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.  

The Greatest Distance

The Tanchuma opens Vayelech וַיֵּלֶךְ מֹשֶׁה וַיְדַבֵּר אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֶל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֵין וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן תּוֹכֵחָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: לְכוּ חֲזוּ מִפְעֲלוֹת אלקים.  How does the word וילך connote rebuke?  Furthermore, what is the תוכחה the Midrash is referring to?  The pessukim at the beginning of the parsha, וַיֵּלֶךְ מֹשֶׁה וַיְדַבֵּר אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֶל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם בֶּן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם לֹא אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא seem to have a contradiction in it, for דבר refers to harsh words but אמר means to speak softly (Makkot 11a,) did Moshe say harsh words or soft words?  Why is the mitzvah of hakhal performed after the shmittah year? 

"The greatest distance between any two points is the distance that separates our minds from our hearts."  That is the וילך, to traverse that distant between the heads and the hearts of Klal Yisrael.  Moshe Rabbenu was giving his parting message and he wanted it to pernitrate through their minds and hearts.  Therefore, Moshe Rabbenu uses multiple means of conveying his message.  The Sforno notes that the opening words of Moshe Rabbenu are words of appeasement but that is followed by words of rebuke Moshe uses all tactics to convey his parting message.  

That is why hakhal follows after the shmittah year.  After a year where one had time to study Torah, the person's heart is opened and he is able to be inspired by the communal reading of hakhal.  The Sifsay Tzaddik goes so far as to suggest a chiddush lihalacha that having a shmittah year is meakev in the mitzvah of hakhal.  

Sleeping

The Rambam Teshuva (3:4) says אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁתְּקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה גְּזֵרַת הַכָּתוּב רֶמֶז יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּלוֹמַר עוּרוּ יְשֵׁנִים מִשְּׁנַתְכֶם וְנִרְדָּמִים הָקִיצוּ מִתַּרְדֵּמַתְכֶם וְחַפְּשׂוּ בְּמַעֲשֵׂיכֶם וְחִזְרוּ בִּתְשׁוּבָה וְזִכְרוּ בּוֹרַאֲכֶם. אֵלּוּ הַשּׁוֹכְחִים אֶת הָאֱמֶת בְּהַבְלֵי הַזְּמַן וְשׁוֹגִים כָּל שְׁנָתָם בְּהֶבֶל וָרִיק אֲשֶׁר לֹא יוֹעִיל וְלֹא יַצִּיל, הַבִּיטוּ לְנַפְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם וְהֵיטִיבוּ דַּרְכֵיכֶם וּמַעַלְלֵיכֶם וְיַעֲזֹב כָּל אֶחָד מִכֶּם דַּרְכּוֹ הָרָעָה וּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא טוֹבָה.  Where does this idea that people are sleepwalking come from?

Rav Shwab notes that when Adam is put to sleep for his wife creating surgery, the Torah never says he woke up.  Obviously he woke up but Rav Shwab suggests that besides a physical sleep, Adam was also put in a spiritual state of sleep which he never got up from.  He says that Klal Yisrael at Mattan Torah awoke but everyone else is stuck in a slumber.  With this idea he explains the brecha we say in the morning המעביר שינה מעיני ותנומה מעפעפי and then we continue תרגלנו בתורתך ודבקנו במצותיך etc.  What does this have to do with waking up?  And why is this beracha on walking up not the first one?  He says that the beracha is also referring to walking form a spiritual slumber.  Therefore, we follow with spiritual requests and we put the beracha at the end when one starts their new day of spiritual journey.  

With this idea we can explain the Rambam.  Over the year one falls back into the spiritual sleep that is placed on the world and needs the alarm clock to wake him up.  That is the shofar.  

