Thoughts On Taam

One of the sources in the Gemarah (Pesachim 44-45) for the din of טעם כעיקר is from the parsha of kashering kelim from the absorption of issue flavor after the battle in Midyan. It is a machlokes Rishonim if the bottle line pesak is that טעם כעיקר is a Bibical prohibition or only a Rabbinic prohibition. It is is Rabbinic why does the Torah say to kasher the vessels belonging to the Midyanim? Simply understood it was a temporary גזה"כ and that is the simple read of the Gemarah. However, the Reah cites the Ramban (cited in Aruch Hashulchan Yoreh Deah 98:10) says that even though taste imparted from food is only Rabbinic taste absorbed in a vessel must be kashered just as one must be tovel a new vessel purchased from a gentile, it is a מעלה for kelim brought into the jurisdiction of a Jew to be totally pure. (The Meshech Chachma points out the Torah introduces the law with the words זאת חקת התורה indicitating it is a גזה"כ and he asks if טעם כעיקר is always prohibited and the Torah is only prohibiting אעם לשבח what is the חוק? His starting point it to assume this parsha is a chiddush not the normal law.)

The Chasam Sofer Yoreh Deah (#94) recounts a story of a live bird that flew into a pot of boiling cream. The C.S. recounts an esteemed Rabbi (he doesn't say who, I have read that tradition says it was the Haflah) ruled it is בשר וחלב and אסור בהנאה. After everything was spilled out, it was pointed out to him that it was only בשר עוף which does not create an issur hanah? He immediately responded that since the chicken entered the butter while alive and died from the heat, the boiling butter absorbed the flavor of a live animal's limb before it died, hence it is אבר מן החי which is forbidden even to a non-Jew and therefore it would not be permitted to sell to a non-Jew either. The C.S. notes that it was obvious that he had made a mistake and came up with the justification afterward to save face but Hashem protects the righteous. The C.S. notes the novelty here is assuming that even a live thing can give off טעם and he cites his student cites a proof from the Rosh in Avodah Zarah who proves there is no טעם from a cold item from the fact that Haman told Achashverosh it a fly falls in wine a Jew will remove it and drink the rest, what about טעם? We see no טעם in something cold, asks the C.S.'s student, maybe there is no טעם because the fly is alive? We see live items also give off טעם. 

The Sdey Chemed cites the Teshuvot Yad Eliezer asks on the pesak that who says the law of טעם כעיקר applies to a gentile, that is a chiddush din said to a Jew? He answers that we only need the chiddush since I would say it is less than the shiur of the issur but for goyim where there are no shiurim, I would know the law of טעם כעיקר anyway. The S.C. goes on to be מפלפל in this point. 

The question assumes that טעם כעיקר is a new halacha of issur but if we say it just tells us that the original issur extends to טעם as well, we can here it is merely expanding the boundaries of the issuim that preexist and if that is an issur that applies to a gentile, the taam will be assur as well (the Achronim discuss this chakirah at length, see לקח טוב, גר"ח מאכ"א.)

The S.C. cites the Nodeh B'Yehuda suggests we don't apply the rule of טעם כעיקר only by issurim that have malkus. I don't understand since the Gemarah applies טעם כעיקר by mitzvot as well, so why should an issur without malkus be worse? (See Zevachim 78, though there may be other ways to learn the Gemarah, he doesn't even reference it?) 

Power Of The Mouth

The Ostrava Gaon explains the connection of the parsha of the מי מריבה with Klal Yisrael asking Edomi to pass through the land. He says the sin of מי מריבה was a misuse of speech and therefore Klal Yisrael did not have the power of הקול קול יעקב against עשו. He continues that this is the connection to the battles against the Emori and Sichon for he quotes the Besht that the 7 nations correspond to the 7 middos and Emori corresponds to teferes, the middah of Yaakov, the power of positive speech. Sichon, the Gemarah says means הולך אחר שיחה נאה, also connected to speech. It was the power of positive speech necessary to counterbalance the powers of Sichon and Og. This may also explain why the shira of the be'ar, positive speech is mentioned in this context.  We see this theme woven into the very fabric of the parah adumah purification process. The Alter Rebbe explains the שני תולעת used in the parah adumah is a hint to the Midrash that says that the strength of the תולע is with its mouth, so too Klal Yisrael. Part of the process of the parah adumah taharah is to understand how to use the mouth.  

This serves as an intro. to the parsha of Balak which is focused on the power of speech used by Bilam. 

The Or HaChayim (Pinchas 26:23-24) reads into the families of Yissachor hints to the kinyanim of Torah. He says the family of תולע hints to the aforementioned idea of the תולע and the פוה family hints to the power of the mouth as well. 

