Havolim

Parshos Balak and Pinchas: Pikuach Nefesh on Shabbos for the Wrong Reasons

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:19:00 +0000

For the moment, this post will have to be skeletal. Readers will need to contribute their own knowledge to flesh it out so that it makes sense. If I were more patient, I would wait to make it more reader friendly, but then it would be much too long. Thank you to Rabbis Shimon Kalman Goldstein and Etan Schnall for, among other things, many of the mar'ei mekomos.

Regarding פקוח נפש on Shabbos, Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l is quoted by HaRav Yehoshua Yeshaya Neuwirth zt”l (just niftar last week) as follows: (SSK 32:130)

ושמעתי מהגרש"ז אוירבעך זצ"ל , דנראה דעדיף טפי לעשות המלאכה ע"י שומר מצוות שכוונתו למצווה, כי ע"י עבריין אשר כוונתו רק עבור בצע כסף, אע"ג דקעביד מצוה, מ"מ הו"ל כנתכוין לבשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר טלה, דמבואר בקידושין לב. תוד"ה דמחיל, דגם ע"ז יש משום "ולפני עור" וגם אפשר דבני"ד גרע טפי, כיון שבאמת יש כאן חילול שבת, ויתכן שהרופא נחשב כאינו מחלל שבת רק אם כוונתו להצלה ולא אם מכוון לתשלום, וראה גם בספר בית הלוי עה"ת פרשת שמות. על הפסוק ״וירא אלוקים את בני ישראל״ל

Here is the Beis Halevi:

שמות, ד"ה וירא

ומזה יצא למי שהיא פרוץ באחת ממצות ה ׳ , אע״נ דלפעמים נתרחש לו אונס שלא יכול לקיימה מ״מ לא מקרי אונס וכמו בשמירת שבת ונדומה דלפעמים אנוס הוא לעשות מלאכה או עבור חולה ר״ל וכדומה מ״מ לא מקרי אונס רק לאותם שהיו שומרים אותו אם לא היה האונס, אבל המחלל שבת כשאינו אנוס, גם במלאכה שהוא אנוס מקרי מחלל, וכן הוא בכל האיסורים.ים

The Beis Haleivi is exactly like him, and even with Reb Shlomo Zalman and the Beis Halevi, I found it hard to accept. He is saying two reasons:
One: for him, it's like נתכוין לבשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר טלה
Two: for him, כיון שבאמת יש כאן חילול שבת, ויתכן שהרופא נחשב כאינו מחלל שבת רק אם כוונתו להצלה ולא אם מכוון לתשלום, which is far more serious.

Both reasons are Tzorich Iyun Godol. This is called נתכוין לבשר חזיר? Is it really chillul shabbos because it was done with an ulterior motive- נחשב כאינו מחלל שבת רק אם כוונתו להצלה ולא אם מכוון לתשלום?
Is this based on Mitzvos Tzrichos Kavana? Does Kavana matter in cases of Pikuach Nefesh? I never thought that the dechiyah power of Pikuach Nefesh was because of it being a mitzva per se; I thought the preservation of life was an inherent value, irrespective of Kavana.

If you were to ask me, I would have shtelled tzu the Radvaz:

שו"ת רדב"ז (חלק א סימן לד) דן בכלי שנטבל שלא בכוונה, האם עלתה הטבילה או לא. ועי"ש שהביא מחלוקת רב ור"י האם טבילת נדה צריך כוונה, וכתב שם "והוי יודע דהאי פלוגתא לא שייכא במצות צריכות כוונה או אין צריכות, דאפליגי בה תנאי ואמוראי, כדאיתא בפסחים ובר"ה, דהכא טבילה ושחיטה לאו מצות נינהו אלא מכשירין, ובהני איפליגו רב ור' יוחנן, דלמר מכשירין קילי ממצות, ולמר חמירי. אבל במצוות גופייהו אי בעו כוונה או לא, לא מעיילי נפשייהו בהכי רב ור׳ יוחנן וכן כתב הרמב׳׳ן ז״ל

.....

לולי דמסתפינא אמינא דאפילו ר' יוחנן מודה לגבי טבילת כלים, כיון דטבילת כלים חדשים לאו דאורייתא היא, מודה הוא דלא בעו כוונה, ואף על גב דילפינן לה מכלי מדין, אסמכתא בעלמא היא, וכן כתב הרמב"ם ז"ל (פרק י"ז מהלכות מאכלות אסורות.

Isn't what I'm saying logical? We pasken Pikuach Nefesh is docheh Shabbos; whether it's based on Reb Shimon ben Menasyah's אמרה תורה חלל עליו שבת אחת כדי שישמור שבתות הרבה or its based on Shmuel's וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם, it seems to me that the dechiyah should be looked at as a machshir, not a mitzvah.

By the way, Rav Auerbach didn't say that if the only person available is a Jewish doctor who is a Mechallel Shabbos, you should let the patient die. He only said אפשר דבני"ד גרע טפי, כיון שבאמת יש כאן חילול שבת, ויתכן שהרופא נחשב כאינו מחלל שבת. But that's because you're you're docheh lifnei Iveir for פקוח נפש.

In any case, here are interesting and highly relevant Sugyos.

I

The Machlokes Rabba and Rava in Menachos 64a

"א"ל רבינא לרב אשי: נמצאת הראשונה כחושה בבני מעיין, מהו? בתר מחשבתו אזלינן וגברא לאיסורא קא מיכוין, או דלמא בתר מעשיו אזלינן? א"ל: לאו היינו דרבה ורבא? דאיתמר: שמע שטבע תינוק בים, ופרש מצודה להעלות דגים והעלה דגים - חייב, להעלות דגים והעלה דגים ותינוק - רבא אמר: חייב, ורבה אמר: פטור, ועד כאן רבה לא קא פטר, אלא כיון דשמע, אמרי' נמי דעתיה אתינוק, אבל לא שמע לא. ואיכא דאמרי, א"ל: היינו פלוגתייהו דרבה ורבא; דאיתמר: (לא) שמע שטבע תינוק בים, ופרש מצודה להעלות דגים והעלה דגים - חייב, להעלות דגים והעלה תינוק ודגים - רבה אמר: פטור, ורבא אמר: חייב; רבה אמר פטור, זיל בתר מעשיו; ורבא אמר חייב, זיל בתר מחשבת

The Rambam and Raavad pasken that he's pattur, because you look at his act, not his intent. (Of course, in a case of intent for pikuach and he got only dagim, he's pattur because of meleches machsheves too.)

רמב"ם הלכות שבת פרק ב הלכה טז:

מפקחין פיקוח נפש בשבת ואין צריך ליטול רשות מבית דין, והמקדים להציל הנפש הרי זה משובח,

כיצד ראה תינוק שנפל לים פורש מצודה ומעלהו ואע"פ שהוא צד הדגים עמו,

שמע שטבע תינוק בים ופרש מצודה להעלותו והעלה דגים בלבד פטור מכלום,

נתכוין להעלות דגים והעלה דגים ותינוק פטור אפילו לא שמע שטבע הואיל והעלה תינוק עם הדגים פטור.

However, paskening he's pattur is not the end of the discussion.

A. Rav Yosef Dovid Zintsheim (in his Yad Dovid on Menachos, available from Machon Yerushalayim,) writes that according to Rabba, if you cook food with the bald intention of Chillul Shabbos, and you end up using the cooked food for the sick person, the chillul Shabbos will be stricken from the record. This is even where the conditions didn't pertain at the time that you did the issur, kal vachomer where you do intend to save the life but you are generally indifferent to Shabbos.

B. Reb Meir Simcha (Ohr Sameiach 2 Shabbos 16) says that our Gemara is only talking about missas beis din and Korban, but certainly the person needs kapara no less than the woman in "va'hashem yislach lah," in Nazir 23a, where the Gemara says that a person who thought the food was treif and ate it anyway, and it turned out it was kosher, this person needs kapara and even is chayav Makkas Mardus. In 2 Shegagos 15, the Rambam clearly says that the petur is from the Korban, and if you read the Rambam here, it''s clear that he means that also, because he switches from פטור מכלום by a person that means to save a life to just פטור in the case of the sheigitz fisherman that pulls out a child.

C. Reb Meir D. Plotzki (Kli Chemda in Vayechi) says that our Gemara is talking about the Korbon for a Shogeig, but even Rabba agrees that the malefactor is at least chayav Kareis, maybe even more.

II

The Chasam Sofer in Likutei Teshuvos 6:8, last paragraph, says that if some rasha carves the name of Hashem in a dirty place, you can destroy it without worrying about the general issur of לא תעשון כן. But he says, in that last paragraph, that you should have an adult do it, not a child, because a child won't have the kavana of saving the Sheim from Bizayon, he'll just have a good time smashing it away, and he'll end up with the issur of לא תעשון כן.

III

The Aderes in his Bnei Binyamin on the Rambam in 2 Hilchos Shofar 4

Rambam there:

המתעסק בתקיעת שופר להתלמד לא יצא חובתו. וכן השומע מן המתעסק לא יצא. נתכוון שומע לצאת ידי חובתו ולא נתכוון התוקע להוציאו או שנתכוון התוקע להוציאו ולא נתכוון השומע לצאת לא יצא ידי חובתו. עד שיתכוין שומע ומשמיע:

Bnei Binyamin there:

ומתעסק ל"י י"ח. ועמ"מ וכ"מ דרבינו ס"ל מצאצ"כ ואולם י"ל דאה"נ דגם רבינו דס"ל דאמצ"כ מ"מ זהו אם אין עבירה בעשייתה אז יוצא בלא כוונה אבל כשלא יכוון איכא עבירה בעשייתה ודאי דלא יצא בלא כוונה וא"כ א"ש דבמצה כשאכל בלא כוונה אין חשש כלל שפיר יוצא י"ח משא"כ בתקיעת שופר כשתוקע להתעסק אסור משום שבות ע"כ בלא כוונה אסור וא"י י"ח ושז"כ רבינו פ"ג מתשובה ה"ה שהשי"ת דן למצרים לפי ששעבדו בישראל לפי שהם לא נצטוו ביחוד ע"ז והראב"ד השיגו דאדרבה הם מצוה עבדי וע' רמב"ן פ' לך ולהאמור א"ש דאם היו המצרים מכוונים לשם מצוה או עכ"פ אם לא עשו לשמ"צ אבל לא הי' כלל עבירה בשעבודם אז שפיר היו צריכים לקבל שכר ע"ז משא"כ במה שעשו היה דבר עבירה כמ"ש בסנהדרין נ"ח ב' א"כ צדקו ד' רבינו כאאמו"ר הגז"ל והאריך הרבה בדרושים ויש להוסיף דבלא עבירה כל מצוה סתמא לשמה קאי משא"כ כשיש עבירה בהעדר הכוונה ע"ז ל"ש סתמא לשמה והארכתי בחי' בס"ד ומש"כ הכ"מ בשם הר"ן עי' תוס' פסחים קט"ו ד"ה מתקיף ועי' בכ"מ פ"ב מק"ש ואש"ק הלח"מ ובחיבורי בה"פ הארכתי בענין מצ"כ אם מדאו' או דרבנן והעלתי דברים חדשים בס"ד:

Abba Shaul in Yevamos! An exact tzushell! Because he also has an ulterior motive, be it desire for the yevama or the money that comes with her.

Interestingly, the Rambam says, regarding Abba Shaul, in his teshuvos, 218:

"וידועה לכם מסקנת פסק ההלכה, שמצות יבום קודמת למצות חליצה, אפילו אינו מתכוון לשם מצוה, אלא לשם נוי או לשם ממון, הואיל ולאחר שמת (אחיו) בלא בנים, הותרה (לו) ונסתלק איסור הערוה בכלל, כחכמים. אבל לפי שיטת אבא שאול מצות חליצה קודמת, להיותו סובר שאיסור אשת אח דחוי מפני היבום, ואם מתכוונים לדבר אחר זולתי המצוה, הריהו כאלו פגע בערוה"

Of course, there are many opinions about what Abba Shaul meant. I'm just saying that the Rambam's pshat relates to our discussion, because the Rambam is saying that this reasoning applies absolutely to cases of דחויה and not at all to cases of הותרה. Shabbos, most people hold, is דחויה.

Reb Elchonon.on Kilayim in Tzitzis.

Reb Elchonon in Ksuvos on 74, number 250, klers whether a person that wears tzitzis without kavana will be over on both the lav of Shat and the asei of tzitzis. But his tzad kula is that tzitzis is different, that all you need is that it is being worn like that. Implies that by other mitzvos poshut that you'd be over. He notes there that the Biur Halacha in 60:4 says that lechoira it should be a bittul asei when you grab a talis for an aliyah without kavana. But he's metzaded to be meikil that he doesn't mean it for regular levisha.

VI

Pinchas, in our Parshiyos.
The people criticized Pinchas for killing Zimri and Kozbi. Many explain their criticism as being that yes, a Kana'i is supposed to do that, but you're not on the madreiga of kana'us; you did it because you're a hot headed vigilante who enjoyed the thrill of doing what you did. The question remains, how is that a criticism? So what? Lemaiseh, he had the right to do what he did. Evidently, a "bad act" justified by mitigating circumstances or extreme necessity is only muttar when done with the correct kavanos.

As Rav Kook says, similar to the Aderes I brought above,

...דחז"ל כתבו, קנאין פוגעין [סנהדרין פב ע"א], פירשו דוקא קנאים המכוונים לשם שמים, ולכאורה גם בכל מיתת ב"ד למה לא קפדינן מי ההורגים, ו"יד העדים" כתיב [דברים יז, ז], רק שיהיה כשר לעדות. י"ל כיון שכל הרוג בב"ד א"א כי אם אחרי גמר דין, ואז הוא כבר גברא קטילא ואין הריגתו רע בעצם. אבל כאן שא"א להיגמר דינו, א"כ הוא איש חי, הרי זה מעשה רע מצד עצמו להרוג אדם חי, מ"מ בכוונה לשם שמים שפיר דמי, וצדקה תהיה לו, אמנם בלא לשם שמים, לא די שאינה מצוה, רק עבירה נחשבת.

והנה בענין מצוה שלא לשמה ידוע שהמחברים שקלו איך יהיה שורת הדין אם מכוין גם תועלת עצמו אבל מ"מ כוונתו לשם שמים, ודימו לצורכו ולצורכה [פסחים כו ע"ב], ופשוט שאינה משנת חסידים, מ"מ השכר לא יקופח. אך כל זה בדבר טוב מצד עצמו, אבל דבר הרע מצד עצמו, י"ל גם תערובות מפסיד. והדעת נוטה, כיון שבחלק העבירה ודאי מזיק אלא שחלק המצוה מתקן, על כן אם מכוין לשם שמים לגמרי נעשית גם העבירה לשמה ואין כאן [אלא] שכר, אבל אם מערב גם טובת עצמו, א"כ נהי דהמצוה נשארת [ע"י] עירוב עיקר כונתו לש"ש, מ"מ גם העבירה יש לה מקום לנוח. ועל זה דקדקו חז"ל גבי יעל דלא מתהניא משום דטובתם של רשעים רעה היא אצל צדיקים, מ"מ י"ל שֶׁדַי בזה אם לא יענש על העבירה וגם לא יקבל שכר על המצוה. אף שמצינו דברי חז"ל על פסוק 'אשר לא יקח שוחד' (דברים י, יז, ספרי דברים פסקא שמז) דהיינו מצוה בשביל עבירה, מכל מקום זה אינו כי אם בדברים שאין להם היתלות זה בזה, אבל בדבר מעשה אחד, שפיר דמי לצאת שכר כנגד הפסד, וכגונא דמצינו האוחז ספר תורה ערום [נקבר] ערום בלא אותה מצוה, בפרק קמא דשבת [יד ע"א].

(ראי"ה קוק, מכתי"ק, נדפס בשיחות הרב צבי יהודה, במדבר עמ' 349-350)

Chukas, Bamidbar 20:12. Moshe Rabbeinu's Inevitable Fall

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 03:11:00 +0000

Hashem told Moshe that because he struck the rock, he would not bring his people to the promised land.

יען לא האמנתם בי להקדישני לעיני בני ישראל לכן לא תביאו את הקהל הזה אל הארץ אשר נתתי להם.

Rashi brings from the Tanchuma that Hashem wanted it made clear that it was this sin, and this sin alone, that sealed Moshe's fate.

גלה הכתוב שאלולי חטא זה בלבד היו נכנסין לארץ, כדי שלא יאמרו עליהם כעון שאר דור המדבר, שנגזר עליהם שלא יכנסו לארץ, כך היה עון משה ואהרן

The natural way to read this is as a tragic mistake, judging by the high standards of Moshe Rabbeinu, a flawed decision that bore bitter fruit. If only Moshe hadn't done this! He would have led Klal Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael, and history would have been entirely different!

But Rashi in Devarim brings a Sifrei that casts an entirely different light on this episode.

Rashi in Vezos Haberacha (Devarim 33:8) says the following:

וללוי אמר תמיך ואוריך לאיש חסידך אשר נסיתו במסה תריבהו על מי מריבה.

Translation: And of Levi he said: "Your Tummim and Urim belong to Your pious man, whom You tested (teriveihu) at Massah and whom You tried at the waters of Merivah.

Rashi:

תריבהו וגו': כתרגומו. דבר אחר תריבהו על מי מריבה נסתקפת לו לבוא בעלילה, אם משה אמר (במדבר כ, י) שמעו נא המורים, אהרן ומרים מה עשו:

Translation: and whom You tried…: As the Targum renders it. Another explanation: “Teriveihu” — You brought about a pretext against him [Levi], for even if Moses [was punished with death and not permitted to enter the Land of Israel because he] said to Israel, “Listen now, you rebels!” (see Bamidbar 20:10), but [how do we understand why] Aaron and Miriam [were also punished with death and were not permitted to enter the Land of Israel] — what did they do [to deserve this]?- [Sifrei 33:8]

What does the Sifrei mean? What does עלילה mean? In what sense was it a "pretext?"

It appears that for Moshe Rabbeinu, his inability to enter Eretz Yisrael was a foregone conclusion that was waiting for a cause.

Chazal discuss this in several places, but I have to warn you that their explanation leaves us with as many questions as we came with. At the end of this discussion, I bring a safer alternative from the Maharitz Chayos.

For clarity, I'm labeling each source, starting with the Tanchuma.

I

The Tanchuma in Parshas Vayeishev (4), that says that Moshe Rabbeinu had absolutely no chance of entering Eretz Yisrael. If he hadn't struck the rock, he would have done something else. If he lived a perfect life and was absolutely blameless, perhaps someone he was responsible for would have done something wrong. The point is that the reality of his not entering Eretz Yisrael was determined long before he struck the rock at Meriva.

The Tanchuma says that certain human choices and/or the consequences of those choices are preordained. Hashem ensures that they come to pass through subtle manipulation. There is no suppression of free will, and Hashem does not force people to act in certain ways. Instead, Hashem puts people in positions where the likely result will be behavior that will move history in the desired direction, or that Hashem chooses a Middah (Din or Rachamim) that generates the intended consequences from a human action. The story of Mankind is teleological; certain events must ultimately occur, and seemingly unrelated or random events will inevitably lead to those ends. Here is the Tanchuma.

ויוסף הורד מצרימה,

זש"ה לכו חזו מפעלות אלהים נורא עלילה על בני אדם תהלים כה

א"ר יהושע בן קרחה אף הנוראות שאתה מביא עלינו בעלילה את מביאן,

בא וראה כשברא הקדוש ברוך הוא את העולם מיום הראשון ברא מלאך המות מנין א"ר ברכיה משום שנאמר וחושך על פני תהום (בראשית א) זה מלאך המות המחשיך פניהם של בריות, ואדם נברא בששי ועלילה נתלה בו שהוא הביא את המיתה לעולם שנאמר כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות,

מלה"ד למי שמבקש לגרש את אשתו כשבקש לילך לביתו כתב גט נכנס לביתו והגט בידו מבקש עלילה ליתנו לה, אמר לה מזגו לי את הכוס שאשתה, מזגה לו, כיון שנטל הכוס מידה אמר לה הרי זה גיטך, אמרה לו מה פשעי, אמר לה צאי מביתי שמזגת לי כוס פשור, אמרה לו כבר היית יודע שאני עתידה למזוג לך כוס פשור שכתבת הגט והביאתו בידך, אף כך אמר אדם לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע עד שלא בראת עולמך קודם שני אלפים שנה היתה תורה אצלך אמון שכך כתיב (משלי ח) ואהיה אצלו אמון ואהיה שעשועים יום יום ב' אלפים שנה וכתיב בה (במדבר יט) זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל אלולי שהתקנת

מות לבריות היית כותב בה כך אלא באת לתלות בי את העלילה הוי נורא עלילה על בני אדם,

וכן אתה מוצא שא"ל הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה (דברים א) אם יראה איש באנשים האלה הדור הרע הזה את הארץ הטובה וגו', איש זה משה דכתיב (במדבר יב) והאיש משה ענו. האיש המסויים באנשים, וכן אתה אומר (שמואל א יז) והאיש בימי שאול זקן בא באנשים, וכן הוא אומר (שמות ו) עתה תראה אשר אעשה לפרעה במלחמת פרעה אתה רואה ואין אתה רואה במלחמת שלשים ואחד מלכים, וכיון שאמר להם שמעו נא המורים (במדבר כ) א"ל הקב"ה לכן לא תביאו את הקהל הזה, הוי נורא עלילה,

וכן הוא אומר ביוסף ויראו אחיו כי אותו אהב אביהם על ידי לשון של ארגמן שעשה לו כתונת פסים נכתב עליו ד' אונאות, פסים פ' פוטיפר ס' סוחרים י' ישמעאלים מ' מדינים בשביל כתונת פסים גרם לכל השבטים לירד למצרים, וא"ר יודן היה הקדוש ברוך הוא מבקש לקיים גזירת ידוע תדע, והביא עלילה לכל דברים אלו כדי שיאהב יעקב את יוסף וישנאוהו אחיו וימכרו אותו לישמעאלים ויורידוהו למצרים וישמע יעקב שיוסף חי במצרים וירד עם השבטים וישתעבדו שם, הוי ויוסף הורד מצרימה אל תקרי הורד אלא הוריד את אביו והשבטים למצרים, א"ר תנחומא למה"ד לפרה שמבקשין ליתן עול בצוארה והיא מונעת העול מן צוארה מה עשו נטלו את בנה מאחריה ומשכו אותה לאותו מקום שמבקשין בו לחרוש והיה העגל גועה, שמעה הפרה בנה גועה הלכה שלא בטובתה בשביל בנה כך הקב"ה היה מבקש לקיים גזירת ידוע תדע והביא עלילה לכל אלו

הדברים וירדו למצרים ופרעו את השטר לכך נאמר ויוסף הורד מצרימה הוי נורא עלילה וגו':

II

Then there is the Medrash Rabba (in MR Breishis 85:1 on Breishis 38:1)

ויהי בעת ההוא: רבי שמואל בר נחמן פתח (ירמיה כט, יא): "כי אנכי ידעתי את המחשבת" שבטים היו עסוקין במכירתו של יוסף, ויוסף היה עסוק בשקו ובתעניתו, ראובן היה עסוק בשקו ותעניתו, ויעקב היה עסוק בשקו ובתעניתו, ויהודה היה עסוק לקח לו אשה, והקדוש ברוך הוא היה עוסק בורא אורו של מלך המשיח.

III

And the Bach in his Sefer on Rus, משיב נפש.

וא״ר יוחנן ביקש (יהודה) לעבור וזימן לו הקב״ה מלאך שהוא ממונה על התאוה א״ל יהודה היכן אתה הולך מהיכן מלכים עומדים מהיכן גדולי׳ עומדים ויט אליה אל הדרך בעל כרחו שלא בטובתו ומעין זה היתה דעת נעמי כי הלא ראתה ברוח הקודש שלא נמצא אז במשפחת יהודה צדיק וטוב שהוא גדול יוחר מבועז שממנו יצא שרש ישי אלא שהמשיך ידו מרות שעל כן לא היה מהדד אחריה ועל כן היתה היא ממצאת עצמה אליו לשכוב מרגלותיו כדרך שעשתה תמר באופן שהמלאך הממונה על התאוה יאמר אליו מהיכן מלכים עומדים כו׳ עד שבעל כרחו שלא בטובתו יבא אליה לבראות אורו של משיח

IV

gU directs us to the parsha of involuntary manslaughter and Ir Miklat.
Shemos 21:13:

ואשר לא צדה, והאלקים אנה לידו--ושמתי לך מקום, אשר ינוס שמה.

Translation: But one who did not stalk [him], but God brought [it] about into his hand, I will make for [him] a place to which he can flee.
Rashi:

אנה לידו: זימן לידו, לשון לא תאונה אליך רעה (תהלים צא י), לא יאונה לצדיק כל און (משלי יב כא), מתאנה הוא לי (מלכים ב' ה ז), מזדמן למצוא לי עילה:

Translation: brought [it] about into his hand: Heb. אִנָּה, made it ready for his hand, an expression similar to “No harm will be prepared (תְאוּנֶּה) for you” (Ps. 91:10); No wrong shall be prepared (יְאוּנֶּה) (Prov. 12:21); [and] “he is preparing himself (מִתְאַנֶה) against me” (II Kings 5:7), [meaning that] he is preparing himself to find a pretext against me.
Next Rashi:

והאלקים אנה לידו: ולמה תצא זאת מלפניו, הוא שאמר דוד (שמואל א' כד יג) כאשר יאמר משל הקדמוני מרשעים יצא רשע, ומשל הקדמוני היא התורה, שהיא משל הקב"ה שהוא קדמונו של עולם. והיכן אמרה תורה מרשעים יצא רשע, והא-להים אנה לידו. במה הכתוב מדבר, בשני בני אדם, אחד הרג שוגג ואחד הרג מזיד, ולא היו עדים בדבר שיעידו, זה לא נהרג וזה לא גלה, והקב"ה מזמנן לפונדק אחד, זה שהרג במזיד יושב תחת הסולם, וזה שהרג שוגג עולה בסולם ונופל על זה שהרג במזיד והורגו, ועדים מעידים עליו ומחייבים אותו לגלות, נמצא זה שהרג בשוגג גולה, וזה שהרג במזיד נהרג:

Translation: but God brought [it] about into his hand: Now why should this go out from before Him? That is what David said, “As the proverb of the Ancient One says, ‘From the wicked comes forth wickedness’” (I Samuel 24:14). The proverb of the Ancient One is the Torah, which is the proverb of the Holy One, blessed is He, Who is the Ancient One of the world. Now where did the Torah say, “From the wicked comes forth wickedness” ? [This refers to:] “but God brought [it] about into his hand.” To what is the text referring? To two people, one who killed unintentionally and one who killed intentionally, but there were no witnesses who would testify to the matter. This one [who killed intentionally] was not executed, and that one [who killed unintentionally] was not exiled [to the refuge cities]. So the Holy One, blessed is He, brings them [both] to one inn. The one who killed intentionally sits under a ladder, and the one who killed unintentionally is ascending the ladder, and he falls on the one who had killed intentionally and kills him, and witnesses testify about him and sentence him to exile. The result is that the one who killed unintentionally is exiled, and the one who killed intentionally was killed. -[From Mechilta, Makkos 10b]

V

Chaim B points out something that has to be addressed. Reb Meir Simcha in his introduction to Sefer Shemos asks, what does it mean that Hashem told Moshe Rabbeinu וגם בך יאמינו לעולם? But Moshe was a human being, and capable of making choices, good or bad, righteous or wicked. How could Hashem tell him that he would be forever trustworthy? Reb Meir Simcha answers that indeed at that point, Moshe Rabbeinu's bechira was taken away. He had reached the perfection human beings are capable of, and there was no point in his retaining his bechira. Reb Meir Simcah's words, with some ellipses, are

ועל כרחין שהשי״ת שלל ממנו הבחירה לגמרי ונשאר מוכרח כמלאכים שמשה שמצר עצמו עמל ויגע כל כך עד שהעלה עצמו למדרגה הגבוה שבמדרגות האנושי השלימית היותר האפשרי לכן וכה שיבעל ממנו הבחירה א״כ זה עיקר תכלית הבריאה לזכך החומר עד שישיב בשרו גם לרוחני

....

