For The Love Of Klal Yisrael

A chasid (מענה קודש כד-כו pg. 197) points out that Rashi at he beginning of every sefer of Chumash tells us that it is written to tell us of the great love Hashem has for Klal Yisrael. In other words, every book of the Chumash ratiates with the חביבות for Klal Yisrael. This is the message of the end of the Torah according to Rashi being a reference ending with the breaking of the Luchos. How is that a fitting ending for the entirety of the Chumash? Because it demonstrates that the continuity of Klal Yisrael ensured by the breaking of the luchos which spurred the path to forgiveness is  the point of the entirety of the Torah. The Torah starts with a ב and ends with a ל spelling לב that the love for Klal Yisrael is the signature of the Torah.

The Midpoint And The Circle

The Chasam Sofer (derashot second day Sukkkot) cites from the Rema M'pano that Atzeret is called חג related to the word חוגה, the midpoint that everything turns on for the kedusha of all the holidays stems from Atzeret. Why? For the holiday has no additional mitzvot, it is just about a התוועדות  with Hashem and Klal Yisrael. That is the root of all the מועדים  - to be a ועד - a time of meeting with Hashem. 

It is noted that the word for a circle, מחול, and the word for forgiving, מחילה are the same root.  On Yom Kippur we obtain forgiveness for our sins.  Rav Levi Yitzchak teaches that Sukkot is the time of teshuva from love when sins turn into merits.  We are then able to take the sins and turn them into a dance of a מחול on Simchas Torah.   

This also what the Gemarah says at the end of Taanis that the tzaddikim will be sitting in a מחול, the complete atonement and joy together. 

 From the sefer שישו ושמחו סימן מט:

Aravah And Arev

The ushpiz of Hoshana Rabbah is Dovid. The day of Hashana Rabbah is the day of the aravah. What is the connection between Dovid and the aravah? Many of the Chassidik books explain that Dovid is associated with malchus which is in a complete state of nullification to Hashem as the Zohar says מלכות לית ליה מגרמיה כלום. In the same vein the aravah is bereft of any natural advantages - אין לה טעם וריח and therefore is totally negated. The Sfas Emes (5648) says they both embody the avodah of צפית לישועה and it is specifically the avodah of those who don't think they have any maalot and purely look to Hashem for salvation that receive salvation. The Shem MiShmuel (5671) adds that it through the aravah's recognition of its lack of any self redeeming qualities that it merits a special avodah. 

The Tiferes Shlomo (Mikatz) says כי שורש ענין הערבות לקבל על עצמו חוב זולתו ולסבול עבור חבירו זה הוא בבחי' המלכות כיל"ח. With this idea he explains why it is Yehuda, the father of malchus in Klal Yisrael is the first one to be an ערב, to take responsibility for someone else -when he guaranteed the return of Binyamin. It is all a reflection of this same middah, of a lack of self absorption that allows room for others. 

The ערבות share the same root as the word ערב, a guarantor. It is paradoxically the aravah's total devotion to the other species that allow it to merit its own special treatment.

The Garbage Is Worthy

The Gemarah says חל שם שמים על הסוכה. Why is it the mitzvah of sukkah that merits this מגרגה? Why is the mitzvah to be fulfilled with פסולת גורן ויקב? Why are the remains of the worn out בגדי כהונה used for the torches at the שמחת בית השואבה? The lesson is that even when a person is not at his best, not at a time of peak performance, still, even the leftovers the worn out last energy a person has should and can be used for the service of Hashem. 

Of course, when able, it is best to use one's best capabilities for the service of Hashem. However, at times, this is not possible and using whatever one's capabilities, as lowly as they may seem to be it is also desired by Hashem. This is why the שם שמים is present on the sukkah. When a person uses his own hands to build a sukkah when one uses their own כחות, no matter what state they are in, that merits that it brings the שם שמים on the sukkah. 

Rav Moshe Wolfson says the end of maseches Sukkah is about מרים בת בילגה or the delaying משמר to teach us even those that were not doing the right thing find a tikkun in the sukkah. Even the פסולת people can find meaning in the sukkah.

