Chicago Chesed Fund

https://www.chicagochesedfund.org/
Showing posts with label Massei. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Massei. Show all posts

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Massei. The Disregarded Halacha of the Greenbelt

Again, here's the conclusion before the discussion. 

Our Parsha mentions that the cities given to the Leviim must include a greenbelt, an inviolate open area, certainly free of buildings, and even of orchards and gardens. 

We're all familiar with the concept when it comes to houses - there's a setback, or sideyard requirement, that mandates that nothing be built too close to the property line. The rationale is obvious. A healthy environment requires light and air. If there were no rules limiting development, the result would be cities that were endless, dismal, and noisome, a sprawling blight that would suffocate body and soul.


It seems that many poskim hold that this halacha ought to apply now, in Eretz Yisrael, at least in some form. From what I see, untouched and contiguous parkland around cities is not high on the agenda in modern Israel. But frankly, in Frum neighborhoods around the world zoning laws are "more honor’d in the breach than the observance."  


I am in no position to criticize, and I certainly don't mean to, chas veshalom. When Eretz Yisrael was being rebuilt, those heroic pioneers were busy trying to survive and make a life, and niceties were not on the agenda. But still, moving forward, one dreams of a time when the Torah's lesson of the value of fresh air and green grass surrounding Jewish cities are taken seriously.



Massei 35 2-8



ב צו את בני ישראל ונתנו ללוים מנחלת אחזתם ערים לשבת ומגרש לערים סביבתיהם תתנו ללוים ג והיו הערים להם לשבת ומגרשיהם יהיו לבהמתם ולרכשם ולכל חיתם ד ומגרשי הערים אשר תתנו ללוים מקיר העיר וחוצה אלף אמה סביב ה ומדתם מחוץ לעיר את פאת קדמה אלפים באמה ואת פאת נגב אלפים באמה ואת פאת ים אלפים באמה ואת פאת צפון אלפים באמה והעיר בתוך זה יהיה להם מגרשי הערים ו ואת הערים אשר תתנו ללוים את שש ערי המקלט אשר תתנו לנס שמה הרצח ועליהם תתנו ארבעים ושתים עיר ז כל הערים אשר תתנו ללוים ארבעים ושמנה עיר אתהן ואת מגרשיהן


Behar 25 32-34


לב וערי הלוים בתי ערי אחזתם גאלת עולם תהיה ללוים לג ואשר יגאל מן הלוים ויצא ממכר בית ועיר אחזתו ביבל כי בתי ערי הלוים הוא אחזתם בתוך בני ישראל לד ושדה מגרש עריהם לא ימכר כי אחזת עולם הוא להם


Rashi here explains that this was for beauty. Open parkland, even free of orchards.

  ומגרש. ריוח מקום חלק חוץ לעיר סביב, להיות לנוי לעיר, ואין רשאין לבנות שם בית, ולא לנטוע כרם, ולא לזרוע זריעה
Similarly, Rash in Sotah 27b
מגרש. רחבה פנויה מזריעה ומבתים ומאילנות לנוי העיר להיות לה לאויר 



Beyond this belt of inviolate parkland (the Migrash) was an additional area (Sados; Rashi, 1000 amos, Rambam 2000 amos,) of planted fields and orchards. The point is that it is a park, not a field and not an orchard.) The apportionment and size were not subject to mechila or exchange. (In BB24 it seems clear that you can plant trees for beauty in the Migrash, but, again, that is because it enhances the beauty, as it does in a park.)

The Chinuch says that this requirement was specific to the cities of the Leviim, because they were the cynosure of Eretz Yisrael.  (Cynosure - a person or thing that is the center of attention or admiration; something serving for guidance or direction.)



ספר החינוך  בהר מצוה שמב


שלא לשנות מגרשי ערי הלוים ושדותיהן. כלומר, שלא יחזירו העיר מגרש, ולא מגרש עיר, ולא השדה מגרש, ולא המגרש שדה, והוא הדין מגרש (נ''א שדה) עיר או עיר מגרש, (נ''א שדה) שאין לשנות בענינם דבר. והענין הזה ידוע, כי התורה צותה (במדבר לה ב ז) שיתנו שאר השבטים ערים ידועים לשבט לוי, והם ארבעים ושמנה עיד עם שש ערי מקלט שהיו בהן, וצותה גם כן להיות באותן ערים אלף אמה מגרש. כלומר מקום פנוי לרוחה ונוי לעיר, ואלפים אמה חוץ לה לצרך שדות וכרמים, וזה גם מנויי העיר וממה שצריך לה כמו שמפרש בסוטה (כז, ב), ובאה המניעה בזה שלא לשנות ענינים אלה לעולם, ועל זה נאמר ושדה מגרש עריהם לא ימכר, שכן בא הפרוש על לשון מכירה זו. כלומר, לא ישנה, דאלו במכירה ממש, לא קאמר, שהרי בפרוש כתוב גאלת עולם תהיה ללוים, מכלל שרשות יש להם למכר. 


משרשי המצוה. לפי שערי הלוים היו נכונים לצרכי כל שאר השבטים, כי הוא השבט הנבחר לעבודת השם, וכל עסקם היה בחכמה שלא היו טרודים בעבודת האדמה כשאר שבטי ישראל, ועליהם נאמר (ויקרא לג י) יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל. ומתוך כך שהחכמה בתוכם, היה עסק כל ישראל תמיד עמהם, מלבד שהיו בתוך עריהם, ערי מקלט הרוצח, ומתוך כך גם כן היו עיני כל ישראל על עריהם, כי לא ידע האדם מה ילד יום ולכן היה בדין להיות אותן הערים אשר יד הכל שוה בהן ולב הכל עליהן, להיותן בתכלית היופי והחמדה, ושבח כל עם ישראל בכך, ומפני כן באה הצואה עליהם שלא לשנות בענינם דבר, כי אדון החכמה יסדן ותקנן והגביל גבולם, וירא כי כן טוב וכל חלוף אחר דברו אינו אלא גרוע וגנאי. 




