The Rashba in Teshuva 245 says there is no shecheyanu said on bris milah for the mitzvah is on beis din, not on the father. It is quite outstanding that he seems to say the mitzvah is entirely on the beis din, not on the child or the father at all.
Emrei Eliezer
Monday, February 10, 2025
Kiddush Points
Tosfos in Pesachim (106a) ד"ה זכריהו has a discussion if kiddush on wine is a Torah law or not. The Magen Avrohom (371:1) says since the conclusion is that is merely a Rabbinic law to say the kiddush on wine and one can fulfill the Biblical commandment of kiddush with the prayer services when one says מקדש השבת. Rabbi Akiva Eger says based upon this that saying good Shabbos also would suffice to fulfill one's Biblical commandment for one has mentioned that the day is Shabbos. In the Beur Halacha he objects to the R.A.E. because the Rambam says one needs to say דברי שבח in kiddush and that is not said by merely mentioning Shabbos? The Rashba Teshuva (volume 4 #295) also says that one can fulfill kiddush outside the context of on a cup of wine or prayer but says it has to be words of שבח וקילוס. (In the sefer Ratz Katzvi he says the Rashba fits the R.A.E. not like the question of the Beur Halacha bit I don't understand how he reads the Rashba who says one needs words of praise? Rav Mordechai Eliyahu also notes this Rashba sounds not like the R.A.E.) The one asking the question to the Rashba however does indicate that merely saying today is Shabbos does suffice for kiddush which would fit with R.A.E. What may be the underpinnings of this debate? This blog in the past mentioned the machlokes Rambam and Ramban if the nature of kiddush is to mention and designate the holiness of Shabbos as a distinct day from other days or is it a human form of injecting kedusha into day like Beis Din declaring the shemittah year holy. The Rambam goes lishitaso and hence requires a mention of the holiness and praise of the day. According to the Ramban however, one can argue that it merely suffices to declare that the day is Shabbos.
The Dagul Marevavah (271:2) raises the issue if the the man of the house prays maariv and already fulfills his Biblical obligation of kiddush how can he recite kiddush for his wife who is obligated on a Biblical level if woman are not part of arvus (which he understands based upon a Rosh.)? R.A.E. takes issue because of how he learns the Rosh. However, according to R.A.E. the whole question shouldn't get off the ground because the woman should also fulfill her obligation by lighting neros Shabbos. As pointed out even not according to the R.A.E., if a woman adds words of praise after lighting candles about Shabbos, they also would fulfill the Biblical obligation according to the Magen Avraham.
The Mishna Berurah (271:2) takes issue with the Magen Avraham for mitzvot need kavanah to fulfill the obligation and one is not thinking of fulfilling the mitzvah of kiddush when davening? The Chasam Sofer actually advises one to have in mind not to be yotzei kiddush in tefillah in order to be able to fulfill kiddush according to the takkanah of Chazal with wine in the place of the seudah (צ"ע if the chasam Sofer means to activly have this in mind ,this is what it sounds like from his haghos on Shulchan Aruch ,or this is automatic that one is not yotzei untill the meal after the takkana of Chazal, see his teshuva #17 and #21 he says it is like לב ב"ד מתנה שלא לצאת?) However, as noted by Rav Shlomo Zalman in Shulchan Shlomo this is an interesting implementation of lack of kavanah. The person that is davening is intending to say the words of praise about Shabbas, the same very same text as kiddush in fact, and he is expressing his his acknowledgment and intent of sanctifying Shabbos, why where is the lack of kavanah? Says Rav Shlomo Zalman, because the person's intent is to say this as part of tefillah not as a fulfillment of kiddush. It may very well be that the Magen Avraham will tell you there is no lack of kavanah here for the person has intent to do the same thing as kiddush does, the fact that there is no intent for the specific mitzvah of kiddush is not relevant.