אבל כל ישראל שהמה לא היו ראוים למדרגה ונבואה כזו, רק כדי לקיים הדת - שלא יבוא שום מבהיל להכחיש דבר אחד על ידי אות ומופת, הוכרחו לעלות למעלה רמה כזו לשמוע קול אלקים

....

אח"כ, הלא שבו לבחירה, שאם לא כן אין תכלית תו בברייתם, כיון שזכייתם שסרה בהם הבחירה - והיה השכלתם בהירה בלי עירוב דמיון וגשם כלל, עד כי הוכרחו כמלאכים שמוכרחים מצד שכלם, שעל זה נאמר (שבת פח, א) "כפה עליהם הר כגיגית", שהיו מוכרחים מצד שכלם והשגתם לקבל עליהם התורה - והיה ענין מקריי, היינו שהיה רק להיות מאמינים בנבואת משה לא מצד האותות, ויאמינו בד' לעולם. אם כן, מה שיותר מן ההכרח, הלא נאות לפניהן לשוב אל הבחירה. ובלא בחירה הלא לא היה להם שכר על קיום התורה, שעל הכרח אין שכר, כיון שלא מצד עמלם והכנתם היה סר מאתם הבחירה.

וזה שאמר: "שובו לכם לאהליכם", היינו לבחירה ולכוחות הגוף, המוקף באלפי כוחות דמיונות ההטעאה שקריות תאוות חשק וכיו"ב, וזה ה"אוהל", שהגוף הוא אוהל הנפש, שבעת מתן תורה יצאה נשמתם (שבת פח, ב), הוא שהחומר לא היה חוצץ מאומה. "ואתה פה עמוד עמדי", שזהו אצלו בטלה כל כוחות הגוף וחומריותו, והשגתו צלולה ובהירה, ונעדר בחירתו ונשאר משכיל מעוצם השגתו מוכרח להשלימות היותר נעלה.

So how does Reb Meir Simcha understand the episode of Mei Meriva? According to Reb Meir Simcha, then, we have to say that whatever decision Moshe Rabbeinu made at Meriva, it was a fulfillment of Hashem's will. If so, the idea of the Tanchuma and Sifrei, as applied to Moshe Rabbeinu at Meriva, is certainly true.

But, as I point out in the comments, this makes it hard to read the criticism in the passuk, לא האמנתם בי להקדישני . Rabbi Kupperman in his notes to his edition of the Meshech Chochma asks this question, and he says that Moshe Rabbeinu was not entirely bereft of bechira; he was like a Malach, and even a Malach has some degree of Bechira, and can be punished for failure, as he cites from the Medrash Rabba on Bereishis 19:13, where the Malachim said כי משחיתים אנחנו את המקום הזה, and they were punished either for revealing a secret or for saying "we," not "Hashem." The Medrash there says that their punishment was they were Nidcheh from their Mechitza-

מלאכי השרת ע"י שגילו מסטורין של הקדוש ברוך הוא, נדחו ממחיצתן מאה ושלושים ושמונה שנה.

אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא: על שנתגאו ואמרו כי משחיתים אנחנו את המקום הזה

This is supported by a similar discussion in the Ramban (Devarim 30:6), who says that being without Bechira is the state of Adam before the sin. And, of course, Adam Harishon did sin.

"ומל ה' אלהיך את לבבך - זהו שאמרו (שבת קד א) הבא לטהר מסייעין אותו, מבטיחך שתשוב אליו בכל לבבך והוא יעזור אותך. ונראה מן הכתובים ענין זה שאומר, כי מזמן הבריאה היתה רשות ביד האדם לעשות כרצונו צדיק או רשע, וכל זמן התורה כן, כדי שיהיה להם זכות בבחירתם בטוב ועונש ברצותם ברע. אבל לימות המשיח, תהיה הבחירה בטוב להם טבע, לא יתאוה להם הלב למה שאינו ראוי ולא יחפוץ בו כלל. והיא המילה הנזכרת כאן. כי החמדה והתאוה ערלה ללב, ומול הלב הוא שלא יחמוד ולא יתאוה. וישוב האדם בזמן ההוא לאשר היה קודם חטאו של אדם הראשון, שהיה עושה בטבעו מה שראוי לעשות ולא היה לו ברצונו דבר והפכו, כמו שפירשתי בסדר בראשית ב:ט:

So whatever it was that Moshe Rabbeinu decided, it was good and righteous. As far as human perception, as far as משפט, what Moshe Rabbeinu did was kulo tov ve'yashar. By the standards of pure middas hadin, by the standards of חוקת התורה, even a good and righteous decision may not be adequate.

Or you could answer that his not having Bechira was limited to certain parameters, namely, where the wrong choice could affect his reliability vis a vis יאמינו לעולם, Klal Yisrael's trust in Moshe Rabbeinu.

******************************************************************

This is absolutely unrelated to the concept of ידיעה ובחירה, Hashem's knowledge of future events, as the Rishonim explain regarding the actions of the Egyptians, (except, perhaps, that the Raavad's assessment there might apply to this discussion- אני אומר שהם דברי נערות.) The Tanchuma is saying that Hashem takes an active role as events progress; Hashem decides what needs to happen, and He ensures that it does happen, either by indirectly manipulating human behavior until the desired act occurs, or by applying Middas HaDin where Middas HaRachamim might otherwise have applied or vice versa.

************************************************************

This discussion as presented above might not be useful for a drasha. One reason; it provides an excuse for every avaryan. It's not my fault! Hashem made it impossible for me to avoid the aveira! Second reason: people are מיאש, and they say, if no matter how high you climb, it is made impossible for you to make the right decision, if Moshe Rabbeinu, without Bechira, didn't satisfy what was expected from him, what's the point of even trying. לפום גמלא שיחנא, and if the strong donkey is punished for not carrying his heavier load just as severely as the weaker one is punished for not carrying his lighter load, then why bother becoming a stronger donkey?
Both reasons are devarim beteilim, but I personally know several people that would walk away with either one or both of these reactions.

So one needs to bear these in mind, and arrange the drasha to anticipate and prevent these reactions. For those people, perhaps you should just stick with the Maharitz Chayos on the Gemara (Sukkah 5a) מעולם לא ירדה שכינה למטה מעשרה. He says

נ"ב בדרך דרוש יש לכוין בזה אמרם הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים הכל צפוי והרשות נתונה אשר מורים על העיקר שהבחירה חפשית ביד האדם וגם כאן אומר דברשות האדם אין השכינה מתערבת במעללותיו ובפעולותיו . והך דלא עלה משה ואליהו למרום, היינו אע"פ שעלו לרקיע, בכל זאת לא נתהפכה טבעם כמלאכים כמו שאמרו פרק ר"ע מה לילוד אשה בינינו, וכן אליהו היה עדיין שכיח בישיבת חז"ל בצורת איש

Everyone that reads this knows that you can't compare the Maharitz Chayos to Reb Meir Simcha, but in Hashkafa there are few hard and fast rules, and, as I said, the Maharitz Chayos is much safer.

The Makriv is Part of the Korban.

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:46:00 +0000

Both Jews and Gentiles can bring sacrifices to the Beis Hamikdash. But there is an important difference between them.
A Jew who is an idolater is not allowed to bring any Korban to the Beis Hamikdash. (Chulin 5a, and Eiruvin perek Hadar) On the other hand, a Gentile that is an idolater is allowed to bring a Korban. מכם ולא כולכם להוציא את המומר מכם בכם חלקתי ולא באומות. When I said this Gemara, my shiur expressed their surprise. How can it be that we are more machmir by the Korban of a Jew than that of a non-Jew? What is the logic of the distinction? If a requirement for accepting a person's Korban is that he has at least a fundamental faith in God, why doesn't that matter when a Gentile brings a Korban? If a corrupted owner corrupts the animal, what difference does it make who the owner is? Gentiles are just as tainted by Idolatry as Jews are.

(The members of the shiur offered two answers.
1. We only accept the Korban of a Gentile mipnei darkei shalom, to show respect and to avoid antagonizing them, but it's not really a Korban. That is false, period. It's a korban and it has halachos of korban.
2. It's not such a sin for a Gentile to be an idolater. False again. It's a capital offense, and that's pretty serious. Also, it's illogical. Why would it be less of a sin for a Gentile to be an idolater? They have just as much of a duty to recognize the Ribono shel Olam as we do. They are not just the extras in our movie.)

The Oneg Yomtov's Answer

See Oneg Yomtov in middle of note on the bottom in #45, who asks this question.

His first answer is that if the Kohanim doing the avoda in the Mikdash are acting as our agents (שלוחי דידן, Nedarim 35b,) then this halacha makes sense, because according to our halacha, there is no law of agency by Gentiles, and if the Torah said you take korbanos from Gentiles despite the the general rule that the is no din of shlichus by Gentiles, then apparently a Gentile's Korban does not need the Agency that is required by a Jew's Korban. If the Kohanim are not bringing his korban as his agents, then we don't care if he's an idolater. On the other hand, by a Jew, for whom the Kohanim are acting as Shlichim, as his agents, it is he who is bringing the Korban, and therefore his status matters.

But he says that this answer won't work according to the Rambam that paskens that even in a Yisrael's Korban, Kohanim never are acting as the principal's agent (שלוחי דשמיא). He reiterates the question: how can it be that we accept from Akum mumar but not Yisrael mumar. It's illogical; the Gemara itself had rejected this idea in a different context (regarding regular shechita of Chulin animals-השתא שחיטת מין דישראל אסורה דעובדי כוכבים מיבעיא), and if it's such an apparently illogical svara, and there is an alternative ways to darshen the passuk by Kodshim, how can the Gemara let such a drasha stand?

He answers that even if the Kohen is not the person's agent, there is still a difference between Korban Yisrael and Korban Akum. By a Yisrael's Korban, there is Semicha, leaning on the animal before Shechita, and there is no such act by a Korban Akum. Perhaps it is because of the din of Semicha by a Jew's Korban that we don't allow a Mumar to bring a Korban. But he finds fault with this answer as well. He that if the basis of not allowing a idolatrous Jew to bring a Korban is that we can't allow him to do Semicha, then a mumar should be able to be makriv bechor and maaser (and ofos), korbanos that have no Semicha.

I don't know why he didn't mention a bigger hole in his pshat- that according to him, a woman who is a mumeres should be able to bring a korban! And if you're going to answer that he means that since men do semicha, you see that the nature of the korban is such that it is in the parsha of semicha, then what's bothering him about Bechor and Maaser? And what about Korban Ofos, bird korbanos? There's no smicha there.

Another little question on his teretz is from the Gemara in Temura 2a. Machlokes RM and RY; RM- does do semicha. RY- No he does not. According to RM, also a group korban has semicha from every participant. RY- three times it says Korbano. One to exclude non-Jew ( to tell you that not even the Kohen should do Semicha on a goy's korban,) one to exclude someone else's korban, and one to exclude Yoreish. Alternatively, he uses on drasha to exclude someone else's and a goy's, because the idea is that there is no shlichus for semicha (because we know from elsewhere that the goy himself doesn't do it.)

So according to his teretz, you could say a chiddush that a yoreish who is a mumar should be able to bring his father's korban according to Rav Yehuda.

The Brisker Rov's Distinction

The Gemara in Zevachim 45b says that the tzitz is not meratzeh by the korban of a goy because by korbanos it says it says Leratzon lahem, and not for akum; since Ritzui Tzitz has to do with Ritzui, and there's no Ritzui by akum, so there's no din of tzitz by their korbanos.
The Brisker Rov there in Zevachim 45 says that you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that the reason there's no din tzitz by korban akum is because ritzui tzitz is a din hartza'a which doesn't exist by akum. That's not the pshat. The pshat is that the whole korban akum is not coming for hartza'a, so ritzui tzitz is irrelevant and cannot be mattir the Korban. With this, too, we understand why Korban Akum is not a problem. The exclusion of a mumar only applies to a korban of ritzui.

The Brisker Rov's opinion can be viewed in a sefer of Reb Dovid's shiurim. Also, from another sefer, quoting the Rav,

דר״ש ס״ל דקדשי עכו״ם חלוקים בעצם החפצא מקדשי ישראל, דיש קדושה של קרבן ישראל ויש קדושה של קרבן עכו״ם, וילפינן לה מדכתיב בקרבנות דבר אל בני ישראל, וכמש״כ הרמב״ם בהל׳ מעילה (פ״ה הל׳ טו), אבל רבי יוסי ס״ל דאין חילוק בעצם החפצא ביניהם, משום דכתיב בהו לה׳, וקדושה אחת להם, ומשו״ה א״א לחלק ביניהם לגבי הדינים שחילק ר״ש. וזהו מה שמקשה הגמי, דהברייתא דאין ציץ מרצה על קרבנות עכו״ם היא דלא כר׳ יוסי, דקס״ד דדין זה הוא ג״כ משום שלקרבן עכו״ם ישנה קדושה אחרת, ומשני דבזה גם ר״י מודה, דהא דאין ציץ מרצה על קרבנותיהם אינו מחמת דין הקדשם, אלא הוא מיעוט בבעלים של הקרבנות, דבריצוי ציץ כתיב לרצון להם, ועכו״ם לאו בני ריצוי נינהו.

(ועיי״ש שהוכיח מפירוש הר״ש משנ״ץ על התו״כ ( בפרש ת אחרי פרשתא ז הלכה ה דבקרבנות עכו״ם ליכא הרצאת קרבן, דאינם לרצון ל פ נ , ה' , ונתרבו רק לענין שיכולים להביא קרבן. אבל הקרבן אינו מרצה כלל על הבעלים, ולפיכך גם הציץ אינו מרצה על הדם שנטמא, דריצוי ציץ לא נאמר אלא בקרבנות שיש בהם הרצאת בעלים עכ״ד

My Proposed Answer

So, let's get back to our question.
You have the Oneg Yomtov that says that even if you hold shluchi derachmana, that's only by korban yisrael, not by korban akum. Also, you have the Gemara in Zevachim says that there's no ritzui by korban akum. And we have the general dinim that there is no semicha or vidui by the Korban of a Gentile.

I want to explain, in baalebatishe words, what the yesod of the difference is, and, like in Reb Moshe's approach, it explains many of the differences in halacha between Korban Yisrael and Korban Akum.

The difference is that when a Yisrael brings a korban, he is part of the korban. The makriv is part of the yesod of the korban, just as kehuna, and kli shareis, and me'kom hamizbei'ach are parts of the dinim of the korban. When a yisrael does smicha it is because he is the korban too, except we don't shecht him. He is the part that we don't shecht or burn on the mizbei'ach. He has ritzui because the Zerikas Hadam created a din of ritzui on the Korban, and he is a part of the Korban. By akum, the makriv is not part of the korban. He is the person who donated the korban. Therefore, while he is doing a good thing, there is no din ritzui, a din which is exclusively related to a Korban. (There's no need to extend this, and it causes more problems than it's worth, but one might relate this to the din that the special Din Shlichus the Torah creates by a Yisrael does not exist by Akum.)

With this, I just want to suggest that unlike other korbanos, where if a mumar brings it, it is just passul, it could be that if a mumar brings Ketores, there's a bigger problem. I think that if a mumar brings ketores, it has a din of חיסר אחת מכל סממניה חייב מיתה (Kerisus 6a), if one leaves out one ingredient of the ketores, he is subject to the death penalty. The makriv is one of the ingredients of the ketores, too, and if he's a mumar, he's chayav missa. I've found this svara to be quite useful, and have used it in many places in Kodshim.

I don't know if you need more reasons why the 250 people of Korach died after bringing the Ketores, but if you do, now you have one.

Turns Out To Be a Machlokes Between the Chazon Yechezkel and the Brisker Rov.

After writing this, I spoke to my son Shlomo, a Brisker. He told me that this is a machlokes between the Chazon Yechezkel and the Brisker Rov. The Chazon Yechezkel, in the beginning of Zevachim, says that the pshat in Shelo Lishma is that it becomes a korban without a Baalim. The Brisker Rov said that is impossible. It is impossible to have a korban without a Baalim. Rev Michel Feinstein (the Rov's son in law) tries to make a lomdishe yes and no hybrid of yes and no baalim. But the point is that in Brisk, the Rov's svara is talked about as being that the Baalim is a cheilek of the Korban. So I didn't discover America.

The Chazon Yechezkel is here, at the end of the page, DH אלא שלא עלו לבעלים, and the following pages, where he brings the Brisker Rov's questions and deals with them. The Brisker Rov's opinion is not printed anywhere in the official Brisker Sefarim, but it is in the shiurim they say in the Brisker Yeshivos.

Reb Moshe's Answer

And here is how Reb Moshe answers the question, in his Dibros on Chulin. The derech we're discussing is on the next page, except that he doesn't go as far as I do regarding the lomdus of the difference. He goes on to use this approach to explain many of the differences in halacha between Korban Yisrael and Korban Akum. This is not the first time I found a whole sugya encapsulated in a paragraph in the Dibros. אפילו ספר תורה שבהיכל צריך מזל.

Korach. How are We Supposed to Know?

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:58:00 +0000

I saw an interesting thing in Volume 4 of Rav Shach's letters. He asks on the Gemara in Bava Metzia 85b

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מאי דכתיב (ירמיהו ט) מי האיש החכם ויבן את זאת ואשר דבר פי ה' אליו ויגידה על מה אבדה הארץ דבר זה אמרו חכמים ולא פירשוהו אמרו נביאים ולא פירשוהו עד שפירשו הקב"ה בעצמו שנאמר (ירמיהו ט) ויאמר ה' על עזבם את תורתי אשר נתתי לפניהם אמר רב יהודה אמר רב שלא ברכו בתורה תחילה

When the second Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, the question was asked, what precipitated this terrible tragedy? The question was asked to the Chachamim, and they did not explain it, the question was asked to the Nevi'im and they did not explain it, and finally Hashem told them that the terrible destruction had taken place because they had lost respect for the Torah.

Rav Shach asks, if the wise men and the Neviim had no idea what the problem was- (there were many problems and the Neviim and Chachamim had been warning the people for decades, but evidently none of those issues explained the terrible destruction and exile)- how can the people be blamed for this sin? How can you expect the people to regret a sin that no human being, not even the wisest or the most spiritual, recognized?

A similar question can be asked in Parshas Korach. Korach and the two hundred and fifty men were the greatest of the Dor Dei'ah. They must have presented a strong argument. How can the rest of the people be blamed for not knowing who was right? In the parsha of the Meraglim, how are we supposed to know who to trust? The other meraglim were at least the equals of Yehoshua and Kaleiv, and they decided ten to two that they should stay in the Midbar!

It appears, says Rav Shach, that when it comes to one's personal moral decisions, he knows more than all the chachamim and all the neviim. We have an innate spiritual compass that enables us to know right from wrong, no matter how hidden it is from the rational mind.

Unfortunately, access to this innate ability requires the utmost honesty and sincerity, a real Catch 22. Every sheigitz in the street can easily say that he doesn't care what anyone says, he's doing what he knows in his heart is right. This is true. But the Ribono shel Olam knows if a person is honestly and humbly recognizing the wisdom of his Chelek Eloka Mi'Maal or just wiping his hands on it.

gU cited Reb Elchonon's assertion that faith is the natural state of man, and only because of his unwillingness to forego his pleasures and sense of freedom does man throw away his awareness of and faith in God. His words:

ם שאיננו בכלל שוטה. אשר אי אפשר להסתפק באמיתתם, אמנם רק בתנאי שלא יהא האדם משוחד: היינו שיהא חופשי מתאוות עולם הזה ומרצונותיו. וא"כ סיבת המינות והכפירה אין מקורה בקלקול השכל מצד עצמו, כי אם מפני רצונו לתאוותיו המטה ומעור את שכלו ומעתה מובן היטב מה שהזהירה התורה ''ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם'' - זו מינות, היינו שהאדם מוזהר להכניע ולשעבד את רצונותיו כדי שיהא השכל חופשי מנטיות הרצון - וממילא יכיר את האמת המוכרחת לכל בן דעת שהקב''ה ברא את העולם, כמאמר רבי עקיבא שהעולם מעיד על הקב''ה שבראו והכפירה אין לה שום מקום בשכל האדם, כי אם ברצונותיו ותאוותיו ואילו לא הגיעו תאוותיו למדרגה גסה לא היה אפשר בשום אופן לבוא לידי טעות של כפירה או עבודה זרה. ע''כ גדול עוונו מנשוא שהגביר תאוותיו על שכלו כל כך עד שלא יכיר אמת פשוטה כזאת

והמצוה להאמין היינו שלא יגביר תאוותיו על שכלו, וממילא תבוא האמונה בהכרח. ואין צורך להשתדל להשיג אמונה, אלא להסיר את הגורמים להפסידה, והיא תבוא מאליה

Similarly, Rav Dessler says

מעולם לא היה מי שהוא אפיקורוס באמת. כל מי שפקר יודע בפנים קרב לבו שמתעלם הוא מן האמת, ומה שטוען שאינו
רואה ואינו שומע היינו שאינו ר ו צ ה לראות ואינו ר ו צ ה לשמוע

Not exactly the same as what we're talking about, I think, but close.

Korach, Bamidbar 17:3. When People Who Sin Become Sinners את מחתות החטאים האלה.

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:58:00 +0000

The Gemara (Brachos 10a):

הנהו בריוני דהוו בשבבותיה דר"מ והוו קא מצערו ליה טובא הוה קא בעי ר' מאיר רחמי עלויהו כי היכי דלימותו אמרה לי' ברוריא דביתהו מאי דעתך משום דכתיב (תהלים קד, לה) יתמו חטאים מי כתיב חוטאים חטאים כתיב ועוד שפיל לסיפיה דקרא ורשעים עוד אינם כיון דיתמו חטאים ורשעים עוד אינם אלא בעי רחמי עלויהו דלהדרו בתשובה ורשעים עוד אינם בעא רחמי עלויהו והדרו בתשובה:

Reb Meir was plagued by wicked neighbors, and he intended to pray that they be dispatched to their divine judgment. Bruria, his wife, said to him, it says in the passuk "may sins be eliminated from the Earth," it doesn't say "sinners." Better pray that they repent and abandon their sins. Reb Meir prayed for them, and as a result of his prayers they did do teshuva. (The Maharsha there, and in Sukka on the same page, asks the obvious question, "how can one person's prayers influence another's piety? הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים, all is in controlled by heaven except for piety and fear of Hashem!" Among the answers are: Reb Meir asked that Hashem ensure they meet righteous people whose example would inspire them; or that Tefilla can even help bring inspiration to other people, as every mother that prays that her child be a tzadik knows. Even fathers say in birkas habanim שיתן בלבך אהבתו ויראתו ותהיה יראת השם על פניך כל ימיך שלא תחטא. See also an excellent discussion of the Mahrsha at Chaim Brown's site.)

Everyone there asks that Beruria's point seems incorrect. Tanach is filled with examples of sinners- Chot'im- being referred to as sins- Chata'im. One good example is our parsha, where Aharon was commanded to gather the incense plates of the supporters of Korach, who were killed by divine retribution for their rebellion, and they are referred to as Chata'tim. את מחתות החטאים האלה בנפשותם.

Additional examples from all over:

תהלים נא, טו אלמדה פושעים דרכיך, וחטאים אליך ישובו

תהלים א, א אשרי האיש אשר לא הלך בעצת רשעים ובדרך חטאים לא עמד ובמושב לצים לא ישב

בראשית יג, יג ואנשי סדום רעים וחטאים לה' מאד

ישעיה א, כח ושבר פושעים וחטאים יחדיו ישובו

We even find this usage in Yiddish. We refer to an unusually wealthy man not as an עשיר-wealthy, but as an עושר- wealth.

The Nesivos in his Nachlas Yaakov (and Emes L'Yaakov and Iyei Hayam) says two answers to this question.

Answer I

He brings from the Ramban in Breishis 25:28 יכנה האיש במעשהו לתדירותו, that a person that embodies a certain behavior can be given a name that refers to that behavior. A person that is totally immersed in prayer can be called Prayer. A person that is thoroughly and obdurately sinful can be called Sins. (In English, the equivalent would be the difference between "A man who sins" and "A sinner," the change from adjectival phrase to noun. But a better word would be sinnerman, as in the traditional spiritual song.) This only applies when the person is so sinful that he cannot be defined as separate from his sins, they are a part of what defines him. Divine assistance to do teshuva is withheld from such people (see, e.g., Rambam 6 Teshuva 3.) Bruria was saying that only such people are called חטאים. People who sin, but are not hopelessly sinful, are not called חטאים, they are called חוטאים.

שהחטא כבר נעשה עצמיות מהם ואי אפשר להתפרד מהם והן אותן שמונעין מהן דרכי התשובה והן ראויין לקללן משא"כ אותן שמכונין בשם חוטאים שהחטא אינו בהן עצמיות רק במקרה שאפשר להם עדיין בתשובה אסור לקללן דאמור ישובו עדיין

The distinction he makes in this answer is borne out with a simple glance at the unpronounced and therefore disregarded dikduk. In the Mandelkorn, there are separate lists for חטא with a Patach and חטא with a Chataf Patach. A Chataf Patach replaces a Tzeirei, as in Cheit, and חטאים with the Chataf Patach means sins, in other words, people who have done sins, and would be the equivalent of חוטאיםf. חטאים with a simple Patach means Sinners. The difference is like the difference between גונב and גנב, between נוגח and נגח. A Goneiv is a man who stole. A Ganav is a professional crook. When it says גנב or נגח or חטאים with a simple Patach, it becomes a label, a behavior that has become definitive of the person or thing. So Berurias was asking Reb Meir, "Does it say Chata'im with a Chataf Patach, which means people who sin? No, it says Chata'im without a Charaf Patach, and that means a recidivist."

All the pesukim we cited above have a regular Patach.

אֵת מַחְתּוֹת הַחַטָּאִים הָאֵלֶּה, יִתַּמּוּ חַטָּאִים מִן הָאָרֶץ. וְחַטָּאִים אֵלֶיךָ יָשׁוּבוּ, וְאַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם רָעִים וְחַטָּאִים, וְשֶׁבֶר פֹּשְׁעִים וְחַטָּאִים יַחְדָּו וְעֹזְבֵי ה' יִכְלוּ

There are many appearances of חטא in Tanach with a Chataf Patach. The only appearance of חטאים in that form is in Koheles 10:4.

אִם רוּחַ הַמּוֹשֵׁל תַּעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ מְקוֹמְךָ אַלתַּנַּח כִּי מַרְפֵּא יַנִּיחַ חֲטָאִים גְּדוֹלִים.

