iThink: Chanukah - There is Something in the Air [Rav Binyamin Hutt]

If you have impeccable faith and abundant talents, coupled with focused determination, do you also need a healthy atmosphere to survive?  Here is an experiment you can try at home: Take any candle and light the wick on fire.  Once the flame has caught, carefully secure a clear inverted cup over the flame.  You will find that although you never even touched the candle, in moments it was extinguished due to the lack of oxygen.  Proper atmospheric elements are vital!  At this time of year we reflect upon our ancestors who fought with courage and integrity, to perpetuate the Jewish heritage.  The culture of the time threatened to suffocate our spiritual potential.  The eternal light unto the nations was about to be snuffed out.  It is therefore no coincidence, that the Chanukah miracles are remembered by the light of flickering flames dancing with great grace.  By reassessing the influences and various atmospheres we find ourselves in, our spark from within will miraculously shine like never before.

The Ri Ha-Zaken’s Opinion Regarding The Proper Location to Light Chanukah Candles [Rav Aryeh Leibowitz]

Originally posted here

There is a well-known dispute between Rashi and Tosafos regarding the proper place to light Chanukah candles.  The Braisa teaches (Shabbos 21b) that the candles should be lit “at the entrance of one’s home – outside (על פתח ביתו מבחוץ).”  Rashi understands the statement literally and states that the candles should be lit outside the door of one’s home.  Hence, the candles will be situated in one’s front yard – not in public property.   However, Tosafos (s.v. מצוה) argue and suggest that this Braisa, instructing one to light outside the door of his home, was addressing a specific case where one does not have a front yard, and the front door of his home opens into the public domain.  However, if one has a front yard, the correct place to light is outside the entrance to one’s front yard, with the candles situated in public property.  Tosafos provide two proof-texts to support their ruling.  One is from a later Braisia (23a) that states that if one’s yard has two entrances it needs candles at both entrances.  Tosafos conclude from this Braisa that the correct place to light is by the yard’s entrance and not the door of the house.  The view of Tosafos is accepted le-halacha by the Tur and Shulchan Aruch (siman 671).

However, two prominent Rishonim record an explanation attributed to the great Tosafist R. Isaac of Dampierre (Ri Ha-Zaken) that suggests that he was in agreement with Rashi.[1]  According to these later Rishonim, Ri taught that the Braisa requiring one to light at both entrances to his yard – which the printed Tosafos used to support their view – did not truly mean a yard with two entrances, but rather a home with two entrances.

Ri Ha-Zaken was one of the most illustrious Tosafists, and his lectures served as the basis for most of the printed Tosafos that appear on the margins of current day editions of the Talmud.  Indeed, the Bach (671 s.v. ומניחה) is perplexed that the opinion of “Tosafos” quoted in tractate Shabbos would not be consistent with the view of the Ri Ha-Zaken, since “anonymous Tosafos passages are from the Ri.” 

How do we address the concerns of the Bach?  Can the view of Ri be squared with the printed Tosafos?  A recently discovered manuscript provides the missing puzzle piece. 

Hundreds of Hebrew manuscripts from the period of the Rishonim are stored in libraries in the lands of the former USSR.  Behind the iron curtain, these manuscripts were inaccessible to the general public.  However, with the fall of the USSR in 1991, many of these libraries we opened to the world, and the Hebrew manuscripts were microfilmed and are now available to the general public.[2] One of the most significant manuscript collections for Torah study is the Gunzburg Collection housed in the National Library of Moscow.[3] In that collection, manuscript #636 is a previously unknown manuscript commentary on tractate Shabbos authored by a student of Ri Ha-Zaken and heavily based on Ri’s lectures.  The commentary contains many verbatim quotes from the Ri and captures many of his verbal formulations.  In 2007-2011, Machon Ofeq, headed by R. Avraham Shoshana, published this manuscript in two volumes as “Tosafot Ri Ha-Zaken ve-Talmido.”  This work contains many important contributions to the study of Tosafos on tractate Shabbos, for it is an earlier “layer” of the Tosafist teachings that eventually appeared in the printed Tosafos.[5]

In this manuscript commentary, the relevant passage for our discussion (21b s.v. בפתח) contains two important additions from the Ri.  First we are told that the Ri actually ruled like the view found in “Tosafos” and not Rashi.  The manuscript reads: “Therefore it appears to my teacher [= the Ri] that if one has a yard, lighting is to be done at the entrance to the yard, near the public domain (הלכך נראה לר' דהיכא דאיכא חצר מדליקין על פתח החצר הסמוך לרשות הרבים).” 

