'al yera'eh follows the person. His rayah is from the gemara that says if you are away from home and after the 6th hour you remember you have chametz you can be m'vateil it. The gemara asks how can you be m'vateil it, it is already assur. The gemara could have answered that the chametz was in a different time zone where it wasn't Pesach. Since it didn't say this you see the issur follows the gavra.
The Mikroei Kodesh says maybe they don't argue. The Oneg Yom Tov could be talking about the issur hana'ah from chametz and the Chesed L'Avraham is talking about the issur of ba'al yera'eh. He also quotes from the Sefer HaYomom from Rav Yechiel Michel Tuchitchinsky (available for download at http://www.hebrewbooks.org/root/data/pdfs/SA/kadoorhaaretzsa.pdf (p.92) ) who addresses this question posed to him by Nathan Lamport's son in law. Rav Yechiel Michel Tuchitchinsky writes that the chametz itself is an issur cheftza and assur to eat and assur b'hana'ah. However, the issur of ba'al yera'eh is an issur gavra.
Rav Yechiel Michel Tuchitchinsky then writes an interesting idea. If someone is in EY and the chametz is in NY, you coul dbe m'vateil the chametz because it is similar to a case where you are m'vateil chametz before it is chametz. The halacha is that if you are mixing flour and water on Pesach you can say any crumbs which will be chametz are batul since it is not yet chametz. Here too the bread in NY doesn't have a "din" chamez so you can be m'vateil it. Now if you are in NY and teh chametz is in EY, we can also say that bittul works. The reason is because the only reason bittul won't work on Peasch is because the Torah puts it into your reshus against your will. In this case since it is not Pesach for you, the chametz isn't being put into your reshus and you could be m'vateil it. L'ma'aseh he says there are opinions that it is the issur hana'ah which prevents the bittul from working so l'chatchila we should be machmir. Howeevr, b'dieved the chametz is not assur after Pesach.
The Mishnas Ya'avetz wants to say that this question depends on whether chametz is an issur gavra or issur cheftza. He learns the Rambam that it is an issur gavra and therefore the issur follows the person. (However, ayin Brisker Rav that even after the 6th hour the chametz is an issur cheftza)
Rav Moshe (Cheelk 4 Siman 94) paskens that the issur follows the gavra but we should be machmir to follow the cheftza shel chometz. However in Siman 95 he seems to say it follows the cheftza. Tzarich iyun in Rav Moshe although the maskana is clearly to make sure you get rid of all chametz in a way to satisfy both time zones (whether selling or buying back the chametz)
This question is discussed in the Shut Oneg Yom Tov. He says that the issur follows the cheftza of chametz and therefore even if you are in a place that is not Pesach the chametz is still assur. His rayah is from the gemara that discusses what the halacha is if you eat chametz shel terumah. If you do it b'shogeg you pay keren and chomesh and b'meizid you are patur because of kim lei b'd'rabba minei. The gemara brings a rayah that you value teruma eaten based on volume eaten and not based on the value from the fact you pay for chametz teruma. If you paid based on value, teruma chametz has no value. The Oneg Yom Tov asks if the issur chametz follows the gavra then we can say the gemara is discussing a case where the teruma was eaten on 7th day of Pesach and the owner of teruma was in a location where Pesach was over. For the owner the teruma does have value. From the fact the gemara doesn't say this you see we follow the cheftza shel chametz.
The Chessed L'Avraham disagrees and says the issur of ba'al yera'eh follows the person. His rayah is from the gemara that says if you are away from home and after the 6th hour you remember you have chametz you can be m'vateil it. The gemara asks how can you be m'vateil it, it is already assur. The gemara could have answered that the chametz was in a different time zone where it wasn't Pesach. Since it didn't say this you see the issur follows the gavra.
The Mikroei Kodesh says maybe they don't argue. The Oneg Yom Tov could be talking about the issur hana'ah from chametz and the Chesed L'Avraham is talking about the issur of ba'al yera'eh. He also quotes from the Sefer HaYomom from Rav Yechiel Michel Tuchitchinsky (available for download at http://www.hebrewbooks.org/root/data/pdfs/SA/kadoorhaaretzsa.pdf (p.92) ) who addresses this question posed to him by Nathan Lamport's son in law. Rav Yechiel Michel Tuchitchinsky writes that the chametz itself is an issur cheftza and assur to eat and assur b'hana'ah. However, the issur of ba'al yera'eh is an issur gavra.
Rav Yechiel Michel Tuchitchinsky then writes an interesting idea. If someone is in EY and the chametz is in NY, you coul dbe m'vateil the chametz because it is similar to a case where you are m'vateil chametz before it is chametz. The halacha is that if you are mixing flour and water on Pesach you can say any crumbs which will be chametz are batul since it is not yet chametz. Here too the bread in NY doesn't have a "din" chamez so you can be m'vateil it. Now if you are in NY and teh chametz is in EY, we can also say that bittul works. The reason is because the only reason bittul won't work on Peasch is because the Torah puts it into your reshus against your will. In this case since it is not Pesach for you, the chametz isn't being put into your reshus and you could be m'vateil it. L'ma'aseh he says there are opinions that it is the issur hana'ah which prevents the bittul from working so l'chatchila we should be machmir. Howeevr, b'dieved the chametz is not assur after Pesach.
