Vayikra. Korbanos and Fiscal Probity; Aveilus and Shalach Manos; Aveilus and Davening for the Amud.

This is the Kollel Horaah of America's Parsha Sheet. Each of the three sections is insightful and informative, and I found it particularly interesting this week.  

Gaining a Closer Relationship with Hashem R' Moshe Orgel The תורה in this weeks פרשה writes a one פסוק introduction prior to detailing the specifics of the korbanos, “אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן וכו” The גמ׳ derives many הלכות from this פסוק. One of them is derived from the word כי יקריב מכם קרבן אדם. Rashi explains that we learn that someone bringing a קרבן must do so from his own animals and money and not from stealing someone else’s, just like אדם הראשון did not possess any stolen objects – as he had no one to steal from; so too one's קרבן may not be from stolen property. There are many other מצות which have the same exclusion – not to come from stolen property, for example; the תורה says that a לולב must be לכם from your property, not of someone else’s. קרבנות is the only place where the תורה alludes to this using the word אדם . What is unique about the פרשה of קרבנות that requires a different more complicated לימוד as opposed to the תורה simply writing לכם or something of that sort?  The word קרבן denotes קורבה, closeness. The purpose of bringing a קרבן is to gain a closer relationship with Hashem and strive higher in רוחניות. The תורה is teaching us that in regard to this מצוה it is not merely enough to do the mitzvah with your own money, but rather you should be like אדם הראשון. He did not have one penny that was not his, nor could he covet someone else’s property as there was no one else in the world but him. Theft by him was an impossibility, not simply a choice. When someone steals, he is not only doing the actual sin, he is in addition demonstrating his lack of אמונה ובטחון. If he truly knows that Hashem will provide with all he needs and that it is predestined each year what he will attain that year, he wouldn’t be stealing as there would be no point he is only getting a certain amount of money anyway. A person needs to recognize that just as is was impossible for אדם הראשון to steal, so too it is impossible for one to achieve anything through theft. With this idea in mind it is easy to understand what is unique about קרבנות that requires the law of stealing to come from the word אדם. The word אדם is not just teaching us a single focused law, rather an idea of how someone should conduct themselves. While attempting to come closer to Hashem through קרבנות or through תפילה one must make sure that the rest of one’s actions and thoughts are also up to par. Working on אמונה ובטחון to a level where one recognizes that all is from Hashem and one’s actions can’t change that is an integral aspect of the עבודה of the קרבנות. May we all be זוכה to become closer to Hashem, both through תפילה as well as אמונה ובטחון.

Editor's remark: 1. Chazal learn from the words Adam ki yakriv that just as Adam Harishon brought korbanos that were 100% his, with no admixture of theft, our korbanos must be equally pure. Rabbi Orgel sees this as a far broader lesson - if you want to bring a korban, YOU have to be like Adam. If you possess any stolen property, your korban is undesireable. I would put it this way: By Korban Pesach, if you own Chametz at the time of the hakrava, the korban is improper (you're over a lahv, but the Korban is kasher - Rambam Pesach 1:5.) Just as it is assur to bring a Korban Pesach when you own Chametz, so too it is assur to bring any Korban if you possess property that was acquired dishonestly.  It's not a lahv, and it doesn't passel the korban, but it's meguneh, and if you're looking for Ritzui, that's not where to look.  It might be interesting to think about whether this applies to Shemoneh Esrei. אורח חיים Rabbi Shmuel Goldstein Question: Can an Avel give and be given Mishloach Manos? Answer: The Gemara says that an Avel during Shivah, (the first seven days, counting from the funeral), may not say Shalom Aleichem to others [a]. One may not say Shalom Aleichem to an Avel throughout Shloshim, (the first thirty days counting from the funeral), and for the twelve months if the Avel is in Aveilus for a parent [b]. There are different opinions with regard to greeting someone with saying Shalom Aleichem on Shabbos [c]. It is permitted to give a Bracha to an Avel, and therefore one can say “good Shabbos” [d]. Saying “good morning” is also technically permitted. Some refrain from doing so, especially during Shivah [e]. The Ramah says that many people say Shalom after thirty days, during the twelve months of Avielus for a parent, but he says that he doesn’t know what they rely on, unless our greeting isn’t like the one in the time of Chazal [f]. Most Acharonim do not give credence to this leniency [g]. However it seems the Ramah may have been referring to statements like “good morning” [h]. The Maharil says that giving someone a present is the same as saying Shalom Aleichem, and therefore one may not give Mishloach Manos to an Avel. This would apply to giving an Avel throughout Shloshim, and for the twelve months if the Avel is in Aveilus for a parent [i]. Although an Avel during Shivah may not give presents, since Mishloach Manos is an obligation, they may and must give [j]. Some Acharonim say an Avel should only give Mishloach Manos to one or two people [k]. Either way an Avel should not give extra happy things in the Mishloach Manos [l]. Those who are lenient, and give an Avel, are relying on those who opine that Purim is like Shabbos regarding Aveilus combined with relying on those who opine that Shalom Aleichem is permitted on Shabbos [m]. If an Avel is after the third day of Aveilus, and they were given Mishloach Manos, they may accept it [n]. It is permitted to give Mishloach Manos to a Rebbe or someone whom the gift is almost like part of a salary [o]. Editor's remark: This halacha of Mishloach Manos and Aveilus is not widely known, nor is the proscription from greeting an aveil with Shalom Aleichem during the entire year. As Rabbi Goldstein quoted from the Maharil, these two laws are the same - giving Shalach Manos is like greeting with Shalom Aleichem. It's also worth remembering that this applies during Kiddush Levana. יורה דעה R' Mechi Plittman

