Ezra - Torah for the masses

One of the reasons (it's mentioned in the slichos as well) that we fast on 10 Teves is because this is the yahrzeit (or 9 Teves, but they combined the fasts into one) of Ezra haSofer. Chazal tell us that had the Torah not been given through Moshe, it would have been given through Ezra. The Meshech Chochma in parshas va'yeilech quotes a Yerushalmi (Yevamos 8b) that says that R' Dosa ben Hyrkenus said about R' Elazar ben Azarya that he knows that he is the 10th generation from Ezra and his eyes are similar to the eyes of Ezra.

. ראה את °רבי אלעזר בן עזריה וקרא עליו (תהלים ל"ז, כ"ה) נער הייתי גם זקנתי. מכירו אני שהוא דור עשירי לעזרא. ועינוי דמיין לדידיה

It's hard to take this k'peshuto, as how would R' Dosa have known what Ezra's eyes looked like? The point he was making, explains the Meshech Chochma, is that R' Elazar ben Azarya was like Ezra. In parshas vayeilech is says that Moshe gave the Torah to the kohanim and levi'im: וַיִּכְתֹּ֣ב מֹשֶׁה֮ אֶת⁠־הַתּוֹרָ֣ה הַזֹּאת֒ וַֽיִּתְּנָ֗הּ אֶל⁠־הַכֹּֽהֲנִים֙ בְּנֵ֣י לֵוִ֔י Torah was meant for an elite class of scholars. That's why it was written in ksav ivri. This was a ksav that not everyone could read, and so it prevented the average person from having access to the text. Ezra changed all that. Ezra  changed the ksav to ksav ashuri which allowed everyone easy access to the text.  Ezra understood that although there are risk in allowing every layperson access to Torah, allowing everyone to think all they need is the internet and an Artscroll and they can pasken any shayla, the risks are worth it. Ezra lived in a time of transition, a time when prophecy was ending, and he understood that dissemination of the Torah to the masses was needed if we were to survive.

The gemara in Brachos writes that R' Gamliel only accepted students to the beis medrash who were "tocho b'baro," an elite group. When R' Elazar ben Azraya took over, he opened the doors to everyone. His eyes, his outlook on life, matched that of his ancestor Ezra.

Here's the Meshech Chochma:

ויתנה לכהנים בני לוי – בירושלמי פ״א דיבמות ראה את ראב״ע וקרא עליו נער הייתי כו׳ מכירו אני שהוא דור עשירי לעזרא ועיניו דמיין לדידיה. הענין כי מצאנו בעזרא ששינה הכתב, והוא כי באמת יאות לפי משפטי התורה אשר התורה תהא מסורה ביד הכהנים הלוים והזקנים אשר יש בהם כל מכמני השלמות והפרושים היושבים בירושלים, וכל מי שנדבו לבו להתקרב אל התורה יבא לירושלים, כמו שמצאנו בר״א בן הורקנוס, והיו הישיבות הגדולות אשר נקבצו כל הראוי בהם לפי חכמת בינתם, וכן מצאנו בספרי על קרא דלמען תלמד ליראה את ה׳ [הביאהו תוס׳ ב״ב כ״ה], ומפני זה היה התורה כתובה בכתב עברי למען לא ילמד מי שאינו ראוי ויהיה כזורק אבן למרקוליס, ולא ירהב הנער בזקן לאמר גם אנכי הרואה ויודע סתרי החכמה כמוך. אמנם עזרא ראה בזמנו לפי פזור ישראל בעמים והשכח מאתם עקרי התורה (כאשר מצאנו בנחמיה ודה״י) ונסתם החזון ובטלו הרואים באספקלריא המאירה, יותר נאות לכותבה בלשון מובן לכל הרוצה לדעת וחכמות בחוץ תרונה, ומוטב להגיע אל המטרה הנאותה להרחיב הדעת בארץ [כאשר באמת נתפשטה עד מאד התורה בזמן בית שני, כידוע] ולסבול ההיזק המגיע אשר כבר הגיע מזה בבית שני כידוע מתלמידים שלא שמשו כל צרכן, וזה שפט ברוח הקודש רוח אלהי אשר הופיע עליו ממרום, והפליגו חז״ל זה עד כי אמרו ראוי היה עזרא להנתן תורה ע״י כמו ע״י משה, ואמרו עילם זכתה ללמוד ולא ללמד בבל זכתה כו׳, ערש״י, וכן מצאנו ענין כזה לראב״ע, שר״ג הנשיא היה בדעתו לסתום כל דבר המקובל ולבלי לפרש טעמו, כאשר מצאנו לו בכמה מקומות מקובל אני מאבותי, וכן שלא לקבל רק הנאות להגיע אל מטרת השלמות ולמעט התלמידים, וכל מי שאין תוכו כברו אל יכנס, לא כן ראב״ע מצאנו לו שמיד שישב בנשיאות אמר כל הרוצה לכנוס יבוא ויכנס ואתוספו ה׳ מאה ספסלי בבי מדרשא, וכן בכ״מ תמצא שמפרש טעם כל דבר, עיין בחגיגה טף למה באין אלא כדי ליתן שכר טוב למביאיהן, וכן בכ״מ הפליג בהתפשטות התורה וריבוי לומדיה, והוא שאמר ועינו, ר״ל עינו הצופיה למרחוק, הבטה כללית, כמו עיני העדה וכמו עיניך יונים (עיין מדרש), בהבטה על הנהגת הכלל הוא דומה להנהגת עזרא הסופר. ונכון

