Leave In Style

The possuk in Shir Hashirim (7:2) מַה יָּפוּ פְעָמַיִךְ בַּנְּעָלִים בַּת נָדִיב.  The Gemarah (Chagigah 3b) has a derash מה יפו פעמותיהן של ישראל בשעה שעולים לרגל.  Rav Shwab asks that the halacha is that one is not allowed to wear shoes onto Har Habais (Berachot 54a) so why would there be a praise of Klal Yisrael wearing shoes on the way to be עולה לרגל?  (I am not bothered by the question ,the point is that you wear shoes for the journey from one's house to Har Habais.)  Rav Shwab suggests the derash is for leaving the state of olah laregel.  when one left after the yom tov, one was filled with such kedusha that it was carried with a person home.  

Just as the Rambam (Avodas Yom Kippurim end of Ch. 4) says ויוצא לביתו וכל העם מלוין אותו עד ביתו ויום טוב היה עושה על שיצא בשלום מן הקדש.  There is a celebration of the Kohan Gadol for exiting the kodash kadoshim, for finishing the avodah of the day.  The piut מראה כהן described the great beauty of the Kohan as he exited the Kodash Kadoshim.  So too, Chazal are praising the exit from the aliah liregel, the grandeur of all the spiritual gains which permeate through the body of a Jew as he brings the gains from the Yom Tov into his ordinary life.

Chinuch For Girls On Time Bound Mitzvot

 A casual remark by my sister gave me the food for thought for this post.  She commented that her daughter of 0 years of age was with the babysitter and did not get the chinuch of listening to the shofar.  Obviously, her daughter has not yet reached the age of chinuch so she would not have a chinuch obligation but I was wondering is there a din of chinuch of girls for מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא.  I did a search on Ozter Hachama and found some results discussing this question but I did not see many very early sources on the topic.  I will try to explain some of the issues behind the question. 

Before getting to the issue of מעשהז"ג specifically, there is a debate over whether one has an obligation of chinuch for one's daughter at all.  The simple read of the Gemarah Nazir (29a) according to Resh Lakish is that there is no obligation of chinuch for one's daughter (see Tosfos there and Magen Avraham siman 343.)  However, the conclusion of most poskim is not this way (M.A. ibid, see Machatsis Hashekel's citation of Tosfos Yoma, Igrot Moshe Yoreh Deah volume 2 #113.)  

Is there chinuch for something where the child will never become obligated?  The Gemarah Chagigah (6a) is clear that there is no din of chinuch when one will never come to become obligated in the matter.  In that case we can say since a girl never becomes obligated in מעשהז"ג there is no din of chinuch.  On the other hand, one might say that the Gemarah is referring to when it is not even a maaseh mitzvah as in the case of the Gemarah a blind or lame child who would not be obligated in עלייה לרגל even as an adult.  However, a woman's kium of a מעשהז"ג is a maaseh mitzvah and perhaps there would be chinuch for such a mitzvah.

If one is obligated in chinuch only if it is an obligation why must one be מחנך their son to wear tzitzit (Sukkah 42a) if tzitzit is not an obligation, it is only if one wears a four-cornered garment that they must wear tzitzit?  That would seem to be akin to the woman performing a מעשהז"ג?  It would seem that case is different for although it is not incumbent upon one to wear tzitzit, if one does wear a four-cornered garment, they must wear tzitzit.  The obligation of chinuch is to train the child for that eventual, likely, possibility.  On the other hand, the girl will never come to an obligation for a מעשהז"ג. 

Another issue raised by the Kozhiglover (Eretz Tzvi Moadim Sukkah pg. 215) is how can a girl say a beracha on a מעשהז"ג?  Presumably, if there is a din of chinuch, they would be able to say a beracha just like a woman (according to minhag Ashkenaz.)  However, if there is no obligation of chinuch, how can they say a beracha, a woman says it due to her kium mitzvah but a minor does not have that?  He assumes the only reason to say a beracha is for the mitzvah of chinuch.  However, we also can add to the scale that a minor does not have the issur of lo sesa and possibly can say the beracha even without the mitzvah of chinuch, or maybe even witjout the din of chinuch the mitzvah of a minor still counts to say a beracha, וצ"ע.  