Question: When should an Avel serve as the Shatz? Are there any times when he should not act as שליח ציבור? Answer: The רמ''א writes that the minhag has become that an avel does not daven for the amud on שבת ויו”ט [a]. The ש''ך explains that the same applies to the ימים נוראים [b]. The נודה ביהודה understands that to mean only ראש השנה ויום כפור and not ימי סליחות ועשרת ימי תשובה [c], during which the אבל can indeed lead the ציבור. The reason for this minhag is that it is inapropiate for one in mourning to lead the congregation when the congregation is in a state of שמחה [d]. It is important to note that his is a minhag and not an איסור [e]. This applies, both, to a son during the twelve months after losing a parent, and to any mourner for the duration of שלושים of a close relative [f]. Many אחרונים ask [g]; the רמ''א himself writes his sefer דרכי משה, that an אבל refrains from serving as שליח ציבור on ראש חודש as well. Furthermore, the source for רמ''א is the מהרי"ל who implies that this halacha applies to any day that we say הלל. That would include חנוכה ופורים [h]. So why then, does the רמ''א only mention שבת ויו''ט in the שלחן ערוך. The ערוך השלחן answers that the רמ''א only listed the days on which an אבל does not daven for the amud the entire day i.e. שבת ויו"ט. On ראש חודש or חנוכה ופורים just refrain from davening in the morning, but he may daven for the עמוד for מנחה ומעריב [i]. This is the opinion of the משנה ברורה [j] as well. There are some who understand this minhag to allow the אבל to daven שחרית as well and just not daven הלל ומוסף [k]. On חול המועד there is a dispute if an אבל should daven for the amud at all. Some maintain that he should refrain from serving as ש''ץ for it is similar to a יו”ט [l]. However, many אחרונים are of the opinion that on any day we say הלל an אבל should not daven for the amud even מנחה ומעריב. This was the opinion of Rav Moshe [m]. All other days that we don’t say תחנון for example, ל"ג בעומר ט"ו שבט ט"ו באב an אבל may daven for the amud [n]. There is an opinion that rules that any day that you don’t say קל ארך אפים and למנצח an אבל should not daven for the amud. That would include ערב פסח, ט' באב, ערב יו"כ, שושן פורים, פורים קטן [o]. However, it’s clear from the source of the רמ''א that only days which הלל is said is there a minhag for an אבל not to be the ש''ץ. This minhag comes from a different source which doesn’t agree with the רמ''א.  If the chazon for the shul during the ימים נוראים is an אבל he may daven for the עמוד if no one can replace him and his abilities [p]. On Shabbos and יו''ט if no one inspires the shul like him then he may be the Shatz [q], but just because he sounds good is not a heter. The same applies to the reading of the מגילה if no one can pronounce the words and read כהלכה like him then he may read the מגילה [r]. Otherwise he should refrain. Editor's remark: The halacha that an aveil may daven for the amud on yomtov if the tzibbur needs him became relevant to a friend this past year. He had retained to daven on the Yamim Nor'aim, and he became an aveil the day before Rosh Hashannah. He was the only Shliach Tzibbur available for that certain shul. I told him to leave the Shiva house during shiva, and fly back to Chicago to daven for the Amud on Rosh Hashanna.

To receive Points to Ponder weekly via email, please contactkollelhoraah@gmail.com or text KHAWEEKLY to 22828

מראה מקומות לדין אורח חיים

a) גמרא מו"ק טו. וכא:

b) גמרא מו"ק טו. וכא:

c) ע' רא"ש מו"ק פרק ג' סי' כ"ח ול"ח

מירושלמי ברכות ב:ז, רמב"ם אבל י:א. ש"ע שפה:ג.