The Mishnas Ya'avetz wants to say that this question depends on whether chametz is an issur gavra or issur cheftza. He learns the Rambam that it is an issur gavra and therefore the issur follows the person. (However, ayin Brisker Rav that even after the 6th hour the chametz is an issur cheftza)
Rav Moshe (Cheelk 4 Siman 94) paskens that the issur follows the gavra but we should be machmir to follow the cheftza shel chometz. However in Siman 95 he seems to say it follows the cheftza. Tzarich iyun in Rav Moshe although the maskana is clearly to make sure you get rid of all chametz in a way to satisfy both time zones (whether selling or buying back the chametz)
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Shoveling Snow on Shabbos
Most of us in the NY/NJ area "enjoyed" one last snowfall this past Shabbos (hopefully it will be the last snowfall of the winter). This of course led to the question whether one is allowed to shovel snow on Shabbos. It seems after looking at the contemporary halacha books that there are three issues raised. (I will add one caveat that this is all from memory so I might have misquoted something-so if you catch me on a mistake let me know)
Is snow muktzah?
Whether snow is muktzah is a machlokes between Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l and Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach zt"l. Rabbi Bodner in his Muktzah book quotes Rav Moshe as saying that snow is muktzah machmas gufo since there is no intrinsic use for snow. The Sh'miras Shabbos quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman as saying that snow is not muktzah-just like rain that falls on Shabbos is not muktzah.
Issues of Soseir
Rabbi Ribiat in his Hilchos Shabbos book brings from the Har Tzvi (In his section on 39 melachos). that hold shoveling snow could violate the issur of soseir. The Har Tzvi discusses a case of whether you could remove snow from your roof. He says it could be the snow is attached to the roof and it is soseir. The m'kor for this is a Magan Avraham (brought in the Mishna Berura 320:30 that one is not allowed to chop up ice over a river. The Mishna Berura writes most achronim disagree with the Magan Avraham).
Interestingly enough, the Piskei Teshuvos quotes this Har Tzvi as being meikil and allowing you to shovel the snow while Rabbi Ribiat seems to be machmir based on the Har Tzvi. The answer to this apparant contradiction seems to be based on the fact that there is a footnote in the Har Tzvi which explains that you can't compare the psak of the Magan Avraham to this case. The Magan Avraham was referring to a case where the ice formed mechitzos so you would be making mechitzos by chopping a hole in it. Shoveling snow however would not be a problem. I guess the disagreement between Rabbi Ribiat and the Piskei Teshuvos is based on whether the Har Tzvi would agree or disagree with the footnote.
Issues of Tircha
Rabbi Ribiat also writes there could be an issur of tircha to shovel snow. L'aniyas da'ati I am not sure how one goes about catagorizing what is an issur of tircha and what isn't.
Halacha L'Ma'aseh
If you assume there is an issur of tircha and/or soseir than shoveling snow should be assur. This is the position of Rabbi Ribiat although curiously I believe he allows one to chop ice on the sidewalk.
If you assume there is no issur of tircha and/or soseir than shoveling snow should be muttar even if you hold snow is muktzah . That is because one is allowed to remove muktzah if it might harm someone. This is the position of the Piskei Teshuvos. I guess a difference in whether snow is muktzah or not is regarding how much can one shovel. If snow is not muktzah you might be able to shovel the whole walk. If it is muktzah you would probably only be allowed to remove enough so it is not dangerous.
I was told that one prominent Rav in a community allowed peopel to shovel the snow because it was dangerous.
I found it interesting that the Sh'miras Shabbos did not discuss it but he does say you can put salt down to melt ice.
Is snow muktzah?
Whether snow is muktzah is a machlokes between Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l and Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach zt"l. Rabbi Bodner in his Muktzah book quotes Rav Moshe as saying that snow is muktzah machmas gufo since there is no intrinsic use for snow. The Sh'miras Shabbos quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman as saying that snow is not muktzah-just like rain that falls on Shabbos is not muktzah.
Issues of Soseir
Rabbi Ribiat in his Hilchos Shabbos book brings from the Har Tzvi (In his section on 39 melachos). that hold shoveling snow could violate the issur of soseir. The Har Tzvi discusses a case of whether you could remove snow from your roof. He says it could be the snow is attached to the roof and it is soseir. The m'kor for this is a Magan Avraham (brought in the Mishna Berura 320:30 that one is not allowed to chop up ice over a river. The Mishna Berura writes most achronim disagree with the Magan Avraham).