I think we can put 2 and 2 together and lump this Meshech Chochma together with an Ohr Sameich in Hil Issuei Bi'ah from this post two years ago.  The Ohr Sameich distinguishes takanos of Chazal instituted for what he calls "tikun ha'dat," strengthening religious law, e.g. don't do X on shabbos lest you come to do a melacha and violate the law of shabbos, and the takanos of Ezra, which were made for "tikun ha'umah," to strengthen our national identity.  

Ezra was not concerned with promulgating the mitzvah of talmud Torah simply because it is an important mitzvah to do.  He was concerned with promulgating Torah because Torah is what gives us our national identity.  In earlier times, it was enough for an elite group to carrier the banner for the national as a whole.  In Erzra's time, in R' Elazar ben Azarya's time, in our time, that is not longer the case.

breaking fast on coffee and cake on shabbos; chatzi shiur by peru u'revu, learning without rischa d'oraysa

1) Many people prefer to break their fast on coffee and cake rather than sit down to a heavy meal.  Is that an option when 10 Teves falls on Friday as it does this year?  Can you say kiddush and then have your coffee and cake and then eat seudas shabbos a bit later?  There are a few hurdles to overcome: 1) Those who do not drink a revi'is of wine from kiddush have a potential safeik bracha rishona on the coffee (Biur Halacha 174:2); 2) You have a potential safeik whether to say bracha achrona on the coffee or whether it would be exempted by birchas ha'mazon of the meal (MB 174:37); 3) Rama writes that seudas shabbos should be eaten immediately after kiddush, and ideally cake does not suffice for kiddush b'makom seudah at night (Shu"t Ein Yitzchak #12).  4) Al pi din one could wash, drink coffee, and then continue with the main fleishig meal (as MB says to do by Shavuos), but there is a Zohar that says not to have milchigs and fleishigs in the same meal.  Given all of the above probably best to ask someone in advance what to do or work out the issues here instead of waiting until you are about to sit down and eat.

2) The sefer Tzlach Rchav quotes a machlokes Chida and Chikrei Lev whether there is any value to a chatzi shiur of a mitzvas aseh, a topic we have discussed before (here, and earlier this year).  Perhaps one could argue that the safeik depends on the source for the issur of chatzi shiur (see Yoma 74a).  If it is learned out from a derasha on the words כל חלב, then the gezeiras ha'kasuv is perhaps limited to issurim like cheilev (there are Achronim who limit chatzi shiur even by issurim only to issurei achila).  If, however, the source is the sevara of כיון דחזי לאיצטרופי, the same sevara can be applied to mitzvos.  

Tzlach Rchav brings this up on the parsha because of a cute remez.  Among those who went down to Mitzrayim is the child of Dan,  וּבְנֵי דָן חֻשִׁים.  This is the only child of Dan.  What about the mitzvah of peru u'revu? The answer is Dan = דכר ונוקבא, and Chushim = חצי שׁיעור יחשׁב  מצוה.  The one child is a chatzi shiur of the mitzvah of peru urevu, but a chatzi shiur also counts as a mitzvah.

Regardless of how convinced you are by this remez, I think it's fair game to ask whether having one child can even be called a chatzi shiur.  The din of chatzi shiur applies to quantities, e.g. eating less than the required k'zayis of matzah.  You still ate matzah, just not enough. If, for example, you put tzitzis on three of the four corners of your garment, that's not a chatzi shiur.  You haven't done the mitzvah of tzitzis, just not enough of it -- you haven't accomplished the miztvah at all.  There is something qualitatively lacking in this case.  Having one child instead of two seems to me to be more akin to the tzitzis case than the matzah case.

3) When Yosef has a send off for his brothers to return home, he tells them  וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת אֶחָיו וַיֵּלֵכוּ וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַל תִּרְגְּזוּ בַּדָּרֶךְ (45:24).  Rashi already alludes to a Midrashic interpretation that the Yalkut Shimoni fleshes out:

 ויאמר אלהם אל תרגזו בדרך א"ל יוסף לאחיו אל תתעסקו בדבר הלכה שמא תרגז עליכם הדרך. איני והאמר ר' אילעאי שני תלמידי חכמים המהלכים בדרך ואין ביניהם דברי תורה ראויין לישרף שנאמר ויהי המה הולכים הלוך ודבר טעמא דאיכא דבור הא ליכא דבור ראויין לישרף לא קשיא הא למיגרס הא לעיוני.

