Entering The Covenant

The Shach (CM 382) rules based upon the Rosh that a father can not appoint a shliach to fulfill his commandment to do a bris milah on his son. The Ketzos says the reason is that it is like appointing a shliach to shake lulav or put on tefillin; it is something incumbent on the individual's body, and therefore, one can't nominate a shliach in their stead. However, it is difficult to understand why this mitzvah would be an obligation on the physical body of the father? The Degel Reuvain (volume 3, #37) says that the Rosh and the Shach concur that the physical mitzvah of milah can be performed through a shliach. However, there is an element of bris milah that can not be accomplished through a shliach, and that is that a bris is a bris, a covenant formed between the child and Hashem. The father is the one entrusted to escort the child into the covenant. The DR says, based upon a Midrash, that the bris is a bris of misiras nefesh, and just as one can't appoint a shliach to do an act of misares nefesh, so too the father can't pass on his obligation of participation in misaras nefesh to someone else. The same idea is cited in the name of Rav Simcha Zissel Broide, with a slightly different twist; the act of bringing the child into the covenant is given to the father to pass on the tradition of the previous generations, and that concept can't be copied by a shliach. 

Besides the beracha on the mitzvah of milah, the father also says a beracha להכניסו בבריתו של אברהם אבינו. Why do we have a second beracha on the mitzvah? According to the previous explanation, this additional beracha is said on the bris that is established at the time of the physical mitzvah of the bris milah. The Rambam (Milah 3:1) is of the opinion that if there is no father present at the milah, then the beracha of להכניסו is not said. Why does the Rambam hold that the beracha is not said if the father is not present?  Now it is understood perfectly, for it is the father who can establish the covenant for the child; therefore, the beracha is only applicable for him to say (Likutay Sichos, volume 30). 

The Beis Yosef (YD 265) cites a machlokes if the father himself does the milah, does he say two berachot, or does it make no sense for one person to say two berachot on one mitzvah. According to the Rambam, though, it makes perfect sense to say two berachot, as they are about two different functions.  The Raavad disagrees with the previous Rambam. He would fit with the opinion that the father does not say two berachot, for he holds the beracha is on the mitzvah; therefore, the beracha can be said by someone other than the father, but the father can't himself say two berachot on one mitzvah (Siach Erev on Pesachim). 

It remains difficult, though, to understand why the Raavad holds that there are two birchot hamitzvah for one mitzvah? 

There is a machlokes among the Rishonim regarding when the beracha of להכניסו should be said, before the milah or after the milah. The Rashba (cited in Tosfos Shabbos 137b and Pesachim 7a) says it should be said before the milah like any other bracha on a mitzvah. Rabbenu Tam says it should be recited afterward. One of the explanations given for the pesak of Rebbenu Tam is that the beracha is to demonstrate our thanks for the commandment of milah and that we are doing it to fulfill the mitzvah of Hashem. Simply understood, Rabbenu Tam is saying the beracha is a ברכת השבח (and therefore, may be recited after the mitzvah since a birchas hashevach does not need to precede the action according to some versions in the Rishonim, or according to other versions, this justifies the nusach of להכניסו, usually used to indicate a future action.) Rav Solevetchik, however, explains the Tosfos differently. He asks if it just a birchas hashevach why would we say אשר קדשנו במצותיו? He explains that Tosfos means that the beracha is on the chalos of being מהול. Since it's on the chalos, one should say the beracha after the milah has been done. In light of this, we can say that this is also the opinion of the Raavad. Although להכניסו is a beracha on the mitzvah that does not have to be said by the husband, it is on the chalos kium of the mitzvah and a kium of being מהול requires a second beracha.

Why An Ark

Why the need for an ark? G-d could have saved Noach in any number of miraculous ways. 

There are several approaches to this question. A few of the approaches:

1. Rashi (7:14) says the point is the building of the ark so that people would ask and be told by Noach to repent. 

2. The Ramban says that G-d likes to minimize miracles and make events seem natural. Interestingly, the Ramban's reason for this idea is that humans must do their part, and Hashem completes the rest. This is a mussar idea that man must put in their full effort and ask Hashem to complete that which is beyond control. This is in contrast to the philosophical approach advanced by the Ralbag here in To'elet HaShevi'i, who emphasizes that Hashem only breaks natural law when absolutely necessary, because G-d wishes to uphold the perfect laws of nature which He designed. 

