simchas torah question: is it the first aliya of the third cycle through zos habracha or is it aliya #11?

On Simchas Torah there were a few stations set up in the beis medrash I was davening in to lein Zos haBracha over and over so everyone could get an aliya.  On what I think was the third cycle through at the station was standing near a kohen was called up for the first aliya, but there was no levi.  Myself and a number of other people told the stand-in gabai to just call anyone up.  However, a talmid chacham who was there opined that this was incorrect and the kohen should get the next aliya as well.

I was a bit surprised as I don’t recall having seen this done before, so I asked about it afterwards.  He explained that just like any other time when a kohen is called for the first aliya and there is no levi, the kohen gets the second aliya as well because there is a concern for creating a suspicion of pgam in his yichus.  If you ignore the kohen when you should be calling someone from sheivet levi, it looks like the kohen is pasul for some reason.  In our case, had there been no kohen, you can call anyone.  However, once the kohen got the first aliya and is standing there, he needs to get the second one as well to avoid the pgam problem. 

My counter-argument is that this is well and good were it the first aliya of the parsha -- but it’s not.  If, for example, you want to add extra aliyos beyond the required seven on a normal Shabbos, a kohen can be called for acharon and be followed by a yisrael, or vica versa, or any other order you like.  You don’t have to follow kohen with a levi, and you don’t need to call a kohen twice if no levi is present.  Once you are beyond the required number of aliyos, all bets are off. 

So here's the chakirah: how do you view the first aliya of the third cycle through Zos haBracha – is it the first aliya of round three (in which case the normal order of kohen followed by levi applies), or is it aliya # 11, one of many hosafos?

The person who offered the psak asked another Rav just to be sure and that person concurred with him, barring proof to the contrary.  I needed someone on my side to even the score, so I was happy (it was simchas torah after all) to find the Netziz in Meishiv Davar II:48 (link) agrees with my idea (see the Taz he quotes).

the test of sukkah

The gemara (A.Z. 3) writes that in the future the aku"m will complain to Hashem that it's not fair for us to receive all the reward for Torah because, they will claim, had they received the Torah they would have fulfilled it as well.  Hashem will respond by giving them a chance to prove themselves -- he will give them the mitzvah of sukkah.  The gemara says that the aku"m will run out and build sukkos on their roofs to do the mitzvah, but Hashem will then bring out the sun like on a nice hot summer day.  The aku"m won't just leave their sukkos because of the heat, but they will also kick the sukkah and show their disgust, proving that they have no real commitment.

Why of all the mitzvos did Hashem give the aku"m specifically the mitzvah of sukkah as a test?  Why not Shabbos?  OK, so maybe that's too hard a test (the gemara calls sukkah a "mitzvah kalah," an easy one to do).  But their are other easy ones.  We just did the mitzvah of eating on erev Yom Kippur -- what could be easier than that?  Why not tefilah -- that's one everyone can relate to?  Why davka sukkah?

The Maharal explains that the whole idea of Torah and mitzvos is to get a person to move outside the box the physical, material world would put him in.  A person's home is his natural habitat so to speak.  It's his comfort zone.  We all know the expression, "There's no place like home."  When the aku"m come and say they want to try out Torah, Hashem gives them the mitzvah of sukkah because this mitzvah in particular demonstrates the willingness to leave our natural comfort zone, to leave where "teva" tells us we belong, to leave the habits and mindset that nature programmed into us, and give all that up for the sake of G-d. The aku"m are trapped by the constraints of teva and can't give it all up, but we are able to.  Therefore, we alone deserve Torah, because that is what Torah is all about.

Of all the days that the sun has to come out with broiling heat, does it have to come out on the very day the aku"m build their sukkos?  Yes, this is part of the test to see if the aku"m will keep the mitzvah, but Hashem could just as well test them by making it rain a little, but bringing out some bugs, etc.  R' Bumim m'Peshischa explains that the sun here is the tremendous light of the mitzvah of sukkah itself!  That light is so covered up in this world that we might miss it, but in the future, Hashem will bring out that light of the mitzvah of sukkah for everyone to see.  The aku"m may be able to build little huts, but then when Hashem will show them what the mitzvah is really about, they can't measure up.

The gemara says that when the aku"m kick down the sukkah they will recite the pasuk, "N'natka es mosroseimo v'nashlicha mi'menu avoseimu," (Tehillim 2:3) let us will rip off our ropes and bonds.  The Maharasha explains that the ropes are the ropes used to tie down the sukkah walls, the bonds, "avos," are like "anaf eitz avos," hadasim plants, that were used as schach.  The Sefas Emes, however, explains that the bonds the pasuk is speaking of are metaphorical -- sukkah is a bond between us and G-d; sukkah proves that what happens down here is connected by a long rope with whatever goes on upstairs (and vice versa).

tosefes yom tov and the geder of zeman gerama

The gemara (Sukkah 28) quotes a derasha to teach that women are obligated in tosefes Yom haKippurim just as men are.  The gemara explains the chiddush here is that since there is no punishment for violating tosefes you might have thought women are not chayavos, kah mashma lan that they are.  So what if there is no punishment -- why should that lead one to think women are exempt?  The Ritv"a explains that since there is no punishment it means tosefes does not have a lav associated with it like inuy on Yom Kippur proper does.  Therefore, since it is only an aseh which is zeman gerama you would have thought women are exempt, kah mashma lan the pasuk that in this mitzvah women are chayavos.

There is, however, another way you can read the kah mashma lan here, but it needs a little background to make sense:

Tosfos (Kiddushin 29) asks why we need a pasuk to tell us that women are exempt from the mitzvah of milah -- isn't it a mitzvas aseh she'hazeman gerama, and we already know the rule that women are exempt from all mitzvos aseh she'hazeman gerama.  The Tos RI"D gives an answer that, to be honest, can be interpreted in a few different ways depending on how you read the words.  The way the Divrei Yechezkel siman 45) reads it as a chiddush is the definition of zeman gerama.  Zeman gerama means a specific point in time serves as the cause of the mitzvah.  The night of 15 Nissan is a specific point in time which generates an obligation to eat matzah.  The 15th of Tishrei is a day that carries with it an obligation to eat in Sukkah.  If I ask you to take out a calendar and tell me which day of the year generates the chiyuv of milah, you can't do it.  The cause of the chiyuv of milah is the birth of the baby.  Just because you can't do milah until eight days later does not mean that the time is the cause of the mitzvah -- all it means is that the kiyum mitzvah can only be done then.  It's like saying you need a knife to do milah: that doesn't mean the knife is the cause of milah; all it means is practically you can't do milah without it.

