Thursday, February 02, 2012

"lachem" for seudas Shabbos

I feel bad for making some of you suffer through reading a defense of segulos only to be followed by a post quoting the Noam Elimelech, so this one's for you guys : )

Two interesting mareh mekomos I saw on the parsha:

1. "...Eis asher tofo eifo v'eis asher tivashlu basheilu v'eis kol haodef hanichu lachem l'mishmeres ad boker." (16:23)  Eating the mon was a kiyum mitzvah of seudas Shabbos (see R' Chaim Kanievsky's Ta'ama D'Kra who discusses whether mon had the property of being bread-like only if one imagined it to be bread or under any circumstance.  The mon being like bread was not just a psychological illusion, but was an actual transformation of its essence; this is why one could say birchas ha'mazon over it.)  The Rogatchover in his commentary on chumash (please look it up, as it's hard to be sure I am getting this right since it is written so tersely) derives from this pasuk that there is a din of "lachem" by seudas Shabbos (like by lulav).  You need to make a kinyan in your seudah!  Never saw this idea before.  

2. Moshe was told to put away some mon "V'hanach oso lifnei Hashem l'mishmeres l'doroseichem." (16:33)  The Brisker Rav (Kerisus 5b) quotes the following question from R' Chaim: Why is it that the Rambam counts the shemen hamishcha, "Shemes mishchas kodesh yhiyeh zeh li l'doroseichem," (30:31) as a mitzvas aseh, but does not count having this portion of mon as a mitzvah?  

R' Chaim answers that the mitzvah of mon consisted of the action of setting aside a portion.  That portion might serve as an example for eternity, l'doroseichem, but the act of setting it aside was a one time deal, a mitzvah l'sha'ah.

The mitzvah of shemen hamishcha is a din in the cheftza of shemen, not the production of the oil.  It is the existence of the object, the "yhiyeh," which is eternal, and therefore it is a mitzvah l'doros.


  1. Eliezer11:20 PM

    The Rogotchover is beyond understanding. In all of Shas, if you don't have a passuk that says Lachem, you don't need lachem, like difference between lulav and sukkah. So what does he mean? That it could belong to someone? But then he says you need hagbaha. No, I think I would be willing to bet a salami that this one is going to stay filed with the many other pliyos atzumos.

  2. Anonymous4:10 PM

    until it was actually handled,
    was the mon hefker, or collectively
    owned (a gift to the klal), or owned retroactively per portion by individuals, or property of Hashem?

  3. chaim b.4:44 PM

    The pasuk here says lachem. I'm confused by why he places such stress on making a kinyan -- it's almost like it's buying the item (the process) is the focus, not owning it (the result). That's not even the normal din of lachem. I'm confused by the whole chiddush (it's more mysterious than the workings of a segulah : )

  4. Eliezer8:22 PM

    This is not a complete explanation, but it's a good start. I mentioned the Rogotchover to a friend, and he said it's similar to the Chayei Adam Klal 68 Se'if 16, that says:
    ז שלא יעשה מצוה בחנם אלא יקנה אותה בשכר שלם במש״כ ויאמר דוד לארונה
    ולא אעלה עולות לה׳ חנם ובזוהר מחמיר מאוד בזה
    Trans: Do not do a mitzva without paying for it. Instead, buy it for full price, as David said to Aravna...I will not bring sacrifices to Hashem without paying for them. The Zohar is very strict on this matter.

    The Rogotchover and the Chayei Adam are not saying exactly the same thing, because, as Chaim said, the R is emphasizing the kinyan and doesn't mention paying for it, while the CA talks about acquiring by paying for it. But once we know the Zohar is very machmir on this, it is a beginning.

  5. Tal Benschar5:31 PM

    Since you raised the topic, I never understood those poskim who say you need lachem by matzah.

    It is one thing to say that you need lachem by lulav. You can use someone's lulav and esrog and then return it. Without lachem, a borrowed lulav and esrog would work. (As indeed a borrowed sukkah works.)

    But when it comes to food, are you not koneh it when you eat it? If I invited you to my house for seder, and then I give you a piece of matzoh to eat for the mitzvah, obviously I understand you are going to eat it and I am not getting it back. The minute I give it to you and you put it in your mouth, it's yours. So how is it even shayach to talk about lachem by matzoh?

    (Same Q acc. to the Rogatchover. If I invite you over for Shabbos, obviously the Challah and other foods you eat are yours, no?)

  6. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is an implicit kinyan. That doesn't mean you don't need lachem - what if someone goes out a steals a piece of matzah?

    It's also not so pashut that you are koneh it the second you put it in your mouth -- Ritva Sukkah 35 is the place to start the discussion, but it's a long discussion and I don't have the head for it now.

  7. great unknown4:03 PM

    I think the zohar you are looking for is

    If you look at the Rogochover and particularly at the reference of Rav Kasher to beraiashis 22:13, you can see that he holds it's a din in ba'alus, and not in whether or not he paid for it, given the topic of the ayil of Avrohom which he did not pay for. Whereas the zohar says that performing a mitzva with no monetary outlay is second-rate.

    Thus, not just should a gadol [even one's child, and probably a wife - or a husband, depending on whose income it is] pay for the matzo he/she is eating, but based on the Zohar, even if you receive a lulav and esrog as a matana al munas l'hachzir, you should pay for it somehow. More of a mekach al munas

  8. great unknown6:13 PM

    The Brisker kashe can be answered simply, and it could be that this is what R' Chaim meant. The mon was for a zikaron, the shemen was meant to be used.

    In fact, it was used for melochim and kohanim gedolim until near the end of the first bais hamikdash. Each time, the mitzva was to use the original shemen. There is a chazal that the original amount never diminished.

  9. Eliezer2:31 PM

    The link to the zohar you cite sends me to the front page. When you give the result of a search, that's what you get. To get a link to a particular page, you have to open the book, get to a page, and copy the address there. Please do so.

    I agree that the tzushtell to the zohar is weak, but it's the best I could do.

    And Chaim- I sure would appreciate it if you could put a tzatzke down here so that I would get follow up comments in my mailbox.

  10. I believe if you comment with a registered google/blogger account you will get that option. If you know another way to do it, pls let me know (I know, I work in IT and you would think I could figure it out. I've spent 10 minutes looking, which is my time limit for stuff like this on my home PC. When you spend all day troubleshooting IT issues its the last thing you want to do out of work.)