Parshas Noach by Reb Jay Spero

In this week’s parsha we have the famous story of Noach and his ark. As we know, every story that is mentioned in the Torah is not mentioned merely as an historical guide. It is mentioned to us as information that is relevant and meaningful to our lives.

What are we to glean from the story of Noach and the water that rained down on the earth?

“Hashem said to Noach: The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with robbery through them; I am about to destroy them from the earth” (Bereshis 6:13). When Hashem tells this to Noach, He is not telling him something that will happen in the next week. In fact, it took Noach one hundred and twenty years to build the ark. The Midrash mentions that Hashem gave Noach specific instructions on which trees to plant in order to obtain the proper wood for the ark. The Zohar explains that the reason for this was that the ark had a strong degree of holiness, similar to the Tabernacle. That just as the tabernacle was a place where Hashem “concentrated” His Shechina—Divine presence— so too the ark was a place on earth where Noach and the Shechina would be able to dwell while the world underwent a purification process (obviously Hashem does not need a place to dwell, as He has no physical needs, but one of the reasons He created the world, was that man should perfect it enough that He would be able to dwell amongst man, which is precisely what He was doing here.)

What was supposed to happen in these one hundred and twenty years? Noach was meant to have an effect on the people around him. That when they would see him building the ark, they would ask him what he was doing, and he would tell them that he was preparing for the end of the world. He would then explain to them why Hashem desired to destroy His own handiwork. Although the people themselves had not heard the voice of Hashem there is an obvious imperative to be a moral human being, and in this society, the thievery was so rampant, that it was not worthwhile for them to continue to exist.

From this we learn an extremely important lesson: the ability for one person to make a difference.

Hashem would not have had Noach build the ark for all those years if He didn’t think it there was potential for change. This shows the tremendous power we have to effect change. And although at the end, Noach did not have a positive effect on the world, he did have a positive effect on his family and himself.

The significance of the water was a purification process. “I will send rain upon the earth, forty days and forty nights” (Bereshis7:4). The number forty has a lot of meaning in Jewish thought: forty days of the flood, a mikvah—ritual bath—requires forty s’ah (a s’ah is a measurement), forty days from conception to formation of fetus, etc. This number signifies change, from nothing to something, from impurity to purity.

When Hashem made it rain for forty days, He was purifying the world. This is a lesson for us, because as we know, each person is a miniature world, and we have the ability to purify ourselves, just as Hashem purified the world.

Breishis by Reb Jay

In this week’s parsha, the Torah brings the story of Kayin and Hevel. Kayin and Hevel are famous in history for being the first known case of fratricide. Their story is thought to be a simple one. Two brothers, who were unable to get along, the tension rising until one finally killed the other.

The reality of this story is much more complex than that. What really happened between Kayin and Hevel contains lessons and implications that can used to learn from, even today, some fifty seven hundred years later.

Kayin and Hevel were the children of Adom and Chavah. They literally had the whole world for the taking. Kayin was a farmer, and Hevel a shepherd.

Although popular perception has Kayin as the “bad guy” and Hevel as the “good guy”, Kayin, in fact, was the first of the two brothers who thought of offering up a sacrifice to Hashem. Offering up a sacrificial offering is meant to be a difficult thing. It is hard for human beings to part with their physical possessions. When we offer them up to Hashem, our giving shows our love for Him, as giving is a sign of love (obviously Hashem does not need these offerings, as He has no needs; sacrificial offerings, as all commandments, are done for us). For Kayin this was particularly difficult. Kayin’s name means acquisition. He was a person who desired to acquire possessions. For him to bring an offering from the ground was very difficult - so difficult, that Kayin’s offering was of an inferior quality.

Hevel, although it was not his idea to bring an offering, offered up the choicest sheep of his flock.

Hevel’s offering was accepted, and Kayin’s was not: “Hashem turned to Hevel and his offering, but to Kayin, He did not turn. This upset Kayin and his face fell”. Hashem told Kayin: “Why are you upset and why has your face fallen? Surely if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But if you do not improve yourself, your sin is preserved, its desire (“it” being the evil inclination, which is the part of us that demands instant gratification) is toward you, yet you can conquer it” (Bereshis 4:5-7).

Kayin’s despondency was understandable, having just had his offering rejected by Hashem. But Hashem does not reject him. He simply tells him that he has sinned through his lack of gratitude. But this is easily rectified. All Kayin must do is improve. But Hashem warns him that if he does not improve, sin will overtake him. The nature of man is not to be stagnant, but rather to improve or, Hashem forbid, regress.

What does Kayin do after Hashem reaches out to him? He ignores Hashem’s entreaties. He goes to Hevel and provokes him into an argument and kills him. The Midrash (Bereshis Rabbah) explains that Kayin proposed to Hevel that they divide the world. Kayin’s intention in making this formal split was to provoke Hevel into an argument and kill him, a ruse that worked.

Kayin kills Hevel because he is jealous. If there had been no Hevel, Kayin would not have found it difficult to achieve atonement for his sin. But once he saw that Hevel’s sacrifice had been accepted he could not bear it.

The commentators ask, why did Hevel deserve to die? The Maharal explains that Hevel was complicit in this tragic story, because he brought his offering to trump Kayin. Obviously, this was not the only reason, as his offering was accepted, but nonetheless, it was a strong motivating factor of his offering (the Gra learns differently; see the Gaon's peirush to Koheles). These are the tragic results of jealousy: the death of one brother and the exiling of the second (to wander the earth was the punishment Hashem meted out to Kayin).

The Mishna in Pirkei Avos counts jealousy as something that pulls a person out of the world (Chapter 4 Mishna 21). The meaning is obvious. When a person focuses not on what he needs to accomplish, but on his friend’s accomplishments, he has lost his purpose, i.e., he has pulled himself out of the world.

Painting your Masterpiece

Read painting-your-masterpiece by Rabbi Frand. Neil Harris from Chicago wrote it over and he did a masterful job. Chazak U'Boruch!