The Ramban in his chiddushim to Kiddushin has a strange comment (and it may simply be a bad girsa) that sefiras ha'omer is not a mitzvas aseh she'hazeman gerama.  How can that be -- the mitzvah is all about counting specific days between Pesach and Shavuos!?  The Divrei Yechezkel suggests that the Ramban holds like the Tos RI"D.  The Torah never says to start counting the omer on the 16th of Nissan -- sefirah is not caused by our reaching a specific day on the calendar.  What the Torah says is that "m'macharas haShabbos," the day after Pesach, whatever day or date that may be, is a day you should start counting.  It's like saying to do milah on the eighth day, whatever calendar date that may be.

Here too with respect to tosefes Yom haKippurim, one can read the gemara's conclusion not as kah mashma lan this is an aseh she'hazeman gerama and nonetheless women are mechuyavos, but rather as kah mashma lan tosefes is not a mitzvah she'hazeman gerama at all.  There is no specific date or time that the Torah gives to do tosefes; it never says, for example, on the ninth of Tishrei and 5:30 accept upon yourself inuyim in advance.  All the mitzvah says is that at some point before 10 Tishrei you need to have tosefes.  Time is not the cause of the mitzvah; it's just another ingredient necessary to achieve the mitzvah's fulfillment.

m'erev ad erev -- ta'aroves with the rest of your life

Immediately after kol nidrei we recite the pasuk,"V'nislach l'chol adas Bnei Yisrael... ki l'chol ha'am b'shegagah."  Asks the Sefas Emes: how can we say this when we know it's not true?  Shegagah means a sin done unwittingly.  I don't know about you, but certainly some of my aveiros were things I did even though I knew they were wrong! 

Chazal tell us that if someone does teshuvah m'ahavah their sins become zechuyos; if someone does teshuvah m'yirah, sins done intentionally count only as a shogeg.  It is impossible, explains the Sefas Emes, for a person to come to Yom Kippur and not feel a stirring of at least a little teshuvah m'yirah inside.  When you sinned, it may have been intentional, but once Yom Kippur comes, teshuvah comes and knocks those sins down to at least just a shogeg.

One of my kids asked why we say "slach lanu..." in ma'ariv after Yom Kippur.  We've all heard the answer of the ba'alei mussar that we've already started thinking about what to eat and do after the fast during ne'ila and need forgiveness for that.  But the Chiddushei haRI"M answers that the reason we say "slach lanu" is because we fail to completely believe in the power of Yom Kippur.  Once we've reached the climatic moment of ne'ila there is no question that Hashem has heard our tefilos and forgiven each and every one of us and we have a clean slate.  But how many of us really feel and believe that?  How many of us walk out of ma'ariv feeling 100% like a "biryah chadasha" with no baggage of the past?  And so we have to say "slach lanu..."

The Sefes Emes explains that "m'erev ad erev" hints to "ta'aroves," mixture.  Yom Kippur is not just one special day set apart from the rest of life -- we have to mix the aliya of Yom Kippur into every day and make it part of the rest of the year. 

what the akeidah teaches us about tzadik v'ra lo

My wife did a post on a shiur we heard from R’ Eli Mansour that both of us enjoyed immensely (link here) and which I would recommend listening to or watching once it is posted online.  It is refreshing to hear someone who has a such a straighforward way to present difficult topics in emunah and bitachon.

One chiddush that caught our attention: The Torah reading of the second day of Rosh haShana is devoted to the story of the akeidah and Avraham’s willingness to sacrifice Yitzchak; the climax of the story is the malach stepping in at the last moment to stop Avraham.  We could end the leining right there – everything else is anticlimactic.  But we don’t stop there.  The final aliya tells us of the news Avraham received that his brother Nachor had one child and another child and another etc. from his wives pilagshim until he had a huge family.  Why, asked Rabbi Mansour, do we tack this on?  What does it add to the story; why do we need to hear it on Rosh haShana? 

Let me save myself typing and quote my wife’s blog:

 

Avraham could have felt some tinge of discontent on hearing the news of all his brother's children and their descendants. It's not fair. He he was the one to bring monotheism into a world of idolatry and a paragon of chesed, and he had waited and prayed for a son that he had just been asked to offer up. His brother, on the other hand, had no such credits to his name, yet he had become a trunk to a substantial family tree.

It is the acceptance of the apparent unfairness in this world that is an affirmation of the tzadik's faith. Reward is not in the here and now, but we don't give up on doing what is right and believing that Hashem will deliver.

 

We both thought that was a fantastic hesber, one especially poignant given a tragedy that recently occurred in our community.

One additional thought from the shiur: Yitzchak sees Avraham with the wood, the fire, the knife, and innocently asks, “Ayeh ha’seh l’olah?”  Where’s the sheep?  Now, Yitzchak wasn’t stupid, and it’s fair to say that by this point he might have figured out just who the sheep was and why his father took only him along on this special journey.  What was he really asking? 

Rav Mansour quoted the Derashos R’ Yosef Nechemya who reminds us of the last Mishna in sha”s where Chazal tell us that Hashem promises 310 worlds to all the tzadikim.  This is what bothered Yitzchak.  He was saying, “Father – you told me that if I do all the mitzvos and become a tzadik then Hashem will give me this big reward of 310 worlds.  Now you are taking me up to shecht me.  “Ayeh ha’seh” -– hey-sin-hey = gematria 310 – Where are the 310 worlds you promised, “l’olah,” for the one who goes up and becomes a tzadik?  I’m going to die and don’t even have this one world anymore!”

And the answer?  “Elokim yireh ha’seh l’olah bni.”  Look at the first letters of the words in the pasuk: aleph – yud – hey – lamed.  The letters of Elyh(u) – Eliyahu haNavi.  Yes, there is a promise of 310 worlds, but don’t expect to understand how you will receive your portion, how the Divine justice works out, until the arrival of Eliyahu haNavi who can explain it all to us.