There is an article by R' Tzvi Ryzman going through some sources and sevarot on the topic here. 

It is also noteworthy that I saw cited in a kovetz בית ועד לחכמים in a piece by ר' יחזקאל וינבך who discusses this topic cites a Raavad on the Torah Kohanim parsha 2 (cited in Kuntrasi Shiurim siman 20 oas 5, according to Rav Gustman's emendation of the Raavad,) he proves form the obligation of chinuch for a katan that so too according to R' Yehuda who holds blind people are patur from mitzvot, there would still be a Rabbinic obligation.  The blind person will never become obligated according to R' Yehuda, yet he still derives from chinuch an obligation.  Presumably he would hold the same for girls for מעשהז"ג.  

Tosefet Shabbat/ Yom Tov

Tosfot in Pesachim (99b) says if one accept the holiday of Pesach early the mitzvah of eating matzah can not be fulfilled during tosefes yom tov because there is a hekesh from matzah to korban pesach where the possuk says it must be eaten after nightfall and during tosefes yom tov it is not yet night.  Rav Elchonon Wasserman points out that if not for the hekesh Tosfos holds that you would be able to fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzah during tosefes yom tov even though it is still the 14^th of Nissan.  How can one fulfill the mitzvah of matzah if it not the Yom Tov yet?  We see, Rav Elchonon says, that Tosfot holds tosefes yom tov makes it as if the chol day ended and the yom tov day started and therefore it is considered eating matzah on Pesach.  Rav Elchonon asks this contradicts Tosfot in Ketubot (47a) that says tosefes yom tov only creates an issur meleacha like that of the yom tov but the din of simcha is not extended.  That Tosfot holds that tosefes yom tov only extends the issur melecha but does not extend the yom tov itself.  In other words the two Tosfot are arguing in the chakirah of the Amek Beracha (Yom Tov) if tosefes yom tov merely extends the issur melacha or the yom tov itself is extended. 

The Gemarah in Berachot (27b) says that one can make kiddush of Shabbat during tosefes Shabbat.  If tosefes merely adds an issur melacha how does that work?  (According to the Rambam discussed here, that holds one can say kiddush before Shabbat this is not difficult.) The Mishne Berurah (267:5) cites a machlokes if one can fulfill the mitzvah of seudat shabbat during tosefes.  If one can fulfill kiddush, why not seudah?  

The Rama in Yoreh Deah (196:1) cites a machlokes in a scenario where the community accepted Shabbat early and a woman forgot to do a bedikah Friday can she still do the bedikah or is it considered that Friday is over and she missed it.  The two opinions seem to be arguing in the same machlokes as the two Tosfot.  The Gra explains the opinion that you can do a bedikah is because tosefes only makes it considered nightfall regarding kiddush and havdalah as stated both the Tosfot in Pesachim and in Ketubot.  How does tosefes only make it nightfall vis-a-vis kiddush and havdalah?  And how can the Gra lump together the Tosefot in Pesachim and the Tosefot in Ketubot when they are two different opinions? 

Rav Chayim (stencil) asks on the Tosfos in Pesachim that tosefes only extends the yom tov for dinim that stem from the kedusha of the yom tov but matzah is a separate mitzvah?  What is Rav Chayim's question, what difference does it make if the mitzvah is that of the kedashu of the yom tov or a separate mitzvah?   