Yosef knew that if his brothers started learning in depth on the road home they would get carried away in the "rishca d'oraysa" of arguing back and forth with each other, so he told them to keep their learning light.

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi asks: Why didn't Yosef just tell them that when they learn b'iyun, not to get carried away and to avoid battling back and forth over each point?  Why change the subject matter?  

The answer is that learning without "rischa d'oraysa," without battling back and forth, is not called עסק, is not called learning with depth and intensity.  The two by definition go hand in hand.  

days of teshuva or days of mourning

1) Chasam Sofer (208) points out that according to Rambam (Hil Taanis ch 5) the fasts of 10 Teves, 17 Tamuz, 9 Av, etc are days of teshuvah, not days to commemorate the past:

יש שם ימים שכל ישראל מתענים בהם מפני הצרות שאירעו בהן כדי לעורר הלבבות לפתוח דרכי התשובה ויהיה זה זכרון למעשינו הרעים ומעשה אבותינו שהיה כמעשינו עתה עד שגרם להם ולנו אותן הצרות. שבזכרון דברים אלו נשוב להיטיב שנאמר והתודו את עונם ואת עון אבותם וגו':

Achronim point out that other Rishonim disagree, e.g. the Ran (end of 4th perek of Taanis) writes that there is a chiyuv to say neila on a taanis geshem but not on these days stems because taanis geshem is a day of tefilah and teshuvah, while these are days to mourn over the past.

Rav Shternbruch points out what seems to be an inconsistency within the Rambam, as in Hil Tefilah (13:18) Rambam distinguishes between the fasts that commemorate the churban, שאנו מתענין על מה שאירע לאבותינו, and other fast which are days of teshuvah:

 ובשאר התעניות שאנו מתענין על מה שאירע לאבותינו קורין בשחרית ומנחה. הראשון קורא ויחל משה ארבע פסוקים. וקורא השני והשלישי מפסל לך עד אשר אני עושה עמך. ובתעניות שגוזרין אותן הצבור מפני הצרות כגון בצורת ודבר וכיוצא בהן קורין ברכות וקללות כדי שישובו העם ויכנע לבבם כשישמעו אותם 

So even according to shitas haRambam, there is an element of commemoration, not just teshuvah and tefilah. 

R' Yitzchak Sorotzkin reads Ramban is a middle ground between these positions.  Ramban writes in Toras haAdam that the original takanas nevi'im that applied in eis tzarah was for the fasts of 10 Teves, 17 Tamuz, etc. to all have the same halachos of 9 Av.  Nowadays, when there is no eis tzarah, we continue to observe the fasts because Klal Yisrael accepted upon ourselves to do so, but we only accepted the din of not eating on the day of the fast, not the other chumros.  Why the split?  The takana of the neviim was to fast in order to commorate the churban, and therefore 10 Teves, 17 Tamuz were all like 9 Av.  Nowadays, we fast to inspire ourselves to tefilah and teshuvah. The different mechayeiv creates a different set of halachos.  

The gemara (Taanos 16) mentions a minhag to visit the cemetery on a taanis geshamim. Tos extends the minhag to apply to 9 Av.  R' Shternbruch points out that the chiddush of Tos may hinge on the above views.  One could argue that taanis geshem is about eliciting teshuvah, while the focus of 9 Av is mourning, and therefore the halachos are not the same (See Ah"S  457:18 who writes that yeri'im do not go to the cemetary, but for a different reason.)

2) The SA paskens that a chasan is obligated to fast during the week of sheva brachos.  The simcha of the individual is not doche the chiyuv tzom of the rabim.  Rav Shternbruch (vol 7 #246) asks why this should be true in our times when the chiyuv tzom is only a minhag and not still based on the takanas nevi'im.  I do not understand his question.  Minhag is binding like a neder.  If someone takes a neder not to eat matzah, for example, he is not allowed to do so even on leil ha'seder.  The minhag/neder to not eat on 17 Tamuz therefore of course is doche the obligation of sheva brachos.

R' Shternbruch distinguishes between the chiyuv simcha for a chasan and the chiyuv simcha on Yom Tov.  The latter demands eating meat and drinking wine; the former requires making the kallah happy.  It is not a chiyuv to eat per se, just a chiyuv to rejoice together.  Furthermore, that chiyuv is subject to mechila on the part of the kallah, and a mitzvah that is subject to mechila cannot be doche issurim (see Kesubos 40).