Bruria told Reb Meir that certainly, when a person is beyond redemption, one may curse him. "יתמו חטאים מן הארץ"! As I tell my shiur, Rav Huna says (Kiddushin 20a, אמר רב הונא כיון שעבר אדם עבירה ושנה בה הותרה לו הותרה לו סלקא דעתך אלא נעשית לו כהיתר,) that if a person does a sin twice, it becomes like it's muttar, he doesn't even think twice about doing it. But what if a person does a sin three times? What does he feel at that point? I say that at that point he decides it's a mitzva. For such a person, the possibility of Teshuva is vanishingly small. But where neighborhood troublemakers are just Biryonim, there is hope for them. I am sure that Reb Meir had rebuked them- there is a chiyuv de'oraysa of לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך ולא -תישא עליו חטא (Vayikra 19:17). But what Reb Meir had not tried was Tefilla. Bruria told him "Don't write them off; They ignored your tochacha, they seem like there's no hope for them, but first, daven for them, and let's see what happens."

**********************************

Answer II

The Nesivos says another teretz, and I think it's even more interesting than the first teretz.

He says that for some people, avoiding sin is extremely difficult because of how they were created, whether it is a stronger yetzer hara or many other possible reasons. From the Akeida in Shaar 63:

כי רבים מהם היותם על השיעור ההוא מהרוע לא היה רוע בחירתם אלא מצד חוזק חומרם ורוע תכונתם הטבעית שעלה כך בגורלם מהסבות שנזדמנו להם בעת הורתם אשר לא עצרו כח לכבשו. וכמו שכתב הרב המורה פרק ל״ג חלק שלישי כי מי שטבעו חם ביותר אי אפשר שיהיה ירא שמים בתאוותיו וכבר חשבו קצת החכמים שאין האדם רצוניי על הרעות וכל שכן אם הם נמשכות אל רוע תכונתם. עם שכבר דחה אותם הפילוסוף וביאר שהכל בידי אדם כמו שכתבנו בשער כ״ב מכל מקום דינא רבא ודינא זוטא איכא בינייהו כי אחר שהם לא בחרו לחם אלו ההתחלות הפחותות והטבע העלה אותם בגורלם וידו חלקתם לא בקו עד שאם יכבשום היה ראויין לשכר גדול כמו שאמר (אבות פ״ה) לפום צערא אגרא הנה כשלא עמדו כנגדם ראוי להמציא להם תקון

So Bruria was saying that there are two kinds of sinners. There are sinners that are born with strong evil inclinations, or amid terrible circumstances, and there are sinners that choose to do their sins out of a desire to be wicked. For the people who purely out of wickedness choose to sin, prayer is a waste of time. But for those poor people that were born with the bad luck of some inherent or circumstantial predisposition to sin, prayer is perfectly appropriate, because you are asking Hashem to level the playing field, to remove their unfortunate predisposition. So Beruria told Reb Meir, when it says in Tehillim that David Hamelech cursed חטאים, he couldn't possibly be cursing people whose hot nature drives them to sin. So he must have been saying יתמו חטאים, may Hashem help them by cooling off their burning Yetzer Hara. Perhaps these people are of the nebach resha'im type, and for them, the proper tefilla is that they be freed from the terrible Yetzer Hara that drives them to sin. As the Nesivos says, along the same lines, in his Nachlas Yaakov,

וזה ענין ההבדל בין חוטאים לחטאים כי חוטאים מורה על שהוא פועל החטא כי חוטא

על משקל פועל וחטאים מורה על שרשו שהוא תכונה רעה בנפש כאלו הוא נעדר הפועל ולזה אמרו מ׳ כתיב חוטאים חטאי׳ כתיב וזה אין שייך לומר שיבקש רחמים על אותן שימותו וע״כ הבקשה כמו שפרש״י שיכלה היצה״ר מהם ושיתרפא התכונה רעה מהם וזה אמרה דביתהו כיון שלא קילל דור רק אותן החוטאים ברוע בחירתם משא״כ אותן החוטאים מצד רוע חומרם אדרבא אבקש רחמי׳ עליהם שיתרפאו מהם א״כ אין לבקש רחמי׳ על אנשי׳ פ טים שימותו דדלמא חוטאים מצד רוע חומרם ולו נתכנו עלילות:

(Again, see the link to the Divrei Chaim I have above for a discussion of how Tefilla helps to restore Bechira.)

One of the reasons I like the second answer better is that the first answer doesn't work well in the language of the Gemara. According to that pshat, Beruria was saying that the passuk in Tehillim was indeed a curse against recidivist sinners, but there people were not like that. The problem is that she said that this explains the passuk ועוד שפיל לסיפיה דקרא ורשעים עוד אינם כיון דיתמו חטאים ורשעים עוד אינם אלא בעי רחמי עלויהו דלהדרו בתשובה ורשעים עוד אינם , "look at the end of the passuk! There will no longer be wicked people- because Chata'im came to an end, the result is there will no longer be wicked people. Pray for them that they do Teshuva." According to the first answer, the passuk is not talking about people for whom you pray, it's talking about people whom you curse.

So, to summarize:

The word חטאים can mean people who have sinned, and it can mean veteran sinners. Rav Meir's neighbors were people who sinned, the congregation of Korach were sinners.
Also, the Akeida that not all sinners are equally culpable. Some people are faced with physical or emotional or cultural drives that are far harder to resist than those that others face. They're all judged for their sins, but you don't throw the book at the ones that are nebach resha'im. As the Baal Ha'Akeidah puts it, דינא רבא ודינא זוטא איכא בינייהו. Does this support Rav Dessler's "נקודת הבחירה"? I don't know.

Modern Hebrew Names for Children

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Tue, 28 May 2013 17:05:00 +0000

Part three of a three part series on naming children. Part one discussed the proper time to name a daughter; part two talked about the momentous spiritual significance of the parents' naming their child.

This post is longer than usual. The length results from dialogue with readers that I incorporated into the post. As far as basic structure, it is very simple, as follows:
1. Are modern Hebrew names acceptable to our Gedolim. (It goes without saying that Modern Orthodox authorities are in favor of these names. I am focusing on my group, the Yeshiva Orthodox, or what the press calls Hareidim or Ultra-Orthodox.)
2. The difference between modern Hebrew names and non-Jewish names.
3. Harav Kanievsky's opinion
a. Three explanations for this opinion
4. Rav Moshe Feinstein's opinion
5. English and Hebrew lists of Hebrew names, both traditional and modern.

*********************

May a parent give a child a modern Hebrew name, a name that has not been used before? Or are we obliged to choose a name from Tanach or other long standing tradition?

This post does not address non-Hebrew names. We discussed that here, where we reproduced and commented upon an article written by Dr. Steven Oppenheimer. There is an obvious difference between modern Hebrew names which are clearly associated with the Jewish people, and non-Jewish names, which might be a sign of assimilation. Right now we're focusing on non-traditional Hebrew names.

I titled this piece "Modern names for children" because I'm thinking of the name parents give a child- the name you use when you get an aliyah or the first name with which you identify yourself in a document. Of course one can choose for himself a different name for other purposes. Many people acquire or give themselves a name that is entirely unrelated to the name they were given at the bris/aliyah, even Jewish names that are different than their given name. As the Medrash (קהלת רבה פ"ז) says, every person has three names; one that his parents give him, one that his associates give him, and one that is written in Heaven in his book of creation.
"שלשה שמות נקראו לאדם. אחד שיקראו לו אביו ואמו אחד שקראו לו אחרים ואחד שקרוי לו בספר תולדות ברייתו".
But I am talking about what we think of as the "official" name.

Harav Chaim Kanievsky's opinion

Rav Chaim Kanievsky famously refuses to give a bracha to a person with a non-traditional name. His adamant and strongly expressed opinion is documented in several books, including ויקרא שמו בישראל, and שמות בארץ, and שמא גרים. One very well known example of his position is his reaction to the name Shira. When asked to give a bracha to a person with that name, his reaction is always the same- Shira is not a name, and the real name is Sarah. Not only does he deny the validity of such names, but he says that names of modern coinage are null and void, and don't need to be changed to a proper name. They don't exist. All you need to do it choose an appropriate name. He has told Shiras that their name is Sarah, he has told an Eliran that his name is Elchanan Eliahu, and he told a Zohar that his name is Meir.

This is how the author of Sheimos Ba'aretz quotes Reb Chaim.

האם נראה לכם שכדאי שבפרשת מצורע, נקרא לבננו בשם 'מצורע'? או שבפרשת פרה נקרא לבת בשם 'פרה' ?", תהה מרן הגר"ח קניבסקי שליט"א, "ואם כן, מדוע בשבת שירה קוראים לבת 'שירה'?"ה...

If you had a boy in the week of Parshas Metzora, would you name him "Metzora?" If you had a girl during Parshas Parah, would you name her "Parah?" So why would someone call a girl born during the week of Shabbas Shira "Shira?"
Rav Chaim holds that the only names that are valid are the names in Tanach or in Even Ezer siman 129.

Again from Reb Chaim: the gist of it is, as he is quoted saying, ' "והנה שמות שהמשוגעים המציאו, יש לבטלם לגמרי" which means that he disapproves of neologisms and wishes they would be completely eliminated.

שאלו את הגר"ח מהו ההבדל בין השמות המודרניים, מכל השמות של האמוראים שנקראו בארמית, וכל נשות ישראל בכל הדורות נקראו בשמות באידיש, ומה ההבדל בין אידיש לעברית? וזאת ועוד, שהגמרא (יומא יא, ב) אומרת ששמותיהם של רוב היהודים בחו"ל הם משמות גויים, ורק על שמו של רשע מצאנו בגמרא (יומא לח, ב) שאין ראוי לקרוא על שמו? והשיב ע"כ הגר"ח קניבסקי: "שמות שמצאנו שכתוב בגמרא, שהתנאים והאמוראים נקראו בהם, אפשר לקוראם. אבל להוציא שמות חדשים, כמו שיש היום זה לא ראוי", והגר"ח הצביע על דברי המדרש שהבאנו לעיל. ועדיין דעתם של השואלים לא היתה נוחה מהענין והצביעו על כך שבדורות התנאים והאמוראים התחדשו כל הזמן שמות חדשים ובערי אשכנז היו קוראים תמיד בשמות חדשים, לפי השפה המדוברת, וגם בערי ארצות המזרח קראו היהודים לילדיהם בשמות מקומיים. ועל כך השיב הגר"ח שליט"א: "מה שמצינו בדורות הקודמים שקראו מדעת עצמם, כנראה היה להם סיבות שקראו, ועל זה אין קושיה. אבל מה שבזמנינו קוראים שמות מדעת עצמם, אין לה ראוי לעשות. חז"ל אומרים לקרוא על שם אבותינו, ומה שהם קראו שמות אחרים, היתה להם סיבה אחרת. אבל סתם להמציא שמות, זה לא היה אף פעם ותמיד היה טעם לזה. כל השמות היו מאבותינו או מאבות אבותיהם, אבל לא מהגויים. היו שמות שהתחלפו מהגויים, אבל חלילה להמציא שמות".

The first question everyone asks is "What about Rav Kanievsky's name, "Chaim?" Where do we find in Tanach or Shas that someone was named Chaim?

Reb Chaim was asked this question, and he answered that we find this name in a Teimani Medrash. כמדומה באיזה ממדרשי תימן הקטנים .

However, we don't really know anything about the provenance of these Teimani Medrashim. As Eli put it,

.....some of these Midrashim are actually compilations, ~1000 or less years old, so this could be as old as R. Chayim the Tosafist, or maybe even Rabbeinu Vidal of Toulouse (a.k.a. מגיד משנה).
Saint Vivian was a French bishop who lived during the Visigoth invasion of the 5th century. Around the same time, Flavius Vivianus was a consul of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Eli mentioned Rabbeinu Vidal and, lehavdil, Saint Vivian, because the names Vidal and Vivian both mean life, as does Chaim. There are many names for Life- for women, this includes Chaya, Chava, Vita, Vida, and Zoe.

But Eli later wrote that he found a reliable source for the name "Chaim."

I found an earlier use of Chayim: the Sura Gaon Rav Tzamach bar Rav Chayim (d. 895 approx), probably pre-dates the unnamed midrash from Teiman.

I don't know for a fact why Rav Kanievsky feels so strongly about this issue. When a parent names a child, the name is the product of love and deep emotion (especially the mother's,) and if he denies a parent's right to give voice to such intimate and deep feelings, I am sure that he has a good reason. Nothing in this article should be misconstrued as disrespectful to Harav Kanievsky. Anything he says would be at home in the Beis Medrash of Ravina and Rav Ashi. I can only speculate and suggest possible explanations.

1. The Medrash (Breishis 37:7) says that those generations that had Ruach HaKodesh would give their child a name that was informed by their destiny. We, that do not have Ruach HaKodesh, just give names of our ancestors to our children.

"ולעבר יולד שני בנים שם האחד פלג כי בימיו נפלגה הארץ" רבי יוסי ורשב"ג רבי יוסי אומר הראשונים על ידי שהיו מכירים את ייחוסיהם היו מוציאין שמן לשם המאורע אבל אנו שאין אנו מכירים את ייחוסינו אנו מוציאין לשם אבותינו רשב"ג אומר הראשונים על ידי שהיו משתמשין ברוח הקודש היו מוציאין לשם המאורע אבל אנו שאין אנו משתמשין ברוח הקודש אנו מוציאין לשם אבותינו א"ר יוסי בן חלפתא נביא גדול היה עבר שהוציא לשם המאורע הה"ד ולעבר יולד שני בנים וגו'

Perhaps, based on that Medrash, there are only those two options. Either you have ruach hakodesh or you name after an ancestor. No other option is valid.

2. The Zohar and the Gemara in Yoma and the Rogotchover I've mentioned in the parts one and two of this series can be read to imply that a name influences a person's personality. If so, one cannot risk making up a name, because he has no way of knowing what kind of influence this name will have.

3. Perhaps HaRav Kanievsky holds like that because he feels that such names are a symptom of cultural anomie, like Latisha and Shaniqua and Shonda, and that he holds that the symptom aggravates the underlying problem, and that fighting the symptom will mitigate the problem.

Eli's comments here responding to these explanations need to be in the main body of the post:

1. I don't think the late 9th century Chayim is much more of a source than the 12th century R. Chayim. It only pre-dates the invention of the name (actually, the adoption of a Goyische name).
2. R.Ch.K saying modern coinages are null and void, and don't need to be changed is really nothing but strong rhetoric, as there is no formal process for changing a name, proper or not. The real test for his position would be if he would ignore a Get with a "null and void" name, or better, approve a Get with the "correct" Sara instead of the "null and void" Shira, before waiting 30 days as one should do for a regular name change.
3. R. Yossi in Medrash cannot be used to support R.Ch.K. position, as we know for a fact names were invented much after R. Yossi's generation. All the sources for names affecting destiny are not strong enough against our Mesorah to invent names, and adopt Goyische names if they sound right. Ask Rabbi Bon.
4. Naming your son Shakil is not the same, in terms of Jewish identity, as naming him Tal or Zohar. I can see reasons to oppose the latter names, but based solely on לא שינו את שמם, using Zohar is much more distinctive than Yaacov (to be changed to Jacob in the workplace).

Regarding Eli's point 2, I should mention that Rabbi Meir Peikus just told me that when his son got married, the mesader kiddushin was Rav Aharon Shechter of Chaim Berlin. They sat down to write the tna'im, and his mechutan told Rav Shechter that the Kallah's name was Ilana Rus. Rav Shechter gave him a really hard time- Ilana is not a name! What kind of name is Ilana? Rabbi Peikus said that even if it is a taina, it's a taina that is twenty one years late. They finally got Rav Shechter to move on by noting that at least her second name was Rus.
Regarding his fourth point, of course he's right. A distinctive Hebrew name separates and identifies us as Jewish more than the common biblical names which are just as often used by non-Jews. I would say that Reb Chaim views them as a product of Am Yisrael, not of Mesoras Yisrael- nationalistic rather than religious. More importantly, and I think this is undeniably true, is that the tremendous increase in this kind of neologism since the advent of Zionism can be reasonably interpreted- in most cases- as a rejection of the Galus identity and an emphatic declaration (I would say asseveration) of the identity of "The New Jew."

Eli responded

I understand one can oppose modern names as a way to separate from modern Jews (religious and non-religious alike), or as demonstration of embracing the old-world as a reaction to the idea of the New Jew. לא שינו את שמם cannot be used as a source for that, only an inspiration.

Lest you, the reader, go away thinking that we're grasping at straws in suggesting a "movement" that wishes to recast Jewish identity, here are two illustrations of the idea of the creation of the "New Jew." Against this background, Harav Kanievsky's opinion becomes more understandable.

From the World Zionist Organization website:

For some Zionists, especially the East European Jewish intellectuals, Zionism was not only a national movement committed to the establishment of a Jewish homeland. It also wished to create a modern, secular Jewish identity. According to this formulation it was not religion that was to provide the basis for Jewish identity but ethnicity and nationalism. The Hebrew language, the land of Israel, Jewish history, literature, customs, folklore and their interplay were to provide a new more open-ended paradigm for Jewish identity.

From historian Rabbi Ken Spiro's essay on Modern Zionism:

The key factor which shaped their [secular Zionist thinkers] worldview was a nationalism based not only on the notion of creating a physical Jewish homeland, but also of creating a new kind of Jew to build and maintain this homeland. Many of these early Zionist thinkers felt that centuries of ghettoization and persecution had robbed the Jews of their pride and strength. To build a homeland required a proud, self-sufficient Jew: a Jew who could farm, defend himself, and build the land.The pious, poor, ghettoized Jew—who presented a pathetic image of a man stooped-over and always at the mercy of his persecutors—had to be done away with. To build a state required something all-together different—a “Hebrew.” The early Zionists called themselves “Hebrews” and not Jews, and deliberately changed their German or Russian or Yiddish names to sound more Hebraic and nationalistic (for example, David Gruen became David Ben-Gurion. Shimon Persky became Shimon Perez). It was a deliberate attempt to create a totally new Jewish identity and rid themselves of any aspect of the religious, Diaspora Jewish identity…These early Zionist leaders knew of course that religion had preserved Jewish identity in the ghettos and shtetls of Europe, but in the modern Jewish state, they felt there would be no need for it. Of course the Bible would be used as a source of Jewish history and culture but there was no room for religion or ritual in the modern Jewish state.

I would only add that not everyone that names their daughter Shira intends a militant rejection of tradition. One of my daughters in law is a Shira, and her parents are fine upstanding Lakewood people. My niece's name is Yonit and her fathers for at least four generations back have been roshei yeshiva. Rav Gifter named his daughter Shlomis to celebrate the end of WW II, and not after Ms. Divri. I think this is an Eretz Yisrael thing, a land where everything becomes political and polarized. If you need a bracha for someone that has a modern name, go to someone other than HaRav Kanievsky.

And let us emphasize

Reb Moshe Feinstein's opinion

Although we began with Harav Kanievsky's opinion, most communities follow Reb Moshe Feinstein's much milder approach.

His Teshuvos on this issue are in EH 3:35. OC 4:66, and OC 5:10. The gist of what he says is that lechatchila, a name should reflect our Jewish heritage. Non-Jewish names are very inappropriate and would never be approved of by Gedolei Yisrael.

עצם הדבר שמשנים את שמותיהם לשמות נכרים וודאי הוא דבר מגונה מאוד .... אבל איסור ממש לא מצינו בזה Reb Moshe does not say that it had no validity as a name for the first person that had it, just that it was wrong for the person that named him to give a non-Jewish name. Furthermore, once a person was given such a name, it becomes kosher for his or her descendants, because that person's children should honor and perpetuate the original bearer of the name.

He proposes that the value of לא שינו was only when that was the only flag of identity, which wouldn't apply after Mattan Torah, because now the Taryag mitzvos adequately distinguish us, but he says he is not sure that this rationale is reliable le'halacha. He therefore strongly discourages giving names that are not part of the Jewish heritage.

Reb Moshe does not even address modern Hebrew names. He only talks about the legitimacy and appropriateness of non-Jewish names, but his criticisms of non-Jewish names would not apply to modern Hebrew names.

On the other hand, when Reb Moshe's daughter in law wanted to name her daughter Aviva, after an Avraham, Reb Moshe said that Aviva doesn't make any sense. It's not a word- it's either Aviv or it doesn't mean anything. So he said that if you want to name a girl after an Avraham, you should name her Ahuva, because the Hei is the most important letter.

Along those lines, I also would add that, as I mention in the comments, I have a very hard time with feminized theophoric names. For example: Gavriel is a compound word comprising Gevura and El, Strength and God. El is God. God is expressed in the male gender. To call someone Gavrielah is a gender change which , in my opinion, is bizarre and grotesque. I don't buy the explanation that the name is given to remember a person named Gavriel. One must remember the original source of the name, and not do violence to its meaning.

An Afterword

Finally, I want to put in a comment that someone wrote in when I posted this in an earlier form. I'm putting it in here mostly because I like the forthright manner and the tone of his comment. I don't necessarily agree that his point applies to all of our sub-groups, but it's a shrewd observation.

shimonmatisyahu said...Look, as per some of the past comments, I don't know when the name Shira began being used. But what I do know, such as with my ancestry, while the boys were given regular one or two Hebrew names, the girls were thrown some Yiddish sounding word as a name that really had no meaning to it. Another difference of naming between genders that I have seen is that tons of girls are named Chava, but it is rare to find a guy in the frum world with the name Odom, because "it is not a name of a Yid". So another words, since females aren't looked upon as holy as males, it is OK to call them Chava even if the first Chava wasn't Jewish, but a "Ben Torah" should not be given the "goyishe" name Odom.

Basically, what he saying is that while a boy's name is given serious thought, because he embodies the family's honor and he needs to present a public image of authority and strength, some people name daughters like they name their pets.

Lists of Modern Hebrew Names

A very nice list in English is available here. This list is a section of a massive collection of names from many cultures and nationalities. A similar list in Hebrew, which includes and labels both modern and traditional names, is available here.

The Profound Significance of Naming a Child

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Mon, 27 May 2013 22:28:00 +0000

(This post is the second of a three part series focusing on naming children. Part one discussed the proper time to name a daughter. Part three will discuss the debate about modern Hebrew names.)

How important is the moment that a child is given a name?

The best way to begin this discussion is by quoting a remarkable halacha from the Drisha. (The Drisha is the name of a gloss on the Tur, written by Rav Yehoshua Falk, a student of the Rama and the Maharshal. He is also the author of the Prisha and the Sma, and was one of the great community leaders of his time, the founding member of the Vaad Arba Ha'aratzos.)
The Drisha is in YD 360 (easy to remember, it's Shin Samach, Shas.) The halacha there deals with precedence: If a person has several events that he ought to attend, and he has to chose which to attend first, (also, possibly, where he can only do one but not both, which would broader the discussion to include not only precedence but also priority,) which event has precedence? The occasions listed include bikkur cholim, attending a funeral, nichum aveilim, accompanying a Chasan or Kallah to the Chupa, attending a Sheva Brachos, and going to a Bris. I'm not going to write the list, because there are many qualifying factors. But, all things being equal, the halacha is that Bris Milah comes before Chasan and Kallah. The Drisha says that attending the naming of a girl has a status equal to attending a Bris Milah. The same way that attending a Bris has precedence over attending to simchas chasan v'kallah, so too, attending a girl-naming has precedence over simchas chasan v'kallah.

Please note that even though I say "the naming of a girl," the gender of the child is irrelevant. When the Drisha says that the naming ceremony is of equal weight to that of a bris, he is referring to the naming of a child in general. His assertion only has practical relevance for the naming of a girl, because a boy is usually named at his Bris. But the rule is gender neutral. It is the naming of a child that the Drisha highlights.

We all realize the enormous significance of a Bris Milah. In the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, one siman (YD 260) is entirely dedicated to the statement that the Mitzva of Bris is uniquely important- "מצוות עשה לאב למול את בנו, וגדולה מצווה זו משאר מצוות עשה". It is so unusually important that one who does not attend the festive celebration of a Bris to which he was invited is viewed as if he were in a state of excommunication (YD 265:12.) In light of this extraordinary significance, one would think that merely naming a child is far less meaningful. Thus, the Drisha's statement, made without any citation, is very novel. In fact, the lack of a citation indicates that the Drisha held its truth to be self evident.

How are we to understand the profound significance the Drisha attaches to the naming of a child?

1. The Giving of a Name reflects significance and a meaningful destiny. Being Called a name means that you have a Calling.

A. The Rashba
The Rashba (Teshuvos 4:30) was asked why the Torah lists the names of the predecessors of Avraham Avinu in a form that is different from the one used elsewhere in the Torah. In most places, the Torah says "a child was born and he was given a name." Here, most of the names are listed, but it does not say "was born to X and he called him/gave him the name Y."
He answers that a name relates to permanence, to firm establishment. Something that is ephemeral and insubstantial does not really have a name. Therefore, until Sheis was born to Adam, none of the children are introduced with the "and he called him...." form. Only when Sheis, who was the progenitor of all mankind, was named, does it use that form. His son, Enosh, also was of such a significance as to merit this usage. But the descendants of Enosh, till Noach, where utterly without significance. Noach, who survived the Mabul and was the progenitor of all that lived after the Mabul, also is "given a name." After Noach, in that the permanence of the world was guaranteed, there was no need to use the phrase "gave him a name."

שו"ת הרשב"א חלק ד סימן ל

שאלת: למה אמר הכתוב, בכל אותם הדורות שהיו מאדם עד אברהם אבינו ע"ה, בענין התולדות: ויולד פלוני לפלוני, ולא אמר: ויולד לפלוני בן, ויקרא את שמו פלוני.

תשובה: דע, כי קריאת השם, יורה על הקיום. ובדבר המתפסד, ואין לו קיום, אין ראוי לקרות לו שם.
ויורה ע"ז: 'שם רשעים ירקב', 'ולא שם לו על פני חוץ'. וההפך: 'ונתתי להם בבתי ובחומותי יד ושם', 'לפני שמש ינון שמו'. ועל כן, תמצא דקדוק הכתוב כל התולדות שנולדו מאדם ועד שת, שנמחו כולם, ולא נשאר להם שורש, לא הזכיר בא' מהם: ויקרא את שמו, עד שנולד שת. ומפני שנשתת ממנו העולם, כתוב בו: וידע אדם עוד את אשתו, ותלד בן. ותקרא את שמו שת: כי שת לי אלהים זרע אחר. וכתב הטעם בצדו: כי שת לי אלהים זרע אחר תחת הבל. שזה זרע אחר שיש לו קיום, תחת הבל, כי הרגו קין, ואין לו קיום, ולא נשתת זרעו. וללמד: כי מזה נשתת העולם, ולתולדותיו יהיה קיום. והוא שאמר: ולשת גם הוא יולד בן, ויקרא את שמו אנוש. אח"כ חזר והזכיר התולדות עד נח. ומפני שאף תולדות אלו גם כן נמחו במבול, ולא נשאר מהם רק נח, חזר שלא להזכיר בהם קריאת שם. ונח, שנשאר ונתקיים ממנו העולם, חזר ואמר בו קריאת שם. דכתיב: ויחי למך וגו', ויולד בן. ויקרא את שמו נח לאמר: זה ינחמנו. ואחרי שהיה לעולם קיום, ולא נשחתו הדורות אח"כ, אלא שנחלקו לאומות, לא הקפיד בקריאת השם.

The lesson of the Rashba is that not the name, but the act of giving a name, is associated with a significant life and a lasting legacy. One might say that the Rashba holds that קריאת שם, calling a name, means that this child has a calling. If the child has no "calling," there's no point in calling him anything.