Audio Presentation on Rosh Hashana by Ben

Audio Presentation on Rosh Hashana

Avinu Malkeinu

By Ben Adler

Our Father, our King, erase through Your abundant compassion all records of our guilt

If we have asked Hashem to forgive and wipe away our sins, why do we now beseech Him to erase through His abundant compassion all records of our guilt?

This question can be answered as follows: The commentaries wonder why Yaakov rebuked Reuven for his sin of switching his mother’s bed, if Reuven had already repented. The Ohr Hachaim[1] and Reb Elya Lapian[2] answer that although Reuven had repented from his sin, the impression of his action was still evident, and Yaakov chastised Reuven on his middah of being haste. [This may be comparable to one who received a speeding ticket and is absolved from paying the fine, but earns a point on his record. The point reflects his driving habits, and to feel truly innocent, one would ask to have the points removed from his record.] In this vein we can explain our request here. Although You have forgiven our sins and wiped away and removed our willful sins and errors, we are still concerned with our records of our guilt. Therefore we ask Hashem to erase our records of guilt entirely, so even the impression of sin is obliterated.

Our Father, our King, [remember us for merit] inscribe us in the book of merits

What does it mean to be remembered for merit? The Chofetz Chaim asks regarding the supplication that we recite during the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah, Avinu Malkeinu kasveinu b’seifer zechuyos, Our Father, our King, inscribe us in the book of merits. If we are meritorious, then we do not need to be inscribed in the book of merits. If we are not meritorious, then of what benefit is it to be inscribed in the book of merits? Let us examine the word zechuyos, merits. The Sefarim write that the word zechus is derived from the word zach, pure. We ask Hashem to remember us for merits, and essentially we are requesting that Hashem purify us, because Hashem is the Only One Who can judge us as meritorious. Similarly, during the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah, we ask Hashem to inscribe us in the book of merits, because we were judged on Rosh Hashanah, but we do not know the outcome of the judgment. Therefore we ask Hashem to purify us, and then we can be inscribed for life and merits together with the righteous.

---

[1] Breishis 49:4

[2] Lev Eliyahu Ibid

Why Apples?

Rabbi Jay Spero

Why do we eat an apple on Rosh Hashana? Sure an apple is sweet, but so are grapes. What is special about the apple?

When Yakov came in to receive the brocha from Yitzchok, Yitzchok smelled
the scent of Yakov's clothing, and said, "see the smell of my son is
like the smell of a field" (Toldos 27:27). Rashi quotes the Gemara in Ta'anis that says that Yaakov smelled like an apple orchard. The Shelah writes that this is why we use on apple on Rosh Hashana.

What is the significance of a Tzadik (Yaakov Aveinu) smelling like an
apple orchard? What is the reasoning behind the Shelah's comment?
The Gemara in Shabbos (88a) asks what is the meaning of the posuk in Shir
Hashirim (2:3): "Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest"? The
Gemara answers that this refers to the Jewish people, that just as an
apple tree is unique in that its fruit comes before its leaves (unlike
other trees whose leaves come before its fruit), so too the Jewish
people, who said "we will do and we will listen" (na'aseh v'nishma) are
unique-- unlike other nations who want to know what they are accepting
before they accept it.

Tosfos questions the Gemara and states that this posuk in Shir Hashirim
is not referring to the Jewish people, but to Hashem ? Tosfos does not offer
an answer (but suggests a different posuk in Shir Hashirim).

However, the Nefesh Hachaim gives a beautiful answer. Shir Hashirim is a
series of dialogues between the Jewish people and the Hashem. The Nefesh
Hachaim explains that if the Jewish people perceived Hashem to be similar
to an apple tree, that is because the Jewish people are similar to an apple
tree. The Gemara in Brochos (6a) explains that just as we wear Tefilin
that expound on the oneness of Hashem (Shema Yisroel Hashem Elokeinu
Hashem Echad), so does Hashem wear Tefilin that expounds on the oneness
of His beloved nation (Who is like Yisroel, a unique nation in the world;
Divre Hayamim 1). This shows that Hashem gave us a tremendous gift: the
ability to have a reciprocal relationship with Him. That is how we have
the awesome responsibility on Rosh Hashana to crown Hashem as King.

And when Hashem sings our praises and says we are special,because we had
so much trust in Him that even before we knew what was in the Torah we
were willing to accept it, what is the reciprocal side of this? When
Hashem was willing to give us the Torah based on our acceptance, even
before there was act, because He had trust in us. This illuminates the
special relationship we have with Hashem, and when we eat the apple
this Friday night, we must contemplate while eating the apple the
uniqueness of this relationship.

Not for our Welfare

Tefillah on Rosh Hashanah
is not for our Welfare

The Yesod V’Shoresh Ha’avodah writes that all the Tefillos that we recite on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur is that the Name of Hashem should be sanctified amongst the nations and throughout the whole world. One should be distressed and cry on this Day of Judgment, as we are praying regarding the desecration of Hashem’s great name. One should pray with this intention regarding Hashem’s Name even more than the intentions that he has concerning his own welfare. In exile, one should always cry and be distressed on the desecration of Hashem’s Name amongst the nations who worship wood and stone, the handiwork of man. The nations taunt us and wonder, “where is your G-d, let Him stand and help you.”

The strategy that one must adopt to awaken his heart to crying is by reciting the words of the Tefillos with deliberation, and he should pause wherever there is a break in the recital, and this will arouse him to weeping. For example, when reciting u’vchen ten pachdecha Hashem Elokeinu al kol maassecha, he should have in mind the following: “until when will Your great Name be desecrated amongst the nations, and for this reason instill Your awe upon all Your works, that they should all recognize that there is no G-d other than You, and Your Name will grow exalted amongst the nations.” These are the intentions that one should have with great weeping and tremendous distress. Similarly, when reciting the words v’aimascho al kol mah shebarasa…. v’yeiasu kulam agudah echos… one should weep with the same intention mentioned previously.