Sunday, February 9, 2025
Hakaras Hatov
The Eban Ezra on Koheles (5:1) אמר אברהם המחבר: הנה נא הואלתי לדבר, כי בעבור היות כבוד המקום מלא כל מקום, ולא יוכל האדם להשמר בכל מקום, הוכן לו מקום שיהיה לו קבוע לתפילתו, והוא חייב לכבדו. גם חייב הוא האדם להודות ולשבח לאלהיו בכל רגע, כי חסדו עמו בכל חלקי הרגע, שיחיינו ויתענג בהרגשות. רק בעבור היות האדם מתעסק בעסקי העולם, הושם לו זמן שיתפלל בו, והם עתים ידועים: ערב ובקר וצהרים; כי כל מי שיש לו עינים ידע עת צאת השמש ועת נטותו ועת בואו. על כן חייב אדם שיתפלל, שישמור פתחי פיו ויחשוב בלבו שהוא עומד לפני מלך, בידו להחיות ולהמית. על כן אסור שיתפלל אדם ויכניס בתוך תפילתו פיוטין לא ידע עיקר פירושם, ולא יסמוך על המחבר ברצונו הראשון, כי אין אדם אשר לא יחטא, או המעתיקים חטאו. The Eban Ezra says that really one is obligated to say thank you to Hashem every second for every second Hashem does chesed for a person!
The Mesilas Yesharim Ch. 8 echoes such an idea וְאָמְנָם, מַה שֶּׁיּוּכַל לְהַגְבִּיר הַהִתְעוֹרְרוּת הַזֶּה הוּא הַהִסְתַּכְּלוּת בְּרוֹב הַטּוֹבוֹת, שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה עִם הָאָדָם בְּכָל עֵת וּבְכָל שָׁעָה, וְהַנִּפְלָאוֹת הַגְּדוֹלוֹת שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ מֵעֵת הַלֵּדָה עַד הַיּוֹם הָאַחֲרוֹן, כִּי כָּל מַה שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה לְהִסְתַּכֵּל וּלְהִתְבּוֹנֵן בִּדְבָרִים אֵלֶּה, הִנֵּה יַרְבֶּה לְהַכִּיר לְעַצְמוֹ חוֹבָה רַבָּה אֶל הָאֵל הַמֵּטִיב לוֹ,... הֶעָנִי חַיָּב לוֹ שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ בְּעָנְיוֹ מַמְצִיא לוֹ פַּרְנָסָתוֹ דֶּרֶךְ נֵס וָפֶלֶא וְאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחוֹ לָמוּת בָּרָעָב. הַחוֹלֶה עַל שֶׁמַּחֲזִיקוֹ בְּכֹבֶד חָלְיוֹ וּמַכּוֹתָיו וְאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחוֹ לָרֶדֶת שַׁחַת, וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה, עַד שֶׁאֵין לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁלֹּא יַכִּיר עַצְמוֹ חַיָּב לְבוֹרְאוֹ. The Ramchal says even one is a lowly state still owes gratitude to Hashem because he is alive. The question is how far does one go with this obligation of hakaras hatov? One who is in a lot of pain would sometimes prefer death, they would say they would rather not be alive, do they have to be thankful for being alive? Do they just no understand the gift of life? Rav Yehuda Amital was of the opinion that after the Holocaust one can not demand faith on the basis of hakaras hatov as after such genocide it is hard to demand such feelings of hakaras hatov. He obviously felt hakaras hatov goes only so far.
Thursday, February 6, 2025
Why Did The Sea Split
In davening we say המעביר בניו בין גזרי ים סוף, we refer to Klal Yisrael as banim only when they crossed the yam suf. Why?
ויאמנו בה ובמשה עבדו. The question is what happened now that caused a greater emunah, Klal Yisrael had already seen 10 maakos. What caused an increase in emunah at this point? Rav Itzele Blazer (Kocvay Or #3) explains that Klal Yisrael understood that Hashem controls the world and will do miracles to accomplish things for a sensible purpose. However, at krias yam suf not only where Klal Yisrael saved, but the Egyptians were obliterated. This was illogical to Klal Yisrael for they were cognizant of the their lowly state as the Midrash says the angels objected, both the Jews and the Egyptians were idol worshippers. Why do the Jews deserve to be saved and the Egyptians killed? However, when Klal Yisrael saw that they were saved and the Egyptians drowned they saw that Hashem will even do what seems opposite of logic and their אמונה that Hashem is not limited by the boundaries of human logic increased.
