catching up on a few things

Catching up on a few things from Pesach:

1) We bought a few different brands of shmurah matzah and one of the boxes had this printed on it:

For those like myself who are unfamiliar with this teshuvah of the C"S, it is a letter to the Jewish community of Trieste in Northern Italy (historical background here) in which the C"S bemoans the fact that their standards have fallen when it comes to matzah production.  C"S then mentions some of the hakpadot that he has, among them this point of not leaving the dough alone for more than 2-3 min.  

Is this now a thing?  IDK.  I do know that long before the C"S lived there was a chumrah from the Geonim not to leave the matzah unworked for even a minute (see Rosh Pesachim 3:6).  Perhaps that will make it onto a matzah box next year.

2) On the same box I found the following:

I have no idea what the "last date of consummation" means with regards to matzah, but it gives new meaning to  

האוכל מצה בּער״פּ כאילו בּועל ארוסתו בבית חמיו

(that's a bad joke, isn't it?)

3) My daughter is an olah chadasah, officially a citizen of Israel, but was by us in chu"l for Pesach.  She was thinking of cooking string beans for herself for the 8th day, Shabbos, which for her was no longer Pesach.  My wife objected.  The gemara (Pes 47) has a machlokes why one is allowed to cook on Y"T for Shabbos: either because צרכי שׁבּת נעשׂים בּיו״ט, or because הואיל ואי מקלעי לי׳ אורחים, if guests were to come on Y"T they could eat the extra food, so the cooking is really a tzorech of Y"T.  My wife pointed out that if guests were to come, they could not in fact eat the string beans because it was still Pesach.

This issue is an old argument between heavy hitters.  The custom in Pozna, R' Akiva Eiger's hometown, was not to eat dried fruits on Pesach (see Rama in OC 467) except on the last day.  R' Akiva Eiger thought it permissible to prepare such fruits in advance for the 8th day if it fell on Shabbos, but sent the question to his son-in-law, the C"S, to get his opinion.  C"S disagreed, and argued (Shu"T C"S OC #79, second to last paragraph), as my wife did, that you cannot apply ho'il because the food cannot be eaten on the day it is prepared.  The fact that a choleh is allowed to eat it is irrelevant, as even if one argues that there being some choleh in a large city is not "lo shichiach," but who says the choleh wants or needs to eat string beans?  

(Take a look at the last paragraph of the teshuvah as well for some nice derush).

4) Another issue that came up regarding a ben E"Y in chu"l: could my daughter, who only needed to hear kiddush for shabbos, be yotzei with my kiddush on Friday night, which included insertions for Y"T?  Or would those insertions be a hefsek?

The Bikrei Yosef (OC 213) deals with a similar issue: can someone who has a safeik whether they said a bracha achrona on mezonos (al hamichya alone) be yotzei with the bracha achrona of a friend who ate both mezonos and fruit (al hamichya + al ha'peiros)?  

He quotes a teshuvah of Radbaz who writes that a person who missed maariv can be yotzei their tefilas tashlumin by listening to chazaras hashatz of shacharis.  Radbaz was not concerned that kirkas kohanim added in shacharis (in EY and Sefard) but not maariv would be a hefsek.  Birkei Yosef adds that based on Radbaz, in our case the Y"Y insertions do not count as a hefsek either.

An issue that comes up far more frequently but that involves the same safeik: many women recite she'hechiyanu when they light neiros for Y"T.  When their husbands recite kiddush, they add she'hechiyanu in between the kiddush and drinking the wine.  Are those added words a hefsek for the women who are being yotzei through shome'a k'oneh?  Can you pick and choose which words you want to be yotzei with when you relying on shome'a k'oneh?

There are other examples as well...

5) Chazal say that "az yashir," in future tense, alludes to techiyas ha'meisim.  Why did the Torah couch such an allusion davka here?  

We started Shmos with the words  וְאֵ֗לֶּה שְׁמוֹת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל הַבָּאִ֖ים מִצְרָ֑יְמָה.  When we read the shirah,  אָ֣ז יָשִֽׁיר־מֹשֶׁה֩ וּבְנֵ֨י יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־הַשִּׁירָ֤ה הַזֹּאת֙, it's the conclusion to the story.  It's the same  בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל, the same children of Yaakov Avinu, who are now singing shirah!  These great souls came down to become one with their children and share in the simcha of finally leaving Egypt.  And so too, adds the Sefas Emes, whenever we experience such simcha, the souls of our ancestors come down to be one with us in celebration.  