(With the Chinuch in mind, you have to ask, was the beauty to please outsiders or insiders? It would appear from the way he puts it that it was for the appearance from the outside. However, I think that answer has to be that it was primarily for people in the city; if it were for outsiders, then the parkland would be on the outside and the orchards and fields would be on the inside. The fact that the parkland was on the inside proves, to me, that the beauty was for the benefit of the people in the city - resident, guest, or internee.)




Does this apply to non-Levy cities? From the Mishna in BB 24b it seems that it does.

Mishna
מרחיקין את האילן מן העיר עשרים וחמש אמה ובחרוב ובשקמה חמשים אמה אבא שאול אומר כל אילן סרק חמשים אמה ואם העיר קדמה קוצץ ואינו נותן דמים ואם אילן קדם קוצץ ונותן דמים ספק זה קדם וספק זה קדם קוצץ ואינו נותן דמים: 

The Gemara says that the reason is to enhance the beauty of the cities, and applies our pesukim to this rule.
מאי טעמא אמר עולא משום נויי העיר ותיפוק ליה דאין עושין שדה מגרש ולא מגרש שדה לא צריכא לר"א דאמר עושין שדה מגרש ומגרש שדה הכא משום נויי העיר לא עבדינן ולרבנן נמי דאמרי אין עושין שדה מגרש ולא מגרש שדה ה"מ זרעים אבל אילנות עבדינן והכא משום נויי העיר לא 

Now, one might get the feeling that our passuk is being applied to non-Levy cities, perhaps even outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Yad Ramah points this out.

Yad Ramah in BB 24b

ושמעינן מיהא דאפילו בחוצה לארץ נמי הכין דינא דאי ס"ד דוקא בארץ ישראל אבל בחוצה לארץ לא מאי דוחקיה לאוקומי מימריה דעולא אליבא דרבי אלעזר לחודיה לוקמה בח"ל ודברי הכל ולימא הכי הני מילי בא"י אבל בחוצה לארץ עושין והכא משום נויי העיר לא אלא מדאיצטריך לאוקומה אליבא דר' אלעזר ש"מ דבין בארץ ישראל בין בח"ל חד דינא הוא דאין עושין שדה מגרש ולא מגרש שדה 


However, I think it is clear that this is not to be taken at face value. From the fact that the Gemara asks מאי טעמא it is clear that we're assuming that our pesukim are not a basis for the din of the Mishna. The fact that the Gemara relates out din to the pesukim must be based on a conceptual relationship, not a halacha. In other words, now that we see that Chazal mandated some open space around a city, they must have done so to reflect the Din Torah that mandates this for Arei HaLeviim. If so, it stands to reason that the derabannan should be similar to the deoraysa.

This is not just my pshat. This is how many meforshim learn the sugya, Example, Rav Gershon Edelstein:
 והנה ילפותא זו היא לעניז ערי הלויים ולמ"ד דזה גם בערי ישראל היינו מתקנ"ח וטעם התקנה כנ"ל פי' רש"י וגם בערי הלויים יש לפרש שזהו טעמא דקרא

This is also evident in the Minchas Chinuch in 342, in Behar.
שלא לשנות כו'. הנה דינים אלו מה שנותנים ללוים וכמה מגרש כו'. יתבאר בעזה"י בפרשת מסעי וכאן עיקר המצוה היא לאו שלא לשנות ממגרש לשדה ומשדה למגרש וממגרש לעיר שנאמר כו' ודיני מצוה זו מבואר כאן בר"מ פי"ג. ולשון הר"מ אין עושים בערי הלוים עיר מגרש כו' ומפי השמועה למדו כו' לא ימכר לא ישונה כו'. וכן בשאר ערי ישראל. והנה במשנה דערכין הוא פלוגתא ת"ק סובר דאין עושין אפילו בערי ישראל ור"א סובר דוקא בערי הלוים ואמרינן דבערי הלוים כ"ע מודים מה"מ ואמרינן דא"ק ושדה כו' לא ימכר לא ישונה כו' והנראה שם דבערי הלוים הוא לאו בתורה אבל בערי ישראל לדעת ת"ק אינו לאו כי לא מצינו בזה לאו בתורה רק הוא מדרבנן משום חורבן א"י או מפני נוי ע"ש וכ"נ מדברי הר"מ והרב המחבר דכתבו ערי הלוים והביאו בזה הפסוק דאסור ונכתב רק בערי הלוים ובערי ישראל רק איסור יש כי אינו מבואר לאו בתורה. והנה בערי ישראל א"י השיעור איזהו מגרש איזה שדה דגבי ערי הלוים נתנה תורה שיעור אלף אמה ובערי ישראל לא נתברר לי השיעור וצ"ל כמו שהי' בעת ירושת הארץ אסור לשנות לעולם וזה אין סברא כ"כ וצ"ע ומהש"ס דב"ב נראה דהשיעור הוא קצוב ע"ש. 


As the Minchas Chinuch says, the extent of the extrapolation is the subject of a machlokes in the following Mishna in Erchin 33b.