When one recited the words u’vchen ten kavod Hashem le’amecha, he should have the following intention: “grant honor to Your people, not for our sake, rather for Your great Name that will grow exalted and sanctified amongst the nations, because now, we, the Holy Nation, are at a low and in great disgrace, and the nations scorn us and wonder, “where is your G-d?” The same intentions apply to the rest of the bracha, specifically the words: V’simloch atah Hashem levadecha Then You, Hashem, will reign alone over all Your works. One should have kavanah when reciting these words, and he should weep and be in great distress.

Keep Davening in “Mar-Cheshvan”

Daven in Tishrei,
Keep Davening in “Mar-Cheshvan”

Rav Shimshon Pinkus writes that whenever Elul comes, people wonder what is required of them during the forty-day period from Rosh Chodesh Elul through Yom Kippur. In truth, there is a unique idea that is reflected during this time period. The month of Cheshvan is referred to as Mar Cheshvan. This alludes to the idea that Cheshvan is a month where meracshin sifevovasei, the lips stir and are in motion. Once the month of Elul has passed, and we then proceed to Rosh Hashanah, Aseres Yemei Teshuvah, and Yom Kippur with the selichos and Tefillos that we recite, we conclude with Sukkos, Hoshanah Rabbah, and Simchas Torah. We have become so accustomed to reciting Tefillos and praises to Hashem in those two months of Elul and Tishrei, when we enter into the month of Cheshvan, our lips are still moving and reciting the Tefillos and offering praises to Hashem.
The concept that the lips can move subconsciously only exists when the words that we recite are internalized in the very depths of our hearts. Normal speech emanates from the brain that decides what words a person should utter. When the lips move by themselves, however, this is a sign that there are thoughts in the deep recesses of ones consciousness that he may not even be aware of, and at any particular moment these thoughts are expressed on their own. The reason for this phenomenon is due to the tremendous impact that the recital of the words had on the person.

This essentially is the goal of this time period, in which one should acquire such an intensity of Torah study, prayer, and fear of heaven, that the words should penetrate to the very depth of his heart, and they should descend to the depths of his soul. Even when the Days of Awe have passed, in the month of Cheshvan the lips should still be uttering the words of the living G-d on their own accord. This process should continue until Elul of the following year. This is the time when one should fill up his spiritual storehouses for the upcoming year that will be upon us for the good.

Praying in a State of Awe

Rabbi Yitzchok Margareten

The Medrash states that Hashem told Adam Harishon after he sinned and repented, “just like you were judged and were vindicated on Rosh Hashanah, so too your children in the future will be judged on Rosh Hashanah and they will be vindicated. It is interesting to note that when Adam Harishon responded to Hashem’s question , “Where are you?” Adam did not express any form of regret. In fact, Adam placed the blame for his violation of Hashem’s command on Chava, claiming , “Haisha asher nasata imadi hi nasna li min haeitz v’ochel, the woman whom You gave to be with me-she gave me of the tree and I ate.” Why then is our judgment on Rosh Hashanah considered to be a replica of Adam’s situation, when Adam denied his complicity in the eating from forbidden fruit?

Although not apparent from the narrative recorded in the Torah, Adam expressed acknowledgement of his sin by stating , “Es kolcha shamati bagan v’ira ki eirom anochi v’aeichavei I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I am naked, so I hid. Essentially, Adam was declaring that he had achieved a level of Yiras Shamayim, fear of heaven, and this earned him vindication. The lesson for future generations is that on Rosh Hashanah we should realize that we are standing in front of the Melech Malchei Hamelochim, the King of all kings. This recognition will surely instill fear of heaven in us, and then we too can be zoche badin, be vindicated in judgment.

We find a similar lesson in the blowing of the Shofar. It is said: Im yitaka Shofar ba’ir v’am lo yecheradu, is the Shofar ever sounded in a city and the people not tremble? The very essence of hearing the Shofar blasts inspires fear. Once we are instilled with fear of heaven, we can proceed with the correct protocol of Teshuvah and earn atonement.

There are two aspects to Shofar blowing. One idea is that we use the Shofar of a ram to merit the act of Akeidas Yitzchak, the binding of Yitzchak on the altar. The second aspect is that we use a Shofar that is bent, and this reflects our hearts that are bent towards serving Hashem. The question is, if one has a choice of using a straight Shofar of a ram or a bent Shofar of a different kosher animal, which Shofar is the preferred one? The Ritva writes that it is more important to blow from a bent Shofar. We see that the essence of our Tefillos on Rosh Hashanah and the blowing of the Shofar is that we should be humbled and in awe of Hashem.

Further proof of this idea that we can only recognize Hashem as our King through Yiras Shamayim can be found in the words of the Medrash . It is said: todieini orach chaim You will make known to me the way of life. Dovid HaMelech said to Hashem: “Show me the way of life.” Hashem responded, “Dovid, you ask for life? Anticipate yirah, fear of heaven, as it is said: Yiras Hashem tosif yamim the fear of Hashem will increase days. Reb Noson Vachtfogel explains that the theme of malchiyus, kingship of Hashem, can be found in the verse: Ben yechabed av v’eved adonav v’im av ani ayeih kevodi v’im adonim ani ayeih moraii a son will honor his father and a servant his master. If I am a Father where is My honor? And if I am a Master where is My fear? In order to have a connection to the King, one must have Yiras Shamayim, fear of heaven. If we discover that we are not afraid of the Day of Judgment, it is because we do not have Yiras Shamayim instilled in ourselves.