The Minchas Chinuch (19:9) says that if one has a meal at the end of Pesach that extends past the end of the chag then one may eat chametz in the meal once the chag ends even though the individual is doing tosefes yom tov because tosefes only creates an issur melacha but the kedusha of the yom tov does not extend.  He repeats this yesod in mitzvah 323:2.  The Minchas Chinuch holds like the way Rav Elchonon learnt in the Tosfos in Ketubot.  The Alter Rebbe rules the same way as the Minchas Chinuch in Shulchan Aruch (491:3.)  However, he explains the reason differently.  He explains that tosefes yom tov extends the kedusha of the day into the timeframe of chol (either before or after the chag,) so dinim of kedushat hayom apply but chametz is not an issur which derives from the kedusha of the day (it applies on chol hamoad,) but stems from the days of Pesach themselves.  We see from the Alter Rebbe a third way to understand tosefes shabbos/yom tov.  It is not just an issur melacha but on the other hand it doesn't make the chol truncated and it is as if the day of yom tov grew longer.  Rather what tosefes does is to extend the kedusha of the chag into the chol.  The yom tov itself doesn't extend, it is the kedusha of the yom tov which is extended.  That is what Rav Chayim meant to ask.  Matzah has nothing to do with the kedusha of the yom tov, it is a separate mitzvah so how can Tosfot entertain that one can eat matzah during tosefes?  This is the intent of the Gra as well.  Kiddush and havdalah are mitzvot which derive from the kedushat hayom.  Those mitzvot can be fulfilled during tosefes.  However, the specific mitzvot to the chag have nothing to do with kedushat hayom, they are separate mitzvot and one can not fulfill them during tosefes.  This means that it is not considered to actually be shabbos/ yom tov during the time of tosefes and hence a woman can do her Friday bedikah during tosefes shabbos.  This is why some poskim hold that seudat shabbat can not be fulfilled during tosefes shabbos because they hold the seudah is a mitzvah that has to be done on shabbos, it is not a mitzvah linked to the kedusha of the day.  This is how the Gra understood the two Tosfot.  He understood that they are not two distinct approaches to the understanding of tosefes yom tov but rather they are saying the same yesod that the the the previous day is not chopped off and it is considered nightfall early, rather tosefes only extends the kedusha of the day.  (We will have to say that Tosfot held not like Rav Chayim and matzah is a mitzvah which does stem from the kedushat hayom.)  

(This approach is not like the Maharshal and Taz in siman 668:1 and the Taz in 494:1, ואכ"מ.) [Based upon a shiur by R' Elefant of the Mir.  Many of the points mentioned here were discussed on my father's blog 16 years (!) ago here.]

What Are You Seeing

 From the back of הררי קדם volume 2.  When being olah l'regel what are you coming to see.  Two approaches. 

Traveling To The Rebbi

The Mishna in Sukkah (25a) says שלוחי מצוה פטורין מן המצוה.  One of the examples Rashi gives for this din is if a person is on his way to be מקבל פני רבו בחג.  This obligation is derived (27a) from a verse in the navi and presumably is only Rabbinic.  From here some Achronim want to prove that even if one is doing a Rabbinic mitzavh it also exempts only from fulfilling even a Torah commandment (see Aruch L'nar, Kovetz Shiurim.)

The question that can be raised is this obligation of seeing one's Rebbe a Talmud Torah halacha or is it a Yom Tov halacha.  The Magan Avrohom (301:7) assumes that woman are included in this obligation and the proof is that the source of the obligation is learnt out from the אשה שונמית that went to Elisha.  However, the Pnei Yehoshua Rosh Hashana (16b) assumes that women must be exempt for as a separate obligation it is a mitzvat aseh s'hazman grama and talmud torah she is exempt from.  And he explains that the אשה שונמית would go to Elisha despite the fact that she was exempt because she went to appreciate the greatness of Elisha. How can the Magen Avrohom hold that woman are obligated?  I think the simple peshat would be that we see in the possuk that woman are obligated so we see over here woman are obligated in this mitzvah despite it being time bound.  However why that would be, is unclear.  In the Moaday HaGrach (Kanievsky,) ( #252,) he was asked what is the explanation of the Magen Avrohom and he said it is part of simchas Yom Tov.  I guess Rav Chayim assumes one is happy to see there Rebbe on Yom Tov and it hence would be a fulfillment of simchas Yom Tov.

If we assume like this, then we can address the previous Rashi.  The reason why going לקבל פני רבו בחג exempts one from other mitzvot is because it is a kiyum mitzvah of simchas yom tov.  [I assume the geder of this would be that the Rabbis enacted that one must fulfill simcha in this manner of greeting one's Rebbe and not through other means.]

The next two questions in the sefer reflected this opinion of R' Chayim that it is an obligation of the Yom Tov, not an obligation of learning Torah. In the next question they asked R' Chayim if מקבל פני רבו בחג is part of the mitzvah of talmud torah or part of מורא וכבוד רבו.  He responded that its part of the כבוד הרגל.  [I'm not sure what that means its כבוד הרגל and he didn't respond its from the mitzvah of simcha.] The question after that is why the Rambam cites the law in Talmud Torah (5:7) and not in the laws of Yom Tov?  His response: לפני שכחו מענין רבו.  I don't know what that means either.  He goes לשיטתו in דרך שיחה עמ' תקסח where he assumes saying Gut Yom Tov to one's Rebbe is a fulfillment of the din.  If the yesod hadin is a law in talmud torah, then one would only be able to fulfill it by hearing דברי תורה from his Rebbe.

