krias haTorah on 17 Tamuz - chiddush of the Shibolei ha'Leket

The Shibolei Leket (263)  says a chiddush regarding krias haTorah on 17 Tamuz.  On other fast days we start the kri'ah wih "va'yichal Moshe..." and we read until the end of Moshe' tefilah (32:11-14).  We then skip ahead to 34:1-10 where the 13 midos are mentioned.  The theme of the kri'ah is tefilah (va'yichal...) and teshuvah (the 13 midos), which are what you are supposed to be doing on a fast day.  Says the Shibolei haLeket, on 17 Tamuz don't skip those middle pesukim -- read the parsha straight through.  Why?  Those intervening pesukim talk about the eigel and the smashing of the luchos.  The mishna tells us that this is one of the tragedies that occurred on 17 Tamuz. Therefore, it reflects the theme of the day.

 Achronim debate whether kri'as haTorah on a fast day is like kri'as haTorah of Yom Tov, i.e. it is one of the ways we demarcate the day, like a "mei'ein ha'meora" decalation, or whether the krias haTorah is part of the nihugei taanis, i.e. just like on the Y"T of Sukkos we celebrate by shaking a lulav and on Pesach we eat matzah, part of what we have to do on a taanis is read pesukim that arouse us to do teshuvah.  Whether someone who is not fasting can get an aliya on a taanis may hinge on this question.  If the kri'ah is part of the nihugei ha'yom of taanis, then someone who is not fasting cannot get an aliya as they are not involved in the nihugei ha'yom.  If the kri'ah is a din in the day, then whether one is personally fasting or not does not matter, as the status of the day remains the same. 

According to Shibolei ha'Leket, the kri'ah of 17 Tamuz is a reflection of the nature of the day, as we are recounting the historical event of cheit ha'eigel and sheviras ha'luchos that took place.

katan reciting aneinu on a fast day

I saw in the Divrei Siach parsha sheet (from the torah of R' Chaim Kanievsky) that even if a katan fasts on 17 Tamuz, he should not recite aneinu since a katan has no chiyuv taanis.  The counterargument I assume would be that the purpose of chinuch is to train the katan to do mitzvos as he would when he grows up.  Since when he grows up this katan would have to fast and would say aneinu, he should daven accordingly now to get into the right habit.  

This issue sounds like it hinges on the same point as a chakira I once posted from my son regarding a katan who comes late to shul.  Does the katan skip pesukei d'zimra to catch up, like anyone else should do, or should he daven the full davening?  If chinuch means we treat the katan as if he has a chiyuv just like a gadol, then just like a gadol should skip, the katan should skip ahead as well.  However, if chinuch means training the katan to do the mitzvah as he would when he reaches maturity, then the proper way to daven is to say everything and not skip, so maybe that's what he should do.  

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).

what the three weeks really are about

1) R' Zalman Melamed writes here:

Every year, as the Three Weeks (of mourning over the Temple’s destruction) approach, people ask me all sorts of questions relating to the nature of mourning: What is and is not permissible in kindergartens? Can movies be watched? Fieldtrips? Swimming?

All such questions pertain to mourning practices, but nobody ever asks about what sort of paths should be followed to achieve repentance during these days!

2) For those who like remazim:

"Yizal mayim m'dalav..." Bilam said.  The Megaleh Amukos writes that the shem Hashem of adnus has 4 letters, and if you spell out each letter, e.g. aleph = aleph, lamed, pei... you end up with 12 letters.  These 12 letters  correspond to the months of the year, i.e. aleph will be Nisan, lamed = Iyar, etc.  It comes out that Tamuz and Av are the letters daled and lamed.  This, says the Igra d'Kallah is what Bilam's blessing hints at: the bitter tears of "dalav," our daled-lamed of Tamuz and Av, should be transformed into sweet flowing waters of rachamim.   

beis hhabechira / beis hamikdash / bayis l'Hashem -- why three terms for the same thing?

The Emergency Committee for Israel put out a statement in response to Obama’s call for a cease fire yesterday that has a gem of a line in there: “Israel does not need a mediator.  Israel needs an ally.”  So true.  