What about the explanation of Ri that is found in the later Rishonim?  This too is found in the manuscript commentary.  After stating Ri’s ruling, quoted above, the manuscript commentary quotes verbatim from Ri as follows: “However, I could suggest that the later [Braisa] of a yard with two entrances refers to a house with two entrances… accordingly, one would really light at the entrance to his house (ומיהו הייתי יכול לומר דההיא דלקמן דחצר שיש לה ב' פתחים היינו שיש לבית ה[פתוח] בה ב' פתחים... ולעולם מ[דליק] על פתחי הבית").”[5]

Thanks to this previously unknown manuscript we learn that the ruling of the printed Tosafos is not only consistent with the ruling of Ri, as the Bach anticipated, but is the ruling of the Ri.  The explanation of Ri recorded in the other Rishonim was merely an alternate perspective offered by Ri in his lecture to deflect the proof brought from the Braisa regarding a yard with two entrances.  Anyone familiar with Talmud lectures knows that the teacher will often suggest an alternative perspective or note a weakness when introducing a particular proof-text.  This apparently was the Ri’s intention when he prefaced this statement with, “I could suggest.”[6] It appears likely that the editors of Tosafos – in their desire to shorten the text – did not include this last statement by Ri in the Tosafos passage since it was merely a possible deflection offered in the flow of Ri’s lecture, and did not influence his conclusion.[7]

---

[1] Sefer Mitzvot Gedolot (SeMaG), Aseh Derabonon 5, and Hagahot Maimoniot, Hilkhos Chanukah 4:10.  Note also Rashi, Shabbos 23a s.v. חצר.   The Semag is certainly a reputable source for the teachings of the Ri, as its author – R. Moshe of Coucy, France – was a student of R. Yehudah of Paris.  R. Yehudah was a student of Ri.  The Hagahot Maimoniot was compiled by R. Meir haKohen of Rothenburg, a German Tosafist who lived a few generation after the Ri.  

[2] For more information about how to access these microfilms, visit the website of the National Library of Israel’s Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts: http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLI/English/collections/manuscripts/Pages/default.aspx

[3] For more about the Gunsberg collection and the story of Israel National Library’s attempt to purchase and transport it to Israel, see http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/דוד_גינגבורג. 

[4] For more on the development of the printed Tosafos, and for the central role played by Ri’s academy in that process, see A. Leibowitz, “The Emergence and Development of Tosafot on the Talmud,” Hakirah 15 (2013): 143-163, accessible here: http://www.hakirah.org/Vol15Leibowitz.pdf.

[5] Ri’s conclusion does not take into account the other proof-text brought by Tosafos from the case of a candle with two wicks.  This will be addressed shortly. 

[6] Indeed, in this case the Tosafists still had another proof-text – the candle with two wicks – that was not deflected by Ri in this passage.

[7] That the editors of the printed Tosafos shortened the text of the earlier commentaries is well documented.  For Rishonim who note this phenomenon see Terumas ha-Deshen, #19, and She’elos u-Teshuvos Maharik, #160, #211.

“Light Lomdus”: The Uniqueness of Chol HaMoed Sukkot

Rav Yehuda Turetsky

Sukkot and Pesach both have intermediate days known as Chol HaMoed.[1] Yet, there is evidence that the nature of each Chol HaMoed is different. In particular, it may be argued that Chol HaMoed Sukkot has an elevated status relative to Chol HaMoed Pesach. What follows are three contexts in which such an idea may emerge.  

1. Hallel: The Talmud (Erchin 10a-10b) distinguishes between these days in terms of the requirement to recite Hallel. We are required to recite a full Hallel each day of Sukkot. On Pesach, though, we only say a full Hallel on the first day of Yom Tov. The Talmud explains the difference based on the kinds of sacrifices offered. Each day of Sukkot has a distinct requirement to offer Karbanot (i.e. a different number of Karbanot are offered each day). This causes each day to be viewed as unique and deserving of its own Hallel. In contrast, we offer the exact same amount of Karbanot on each day of Chol HaMoed Pesach. Therefore, there is no need to recite a full Hallel each day[2].  

2. Meat and Wine: The Talmud (Pesachim 109a) comments that the Mitzvah of Simcha on Yom Tov requires one to consume meat and wine.[3] Some Achronim debate whether one is obligated in the Mitzvah of Simcha on each day of Chol HaMoed.[4] Rav Schachter (Be’ikvei HaTzon pp. 80-81) notes a distinction between Sukkot and Pesach regarding this Halakha. There is a requirement of Simcha each day on Chol HaMoed Sukkot. Just as Hallel is recited daily, so is there a Mitzvah of Simcha each day. That is not true on Pesach; there is no obligation to recite Hallel daily, and there is no need to have Simcha each day.[5]

3. Brachot on the Haftarah: Similar to every other Shabbat, we recite a Haftarah on Shabbat Chol haMoed of both Pesach and Sukkot. Yet, there may be a difference in the Brachot we recite on those respective Haftarot. Rama (O.C. 490:9) writes that one should make no reference to Pesach during the Brachot recited on Shabbat Chol HaMoed of Pesach. Vilna Gaon (Mayseh Rav no. 226) taught similarly regarding Shabbat Chol HaMoed of Sukkot.  For him, Pesach and Sukkot are the same; neither get mentioned during the Brachot we recite on the Haftorot. However, Magen Avraham (O.C. 490:7) writes that while we don’t mention Pesach in those Brachot, we do mention Sukkot. He explains that this is because Chol HaMoed Sukkot is more “Chamur” (stringent) and is therefore worthy of being mentioned.[6] For him, there is clearly a difference between Chol HaMoed Sukkot and Chol HaMoed Pesach.

What emerges from these sources is a very powerful idea. Each day of Sukkot is unique and presents a specific religious opportunity.