The Bikkuray Yaakov (603:22) suggests that even though the obligation may be derived from the navi, it is a fulfillment of את ה' אלקיך תירא לרבות ת"ח.  With this idea, he explains the Rashi in Sukkah.  One is exempt from other mitzvot for they are fulfilling the mitzvoh of honoring a talmud chacham. This is a third dimension.  The yesod of the laws isn't for the Yom Tov or talmud torah, rather to show honor to one's Rebbe.  The terminology of Rashi Chagigah (3a) ד"ה להקבל פניו וכו' לכבד את רבו also slightly indicates like this.  And this is the simple read of the Rambam that cites this law in the context of honoring one's Rebbe.  On the other hand ,the Ramban Yisro (20:8) says the mitzvah is 'לשמוע דבר ה indicating the yesod hadin is a way of fulfilling talmud torah.  The Ritvah Sukkah (27a) understands the obligatiobn to come on the holiday is only for someone that is far away but one who lives close to their Rebbe must come every day.  That obligation may be understood as כבוד רבו or because of talmud torah, to able to learn better.  [See Magan Avrohom 554:12 and Pri Migadim there.]

The Nodeh B'yehuda volume 2 (#94) asks why is this law of לקבל פני רבו not cited in the Rosh and Shulchan Aruch?  He says that the mitzvah doesn't apply after the destruction of the Temple based upon the Gemorah Kiddushin (33b) that one should only stand up for their Rebbe once in the morning and once in the evening so that one isn't honoring their Rebbe more than Hashem that we accept his kingship in Shema twice a day.  So too now since we can't go be עולה לרגל, we shouldn't go visit our Rebbe and show more honor to them.  Rav Avrohom Gorvitz asks its not showing more honor to the Rebbe for that we don't do עלייה לרגל is because we are אנוס, not because we are diminishing כבוד שמים?  Furthermore, would one that is exempt from עלייה לרגל be exempt from קבלת פני רבו, it doesn't say that anywhere?  Therefore, he says based upon the understanding that the yesod hadin is to show honor to one's Rebbe, it shouldn't be compared to עלייה לרגל which is to come to Yerushaliam to bring the korbanot of the holiday, rather to krias shema for both of them are  expressions of honoring; shema is honoring Hashem by accepting His sovereignty and לקבל פני רבו is to honor one's Rebbe by going to them. Hence, a lack of being עולה לרגל has nothing to do with going לקבל פני רבו, rather just as one recites krias shema, so too one should also be מקבל פני רבו ברגל.
To conclude with two additional points. The Rema M'pano (Teshuvot #6 at the end,) says the reason to לקבל פני רבו ברגל is because it is the chachamim that cause the kedusha of the yomim tovim by sanctifying the month.
A very important lesson that is cited in the Divrei Siach from the Steipler.

Bow Before Me

The possuk in the parsha of bikkurim (26:10) says והשתחוית לפני ה אלוקיך and this is cited in Bikkurim (3:6) that when one brings bikkurim, they bow.  The Gra in Aderes Eliyahu understands this isn't a specific din in bikkurim but is a general din regarding any one who enters the mikdash, they must bow before Hashem.  The Briskor Rav understands that this obligation emanates from the obligation of '"ראית ה" and based upon this he explains why in Ke Sesa (34:8) says וַיְמַהֵר מֹשֶׁה וַיִּקֹּד אַרְצָה וַיִּשְׁתָּחוּ.  Why did he bow then?  Because Hashem had just "past His presence" before him.