Similarly, the Medrash states regarding the verse: Vayecherad Yitzchak charada gedolah ad meod then Yitzchak trembled in very great perplexity, that the fear that Yitzchak experienced upon realizing that he had given Yaakov the brachos was a greater fear than he felt when he had been offered up by Avraham at the akeidah. The Medrash states that by the akeidah, Yitzchak’s soul left his body. What distinguished the fear by the brachos where Yitzchak’s soul did not leave his body with the fear of the akeidah? Reb Noson answers that at the akeidah, Yitzchak felt the fear of death upon him, and this was the vehicle for his soul to exit his body. By the brachos, Yitzchak was overcome with Yiras Shamayim, as he had erred regarding to whom he should have proffered the brachos. Based on the verse: Yiras Hashem tosif yamim the fear of Hashem will increase days, it follows that Yitzchak’s Yiras Shamayim would not be the cause for his soul to leave his body, which is a form of death. Similarly, when we pray on Rosh Hashanah and experience true Yiras Shamayim, we will be filled with joy and this gives us strength and allows us to ascend on the spiritual ladder.

Elul by Ben

The Baal HaTurim writes that the words לולא האמנתי are a רמז to Elul, as the word לולא spells out אלול. It is said regarding bringing Binyomin going down to Mitzrayim כי לולא התמהמנו כי עתה שבנו זה פעמים, for had we not delayed, by now we could have returned twice. Following the style of the Baal HaTurim, this verse can be interpreted homiletically in two manners. One is that the Gemara states , אחרי הארי ולא אחרי האשה it is preferable to follow a lion than to follow a woman. The sefarim write that this alludes to the idea that the month of אב is represented by the מזל אריה, and the month of אלול is represented by the מזל בתולה. Thus, the Gemara is exhorting us to repent after the month of the ארי, i.e. the month of אב, rather than to repent after the אשה, i.e. the month of אלול. This is alluded to in the verse that states כי לולא התמהמנו כי עתה שבנו זה פעמים. If one had not delayed until לולא, which spells out אלול, one could have repented twice, i.e. after the month of אלול and after the month of אב. Alternatively, this verse can be explained by citing the famous contradiction. On the one hand it is said השיבנו ה' אליך ונשובה, where we ask HaShem, bring us back to You, HaShem, and we shall return. Yet a different verse states שובו אלי ואשובה אליכם, return to Me and I will return to you. Apparently we need both approaches, as we need HaShem to return to us so that we can return to HaShem. This is also alluded to in the above-mentioned verse. If we had not delayed, we could have returned “twice,” i.e. HaShem would have returned us and we would have then returned to Him. Let us merit that we do not delay any further and that we repent our ways and return to HaShem, and may we all merit being inscribed immediately in the Book of Life.

Positive Chinuch

by Rafi G.

NOTE: no halachic conclusions should be drawn from this article. A competent Orthodox Rabbi must be consulted regarding any practical questions that might arise. The following is a discussion for hashkafic thought alone and has not been fully researched for the purpose of psak.

On daf 82a of Masechet Yoma we have a discussion in the gemara regarding what age a parent must begin training his child to fast on fast days, specifically Yom Kippur.

The Tosefos Yeshanim asks an interesting question: There is a rule in halacha that says if one sees a child eating neveilos (non-kosher food) one must not (or need not) stop him. So what is the big discussion on what age to train him to fast, we should be discussing what age to stop him from actually transgressing something assur!!??

The Tosefos Yeshanim answers the question by bringing the opinion of R' Eliezer from Mitz. R' Eliezer from Mitz is of the opinion that the two issues are completely separate. There is an inyan of "chinuch" which entails training and educating the child to do a mitzva - to do what is right. Then there is an inyan of abstaining from issur. Chinuch, he says, has no bearing on abstaining from issur, only doing mitzvos. That is why we are discussing training him to fast rather than stopping him from issur.

The idea R' Eliezer is telling us is mind boggling (to me). The mitzva of chinuch is only for positive mitzvos, not to stop him from doing something wrong (though that too might be admirable to teach a child when possible). If one sees the candy-man in shul give a child a candy with a questionable hechsher (or even no hechsher), one should talk to the candy-man about no longer providing those candies, but he should not take away the candy from the child! Let the child finish eating it. To me that is an amazing chiddush in chinnuch!

Why is that so?

I was thinking about it and considered this thought. We want to give our children a positive outlook on Yiddishkeit and mitzvos. The obligation of chinnuch incorporates that idea. The obligation to educate your child in mitzvos is, on the one hand, to train the child in the habit of actually doing the mitzvos. On the other hand, it is also to engender within the child the positive attitude towards doing mitzvos. We urge him to do mitzvos, but we do not stop him when he does issurim. We want to give over the positive aspect and not the negative.

Again, this should not be used as a halachic guide. It is simply a thought on an idea presented by R' Eliezer from Mitz in the Tosefos Yeshanim. If the question arises and you need to know whether to stop your child from doign something that is assur, you must consult with your Rav.

Daf Yomi - Yoma 75 - Could the Manna Taste like Pig?

Daf Yomi - Yoma 75 - Could the Manna Taste like Pig?

Gilyonei Hashas writes that he saw in a certain sefer that discusses the issue of what would be if a person had in mind that the manna should taste like something which is forbidden to eat, such as chazir. What would you think should be the halacha?

As of now, there are 14 comments below.

100 Brochos

Daf Yomi - Yoma 70 - 100 Brochos

The Gemora states that two reasons explaining why a second sefer Torah was not brought to the kohen gadol for Parshas Pinchas. One is because it will look like the first one was possul. Secondly, it will cause him to make a new brocha unnecessarily.

The latter reason is brought down in Shulchan Aruch regarding a shochet who has many animals ready to be shechted. He should not talk in between the slaughterings for then he would be required to recite another brocha.

The Shalah rules that on Shabbos it is permitted to delay eating the fruits that were brought in middle of the meal and rather wait for the conclusion of the meal in order to enable a recital of a brocha acharona which will help one reach the goal of reciting one hundred brochos every day (which can be difficult on Shabbos).

The Magen Avrohom asks on this from our Gemora. Yom Kippur is even more difficult to reach this goal and nevertheless we do not permit the kohen gadol to bring another sefer Torah enabling him the opportunity of reciting another brocha.