When I read that the US will give close to 50 million to Hamas for “humanitarian aid” even as they continue to fire rockets at Israel, I wonder: are Obama and Kerry really that naïve as to believe that this money will not be used for weapons, are they incompetent, or is it a calculated and deliberate attempt to once again undermine Israel’s interests?  (I ask myself that question about a lot of the things this administration does.)

I mentioned the Shmira Project yesterday, but there are many other things you can do to help Israel in this time of crisis.  I see A Mother In Israel has a helpful post with 21 suggestions.

A few weeks ago, before the latest round of fighting started, my wife and I visited the NY Historical Society (a small, overlooked museum that is really worth a visit if you’ve never been there) where there is a new exhibit celebrating the centennial of the JDC, the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee.  You probably know the JDC helped in the relief efforts after WWII, but the organization is far older than that and it still exists, doing important work around the globe. Anyway, a telegram displayed in the exhibit caught my wife’s eye.  This message was sent from someone in Germany in 1933 to the JDC in NY, and it said (I’m sorry we did not copy it word for word) that the situation was not salvageable – instead of relief for those inside Germany, all efforts should be focused on getting as many people out as possible.  My wife could not believe that already in 1933 there was such certainty of impending doom.  Her own father’s family did not leave Germany until a few years after that.  I told her it’s no surprise.  20 or 30 years from now G-d forbid people will look back at the articles in the news that we read almost daily about the situation of Jewry in France and other European countries, the articles we dismiss as alarmist, as right-wing extremism, the calls to get out that people have begun to act on in small measure while others delay, thinking there will always be time to run when things get really bad, and we will wonder why more was not done sooner, why so many failed to act when the anti-Semitisim was so clear, when the barely repressed violence was already evident.  Of course I hope and pray that things don't come to that...

Maybe someone from CAIR can help me here, but I am just wondering how many mosques have been firebombed by Jews in response to events in the Middle East, or how many Moslems had to call the police to protect them from riots?  Just curious.

Let me end off with some Torah.  The first set of halachos the Rambam covers in his Sefer haAvodah is titled “Hilchos Beis haBechira.”  The Rambam lists the mitzvos covered in that section, first of which is “livnos beis hamikdash.”  The first halacha starts off, “Mitzvas aseh la’asos bayis l’Hashem…”  I don’t know what to make of it (if anything), but within just a few lines the Rambam introduces three completely different terms for the same thing: 1) beis habechira, 2) beis hamikdash, 3) bayis l’Hashem.  Now, true he uses the term “beis habechira” in Sefer haMitzvos, which is the groundwork upon which Mishneh Torah is built, but if consistency is the goal, then why not continue to use that term?  Why use it only in the header for the halachos and then change to something else?  And while we are being nitpicky, what do you make (if anything) of the switch in verbs from “livnos beis hamikdash” to “la’asos bayis l’Hashem?” 

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.

you can't put the genie back in the bottle or the talking donkey back in the barn

Yesh lachkor: Is a talking donkey like Bilam had still a donkey, just one with special talents, or is it a different animal entirely -- maybe we shouldn't even call it an animal at all?


The Midrash tells us that after letting it have its say Hashem killed Bilam's donkey.  There are two reasons given: 1) So that people would not start worshiping this "magical" donkey; 2) For kavod habriyos of Bilam, so that people should not say this is the donkey that bested him.  The Midrash compares this to the din that requires killing an animal used for znus, because so long as the animal is alive people will continue to speak of the perverted act done by Ploni with it.


The Be'er Yosef questions the comparison drawn by the Medrash.  In the case of the animal used for znus, there was an aveira the animal and its master are associated with.  What aveira did the donkey of Bilam do? It was doing the mitzvah of acting as Hashem's agent to speak to Bilam!


He suggests that the lesson taken from the case of znus is that the criminal suffers enough by being killed; additional embarrassment suffered after death by having the stain of the crime perpetuated by the animal remaining alive is excessive punishment.  So too, as wicked as Bilam was, he suffered enough by being publicly humiliated that one time by his donkey.  or the donkey to remain alive and serve as a reminder to all of what occurred is beyond the degree of punishment he deserved.  Hashem metes out punishment precisely -- not one jot beyond what is deserved is given.


(According to Chazal, Bilam was actually guilty of bestiality.  According to that view, the comparison to the case of znus perhaps fits in a literal sense.)