However from the Rambam that only mentions bowing regarding bikkurim and from Tosfos Sukkah (47b) ד"ה הביכורים it sounds like they hold that is only an obligation regarding bikkurim.  According to them the source of the obligation must be something else.  Rav Yitzchak Sorotzkin suggests that the bowing is part of the process of  הודאה that one engages in when offering bikkurim.  He also suggests that it was part of the process of prayer as the Rambam Sefer Hamitzvot #132 says היא שצונו לספר טובותיו אשר היטיב לנו והצילנו. ומתחיל בענין יעקב אבינו ומסיים בעבודת המצריים וענותם אותנו ולשבחו על כל זה ולבקש ממנו להתמיד הברכה כשיביא הבכורים,.  (See Kli Chemda as well.)  This is also clear from the Nitziv in the הרחב דבר on the possuk of  וַיִּקֹּ֣ד הָאִ֔ישׁ וַיִּשְׁתַּ֖חוּ לַֽי״יֽ (Chayeh Sarah (24:26).)  He says: וזהו כלל בכל מקום דכתיב במקרא ״השתחואה לה׳⁠ ⁠״ היינו בברכה, או תפילה שמקדים לשון ברכה. וכדאיתא בירושלמי תענית (פ״ד ה״ב) הוכחה על מעמדות שהיו על גבי תמידין, שנאמר ״וכל הקהל משתחוים״ (דהי״ב כט,כח) — אלו ישראל, דמפרש הירושלמי ״וכל הקהל״ היינו מעמד, שהיו מתפללים ד׳ תפלות, כידוע...וכן הוא בתנחומא פרשת תבא (א׳) על הפסוק ״באו נשתחוה ונכרעה״ (תהילים צה,ו): הלא כריעה בכלל השתחויה, השתחויה בכלל כריעה, אלא צפה משה ברוח הקודש שבית המקדש עתיד ליחרב וכו׳, עמד והתקין לישראל שיהיו מתפללים שלש פעמים בכל יום וכו׳.  

However, in the Gra's opinion as well there is another approach.  The Gra himself in his elucidation on the mishna in Tammid (7:1) says that the obligation of bowing isn't upon entering the Beis Hakikdash (which it should be according to the explanation of the Briskor Rav,) rather it is before exiting the Mikdash.  We see that he holds that the obligation is part of exiting honorably before the king or  as Rav Asher Weiss puts it  here: השתחויה גם כשיוצא האדם מלפני המלך שהוא חוזר ומקבל עליו עול מלכותו גם בצאתו ... לשיטת הגר"א השתחויה זו קבלת עול מלכות שמים היא, וכהשתחויה בגמר עבודת המקדש ובגמר תפילת העמידה.

In the prayers on the 3 festivals in mussaf we say וְאֵין אֲנַחְנוּ יְכוֹלִים לַעֲלוֹת וְלֵרָאוֹת וּלְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹת לְפָנֶיךָ.  Why mention bowing, even if there is a Beis Hamikdash why would there be an obligation to bow?  In light of the Briskor Rav's approach it is understood that the obligation of 'ראית פני ה obligates bowing however in the other approaches its not as smooth of a fit (see also Rinas Yitchak on the siddur for festival prayers that says a little different.)

Interestingly, Rav Dovid Solevetchik assumes like the Gra and asks the opposite, being as there is no special obligation of bowing on the festivals, rather its an obligation any time one enters the mikdash, why mention it in our prayers of the three festivals, it has nothing to do with the festival?  The Alter Rebbe asks (Likkutay Torah V'zos Haberacha (98b)) why do we need a mikdash to bow; one may always bow before God?  They answer along the same lines. We aren't praying to be able to do the physical act of bowing, we are praying to be able to feel our soul, feelings,and mind bow before God.  To feel that sense of complete bittul before Hashem and that is only possible in the context of the aura of the gathering of Kal Yisroel before Hashem in the mikdash.  As the Lubavitcher Rebbe puts it in a letter (volume 2 #304): יש ב' בחינות בהשתחוואה: א) השתחוואה חצונית שמשתחוה בגופו או, מדרגה נעלית יותר בהשתחואה חצונית, שבמעשה בפועל, שזה תלוי בגופו, לא ימרוד במלך מלכי המלכים הקב"ה. ב) השתחואה פנימית שנעשה בבחי' ביטול רצונו מפני רצון הקב"ה שאין לו רצון וחפץ אחר כלל, וזהו השתחואת הנפש. והשתחואה זו היו מקבלים ישראל ע"י הראי' ברגל בביהמ"ק. ומשחרב ביהמ"ק הגם שאין אנו יכולים להשתחוות עכ"פ נתפשטה קדושת הארה זו אפס קצהו במקדש מעט ביהכ"נ וביהמ"ד והיינו בשעת התפלה (בלקו"ת פ' ברכה ד"ה מזמור שיר - הראשון - פ"ב בארוכה).