Interestingly enough, the Piskei Teshuvos quotes this Har Tzvi as being meikil and allowing you to shovel the snow while Rabbi Ribiat seems to be machmir based on the Har Tzvi. The answer to this apparant contradiction seems to be based on the fact that there is a footnote in the Har Tzvi which explains that you can't compare the psak of the Magan Avraham to this case. The Magan Avraham was referring to a case where the ice formed mechitzos so you would be making mechitzos by chopping a hole in it. Shoveling snow however would not be a problem. I guess the disagreement between Rabbi Ribiat and the Piskei Teshuvos is based on whether the Har Tzvi would agree or disagree with the footnote.
Issues of Tircha
Rabbi Ribiat also writes there could be an issur of tircha to shovel snow. L'aniyas da'ati I am not sure how one goes about catagorizing what is an issur of tircha and what isn't.
Halacha L'Ma'aseh
If you assume there is an issur of tircha and/or soseir than shoveling snow should be assur. This is the position of Rabbi Ribiat although curiously I believe he allows one to chop ice on the sidewalk.
If you assume there is no issur of tircha and/or soseir than shoveling snow should be muttar even if you hold snow is muktzah . That is because one is allowed to remove muktzah if it might harm someone. This is the position of the Piskei Teshuvos. I guess a difference in whether snow is muktzah or not is regarding how much can one shovel. If snow is not muktzah you might be able to shovel the whole walk. If it is muktzah you would probably only be allowed to remove enough so it is not dangerous.
I was told that one prominent Rav in a community allowed peopel to shovel the snow because it was dangerous.
I found it interesting that the Sh'miras Shabbos did not discuss it but he does say you can put salt down to melt ice.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Parshas Ki Tisa: Saying Ptitum HaKetores
THis past Shabbos I spoke about the ketores. I didn't really say over any chiddushim, but at leats now I have a better understanding of what we say in "Pitum HaKetorees". The ketores has to have 11 spices and if you leave one out you are chayav misa. There is a machlokes Rishonim what the chiyuv misa is for. Rashi (K'risus 5a) learns that it is specifically referring to teh kohein gadol bringing the k'tores on Yom Kippur. If you leave out one spice so the kohein gadol has entered the kodesh k'dashim for no reason ("bi'ah reikanis") and is chayav misa. The pashtus in the Rambam (Klei Mikdash 2:8) seems to be that this is a halacha that applies all year. If you bring the ketores that is missing a spice you have brought an improper ketores and you are chayav misa.
There is a nafka mina l'ma'aseh. The Beis Yosef quotes the Terumas HaDeshen that one suld not say "Pitum HaKetores" every day since we are in a rush and if you forget one spice you are chayav misa. The Beis Yosef asks, that according to Rashi the chiyuv misa is only for Yom Kippur. Also, the Beis Yosef understands the Rambam like Rashi. (The Mishne L'Melech argues on the Beis Yosef's understanding of the Rambam). It coms out the machlokes between nusach sefard and ashkenaz over whether to say "Pitum HaKetores" everyday is based on the machlokes how to understand the chiyuv misa of leaving out a spice.
There is a nafka mina l'ma'aseh. The Beis Yosef quotes the Terumas HaDeshen that one suld not say "Pitum HaKetores" every day since we are in a rush and if you forget one spice you are chayav misa. The Beis Yosef asks, that according to Rashi the chiyuv misa is only for Yom Kippur. Also, the Beis Yosef understands the Rambam like Rashi. (The Mishne L'Melech argues on the Beis Yosef's understanding of the Rambam). It coms out the machlokes between nusach sefard and ashkenaz over whether to say "Pitum HaKetores" everyday is based on the machlokes how to understand the chiyuv misa of leaving out a spice.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Exploring the Mystery of Wine
Here is the vort I wrote up on Purim.
Getting Drunk on Purim
The גמרא מגילה דף ז: brings the famous halacha that חיב אינישׁ לבסומי עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן וברוך מרדכי a person is obligated to get intoxicated [with wine] until he doesn’t know the difference between .ארור המן וברוך מרדכי
There are a couple of questions that one can ask on this גמרא..
The first question is why does the gemara use the term לבסומי? If the gemra is telling us that there is a mitzvah to get drunk, why not use the term להשׁתכר?
The second and more important question is, why does this מצוה exist? This whole מצוה seems to go against everything the Torah stands for. The Torah always seems to stress how we need to be in control of our faculties and that even when we partake of the physical world, it should be with the mindset that our ultimate goal is to serve HKBH. Therefore, isn’t the whole notion of getting drunk totally antithetical to what the Torah wants?
The Dual Nature of Wine
The key to answering these questions lies in understanding the power of wine. If we look in the גמרא in סנהדרין ע. we can find that wine has contradictory aspects to it.
א"ר חנן לא נברא יין בעולם אלא לנחם אבלים ולשׁלם שכר לרשׁעים שׁנאמר תנו שׁכר לאובד ויין למרי נפשׁ.
