Ramban's chiddush din of cheirem

Commenting on the pasuk  כׇּל־חֵ֗רֶם אֲשֶׁ֧ר יׇחֳרַ֛ם מִן־הָאָדָ֖ם לֹ֣א יִפָּדֶ֑ה מ֖וֹת יוּמָֽת׃ (27:29), Ramban comes up with a new din based entirely on pshat in the pasuk  

ולכך אני אומר כי מן הכתוב הזה יוצא להם הדין הזה, שכל מלך בישראל או סנהדרי גדולה במעמד כל ישראל שיש להם רשות במשפטים, ואם יחרימו על עיר בהלחם עליה, וכן אם יחרימו על דבר העובר עליו, חייב מיתה

He explains:

ועל דרך הפשט: יאמר הכתוב כי כל המחרים משלו, בין אדם בין בהמה ושדה אחוזתו, הוא קדש לשם, שהן חרמי כהנים, ואין להם פדיון, אבל המחרים מן האדם שאינו שלו, כגון הנלחמים על איביהם ונודרים נדר: אם נתון תתן את העם הזה בידי והחרמתי את עריהם (במדבר כ״א:ב׳) – ימיתו כל האדם הנמצא בהם. 

One can take a vow of cheirim that requires killing the muchram, e.g. if one takes a vow to be machrim an enemy city that the army is trying to capture, if victorious, everyone in the city must be killed.  He further writes:

Ramban gives three examples.  The first two: 1) Bn"Y killed the townspeople of Yaveish Gilad because they did not join the rest of the community in battle (Shoftim 21) 2) Shaul was going to kill his son Yehonosan because he violated the cheirem and paused to eat during battle (Shmuel ch 14) 

Netziv (Haamek Sheila 142:9) rejects these proofs.  The reason the people of Yaveish Gilad were guilty is because failure to join Klal Yisrael in battle weakens the entire army.  Someone who does that has the din of a rodef.  Shaul thought the same of Yehonasan -- he thought that by pausing in the middle of battle Yehonsan was guilty of failing to press the enemy to the fullest extent, weaking Bn"Y's position.  

Ramban's third example is a case of a misapplication of the din.  Yiftach declared a cheirim on whatever emerged first from his house if he returned victorious in battle.  Had an animal come out, as he anticipatged, he would have offered it as a korban.  Yet it was his daughter who came out first to greet him, and he therefore was forced to kill her.  Yiftach's error: ולא ידע כי חרם המלך והסנהדרין חל על המורדים לכלותם או על העובר על גזרתם ותקנתם, אבל לחול נדר לעשות עולה מדבר שאיננו ראוי לשם חס ושלום

Ibn Ezra argues and writes that Yiftach did not kill his daughter, as if she was a korban.  What he did was to consecrate her life to G-d, like a korban.  She cloistered herself away and dedicated herself to prayer.  To which Ramban responds: ואם הדבר כן, היתה בתו הבוכה על בתוליה ורעותיה עמה כזונות לקלס אתנן, וחס ושלום שתהיה חוק בישראל לתנות לבת יפתח ארבעת ימים בשנה (שופטים י״א:מ׳) מפני שלא נשאת לבעל והיתה עובדת את השם בטהרה. אבל הדבר כפשוטו וטעותו היה ממה שאמרתי  Why would anyone cry over such a fate?!  Aderaba, it should be lauded.

I say only partially tongue in cheek that were I teaching in a RW girls school or seminary (and I'm not knocking such places -- my own daughters are products of them), I would highlight this Ibn Ezra, because I think Ibn Ezra would give a very "frum" response to Ramban.  Ain hachi nami,  מפני שלא נשאת לבעל והיתה עובדת את השם בטהרה she should cry, as a woman's role is to make the cholent, bake the kugel, raise the children, and support her husband.  To be derpived of being able to fulfill that role, even if one is עובדת את השם בטהרה, is something to bemoan.

freedom of religion is not enough

אַף־אֲנִ֗י אֵלֵ֤ךְ עִמָּם֙ בְּקֶ֔רִי וְהֵבֵאתִ֣י אֹתָ֔ם בְּאֶ֖רֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶ֑ם אוֹ־אָ֣ז יִכָּנַ֗ע לְבָבָם֙ הֶֽעָרֵ֔ל וְאָ֖ז יִרְצ֥וּ אֶת־עֲוֺנָֽם׃

Where is the אֶ֖רֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶ֑ם, this "land of our enemies" that the pasuk tells us that Hashem will bring us to, and where we will finally do teshuvah?

