lulav and mitzvos tzerichos kavanah (II)

(See part I first!)
The Sha’agas Arye answers his question by explaining the reason we do not assume “stama lishma” by mitzvos like we do by korbanos (see Zevachim 2), meaning absent kavanah to the contrary we assume a person does have intent to be yotzei, is because there is no reason a person must use a specific shofar, lulav, talis, etc. to fulfill his mitzvah – since any mitzvah object can be used at any time to fulfill these obligations, what designates the object in hand at this moment as the one being used for a mitzvah and not practice or some other use? Intent is required.

This logic applies by most mitzvos, but fails when applied to the korban pesach. Since the korban pesach is eaten only by those who have reserved a place in a chaburah beforehand, the specific animal to be eaten is already designated for the mitzvah purpose. Even Reish Lakish who ordinarily requires kavanh by mitzvos to complete the designation as a mitzvah will agree that this requirement is unnecessary when it comes to the korban pesach.

The same logic holds true, argues the Mahartz Chiyus, in our sugya of to’eh b’dvar mitzvah for one who carries a lulav on Shabbos. Since it is the carrying of this specific lulav for the intent of fulfilling a mitzvah which is what exempts the person from bringing a korban chatas, it is obvious that the person wishes that the act of carrying be counted for a mitzvah purpose. In this case the designation l’shem mitzvah can be assumed even without the additional element of kavanah, answering Tosfos’ question.

I don’t know if I will be blogging much over chol hamoed. I barely scratched the surface with a few sukkos topics - so much good stuff out there to learn over Yom Tov – enjoy!

bracha on sleeping in sukkah - Rogatchover

Will get to part II of previous post bl"n soon, but I almost forgot apropos of the discussion about sleeping in the sukkah - the Rogatchover has an interesting sevara to explain why no bracha. He suggests two dinim in sukkah: 1) a mitzvah kiyumis of being in sukkah 2) an issur aseh of being outside the sukkah when one should be in. When it comes to eating, a bracha is recited because there is a positive chiyuv, a mitzvah kiyumis, when having a meal to do so in sukkah. However, when it comes to sleeping, there is simply an issur aseh of not sleeping outside sukkah. Of course one needs proof for such a sevara, but for that you will have to do your own homework because I don't have enough time. This Rogatchover is found in Mefa'aneyach Tzefunos, p.164 (just an aside: a recall a similar sevara of sukkah being an issur aseh being in the Minchas Chinuch, and discussed as well in Esvan d'Oraysa.)

lulav and mitzvos tzerichos kavanah (I)

The person who sent me the Kisvei Maharatz Chiyus is probably going to be disappointed that I haven’t said a word about some of the major topics he addresses regarding the composition of torah sheba’al peh, but I’m enjoying the other stuff so much I haven’t had a chance to get into those parts yet. One other piece before Yom Tov (footnoite p.602 if you want to see it):

A person who mistakingly carries out his lulav on Shabbos is to’eh b’dvar mitzvah (his mistake is due to trying to fulfill a mitzvah) and is therefore patur from a korban chatas. The gemara (42) wonders how the person could carry the lulav without already having fulfilled the mitzvah – once the lulav is picked up the mitzvah is over! The gemara presents a number of scenarios to resolve this question, e.g. he picked it up upside down. Tosfos asks: why does the gemara avoid offering the simple scenario of a person who picks up the lulav without kavanah to fulfill the mitzvah?

The Mahartz Chiyus takes us on a journey through a Sha’agas Arye to resolve this question. The gemara (Nazir 23) comments that two people can eat the same korban Pesach and one will be categorized as a tzadik and one a rasha – tzadikim yeilchu bam u’poshim yikashlu bam on the same act. How? The tzadik eats l’shem mitzvah; the rasha eats achila gasa, an overindulgence. Reish Lakish objected: true, achila gasa is not ideal, but does that make the person a rasha?!

Asks the Sha’agas Arye – Reish Lakish (Pesachim 113) holds that mitzvos tzerichos kavana. If so, l’shitaso indeed the person is a rasha! Eating with intent to stuff one’s face without kavanah to fulfill the mitzvah would be a bitul mitzvah. Why does Reish Lakish not accept the gemara’s statement at face value?