א"ר יצחק מאי דכתיב "אל תרא יין כי יתאדם? ....רבא אמר אל תרא יין שׁאחריתו דם ["אל תרא" רשׁ"י פירשׁ: כלומר אל תתן עיניך לימשׁך אחריו].
R. Hanan said: The only purpose for which wine was created was to comfort mourners and requite the wicked, for it is written, Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish [i.e., the wicked], and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. R. Isaac said: what is meant by, Look not thou upon the wine when it is red? ... Raba said: look not upon it, for it leads to bloodshed [dam].
From this גמרא we see that wine has a negative effect on a person. The only redeeming quality of wine is that it helps a person forget his problems and drinking too much wine can lead a person to murder.
However, in the next piece of גמרא we see a different side to wine.
רב כהנא רמי כתיב תירש וקרינן תירושׁ. זכה נעשה ראשׁ לא זכה נעשה רשׁ. רבא רמי כתיב ישׁמח וקרינן ישמח. זכה משמחו לא זכה משׁממו
והיינו דאמר רבא חמרא וריחני פקיחין.
Rav Kahana raised a difficulty; The Bible writes tirash [for wine], but the word is read tirosh. If one has merit, he becomes a leader, if not, he becomes impoverished. Raba raised a difficulty: The Bible writes, [and wine] yeshammah [the heart of man], but it is read yesammah. If one has merit, it gladdens him; if not, it saddens him. And thus Raba said: wine and spices have made me wise.
Once again we see from this גמרא that wine can adversly affect a person either by cause poverty or sadness. However, unlike the previous גמרא, we also see that wine has positive qualities. It helps you become a leader, it causes you to rejoice and it makes you smart. How are we to understand this dual nature of wine? What is it about wine that can cause such extreme results in a person?
The Maharal in his Chiddushei Aggados on this גמרא explains as follows.
פירושׁ היין אינו ראוי לעולם הזה. כי היין ישׁ בו ענין אלקי שׁהרי הוא משמח אלקים ואנשׁים. ודבר זה יכול האדם לדעת ולהבין שׁהוא יוצא מן הפנימית הענב שׁהוא נסתר מערה על שׁהיין ישׁ לו מקום נסתר אינו מן העולם בנגלה. ...ועוד רבא רמי כתיב וכו' וכל זה כמו שׁפרשׁנו כי היין הוא נסתר, וכל נסתר ישׁ לו שׁתי בחינות כי מצד שׁהוא נסתר ישׁ לו מדריגות השכל שׁהוא נסתר ומצד שׁאינו נגלה אינו נמצא ונעדר...וכבר אמרנו כי היין ישׁ בו ענין רוחני שׁהרי הוא משמח אלקים ואנשׁים. וכל דבר שׁהוא חשׁוב וישׁ בו ענין אלקי אם ישׁתמשׁ בו כראוי קונה ע"י זה מעלה. ואם אינו משׁתמשׁ בו כראוי קונה ע"י זה מיתה. ... וכן כאשׁר ישׁתה היין כראוי מפקח אותו ונותן לו השכל העליון, ואם אינו כך רק שׁשׁותה וישׁתכר מביא יללה ומיתה ואין להאריך בזה. The Maharal is saying that the reason that wine causes two extreme reactions is because in essence wine is a very spiritual food. It has the ability to cause a person to connect to HKBH and to achieve a level of shlaimus in one’s soul. It is through achieving this level of shlaimus that a person can reach a state of simcha. This is the simcha that comes from drinking wine. However, because wine in essence is spiritual and non physical, it also has the ability of causing the opposite effect. If a person uses wine improperly then it will bring destruction upon that person.
The Aveirah of Purim
The גמרא in מגילה says that there was a discussion between רבי שׁמעון בר יוחי and his talmidim regarding why the בני ישראל deserved to be punished through Haman. One suggestion given was because they were נהנה from the seudah of Achashveirosh.The question is, what was so terrible about this aveirah that the whole nation deserved to die? The food was kosher and there were many reasons why the Jews should have been allowed to attend. Even if they really shouldn’t have gone, was the crime that great to deserve such a terrible punishment?
Rav Dovid Cohen in his sefer ימי פורים brings down an explanation from the גר"א. The גר"א writes that the source of bad in עשו comes from his כח התאה, his desire for worldly pleasures. However, it is not just עשו’s desire for worldly pleasures that sets him apart, but rather it is his desire for worldly pleasures to the exclusion of anything else, even spirituality. This is highlighted by the story in פרשׁת תולדות where עשו sold his birthright to יעקב. The גרא writes that the Torah uses the loshon of הלעיטני נא to describe עשו’s request for food. This לשׁוןof הלעיטני נא tells us that עשו was only concerned with his own physical pleasures and desires and he had no use for anything spiritual, like the בכורה that he eventually sold. This midda of עשו was passed down and inherited by his grandson עמלק.