An amazing Seforno:

כשחזרו בני הגולה לארץ ישראל במצות כורש מלך פרס היתה הארץ תחת ממשלת האומות, כאמרו ״והארץ אשר נתתה לאבתינו לאכל את פריה ואת טובה, הנה אנחנו עבדים עליה. ותבואתה מרבה למלכים אשר נתתה עלינו בחטאותינו״ (נחמיה ט׳:ל״ו-ל״ז)

The  אֶ֖רֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶ֑ם is Eretz Yisrael!  He writes that when Koresh allowed the Jews to return to Eretz Yisrael they were not immediately granted independence.  They remained his subjects, slaves to a foreign power.  Klal Yisrael were crestfallen. The very place where they should have exhibited greatness ended up as a place where they were slaves to others.  

Simply being in Eretz Yisrael, even with the allowance to learn Torah and do mitzvos, even with the allowance to build a Mikdash is not enough.  Freedom of religion without political freedom and sovereignty is still called  אֶ֖רֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶ֑ם and should bother us. 

Ashreinu that we live in a time where our independence and sovereignty have been restored (af al pi that the gvt pays too much heed to Washington), that we can once again celebrate a united Yerushalayim under our own dominion.

why the GR"A wanted to leave Vilna and journey to Eretz Yisrael

You find in hil aveilus, perhaps more than any other area of halacha, minhag piled on top of minhag.  R' Moshe Tzuriel in the end of vol 2 of his Otzros haTorah collects a list of practices that people are makpid on that are in fact problematic mi'dina or have no basis, as well as practices that are binding mi'dina but people neglect.  Even if you are not interested in hil aveilus per se, he opens the section with a general discussion about conflict between minhag and din.  He quotes a fascinating tidbit from R' Yaakov Kanaha (son in law of the GR"A's brother): why did the GR"A dream of making aliyah given that the Torah centers of the world were in Europe and Eretz Yisrael was still pretty much barren?  It is permissible to leave Eretz Yisrael to learn Torah, kal v'chomer one need not leave chu"l if doing so would entail bitul Torah?  R' Yaakov Kahana answers that the GR"A was so disturbed by the minhagim that had developed in the European communities that he felt it was worth the journey to E"Y to escape and start with a clean slate in a new community!  

counting sefirah, counting years to yovel

1) Tzror haMor writes that there is a connection between the opening of week's parsha and the conclusion of last week's.  The end of last week's parsha told us about the person who was mevarech Hashem and who disrespected Moshe's authority.  Just like you must have kvod Shamayim and respect kvod talmidei chachamim, so too, writes Tzror haMor, our parsha teaches us that the land of Eretz Yisrael is holy and requires the same respect and kavod.  

2) Rabeinu Yerucham compares the counting of sefiras ha'omer to the counting of shemitah cycles and years leading up to yovel.  Just like after 49 years we are mekadesh the yovel year, so too, after 49 days we are mekadesh the 50th day as the holiday of Shavuos.

R' Berel Povarski suggests that the analogy is not just derush b'alma.  

The Rambam opens hil shemita with the din

מצות עשה לשבות מעבודת הארץ ועבודת האילן בשנה שביעית

And in perek 10 he writes with respect to yovel

מצות עשה ***לספור שבע שבע שנים ו*** לקדש שנת החמשים

Note that with respect to shemita, the Rambam does not mention the need to count six years in order to get to year 7, but he mentions the need to count seven shemitot to get to a yovel.  Tos (Menachos 65b d"h u'sefartim) writes that there may even be a chiyuv on B"D to recite a bracha and count each year (R' Akiva Eiger mh"k 29,30 is medayek otherwise from the Ran at the end of Pesachim).  

