Preparing To Pray

The Midrash enumerates 10 phraseologies of prayer bur incredibly what is the most common term, תפלה, is left out, how?  The Sfas Emes (5631) explains that the 10 terms are not different modes of prayer but rather are 10 ways how one readies themselves to pray and then one can come to the actual act of תפילה. 

Rashi says that tzaddikim like Moshe could ask for their requests to be granted due to the great merits but instead they ask Hashem to grant their request not as a reward, but as a free gift.  If they are deserving of the request why do they even need to ask?  The Sfas Emes explains that  Rashi is not referring to being deserving of the request being granted, he is talking about the first step of prayer, the right to even ask Hashem, but the request itself is not deserved.       

The Midrash says סימן לתפלה אם כוון אדם לבו לתפלה.  Asks the Sfas Emes, how is כונה merely a סימן for tefillah, it is the defining characteristic?  He explains that it is not to be taken for granted that one can just pray before Hashem, to be prepared to pray also is something granted from Hashem and the siman that one was prepared is if one was able to have כונה in their prayer.  

The Sfas Emes adds the impetus for prayer is the request, לאדם מערכי לב, the request is why one turned to Hashem, but once one is engaged in the act of tefillah, one loses themselves in the connection that occurs and the request is no longer a concern and would be forgotten if not for the fact that Hashem puts it into the person's mouth, ומה' מענה לשון.  That is the double terminology, ואתחנן ... לאמר.  The word ואתחנן is in the reflexive form, a person starts out becoming "prayed," in other words, the ability to pray to stand in prayer before Hashem, and then לאמר, he can engage in the actual prayer.  

It is noted that the gematria of תפילה and שירה both are 515 as is ואתחנן which is the number of prayers Moshe said.  Indicating the nth degree of prayer is that of שירה (see Baal HaTurim.)  In other words, as the Sfas Emes teaches us, although the request is the starting point of the prayer, the prayer itslef it one of praise and appreciation of Hashem.  

The Bach (siman 208) says there is holiness to the fruit of Eretz Yisrael itself.  The Eliya Rabbah objects based upon the Gemarah Sotah (14a) that wonders why would Moshe care to eat the fruits of Eretz Yisrael and instead explains Moshe's great desire was to fulfill the mitzvot of the land.  If there is a unique holiness to the fruits of the land, maybe that is what Moshe desired?  The Meshech Chachma asks why did the Gemarah not say he wanted the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael?  He says it must be the areas in control by Reuvain and Gad had the sanctity of EY do that mitzvah Mosh already fulfilled.  In light of this it is possible that the kedusha of the fruits Moshe already had as well and all he was lacking was the mitzvot that apply only after settling and dividing up EY.  If the Mesech Chachma is right however, so why was Moshe withheld from entering the land?  Rashi says that Moshe thought the neder that he was not allowed to enter was nullified by his living in the lands of Reuvain and Gad, but Moshe's request is still refused indicating that the Transjordan land is not the same as EY?

Seudah Hamafsekes On Shabbat

The Magen Avraham (552:14) says even though when 9 Av is motzei Shabbat one is allowed to eat whatever they ant beforehand and is not limited by the normal rules governing the סעודה המפסקת, one should not be overly merry and therefore one should not have the meal with friends.  The Yad Efraim quotes the Bechor Shor disagrees and holds that would be public avelut not displayed on Shabbat.    

 Rashi Taanis (29b) says רב תשעה באב שחל להיות בשבת - אינו מפסיק סעודתו ואינו ממעט בתבשילין אלא אוכל כל צרכו ומעלה על שולחנו אפי' כסעודת שלמה בשעתו.  The Be'ar Hatev (552:10) points out that Rashi holds when 9 Av is on Sunday - motzei Shabbat, there is no seudah hamafsekes.  Rav Soloveitchik (Mesorah journal volume 9) says according to Rashi there is no chalos of seudah hamafsekes when 9 Av follows Shabbat so it doesn't make sense to impose any of the rules at all.  

Why is there no seudah hamafsekes according to Rashi?  The Rambam (Taanis 3:3) describes the latter level of fasts for rain and he says, וּבְשָׁלוֹשׁ אֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בְּצוֹם כִּפּוּר.  Why does he say you eat beforehand like Yom Kippur when there is a mitzvah to eat as oppose to other fast days?  Why must one eat beforehand?  Says Rav Soloveitchik, we see that part of the laws of fasting is to have a meal before the fast to designate that the fast begins at the conclusion of eating.  The סעודה מפסקת is a law in the chalos of the taanis itself.  Therefore, since on Shabbos fasting itself is suspended ,there can not be any laws that stem from the fast attached to it and that is why Rashi holds there is no law of seudah hamafsekes on Shabbat.       

