Breishis. From Which of Adam's Sons Are We All Descended

I thought it would be fun to post this because so many people get the answer wrong.

From which of Adam's sons are we all descended?

The obvious answer is, Sheis. People assume that Kayin's line was wiped out, and that we're all from Sheis only, but that's not necessarily true.  According to Rashi, we are descended from Kayin just as much as we are descended from Sheis. 

Na'ama was Noach's wife. According to Rashi, this Naama was a descendant of Kayin: she was the daughter of Lamech, son of Mesusha'eil, son of Mechuya'eil, son of Chanoch, son of Kayin. 

Others (see Mei'am Lo'ez Breishis page 107,) though, say that Noach's Naama was not the one referred to as Kayin's descendant, it was some other Na'ama that was descended from Sheis.

But going with Rashi, and assuming that the three sons of Noach were all from his wife Na'ama, they, and we, may all be 50% descended from Kayin.

I don't know who Kayin's sons married. Maybe they married descendants of Sheis. But if Kayin's family only married Kayin descendants up till Noach, that means that our mitochondrial DNA is all Kayin-ish, assuming, again, that Kayin married his own twin. 

(Since Og was king of the Emori, I assume that he was not from Kayin.)

A great addition from R Avrohom Wagner:

Also interesting to note (as featured at my Shabbos table every Shabbos Bereishis) is that Noach was the first person (that we know of) to have his father and father-in-law share a name - they were both called Lemech.

So their family lines were Noach, ben Lamech ben Mesushelach ben Chanoch ben ben ben Keinan , and Naama was bas Lemech ben Mesusha'eil ben Mechuya'eil ben Chanoch ben Kayin.

This certainly would have made it easier to pick names for the kids if not for the fact that they generally made up new names.

A great observation from R Micha Berger:

Notice also that it's Qayin's kids who develop cities, metalurgy, music, .... It's like Noach's side is credited for its moral message, and he marries someone from the line that started developing the tools with which we can better implement that morality.

I replied,

Fascinating. More prosaically,the doers come from Kayin and the dreamers from Sheis.

Ishah and Ha'ishah, the Ben Yehoyada.

I've been waiting for a chance to use the Ben Yehoyada in BM 59 at a Sheva Brachos, but that special moment has yet to arrive. Perhaps you will be able to use it.....

I'm sorry, but it simply doesn't translate to English. It is only comprehensible in Hebrew - in Sefardic accented Hebrew. 

שם. אתתך גוצא גחין ולחיש לה. הא דאומרים לחיש, מפני כי גנאי לאיש שיקח עצה מאשתו בפומבי, לכך אמרו לו לחיש לה בקשת העצה, ואז ודאי גם היא תשיב לך בלחישה, ולכן לא א״ל גחין ושמע דבריה, או ושמע עצתה. 
ואומרם אתתך גוצא נ״ל בס״ד דרך דרש, דידוע הקושיא דמקשים בקראי, דפסוק אחד אומר מצא אשה מצא טוב, ופסוק אחד אומר ומוצא מר ממות את האשה, ומתרצים דהאשה צריכה להיות נכנעת לבעלה, שלא תחשוב עצמה שוה אליו במעלה, אלא תחשיב היא חצי בעלה במעלה, דאם תחשוב עצמה בהשוואה עמו, הרי זו מרה כלענה, דלכך הקב״ה הטיל יוד באיש, וה״א באשה, שהיא חצי מספר היו״ד, להורות שצריך שתחשוב עצמה חצי בעלה במעלה, אבל אשה רעה שתחשוב עצמה בהשוואה, אינה רואה עצמה בשם אשה, אלא האשה בתוספת ה כדי להשלים חסרונה להיות שוה עם בעלה, שיש לו אות יוד, ושני ההי״ן הם מספר יו״ד, ולז״א ומוצא מר ממות את האשה בתוספת ה שמשוה עצמה עם בעלה, הנה זאת היא מר ממות, אבל על הרואה עצמה בשם אשה, עליה נאמר מצא אשה דייקא מצא טוב. ובזה פרשתי בס״ד מאמר התנא ואל תרבה שיתה עם האשה, דהיינו עם הרואה עצמה בשם האשה, שתשוה עצמה עמך, אל תרבה שיחה לבקש ממנה עצה במילי דביתא, אלא התרחק ממנה, ולז״א אתתך גוצא, שרואה עצמה היא חצי שלך במעלה, ואינה משווה עצמה עמך, זו היא אשה טובה, גחין ולתישלה לקבל ממנה עצה, דעליה נאמר מצא אשה מצא טוב :

Bereishis 2:5. Prayer

I spoke twice at my grandson's, Moshe Lawrence's, bar mitzva last week. First (Thursday night) I said what I have posted earlier about Torah and the Eitz Chaim, and here is my second drasha (Shabbos afternoon.)  I think it's good and useful for many public and private occasions.

Rav Schwab is quoted (in his son's sefer) as asking, why do you have to repeat shmoneh esrei if you skip Mashiv haru'ach umorid hageshem? Not every word in shmoneh esrei is essential, as shown in havineinu, and here, we're not even asking for rain, it's just a mention of the gevura of rain. He answers with the Gemara in Chulin brought by Rashi in Breishis 2:5. The passuk says "Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord God had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil."  Rashi says

כי לא המטיר: ומה טעם לא המטיר? לפי שאדם אין לעבוד את האדמה, ואין מכיר בטובתם של גשמים. וכשבא אדם וידע שהם צורך לעולם התפלל עליהם וירדו, וצמחו האילנות והדשאים:

Because… not caused it to rain: Why had it not rained? Because there was no man to work the soil, and no one recognized the benefit of rain. But when man came and understood that the rains were essential to the world, he prayed for them, and they fell, and the trees and the herbs sprouted. — [from Chul. 60b]

Rav Schwab says that we see that even though Hashem prepared the rain, He held it back for one reason: so that when Adam was created, he should recognize the benefit of rain and pray for it. We see that recognizing and praying for rain is not just "a tefilla." Hashem had arranged the creation of the world and the garden and of Adam so that the entire enterprise would be put into motion specifically through this tefilla. It is the father of all tefilla. If you skip it, then your tefilla is not a tefilla. (מכיר בטובתם של גשמים is precisely what is meant by "mazkirin gevuras geshamim" in mashiv haru'ach, and of course התפלל עליהם וירדו applies to v'sein tal umattar.)