Different Types Of מצטער

The Rema (639:5) says one is obligated to eat the first night even in the rain. The Rema (640:4) says בלילה ראשונה אפי' מצטער חייב לאכול שם כזית in reference to the law that someone in pain is exempt from sukkah. Presumably this law is the same as the previous one, that the exemption of מצטער does not apply the first night. However, the sources listed as the source of the Rema are different, the law of rain is cited from Ran and Rosh and the law of  מצטער is cited from the Kol Bo. Why does he need a new source? The Sharey Teshuva cites from the Bircay Yosef and the Eliyahu Rabbah that the previous law of a sick person who is exempt may apply even on the first night. Why would it be different?

What we see are three different applications of the law of מצטער. The law of rain the Mishna describes as being like a master rejecting the service of his servant. There is room to argue that even when a person is not in a level of grave distress to the rain, he is exempt due to the siman that Hashme is not interested in his act of sitting in the sukkah (see Mishna Berurah 639:31) even if a person is not בצער if the food gets ruined one can go inside. That also explains why one doesn't have to go back out to the sukkah even if the rain stops (sif 7.) For the act of sitting in the sukkah is not desired. There, one could argue they must still eat in the sukkah on the first night when there is an obligation to eat in the sukkah. However, in a true state of צער on could have said there is an exemption even the first night. That is what the second Rema sees in the Kol Bo that there is an obligation even in that situation.   

The simple understanding from the Gemarah is that the reason מצטער is exempt from sukkah is due to the rule of תשבו כעין תדורו. However, the Ritva on daf 26 cites from the Ramban that the exemption is derived from the word אזרח that only one who is able to sit tranquility in the sukkah is called an אזרח. Based upon this we have two reasons to exempt someone who is מצטער from sukkah. One reason is from תשבו, that the sukkah itself is disqualified while the reason of the Ritva is an exemption on the גברא - that a person who is not settled is exempt from sukkah. 

The Taz (640:8) differentiates between one who is pain due to being in the sukkah who is only patur when his pain is alleviated by leaving the sukkah vs. someone who is in a constant state of pain such as a חולה who is exempt from sukkah even when being out of the sukkah will not help manage the pain at all. What is the difference? In the case of the the constant pain, there is the petur of תשבו, the person can't be in the proper state of mind to do an act of sitting in a sukkah. However, an external cause of distress and pain only exempts the person due to האזרח, since he can't be in a state of tranquility but it is an act of sitting in sukkah and the exemption only allows for one to find a better area to sit. 

In light of this, there may be room to differentiate between the exemption of the מצטער which a personal feeling, and the exemption is due to אזרח, which will not be applied the first night when one is obligated to eat in a sukkah even in a situation of pain. However, a sick person is exempt due to תשבו for their sitting in sukkah is not an act of ישיבת סוכה since people in constant pain can not have an experience of כעין תדורו and one might say since it is not an act of ישיבת סוכה, the exemption would apply even on the first night (Birchas Mordechai.) 

Day Of Fasting Day Of Holiness

R' Akiva Eger (teshuva #24) raises the issue can someone not fasting receive an aliyah on Yom Kippur at mincha - is the reading a kedushat hayom Yom Kippur reading or a fast day reading? The Marcheshes siman 14 says that issue is the root of the machlokes between the Mechabar and Remah (622:2) if the bracha of the haftorah ends מגן דוד or continues with על התורה ועל העבודה like a holiday. the Rema that ends מגן דוד  holds that the reading is that of a fast day so we don't mention the day but the Mechaber holds we do since it is the reading of a holiday. This understanding of the Rema is explicit in the Gr"a who says that the reading and haftorah are due to the day being a fast day. However, the Levush, MG"A and Alter Rebbe explain the Rema differently. They explain that the avodah of the day is already complete before mincha therefore we don't say על התורה ועל העבודה. 

A parallel inquiry applies to the ne'ilah prayer, which conceptually exists for any public fast day Is the נעילה on Yom Kippur a YK prayer or that of a taanis? R' Zvi Ryzman raises the question regarding a kohan that is not fasting can he do נשיאת כפים by ne'ilah? If ne'ilah is fundamentally a fast-day prayer, a non-fasting kohan would be disqualified; however, if it is defined by the kedushat hayom of Yom Kippur, he may be permitted to recite the blessing.