Yosef's tochacha; Bnei Yisrael or bnei Yisrael?; choleh on 10 Teves

Chazal famously comment on the pasuk

 וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יוֹסֵ֤ף אֶל־אֶחָיו֙ אֲנִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י וְלֹֽא־יָכְל֤וּ אֶחָיו֙ לַעֲנ֣וֹת אֹת֔וֹ כִּ֥י נִבְהֲל֖וּ מִפָּנָֽיו׃

that Yosef's words were words of rebuke

אַבָּא כֹּהֵן בַּרְדְּלָא אָמַר, אוֹי לָנוּ מִיּוֹם הַדִּין אוֹי לָנוּ מִיּוֹם הַתּוֹכֵחָה, ... יוֹסֵף קְטַנָּן שֶׁל שְׁבָטִים הָיָה וְלֹא הָיוּ יְכוֹלִים לַעֲמֹד בְּתוֹכַחְתּוֹ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וְלֹא יָכְלוּ אֶחָיו לַעֲנוֹת אֹתוֹ כִּי נִבְהֲלוּ מִפָּנָיו, לִכְשֶׁיָּבוֹא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְיוֹכִיחַ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לְפִי מַה שֶּׁהוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים נ׳:כ״א): אוֹכִיחֲךָ וְאֶעֶרְכָה לְעֵינֶיךָ, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.

Where is the rebuke in Yosef's asking whether his father was still alive?  Why did this question throw the brothers into a state of shock?

The Sheiris Yisrael reminds us of the Rashi at the beginning of P' VaYeishev,  ושהיה זיו איקונין של יוסף דומה לו, that tells us that Yosef looked like Yaakov.  Sometimes a child is the spitting image of his parent; that's how it was with Yosef and Yaakov.

Yehudah's argument to let Binyamin go rested primarily on the effect the loss of Binyamin would have on Yaakov   וְהָיָ֗ה כִּרְאוֹת֛וֹ כִּי־אֵ֥ין הַנַּ֖עַר וָמֵ֑ת וְהוֹרִ֨ידוּ עֲבָדֶ֜יךָ אֶת־שֵׂיבַ֨ת עַבְדְּךָ֥ אָבִ֛ינוּ בְּיָג֖וֹן שְׁאֹֽלָה  It is his father's health and well-being which Yehudah professes is uppermost in his mind.  Even when he brings up the fact that he personally guaranteed Binyamin's safety and put his olam ha'ba on the line, Yehudah does not focus on himself; he again puts the focus on his father,  אִם־לֹ֤א אֲבִיאֶ֙נּוּ֙ אֵלֶ֔יךָ וְחָטָ֥אתִי לְאָבִ֖י כׇּל־הַיָּמִֽים׃.  What dedication to their parent!  What love for Yaakov!

And then Yosef burst the bubble.

How, if Yaakov is uppermost on your minds, could you see his spitting image before you and not make the connection? 

There is a gezeira that one who dies is eventually forgotten. הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י?  If he is not, your forgetting about him is understandable, but if he is, and he is uppermost in your thoughts as you claim, how have you not recognized me?

The brothers could not answer כִּ֥י נִבְהֲל֖וּ מִפָּנָֽיו, they saw Yosef's face and it suddenly clicked.  It was the image of their father that they saw, but that image, as Yosef perceived, had retreated to the back recesses of their mind once they were no longer in their father's presence.

I would just add to the Sheiris Yisrael that it was the  דמות דיוקנו של אביו which had appeared to Yosef (39:11 in Rashi) and saved him from sinning with Eishes Potifar.  Yaakov's visage never left Yosef's imagination.  His brothers, however, had not lived up to that same standard.

2) The pasuk describes Bn"Y coming to Mitzrayim (46:5)

 וַיָּ֥קׇם יַעֲקֹ֖ב מִבְּאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע וַיִּשְׂא֨וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־יַעֲקֹ֣ב אֲבִיהֶ֗ם וְאֶת־טַפָּם֙ וְאֶת־נְשֵׁיהֶ֔ם בָּעֲגָל֕וֹת אֲשֶׁר־שָׁלַ֥ח פַּרְעֹ֖ה לָשֵׂ֥את אֹתֽוֹ׃

Yaakov is referred to by that name, but his children are referred to as bnei Yisrael -- not as bnei Yaakov.  Why the shift?

The gemara (Chulin 100) has a machlokes Tanaim whether the issur of gid ha'nasheh applied only post-mattan Torah, or did it apply earlier.  The pasuk tells us  עַל־כֵּ֡ן לֹֽא־יֹאכְל֨וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־גִּ֣יד הַנָּשֶׁ֗ה.  Does Bnei Yisrael with a capital B refer to the Jewish nation, which only came into existence later at mattan Torah, or is it a lower case b and it refers to the children of Yaakov?  R' Yehudah's view is that the term B/bnei Yisrael applies pre-mattan Torah as well, as we see from our pasuk.  

Seforno comments: 

וישאו בני ישראל – שהיו צריכים מכאן ואילך להיות ״עם בני ישראל״, להשתרר עם אלהים ועם אנשים המתקוממים, בלכתם עתה אל אדמת נכר.

The pasuk deliberately uses the term Bnei Yisrael -- as opposed to Yaakov -- because from this moment onward the shevatim needed to take on the identity of their father that the name Yisrael represented, namely, the ability to wrestle with and fight against outside forces.  