He also points out that Adam, from the first moment of his creation, was called Nefesh m'malilah, a creature that speaks. What was the point of being able to speak if there was nobody to talk to? The answer is that there was- it enabled him to be mispallel.

In the beginning of Bava Kamma, the Gemara says "mav'eh zeh Adam." Why call Adam Mav'eh, the "one who supplicates?" The answer, especially in the context of Adam mu'ad l'olam, is that life is dangerous and tentative, and tefilla is the basic necessity of the human condition. In our mesorah, Man is "One who prays."

A reader, Avrohom, sent in a marvelous Ben Yehoyada, and I'll paste Avrohom's words here. By way of introduction, the "ne'elam" or "milui" of a letter refers to the unpronounced letters in the letter's spelled out name.  Example- Aleph: the first letter of the letter's name is the letter aleph, and then you have the letters lamed and phei. So the ne'elam/millui comprises the letters lamed and phei.

On your point that "In our mesorah, Man is "One who prays."", Rav Moshe Shapiro brings down a beautiful Ben Yehoyada that says that the neelam of Odom is Mispallel. (Aleph - the ne'elam is lamed and pey, the ne'elam of Dalet is lamed and Taf and the neelam of mem is mem). Rav Moshe Shapiro said that the ne'elam represents the essence of something, its fundamental identity. And therefore, an Odom is in essence a mispallel, that is what his existence rests on, or as you said "In our mesorah, Man is "One who prays."

The Ben Yehoyada is in Sanhedrin 110, as follows:

שם (סנהדרין ק"י) זה ממונו של אדם שמעמידו על רגליו יובן בס"ד דאמרו בגמרא דאמר רשב"י יכולני לפטור העולם מדין הפלה על אשר אין מתפללים בכונה דלבם מבולבל מן צרות הגלות כשיכור, דכתיב שכרה ולא מיין והנה מי שיש לו ממון הרבה יהיה לו לב רחב תמיד ולא יתבלבל משום דבר כי הממון מרחיב הלב א"כ בעל הממון אינו יכול לפטור עצמו מדין תפלה אלא הוא מתפלל בטוב. והנה אם תמלא אותיות אדם כזה אל"ף דל"ת מ"ם תמצא אותיות המלוי הם אותיות מתפלל והמלוי הוא רגלים של אותיות הפשוט. ולז"א זה ממונו של אדם דייקא שמעמידו על רגליו שמעמידו בתפלה בשופי הרמוזה ברגליו של אדם דמלוי אדם הוא איתיות מתפלל דהאדם צריך להיות מתפלל תמיד ואינו יכול לפטור עצמו מדין תפלה 

I want to show this visually. The name אדם has three letters:  אלפ  and דלת and ממ.
The primary letters, the pronounced letters, are אלפ, and דלת, and ממ.  The "hidden" letters are אלפ and דלת and ממ.
The hidden letters, then, are לפ, and לת, and מ, equaling מתפלל.

And now, back to the original post.

A Bar Mitzva bachur, and a chassan, and others that enter a new phase in life, are given many brachos, and are graced with many gifts - gifts of natural ability, of their environment, of educational and financial advantage.  All these gifts and brachos are wonderful, but if you aren't mispallel, without siyata dishmaya, these wonderful gifts will remain unused. טמן עצל ידו בצלחת גם אל פיהו לא ישיבנה.  The rain was waiting, it was just hanging there ready to fall, but it would not fall until Adam Harishon was mispallel. It's like going into the bank where you have a big account, walking over to the teller, standing there like a golem looking at her, tipping your hat and walking out.  The money is all there waiting for you. But if you don't ask, you're not going to get a penny. We even say Shma koleinu in Shmoneh Esrei, a tefilla asking that Hashem should hear our tefillos!

Yeshiva people, especially younger baalei kishron, have a tendency to belittle davening. Many fine talmidei chachamim stay up till three in the morning learning and miss tefilla betzibur- even zman tefilla, with the excuse of oneis sheina. I don't disagree with them. At that stage, Torah is far more important than tefilla, and it is not unreasonable to say that such a person is 100% Toraso umanuso and entitled to the hetter of Reb Shimon bar Yochai (Yerushalmi Shabbos 1:2 and Brachos 1:2), and not only pattur from davening, but even pattur from Krias Shman and Sukkah.  The problem is that this becomes a habit that remains even when you didn't stay up till three.  I used to have the bungalow next to Reb Moshe, and we would watch as he came outside to the porch at four in the morning to stand and say Tehillim. When he found out that we were watching him, he asked if he was disturbing our sleep, and we assured him that he was not. The point is that he could have been learning, or writing, or many other things that would appear to be better uses of time than saying Tehillim. But he did not think so, and you, too, should realize that tefilla and tehillim are precious both for what they are and for what they help you to achieve. 

Bereishis: The Etz Chaim

This is the first of two drashos I said at Moshe Lawrence's bar Mitzva. The other one was on Tefilla.