d) שלמת חיים תכ"ה [קל"ג], גשה"ח כא:ז:ד-ז, להורות נתן חלק ב' סי' ל"ז

e) ע' לקט יושר עמ' ק"י, מ"ב תקנ"ד ס"ק מ"א, באר משה חלק ד' סי' ק"ו, להורות נתן חלק ב' סי' ל"ז

f) רמ"א שפה:א

g) ש"ך יו"ד שפ"ה ס"ק ג' ומג"א או"ח תקנ"ד ס"ק כ"א

h) ע' בה"ט יו"ד שפ"ה ס"ק ב', מ"ב תקנ"ד ס"ק מ"א, לקט יושר עמ' ק"י, באר משה חלק ד' סי' ק"ו, להורות נתן חלק ב' סי' ל"ז

i) הובא ברמ"א יו"ד שפה:ג ובאו"ח תרצו:ו

j) ש"ע או"ח תרצו:ו עם מ"ב ס"ק י"ז

k) נחלת שבעה סי' י"ז וקובץ הלכות פרק ט"ו הע' מ"ד

l) מ"ב תרצ"ו ס"ק י"ח

m)  ע' מג"א או"ח תרצ"ו

n) כתב סופר או"ח סי' קמ"א

o) דברי למכיאל חלק ה' סי' רל"ז 

מראה מקומות לדין יורה דעה

a רמ"א יו"ד שע"ו

b) ש"ך שם סקי"ד בשם המהרי"ל

c) נו"ב או"ח סי' ל"ב

d) שו"ת מהרי"ל סי' כ"ב

e) רמ"א שם

f) מ"ב או"ח תקפ"א סק"ז

g) ערוך השלחן שע"ו סקי"ד

h) כל בו על אבילות עמ' רפ"ז

i) ערוך השלחן שם ועיין מהר"ם שיק או"ח קפ"ג שכן נוהג החת"ס

j) מ"ב תקפ"א סק"ז ותרע"א סקמ"ד ותרפ"ג סק"א

k) גליון מהרש"א סי' שע"ו ובא"ר או"ח סס"י תקפ"ב ופרמ"ג תרע"א מ"ז סק"ח וגשר החיים כ"ג:ה

l) מ"ב תרע"א סקמ"ד בשם הפמ"ג וגשר החיים כ"ג:ד סברו לא התפלל ושו"ת מהר"ם מינץ מ"ג וערוך השלחן שם סברו יכול התפלל

m) רבבות אפרים ח"א תמ"ג בשם ר' משה

n) מ"ב תרע"א סקמ"ד וגשר החיים כ"ג:ו

o) מ"ב קל"ב במאמר קדישים ונועם מגדים להפמ"ג מנהגים א'

p) ש"ך שע"ו סקי"ד בשם מהרי"ו

q) כן משמע מדרכי משה במה שכתב "אף" ימים נוראים ומ"ב תקפ"א ז' ותרצ"ו י"ב ולא כב"ח יו"דשפ"ו

r) מ"ב תרצ"ו סקי"ב

To receive Points to Ponder weekly via email, please contact kollelhoraah@gmail.com or text KHAWEEKLY to 22828

UPDATE:

From a column by  by Rabbi Daniel Mann. Rabbi Mann is a Dayan for Eretz Hemdah and a staff member of Yeshiva University's Gruss Kollel in Israel. He is a senior member of the Eretz Hemdah responder staff, editor of Hemdat Yamim and the author of Living the Halachic Process, volumes 1 and 2 and A Glimpse of Greatness.

Question: Is it permitted for an avel (mourner) to serve as a chazan for Yamim Noraim (Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur)? Whose decision is it – the shul’s or the avel’s?

Answer: The classical source on the topic is the Maharil (15th century, Ashkenaz), based on the Maharam. In contrast to the rabbi who asked him the question, the Maharil (Shut 128) states that the minhag is that an avel does not serve as a chazan on Shabbat and Yom Tov or on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. The Rama (Yoreh Deah 376:4) cites this minhag in regards to Shabbat and Yom Tov and adds on “… even though there is no prohibition in the matter.” The Shach (ad loc. 14) and Pitchei Teshuva (ad loc. 8) posit that the rule is the same for the Yamim Noraim.  

The Meir Netivim (80) posits that there is no problem with an avel being a chazan on special days. What the sources are saying is that as opposed to a regular weekday, when an avel makes a point of being the chazan, the minhag is that they do not make an effort on Shabbat, etc. However, if it works out for the avel to do so, there is no reason to stop him. 

However, the great majority of Acharonim understand that we do not allow an avel to be the chazan on these days. The Rama only means that it is not a classic prohibition but a bad idea which we do not choose to allow (see Noda B’Yehuda I, OC 32). The Maharil implies that the problem is that all of these days are happy days (in varying degrees and aspects). It is possible to explain either that it is not appropriate for an avel to expose himself to the happy tefilla as a chazan (Shut Maharam Shick, OC 183) or that the avel is insufficiently capable of giving the tzibbur’s tefilla the level of festivity it deserves (see Zera Emet III, 164). 