As mentioned on my father's blog 'Rogatchover on building the teivah: is the mitzvah the maaseh or the totza'ah?' the Rogatchover proves that Noach didn't have to build the teva himself from the fact that he got help, and אין שליחות לעכו" ם, it must be the point was just that the teva be built. We see from the Rogatchover that if the point is that the action is done, then one can perform the mitzvah through a gentile, and one does not need the parsha of shlichus. This yesod is also said by Rav Elchonon Betzah, siman 25, as to why one can fulfill the mitzvah of burial through gentiles. We can use the same idea to explain the opinion of the Magen Avraham (446:2) that one can fulfill the mitzvah of תשביתו שאור מבתיכם through a genile.  R' Akiva Eger asks אין שליות לעכו"ם?  According to this idea, the Magen Avraham holds that the mitzvah of תשביתו is to have the chametz removed (see Minchas Chinuch mitzvah 9), and for that one can fulfill the mitzvah even through the actions of a non-Jew.  

3. The ark was a miniature world. The world was created through kindness. That kindness was being obliterated by the חמס of the generation, and therefore they had to be destroyed. In order to keep the world going, Noach had to provide for the world around him to allow the world to continue to function (based upon Rav Dessler).  

4. Bereishis Rabbah 31:9: "Kanim ta'aseh es haTeivah" – like a bird's nest that purifies a metzora, so too the ark was a spiritual purification for Noach. How? Perhaps Noach was a צדיק בדורותיו ולא בדורו של אברהם because he was dragged down by his surrounding society. Instead of maxing out on his potential, he settled for being better than the rest. The teva was to teach Noach that one has to view themselves as their own little bubble and not be influenced by society at large. 

5. The Baal Shem Tov teaches that the word תיבה can also mean word. To escape the torrential מים רבים surrounding us, one must be able to retreat into the words of Torah and tefillah. The Kedushas Levi notes the dimensions of the teva, 300 = ש, 50 = נ, 30 = ל spell לשן tongue. The teva teaches us how to measure our speech properly. The Noam Elimelech adds צהר תעשה לתיבה, if speaking, one should ensure their words shine like the light from the ark.

Eight

The number eight is above teva. For the seven days of sukkot we offer korbanot to correspond to the gentiles. The 70 nations correspond to the middot* all ten mental and emotional powers. On Sukkot we celebrate our relationship to Hashem as is connected via our faculties. It is a celebration our our חיצוניות הלב connecting to Hashem, in the words of the Tanya, חיצוניות הלב היא התלהבות המתלהבת מבחי' הבינה והדעת בגדולת ה' א"ס ב"ה (להתבוננן) [להתבונן] בגדולתו ולהוליד מתבונה זו אהבה עזה כרשפי אש. We celebrate to the limit our our physical capabilities. On Shemini Atzeret (Shemini related to the word שמן, the fat, the meat, the essence) it is a private celebration between Hashem and Klal Yisrael.  This is a celebration of פנימי' הלב היא הנקודה שבפנימיות הלב ועומקא דליבא שהיא למעלה מעלה מבחי' הדעת והתבונה שיוכל האדם להתבונן בלבו בגדולת ה. We say from Elul לדוד ה אורי and we say לך אמר לבי בקשו פני. This culminates with Shemiini Atzeret. We celebrate the private,פנימיות connection to Hashem that is not limited by the faculties of a person. My father wrote about the last 8 pessukim in the Torah. The last 8 pessukim weren't written by Moshe in a coherent form, in a state of understanding, it was the pnemiuos of the Torah being written which then unscrambled into a physical state.           

Sukkah Dimensions

תשבו כעין תדורו says one should live in the sukkah as one lives in their house but sometimes it says the sukkah itself is invalid. A few examples of this principle. 

The Rema (640:4) rules like the Yeriam who is of the opinion that if one constructs their sukkah in a place where part of the time it will be a place where the they will be מצטער then one can't fulfill their obligation in the sukkah at all even at points where one is not בצער. In other words, he holds כעין תדורו defines the building of the sukkah to the extent that one can't fulfill their obligation if it is not constructed to make it livable for the duration of sukkot. The Chacham Tzvi (cited in Sharey Teshuva) disagrees and holds one can fulfill their obligation at the time one is not בצער. In other words, he views that one's residing in the sukkah has to be in a manner of כעין כדורו but it doesn't define the building.    