(As an aside, there seem to be a contradiction in Midrashim both in regard to the makkos and krias yam suf if Klal Yisrael had a zechus or zechusim that validated their redemption or that they weren't really deserving, I'm not sure if they are supposed to be reconciled somehow and what that would be.)
According to what Rav Itzele is explaining, Klal Yisrael did not have any clear advantage over the Egyptians to warrant the destruction of the Egyptians and yet Hashem deemed them worthy enough to destroy the Egyptians entirely. Why? Because they are Klal Yisrael. They are בניו, the children of Hashem. One doesn't need a reason to punish an attacker of one's son. It is the natural desire, irrespective of sechel that motivates one's actions. כביכול, Hashem stepped in to save his children.
ויקח משה את עצמות יוסף עמו, why not say Moshe took the aron of Yosef, why the bones? The Midrash says the yam split due to the aron of Yosef. Why? The bones of Yosef refers to the עצם, the עצמיות, the essence of Yosef. In the bones, the very essence of Yosef is the zechus for Klal Yisrael. Yosef as sent to to Egypt but retained his Jewish identity in Egypt. The merit of the aron of Yosef is that in the genes of Klal Yisrael is that עצמיות of Yosef, that connection to Hashem remained even as the externality of the Jew was not so apparent. This is the nature of being בנים, the connection is innate (see Likutay Sichos volume 26.)
Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Neros Shabbos
The Gemarah Shabbas (23b) says if a person can not afford both wine for kiddush and a candle for Shabbos then buying a candle takes precedence because it is needed for shalom bayis. Asks the Chayeh Adam, why do we need a new reason of shalom bayis, since the candles are lit erev Shabbos and kiddush is only said on Shabbos, of course the candle take precedence, since it is the mitzvah done first?
Tosfos in Shabbos (25b) has an opinion that one does not say a beracha on lighting nerot Shabbat. One of the arguments of Tosfos is that one does not need to actively light a candle for Shabbos, it suffices to have a candle lit for Shabbos. Rabbenu Tam argues and says one has to actively light a candle for shabbos and his proof is from a Gemarah (23b) here Rav Yosef told his wife not to light the nerot Shabbos to late since it says ״לֹא יָמִישׁ עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן יוֹמָם וְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ לָיְלָה״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעַמּוּד עָנָן מַשְׁלִים לְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ וְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ מַשְׁלִים לְעַמּוּד הֶעָנָן. Rashi says עמוד הענן - של יום משלים אורו לעמוד האש שהיה עמוד האש בא קודם שישקע עמוד הענן אלמא אורח ארעא בהכי. The Gemarah then continues that one can't light to early either. Says Rabbenu Tam, we see there is a proper timeframe for lighting, it doesn't suffice to merely have a candle lit? Rav Yosef Engel (Beis Haotzer Klal 66) points out according to the first approach in Tosfos, the mitzvah is to have a candle lit on Shabbos . In light of that approach the mitzvah of neros Shabbos is fulfilled on Shabbos when the house is illuminated and the mitzvah starts at the same time as kiddush and we don't have the question of the Chayeh Adam. But according to Rabbenu Tam that the mitzvah is the act of lighting, the question still stands.
It is notewrothy that the Magid Mishna (Chanukah 4:5) notes the Rambam understands the Gemarah of not to light too early or too late is referring to the Chanukah candles, not neros Shabbos and this would knock off Rabbenu Tam's proof. However, this is very difficult since it was the wife of Rav Yosef lit would indicate it is neros Shabbos, see there in Even Haezel that maybe it was erev Shabbos Chanukah, and she was lighting later to light Chanukah candles later, וצ"ע.
The Mishpitay Uziel (volume 1 #7) uses this debate as a starting point for the discussion if one can fulfill neros Shabbos with electric lights. According to the approach that one just needs light to exist in the house it should suffice but if one needs an act of kindling a fire, he does not believe merely turning on the light is considered lighting the fire.
(See also the Griz in the Grach stencil on the opinion of the Rambam and Mishpitay Uziel.)
