To Whom Should You Go for a Bracha

We've talked in the past about how Chazal often use the term Chacham where we expect to see the term Tzadik or Chasid.  One of the interesting examples is the Gemara in Bava Basra 116a,

דרש ר' פנחס בר חמא כל שיש לו חולה בתוך ביתו ילך אצל חכם ויבקש עליו רחמים שנא' (משלי טז) חמת מלך מלאכי מות ואיש חכם יכפרנה

This is also in Yalkut Shimoni משלי רמז תתקנד

 חמת מלך מלאכי מות. דרש רבי פנחס בר חמא מי שיש לו צער או חולה בתוך ביתו ילך אצל חכם ויבקש עליו רחמים, שנאמר חמת מלך מלאכי מות ואיש חכם יכפרנה

The Rama paskens like this as well: YD 335:10, from the Nimukei Yosef there in BB.

 י"א שמי שיש לו חולה בביתו, ילך אצל חכם שבעיר שיבקש עליו רחמים 

The Nimukei Yosef inside actually seems to be a little different from the Rama.

 ומנהג זה בצרפת שכל מי שיש לו חולה בתוך ביתו מבקש פני הרב התופס ישיבה שיברך אותו

and the Prashas Drachim (13) says pshat in הרב התופס ישיבה that since the Rav hatofes yeshiva is responsible for the rabbim, the zechus of the rabbim strengthens his tefilla.  So the Nimukei Yosef clearly is reading the choice of the term Chacham to be davka, meaning a Rosh Yeshiva.  But the Rama evidently does not think that matters.

So, who are Chazal sending us to?  I would have thought that the first thing would be a Tzadik, and it would be even better if the Tzadik were a Kohen as well.  But here we find we are being sent to a Chacham.

On the other hand, when the Medrash Rus 6:2 expresses this idea, it advises us to go to a Zakein or a Tzadik.  Zakein is probably synonymous with Chacham (Kiddushin 32b, אין זקן אלא מי שקנה חכמה) but Tzadik is different.

ויאמר ברוכה את לה' בתי, היטבת חסדך וגו' ר' יוחנן וריש לקיש ורבנן - רבי יוחנן אמר: לעולם אל ימנע אדם עצמו מלילך אצל זקן לברכו. בועז היה בן שמונים שנה ולא נפקד, כיון שהתפללה עליו אותה צדקת מיד נפקד. שנאמר: ותאמר נעמי ברוך הוא לה'. ריש לקיש אמר: רות בת ארבעים שנה היתה ולא נפקדה, כיון שנשאת למחלון, וכיון שהתפלל עליה אותו צדיק נפקדה. שנאמר: ויאמר ברוכה את לה' בתי. ורבנן אמרין: שניהם לא נפקדו אלא מברכותיהן של צדיקים, שנאמר: ויאמרו כל העם אשר בשער והזקנים עדים יתן ה' את האשה הבאה אל ביתך כרחל וכלאה... 

See Brachos 34b, where this was put into action by going to Reb Chanina ben Dosa for a sick child.

ת"ר מעשה שחלה בנו של ר"ג שגר שני ת"ח אצל רבי חנינא בן דוסא לבקש עליו רחמים כיון שראה אותם עלה לעלייה ובקש עליו רחמים

Following that story, the Gemara says that if you're going to ask someone to daven for you, you should look for a "Eved," not a "Sar."

מעשה ברבי חנינא בן דוסא שהלך ללמוד תורה אצל ר' יוחנן בן זכאי וחלה בנו של ריב"ז אמר לו חנינא בני בקש עליו רחמים ויחיה הניח ראשו בין ברכיו ובקש עליו רחמים וחיה אמר רבי יוחנן בן זכאי אלמלי הטיח בן זכאי את ראשו בין ברכיו כל היום כולו לא היו משגיחים עליו אמרה לו אשתו וכי חנינא גדול ממך אמר לה לאו אלא הוא דומה כעבד לפני המלך ואני דומה כשר לפני המלך

See Taanis 8a.

 ואם לחש ולא נענה מאי תקנתיה ילך אצל חסיד שבדור וירבה עליו בתפילה, שנאמר [איוב לו] ויצו עליה במפגיע, ואין פגיעה אלא תפילה שנאמר ואתה אל תתפלל בעד העם הזה ואל תשא בעדם רנה ותפילה ואל תפגע בי

 לחש ולא נענה there means that he davened and wasn't answered.  That Gemara is talking about a time of drought, which explains why it says to go to the Chasid of the generation.  This is something that endangers the entire community, not just individuals.