 

Again, read more from the shiur on my wife's blog and listen to it if you can -- it's worth your time.

 

I don't know if I'll get to post again before Yom Kippur, so let me wish everyone a gmar chasima tovah and ask your mechila for all the posts that may not have been appropriate or comments that were not responded to properly.  Yes, Yom Kippur is a serious day and a solemn day, but it is also a day of great simcha, as we have the opportunity to get a complete kaparah and total mechila and that is certainly something to look forward to.

chiddush of the Divrei Yechezkel on the geder of inuyim of Yom Kippur

There is a major machlokes Rishonim as to whether the inuyim other than eating and drinking on Yom Kippur are assurim m’doraysa or only m’derabbanan.  The Tosfos Yeshanim and the Ran in the last perek of Yoma raise similar questions against the view that they are d’oraysa, all of which can be boiled down to one basic point: if inuyim are d’oraysa, how do you explain all the exceptions?  Why can a kallah wash her face within the first 30 days after marriage (as we learn in the Mishna), why is there an exception for the king, why can someone with a skin problem do sicha, etc.?  If the issurim were created by Chazal, then Chazal are free to carve out whatever exceptions they see fit, but when it comes to issurei d’orasya, they should apply equally to all.  Where does the Torah allow for these exceptions?

The answer to all of these questions seems to be that on Yom Kippur the act of washing per se is not what is assur; the act of anointing per se is not what is assur – what is assur is being mevateil inuy, of getting pleasure from these acts.  It’s the end result, the enjoyment, which is assur -- not to act per so.  So, for example, if someone has to put cream on because of a skin problem, that’s not a bitul of inuy, as the purpose is medicinal.

The Ran goes a step further asks how it is permissible to bathe a child on Yom Kippur when we know there is an issur of giving ma’achalos assuros to a child.  If inuyim are derabbanan, there is no problem because the Ran (and Rashba in Yevamos) assume that the issur of “lo ta’achilum,” of giving a child something issur, only applies to issurei d’oraysa, i.e. the Ran holds you cannot feed a child neveilah, but you can feed a child tevel derabbanan (other Rishonim disagree).  But if inuyim are d’oraysa, how can you wash a child? 

The Ran limits his question to the inuyim of washing and anointing, but does not question the fact that a child must be fed –- apparently Ran holds that fasting would be dangerous, and even an adult is not obligated to jeapordize one's life to fast.  However, Rashi seems to disagree.  When the Mishna (Yoma 82) writes with respect to little children that that “ain m’anin osam l’sha’os,” Rashi explains that there is no *obligation* to withhold food even for a few hours.  The implication is that the choice is left to the adult whether or not to impose restrictions on the child, something that we certainly would not say if there was any danger involved.  Rashi, contra to the Ran, similarly makes very clear that when the gemara discusses which inuyim a child is allowed to violate and why (Yoma 78), eating is very much part of the discussion -- it does not fall under the blanket heter of sakanah. 

Even those Rishonim who hold washing and annointing are only derabbanan and therefore children are exempt hold that eating and drinking are issurei d'oraysa.  Therefore, if, as Rashi holds, there is no danger in a child fasting, why is one allowed to give them food?  Why is there no issur of "lo ta'achilum" like there is by neveilah?  How do you answer the Ran's question?

The Divrei Yechezkel (15:19) comes up with a unique chiddush here that needs one bit of background to get.  The gemara in Kiddushin (34) gives a few examples of mitzvos aseh that women are obligated in because they are not zman gerama, e.g. ma’akah, hashavas aviedah.  Tosfos asks: of all the examples to choose, it seems that in the one’s the gemara gives it makes no difference whether women women are obligated in the mitzvas aseh or not because in all of these cases there is a lo ta’aseh involved anyway.  If you don’t build a ma’akeh, there is a lav of “lo tasim damim b’veisecha;” if you don’t return a lost object, you violate a lav of “lo tochal l’hisalem.”  Since women are obligated in lavim, l’mai nafka minah in these cases that they are also obligated in the aseh?!  Tosfos comes up with a technical answer, creating various scenarios where the aseh applies and there would be no lav.  Ramban, however, writes a yesod: sometimes a lav does not stand on its own, but comes simply to bolster a mitzvas aseh.  The lav of “lo tasim damim” exists only because of the aseh of ma’akeh that drives it; the lav of not returning an object is there only because there is the driver of the mitzvas aseh that compels action.  The lav and aseh are not two independent forces – there is only one driving force and that is the aseh; the lav just tags along.

So too, suggests the Divrei Yechezkel, when it comes to the prohibitions of Yom Kippur.  They are all there just there to bolster the mitzvas aseh of “t’anu es nafshoseichem,” but if you don’t have the aseh, there can be no lavim.  Why can you feed a child on Yom Kippur but you can’t feed him/her neveilah?  Because the issur of “lo ta’achilum” prohibits giving the child ma’achalos assuros like neveilah, but “lo ta’achilum” doesn’t mean you have to chase after a child to take a lulav or put on tzitzis or do other mitzvos aseh.  Since inuyim all stem from a chiyuv to fulfill a mitzvas aseh, there is no chiyuv on an adult to force the child to do anything.

To end off with a question: what would be the din if someone is oseik b’mitzvah on Yom Kippur – does the rule of oseik b’miztvah patur min hamitzvah remove the obligation to fulfill the aseh of “ta’anu es nafshoseichem” and cancel m’meila all the inuyim that go along with it or not? 

no quid pro quo deals

“Vayashav Reuvain el ha’bor,” when Reuvain returned to the pit that Yosef had been tossed into after Reuvain convinced his brothers not to kill him, he discovered that Yosef was gone, sold into slavery.  Where was Reuvain during the interim?  The Midrash explains that he was involved in ta’anis and doing teshuvah for the sin (or apparent sin) of being mebalbel his father’s bed.  The Midrash continues that in the merit of Reuvain being the first to do teshuvah, his descendent, Hoshei’a, would teach us about teshuvah.  Therefore, it’s fitting that the haftarah of shabbos shuvah comes from Hoshei’a.