May we be Zocheh to appreciate each day and to maximize it for its true spiritual potential!

Chag Sameach!

---

[1] Ramban (Vayikrah 23) understands that Sefirat HaOmer also has a Chol HaMoed like status, serving as a link between Pesach and Shavuot. 

For a general analysis of Chol haMoed, see last year’s post on this blog.

[2]  For more on this general distinction, as well as the precise significance of offering new Karbanot each day, see Rav Soloveitchik’s understanding, cited in the Mesorah Journal Vol. 3, 31-33.

[3]  See the Gemara’s comment inside. It is possible that one fulfills this requirement differently when we are without a Beit HaMikdash, and there is much discussion regarding how exactly one fulfills this obligation. The precise requirements of Simchat Yom Tov are beyond the scope of this brief post.

[4] For sources on the general status of Chol HaMoed, as well as this particular question, see Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 188:7), Mishna Berurah (ad loc:27), Magen Avraham (O.C. 530:1), and Shut Rebbe Akiva Eiger Mahadurah Kammah no. 1. See as well the exchange of letters between Rav Eliyashiv and Rav Chaim Kanievsky published in the end of Tehilah LiYonah to Masechet Ta’anit. 

[5] See inside for the link between Simcha and Hallel.

[6] Magen Avraham connects this to the requirement to offer Karbanot. See inside.

Making a "לישב" On Only One Brownie?!

Rav Chaim Cohen

There is an interesting practice that takes place on Sukkos. Very often a person stops by his friend's sukkah and is offered a piece of cake or a brownie in order to make a bracha of לישב בסוכה.  This is a beautiful expression of hospitality, however we need to examine whether this is halachically correct. 

The Shulchan Aruch writes that a a person is only obligated to eat in a sukkah if he eats a כביצה or more of bread, or has an amount of mezonos that would be considered a meal (much more than a כביצה!). The Mishnah Berurah quotes poskim who dispute if a person can make a beracha if he eats an amount of mezonos which is more than a כביצה but less than the amount considered a meal. The Mishnah Berurah concludes that one CAN make a bracha in this case and he should also make sure to have כוונה on the actual sitting in the succah.

What is the halacha when one eats less than a כביצה of mezonos, such as one brownie or a small piece of cake.  This is a very common case, and seemingly the common practice is to make a beracha.  The explanation might be the following: 

There is a dispute if a person plans to be in a sukkah for an hour or two but doesn't plan on eating at all.  Can he make a bracha of לישב בסוכה? The Mishnah Brurah agrees to the opinion of the חיי אדם that allows a bracha to be made. 

In addition, the שער ציון says that the amount of כביצה is only needed for a person in his own sukkah, but when visiting a friend there is no assumption that he will receive a large portion of mezonos. 

Based on these two ideas we can suggest that really a person is really making the bracha on the actual sitting in the sukkah and doesn't really need to eat anything. However since the minhag is to make the bracha on food, it became the practice to take a little mezonos and make the bracha of לישב בסוכה. 

Accordingly, our custom is correct and a person can visit his friend's sukkah and make a bracha of לישב בסוכה even if he eats just a small amount of mezonos. (if a person can eat a כביצה of mezonos that would obviously be ideal).

Wishing everyone a chag sameach!

Sukkot - The First Day of Accounting

Rav Ari Waxman

A new, clean, fresh start. 

Following the thorough efforts of introspection and purification during the month of Elul, Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, we enter the first day of Sukkot with a clean slate. "Ulakachtem lachem b'yom harishon" (Vayikra 23, 40) - "Rishon hu l'cheshbon avonot" (Midrash Tanchuma).

But what about the days between Yom Kippur and Sukkot? Why does the new accounting of our failures only begin on the first day of Sukkot? 

The Midrash (above) describes the different stages of the process of kapara and refers to the taking of the arba minim as the final stage in this process. While the King grants amnesty on Yom Kippur, He isn't fully appeased until His subjects come forward with their lulavim in their hands and praise Him. From this perspective, the first day of Sukkot is the final step in the kapara process and therefore it is on this day that we have finally cleared our account of avonot. 

The Kli Yakar (Dvarim 31, 12) addresses the question and explains that the new accounting of aveirot only begins on the first day of Sukkot because after Yom Kippur we are extremely busy with all of the mitzvot of Sukkot. Mitzva goreret mitzva, we stay out of trouble during these days, and therefore the first day of Sukkot is "Rishon hu l'cheshbon avonot". 

Halacha: Are Green Esrogim Valid?

Rav Aryeh Leibowitz

The Gemara records a dispute regarding the validity of an esrog that is “yarok like a leek.”  Although we normally assume the word “yarok” to mean green, תוספות demonstrates that Chazal understood the term “yarok” in different ways.  In many locations, “yarok” refers to a color that glistens, and is more correctly identified with yellowish gold.  There are a number of halakhic ramifications to the identification of “yarok” as yellowish gold and not green.  Examples include the laws of Nidah, Nega’im, and טריפות.  Additionally, this identification provides a new perspective on the Gemara in Rosh Hashana that describes Esther as having a “yarok” colored complexion. 