The Tur cites the custom of the Sar Shalom and the Avi Ezri to not eat meat or drink wine in the meal eaten before motzei Shabbat. They acknowledge it is permitted as the Gemarah (Taanis 29a) says however, they advised against it משום חורבן הבית.  It is unclear why they would say to avoid what the Gemarah clearly says is allowed and why focus only on meat and wine, why not keep all the laws of סעודה מפסקת?  However, it is clear that they view the eating on Shabbas as a seudah hamafsekes.  The Beis Yosef even cites an opinion in the Mordechai that one does have to have a regular סעודה מפסקת before entering the fast.   

The Shulchan Aruch (552:1) says עֶרֶב תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב לֹא יֹאכַל אָדָם בַּסְעֻדָּה הַמַּפְסֶקֶת, שֶׁאוֹכְלָהּ אַחַר חֲצוֹת, בָּשָׂר, וְלֹא יִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן וְלֹא יֹאכַל שְׁנֵי תַּבְשִׁילִין.  The Shulchan Aruch in the laws of 9 Av itself (554:25) says וְכָל הָאוֹכֵל בָּשָׂר אוֹ שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן בַּסְעֻדָּה הַמַּפְסֶקֶת, עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: וַתְּהִי עֲוֹנֹתָם עַל עַצְמוֹתָם.  Why does he repeat the law and why is a law in seudah hamafsekes put in he laws of 9 Av itself?  The sefer Diver Hakodesh says that we see there are two dinim to the prohibition of eating meat and wine in סעודה מפסקת.  One halacha in the seudah itself as a demonstration of mourning and then there is another halacha as a law of 9 Av not to go into the day as the possuk says עֲוֹנֹתָם עַל עַצְמוֹתָם, to have meat and wine in one's stomach.  It is a law of 9 Av which effects how one enters the day.  Hence, even one who is not fasting will still have a prohibition of meat and wine due to this halacha.  With this idea, he says, we can understand those that said not to eat meat and wine even on Shabbat going into 9 Av is in because of the halacha of the fast day, not to enter the day with meat and wine "on one's bones."  Therefore, they only said not to eat meat and wine, but do not say to refrain from having two dishes.  The issue with this explanation is that isn't the reason given in the Tur - he says משום חורבן הבית which indicates that although not a technical prohibition, one's feelings for the churban should not allow for consumption of meat and wine.  The Sefer Haminhag says that in places that obtsain from meat and wine from Rosh Chodesh Av, they should abstain at the seudah hamafsekes as well.  In other words, although from the law of the Gemarah it is permitted, since there is a custom to extend these aspects of diminishing in joy, that should definitely apply immediately before the onset of the day, even on Shabbat (see also this torahmitzion article.)       

Even on a year when erev 9 Av is not Shabbas the Rema (552:9) cites a custom to have a bigger meal before the סעודה מפסקת and gives the reason so that one has the strength to make it through the fast.  The Magen Avraham says it is to remember that the days of 9 Av will be turned into happy days so we have a meal to commemorate that idea.

Big Steps

The Chinuch mitzvah 41 שלא לפסוע על המזבח says והעובר עליה ופסע פסיעה גסה על המזבח עד שנגלה ערותו במזיד לוקה.  The issur is for one who takes a large step, to the point that he reveals his nakedness on the altar, and then one is lashed.  The Rambam in lav 80 says as well, ולשון מכילתא מה תלמוד לומר אשר לא תגלה ערותך עליו כשיעלה למזבח לא יהיה פוסע פסיעה גסה אלא מהלך עקב בצד גודל.  The Smag lav 291 adds ולאו דווקא עקב בצד גודל, שהרי לא אסר אלא הרחבת פסיעות [ביומא דף כ"ב], ותנן נמי היו רצין ועולין בכבש.  However, the Rambam in Beis Habechirah (1:17) only notes the prohibition as prohibiting making steps to go up on the mizbaoch, not merely taking large steps, אין עושין מדרגות למזבח שנאמר לא תעלה במעלות על מזבחי ... והעולה במעלות על המזבח לוקה.  The Minchas Chinuch notes this discrepancy.  The Even Haezel says that it must be the Rambam recanted his view from Sefer Hamitzvot and he hinges the issue on if the issur is defined by the reason of the possuk אשר לא תגלה ערותך עליו.  The Michilta is the opinion of R' Shimon לשיטתו who holds a reason in the possuk expands the issur to beyond the specific details of the possuk and therefore he holds all big steps are prohibited but the Rambam rules like the opinion of R' Yehuda who disagrees with this and holds one is still bound by the parameters of the possuk and therefore the issur is limited to going up via stairs.  Proof to an arguing opinion is from the Gemarah cited by the Smag that the kohanim ran up the ramp.