In the family of Binyamin (26:39,) the possuk says לשפופם משפחת השופמי לחופם משפחת החופמי. It is pointed out that this is the only possuk in the Torah where every word has a פ. he letter פ, pronounced פה, literally means mouthץ The Baal HaTurim explains this hints to the fact that Binyamin closed his mouth and did not reveal the sale of Yosef. The Torah alludes to his harnessing the power of speech by not talking. 

Whether it is singing praises like the shira of the be'ar, engaging in the vocal study of Torah like Yissachar, or channeling the silence of Binyamin, our ultimate strength lies in our mouths.

Three Parshios Of Menorah

The Torah commands the lighting of the Menorah in three distinct parshios, Tetzaveh, Emor, and Behaloscha. Are these repetitive commands, or does each serve a unique purpose? While both Rashi and the Ramban agree that these passages do not simply repeat themselves, they differ fundamentally on what each parsha comes to teach us.

 According to the Ramban (see Emor 24:2 and beginning of Behalsocha,)  there is one primary commandment to light the Menorah, which is introduced first, and the subsequent portions add layers of detail. In Titzaveh the Torah tells us the primary commandment to kindle the menorah. In Emor the Torah adds crucial practical details. It either introduces an ongoing obligation for Bnei Yisrael to donate oil beyond the initial Mishkan campaign, or it establishes a law that the lighting must occur specifically on the physical Menorah structure, rather than just lighting flames on anything.

Rashi views these parshios as entirely distinct parshios. Rashi in Emor (24:2) says the command in Emor is the actual commandment to kindle the lights. The parsha in Titzaveh  mentions the menorah merely as part of the  blueprint and construction phase of the Mishkan but not as a command to actually light it. 

What does Behalocha add? The Ramban says since the Torah just finished details of the inauguration of the Mishkan, the Mishkan is the subject at hand, therefore, the Torah here adds a few more details about the menorah. This fits with the Ramban's approach that the additional parshiot just add details to the basic law of lighting the menorah. According to Rashi however, Behalosha also teaches us something different.  Rashi opens his comment on the parsha, פרשת המנורה, this is not a command to light the menorah but is a command about the cheftzah of the menorah itself. The main possuk is וְזֶ֨ה מַֽעֲשֵׂ֤ה הַמְּנֹרָה֙ מִקְשָׁ֣ה זָהָ֔ב עַד־יְרֵכָ֥הּ עַד־פִּרְחָ֖הּ מִקְשָׁ֣ה הִ֑וא (see Or HaChayim asks why it is repeated but according to Rashi in the other parshios it was a detail, this is the main command.) The possuk of lighting is only to illustrate how the lighting also plays a role in enhancing the creation of the menorah. How? The Torah describes the menorah in Terumah as the middle being the גוף of the menorah with 6 branches extended outward. How is this apparent in the menorah after it is assembled? That is what our parsha adds the lighting is toward the face of the menorah, toward the middle of the menorah. This also answers the question of the Or HaChayim why the Torah doesn't use the terminology of a command but rather just a passive voice, "when you light, the flames will cast their light," why say an active command? Because the parsha is not coming to say a command to light the menorah but rather to describe the cheftzah of the menorah. This explains how Aharon's מדליק ומטיב את הנרות is greater than the nesiem for he gets to create the cheftzah of the menorah, to inaugurate the menorah, on a daily basis when he prepares and kindles the lights in a way that is reflective of the cheftzah of the menorah on a daily basis (based upon Likutay Scihos volume 28.)  

Carrying The Aron

The Rambam in mitzvah 34 lists a mitzvah for the kohanim to carry the aron. He says although in our parsha the command is given to the Leviem that was only since there were so few kohanim at that time but for the future it is a command for the kohanim. There are two questions on the Rambam. One question is how can the nature of a mitzvah change? And why does the Rambam hold that the mitzvah of carrying the aron applies as a permanent mitzvah but the other vessels are not included, if the source of the mitzvah, כי עבודת הקודש עליהם בכתף ישאו refers to all the vessels of the Mikdash? 