Eli once sent me a Medrash Seichel Tov, (authored/compiled in 1139 by R. Menahem Ben Shlomo, Italy (?),) that says:

ותלך.  לבית מדרשו של עבר: לדרוש את ה׳. לבקש רחמים על העובר, ואע׳פ שאברהם קיים, הלכה אצל זקנים ללמדך שכל המקבל  פני זקן שבדור, כאילו מקבל פני שכינה

This Medrash has two interesting ideas.  It says that there is a unique benefit from going to a Zakein, here meant literally as an elderly person.  It also indicates that the purpose of going to the Zakein is not so he should daven for you, but so that you can daven for yourself, to enhance the tefilla of the supplicant, because being in the presence of the Zakein is like being before the Shechina.

This "rationalist" approach is not unique to the Medrash Seichel Tov.  The Meiri in Bava Basra says it even more emphatically:

 ומי שיש לו צער או חולה בתוך ביתו או אחד ממיני הצרות ילך אצל חכם וילמוד הימנו דרכי התפלות ויבקש רחמים

No shortcuts, no out-sourcing!  He says that the reason you go to a Chacham is so that you can watch him and learn from him how to daven.  You can learn "Darkei HaTefillos," and then, you should apply the lessons to your own davening.  Go home and daven yourself.

 This is not like the Nimukei Yosef/Rama, who changes the girsa from ויבקש עליו רחמים, which might mean that you daven in the presence of the Chacham, consistent with the Medrash Seichel Tov that seems to be saying that Rivka was doing the davening in the presence of Shem and Eiver, to שיבקש עליו רחמים, which clearly means that the Chacham is doing the davening.

Similarly, the Ramban in Yisro on the passuk (18:15) ויאמר משה לחותנו כי יבא אלי העם לדרש אלהים says 

 השיב משה לחותנו, צריכים הם שיעמדו עלי זמן גדול מן היום כי לדברים רבים באים לפני, כי יבא אלי העם לדרוש אלהים, להתפלל על חוליהם, ולהודיעם מה שיאבד להם, כי זה יקרא דרישת אלהים.

Which is how he learns that expression by Rivka-

 דגם מה דאיתא אצל רבקה ותלך לדרוש את ה׳ היינו תפילה

So although you have a few Rishonim that learn that going to a Chacham is to enable and empower your own tefillos, most Rishonim, and the Rama in Yoreh Dei'ah, say not like that.  They learn like the Gemara kipshuto, that you go to the Chacham and ask him to daven for you or for your friend.

But that does not mean they would disregard what the Meiri says.  I think all the Rishonim would agree that there is a great benefit for a person to daven himself while in the presence of the Chacham, and to take that inspiration home and daven like that in the future as well.

As far as the variations in who one should ask for a bracha, it is possible that you go to a tzadik for a bracha (Medrash Rus) and to a chacham to be mispallel for you (Bava Basra.)  But this does not explain the Gemara in Taanis, where it says ילך אצל חסיד שבדור וירבה עליו בתפילה.  It is also possible that these Maamarei Chazal indicate that Chacham, Zakein, Chasid and Tzadik are being used synonymously.  After all, despite the unparalleled respect accorded Talmidei Chachamim, it is just hard to believe that an impious scholar has Hashem's ear.  As we mentioned above from Kiddushin 32b, the Gemara equates the terms Zakein and Chacham, reading Zaken as an acronym of Zeh Kanah Chachma, and from the passuk in Mishlei (8:22) ה' קנני ראשית דרכו, with ראשית a reference to Bereishis.  But I have to say that I've known Chachamim that were far from Tzadikim, and I've known Tzadikim that were far from Chachamim.

Reb Moshe (Igros YD 4:51) says that Chacham relates to tzidkus, and that the idea of going to a Chacham applies in our generation no less than in the time of Tannaim and Amaraim.

דלכל חכם חש השי"ת לתפילתו יותר מלסתם אינשי, וגם הוא בחזקה שיקבל השי"ת תפילתו. אך שאיכא מדרגות בין החכמים ליותר עדיפות וברירות – מצד גודל איכות חכמתו ומעשיו וכמות המעשים. וממילא פשוט וברור שהחכם שמבקש מי שהוא מישראל ממנו שיתפלל עבורו, מחוייב מכ"ש דכל אדם להתפלל עבורו, דהא יותר אפשר שיקבל השי"ת תפילתו. ופשוט שאף שר' פנחס בר חמא אמר על מי שיש לו חולה בתוך ביתו, ה"ה על כל צער אחר שלא תבוא, לענין פרנסה ולזכות לבנים וכדומה, דמאי שנא, דהרי הכל תלוי בהשי"ת

.........