With this idea we can understand why the aveirah of eating from Achashveirosh’s seudah was considered so terrible. By partaking in the seudah, they weren’t just eating a meal but rather they were eating in order to fill their desire for a good meal. Their whole eating wasn’t done to raise themselves closer toהקב"ה , but rather it was done just for their ownהנאה . It comes out that by eating at Achashveirosh’s seudah they were utilizing the midda of עשו/עמלק of following their desires to the exclusion of any spiritual purpose. Since they were joining up with what עמלק represented, הקב"ה gave Haman the ability to destroy the בני ישראל. (This idea is also found in the Sefas Emes regarding the connection betwen המן and the עץ הדעת )
Celebrating the Yeshua of Purim
Once the B’nei Yisroel were saved, Chazal wanted to commemorate the neis in a way in which the B’nei Yisroel would not forget what caused them to be in this predicament in the first place. Therefore, the גר"א writes in אדרת אליהו פרשׁת האזינו that they created a Yom Tov whose entire day revolved around eating and drinking. However, unlike the eating and drinking of Achashveirosh’s seudah, this eating and drinking would be for the purpose of serving HKBH. The partaking of the gashmiyus would be only in order to serve הקב"ה. In fact the Sefas Emes also writes that Purim was a zman of being m‘sakein the guf and by serving הקב"ה through eating and drinking the B’nei Yisroel accomplished a true תשׁובה מאהבה where the original חטא was transformed into a zechus.
The Role of Wine
We can now understand why Chazal were m’sakein the chiyuv of mishteh v’simcha through wine. As we mentioned above in the name of the Maharal, wine has a dual aspect to it. On the one hand if it is misused it has the ability to bring a person to destruction. This is in fact what happened to the B’nei Yisroel by Achashveirosh’s party. By partaking in the seudah and misusing the wine they cause a gezeirah to be placed on Klal Yisroel. However, wine when properly used, also has the ability to raise a person to a high spiritual madreigah. After בני ישראל did teshuva and rectified their misdeeds, they needed to take that wine and use it to elevate themselves. As mentioned, the whole inyan of mishteh v’simcha on Purim is to take the koach of gashmiyus and elevate it to a higher spiriual level, where we are only indulging in the physical world in order to serve הקב"ה . It would stand to reason that the vehicle through which we do this is the food that was created for this purpose, namely wine.
Understanding לבסומי בפוריא
Finally, we need to answer why the גמרא uses the לשׁון of "בסומי בפוריא".
ואיתא חייב אדם לבסומי וכו' כי מהתקרבות דברי עוה"ז להקדושׁה ישׁ תוספות ריח. כי באמת עניני עוה"ז אין בהם ממשׁות קדושׁה רק שׁע"י הביטול נתוסף מהם ריח טוב...שׁכל ענין הריח נעשה מהתכפיות סט"א להקדושׁה וזהו לבסומי (שפת אמת שׁנת תרמ"ד)
The Sefas Emes is saying that the word בסומי is found by perfumes to mean that a perfume spreads it’s smell. Gashmiyus by itself has no kedusha. It is only when it is connected to ruchniyus does the smell of ruchniyus spread to the gashmiyus. Chazal are telling us that even though we need to drink and make merry, we should not forget the ultimate goal-to infuse the gashmiyus with a sense of kedusha.
Getting Drunk on Purim
The גמרא מגילה דף ז: brings the famous halacha that חיב אינישׁ לבסומי עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן וברוך מרדכי a person is obligated to get intoxicated [with wine] until he doesn’t know the difference between .ארור המן וברוך מרדכי
There are a couple of questions that one can ask on this גמרא..
The first question is why does the gemara use the term לבסומי? If the gemra is telling us that there is a mitzvah to get drunk, why not use the term להשׁתכר?
The second and more important question is, why does this מצוה exist? This whole מצוה seems to go against everything the Torah stands for. The Torah always seems to stress how we need to be in control of our faculties and that even when we partake of the physical world, it should be with the mindset that our ultimate goal is to serve HKBH. Therefore, isn’t the whole notion of getting drunk totally antithetical to what the Torah wants?
The Dual Nature of Wine
The key to answering these questions lies in understanding the power of wine. If we look in the גמרא in סנהדרין ע. we can find that wine has contradictory aspects to it.
א"ר חנן לא נברא יין בעולם אלא לנחם אבלים ולשׁלם שכר לרשׁעים שׁנאמר תנו שׁכר לאובד ויין למרי נפשׁ.
א"ר יצחק מאי דכתיב "אל תרא יין כי יתאדם? ....רבא אמר אל תרא יין שׁאחריתו דם ["אל תרא" רשׁ"י פירשׁ: כלומר אל תתן עיניך לימשׁך אחריו].