In regards to an Esrog, תוספות’s analysis suggests that the Gemara here says “yarok like a leek” to indicate that the color under discussion is green and not the regular “yarok,” which is yellowish gold. The Rambam, Rosh and Shulchan Aruch rule like R. Yehudah that an esrog that is “yarok like a leek” – green – is invalid. 

The Gemara seemingly concludes that the reason a green esrog is invalid is because it’s color indicates that it is not yet fully ripened, and did not grow enough time to be considered – according to Halacha –an esrog.  However, תוספות adds that even though the true color of an esrog is yellow, if a green esrog begins to turn to yellow after it has already been picked, it is considered valid.   Therefore, a light green esrog is valid, as it already contain a shade of yellow, and is no longer considered “yarok as a leek.”

   

Although there are dissenting opinion (most notably that of the Bach who invalidates an esrog that contains any green shade in its color), the standard opinion is to invalidate only a dark green esrog that has no signs of turning yellow (Shulchan Aruch 648:21).  It is possible, and acceptable according to halakha, for one to turn his green-esrog yellow by storing it with an apple.  However, care should be taken, because if an esrog is exposed to an apple for too long, the esrog will turn orange colored and the stem might fall off. 

Eat to Your Heart's Content

Eat to Your Heart's Content

Rav Chaim Cohen

The Gemara teaches us that there is a mitzvah from the Torah for a person to eat on Erev Yom Kippur. This is deduced from the language of the pasuk that teaches us that the fast really begins on the ninth of Tishri. This is a special bonus that Hashem considers our eating on Erev Yom Kippur as if we were actually fasting, and it is a big chesed for bnei Israel on the day before our judgement is sealed for the next year.

There are two major opinions to explain this mitzvah. 

1. Some explain that the eating on Erev Yom Kippur is in order to prepare ourselves physically to be able to manage the fast on Yom Kippur itself. 
2. Others explain that this is an independent mitzvah of eating and not connected to Yom Kippur directly.  For instance, Rabbenu Yonah suggests that eating is in order to replace the Yom tov meals of Yom Kippur. 

There are several differences based on these two approaches. Such as the question of whether women are obligated in this mitzvah, or if the mitzvah is only during the day or also at night, or if a person who is sick and will not be fasting is obligated in the mitzvah to eat.

There are two other important issues that might be connected as well. The poskim discuss if a person has to eat a significant amount each time he eats on Erev Yom Kippur or if even a small amount is sufficient. If we say that the eating is a preparation for Yom Kippur then maybe one has to eat a halachik shiur each time (kazayitz) but if we say that it is just a mitzvah to eat, then any amount is good. 

Another question is what type of foods should be eaten.  If we say that the eating is a preparation for the fast then we should specifically eat foods like bread and mezonos foods that are very filling and a person won't feel hungry. However, if we are of the opinion that there is just a mitzvah to eat, then any food would be sufficient. (It is recorded that the Ktav Sofer used to walk around and eat raisins the entire day.)

Wishing everyone a meaningful fast and a gmar tov.

The Fast of Gedaliah

The Navi Zechariah references four fast days that were instituted in connection with חורבן בית ראשון.  One of the four fasts is the “fast of the seventh [month],” identified by Chazal (RH 18b) as the third of Tishrei, the day Gedaliah was assassinated.[1]

כֹּה אָמַר ה' צְבָקוֹת צוֹם הָרְבִיעִי וְצוֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי וְצוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וְצוֹם הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה לְבֵית יְהוּדָה לְשָׂשׂוֹן וּלְשִׂמְחָה וּלְמֹעֲדִים טוֹבִים וְהָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם אֱהָבוּ (ספר זכריה ח, יט) 

Background

After חורבן בית ראשון, most of the Jews of Yehudah were exiled to Bavel.  However, some Jews did remain, and the Babylonians appointed Gedaliah to be the official government-appointed ruler over them.  When word of his dominion spread to neighboring countries, such as the lands of Amon and Moav, the Jews residing in those lands were inspired to return to Israel.  One of the neighboring kings did not look favorably on these events, and hence he commissioned a Jew named ישמעאל בן נתניה to assassinate Gedaliah.  When Gedaliah was killed, the remaining Jews of Israel were greatly distressed over his death and feared that the Babylonians would exact retribution on the Jewish community for assassinating the government-appointed leader.  Thus, many Jews left Israel and sought refuge in other countries.  The details of these events are described in Yirmiyahu 40-41.

A fast day was instituted in commemoration of the death of the great tzadik Gedaliah and the ensuing flight from Israel of the remnant of Jews. 

צום השביעי - זה שלשה בתשרי, שבו נהרג גדליה בן אחיקם. ומי הרגו - ישמעאל בן נתניה הרגו, ללמדך ששקולה מיתתן של צדיקים כשריפת בית אלהינו. ואמאי קרי ליה שביעי - שביעי לחדשים.  (ראש השנה יח ע"ב)

Gedaliah’s death at the hands of a fellow Jew and the subsequent exodus of the remaining Jews of Israel was the final blow of the חורבן and signaled the end of Jewish settlement in Israel.  The חורבן that had begun years earlier with the expulsion by Ashur of the ten tribes of the Northern kingdom of Israel had now been completed under the influence of Bavel.