How can the Midrash claim that Reuvain was the first to do teshuvah when we know that Kayim begged Hashem for leniency for killing Hevel and the Midrash teaches that Kayin then came to Adam and told him what a great thing teshuvah is.  This inspired Adam to do teshuvah as well and say “Mizmor shir l’yom haShabbos?”  (The question of what the mizmor of Shabbos has to do with the mitzvah of teshuvah is fodder for many a shabbos shuvah derasha.) 

The Ksav Sofer answers that Adam and Kayin had nothing to help their case and could only plead for mercy from Hashem.  Not so Reuvain.  The Midrash presents Reuvain’s teshuvah in the context of his just having stuck his neck out to save Yosef; he had a tremendous zechus in his favor.  Reuvain could easily have figured that the good he had done more than offset the bad, or at least the balance sheet was all equal.  Nonetheless, Reuvain did teshuvah anyway. 

There are no quid pro quo deals with G-d.  The credit for the good on one side of the balance sheet does not absolve one of the need for teshuvah for what is on the other side of the balance sheet.

the simchah of Yom haDin

Hachacham einav b’Rosho, we are all already looking toward if not looking forward to Rosh HaShana, and at least for me, it seems like there is never enough time in advance to really put in the thought and preparation that Yom Tov demands.   My wife told me she saw in the supermarket these little pre-made eiruv tavshilin kits.  You don’t even need to boil your own egg – it’s all there in a little package, just recite the nusach and you are done.  Everything these days has been simplified, reduced to an easy instant fix, ready made.  If only Yom Tov could be done the same way, with an instant tefilah, teshuvah, and kapparah kit.   

Chazal tell us that the malachim ask Hashem where the hallel is for the Yom Tov of Rosh haShana and Yom Kippur, to which Hashem responds that Klal Yisrael cannot possibly recite hallel on a Yom haDin when the books of judgment are open.  What’s the hava amina of these malachim to ask such a question?  Don’t they know it’s Yom haDin; don’t we say in our tefilah that even “malachim yei’chapeizun… chil u’re’ada yocheizun…?” 

Yesterday we discussed the GR”A’s pshat that the malach which appeared to Avraham after the akeidah was created from his desire to do the mitzvah of offering Yitzchak.  I found that the Sefas Emes says that same thing here.  Yes, it’s Yom haDin, but, as the Shem m’Shmuel writes, we will still recite a “she’hechiyanu v’keymanu v’higiyanu l’zman hazeh” tonight because we are glad to be at this moment.  The Tur quotes the Midrash that a person has to dress nicely, get a haircut, act like it is any other Yom Tov where there is a mitzvah of simcha.  It’s Yom haDin, and on the outside we do stand trembling in awe, but b’pnimiyus inside, we all know that Hashem wants it to be a good year for us, and therefore, it is a mo’ed as well.  Just like the malach was created by Avraham’s intent to do akeidah, there are malachim created by our desire to say hallel and acknowledge this simchas hayom, even if we cannot bring ourselves to utter the words, because, after all, as Hashem tells them, it is Yom haDin. 

On a different theme, there is one other idea I wanted to share.  The haftarah we read on Rosh haShana speaks about Chanah’s tefilah for a child.  Why after years of being barren did Chanah choose this visit to the Mishkan to daven with such force that she merited to have Shmuel haNavi?

I saw an amazing answer from R’ Avaraham Shapira.  The navi tells us that when Chanah’s husband Elkanah saw that she was so despondent and refused even to eat, he said to her, “Halo anochi tov lach m’asarah banim!” “I am as good to you as 10 children would be.” (Shmuel 1:8)  Until this moment Chanah felt that Elkanah shared her desperate longing for a child.  However, when Chanah heard these words, she realized something had changed.  The very fact that Elkanah could give voice to the possibility that he or anything else could be “as good as” having a child meant that he had started down the road to making peace with the idea of Chanah being barren.  His passion and longing for Chanah to have a child were cooling.  He was starting to accept the “reality” of the situation. 

Chanah, however, refused to give up.  Chanah knew that there was no “reality” that could not be changed by rachamei shamayim, there was no goal that was out of reach, there was no surrender that was necessary.  What was needed was simply more tefilah…

Let’s be real – there are a lot of difficult situations, there is a lot of “reality” that we feel cannot be changed, at least not so easily, and we are not Chanah by any stretch of the imagination.  Teshuvah and tefilah do hold the potential to change things by 180 degrees, but that’s an ideal that few of us can reach.  For myself and many people it would be an achievement to just be able to move a few degrees in the other direction, or maybe even just stop from tilting even further away from where we should be.  The lesson from tefilas Chanah is not that we can accomplish whatever we want through tefilah, but rather that like her, we should never surrender our goals, we should never become less passionate about our commitments and ideals, even if the journey to achieve them is a long and difficult one.  A few degrees in the other direction is a good start. 

Last but not least, I want to wish everyone true simcha even as we stand in Din, and wish everyone a kesiva (v’chasima) tovah. 

lo chasachta es bincha... mimeni -- greater even than angels

The Tzitz Eliezer (vol 17 siman 27) shares the following beautiful pshat that he said over in one of his Rosh haShana derashos:

In the parsha of the akeida, when the malach appears to Avraham to stop him from harming Yitzchak, he calls out, “Al tishlach yadcha es ha’na’ar… ki atah yadati ki y’rei Elokim atah v’lo chasachta es bincha es yechidcha mimeni,” no need to do anything Avraham, because I now know already that you would not hold back Yitzchak from me.  Why does the angel use the word “mimeni” – from me?  It was not the angel that commanded that Avraham offer Yitzchak; it was Hashem!  In fact, when the malach continues and calls to Avraham a second time, he says explicitly “Bi nishba’ati ne’um Hashem,” making it very clear that he is speaking only in G-d’s name.  So why doesn’t the angel do the same here, the first time he speaks, instead of using the word “mimeni,” implying that this is his own message?

The GR”A explains that every good deed creates a malach, and the greater the kiyum mitzvah and kavanah, the greater the malach created.  This malach that appeared to Avraham was the angel that was created by Avraham’s intent to perform the akeidah.  “I know you are a yarei shamayim,” said the angel, “Mimeni,” from myself, from my very existence, because if you were not 100% willing to go through with the akeidah, I, the angel created by your mitzvah action, would not be here.