That is the ultimate purpose of the gathering of the exiles, to feel this level of bittul expressed through bowing as the possuk says Yeshiyahu (27:13) וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִתָּקַע בְּשׁוֹפָר גָּדוֹל וּבָאוּ הָאֹבְדִים בְּאֶרֶץ אַשּׁוּר וְהַנִּדָּחִים בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַי״י בְּהַר הַקֹּדֶשׁ בִּירוּשָׁלָ‍ִם.

The Simcha Of Basar

!אין שמחה אלא בבשר, הקב"ה רוצה ויש לו שמחה מהעבודה של בשר ודם

Korbanot Hachag

As I was attempting to pay some attention to the prayers on Tom Tov, I noticed a discrepancy in the pessukim of the mussaf offerings.  In the korbanot of the first day of Pesach it says (Pinchas 28:19) שבעה כבשים בני שנה תמימים יהיו לכם.  On Shavuot it just says (28:27) שבעה כבשים בני שנה.  On Sukkot it says שבעה כבשים בני שנה תמימים יהיו, no לכם.  What is the difference for this discrepancy?

Messianic Shoes

In the previous post we cited the Gemorah that connects the feet that go up to Yerushalim for the regel to the נדיבות of Avrohom.  What still needs to be explained is why is there an emphasis on the feet?  The ערוך לנר in Sukkah explains based upon the midrash in Lech Lecha that we received the mitzvah of עלייה לרגל because Avrohom didn’t even take a shoelace from the King of Sedom.  It is in the merit of the shoes that me have the mitzvah of עלייה לרגל.  What is the connection between the act of Avrohom of not taking the shoelaces and עלייה לרגל?

 We also find a reference to shoes in the haftorah for the last day of Pesach (Yeshayahu 11:15) which describes us coming from the golus to Eretz Yisroel in the times of Mashiach walking in our shoes through the split river.  Why does the possuk need to mention that we are wearing shoes?  We explained here from the Bechai and Shem M'Shmuel in Shemos that shoes represent the ability to elevate the ground, the lowest levels in the world.  In the days of Moshiach even the lowest levels will be elevated. As touched on here, this was the message Avrohom was conveying to the King of Sedom (see Michtav MaEliyahu volume 2 page 170-3.)  Even the lowest parts of a person, the shoelaces must come from a pure source and may not be contaminated by a Sedomite King.  By being עולה לרגל a person isn’t just physically using his feet, the kedusha that is experienced from being in Yerushalim for the regel has an effect even on the “feet” of his life.  Now that we don’t have the actuality of being עולה לרגל  this experience must be felt in our prayers. (See also Toras Menachem 5725 (printed in this week’s Dvar Malchut) on the last day of Pesach and in the Alter Rebbe on the possuk in Shir Hashirim.)