For easy reading (and easy writing) let me break here and part II later…

the bracha "la'asos sukkah lishmo" on building a neighbor's sukkah

The Yerushalmi writes that if you make a sukkah for a neighbor you should recite a bracha “la’ason sukkah lishmo”. We don’t find such a bracha in the Bavli, and it seems odd – why the need for a special bracha when ding a mitzvah for someone else? Tosfos (46a) references this Yerushalmi and apparently this idea caused the Maharasha discmofort as well because he changes the girsa to “la'asos sukkah lishma”, and suggests the Yerushalmi holds like Tanaim who hold sukkah must be built lishma.

I think the Yerushalmi can be understood k’pshuto. If you build a sukkah for yourself, the bracha is on the kiyum mitzvah of sukkah (please let's not go down the road of whether it is a hechsher mitzvah or not). But if you build for someone else you are not being mekayeim the mitzvah of sukkah – you are being mekayeim the mitzvah of arvus! On that mitzvah there is a separate bracha of “lishmo”.

Since I’m out on a limb anyway, let me throw this out as well. There is a famous story of a guest visiting R’ Chaim Ozer on sukkos when R’ Chaim Ozer was ill, and R’ Chaim Ozer insisted on coming to sit in sukkah with the guest. When asked why he did so when a choleh is patur from sukkah, R’ C. O. replied that a choleh is not patur from hachnasas orchim. I saw in Shu”t Az Nidbaru that R’ Binyamin Zilber was asked whether since R' Chaim Ozer was mechuyav to entertain his guest in the sukkah m’din hachnasas orchim does that in turn remove the ptur choleh from sukkah and leaving the original chiyuv of sukkah in place. Sounds like a wild idea, but it triggered the thought of a pshat that I ask mechila for in advance if you don't like it. Someone who builds a sukkah for a neighbor is mekayeim two birds with one stone: the mitzvah of sukkah and chessed for a friend. Ordinarily an act of chessed is not mechayeiv a bracha, but when paired with the already existing kiyum of sukkah, perhaps the Yerushalmi holds that the bracha is recited over both kiyumim – “la’asos sukkah” on mitzvas sukkah, and “lishmo” on the act of chessed. (Eve if you don't like it, at least give me points for creativity : )

ptur of an eved from sukkah

I feel bad I have not had time to post enough about sukkos – too much work in too little time. nyway, getting back to the Rashi on an eved being patur, maybe this kashe is too much of a nitpick – see Anon1’s comments to yesterday's post - but I can also see whole hekesh to women as an unnecessary detail to understanding the Mishna. Who cares why an eved is patur? – the fact that he is suffices to understand why Tevi did not sit in sukkah.

The Ran (based on Yersuhalmi) asks what the big deal would have been for Tevi to sit in sukkah – even if an eved is patur, why can't he do the mitzvah anyway? Some explain this is the issue Rashi is addressing. Had Tevi remained in the sukkah, it might have appeared that an eved is indeed chayav in sukkah, leading to the incorrect conclusion that there is no relationship between mitzvos an eved must do and those a women must do. Rashi presents the reason for the ptur as a means of explaining why Tevi davka left the sukkah – Tevi’s behavior underscored the relationship between the chiyuv of eved and that of women.

In this case the kashe (if you liked it at all) seems better than the answer. Is an eved barred from performing mitzvos lest the chiyuv of women be misconstrued (the Yersuhalmi asks why Tevi left the sukkah but R’ Gamliel did not object to his putting on tefillin)?