The Meshech Chachma and Briskor Rav (letters) both point to a possuk in Ekev as the source of the Rambam. The possuk (10:8) says בָּעֵ֣ת הַהִ֗וא הִבְדִּ֤יל ה אֶת־שֵׁ֣בֶט הַלֵּוִ֔י לָשֵׂ֖את אֶת־אֲר֣וֹן בְּרִית ה. This possuk singles out the aron as having a command to be carried. From there the Rambam derives that the mitzvah of carrying the aron is a permanent command. The Rav explains that they are two distinct laws, one is a law in carrying the Mishkan and that is a command to the Leviem in Naso. The possuk in Ekev tells us that there is a din in how to carry the aron when it is moved. He adds that is why the din of carrying the aron is not a command to the Leviem (that was only when does as a means of transporting the Mishkan) but is a command to the kohanim (and the Rambam would understand the possuk in Ekev as a reference to kohanim.) There are two issues I have with this interpretation. One issue is that if the Rambam is sourced in Ekev why does he not cite that possuk in the Sefer Hamitzvot, and he only cites the possuk of בכתף ישאו? In addition, we are forced to say the possuk in Ekev is not referring to Leviem but Kohanim (which is not like Rashi on the possuk, see Ramban.) And even if we grant that, why does the Rambam not say that is why the kohanim carry the aron and instead says a severah?    

The Rebbe (L.S. volume 28) says the Rambam understands from the Midrashim that line up the importance given to the family of Kehas to be counted first since they carry the aron which contains the Torah, that it is the aron which is the most significant item carried by Kehas. What defines the carrying of the aron as a permanent mitzvah is that carrying the other items is a command on the leviem, a command on the gavra how to carry the kelim. The aron requires carrying because the cheftzah of the aron demands carrying directly. With this we can understand how the mitzvah is transferred to the kohanim for it is not a command on the gavra to carry the aron, it is a command for the aron to be carried, who fulfills the act of carrying is a mere detail in the law. 

Yearning For More

The Midrash (beginnig of Vakiyra) connects the 48 times the Torah says not to oppress a convert with the 48 times is says the word באר in the Torah. What is the connection and what does it have to do with the beginning of Vakiyra? The Mei Hashiloach explains that the maximum capacity a person can reach is the level of 50 gates of understanding, Moshe was given the level of 49. How does one attain the maximum level of understanding? By having a strong, burning desire for understanding Torah. The באר symbolizes a deep, bubbling desire and yearning for the words of Torah and that is why it is mentioned 48 times. A ger also converted because he was a person that found inspiration, develop that desire to acquire Torah that he changed his life entirely. He adds that is why there are 48  קרשים in the Mishkan corresponding to the way to maintain a House for Hashem is through max desire. The source of this inspiration may be what the Ishbitzer cites from the Zohar that there are 48 daily drops that come from the Heavens. The Zohar says these drops were where the 48 prophets got there inspiration form. Says the  Ishbitzer, Moshe Rabbenu was called, ויקרא, meaning Hashem gave Moshe the capability to deepen his yearning and longing for Torah greater than anyone else and hence he merited to obtain 49 gates of wisdom. (The Avodas Yisrael Avot 2:8) says that was the praise of R' Eliezer that he was a בור סיד שאינו מאבד טיפה, he felt every day these drops of wisdom coming into the world and he made sure not to lose any of them.) 

ביום הזה באו מדבר סיני Rashi says ביום הזה as opposed to ביום ההוא tells us that words of Torah should be as fresh as if they were given today. This is in the context of preparing for Torah. It is the desire to acquire Torah, the feeling that it is fresh, that ensures a successful kabbalas haTorah. 

This is the avodah of sefirah. We are to climb the gates of wisdom through gate 48 by expressing our desire to acquire the Torah by counting with anticipating joy to Matan Torah. Moshe Rabbenu bestows gate 49 upon us and then gate 50 we do not count, that has to be a gift from Hashem.  

This is one of the reasons Rus is read on Shavuot. She was a giyores who demonstrated the desire to cleave to Torah despite many hardships (see also Sfas Emes Shavuot 5647.)  

Taanis Chlaom On Shavuot

Shulchan Aruch HaRav (494:18) אָסוּר לְהִתְעַנּוֹת תַּעֲנִית חֲלוֹם בְּחַג הַשָּׁבוּעוֹת לְפִי שֶׁהוּא יוֹם שֶׁנִּתְּנָה בּוֹ הַתּוֹרָה, וְצָרִיךְ לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׂמֹחַ בּוֹ, לְהַרְאוֹת שֶׁנּוֹחַ וּמְקֻבָּל לְיִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹם שֶׁנִּתְּנָה בּוֹ הַתּוֹרָה, לְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה לִשְׁאָר יָמִים טוֹבִים וְשַׁבָּתוֹת שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְהִתְעַנּוֹת בָּהֶם תַּעֲנִית חֲלוֹם כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן רפ"ח. In other words, the simcha of Shavuot goes beyond the normal laws of simcha on Yom Tov and in this instance creates an obligation specifically to eat food. Normally, one may fast a taanis chalom on Yom Tov for that is the simcha for the person but on Shavuot it is not allowed. The basis for this hlaacha is the peshat of Tosfos Berachot (49b) in the Gemarah Pesachim (68b) that on the days that everyone agrees there is a law of לכם such as on Shavuot because of the giving of the Torah, then one does not fast even a תענית חלום. 