The Be'er Yosef goes on to suggest his own answer as to why the donkey had to die.  Once the donkey was given the ability to speak, it simply could not go back to being a donkey.  A creature that can communicate with words and express ideas doesn't belong in a barn or pulling a wagon.  Better a quick death than a life like that.


Does this mean that a donkey that can speak is no longer a donkey?  It is transformed into a different being and can therefore not revert to its old self?


Perhaps the Be'er Yosef does not mean the metziyus of what the donkey was changed, but rather the point is psychological.  Even if the reality is that the donkey remains a donkey, psychologically such an animal will no longer be capable of simply following orders and carrying burdens like before.  Once a higher dimension of reality is experienced, it becomes impossible to simply sink back to the same drudgery as before.

Perhaps this is the meaning behind the famous gemara (Nida 31) that a baby is taught the entire Torah in the womb and is then made to forget it before birth.  What's the point of learning Torah only to be forced to forget it?  The answer is that even if the Torah is removed, the impression of being capable of mastering Torah, the roshem of being a ben Torah, remains.  Just like a donkey that experienced speech cannot simply go back to being an ordinary donkey, a neshoma that has tasted such lofty heights of Torah must inevitably be a different person out of the womb that a neshoma that has never tasted such delights. 

For centuries and centuries during the upcoming weeks we have mourned the destruction of the Beis haMikdash.  How and why do we keep it up?  Why can't we just forget the past and move on?  The answer is that once tasted, the memory of the Mikdash lingers.  Just as Bilam's donkey could not simply go back to being a donkey after, once we as a a nation experienced life with a Beis haMikdash we can never forget and never go back to life without one. 

What date is the fast of 17 Tamuz?

The title of this post may sound something like, “What color is George Washington’s white horse?” but things are not so simple.

תניא אמר ר"ש ארבעה דברים היה ר"ע דורש ואני אין דורש כמותו צום הרביעי זה ט' בתמוז שבו הובקעה העיר שנאמר (ירמיהו נב) [בחודש הרביעי] בתשעה לחדש ויחזק הרעב בעיר ולא היה לחם לעם הארץ ותבקע העיר

One of the events which we commemorate in our fast is the breach of the wall of Yerushalayim. Yirmiyahu haNavi tells us that the breach did not occur on 17 Tamuz, but rather on 9 Tamuz. So why are we fasting on the 17^th? Why not hold the fast of 17 Tamuz on the 9^th?

There are two basic answers to this question:

1) The Rishonim (Tos R”H 18b, Ramban) explain that the breach of the city walls during churban bayis sheni occurred on the 17^th of the month. Since that churban was more severe than the first, we fast on the 17^th.

2) The Yerushalmi answers that in the confusion and panic leading up to the churban there was a mix up as to the dates. The city walls were breached on the 17^th, but the people thought it was only the 9^th.

It could be that these are simply two equally viable alternatives, but it could also be that there is a point of machlokes underlying the answers. Perhaps the Yerushalmi was not convinced that the second churban was more severe than the first, or, if it was (a more plausible assumption so as to avoid making a machlokes in metziyus), that is perhaps insufficient license to warrant changing the date of the fast. It seems from the language of the Rishonim that this latter point bothered them. In explaining why we fast on the 17^th instead of the date of the 9^th that the Navi refers to, Ramban adds a justification for moving the date – since the point of the original fast was to commemorate the breach of the city walls, if that event historically moved to a different date during the second churban, the fast should move as well. According to Ramban the reason for the fast defines its date, its parameters. It could be that this is the sticking point for the Yerushalmi. Whenever one speaks of a takanah derabbanan, the reason for the law’s institution does not always match or define its parameters. This is why, for example, even when the reason behind a takanah is no longer relevant, in many cases the law remains in effect (as GR”A assumes in many places). One could argue that even if the date of 9 Tamuz no longer makes sense, if the ta’anis was instituted on 9 Av, that date should remain binding. Therefore, the Yerushalmi learns that even during churban bayis rishon, the true date of the fast was 17 Tamuz.

the missing paroches

Rav Asher Weiss in the derashos in his Minchas Asher quotes a remarkable story. Once upon a time, the Sanzer Rav, the Divrei Chaim, told his chassidim that the Beis Hamikdash was sitting in shamayim already completed; all it needed was the paroches and it could be revealed. One of the chassidim, I imagine a bit of an outspoken one, could not contain himself. He shouted out his question, “So, Rebbe, why don’t you complete the paroches through your avodah so we can have the Beis haMikdash?” The Divrei Chaim responded with anger, “I have made the paroches again and again! – but each time I do, it is torn to shreds by aveiros.”