The Tosfos Yeshanim Yoma (22a) answers that the prohibition of taking a large step is only during active duty in the Mikdash and since the kohanim ran before avodah it is not prohibited.  The Rambam and Chinuch (as noted by Minchas Chinuch) however hold the prohibition is at all times, not only during the time of avodah.  

It is clear from the Michilta cited in the Rishonim that the issur is in taking large steps.  The Mishne L'melech cites an additional Michilta אין לי אלא עליה ירידה מנין ת"ל אשר לא תגלה.  The Briskor Rav says this Michilta disagrees with the previous opinion since if the issur is taking a large step there is no reason to differentiate between goin up or down.  This opinion holds the prohibition is for what the possuk says, לא תעלה במעלות על מזבחי and we might have limited the prohibition to going up, קמ"ל that the root of the prohibition is a lack of כיסוי ערוה and that applies going up or going down a ramp.   

It is also noteworthy that the Chinuch ends the mitzvah  וַעֲנָוִים יִשְׁכְּנוּ אָרֶץ and the Minchas Chinuch says it is to end on a positive note, however, the fact that he chooses this possuk means the yesod of the issur is an act of arrogance.  The Gemarah Zevachim (87b) says there was an empty airspace between the ramp and mizbaoch and Tosfos says it was more than an ammah.  So how did the kohanim take a big step over the airspace? The Minchas Avraham says according to the Chinuch there is no גואה since one needs to take the step to cross the airspace.;

Desire Forms Destiny

The possuk in Re'ah (12:5) says כי אם אל המקום אשר יבחר ה אלקיכם מכל שבטיכם לשום א שמו שם לשכנו תדרשו ובאת שמה.  On the one hand the possuk calls it the place chosen by Hashem, המקום אשר יבחר ה אלקיכם, but on the other hand the possuk says לשכנו תדרשו, you have to seek it out.  Is it chosen or must it be sought?  The Malbim says that even though the exact place of the Mikdash was notified through the navi, Dovid still attempted to find the place before the prophet came to him, for the לשכנו תדרשו, the desire, the seeking, is a prerequisite for receiving the message of the המקום אשר יבחר ה, the place notified by Hashem.

The Gemarah Sukkah (41a) says מנא לן דעבדינן זכר למקדש א"ר יוחנן דאמר קרא (ירמיהו ל, יז) כי אעלה ארוכה לך וממכותיך ארפאך נאם ה' כי נדחה קראו לך ציון היא דורש אין לה דורש אין לה מכלל דבעיא דרישה.  In light of this Malbim, this is not just a nice idea to remember the Mikdash even in its destruction, but the way to rebuild the Mikdash is to be דורש המקדש, to express a desire to have it built (from a shmuz by R' Elefant.)  

The Chasam Sofer on the Gemarah Sukkah says that is why the redemption of the second Mikdash was incomplete, because there was no דרישה, there was no expressed desire from Klal Yisrael to rebuild the Mikdash and that is what the possuk in Yermiyahu is saying, ממכותיך ארפאך, you will have a healing from the destruction of the first Mikdash, but not a healing that proceeds the makkah, because there is no דרישה, there is no yearning to rebuild the Mikdash, hence it will merely be a temporary building.   