Abarbanel goes a step further and interprets “mimeni” not as “from me”, but as “than me.”  What the malach was saying to Avraham is, “You are even a greater yarei shamayim than me!”  A malach acts in accordance with the midah of yirah/din he is invested with.  He is programmed to do one thing and that’s it.  A human being, however, has free choice and a host of emotions to contend with.  The malach was saying to Avraham that someone like himself who otherwise acted with great chessed, with great ahavah, and here was able to turn around and put that aside to do an akeidah, is far greater than an angel who has no other emotions to struggle against and overcome.

does the mitzvah of teshuvah turn every lav into a lav ha'nitak l'aseh?

Last year I mentioned R’ Baruch Ber’s question of why every lav in the Torah is not considered a lav ha'nitak l’aseh since anyone who violates a lav becomes obligated to do the mitzvas aseh of teshuvah.  R’ B”B cryptically distinguishes between being metakein the “aveira” vs. being metakein the “avon,” an idea I can best explain with an example.  If someone violates the issur of taking interest, the fix for the lav would be to return the extra money (let’s put aside the details of that din for now).  However, the Rambam writes (Eidus 12:5) that someone who charges interest may not serve as a witness until he voluntarily rips up all contracts that he has entered into that include interest charges, “v’yachziru bahem chazarah gemurah,” and he does a complete return.  Similarly, a gambler must destroy his instruments of gambling, not simply return money gotten illicitly.  A lav h'anitak l’aseh is where the aseh simply comes to make whole the loss caused by the lav.  We see from the Rambam that teshuvah goes far beyond that.

R’ Yechiel Michel Feinstein on this week’s parsha offers another answer (or maybe it is the same answer, but it is formulated far more sharply and clearly).  Lav ha'nitak l’aseh is about fixing the effects of the sin; teshuvah is about fixing the person.  If you steal $100, you can return the $100 and make whole the loss caused, but it takes much more than that to make yourself whole as a person afterwards. 

news flash: Rosh haShana involves hard work

While walking to shul one morning I saw my neighbor in front of his house doing what looked like pretty intense stretching exercises and I remembered that my wife had mentioned that he was planning to run the marathon in a few months, so I assume he was getting ready for his morning run.  I cannot imagine myself, considering that I spend most of my day sitting on an office chair, even doing the warm up exercises he was doing.  For me to even think of entering the marathon would be ridiculous!  Everyone knows that it takes weeks if not months of preparation and training to be ready.
 

So can someone please tell me why it is newsworthy (see here and here, for example) that Jews who show up to services a handful of times a year find Rosh haShana and Yom Kippur davening to be boring and uninspiring and can’t understand or appreciate what is going on?  Would it be newsworthy if I decided to go jogging one day a year and found that I could not do the marathon -- it was too hard? 

Then you have the attempts at “alternative” services.  Since davening is boring, why not mix in some jazz, some Buddhist meditation, etc.?  Since running all 26 miles of the marathon is hard, why not just run around the block instead?  Instead of putting in time and effort to do something hard, instead, substitute something easier and more palatable or something that you find personally meaningful.  Design your own marathon course and praise yourself for creativity, for responding to your authentic inner voice, without being chained to the course and regimen that others needlessly subject themselves to. 

Of course that doesn’t work.  It’s the fact that it is so very hard and requires so much training that gives meaning to the accomplishment.  The same in part can be said of the chagim.  Teshuvah is hard to do.  Tefilah requires intense concentration, work, and effort.  It requires preparation.  You can't walk into Rosh haShana and say "Give me something meaningful, inspiring, G-dly, and do it in 60 minutes or less so I can get home for dinner and catch the latest TV special."  If clergy were truly honest, instead of offering to their congregants meditation, poetry readings, internet services, and whatever other shtick they dream up, they would deliver that one message and send everyone home to think about it. 

r' chaim kanievsky on women saying slichos

There is no special reason for my posting this picture other than the fact that I think it is beautiful.  My wife took it using a very plain and simple digital camera, and I was surprised at just how clear the image came out.  The location is about 2 hours or so from NY.  My batcave is just behind the waterfall  : )

There is a parsha sheet called Divrei Si'ach with divrei torah and piskei halacha from R' Chaim Kanievsky that is available in a few places.  I tend to take what I read published in parsha sheets in the name of contemporary gedolim with a grain of salt because I have no way of ascertaining the reliability of what is quoted.  With that caveat in mind, here's what they cite in R' Chaim Kaneivsky's name regarding women saying slichos:

1) He recommended that women do try to say slichos;
2) He said women can say slichos even before chatzos (without the 13 midos) since they need their sleep to have the energy to care for the children;
3) He said that women should omit tachanum after slichos because it is not "derech kavod" for women to do nefilas apayim.

Taking them in order:

1) I checked the Halichos Beisa and he simply says women are exempt from slichos because it is only a minhag, not a real chiyuv.  I assume what he means is that women never accepted this custom.  My daughters go to a school that affiliates with Beis Ya'akov and there is no extra davening time alloted for them to say slichos (and there is no encouragement to say it the night before, so I don't think that's what they have in mind).  Is the same true in other Beis Ya'akovs?  Except for those who stay up the first night where shuls make a big thing of it, do most women say slichos during the week?  I think not, but would be thrilled to hear I'm wrong.

2) Why is this kula limited to women?  If m'ikar hadin you can say the slichos before chatzos, then the same should apply to men as well.  I need my sleep too (seriously - I have to be at work pretty early and am usually going on as little sleep as I can handle without getting up earlier for slichos.  Don't tell me I'm the only one?)  Is it specifically the 13 midos that are said with a minyan that necessitates waiting until after chatzos?  If so, why the need for women to omit the 13 midos -- since they have no minyan, it is simply reading pesukim? 

3) What's special about tachanun after slichos and what does he mean that it's not "derech kavod"?  Does R' Chaim Kanievsky hold that women should never do nefilas apayim? 