Footsteps Of Desire

כתוב בשיר השירים (ז:ב) מה יפה פעמיך בנעלים בת נדיב.  והגמ' (סוכה מט: וחגיגה ג:) דורשת מה יפו פעמוניך (רגליך) בשעה שעולין לרגל, בת נדיב היינו בת בתו של אברהם שנקרא נדיב.  ורש"י מפרש למה נקרא אברהם נדיב?  משום שנדבה לבו להכיר את בוראו.  וצריך להבין מה הקשר בין מידת הנדיבות ובין מצות עלייה לרגל? (עיין מהרש"א וערוך לנר.)  השפ"א מאמרי פסח תרלט בקטע האחרונה מביא מדרש (שיר השירים רבה על פרק א פסוק טו) שאע"פ שחרב בית המקדש לא בטלו שלש רגלים בשנה.  וצ"ב כונת המדרש וכי ס"ד שהרגלים יהיו בטילין לאחר החורבן?  אלא ביאור הענין הוא שבאמת הרצון פנימי של כל יהודי הוא להיות קרוב להקב"ה ולהיות נמצא כביכול במחיצתו כל הזמן.  אבל מחמת טרדות הרבות שיש על האדם זה לא הולך וא"א להיות נמצא בקודש פנימה כל ימי השנה.  אבל ג' פעמים בשנה הקב"ה מזמין את האדם לתוך ביתו ואומר בא נהיה ביחד עכשיו.  וכשאדם מקבל את ההזמה ועולה לירושלים בשמחה זה מורה על הרצון הפנימי שיש לו כל ימי השנה.  יוצא שכל מהות וענין של עלייה לרגל הוא תוצאה מהתשוקה וצפייה להיות קרוב אצל הקב"ה.  וכן הוא כונת רש"י והגמ' שכל הענין של מצות עלייה לרגל הוא ההתפשטות מידת הנדיבות להבורא שנמצא טמון בתוך לבות של עם ישראל כל ימי השנה.  וכן הוא כונת המדרש הנ"ל שאע"פ שבטלה עצם העלייה במוחש ובפועל עדיין נשאר מצות הצפייה והדרישה להיות קרובים להבורא.  וצריך כל אדם להתפלל בכובד ראש ולב נשבר על שמפני חטאנו גליני מארצנו ונתרקנו מעל אדמתינו ושרוצה לקיים בפועל עלייה לרגל (עפ"י שפ"א הנ"ל וגרב"ד פוברסקי.)

Shelamim of Simcha And Chagigah

The Gemorah in Pesachim (70b-71a) brings a machlokes amoraim if one can fulfill the obligation of shalme simcha with animals that are slaughtered prior to the holiday or do we require זביחה בשעת שמחה.  We see from the opinion (עולא אמר ר"א) that requires זביחה בשעת שמחה that the mitzvoh isn’t fulfilled by the eating of the korban, rather there is an obligation of the holiday simcha is to bring a korban.  The language of Maimonides indicates this way as well.  He says in positive commandment #54 and Laws of Chagigah 1:1 the mitzvah is to be מקריב  a korban.  On the other hand, the Gemorah in Chagigah 7b says that one can fulfill shalme simcha with other korbanot.  If one needs a הקרבה as a shelamim, how can one fulfill their obligation with other korbanot? 

Tosfos in Chagigah says (in one answer) that one can fulfill shalme simcha with נדרים ונדבות only if they are offered לשם שמחה, not לשם נדרים.  We see from Tosfos that one does need to offer the korban for the sake of simcha in order to fulfill the הקרבה as a shalme simcha.  On the one hand you don't need to offer a specific shalme simcha, but you do need to have intent that the korban is being offered for simcha (see Maadanei Moshe siman 4.)

However, Rashi in Zevachim 99b explains that you can use a todah as shalmei simcha only because its called a shelamim.  Why does it have to be called a shelamim if you can fulfill your obligation with other korbanot ?(see Sfas Emes.)

What is the din regarding the shelamim of chagigah, does it have to be offered on yom tov itself?  The simple understanding would be that it has too because it is an obligation of the day.  That is the view of Tosfos in Pesachim 70b ד"ה שלמים as well as the opinion of the Rid (71a).  It is clear from the Raavad and Rambam Laws of Chagigah 2:10-11 that they disagree.  How can they hold you have fulfilled your obligation of bringing a korban to Hashem?  We see that they must hold the obligation of the chagigah isn't to offer a korban to Hashem, rather its an obligation on the person to eat 'לפני ה.  Hence, even if the הקרבה  was done before the holiday, since the eating itself is done on the holiday one fulfills their obligation.  Tosfos on the other hand, holds its an obligation of הקרבה and therefore, the הקרבה must be done on yom tov (see Avnei Nezer #422 and Maseas Moshe siman 97.)  

Highlights From Rav Kanievsky

In the Sefer מועדי הגר"ח it brings that Rav Chaim Kanievsky was asked if woman are obligated to learn the laws of a yom tov 30 days in advance and he said they are exempt because they are exempt from Talmud Torah.  That means he holds its an extension of the din of Talmud Torah.  He follows this approach to explain why the Rambam leaves out the din of שלשים יום because its included in the regular obligation of Talmud Torah.  However, on the next page he was asked if one who’s learning the laws of the yom tov 30 days in advance is of the holiday is exempt from mitzvot unlike one who is learning, and he responded that that the learner is exempt.  That means he understands it’s not an extension of the din of Talmud Torah which is a contradiction to the previous page?  Then on the next page they asked him this contradiction and he answered נכון and I’m left baffled what that is supposed to mean (pg. ט-יב .)