3) The Pninei Halacha put out by Mir Yeshiva discusses the question of someone too ill to fast on 10 Teves but who wants to serve as shat"z and get an aliya because they have yahrzeit on that day.  Would eating less than the shiur help?

This question would seem to hinge on the machlokes between the Marcheshes and R' Chaim that we discussed earlier this year.  According to the Marcheshes, a choleh on a fast day should, if possible, eat less than the shiur and by doing so does not lose the kiyum of the taanis.  The lomdus: the shiur of issurei achila, with respect to a taanis or anything else, is always a k'zayis.  True, chatzi shiur is forbidden, but chatzi shiur is its own independent issur.  Eating chatzi shiur would be like, for example, doing an aveira of speaking lashon ha'ra on a taanis.  The person did an issur, but that does not negate their taanis, as it was not an issur achila.  

R' Chaim held that a choleh is exempt from fasting since b'makom choli lo gazru rabbanan.  If the person chooses not to eat they accomplish nothing; it would be like voluntarily skipping breakfast and lunch on any given day of the week -- no kiyum mitzvah, no shem taanis.  A person who is not included in the chiyuv taanis cannot say aneinu or get an aliya for the kri'as haTorah of a taanis.

not just a hidur

 בֶּן־אָדָ֗ם [כְּתׇב־] (כתוב) לְךָ֙ אֶת־שֵׁ֣ם הַיּ֔וֹם אֶת־עֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה סָמַ֤ךְ מֶֽלֶךְ־בָּבֶל֙ אֶל־יְר֣וּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה

The Chasam Sofer (Derashos, 8 Teves,  5593) is midayek in the use of the word  סָמַ֤ךְ.  Why not say צר על יְר֣וּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם?  

Derech derush, he interprets the pasuk in Eikev  כִּ֤י תֹאמַר֙ בִּלְבָ֣בְךָ֔ רַבִּ֛ים הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָאֵ֖לֶּה מִמֶּ֑נִּי that the might of the enemy forces comes מִמֶּ֑נִּי, from our own failures and shortcomings. 

Here too, the navi is telling us that sadly, the enemy was able to rely on us -- סָמַ֤ךְ -- to help them in their destruction of Yerushalayim.

In last week's parsha (45:14) we read that Yosef cried on the neck(s) of Binyamin.  Rashi quotes the Midrash that neck(s) is written like it is plural because the neck alludes to the Beis haMikdash.  Yosef was crying over the destruction of both batei mikdash that stood in Binyamin's portion.

Why is the Beis haMikdash compared to the neck?  R' Shteinman in Ayeles haShachar writes that we shecht an animal by cutting the simanim in the neck; that is the source of the animal's chiyus.  So too, the Beis haMikdash is not just a nice thing to have, a "hidur mitzvah" that lets us serve Hashem better.  Beis haMikdash is our chiyus!  

If only we lived day in and day out with that attitude.

R' Shteinman quotes the din (San 18b) that the kohen gadol cannot sit on the beis din that decides whether to add an extra month and make a leap year because he has a vested interest in the outcome.  Adding an extra month pushes Yom Kippur later, and the k"g would be stuck doing the avodah outdoors in much colder weather.  

Even though the beis din debating whether to make it a leap year or not might be meeting in the middle of the winter, during Teives or Shevat, the kohen gadol's mind is on Yom Kippur.  That is the highlight of his year, the highlight of his life, and so he lives with that experience in mind 365 days a year. 

If Beis haMikdash is our chiyus, it means we should feel its absence 365 days a year.  It's shouldn't just be something to think about on a fast day or when a chassan breaks a glass under the chuppah and then put out of mind the next day or the next minute.  The fast days are just booster shots to help maintain our year round focus.

The enemy is relying on us,  סָמַ֤ךְ מֶֽלֶךְ־בָּבֶל֙ אֶל־יְר֣וּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם, on our indifference and acceptance of status quo.  It's up to us to prove them wrong. 

would we fast on shabbos for 10 teves?

One thing about 10 Teves that seems to have seeped into common knowledge is the idea that even were the date to fall out on Shabbos, we would still fast on that  specific date.  In this respect, 10 Teves would be more chamur even than 9 Av.  We discussed this a long time ago (here and here).  What people don't know is that Rashi black on white disagrees.  The Mishna in Megillah (5a) writes that there are certain events which if they fall on Shabbos get pushed up and celebrated in advance, and there are certain events which get pushed ahead and celebrated on Sunday:

אבל זמן עצי כהנים ותשעה באב חגיגה והקהל מאחרין ולא מקדימין 

For example, if 9 Av falls on Shabbos, says the Mishna, we fast on Sunday, not the Thursday before.  