With the Rashba we understand precisely the tefilla said at a bris, a tefilla quoted by the Rishonim ר"ש מגרמייזא and ר"י ב"ר יקר. When we name the child, we say

קיים את הילד הזה לאביו ולאמו ויקרא שמו בישראל כך.

Hashem, firmly establish the child to his parents, and his name will be called, in the nation of Israel, ..... What does this introduction mean? With the Rashba, it becomes crystal clear. קיום- permanence and significance- is strongly related to the act of giving a name. (Similarly, the Gemara in Nedarim 32a says that the act of the Bris Milah gives "Kiyum", permanence, to the Heaven and Earth.) Therefore we say קיים את הילד הזה לאביו ולאמו ויקרא שמו- give this child קיום now as we give him his name.

Getting back to our topic: This Rashba might explain why the naming of a child is so meaningful. Before the act of naming, the child was, in some spiritual sense, ephemeral and not a significant and lasting part of the fabric of our world. With the naming of a child, the world has changed.

B. The Rogotchover.

The Rogotchover, in Breishis 2:19-20 says that the true name of a thing is the quality that distinguishes it from whatever is not it. When a thing loses its particular quality or specific function it loses its name. (He also discussed this in Bechukosai on vehishbati chaya raa, where there is a machlokes Reb Yehuda and Reb Shimon whether this means physical elimination or that the animals will remain, but, for example, the lion will no longer be a predator; and that Reb Yehuda is leshitaso that ein biur chametz ella sreifa.) I believe that the naming of a child is the moment when that neshama's true tafkid/yiud/purpose is determined. That unique purpose is a vital component of God's plan and it can be achieved only by this person. This primal occasion, when a person's part in the world is established, is a moment of significance shared by every fellow human being.

C. The Maharal

The Maharal in Gevuros Hashem says, similarly, that a name is related to the essence of a thing or person. It's interesting to see how the Maharal echoes the Rashba; he says that a true name, such as Moshe Rabbeinu's, is so deep and spiritual as to be undiminished by time and unaffected by tribulation.
We find this idea expressed almost exactly the same way in Reb Chaim Volozhiner's Ruach Chaim in the beginning of the first perek of Avos.
Similarly, Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch (Breishis 2:19) says the word Shem (name) comes from the word Sham (place). A person's name (Shem) indicates his place in the world. When someone is given a name, that name has a profound effect on that person's essence.

D. Reb Meir

The Gemara in Yoma 83b says that Reb Meir knew the hidden soul of a person just by knowing his name. (His fellow students from Reb Akiva's yeshiva, Reb Yosi and Reb Yehuda, did not do any such thing.) They once had some involvement with a man named Kidor, and Reb Meir saw in that name a wickedness, and he was on guard against him. Reb Yosi and Reb Yehuda disregarded this omen, and it almost caused them a great loss. This relates to the idea of a name being a manifestation of a person's spiritual essence.

רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה ורבי יוסי הוו קא אזלי באורחא, רבי מאיר הוה דייק בשמא רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי לא הוו דייקו בשמא. כי מטו לההוא דוכתא בעו אושפיזא, יהבו להו. אמרו לו: מה שמך? - אמר להו: כידור. - אמר: שמע מינה אדם רשע הוא, שנאמר 'כִּי דוֹר תַּהְפֻּכֹת הֵמָּה בָּנִים לֹא אֵמֻן בָּם'. רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי אשלימו ליה כיסייהו רבי מאיר לא אשלים ליה כיסיה. אזל אותביה בי קיבריה דאבוה אתחזי ליה בחלמיה: תא שקיל כיסא דמנח ארישא דההוא גברא. למחר אמר להו: הכי אתחזי לי בחלמאי! אמרי ליה: חלמא דבי שמשי לית בהו ממשא. אזל רבי מאיר, ונטריה כולי יומא ואייתיה. למחר אמרו לו: הב לן כיסן! אמר להו: לא היו דברים מעולם. אמר להו רבי מאיר: אמאי לא דייקיתו בשמא? אמרו ליה: אמאי לא אמרת לן מר? אמר להו: אימר דאמרי אנא חששא, אחזוקי מי אמרי? משכוהו ועיילוהו לחנותא, חזו טלפחי אשפמיה, אזלו ויהבו סימנא לדביתהו, ושקלוהו לכיסייהו ואייתו. אזל איהו וקטליה לאיתתיה. היינו דתניא: מים ראשונים האכילו בשר חזיר, מים אחרונים הרגו את הנפש. ולבסוף הוו דייקי בשמא, כי מטו לההוא ביתא דשמיה בלה, לא עיילו לגביה. אמרי: שמע מינה רשע הוא, דכתיב "וָאֹמַר לַבָּלָה נִאוּפִים" (יחזקאל כג).

E. The Medrash Rabba

The Medrash Rabba (Breishis 37:25) says that those generations that had Ruach HaKodesh would give their child a name that was informed by their destiny. We, who do not have Ruach HaKodesh, just give names of our ancestors to our children.

"ולעבר יולד שני בנים שם האחד פלג כי בימיו נפלגה הארץ" ר' יוסי אומר: הראשונים על ידי שהיו מכירים יחסיהם היו מוציאים לשם המאורע, אבל אנו שאין אנו יודעין את יחסינו אנו מוציאין לשם אבותינו. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: הראשונים על ידי שהיו משתמשין ברוח הקודש היו מוציאין לשם המאורע אבל אנו שאין אנו משתמשין ברוח הקודש אנו מוציאין לשם אבותינו. אמר ר' יוסי בר' חלפתא נביא גדול היה עבר שהוציא לשם המאורע.

I hope that you noticed that the Reb Yosi that says that the early generations used to give a name that was informed by Ruach Hakodesh, but that we just name for our ancestors, is the same Reb Yosi in Yoma 83b who initially ignored Reb Meir's warning that a person's name reflects their personality. Apparently, Reb Yosi holds that because we no longer have Ruach Hakodesh, the names we give our children don't show anything about them, and Reb Meir holds that for some reason it still does. Alternatively, everyone agrees that a name does say something about the person, but Reb Yosi holds that the predilections a person was born with do not determine what he will be when he matures, and Reb Meir was a Determinist (at least as far as taking risks was concerned. Reb Meir certainly didn't deny that Bechira enables a person to change, but, as Damon Runyon said, “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's how the smart money bets.” Or, in Reb Meir's own words, ?אימר דאמרי אנא חששא, אחזוקי מי אמרי) In the end, though, the Gemara in Yoma does say that Reb Yosi did pay attention to the implications of a person's name. It's hard to know whether the Medrash is the pre-Kidor Reb Yosi or the post-Kidor Reb Yosi.

Furthermore, we need to mention that although the Medrash says that the Ruach Hakodesh of naming a child no longer pertains, the Arizal held that it does.

האר"י ז"ל כותב ב"שער הגילגולים" (פנ"ט) ש"השם שקוראים לו אביו ואמו בעת שנימול, הוא נכתב למעלה בכסא הכבוד וכך הוא נקרא באקראי, כי הקב"ה מזמין אותו השם בפי אביו ואמו שיקראוהו כן, ולכן רבי מאיר ורבי יהושע בדקו בשמא".

Who knows? Maybe it's worth coming to a naming of a child simply to be in the presence of a person that is being touched by Ruach Hakodesh, as the Arizal says he is.

F. The Yalkut
The Yalkut Shimoni in Yeshayahu 449 (in Perek 41) says that if mankind would only have merited it, Hashem would give every person a name, and from that name his character and his behavioral traits would be known.

מי פעל ועשה קורא הדורת מראש -

אלו זכו הדורות היה הקב"ה קורא שמותם, כשם שקרא לאדם ולחוה, שנאמר: ויקרא את שמם אדם. וכן אתה מוצא, כשהיה הקב"ה רואה צדיק נולד, הוא בכבודו היה קורא שמו. קרא לאברהם: והיה שמך אברהם.וכן ליצחק: וקראת את שמו יצחק. וכן ליעקב: והיה שמך ישראל.

וכן לשלמה: כי שלמה יהיה שמו.וכן ליאשיה: הנה בן נולד לבית דוד יאשיהו שמו.

ואלו זכו הדורות היה הקב"ה קורא שם לכל אחד ואחד ומשמו היו יודעים את טיבו ואת מעשיו

וכן אתה מוצא במצרים: אלה משפחות לוי משפחת הלבני - על שם טיט ולבנים.משפחת השמעי ששמע הקב"ה את תפלתם.משפחת החברוני - שנתחברה להם שכינה.

אמרו רבותינו: כשהיה רבי מאיר רואה אדם היה למד שמו ומשמו היה יודע את מעשיו. פעם אחת באו אצלו שני תלמידים והיה שם אחד מהם כידור. אמר רבי מאיר לתלמידיו: הזהרו מכידור זה!אמרו לו: רבי, בן תורה הוא. אמר להם: אעפ"כ הזהרו ממנו. אחר ימים הלכו למרחץ והפקידו בגדיהם אצל כידור ונכנסו למרחץ. מה עשה אותו כידור? נטל בגדיהם והלך לו, יצאו ולא מצאוהו הלכו לבתיהם ולבשו בגדים אחרים. באו לפני ר' מאיר, א"ל: מה ראיתם להחליף בגדיכם? ספרו לו המאורע. א"ל: לא אמרתי לכם הזהרו עצמכם מכידור זה!אמרו לו: בבקשה ממך רבינו, מנין היית יודע? אמר: משמו שנקרא כידור, שנאמר: כי דור תהפוכות המה.

NOTE:
It is important to realize that there might be two disparate approaches in these Medrashim. One is that the Ruach Hakodesh of giving a name enables a person to identify the essential personality and life-purpose of the child. The other approach is that the name alludes to what the future holds for that child- of Ruach HaKodesh gives a person an omniscient awareness which enables him to "remember" the child in the context of his life experience, even before that experience has taken place. For example, this is the opinion of the Tiferes Yisrael in Shekalim 6:1, where he says that many kings' names reflected their life experience, and they were named to reflect that which was later to come.

ועל שם כך נקרא יאשיהו, רוצה לומר, כבר נתייאש הקב"ה מהם. וכמו כן רוב המלכים כשתדקדק בהם תמצא ששמם מורה על פי מה שאירע בימיהם. שאול, ע"ש ששאלו העם מלך, והוא היה רק נשאל להם משבט אחר, כי לא הבשילו אשכלות שבט יהודה עדיין, ופרשת 'אשימה עלי מלך' אכלוהו ישראל פגה, כי קודם לזמן הראוי שאלוהו. דוד ע"ש דודיו ואהבתו לעמו, כאמרו "תהי ידך בי ובבית אבי" לא כשאול שהתאכזר להרוג עיר ואם בישראל מנער ועד זקן. שלמה על שם השלום שהיה בימיו. ירבעם ירב עם, שעשו ריב ומרידה על ידו. רחבעם רע חב עם, או רחב עם, שנתרחבו מתחת צמצום אחדות מלכות בית דוד. אסא על שם הרופאים אשר דרש. יהושפט על שם משפט ה' אשר העמיד בכל עיר, ויאמר להשופטים אשר העמיד ראו מה אתם עושים כי לה' תשפוטו. אחזיהו, אחזו יהוא, כי נשבה מיהוא. יואש, שכבר היה מיואש זרע בית דוד, וסברו כולם כי השמידה אותם עתליה. אמציהו, כי אמצו ה' נגד אדום. עזריה, על שם שעזרו א-לוקים. ונקרא ג"כ עוזיהו, על שם עוז ה' כי היה הרעש בימיו. חזקיהו, על שם שחזקהו ה' נגד סנחריב ומחליו. מנשה, כי נשה ממקומו לשוב. יהויקים, כי הקים ה' אויבו עליו להשחית. צדקיהו כי צדיק היה, והצדיק דין שמים עליו לומר צדיק הוא ה' כי פיהו מריתי. וכפי הנראה נקרא שם המלכים ביום לידתם על פי נביא. והארכתי קצת זה כאן אף שאינו מקומו, לבעבור כי פלא הוא

The Tiferes Yisrael says that the events that inform the names stem from occurrences that are entirely extraneous to the personality or character of the person.

On the other hand, it is equally possible that the Medrashim do not disagree at all. They mean to say that the person's essential character and life-purpose inexorably and inevitably lead to a life-experience that expresses that character and purpose. The Yalkut in Yeshayahu that says that the Livni family got their name because they worked with bricks (הלבני - על שם טיט ולבנים) might mean that they gravitated to that work because of an inherent predisposition.

2. Naming a child is a Meta-Mitzva

A. Reb Moshe

Reb Moshe, (Igros vol 7, EH 4:102) says that perhaps our naming of a child is a sort of Mitzva that is related to Hashem telling Adam Harishon to name all the creatures.

אגר"מ אה"ע ח"ד קב

קריאת שם לבת היא כשם הבנים שהוא רצון השי"ת שיקראו שמות אע"פ שאין על זה ציווי, ויתכן אף דהוא בכלל הציווי לאדה"ר שיקרא שמות, ולדורות נשאר רצון וציווי זה. ולכן הנהיגו אבותינו ורבותינו מדורות הראשונים שיקראו שם הבנות ג"כ בקדושה בשעת קרה"ת ובבקשת רחמים עליה.

...naming a daughter is like naming a son, it is the will of Hashem names should be given, even though there is no specific commandment to do so. It is reasonable to say that this is included in the commandment to Adam to give names, and for all generations this will of Hashem and commandment remained. This is why our forefathers and teachers from the early times led us to give names to daughters in a time of holiness, when we read from the Torah, and while asking that Hashem be merciful with her.

The idea that this is the will of Hashem makes it what I think of as a super-Mitzva- something that is not listed among the Taryag, but might be so fundamental that it is more meaningful than and stands above the Taryag mitzvos in general. Another example of a Meta-Mitzva is tikun hamidos, which might be the whole tachlis of man's existence (See Reb Itzaleh Volozhiner's intro to his father's Ruach Chaim,) but is not the subject of any particular mitzva.
If so, this approach might validate the parity the Drisha gives to attending a Bris Milah and attending the naming of a child.

3. Naming a child concretizes the bond with the parents and Klal Yisrael.

A. Rabbeinu Nachshon Gaon
The Rosh, (פ״ג דמ״ק ס״ס פח) and other Rishonim (see Ramban in Toras Ha'Adam,) bring a minhag from the Gaon Rabbeinu Nachshon:
דמהלין ליה על קכרו ומסקינן ליה שמא, דכד מרחמין מן שמיא והויא חחייח המסים, הויא ידיעה בינוקא ומכחין ליה לאכוה. ע״כ.
He says that in the tragic event of a child's death after a few days, the minhag is to make a bris at the cemetery and name the child there before the burial. More interesting, he says that it is this naming that will enable the child and the parents to recognize each other at Techiyas Hameishim.
See also here, especially in notes 222 and 224.
What would the minhag be with a girl? It should be obvious that the naming would take place for a girl as well. It is not the bris itself that creates a permanent bond, it is the act of naming and making a part of the family. For a boy, that requires two actions, both giving a name and making a bris, because the bris milah is a part of enfolding a male child into the nation of Israel. For a girl, it is giving a name alone that creates that permanent bond. The act of giving a name concretizes the relationship of that child to its family and to Klal Yisrael. This explains the Drisha as well. Giving a name accomplishes precisely that which a bris accomplishes.

I don't want it to sound like saying that a child that never got a name is meaningless. What I understand them to be saying is that a child that was never named is pure neshama without any meaningful bond to this physical world. Naming bonds the neshama to the physical world. Only after such a bond is created does a relationship with the parents have meaning.

4. Having a name makes receiving Bracha possible; the name is a window to the soul.

A. The Ramban
The Ramban (Bamidbar 1:32) says

ועוד כי הבא לפני אב הנביאים ואחיו קדוש ה' והוא נודע אליהם בשמו יהיה לו בדבר הזה זכות וחיים, כי בא בסוד העם ובכתב בני ישראל וזכות הרבים במספרם, וכן לכולם זכות במספר שימנו לפני משה ואהרן כי ישימו עליהם עינם לטובה, יבקשו עליהם רחמים

The Ramban discusses why it was necessary for Moshe Rabbeinu to know each person's name when he was counted, as recounted in the beginning of Bamidbar. He says that it is through knowing the person's name that Moshe and Aharon could know their secret soul and give them a true bracha.

Rav Shamshon Refael Hirsch toward the beginning of Bamidbar discusses the idea that a person's name is a window to his soul, but I don't have the exact MM in front of me.

5. The Mysterious שבוע הבת

A. Eli's suggestion.
In the original of this post, Eli brought an opinion that the expression שבוע הבת might refer to the naming of a daughter. This is what he said:

Ramban in Torat Ha'adam (p.109 in Shevvel's edition) brings a Beraita that could have been the Drish'a source. In there it says "שבוע הבן ושבוע הבת, שבוע הבן קודם". We have no clue what שבוע הבת is, but some speculate that it's a Naming occasion (If one so wishes, it can be argued that based on this Naming should be delayed to the eighth day, or to the next Shabbat), and we see it is comparable to שבוע הבן, which some Rishonim explain as Mila.

6. The Nusach of the Mi Shebeirach when naming a daughter.

Reb Moshe has his own nusach for this mi shebeirach, as follows:

,מי שברך אבותינו אברהם יצחק ויעקב משה אהרן דוד ושלמה הוא יברך את האשה היולדת פלונית בת פלונית עם בתה הנולדה לה למזל טוב בעבור שבעלה עלה לתורה בשכר וה הקב"ה ימלא רחמים עליה להחלימה ולרפאותה ולהחזיקה

ולהחיותה וישלח לה מהרה רפואה שלימה מן השמים לכל אבריה וגידיה בתוך שאר חולי ישראל רפואת הנפש ורפיאת הגוף השתא בעגלא ובזמן קריב.

ואת בתההנולדה לה למזל טוב לאורך ימים ושנים יקרא שמה בישראל פלונית בת פלוני ויזכו אביה ואמה לגדלה לחופה ולמעשים טובים ונאמר אמן.

He adds that one may change the nusach from "l'gadla l'chupa u'l'maasim tovim" to "legadla l'Torah u'l'ven Torah u'l'maasim tovim.

והרוצה יוכל להוסיף ויזכו אביה ואמה לגדלה לתורה ולבןתורה לחופה ולמעשים טובים

Reb Chaim Volozhiner's Yahrtzeit

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Thu, 23 May 2013 16:30:00 +0000

WIth the hindsight of the passage of two hundred years, I think it is possible that Reb Chaim Volozhiner left a mark on the Torah and Kedusha of Klal Yisrael comparable to that of Ezra Hasofer. Reb Chaim's son, Reb Itzaleh, wrote the introduction to Reb Chaim's Nefesh Hachaim. In it is a line that deserves contemplation.

והיה רגיל להוכיח אותי על שראה שאינני משתתף בצערא דאחריני וכה היה דברו אלי תמיד שזה כל האדם לא לעצמו נברא רק להועיל לאחריני ככל אשר ימצא בכחו לעשות

He would often rebuke me, seeing that I did not empathize in others' pain. These were the words he constantly said to me: "This is the entirety of man- Man was not created for himself, but instead to help others to the extent of his ability to do so."

He did not say that the purpose of man is to sit and learn, or to do mitzvos. The sum of being a human being is to help others. As Hillel and Reb Akiva said, the essential teaching of the Torah is to feel what the other person feels. All the rest is interpretation.

Krauthammer's Law

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Fri, 17 May 2013 18:31:00 +0000

Charles Krauthammer, physician, columnist and commentator, has propounded a theory that has been borne out time and time again. He named it Krauthammer's Law. This law posits that

Everyone is Jewish until proven otherwise.

Like Moore's law, this seems thoroughly counter-intuitive, but once you are aware of it, it will uncannily come up again and again, explaining all sorts of behavior. As Dr. Krauthammer (writing in 2006) pointed out,

First, it turns out that John Kerry — windsurfing, French-speaking, Beacon Hill aristocrat — had two Jewish grandparents. ( NOTE; Mr. Kerry is currently U. S. Secretary of State.) Then Hillary Clinton — methodical Methodist — unearths a Jewish stepgrandfather in time for her run as New York senator.A less jaunty case was that of Madeleine Albright, three of whose Czech grandparents had perished in the Holocaust and who most improbably contended that she had no idea they were Jewish. To which we can add the leading French presidential contender (Nicolas Sarkozy), a former supreme allied commander of NATO (Wesley Clark) and Russia's leading anti-Semite (Vladimir Zhirinovsky). One must have a sense of humor about these things. Even Fidel Castro claims he is from a family of Marranos.

That Fidel Castro might be descended from Marranos, as he claims, does not surprise me. His behavior and opinions certainly are consistent with such ancestry. But if the one-time Governer and Senator of Alabama, the son of a football coach, a dyed in the wool good old boy/high society redneck, George Allen, can be outed as a Jew, then we've fallen down the rabbit hole.

I mention this rule because of the latest news out of Caracas, Venezuela, where Chavez' successor has been accused of being Anti-Semitic. His response- "Who, me? My grandparents were Jewish!"

In President Nicolas Maduro's own words,

“My grandparents were Jewish, from a [Sephardic] Moorish background, and converted to Catholicism in Venezuela… The mother of [Minister of Communication and Information] Ernesto Villegas also comes from a similar background,” Maduro said last week, according to Aporrea, a Venezuelan news portal supportive of Chávez’s socialist platform and reform initiatives.
“I’m sorry to hear about the statements made by Claudio Epelman, director of the Latin American Jewish Congress, who I know and have received many times, saying that there’s anti-Semitism in Venezuela and implicating Chávez and me in it,” Maduro said.
“He can accuse me, but he should leave Chávez out of it,” he added.

So not only is he Jewish, but half his cabinet is Jewish, too.

As Mr. Krauthammer says,

There are 13 million Jews in the world, one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population. Yet 20 percent of Nobel Prize winners are Jewish, a staggering hundredfold surplus of renown and genius. This is similarly true for a myriad of other "everyones" — the household names in music, literature, mathematics, physics, finance, industry, design, comedy, film and, as the doors opened, even politics.

And you have to realize that this disproportionate and remarkable prominence only takes note of the individuals that admit or know that they are Jewish. How many of the others either are hiding or are simply unaware of their background?

And in the news recently,

The city of Los Angeles went to the polls on Tuesday, May 21 (2013) and were faced with a choice between City Councilman Eric Garcetti, whose mother is Jewish – but not his father – and Wendy Greuel, LA’s City Controller, who would have been its first female Mayor. Greuel’s husband is Jewish and her son attends Hebrew school. Also, Greuel’s mother’s first husband was Jewish. And the third highest vote-getter in LA’s March primary, Jan Perry, converted to Judaism.
Yes, it’s California, where almost everybody is a little bit of everything.
In a tight race that remained tough to call until early Wednesday morning, Garcetti came out on top with 54 percent of the votes and Greuel with 46 percent.
“Thank you Los Angeles–the hard work begins but I am honored to lead this city for the next four years. Let’s make this a great city again,” Garcetti tweeted.
Garcetti’s mother is Jewish, although his father is Latino and was raised Catholic. Before Jewish audiences, Garcetti has referred to himself as a “kosher burrito.” His family attended synagogue on High Holy days, but he also attended Jewish summer camp and told the Los Angeles Times that he attended minyan while a graduate student at Oxford University.

A recent visitor, Rabbi Ari Listowsky, argued that this prominence stems not from inherent talent but rather from a culture that emphasizes and honors education. This is so true as to be a truism. As the joke goes, two things can always be found in schools- fish and Jews. The issue he raises derives from Frances Galton's discussion of what he named "the Nature/Nurture" question. But I believe that the argument goes nowhere. First, in the nature nurture debate I believe that Thomas Bouchard's discovery of the Jim Twins laid to rest the argument that Human Beings are infinitely and fundamentally malleable and no more than products of their environment. In any case, while outside cases of identical twins it is reasonable to assume some cultural influence, it stands to reason to recognize the reality of inherent and intrinsic character traits and skills. And more- there happens to be a branch of the Jewish People that does not share the European compulsion towards a good education, and they are at least as prominent and successful as any other segment of our people- the Sefardic Jews. As one Syrian Jew said in an article in the New York Times Magazine,

Syrian Jews have always regarded advanced secular education with something like suspicion. Not only does it promote outside values, it also distracts a boy from his proper role as an apprentice in the family business. “To understand us, you have to know that we are profoundly Middle Eastern,” Suede said. “Education is never the most important thing. People in the community thought we were weird because my older brothers and I became professionals.”

So Arie, no, it's not our love of books. It's just what we are.

This is not a triumphal assertion of superiority. For one thing, individuals are not populations, and there are plenty of Jews that are untalented and unmotivated. Furthermore, being talented and brilliant and creative has no correlation with being decent or kind or civil. I know plenty of brilliant and talented people that are extremely unpleasant to be with. For example, even in the field of virulent anti-semitism, we Jews have pushed our way to the forefront, cases in point being Noam Chomsky and George Soros. We have plenty to be ashamed of as far as wholesale shfichas damim: there's Bugsy Siegel and Leizer Kaganovich, the Wolf of the Kremlin. We even have some Neo-Nazis, who, when the awful truth came out, had to seriously re-assess their philosophy; some became Orthodox Jews. Others knew their history all along, but tried to hide it. And there's also Helmut Newton. But whatever it means, the talent is undeniable. Whether this brilliant light brought us to our unique relationship with God, or is a consequence of that relationship, I don't know.

When You Should Name Your Daughter

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Tue, 14 May 2013 16:33:00 +0000

This was part of another post, but then I realized that it required division into several parts, as follow:
When one should name a daughter;
Why some gedolim insist on traditional names;
Why the naming is such an important ocassion, and others.

Here is part one.

When should you name your daughter?

a. A Lubavitcher Journal brings a minhag from the sefer Bris Avos to name her immediately, no need to wait for K'rias HaTorah, no need to wait for Shabbos, just do it the day she's born.
b. The Minchas Yitzchak brings from the author of the Darkei Teshuva that the parent should name the daughter at the very first K'rias HaTorah after she is born.
c. Reb Moshe Feinstein held that the naming should not be within the first three days after the birth, and then named at a mi shebeirach at a K'rias HaTorah. That is the minhag of the Feinstein family, with the exception of a certain Moshe Eisenberg, (named after his Great Grandfather Reb Moshe), who named his daughter the day after she was born. Another Feinstein Hanhaga is to know the difference between big things and little things, and not to lose any sleep over little things. I think this is a relatively little thing, around the same level as breaking a plate at the T'naim or whether you stand or sit when you say Lecha Dodi (and when you turn around for Bo'i b'shalom) I know that some people are obsessive about "their minhag" no matter what. I remember a bachur that came over to me in yeshiva with a terrible problem. His minhag is to stand for Lecha Dodi, and the yeshiva sits. He was faced with a terrible dilemma. What should he do???? I told him that he doesn't need to be mattir neder, and while he's in yeshiva, he should do what everyone else does.
d. Some say no sooner than the fifth day, unless the fifth day is preceded by a Shabbos, in which case you can name her on Shabbos.
e. Bostoner and Karliner Chasidim name only on the second Shabbos, based on the Medrash (brought by the Taz in YD 265 SK 13) that Kedusha cannot be imparted to a living thing before it experiences a Shabbos- before it appears before the Matron.
f. The Ya'avetz, in his Siddur, says that the name should be given on the first Shabbos that the mother comes to shul, and he doesn't qualify it by any number of days after the birth. Alternatively, the father should name her in shul after four weeks (28 days.)
g. After 30 days.
h. There's a famous opinion from a forebear of the Chida that you should name a girl no sooner than forty days after her birth (discussed, and in a clearer print, here.)