---

[1] The Tosefta in Succah 6:10 and the Gemara in Rosh Hashana 18b identify the third of Tishrei as the day of the assasination.  However, there is a view among the Rishonim that Gedaliah was killed on the first of Tishrei, but the commemoration was pushed off unit the third to avoid a conflict with Rosh Hashana (see Ibn Ezra Zecharia 8:18 and Radak Yirmiyahu 41:1.  This is also quoted in the Beis Yosef (Siman 549 in the name of Rabbenu Yerucham).

The Secret of Kabalas ha-Torah (Maharal, R. Tzadok, and Rav Y. Eibeishutz)

Rav Aryeh Leibowitz

In Bava Basra (74a) Chazal tell of an Arab Merchant who brought the 2^nd generation Amora Rabbah Bar Bar Chana to see Har Sinai.  The Gemara relates that when they arrived, the mountain was surrounded by “scorpions that stood like white donkeys.”  What does this image of Har Sinai teach us about Matan Torah?

Scorpions and donkeys represent two primary destroyers of man.  Scorpions are known for their sting, which has the ability to kill a human being by injecting venom into his bloodstream.  Indeed, the Mishna in Pirkei Avos 2:10 notes the danger of a scorpion’s sting, and Berachos 33a warns of the ferociousness of the scorpion.  The nature of the scorpion’s attack is that it kills a person from within, without causing any outward physical destruction of the body. 

In contrast, donkeys are known for their harsh bite, which has the ability to crack a person’s bone structure.  Indeed, in Pesachim 49b we read how R. Akiva reminisced about his wayward youth when he sought out opportunities to attack a Talmid Chacham and bite him “like a donkey.”  R. Akiva explained that unlike a dog’s bite that merely breaks the skin, the bite of a donkey crushes one’s bones.  This nature of the donkey’s attack is that it kills a person from on the outside, destroying the physical destruction of the body.  

The eternal stationing of Donkey-like scorpions as sentries around Har Sinai reflects a certain reality of the Har Sinai experience.  Namely, that normal human existence is negated by the experience of Har Sinai.  What transpired on that mountain was so beyond humanity, it created a reality: the mountain itself negates man’s very existence.  This negation of man speaks to the totality of man’s essence, both his internal essence – represented by the scorpion – and his external self – represented by the donkey.[1]

What aspect of the Har Sinai experience caused this reality?   Chazal teach us it was the fact that Hashem himself uttered the revelation of Torah that nullified human existence.  Shabbos 88b relates that when the Jewish nation heard the commandments at Har Sinai “their souls departed them.”  

What became of those departed souls?  Chazal relate that after the souls of the Jewish nation departed heavenly dew descended that resurrected the deceased. (Shabbos 88b).   R. Yonason Eibeishutz is startled by this progression of events.  Why was it necessary for them to die if they would be immediately resurrected? 

His answer is important not only for understanding the events of Har Sinai, but also for our own avodas Hashem.  R. Eibeishutz answers that in order to be shayach to Torah, the Jewish nation needed to experience a recreation.  As they were, they were not elevated enough to connect to Torah.  Only through departing their physical bodies and leaving their insufficient spiritual station, were they able to re-emerge as entirely new creation.  Purified and reborn, they were now able to proceed with kabalas ha-Torah.[2]

And so it is with us.  To be connected to Torah, we too need to experience recreation.  Even on the individual level, the process of kabalas ha-Torah must contain an element of rebirth and redefinition. 

Chazal teach us that the Torah only abides by one who brings death to himself over Torah (Berachos 63b).  On the most basic level this means to be dedicated to Torah to a degree that we sacrifice physical comforts.  In this spirit the Rambam advises to forgo luxurious meals and limit sleep in pursuit of Torah (Hilchos Talmud Torah 3:12).  Perhaps, this is also part of the reason we deny ourselves sleep, and stay up all night on leil Shevuos learning and preparing to re-receive Torah. 

But this principle of Chazal can also be understood on a more existential level.  The Chazon Ish writes that the “bringing death to oneself” described by Chazal refers to destroying our superficial perceptions of life.  In order to acquire Torah one must be willing to redefine who he is, realign his principles, and connect to a higher reality.  Only through this form of self-sacrifice can a person live a spiritual Torah existence.  The Yismach Moshe suggests that this is what Chazal mean when they tell us that righteous people “in death” are called “living.”  One is only alive spiritually, when his has successfully brought an end to his mundane existence.[3]   

[1] Based on Maharal, Netzach Yisrael 31

[2] Ye’aros Devash, Derush 10

[3] Yismach Moshe, Be-Shalach

Pesach: Why No Full Hallel on the Holiday that Celebrates Song?

Rav Turetsky

We experienced the incredible miracle of Keriat Yam Suf on the 7th day of Pesach. We broke from our former masters and further established ourselves as free. Yet, the manner in which we celebrate this day is perplexing. From the choice of Haftarah and numerous other customs, it is clear that Shira (song) plays a major role in defining the essence of this day.[1] Indeed, the Jews' song at Yam Suf is so significant it is recorded in the Torah and we incorporate it into our daily prayers. Yet, as has been noted, this is also the only Yom Tov in which there is no recitation of full Hallel.[2]

Why would it be that specifically on the holiday so focused on Shira that we do not recite Hallel, the quintessential Jewish form of song? 