Rashi d"h aval writes that this is not just true of 9 Av, but is true of 17 Tamuz and 10 Teves as well:

וכן תשעה באב שחל להיות בשבת והוא הדין לי"ז בתמוז ולעשרה בטבת והאי דנקט תשעה באב משום דהוכפלו בו צרות והכל מתענין בו אבל שאר צומות אמרינן במסכת ראש השנה (דף יח:) רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין:

the greatest tragedy of all

Chazal offer different reasons why parshas Vayechi is a parsha stuma, a "closed" parsha, one with no break between its opening and the previous parsha.  One view suggests that the text is alluding to the fact that Yaakov's access to ruach hakodesh was closed off and he was unable to reveal to his children what will happen in the end of days.  Another view sees the parsha stuma as an allusion to Klal Yisrael being closed off in galus.  A final view quoted in the Yalkut explains that the parsha is closed because, after suffering for so many years of heartache and pain, Yaakov was finally closed off and removed from all sorrows.

Although the same Midrash quotes all three views, the last one clearly stands out as  anomalous.  The first two explanations see a parsha stuma as alluding to something negative -- Yaakov's loss of ruach hakodesh, Klal Yisrael's loss of freedom.  Not so the third view, which sees the stuma as alluding to Yaakov's loss of sorrow -- what could be better than that?

Chasam Sofer (derashos, 5593) explains that in fact, this third view actually reflects the most negative perspective on the parsha and sees in it the greatest tragedy of all.  Here we have Yaakov Avinu entering galus where he knows he will die, here we have the shivtei K-h leaving Eretz Yisrael with no idea when they will ever return home.  What happened when they entered the land of Mitzrayim?  Last week's parsha ends by telling us that they settled in Goshen, "va'yeiachazu bah vayifru vayirbu me'od."  They had beautiful homes, lots of kids, mistama they started businesses, and life was good!  There was probably a kosher pizza or two or three in Goshen, a sushi joint with fresh fish from the Nile, etc. -- all the amenities we like to have.  And with no break our parsha starts, "Vayechi Yaakov...," Yaakov had a second wind in life and he too could enjoy his final years in Mitzrayim.  What's so bad?

Chazal tell us that when you see this scene, instead of jumping for joy, you should shed a tear.  Does anyone living that life in Goshen -- a life similar to the life many of us live in galus USA -- remember that this is galus, that this is not where we are supposed to be and not where we should want to be?

The greatest tragedy of the parsha is that we've forgotten the tzaros -- we've gotten used to galus and we're successful and happy here and we could care less about getting out. 

Chasam Sofer elsewhere writes that when the navi tells us that the fast days that commemorate the churban habayis, among them today, 10 Teves, will one day be transformed into days of simcha, it does not mean that we will suddenly forget everything from the past.  Aderaba, the simcha comes davka because we never forgot the past.  It's only because we continue to think about beis hamikdash even when we don't have it,  showing that we still connect to it and long for it, that we will eventually be able to celebrate it's return.  But if we forget, if it doesn't bother us that it's not here, then what exactly is going to move us to happiness when we do get it back?

the tikun for 10 Teves

From the "halacha yomi" from Yeshiva Har Bracha (my translated paraphrase ):

There fast of 10 Teves commemorates three things.  Firstly and primarily, it commemorates the siege placed on Yerushalayim that eventually led to the destruction of the city and the Mikdash.  Secondly, in our slichos we mention the passing of Ezra, which occured on 9 Teves.  Lastly, we remember the forced translation of the Torah into Greek on 8 Teves.

R' Tzvi Yehudah Kook suggested that in response to these three events, we use the day to work on a three-pronged "tikun": 1) In response to the tragedy of the siege, we dedicate ourselves to building Yerushalayim and Eretz Yisrael, both physically and spiritually; 2) In response to the tragedy of Ezra's passing we dedicate ourselves to spreading even more Torah, in particular by encouraging even more people to return from the golah to Eretz Yisrael, the source of Torah, just as Ezra tried to do; 3) In response to the Torah being translated into the foreign language of Greece and the foreign culture of Greece we work to restore the authentic culture and spirit of the Jewish people and weed out the foreign influences that have infiltrated during our many years in galus.

rejoicing in the midas hadin

The Torah tells us that one his way down to Mitzrayim, Yakaov stopped to offer korbanos "Elokei aviv Yitzhak," the G-d of his father Yitzchak (46:1).  Why did he single out Yitzchak?  Why not "Elokei avosav," or "Elokei Avraham v'Yitzchak?"  (see Rashi)

Yitchak represents the midas ha'din.  Ya'akov had suffered for so many years and through so many sorrows, the culmination of which was the loss of Yosef.  He was certainly familiar with din and mishpat.  Suddenly he discovers that Yosef is alive, that he is a leader in Egypt, that the family will be safe.  What he had seen as punishment had in fact been rachamei Shamayim.  Suddenly, he has a completely different perspective on what din is all about, and so he turns, "l'Elokei Yitzchak," to offer korbanos in appreciation for that midas ha'din, which was really rachamim in disguise.  