So, to sum it all up, the first day, the third day, the fifth day, at the first Krias HaTorah, on the second Shabbos, on the first Shabbos the mother comes to shul, after 28 days, after 30 days, and after 40 days. I'm glad I was able to clear this up for you.

More seriously: Please don't assume parity among the authors of the opinions cited above. The recorders of these varied minhagim comprise an extremely wide range of authoritativeness, from nobodies to Geonim. In practice, one should follow the minhag of the place or kehilla to which the parents belong. The name of a Jewish child is an element of his or her relationship with the community, and one should follow the minhag of the community one is a part of. As the Ramban says in Bamidbar 1:32,

הבא לפני אב הנביאים ואחיו קדוש ה' והוא נודע אליהם בשמו יהיה לו בדבר הזה זכות וחיים, כי בא בסוד העם ובכתב בני ישראל וזכות הרבים במספרם

Next installment: Why the Naming of a Child is a Profoundly Important Event.

Acharei Mos, Vayikra 16:2. Fear is an Ingredient of the Avodah on Yom Kippur.

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:12:00 +0000

Parshas Achrei Mos begins with a description of the Sacrificial Service of Yom Kippur. The first thing Moshe was told to tell Aharon is a negative: that if Aharon were to come into the Kodesh Kadashim outside of a specific time and without specific korbanos it might cause his death.

דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבא בכל עת אל הקדש מבית לפרכת אל פני הכפרת אשר על הארן ולא ימות כי בענן אראה על הכפרת

Only then does the Torah go on to say that the only way to avoid the fatal consequences of entering the Kodesh Kadashim is to enter it on Yom Kippur while doing the sacrificial service of Yom Kippur which is then described.

Reb Moshe, in his second English Darash, says that it seems that the first thing in the instructions for Avodas Yom HaKippurim should be a positive- "Do X Y and Z." It is unusual that the first statement in the instructions is "If you don't do it correctly, walking into the Kodesh Kadashim can be deadly."

Reb Moshe explains that this is a misunderstanding. If you read the passuk correctly, you would realize that this fact is indeed the first ingredient in the Yom Kippur service. Awareness of the danger of entry under any other circumstances is a prerequisite for the acceptability of the Yom Kippur service. Only if the Kohen Gadol consciously focuses on the supreme holiness and danger of the Kodesh Kadashim, only if he is fully aware that its holiness is such that that no one may enter other than to perform the Yom Kippur service, will he do the day's avodah in a befittingly elevated state and thereby bring forgiveness.

Reb Moshe then adds that even if the Kohen Gadol knows how serious it is to enter the Kodesh Kadashim, and even if he brings all the sacrifices, he cannot come in on any day other than Yom Kippur. Reb Moshe says

"Perhaps, despite his elevated spiritual level, the concept of "hokar raglecha" applied to him."

The term "hokar raglecha" is from Mishlei 25:17. הוקר רגלך מבית ריעך פן ישבעך ושנאך. Visit your neighbor sparingly (literally, "Cool your feet" from your friend's house) lest he become sated with you and hate you. When I translated Reb Moshe's book for Artscroll, I tried to find the source for using the term hokar raglecha as a limit on excessive appearance before Hashem, and for years I could not find it. The best I could do was the Gemara (Chagiga 7a) that uses this passuk to discourage people from bringing korbanos that are not necessary, but not in regard to Tefilla:

כדרבי לוי דרבי לוי רמי כתיב הוקר רגלך מבית רעך וכתיב אבא ביתך בעולות לא קשיא כאן בחטאות ואשמות כאן בעולות ושלמים תניא נמי הכי (משלי כה) הוקר רגלך מבית רעך בחטאות ואשמות הכתוב מדבר אתה אומר בחטאות ואשמות או אינו אלא בעולות ושלמים כשהוא אומר (תהילים סו) אבוא ביתך בעולות אשלם לך נדרי הרי עולות ושלמים אמור הא מה אני מקיים הוקר רגלך מבית רעך בחטאות ואשמות הכתוב מדבר.

I finally found it in the Gaon on Mishlei there, where he says that it is assur to daven more than three hours at a time.

ועוד הקר רגלך מבית רעך אלו בתי הכנסת והיינו שאל ירבה אדם בתפילה יותר מג' שעות

The Gaon in his Chidushim in Brachos 32b also says

כי אסור לשהות יותר מג' שעות בתפילה,כמו שכתב בבהיר, והטעם ידוע.

The Sefer HaBahir 138 says

אסור לו לאדם לשהות שלש שעות כפיו פרוסות לשמים

If you know someone that davens shmoneh esrei on Rosh Hashanna or Yom Kippur for more than three hours, you should let them know there is a problem. (I think that this issur only applies to Shmoneh Esrei proper, the part that is called עומד לפני המלך, standing before the king. I'm not sure if עומד לפני המלך applies to the vidui section on Yom Kippur,. But when it says הטעם ידוע and the taam is not yadua to me, I really should not be stating any opinions.)

Another source is Kapach's Moreh, 3:47. The Rambam says that the puropse of having a Beis Hamikdash was so that people seeing it would be awed and inspired, and would be filled with fear of God. If a person would find himself there on a regular basis it would diminish the awe and inspiration, and he brings the passuk in Mishlei..

כבר ביארנו כי כל המטרה הייתה במקדש להביא את הפונה אליו להתפעלות, ושייראוהו וירהוהו, כמו שאמר ומקדשי תיראו . וכל דבר מרומם, כשיתמיד האדם להמצא בו, ימעט מה שיש בנפש ממנו, ותמעט ההתפעלות שהייתה באה על ידו. וכבר העירו חכמים ז"ל על עניין זה ואמרו, שאין רצוי להכנס למקדש בכל עת, והסמיכו את זה לאמרו 'הוקר רגלך מבית רעך פן ישבעך ושנאך' .

Then the Rambam says that this is the reason that a person that is tamei is prohibited from entering the Har Habayis- there are so many tumah restrictions that most of the time, a person would not be allowed to enter, and only after a period of vigilant watchfulness would a person be able to enter the area.

וכיון שזו הייתה המטרה, הזהיר יתעלה את הטמאים מלהכנס למקדש, עם ריבוי מיני הטומאות, עד שכמעט לא תמצא אדם טהור כי אם מעטים:

כי אם ניצול ממגע נבלה, לא ניצול ממגע אחד משמונה שרצים שנופלים הרבה בבתים ובמאכלים ובמשקים ורבות נתקל בהם האדם,

ואם ניצול מאלה, לא ינצל ממגע נדה או זבה או זב או מצורע או משכבן ,

ואם ניצול מאלה, לא ינצל משכיבת אשתו או מקרי,

ואף כאשר טהר מכל הטומאות הללו, אינו מותר לו להכנס למקדש עד שיעריב שימשו,

ואסור להכנס למקדש בלילה כמו שנתבאר במידות ותמיד ,

ובאותו הלילה אפשר שישמש מיטתו על הרוב, או יארע לו אחד מגורמי הטומאה, וישכים למחרתו כמצבו אתמול, ויהיה כל זה סיבה להתרחק מן המקדש ושלא ירגיל שם בכל עת.

Rav Bergman also touches on this idea in his Shaarei Orah II on Achrei Mos. He shtells tzu the Rambam in 7 Beis Habechira 1-2 that there is a mitzva to fear the Mikdash, and because of that a person may not enter even the Har Habayis unless he has a mitzva he needs to do there.

מצות עשה ליראה מן המקדש שנאמר ומקדשי תיראו. ולא מן המקדש אתה ירא אלא ממי שצוה על יראתו

ואי זו היא יראתו לא יכנס אדם להר הבית במקלו או במנעל שברגליו או באפונדתו או באבק שעל רגליו או במעות הצרורין לו בסדינו ואין צ"ל שאסור לרוק בכל הר הבית אלא אם נזדמן לו רוק מבליעו בכסותו. ולא יעשה הר הבית דרך שיכנס מפתח זו ויצא מפתח שכנגדה כדי לקצר הדרך אלא יקיפו מבחוץ. ולא יכנס לו אלא לדבר מצוה:

He also brings the Gemara in Sanhedrin 52a-b that familiarity breeds contempt.

אמר רבי (אליעזר) למה תלמיד חכם דומה לפני עם הארץ בתחלה דומה לקיתון של זהב סיפר הימנו דומה לקיתון של כסף נהנה ממנו דומה לקיתון של חרש כיון שנשבר שוב אין לו תקנה

Rebbi Eliezer says, a talmid chacham appears, to the common man, like a golden flask. Once they engage in conversation, he appears like a silver flask. If the talmid chacham needs help from the other person, he becomes an earthenware vessel, which once broken is utterly useless.

Rav Bergman ties this idea to the death of Nadav and Avihu. He says that what ultimately destroyed them was the fact that after repeated contact with Moshe and Aharon, and even with Gilui Shechina, they lost a degree of awe, of hispaalus, and this diminished hispaalus led to their fatal errors (Shemos 24:11, ויחזו את האלקים ויאכלו וישתו, and the Gemara in Sanhedrin that immediately precedes the one we just quoted about familiarity: אמר לו נדב לאביהוא אימתי ימותו שני זקנים הללו ואני ואתה ננהיג את הדור).

The Living Dead: Four Kinds of People with Moribund Souls

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:37:00 +0000

Avoda Zara 5a, and Nedarim 64b: Four are considered as if dead: the poor; the blind; the leprous; and the childless.

ארבעה חשובים כמתים אלו הן עני סומא ומצורע ומי שאין לו בנים

I saw a very striking pshat from Reb Chaim Shmuelevitz that I want to share. He says that Chazal's expression, as if dead, means that the person lacks a what in a healthy human being would be a pathway to empathy and assistance to others. This is not to say they are incapable, it means that it is not as simple for them.

The poor refers to one who is so burdened with his need to make a living, to find what he needs, (whether because of actual or only perceived poverty- איזהו עשיר השמח בחלקו and vice versa, as Shlomo HaMelech says in Koheles 6:4, איש אשר יתן לו האלקים עשר ונכסים וכבוד ואיננו חסר לנפשו מכל אשר יתאוה, ולא ישליטנו האלהים לאכל ממנו-) that he doesn't have the time to think about the needs of other people, and certainly doesn't have the means of helping others. This is reminiscent of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

The blind, because we all have experienced the effect of the powerful image. We were all fully aware, intellectually, of starvation in Biafra, but it was a terrible photograph in Life magazine that shocked millions into a full emotional awareness and sympathy.

A leper, or more accurately, a Metzora, because both the cause and the effect of Tzara'as is being outside the community. The causes of Tzaraas are all manifestations of a basic indifference to the suffering of others, and the punishment of Tzaraas is to be driven out of the community.

One who has no children, we know, may not sit on the Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 36b, and Rambam 2 Sanhedrin 3 -
אין מעמידין בכל הסנהדרין לא זקן מופלג בשנים. ולא סריס מפני שיש בהן אכזריות. ולא מי שאין לו בנים כדי שיהא רחמן
Rashi explains זקן. ששכח כבר צער גדול בנים ואינו רחמני וכן סריס, A person who has not experienced, or who has forgotten, what it means to raise a difficult child and to love him despite the pain he causes, is missing something that teaches a person to be merciful. Having children enhances the ability to sympathize, and one who has no children has a challenge in achieving that degree of sympathy.

I want to stress that there are poor people, and blind people, and people who have no children, that are gedolim and saints of kindness. What Chazal mean is that while a normal and emotionally healthy Ben Yisrael has a natural rachmanus, and has to be a rasha to choose to harden his heart and ignore those that need his help, these four people might have not that natural and automatic reaction of rachamim.

It is also possible that Chazal are speaking metaphorically. There are people who can see, but they are blind when it comes to to the needs of others. There are some that are so busy accumulating things that they are totally uninterested in helping others to make it. There are those that simply never experienced what it means to have a child, which means that your heart is walking around outside of your body. And there is the Metzora, who exhibits every one of these traits. Such people may be healthy, and wealthy, and happy, but they are dead men walking.

Profoundly Hurtful Words from People Who Meant Well

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:10:00 +0000

I posted this a few years ago, but, in light of an article I saw in the Wall Street Journal, I needed to update it.

'A' and 'B' refer to the people having the conversation.

1. Conversation with a person recently diagnosed with Breast Cancer:
A. "I know what you are going through, my sister in law had the same thing."
B. "Thank you for your concern. And how is your sister in law?"
A. "Oh, she died within a year of her diagnosis."

2. At a Shiva House:
A. "Yes, (his mother) was a tremendous ba'alas bitachon. I once asked her how she dealt with the horrors she saw during the war. She answered that she had no questions: If Hashem did it, there is a reason, and we all have to love and trust the Ribono Shel Olam."
B. "You know, I've met people like that, and I think that the unsophisticated people, the uneducated, klein shtettlsheh people, they just accepted everything unquestioningly. The more educated people are the ones who threw away their bitachon."
(Oh. I used to think of her as a rock solid ba'alas bitachon. I guess she was really just a glassy-eyed cow.)

3. At another Shiva House:
A. "I don't know how I can take this...it's so hard to lose a father...."
B. "It's much harder when you lose your mother."
(I have to admit, these were not the actual words, but I was afraid you wouldn't believe me if I quoted her verbatim. What she actually said was "Wait until you lose your mother." I'm not making this up.)

4. At another Shiva House:
(background: A was sitting for his mother. When his father had passed away some years before, the chevra kadisha messed up, perhaps it was the fault of the local funeral chapel, or the chevra kadisha that took the Aron from the airplane in Israel, and they ended up eulogizing what turned out to be a nun's coffin in his Rebbe's Beis Medrash, as they realized when they opened the Aron for burial on Har Hazeisim.)
B. "Well, at least they didn't misplace her Aron...."
(Thank you, my friend, for re-opening an old wound.)

5. At a Shiva where, nebach, parents were sitting for their teenaged daughter.
A. At a time like this, maybe we can only say that (the daughter) was a gilgul of a holy neshama that came to this word to work out unfinished business, and when her neshama achieved its tafkid, she was taken back to Olam Haba.
B. I don't know about that. Reb Saadia Gaon says there's no such thing as Gilgulim, and the whole idea of Gilgulim was just made up because people couldn't deal with situations just like this.
(B, by the way, is a highly regarded talmid chacham, an author of many articles and sefarim, but a Yekke/Litvak through and through, although he's a big baki in Reb Tzadok.)

I was directed to the following article in the Wall Street Journal.
Reprinted with the author's kind permission.

For a Sick Friend: First, Do No Harm

Conversing with the ill can be awkward, but keeping a few simple commandments makes a huge difference

By Letty Cottin Pogrebin

'A closed mouth gathers no feet." It's a charming axiom, but silence isn't always an option when we're dealing with a friend who's sick or in despair. The natural human reaction is to feel awkward and upset in the face of illness, but unless we control those feelings and come up with an appropriate response, there's a good chance that we'll blurt out some cringe-worthy cliché, craven remark or blunt question that, in retrospect, we'll regret.

Take this real-life exchange. If ever the tone deaf needed a poster child, Fred is their man.

"How'd it go?" he asked his friend, Pete, who'd just had cancer surgery.

"Great!" said Pete. "They got it all."

"Really?" said Fred. "How do they know?"

A few simple commandments makes a huge difference when conversing with the ill.

We're all nervous around illness and mortality, but whatever pops into our heads should not necessarily plop out of our mouths. Yet, in my own experience as a breast-cancer patient, and for many of the people I have interviewed, friends do make hurtful remarks. Marion Fontana, who was diagnosed with breast cancer eight years after her husband, a New York City firefighter, died in the collapse of the World Trade Center, was told that she must have really bad karma to attract so much bad luck. In another case, upon hearing a man's leukemia diagnosis, his friend shrieked, "Wow! A girl in my office just died of that!"Later, when Pete told him how demoralizing his remark had been, Fred's excuse was, "I was nervous. I just said what popped into my head."

You can't make this stuff up.

If we're not unwittingly insulting our sick friends, we're spouting clichés like "Everything happens for a reason." Though our intent is to comfort the patient, we also say such things to comfort ourselves and tamp down our own feelings of vulnerability. From now on, rather than sound like a Hallmark card, you might want to heed the following 10 Commandments for Conversing With a Sick Friend.

1. Rejoice at their good news. Don't minimize their bad news. A guy tells you that the doctors got it all, say "Hallelujah!" A man with advanced bladder cancer says that he's taking his kids to Disneyland next summer, don't bite your lip and mutter, "We'll see." Tell him it's a great idea. (What harm can it do?) Which doesn't mean that you should slap a happy face on a friend's grim diagnosis by saying something like, "Don't worry! Nowadays breast cancer is like having a cold!"

The best response in any encounter with a sick friend is to say, "Tell me what I can do to make things easier for you—I really want to help."

2. Treat your sick friends as you always did—but never forget their changed circumstance. However contradictory that may sound, I promise you can learn to live within the paradox if you keep your friend's illness and its constraints in mind but don't treat them as if their illness is who they are. Speak to them as you always did (tease them, kid around with them, get mad at them) but indulge their occasional blue moods or hissy-fits. Most important, start conversations about other things (sports, politics, food, movies) as soon as possible and you'll help speed their journey from the morass of illness to the miracle of the ordinary.

3. Avoid self-referential comments. A friend with a hacking cough doesn't need to hear, "You think that's bad? I had double pneumonia." Don't tell someone with brain cancer that you know how painful it must be because you get migraines. Don't complain about your colicky baby to the mother of a child with spina bifida. I'm not saying sick people have lost their capacity to empathize with others, just that solipsism is unhelpful and rude. The truest thing you can say to a sick or suffering friend is, "I can only try to imagine what you're going through."

4. Don't assume, verify. Several friends of Michele, a Canadian writer, reacted to her cancer diagnosis with, "Well, at least you caught it early, so you'll be all right!" In fact, she did not catch it early, and never said or hinted otherwise. So when someone said, "You caught it early," she thought, "No, I didn't, therefore I'm going to die." Repeat after me: "Assume nothing."

5. Get the facts straight before you open your mouth.Did your friend have a heart or liver transplant? Chemo or radiation? Don't just ask, "How are you?" Ask questions specific to your friend's health. "How's your rotator cuff these days?" "Did the blood test show Lyme disease?" "Are your new meds working?" If you need help remembering who has shingles and who has lupus, or the date of a friend's operation, enter a health note under the person's name in your contacts list or stick a Post-it by the phone and update the information as needed.

6. Help your sick friend feel useful. Zero in on one of their skills and lead to it. Assuming they're up to the task, ask a cybersmart patient to set up a Web page for you; ask a bridge or chess maven to give you pointers on the game; ask a retired teacher to guide your teenager through the college application process. In most cases, your request won't be seen as an imposition but a vote of confidence in your friend's talent and worth.

7. Don't infantilize the patient. Never speak to a grown-up the way you'd talk to a child. Objectionable sentences include, "How are we today, dearie?" "That's a good boy." "I bet you could swallow this teeny-tiny pill if you really tried." And the most wince-worthy, "Are we ready to go wee-wee?" Protect your friend's dignity at all costs.

8. Think twice before giving advice.Don't forward medical alerts, newspaper clippings or your Aunt Sadie's cure for gout. Your idea of a health bulletin that's useful or revelatory may mislead, upset, confuse or agitate your friend. Sick people have doctors to tell them what to do. Your job is simply to be their friend.

9. Let patients who are terminally ill set the conversational agenda.If they're unaware that they're dying, don't be the one to tell them. If they know they're at the end of life and want to talk about it, don't contradict or interrupt them; let them vent or weep or curse the Fates. Hand them a tissue and cry with them. If they want to confide their last wish, or trust you with a long-kept secret, thank them for the honor and listen hard. Someday you'll want to remember every word they say.

10. Don't pressure them to practice 'positive thinking.' The implication is that they caused their illness in the first place by negative thinking—by feeling discouraged, depressed or not having the "right attitude." Positive thinking can't cure Huntington's disease, ALS or inoperable brain cancer. Telling a terminal patient to keep up the fight isn't just futile, it's cruel. Insisting that they see the glass as half full may deny them the truth of what they know and the chance to tie up life's loose ends while there's still time. As one hospice patient put it, "All I want from my friends right now is the freedom to sulk and say goodbye."

Though most of us feel dis-eased around disease, colloquial English proffers a sparse vocabulary for the expression of embarrassment, fear, anxiety, grief or sorrow. These 10 commandments should help you relate to your sick friends with greater empathy, warmth and grace.

Ms. Pogrebin is the author of ten books and a founding editor of Ms. magazine. Her latest book is "How to Be a Friend to a Friend who's Sick," from which this essay is adapted.

Finally, here is a video from Youtube. It's humorous, but, unfortunately, not unrealistic.

And another one, on Bikkur Cholim.

For Yom Ha'atzma'ut: Rebbi Simla'i and Kedushas Eretz Yisrael

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:53:00 +0000

Rebbi Simla'i expounded a verse in the Torah: Why did Moshe Rabbeinu so dearly desire to enter the land of Israel? Did he need to eat its fruit? Did he need to satisfy himself from its goodness? Rather, so said Moshe: "Many mitzvos were the Jews commanded and they cannot be fulfilled anywhere but in the land of Israel. Would that I could enter so that they will be fulfilled by my hand." Hashem said to him, "Are you asking for anything other than to receive reward? I consider it as if you did them...."

Sotah 14a

דרש רבי שמלאי מפני מה נתאוה משה רבינו ליכנס לא"י וכי לאכול מפריה הוא צריך או לשבוע מטובה הוא צריך אלא כך אמר משה הרבה מצות נצטוו ישראל ואין מתקיימין אלא בא"י אכנס אני לארץ כדי שיתקיימו כולן על ידי אמר לו הקב"ה כלום אתה מבקש אלא לקבל שכר מעלה אני עליך כאילו עשיתם שנאמר לכן אחלק לו ברבים ואת עצומים יחלק שלל תחת אשר הערה למות נפשו ואת פושעים נמנה והוא חטא רבים נשא ולפושעים יפגיע לכן אחלק לו ברבים יכול כאחרונים ולא כראשונים ת"ל ואת עצומים יחלק שלל כאברהם יצחק ויעקב שהן עצומים בתורה ובמצות תחת אשר הערה למות נפשו שמסר עצמו למיתה שנאמר ואם אין מחני נא וגו' ואת פושעים נמנה שנמנה עם מתי מדבר והוא חטא רבים נשא שכיפר על מעשה העגל ולפושעים יפגיע שביקש רחמים על פושעי ישראל שיחזרו בתשובה ואין פגיעה אלא תפלה שנאמר ואתה אל תתפלל בעד העם הזה ואל תשא בעדם רנה ותפלה ואל תפגע בי:

Rebbi Simla'i's question must be rhetorical. It cannot be read as if he were making a serious analysis, taking a lomdisheh approach. If it were, it would make no sense at all, because his question is not much of a question. Considering the depth of our forefathers' desire to live, or if not to live, at least to be buried (Yaakov, Yosef), in the Land of Israel, Rebbi Simla'i shouldn't be wondering what Moshe Rabbeinu wanted. Certainly, what seems like sarcasm in Rebbi Simlai's question would be out of place. (The fruit he needed? To enjoy the pleasures he needed?) So we should read it as a rhetorical question, a pure Drasha, something intended to highlight the great value of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael: "Do you think he wanted to visit because he was looking forward to eating good food there??? Of course not! He wanted to immerse himself in the holiness of Eretz Yisrael."

(More evidence that Rebbi Simla'i didn't intend his words to be analyzed halachicly is the brouhaha among the poskim whether we ought to say the phrase "le'echol mipiryah v'lisbo'a mituva" in the bracha achrona of Al Hamichya.
The language of the Tur in 208:

ויש אומרים ונאכל מפריה ונשבע מטובה" ואין לאומרו. שאין לחמוד הארץ בשביל פריה וטובה אלא לקיים מצות התלויות בה, עד כאן. ובהלכות גדולות - ישנו. ואדוני אבי הרא"ש ז"ל לא היה אומרו.

The Beis Yosef there says

ויש אומרים "ונאכל מפריה ונשבע מטובה" ואין לאמרו שאין לחמוד הארץ בשביל פריה וכו' ואדוני אבי ז"ל היה אומרו. נראה שטעמו מפני שהיה מפרש שמה שאנו אומרים ונאכל מפריה ונשבע מטובה אין התכלית בשביל האכילה אלא מה שאומר אחר כך ונברכך עליה בקדושה ובטהרה הוא התכלית, אלא דמשום דברכה אתיא (=באה) מפני האכילה הוא אומר ונאכל מפריה ונשבע מטובה:

and the Bach there says

תימה הלא קדושת הארץ הנשפעת בה מקדושת הארץ העליונה היא נשפעת גם בפירותיה שיונקים מקדושת השכינה השוכנת בקרב הארץ... ועל כן ניחא שאנו מכניסין בברכה זו "ונאכל מפריה ונשבע מטובה" כי באכילת פירותיה אנו ניזונים מקדושת השכינה ומטהרתה ונשבע מטובתה:

Elsewhere we discussed an approach that this phrase, as used in this bracha, refers to the fruit of Bikkurim and Ma'aser Sheini, which are a mitzva to eat, since the fruit used for those mitzvos are the ones on which we say the bracha of Me'ein Shalosh.

But in any case, the Bach's pshat is more understandable if Rebbi Simla'i just wanted to highlight the great value of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael, and he used to words as a homiletic reference to physical pleasure.)

Having said this, the fact is that many people do take Rebbi Simlai at face value, and apply Gemara analysis to his words. Assuming that they are correct, we need a good pshat in what he means to ask.

The Geon Yaakov and the Satmerer (Vayoel Moshe, first piece in Va'eschanan, vol 8 page 39-42) and others have an approach based on the assumption that Moshe Rabbeinu knew that he would die on that day or the next and that he would be buried in Chutz La'aretz, so the experience of living in Eretz Yisrael would not be meaningful for him. This approach requires extensive re-alignment of Rebbi Simlai's words, and doesn't strike a chord with me.

Reb Meir Simcha (Devarim 11:33, first piece in Re'ei) mentions that Harav Dov Meizels also asks this question- that if, as some Rishonim (e.g., the Ramban,) dwelling in Eretz Yisrael is a mitzva, what's Rebbi Simla'i's question? Reb Meir Simcha answers that it was because Moshe was already on the east bank of the Jordan, and one who lives on the East bank also fulfilled the mitzva of living in Eretz Yisrael, that Rebbi Simla'i asked the question.

However, this would only be a pshat according to the Kaftor Va'Ferach and the Ramban, who hold that the special kedusha of Eretz Yisrael applies to the East Bank. According to the Tashbetz, it does not. So, again, we need a pshat in Rebbi Simla'i's question.

(Tthe Tashbetz holds that although the mitzva of living in Eretz Yisrael does apply to the East Bank (מצוות דירה/קדושת מצוות,) the special hashra'as Shechina (חיבוב דירה/קדושת שכינה) is only in the main body of Eretz Yisrael- the West Bank- and it existed even before the conquest. The Kaftor va'Ferach and the Ramban hold that not only does the mitzva to live there apply to the East Bank, but that the special kedusha applies there as well.)

I'd like to suggest some possibilities. As always, (in fact more than usual,) this is a vort in progress.