That's the yesod of techiyas ha'meisim.  Souls will come down to the world once again in order to experience and rejoice in the hisgalus of Hashem.

A beautiful Sefas Emes to take out of the chag, esp for those saying yizkor on the last day and thinking about those no longer here.

6) This is an amazing piece by a NYU Law School student (see here for some background if you are not familiar with the controversy).  Read the whole thing.  Her concluding paragraph:

All of you have done more than I ever could to convince my fellow Jews that the left doesn’t just have a Corbyn problem or a Tlaib problem or a Farrakhan problem. It has a big, fat Jew-hatred problem right in its ideological core. This time it happened to rear its head at one of the best law schools in the country. One where the name Steinhardt adorns the buildings and about a quarter of the students are Jews. Yes, even here. Especially here. 

Yes, thank you to NYU's students for letting the cat out of the bag.  But is it enough to convince our fellow Jews?  Are any members of our community listening?   

v'hasieinu - like a wedding

Throughout the Yom Tov we said again and again in our tefilos והשיאנו ד' אלהינו את ברכת מועדיך.  

Tiferes Shlomo (on Shmini Atzeres) comments: 

והשיאנו ד' אלהינו את ברכת מועדיך כו'. כבר בארנו בפני' שהוא לשון נשואין שיהי' הקדושה שורה עמנו מזמן המועד הזה עד מועד הבע"ל ולא יפסוק כמו קדושי אשה

V'hasieinu is like the word nisuin, a marriage.  When a chassan and kallah are dating or engaged, they meet, they spend time together, and then at the end of a few hours, they each go their separate ways and return to their own lives and homes.  They may even decide to never meet again, and that's OK.  

All that changes once the wedding happens.  At the end of the wedding, once the photos are done and the band stops playing and the meal is over, the chassan doesn't go his way and the kallah her way.  Once the wedding happens, the chassan and kallah are bound together and should be inseparable. 

The same should be true of Y"T.  It shouldn't be that you have a holiday of Sukkos, of Shmini Atzeres, of Simchas Torah, you spent some time together with the holiness of Y"T, and at the end of it all you go your way and the holiness that came down with the Y"T departs its way and that's it until next year, next Y"T, next meeting.  Y"T should be like a wedding.  You should leave taking the holiness of the Y"T with you and not letting it go.  That's what we are asking for when we say v'hasieinu.

More on aliya laregel

Just to clarify a bit as a follow-up on yesterday's post:

The problem with learning that the Rambam understood that the mitzvah d'oraysa of "yeira'eh kol zechurcha" includes bringing one's children to the Mikdash is that the Rambam himself writes in Hil Chagiga 2:3 that bringing children is "kdei lchancho b'mitzvos" -- a din in chinuch.

You could say the Rambam in Mishne Torah recanted on his position in Sefer Hamitzvos if you like, but that is a bit of a dochak.

To be fair, the Rambam in Mishne Torah continues and adds after "kdei lchancho... she'ne'emar yeira'eh kol zechurcha." So we have to fudge something here-- either the "kdei lchancho" is lav davka or the pasuk is lav davka.

The tzad to say the quote of the pasuk is a lav davka is the fact that the gemara 4a quotes a braysa that uses the same pasuk to explain why a katan is chayav but then reinterprets the braysa to be an asmachta.  The Rambam is simply echoing the braysa's language with the gemara's interpretation (Lechem Mishne).

My son pointed out a piece from R Dovid Soloveitchik in which he argues that this cannot be a regular din of chinuch because the katan does only half the mitzvah -- he comes to the Mikdash, but does not have to offer korbanos (see the meforshei haRambam who point out that this is a machlokes Rashi and Tos).  How can you have chinuch to do half a mitzvah?  He therefore concludes that the words "kdei lchancho" cannot be taken at face value and ketanim come so that their father fulfills the d'oraysa din of "yeira'eh kol zechurcha." Note to that the Rambam does not just say "chayav l'ha'aloso" but adds "l'haros bo," implying a chiyuv on the father to appear with his children.