There is another approach to the reason for the avel not to be chazan on special days. The Pri Megadim (Eshel Avraham 581:4) invokes the idea (see Taz, OC 660:2) that during aveilut, there is an element of din (strict judgment) that hangs over the avel. Therefore, it is unwise for the community to be represented by one who is more likely than usual to attract negative judgment. According to this approach, even if the avel decides that he wants to be chazan, it is appropriate for the tzibbur to refuse. The Pri Megadim raises another ramification of this approach. Although the onset of Rosh Hashana after completion of shiva removes the halachic status of avel from a mourner for a relative other than a parent, the spiritual situation of the effect of din continues until thirty days have passed. Therefore, even such a person should not be a chazan at that point. 

The Maharil (ibid.) says that if there is no viable alternative to the avel as chazan, then he is allowed to serve. The biggest difference in practice between different communities is in determining what is and is not an alternative. According to some (see opinions Divrei Sofrim, YD 376:92), it is enough that the chazan serves on a yearly basis so that it not look as if he is being chazan because he is in aveilut. The Afarkasta D’ania (I:156) explains that we don’t want it to look like the deceased is wicked, as others do not need protection on special days. He also suggests that having been chazan once before is enough (once may create chazaka rights – Shaarei Teshuva 581:7). The Mateh Ephrayim (581:24) says that it is permitted as long as the avel is clearly more qualified (on cantorial or religious grounds) to the alternative. If the avel receives payment that is financially significant for him, this is reason for leniency (ibid.). 

In a past discussion, about an avel as chazan on Rosh Chodesh, we explored the topic of whose decision it should be to allow the avel to serve as chazan; the findings were not conclusive. This is true here as well, and much depends on the reasons given above. It is best if a decision is made based on consultation between the rabbi and the chazan, and it is best if all involved explore the matter with flexibility and sensitivity. Certainly, a congregant should not make a fuss over the matter (see Meir Netivim ibid.).  

Shemini, Vayikra 10:3. Nichum Aveilim

10:3.  Hu asher dibeir Hashem.  After the deaths of the two sons of Aaron, Moshe told Aaron: "Of this did Hashem speak, saying 'I will be sanctified through those who are close to Me and I will be honored before the entire people.'" Aaron's reaction was silence.

Rashi quotes the source [based on Zevachim 115b] for Moshe's assertion that Hashem would be sanctified through those who were closest to him. The pasuk says, "I shall meet with the Bnei Yisroel, and it shall be sanctified through My honor (v'nikdash b'kvodi)" [Shemos 29:43]. The Gemora darshens that the word be'kvodi is not meant to be understood only as it is vowelized - "be'kvodi - through My honor". Rather, it should be understood as if it were vowelized b'kvodai (through those who honor Me).
 The Gemara there explains that Moshe consoled Aaron by saying "I knew that this Mishkan was going to be sanctified through the death of someone close to Hashem. I thought that it would be either you or me. I now see that they (Nadav and Avihu) were greater than either of us".

A. Reb Moshe in OC 5:20:21 (letter to Rav Greenblatt/Memphis) talks about whether saying Hamakom yenacheim is the ikkar tanchumin.  He says it is not; it is just the way to end the nichum.  The ikkar nichum is engaging the aveil in conversation, and just saying hamakom doesn’t help; “de’bazeh levad ein ha’adam misnacheim ve’ne’eseh sheket be’rucho, she’zehu ikkar hatanchumin she’chayvo Torah.  Sheket be’rucho; to quiet the emotional storm that is engulfing the oveil.  He says that the mitzvah is to talk a lot to him, as we find with Iyov and Elihu; also, he says that the rule that one doesn’t talk until the Aveil talks only applies to extended conversation, not to hamakom.  A person can say hamakom even if the aveil sits stone silent.  (By the way, about sitting by an aveil and not talking-- the Prishah in 393:3 has a little raya from the Tur's expression “ve’yoshvim” that this is legit, but implies that he really doesn't believe it. He says "vechi zehu nichum aveilim?" but from the Tur, he says, there's a "ktzas smach" for behavior that he finds strange).

 My wife told me that when she was menacheim her grandfather, Reb Moshe, for his sister Channah Small, he told her that the mitzvah is to talk about the niftar, so the aveil sees that people liked the niftar, and this makes him feel good.

 It’s interesting that this is what Moshe Rabbeinu did for Aharon.  Clearly, there was a taineh on Nadav and Avihu.  It says in Chumash eish zarah, and Chazal has plenty of pshatim in what they did wrong.  But Moshe didn’t tell Aharon they deserved it.  He said that the niftarim died in honor, and they were great people, and Aharon was silent.  This is the Sheket Berucho Reb Moshe was talking about.

 On the other hand, there’s a halacha that you are not menacheim when the meis is still unburied; so can I say that Moshe’s intent was to be menacheim?  Maybe here it was muttar even before kevura, because the idea of not being menachem when the meis is unburied is because it is a time for bechiya, and because the meis is shamed if people are over him before he’s even buried.  But by the Chanukas Hamishkon, when Aharon and his remaining sons were commanded to not show signs of grief, and didn’t have the din of an aveil or an Onein, (they all had the dinim of a kohen gadol at that time,)  that restriction would not be relevant.