Thursday, January 30, 2025
Aspects Of Tefillin
Three Takes On A Midrash
דבר אחר:יהי לבי תמים בחקיך, זה חקת הפסח, וחקת פרה אדומה. למה? ששניהן דומין זה לזה. בזה נאמר: זאת חקת הפסח. ובזה נאמר (במדבר יט, ב): זאת חקת התורה. ואי אתה יודע איזו חקה גדולה מזו! משל לשתי מטרונות דומות, שהיו מהלכות שתיהן כאחת נראות שוות, מי גדולה מזו, אותה שחברתה מלוה אותה עד ביתה והולכת אחריה.כך בפסח נאמר בו חקה, ובפרה נאמר בה חקה, ומי גדולה הפרה שאוכלי פסח צריכין לה, שנאמר ( שם שם, יז): ולקחו לטמא מעפר שריפת החטאת. (שמות רבה יט:ב)
What is the comparison between the law of Pesach and the law of Parah, what is the question of which one is greater and why is the law of parah greater?
Rav Kook (Midbar Shor 35) says based upon the Cuzari that the sin of the agel was that Klal Yisrael wanted to serve Hashem properly through the agel, logically it was a sensible thing to do, but at the end of the day it was wrong. The lesson is that the ways of Hashem are beyond human logic and we at times must put aside our logic for G-dly logic. The parah atones for the agel for death is the opposite of the desire of G-d to give life but yet G-d gives death for somehow that leads to a greater life. This is beyond our comprehension to fathom. Hence, all those that are involved in the process of the taharah from the tumas meis are tamah, meaning they don't see the good that comes out of death, it is a tumah, a hester panim but at the end, only at the end of the process is there taharah, can one see the good. The lesson of the parah is the antithesis of the agel. The parah teaches that at times the goal, the taharah, the G-dly logic can only be recognized at the end of the process. The ends justify the means but the means don't justify the end. Pesach teaches that sometimes there needs to be a jump, one doesn't have to wait to the end ,the geulah came early, sometimes doing what appears to humanly be correct is correct. "נתגלתה השלמות הראוי' בסוף ג"כ באמצע. ואם היו כל ההנהגות כולן עפ"ז הדרך, שהמתגלה קודם גמר התכלית הי' נראה מחלק השלמות המכוון לרצונו ית', אז הי' מקום לבעל הדין לומר שיוסיף מצות ע"פ הנהגתו והשכלתו." There is a balance that one must have of these two approaches, of using logic to try to prefect implementations of the rules of the Torah but at the same time suspending our logic for G-dly logic when we want to implement change. It is ultimately the message of the of the parah that is greater for it only at the ends, not the means that one will be able to truly understand Hashem's plan.
Rav Solevetchik (sefer of Stam miluim) says the Midrash is discussing two forms of acceptance of the decrees of G-d. Rav Solevetchik (being a Briskor) says that the concept of a chok teaches us that we don't ask למה or מדוע but מה. A Jew doesn't ask why but what should we do. The defining moment of kabbalas haTorah is נעשה ונשמע, Klal Yisrael said what should we do, we will do. There are two ways that one is challenged in this acceptance of faith. Sometimes there are personal challenges that one must overcome, a person is temted to ask למה, why do I have to do this? For this question comes the lesson of the parah, we don't ask why we accept the chukim of Hashem what he says to do, we do. The lesson of pesach is that sometimes there are national calamities, when Klal Yisrael is challenged with difficult times and one is tempted to ask מדוע, why is this happening to us, for that we have the chok of Pesach. Despite the setbacks, we know the geulah will eventually come. The question of the midrash is which chok, which aspect of acceptance will be מטהר the person, will elevate the individual to rise above his egotistical, animalistic self? The answer is the parah, it is the internal acceptance of a person which is most necessary to elevate himself. After that one can be elevated further by the acceptance of the national fate and faith of Klal Yisrael.
The Rebbe (maamer Parah 5624) says the Midrash is debating what is better, the path of the tzaddik or the path of the baal teshuva. The chok of the pesach represents the forming of the nation of Klal Yisrael as pure tzaddikim like a newborn child. The chok of the parah comes after there is tumah ,after sin, when does teshuva to clean up the sin. The Midrash says that although the chok of pesach, the bath of no evil is of course great, no that we are in a world which does contain sin, that must be elevated and that is only possible through teshuva.