In Parshas Breishis, we are told of the Eitz Chaim in Gan Eden, the tree of life. In Mishlei, Shlomo hamelech says Eitz Chaim hee lamachazikim bah, It - meaning the Torah - is an Eitz Chaim, a "tree of life" for those that hold fast to it. This is probably a metaphor. It is, after all, in Mishlei, and Mishlei is full of meshalim.  But it might be more than metaphor.

There is a remarkable Gemara in Kesuos 111b. The Gemara says that people without the zechus of Torah will not rise at the time of techihyas hameisim. Every good person has a share in heaven- Jew, Gentile, rich, poor, the souls of all righteous people live on in heaven.  But only those that have the zechus of learning Torah will rise from the dead, and the others, even tzadikim, will not rise in this physical world.  Physical resurrection, eternal life in this world, requires Torah and davka Torah. Is this not the very definition of an Eitz Chaim?

Another thing: It's a remarkable thing, but if you ask people, everyone will know that the Cherubim are the angelic figures that were atop the Aron Kodesh, on the Kapores. But the fact is that the keruvim appear in the Torah in two places. The first appearance of the keruvim, the one that the vast majority of people don't remember, was when Adam was sent away from Gan Eden- the angels that guarded the path with a burning, turning, sword to prevent his return and prevent access to the Eitz Chaim, were keruvim. Rashi says that these keruvim were malachei chavala, angels of destruction. Obviously, they were very different than the keruvim, the beautiful childlike angels atop the Aron, which symbolized the love between Hashem and Klal Yisrael  But the fact is that in the first instance, the Keruvim were guarding the Eitz Chaim in Gan Eden, and in the second, they were guarding what Shlomo Hamelech called the Eitz Chaim.

When Shlomo Hamelech called Torah the Eitz Chaim, he meant it literally.  The difference between the Eitz in the Gan and the Eitz in the Aron is that the former was available for the taking, and its result was immediate, while and the latter requires absolute and total effort, and the results might not be evident until the time of techiyas hameisim- but they are the same. The Eitz Chaim is a source of life that is stronger than death. I don't know if the Torah is the Eitz Chaim, or an Eitz Chaim, but it is Eitz Chaim mamash.

This is the pshat in the bracha that we say after Krias Hatorah- אשר נתן לנו תורת אמת וחיי עולם נטע בתוכנו. That's where the Eitz HaDaas is- the eitz hadaas is planted in our hearts, and we need to let it grow.

My brother in law, Harav Yosaif Asher Weiss, said that this is all stated clearly in a mishna in the sixth perek of Avos.

גדולה תורה שהיא נותנת חיים לעושיה בעולם הזה ובעולם הבא. 

שנאמר כי חיים הם למוצאיהם ולכל בשרו מרפא. 

ואומר: רפאות תהי לשרך ושקוי לעצמותיך. 

ואומר: עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה ותומכיה מאשר. 

ואומר: כי לוית חן הם לראשך וענקים לגרגרתיך. 

ואומר: תתן לראשך לוית חן עטרת תפארת תמגנך. 

ואומר: כי בי ירבו ימיך ויוסיפו לך שנות חיים. 

ואומר: ארך ימים בימינה בשמאולה עשר וכבוד. 

ואומר: כי ארך ימים ושנות חיים ושלום יוסיפו לך. 

ואומר: דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתבותיה שלום. 

At my bar mitzva, in 1963, the Ponovezher Rov spoke about the greatness of limud hatorah. It was the week of Parshas Chukas, and he spoke about Adam ki yamus ba'ohel, which Chazal teach us means that a man who wishes to reach the pinnacle of human accomplishment must expend all his energy, all his life force, on the study of Torah. Even for those lucky people who have a natural predilection for Torah, for whom the Torah just falls into place, even they must work themselves to their limit in the pursuit of the understanding of the depths of the Torah. You can't dip your toe in Torah. You have to pickle yourself in Torah.

In the passuk in Mishlei, Eitz Chaim hee, there seems to be a mismatch between ותומכיה [plural] and מאושר [singular].  
The answer is that when people are מחזיקים בה, holding on to the Torah, because of their mesorah, they are zocheh to חיים as individuals, but ותומכיה, those who support, nourish, and make flourish the Torah, מאושר, the Torah itself is  מאושר, the Torah grows. And not only does the Torah grow, the individual that adds to the Torah become a cheilek of Torah, he is subsumed in the unity and joy of Torah itself. Each one becomes an individual עץ חיים. 

The wonderful thing about having a mesoras avos of Torah is that the למחזיקים בה part becomes easier, taken for granted. This, ironically, can itself interfere with true acheivement. In Torah, nothing can be taken for granted, and every level of Torah requires hard work.  

With ameilus and siyata dishmaya, allevai the day will come that people say that you are a true bearer of your mesora of gadlus, that people will say "Oh, yes, I know Moshe, the son of so-and-so, and the grandson of so-and-so, and the great-grandson of so-and-so, what a great zechus it is for him." But we know you, Moshe, and you definitely have a unique personality and the potential to be among the תומכיה, the ones that add their own special taam to the Torah, and hope and pray that you will use your unique kochos and your mesorah and some day, someone will say about you, "What a zechus it is for his father and grandfathers and great grandfathers that such gadlus came from them!"


Addendum: Other places that talk about this concept.