The Shem MiShmuel asks what is the double terminology of עוּרוּ יְשֵׁנִים מִשְּׁנַתְכֶם וְנִרְדָּמִים הָקִיצוּ מִתַּרְדֵּמַתְכֶם?  He says it refers to the טמטום המוח והלב that have crept up over the year.   "אבל לפי דרכנו בדקדוק נאמר עפי"מ שהגדנו למעלה ששינה מתייחסת ללב, ותרדמה נראה שמתייחסת לשכל וכמ"ש (ישעי' כ"ט י') כי נסך עליכם ה' רוח תרדמה ויעצם את עיניכם, וזהו הרמז שבשופר שתקיעה שבמוח מקיצה הנרדמים שהוא חשכת השכל, והשברים שהם בלב נשבר מעוררין הישנים שהוא אוטם הלב."  There is the brain of a person that over the year becomes filled with false ideas that the shofar helps uproot as well as the heart which becomes devoid of emotion for Godliness which also is aroused through the shofar. 

Recognize your Creator

 The Rambam Teshuva (3:4) says אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁתְּקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה גְּזֵרַת הַכָּתוּב רֶמֶז יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּלוֹמַר עוּרוּ יְשֵׁנִים מִשְּׁנַתְכֶם וְנִרְדָּמִים הָקִיצוּ מִתַּרְדֵּמַתְכֶם וְחַפְּשׂוּ בְּמַעֲשֵׂיכֶם וְחִזְרוּ בִּתְשׁוּבָה וְזִכְרוּ בּוֹרַאֲכֶם.  Why does he say do teshuva and then recognize your Creator, one would think that one first recognizes Hashem and then does teshua? 

The blog cited in the past Rashi in Avodah Zara (19a) that identifies teshuva as להכיר בוראו.  (What is Rashi coming to explain by adding this there?  The context of the Gemarah is that doing teshuva when one is young is better than doing teshuva when one is old because it is harder to do teshuva in one's youth.  Why is it harder?  Rashi understands that when one is old and closer to death, one recognizes their mortality and can accept another power.  In one's youth, when one feels immortal, it is hard to recognize one is dependent on another power.)  

We see from the Rambam and Rashi that the tachlis of teshuva, the endgame, is להכיר בוראו.  What is the peshat in this? 

The Ramban at the end of Bo (13:16) says וכוונת כל המצות שנאמין באלהינו ונודה אליו שהוא בראנו, והיא כוונת היצירה, שאין לנו טעם אחר ביצירה הראשונה, ואין אל עליון חפץ בתחתונים מלבד שידע האדם ויודה לאלהיו שבראו, וכוונת רוממות הקול בתפלות וכוונת בתי הכנסיות וזכות תפלת הרבים, זהו שיהיה לבני אדם מקום יתקבצו ויודו לאל שבראם והמציאם ויפרסמו זה ויאמרו לפניו בריותיך אנחנו,

The entire point of the mitzvot and the entire point of public gatherings in the shul is to say to Hashem, we are your creations."  The Alter from Kelm in Chachma Umussar volume 2 maamer 1 explains that the essence of prayer is to recognize the dominion of Hashem.  The point of the supplications isn't because man needs to ask G-d for his needs but to help one realize that everything they need is dependent on Hashem.  Teshuva is to return.  Return to what?  To that state of saying בריותיך אנחנו.  The process of teshuva is to bring one back to the state of recognition that we are subjects of Hashem.  This is why tefillah and tesuva are strongly linked as discussed as week ago 

The Gemarah Rosh Hashana (16b) says וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: כׇּל שָׁנָה שֶׁרָשָׁה בִּתְחִלָּתָהּ — מִתְעַשֶּׁרֶת בְּסוֹפָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מֵרֵאשִׁית הַשָּׁנָה״ — ״מֵרֵשִׁית״ כְּתִיב. ״וְעַד אַחֲרִית״ — סוֹפָהּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ אַחֲרִית.  Rashi says שרשה בתחלתה - שישראל עושין עצמן רשין בר"ה לדבר תחנונים ותפלה כענין שנאמר תחנונים ידבר רש.  We now understand it doesn't mean only to ask Hashem for one's needs, rather it means that the whole point of prayer is to recognize Hashem and if one does that then one's prayers will be answered.  