At the end of Massay the Torah instructs woman to marry within their own tribe so that if they inherit, they will not transfer the land to a different tribe, (36:7)  וְלֹֽא־תִסֹּ֤ב נַחֲלָה֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מִמַּטֶּ֖ה אֶל־מַטֶּ֑ה.  However ,the same point is reiterated to verses later, וְלֹֽא־תִסֹּ֧ב נַחֲלָ֛ה מִמַּטֶּ֖ה לְמַטֶּ֣ה אַחֵ֑ר.  The Or Hachayim asks why the repetion?  Furthermore, why the switch in terminology, מִמַּטֶּ֖ה אֶל־מַטֶּ֑ה to מִמַּטֶּ֖ה לְמַטֶּ֣ה אַחֵ֑ר?  The Rodamsker (cited in Divrei Chaim 2021 and 2019,) explains that the parsha was given due to the complaint of the tribe of Yosef that they would lose the land given to the daughters of Tzlafchad.  It was the desire of the tribe of Yosef to hang on to the land that caused the prohibition of marrying outside the tribe.  It was the desire that created the issur.  Says the Rodamsker, from this we are to understand that is it the desire that creates our hold over Eretz Yisrael and the Mikdash.  That's why it is called דביר ביתך - "לשון דבור שצריך לבקש מהש"י עליו להבנות במהרה וכל המתאבל על חורבן ירושלים זוכה ורואה בנחמתה כי כל האומר כן באמת בתפלה ולירושלים עירך ברחמים תשוב הנה פועל באמת זה למעלה על קירוב הגאולה כנ"ל."  So he says by way of derush the first possuk is the prohibition of marrying into another tribe and causing the land to move to another shevet, ממטה אל מטה.  The second possuk is telling us that from the prohibition one should take a message to feel the pain over the fact that the נחלה of Yerushalayim is now in the hands of "ביד האחרים הישמעאלי' היושבי' עליה בעוה"ר וצריך להתעורר בתשוקה להמשיך הדין הזה להתקיי' לא תסוב נחלה למטה אחר הם הישמעאלי' כנ"ל."  

Rav Solevetchik (Rishimos Shiurim on the Gemarah Sukkah) differentiates between laws of זכר למקדש intended to arouse mourning over the destruction of the Mikdash vs. the זכר למקדש of the Gemarah in Sukkah which is a זכר למקדש as a positive remembrance of the mitzvot as done in the Mikdash, not to remember the past but as a preparation for the future when the Mikdash will be rebuilt.   This זכר למקדש is a forward-looking remembrance, not about what was lost, but about what will be restored.  It’s not nostalgia, it’s anticipation.  However, in light of the above, it is understood that the point of the mourning is not to be stuck in the past but to awaken feelings of yearning and longing for the Mikdash which serve as preparation of building Mikdash, in the Rodamsker's words," כי כל האומר כן באמת בתפלה ולירושלים עירך ברחמים תשוב הנה פועל באמת זה למעלה על קירוב הגאולה."

Hearing

The Sefer Yetzirah associates the month of Av with the sense of listening.  The Bnei Yissachor (maameray Tamuz and Av 1:3) says the decree of 9 Av was sealed due to listening to the meraglim which is a lack in proper listening.  The Sefer Yetzirah also connects the month with the letter ט.  The letter ט is טוב גניז בגויה (as the Zohar says,) which is related to the ear which has an external covering and the internal part.  The sense of hearing contains the capability to bring out a internal goodness or destruction when it is misused.  Why is the sense of hearing connected to golus?  

The word for hearing שמע is the same word as the word gather as in וישמע שאול את העם (see Likutay Torah Vaeschanan.)  When one listens to Hashem, a person's capabilities are aligned.  When one does not listen, then a person's internal order is disturbed.  The golus is a collective of all of the individual internal states of golus (see Shuvi V'necheza siman 25.)  

The original sin of mankind stemmed from Chava listening to the snake and then Adam listening to her.  G-d asks Adam איכה the same word as the איכה we read on tisha b'Av.

Tents

Bava Bathra (60a) לא יפתח אדם לחצר השותפין פתח כנגד פתח וחלון כנגד חלון ... מנהני מילי א"ר יוחנן דאמר קרא (במדבר כד, ב) וישא בלעם את עיניו וירא את ישראל שוכן לשבטיו מה ראה ראה שאין פתחי אהליהם מכוונין זה לזה אמר ראוין הללו שתשרה עליהם שכינה:  The Ramah says מיהא שמעינן דבהא איסורא נמי איכא משום צניעותא דנשי, ואע"ג דאחזיק נמי לא מהניא ביה חזקה. דאי ס"ד לענין דינא בלחוד קאמרינן, מאי ראויין הללו שתשרה עליהן שכינה, דמשמע טעמא דאין פתחיהן מכוונין זה לזה הא לאו הכי לא, ואי טעמא דדינא [קאמר] ותו לא, כי מכוונין נמי אמאי אין ראויין, דילמא ממחל הוא דמחלי גבי הדדי, אטו מאן דמחיל היזיקיה גבי חבריה (בריעותא) [גריעותא] היא, אלא משום דלאו מידי דמשתריא במחילה הוא.  The possuk here by telling us the Shechina being present depends upon privacy that this is not just a Choshen Mishpat law not to infringe upon someone else's privacy but it is an issur and therefore mechilah will not help.    