מתני' אין עושין שדה מגרש ולא מגרש שדה ולא מגרש עיר ולא עיר מגרש אמר רבי אלעזר במה דברים אמורים בערי הלוים אבל בערי ישראל עושין שדה מגרש (ולא) מגרש שדה מגרש עיר ולא עיר מגרש שלא יחריבו את ערי ישראל הכהנים והלוים מוכרין לעולם וגואלין לעולם שנאמר (ויקרא כה, לב) גאולת עולם תהיה ללוים:

Rashi there


מתני' שדה מגרש - מגרש הוי אלף אמה סביב לעיר מדכתיב (במדבר לה) מקיר העיר וחוצה אלף אמה סביב וחוץ לאותו אלף היה להם ללוים אלף אמה לשדות וכרמים כדכתיב (שם) ומדותם מחוץ לעיר וגו' צא מהם אלף אמה מגרש והשאר שדות וכרמים מגרש פנוי מכלום ואין בו בית ואין זורעין אותן אלא נוי הוא לעיר:
אין עושין שדה מגרש - משום יישוב ארץ ישראל והיינו חורבן שממעט את הזריעה:
ולא מגרש שדה - שמחריב את נוי העיר:
מגרש אין עושין עיר - שיעשו בו בתים שאין עיר נאה בלא מגרש וכ"ש שאין עושין עיר מגרש שאין מחריבין את יישוב העיר:

What about the cities in Eretz Yisrael now?


The Tur in 155


מרחיקין האילן מן העיר כ"ה אמה וחרוב ושקה נ' אמה ואם נמצא קרוב לעיר בפחות מזה השיעור אם העיר קדמה קוצץ בלא דמים ואם האילן קדם קוצץ ונותן דמים ספק איזה קודם קוצץ בלא דמים וטעמא דהא מלתא משום נוי העיר לפיכך אין דין זה נוהג בחוץ לארץ:

Tosfos Yomtov in Mishnayos


מרחיקין את האילן מן העיר. כתב הר"ב לפי שנוי הוא לעיר וכו' גמ'. וסיים הטור סימן קנ"ה לפיכך אין דין זה נוהג בחוצה לארץ ע"כ. ונראה דאף בארץ ישראל אינו נוהג אלא בזמן שהיא ביד ישראל. וכ"כ נ"י שהוא הלכתא למשיחא ע"כ. ומפני כן הוא שהשמיט הש"ע להעתיק המשנה לא כמ"ש מהר"ר ואלק משום שאינו נוהג בחוצה לארץ שהרי המחבר הש"ע בארץ ישראל היה:




Beis Yosef there on the Tur, 

מרחיקין האילן מן העיר וכו' משנה פרק לא יחפור (כה:) וטעם חרוב ושקמה פרש"י שענפיהם מרובים. וכתב ה"ה פ"י מהל' שכנים ודין זה והרחקה זו אינן אלא בא"י לפי שאין אנו חוששין לנוי העיר ואפילו רובה ישראל אלא בא"י וכ"כ הרשב"א וכן נראה מפרש"י וכן מוכח בגמרא: (ב"ה) ונ"ל דאף בא"י אינו נוהג בזמן הזה שהיא בידי עכו"ם בעונותינו עד שנזכה לזכות בה:


Even the most rabid anti-zionist will have to admit that Eretz Yisrael is in the hands of Jews. According to all I have here, this should mean that the din of Migrash, albeit not necessarily the dimensions given in our Parsha, applies now.

Also, although the Din Deoraysa only applies to Arei HaLeviim, the idea applies just as well to other cities in Eretz Yisrael. It is a lesson we are supposed to derive from the Dinei Torah, like a Tolda from an Av, or the issur of melacha on Chol HaMoed.


Daniel Burnham overcame the fiery enmity of land developers, and insisted on the Chicago lakefront remaining public and open, and drew up a network of parks. He is still remembered gratefully here Chicago, and for good reason.  Just imagine if urban planners in Eretz Yisrael would have the foresight and courage that he had,.and would have taken the Torah ideals of Aesthetics and zoning into consideration. 





I have to add that the Gaon, as brought in Haksav v'hakabbala, says that the empty area was for markets and trade. And the Netziv says that it was for storing things, even animals, and the Malbim says it was for doing laundry. But I have to deal with the pashut pshat in the Gemara and Rishonim that say that it was for beauty נוי, כפשוטו. 

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Massei, The Arei Miklat

Our parsha talks of the cities of the Leviim, including the Arei Miklat.  It would be natural to assume that since the purpose of the Arei Miklat is to provide refuge for people who had accidentally killed someone from the victim's vengeful relatives, that a fortified, walled city would be optimal.  In fact, however, the simple meaning of several gemaros  (Arachin 33b and Makos 10a) is that an Ir Miklat can not have a wall (אלא בתי ערי חומה ללוים מי אית להו.)  None of the 48 cities of the Leviim can have a wall.  If a Knaani city that had a wall happened to be apportioned by lot to the Leviim, the wall would have to be knocked down (Arachin 33b, למיסתרינהו קיימי.)

The Rambam does not pasken like the plain meaning of these Gemaros.  The Rambam (8 Rotzeiach 8) only excludes cities that are very large or very small.  He does not exclude walled cities.  The Aruch Laner (Makkos 10a dh אלא עיירות בינוניות) explains that the Rambam understands the Gemara's exclusion of walled cities only because walled cities were almost always very large, so having a wall is an indicator of a problem, not a problem in itself.

But according to those rishonim that understand the Gemara as excluding walled cities, where would such a rule come from? There is no passuk that says anything about it, so there has to be a rationale.  What is it?

There are two svaros: the Gevuras Ari/Liflagos Reuven technical explanation, and the Mishna Lemelech/Radvaz practical explanation.

The Gevuras Ari says that the problem is that if a refugee became a Metzora, he would have to leave the Machaneh Yisrael.  This is only true in a walled city.  Many people do not realize this; everyone knows a metzora is sent outside the camp, as Miriam was in the Midbar.  But it is clear that this only applies in walled cities (Mishna Keilim 1:7 and Rashi Megilla 10b.  Tosfos in Arachin 32b suggests a Gzeira Shava Moshav/Moshavo as the source.)   If, under any circumstance, a refugee would be forced to leave a city, that city cannot be an Ir Miklat, because the passuk says אשר נס שמה- שם תהא דירתו.  Rav Bengis in the Liflagos Reuven says a similar thing; one of the dinim of Ir Miklat is that if the refugee dies before the Kohen Gadol dies, he has to be buried in that city.  But it is assur to bury the dead in a walled city, as that Mishna in Keilim says, and so the rules of Ir Miklat could not be fulfilled.