One answer is cited by several Rishonim based on Chazal.[3] It is inappropriate to recite Hallel on a day in which so many Egyptians drowned. We are very happy and would like to sing Hallel, but our joy is tempered. Within this approach, Hallel does appear to fit with what the 7th day of Pesach is all about; we just can't recite it out of sensitivity to the Egyptians that lost their lives.

Perhaps one could suggest an additional answer. Rav Moshe Wolfson (Emunat Itecha 7th day of Pesach) has emphasized the spontaneous nature of the song the Jewish people sang at Yam Suf. This was not a pre-planned and organized song, but rather the Jews’ instinctive reaction to a miracle. Maybe that is another reason why Hallel isn't recited. It is a day of song, but not the kind of formalized obligatory singing Hallel usually represents.[4] Instead, the Shira we sing on the 7th day is one of spontaneous joy.

The 7th day of Pesach celebrates an incredible miracle. That we don't recite Hallel is important and reminds us of two ideas. One is that our own joy must be tempered with sensitivity towards the hardships of others. The other teaches us something important about Avodat Hashem generally. Judaism involves a lot of formal acts and requirements, and they certainly have their place. The 7th day of Pesach underscores the need to also worship Hashem with spontaneity and excitement. Our instinctive reaction should be towards God and we He has done for us.

[1] See, for example, Rav Rosensweig's Torahweb article on the 7th day of Pesach - http://torahweb.org/torah/2002/moadim/rros_pesach.html

[2] See Talmud Erchin 10.

[3] See, for example, Talmud Sanhedrin 39b and Shibolei HaLeket, Rosh Chodesh no. 174

[4] There is some discussion whether Hallel should be perceived as a formal obligation as opposed to more spontaneous song. That is beyond the scope of this brief Devar Torah.

Pesach: Leaving Mitzrayim, Thinking Big

Rav Waxman

Already at the time of the ברית בין הבתרים, when אברהם אבינו was told that his children will experience a difficult time during the Egyptian exile, Hashem also informs him that his children will leave Egypt with a very significant amount of wealth. "V'achrei chein yeitzu b'rchush gadol" (Breishit 15, 14). 

Here, at this central and fundamental revelation regarding the redemption of Bnei Yisrael from Egypt, which is also the paradigm of future redemptions (Bresihit Rabba 44,17), we find Hashem making a promise that the Jews will leave Egypt with significant wealth.

We see, in fact, that the Jews completely wiped out Mitzrayim from all of their money, as the Gemara teaches:

"וינצלו את מצרים" (שמות י"ב), אמר רבי אמי: מלמד שעשאוה כמצודה שאין בה דגן. וריש לקיש אמר: עשאוה כמצולה שאין בה דגים. (ברכות דף ט:) 

While using different imagery to portray the financial loss Egypt incurred, either a citadel without wheat or the depths of the ocean without fish, both R' Ami and Reish Lakish agree that the Jews left Egypt with all of Egypt's wealth. 

In addition, not only did the Jews get rich from the possessions they took from the Egyptians before they left, they also continued to accumulate wealth from the riches that were washed ashore after קריעת ים סוף, the ביזת הים. As the Midrash teaches: 

למה היו מקצת הכלים של כסף ומקצתן של זהב? לומר לך האחרונים שהיו של זהב כנגד ביזת הים שכשם שהזהב נחמד ויקר מן הכסף כך היתה ביזת הים גדולה משל מצרים ועל אלו ואלו נאמר (שיר השירים א) "תורי זהב נעשה לך" זו ביזת הים, "עם נקודות הכסף" זו ביזת מצרים. (במדבר רבה פרשה יג')

What is the relevance of this financial piece within the great events of Bnei Yisrael leaving Mitzrayim? Is getting rich in fact an essential component in the geulah from Egypt? 

Rav Kook explains this idea in his commentary on Aggadata, עין אי"ה. The גמרא in ברכות tells us that הקב"ה had to ask משה רבנו to encourage the Jews to take the Egyptian's wealth before they left because on their own the Jews wouldn't want to remain in מצרים for another minute. The גמרא compares this situation to that of a person being held in jail and is freed. Upon being freed his liberators tell him to run out of prison and grab some money too. He just wants to get out and feels like telling them, “Just get me out, forget about the money.” The גמרא tells us that the reason for this additional component of taking Mitzrayim’s wealth was that Hashem wanted to make sure that He brought about the fulfillment of the promise to Avraham Avinu, "V'achrei chein yeitzu b'rchush gadol". 

Again, why was it important that Am Yisrael becomes wealthy at this point in time?

Rav Kook explains that at this point, the birth of the Jewish nation, an extreme change was necessary to take place in the mindset of the Jews of that time. We had taken on a small minded mentality through our years of slavery. We had to undergo a transition whereby we would break out of a small, constricted, shlepper mentality which is basically concerned with worrying about where the next meal is going to come from. As the Sfas Emes explains, we had to break out of "סבלות מצרים" from the לשון of סבלנות, patience. We became too patient, tolerant, complacent with our own shlepper mentality. The development of the Jewish nation required us to start thinking big, thinking first class, beyond worrying about where the next buck is going to come from. We’re meant to make an impact on the word, and as such we had to become a little bit classier, a little bit bigger, "V'achrei chein yeitzu b'rchush gadol!" 