R. Hanan said: The only purpose for which wine was created was to comfort mourners and requite the wicked, for it is written, Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish [i.e., the wicked], and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. R. Isaac said: what is meant by, Look not thou upon the wine when it is red? ... Raba said: look not upon it, for it leads to bloodshed [dam].
From this גמרא we see that wine has a negative effect on a person. The only redeeming quality of wine is that it helps a person forget his problems and drinking too much wine can lead a person to murder.
However, in the next piece of גמרא we see a different side to wine.
רב כהנא רמי כתיב תירש וקרינן תירושׁ. זכה נעשה ראשׁ לא זכה נעשה רשׁ. רבא רמי כתיב ישׁמח וקרינן ישמח. זכה משמחו לא זכה משׁממו
והיינו דאמר רבא חמרא וריחני פקיחין.
Rav Kahana raised a difficulty; The Bible writes tirash [for wine], but the word is read tirosh. If one has merit, he becomes a leader, if not, he becomes impoverished. Raba raised a difficulty: The Bible writes, [and wine] yeshammah [the heart of man], but it is read yesammah. If one has merit, it gladdens him; if not, it saddens him. And thus Raba said: wine and spices have made me wise.
Once again we see from this גמרא that wine can adversly affect a person either by cause poverty or sadness. However, unlike the previous גמרא, we also see that wine has positive qualities. It helps you become a leader, it causes you to rejoice and it makes you smart. How are we to understand this dual nature of wine? What is it about wine that can cause such extreme results in a person?
The Maharal in his Chiddushei Aggados on this גמרא explains as follows.
פירושׁ היין אינו ראוי לעולם הזה. כי היין ישׁ בו ענין אלקי שׁהרי הוא משמח אלקים ואנשׁים. ודבר זה יכול האדם לדעת ולהבין שׁהוא יוצא מן הפנימית הענב שׁהוא נסתר מערה על שׁהיין ישׁ לו מקום נסתר אינו מן העולם בנגלה. ...ועוד רבא רמי כתיב וכו' וכל זה כמו שׁפרשׁנו כי היין הוא נסתר, וכל נסתר ישׁ לו שׁתי בחינות כי מצד שׁהוא נסתר ישׁ לו מדריגות השכל שׁהוא נסתר ומצד שׁאינו נגלה אינו נמצא ונעדר...וכבר אמרנו כי היין ישׁ בו ענין רוחני שׁהרי הוא משמח אלקים ואנשׁים. וכל דבר שׁהוא חשׁוב וישׁ בו ענין אלקי אם ישׁתמשׁ בו כראוי קונה ע"י זה מעלה. ואם אינו משׁתמשׁ בו כראוי קונה ע"י זה מיתה. ... וכן כאשׁר ישׁתה היין כראוי מפקח אותו ונותן לו השכל העליון, ואם אינו כך רק שׁשׁותה וישׁתכר מביא יללה ומיתה ואין להאריך בזה. The Maharal is saying that the reason that wine causes two extreme reactions is because in essence wine is a very spiritual food. It has the ability to cause a person to connect to HKBH and to achieve a level of shlaimus in one’s soul. It is through achieving this level of shlaimus that a person can reach a state of simcha. This is the simcha that comes from drinking wine. However, because wine in essence is spiritual and non physical, it also has the ability of causing the opposite effect. If a person uses wine improperly then it will bring destruction upon that person.
The Aveirah of Purim
The גמרא in מגילה says that there was a discussion between רבי שׁמעון בר יוחי and his talmidim regarding why the בני ישראל deserved to be punished through Haman. One suggestion given was because they were נהנה from the seudah of Achashveirosh.The question is, what was so terrible about this aveirah that the whole nation deserved to die? The food was kosher and there were many reasons why the Jews should have been allowed to attend. Even if they really shouldn’t have gone, was the crime that great to deserve such a terrible punishment?
Rav Dovid Cohen in his sefer ימי פורים brings down an explanation from the גר"א. The גר"א writes that the source of bad in עשו comes from his כח התאה, his desire for worldly pleasures. However, it is not just עשו’s desire for worldly pleasures that sets him apart, but rather it is his desire for worldly pleasures to the exclusion of anything else, even spirituality. This is highlighted by the story in פרשׁת תולדות where עשו sold his birthright to יעקב. The גרא writes that the Torah uses the loshon of הלעיטני נא to describe עשו’s request for food. This לשׁוןof הלעיטני נא tells us that עשו was only concerned with his own physical pleasures and desires and he had no use for anything spiritual, like the בכורה that he eventually sold. This midda of עשו was passed down and inherited by his grandson עמלק.