Sof kol sof: no simple conclusion here.

Aliya la'regel

The Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvos aseh # 53 writes that the mitzvah of aliya la'regel includes bringing along one's sons who can walk. 

This seems to be a strange formulation, as bringing one's sons along is not part of this mitzvah d'oraysa but rather is simply a kiyum of the mitzvah of chinuch.  The Rambam doesn't include the side kiyum of chinuch when he speaks about other mitzvos, so why mention it here?

See Ner Mitzvah in Chemdas Yisrael  (R Meir Dan Plotzki) who leaves this b'tzarich iyun.

Neilas hachag

If the answer to "What did you gain over Yom Tov?" is "5 pounds," then there is something wrong, and not just with your weight.

Sefas Emes writes that "shalosh pe'amim ba'shana yeira'eh kol zechurcha es pnei Hashem" is not just a mitzvah -- it's a bracha.  How incredible is it that 3 times a year the simplest Jew can come to Yerushalayim and experience seeing Hashem's presence!

It's true, we have no mikdash.  Nonetheless, the Tiferes Shlomo derech derush writes that "makrivim af al pi she'ain bayis" means that the service in our hearts triggers the same avodah in beis hamikdash shel maalah that would have taken place here.  "Se'irei izim naaseh b' ratzon" -- with our ratzon, our desire to do avodah, we can offer korbanos even if we are not yet capable b'poel of doing so.

After every chag (esp pesach - see gra in maaseh rav) there is an idea of neilas hachag.  Neilah here is like "barzel u'nechoshes minalecha" -- it means a lock.  As Yom Tov departs, we have to lock in our spiritual gains and not let them escape or evaporate.

kavod v'oneg on chol ha'moed

The Rambam opens Hil Yom Tov with a definition -- what days are called Yom Tov:

ששת הימים האלו שאסרן הכתוב בעשיית מלאכה--שהן ראשון
ושביעי של פסח, וראשון ושמיני של חג הסוכות, וביום חג השבועות, ובאחד לחודש השביעי--הן הנקראין ימים טובים. 
Later in ch 6, the Rambam tells us there is a din of kavod and oneg on Yom Tov:

 כשם שמצוה לכבד שבת ולענגה, כך כל ימים טובים--שנאמר "לקדוש ה' מכובד" (ישעיהו נח,יג), וכל ימים טובים נאמר בהן "מקרא קודש" (ויקרא כג,ז-לו); וכבר ביארנו הכיבוד והעינוג בהלכות שבת.

It appears from the Rambam that kavod and oneg apply only to the first and last days of the chag -- Yamin Tovim, as defined in ch 1 -- to the exclusion of chol hamoed.  By way of contrast, look at how the Rambam formulates the din of simcha in the very next halacha:

שבעת ימי הפסח ושמונת ימי החג עם שאר ימים טובים, כולם אסורים בספד ותענית.  וחייב אדם להיות בהן שמח וטוב לב, הוא ובניו ואשתו ובני ביתו וכל הנלווים עליו,

Here the Rambam here explicitly refers to **all** the days of Pesach and **all** the days of Sukkot -- not just days called Yamim Tovim.

R' Akiva Eiger (hashmatos siman 1), however, points out that when Rambam refers to the chiyuv of kavod and oneg, he talks about it as a function of days that are called "mikrei kodesh."  Rambam writes in ch 7:

חולו של מועד, אף על פי שלא נאמר בו שבתון, הואיל ונקרא מקרא קודש, והרי הוא זמן חגיגה במקדש--אסור בעשיית מלאכה

Chol ha'moed is also called "mikrei kodesh" by the Rambam!

R' Akiva Eiger leaves this as a difficulty and is convinced that there is no din of kavod v'oneg on chol ha'moed.  Others (see the Mishna Berura) pasken otherwise. 
 

 

Shoalin vDorshin

The din of learning hilchos hachag in preparation for the chag does not appear in hilchos talmud Torah -- it appears at the beginning of hilchos pesach.  This suggests that it is a din in dinei Yom tov, not in limud hatorah.  Nafka minah: there is no din of osek bmitzvah patur min hamitzvah by talmud Torah, but there is by other mitzvos.