The Mishna Lemelech (on the Rambam there) and the Radvaz (teshuvos 2:681) say that a walled city is always a commercial center with many visitors, and because a large city cannot be an Ir Miklat because the vengeful relative could mix with the anonymous crowd (like internet commenters) and kill the refugee, a walled city cannot be an Ir Miklat.

A contemporary of mine in NIRC  (Moshe Nachum Sochaczewski) published an article in 1989  (see the second page) saying that the machlokes Rashi and Rambam whether a walled city can be an Ir Miklat can be explained with the Gevuras Ari.  He brings that the Ambuha D'sifri in Massei questions the Gevuras Ari's assumption that the metzora would be forced out of the city.  The Rambam (3 Bias Mikdash 8) says that the din that the Metzora leave the city is only a mitzvas asei (בדד ישב;) there is no lav if he stays in the city. So if faced with a conflict between the din Ir Miklat that he stay in the city and the din of Metzora that he leave the city, he would stay; an assei is not docheh an assei, and you would say sheiv al taaseh.  Rav Sochachewsky said that with this we can explain the machlokes: It so happens that unlike the Rambam, Rashi (Pesachim 67a) holds that a metzora that doesn't leave is over on a lav and an assei (בדד ישב and ולא יטמאו את מחניהם.)  So according to Rashi, the refugee would have a conflict between the Mitzvas assei to stay in the Ir Miklat, and a lav and an assei to leave because he's a metzora.  The lav plus assei would overcome the assei, and he would have to leave the city.  According to Rashi, he would have to leave.  According to the Rambam, as the Ambuha Desifri noted, it would be assei/assei, and he should stay put.   This is why Rashi holds a walled city is passul for an Ir Miklat, and the Rambam holds that it is kasher.

Before getting to the main discussion, I have several minor comments.

1.  According to the Riva, the idea of אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה is because although the asei is docheh the lav, you remain with asei against asei, and we say sheiv al taaseh (as the Imrei Moshe explains in siman 14.) Applying the Riva to the case of a metzora in the Ir Miklat, we ought to say that the asei to stay inside is docheh the lo saaseh of staying inside, and you remain with asei against asei; but in that case, we would say sheiv al taaseh, and he should stay in the city.  True, Tosfos in Kiddushin 34 holds that the logic of אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה is that the asei strengthens the lav, so even the lav is not nidcheh, but the Riva and Tosfos in Chulin 141 hold that the asei if docheh the lav and you're left with asei/asei, so his teretz wouldn't work.
     Additionally, Rabbi Sochaczewski's idea that according to the Rambam it would be assei/assei and the rotzei'ach would stay in the city is only true if he was in the city before he became a metzora.  If, on the other hand, he was a metzora before he entered the Ir Miklat, the assei/assei would require that he stay out of the city- another sheiv al ta'aseh.  So even according to the Rambam that should make the city unfit to be an Ir Miklat.
As an indication of what a great lamdan Rav Sochaczewski is, I faxed a copy of this to his law office in Baltimore, and evidently he considered it beneath himself to acknowledge receipt, and certainly not to comment upon it. I don't mean this sarcastically chalilah; my chinuch in how Bnei Torah should relate to each other is the law of predators in the jungle.
2.   Another point- the Gemara and Rashi in Megilla 10a indicates that to have the dinim of a walled city regarding sending out a metzora requires an act of kiddush.  It's not automatic; Beis Din, or someone, would have to be mekadesh the city as a mukaf choma.  As the Chazon Ish (OC end of 153) points out, the Gemara in Erchin says that if a walled city fell to the Leviim they would have to knock down the wall.  According to the Gevuras Ari/Liflagos Reuven, that wouldn't be true.  They could keep the wall, just don't be mekadeish the city.  The Chazon Ish answers that Beis Din was mekadeish all the walled cities, and only afterwards did they distribute cities to the Leviim with a goral.  This is a good teretz only if the kiddush is just kedushas peh (Turei Even Megilla 10 and Tosfos Arachin 32b,) because that can be done wholesale.  If an act is required (Rashi Arachin 32b, but see Tosfos there regarding a stirah in Rashi,) it's not mistavra that they did the kiddush on every ir choma before the Goral.

**********************

After I said this to my shiur, someone (Banny Singer) came over to me and asked, how can it be that Arei Miklat and Arei HaLeviim cannot be walled cities, when in the parsha of Arei HaLeviim it says
ומגרשי הערים אשר תתנו ללוים מקיר העיר וחוצה אלף אמה סביב ?

I couldn't tell him that קיר doesn't mean a wall, because Onkelos translates קיר as כותל.  The Targum "Yonasan" has a girsa issue- one girsa is חזור משור קרתא ולבר, like Onkelos, but the other is חזור מקרתא ולבר without the שור.  But you can't rely on our Targum Yonasan, doubly so when there are girsa issues.  

One might answer that while it says קיר/כותל/שור, not every city with a wall has the dinim of a walled city.  For example, in Megilla 5b the Gemara says that it's not called a walled city if the houses are next to each other and comprise the city wall.  It has to be a wall built separate from the houses.
אשר לו חומה ולא שור איגר.
Rashi-
חומה ולא שור איגר - בבתי ערי חומה כתיב עיר חומה ולא עיר שאין לה חומה בפני עצמה אלא מוקפת בתים סמוכות זו לזו וחומות חיצונות של בתים נעשות חומה לעיר והיינו שור איגר שגגותיה חומותיה גג מתרגמינן איגר.