With this idea we can understand why the aveirah of eating from Achashveirosh’s seudah was considered so terrible. By partaking in the seudah, they weren’t just eating a meal but rather they were eating in order to fill their desire for a good meal. Their whole eating wasn’t done to raise themselves closer toהקב"ה , but rather it was done just for their ownהנאה . It comes out that by eating at Achashveirosh’s seudah they were utilizing the midda of עשו/עמלק of following their desires to the exclusion of any spiritual purpose. Since they were joining up with what עמלק represented, הקב"ה gave Haman the ability to destroy the בני ישראל. (This idea is also found in the Sefas Emes regarding the connection betwen המן and the עץ הדעת )
Celebrating the Yeshua of Purim
Once the B’nei Yisroel were saved, Chazal wanted to commemorate the neis in a way in which the B’nei Yisroel would not forget what caused them to be in this predicament in the first place. Therefore, the גר"א writes in אדרת אליהו פרשׁת האזינו that they created a Yom Tov whose entire day revolved around eating and drinking. However, unlike the eating and drinking of Achashveirosh’s seudah, this eating and drinking would be for the purpose of serving HKBH. The partaking of the gashmiyus would be only in order to serve הקב"ה. In fact the Sefas Emes also writes that Purim was a zman of being m‘sakein the guf and by serving הקב"ה through eating and drinking the B’nei Yisroel accomplished a true תשׁובה מאהבה where the original חטא was transformed into a zechus.
The Role of Wine
We can now understand why Chazal were m’sakein the chiyuv of mishteh v’simcha through wine. As we mentioned above in the name of the Maharal, wine has a dual aspect to it. On the one hand if it is misused it has the ability to bring a person to destruction. This is in fact what happened to the B’nei Yisroel by Achashveirosh’s party. By partaking in the seudah and misusing the wine they cause a gezeirah to be placed on Klal Yisroel. However, wine when properly used, also has the ability to raise a person to a high spiritual madreigah. After בני ישראל did teshuva and rectified their misdeeds, they needed to take that wine and use it to elevate themselves. As mentioned, the whole inyan of mishteh v’simcha on Purim is to take the koach of gashmiyus and elevate it to a higher spiriual level, where we are only indulging in the physical world in order to serve הקב"ה . It would stand to reason that the vehicle through which we do this is the food that was created for this purpose, namely wine.
Understanding לבסומי בפוריא
Finally, we need to answer why the גמרא uses the לשׁון of "בסומי בפוריא".
ואיתא חייב אדם לבסומי וכו' כי מהתקרבות דברי עוה"ז להקדושׁה ישׁ תוספות ריח. כי באמת עניני עוה"ז אין בהם ממשׁות קדושׁה רק שׁע"י הביטול נתוסף מהם ריח טוב...שׁכל ענין הריח נעשה מהתכפיות סט"א להקדושׁה וזהו לבסומי (שפת אמת שׁנת תרמ"ד)
The Sefas Emes is saying that the word בסומי is found by perfumes to mean that a perfume spreads it’s smell. Gashmiyus by itself has no kedusha. It is only when it is connected to ruchniyus does the smell of ruchniyus spread to the gashmiyus. Chazal are telling us that even though we need to drink and make merry, we should not forget the ultimate goal-to infuse the gashmiyus with a sense of kedusha.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Some Purim thoughts
1) I picked up a peirush on the megillah by Rav Yonason Eibshutz and it has some interesting he'oros. (It actually is just a likut of what he wrote in Ya'aros D'vash put together on the megillah).
He explains why it seems Achashveirosh made 2 parties. One in the 3rd year of his reign and another one 180 days later. He writes that Achashveirosh was counting 70 years until the golus was over and when the geulah didn't come he made a party. However, Achashveirosh wasn't sure if the years followed the Malchei Yehuda which is from Nisan or the non Jewish kings which is from Tishrei. When Tishrei of the 70th year came he started his party., however he was still wary that teh geulah would come in Nisan. 180 days later when Nisan came and there was no geulah, he figured it would never come. He got bolder and made a second party andthis time told Vashti to drop everything (pun intended) and come to the party.
One final point, Achashveirosh was still mesupak if Adar would be m'ubar. Therefore he asked the "yodei ha'ittim" who were the Sanhedrin who decided when to make an extra month.
2) The sefer Yosef Lekach has an interesting pshat why Esther insisted Achashveirosh come to a party right away. He writes that she didn't want to give Achashveirosh a chance to request that she sleep with him. She knew if she got him over to her palace he wouldn't make such a request. Therefore, she asked for the party right away. As far as the second party he says that Esther realized that Achashveirosh wanted her to drink with him. However, she was still fasting. She told him to come to a second party and she would drink with him there.
He explains why it seems Achashveirosh made 2 parties. One in the 3rd year of his reign and another one 180 days later. He writes that Achashveirosh was counting 70 years until the golus was over and when the geulah didn't come he made a party. However, Achashveirosh wasn't sure if the years followed the Malchei Yehuda which is from Nisan or the non Jewish kings which is from Tishrei. When Tishrei of the 70th year came he started his party., however he was still wary that teh geulah would come in Nisan. 180 days later when Nisan came and there was no geulah, he figured it would never come. He got bolder and made a second party andthis time told Vashti to drop everything (pun intended) and come to the party.