The seventh year of shemita happens even if no one counts the previous six.  Yovel, however, only comes if there is a count of 49 years beforehand to lead to it.

Meshech Chochma on our parsha draws a comparison between shemita and Shabbos and yovel and Yom Tov.  The kedusha of Shabbos is "kevi'a v'kayma;" it does not need a mekadesh.  The kedusha of Yom Tov depends on beis din sanctifying that period of time and designating it as the chag.  Yovel needs a count in order for it to happen; it does not take effect on its own.

The Rambam (Shemtia 10:5) quotes a mesorah from the Geonim that between bayis rishon and bayis sheni only shemitah and not yovel was observed, and the same, of course, was true post-churban.  If yovel was suspended because celebrating yovel is only done when "kol yoisheveha aleha," the majority of Jews live in Eretz Yisrael, then it should not have been observed for many years earlier than the bayis rishon/sheni interregnum?

R' Chaim (al haRambam) explains that there is a difference between observance of yovel and the count of yovel.  Even if in practice none the halachos of yovel can be fulfilled, so long as beis din is functioning and can count years, year 50 will be yovel and the next 49 year cycle will start the year afterward.  Only when there is no beis din to count, which happened during the interregnum period, year 50 is skipped and one 49 year cycle will follow immediately the prior one.

Coming back to Rabeinu Yerucham, now that we understand the the count of years to yovel is necessary for yovel to happen, it's parallel, sefiras ha'omer, takes on additional significance as not just marking time, but as a necessary preparation period without which Shavuos would not have the same meaning.  

can a kohen come in contact with safeik tumah b'reshus ha'rabim?

Last week's parsha introduced the issur of a kohen becoming tamei meis, except to bury certain close relatives.  The Marcheshes (long footnote at the end of siman #2) raises the following chakirah: can a kohen enter a reshus ha'rabim where there is a safeik tumas meis?  Does the din of safeik tumah b'reshus harabim tahor mean that there is no tumah, and therefore the kohein can l'chatchila enter the area, or does safeik tumah b'reshus ha'rabim mean that even though there may be potential tumah, ex post facto, we treat someone who entered such a place as tahor -- only b'dieved?

The Marcheshes was not a Brisker (see his hakdamah!), but the chakirah echoes a gavra/cheftza type split.  Is safeik tumah b'reshus harabim a din in the tumah, the cheftza, not really being tumah, or is it just a din in the gavra remaining tahor even though he might have in fact encountered something tamei?

The Rambam writes in Hil Aveil 3:6

כהן גדול אינו מטמא לקרובים שנאמר לאביו ולאמו לא יטמא. וכן אינו נכנס עם המת באהל אפילו קרוביו. שנאמר ועל כל נפשות מת לא יבא. הא למדת שהוא חייב בלא יבא וחייב בלא יטמא

There are two different issurim involved here: 1) לא יטמא and 2) ועל כל נפשות מת לא יבא

The Marcheshes suggests that viz a viz the issue of לא יטמא, all that we look at is the end result -- is the kohen causing himself, the gavra, to become halachically tamei or not.  Since safeik tumah b'reshus ha'rabim does not cause a state of tumah, there is no issur.

However, when it comes to the issur of ועל כל נפשות מת לא יבא, here we are not speaking about the end result, but rather about physical contact and proximity to a meis.  Since there is a cheftza of safeik tumah present, the kohen must l'chatchila avoid the area.

The flipside applies to a kohen who entered a reshus ha'yachid where there is safeik tumah.  Since the halacha says the gavra is tamei, לא יטמא has been violated.  However, since the cheftza is safeik tumah, there would be no malkos for the lav of  ועל כל נפשות מת לא יבא.