The Gemarah Berachot (32b) says א"ר חמא בר' חנינא אם ראה אדם שהתפלל ולא נענה יחזור ויתפלל שנאמר (תהלים כז, יד) קוה אל ה' חזק ויאמץ לבך וקוה אל ה.  Why should one pray again?  Because that means it's not just one thing that one is trying and if that doesn't work move onto something else but one's total reliance is upon Hashem and the only thing to do is pray.  That is the whole essence of tefillah.  (Based upon a shmuz by R' Elefant.) 

New Year New Self

Why is Rosh Hashana before Yom Kippur, it should be reverse, one should repent before being judged?  

A couple of years ago we cited Rabbenu Yonah explains the avodah of Rosh Hashana is to give oneself a clean slate, a fresh start to be able to reconnect to Hashem.  That is why Rosh Hashana precedes Yom Kippur for one can only do teshuva and make a real change if they don't bring their old baggage with themselves going forward.  Why is that that the avodah connected to Rosh Hashana specifically?  

Rosh Hashana is היום הרת עולם, the beginning of the world.  Every Rosh Hashana the world goes back to a state of newness, a fresh beginning, and the shefa for the next year is provided for the world.  The avodah of the day parallels that which is going on in the entire world.  

The Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 29:12) says אָמַר רַבִּי תַּחְלִיפָא קֵיסָרָא, בְּכָל מוּסָפִין כְּתִיב: וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם וְכָאן כְּתִיב: וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אִשֶּׁה, הָא כֵיצַד, אָמַר לָהֶן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בָּנַי מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם כְּאִלּוּ הַיּוֹם נַעֲשֵׂיתֶם לְפָנַי, כְּאִלּוּ הַיּוֹם בָּרָאתִי אֶתְכֶם בְּרִיָּה חֲדָשָׁה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ישעיה סו, כב): כִּי כַאֲשֶׁר הַשָּׁמַיִם הַחֲדָשִׁים וְהָאָרֶץ הַחֲדָשָׁה.  The Midrash is conveying the above lesson.  On Rosh Hashana, it's a day of renewal and you are viewed as a fresh, new person free from the errors of the past.  

Chazal say אורי refers to Rosh Hashana.  Why is Rosh Hashana known as אורי?  In Nussach Ashkenaz it says אור חדש על ציון תאיר, where there is אור, there is a clarity of the truth.  On Rosh Hashana things go back to their source, a person goes back to their beginning before sin led them off the straight path.  It is on Rosh Hashana that we are given a new beginning to be able to move forward. 

The Yalkut Shimoni on Tehillim (831:6) says  ד"א בשופר אני מכסה עונותיכם תקעו בחדש שופר.  When the shofar is blown, the sins are covered over, hidden from sight.  It doesn't say they are forgiven, but they are not looked at.  How does blowing the shofar accomplish this?  The Gemarah says the blowing of the shofar is the means to convey acceptance of the malchut of Hashem, אמרו לפני בראש השנה מלכיות זכרונות ושופרות מלכיות כדי שתמליכוני עליכם זכרונות כדי שיעלה זכרוניכם לפני לטובה ובמה בשופר.  The shofar is the method used to express kabblat malchut.  When one is mekabal the malchut, as we said before, one is given a fresh start and the sins are not examined.  The possuk in Balak (23:21) says לֹֽא־הִבִּ֥יט אָ֙וֶן֙ בְּיַעֲקֹ֔ב וְלֹא־רָאָ֥ה עָמָ֖ל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל י״י֤ אֱלֹקיו עִמּ֔וֹ וּתְרוּעַ֥ת מֶ֖לֶךְ בּֽו.  Rashi says G-d doesn't look at the sins of Klal Yisrael because of the great love He has for them.  When we blow the תרועה it is an expression of our love for Hashem.  When there is this reciprocal relationship, the sins are inconsequential and are covered over.  (Based upon Yarech L'moadim simanim 31, 32.)

The Beracha Of Malchiot

This post goes hand in hand with the sources here.