This was just one point on the sheet.  These type things are interesting, but I always walk away with more questions than answers.  If the summer coming to an end and talking about slichos makes you feel down, here's a butterfly picture (also taken by my wife with the same camera) to brighten your day:

you have to want it to get it

I'll make this the last word for now on “V’lo nasan Hashem lachem leiv la’da’as v’eynayim liros v’oznayim lishmo’a ad hayom ha’zeh.” (29:3)  The Shem m’Shmuel asks how this could be a criticism of Klal Yisrael -- if “lo nasan Hashem lachem...” if Hashem didn’t give Klal Yisrael the ability to see what they were lacking, why is it their fault? 

The Shem m’Shmuel answers that had Klal Yisrael wanted it enough, Hashem would have given them all the ability they needed.  It’s only “lo nasan Hashem lachem…” because Hashem does not give gifts to those who have no desire to receive them. 

(This reminds me of the Maharal in Gur Arye in Braishis on the pasuk that says Hashem did not give rain because “adam ayin la’avod es ha’adamah” that one is not allowed (!) to do a favor to those who will do not appreciate it.  This fits perfectly with the gemara’s (A.Z. 5a) description of Klal Yisrael’s sin here are being “kafuy tovah,” unappreciative of Hashem's gifts.  My rebbe, R' Blachman, said in the name of R' Hutner based on this Maharal that since the biggest tovah you can do for someone is to give over torah to them, you need to first arouse their interest in the kashe or issue so it bothers them; if they don't appreciate what you are giving over, then it's is assur to give.  R' Ya'akov Shapria quotes R' Kook as having a safeik whether there is lifnei iveir in causing someone to trip up in thier midos.  Giving to someone who you know will have no appreciation might fall into this category.)

moral intuition and personal responsibility

Last week we discussed Moshe’s admonition to Klal Yisrael that “V’lo nasan Hashem lachem leiv la’da’as v’eynayim liros v’oznayim lishmo’a ad hayom ha’zeh.” (29:3)  From here Chazal learn that a person does not really understand his rebbe until 40 years after the fact.

How exactly does the gemara get to this conclusion?  The gemara (A.Z. 5a) puts Moshe’s critique in the context of Hashem having said, “Mi yitein v’haya levavam zeh lahem l’yirah es Hashem…”  Bnei Yisrael should have responded “Tein atah!” but they failed to seize the opportunity.  Rashi explains that Moshe only criticized Klal Yisrael in our parsha, 40 years after the fact because even Moshe Rabeinu didn’t realize Hashem’s intent and Klal Yisrael’s error until 40 years later.

Tosfos asks: so why was Moshe Rabeinu angry at this point?  If even he didn’t realize at the time that Klal Yisrael had done anything wrong, how could he in hindsight criticize them?

Tosfos answers that Moshe Rabeinu had not sinned and was not in need of extra rachamim, so he was not attuned to what was lacking.  However, since Klal Yisrael had sinned and did need Hashem's extra help, they should have been sensitive to their own spiritual deficits and responded to the opening Hashem offered.  The failure to do so is their burden alone.

My son wanted to bring proof from here to a yesod we once discussed from R’ Shach (I also found it in the Ohr Yahel and see here as well).  Chazal say that the Nevi’im and Chachaim did not know the answer to “Al mah avdah ha’arez?” why the churban happened.  If the people did not know what was wrong, asked R’ Shach, how could they be held accountable?

R’ Shach answered that even if the Chachamim and Nevi’im could not tell the people what was wrong, each person in his heart knew exactly what his/her own failings were. 

Here too, the fact that even Moshe Rabeinu himself did not see the problem until 40 years later is no excuse.  Our own moral intuition should impel us even when our leaders do not criticize our actions.

the 40 year transformation

At the end of our parsha Moshe tells Klal Yisrael that “V’lo nasan Hashem lachem leiv la’da’as v’eynayim liros v’oznayim lishmo’a ad hayom ha’zeh.” (29:3)  "It took 40 years for the message to penetrate," says Moshe, "But you finally got it."  From here Chazal learn that a person does not really understand his rebbe until 40 years later. 

R’ Avraham Yafen asks (in haMussar V’ha’Da’as) what kind of shiur this measure of 40 years is.  A really bright student might understand his rebbe’s torah faster; a slower student will have to review it more.  Someone who is learning every spare minute for years and years will be able to master that much more torah than someone who only learns sporadically.  Grasping what a rebbe gives over is a matter of intelligence, diligence, effort – the sheer passage of time, whether one year or 40, seems to have nothing to do with it?

There are two things that a rebbe gives over: 1) knowledge – data, information, facts; 2) behavior – midos, hanhagos, attitude, hashkafa.  Of course, says R’ Yafen, a bright student will grasp a shiur far quicker than a slow student and someone who puts in effort will walk away knowing more than a slacker.  But Chazal here are not speaking about picking up information from a rebbe, being able to say over a hesber of a Tosfos or a Rambam or having a mehaleich in approaching a sugya.  Chazal are speaking about a person’s behavior and conduct, a person’s attitude and outlook on life.  That’s not something that can be learned through reviewing a shiur an extra time and is not something that can be acquired with intelligence alone – it’s takes life’s experiences for the message to penetrate and resonate.  That’s what takes 40 years to seep in.

Had you told me this answer 20 years ago, I think I would have been skeptical.  Now, I think there is a good deal of truth to it.  If you ask me about it 20 years from now, I think I will be 100% convinced. 

The lesson here is for parents and teachers more than students.  Do you have the feeling that you are talking to the walls when you speak to your children?  Are they not listening to anything you say?  Maybe they are, but you won’t know it until 40 years later.  Don’t give up just because you don’t see immediate results, as frustrating as it is (and believe me, I feel the frustration).

Aside from the derash, the plain meaning of the pasuk is hard to comphrehend.  The generation who apparently didn’t get it, the generation that lived during the 40 years prior to Moshe’s words spoken here, was the dor de’ah, the dor that experienced yetzi’as Mitzrayim with all its miracles, the dor that stood at Har Sinai and personally witnessed kabalas haTorah.  With all its faults, with all the trials in the midbar, this is the dor that Moshe thinks didn’t got the message?  Isn’t the dor de’ah a generation that we hold up as exemplars of fidelity to Hashem? 