One final point, Achashveirosh was still mesupak if Adar would be m'ubar. Therefore he asked the "yodei ha'ittim" who were the Sanhedrin who decided when to make an extra month.
2) The sefer Yosef Lekach has an interesting pshat why Esther insisted Achashveirosh come to a party right away. He writes that she didn't want to give Achashveirosh a chance to request that she sleep with him. She knew if she got him over to her palace he wouldn't make such a request. Therefore, she asked for the party right away. As far as the second party he says that Esther realized that Achashveirosh wanted her to drink with him. However, she was still fasting. She told him to come to a second party and she would drink with him there.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Esther and the Jews
I noticed an interesting comment in the Shelah yesterday. The Shelah writes that Esther purposely misled the Jews into thinking that she was on Haman's side. This way they wouldn't think to rely on her, but rather they would daven to Hashem. The Shelah's m'kor for this is the gemara in Megilah that asks why did Esther invite Haman to a party. One answer given is so that people would think she was on Haman's side.
I then started wondering, did the Jewish people know that Esther was Jewish. I always assumed they did, for after all Esther was part of the community and people knew what she looked like. Presumably, everyone either saw the queen or a picture of the queen and knew what the queen looked like. So it stands to reason that those in the Jewish community knew who the queen really was. Also, even if someone wasn't 100% sure, Mordechai was hanging out by the palace every day. What was his connection to the queen? If you put two and two together it s not a big jump to realize the queen was Jewish.
However, if that is true and every Jew knew thequeen was Jewish, how did she keep it a secret? There must have been someone out there who would spill the beans (even though this was before the days of blogs). I guess you could say that since everyone thought she came from them, noone would have believed a Jew that said the queen was Jewish. The idea was so far fetched and preposterous that it wouldn't really be believable. If this is correct, then this adds to the Shelah's comment. The Jews thought they had an ace in the hole because the queen was Jewish. Therefore, Esther had to pretend she had turned to the "dark side" in order to get the Jews to put their faith in the one who really counts-HKBH.
There is of course the possibility that the Jews didn't know Esther was Jewish. The reason Mordechai hung out at the palace was because he had taken up the well known art of shtadlanus in order to help his people. From an outsiders perspective he had done a pretty good job and managed to create a close friendship with the queen. The Jews might have thought that with Mordechai as the queen's confidant they had a good chance of defeating Haman. Esther was worried they would place to much trust in this so she created the impression taht she was friendly with Haman. Now the Jews had to turn to HKBH to help them.
I am not sure which scenario is correct. It could be I am missing an obvious proof to either side. However, anyway you slice it I find the dynamics that were going on at the time very fascinating. We tend to focus on Purim as a story of a nes nistar and Hashem saving us (as well as we should as that is our job as Ovdei Hashem) but I also find it interesting viewing Purim through the eyes of someone living through the events as they happened, someone who doesn't realize how the story will eventually unfold and what meaning it will have to the Jewish nation.
I then started wondering, did the Jewish people know that Esther was Jewish. I always assumed they did, for after all Esther was part of the community and people knew what she looked like. Presumably, everyone either saw the queen or a picture of the queen and knew what the queen looked like. So it stands to reason that those in the Jewish community knew who the queen really was. Also, even if someone wasn't 100% sure, Mordechai was hanging out by the palace every day. What was his connection to the queen? If you put two and two together it s not a big jump to realize the queen was Jewish.
However, if that is true and every Jew knew thequeen was Jewish, how did she keep it a secret? There must have been someone out there who would spill the beans (even though this was before the days of blogs). I guess you could say that since everyone thought she came from them, noone would have believed a Jew that said the queen was Jewish. The idea was so far fetched and preposterous that it wouldn't really be believable. If this is correct, then this adds to the Shelah's comment. The Jews thought they had an ace in the hole because the queen was Jewish. Therefore, Esther had to pretend she had turned to the "dark side" in order to get the Jews to put their faith in the one who really counts-HKBH.
There is of course the possibility that the Jews didn't know Esther was Jewish. The reason Mordechai hung out at the palace was because he had taken up the well known art of shtadlanus in order to help his people. From an outsiders perspective he had done a pretty good job and managed to create a close friendship with the queen. The Jews might have thought that with Mordechai as the queen's confidant they had a good chance of defeating Haman. Esther was worried they would place to much trust in this so she created the impression taht she was friendly with Haman. Now the Jews had to turn to HKBH to help them.
I am not sure which scenario is correct. It could be I am missing an obvious proof to either side. However, anyway you slice it I find the dynamics that were going on at the time very fascinating. We tend to focus on Purim as a story of a nes nistar and Hashem saving us (as well as we should as that is our job as Ovdei Hashem) but I also find it interesting viewing Purim through the eyes of someone living through the events as they happened, someone who doesn't realize how the story will eventually unfold and what meaning it will have to the Jewish nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)