The Navi tells us "Tzom he're'vi'i v'tzom ha'chamishi..." will become days of "sason v'simcha," days of rejoicing.  Chasam Sofer (Toras Moshe, end of Vayigash, d"h "v'yiten") explains that it doesn't mean that Hashem will take away the fast days and we will forget all about them and that's why we will be happy.  It means that the fast itself will bring us rejoicing.  So long as we fast and pray, so long as Hashem inspires us to fast and pray, it means we have a connection to Him.  That connection itself is a sign of rachamei Shamayim, that we are not forsaken even amidst the galus.  Like Ya'akov Avinu, we will one day look back and give thanks and celebrate even the midas ha'din.

 

no news is good news

The gemara quotes a machlokes Tanaim as to what the navi meant by “tzom ha’asiri,” the fast of the 10^th month.  We pasken that it refers to the 10^th day of the 10^th month when the siege was laid around Yerushalayim; however, there is another view that holds it refers to the 5^th day of the 10^th month when the news of the churban reached the golah.

 

I understand why you have to fast when something bad happens or on the anniversary of something bad happening.  We fast 9 Av for the churban.  But why should there be another fast when you get the news about something that happened months ago? 

 

It seems that in Chazal's eyes hearing about tzaros is itself a tzarah worth fasting for.  There is a reason the Mishna in Brachos uses the term “besoros tovos” for good news but “shemu’os” – not “besoros” – “ra’os” for bad news.  A besorah means tell your friends.; a shem’ua is something you happen to hear about.  Bad news is not something you want to spread or want to hear.  I don’t know what Chazal would make of 24x7 cable and all kinds of other media that bring every detail of every tzarah in the world to a person’s doorstep or computer screen.  We've lost that degree of sensitivity.

aveilus, teshuvah: the two themes of ta'anis

The Rambam opens Hil Ta’anis by telling us that there are days set aside for fasting in order “to awaken hearts and open the gates of repentance.”  The primary goal of a fast day is to elicit teshuvah.

It would seem that other Rishonim disagree.  The Ran in Ta’anis quotes the Ra’avad as explaining that the reason there is no added prayer of neilah on fasts like 10 Teves, 17 Tamuz, etc. is because these days are set aside for mourning the tragedies that occurred on them.  Neilah is only added to fasts that are set aside as days of prayer. 

The Chasam Sofer proves that this view is correct from the gemara’s explanation of why we do not move these fasts to an earlier date if they fall on Shabbos – “akdumei puranisa lo makdiminan,” we do not move up a day of tragedy.  These fasts are days of aveilus, not simply days of prayer or teshuvah.

Once upon a time we discussed the view of Ramban, who holds that the takanah of the ta’anis of 17 Tamuz and the other fast days included prohibitions against bathing, washing, wearing leather shoes, etc.  However, that takanah was put in place only for times of tzarah.  When it is not a time of tzarah, there is no obligation to fast.  The choice whether or not to do so is ours as a community.  Ramban concludes that we have been mekabeil as a community only not to eat and drink on these fast days, but have not been mekabeil any of the other prohibitions.  (Considering events in Eretz Yisrael, could one not make the case that we are in an eis tzarah now and the original takanah should be in effect in full force?  Anyone know if this issue was raised by poskim?) 

 
What kind of strange compromise does this kabbalah amount to?  Were we mekabeil the day as a fast day or not?  If yes, then how can we bathe or wear leather?  If not, then why can’t we eat?  R’ Yitzchok Sorotzkin explains the Ramban based on these two themes, aveilus and tefilah, that characterize the chiyuv to fast.  The issurim of bathing, of wearing leather, etc. are part and parcel of designating the day as a day or tragedy and mourning.  This was the original takanah of fasting, which only applies when there is an eis tzarah – a time of tragedy.  Our kabbalah amounts to accepting the day as as a day of teshuvah and tefilah.  For this end, it is sufficient to give up eating and drinking alone.

chiyuv ta'anis -- m'divrei kabbalah or based on minhag?

The Rambam opens Hil Ta'anis by telling us:
 יש שם ימים שכל ישראל מתענים בהם

He then lists all the fast days and tells us what happened on each of them.  In halacha 5 he writes:
 וארבעת ימי הצומות האלו--הרי הן מפורשין בקבלה

What's important is what the Rambam does NOT say -- he never writes that there is a chiyuv m'divrei kabbalah to fast on any of these days, even on 9 Av!  The fasts are described, "mefurashim," in divrei kabbalah, i.e. Nach, but the chiyuv to fast is simply based on minhag yisrael and no more than that. 

Contrast that with the language of the Tur, "Hakol chayavim l'hisanos m'DIVREI KABBALAH..."  True, the Tur quotes the gemara that when there is no shmad the chiyuv to fast depends on the ratzon of Bnei Yisrael, but it seems that according to the Tur the idea of ratzon is not a mechayeiv (which is how the Rambam must have learned the gemara), but is just an acceptance of the chiyuv that already exists m'divrei kabbalah.