Shibulay HaLeket (347) ומצאתי שהשיב רבינו האיי גאון ז"ל. וששאלתם מהו למיעבד סוכה האידנא בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות. כך ראינו שאינו חייב למיעבד [סוכה] האידנא אלא בביתיה בדירתיה היכא דאכיל ושתי וגני שדירתו שם כל השנה דקא אמרה תורה כל שבעת הימים צא מדירת קבע ושב בדירת עראי. שנו חכמים מיכן אמרו יש לו כלים [נאים] מעלן לסוכה אוכל ושותה בסוכה ומטייל בסוכה אבל בתי מדרשות ובתי כנסיות אין מיחדין אלא לתפלה ולהתעסק בה בתורה לבד אבל אם עושין לכתחילה בשביל עוברי דרכים שאוכלים וישנים שם יפה עושין אבל בני העיר לסמוך על סוכה שבבית הכנסת לצאת בה ידי חובתן אינם יוצאין אלא בסוכה שלכל אחד ואחד בביתו. ולפיכך כשעושין אותה סוכה של בית הכנסת אינן צריכין לברך שלא לעצמן הן עושין אותה אלא לעוברי דרכים. וגם בשם ר' נטרונאי גאון ז"ל [מצאתי] שאין בני העיר יכולין לסמוך על סוכה שבבית הכנסת לצאת בה ידי חובתן ואין יוצאין אלא בסוכה שעושה כל אחד ואחד בחצירו לפיכך אסור לברך בסוכה של בית הכנסת. Why does he hold you can't be yotzei with the sukkah of the shul? He says אמרה תורה כל שבעת הימים צא מדירת קבע ושב בדירת עראי, in other words, this is not just a separate law of how one should design and adorn the sukkah but is part of the definition of sitting in a sukkah. One can only fulfill the obligation of being in a sukkah when it is a sitting that can be a permanent fashion (Rav Dovid Solevetchik.) 

Another example is the opinion of Ravah (Sukkah 4a) is that a sukkah that has ends of the scach hanging in the sukkah so that the airspace is less than 10 טפחים it is pasul.  According to many Rsihonim it invalidates the sukkah and that is the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (633:9.) The Rambam is of the opinion that the sukkah does not become entirely invalidated, it is merely something that ne should try to avoid. The Briskor Rav says the reason for the Rambam is that he holds the sukkah itself must have a height of 10 tefachim, the law of the sukkah being fit for living in all 10 tefachim is only required according to the opinion that sukkah is דירת קבע not according to the halacha of דירת ארעי. However, the other Rishonim hold that if the sukkah is unlivable it creates a pesul in the sukkah itself.  

Sukkah Soul

The Sfas Emes (5650) says the two mitzvot of Sukkos, the lulav and the sukkah parallel the two names or two different approaches of Yaakov, the approach of Yaakov and of Yisrael.  The mitzvah of lulav corresponds to the name Yaakov which is the avodah of fighting against evil forces.  The mitzvah of sukkah is the level where the evil forces can't touch.  That is why חל שם שמים on the sukkah.  The sukkah is above our understanding, it is the point above reason which is connected to the deepest part of our soul. It is interesting that sukkah is deemed above logic when it is also the mitzvah linked to למען ידעו. But it is no contradiction. The understanding of sukkah is beyond our understanding but it is engrained within us. דעת as explained by the Tanya and Nefesh Hachaim means connection.  It is the point of connection of the neshama that is not defined by reason but is felt by the person.  That is what sukkah represents.  It is not that sukkah is beyond sechel, it is deeper.  The lulav is the spear we use to combat the forces around us while the sukkah is the point of sitting back and take in our connection to Hashem.  

Repairing And Reformation

The Gemarah Rosh Hashana (16b) says א"ר יצחק ד' דברים מקרעין גזר דינו של אדם אלו הן צדקה צעקה שינוי השם ושינוי מעשה.  Rashi explains שינוי מעשה is שב מרעתו.  The Ritva asks ולא נהירא דהא פשיטא שאם אינו שב מדרכיו כטובל ושרץ בידו הוא שאין מועיל לו שום תשובה? 

The Mishna Yoma says לִפְנֵי מִי אַתֶּם מִטַּהֲרִין וּמִי מְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם, אֲבִיכֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יחזקאל לו, כה) וְזָרַקְתִּי עֲלֵיכֶם מַיִם טְהוֹרִים, וּטְהַרְתֶּם, וְאוֹמֵר (ירמיה יז, יג): מִקְוֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל ה.  Why the need for two pessukim? 

The Shem Mishmuel (Rosh Hashana 5571) explains the Rashi that there are two types of teshuva.  One is a person who sees they are on the wrong path and stops going further and for that one also needs the צדקה צעקה שינוי השם to rip up the decree for one has corrected themselves going forward but the past was never corrected. Then there is a greater form of teshuva where one is able to turn around and go backward and fix the past. This is a deeper form of teshuva and that is the teshuva Rashi is referring to when he is saying this form of a שינוי מעשה, where the person becomes totally reformed, doesn't require anything else to rip up the decree. 