Perhaps we can answer that this would be applicable only to the kohen gadol and therefore we apply the regular halacha of ברכה שאינה צריכה, however the fruits on Shabbos pertains to everyone and would be beneficial for all, so there we permit the extra brocha.

I just found in the אליהו רבה that the kohen gadol did not have the problem of one hundred brochos for he recited eight brochos on krias haTorah and he made a brocha on each and every avodah according to the Ramban.

posted by Avromi at 8/15/2006 04:52:00 PM
11 Comments:

Aton said...

Maybe there's a difference between generating a brand new Beracha/set of Brachos (Borei Pri Ha'Eitz and Borei Nefashos, or Al Ha'Eitz depending) and causing the same Bracha to be repeated (Asher Bachar Banu, Al HaShechitah) -- it's clear when you make the same Bracha twice in a row on an item present at the outset that there's nothing new about this situation, thus no new real Mechayev of a Bracha, and it is undesirable to purposely be Mesi'ach Da'as so as to make a Bracha on that which you already know about (additional animals present at the first moment of Shechitah, e.g.). 100 Berachos maybe thus are parallel to Yitzchak's Me'ah She'arim, which are each distinct -- it's not the Beracha but Mechayev Bracha that you're supposed to experience and identify and be Mevarech. However, if it is a different Bracha to be said (thus identifying a different aspect of Beracha, like Ha'Eitz when previously HaMotzi was made), or if there are items now that weren't there initially so there's a new Mitzvah/Hana'ah/Mechayev Shevach, additional Berachos are appropriate?

Wed Aug 16, 10:22:49 AM 2006

Avromi said...

I spoke over your chiluk with two Roshe Kollel here, one from Montreal and one from Boston. One agreed and one didn't. Iy"H, we will research more.

Wed Aug 16, 01:52:35 PM 2006

Aton said...

Shkoyach!! Unfortunately I don't have too many Roshei Kollel here to run things by, at least not yet... I'm curious to hear what the objections were...

Wed Aug 16, 02:03:55 PM 2006

Avromi said...

Rabbi Zalman Leff from Boston objected by stating that the reason behind the issur of brocha sheaina tzricha is based on the possuk of lo sisa. Why should we be more lax if it is a different brocha? Lo sisa still applies.

Wed Aug 16, 02:05:35 PM 2006

Avromi said...

Rabbi Dovid Elias from Montreal concurred and said that the concept of 100 brochos is for different brochos and therefore we might be lenient on the eina tzricha if it's a benefit for the 100 brochos. As proof to this he cited the minhag of chasidim (although hes a Yekke - big time) to eat kneidlach on the eighth day of Pesach for a mezonos is really needed. (What about the other days?)

Wed Aug 16, 02:08:32 PM 2006

David said...

Ein min-ute! Speaking for the Chassidim of the world ( or at least those of us with chassidishe netiyos) the reason we eat knaidlach on eighth day Pesach has nothing to do with 100 berachos. The reason we eat it then is only because we couldnt eat it the first 7 days b/c of gebrokzt. Memailah, once the issur falls away, we ess.

Wed Aug 16, 05:13:05 PM 2006

Avromi said...

firstly, why is gebrokzt only seven days if its due to chametz issues?

secondly, there's more than one reason.

did you know some say the Baal Shem Tov found 40 kneidlach or something of the sort?

Wed Aug 16, 05:26:11 PM 2006

David said...

The real answer, I suppose, to your question, is that gebroktz is a minhag, and "aim mashivin al haminhag". Beleive me, everybody I know who doesnt eat gebrokzts asks himself the same question: ( " If this is really chometz, why can we eat it on the last day?"). Al minhag zeh ne'emar, "eeyasher chailee, avatlino". ( Looks better in hebrew).

But it's not b/c of the 100 berachos.

Wed Aug 16, 05:34:21 PM 2006

Avromi said...

I'll have to get you the mekor for it

Wed Aug 16, 05:39:20 PM 2006

ben said...

once we're on the topic of מאה ברכות it's worth knowing this בן איש חי שנה ראשונה פ' בלק

ודע דאע"ג דכל הברכות אנשי כנה"ג שהם עזרא הסופר ובית דינו תיקנום, אל תסבור לומר דמימות מרע"ה עד כנה"ג לא היו מברכים כלל, דדבר זה לא יתכן מכמה טעמי תריצי, אך העניין הוא כמו שהיה בתפילה דקודם אנשי כנה"ג היה כל אחד מסדר תפילתו כפי צחות לשונו, עד שבאו אנשי כנה"ג ותקנו י"ח ברכות על הסדר שיהיו ערוכות בפי הכל בשוה, וכן היה ענין הברכות שהיה כל או"א מברך ומסדר ברכותיו כפי צחות לשונו ובאו אנשי כנה"ג ותקנו נוסח כל הברכות שיהיו ערוכות בפי הכל בשוה וכמ"ש הרב ידי אליהו גאליפפה ז"ל ד ב' יע"ש, וקודם דאתא דוד ההע"ה לא היו מדקדקים לברך כל או"א מאה ברכות כפי צחות לשונו הן בדרך תפילו והן ע"פ הנאותיו אלא כאשר יזדמן יש מברך עשרים ברכות יש ארבעים יש ששים או יותר, עד שבא דוד הע"ה ותקן לברך כל או"א מאה ברכות בכל יום, אך עדיין אין הנוסח שוה ואתו כנה"ג ותתקנו נוסח שוה לכל אדם:

Thu Aug 17, 12:33:14 AM 2006

Aton said...

Just one point about Bracha She'Eino Tzricha in a different bracha- on Sukkah 27a it suggests that a way to make up a missed Sukkos Se'udah on Shmini Atzeres, according to R. Eliezer, would be to eat Minei Targima after the Se'udas Yom Tov. Ritva points out that you don't just have another meal because of B'racha She'Aino Tzricha. Could this be a Makor that making a different Bracha is indeed different than repeating the same one for the purposes of Lo Sisa?