Similarly, if the wall was built after the houses were built, it doesn't have a din or kedusha of a walled city.
But it's a terrible dochak to limit the words of the passuk to these odd cases.  Furthermore, as the Mishna LeMelech I cited above says, it's not mistavra that a city that doesn't have the din of "Ir Choma" regarding metzora and megilla would not have a din of Ir Choma regarding miklat, at least according to the Mishna Lemelech/Radvaz practical svara I mentioned above.  (According to the Gvuras Ari/Liflagos Reuven technical svara, the definition of Ir Choma, of course, would be identical for both.  But that wouldn't explain why the Torah would davka mention a wall.)

More fundamentally, one could say that this is a problem endemic to the sugya, because the whole concept that אינו נחלט לסוף שנה in the cities of the Leviim only applies to Ir Choma, which is why the Gemara in Arachin has to find a case where the city had a wall, the Levi sold the house, then they knocked down the wall, as was necessary.  So if the Torah gives cases where there's a wall, although it needs to be knocked down, maybe the same is true here.  But I don't like that teretz.  We're talking here about measuring the migrash, and talking about walls does nothing but create a distraction.

I'd like to think that קיר is the wall of a house, here meaning the outermost house that defines the end of the city (or at least the point where the karpaf of the city begins,) while the wall of a city is a Choma.  But I can't prove it. 

Eli sent in this response, slightly edited:
This (question is) asked by several contemporaries (R. Avraham Shapira, R. Steinman, R. Ch. Kaniewski), but none provide a convincing answer.... I then posted the (question) in Otzar Hachochma, and one of the participants referred me to Rasag who translates קיר העיר  as חאיט
While I have no idea what חאיט is, the (writer) referred me to an article discussing the structure of the Karaite neighborhood in Y-M (9th-10th century).
http://www.ybz.kotar.co.il/KotarApp/Viewer.aspx?nBookID=23677466#13.1696.6.fitwidth
There (p.11) he brings the Kataite scholar Yefet ben Ali (1-2 generations after Rasag, quoted often by Radak and Ibn Ezra) who also translates קיר העיר as חאיט, but also adds the clarifying comment 'whether it's a wall or something else'
So, if we accept Yefet as משיח לפי תומו, the term חאיט  which Rasag (and Yefet) use to translate קיר העיר, is not necesarily a wall.

Eli was kind enough to send me images of Rav Kanievsky's and Rav Shapiro's words.  (Rav Steinman's remark doesn't advance the discussion.)  Both of them say that the word Kir must refer to the walls of the outermost houses.

Rav Shapiro, מנחת אברהם א page 123.

Rav Kanievsky, נחל איתן page 108.

These mefarshim are indeed saying that the word קיר as used here means the wall of a house, here meaning the outermost house that defines the end of the city (or at least the point where the karpaf of the city begins.)

Eli also cited an article that discusses Rav Sadia Gaon's unusual word.  Here is the section that addresses that word.



Earlier, I suggested that the word always means something other than a city wall, while a proper wall of a city is a Choma.  I had no proof of the distinction, other than the obscure word used by Rav Saadia Gaon.  Since then, I came across a something written by a friend's son- Harav Aryeh Leib Keller of the Dirshu chabura in Lakewood, an extraordinary young talmid chacham.  He brings Tosfos Ri'd in his peirush on Eicha (2:8), where he says
 חל וחומה: חו­מה היא גבוה, ו״חיל״ היא קיר נמוך בצדו לחוזק
We see here a clear distinction between חו­מה and חו­מה ,קיר being a tall enclosure, while קיר refers to a short wall.

He points out that while Onkelos translates מקיר העיר to mean "מכותל דקרתא,", he always translates חומה as "שור," as in Vayikra 25:29, where he translates עיר חומה as  "קרתא מקפא שור," and, there in 25:31, as "מקף שורין."  As I mentioned above, however, the Targum "Yonasan" does say שור here, but that does not weaken the proof from Onkelos.

He also brings the Chazon Ish (OC 110:29) as follows:
 ואמנם אם כל העיר מוקפת מחיצות נותנין עיבור חוץ לחומה לר״מ דנותנין קרפף לעיר אחת אע״ג דיש אויר בין הבתים לחומה כן מבואר בע״ה ובמ״מ פכ״ח ה״ה, ולכאורה האויר שבין חומה לבתים דינו כחצר ואי חצר אינו נמדד גס אויר
 החומה אינו נמדד מן העיר אבל י״ל דאויר שכל בני העיר משתמשין כו טדיף וכמש״כ ריטב״א בנחל שיש כו דקה דמודדין
 משפת השני של הנחל, וכתב ריטב״א דאע״ג דאין מתעבר אלא דירה ומקום דירה מ״מ נחל עדיף שכל בני העיר משתמשין ואינו דבר מסוים נוח הוא ליבטל להעיד וה״נ י״ל אויר שבתוך החומה, מיהו התם י״ל לרכנן קיימינן ויהבינן קרפף וכמש״כ לעיל, אכל הכא יהבינן קרפף חוץ לחומה נר״מ, כמש״כ המ״מ,
וקרוב הדבר לומר דדוקא חומה המגינה על העיר ולפיכך תוך החומה מקרי עיקר העיר אבל מחיצה במסיפס בעלמא לא, ולענין בתי ערי חומה ודאי דוקא חומה והא דמספקא לי׳ מגילה ה׳ ב׳ בטברי׳ אי משוס מגליא או משום דלא מיגנא ודוקא לענין קריאה המגילה אבל לענין בתי ערי חומה ממעטינן טברי מ״מ בלא מגליא לחוד לא סגי אלא תרתי בעינן לא מגליא ומגני, וכדכתיב דברים ג׳ ה׳ כל אלה ערים בצורות חומה וגו׳ לבד מערי הפרזי, אלמא דבעינן דמיגני
 וכיון דהגגה מלתא היא י״ל דהא דמודדין ממומחה למיהב עיבור ע׳ אמה חוץ לחומה הוא דוקא בחומה מקפת ומגינה.