1. Kedushas Eretz Yisrael is essentially a means, not an end: it is a means of becoming closer to Hashem. Since Moshe Rabbeinu spoke to Hashem panim el panim, Eretz Yisrael had nothing to offer. This seems inconsistent with the expressed desire of the Avos to be buried in Eretz Yisrael.
(Update: Chaim B. points out that this could be better expressed as "that the din of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael is not a mitzva, it is a machshir. Since Moshe had achieved the goal of the hechsher, the din of Yishuv did not apply to him." Chaim also points out, essentially, that to say this is basically echoing Korach's argument that since the purpose of Tzitzis is to remind us about mitzvos, a person that already remembers the mitzvos has no mitzvah of Tzitzis.)

2. Before Eretz Yisrael was singled out via the entrance of the Bnei Yisrael, it was no different than any other land. For example, there is the Mechilta (Shmos 12:1) that says
ועד שלא נבחרה ארץ ישראל, היו כל הארצות כשרות לדברות, משנבחרה ארץ ישראל יצאו כל הארצות. עד שלא נבחרה ירושלים, היתה כל ארץ ישראל כשרה למבחות, משנבחרה ירושלים יצאת ארץ ישראל. שנאמר 'השמר לך פן תעלה עולותיך וכו' כי אם במקום אשר יבחר' [דברים יב']. עד שלא נבחר בית עולמים, הייתה ירושלים ראויה לשכינה, משנבנה בית עולמים יצאת ירושלים שנאמר (כי בחר ה בציון) ואומר 'זאת מנחתי עדי עד' [תהילים קלב]. עד שלא נבחר אהרן היו כל ישראל כשרים לכהונה,משנבחר אהרן יצאו כל ישראל שנאמר ' ברית מלח עולם היא לפני ה' '[במדבר יח'] ואומר 'והייתה לו ולזרעו אחריו' [שם כה']. עד שלא נבחר דוד היו כל ישראל כשרים למלכות, משנבחר דוד יצאו כל ישראל שנאמר 'הלא לכם לדעת כי ה' אלקי ישראל נתן את הממלכה לדוד' [דבה"י ב' יג'].
that until Eretz Yisrael was singled out, all lands were fit for prophecy (i.e., prophecy could take place in any other land,) but once it was chosen, no other land could have prophecy. So you see that only with the onset of Eretz Yisrael's special status, after it was conquered by the Jewish people, did it attain that special quality. But this is contradicted, again, by the obvious desire of the forefathers to live or be buried in Eretz Yisrael.
We could, however, deflect that criticism by suggesting that the forefathers wanted to be buried in Israel not because of its quality at the time of their death, but rather because of the inevitable change they knew was coming. As for their desire to live there, we don't have any pesukim that clearly state that fact.
Still, I'm not thrilled with this pshat.

Pesach 5773. A Compendium of Exclusive Divrei Torah

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:35:00 +0000

What Merits Brought About Our Redemption from Mitzrayim
They worshiped idols; they didn't do mitzvos. Who cares that they kept their Hebrew language and names?

The Reason We Dip Twice At the Seder (2013)

The answer to the un-answered question.

The Rambam's Four Tibulim
The Rambam says you dip four times at the Seder. How does he read the Mah Nishtana?

Shipping Chametz before pesach
Potential liability and benefit from Chametz on Pesach.

Juvenal Behavior and Circuses
Two unknown holidays- Defrosting the Chametz and Sour Grapes.

Focusing on the Children at the Seder
Remembering who is supposed to be the star of the seder.

Maror and Redemption
The Beis Halevi and the Malbim on the Maror in the Geula.

Learning Torah instead of bringing a korban pesach
The Chasam Sofer's pshat in the dialogue between Moshe Rabbeinu and the people that asked for a Pesach Sheini and the problems with his pshat.

Loving the Jews you can’t stand
Preparing for the Geula Ha'asida on the second days of Pesach

Bris Milah and Yetzias Mitzrayim
Areilus interferes with bringing a Korban Pesach, and it also interferes with initiating the chain of events that led to the first Korban Pesach in Mitzrayim.

The Right Way to Sing Chad Gadya
Jews from the four corners of the world sing about the little goat.

The Kittel and the Seder
A kittle is a symbolic garment. What it symbolizes is harder to pin down.

The idea of pesach sheini

Why We Were Redeemed From Egypt

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:31:00 +0000

The medrash says (Vayikra Rabba 32) that we were redeemed from Egypt in the merit of not having changed our names and our language; because we did not say lashon hara, and because we did not engage in licentious behavior.

רב הונא אמר בשם בר קפרא בשביל ד' דברים נגאלו ישראל ממצרים שלא שנו את שמם ואת לשונם ולא אמרו לשון הרע ולא נמצא ביניהן אחד מהן פרוץ בערוה לא שנו את שמן ראובן ושמעון נחתין ראובן ושמעון סלקין לא היו קורין ליהודה רופא ולא לראובן לוליאני ולא ליוסף לסטיס ולא לבנימין אלכסנדרי לא שנו את לשונם להלן כתיב (בראשית יד) ויבא הפליט ויגד לאברם העברי וכאן (שמות ג) ויאמרו אלהי העברים נקרא עלינו וכתיב (בראשית מה) כי פי המדבר אליכם בלשון הקודש ולא אמרו לשון הרע שנאמר (שמות יא) דבר נא באזני העם אתה מוצא שהיה הדבר מופקד אצלן כל י"ב חדש ולא הלשין אחד על חבירו ולא נמצא אחד מהם פרוץ בערוה תדע לך שהיה כן אחת היתה ופרסמה הכתוב שנא' (ויקרא כד) ושם אמו שלומית בת דברי למטה דן, שלומית, דאמר ר' לוי דהות פטטא בשלמא שלם לך שלם לכון בת דברי אמר ר' יצחק שהביאה דבר על בנה למטה דן גנאי לאמו גנאי לו גנאי למשפחתו גנאי לשבטו שיצא ממנו.

On the other hand, Chazal say that we had fallen to the forty ninth level of tumah, of spiritual decay. I wonder, what is the value of having Jewish names and talking in Hebrew if you worship idols? I understand the value of kind speech, and family purity. But how important, and of what spiritual or ethical weight, is ethnic purity? Does acting like a "Hebrew" have any value at all? Was the value simply that we had retained a bond to Avraham Avinu? Is there some greater value in Jewish Identity that is entirely unrelated to spiritual standards?

1. The famous statement of Chazal that "Klal Yisrael was redeemed in the merit of not having adopted non-Jewish clothing" does not exist. The only similar statement is the one quoted above, which appears in several places. The one similar source is likely a copyist's error.

(מדרש רבה שיר השירים (מדרש חזית

גן נעול אחותי כלה: רבי הונא בשם בר קפרא אמר בזכות ארבעה דברים נגאלו ישראל ממצרים:
שלא שינו את שמם,
ולא שינו את לשונם,
ולא אמרו לשון הרע,
ולא נמצא בהן אחד פרוץ בערוה.

מכילתא בא פ"ה,

שלא נחשדו על העריות, ולא ספרו לשון הרע, ולא שנו את שמם, ולא שנו את לשונם

פסיקתא דרב כהנא פרשת בשלח :

בזכות ארבעה דברים, נגאלו ישראל ממצרים,
שלא שינו את שמם,
ושלא שינו לשונם,
ושלא היה בהן לשון הרע,
ושלא היה בהן פרוץ בעריות,
שלא שינו את שמם, ראובן ושמעון סלקין, ראובן ושמעון נחתין, שלא שלא שינו לשונם, כי פי המדבר אליכם(בראשית מ״ה י״ב), ובלשון הקודש היה מדבר, ושלא היה בהן לשון הרע, דבר נא באזני העם וישאלו וגו׳ (שמות י״א בי) את מוצא זה הדבר היה מופקד אצלן כל שנים עשר חודש, ולא נמצא אחד מהם שהלשין על חברו, ושלא היה בהן פרוץ בערוה, תדע לך שהוא כן אחת היתה ופירסמה הכתוב ושם אמו שלומית בת דברי למטה דן.

On the other hand, it does appear here, but it 's probably a copyist's mistake.

(Medrash Lekach Tov) פסיקתא זוטרתא (לקח טוב) שמות פרק ו' אות ו' :

לכן אמור לבני ישראל. זו שבועה, שנא' ולכן נשבעתי לבית עלי (ש"א ג יד): אמור לבני ישראל אני ה'. שאמרתי לאברהם אביכם אני ה' אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים (בראשית טו ז): והוצאתי אתכם, והצלתי אתכם, וגאלתי אתכם, ולקחתי אתכם,כנגד ד' זכיות שבידם,
שלא שינו את לשונם,
ולא חילפו את שמלותם,
ולא גילו את סודם, דכתי' ושאלה אשה משכנתה ,
ולא בטלו ברית מילה.

It also appears there in Shemos 12:6, but there it is consistent with all the other Medrashim and says nothing about clothing.

ארבע מצות היו להם לישראל
, לא נחשדו על העריות
,לא שינו את שמותם,
לא שינו אה לשונם
לא גילו אה סודם

So the Lekach Tov quoted above is most likely not reliable. Anyway, if they didn't wear Egyptian clothing, what was the point of ושאלה אשה משכנתה ומגרת ביתה כלי כסף וכלי זהב ושמלת? They couldn't wear the stuff anyway! Unless you want to answer that they didn't borrow the clothing to wear; they gave it to their kids to wear, which explains ושמתם על בניכם ועל בנתיכם.

Having said that, I want to emphasize that this does not prove there is no validity or significance to the alleged Chazal. It has become a part of our oral tradition, like הלכה בידוע שעשו שונא ליעקב, which also is not exactly what it says there, or כל ישראל ערבים זה לזה. For example, the Chasam Sofer is quoted as saying on the passuk ויבא יעקב שלם that it is the the Roshei Teivos of שמם לשונם מלבושם, שלא שינו את שמם ואת לשונם ואת מלבושם. Also, the Chasam Sofer brings that language in his drashos here (Drashos II page 516.)

2. Reb Moshe in his Igros, OC 4:66 says the following, in which it is clear that he is thinking about our question.

זה ששיבחו חז"ל ויק"ר ל"ב בגלות מצרים שלא שינו את שמותן הוא לקודם מתן תורה שלא היה היכר גדול בשביל קיום המצות דבני נח ובפרט שחלק גדול מישראל עבדו ג"כ ע"ז ורובן לא מלו את בניהם עד סמוך להגאולה כשהיו צריכין לאכול הפסח שמל אותן יהושע ומשמע שהיה רוב גדול לבד שבט לוי שהם מלו את בניהם כדכתיב ובריתך ינצורו בברכת משה ואף שפרש"י על אלו שנולדו במדבר היה זה גם במצרים כמפורש במדרשות,

שלכן בשביל האמונה שיגאלו ורצו שיהיו ניכרין שהם ישראל הנהיגו להקפיד שלא ישנו את שמם ולא ישנו את לשונם ומטעם זה שייך זה להגאולה משום שבשביל אמונת הגאולה הקפידו על זה

אבל אחר מתן תורה אין לנו חיוב מדינא וגם לא מעניני זהירות ומוסר אלא מה שנצטוינו התרי"ג מצות לדורות והמצות שנצטוו לשעה וכפי שנאמרו בתורה שבעל פה ולכן לא הקפידו ע"ז רבותינו דהא אף עניני זהירות ומוסר ומעלה נמי נאמרו מסיני עיין בריש פרקי אבות ברע"ב ולא היה זה בקבלה שכן איכא מעלה גם אלאחר מתן תורה אלא שבזכות זה נגאלו אבותינו שאפשר לפרש שהיה מעלה ודבר טוב רק אצלם כדלעיל ולא אחר מתן תורה. ואף שמסתבר כן מסתפינא לומר זה בלא ראיות גדולות

He says that the merit of keeping our language and clothing was not the mere fact of retaining those things. It is because their doing so demonstrated that they remembered Hashem's promise that He would redeem them, and they wanted to remain Jews, so that Hashem should take them out and bring them near to Him as His nation. They kept their way of dress and speech in order to remain a separate nation, the nation that Hashem promised to redeem.

3. And from the Sefer Ma'or Va'Shemesh (Rimzei Pesach, bottom of first column):

I apologize for the terrible OCR that resulted from the old print. If you have a clean copy, please send it to me. I fixed what was necessary to get a rudimentary understanding.

ויראה בזה על מאמר חז״ל בזכות ג׳ דברים נגאלו

ממצרים שלא שינו את שמם ילא שינו את לשונם ונו׳ ויש

להתבונן מה שלא שינו את שמם ומה מעלתו גם אמרו שלא

שינו את לשונם איך היה באפשר לדבר לשון הקודש תמיד הלא

בין עם לשון אסרת התגוררו אשר לא הבינו לשון הקודש והיו

מוכרחים לדבר עמהס בלשונם גם מהו גריעות שינוי הלשון גם

אמרי חז״ל שהרשעים אינם יודעים את שמם טןכר וזה עעמא

בעי מדוע אינם יודעים שמם ולבאר כל זה נראה ע״פ מימר

מזיל עד שאתה מתפלל שיכנסו בן ׳דנד תודה התפלל שלא

יכנסו בן מאכלות אסורות והענין הוא כי הנס כל מיני ד נוד׳

« ל עיני לשונות כילם הם על ידי צירופי הכיב אוסיוס

המורה הקשודם נס׳ מוצאות הסה שאי אפשר לדבר פוס דיבור

מולא דק על יד• אוסן הכ«« אוסיום וכקודוסיהן שהם הם

אושיוס סורסינו הקדושס ולכן כשהאדם שוער פיו ילשינו

מיינו •mid• מלמו שלא •כגנס גר׳ס הלשון נמאכלוס אשמיו׳

יגס שלא ׳דגר שקרים ולה״ר ולצנום ודומיהן אז פיו ולשונו

סם בקדושה ואינם .סחסהסיא שאין אייזס החילונים כהי

«ולאוס פיו ואז אן אם ידבר מ אד לשונוס תודו סם ככלל

Basically: he says it is difficult to understand why retaining their ancestral language was a reason for their redemption. מהו גריעות שינוי הלשון? What's so bad about changing your language? He answers, I think, that by "lashon" Chazal didn't mean lexicon. They meant the kedusha of the way they expressed themselves. When someone says that a person dresses like a sheigitz, or talks like a sheigitz, I think it doesn't necessarily mean that he wears jeans and talks in English. It means that he wears clothing, and uses language, that we associate with a cultural milieu that is inconsistent with Yiddishkeit. When the Kohen Gadol is told not to be meisi'ach da'as, when we are told not to be mei'si'ach da'as from Tefillin, it means to not do something that is inconsistent with the Kedusha of Tefillin.

4. We can't not quote the Maharam Shick. A vociferous enemy of the Haskala and the Reform, he took every opportunity to attack what he saw as breaches in our Mesora. This is from his Teshuvos, YD 169. The idea is that he holds that having a non-Jewish name is an issur De'Oraysa that might fall into the category of Yeihareig ve'al ya'avor.

אם אמנם שאין אני יודע לכנות אותו מ״מ ראיתי שראו• להשיב על הדבר אשר שאל שיש בני אדם שמכנים עצמם בשם הגוים וממלחו די הוכיח אוחם דהרי אמרו במדרש שבזכוה זה שלא שינו אמ שמם זכינו לצאמ ממצרים והם משיבים שלזה די כמה שיש להם שם יהודי לקרותם בו לעלות לחורה וזה רבר הבל וטפשות כי בוודאי יש בזה איסור דאוריימ׳ כמ״ש הרמב״ם כפ׳ י״א מהלכו׳ מ״ז דמקרא מלא נאמר בסוף פ׳ קדושים ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיוה לי ומשם ילפינן בספרי דאין רשאין לדמות להם בשום אופן וכל שהוא מושה לדמות להם מובר מל מה שנאמר בתור׳ דאסור לנו לדמות להם וכשם שאסור לנו להדמות להם במלטשם ובהילוכם ובשאר מנהגיהם ה״ה וכ״ש דאסור לדמום להם בשמם ומלינו למשוה כמו

שמשו אכומינו שנאמר כהם ויהי שם לגו• גדול ודרשו חכז״ל מלמד שהיו ישראל מצויינים שם : וביותר ביאור אמרחי הכוונה דהנ׳ כהיוחי רכ דק״ק ימרגין סמוך לפרפשכורג ופמם נזדמן לי כשמסרמי המאפריקמל להשר המיופד לזה החרפם לפני ואמר כי לא נאה מה שיהודים קורץ מצמם כשם הגרם ושאר כל האומומ מחשיטן השמוה הכאים להם מראש

האומה דהיינו אונגאד׳ פראנצמזיא וכדומה כולם מחשיכין הלשון והשמוה שלהם ואינם משנים כשום אופן כי מחזיקי׳ זאה להם לככת׳ ולמפארמ והיהודים אשר הם מקדמור האומומ קיומי הסולם המה כושים מצמם להקרא כשם המצם ומשנים שמם לשם האומו׳ וזה להם גנאי גדול ולא הי׳ כפי ממנה להשיכ לו אכל דחימי אומו כדכדם שהגלומ גורם זאמ •

אבל כאמה גם כזה נהקיים כנו הקרא כי דור מהפוכומ המם כדם לא אמון כס שאכומינו וכל הדורוה אשר לפניהם הי׳

סליהם מול הגלומ כמקפו ומ״מ לא שינו אח שמם ולא הי׳ להם שם הישראלי לכיוש ולכזיון ואדרכה הי׳ להם שם הישראלי לככוד ולתפארת וכמו שאמרו חכז״ל פל הקרא איש יהוד הי׳ כשושן שהי׳ מוכמר כנימוסין שפשה לסצמו כתר שהוא יהודי ורףמו כחקוהיהם לא מלט ואכויל אמכם מן הסמים ומכשו שהוקל כוכד הגלומ ואין הישראלי׳ מכוזים טן האומו׳ הם משנים שמם ולשונם כדי לומוח מצמם לאוה״ע ויש להמליץ זה כקרא כי דור מהפוכוה המה וז״ש כנים לא אימק כס היינו שאיני רוצי׳ כשם המגדלי׳ אותם ומהמימ׳ שהרי אמרו כיומי ל״ח ס״כ דאסור לקרוי כשם איש שהוא רשפ דרשעי׳ לא מסקיק כשמייהו שנאמ׳ שם רשפי׳ ירקכ פיי״ש ואומן אנשי׳ קודאין פצמם כשם הגוים והרי כזה הם מראים שהם מחשיכים יאה הגרם יומר מהישראלית והד מפולס הי׳ הדרך לקרוא שם כניהם וכנוהיהם סל שם אכוחיסם או סל שם צדיקים קדושים וגאונים גדולים שהם היו החשוס והחדשים מכזים אכוחיהם וגמליהם וקדושיהם ומחשיבץ ומשכחץ ומסאדן שם הגרם לקרוא שם צאצאיהם סל שמם והרי זה כזיון גדול לאכוחיהם כל אחד מישראל שהטא טטרים הי׳ קורא בקול גדול וירד מצרים שם ויהי שם לגוי גדול וגדול הוא לשון חשיכומ והיינו דדרשו בסשרי שטו מצויילם שם דהיינו מלשון שם והיינו שטעו מצויינים ג״כ כשם אפפ״י שפכדו פמנו פטדה פרך אסי״ם לא נתנו לקרות לסצמם כשם הגוים ושם היהודי לא הי׳ לסם לכת ולקלק תהו שפמוה לאבותינו ולנו כצאמינו ממצדם

5. To balance out the Maharam Shick, here is what the Maharashdam says in YD 199. He says it's no big deal.

אלו האנוסים שבאו מפרטוגל והיו להם שמית כשמות

הגוים ואחר שבאו לבקש את ה׳ ואת תורתו משנים שמם

לשמות בני ישראל ויש להם צורך לנתונ ממקוס אשר הס ׳ושניס ניהחחס אצ

ממקום אשר סיה להם שמות נשמות הגו״ אס לקרוניהס וחס למי שנושא ועת!

ממונם אס יסלים לנתונ ולשנות שמס נשמות אשר סיו להם נגיותס או אס

יש חשש איסור נדנר מפני שנראה מקיים היותו עדןגוי ונלת׳ מורה נתורת ה׳

תשובה אמת נ׳ מדת חסידות לא קאמינ׳ דודא׳ מדת חסידות הוא

להרסיק סאוס עצמו ננל מינ׳ הרחקת שאיפשר ונפרט למי שענרו

על רא8ו סמיס הזדוני׳ אנן מן הדין נד נעינ׳ דנד נרו׳ שאין נזה סשש איסור

ל ואע״נ דלנאורה היה גר׳ להניא קלת ראיה לאסור ממה שנתנ הטור

׳״ר סי׳ קצ״ז וז״ל אסור לארס לומר שהוא צוי נרי שלא יהרנוהו רניון שאומר

שהוא נוי הרי מורה לרתס ונופר נעיקר ע״נ ויאמר האומר רסכא נמי כיון

שקור׳ עצמו נשם צוי הוה ליה נאומי שהוא גוי ואסור ואפי׳ את״ל ישאג־

החס מ״מ נס יש נגוון ההוא יתר שאת שהוא להציל עצמו מן המות ואפיה

אסור הנא ולא הוי אלא לצורך ממון או ר׳א היה ראוי לאסור אלא שנר׳ נלי

ספק שאסר עיון נל דהו ימצא סארס שהרק הוא שהוא מותר

6. To Eli and gu- I think you're both right, and I'm not done yet. And Eli- thanks for the MM to the Igros. I hadn't looked at the comments before starting out this afternoon.

7. I can't enunciate it well, but to me, there's something here that illustrates the importance of things that define us as Jews, even outside Torah and Mitzvos. Maybe it's the "organic whole" idea.

Captions

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:18:00 +0000

I'd like to share an idle thought. I think it would be interesting if there were eyeglasses that would caption everyone we saw in the street with numbers: the dollar amount and the time this individual expends on Mosros (luxuries) and the corresponding numbers for tzdaka and chesed. Of course, the reality of exposure would change the numbers immediately. But at least initially, it would be interesting, both to the observer and to the individual himself, because what falls under the heading "mosros" is truly subjective.

Adar 25: New Year's Greetings, and the Father of Zionism

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 22:17:00 +0000

I What is the Anniversary of the Creation of the World?

Today, the 25th of Adar, is the anniversary of the creation of the world. Happy Birthday, world.

Rosh Hashanna 11a:

ר' יהושע אומר בניסן נברא העולם בניסן נולדו אבות בניסן מתו אבות בפסח נולד יצחק בר"ה נפקדה שרה רחל וחנה בר"ה יצא יוסף מבית האסורין בר"ה בטלה עבודה מאבותינו במצרים בניסן נגאלו בניסן עתידין ליגאל

Rebbi Yehoshua says: in Nissan the world was created; in Nissan the Forefathers were born: in Nissan they died..... in Nissan they were redeemed from Egypt; in Nissan they will be redeemed.

Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion is countered by that of Rebbi Eliezer, who says that the world was created in Tishrei. The Rishonim explain that Rebbi Eliezer didn't mean that the world itself was created in Tishrei; rather, Adam was created on the first day of Tishrei. Since Adam was created on the sixth day, i.e., the world was created six days before, then according to Rebbi Eliezer, the real day of the world's creation was the twenty fifth of Ellul. Correspondingly, according to Rebbi Yehoshua, who says "the world" was created in Nissan, we can assume that he means that Adam was created on the first of Nissan, and so the world was created on the sixth day previous, the twenty fifth of Adar, today.

II Who Was the Father of Zionism in the Modern Era?

Another interesting fact about today, found at an OU site:
(On Thursday, the 25th of Adar I, 5651, Torah reading Parshas VaYakhel, corresponding to March 5, 1891) U.S. President Harrison was petitioned... to aid in the reestablishment of Palestine as a sovereign Jewish state. The petition was signed by Cyrus McCormick, J. P. Morgan, William McKinley, John D. Rockefeller, Russel Sage, and Cardinal James Gibbons, among others. It was a spontaneous expression of American sympathy for Zionism, totally independent of Jewish Zionist activities. The petition was motivated by Biblical influences and by intense indignation aroused by Russian pogroms.

The motive force that brought about this petition was one William Eugene Blackstone. For more information, the bio by Wikipedia is here, and an interesting paper about the man and his beliefs here. The paper cited ends with these paragraphs:

Most Jews recoiled from Blackstone once they realized his underlying agenda was evangelical, their response immediately crystallized by the age-old revulsion of Christian proselytizers. However, Blackstone's eschatological objectification also entails other obvious, dangerous elements that most Jewish writers of the time did not address publicly: in his vision, Blackstone sees the wholesale death of Jews, speculates that Satanic leadership may rise from the Jews, and insists that the restored Israel would follow the devil. Despite his vision of the ultimate salvation of the Jews, Blackstone's insistence on restoration is one fraught with the manipulation of Jews into "othered" objects of anti-Semitism. Underlying the eschatology is not only the cry that "the Jews must go," but also that "the Jews must die."

The fact that Jews were reified into "God's sun-dial" casts them into the role of unalterable, metaphysical machines in someone else's design rather than distinct, human subjects capable of telling their own time. Jews are placed in their divinely ordained place by the Christian; any Jewish self-assertion, any tinkering with their own time piece, as the Reform movement did, is rejected by Blackstone with scorn, his sense of superiority allowing him even to intervene within Jewish communal debate.

Addressing a Zionist mass meeting in Los Angeles in 1918, Blackstone told his audience that he had been a Zionist for over thirty years because "true Zionism is founded on the plan, purpose, and fiat of the everlasting and omnipotent God, as prophetically recorded in His Holy Word, the Bible." He then explained that there were only three options open to every Jew. The first was to become a true Christian, accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and thereby "escap[ing] from the unequaled time of tribulation which is coming upon all the earth," an option he realistically felt few would accept. The second choice was to become a "true" Zionist "and thus hold fast to the hopes of the fathers, and the assured deliverance of Israel, through the coming of their Messiah, and complete national restoration and permanent settlement in the land which God has given them." The third option was to become an "assimilant," those "Jews who will not be either Christians or Zionists. They wish to remain in various nations enjoying their social, political and commercial advantages." Blackstone ignored the option taken by those orthodox Jews who rejected secularized, political Zionism in favor of traditional observance, while he viciously attacked Reform and non-Zionist, secular Jews for seeking to "enjoy...advantages" in the United States. The anti-Semitic overtones to Blackstone's three-option taxonomy are palpable. Again, the alliance between Zionism and fundamentalism was able to accommodate the anti-Semitic characterization: his audience accepted him, and Rabbi Wise, to whom Blackstone sent a copy of his address, thanked him as "one of our warm friends," despite the fact that Wise rejected the theological basis of his support

Louis Brandeis recognized Blackstone as the first in our modern era to make a serious attempt to resettle the Jews in Eretz Yisrael. From an article by Jerry Klinger (President of the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation) about Blackstone:

May 8, 1916, Brandeis had Nathan Straus contact Reverend Blackstone.“Mr. Brandeis is perfectly infatuated with the work that you have done along the lines of Zionism. It would have done your heart good to have heard him assert what a valuable contribution to the cause your document is. In fact he agrees with me that you are the Father of Zionism, as your work antedates Herzl”.