Thu Aug 17, 01:52:43 PM 2006

Lo Osoh V'Lo Klum vs. Lo Osoh Klum

Daf Yomi - Yoma 60 - לא עשה ולא כלום and sometimes it states לא עשה כלום

There are several times in shas that it states לא עשה ולא כלום. The רמע מפאנו explains this statement as follows: לא עשה means that he did not fulfill the mitzva and ולא כלום means that he did not do an aveira either. The Mishna states that if the kohen gadol performed one avodah before the other - לא עשה כלום. This is referring to the sprinkling of the דם השעיר in the Kodesh Hakodoshim before the sprinkling from the פר. In this instance, besides not fulfilling the mitzva, there is an aveira as well, for he entered the Kodesh Hakodoshim unnecessarily and is considered a ביאה שלא לצורך. The Gemora on עמוד ב discusses a case where he performed the חפינת הקטרת prior to the slaughtering of the פר and here the Gemora says לא עשה ולא כלום. This is understood because there is no aveira being committed for the חפינה is done outside. There is no mitzva or aveira. (שערים מצויינים בהלכה)

Did you come across any instance of either one of those expressions recently? Tell us about it and lets see if the yesod fits. Thanks

Bein Habadim by Rav Eliezer Jacobovits

The Chiddushei Aryeh Leib from Rav Ayeh Leib Mallin quotes a Rashi from Perek Eizehu Makomon(5th perek of zevachm) that the haz'oh of bein habadim is the kohen gadol standing between the poles of the aron and sprinkling the blood towards the aron but not neccessarily reaching the aron. He asks why Rashi thought to tell us these things here where the mishna isn't discussing all the dinim of these sprinklings? Furthermore, he asks how does Rashi know that the kohen had to stand between the poles? He answers based on a Gri'z. The Brisker Rav asks( I don't have either sefer with me and I don't remember where) if a kohen has to stand in the area where an avodah is taking place, assuming that there is a designated place for that avodah? The gemarah in Zevachim learns some avodos have pesukim that require the kohen to be in the designated area. His question is do we learn from them to all other avodos or not.Reb Aryeh Leib is m'chadesh that the sprinkling of blood by the aron wasn't an avodah of matan dam, putting the blood in a specific place, but an act of sprinkling itself. The kohen had to sprinkle the blood and it would kosher wherever it went, assuming he was doing it in the right direction.He says therefore a kohen whom was missing part of his arm was still kosher to do this avodah. So, the kohen had to be in between the poles of the aron because that was the main part of that sprinkling as the mishnah in Eizehu Makomon says that the blood was sprinkled bein habadin, paroches, and the mizbeach hazahav. The latter two are where the blood went onto but the first never is mentioned as a destination. So, Rashi is teaching us that the kohen had to stand there and sprinkle the blood in the direction of the aron without having to touch the kappores because that's what the mishnah is teaching us.

KINNOS - Think of the Chilul Hashem

Tisha B'av 5766

In my shul we have a program which has become quite common among anglo communities in Israel. Instead of reading all the kinot published as was commonly done, we select a number of the kinnot to read (a lot of them, but not all of them). Before each kina one of the members will give a brief introduction to the kinna, an explanation, some words of inspiration, etc. The idea is that instead of mindlessly reading a lot of kinnot that many do not understand, we say less but it is more infused with meaning and understanding.

I was asked to give the introduction to Kinna 23, entitled "V'Es Navvi". Below I am posting what I plan (more or less to say as the introduction.

Kina 23

In Kina 21 we just lamented about the Asara harugei Malchus. There we read about R' Yishmael Ben Elisha, one of the great Kohanim Gedolim. We read about his horrific death at the hands of the Roman conquerors.

In 23 we will be lamenting the story of the children of R' Yishmael Ben Elisha. The paytan relates the tragic story of how these 2 children, a son and a daughter were captured by separate captors. The captors were bragging to each other about the special beauty each one saw in his respective captive. They came up with a plan to have the two captives mate and they would share the offspring, which they assumed would be tremendously beautiful children.

The paytan goes on to describe how they were put together in a dark room and they stayed apart the whole night ashamed that this is what could come of the child of such a great man. By daybreak they each realized who the other was and they held each other and their nashamos left them together.

Truly a tragic story. Bit it is difficult, at least for me, to relate to a story of a kidnapping from about 2000 years ago and be moved to tears.

If one has a hard time relating to a story from so long ago and crying about it and simply reads it as a tragic story, there is no lack of similar stories from more modern times.

If you must, think about Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev who are being held by barbaric captors under who knows what type of conditions. Think of Ron Arad whose daughter never had the opportunity of knowing him because he has been held captive for so long. Think of all the other MIA's who we have no idea of their whereabouts. Think of their parents who have no idea if their children are alive or dead or what kind of condition they are in. Think of the turmoil these people are going through.

The ArtScroll explains that we are not crying specifically about the capturing of these young adults, rather we are crying about the hillul hashem. We are crying because the children of R' Yishmael Ben Elisha, who the gemara relates regarding him that Hashem even asked him for a blessing, who come from such purity and yichus, were debased and defiled in this manner. That is a hillul hashem.

But if you have a hard time crying about a hillul Hashem that took place 2000 years ago, think of the hillul hashem that we have gone through daily, throughout history, since the destruction of the beis hamikdash. All Jews are princes and princesses and we all come from great yichus of Avraham Avinu. Yet the blood of jews, the children of Jews, have been left for hefker for the pillaging of the goyim. We have suffered throughout history bloog libels and progroms and holocausts. Killing and kidnappings. Even to this day. That is something everybody can relate to. If thinking of children being kidnapped 2000 years ago creating a hillul hashem does not move you to tears, think of the more modern instances of the same events, and that should move you.

But the kina ends off in the morning. In the morning they saw each other and were saved from the defilement and debasement that had been planned for them. Together they died being mekadesh shem shamayim. That is the g'vurah of the Jew. Despite our being hefker in the eyes of the goyim, they are not able to destroy our humanity, our moral purity. They cannot take away our tzelem Elokim. We are still people and we are still Jews. Despite our suffering, we will not give up our morals.