יש לנו לומר דגם לכל הדורות אמר זה רב פנחס בן חמא, אף שידעו חכמי הגמ׳ חכמי הדורות מתמעטין. וממילא אף שאיני מחזיק עצמי אף מחכמי הזמן, מ״מ כיון שהחולה מחזיק אותי לחכם, ובדין הוא צריד להחזיק כן, הרי הולך למקום שרב פנחס בן חמא ציוה לילך. ובזכות אמונתו בדברי חז״ל יקבל השי׳׳ת גם תפלתי וברכתי. וזהו טעם נכון ומוכרח לדינא שכל שמחזיקין אותו לחכם ובשביל זה מבקשין אותו שיתפלל ויברך, שמחוייב להתפלל עבורו ולברכו.

So the answer to the question I asked in the title of this post, who do you go to when you need a bracha, is
1. Go to a Tzadik,
2. Go to a Chacham,
3. Go to a Rosh Yeshiva,
4. Go to a Zakein,
5. Make sure they are Avadim, not Sarim.
6. Ask them to daven for you,
7. Ask them to give you a bracha.
8. While you're there, you also should daven for yourself,
9. Observe how the Chacham davens and apply those lessons to your tefillos.

Only the Ribono shel Olam knows who fills the bill, but it seems to me that if you're in Israel, you could save a lot of time and combine one through five by going to HaRav Steinman Shlitah, and if you're in the US you can go to HaRav Dovid Feinstein Shlitah.

Another lesson is that despite how proudly Misnagdim denigrate those who ask Gedolim for Brachos, the fact is that Chazal make it crystal clear that this is appropriate and helpful.  This should not become a crutch that we use to relieve ourselves of our own chiyuv of tefilla, but it is absolutely proper to go to a gadol and ask for his tefilla and bracha.

It's interesting, though, that contrary to what everyone seems to assume, Kehuna is irrelevant.  It seems that the special din and koach Kohanim to give a Bracha is exclusively in Birkas Kohanim, not a general koach of bracha.  The special din of Birkas Kohanim might apply only in very specific circumstances, and it certainly only applies to the nusach of Koh Sevarchu.  See Shaar Tziun in 128, and also see Igros Moshe OC 5:20:23 and our discussion here.  If anyone knows of a Chazal that is mashma that there is a special advantage in the bracha or tefilla of a kohen outside of Duchening, please let me know.  If you're going to see Reb Chaim Kanievsky, ask him.

Note:
I saw the following Chasam Sofer, Drashos II 356.  I find it perplexing, and I don't want to discuss it at the moment.  He's talking about Chanah going to the Mishkan to daven to have children, and he explains why she didn't ask the great Kohanim of the time to daven for her.

 ומזה הטעם בעצמו נראה מה שלא באתה חנה לפני הכהנים אשר היו בימים ההמה לבקש רחמים בעדה כראוי לכל מי שיש לו צער בתוך ביתו שילך אצל ת״ח (ב"ב קט׳׳ז.], והטעם הוא זה כי היו הכהנים החשובים סגן הכהן ומשוח מלחמה חפני ופנחס, והם לא היו כדאים להיות שלוחא דציבורא. כי די להיותם שלוחא דרחמנא ולא שלוחא דידן כידוע — וממילא יש תי׳ מספיק שלא רצתה שיתפלל עלי עליה על בנים כיון דבהאי מלתא ריע מזלא דידי׳ שבניו לא הי׳ הגונים. אין מהראוי שיתפלל הוא בעדה, ואולי עי״ז יתרע מזלה ג״כ להיות לה בן שאינו הגון ח״ו — וזה שקאמר בתחלת הפרשה ושני בני עלי חפני ופנחס כהנים לה׳ דייקא, שלא היו ראוים אלא להיות כהני ה׳ שלוחא דרחמנא לא שלוחא דידן. והיותם בני עלי ממילא מובן שגם אביהם עלי לא הי׳ ראוי לישא תפלה ורנה בעד חנה בענין זה

Additional Note:
Here is my opinion about to whom to go for a bracha.  It depends on whether you are looking for רצון יראיו יעשה,  namely, the bracha of a צדיק גוזר והקב"ה מקיים, or you are looking for ואת שועתם ישמע, namely, tefillos of a beloved servant.  If you're looking for צדיק גוזר והקב"ה מקיים, then you go to a Sar, a Rosh Yeshiva, a Talmid Chacham.  If  you're looking for תפלה לעני כי יעטוף ולפני ה' ישפוך שיחו ה' שמעה תפילתי ושוועתי אליך תבוא, if you're looking for a שם את נפשו בכפו, then you are looking for an עבד, an entirely different kind of person.

Why We Don't Make A Bracha on Matza After the First Night.

A דבר בעתו for Erev Pesach.