The value of the Chazon Ish for this discussion is that despite the Gemara in Arachin that states unequivocally that the Arei HaLeviim cannot be "Walled Cities," it could be that not every perimeter barrier would automatically make a city a "Walled City."  The Chazon Ish has given us a factor in the legal definition of "Walled City," (completely unprecedented in Chazal,) such that a city might have a wall, a קיר העיר, but it does not make it a "Walled City," and therefore it can be a city of the Leviim.  It stands to reason, of course, that a wall that was not built for defense, that was built only to define a perimeter or impede casual trespass or funnel traffic, would be much smaller and less substantial.  This is, then, perfectly consistent with the Tosfos Ri'd's distinction between קיר and חומה, and it also explains Rav Saadia Gaon's choice of the unusual word חאיט.

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Massei, A Guest Post on the Forty Two Journeys of Bnei Yisrael

Two weeks ago, when we read Parshas Balak, I mentioned the Gemara (Sanhedrin 105b) that one should seek to do mitzvos even if he is lacking the requisite intentions, as we see from Balak.  Because Balak offered up forty two sacrifices, he merited that Rus, the mother of the monarchy of Klal Yisrael, descended from him.

לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצווה אפילו שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה שבשכר ארבעים ושתים קרבנות שהקריב בלק זכה ויצאה ממנו רות

I brought this up in order to lead into a conversation about the Gemara that says that a mitzva done with imperfect intentions, שלא לשמה, is also a great thing and will lead to perfected mitzvos.   What sort of imperfection is included in the term שלא לשמה?  (This is widely discussed, e.g., Brachos 17a and Tosfos there, Pesachim 50b, etc.)  Reb Chaim Volozhiner in the Ruach Chaim says that it only means that he does it for some other reason but in his heart he wishes to some day do it with a purity of intent.  This seems to contradict the Gemara that includes Balak's sacrifices under the rubric of שלא לשמה, Shelo Lishma.  One answer might be that the expression שלא לשמה as applied to Balak and Bilaam means something different than that expression as applied to anyone else, because of the unique quality of Bilaam's extraordinary but equally deviant spirituality.  But the answer we said was that Balak sincerely wanted to serve God, but he wanted to do so by supplanting the Jews.  He said that he could serve God better than the Jews could, considering their failure at the sin of the Egel.

After that discussion, Harry F asked about the significance of the number forty two, and I didn't know the answer.  He said that he seems to remember that there is a name of God that has forty two letters, and perhaps Balak's sacrifices were intended to propitiate that name of God.  Of course he is right, and it just highlights my unfortunate weakness of learning and immediately forgetting anything of that sort.  One would think that I would at least remember something so important that it explains life, the universe, and everything.  As penance, I am posting a translation of Rabbi Pinchas Friedman's dvar torah on this week's parsha (Shvilei Pinchas.)  The translation is done, as always, by my dear friend, Dr. Barry Fox.




The Holy Baal Shem Tov’s Amazing Revelation

From the Day of One’s Birth to the Day of One’s Passing Every Person
Makes All Forty-Two Journeys Made by Yisrael in the Midbar

On the upcoming Shabbat kodesh, we will read from the Torah the double portion of Matot-Masei.  This week, we would like to focus, b’ezrat Hashem, on parshat Masei.  Every year, without exception, we read parshat Masei on the middle Shabbat of the three weeks of “bein hametzarim.”  

The Gemara (Megillah 31b) teaches us that Ezra HaSofer methodically arranged the Torah readings for the entire year.  It stands to reason, therefore, that the institution to read parshat Masei on the second Shabbat of “bein hametzarim” serves a distinct purpose.  In this parsha, the Torah enumerates the forty-two journeys that Yisrael travelled in the midbar.  This teaches us that there is an intimate connection between the journeys travelled by Yisrael in the midbar and the difficult journeys we travel during all of the various exiles.  

Twenty-one Days and Twenty-one Nights Corresponding to Forty-two Journeys

Amazingly, the Maggid of Kozhnitz, zy”a, in Avodat Yisrael, states that the twenty-one days and twenty-one nights of the three weeks of “bein hametzarim” correspond to the forty-two journeys.  Here is what he writes: 
"והנה פרשה הזאת נקראת תמיד בין המצרים, שהם נחשבים כ"א יום כמו שפירש רש"י, וכ"א יום וכ"א לילות הם מ"ב, כנגד מ"ב מסעות שצריך לעבור בין המצרים בכמה מסעות לתקן הכל ולעבוד את ה', הגם שהזמן גרמא להיות עצב ונאנח על חורבן בית ה', עם כל זאת יש לחזק את עצמו ולטהר לבבו ולעבוד ה' בתורה ותפלה בשמחה, בפרט בשעת אמירת שירות ותשבחות".
This parsha is always read “bein hametzarim”—which are considered to be twenty-one days, as Rashi explains.  Twenty-one days and twenty-one nights adds up to forty-two—corresponding to the forty-two journeys that one must make “bein hametzarim,” to rectify everything and serve Hashem.  Although it is a time of sadness, during which we bemoan the churban of Hashem’s house, nevertheless one must encourage oneself and purify one’s heart to serve Hashem through Torah and tefilah with happiness—especially while reciting songs and praises.  

The Rashi he refers to concerns the words of the prophet Yirmiyahu (1, 11):  "ויהי דבר ה' אלי לאמר, מה אתה רואה ירמיהו, ואומר מקל שקד אני רואה"—the word of Hashem then came to me, saying, “What do you see Yirmiyahu?”  And I said, “I see a staff made of almond wood.”  Rashi comments in the name of a Midrash Aggadah that an almond grows and completes its development during a twenty-one day period—corresponding to the number of days between the seventeenth of Tamuz, on which the city was breached and divided, and the ninth of Av, on which the House was burnt down.  In Sha’ar HaKavanot, the Arizal also states that the period of “bein hametzarim” consists of twenty-one days.  

