Why Eat

The Tur in siman 597 cites a machlokes Rishonim if there is an obligation to eat on Rosh Hashana. The debate would seem to center on if there is an obligation of שמחת יום טוב on RH or is that limited to the three regalim. However, the Shulchan Aruch rules one should eat on RH yet he also says in siman 582 that one does not say מועדים לשמחה in the prayers of RH, presumably since RH is not a day of simcha?  The Tur gives another reason to eat on RH besides being a fulfillment of שמחת יום טוב. The Tur evokes the Midrash that he cites in siman 581 that we dress up on RH since we show bitachon that Hashem we give us a favorable judgement.  based upon this, the Tur says one should eat as well. If so, there is no contradiction in the Shluchan Aruch for he holds it is not a day of simcha but nonetheless one should eat to show one's trust in a favorable judgment.  With this idea we can understand the comment of the Magen Avraham in the name of the Magid Masherim that one should not eat meat or have wine on RH.  But that is simcha?  Because we are not eating due to the law of simcha, rather to show bitachon in Hashem's judgement but that is nonetheless tempered by the severity of the day.  This may explain the opinion of Rav Natrunay Gaon (cited in the Tur) that one should not fast on the first day of RH but can on the second.  What is the difference, both days should have an obligation of simcha? (See Bach.) Because he holds we are not eating because of simcha, only to show that despite the severity of the din, we have bitachon in a favorable judgement. That demonstration is limited to the first day which is the main day of judgment but the second day is like the other days of the עשרת ימי תשובה where one may fast (even on Shabbos in his opinion.) (Based upon Minchas Asher, Yarech L'moadim siman 11-12.)

Repeat Or Do Not Repeat

Tosfos Berachot (12b) says צריך לחתום המלך הקדוש והמלך המשפט ואם לא אמר מחזירין אותו. וכן זכרנו ומי כמוך וכתוב לחיים ובספר חיים מחזירים אותו אם לא אמר. דכל המשנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים אינו יוצא ידי חובתו.  The Rosh agrees to Tosfos regarding המלך הקדוש והמלך המשפט but disagrees about זכרנו ומי כמוך וכתוב לחיים ובספר חיים because they are not mentioned in the Gemarah and therefore do not constitute as part of the text of the beracha.  Rabbenu Yona cites a differing opinion about forgetting המלך המשפט since in the regular text of מלך אוהב צדקה ומשפט the word מלך appears as well.  

Rabbenu Yona later in Berachot (24a in the Rif pages) says even according to the opinion of Tosfos that one should repeat Shemone Esrai if one omits זכרנו ומי כמוך וכתוב לחיים ובספר חיים, that would only apply on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, not during the rest of the days of repentance.  What is the difference between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur vs. the middle days? 

The source of adding petitions into the berachot is from Maseches Sofrim (Ch. 19) cited in the Tur siman 582 but there it only mentions adding on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.  The Tur says now the custom is to add during all the 10 days of repentance.  However, we see the main time of saying it is limited to  Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.  Hence, Rabbenu Yona holds it then that these additional petitions become part of the beracha but not during the other days when it is a later custom.  Yet, for omitting המלך הקדוש והמלך המשפט Rabbenu Yona holds during all 10 days one would repeat Shemonei Esrai because that it the text of the beracha for this time frame and if one says the wrong ending one is lacking in saying the proper beracha (based upon Gevuros Yitzchak.) 

The Bris Of The Tzibbur

At the end of the tochacha, the possuk says  אֵ֩לֶּה֩ דִבְרֵ֨י הַבְּרִ֜ית אֲֽשֶׁר־צִוָּ֧ה ה אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֗ה לִכְרֹ֛ת אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מוֹאָ֑ב מִלְּבַ֣ד הַבְּרִ֔ית אֲשֶׁר־כָּרַ֥ת אִתָּ֖ם בְּחֹרֵֽב.  What is the nature of this bris?  In Netzavim it explains, הנסתרות לה' אלקינו וְהַנִּגְלֹ֞ת לָ֤ׄנׄוּׄ וּׄלְׄבָׄנֵ֙ׄיׄנׄוּ֙ׄ עַׄד־עוֹלָ֔ם לַעֲשׂ֕וֹת אֶת־כׇּל־דִּבְרֵ֖י הַתּוֹרָ֥ה הַזֹּֽאת 'יןבי Chazal explain teaches us the principle of arvus that one is responsible for the actions of other Jews.  In other words, the bris of חורב was an obligation on every individual to keep the Torah but the bris of ערבות מואב gives an obligation on the obligations of others as well.  This is why the tochacha in Ki Tavo is said in a singular form but the one is Bechukosai is said in the plural form.  Why the difference?  Because the first tochacha is said to every single individual but the second one is said to the totality of Klal Yisrael.

Why was this the time to have a bris on arvus?  Because it is only at Har Grizim and Har Eval, inside of Eretz Yisrael that Klal Yisrael become a single unit.  It requires Eretz Yisrael to join Klal Yisrael to be one body (see Rogatchover Sanhedrin 43b, teshuva 143, tefillah 2:17, Avnei Nezer 314.)  As Klal Yisrael enter the land they are no longer mere individuals but become a collective unit with responsibilities for the tzibbur at large (based upon Rav Hershel Schachter on the parsha, article from Rav Yitzchak Ginsburgh.) 

Rashi says that the obligation of bikkurim started only after the land was fully conquered and divided.  Why should those that where already harvesting fruits wait so long?  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 9) says since bikkurim has to be brought as an expression of ושמחת בכל הטוב, one's simcha can't be complete until every Jew has received their portion in the land.  In Eretz Yisrael every has their own portion of land, every one has their own mission but in in comes together as one unit.  If one part is missing, the portion of every individual is lacking as well. 

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 Radak at the end of Sefer Shmuel says ובדרש: כל האלפים האלה שנפלו בימי דוד לא נפלו אלא ע״י שלא תבעו בית המקדש. והרי דברים קל וחומר: ומה אם אלו שלא היה בימיהם ולא חרב בימיהם נפלו על שלא תבעו אותו, אנו שהיה בימינו וחרב בימינו על אחת כמה וכמה. לפיכך התקינו זקנים ונביאים ליטע בפיהם של ישראל להיות מתפללים שלשה פעמים בכל יום: השב שכינתך ומלכותך לציון וסדר עבודתך לירושלם אכי״ר סלה.

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."