Tanna d'bei Eliahu 5:

הקיצו ורננו שוכני עפר ישעיה כו יט מכאן אמר דוד המלך ע"ה יהי חלקי עם אלו שהם ממיניין את עצמן על דברי תורה שנאמר ממתים ידך ה' וגו' חלקם בחיים וגו' תהלים יז יד הקיצו ורננו שוכני עפר מכאן אמרו כל הנעשה שכן לעפר בחייו עפרו ננער לתחיית המתים וכל שאינו נעשה שכן לעפר בחייו אין עפרו ננער לתחיית המתים לכך נאמר הקיצו ורננו שוכני עפר שכוני עפר לא נאמר אלא שוכני עפר אלו בני אדם שמשכינים עצמם על העפר ללמוד תורה הקב"ה מביא עליהם טל אורות של תורה ומושיבן בין ברכיו ומגפפן ומחבקן ומנשקן ומביאן לחיי עולם הבא שנאמר כי טל אורות טלך ישעיה כו יט תנא דבי אליהו רבא פרק ה 

Gemara Sotah 21a:

דרש רבי מנחם בר יוסי כי נר מצוה ותורה אור משלי ו כג תלה הכתוב את המצוה בזנר ואת התורה באור את המצוה בנר לומר לך מה נר אינה מגינה אלא לפי שעה אף מצוה אינה מגינה אלא לפי שעה ואת התורה באור לומר לך מה אור מגין לעולם אף תורה מגינה לעולם ואומר בהתהלכך תנחה אותך וגו' שם פסוק כב וכבהתהלכך תנחה אותך זה העולם הזה בשכבך תשמור עליך שם זו מיתה והקיצות היא תשיחך שם לעתיד לבוא 

Meiri there:

בשכבך תשמור עליך זו יום המיתה ר"ל לעולם הבא והקיצות היא תשיחך לעתיד לבוא ר"ל תחיית המתים 

Ramban Drasha for Rosh HaShanna:

יום הדין הוא לעתיד לבוא בזמן תחיית המתים וכו' אמרו עבודה זרה ב ע"א "לעתיד לבוא מביא הקב"ה ספר תורה ומניחו בחיקו ואומר מי שעסק בזה יבוא ויטול שכרו" 

Chafetz Chaim, Letters, #62

אם למדת תורה הרבה אל תחזיק טובה לעצמך כי לכך נוצרת אבות ב ח ואמרו רז"ל אין עני אלא בדעת ודא חסר מה קני ומבואר שבלא תורה עני הוא האדם לעולם ועד וכאשר נבוא בשאלה למי שהוא מה תחפוץ ביותר אם להיות עני לשנה אחת ואחר כך עשיר לשבעים שנה או להיפך להיות עשיר רק לשנה אחת ואחר כך עני לשבעים שנה כל איש בר דעת יענה בודאי שמוטב להיות עני לזמן קצר ואחר כך עשיר לאורך ימים והלא בלא תורה ישאר האדם עני לעולמי עד עולם הבא אינו נקנה בכסף אפשר לקנות בכסף איזה חפץ שהוא אך לא את החיים הנצחיים וכבר שאלו את רב האי גאון ז"ל אודות אחד שמכר את חלק עולם הבא שלו והשיב הגאון כי אמנם אבד המוכר את חלקו עי"ז אבל הלוקח לא קנה לו כלל כי לקנות עולם הבא אפשר רק על ידי לימוד התורה על ידי ההספקה לאחרים הלומדים בה כמו יששכר עם זבולון תורתנו הקדושה לא בשמים היא רק בעולם הזה בעולם העשייה אפשר לאדם לרכוש לו מקניניה להחזיק את התורה ולומדיה למסור את בנו לידי מלמד הגון וכו' מי שבנה לו בית הרי הוא ממהר להבטיח תיכף את ביתו באחריות ממקרה תבערה חלילה גופו של האדם בודאי ישרף ויכלה בעפר ולכן נחוץ להבטיחו באחריות למען יקום לתחיית המתים וזאת אפשר רק על ידי התורה כל מי שיש בו אור תורה אור תורה מחייהן כתובות קיא ע"ב 

Breishis 6:3: מאה ועשרים שנה

When I turned sixty, I thought about Reb Yosef in Moed Kattan 28a.  Reb Yosef used to give expression to his happiness by making parties for the Bnei Torah.  When he turned sixty, he made a party to celebrate having passed the years during which his death might have implied the punishment of Kareis. (For examples of Reb Yosef's minhag, see Kiddushin 31 and BK 87a re: the obligation of the blind to do mitzvos and his talmid Abaye in Shabbos 118b re: a siyum, and, of course, our Gemara in Moed Kattan.)  According to this Gemara, Kareis causes death before the end of the sixtieth year- in other words, before the sixtieth birthday, which is the first day of the sixty first year.  The Gemara brings a passuk in Iyov (5:26)  תבוא בכלח אלי קבר כעלות גדיש בעיתו, "You shall come to the grave at a ripe old age, as the grain stack is taken away in its time." The gematria of בכלח is sixty, so the Gemara darshens that death after the sixtieth year is not necessarily unnatural, and is therefore not evidence of some capital sin. 

Reb Dovid Kohen of Gevul Yaavetz offers another source for this number.  In parshas Breishis 6:3, it says "ויאמר ה' לא ידון רוחי באדם לעלם בשגם הוא בשר והיו ימיו מאה ועשרים שנה."  Chazal tell us that this means that mankind had one hundred twenty years from that moment to do teshuva, and if they didn't, the mabul would come.   However, some mefarshim understand that passuk as telling us that from that moment and on, humankind's years would diminish, until the natural lifespan would not exceed 120 years.  (This is explicit in the Pirush HaRosh on the Chumash and the Ibn Ezra, and it can be read into the Chizkuni, and it can be seen in the newspapers every day.)

The passuk in Tehillim (55:24) says;"ואתה אלהים תורדם לבאר שחת אנשי דמים ומרמה לא יחצו ימיהם ואני אבטח בך"  But You, O God, shall lower them to the Pit of Destruction; men of blood and deceit shall not live half their days, but I will trust in You., and Chazal (see Sanhedrin 69b and mefarshim on Bilaam in Pirkei Avos 5:19) understand this to mean that the wicked do not reach half their years.