10 Teves -- fasting for the future

The Avudraham's opinion that one would be required to fast on 10 Teves even if it fell on Shabbos is well known (see here and here). The same is not true even of 9 Av. Why is 10 Teves more significant than other fast days? Why should the beginning of the siege process that years later led to churban be more significant than the churban itself?

Chasam Sofer explains that 17 Tamuz is a fast which commemorates past events – the walls of Yerushalayim were breached. 9 Av is a fast which commemorates past events – the churban, among other tragedies, took place. Same for the fast of Gedlaya. Not so the fast of 10 Teves. True, the siege was put in place on 10 Teves, but other enemies has also laid siege to Yerushalayim and they were defeated. There was time yet to avert a churban. The fast of 10 Teves is not a fast that commemorates events which already occurred, but is rather a fast of an eis tzarah, a fast to avert future tragedy.

The failure to rebuild the Mikdash is tantamount to witnessing its destruction. The din v’cheshbon of whether this year will be another year of continued churban or whether this year will be the year we avert 9 Av and witness the rebuilding of the Mikdash occurs on 10 Teves. The future is in our hands to determine.

10 Teves and fasting on Shabbos

My friend R’ Chaim Markowitz recently posted on the topic of fasting a ta’anis chalom on Shabbos. Rishonim explain that the ta’anis is permissible because the issur of fasting is based on a consideration for oneg shabbos; where one feels so distressed that sitting down for a meal would cause discomfort, a meal is no longer oneg. I added in a comment to his discussion that the Ohr Sameich quotes a chiddush of the Mabi”t that the issur of fasting on Shabbos only applies (m’divrei kabbalah) if one fasts the entire day, sundown to sundown. A ta’anis chalom requires fasting only from morning to night.

This chiddush, as the Ohr Sameich explains, sheds light on the gemara (meg 5b) which tells us that Rebbi wanted to abolish the fast 9 Av when it fell on Shabbos – since the fast must be nidche anyway, it can (in Rebbi’s view) be completely done away with. The same issue should have come up with respect to 17 Tamuz which would also have fallen on Shabbos three weeks earlier, but we have no record of Rebbi wanting to abolish that fast (see R’ Y. Emden on the daf). The O.C. writes that there is a crucial distinction – the fast of 9 Av cannot be done on Shabbos, as a 24 hour fast is prohibited m’divrei kabbalah; the fast of 17 Tamuz could theoretically could be fulfilled on Shabbos as it does not prohibit eating at night.

This also explains the famous opinion of the Avudraham that should 10 Teves fall on Shabbos (which it never does) there would be an obligation to fast. Again, since eating would be permitted on Friday night, the fast would not violate the issur of ta’anis on Shabbos. (I am not sure that the O.C. makes of the Avudraham’s statement that since the fast of 10 Teves is defined as “etzem hayom hazeh” it must be done even on Shabbos – the derasha seems to have little to do with the logic he is suggesting).

Asarah B'Teves

There is a comment regarding 10 Teves which seems to have passed into folk knowledge. The BH"G writes that if any fast were to fall on Shabbos, the issur of fasting on Shabbos would be doche the ta'anis. However, with respect to 10 Teves, since the ta'anis is stated in Nach as falling "b'etzem hayom hazeh" (Yechezkel 24, see R"H 18b), on the precise date of the 10th, even if that day were to occur on Shabbos one would be obligated to fast. How does the fact that the Navi specifically designates the day change 10 Teves from all other fasts where the day of the fast is also defined precisely by the halacha? In the Chiddushi HaGR"Ch (stencil), R' Chaim Soloveitchik explains that all the other fasts in Nach are referred to by the month they fall in - "tzom harevi'i, tzom hashevi'i...", etc. If those fasts were to fall on Shabbos, we can subsitute another day of the month for the day of Shabbos. However, with respect to 10 Teves, the date, not the month, defines the fast, and therefore there can be no substitute.
I thought perhaps with this chiddush of R' Chaim we could explain a difficult Tosfos in Megillah. The gemara has a hava amina that Rebbi wanted to abolish the fast of 9 Av, which Tosfos finds incredible because a latter Bais Din has no right to overrule a takkanah of an earlier Bais Din (in most circumstances), and 9 Av was established by the Nevi'im. Tosfos therefore suggests that the hava amina merely meant that Rebbi wanted to abolish the additional strictures of 9 Av beyond other fasts, or perhaps Rebbi wanted to change the date of 9 Av to 10 Av (see Tos as to why). Asks the RashaSh, but moving the date of a holiday or fast once established by Chazal is also uprooting a takkanah of Bais Din (see Megillah 2a)!? Based on R' Chaim's chiddush we can answer that the precise date of 9 Av was never established by the Bevi'im, only the month was established. Exactly which date of the month should be the fast day was left to Chazal's judgement.
Easy fast to all!!!