The Gaon (Maaseh Rav 185) says that eating Matza is a mitzva the whole yomtov of Pesach.  On the first night, it is obligatory, chiyuvis, and the rest of yomtov it is optional, kiyumis.  If you choose to eat matza at any time on Pesach, you fulfill a mitzva.  The question is this:  If we hold that women make a bracha on Zman Grama, you see that you make a bracha for a kiyumis.  If so, why don't we make a bracha on the mitzva of achilas Matza the whole yomtov of Pesach.  It should be no different than Yeshivas Sukkah, that we pasken that we make a bracha every day, every time you sit down to eat in the Sukkah.

There's a lot going on in the house, and I don't have time right now, so I will just note that the Dvar Avraham, Rabbeinu Bachay by Shiluach Hakan, and the Baal Hamaor in Pesachim 26b in dafei haRif, each independently say that you don't make a bracha on a Mitzva Kiyumis.  Also, HaRav Yisrael Taplin of Lakewood wrote a piece on this in the Am HaTorah thirty five years ago, available here, with tremendous mareh mekomos, but he doesn't mention the Dvar Avraham or Rabbeinu Bachay, or, I think, the Baal HaMaor.  Also, anonymous sent a link to a sefer Toras Michoel from Rabbi Forshlager who says that the mitzva after the first night derives from/extends the mitzva the first  night, so it doesn't require a new bracha.  I just read it.  I find what he says unconvincing and speculative, lacking supportive evidence.  (I WAS WRONG.  PLEASE SEE MY NOTE AT THE END OF THIS POST! In any case, I actually would bring a raya to his hanacha from Rashi in Taanis 28b, referring to the whole/half Hallel on Sukkos/Pesach, brings the Gemara in Archin about the daily change of Korbanos on Sukkos, and says that this shows that every day is a Chag Bifnei Atzmo. We can say that the converse, regarding Pesach, is that all the days are Chag Echad.  If so, we can use the Netziv in the Sheiltos in Yisro, and say that the ikkar mitzva of matza is on day one, and any matza you eat afterwards is an addition to the mitzva. I have to say that it's a stretch in the Gaon, but it's possible.)

The Dvar Avraham is in 2:8:21, and he says (bad OCR, sorry,)

 ולכן נראה לומר דמשילוח דמעיקרא לא הוקשה להרשב״א כלל למה אינו מברך, לפי שאינה מצוה חיובית שאם אינו רוצה ליקח האם אינו מחויב בשילוח וכל כי האי אין מברכין. והא דמברכין על השחיטה אע"פ שאינה  מצוה חיובית שאם לא יאכל א"צ לשחוט, י"ל משים דבקדשים הוי עשה חיובית להכי מברכין נמי בחולין, כמו שהזכירו הראשינים ז"ל סברא זי, יעי" בחמים רעים שם. ולכאורה ע"כ אתה צ"ל כ; לועח הריצב"א בתוס' שבועות (דף כיו עיא ויה האוכל), עי״ במשבציח זהב יייו (מי ייט סקיא), אבל אין הדברים מכרחין דייל ונס להריצב"א מצות הכשר ואכח״ל. ולפ״ז בעיקר מצות שילוח הקן ניחא ליה להרשב"א שאין מברכין

Rabbeinu Bachay is in Ki Seitzei 22:7 at the very end, here:

ומצוה זו מן המצות המקובלות והחכמים ז״ל תקנו ברכה בכולן ולא תקנו בזו לפי שאינה מצוה מחוייבת כמו שאר מצות ואינו חייב לחזר אחריה במתכוון אלא כשיזדמן לו וזהו לשון כי יקרה ועוד שאינו חייב בשלוח אלא כשהוא רוצה ליקח הבנים

I mentioned that the Baal Hamaor asks this question.  Here is what he says.

ויש ששואלין באכילת מצה מה טעם אין אנו מברכים עליה כל ז' כמו שמברכים על הסוכה כל ז', דהא גמרינן מהדדי שלילה הראשון חובה מכאן ואילך רשות בין במצה בין בסוכה, כדאיתא בפרק הישן. ויש להשיב לפי שאדם יכול בשאר ימים לעמוד בלא אכילת מצה, ויהיה ניזון באורז ודוחן וכל מיני פירות, משא"כ בסוכה שאין יכול לעמוד בלא שינה ג' ימים והוא חייב לישן בסוכה ולטייל בה [...] זהו טעם שמברכין על הסוכה כל ז' ואין מברכין על מצה כל שבעה. וטעם נכון הוא

He says that the reason we make a bracha every day on Sukkah, but not on Matza, is because it is possible and muttar to not eat any Matza after the first night.  But you can't stay awake the whole yomtov of Sukkos, and when the time comes when you have no choice but to sleep, you will have to sleep in the Sukkah.  So it makes sense that you would have to make a bracha.