אוי כי זאת גזר אומר ועושה

איכה Perek 4 -5 by David Farkas

4:3- גַּם-תַּנִּין (תַּנִּים) חָלְצוּ שַׁד, הֵינִיקוּ גּוּרֵיהֶן; בַּת-עַמִּי לְאַכְזָר, כַּיְ עֵנִים (כַּיְעֵנִים) בַּמִּדְבָּר
This is the very worst lament of all. To expound on Rashi, the people have lost their humanity to such an extent that even the jackals are kinder than they are. It is crucial that men do not lose their sense of humanity and civilization when under extreme circumstances. This is true of our humanity in how we deal with others, as well as with ourselves as individuals, regarding cleanliness, hygiene, etc.

4:13- מֵחַטֹּאות נְבִיאֶיהָ, עֲו‍ֹנֹת כֹּהֲנֶיהָ: הַשֹּׁפְכִים בְּקִרְבָּהּ, דַּם צַדִּיקִים
Can the priests and the prophets have been guilty of such crimes as murder? According to Rashi, the reference is to false prophets and idolatrous priests. But according to the simple explanation, can they really have stooped so low? Maybe. Or maybe it is holding the leaders figuratively responsible, for not having done more to prevent the atrocities. See the end of Sotah for a parallel, concerning the Eglah Erufah. The law is that upon finding a corpse, and being unable to solve the murder, the leaders of the nation must declare publicly that they did not kill the person. The Talmud explains that this is not because they are actually suspected of such crimes, but because their actions as leaders, or inaction’s, may have led to it.

4:15- סוּרוּ טָמֵא קָרְאוּ לָמוֹ, סוּרוּ סוּרוּ אַל-תִּגָּעוּ--כִּי נָצוּ, גַּם-נָעוּ; אָמְרוּ, בַּגּוֹיִם, לֹא יוֹסִפוּ, לָגוּר
What an astoundingly tragic prophecy. The prophet tells us that the nations of the world will refuse to take the Jews in. This has been the story of the Jews since the destruction.

5:3- יְתוֹמִים הָיִינוּ ְאֵין) אָב, אִמֹּתֵינוּ כְּאַלְמָנוֹת
My uncle Willis told me in the name of his wife’s grandfather, Rav Yisroel Gustman, that the verse seems redundant. If one is an orphan, of course he has no father! But rather, he said, there are two types of orphans. There is the type who knew his father, and his father has now died. And then there is the poor fellow who never even knew his father. He thus highlighted the difference between today’s generation, and the generation that came out of Europe. The latter at least knew the father, i.e., what Jewish life was for centuries in Europe. We however, we were never even privileged to know what our father – Yiddishkeit of the old country – was like.
This is really what effectively caused the era of what we call the achronim to come to an end. All periods of Jewish scholarship end with two things in common. First, there must be a major event, catastrophe or advance, which changes the landscape in such a way that people realize that an era has passed. Second, the last scholars of the period must outshine, in a very large way, those that follow after him. Thus, the period of the amoaraim ended with the writing of the Mishna by R’ Yehuda Hanasi, who was clearly the greatest man of his time. The writing of the Mishna was clearly a landmark event in Jewish history, for that was the first time that the Oral law had been committed to writing. (Broadly speaking, of course. Many scholars have pointed out that R’ Yehuda merely collected and edited the private collections of written Mishnayos which had already existed for some time.) The period of the tannaim ended with the writing of the Gemara by Ravina and Rav Ashi, who also, stood head and shoulders above everybody else of their time. Rav Saddia Gaon, who ended the period of the Geonim, was perhaps the greatest of all the Gaonim before him. The Rishonim ended with the introduction of the printing press, an event that would have far-reaching repercussions in the Jewish world. And in our times too, the men who emerged from Europe were far more learned than anyone this generation has managed to produce. Thus, the era of the achronim has come to an end.

5:21- הֲשִׁיבֵנוּ יְהוָה אֵלֶיךָ (וְנָשׁוּבָה)חַדֵּשׁ יָמֵינוּ כְּקֶדֶם
The verse speaks about the idea of repentance. Sometimes people misunderstand the meaning behind the daily prayer for repentance. We are not praying for the ability to come closer to Him, for greater Deveikus, if you will. If this were the case, we would simply pray precisely for that, in those terms! Besides, the mere fact that one prays at all is itself indicative of an already existing relationship between God and the supplicant, (albeit one that can be improved), and thus by itself shows a desire to improve the relationship.
Rather, it seems to me that the prayer for repentance is really a prayer for help in becoming a better person, which would then lead to greater Deveikus. We pray that we should be able to break our bad character traits with ease, and with little outside interference. Once we have done that, we can move forward in our relationship with God. This is entirely different from the way the prayer is commonly understood.

5:22- כִּי אִם-מָאֹס מְאַסְתָּנוּ, קָצַפְתָּ עָלֵינוּ עַד-מְאֹד
It seems strange to end on this somewhat sour-sounding note, which basically says that we’ve suffered enough already. Why not end it on the pen-ultimate verse, which anyway is the one we repeat?
It might be because this at least gives us the hope of a future redemption. After all, it offers a convincing rationale to end this bitter, bitter exile. The other verse though, requires an effort on our part to do Teshuvah (According to the Medrash “shuvu bonim shovvim” -Jeremiah 3:22 - we may even have to take the initiative. I have not found this Midrash yet though. See also Malachi 3:7 - שׁוּבוּ אֵלַי וְאָשׁוּבָה אֲלֵיכֶם) This, unfortunately, has proven to be a difficult task. It is perhaps better then, that we end the exile on a kind of “ back-door” plea bargain of having suffered enough, rather than risk gaining it through the nobler, but riskier, route of repentance. It’s like a criminal appearing before the parole board. Naturally the criminal would like to exonerate himself, and demonstrate that he has done whatever it takes to reintegrate into society. However, if the standards seem to be daunting, he would rather show that he has already paid his debt to society and any more punishment would be futile or even counter productive. That’s what we say to God here.