It is for this reason, writes Rav Kook, that the גמרא explains that Hashem asked Moshe to approach Bnei Yisrael and try to convince them to take the wealth of Egypt before they leave. Regarding this point, taking Egypt's money, we don’t receive a direct commandment, but rather we are persuaded to do it. This shows that attaining wealth was not the goal itself, but rather it is a means towards reaching the end goal, enabling the Jews to start thinking big. Therefore Hashem says "דבר נא באזני העם", please try to convince them.

This is the meaning, explains Rav Kook, of the משל in the גמרא regarding a person in jail. A person in jail is totally limited by his confines. Not only do the walls around him constrict him physically, they also confine his vision, they don’t let him aspire for greatness. Here an outsider is needed to lend a helping hand and enable the small minded person to break out of his box and see the great opportunities that exist for him in life. Because the small minded person can’t see the great opportunities he only sees the specific in front of him - get out of jail! Only the outside liberator can help him see beyond his nose and help him realize the greatness he can achieve.

Of course there is the כור הברזל, the iron furnace, aspect of our experience in Egypt, the feelings of submission which were cultivated inמצרים which we then direct towards our Creator once we were taken out. At the same time, we’re expected not to underestimate our potential and become the highest, most sophisticated, first-class, broad minded, noble people we can become. Accumulating the wealth of מצרים helped contribute towards this transition from small minded slaves to men of great vision. "V'achrei chein yeitzu b'rchush gadol"! 

Mussar: iThink - Chanukah

Rav Hutt

When iThink Chanukah, my mind sees smooth flames adorning an ornate menorah; I smell freshlatkes frying in the kitchen; and I hear the spinning draidel roll to a stop.  These are the icons of Chanukah. Just like the icons on the computer do more than decorate the screen, so too, these Chanukah icons open new windows of insight and perspective.  The burning candles tell the miraculous story of Hashem's illuminating love for His chosen people.  The crispy fried latkes remind us that the Jewish people are symbolic of oil. Even when mixed or stirred with other liquids, oil will eventually separate in order to rise above.  The Jewish people cannot be dissolved.  When we spin the draidel, it is with delight that we can learn and practice Torah freely – not driven by fear to hide beneath a game of tops.  This year, may a quick click on icons of Chanukah open up new windows of inspiration and introspection for us all.

Post-Chag: Internal Motivation

Rav Dovid Lessin

Post-Chag: Internal Motivation

As we say goodbye to the yerach ha’eitanim, the month of chagim, we must ask ourselves how to carry the inspiration of the Yamim Nora’im with us into the long and cold winter months that lay ahead.  The Slonimer Rebbe writes that the pasuk “isru chag b’avotim”, can be interpreted to mean that one must bind the chag to himself with ropes, so strong must be the resolve to not let go of what we have gained spiritually these last few weeks.  What steps can we take to do that?

Despite the uplifting nature of the Yamim Nora’im, this time period also carries a potential danger.  After a prolonged period of being inspired from the environment - the call of the shofar, the power of uplifting tefilot, the excitement of preparing for Sukkot, and the joy of the Simchat Beit HaSho’eva - one can lose touch with the ability to motivate himself from within.  Reliance upon external sources of inspiration can potentially produce a form of dependency on being driven from without instead of from within.

Sukkot - Vulnerability with Hashem

Rav Dovid Lessin

“Vulnerability” is one of the most frightening words in the English language.  It is something we instinctively try to protect ourselves from, and yet social psychologists have shown that vulnerability seems to be the birthplace of creativity, joy, and personal growth.  Without it, one’s avodas Hashem becomes stale, monotonous, and dull.  What is vulnerability, what does it have to do with Sukkot, and why is it so important in our avodas Hashem?

Vulnerability means to open oneself up, often emotionally, in a way that leaves one undefended and exposed.  It means taking a risk where one is susceptible to the unknown, where one is unprotected, and where results are not guaranteed.  Why would anyone want that?

The answer is that when making oneself vulnerable, one is opening himself up to the possibility of change.  In interpersonal relationships, vulnerability fosters closeness, intimacy, and connection.  This is true for a simple reason: When one builds up the courage to step outside what is familiar and comfortable, one can then become more than he was before.

Ecstasy of Drawing Water - Simchat Beit Hashoeava

Rav Ari Waxman

The celebration of שמחת בית השואבה was one of the greatest expressions of joy during the time of the בית המקדש, and the events that we have today that are זכר לשמחת בית השואבה are also among the greatest expressions of joy. 

While during the whole year wine was poured on the מזבח when the קרבנות were brought, on  סוכות there was a unique practice of also pouring water on the מזבח. This water was drawn from the שילוח spring at the foot of הר הבית (at the end of Chizkiyahu's water tunnel which we can walk through today http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE9zzi_gZ04 ). A tremendous celebration surrounded the water being drawn, to the point that the משנה tells us that if someone hasn't seen the celebration of שמחת בית השואבה they haven't seen real happiness. 