B.  Bava Kamma 38– Ulah says, saying “What can you do?” to the Aveil, as the Bavli’im do is a chiruf and giduf.

 רב שמואל בר יהודה שכיבא ליה ברתא אמרו ליה רבנן לעולא קום ניזל נינחמיה אמר להו מאי אית לי גבי נחמתא דבבלאי דגידופא הוא דאמרי מאי אפשר למיעבד הא אפשר למיעבד עבדי 

 The Rama in YD 376:2 brings this le’halachah.  The Aruch Hashulchan also paskens like this in YD 376:5.  He says they should say that kol de’avid Rachmana le’tav avid; that he should accept gzeiras Hashem with love; that we don’t know what is good and what is the opposite, and Hashem knows everything.

 The Taz in sk1 brings that the Maharshal disagreed, because he held that even though Ulah refused to attend a shiva because he did not like the nusach of the Bavli’im, he misunderstood them.  The nusach is ok because it’s the same as what David Hamelech said when his son died.  The Taz says “tmihani ahl peh kadosh yomar zeh.”  He says that by Dovid, he was fasting, and he said what’s the point of fasting now– I can’t bring him back.  He meant that as long as there was hope, he was mispallel for a yeshu’ah.  But now, there’s no point in fasting and davening.  But when other people say it, it means that if it were possible, if they had the power, they would have kept the person alive even though it is clear that Hashem’s will was that he die.  This is a giduf, because a person should recognize that Hashem’s will should be accepted as right and proper, and not the limited and selfish will of a man.

 The Shelah brought by the Pischei Teshuva brings the Maharshal and argues with him on the same basis as the Taz, and he addresses and rejects all the Maharshal’s other rayos.  The Shelah is in Shaar HaOsios Shin, Shtika.

Here's the Maharshal:

ים של שלמה מס' ב"ק ד:י - עולא איקלע לבבל (ל"ח ע"א), ורב שמואל בר יודא מתה לו בת. א"ל רבנן לעולא קום וניזל לנחמו, א"ל מאי אית לי גבי נחמתא דבבלאי, דגידופא הוא כלפי מעלה. שאומרים לאבל מאי אפשר למעבד. הא איפשר למעבד עבדי, בתמיה.
פי', כשאומרים מאי אפשר למעבד הכי פירושו קשה עלינו הדבר מאד. אבל אין כח בידינו ללחום עם הקב"ה. אבל היה כח בידיהם עבדי, בתמיה. א"כ הם מתרעמים על מדותיו של הקב"ה, ונראה בעיניהם כאלו שלא כדין המיתו. בשלמא מלך בשר ודם, אם המית בנו של אחד. ודומה להם שלא כדין המיתו, וקשה להם המיתה, יכולים לנחמו מאי אית לך למעבד, וכי לריב ולנצח המלך. אבל אלף הבדלות במלך מלכי המלכים, שכל דבריו משפט, ומסתמא כדין המית, כי אין עולה לפניו. ע"כ מחוייבים לקבל גזירת המקום מאהבה, ולברך על הטובה. והלך הוא לבדו,
והתחיל לנחם. ואמר, מה כשאמר הקב"ה אל תצר את מואב, אף שהתחילו בקלקול, ושכרו את בלעם. אפ"ה חס רחמנא עליהם, משום רות המואביה. בתו של ר' אם היתה כשירה וראויה לצאת ממנה דבר טוב על אחת כמה וכמה דהוה חייה.
מדהרי"ף והרא"ש לא הביאו כל זה. ש"מ דלית להו נפקותא בדינא, כי לית הילכתא כעולא לגבי רבנן. אלא שרי לנחם בכל ענין. וכן נראה, דאין זה גידופא, ואדרבא נחמתא דיליה צער הוא קצת לאבל, לומר לו אם היתה כשירה כו'. אדרבה, יקרותא דאבל ודמת לשבחו, ולא לגנותו. ומה שאומרים מה אית לך למיעבד. הכי פי', מה מועיל רוב הצער והבכייה, הלא לא תוכל להחזירו. ודוד בעצמו אמר כהאי לישנא (ש"ב י"ב, כ"ג), האוכל עוד להשיבו, ולמה לא נדקדק גם כן. אבל אם יכול להשיבו עבד, בתמיה. אלא ש"מ דשרי לנחם הכי. כדי שלא ירבה האבל ברוב צער ובכיה. ואדרבה קשה על ניחומו, דלמה היה דוד בוכה ומקונן קודם פטירת הילד שלא ימות. פשיטא שאם הוא כשר ויבא ממנו דבר טוב בודאי המקום יחוס עליו

and the Shlah:

ולא נראו בעיני דבריו, מה שאמר לית הלכתא כעולא לגבי רבנן, כי בכל מקום שמוזכר בתלמוד סתם רבנן, רצונם לומר התלמידים בני ישיבה, כמו עבידנא יומא טבא לרבנן, והרבה כאלה. ובודאי היו נחשבים לגבי עולא כתלמידים, ומיד ששמעו  דבר זה מפי עולא בודאי חזרו, ולא היו מנחמין עוד בזה הלשון, דגידופא הוא. ואין להקשות על זה באם הוא כן שהיו חוזרים מניחים זה הלשון, למה לא הלך אחר כך עולא עמהן והלך לבדו כדמשמע הלשון אזיל הוא לחודיה. ויש לומר

בודאי הלכו עמו, אלא הם היו כבר שגורים לנחם בזה הלשון, ולא היה שגור בפיהם נוסח ניחום אחר, ושמעו מפי עולא, וזהו שאמר התלמוד אזיל הוא לחודיה, כלומר שהוא לחודיה ינחם והם ישמעו לדבריו. ומכל שכן דאתי שפיר לפי גירסא אחרת שמצאתי בר"ן וזה לשונו, אכפוה ואזיל וכו', רוצה לומר היו כופין אותו בדברים והודה להם והלכו עמו.
ומה שהביא רש"ל ראיה מהרי"ף ומהרא"ש שלא הביאו כו', זו אינה ראיה כלל, דדרכן של הרי"ף והרא"ש לכתוב כל הדינים הנוהגים בהלכות איסור והיתר מצד דיני התורה ומצותיה דאורייתא ודרבנן וסייגים, אבל איסור דבר זה אינו איסור דדינא, אלא היא מדה מן המדות משום אל תבהל את פיך והא מדרכי המוסר. והנה במסכת אבות יש אלפים מילי מעלייתות מה לעשות ומה שלא לעשות והשמיטם הרי"ף והרמב"ם אף שכולם קבלו מסיני, וכמו שאמר שם במשנה הר"ר עובדיה ברטנורא. אלא הענין שאלו המילי מעלייתות הוא מסוג המדות והמוסרים, ודבר זה השמיט הרי"ף והרא"ש. ואפשר מפני האריכות כי ארוכה מארץ מדה:
ומה שפקפק הגאון הנ"ל על נחמותא דעולא תמיהני, וכי לחלוק על עולא בא, כי לא יש שום אמורא החולק על עולא בזה. ואפילו לדברי הגאון שרבנן ועולא פליגי בנחמותא דמאי הוי ליה למעבד, אבל להיפך לחלוק על נחמות דעולא לא פליגי.
ומה שהקשה צער הוא לאבל לומר אם היתה כשירה כו', נראה לענ"ד דרש"י ז"ל תיקן זה שכתב וזה לשונו, בתו של רבי אם ראויה לזרע כשר על אחת כמה וכמה שתחיה, עכ"ל. הכוונה כי פירושו של כשירה ראויה היא, כלומר הוכשרה ומוכנה לזה שיבא ממנה זרע כשר, וראוי כענין אין הבכור נוטל בראוי, רוצה לומר המוכן. כי אפשר שיהיה מוכן אחד לזרע כשר אף שהוא בעצמו רשע, כמו מואבית שיצא ממנה רות, ולפעמים צדיק גמור או צדקת אינם מוכנים לזה, וברוך היודע כי הוא יתברך שמו יודע ויודע הסבות, ואפשר כי  הצדיק וצדקת כבר הושלמו בסוד גלגול. וזה היה ניחומו של עולא שאמר בת רבי אף שהיא צדקת בודאי יודע תעלומות יודע שאינה מוכנת לזה, דאם לא כן לא מתה בקל וחומר ממואב, אם כן למה תצטער כל כך, אף שיש להצטער על העדרה, מכל מקום אין ההעדר גדול כל כך כמו שאתה מצער על העדרה והעדר הראוים לבא ממנה...
ומה שכתב דוד נמי אמר הכי האוכל עוד להשיבו כו', אין זה ענין לזה, כי קודם מות הילד היה צם דוד ועשה תשובה, ולאחר מותו אמר דוד היועיל תשובה להשיבנו, דהיינו להחיות מת, כי תחית המתים לא תהיה עד לעתיד. ובודאי אם היה מועיל תשובה אף עתה היה דוד צם עוד ועשה תשובה, ומה גידופא היה עושה בזה. אבל צער אבל שהוא מצטער ונקיט בלביה ואומר כך, מאי אפשר לי למעבד, שמע מינה דאי היה אפשר למעבד היה עושה, וזה גידופא.

כן נראה לעניות דעתי. וכן מצאתי בהר"ן שהביא זה המעשה, ולבסוף כתב וזה לשונו, שמע מיניה דבכהאי גוונא מגדף מקרי, אלא חייב האדם לקבל גזירת המקום מאהבה, כענין שנאמר, גם את הטוב וכו', והיינו דתנן (ברכות נד, א), חייב אדם לברך כו', עכ"ל

I've written elsewhere about nichum aveilim, and mistakes people make when they're trying to do good.  See here and here.