See the Rashash on this Rashi for a more significant point that I unfortunately do not have time to blog about right now.

sleep and sukkah

I can’t think of any mitzvah other than sukkah (maybe yishuv eretz yisrael?) that one can do while one is asleep. As mentioned yesterday, the Rosh and other Rishonim even ask why no bracha is recited over sleeping in sukkah. The Shem m’Shmuel explains that when one is asleep the neshoma has departed from the guf (for the most part) and all that remains is the physical body. Mitzvos usually require an investment of the neshoma and lev to uplift, yet sukkah apparently has the special power to envelop and uplift even if all a Jew puts into the mitzvah or is capable of putting into the mitzvah is a sleeping body and no more. I would add that perhaps in addition to the power of mitzvas sukkah we see something about the character of Am Yisrael; even stripped of neshoma elyona and left only with an empty guf, that guf still is something that merits the enveloping protection of the walls of sukkah.

exemption of an eved from sukkah

No, I haven’t gotten the mah kashe l’Rashi bug out of my system. For this week I want to focus on a Rashi on a Mishna in Sukkah. The Mishna (20b) tells the story of Tevi, the slave of Rabban Gamliel, who slept under a covered bed in the sukkah, which is not an acceptable way of fulfilling the mitzvah. Rabban Gamliel boasted to the other Chachamim of Tevi’s wisdom, as Tevi’s actions demonstrated that he knew that a slave is exempt from yeshivas sukkah.

Rashi d”h ma’aseh explains: slaves are exempt from sukkah because women are exempt from mitzvos aseh she’hazman gerama [my note: the obligation of slaves parallels that of women], and where a women would be chayeves a slave would also be chayav.

If Rashi had explained that a slave is exempt from sukkah because women are exempt and stopped there, mah kashe l’Rashi is a no brainer – the Mishna leaves one wondering why a slave is exempt, and Rashi helpfully provides an answer. But Rashi doesn’t stop there – note the part I bolded. Rashi adds to his explanation that when a women is obligated in a mitzvah a slave is also obligated. Mah kashe l’Rashi that demands this extra line of clarification? The Mishna is not discussion chiyuvim, it is discussing exemptions!

Just to throw one side difficulty into the mix: the gemara (28a-b) explains that women theoretically are obligated in sukkah just like matzah, but there is a halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai which exempts them in this case. So the real reason women are exempt in this case has nothing to do with zman gerama – it is a special halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai! (Ok, so you will argue that the hllm”s is a just a giluy milsa not to compare sukkah to matzah, and m’meila it is a plain old zman gerama, but I still want to note the issue).

bracha on sleeping in sukkah

When I wrote the previous post before Y”K I had not yet seen the Shem m’Shmuel who addresses himself to the problem of ta’aroves tov/ra and writes that on Y”K one can experience perfect clarity of birur if one only immerses in the kedushas hayom and takes advantage of it. The simcha that is felt at the conclusion of the chag (Tosfos quotes from Midrash that there is a din of having a seudah to celebrate the conclusion of Y”K) is directly proportional to the degree that we open our heart to this experience of tahara. However, that feeling only lasts if we protect it and do not let it dissipate, and here the Shem m’Shmuel is mechadesh that not only can the physical construction of a sukkah serve to nurture that feeling within the protective symbolic walls of kedusha, but involvement in learning Mes. Sukkah and the laws of sukkah also serves the same function.

I mentioned receiving Kisvei Mahart”z Chiyus as a gift from someone before R”H and noticed a beautiful kashe he raises in a footnote. The Rosh writes that the reason a bracha is not recited over sleeping in the sukkah is because there is always the chance that one will not be able to fall asleep, rendering the bracha l’vatalah. By the same logic, asks the M.C., how can we say a bracha of hamapil – why is there no concern that one will recite the bracha and not be able to fall asleep? I’m not sure why he leaves this as a tzarich iyun – I will leave it to the comments for suggestions of chilukim that are possible.

tshuvah thought and piyus

In the spirit of piyus, I ask mechila for things I wrote and things I should have written but didn’t.

I’m just musing aloud: I wish I had the same task of tshuvah that my kids learn about in school – do the things you are told to do, listen to people you are supposed to listen to, and avoid the things you are told to avoid. It seems that as life gets more complex, tshuvah gets more complex – voices you are suppose to listen to offer contrary advice, the “right” thing to do is never as clear as it should be, and avoiding one wrong may open a pandora’s box of other trouble. The temptation of doing wrong is often less troublesome than the ta’aroves of tov and ra that most of us face.