In the footnotes it appears that they are equating the din of ל' יום to the din of הל' חג בחג.  On the first question they cite the Steipler in Megillah #3 who assumes that the din of הל' חג בחג is an extension of Talmud Torah and woman are exempt from the din.  On the second question they point you to a journal, Kol Torah issue 58 where Rav Moshe Lepkovetz cites Rav Baruch Povarski to explain a difficult Rashi in Sukkah.  Rashi on the Mishna 25a explains the rule of שלוחי מצוה פטורין מן המצוה applies to one who is on the road to learn Torah from his Rebbe.  Everyone asks that there is no rule of עוסק במצוה regarding Talmud Torah, so how can one just on the road to learn be exempt from mitzvot?  Rav Povarski explains that Rashi is referring to one who is going to learn Torah on the holiday, and it has a din of שלוחי מצוה for a mitzvah separate from Talmud Torah. We see that הל' חג בחג is viewed as a separate obligation from that of Talmud Torah (what the nature of this obligation maybe what we explained here.)

Shir Shel Yom

The Gra has a seperate shir shel yom for every holiday (based on maseches sofrim.)  According to his view that is the only song said.  Common practice is not like that, rather on Yom Tov we just say the regular song of the day.  The Magen Avrohom says in siman 132 the reason is since its just a remembrance to the mikdash we don't have to be so exact.  Many poskim advise not saying on Yom Tov שבו היו הלויים אומרים בבית המקדש for that would be a lie since they wouldn't be saying this on that day.  However, the Shmeras Shabbos C'Hilchasa still advises saying היום יום __ לשבת to fulfill the opinion of Ramban that mentioning the days of the week until Shabbos is a fulfillment of זכור את יום השבת. 

However, the Chashek Shlomo is bothered by the custom of the Gra to say only one shir shel yom, say two, that of the תמיד של שחר and that of mussaf?   The Magen Avrohom (ibid) is of the opinion that the assumption of the question is wring, on Yom Tov they only said the song of Yom Tov even by the תמיד של שחר.  This matter is disputed in other Achronim as well.  (See Presha siman 133 that actually suggests saying two.)   Rav Shlomo Hakohan explains the Gra's position also isn't to mimic the song of the Beis Hamikdash.  That was special for when our actions were desired by God, now we have no right to sing those songs.  What we say is a praise to Hashem for the daily creation, what is unique to that day and on Yom Tov the unique aspect of the day is the Yom Tov.  (What I like about this is that it explains how the Gra could have a special shir shel yom for Yom Tov shenei, in the mikdash it was chol, how could there be a special shir shel yom?  But if its just to mention the uniqueness of the day, its understood.)

Either way, everyone says on Rosh Chodesh ברכי נפשי, why is it unique?  I think the answer is because the Gemorah says we want to make known when Rosh Chodesh is, so we do many things to "announce" its presence.  However, what I don't understand is why Ashkenaz says מזמור שיר חנוכת הבית on Chanukah, which the Gra explains is the shir shel yom, why is it different than any holiday where Ashkenaz doesn't switch?  Maybe Ashkenaz isn't saying it as the shir shel yom, rather its part of the hodayah of Chanukah.  Meaning according to the Gra its the song of the day as opposed to Ashkenaz its meant as a song of gratitude.  (I don't know, its purely speculative.)

For those interested in explain of the mizmor and its connection to Dovid (and possibly Chanukah) see here.  (Thanks to my father for the mareh makom.)

As an aside, is it a song as the words shir shel yom indicate or was it just said as the words שבו היו אומרים indicates?  See here.

I saw someone ask according to the Gra that the shir of Rosh Chodesh trumps all, why is the haftorah this week that of Chanukah and not that of Rosh Chodesh?  I would assume that the haftorah follows the last laining which is that of Chanukah but see Magen Avrohom 684:2.

P.S. Sorry for the lack of mareh mekomos, I'm pressed for time and can't find the location of everything immediately.