It seems that Tishah B’Av is not included in this count of twenty-one days, because it is referred to as a “moed”—a festival.  It states in the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 552, 12) that tachanun is not recited on erev Tishah B’Av, because it is called a “moed.” Additionally, it states (ibid. 559, 4) that tachanun is not recited on Tishah B’Av itself, because it is referred to as a “moed.”  We find this to be so in the following passuk (Eichah 1, 15):  "קרא עלי מועד"—related to Tishah B’Av.  

In Imrei Pinchas (Tishah B’Av 388), the great Rabbi Pinchas of Koritz, zy”a, explains why Tishah B’Av is referred to as a “moed” based on the statement in the Yerushalmi (Berachot 2, 4) that Tishah B’Av is the birthday of Mashiach ben David.  Additionally, our holy sources explain, based on the Midrash (Eichah 4, 14), that in the process of the churban of the Beit HaMikdash, HKB”H took out His wrath on the wood and stones of the physical structure, sparing Yisrael from extermination.  

Therefore, the period of “bein hametzarim” is considered to be only twenty-one days, since the “moed” of Tishah B’Av is not included in the calculation.  So, now, it is incumbent upon us to explore the association between the forty-two journeys Yisrael travelled in the Midbar and the twenty-one days and twenty-one nights of “bein hametzarim”—which also constitute an entity of forty-two.  As we learned above from the Avodat Yisrael:  "כנגד מ"ב מסעות שצריך לעבור בין המצרים בכמה מסעות לתקן הכל ולעבוד את ה'"--corresponding to the forty-two journeys that one must make “bein hametzarim,” to rectify everything and serve Hashem.  

Forty-two Journeys Corresponding to the Name of Forty-two in  
 "אנא בכח"

Let us begin our path to enlightenment by examining the passuk at the beginning of the parsha (Bamidbar 33, 1):  "אלה מסעי בני ישראל אשר יצאו מארץ מצרים לצבאותם ביד משה ואהרן, ויכתוב משה את מוצאיהם למסעיהם על פי ה' ואלה מסעיהם למוצאיהם"—these are the journeys of Bnei Yisrael, who departed the land of Mitzrayim according to their legions, under the hand of Moshe and Aharon.  Moshe wrote their goings forth according to their journeys at the bidding of Hashem, and these were their journeys according to their goings forth.  The Ohr HaChaim hakadosh notes that at first the passuk states:  "מוצאיהם למסעיהם"--their goings forth according to their journeys—whereas it concludes:  "מסעיהם למוצאיהם"--their journeys according to their goings forth—reversing the order.  

At this point, it is worthwhile introducing the following from the Magen Avraham (O.C. 428, 8):  The Tzror HaMor writes that we should not stop in the middle of the reading of the forty-two journeys listed in parshat Masei; for they correspond to the “name of forty-two”—“shem mem-beit.”  The source for this association is found in the Arizal’s Likutei Torah:  "הנה נזכר בכאן מ"ב מסעות, והוא שישראל יצאו ממצרים בכח שם מ"ב"—forty-two journeys are mentioned here, indicating that Yisrael left Mitzrayim by means of the “shem mem-beit.”  

They are referring to the holy name of forty-two letters, which we mention on a daily basis in the Shacharit service, during the korbanot, in the tefilah of "אנא בכח".  This entire prayer is founded on forty-two letters, divided into seven separate names—each containing six letters.  These names are:  אבגית"ץ, קר"ע-שט"ן, נג"ד-יכ"ש, בט"ר-צת"ג, חק"ב-טנ"ע, יג"ל-פז"ק, שק"ו-צי"ת.  The Tanna Rabbi Nechuniah ben HaKanah formulated a tefilah based on these names.  Each word in the tefilah corresponds to one letter of one of these names, as follows: 
א'נא ב'כח ג'דולת י'מינך ת'תיר צ'רורה: [אב"ג-ית"ץ]
ק'בל ר'ינת ע'מך ש'גבנו ט'הרנו נ'ורא: [קר"ע-שט"ן]
נ'א ג'בור ד'ורשי י'חודך כ'בבת ש'מרם: [נג"ד-יכ"ש]
ב'רכם, ט'הרם, ר'חמם, צ'דקתך ת'מיד ג'מלם: [בט"ר-צת"ג]
ח'סין ק'דוש ב'רוב ט'ובך נ'הל ע'דתך: [חק"ב-טנ"ע]
י'חיד ג'אה ל'עמך פ'נה ז'וכרי ק'דשתך: [יג"ל-פז"ק]
ש'ועתנו ק'בל ו'שמע צ'עקתנו י'ודע ת'עלומות: [שק"ו-צי"ת]
ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד:

We can now understand the rationale for the Magen Avraham’s statement in the name of the Tzror HaMor—that it is improper to stop in the middle of the reading of the forty-two journeys.  For, we do not want to disrupt the “shem mem-beit” corresponding to these journeys.  Hence, we should ask:  What is the connection between the “shem mem-beit” and the forty-two journeys travelled in the midbar?  Furthermore, what is the significance of these names that we recite every day in "אנא בכח"?  

Every Jew in the Course of His Life Completes These Forty-two Journeys

Let us proceed by introducing an illuminating principle presented by the Degel Machaneh Efraim in the name of his elder, the esteemed Baal Shem Tov, zy”a.  He teaches us that every Jew in the course of his lifetime, from the day of his birth until the day of his death, passes through the desolate wilderness of “olam hazeh”—this world.  He completes the very same forty-two journeys that Yisrael travelled in the midbar.  Ultimately, he merits entering the land of the living in the world of the neshamot.  