This is a very novel pshat in Chiyuv/Reshus.  Normally, we define chiyuv as something the Torah obligated as a mitzva.  He is saying that you make a bracha on Sukkah because since you can't live without sleeping, you'll have to sleep in the Sukkah, so it is unavoidable, so  you can make a bracha.  There is a big difference between unavoidable and mitzvah, I think, but that's what he says as far as Brachos are concerned.

So now there's a big problem.  The bracha on Shechita doesn't bother me, because there's an element of avoiding neveilla.  But why do you make a bracha on Tzitzis?  If what obligates a bracha is the fact that you can't avoid doing the mitzva, well, by Tzitzis you certainly can avoid the mitzva.  Don't wear Daled Kanfos.  True, once you have them on, you're obligated, but the Baal Hamaor doesn't seem to care about that.  What he cares about is whether you can legally manage to live without doing the Mitzva.  He doesn't say that you make a bracha on Sukkah because now that you're eating, you're absolutely chayav to eat in the Sukkah.  Only sleeping, where the circumstances of chiyuv are inevitable, creates a din bracha.  If so, he should hold that even though when you put on daled kanfos you're absolutely chayav to put in tzitzis, that's not enough of a reason to make a bracha.

I guess you can answer that birkas tzitzis- ahl mitzvas tzitzis- can be construed (as the Darkei Moshe says in OC) as a kind of a birkas shevach, as opposed to Leishei'v, but if that were true, you ought to make ahl achilas matza just as well, and call it a birkas shevach.  

Unless you say that the Baal Hamaor doesn't mean like the Gaon at all, and he holds that Matza on the rest of Yomtov is totally reshus, not even kiyumis, but then his tzushtell to Sukkah, and his need to answer the kashe, is hard to understand.  So I'm stuck.

Avrohom, in the comments, suggests that Tzitzis is the exception to the rule, because of the Gemara in Menachos 41a that says that avoiding the mitzva of tzitzis is punished much like the transgression of a prohibition, like being over on a lav.  While it's possible that Tzitzis, in that Gemara, is just used as the example, and this is true by any long term failure to do optional mitzvos, we do find that Tztizis is a special mitzva.  For example, you have the Medrash the Taz brings down in OC 10 sk 10 that it was in the zechus of tzitzis that the Yam Suf split.

Here are the comments from the first time I posted this.
Anonymous:
Rav Forshlagger answers that the mitzva kiyumis of the rest of Pesach is not an independent mitzva; rather its "nimsheches" from the obligatory mitzva of the first night. So the bracha of the first night covers the eatings of the rest of Pesach.
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7493&st=&pgnum=43
I saw this in a lengthy shtikkle written by R Ezra Schwartz on the subect of the Gra's chiddush, I'm not technologically advanced enough to figure out how to link it here.

Me:

I'm going to look at it over Shabbos, bln, but from the first look, it feels like hashkafa, not lomdus. Who says it's nimsheches? 

But I do know that the Baal Hamaor asks the kashe in Pesachim in the Rif pages 26b, and he says that you never make a bracha on a kiyumis. I realize that this might not be a good answer if you hold noshim somchos reshus, but there's a lot more to say on this. 

Anonymous:

He asks the kasha from Sukka and says its muchrach to sleep sometime over Sukkos...not sure if it's going to answer your kasha from Zman Grama.

In the shtikkel, he brings a Netziv in Meishiv Davar and a Maharsham that talk about this question, but they don't say a teretz.

Me:

I didn't get a chance to read it, what with Shabbos Hagodol responsibilities and so forth. But I put the link to his piece into the post.




NOTE

Despite spending ten years in yeshiva in Baltimore, I never heard of Harav Forshlager.  When I read his shtikel Torah, I thought it was terrible.  I have done some research, and after weighing the evidence, I've come to realize that if there's anything wrong with someone here, it is me, not him.  I've also thought about his Rebbi's Torah in the Eglei Tal, and I now realize that the Sochotchover also had this style, to some extent.  It's very, very different from Slabodka and Brisk and Volozhin, and it wouldn't fly in either of those places, but they have their own way, and I shouldn't have been so dismissive.  All I can say is that it sounded a false note to my ear.