The Sefas Emes explains that the previous generation lived in a cocoon, surrounded by Hashem’s presence, divorced from the world.  Of course under those conditions they were close to Hashem.  Moshe was telling the new dor that they alone had the challenge of trying to transform a lev so it has da’as, eynayim liros, oznayim lishmoa. It was this new dor that was charged with using the physical world in their avodas Hashem rather than sealing themselves off from it.  That, the dor de'ah, for all its greatness, did not achieve.

is the glass half-empty or half-full? -- belief in "Torah m'Sinai"

One of the quotes below is from a leading Conservative rabbi, one from a Reform rabbi, one from a Reconstructionist rabbi, one from an Orthodox rabbi, and one from a professor who affiliates as Orthodox.  I have deliberately provided no links and no names.  My challenge: can you identify which quote goes with which speaker? 

Now, I admit that cherry picking quotes out of context is not the fairest way to do things.  If you want to argue that had I presented the full picture it would be far easier to sort things out, neicha, I'll grant the point.  Still, you would think that at least with respect to  Orthodox vs. Reform/Reconstructionist ideology, what I think is fair to call opposite ends of the spectrum, there could be no possible way to conflate the two -- or could there be? 

Is the glass is half-empty or half-full?  Should we be thrilled that even Reform and Reconstuctionist leaders  speak of Torah in ways that are not so different than their Orthodox counterparts -- perhaps there is far less that divides us theologically than some might assume -- or should we be distressed that even those who self-identify as Orthodox in fact subscribe to a theology that is for all intents and purposes indistinct from the other branches within Judaism? 

QUOTE #1:
If most historians say that there is no evidence for Israel gathering at Mount Sinai in the 13th century B.C.E. or thereabouts (they do), and if they say that there is ample evidence that Israel did not even exist as a cultural or political entity at that time (they do), then how should we reconcile those observations with the teachings of the Torah? The answer for most --xxxx-- thinkers is that the revelation at Mount Sinai in Exodus is a story that teaches great truths about the way that God is revealed in our lives, not facts about an historical incident.

QUOTE #2
Given the data to which modern historians have access, it is impossible to regard the accounts of mass Exodus from Egypt, the wilderness experience or the coordinated, swift and complete conquest of the entire land of Canaan under Joshua as historical…

The stories of the Torah reflect the ways the prophets of old refracted their encounters with divine wisdom through the prism of mnemohistorical narrative. Adam is the story about why humans are here, and Noah is the story about the precariousness of our position and the existential need to be good people in order for our existence to have meaning. The stories of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs are about who we (Israel/Jews) are as a people and how we found God/God found us; the Exodus and Conquest tell us about Israel’s mission as a nation and our covenantal relationship with God.

QUOTE #3

It is precisely the sacredness of these texts that requires of serious students to employ every piece of scholarly equipment to unpack their contents... Judaism does not seek to limit our thinking, only our actions.

This is not to say that earlier generations got it all wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. To witness their deep engagement with Torah and Talmud is to tap into inexhaustible wellsprings of mental acuity and spiritual power. It is to discover the multiple and ingenious ways-critical, midrashic, kabalistic and philosophical-in which they explicated these texts. Like them, --xxxx scholars-- take their place in an unbroken chain of exegetes, but with their own arsenal of questions, resources, and methodologies....

 

QUOTE #4

Our aim should be to embrace the truth instead of engaging in apologetics. There’s absolutely no doubt in the academic community that the Torah emerged over time. One should not think that scholars in biblical studies are out to destroy faith...

The Torah is not divine.... Is the Torah authoritative? Absolutely. But is it divine? No.

QUOTE #5
In the coming discussion of Torah I make no literalist assumptions about the historicity of the text or its revealed origins. I speak out of deep relationship with the Torah text as we have it, out of unceasing engagement (including moments of outrage and frustration), but not as a believer in it as resulting from divine dictation. The biblical scholar’s understanding of the text’s complex origins and editing are a level of truth that I recognize as valid. In my religious life, however, I continue to embrace the text as a whole, a sacred artifact rather than as historical document. I enter into the text as a participant in an unending conversation among generations of Jews, enriched but essentially unfazed by critical perspectives.

Rogatchover on the "tov" promised to Yisro

In Parshas Beha’alosecha Moshe asks his father-in-law Yisro to travel with Klal Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael and promises that, “V’haya hatov ha’hu asher yeitiv Hashem imanu v’heitavnu lach” (Bamidbar 10:32).  What is this “tov,” this good thing, that Moshe promised?  If you read yesterday’s post you probably have a good idea of the answer. 

The mitzvah of bikurim entails “v’smachta b’kol hatov” – bikurim are called “tov.”  The gemara (Archin 11a) even has a hava amina that the pasuk that refers to avodah “b’simcha u’vtuv leivav,” from where we learn shiras haLevi’im, is perhaps instead referring to bringing bikurim, since they are also called tov. 

What Moshe was promising Yisro, writes the Rogatchover, was the opportunity to bring bikurim.  The Yerushalmi (Bikurim 1:4, 3a in the Vilna ed) writes:

ובני קיני חותן משה מביאין וקורין דכתיב (במדבר י) לכה אתנו והטבנו לך.

When Rashi in Beha’alosecha writes that Yisro was given a portion of land near Yiricho for safekeeping, it doesn’t mean the land itself is the tov that Moshe promised.  In light of the Y-lmi what Rashi means is that since Yisro’s descendants were able to meet the necessary precondition of owning land, therefore they could fulfill the mitzvah of bikuim, "v'samachta b’kol hatov."

tochacha, simcha, and chag hasukkos

Rashi (BaMidbar 29:18) writes that the total of 98 lambs offered on Sukkos correspond to the 98 curses mentioned in the tochacha in Parshas Ki Tavo.  What is the connection between the two ideas? 

The Sochatchover explains (Shem m’Shmuel Sukkos 5573) that the tochacha comes “tachas asher lo avadta es Hashem Elokecha b’simcha uv’tuv leivav,” (Devarim 28:47) because of a lack of simcha in avodas Hashem.  Sukkos is called “zman simchaseinu,” a time of joy.  It’s the opportunity to become inspired with a simcha inoculation against those curses of the tochacha.   