May we all merit the coming of the Redemption, speedily, in our days.

Amah Traksin by Rafi G.

On Daf 51-52 we find the issue of "Amah Traksin" There was one amah of space designated between the heichal and the kodesh kodoshim. The space was delinieated by a wall/curtain in the first beis hamikdash and in the second Beis Hamikdash it has to be separated by two curtains (or one, depending on a machlokes, but we hold 2). The gemarrah discusses in great detail why the amah had to be separated the way it was, and which side it was similar to for kedusha (the kodesh kodoshim or the heichal), etc.

The thought struck me: Why do we need to know so much detail about this one amah? There was only one person who approached and entered that amah and that was only once a year as it is on yom kippur, and it was only a passage to the room beyond it, so why does it make such a big difference to us that the gemarrah needs to dedicate a whole amud to delineating this amah and discussing its purpose? Mah Nafka Minah?

It is important for us to delineate the amah because we need to know our limits. It does not matter whether or not you will actually get close to those limits or not, but our lives are limited by our limitations and we have to be aware of what those are. For us to function properly, those limits are important.

Psychologists always tell us about children that they misbehave because they are testing the limits and parents who do not delineate a childs borders are negligent as that is the cause of many problems.

We need to know our borders and our limits. It provides for a healthy attitude and a healthy approach to life. Without limits, we are living a life of chaos.

איכה - Perkek 2 - 3 by David Farkas

2:12 - לְאִמֹּתָם, יֹאמְרוּ, אַיֵּה, דָּגָן וָיָיִן בְּהִתְעַטְּפָם כֶּחָלָל, בִּרְחֹבוֹת עִיר בהשתפך נפשם אל חיק אמתם

It seems a little strange that young children, crying out to their mothers, would ask for wine, rather than water.

3:6 -במחשכים הושיבני כמתי עולם

This phrasing – “they placed me in darkness” - is not just metaphoric, but rather quite literal. There is a pit in the city of David, just outside the Western Wall area, which contains a pit believed to be the one Jeremiah was thrown into. Even if not this exact pit, it was certainly one similar, and probably within a hundred foot radius as well, for the area, at least, is known. The pit is absolutely pitch -black. See also verse 53 - צמתו בבור חייו וידו אבן בי. As I explained in my notes to Jeremiah, some commentators understand that 30 men were needed to haul Jeremiah out of the pit because of the muck in the pit he was mired in.

3:30 - יתן למכהו לחי ישבע בחרפה

This is not to be confused with the Christian doctrine of “turn the other cheek”. That doctrine, so far as I can tell, was intended for all times and all seasons, whereas this was only meant for certain dark periods in Israel’s history. Our sages have said, in Berachos, that it is best not to start up with the wicked when they seem to be having success.

For a completely novel interpretation, see the Nachal Eshkol. He understands the verse to be giving advice concerning how to deal with those who would attack us. The best way, according to this understanding of the verse, is to deliberately allow yourself to be hit. This will then turn the desire of the attacker into a sense of shame, and he will thus desist. Whether this philosophy is correct or not, in light of the events of the 20^th century, is open for question. In general, of course, the correct Jewish response to gentile aggression has always been debated, just as any country argues internally over the best response to foreign aggression. As others have pointed out, the stories of Chanukah and Purim indicate that sometimes military fighting is called for, sometimes prayer, and sometimes diplomacy. Of course, our forefather Jacob combined all three when preparing to confront Esau.

Keruvim Embracing Each Other - Yoma 54 - by Avrohom Adler

The Gemora on daf 54 relates that when the goyim entered the Kodesh Kodoshim, they saw the keruvim were locked in an embrace. The mefarshim ask from a Gemora in Bava Basra (99). One possuk says the keruvim faced each other and one says that they faced away from each other. The Gemora answers that it depended on Klal Yisroel's demeanor. When they fulfilled the will of Hashem, they were facing each other. If so, at the time of the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, why were the keruvim facing each other?

The Ritva answers that the Gemora in Bava Basra is referring to the keruvim that Moshe made (those that were on the ארון) and our Gemora is discussing the keruvim that were drawn on the wall and these keruvim never changed their positions. Rashi seems to indicate like this pshat for he says that the goyim peeled them off the walls and then brought them outside.

The Maharsha brings from Rishonim that it was a special miracle at this time in order to shame the Jews in the eyes of their enemies.

An answer is brought in the name of a Rov from the previous generation who was forced out of his position due to his constant rebuking of the community members on their deficiency in avodas Hashem. As he was departing, he gave a farewell drasha and he asked the former question. His answer was that at the time that the רבונו של עולם was compelled to remove his heavenly presense from the Beis Hamikdosh, this was not the time to make calculations. It pained Him to such an extent, like a father who is forced to leave his son, it was as if all reckoning was forgotten and that is why the keruvim were embracing each other.

Rav Meir Bergman proposes another solution and he says that this is the accurate answer. The professionals, who initially crafted the keruvim formed them facing each other. Subsuquently, when the shechina resided in the Beis Hamikdash, the keruvim were given a רוח חיים, and when Bnei Yisroel were not virtuous and not commiting themselves to do the will of Hashem, the keruvim turned away from each other. At the time of destruction, the shechina completely vanished from the Beis Hamikdosh and nothing remained. The keruvim then reverted back to their original construction and they were found facing each other.

Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz states that there is an important lesson to learn from here in the method of מדת הדין - when Hashem is administering justice to those that deserve it, at the outset there must be love. Pinchas had the right to be a zealot for he was a descendant from Aharon Hakohen who was a seeker of peace and harmony. This is what the Gemora in Sotah (47) means when it states לעולם תהא שמאל דוחה וימין מקרבת. One must be extremely cautious in these matters. This is the lesson we learn from the keruvim.