The first thing I read that made me reconsider was the following by Rabbi Avrum Moshe Friedman:

When Harav Mordechai Gifter, zt”l, who was at the time giving a shiur for a chabura at Ner Yisrael concurrent with a pulpit in the Lubavitch shul in the city, was asked to become a rosh yeshiva at the Telshe Yeshiva in Cleveland, the rosh yeshiva and founder of Telshe, Harav Elimeir Bloch, zt”l, asked him whom he learned with in Baltimore. Rav Gifter’s response was that he learned with a rav who was not well known in the yeshiva world, Harav Michoel Forshlager. The response was totally unexpected. Rav Bloch replied, “When I arrived in America after the war, I traveled the entire country from North to South, East to West, looking up any and all rabbanim, rabbis, grand rabbis, and reverends to meet them and discuss Torah. Among all whom I met, I found only one gaon amiti, (true Torah genius), Harav Michoel Forshlager, with whom you studied.
Rav Bloch’s opinion was not an isolated one; many gedolei Torah expressed similar views. An example was Harav Yisroel Gustman, zt”l, who stated that “easy” sheilos he answered himself, but the difficult ones he sent to Rav Forshlager in Baltimore. This despite the fact that he was a major rosh yeshiva and posek and there were numerous big poskim in New York, where Rav Gustman resided, after the Second World War.

Another example is the Satmar Rov, Harav Yoel Teitelbaum, zt”l, who was quoted as exclaiming as he was sending a shaila to Rav Forshlager: “Who am I to send a shaila to Harav Michoel Forshlager?”

Then, I read the following, by Isaac Draiman in Baltimore Jewish Life. 

Baltimore, MD - Dec. 26 - This past Motzoei Shabbos, December 21, a melaveh malkah was hosted by Mr. and Mrs. Shlomo Spetner, to celebrate the release of an astounding biography of Harav Michoel Forshlager, zt”l.

Harav Forshlager, a talmid of The Avnei Nezer, Harav Hagaon R’ Avraham Borenstein, ztvk”l, was a tremendous gaon and expert in all parts of the Torah, who lived in Baltimore in the first half of the twentieth century. He was instrumental in supporting Harav Yaakov Yitzchok Ruderman, zt”l in his establishment of Yeshivas Ner Yisroel. Both Harav Ruderman, and Harav Aharon Kotler, zt”l, referred to him with the greatest respect, the latter calling him the Gadol Hador.

Harav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l, said “He is the greatest gaon to ever set foot on American soil,” and when Harav Gifter, zt”l, addressed the Agudah Convention of 1989, he quoted the Telshe Rosh Yeshivah, Harav Itzele Telsher, zt”l, in reference to Harav Forshlager as ‘the only Gaon in America.’ Rav Gifter told his chaverim in Europe, “You should learn your whole life and maybe come to a crumb of his ability to immerse yourself in learning.”

The sefer was the result of the efforts of Rabbi Benzion Bergman and assisted by Rabbi Avrum Moshe Friedmann, a grand nephew of Rav Forshlager, who recently established the Avnei Choshen Foundation, dedicated to publishing Rav Forshlager‘s Torah treasures which lay dormant for over half a century.

Rav Forshlager’s writings comprise some 45 volumes, with an additional 1000 pages unbound. However, publishing these works proved to be a daunting task as the writing was barely legible and difficult to decipher.

R’ Benzion set out to gather information for a biography of Rav Forshlager, literally scouring the world for letters written by Rav Forshlager, and reaching out to people who knew him personally. The recently published biography is a result of those efforts.  Efforts to prepare Rav Forshlager's sefarim for publication continue.

At the melaveh malkah, which was extremely well attended by over one hundred individuals, including many Rabbanim from the Baltimore community, about fifty volumes of the biography were distributed. The turnout was especially encouraging since it competed with at least three other events that night within the growing, k'ah, Baltimore Orthodox Jewishcommunity. Rabbi Dovid Katz, whose weekly lecture series is extremely popular, hurried to participate after he finished his lecture.

As soon as the special guest speaker of the evening, Rav Shmerel Shulman, entered, he recognized and embraced his chaver from the earliest days of Ner Yisrael, Harav Moshe Shuvalsky, Shlita. Together with his son, Harav Yakov Shuvalsky, the Shuvalsky’s helped keep Rav Forshlager’s memory alive. Their memories were a major contribution to the Biography.

The evening was initiated by Mr. Shlomo Spetner, whose daughters along with the Wealcatch and Scheller families worked tirelessly to provide a beautiful and elaborate buffet for the Melave Malkah.  Mr. Spetner commented, that he recently attended a funeral of someone from an illustrious Baltimore family and decided to visit the kever of the Patriarch of that family.  Immediately, he realized, upon approaching that kever, that right next to it was the kever of Harav Forshlager.  It should be noted that the Spetners agreed to host this Melava Malkah way before this occurred.

Rabbi Friedmann, who acted as master of ceremonies, began with some reminiscences of Baltimore of 50 years earlier, mentioning the families and Rabbonim who kept the memory of Rav Forshlager alive. After this introduction, he introduced the surprise guest speaker.