The other exceptions mentioned in the Gemarah are Purim and Erev Yom Kippur, It is clear from the Shulchan Aruch (668:5) that he allows a fast on Erev Yom Kippur. The Rema (604:1) doesn't allows a fast of תענית חלום on Erev Yom Kippur but regarding Purim (695:2) he allows it on Purim and does not say anything about Shavuot. The Achronim give multiple reasons ot justify the pesak of the Rema that Erev Yom Kippur is different than the other days. 

In Maaseh Rav (Hosafos) it says the Gra was happier on Shavuot than on other holidays. This echoes what the Alter Rebbe says וְצָרִיךְ לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׂמֹחַ בּוֹ as the Rebbe (sicha second day Shavuot 5728) points out it says to add both in simcha and in eating. 

What is the nature of this obligation? 

The Gemarah Pesachim (68b) says even R' Eliezer agrees there is a din of לכם on Shavuot because of the giving of the Torah. Does this impact the opinion of R' Yehoshua - does he require more לכם?  According to the Rambam, no, (he makes on mention of Shavuot having any other requirement of לכם  beyond any other holiday in Yom Tov Ch.6.) However, the Ritva Sukkah 28a says there is a din of כולו לכם on Shavuot (that may have been his text in the Gemarah,) clearly he holds לכם plays a stronger role according to R' Yehoshua on Shavuot as well. However, according to the Rambam why should there be a difference regarding taanis chlaom? 

It would seem that this law of לְפִי שֶׁהוּא יוֹם שֶׁנִּתְּנָה בּוֹ הַתּוֹרָה is not just to complement the law of שמחת יום טוב but is its own celebration of the giving of the Torah with its own set of laws. However, this still requires an explanation for why would the simcha of the giving of the Torah be different than the simcha of Yom Tov? 

Rav Yitzchak Sorotzkin (Gevuros Yitzchak Shavuot siman 1) raises the possibility that the obligation of joy over the Torah ins not simcha, on internal joy but ששון, an outward expression of joy. Since there is an obligation of outward joy, it may be that one must express that as normally one expresses joy through eating.  However, it doesn't say anywhere that there is an obligation of sasson on Shavuot. 

The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 23, sichos 5625) explains that on other holidays there can be a disconnect between the commandment to enjoy the holiday and the feelings of the person due to his dream. The Torah accommodates for such a disconnect and the  law says that the obligation is limited to what will make the person feel good in his current state of mind. The obligation is to enhance the joy of the day. However, on Shavuot, the obligation of simcha is to celebrate how the Torah permeates the entirety of existence. For such an experience, it is necessary for the person's physical body to be joined in the enjoyment of the day. The nature of the giving of the Torah impacts the obligation of simcha.

Lasting Effect

The Chidushay HaRim asks why in davening on Shavuot do we say זמן מתן תורתנו and not זמן קבלת תורתנו? He explains that while the giving was a singular historical event, the receiving must be a daily renewal. This concept addresses a classic question. Why does the Torah itself never explicitly label Shavuot as the day of receiving the Torah? The Akedat Yitzchak in his second answer explains that the memory and acceptance of the Torah cannot be relegated to a specific calendar date. Unlike other holidays tied to historical moments, the Torah is a constant obligation and every day, the Torah should feel as new and beloved as the moment it was first uttered. We see this reflected in the Birkat HaTorah , where we describe Hashem as מותן התורה in the present tense. This teaches us that Sinai was not a static point in history; it is a continuous, ongoing revelation.

This theme of a is mirrored in the census at the beginning of Parshat Bamidbar. Rashi notes that Hashem counts the Jewish people constantly (כל שעה) because of His deep affection for them. How is there a count כל שעה if there are only a select few times that a count of Klal Yisrael are taken? The count highlights the quality of every individual Jew from the greatest to the lowest. The act of counting by Hashem brings to the forefront the aspect in which every Jew is equal which is the innermost kedusha of the every person. It is this core of the Jew that is illuminated by the count of Hashem.  Although there are only a select number of times when an actual count is recorded, the effect and impact of the count, the capability for a Jew in the lowest situation to be able to be מוסר נפש, to be able to return to kedusha, is an effect of the act of counting. The counting is felt כל שעה , although the act of counting only took place a few times (see Likutay Sichos volume 8.)

The count of the parsha teaches us the lasting effect of a one time event. The same is true of Shavuot. Although the act of מתן תורה was once, its effect is ongoing.