The fourth beracha of the mussaf on Rosh Hahana is unique in that besides the regular kedushat hayom we also say the pessukim of malchiot.  This follows the opinion of R' Akiva.  We can make a chakira as to how we view this beracha.  Is it the regular beracha of the kedushat hayom just malchiout is added in or is it the beracha of malchiot but its place is in the beracha of the kedushat hayom.  The Mishna in which R' Akiva appears says כולל מלכיות אם קדושת היום which indicates that the beracha is kedushat hayom with malchiot inserted.  However, the Gemarah cites a machlokes where the beracha of kedushat hayom should be said and the opinion of Rebbe is to say it in the beracha of malchiot.  The Gemarah sounds like the beracha is malchiot with kedushat hayom attached.  

The Tur is clear that that the beracha is defined as the beracha of malchiot with kedushat hayom included in it.  The Rambam also identifies the beracha as malchiot. 

צ"ע on the Lechem Mishne for the Rambam is not ant clearer is the Laws of Prayer. 

The Meiri also identifies the words of מלך על כל הארץ that we say in the חתימה of the beracha as being the mention of malchiot, in other words, he holds that malchiot is part of the beracha like the Rambma and Tur not like the Abudraham.  He is even clearer about this in the Chibur Hateshuva where he says we say מלך על כל הארץ in the other prayers merely as a custom.  (Note also the thank you to Louis Ginzberg at the beginning of the sefer, here.) 

The Abudraham holds the beracha is kedushat hayom and malchiot is the reciting of the pessukim. We see that the chakira is a machlokes Rishonim.  

This issue seems to have seem to have prompted the Chayei Adam to entertain that possibly מלך על כל הארץ would be מעכב in the beracha of mussaf for although he understands that it would not be מעכב anywhere else by mussaff it may be necessary for malchiot.  He conludes that the beracha is kedushat hayom and malchiot is merely the pessukim.  

Rav Chayim had a different approach.  He holds by all the berachot of Rosh Hashana the מלך על כל הארץ is part of the integral text of the beracha for malchiot is the theme of the day.  In other words, he holds the מלך על כל הארץ is not for malchiot per say like the Abudraham but he holds it is a necessary part of the text of the beracha, not like the Chayei Adam. 

What is the source for this debate?  The Haghos Vichidushim on the Tur asks why the Tur calls it the beracha of malchiot if the Mishna calls it the beracha of kedushat hayom?  He answers that the Mishna refers to it as such only in the opinion of R' Yochanan ben Nuri who holds malchiot is part of the beracha of kedushat hashem but according to R' Akiva the beracha is malchiot with kedushat hayom attached.  How did the Tur know to make this distinction? 

R' Akiva says he disagrees with R' Yochanan ben Nuri for he holds one should blow the shofar after malchiot.  The Achronim ask if that's his argument why does he shift malchiot to the beracha of kedushat hayom just blow after the beracha of kedushat hashem with malchiot included?  (See Tom Terua, Turay Even, Aruch Lenar.)

The Aruch Lenar says that even though R' Akiva holds fundamentally R' Yochanan ben Nuri is right that malchiot belongs with kedushat hashem but that is superseded by his desire to avoid having an interruption in the shofar blowings of another beracha in the middle and hence he moves malchiot to kedushat hayom.  According to the approach of the Aruch Lenari malchiot tags along to the beracha of kedushat hashem.  The Tur may have been bothered by the same question and therefore he understands R' Akiva holds one can't put malchiot together with kedushat hashem and make it secondary to the standard blessing of the entire year rather it is its own beracha and we stick kedushat hayom into the beracha (explanation of Yareach L'moadim siman 7 and based upon article here pg. 8-11, see also Sharay Shmuot siman 9.) 

What I don't understand about the whole sugyah in the Gemarah is why do two two berachot have to go to together, why don't we just have 10 berachot of mussaf, the kedushat hayom like every other Shemone Esrai of the holiday, a beracha for malchiot, a beracha for zichronot and a beracha for shofrot? 

Briskor Rav And Tehillim

 From משנת הגר"מ (son of Briskor Rav)