Harav Yissocher Frand described Harav Forshlager's influence on the city, as he guaranteed Harav Ruderman's position as Rav in the Tiferes Yisrael shul while Ner Yisroel was being established. In addition, he continued to support the yeshivah by soliciting funds from his own baalei batim, who helped supply basic foodstuffs to the yeshivah bachurim during the war years. He concluded by saying that our community rests on the shoulders of the giants of the past and that we owe a special debt of gratitude to Rav Forshlager.

Harav HaGaon Rav Shmerel Shulman, a musmach of Ner Yisroel, a man over 90 years old, ad meah vesrim, who knew Harav Forshlager personally, made a special trip to spend Shabbos in Baltimore and share his memories of Harav Forshlager's immense genius and gadlus. 

Rabbi Yaakov Bergman, father of Reb Bentzion Bergman, praised his son's devoted efforts to find anecdotes and divrei Torah from Harav Forshlager.
Finally Rav Bentzion ended the program with an appeal to the city,

The event was a true kiddush Hashem, one that paid tribute to a true gaon who helped shape Baltimore's frum community.

For more information on the Avnei Choshen Foundation, or on the new sefer, please contact Rabbi Avrum Friedman at 410-720-9478 (leave message) or rabbiamf@gmail.com  

בין איך משוגע

My father zatzal used to tell stories about Reb Aizekel (Eizel) Charif.  In one of the stories, Reb Aizikel woke his rebbetzin up in middle of the night, and asked her, in profound agitation, בין איך קלאר אדער בין איך משוגע?  Am I sane, or am I crazy?

She was shocked and afraid, and she said, Reb Aizek, what do you mean?  He insisted, and repeated, בין איך קלאר אדער בין איך משוגע?  I am gozeir on you as your husband that you have to tell me what you really believe!  She answered, with worry and dismay, Reb Aizek, I promise that you are the most sane man in the world, you are 100% sane.

Reb Aizek said, (sometimes my father said he started dancing and said) Oy, Baruch Hashem!  Baruch Hashem!  Someone gave me this sefer that he just published, and I was reading it, and I came to realize that there are only two possibilities.  Either I am crazy, or he is crazy.  Baruch Hashem!  If I am not crazy, Iz ehr meshuga, then he is crazy!



I was talking to a friend recently, and we began to talk about the sugya of לקבעא קמא הדר- that sometimes, walking out and returning is called a hefsek and if you return it is a new beginning and you have to make a new birkas hanehenin, but sometimes it is not considered an interruption, and so when you return you are continuing the same meal  He asked me the following question.

We know that if a person ate a kezayis of mezonos and left the room, he does not have to make another bracha when he returns.  Because mezonos obligates a person to return to the place where he ate, his leaving is not called a hefsek.  לקבעא קמא הדר

What if a person was eating mezonos and shehakol, and he left the room, and he returned.  Would he have to repeat the shehakol?

The natural answer is that no, he would not have to repeat the shehakol.  If he doesn't have to repeat the mezonos because his obligation to return renders his having left insignificant, then he shouldn't have to repeat any bracha.  It seems obvious to me that the din that you don't repeat mezonos is not because mezonos requires that you go back to where  you ate.  It is because mezonos creates a reality of kvius.  Because of that kevius, you have to make the bracha achrona where you ate.  If there were no brachos in the world, the concept of kevius would still apply.  The din of going back is a siman, not a siba.  If so, if there's a reality of kvius, the kvius is applicable to all your brachos.

So my friend told me that he saw a certain great posek, a man that was well known to have shas and poskim and rishonim in his pocket, said that he does have to repeat the shehakol.

I asked him, but why is this different that one who was eating a shehakol food and left the room, but he left his friends there, and he intends to return because of his friends.  He told me it's a good question, but if that posek said farkert, it's my problem to be meyasheiv the sugya.

I haven't looked at any of the mareh mekomos.  I'm afraid it will say what he says.  If it does, then the only choice I will have is to accept the unfortunate reality of the title of this post.  As the Mahari Viel said, פסקי בעלי בתים ופסקי לומדים שני הפכים הם.
(שו"ת מהר"י ווייל סוף סימן קמ"ו, הובא בסמ"ע סימן ג' ס"ק י"ג)

Marei mekomos, thank you Eli.
Badei Hashulchan here and also here
Teshuvos Maharim Padua  (Not the famous Maharam Padua, who lived three hundred years earlier, but he was the Rov of Brisk a generation before the Maharil Diskin, so read it carefully.)


Also on the issue of לקבעא קמא הדר:

What if a person heard kiddush in his Sukkah, but he didn't drink a reviis of wine.  Let's say he wasn't the one that made kiddush, or even if he made kiddush, he drank rov kos but not a revi'is.  Then he walked out to wash netilas yadayim for Hamotzi.  Is he yotzei Kiddush bimkom seuda?  Or does his walking out mean there's a hefsek and his kiddush was not bimkom seuda, since it is not related to the seuda he will eat after washing?