The prohibition of looking into someone else's property is a halachik law but also contained other lessons.  Rav Nissim Peretz says a mussar approach that one should not look to copy the Jones's but should be happy with one's own lot.  One should not be looking at the neighbor's tent to see what there is in it to copy what they have but one should be happy with their own possessions.  Rebbe Nasan (Likutay Halachos Shcanim) says that the lesson is that everyone has their own 'window of truth,'  their own way of doing things and one must not denigrate their neighbor's way of doing things although it may differ.

Engraved

Why does the Torah introduce the mitzvah of the parah adumah with the phrase זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה, This is the law of the Torah, wouldn’t it have been more fitting to say זֹאת חֻקַּת הַפָּרָה, This is the law of the cow, as it does with other commandments like such as זֹאת חֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח, This is the law of the Pesach offering?

The Or HaChaim explains that the Torah isn’t merely presenting the law of the parah adumah—it is revealing a foundational principle for the entire Torah. What is that principle?  The parah adumah is the quintessential chok—a command that defies human logic. By calling it “the law of the Torah,” the Torah is teaching us that this approach applies to all mitzvot: just as we fulfill a chok not because we understand it, but because it is the will of Hashem, so too every mitzvah—whether rational or beyond comprehension—must ultimately be fulfilled because Hashem commanded it. Our commitment is not rooted in intellect but in submission to Divine will.

The word חק shares its root with the word חקיקה, meaning “engraving.”  Written text lies atop the parchment, it is separate and is removable.  However, engraved text  is carved into the stone and becomes one with the surface itself.  So too, when we fulfill a mitzvah only because it makes sense to us, it remains external, superimposed on our identity. But when we perform Hashem’s will because it is His will, the mitzvah becomes engraved into our soul. The mitzvah performed shapes the identity of the person (see Likutay Sichos volume 8.) 

When there is a lack of water Moshe is instructed to speak to the rock.  But earlier, in parshat Beshalach, when the people complained  they were thirsty Moshe is instructed to hit the rock, what is the difference between these two episodes?  The answer lies in viewing the rock not merely as a source of water, but as a metaphor for accessing the inner being of the people. To draw water from the rock is to access the waters of spiritual vibrancy.

In Beshalach, Bnei Yisrael had not yet stood at Har Sinai. They had not yet entered into the covenant of Torah, the eternal bond engraved (chakikah) into their essence. They still required an external impact, a bang, to break open the spiritual barriers that concealed their dormant holiness.  Hence, Moshe was told to strike the rock.  But in Chukas, Klal Yisrael had experienced Matan Torah, they already obtained  "חיי עולם נטע בתוכנו", “eternal life was planted within us.” The Torah was no longer external to them; it was engraved into their souls. The appropriate approach, then, was no longer force, but gentle speech to bring  out the deep inner connection that already existed.  

The meforshim have a struggle to pinpoint exactly what Moshe Rabbenu did wrong at the מי מריבה, but no matter how we explain the sin, why is it deemed so bad that Moshe Rabbenu's opportunity to enter Eretz Yisrael is revoked?  Many of the Chassidic seforim explain each in their own way that the sin was not so bad in its own right to be the סיבה, the cause, for Moshe Rabbenu to lose out but rather was a סימן, a sign that Moshe was no longer fit to be the leader.  Moshe Rabbenu led a people  who required miracles and awe, a generation whose spiritual growth was catalyzed through external force, he had to lead with the stick. so to speak.  But now, a new generation had matured. Their connection to Hashem was deeply rooted; they no longer needed to be struck to awaken. They needed to be spoken to, to merely shake off the dust to reveal that connection. Moshe’s leadership style, perfect for the generation that left Egypt wilderness, was no longer fit for the current generation.  Sometimes while a leader may be a great person, he is no longer able to connect to the next generation, his methods and messaging is old and outdated and there is need for younger leadership, those who speak to the ears of the current generation, to step up.  

This shift is reflected in the contrasting shirot of Bnei Yisrael.  At Yam Suf, it is Moshe who leads, אש ישיר משה and the people follow his lead in song and spirit. They required someone to draw the praise from them.  However, in the song of the Be’ar Miriam, the well of Miriam, Moshe’s name is absent as the Sfas Emes notes.  Why?  Because now the people sang on their own.  It is the same as the difference between a pit and a well.  A pit is reliant on external rain, while a well draws water from deep within. The song of the be'ar was not just for the be'ar of Miriam, it was about their internal well. Klal Yisrael had become a well, they had their own deep spiritual connection to Hashem and could feel the spiritual uplifting expressed in a shira.  They no longer needed Moshe to place the words in their mouths. The song sprung forth from within themselves.  The recognition of Hashem was engraved in their hearts.