If I could boil down out tefilos into one sentence, it would be the request to always be aware of what the ratzon Hashem is, and to always have siyata d’shemaya and the chochma, lev, and ratzon to carry it out.

kiddush on shabbos yom kippur for someone who must eat

One issue unique to Yom Kippur which falls on Shabbos is the question of whether a seriously ill person who must eat should recite kiddush. Most poskim opine that on a regular Yom Kippur one who is forced to east should not recite kiddush – kiddush recited over a cup of wine is a Rabbinic takkanah, and the Rabbis never instituted kiddush when most people are fasting. However, if Yom Kippur falls on Shabbos, R’ Akiva Eiger suggests that kiddush perhaps should be recited. While there was never a takanah of kiddush on Yom Kippur, there is a takanah to make kiddush every Shabbos, and perhaps that takanah is in force across the board on any day that has kedushas Shabbos.

The way I have heard this issue explained is that R’ Akiva Eiger seems to view the kedushas hayom of Shabbos as completely separate from that of Yom Kippur - the fact that the days coincide has no impact on their respective laws. One could make the counter-argument that when two days with different kedushos coincide the kedushos merge – there are not two separate coincidental kedushos, but a synthesis kedusha of Shabbos-Y’K, different from every Shabbos of the year and different from a regular Y”K. (Parenthetically, and a different discussion, the Rambam holds that Shabbos and Yom Tov are two separate kedushos but Shabbos and Y”K is kedusha achas, but I don’t want to get into the nafka minos of that now.) The fact that kiddush is recited when there is kedushas Shabbos is not a proof that kiddush should be recited when there is a synthesis kedusha, Shabbos-Y”K.

The "Litvishe Admor"it"

Interesting article on Rebbetzin Kanievsky (in Hebrew). A sample:

אישה במעמד רוחני בכיר, שמחלקת ברכות וסגולות, ואלפים נוהרים לפתחה. לא מדובר בתופעה שהפציעה משולי העולם החרדי, אלא מלב לבו של הציבור הליטאי. הביטוי "אדמו"ר ליטאי" נשמע עדיין מוזר, ובטח "אדמו"רית אישה". אבל במקרה הזה יש לנו עסק עם לא סתם אדמו"רית, אלא עם אדמו"רית ליטאית של ממש.

Rough translation – “A women in a spiritual leadership position, who distributes brachos and segulos, whom thousands seek out – this is not some phenomenon of a fringe element of the chareidi world, but from the very heart of the Lithuanian community. The term “Litvishe Admo”r” is strange, and certainly more so the term “Mrs. Admori”t”. But in this case we deal not just with any “Admor”it”, but with a “Litvishe Admori”t”, one who is the genuine article."

sneakers on Yom Kippur

The Rambam (Shevisas Asor 3:7) writes that one is permitted to place some type of wrap around one’s feet on Yom Kippur because the wrap does not diminish the sensation of being barefoot and feeling the hardness of the floor on one's feet.
שהרי קושי הארץ מגיע לרגליו, ומרגיש שהוא יחף

It seems from the Rambam that when evaluating the prohibition of neilas hasandal, wearing shoes on Yom Kippur, more important than whether something is formally defined as a “shoe” in other halachic contexts (e.g. chalitzah) is whether what one is wearing allows for the discomforting experience of being nearly barefoot. If I recall correctly, I remember hearing that the Rav had a hakpada to avoid sneakers with arches – in his view, the fact that one was wearing a non-leather sneaker was insufficient so long as the foot was properly supported and there was no feeling of discomfort. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that most sneakers today, even non-leather ones, are perhaps even more comfortable than regular leather dress shoes. (For further discussion see the Aruch haShulchan; we do not necessarily adopt this view of the Rambam l’halacha).