If the maximum lifespan is 120, then reaching the sixty first year shows that the person is not a man of דמים ומרמה, and conversely, if he is  a man of דמים ומרמה, he will not reach that age.

There is more to say about this.  I just wanted to post it before it I put it away and forgot about it.

Breishis: Shabbos Faxes and Phone Calls

Earlier Posts on Beresishis:

Spiritual/Emotional Divine Communion and Contemplating the Beauty of Nature

Beautification of Mitzvos and Conspicuous Virtue

The Nachash was First in a Series of Four

Parshas Bereishis includes the concept of Shabbos.  The onset and conclusion of Shabbos are local, and sweep across the globe from east to west along with the setting of the Sun on Friday and Saturday.  Similarly, the dates being different on the two sides of the international dateline means that if there were a north-south street in Anchorage, Alaska, when it would be Friday morning on the east side of the street, it would be Shabbos morning on the west side.  (Anchorage, and a mid-continental dateline, are cited here only for purpose of illustration, not as an assertion of normative halacha.)

One of my great Shabbos pleasures is hearing from my children in Israel. Sometimes we are lucky enough to be eating our seuda at the table, and sometimes I am preparing my shiur in the dining room, and the phone rings, the answering machine turns on, and we hear the voices of our beloved children in Yerushalayim, saying something like this: "Good Shabbos, Mommy and Daddy! I hope you're able to hear me. Shabbos was beautiful here, I spoke at the meal in the Yeshiva, I walked to the Kosel and didn't get arrested, we had a great Chumash shiur at Shalosh Seudos, and we're looking forward to hearing from you soon."

Obviously, my kids are calling from Yerushalayim long after their Shabbos is over, and we are hearing them while it is still Shabbos for us in America. Part of our oneg shabbos is watching the consternation on the faces of our guests, who begin to wonder that if this is how we keep Shabbos, who knows if the food in our house is kosher. So I let them wonder for a while, and then I explain why I hold this is muttar. But is it muttar? Are we allowed to hear the message on Shabbos?  Are my kids allowed to call us when it's after Shabbos for them but still Shabbos in America?

Basically, these are the issues: (Remember what I said about relying on anonymous halacha opinions you find on the Internet: see my profile in "About Me".)

1. Even though we do not require Shvisas Keilim, and so we are allowed to begin a melacha process before Shabbos that continues automatically on Shabbos, we are not allowed to do so in the case of Avsha Milsa, where the melacha creates a noise that is heard on Shabbos (OC 252:5, Rama). Would this not prohibit us from leaving the answering machine on where the entire purpose of leaving it on is so that calls will generate noise on Shabbos? Or may we do so because we are merely leaving the machines on; but it is not us who will be generating that noise-- it is no different than allowing a non-Jew to come on to my property and to use my keilim on Shabbos.

2. Obviously, the telephone call is for our benefit. If so, does this fall into the category of "Akum she'asa melacha bishvil Yisrael," in which case it is prohibited, (under the rubric of "amira le'akum," either because of  שליחות or   דבר דבר)  to benefit from the melacha until after Shabbos is over and bichdei she'ya'aseh (unless it was done by the akum for his own benefit and our benefit is secondary)? Or is amira le'akum limited to cases where someone or something is doing the melacha during Shabbos. Here, nobody is doing anything on Shabbos.

3. Is is muttar for a person for whom Shabbos is over to directly cause a melacha to be done in a part of the world where it is still Shabbos? Perhaps this is real chillul Shabbos, because he is actually doing melacha where it is still Shabbos-- he is being מחלל the אות of Shabbos, he is profaning the sign of Shabbos where the melacha is being done? Or is the idea of Shabbos a matter of personal conduct, and limited to the individual for whom it is Shabbos where he is?
This question can be much more serious than phone calls and faxes; what about the 'Shain Machine'?
The Shain Machine was invented by Rabbi Yehuda Shain to avoid Bishul Akum problems in factories. This is a mechanism which allows a mashgiach to call the factory and enter a code on the telephone which will ignite a fire at the factory, such that the fire cannot be turned on by anyone but the mashgiach, although workers at the factory can turn it off.
So, can a mashgiach, for whom it is Friday morning, turn on a fire in a factory in China when it is Shabbos in China? Can an Israeli, for whom it is long after Shabbat, turn on a fire in a (non-Jewish-owned) factory in Los Angeles, where they are holding by Mizmor Shir Leyom Hashabbos in pesukei dezimra?
The question also arises regarding sending email.  But it's hard to believe that rearranging a few electrons in the local server really raises any real chilul Shabbos issues.  אש שחורה על גבי אש לבנה on the screen may be kesiva, but not in the server.

There are exactly three approaches among the poskim.
1. It is absolutely 100% muttar lechatchila. (Rabbi Hershel Shachter, for all practical purposes, and Rabbi Yisroel Belsky- who says that Reb Akiva Eiger's teshuva 159 is irrelevant, and he's right- in Daf Kashrus volume 13 no. 9, June 2005, Rav Neuwirth in שמירת שבת כהלכתו 31:26 from Rav Scheinberg, and Me)
2. It is most likely assur Mi'Deoraysa. (I can't say until I verify his opinion and get his permission to quote him UPDATE OCTOBER 2011:  I had heard this in the name of Reb Dovid Feinstein.  I asked him last week, and he said that he holds it is muttar, period.  The person that quoted him to me was diametrically wrong.)
3. It is assur Mi'Derabanan, but only where the recipient is a Jew, based on Issue #2. (Rav Meir Bransdorfer of the Eida Chareidis in מבקשי תורה תשרי תשנ'ד כרך ב who brings the Radvaz in 1:76 to be mattir Issue #3 but assers on the basis of Issue #2 where the recipient is a Jew, citing the שו'ע הרב רס'ג בקונטרס אחרון אות ח. Lefi aniyus da'ati, the Radvaz is a very weak comparison, and the connection to the Shulchan Aruch Harav is very debatable.)