I would think that his obligation and intent to return to eat bread means that he never "left" the sukkah.  It's not worse than leaving friends and intending to come back- which is another example of לקבעא קמא הדר.  Indeed, that is what Reb Yosef Peimer from Slutzk, a talmid of Reb Chaim Volozhiner says in his teshuvos at the end of #7 (here's more about him.)  Rav Chaim Volozhiner is saying a big chiddush:  he is the only one who connects the halacha of leaving a friend behind, which is usually related to the din of making new brachos, to the din of Kiddush Bimkom Seuda.

ואגב דקיימינן בהאי ענינא דקידוש במקום סעודה אמרתי לכתוב כאן מה ששמעתי מפ"ק אדמו"ר הגאןן המפורסם החסיד מהור"ר חיים זצוק"ל בעל נפש החיים בהיותינו יחד הוציא אותנו בקידוש ליל א' של יו"ט ואחר הקידוש יצא אחד לחוץ וחזר מיד ואוושו עלין שצריך לחזור ולקדש כמו דכתב המ"א בסימן רע"ג סק"ה ד"ה צריך כן' דאם יצא ממקומו בנתיים צריך לקדש שנית ואמר מורנו שאין צריך כיןן שהניח מקצת חברים שנתחברו יחד כדי לצאת בקידוש זה וחזר לחביריו הו"ל כההיא דסימן קע"ח דבהניח מקצת חברים אין צריך לחזור ולברך בשינוי מקום ואע"ג שדבריו ז"ל אין צריך חיזוק יש לצרף מה שראיתי בחידושי הריטב"א במסכת סוכה דף מ"ה ד"ה ורבה כו' דז"ל מיהו כי אמרינן דמברך על הסוכה כל זמן שנכנס בה היינו כשיוצא מתחלה יציאה גמורה לעשות ענינו ושלא לחזור לאלתר דהוי כחליצה דתפילין אבל לא יצא מתחלה אלא לדבר עם חבירו או להביא דבר לסוכה לצורך שעתו לא הויא יציאה כלל לחייבו בברכה כשחוזר וכיוצא בזה לענין ברכת נהנין כשעמד בתוך הסעודה על דעת לחזור לאלתר שאינו טעון ברכה לאחריו ולא לפניו ולקבעי' הדר ואע"פ שלא הניח שם זקן או חולה וכדפרישנא בדוכתא עכ"ל הריטב"א וצ"ע שלאו הביאו דעתו כלל וכפי העולה בזכרוני ראיתי פ"א בכנה"ג דחולק על גוף הדין של המ"א ואין הספר ת"י לעיין בן ועיין בח"ש מה דכתבנו בדברי המג"א סימן קפ"ד סק"ג 

 But they tell me that the Chazon Ish argues. It's remarkable.  All of Klal Yisrael does this.  You make kiddush in the Sukkah, you go out to wash, and then you make hamotzi.  This is a hefsek, and it's not the same seuda, so it's a problem of not making kiddush bimkom seudah?

And once again, I have a very big problem understanding this.  We all know that talking between bracha and achila is a hefsek, but not where the talking is for the purpose of the Achila, like "Bring salt."  So we ought to learn a general svara that a hefsek for the needs of the seuda is not a hefsek.  If so, going out to wash in order to eat is not in the parsha of hefsek at all.  Not only is it not a hefsek, it's exactly the opposite of a hefsek- it's a "Not Hefsek," it's a chibbur.  In fact, I believe that if you sat down to eat, and you realized you hadn’t fed your animals, and you go outside to feed them so you can eat, it is not a hefsek either.  To me, this is a poshuteh svara.  So why don’t any of these gedolim say this simple, baalebatische svara?  Is there something wrong with me?  Has my brain gotten dim with age?  Has my almost exclusive focus on the Daf Yomi for twenty five years made me simplistic?  Very possible.



UPDATE
After thinking about this for a while, I've come to realize that the problem with being a baal habayis is the tendency to form an immediate opinion and to close one's mind, instead of delving into the sugya to see what other ways there are to learn it.  It's a matter of being outside the milieu of shakla vetarya, and also simple laziness and inertia.  So, yes.  Unfortunately, it's true.


By the way, Reb Yosef (Yosalleh) Peimer was like a father to Reb Elya Pruzhiner, Reb Moshe Feinstein's uncle (who made Reb Moshe's father's shidduch with his sister in law on the condition that the Feinsteins drop their Kaidaner Chasidus and adopt the minhagei haGra,) who was born in Slutsk.