Brandeis was a not a sycophant. He recognized what was truthful and accurate and had that information conveyed to Blackstone in the initial contact by Nathan Straus. What was incredible was that Brandeis, the head of the American Zionist movement acknowledged that Reverend William E. Blackstone, a dispensationalist Christian, was the father of Zionism. He said as his (Blackstone’s) work and ideas predated Theodor Herzl by nearly six years.
Blackstone responded enthusiastically, immediately. It was the opportunity he was waiting for. He had deliberately returned from China where for years (1909-1914) he had been engaged in missionary work. Blackstone sensed that with the outbreak of World War I, Ottoman rule over the Holy Land was nearing an end, prophecy was unfolding. He wanted to be back in America, to be present to support in any way possible the Biblical future he envisioned – the Restoration of the Jews.

The Rambam and the Four Tibulim

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 02:39:00 +0000

Mishna Pesachim 116a:

מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות שבכל הלילות אנו מטבילין פעם אחת הלילה הזה שתי פעמים

Every other night we dip once. On this night, we dip twice.

Gemara there:

מתקיף לה רבא אטו כל יומא לא סגיא דלא מטבלא חדא זימנא אלא אמר רבא הכי קתני שבכל הלילות אין אנו חייבין לטבל אפילו פעם אחת הלילה הזה שתי פעמים מתקיף לה רב ספרא חיובא לדרדקי אלא אמר רב ספרא הכי קתני אין אנו מטבילין אפילו פעם אחת הלילה הזה שתי פעמים

Rava asks, is it so certain that we do dip once at other meals? Rather, this is what it should say: on all nights, we are not obligated to dip even once, and on this night, twice. Rav Safra asks, "Obligated? This is not really an obligation, it is just so that the children should wonder what is going on and ask questions!" Rather, says Rav Safra, this is what it should say: we don't even dip once; this night, twice. (According to Rav Safra, the proper wording is, as we say it, "On all nights we don't dip even once....")

Rashi:

חיובא לדרדקי. בתמיה הא משום הכירא דתינוקות כדי שישאלו קעבדינן: אלא אמר רב ספרא כו'. מהכא שמעינן דהכי אית לן למימר שבכל הלילות אין אנו מטבילין [אפילו] פעם אחת

What are the two dippings? Rashi on the Mishna says

שתי פעמים. טיבול ראשון דשאר ירקות וטיבול שני דמרור

The problem is that the Rambam prescribes not two dippings, but four.

In 8 Ch'uM 2 he says

מתחיל ומברך בורא פרי האדמה ולוקח ירק ומטבל אותו בחרוסת (1) ואוכל

and there in 8:8 he says

בזמן הזה שאין שם קרבן אחר שמברך המוציא לחם חוזר ומברך על אכילת מצה. ומטבל מצה בחרוסת (2) ואוכל. וחוזר ומברך על אכילת מרור ומטבל מרור בחרוסת (3) ואוכל. ולא ישהה אותו בחרוסת שמא יבטל טעמו. וזו מצוה מדברי סופרים. וחוזר וכורך מצה ומרור ומטבל בחרוסת (4) ואוכלן בלא ברכה זכר למקדש

That's a total of four. So how is it that the Rambam brings the Mishna in its original form and says that the question is worded "two times"?

8:2

. ואומר הקורא מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות שבכל הלילות אין אנו מטבילין אפילו פעם אחת והלילה הזה שתי פעמים.

This is not my question. It was asked by numerous Rishonim and Achronim, as brought in the Tur in OC 475. This is why many disagree with the Rambam's idea of dipping Matza into Charoses, or anything at all.

But even if you drop the dipping of Matza on its own, there remains another issue: The Rambam says that the Korech has to be dipped into Charoses as well. This makes perfect sense, because the Korech contains Maror. Hillel, when he made his Korech, had to have dipped it into Charoses, so if we're making a Korech in memory of what he did, it makes sense that we do so as well.

But, as the Tur brings from the Avi Ha'Ezri, that leaves us wondering why we do three tibulim, when the Mishna says two.

The Pri Chadash (OC 475, DH ומ"ש עוד) says he's not bothered by the additional tibbul of the Korech, because the dipping of the Korech is only as an alternative to the dipping of the Matza and the Maror individually. We do both, to honor the two opinions, but in theory, they are mutually exclusive. But he is still bothered by the Rambam's idea that the Matza should be dipped into Charoses, so that's three tibullim- Karpas, Maror, and Matza.

Dr. Nachum Stone, of Maale Adumim, suggested two answers, and I think they're both kedai to hear.

1. That the tibbul of the Matza is not counted. They would always dip the bread into something at a meal, so it wouldn't arouse any remark. It is only the dipping of Karpas and Maror that is unusual, as Rashi said. I later found that my rebbi and chavrusa, Rabbi Moshe Brown of Far Rockaway, says this in his most recent sefer, Ma'adanei Moshe.

2. The although the Gemara does not make any determination of whether the halacha is like Hillel or the Rabanan as far as Korech is concerned, the Rambam pretty clearly is favoring Hillel, most likely because he learned that even the Rabanan agree that one would be yotzei the mitzvos of the Korban and the Matza, and certainly the Maror, with a korech. Hillel only differs in holding that they must be eaten like that. (This is how the Rashbam and the Ramban learn the Gemara Pesachim 115a) This is evident in the Rambam in 8:6, where he says

ואחר כך כורך מצה ומרור כאחת ומטבל בחרוסת ומברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על אכילת מצות ומרורים ואוכלן. ואם אכל מצה בפני עצמה ומרור בפני עצמו מברך על זה בפני עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו:

The fact that the Rambam then turns around and says that nowadays we eat them separately at first and only later combine them into a korech is hard to understand, (and may have to do with the Reb Chaim on Pesachim 120a, page 33 of Reb Chaim Al Hashas and the mitzvos mevatlos issue) but in any case, it is pretty clear he paskens that we used to do like Hillel's korech only. I later found that Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky says this in his Emes L'Yaakov.

If so, then Bizman Habayis there were only two tibullim, the Karpas and the Korech. The language of the question, that originated in the time of the Beis Hamikdash and reflected what they did then, remains on the books, despite the fact that we do things differently now. But that's not a problem. At worst, it will just be another reason to ask a question. And at best, it's a preparation for Biyas Hamashi'ach.

Today, (Vayakhel-Pekudei 5673), the Chaver Mike Nussbaum proposed another answer. The phrase "Matbilin shtei p'amim" might refer to the thing we're dipping in. There are two dips, saltwater and charoses. I have to think about the word "p'amim" though. If it said יש לנו שתי טיבולים. or מטבילין שתים, I would agree, but to read this into פעמים is difficult. Furthermore, while the Rambam in Pirush Hamishnayos says that the first tibbul is in saltwater, in the Yad he says that there is no tibbul in saltwater: that all the tibullim are in Charoses. So CMN's teretz will not stand.

I recently heard a very nice answer to this question. The Leket Yosher (page 85), a talmid of the Trumas Hadeshen, says that he saw his rebbi dip two zeisim of maror at once, in the beginning of the meal. He would then eat one, and save the second one to put into the Korech.

וראיתי שנוטל שני דתים מרור בטיבול ראשון, ויטבול בחרוסת, ונתן לכל בגי הסעודה עוד שני זיתים, ואח־כ עשה הכרכה [על אכילת מרור], ואוכלים זית אחד, והזית שני מניחים עד לכריכה, וכרכו למצה השלישית והוא אכל בהסבה, כן כתב בסדרו

He does not suggest any explanation for what he saw the Trumas Hadeshen do, he just reports what he saw.

But the Mateh Moshe (648), in discussing the problem with the number of tibullim, says that he has a solution: that you should do both zeisim of Maror at once, and use them separately, and so there would be only two tibullim; one of Karpas in saltwater, and one of the two zeisim of maror. It's interesting that he suggests it as a solution to the tibbul issue, without knowing that by doing so he explained the behavior of the Trumas Hadeshen.

ואח״כ יבצע מצה שלישית לכריכה וכתב אבי העזרי שאין למובלו בתרומתלשני שיבולים מצינו בזמן הזה דרניצין למיעבר כהלל ג׳ לא מצינו . ור׳ שמעיה כשם רש״י כתב לצריך לסובלו במרושת וכן כתב הרא״ש ז״ל וטובלו בתרופת שכך היה הלל עושה אוכל השמ מצה ומרור וטבל במרושת וז״ל כמ״ג רבעו ימיאצ היה טוכל הכריכה במרושת למאמר דהיה זכר להלל עבדינן כהלל לכרך פשח מצה במרומז ראם לא כן היכן אכל מרושת ליליה . וכן היה נוהג מהר׳׳ש ומהר״י מול״ן-וכן כתב אבן הירמי ומצאתי כתוב לכלי שלא להוסיף על השיכולים יטבול בדיישונה שני זמים וינימ אמת לכריכה:

Please see the comments:
I don't have time to write any more today, but it's very kedai to see the ideas brought there, such as that the word Tibbul does not necessarily mean dip; many rishonim say it means 'beginning a meal.' As such, the question is not why do we dip once, or twice, or three times. The question is why do we dip the karpas before we're ready to really begin the meal: why do we act as if we're beginning a meal when we don't actually eat anything at that point.

Ki Sisa, Shemos 33:16. The Shechina Still Rests Upon Us.

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:43:00 +0000

Moshe Rabbeinu asked that Hashem dwell amidst the Jews, a Hashra'as HaShechina unique among the nations of the Earth. Sometimes we wonder about Hashem's relationship with us. Our endless experience of being despised and hounded can become tiresome. So it's nice to hear stories about the Gedolim, such as the story I heard this morning about Rav Eliashiv.

Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein just put out another two volume eight hundred page sefer, in Hilchos Pesach, but one of the volumes, while nominally on the Hagada, is mostly stories. This is a story about his brother-in-law, Reb Chaim Kanievsky, and their father-in-law, Rav Eliashiv Zatzal. When Rav Zilberstein tells a story about his father-in-law and brother-in-law, you can take it to the bank.

A couple had been married for fifteen years, and they remained childless. Finally, agonizingly, and with many tears, they decided they would have to divorce, hoping that perhaps if they married others, at least one of them might have a child.

Two months after the divorce, they found out that she was pregnant.

The man was a kohen.

He came to Reb Chaim Kanievsky, and cried his heart out, and Reb Chaim told him there was nothing he could do for him; the halacha was cut and dried. He is a kohen, and he could not marry a woman that had been divorced, even if he himself was the one that had divorced her. But, he said, go to my father in law, go to Rav Eliashiv, see what he will say to you.

So the man, with his heart in his throat, went to Rav Eliashiv and told him his story. Rav Eliashiv told him that the halacha is clear, and there was nothing he could do for him, and he advised him to do two things. He should remind himself of the story of the Asara Harugei Malchus, the story of the ten great and holy martyrs, and remember that Hashem's gzeiros are impossible for man to understand, and he should accept the gzeira with faith and love of Hashem. Also, he said, go to the Kosel and cry your heart out to the Ribono shel Olam. The man began crying, but accepted what he had been told, and left. As he was leaving, in total despair, he was thinking to himself that there was no reason to go to the Kosel. What's finished is finished, he had to accept the din of the dayan ha'emes, and that was it. But, he decided, Rav Eliashiv said go, so I'll go.

And he went, and he came close to the kosel, and he began saying Tehillim, and he cried, he cried for what he had lost, he cried for the loss of his beloved ex-wife, and for the loss of a normal relationship with his long prayed for child, and he cried for finding out that his dream of having a child had come true at precisely a time when he had just thrown away what the dream could have meant to him.

A man, a stranger, came over to him, and tapped him on the shoulder, and said, I see you are suffering, that you're in a lot of pain. I wish there were something I could do to help. But if you can, I suggest that you go and talk to your father, and discuss your problems with him. Sometimes that helps. The man thanked him for his concern, and ignored him, and continued davenning.

A few minutes later, the same man came over, and said, again, I really think it would be a good idea. Go and talk to your father.

The man went home, and thought to himself, what do I have to lose. Rav Eliashiv told me to go to the Kosel, this guy comes over and tells me to go and talk to my father, my father's old, maybe I should go. So he bought a ticket to go to the US to visit his father, who was in a nursing home.

He came to the nursing home, and the nurses told him that his father had deteriorated pretty badly, and hadn't talked in a week already.

He sat down with his father, and he began to pour out his heart to him, and told him the whole ironic and tragic story. His father began talking, and said, I have something to tell you. Your mother and I had decided never to tell you this, but you were adopted as an infant. Your birth father was not a kohen. You are a Yisrael.

Shtei Pe'amim. Dipping Twice at the Seder; the Two Tibbulim.

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:57:00 +0000

I printed this in 2007, and I am posting it again, with some updates.

Among the many minhagim at the seder are the two tibbulim. One is karpas in saltwater, the other is maror in charoses. These dippings are sufficiently unusual that they elicit one of the four questions in the Mah Nishtanah. Why indeed do we do these two tibbulim? See Psochim 114b and Rashi there that we do this “k’dei she’yishalu hatinokos.” This is one of the times the Gemora uses this unusual answer, which basically means that there is no intrinsic reason at all to do it, other than arousing the curiosity of children by engaging in unusual behavior.

Now that we have grown up, it is time to realize that the gemora’s answer cannot possibly be meant literally. The gemara's reason may explain some aspect of the tibbulim, but certainly is not the fundamental reason for the tibbulim.

(Based on >something I heard in the name of< the Chiddah.) Two events of tibbul are central to the story of our golus and pidyon from Mitzrayim– the tibbul of Yosef’s Kesones Hapasim in blood, and the tibbul of the Agudas Eizov in blood as part of the first Korbon Pesach ceremony in Mitzrayim. We see, then, that the Golus Mitzrayim was bracketed by two tibbulim. The tevilla of Yosef’s kesones culminated the episode of the brother’s hatred of Yosef, which ultimately brought all the Bnei Yisroel to Mitzrayim. That tevilla marked the onset of the avdus. The second tevilla, whose purpose was to mark the houses of the Jews by applying the blood of the korbon to the frame of the door, was the event that gave the holiday its name– Pesach, ki posach Hashem- for Hashem passed over our houses- and this set into motion the actual redemption from Mitzrayim. One was a tevilla that brought avdus, one that brought cheirus.

As always, one might say that this is a clever observation that may or may not be significant. Coincidences do happen, and they don’t necessarily prove anything. But there is another step.

The first tibbul is karpas. Rashi in Vayeisheiv, Breishis 37:3 says that Kesones Pasim means a coat made of wool, and he brings a similar use of the word Pasim from the Megillah, “Karpas ut’cheiles.” So, what do you know. The word pasim is a form of pas, or karpas. It now becomes absolutely clear that when Chazal instituted the two tibbulim, they had these two events in mind, the tibbul at the onset of the golus, and the tibbul at the onset of the geulah.

Two questions still remain.

I. !אין להכחיש את המוחש Why are Chazal always saying that the tibul of the karpas is k’dei she’yishalu hatinokos, when it is obvious that there is a better reason. What are they hiding, and why are they hiding it?
It is true that the Gemara says a similar thing in Chagiga as to why we bring children to the Hakhel event, Litein Schar L'meivi'eihen. It doesn't mean it what it says there either.

II. Is there any special connection between the tibbul of the agudas eizov in the dahm pesach and the tibbul of moror in charoses.

After posting this, several people brought up worthy additions.
1. Joshe M., of http://haprozdor.blogspot.com/, wrote in a comment that the second tibbul does reflect the tibbul of the agudas eizov in the dahm pesach, since it is a green vegetable dipped into a red substance.
2. Josh M. also suggested that the Hagadah is not a time to focus on negative traits of the Bnei Yisroel, so any allusion to the sinas achim against Yosef was cloaked in symbols. (The only taineh I had on this was that according to Rav In Psachim 116b that Poschim bi'gnai refers to Terach's avoda Zara, then we're not hiding chesronos in our background. But perhaps sinas chinam among the Shivtei Kah is a lot worse than Terach's avoda zara.)
3. Another reader pointed out, very cleverly, I think, that both tibbulim represent change: negation, or, at least, mitigation. The first, Karpas in saltwater, is a sweet, flavorful food dipped into a salty substance, which can be said to counter or mitigate the sweetness of the karpas.
So, too, the episode of the kesones marked the change from an undisturbed, pastoral life, by the hatred that led to the sale of Yosef and the galus Mitzrayim.
The second tibbul, the Moror in Charoses, mitigates the bitterness of the moror, and marks the end of Shibud Mitzrayim by way of the Korbon Pesach.

Yasher Koachachem for your he'oros.

Update 2011:
As for the question of why Chazal didn't tell us the real reason for the tibulim:
See Reb Chaim Shmuelevitz's Sichos Mussar #66, on Parshas Achrei Mos. Aharon was warned not to enter the Kodesh Kadashim "b'chol eis." Reb Chaim brings from the Chosid Yaaveitz that habit is the enemy of enthusiasm. Aharon was warned to avoid going into the Kodesh Kadashim so that he shouldn't lose his sensitivity and awe for the kedusha that was present there. He later connects this with the din of Sippur, that it has to be by question and answer. He says that it is only through question and answer that one is stimulated to come up with novel and creative perspectives, and this new apprehension will help us to re-experience Yetzias Mitzrayim. When one is asked a question, he naturally seeks to find his own novel answer.

See the Shaar HaTziyun 472 end of #2. What he says is that the Mah Nishtana, and all the seder, are not nearly as important as the sense of awe and surprise our seder meal inspires in children, so that they are filled with wonder and ask questions. Mah Nishtana is a pale and attenuated version of what really should be happening at the seder.

That being the case, Chazal are telling us that while there are good reasons for the various minhagim of the seder, particularly the two dippings, the questions they elicit are more important than the reasons. A seder where people are shaken out of their old assumptions, a seder that wakes people up to learn new things, is far more important than a seder where everyone merely repeats what everyone already knows.

Make the seder your own! Every family needs to have its own hagadah! Every person needs to remember "This is what we said here, this is what we sang, this is where he did this or that, this is how we made the Ke'arah." Don't somnambulate through the Maxwell House. Write your own hagadah. Just don't put an orange on the Ke'arah.

Update 2013:
Rav Shimon Kalman G. told me several things.
1. The third question in the Mah Nishtanah is "why do we dip two times." The Pri Chadash in 473 (here, twelve lines from the top,) says that the first tibbul is without any reason other than to stimulate discussion, kdei she'yish'alu, and since that's the case, we never actually answer the child's question about shtei p'amim! Isn't that strange? The nusach is that the child should ask, and the Gemara says that we do the tibbulim so the child should ask, and the Pri Chadash says that we have no answer to his question!
2. The Chasam Sofer in his Drashos (here, middle of first paragraph) says the same thing.

לשאלה זו לא מצינו בדברי חז״ל רק לעשות היכר לתינוקות, [כפסחים קט״ז.] והכוונה לאותן שלמדו כל השנה בתורה וידעו ענין פסח ומצה ולא ישאלו כלום עושי׳ להם שינוי וזה [זה] שלא מצאו בתורה כדי שישאלו ועי״ז נבוא לסבב לספר להם י״מ

אע״פ שכבר ידעו׳

As far as answering this question, we do not find in the words of Chazal anything other than "in order to do something unusual for the little children." The reason we are tovel twice is davka because there are kids who know a lot about the whole story, because they learn Chumash, so if we only did things that reflected the story they know, they wouldn't have anything to ask. So we davka do something that has no shaychus to the story of yetzias mitzrayim, so they'll have what to ask- and we have no answer, but it will stimulate talk and questions and dialogue.
3. The Chasam Sofer in his Drashos (here, DH Yachol) says

דהתורה הקפידה שלא לומר לתינוק דבר עד שישאל. לכן כתי׳ כי ישאלך בנך למעוטי שלא יאמר לו עד שישאל דע״י דמתמיה לי׳ מילתא מדכיר דכיר

That the Torah insists that you not tell the child anything until he asks "What's going on?" because only when he is surprised and curious will your answer make a strong and memorable impression. If, however, after all that you've done he still doesn't ask, then, as a last resort, at the seder, you should tell him what he needs to know.
Rav Shimon Kalman uses this Chasam Sofer to remind us that the minhag of our schools to arm children with volumes of questions and answers and visual aids and three dimensional pop ups is contrary to the Chasam Sofer's vision of the purpose of the mitzva of Sippur. The kids should come and be surprised, not like a maggid with prepared speeches.
4. The Shulchan Aruch Harav (472:15) says that even if a person is making the seder by himself, and there are no children there, he still has to do the tibbulim, because לא חילקו חכמים. He doesn't say "because there are many hidden reasons, and those reasons still apply." He just says that although the takana was to do a milsa di'tmi'ah to surprise children, the takana was universal and applies to all cases. Again, you see the presumption that what you see is all there is, particularly surprising coming from the Baal HaTanya.
HAVING SAID THIS, from the Pri Chadash and the Chasam Sofer, we are left, once again, to wonder why the true explanation for the tibbulim was hidden. Again, we must say that Chazal davka did not want us to have a cut and dry explanation for everything. They davka wanted to leave some things unanswered, so that every person, every family, would have their own approach to the question, and would be forced to engage in conversation and dialogue and give and take.

great unknown, wrote the following in his comment, which is both informative and well constructed:

As Rav Hutner points out, even the perek which deals with the יציאת מצרים is based on questions: מה לך הים, etc.

And yes, the schools which send kids home with volumes of answers are probably being מבטל the מצות עשה of והגדת actively. Isn't frumkeit great...

Conjecture: while שואלים ודורשים בהלכות החג thirty days earlier, that's only the halachos. The גר"א ברוח קדשו forbids reading even the פרשת קרבן פסח because of the ביטול עשה of ביום הזה. Could that be so that even the adults go into פסח with questions rather than answers?

I don't have the answer to that. Only the question.

Purim 5773/2013. Matanos L'Evyonim, -wiches, Selling Olam Haba, and Ipecac

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:41:00 +0000

It's Shushan Purim, and my mind is clearer. I'm not going to go back and fix the original post (other than one update), despite some flaws in tone and content. Instead, here is a condensed version.

Section I: Does Matanos Le'Evyonim have the dinim of Tzedaka or is it a mitzvah of the day that is fulfilled by an action that is similar to Tzedaka.

Answer: Although the Magen Avraham brings from the Shlah and the Maharil that you can't use Maaser money to pay for Matanos L'evyonim, which indicates that it's not tzedaka, it appears that this is a machlokes rishonim. Reb Chaim Brisker is quoted as saying, in the Rambam at least, that ML'E is tzedaka with distinct halachos regarding time and manner; according to this Reb Chaim, I think, the Shlah/Maharil's rule would not be true.

Section II: There are some towns in England that end in -wich, and in Slavic countries that end in -wich or -vich. Like Bloxwich, Droitwich, Dunwich, Fordwich, Harwich, Horwich, Ipswich, Middlewich, Nantwich, Northwich, Norwich, Prestwich, Sandwich, and West Bromwich in England, and Rugewicz, Baranovich, Ponevezh, Skiernewicz, and Lechowitz in Europe. Are they etymologically related?

Answer: No. The -wich in England and the -wich in Poland, used in the names of towns, are totally unrelated. The English -wich means fortified market town, often associated with the production of salt, while the Polish -wich is just the suffix of the name of the town's owner or founder, and -wich means "son of."

Section III:Can you buy or sell your reward for doing Mitzvos.

Answer: No, you can't. Putting aside the Davar shelo ba le'olam thing, Hashem doesn't owe you anything. Schar Mitzvos is a gift by the grace of G-d, and when someone who loves you says he's going to give you a gift, you can't sell the anticipated gift. Also, it's not schar in the sense of payment. It is the consequence of doing Hashem's will. A thrown ball can't sell its trajectory to an inert object.

Section IV: Reading the Gemara (Shabbos 123b) that says that on Shabbos one who desires to eat more but is unable to because he is full is not allowed to take an emetic; which seems, to our sensibilities, to be repugnant and wasteful, I made a comment that I think deserves preservation. What was that comment?

Answer: Ipecac: the Glutton's Viagra.

What follows was written on Purim, other than one update in middle.

First, let me make it clear that I am not responsible for the tone and content of what I'm writing now. I can guarantee that it will be clever, but beyond that, no guarantees.

1. The annoying Maharil in 694.

The Magen AVraham in OC (no kidding) 694 brings the Maharil that you can't pay for Matonos l'evyonim from Maaser ksafim. This is because of hte rule that a dovor she'bichova has to come from chulin, and since matonos l'evyonim is obligatory, you can't pay for it from maaser ksofim. Nobody argues, everybody's happy, its a halacha psuka. Finishned
Wrong. I think that we don't hold like th maaharil.

The Rambam in 2 chagiga 8 says that you can't pay for your olas riya or shelmei chagiga from maser sheini money, because of the rule that chova can't come from here's hte Rambam, let him speak for hismlef.

עולת ראייה אינה באה אלא מן החולין כשאר הקרבנות שאדם חייב בהן. אבל שלמי חגיגה באות ממעות מעשר שני המעורבות עם מעות חולין לוקח מן התערובת בהמה ומקריבה שלמי חגיגה. והוא שיהיה שיעור אכילה ראשונה מן החולין. מפני ששלמי חגיגה חובה וכל שהוא חובה אינו בא אלא מן החולין:

Very simple. riyah and chagiga, pay out of discretionary funds. Shelmei simcha, you can use maser sheini money. The rambam explains the differencetwo halachos later:

יוצאין ישראל ידי חובת שלמי שמחה בנדרים ונדבות ובמעשר בהמה. והכהנים בחטאת ובאשם ובבכור ובחזה ושוק. שמצוה זו היא לשמוח באכילת בשר לפני ה' והרי אכלו. אבל אין יוצאין ידי חובתן לא בעופות ולא במנחות שאינן בשר המשמח. כבר ביארנו בפסחים שחגיגת ארבעה עשר רשות. לפיכך אין אדם יוצא בה ידי חובת חגיגה אלא יוצא בה חובת שמחה:

so it's very simple. For chiyuvim, you have to use pocket money. but even though you're chayav to bring shelmei simcha, since hte tachlis is to have a good time, and the point of maser sheini money is to have a good time, so what's the problem.

It should be obvious to any straight thinking person that on the basis of the this Rambam, you can use maser sheini money for matanos le'evyoinim. The purpose is to make sure that the evyonim have a good time, that that have what to eat and rejoice, so who the uheck cares what you used to pay for it with. The tachlis is fulfilled.

tThe Roish koilel, harav yoisef Rajchenbach, whanted to be mechaleik. Whent tachlis is your simcha, no problem. When the tachlis is yenems' simcah, not the same.

We are not impressed.

anyway, The maharil knew the Rambam very well, and he wasn't nispoeil. so what's the pshat?

Very simple The maharil holds that matonos le'evyonim is a mitzva of a maaseh nesina,. that you need to fulfill the mitzva by the act of giving. so the tachlis of the mitzva is not the simcha of the poor guy, who cares about tehpoor guy, my mitzva is to do the maiseh nesinah, and the heck with the poor guy, he's just a cheftza shel mitzva, like kthe beis halevi says in the end of parshas truma. Fine. Let the Maharil hold like that. It's not weirder than the Tosfos Rid inKiddushin that says thatt milah is not zman grama because the father's mitzva is the hishtadlus that the bris shouild be done, and that's not zman gromo. It's a free country, you can say what you want.