Now, this is not the only case where the opinions are diametrically opposed. (Another example is where you want to re-hang a picture that fell down on Shabbos, which the Mishna Berura is mattir, and the Chazon Ish holds it's assur mi'deoraysa. Also, the Tefilla Lishlom HaMedinah.) But here, the basic philosophy of Shabbos comes into play, which, to me, makes it more interesting. Furthermore, it is very hard to come up with a strong tzushtell in Shas, so the question is, in many cases, left to "יראה לי."

Another halacha that might involve some of the same issues:
What about Chametz in the US when you are in Israel, or vice versa? If you have Chametz in Israel, can you sell it when it's Pesach in Israel but not in the US where you are? What if you're in Israel: can you buy it back from the goy when it's after Pesach in Israel but still Pesach where the Chametz is? (I actually once had a shayla like this: someone from New York called erev Pesach and said he had forgotten to sell his chametz, and it was after noon already, when you can no longer sell the chametz. We told him he was up the creek, and he would have to pour all his expensive schnapps down the drain. He, being a Manhattan lawyer with a keen eye for a loophole, then asked whether he could still call a rov in Los Angeles, where it was still early morning, to sell his chametz. We (meaning me as interlocutor for Reb Dovid Feinstein) told him no. But that's not exactly what we're discussing here.)
If my use of the word might didn't make it clear, I know that it would be easy to propose possible distinctions between the issues of Chametz and Shabbos: if it's called issura bala before Pesach, if shelcha is a mi'ut, etc.  But without rayos, it's just speculation.
An interesting thing on this question is the tentativeness of the poskim: among the respectable authorities, almost nobody takes a firm stand on the issue of chametz.  See, e.g., Teshuvos Igros Moshe OC IV 95, last paragraph, where he says that you have to be machmir both ways-- mei'ikar hadin.  And see Oneg Yomtov 36, who brings "קצת ראיה" that the loaction of the Chametz is all that matters.  As Great Unknown points out in the comments, the Oneg Yomtov's raya is based on an assumption that Chazal would have mentioned the case of different time zones if it would yield any interesting halachic ramifications.  Rav Shternbuch, in his Mo'adim Uzemanim at the beginning of Mechiras Chametz, disagrees with the Oneg Yomtov, and holds that all that matters is the location of the owner.  As for the Oneg Yomtov's proof, he says that Chazal would not have proposed such a pshat as a legitimate interpretation of the intent of the author of the Mishnah, and so they ignored it, just as Great Unknown suggested.

Similar questions:
1.  Shevisas Be'hemto.  What if you and your animal are in different time zones-- it is Shabbos for you, but not where your animal is, or vice versa?
2. Oso ve'es Beno.  What if the two are shechted on the same day from your perspective, but they were in different days where they were shechted?  Reb Meir Simcha in Parshas Emor 22:28 says that your perspective doesn't matter.  If the mother was shechted where it was day, but it is already night where you are, you can shecht the offspring now, even though it is still the same day, from your perspective, as the shechitas ha'eim.  Then he says a most remarkable chiddush-- that in that case, since it is muttar to shecht the offspring that is in a different calendar day, one may even shecht another offspring that shares the calendar day with the mother.
3.  Chadash.  After the Churban Beis Hamikdash, it is not the offering of the Minchas Ha'omer that is mattir Chadash, it is the break of dawn on the sixteenth of Nissan that is mattir Chadash.  So, here's the question:  After Hei'ir Pnei Mizrach in Yerushalayim, which is mattir Chadash locally, what is the status of Chadash over in Los Angeles?  In some places, it's not even the sixteenth of Nissan yet, to say nothing of dawn on the sixteenth.  So is Chadash muttar or assur there?  Rav Tzvi Kaplan, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Kodshim in Yerushalayim, and son in law of Harav Michel Feinstein ztzl, says he asked this question to Reb Chaim Kanievsky.  Reb Chaim Kanievsky told him that as soon as it is Hei'ir Pnei Mizrach in Yerushalyim, all Chadash in the world becomes muttar.  Reb Tzvi was so shocked by this that he forgot the other questions he had prepared.  The reason he was shocked is because the Brisker Rov says that even Hakravas Ha'omer is not mattir Chadash in places where it's not daytime of the sixteenth yet, because hakravas ha'omer is only mattir on the day of the sixteenth.  This is diametrically opposed to what Reb Chaim Kanievsky said.
4.  Keilim that are koneh sh'visa.  Here's the case: we pasken (OC 397:8) that objects are limited to the techum of their owner.  If the owner of an object is outside the techum, you can't move the object daled amos, even in the house.  For example: My son is in Israel, I'm in the U.S., it's Shabbos, I can't borrow and wear his tie or sweater.  This is the factual Halacha.  But perhaps that is only true if it's Shabbos where the owner is.  If it's after Shabbos in Israel, maybe there's no din that his keilim are limited to any particular techum.



(to be continued. If you have an informed opinion or a makor, send it now.)

Breishis 3:1 Ahf Ki Amar Elokim. An Amazing Chasam Sofer

3:1. Af ki amar Elokim, the Nachash.