In Kol Brisk he explains why in the ne'ilah prayer we only say the short viduy of אשמנו  and not the longer על חטא recitation. He says that the על חטא prayers acknowledge wrongdoings but don't describe the person himself as a bad person, just that he has strayed in various aspects. אשמנו is a description of the person as affected by sin. On a fast day we reflect on our sad state as sinners. We do not say words of request for forgiveness. On YK however the viduy is the long one. we insert requests for forgiveness for our focus is לפני ה תטהרו how we remain connected to Hashem and just have to mend our ways. When it comes to נעילה we are davening a prayer of a taanis and hence we omit the long viduy.

On the other hand, the Chiunuch (#433) views the ne'ilah prayer as a YM prayer- וְעוֹד תִּקְּנוּ תְּפִלָּה חֲמִישִׁית בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לְבַד, לְרֹב קְדֻשַּׁת הַיּוֹם, וּבַעֲבוּר הֱיוֹתוֹ יוֹם סְלִיחָה וְכַפָּרָה לַכֹּל, וְהִיא הַנִּקְרֵאת תְּפִלַּת נְעִילָה. For more discussion about this topic see תפילת נעילה ביום הכיפורים. 

Ultimately, Yom Kippur shares the element of a standard fast day and is viewd as an עת צרה. Yet through its unique sanctity, we are granted the capacity for purification before Hashem, לפני ה תטהרו,  transforming צרה, into צהר, a window of illumination, as an opportunity to begin anew with a new light unto our lives.

Reading Of The Kohan Gadol

The Mishna Yoma (68b) says that the Kohan Gadol would be informed when the שעיר עזעזל reached the midbar and then he would read the Torah. Why the need to know the שעיר already reached the midbar? Rashi says based upon pessukim that the Kohan Gadol can't start another avodah until the previous one is completed. The Sfas Emes challenges Rashi and assumes it is just a Rabbinic law to ensure one mitzvah is done before completing another. The way the Mahar"i Korkus understands the Rambam, this is not a general law that the Kohan must wait before starting another avodah but this is a unique law for the reading of the Torah that the Kohan must wait until the preceding avodah is done. However, this is very hard to understand why would the reading of the Torah be different than other avodah? The Briskors (Rav first letter in back of sefer, Grac"h on Shas, Harraray Kedem #77) say that the Rambam holds there is a general law for the kohan to remain in the place of the avodah until it is completed. Therefore, the Kohan must remain in his place before moving to the Ezras Nashim to read the Torah. It is hard to hard why there would be such a law and why if the שיער it sent out anyway can't the Kohan Gadol leave?

The possuk Rashi cites is שנאמר ושלח את השעיר במדבר ואחר כך ואת חלב החטאת יקטיר המזבחה. How does Rashi derive from here that reading the Torah which is Rabbinic and not an avodah must be delayed as well? The simple answer is that Rashi will reject the assumption of the question. 

Rashi may indeed hold that the reading of the Kohan Gadol is the a Torah law that is considered bound by the laws of the avodah. In the very next Mishna, in the opening of the next perek, Rashi says that the reading of the Kohan Gadol is derived from the מילואים. The Sfas Emes disagrees and assumes it is a Rabbinic law. However, Rashi is clear it is a Torah obligation. 

The Mishna says that the Kohan Gadol may read the Torah either in a white cloak of his own or the בגדי כהונה. The Gemarah refers to the reading not as an avodah itself but as a צורך עבודה. The Rambam in Perush HaMishna says it is not an avodah and the proof is that it does not require בגדי כהונה. The Netziv says that Rashi holds since the reading is considered צורך עבודה it also needs the previous step to be finished. The Mishna says there are 8 berachot recited by the Kohan Gadol. Rashi says all the berachot are recited after the reading but the Rambam holds that the regular berachot before reading the Torah are recited. The Gevorot Ari wonders why Rashi doesn't hold that there is a beracha beforehand like any other Torah reading? However, if this is a reading not done as a chovas hayom like other reading but is viewed as part of the avodah service and hence it does not have the rules of regular reading.