In light of this we can understand the Mishna. The Mishna is referring to these two types of teshuva. There is the teshuva of mikva, where one goes in one plunge and takes removes the tumah, that is the teshuva of stopping to go on the wrong path. It is a quick change for the better.  The taharah of mikveh represents instantaneous disengagement from sin.

The second possuk compares teshuva to the sprinkling of water.  Sprinkling goes on a person drop by drop. This represents gradual internal reformation, a slow, deliberate reconstruction of the soul. This is the  greater form of teshuva which takes time for one to reconstruct their inner essence, their entire approach to life and to transform the person into a שינוי מעשה, a new individual.

Standing Viduy

The halacha is that one must stand while saying viduy (S.A. 607:3.) Why must viduy we recited while standing? The Mishne Berurah explains that standing demonstrates  greater sense of subservience and will establish a better confession. The Kaf Hachaim quotes the Yafe L'lev that is based upon the possuk in Nechemya (9:2) ויעמדו ויתודו על חטאתיהם וכו. The Mishne Berurah cites the Pri Migadim is unsure is this law of standing is מעכב. 

The Magen Avraham says one must be carful not to lean on something that if it is moved, the person will fall for that is considered sitting not standing. Rav Wahrman develops based upon various sources an idea that this rule only applies when standing is required innately but if one stands only for honorific purposes or for other external factors, then even when standing by being propped up, sine it still appears as if one is standing, it suffices. With this difference, he suggests according to the reason of the Mishne Berurah ,it should suffice with leaning for the standing f viduy (this would be not like the Mishne Berurah who quotes the Magen Avraham here that holds it does not work.) With this he answers the question of the Emrei Emes of how can one do viduy on a korban while doing סמיכה if one is leaning on the animal and the person will fall if it is removed? According to this, this suffices for the standing of viduy. 

Another answer Rav Wahram suggests is to differentiate between the types of viduy. Viduy as part of teshuva requires standing but the viduy on a korban is not part of the teshuva process, it is a viduy that it is a halacha in the korban. Part of bringing the korban is to say why one is bringing the korban and that entails a viduy but that viduy does not require standing. 

A third approach to the requirement of standing during viduy is suggested by Rav Yerucham Olshin. He suggests that the Rambam stresses many times in the Laws of Teshuva starting with the lists of mitzvot on the top that teshuva is done לפני ה. He says that this law of לפני ה requires standing in the same way as one stands during the amidah for being present לפני ה. (With this it is also understood why the viduy on Yom Kippur is incorporated into the Shemoneh Esrei for they are the same yesod.) With this he suggests that the Rambam does not mention the requirement of standing while doing viduy (which the Pri Migadim points out) because it is already included in the Rambam's words that teshuva is לפני ה.

The Mishne Berurah (620:2) says that one must day viduy ten times within the prayers of Yom Kippur corresponding to the ten times the Kohan Gadol mentions Hashem's name on Yom Kippur. In the Shaar Hatzion he adds that the viduy after maariv doesn't count since it is not part of the Shemone Esrai. It is clear from the M.B. that the viduy of Yom Kippur must be said within the context of prayer. Why? Presumably because of this law of teshuva being said לפני ה. But then this law should always apply not just on Yom Kippur? Rav Yehoshua Eichenstein explains based upon R' Yona that Yom Kippur has a unique mitzvah of teshuva based upon the possuk לפני ה תטהרו and it is that mode of teshuva that requires it be said in prayer.  (In other words, regular teshuva according to R' Yona is not לפני ה, it is a maaseh mitzvah like any other but the Rambam vies all viduy as an act of repairing the broken relationship with G-d and hence one must come before G-d to ask for forgiveness.) However, the Rambam holds all teshuva is לפני ה yet doesn't have to be done in tefillah so why is Yom Kippur different?  As mentioned in 'Obtaining Tahara' from Rav Solevetchik, the viduy of Yom Kippur accomplishes more than a regular viduy, it accomplishes a level of taharah. Says Rav Eichenstein, Rabbenu Yonah says ועוד יתפלל בעל התשובה אל השם. למחות כעב פשעיו וכענן חטאתיו. ושיחפוץ בו וירצהו ויעתר לו כאשר אם לא חטא, to obtain taharah one has to pray. Therefore, since the viduy of Yom Kippur is to obtain taharah it goes together with the prayer which effects taharah.