The Chasam Sofer here brings the Medrash Rabbah (Bereishis 19:2)

 ויאמר אל האשה אף כי אמר אלקים אמר רבי חנינא בן סנסן ארבעה הן שפתהו באף ונאבדו באף ואלו הן נחש ושר האופים ועדת קורח והמן נחש (בראשית ג) ויאמר אל האשה אף שר האופים (שם ח) אף אני בחלומי עדת קרח (במדבר ד) אף לא אל ארץ המן (אסתר ה) אף לא הביאה אסתר

Four began with ‘Ahf’, and were destroyed with the Ahf of Hashem. They are the Nachash (Ahf ki amar Elokim), the Sar Ha’ofim (Ahf ani b'chalomi), the Adas Korach (Dasan and Aviram's Ahf gam banu dibbeir Hashem), and Haman (Ahf lo hevi'ah Esther). He points out that the way to remember this is the Mishna in Bameh Beheima (Shabbos 51b,) that says

במה בהמה יוצאה ובמה אינה יוצאה יוצא הגמל באפסר ונאקה בחטם

 “The Na’aka can go out bechatam”. The Gemara asks what a Na’aka is, and explains that it is a female camel, and that the Mishneh is saying that a female camel may be let out into a Reshus HaRabbim on Shabbos with a ring in its nose, and there is no problem of shvisas b'heima, which limits what an animal owned by a Jew may carry on Shabbos. The question is, why did the Mishneh use such an obscure terms? He explains that Na’aka also stands for

 נחש

אופים

  קרח

  המן

Nachash, Ofim, Korach, and Haman; and the chatam is its nose (its 'ahf'). So the words "Na’aka bechatam" incorporate the whole medrash.  The Naaka goes out with its chatam/ahf.

I am torn between thinking on the one hand that this is just an amazing coincidence, and, on the other hand, recognizing that the Tannah of the Medrash must at least have had the Mishnah in mind, and possibly the Tannah of the Mishnah might have had the Medrash in mind. Pshat in the Medrash, as far as I know, just means that the word ‘Ahf’ was a foreshadowing (pihem hichshilom) of Hashem’s charon af, like one of the Meforshim there says.

I think, in the end, that this shows that as we learn the words of Chazal, we are sailing an ocean, skimming unfathomable depths to which we remain oblivious.

(This is from the Yalkut Shimoni Remez 26)

והנחש היה וגו' .... אף כי אמר אלהים ארבע שפתחו באף ואבדו באף.
 הנחש אף כי אמר אלהים
שר האופים אף אני בחלומי
עדת קרח אף לא אל ארץ זבת חלב
המן אף לא הביאה אסתר

It is also alluded to in the Yalkut on Parshas Korach.)

By the way, as far as I could tell, our baal memra quoted in the Medrash Rabba,  רבי חנינא בן סנסן, appears nowhere else, not him and not any סנסן.  I'll bet the name holds some kind of allusion.

Breishis 2:5, Dveikus and the Beauty of Nature

Ve’chol Si’ach hasadeh terem yihyeh ba’aretz.
וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ

Si’ach, in this possuk, means trees. "And all the trees of the field were not yet on the earth."

In Pirkei Avos 3 it says “One who interrupts his learning and says How beautiful this tree is...the scripture views him as if he were guilty of a capital crime.”

ושונה ומפסיק ממשנתו ואומר, מה נאה אילן זה ומה נאה נירכג זה, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו מתחיב בנפשו.

 The Tosfos Yomtov there brings the question that everyone asks, Which scripture is the Mishneh referring to? What verse in the Torah says such a thing?

Many answer that it is connected to the next mishneh which brings the possuk “Guard yourself and your life exceedingly lest you forget these things....”
רק הישמר לך ושמור נפשך מאוד, פן תשכח את הדברים   דברים ד,ט.
However, the Tosfos Yomtov brings from the Derech Chaim that the Gemara in Chagigoh 12 brings a passuk that warns against interrupting learning (hakotfim milu’ach alei si’ach, Iyov 30:4) which darshens the word “si’ach” to mean sichah b’teilah, idle talk. And he says that the reason the Mishna gives the example of commenting about a tree, an ilan, is because here in Breishis the word ‘si’ach’ means trees: Ilan in this Mishna is synonymous with Si'ach, and Si'ach has a dual meaning of 'tree' and 'idle talk'. In other words, mafsik mimishnaso with "si’ach batteil," or "talk about trees," is mischayeiv b’nafsho.


I once heard something in the name of Reb Mottel Pagremansky from Rav Gifter, which Harav Avram Lawrence of New York restated very well. The Rambam in one place says that a person will come to dveikus (emotional and spiritual communion with God) through an appreciation of the greatness Hashem shows in the complexity and beauty of nature. In another place, the Rambam says that we come to dveikus through the study of the Torah. In each place, he implies that the means is exclusive, so it seems to be a contradiction. The answer can be illustrated through a mashal.

Two couples come to an art museum. The unsophisticated couple looks at the artworks and they utter the usual comments— “my six year old could do better”, or “that’s just a hunk of junk,”, or “I don’t know what’s so special about a drawing of a sunflower”. The other couple will say, “such remarkable eloquence”, or “it is amazing how the artist was able to convey such a deep observation through this painting”, or “what a caustic critique he is making”, or even “that picture changed forever the way I look at the world”. The difference between the couples is that one has a body of information about art, and what he sees enhances his appreciation, his intellectual grasp of what art is and what it means to experience the world as a thinking being. He is educated enough to know the lexicon of art and the context of this work, the school of art that is being broadened. For the other, art is what gives you immediate and superficial emotional enjoyment.

The Rambam is saying that observing nature will do nothing for you unless you have studied the Torah. Esthetics are morally and religiously neutral.  The the sense of awe and pleasure that comes from seeing beauty is shared by the most refined and the most depraved.  Bach and de Sade, Eisenhower and Hitler, would all share the same sigh of pleasure upon seeing the Alps. But once you have studied the Torah and absorbed its lessons and views, then what you will see in nature is the signature of God on a world of perfect simplicity and infinite complexity. As the passuk says, “Gal einai ve’abita nifla’os miTorasecha”, uncover my eyes and I will gaze upon wonders in your Torah, which says this vort in two ways: first, gal einai— things are not always apparent, and we need help to see what is in front of us. Second, “abita nifla’os miTorasecha”-- that it is through the lens of Torah that we will see the wonders that are in front of us.