What is behind this tremendous celebration and explosion of happiness at the שמחת בית השואבה? 

Light “Lomdus”: What is the Status of Chol HaMoed?

Rav Yehuda Turetsky

In all of the learning that occurs on both Sukkot and Pesach, there is often little independent analysis of the status of Chol HaMoed. What follows  is a brief overview of a fundamental issue regarding the nature of Chol HaMoed. 

Is Chol HaMoed more similar to a regular weekday or a Yom Tov? While it is obviously somewhat unique because it happens to be Sukkot or Pesach, Chol HaMoed could really be viewed in one of two ways. It may be perceived as a Yom Chol, a typical weekday with a somewhat elevated status. Alternatively, Chol HaMoed may be much more similar to a Yom Tov. While it has certain key differences from regular Yom Tov, those may not undermine the true nature of the day as a Yom Tov.  This question has been asked explicitly by certain Achronim, and it has clear precedent in various debates among the Rishonim.

Thoreau's Cabin was No Sukkah

Thoreau's Cabin was No Sukkah

Rav Ezra Shapiro

My first time revisiting Walden I had a certain sense of nostalgia for Novordok.  A beis hamussar out in the woods, letting go of the physical trappings of society. A self galus freeing one from the demand of fitting into a previous role. Self achrayus, hitbodedut. Wasn’t Thoreau’s cabin a lot like our sukkah. Then as I brought it up with my father he commented how a brief perusal of Walden was very off putting in its lack of humility. A certain air of arrogance in Thoreau’s assuredness of everyone else being wrong.

As I thought about it Thoreau’s cabin it is nothing like our sukkah.

His cabin was an escape from community and society to display and experience the individual’s ability to be self reliant and independent. I have or can be the source of everything that I need.

Making Mussaf Meaningful – Understanding the Avodat Yom HaKippurim

Shiur Recap: “Making Mussaf Meaningful – Understanding the Avodat Yom HaKippurim”

Rav Yehuda Turetsky

A shiur was given on Yom Kippur night on the Kohain Gadol’s Avodah on Yom Kippur. Many of the Talmidim requested electronic copies of the source sheets. They have been uploaded here.

For those that were unable to attend and want a brief summary, the shiur consisted of three separate parts:

1. We discussed why the Avodah is recited during Mussaf, as well as its precise role in Davening.
2. We presented a brief introduction and overview of the Avodah. We offered a summary of the different forms of Avodah performed on Yom Kippur, as well as the unique role and special status of the Kohain Gadol and his clothing.
3. The primary part of the shiur focused on individual Avodot performed on Yom Kippur that are not found throughout the rest of the year. We tried to combine some "lomdus" with "machshava" ideas in an attempt to develop a greater appreciation and understanding of the Avodah. 

The Sources for the shiur can be downloaded here: Sources for Rav Turetsky's Shiur

עיצומו של יום - The Awe of the Day

Rav Ezra Shapiro

Rav Yochanan Ben Zakkai lies on his death bed crying as his talmidim enter. "Why are you crying?" they asked. "Two paths lay ahead of you, how can you not cry" he answers.  

Is Rav Yochanan ben Zakkai, who has the zchut of saving torah for future generations, concerned about his din!?! It could be a testament to his humility, it could be the example of אשרי אדם מפחד תמיד. I think that there is another explanation. 

Rav Soloveitchik in Al Hateshuva explains the Rambam’s curious placement of the inner workings of בחירה חופשית in the center of Hilchot Teshuva, splitting Hilchot Teshuva in two. The Rav explains that the Rambam is expressing two distinct types of teshuva. The first - a procedural teshuva, consisting the elements of viduy, charata, kabalah leatid and kapara. The second  - an awareness shift of teshuva. A teshuva which is the result of having stared the implications of בחירה חופשית in the face. That person is met with sudden thoughts of responsibility and repercussion. Not so much the fear of repercussion, as much as an awareness of repercussion and consequence. A sudden new lease on  meaningful choices and a meaningful life. 

When Rav Yochanan Ben Zakkai says that there are two roads ahead he is not necessarily focused on the uncertainty of his future. He might be expressing his very real awareness of שכר ועונש, implication, repercussion and meaningfulness of all that has been. That is עצום, overwhelming.

Gmar din is עצום, the power of עיצומו של יום  is powerful in its effect, independent of the fear of the specific outcome of din. The confidence that the thread will turn white between the horns of the ram does not relieve the immense tension filling the climactic moment when it does.

The awe of walking the trail of Mount Hua Shan is hardly alleviated by the chains which you are carefully grasping onto. There may be no fear of falling but there is certainly an acute awareness of height and of what each careful step means when you are 5000 feet above the ground.

On Yom Kippur Hashem will take us 5000 feet up. He will also given us the chains to grasp onto, we thank him for both and will not come out of the "trail" the same as we entered it.

Bezrat Hashem we should have the focus and awareness tomorrow to gain the sense of awe of standing in din, irrespective of the confidence we have that one week later we will be dancing with our lulavim held high.

Gmar Chatima Tova