Yahrtzeit, Kaddish, and Aveilus.

The hook to hang this on the Parsha is the mention of Birkas Hamazon in Parshas Eikev. The last of the Brachos of Birkas Hamazon is called Birkas Hatov Ve'hameitiv, and it was instituted (Berachos 48) after the failed rebellion of Beitar, when, after several years, the government allowed us to bury the dead rebels, who had been left where they died. The ability to bury the dead is a great chesed, both for them and for us. In a sense, it is then that new life begins to spring forth from the bones of our ancestors. Along those lines, here is a discussion about certain halachos of Aveilus.

Particularly in a leap year, questions often arise about the duration of the aveilus, the date of the Yahrtzeit, and the calculation of the eleven months for Kaddish. Despite the numerous sefarim that discuss these matters, some halachos remain unclear, and even careful reading of these sources often results in errors. I was an aveil this year; (in my case, my father HK'M was niftar on the first day of Tishrei, the local funeral was on 4th, and the burial was in Israel on 6th day of Tishrei.) I researched the following questions carefully, and I am satisfied with my analysis. My Semicha documents allege that I am entitled to pasken questions of Jewish Law; if, however, you have an Orthodox Rabbi with whom you consult on Halach issues, do so. If no such Rabbi is available to you, then here are the relevant halachos.

THE IMPORTANT POINT HERE IS THAT THE CALCULATION OF THE STARTING POINT FOR THE ELEVEN MONTHS OF KADDISH, FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS OF AVEILUS, AND FOR THE YAHRTZEIT EACH HAVE DIFFERENT RULES AND BEGIN ON DIFFERENT DAYS.

May Mashiach come soon and render these issues irrelevant.

1. Kaddish is recited for eleven months. What comprises eleven months? Eleven months from when? In my case, I was saying kaddish for three days before the funeral, because my father, HK’M, was niftar on Rosh Hashanna morning, and Rosh Hashanna was followed by Shabbos. So I was not an onein for those three days, and I said kaddish.
Another complication: the funeral was local, but the burial was in Israel. I did not go to Israel, so my aveilus began when I saw the coffin off and returned home, before the actual burial.
So when does the eleven month period end?

The eleven months are counted NOT from the time of death, and NOT from the time of the local funeral, and not from the first time I said Kaddish. The eleven months begins at the time of the actual burial. In my case, this means that I said kaddish for eleven months and five days, since the first three days really don’t mean anything, and the two days between the local funeral and the burial in Israel don’t count either. (Igros Moshe YD III 160 and others.)


2. When does the aveilus end? At the Yahrtzeit, or after twelve months?

The aveilus lasts twelve months after the local funeral for people who didn't go on to the burial. Even though it is a leap year, and the Yahrtzeit is a month later, my aveilus ends a month before the Yahrtzeit.


3. When the funeral is three or more days after the death, people are told that the first Yahrtzeit is on the anniversary of the funeral, and the subsequent Yahrtzeits are on the anniversary of the death. Is this true on a leap year?

No. In a leap year, where the Aveilus period included two Adars, and so the Yahrtzeit is a month after the aveilus ends, the Yahrtzeit even the first year is the anniversary of the death, not the anniversary of the funeral. (Pischei Teshuva YD 520.)

For a discussion of the minhag of Tikkun on a Yahrtzeit, please see the comments.

Tzav, Vayikra 11:33. Umipesach Ohel Moed lo seitzu shivas yomim.

There are several medrashim that say that when Nadov and Avihu died, no aveilus followed their death. The Aveius was nidche because of the simcha of the Chanukas Hamishkan. But in a sense, the Medrash says, the "aveilus" came before they died, and this was an additional reason for the requirement that the Kohanim stay in the Ohel Moed for seven days prior to their inauguration. As it turns out, then, Nadav and Avihu sat Shiva for themselves.

In Moed Kattan 20a the Gemara learns the din of sitting shiva from a possuk in Amos 8:10, “vehafachti chageichem l’eivel,” I turn your holidays into mourning. Just as the shalosh regalim are seven days long, so, too, aveilus is seven days long. Tosfos asks why the gemara didn’t simply learn the law of shiva from a clearer– and earlier– reference, in Breishis 50:10, where Yosef was mis'abeil for Yaakov, where it says “vayaas le’aviv eivel shivas yamim.” Tosfos answers that we are looking for a case of real aveilus, which begins after the burial, and the ‘eivel’ in that passuk took place before Yaakov’s kvurah. He also brings the Yerushalmi that we don’t want to bring a rayah from before mattan Torah.