The Marcheshes then adds some icing onto the cake.  He writes that he heard b'shem R' Chaim that even though safeik tumah b'reshus ha'yachid is treated as a vaday, that is not the same as a vaday of tumas **meis**.  There is a difference between actual tumas meis and a din tumah.  If a kohen comes in contact with an actual body, then the lavim of לא יטמא and ועל כל נפשות מת לא יבא kick in.  However, if the kohen comes to a safeik tumah b'reshus ha'rabim, **legally** it is as if the kohen became tamei, but that legal reality is not the same as actually coming into contact with a body.  Therefore there would be malkos for neither lav.

lechem ha'pnim

It's been a busy week.  My wife finished shiva, and then my son had a baby girl, so it's been a roller coaster ride.  Still, I did not want to leave another week without at least something on the parsha:

1) Right after the Torah talks about the offering of the korban ha'omer on Pesach and then the shtei ha'lechem on Shavuos in the context of speaking about all of the moadim, the Torah sticks in the mitzvos of pe'ah and leket:

 וּֽבְקֻצְרְכֶ֞ם אֶת־קְצִ֣יר אַרְצְכֶ֗ם לֹֽא־תְכַלֶּ֞ה פְּאַ֤ת שָֽׂדְךָ֙ בְּקֻצְרֶ֔ךָ וְלֶ֥קֶט קְצִירְךָ֖ לֹ֣א תְלַקֵּ֑ט לֶֽעָנִ֤י וְלַגֵּר֙ תַּעֲזֹ֣ב אֹתָ֔ם

The Ohr haChaim puts the question succinctly:  מה ענין זה לכאן.  

Abarbanel has a beautiful answer: The korban ha'omer uses grain; the shtei ha'lechem uses grain.  Part of your crop gets to be used to serve G-d, and therefore, you might think you were "yotzei" your religious obligation, and now the rest is yours to do with it as you like.  Comes the Torah and says that serving G-d is not enough.  You have to also remember to serve your fellow man as well.  Don't think because you offered a korban ha'omer or a shtei ha'lechem you can forget about the poor and the needy. 

2) One of my kids kept making the mistake of referring to the Misrad ha'Pnim in Israel as the Misrad haPanim (yes, I am embarassed).  It finally sunk in that Pnim = inside, what in the US would be called Ministry of the Interior, or something like that.  The end of our parsha speaks about the lechem ha'panim.  Sefas Emes writes that it's really the lechem ha'pnim, because that special bread that is inside the heichel reveals to us the pnimiyus of the bread we consume every day.   כִּ֠י לֹ֣א עַל־הַלֶּ֤חֶם לְבַדּוֹ֙ יִחְיֶ֣ה הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֛י עַל־כׇּל־מוֹצָ֥א פִֽי ה׳  יִחְיֶ֥ה הָאָדָֽם  R' Chaim Vital famously explained that it's the motzah pi Hashem **found within that bread** that keeps us going.  The lechem ha'panim=pnim reveals that מוֹצָ֥א פִֽי ה׳ found inside, that we ordinarily don't see.  

The Midrash comments at the beginning of the parsha speaking about korban ha'omer:

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי בִּקְּשׁוּ לִגְנֹז סֵפֶר קֹהֶלֶת שֶׁמָּצְאוּ בוֹ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵם נוֹטִים לְצַד מִינוּת, אָמְרוּ כָּךְ הָיָה שְׁלֹמֹה צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר: מַה יִּתְרוֹן לָאָדָם, יָכוֹל אַף בַּעֲמָלָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בַּמַּשְׁמָע, חָזְרוּ וְאָמְרוּ אִלּוּ אָמַר בְּכָל עָמָל וְשָׁתַק הָיִינוּ אוֹמְרִים אַף בַּעֲמָלָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בַּמַּשְׁמָע הוּא, הָא אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר אֶלָּא בְּכָל עֲמָלוֹ, בַּעֲמָלוֹ הוּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל אֲבָל בַּעֲמָלוֹ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה מוֹעִיל.

What kind of hava amina is is that even the ameilus of Torah has no value?  The whole book of Koheles is about olam ha'zeh being hevel havolim and the tachlis of man being to engage in Torah and yiras shamayim?

Sefas Emes (5656) answers that to find Hashem in a blatt of Bava Kama does not requires ameilus.  To find Hashem when you are standing in shul davening does not require ameilus.  What requires ameilus is to find Hashem when you are out in the world, engaged in your daily life, in your mundane pursuits.  That's עֲמָלָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה.  It takes work to see the entire world through the lens of Torah, to find Hashem in everything.