See also this post from January which is much more timely now.

mitzvah of tshuvah on Yom Kippur

R’ Yonah in Sharei Tshuvah (2:15) has an interesting line where he writes, “Mitzvas aseh min haTorah l’ha’ir adam es rucho lachzor b’tshuva b’Yom haKippurim”, that there is a mitzvah to do tshuvah specifically on Yom Kippur based on the pasuk of “M’kol chatoseichem lifnei Hashem titharu” (VaYikra 16,30). It seems like this is not a halacha in hilchos tshuvah per se but rather a halacha in the celebration of the day of Yom Kippur, i.e. one of the mitzvos hayom unique to the Yom Tov.

The Shakespeare Wars

OK, a bit off topic, but I have to recommend reading The Shakespeare Wars by Ron Rosenbaum. (The wars the title refers to is scholarly battles of interpretation surrounding the reading, understanding, and performance of the greatest of all writers.) One of the things high school lit fails to communicate is the passion which real scholars have for Shakespeare study, something this book manages in a sometimes over-the-top way to capture. You don't have to be a Shakespeare scholar to appreciate the book - aderaba, read the book first and you will probably want to see or read more Shakespeare.

children need to experience tekiyas shofar too

Sephardi Lady on Orthonomic discusses the issue of children being watched on Yom Tov by non-Jewish babysitters who do not exactly convey the spirit of Yom Tov to the children. In that vein I just wanted to mention that that Yerushalmi (unlike the Bavli) explains (R”H 20b in Vilna ed – I am following the interpretation of the Korban haEidah) that the reason tekiyas shofar takes place during musaf and not earlier in the morning is to allow time for children to come to shule to experience the mitzvah. Now, I don't know what age children the Yerushalmi is addressing itself to, or whether the rest of the time those children might be with babysitters, but if Chazal could forfeit the ma'aleh of zerizus and delay the zechus of blowing shofar on one of the holiest days of the year to make sure children as well as adults experience the mitzvah, that should tell us something.

halanas hameis

On Erev Rosh haShana I received a surprise gift of a copy of the Kisvei Maharatz Chiyu”s, which is a sefer (as the person who sent it has been telling me for months) I should have had on my bookshelf a long time ago (and thank you again to the sender). Those learning daf yomi will be interested in his defense (in his essay Darkei Hora’ah) of the Chavos Ya’ir who writes that the issur of halanas hameis (delaying burial) is only derabbanan. The gemara (Kesubos 4) writes that if the father of the chasson or mother of the kallah dies on the wedding day, the meis is moved to a side room and the wedding is allowed to take place, after which the meis is buried. The seven days of sheva brachos take place first, followed by seven days of mourning. The motivation to allow the wedding to take place in this case is to avoid the loss of all the food and preparation already done.

The Rishonim ask how the d’oraysa laws of aninus can be suspended by the Chachamim b’kum v’aseh by telling the bride and groom to get married, to which the Rashba answers that when burial is postponed until the day after death, aninus on the day of death is derabbanan, not d’oraysa. But, asks the Maharatz Chiyus, doesn’t the delay in burial itself necessitate pushing off an issur d’oraysa of halanas hameis? How can the Chachamim allow a violation of the issur of delaying burial just to avoid the loss and forfeit of the wedding meal and preparations? It must be, concludes the Maharatz Chiyus, that the Chavos Yair is right – the issur of halanas hameis is only derabbanan.

(For the record, the Chavos Yair is a chiddush gadol rejected by other poskim and is used only as one snif l’hakeil in the larger argument of the Maharatz Chaiyus. At the end of his essay the Mahartz Chiyu”s quotes the response of the Chasam Sofer to his argument, and among the C”S’s critiques is an attack on his minimizing the issur of halanas hameis).

mitzvah of eating erev yom kippur

Hope everyone had a good Rosh haShana and an easy fast yesterday. This week is like the mad sprint at the end of a race where you just have to get moving no matter how tired you are – and depending on your slichos schedule, you probably are as tired as I am : )

It’s fortuitous that daf yomi is learning Kesubos because it is an opportunity to see an important Rashi relevant to hilchos Erev Yom Kippur. The gemara suggests the reason for not scheduling a wedding Motzei Shabbos is “gezeirah shema yishcot ben of” (daf 5a), to avoid the danger of people starting to shect chickens on Shabbos to prepare the feast (aside: the celebration of simchas chassan v’kallah apparently does not demand a meal of meat, as some claim with respect to simchas yom tov where the din of simcha has some relationship to korbanos). By that same logic, asks the gemara, we should not celebrate Yom Kippur immediately following Shabbos because of the danger of beginning to prepare food early for the erev Yom Kippur meal, “l’tzorech seudas machar”, as Rashi explains. Rashi’s emphasis on the seudah of the next day suggests that there is no mitzvah to eat a seudah on the night of Erev Yom Kippur.