The Likutei Yehuda brings that one of the Gerer Rebbes (I don’t remember which one) saw an old sefer that said the following:

Even before the chet of the Eitz Hada’as, man would not have lived forever, because a world without death cannot exist. But before the chet, a man would decide when he had done all he was sent here to do, and all he was able to do, and he would get all his friends together, and make a celebratory seuda, and then he would go and die; he would simply stop living, just as the people of Luz would do. After the chet, people no longer know when they are going to die, and they don’t have a clear idea of what their purpose in life is, and they die whether they are ready or not. This change introduced the tragedy and fear and anxiety of death. Therefore, the ‘chag’ in the possuk in Amos the gemara brings– vehafachti chageichem– alludes to the valedictory celebration that would have accompanied death if not for the chet of Odom Horishon; that chag has been turned into eivel. This, then, is a reference to Adam in Gan Eiden, who long preceded the possuk of vayaas l’aviv eivel shiv’as yamim. So even without the Yerushalmi’s answer that we prefer to not bring psukim from before mattan Torah, the reason the Bavli chose the passuk in Amos was that the passuk of ‘ve’hafachti’, though written much later, refers to an event that long preceded the passuk of “vaya’as le’oviv eivel shiv’as yomim.”

These two ideas, that sometimes shiva can precede death, and that a levaya might be a celebration, are not mere theory. You have to wonder, how can the seven day isolation that accompanied the inauguration of the kohanim have been characterized as a pre-death shiva? What does that have to do with shiva? Perhaps the answer is that the seven days of isolation were a farewll to their past life, and now, as kohanim, they would have begun a completely new type of existence. That being the case, it was, in a sense, the same as the shiva that follows the death of a normal person. And as for the pre-Eitz Hada'as concept of death, I have attended levayos where, despite the attendant sadness, there was an undercurrent of the pre-expulsion feeling, where the person had had overcome so much and had acheived so much, that the levaya was as much a celebration of a life well lived as it was a tearful farewell.

Aveilus Hiatus

I haven't posted here recently; my priorities were reorganized on the morning of the first day of Rosh Hashanna. My father's caregiver called me on the phone to tell me that my father was not breathing and not moving. I hurried down the street and found that my father zichrono livracha had just passed away in his sleep. As it happens, my father's chavrusa from Slabodkeh/Litteh, with whom he learned for 14 years straight day and night, was hospitalized, comatose, on the same day in Israel, and passed away four weeks later.

Writing chiddushim requires the ability to arouse and enjoy the creative faculty. Currently, my focus is overwhelmed by a sense of inadequacy to fill the shoes of a man who achieved world-level gadlus in limud haTorah, in harbotzas Torah, in gemillus chasadim, and in business. Being chometz ben yayin is not easy; a dissolute and solipsistic lifestyle provides some comfort, but sometimes even that is not enough.

I have said some chiddushim, though. One is an observation. I realized what Chazal meant when they said that one who is makir tov le'chaveiro, nafsho hu chayav lo, (true gratitude creates an indebtedness of the soul). This means that the feeling of gratitude, no matter how deeply felt, is not enough. True gratitude means that you change yourself so that you can emulate your benefactor and carry forth his good works. This is easier said than done; but if you don't, then you shouldn't fool yourself into thinking that you are a makir tov at all.

And this is a kashe. The Gemora in Kesuvos says that a chosson or kallah that becomes an aveil have the halacha of any aveil on Yomtov or Shabbos, since their days of Sheva Brachos have the status of yomtov for them. An aveil on yomtov may not show and signs of mourning in public, but must continue to observe the mourning restrictions in private. Here, too, the aveil may not act in a manner that is inconsistent with simcha when in public, but continue his aveilus when alone with the new spouse. This is very difficult to understand; the restriction on public mourning during a holiday make sense where an individual's public mourning would contradict and intefere with the joy of the community. Here, the community has no yomtov; it is yomtov only for the aveil and the spouse. So who cares if he is noheig aveilus in public?

And here's something that puzzles me:
The reason a person who loses a parent is an aveil for an entire year, whereas other losses create aveilus for only one month, is because of kibbud ahv, not because it is necessarily more tragic or hurtful than other losses. So, rabbi, how would you respond to this question:
1. A man was offered the opportunity to speak in honor of his father at a dinner.

2. This man is a gifted speaker and scholar, with an stately and impressive mien. His speech would surely bring great honor to his late father.

2. But he would not be able to speak without a black hat, that being the nature of the dinner.

3. He does not own a presentable hat, perhaps no hat at all.

4. He cannot buy a new hat, because he is an aveil.

5. He cannot even ask someone else to buy and wear it for a while because he has a freakishly large head (commensurate with his IQ), and a hat that would fit him would sink to the shoulders of almost anyone else.

This simple baalabos (me) would respond that his dinei aveilus stem from kibbud ahv; to think that his dinei aveilus could in any way or means interfere with his ability to show kibbud ahv is, to this simple mind, absurd, and therefore he should buy the damn hat and speak at the dinner. It seems pretty obvious to me that the passive and relatively trivial kibud ahv of 'not buying new clothing' does not compare to the positive and highly meaningful kibud ahv the speech would bring. But what do I know? I'm sure this is far complicated than I realize, and my opinion is full of holes. Yes indeed, 'tis a gift to be simple.