But why davka is it the number of lambs that add up to 98 – why not count the cows or the rams as well?  Let me preface the Shem m’Shmuel’s answer with a vort from R’ Gifter also on our parsha.  In the parsha of bikurim the Torah commands, “V’smachta b’chol hatov,” (26:11) to rejoice over all the good that Hashem has given.  When the farmer goes out to field to collect his bikurim, he sees the first fruits (literally) of months of labor.  He can now feel confident that all the work and energy he put into his crops is going to pay off.  Even if the Torah didn’t say it, the farmer would be happy.  Why does the Torah need to command him to rejoice?  Is it just so he can get mitzvah reward for what comes naturally? 

R’ Gifter answers that there’s more to it than that.  Every moment of happiness has the potential to be tainted by the feeling that “if only there was more.”  I see this in my kids all the time.  You give a child X as a treat, she will complain why she didn’t get Y or why X was not better, etc.  (A real pleasure to deal with…)  There are adults who live their whole lives this way.  Chazal already tell us that if a person has manah, inevitably he/she wants masayim.  This is the meaning of the tochacha coming because of a lack of “simcha v’tuv leivav” – you can have simcha but at the same time not have “tuv leivav;” your heart is not filled with joy because deep down there is that nagging feeling that there is more out there that you still don’t have. 

The Torah therefore gives the farmer a mitzvah of simcha.  True, any farmer would be happy given the situation, but that's 90% happiness, or 95% – there would still be that nagging, “If only the crops were a little better…” Torah/mitzvah happiness is 100% because it comes from the sense that not only does Hashem give 100% of what a person needs and deserves, Hashem gives 110%.  The mitzvah of simcha is about absorbing that perspective.

Coming back to the korbanos of Sukkos, the Shem m’Shmuel reminds us that Avraham had a Yishmael; Yitzchak had an Eisav.  Their simcha could never be 100% because there was an inescapable missing something in their lineage.  Only Ya’akov was blessed with having every descendent for all eternity connected to the family of Klal Yisrael.  Only Ya’akov had the 100% wholeness, that allows for 100% simcha.  Therefore, it is on Sukkos, the chag connected specifically with Ya’akov, through the korbanos of lambs, offerings specifically connected with Ya’akov, that we can celebrate with complete 100% simcha divorced from any negative feeling, any lack of “simcha v’tuv leivav,” that would c”v bring us tochacha.

amalek and weights and measures

There is a lot of derush on the connection between the last two sections of the parsha (in general one can ask whether there is any order to the mitzvos in the parsha and what the order might be): the law of not keeping unfair weights and measures and the command to remember Amalek.  What does one thing have to do with the other?

I thought one could explain the relationship based on the Seforno, who comments that the Torah here not only prohibits using unfair weights and measures, which would amount to out-and-out theft, but prohibits even possessing such weights, as ownership of these items prevents the hashra’as haShechina.  In other words, our concern is not just justice – even in secular society, there has to be fair and standard weights and measures used in commerce or cheating would be rampant and business could not be transacted.  However, in secular law, if you keep a faulty weight locked in your cabinet and no one knows about it and you never use it, nothing happens.  In Torah, you cause the Shechina to not want to be near you.

The Torah gives us a reminder of what happens when there is no Shechina protecting us.  Amalek attacked those members of Klal Yisrael who for whatever reason found themselves outside the camp and without the protection of the ananei hakavod.  Had they been inside the camp, under the “iron dome” of the ananim and hashra'as haShechina, Amalek would have had no power. 

remembering Miriam -- using our talents wisely

The warning /command not to forget what happened to Miriam when she spoke out against Moshe, “Zachor eis asher asah Hashem l’Miriam b’derech b’tzeischem M’Mitzrayim,” (24:9) places the event as having occurred in the context of leaving Egypt.  Since everything in the midbar can be described as having happened on the road from Mitzrayim to Eretz Yisrael, it seems that the emphasis on “b’derech b’tzeischem m’Mitzrayim” has no unique significance here.  So why does the Torah mention it?

Perhaps the Torah is reminding us that Miriam slipped up despite seeing with her own eyes the role Moshe played in bringing about the redemption from Egypt.  If such an error could be made by Miriam, how much more so must we be on guard (see Ramban, R' Bachyei).

Rashbam explains that the Torah is not addressing what Miriam did, but rather is reminding us what Hashem did on her behalf.  Even though Bnei Yisrael was “b’derech b’tzeischem m’Mitzrayim” and anxious to keep moving on the road away from Egypt toward Eretz Yisrael, the entire camp waited on behalf of Miriam and did not travel until her leprosy was cured.  Chasam Sofer makes a similar point, contrasting the command with respect to Amalek, “Zachor eis asher asah lecha Amalek,” where we are told to remember their deeds, with the command here, “Zachor eis asher asah Hashem Elokecha,” where the focus is on G-d’s chessed and not Miriam’s wrongdoing.

The Midrash gives a beautiful explanation:

 רבנן אמרי:
למה הדבר דומה? למלך שעלה מן המלחמה קילסה אותו מטרונה.
אמר המלך: תיקרי אומן של סנקליטור. לאחר ימים התחילה לערב אוננא של מלך.
אמר המלך: כך עשית?!
תיטרד למטלון!
כך, בשעה שעשה הקב"ה מלחמת הים אמרה מרים שירה ונקראת נביאה, שנאמר: (שמות טו) ותקח מרים הנביאה. כיון, שאמרה לשון הרע על אחיה, אמר הקב"ה תיטרד למטלון! שנאמר: (במדבר יב) ותסגר מרים:

 

According to the Midrash, “b’derech b’tzeischem m’Mitzrayim” is not speaking about the episode of Miriam’s lashon ha’ra.  It is speaking about Miriam singing shirah at Yam Suf.  The Midrash is telling us that when we remember what Miriam did wrong, it must be in context of what Miriam did right; only then do we have the complete picture.  Why was Miriam judged so harshly for just a few words that she said with the best of intentions in private to Aharon?  Because Miriam had the wonderful gift of being able to use words properly and sing to Hashem.  Someone who is given a special talent, someone who can sing shirah, is held to a different standard than those who do not have that special gift.