But my problem is that if the Maharil holds that the ikker mitzva of Matonos le'evyonim is the maaseh nesina, not the hano'oh of the oni, then you can't be mekayeim the mitzva if you give the money before purim. You can't fulfil the arba kosos if you have a headache on Pesachy, can you? NO. Retorical quesiton. But the fact is that we all give matonos le'evyonim before purim "to be distributed on purim." if it's a din of maaseh nesina, what good is that? Your nesina needs to be on purim. Ahh, but you answer, we insist that the nesina should be done on Purim. But there are many poskim that say that you can fulfill the mitzva by giving it to the oni before purim IF YOU'RE SURE HE WON'T EAT IT UP BEFORE PURIM. Like by kiddushin. If the mitzva was the nesina, that WOULDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE ATALL. It must be that we hold that hte ikker is the hana'ah of the oni, not the neshina.

If so, we obviously don't hold like th emaharil.

So don't drei a kop and tell me that oh, the maharil is a halacha psuka, you can't pay for ml'e from maiser money. OUr minhag, in my cnsidered opinion, is not to fir zach like th emaharil.

UPDATE:

I'm writing on Shushan Purim, and so it should be more legible. I just saw a tshuva in the Chasam Sofer on another teshuva from the Maharil, in which he clarifies the svara. The Teshuva is in the Chasam Sofer YD 231, here.

More importantly: Eli pointed out that this is most likely a machlokes Rishonim, to wit: (Language credit to R Tzvi Reizman from Los Angeles, from an article in Kovetz He'oros U'Biurim. Although I'm not taking achrayus for the words attributed to Harav Soloveichik in the Harerei Kedem, it makes sense to me.)

ובספר הררי קדם (סימן רו) הביא הגרי"ד סולובייצ'יק בשם זקנו הגר"ח מבריסק שאמר כי "מתנות לאביונים הוא חיוב מסויים ליתן צדקה ביום הפורים". והוסיף והסתפק: "וצ"ע דאם יש בזה קיום מצות צדקה, בודאי כל המוסיף מקיים בכל פרוטה ממצות צדקה נוספת. ומדברי הרמב"ם (הלכות מגילה פ"ב הי"ז) "מוטב לאדם להרבות במתנות אביונים מלהרבות בסעודתו ובשלוח מנות לרעיו", נראה שאין בזה קיום מצוה בפני עצמה, אלא שהוא רק משובח".

On the other hand, you have Rishonim that indicate that it is not exactly a din of Tzedaka:

הב"ח דייק מלשון הטור (שם) "חייב כל אדם ליתן מתנות לעניים, כלומר, כל אדם, אפילו עני המקבל צדקה חייב לתת ממה שנתנו לו לשאר אביונים בפורים". וכתב הב"ח בטעם הדבר: "דאין דין מתנות לאביונים בפורים כדין שאר צדקה, דהכשר מצות פורים הוא לתת מתנות לאביונים, וכדין ארבע כוסות בפסח [שגם עני המחזר על הפתחים חייב], ואפילו משלוח מנות חייבים בו העניים, אע"פ שלא יספיק להם בסעודתם לאכול עצמם ולשלוח גם לאחרים, וכדמשמע מרב חנינא ואביי. אם כן הוא הדין למתנות לאביונים בפורים, אבל שאר צדקה דכל השנה אין עני המקבל צדקה חייב בה, אלא פעם אחת בשנה יתן דבר מועט לצדקה, כדי לקיים מצות צדקה". וכן נקט להלכה הט"ז (סי' תרצד ס"ק א) כדבריו: "כתב מו"ח ז"ל, אפילו אני המתפרנס מהצדקה, כמו בד' כוסות של פסח. מה שאין כן בשאר צדקה שאינו חייב רק פעם אחת בשנה כדי לקיים מצות צדקה". ביאור דבריהם, דהנה יש לדון בגדר מצות מתנות לאביונים, האם החיוב הוא מהלכות צדקה, שתיקנו לקיים ביום הפורים את מצות הצדקה, כדי שיהיו כל צרכי הפורים מצויים לעניים. או שהחיוב אינו קשור כלל להלכות צדקה, אלא הוא נובע מכלל החיוב להרבות בשמחה בפורים, לתת מתנות לאביונים, כדי לשמחם ביום הפורים. ונראה כי נחלקו בזה רבותינו הראשונים. הרמב"ם (הלכות מגילה פ"ב הי"ז) כתב: "מוטב לאדם להרבות במתנות אביונים מלהרבות בסעודתו ובשלוח מנות לרעיו, שאין שם שמחה גדולה ומפוארה אלא לשמח לב עניים ויתומים ואלמנות וגרים, שהמשמח לב האומללים האלו דומה לשכינה". ומשמע מדבריו, שטעם הענין להרבות במתנות לאביונים נובע מחיוב השמחה בפורים, המפורש בדברי המגילה (אסתר ט, כב) "לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָם יְמֵי מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה וּמִשְׁלוֹחַ מָנוֹת אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיוֹנִים". וכדי שגם האביונים יהיו בשמחה בימי הפורים, חייבו לתת להם מתנות. והדברים מפורשים בביאורו של הריטב"א (מגילה ז, ב) לדברי הירושלמי (מגילה פ"א ה"ד) "כל הפושט יד נותנים לו", שהסיבה לכך היא לפי "שאין נתינה זו מדין צדקה גרידתא, אלא מדין שמחה, שהרי אף לעשירים יש לשלוח מנות, ולפיכך נהגו ליתן מעות פורים לגויים ואפילו עשירים". ומפורש בדבריהם, כי גדר מצות מתנות לאביונים אינו מדין צדקה, אלא מדין השמחה בפורים.

The important mussar haskeil today is that it's not wise to just state an opinion based on a seat of the pants sense of what makes sense or doesn't make sense to you at the moment. I was annoyed by the idea that matanos l'evyonim is like shaking a lulav; it seemed to me that it's obviously a din of tzedaka, albeit tzdaka with extra dinim both in manner and time. But whether I like it or not, the fact is that it's clear, and not just from the Maharil and the Shlah, that this is debatable, and both sides have standing.

II. This is copied from a post I didn't know where to put. Here it is. The difference between Northwich and Baranovich.

In Anglo-Saxon England the "-wich towns" designated by the suffix -wic identified coastal trading settlements, equivalents of emporia, provisioned from outside the protected community and characterised by extensive artisanal activity and imports, which have left material traces in excavations.[1] The Anglo-Saxon wic signifies a dwelling place[2] or fortified place.[3] The wic form appears to give two endings, wichand wick[4] (for example Papplewick in Nottinghamshire). Four are known through archaeological excavation, two on waterfront sites outside London (see Lundenwic) and York (see Jorvik) the others at Hamwic(Southampton), occupied from the end of the seventh century to the mid-ninth century, and Ipswich.[5] By the mid-ninth century there is a hiatus in seaport occupation at many sites, in consequence of Vikingdepredations.
Wich and wych are names also used to denote brine springs or wells. By the eleventh century use of the 'wich' suffix was extended to town placenames associated with salt production; at least nine English towns/cities carry the suffix, although only five are commonly connected to salt, Droitwich in Worcestershire and the four Cheshire 'wiches' of Middlewich, Nantwich, Northwich and Leftwich.

BUT

Patronymic & Matronymic Surnames - Based on an ancestor's first name, this category of surnames is usually derived from a father's first name, although occasionally from the first name of a wealthy or well-respected female ancestor. Such surnames can often be identified through the use certain endings including -icz, -wicz, -owicz, -ewicz, and -ycz which usually mean "son of." As a rule, Polish surnames which include a suffix with -k- (-czak, -czyk, -iak, -ak, -ik, and -yk) also mean something like "little" or "son of." More commonly found in eastern Poland, the suffixes -yc and -ic also mean "son of." There are also cases of patronymic surnames where the ending has been dropped and only the original root word remains. (Pawel Adamicz - Paul son of Adam).

Geographical Surnames (Place Names) - The most common type of Polish surname, these Polish last names are derived from the location of the homestead from which the first bearer and his family lived. In the case of nobility, the surnames were often taken from the names of their estates. Other place names which were adapted into surnames include towns, countries, and even geographical features. While you might think that such surnames could lead you to your ancestral village, that isn't often the case with Polish surnames because so many places in Poland had the same name, changed names or disappeared in the centuries since the surnames developed, or were subdivisions of a local village or estate too small to be found on a gazetteer or map. Surnames ending in -owski usually derive from place names ending in -y, -ow, -owo, -owa, and so on. (Cyrek Gryzbowski - Cyrek from the town of Gryzbow).

AND THEREFORE, TOWNS THAT WERE NAMED AFTER THE HOMESTEAD OF A FOUNDING FAMILY WERE OFTEN CALLED -ICH, BECAUSE THE FOUNDER'S NAME WAS SOMETHING-ICH, LIKE BARANOVICH AND PONEVITCH.

SO THE WICH IN ENGLAND AND THE OVITZ IN POLAND HAVE ZERO SHAYCHUS. JUST A MEANINGLESS COINCIDENCE.

III Another post I didn't finish, but that's worht knowing, about selling your schar mitzvos, selling your oilom habo.

Basically, the mekoros I have say that it's delusional to think you can buy or sell schar or olom habo.

Netziv in teshuvos, Cheilkek 3 14, here
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1096&st=&pgnum=189

Eikev, matanah, Rav Hai, Reb Yehuda Hachasid, Margoliyos, but what about Tzedakah, maybe even tzedaka is only a kinyan peiros. But at least you can sell the kinyan peiros. What about schar going with yerusha; obviously, it doesn't, because abba lo mezakeh bra, but that it not true in olam hazeh, abba is mezakeh bra in olam hazeh; so maybe you can indeed sell whatever schar you're entitled to in olam hazeh.

Iron and Irony by Rabbi Avi Shafran,

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:22:00 +0000

The author of this post is Rabbi Avi Shafran, Director of Public Affairs at the Agudah He is a refined and intelligent person, and his writings are well worth reading. I put this up here because I found it frightening, comforting, and timely- it's almost Purim, the Persians are saying they're going to annihilate us, Korea is helping them put a bomb together, and the blood on the ground in Europe hasn't even dried yet.

February 13th, 2013

[This week’s posting is a shortened version of a piece I wrote a number of years ago. I thought it might merit recirculation. – AS]

A typical offering included a close-up of the deformed face of a Jewish man above the legend “The Scum of Humanity: This Jew says that he is a member of God’s chosen people.” Another displayed a cartoon of a vampire bat with a grotesquely exaggerated nose and a Jewish star on its chest. In yet another, a Jewish butcher was depicted snidely dropping a rat into his meat grinder and, elsewhere in the issue, the punctured necks of handsome German youths were shown bleeding into a bowl held by a Jew more gargoyle than human. At its peak in 1938, print runs of Hitler henchman Julius Streicher’s vile tabloid Der Sturmer ran as high as 2,000,000.

“All our struggles are in vain,” Streicher told a Nazi student organization in 1935, “if the battle against the Jews is not fought to the finish. It is not enough to get the Jews out of Germany. No, they must be destroyed throughout the entire world so that humanity will be free of them.”

We approach the Jewish holiday focused on the blessedly ill-fated plans of a Jew-hater of old, the Amalekite whose name we will greet with raucous noise each time it’s read from Megillas Esther on Purim. Even a passing familiarity with the Purim story is sufficient to know that its villain’s downfall is saturated with what seem to be chance ironies; Haman turns up at the wrong place at the wrong time, and all that he so carefully plans eventually comes to backfire on him in an almost comical way – a theme Megillas Esther characterizes with the words v’nahafoch hu, “ and it was turned upside down!”

Such “chance” happenings are the hallmark of the defeat of Amalek, the would-be nemesis of the Jewish People – a fact reflected in the “casting of lots” from which “Purim” takes its name. Chance, Esther teaches us, is an illusion; G-d is in charge. Amalek may fight with iron, but he is defeated with… irony.

As was Julius Streicher. In the days after Germany’s final defeat, an American major, Henry Plitt, received a tip about a high-ranking Nazi living in an Austrian town. He accosted a short, bearded artist, who he though might be SS Chief Heinrich Himmler, and asked him his name.

“Joseph Sailer,” came the reply from the man, who was painting a canvas on an easel.

Plitt later recounted: “I don’t know why I said [it, but] I said, ‘And what about Julius Streicher?’”

“Ya, der bin ich,” the man with the paintbrush responded. “Yes, that is me.”

When Major Plitt brought his serendipitous catch to Berchtesgaden, he later recounted, a reporter told him that he had “killed the greatest story of the war.” When he asked how, the reporter responded “Can you imagine if a guy named Cohen or Goldberg or Levy had captured this arch-anti-Semite, what a great story it would be?”

Major Plitt recalled telling the reporter “I’m Jewish” and how “that’s when the microphones came into my face and the cameras started clicking.”

Another happy irony in Streicher’s life involved the fate of his estate. As reported in Stars and Stripes in late 1945, his considerable possessions were converted to cash and used to create an agricultural training school for Jews intending to settle in Palestine. Just as Haman’s riches, as recorded in Megillas Esther, were bestowed upon his nemesis Mordechai.

There is a good deal more of interest in the life of Julius Streicher to associate him with Jewish traditions about Amalek. But one of the most shocking narratives about him concerns his death. Streicher was of one of the Nazis tried, convicted, and hanged at Nuremberg in 1946.

During the trial, Streicher remained true to ugly form. When the prosecution showed a film of the concentration camps, a spotlight was left on the defendants’ box for security reasons. Few of the defendants could bear to watch the film for long. Goering nervously wiped his sweaty palms. Schacht turned away; Ribbentrop buried his face in his hands. Keitel wiped his reddened eyes with a handkerchief. Only Streicher leaned forward throughout, looking anxiously at the film and excitedly nodding his head.

Although no proof was found that Streicher had ever killed a Jew by his own hand, the tribunal decided that his clear-cut incitement of others to the task constituted a war crime; and so he was sentenced, along with ten other defendants, to hang.

And hang he did. But not before taking the opportunity to share a few final words with the journalists present at the gallows. Just before the trap sprang open, he blurted out: “Purim Feast 1946!” – an odd thing to say in any event, but especially on an October morning.

The “Amalek-irony” of the Nuremberg executions doesn’t end there, either. The Book of Esther recounts how Haman’s ten sons were hanged in Shushan. An eleventh child, a daughter, committed suicide earlier, according to an account in the Talmud. At Nuremberg, while eleven men were condemned to execution by hanging, only ten were actually hanged. The eleventh, the foppish Goering, died in his cell hours before the execution; he ingested a cyanide capsule he had hidden on his person.

Even more striking is something reportedly noted by, among others, the late Belzer Rebbe, the Kedushas Aharon. In the Megilla, the names of Haman’s sons are written in two columns, an unusual configuration. Odder still, three letters in the list are written very small, and one very large. The large letter is the Hebrew character corresponding to the number six; the small letters yield the number 707. If the large letter is taken to refer to the millennium and 707 to the year in the millennium, something striking emerges. According to Jewish reckoning, the present year is 5773. The year 5707 – the 707th year in the sixth millennium – was the year we know as 1946, when ten sworn enemies of the Jewish people were hanged in Nuremberg, like ten others in Shushan more than two thousand years earlier.

What’s more, the Megilla inexplicably refers to the hanging of Haman’s sons in the future tense, as if to presage some hanging… yet to happen.

The Holocaust was the tip of an unimaginable iceberg of evil, stretching far and deep into the past. The evil, of course, persists today. But a time will come when Divine irony will end it forever.

“It’s All in the Angle” (Torah Temimah Publications), a collection of selected essays by Rabbi Shafran, is now available from Judaica Press.

This essay may be reproduced or republished, unedited, with the above copyright and note included.

Read more: http://www.cross-currents.com/#ixzz2Kof1Yzr5
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

And for those that want to know what Amaleik might look like: this is a photo of Julius Streicher. Don't look at it too long, it's like leaning over a precipice and looking down; the abyss is mesmerizing.

From a speech in November of 1938

"From the cradle the Jew is not taught, as we are, such texts as 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself' or 'Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.' No, he is told 'With the non-Jew you can do whatever you like.' "He is even taught that the slaughtering of a non - Jew is an act pleasing to God. For 20 years we have been writing about this in Der Sturmer; for 20 years we have been preaching it throughout the world, and we have made millions recognize the truth.
"The Jew slaughtered in one night 75,000 Persians; when he emigrated from Egypt he killed all the first-born, that is, whole future generation of Egyptians. What would have happened if the Jew had succeeded in driving the nations into war against us, and if we had lost the war? The Jew, protected by foreign bayonets, would have fallen on us and would have slaughtered and murdered us. Never forget what history teaches."

From Stürmer, October 17, 1940

In all peoples where Jews have lived as tolerated people or do so today, they prove to be disturbers of the inner peace and thus the destroyers of naturally grown people's communities. The Old Testament, which as the Jews claim tells their history, is at the same time the history of the peoples that the Jews destroyed physically and spiritually. The Jew does not only prove to be the disturber of the natural development within the peoples. He is also the destroyer of peace between the peoples. (In allen Völkern, in denen Juden als Geduldete lebten oder heute noch leben, erwiesen sie sich als Störer des inneren Friedens und damit als Vernichter natürlich gewordener Volksgemeinschaften. Das Alte Testament der Bibel, von dem die Juden behaupten, dass es ihre Geschichte enthalte, ist zugleich die Geschichte von Völkern, die von den Juden materiell und geistig zugrunde gerichtet wurden. Der Jude hat sich aber nicht allein als Störer der natürlichen Entwicklung in den Völkern erwiesen. Er ist auch der Vernichter des Friedens unter den Völkern.)

Report of Streicher's address to 2,000 children at Nuernberg, Christmas 1936, from Fraenkische Tegeszeitung, 22nd December 1936:

Two thousand children rejoiced with Julius Streicher....
The Gauleiter [Streicher] told the little ones about the terrible times after (the first World War), when the Devil dominated mankind. "Do you know who the Devil is," he asked his breathlessly listening audience. "The Jew, the Jew," resounded from a thousand children's voices.

Teruma: On the Architecture of the Synagogue

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:04:00 +0000

One of the most popular posts on this site is this discussion of the similarities of the Mishkan and the Beis Haknesses. It's been viewed by a broad spectrum of readers from Kabul, Afghanistan to Gun Barrel City, TX, and has accumulated over seven thousand page views. Even subtracting Nigerian princes, and even though it works out to around three views a day over the six years it's been up, that's a lot for this website, especially considering how not-reader-friendly my site can be. Instead of re-posting it, I'm linking to it here.

Its value is fourfold:
1. It emphasizes that a shul is truly a מקדש מעט, a Mishkan on a smaller scale.
2. It is helpful when saying a shiur in Kodshim to be able to use the shul as a visual aid, for example, using the Bima to point out the Matnos Dam,the amud and paroches for avodas Yom Hakippurim, and so forth.
3. It reinforces the awareness that many of our minhagim, even minhagim that seem merely arbitrary or utilitarian, are of ancient provenance and have a deep significance that is inherent, not adherent.
4. People who plan shuls are sometimes not aware of the preferences as to the proper layout of a shul. None of the things we're listing are essential, but all of them matter, and it's worth being aware of them in the planning stage. At least you'll know enough to make informed decisions.

http://havolim.blogspot.com/2009/02/terumah-mishkan-and-beis-haknesses.html

That post was written to be understood by a broader audience. I felt that the idea is so important, and so fundamental to what it means to daven in a shul, that I wrote it so that it could be understood by everyone. Now, for the rest of us, I want to go through the Halachos which deal with the correspondence of the Beis Haknesses and the Mishkan/Beis Hamikdash. Chazal apply the words Mikdash Me'aht to our shuls (Megilla 29a) The real question is, how far does this idea go; to what extent does this correspondence manifest itself in halacha.

The cases I want to discuss are the following.

1. מורא המקדש is a Mitzva De'oraysa (Chinuch 254), from the passuk ומקדשי תיראו (Vayikra 26:2). Is מורא בית הכנסת a deoraysa or a derabannan (the Yerei'im, and Rav Chaim Falagi., Ran/Ramban Megilla 8a in Rif pagination, Pri Megadim beginning of 153 in MZ, and Mishna Berura 151 sk1).

2. We are told that we should daven toward the Beis Hamikdash (Brachos 30a), based on various pesukim, including וְשָׁמַעְתָּ אֶל תְּחִנַּת עַבְדְּךָ וְעַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יִתְפַּלְלוּ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה (Melachim I 8:30.) What if the Aron Kodesh is on the North wall, for example. Should one face north toward the Aron Kodesh or east toward the Makom Hamikdash in Yerushalayim (OC 94).

3. In the Mishkan, certain items cannot be made of things that had been made for another purpose. The Rambam (1 Beis Habechira 20) says

אין עושין כל הכלים מתחילתן אלא לשם הקודש. ואם נעשו מתחילתן להדיוט אין עושין אותן לגבוה.

To what extent does this apply to the Beis Haknesses and it's appurtenant elements (Zevachim 116b, Magen Avraham 147 sk5, Tshuvos Chasam Sofer OC 40, an awesome Chasam Sofer on this week's parsha, but only in the Shapiro edition of the Toras Moshe, on passuk 27:3, where he says that the copper for the Mitzbei'ach had to be mined specifically for that purpose, Reb Elchonon in KoSh 2:25) .

4. In today's parsha (25:8) , we learn that building the Mishkan/Beis Hamikdash is a Mitzva De'oraysa (Chinuch 95). Does the mitzva of ועשו לי מקדש create a chiyuv de'oraysa to build/designate a shul in the community (זוהר רעיא מהימנא בשלח נט, and see שדי חמד כללים מערכת הב' אות מג-מד.).

5. It is an issur De'oraysa to plant a tree in the courtyard of the Mikdash, and certainly in the Mikdash proper. Rambam 6 Avoda Zara:

הנוטע אילן אצל המזבח או בכל העזרה בין אילן סרק בין אילן מאכל אע"פ שעשאו לנוי למקדש ויופי לו הרי זה לוקה שנאמר לא תטע לך אשרה כל עץ אצל מזבח ה' אלהיך. מפני שהיה זה דרך עובדי כוכבים נוטעין אילנות בצד מזבח שלה כדי שיתקבצו שם העם.

May one plant a tree in the courtyard of the Beis Haknesses (Reb Akiva Eiger OC 150 sk1, but see Netziv.)

6. There is an issur De'oraysa to damage any structural component of the Mishkan/Beis Hamikdash. Rambam 1 Beis Habechira 19:

כן הנותץ אבן אחת מן המזבח או מכל ההיכל או מבין האולם ולמזבח, דרך השחתה לוקה, שנאמר "וניתצתם את מזבחותם . . . לא תעשון כן, לה' אלוהיכם".

Does the issur of לא תעשון כן (Devarim 12:4) apply to a Beis Knesses? (Rambam in SHM/LS:65, Avnei Nezer OC 34:17, and Rav Chaim Falagi, but most people say the Rambam really didn't mean it Mid'oraysa as seen in 6 Yesodei Hatorah 7, and also Ran Megilla 8a in Rif pagination, and Toafos R'eim on the Yereim mentioned above.).

7. Under the rubric of לא הוכשרו למלאכת שמים אלא עור בהמה טהורה בלבד and מן המותר בפיך, there is an opinion (Shabbos 28a) that the architectural elements and utensils of the Mishkan cannot be items which by definition may not be eaten, and they cannot come from non-kosher species of animals. This is why you cannot use horsehide to make Tefillin or write a Sefer Torah. Rabbeinu Bachay says that this is why no silk was used in the Mishkan, because it comes from silkworms. Does this apply to the Beis Haknesses (רבנו בחיי שמות כה,ג, Chasam Sofer, Teshuvos, OC 39, YD 276, and Sdei Chemed.)

I will, IYH, fill this out as time allows. But if I don't, at least most of the important mareh mekomos are there, and pretty much every single question is variously answered "Yes, it's mandatory," "No, it doesn't matter at all," and "Lechatchila you should try to do it that way." But it matters very much who says what.

Mishpatim: The Kabbalistic Linkage of the Numinous and Dinei Mumenus

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberg) — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:55:00 +0000

This post is only a restatement of something the Satmerer brings from the Degel Machaneh Ephraim. I'm posting it for two reasons. The first is because it's interesting and sobering. The second is because I like my title. Mumenous is the word for Monetary Matters, and in yeshiva it's pronounced Mominnes. However, among chasidim, it's pronounced Moomenis, which rhymes with Numinous. Numinous is a fancy word for spiritual or ethereal.

Divrei Yoel here:

בזה״ק (מ״ב צ״ו ע״א) איתא פתח ר׳ שמעון ואמר ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם וכו׳ אלין אינון סדורין דגלגולא וכו׳ ע״ש והוא פלא.

ונל״פ הענין עפימ״ש בספר הק׳ דגל ממנה אפרים לבאר דברי הזה״ק הנ״ל כי יזדמן בעת אשר יתיצבו האנשים אשר להם הריב לפני השופע ונפסק בבית דין לחייב אמד מהם והוא יודע בנפשו אשר הוא זכאי בדינו, אל יתחמץ לבבו ולא ירע בעיניו לאמר הן תורתנו הקדושה היא תורת אמת דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום, ואיך נהייתה כזאת שתצא המכשלה מתחת ידי הב״ד לחיינ את הזכאי ולזכות את החייב עפ״י דין תורה, כי בודאי היה הוא חייב ממון לבעל דינו בגלגול הקודם ׳ולא פרעו, ומאת ה׳ היתה זאת שיעמדו שניהם לדין בגלגול זה ויצא הוא חייב בדינו. וזה פירוש הזה״ק ואלה המשפטים וכו׳ אלין איכון סידורא •דגלגולא כי דיני ממונות שבתורה הקרויים משפעים נחתכים עפ״י הגלגולים הקודמים,

כי כך מנהיג הקב״ה את עולמו שאף אם בדין זה היה מן הראוי שיצא בדימוס, מ״מ אם נתחייב לחבירו בגלגול הקודם יצא דינו לחובה, אלו תוכן דבריו הקדושים.

ועפי״ז פירשנו את הפסוק (תהלים יט) משפטי ה׳ אמת צדקו יחדיו, כי אם יראה האדם רק את אשר לפניו באותו הדור, יחשוב לפעמים כי משפט דיני ממונות שבתורה הס היפך האמת, אמנם אימת יוכל להבין אשר משפטי ה׳ אמת ואין בהם נפתל ועיקש, צדקו יחדיו, אס רואה כל מעשי הדורות הקודמים יחדיו מעשה איש ופעולתו בגלגולים הקודמים, אז יבין דבר לאשורו כי דיני הממונות שבתורה הם אמת וצדק.

The Zohar says that the beginning of Parshas Mishpatim, which ostensibly deals only with monetary rights and claims, is a hidden reference to Gilgulim, reincarnated souls. The Satmerer brings the Degel Machaneh Ephraim that explains the connection.

Sometimes a man will lose a case in Beis Din, when he knows for a fact that he was wronged and that his litigant is a thief and a liar. This person should not feel distraught or angry, because the Torah is true and its ways are pleasant and peaceful, and if a duly constituted Beis Din came to the wrong conclusion it must be that he owed the other man money from a previous lifetime, and that he came back into this world to pay the debt. If he would pay that man a legitimate debt that he owed him in this incarnation, it would not pay that outstanding debt, because he would just be paying what he owed now. It was absolutely necessary that he give the money to the other man for nothing, to balance the books. The debt he incurred in the other life is now paid.

This is why the Torah refers to Gilgulim in the parsha of Mishpatim. Sometimes, a court will be led by Hashem to make a wrong decision specifically because the innocent litigant needed to retire the debt that had forced his soul to return.

And that is the connection between mumenous and numinous.