We are once again at the threshold of the three weeks, the time when we mourn the churban of the Beis HaMikdash. It’s not just a 2000 year old memory of what once was that we are mourning; what we are mourning is the Beis HaMikdash that exists in shamayim right now, whose paroches we keep ripping to shreds.

Maybe we shouldn’t darshen a story, but I don’t think it’s by accident that the paroches is the missing piece. It’s with the paroches that the tragedy of Tisha B’Av really began. As the gemara tells us (Gittin 56b), when Titus entered the Mikdash he took a sword and stabbed it through the paroches, which miraculously began to bleed. When 9 Av comes, if the Mikdash has not yet been build and the day is not yet a day of simcha, we will at night remove the paroches from in front of the aron kodesh in our shules as a sign of mourning.

Tikun is a process that moves from the outside inward. A person may find after a superficial spiritual examination that he/she has certain flaws that need correcting. The process of teshuva and fixing those flaws makes a person more sensitive, more attuned to other defects that need to be worked on, and the process continues on a deeper level. Slowly the layers of defensive posturing, the excuses, the plaque that has accumulated around the neshoma are peeled back, until finally we are at the threshold of the most pnimiyus point that exists in every Jew, the kodesh kodashim of the neshoma. The gateway between that point, that kodesh kodashim, and the rest of the person, is the paroches. What does that paroches look like? Is it a wonderful tapestry that shows our love for the neshoma inside, or is it a torn a ragged garment? What do we want it to look like?

What is true for each individual is true for Klal Yisrael on a national level as well. The destruction began with our loss of autonomy, then our loss of Yerushalayim, then the walls of the Mikdash fell, then finally Titus entered the Kodesh Kodashim and did what he did. Each step of physical destruction manifested the spiritual destruction that had eaten away at our identity. We have witnessed the beginnings of the reversal of the process, again moving from the outside inward: first the restoration of autonomy, the establishment of the State, the reclamation of Yerushalayim, each step accompanied by a greater flourishing and revival of the spirit. We have so much of what centuries of Jews only dreamed of… all we need is the final push, the restoration of that missing paroches.

17 tamuz - bein hametzarim

A few simple thoughts for 17 Tamuz and the start of bein hametzarim:

1) Maharal writes (beg. of Netzach Yisrael) that galus is an unnatural state; it's like a rubber band stretched to its limits waiting to spring back to its normal shape. The Jewish people were meant to live in Eretz Yisrael according to Torah law -- not in Boro Park, not in the 5 Towns, not in Baltimore, Los Angeles, or Melbourne either. It's wonderful to live in a neighborhood with seven kosher pizza stores (I wish I were exaggerating) and other kosher amenities, but those niceties tend to make us forget that this is just our temporary home until we merit to make aliya to Eretz Yisrael.

2) The list of 5 things which occurred on 17 Tamuz listed in the Mishna in Ta'anis are not recorded for historical trivia. On a public ta'anis one should focus on identifying with the historical plight of the Jewish people and the tragedies suffered. Simply skipping a few meals without an awareness of why one is fasting is a lack in the kiyum mitzvah.

3) Zecharya haNavi tells us that in the future the fasts will be transformed into days of Yom Tov. The Shem m'Shmuel connects this idea to the Maharal's explanation of why chol hamoed is a partial Yom Tov: since the days of chol hamoed are sandwiched between days of kedusha, they take on the characteristics of kedusha. So too in the future, these days of mourning will be sandwiched historically between our election as Hashem's people and our complete redemption and at that point they will become holidays. The lesson here is that history read forward is incomplete. Sometimes it is only in retrospect that we appreciate events or change our interpretation of them. With the coming of mashiach will we have the perspective necessary to see how even these days of tragedy contain simcha, but until then we must patiently wait with bitachon.