So who says we need to do that?  Maybe just stick to Bava Kama?

יָכוֹל אַף בַּעֲמָלָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בַּמַּשְׁמָע, maybe there is no value to seeking out G-d in the world at large?  הָא אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר אֶלָּא בְּכָל עֲמָלוֹ, בַּעֲמָלוֹ הוּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל אֲבָל בַּעֲמָלוֹ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה מוֹעִיל. 

That's the same message as the lechem ha'panim.  Don't starve yourself -- enjoy your sandwich.  But remember that there is a pnim to the lechem, that there is a מוֹצָ֥א פִֽי ה׳ that we have to dig for and uncover.

pri'ah vs kri'ah

If anyone would like to help learn some mishnayos for the shloshim of my FIL, much appreciated.  Here is a sign up link.

I was learning sotah and came across the mishna in the first perek that says:

וְכֹהֵן אוֹחֵז בִּבְגָדֶיהָ, אִם נִקְרְעוּ נִקְרָעוּ, אִם נִפְרְמוּ נִפְרָמוּ

The fact that the mishna uses both terms shows that there must be a difference between the term פרע and the term קרע.  

Rashi comments:  פרימה גדולה מקריעה שנקרעה לקרעים הרבה

Bartenura has another interpretation that kr'iah is a vertical tear.

Given the distinction between the terms, I was wondering why our parsha says with respect to the kohen gadol  אֶת־רֹאשׁוֹ֙ לֹ֣א יִפְרָ֔ע וּבְגָדָ֖יו לֹ֥א יִפְרֹֽם׃ (21:10)?  Since the idea is that the k"g is not supposed to display simanei aveilus, shouldn't the pasuk use the term קריעה and not  פּריעה?

See Malbim.

baruch dayan ha'emes

I usually post something for Yom haAtzmaut, also for parsha, but this week unfortunately things got disrupted because my wife lost her father.  

My BIL posted a video of the levaya on his blog here.  

For shiva or any other info, pls feel free to email me directly.  

Iyar - the month of vav hachibur

1) Why could Aharon enter the kodesh kodashing only on Y"K?  B'makom she'baalei teshuvah omdim afilu tzadikim ainam yecholim laamod.  On Y"K, we are baalei teshuvah and can enter places that are off limits even to the greatest tzadikim the rest of the year. (Sefas Emes)

2) I had previously asked why in Dayeinu we say "banah lan es beis ha'bechira" when it is we who did the building -- it did not come down from Hashem.  (Thank you to everyone who responded with suggestions.)

Shir haShirim Rabbah right at the beginning:

יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל אָמַר, כְּתִיב (מלכים א ח׳:י״ג): בָּנֹה בָנִיתִי בֵּית זְבֻל לָךְ, בִּנְיַן בָּנֹה בָּנִיתִי. רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה אָמַר, הַבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ בּוֹנִים, אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא (מלכים א ו׳:ז׳): וְהַבַּיִת בְּהִבָּנֹתוֹ, מֵאֵלָיו הָיָה נִבְנֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלכים א ו׳:ז׳): אֶבֶן שְׁלֵמָה מַסָּע נִבְנָה. בָּנוּי אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא נִבְנָה, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיְתָה הָאֶבֶן נוֹשֵׂאת אֶת עַצְמָהּ וְנִתְּנָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַדִּימוֹס.

Unlike Al Gore and the internet, we did not build it.  The Mikdash built itself miraculously.  We just went through the motions.

3) Sefer Yetzira says the month of Iyar corresponds to the letter vav.  Ain li eisek b'nistaros, but R' Tzadok gives us insight to understand it on some level.  Vav is the vav ha'chibur, the vav which connects.  Nisan is the month where we left Egypt with the goal of taavdun es ha'Elokim al ha'har ha'zeh.  Sivan is when we fulfilled that goal with kabbalas haTorah.  We need some way to connect the start of the process with its fulfillment.  That's Iyar, the vav ha'chibur between the two.

I would suggest as well that we know that this is the month when R' Akiva's students died because they did not treat each other respectfully.  There needs to be a vav ha'chibur between people, better connection between us to create more harmonious relationships.