Imi Morosi Shetichyeh, who grew up in the Talmud Torah in Kelm (and was the only child allowed to pick raspberries in the Yeshiva yard and the only girl allowed to sit on the bench in the back during hakafos) and who studied in Yavne in Lithuania , said, in August ‘04/Ov ‘64, that this is what Chazal mean: if a person is mafsik mimishnaso to say mah na’eh ilan zeh, if he interrupts his study, to say "How beautiful this tree is," he is mischayev b’nafsho, this is a capital sin. But if he is not mafsik mimishnaso and he says mah na’eh as an integral part of his limud hatorah, then this is dveikus, he is becoming a daveik to the Ribbono shel olam.

ב,ט וַיַּצְמַח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן הָאֲדָמָה כָּל עֵץ נֶחְמָד לְמַרְאֶה  וְטוֹב לְמַאֲכָל וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים  בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע.

Hashem created the beauty of the trees for our pleasure; until the appreciation of that beauty is properly correlated, it is no different than the pleasure of eating, and it can enhance either tov or ra.

Hiddur Mitzvah and Hisna'eh Lefanav

5. 1:2. Adam ki yakriv. Rashi brings from Beitzah 20 that just as the korbanos of Adam Harishon belonged to him-- they were not stolen from others, you too may bring korbanos only if they are yours, and a korban is fatally deficient unless your ownership of the animal is beyond any legal doubt.

Dr. Zvi K suggested an additional interpretation for the connection to Adam. Some people do mitzvos in a special or public fashion because they want to impress other people. For example, some people are very particular about hidur mitzvah when other people can see it: When they buy a lulav and esrog, or a Megillah, they are very makpid in hidur, but when they buy tzitzis, they don’t spend the time or money to be makpid in hiddur. Some people only daven a long shmoneh esrei when there are people watching. (Two points— spending more for hiddur to show off, and doing mitzvos in a showy way to make people think you are a kadosh. Dr. Krinsky was talking about yuhara; the same idea applies to hiddur mitzvah.) We should learn from the korbanos of Adam to be mehadeir mitzvos not to impress people— there were no people for Adam to impress— but rather because of our love and respect for the mitzvah itself, or as a way of becoming kadosh. Do the mitzvah lesheim mitzvah, not lesheim showing off, or showing how holy you are.

This brings up the Gemora in Shabbos 133b, Sukah 11b, and Nozir 2b, where it says “hisna’eh lefanav bemitzvos,” which literally means ‘beautify yourself with mitzvos’. Avromi Isenberg, our generation's Dean of Dikduk, says that the use of ‘hispo’eil’ doesn’t mean anything, just as “ke’ilu hiskabalti” (meaning that I view a monetary obligation as being ended just as if I had recieved payment) means nothing other than ‘ke’ilu kibalti’. But the Gemora in Nozir says that they brought their sifrei Torah to show other people their beauty. The Gemora makes it absolutely clear that the reason they brought them was to show them off. This indicates that ‘hisno’eh’ is meant literally.

Maybe there’s nothing wrong with preening or being showy by beautifying a mitzvah that you are doing. Mechzi keyuhara is, of course, a terrible thing. But perhaps that’s only where you are sanctimonious, where you act in a misleading way to fool people into thinking you’re on a higher madreigah than you actually are, because people will emulate you in your other foolish behavior, or because if you later do something bad it will be a chillul Hashem. But showing off how much you spend on a mitzvah, and that your esrog is the nicest one in shul, is not necessarily so bad— it’s not a lie, and it may even foster the other people’s chavivus mitzvos.

My son, Moshe said that the person is only showing off with it because it is something he cares about. If he was indifferent to the mitzvah, he wouldn’t think it worth showing off with. While it may not be a refined middah tovah, it is a middah tovah anyway, and the benefits far outweigh the detriment. Anyway, think of it like jewelry— “mitzva jewelry”. Although it may be that the main purpose of jewelry and fashion is to show off to other people, and this seems like an ignoble middah, the fact remains that people do wear jewelry and expensive ties, and this is considered normal behavior. So why shouldn’t our tashmishei mitzvah be our jewelry? This is somewhat similar to making feasts, which appeal to our desire for good food, for seudos mitzvah. The same way that the satisfaction of our desire for food, when used lesheim mitzvah, is good, so too satisfaction of the desire to be envied can be used lesheim mitzvah.

The following was added later than the original post.
The Wall Street Journal had a De Gustibus column on March 23, 2007, by Joseph Rago. He talked about Veblen’s 1899 “Theory of the Leisure Class,” in which he introduced the idea of conspicuous consumption, defined as “specialized consumption of goods as an evidence of pecuniary strength.” This is, of course, specific to the “expenditure of superfluities.” The author of the column updated Veblen’s essay to extend to “conspicuous virtue.” People buy more expensive things that are free trade, renewable, cage free, and live strong bracelets, partly, and allegedly, because they want to support the causes these things represent, but to a great degree because they want to proclaim their virtue. (He suggests that this trend has become popular partly because of guilty consciences about consumerism and materialism.)
This is a very nice way of describing the ‘hisno’eh’ attitude: conspicuous virtue, where the motive is partly appreciation for the underlying mitzvah, but also to proclaim your virtue. In any case, the idea I said above is still true: there is a mixed motivation, but ultimately it stems from pride in ability to fulfil the mitzvah.