The gemara (R”H 9) darshens that just as there is a mitzvah to fast on Yom Kippur, there is a mitzvah to eat Erev Yom Kippur. Shouldn’t this mitzvah apply starting from the previous nightfall, just like the mitzvah of fasting? Apparently the relationship is not exactly parallel, and according to Rashi the mitzvah of eating on Erev Yom Kippur is simply to properly prepare for the fast by having a seudah immediately beforehand.

kesiva v'chasima tovah

I want to wish everyone a kesiva v'chasima tovah and a good and meaningful yom tov.

tekiyos d'meyushav vs. during musaf - which are the "real" tekiyos? (II)

The Netziv (on the Shi’iltos) notes that most of the Rishonim write that tekiyos d’meyushav were listened to while sitting (hence the name “meyushav”). Yet, the common custom in our shules is to stand for tekiyos. Why, in light of the Rishonim explicitely mentioning to sit, has the minhag changed?

The Netziv cites the chiddush of Tosfos (see last post) that the primary tekiyos were those blown during musaf and explains that sitting was a demonstrative display of the lack of desire to fulfill the mitzvah of tekiyos with the earlier round of blowing. Based on Tosfos' chiddush, the need to avoid a hefsek between rounds of tekiyos is far more pressing, as the bracha on the earlier tekiyos applies to the blowing which will occur much later.

Tosfos' practice exposes one to the risk of being called out of shule for some emergency, for a child who needs attention, for any other need, and missing the latter tekiyos, forfeiting the mitzvah. It also demands a high level of concentration to avoid any hefsek. The reason we stand for tekiyos d'meyushav is not because our standards are higher than those of the Rishonim – quite the opposite. To avoid the danger of something going wrong and missing the latter tekiyos we take the easy route out and stand with concentration to be yotzei while hearing the earlier tekiyos d’meyushav.

tekiyos d'meyushav vs. during musaf - which are the "real" tekiyos?

If one has no other vegetable and is forced to use maror for karpas (Pesachim 115), Rav Huna holds that the bracha of al achilas maror is deferred until later in the seder when maror is eaten in the context and with the intent of fulfilling the mitzvah of maror. Rav Chisda disagrees – the bracha of maror should be recited before karpas, as what sense does it make to eat one’s fill of maror and only afterwards to recite a bracha?

There are two possible ways to understand Rav Chisda’s disagreement: 1) Rav Chisda may holdsthat the bracha of maror is fulfilled when the vegetable is eaten as karpas regardless of whether one has kavanah to fulfill the mitzvah at that point or later – kavanah is not required; 2) Rav Chisda may agree with the fundamental point that the mitzvah of maror is not fulfilled until later when it is eaten with intent for the mitzvah of maror, but nonetheless holds that the bracha should be recited earlier over karpas. Even though there is an interruption of reciting the hagadah, the bracha recited by karpas can still count for the mitzvah of maror fulfilled later.

Tosfos (d”h maskif) in Pesachim takes the latter approach, and draws an analogy to tekiyas shofar. Even though the primary fulfillment of mitzvas shofar is hearing the shofar blown during the brachos of malchiyos, zichronos, and shofaros of musaf, we recite the bracha of tekiyas shofar earlier, before the tekiyos d’meyushav blown before musaf.

This analogy which Tosfos mentions in passing is a very significant point. To answer the question posed by the title of this post, tekiyos during musaf according to Tosfos are the "real" tekiyos d'oraysa of Rosh haShana. More to come bl”n…