Rashi in sukkah 25 writes that one who goes to a shiur to learn is patur from sukkah.  Once upon a time in the past (http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2015/09/talmud-torah-as-kiyum-of-simchas-yom-tov.html?m=1) we learned that the reason there is a ptur of oseik bmitzvah here for talmud Torah is because learning on Yom tov is a kiyum of simchas Yom tov.  Rav Baruch Povarski says a different pshat.  The case Rashi is speaking about is where the person is learning hilchos hachag.  That's not a din in talmud Torah - it's a din in celebrating Yom tov.

Another nafka minah to this question is whether women have a chiyuv to learn hilchos hachag b'chag or not.

simchas yom tov and aveilus

The gemara (M.K. 14b) writes that there is no aveilus on Yom Tov because the mitzvas aseh d’rabim of simchas Yom Tov is doche the individual’s obligation to mourn.

The Rambam paskens (Chagigah 1:2) that both men and women are obligated in the mitzvah of simcha. Ra’avad, however, disagrees. The gemara asks how women could be obligated in the mitzvah of simcha, which is zman gerama, and the gemara answers that “isha ba’alah m’samcha.” Tosfos explains that the gemara means that there is no chiyuv on women to bring shalmei simcha – there is just a chiyuv on their husband to share their korban with them (see Rashi). Kesef Mishneh says that the Rambam in fact agrees with this view; when the Rambam says women are obligated in simcha he means they eat from the korban brought by their husbands, not that they must bring their own korban. The Rambam just did not go into the details.

If women have no independent obligation of simcha, asks the Minchas Chinuch, then why are they not obligated in aveilus on Yom Tov? They have no aseh that is doche their mourning!

Rav Neventzal (quoted in the footnote to his sicha for Parshas Behar) suggests a brilliant answer to this question. The Rambam writes (Chagigah 2:14) that shalmei simcha should be shared with the poor and needy, as a person has a responsibility to see that others have simchas Yom Tov as well. By “aseh d’rabbim” the gemara does not mean an aseh that a lot of people are obligated in – what the gemara means is that my simcha is dependent on others, on the community, being happy as well.  

Were a woman to observe aveilus on Yom Tov, even though she might not have any independent chiyuv of simcha, her being in aveilus would conflict with my personal chiyuv of simcha.  So long as someone in the community is unable to be b’simcha, something is lacking in my kiyum mitzvah as well.

This is a two for one deal: not only is it a tremendous lomdus, it’s a tremendous mussar as well.  A person should not feel shaleim and b'simcha while others are in need.

I would like to suggest another possible answer based on an idea the Rav suggested in Shiurim l’Zecher Aba Mari. RYBS distinguished between the ma’aseh mitzvah of simcha, which entails eating korbanos (or eating meat and drinking wine b’zman ha’zeh), and the kiyum mitzvah, which is a kiyum b’lev of being happy. There is nothing that stops an aveil from having a meal of meat and wine – why does the gemara see a conflict between the mitzvah of simcha and the chiyuv aveilus? Because the gemara understood that the meat and the wine are just a means to and end; it’s the emotional state that they engender which conflicts with and undermines aveilus. Perhaps the Ra’avad’s disagreement regarding the chiyuv of women in simcha is only viz a viz the kiyum b’poel of offering korbanos or other specific actions. However, with respect to the idea of being emotionally b’simcha on Yom Tov, the Ra’avad would agree that both men and women are equally obligated and therefore aveilus is disrupted.

Why do I think there is no ptur of zman gerama for the mitzvah of simcha which is a kiyum b’lev? A few ideas:

1) The Avudraham explains that women are exempt from zman gerama mitzvos because they are busy running a house and therefore the Torah placed fewer obligations upon them. That reason works for mitzvos b’poel, but does not seem to apply to what emotional state one should be in.

2) Before Pesach we discussed a yesod from R’ Leizer Silver that there is no ptur of zman gerama by mitzvos sichliyos. Perhaps the obligation to be happy on a holiday is something intuitive (what is a holiday all about if not being happy?) and therefore women are obligated.

3) Perhaps this secondary mitzvah of simcha (beyond the obligation to b’poel eat korbanos) is only derabannan (see Tos M”K 14b) and the Ra’avad holds that there is no ptur of zman gerama by derabbanans (see post here).