He writes that the day a person is born and exits his mother’s womb is analogous to the exodus from Mitzrayim.  Then a person travels one journey after another until he reaches the upper “eretz hachaim.”  Certainly, these journeys were recorded in the Torah to guide a Jew along the proper path—so that he will know which path to choose as he moves from journey to journey throughout his life.  

Each and every journey is sacred and exalted; nevertheless, the nature of a journey and location can change due to people’s actions.  Unfortunately, a place of kedushah can be transformed into the exact opposite.  Yet, if people journey and arrive at these destinations without altering them with their actions, each destination will surely illuminate their lives with its concealed light.  

This is the significance of the opening pesukim of our parsha.  Moshe recorded these journeys in the Torah as they were intended from above.  They are designed to guide a person along the path that Hashem would have him choose.  

Now, let us combine these two essential principles.  Firstly, we learned from the Baal Shem Tov hakadosh that every person experiences all forty-two journeys during his lifetime.  Secondly, we learned from the Arizal and other kabbalists that the forty-two journeys correspond to the name containing forty-two letters.  Combining these two ideas, we can conclude that every one of us—from the day of our birth until the day of our passing, when a person returns his neshamah to the Creator—lives and breathes the forty-two letters of "אנא בכח"—which represent the forty-two journeys comprising a person’s entire life.  

The Forces of Kedushah Refined the Nitzotzot in the Midbar

It appears that we can expand on this notion based on the commentary of the Ohr HaChaim hakadosh.  He focuses on the words:  "אלה מסעי בני ישראל"—these are the journeys of Bnei Yisrael.  Why does the passuk emphasize their journeys--"מסעי"—without mentioning their encampments?  He answers that the purpose of the journeys in the Midbar was to elevate the “nitzotzei kedushah.”  This purpose was fulfilled primarily as they journeyed from place to place together with the nitzotzei kedushah in hand that they clarified in each location.  

He emphasizes that Yisrael journeyed through the midbar, because that is the domain of the “samech-mem.”  It established its residence in the desolate wilderness inhabited by (Devarim 8, 15):  נחש שרף ועקרב—snake, fiery serpent and scorpion.  Hashem’s holy people traversed that wilderness to extract the nitzotzei kedushah the forces of tumah had captured and to refine them.  As a consequence, Yisrael camped in one location for an entire year, while they only remained in another location for a mere twelve hours.  Their sojourn in each location was determined by the time required to clarify the nitzotzot present in that location. 
The Ohr HaChaim adds an essential detail to this explanation.  This refinement process required the participation of the total complement of kedushah—the holy Shechinah, the congregation of Yisrael and the Torah, coordinated by Moshe Rabeinu.  Such an incredible coalition of the elements of kedushah never existed before—since the time of creation until Yisrael left Mitzrayim and received the Torah.  By means of this joining together of the forces of kedushah, they successfully extracted the nitzotzei kedushah from the forces of tumah in the desolate wilderness.  

The Generation of the Midbar Prepared the Way for Future Generations

Now, let us add an important principle from the Sefat Emet (Bamidbar 5655).  He states that it was the generation of the midbar’s task to prepare the way for all future generations.  Here is what he writes:
"והנה דור המדבר הוציאו מכח אל הפועל, והיו הכנה לכל דורות בני ישראל, ויצאו ללמד על הכלל כולו, וזהו שכתוב שאו את ראש כל עדת בני ישראל, שהם היו ראש לכל עדת בני ישראל וכל הדורות נמשכו אחריהם, ועל זה נאמר (קהלת ז-ח) טוב אחרית דבר מראשיתו". וכן כתב עוד (פרשת פנחס שנת תרנ"ב): "והנה דור המדבר היו הכנה לתקן כל הקומה לכל הדורות, וניתן להם ברית הלשון בקבלת התורה בהר סיני במדבר".
The generation of the midbar represented the epitome of Bnei Yisrael throughout the generations.  It was their job to pave the way for all future generations and provide the means for tikun.  At Har Sinai, in the midbar, they received the Torah and were given “brit halashon.”  

This sheds some light for us on the teaching of the holy Baal Shem Tov, zy”a.  The generation of the midbar experienced forty-two journeys in the midbar in order to subjugate all the forces of tumah and clarify all the nitzotzei kedushah by means of the “shem mem-beit.”  This name elevates all of the nitzotzei kedushah back to their heavenly origins.  In similar fashion, every Jew must make these forty-two journeys during his lifetime—in order to subdue all of the forces opposing his service of Hashem.  In the process, he effectively refines the nitzotzei kedushah by means of the “shem mem-beit.”  The generation of the midbar, however, established the precedent; their actions paved the way for all future generations to follow.  

This illuminates for us the meaning of the passuk:  "אלה מסעי בני ישראל אשר יצאו מארץ מצרים לצבאותם ביד משה ואהרן, ויכתוב משה את מוצאיהם למסעיהם על פי ה'"—these are the journeys of Bnei Yisrael, who departed the land of Mitzrayim according to their legions, under the hand of Moshe and Aharon.  Moshe wrote their goings forth according to their journeys at the bidding of Hashem.  In other words, they departed Mitzrayim in order to complete the forty-two journeys, which were:  “their goings forth according to their journeys”—they were guided by Hashem, according to the name of forty-two letters, to clarify the nitzotzei kedushah lost in the terrible wilderness.  

Then the passuk concludes with a  reference to the generations to come:  "ואלה מסעיהם למוצאיהם"-- and these were their journeys according to their goings forth.  This conveys the message that these same forty-two journeys travelled by Yisrael in the midbar, must be travelled by all of their future generations.  Thus, the passuk emphasizes:  "ואלה מסעיהם"—in other words, these forty-two journeys travelled by the generation of the midbar, were, in effect, a preparation:  "למוצאיהם"—for all of the future generations that would come forth from them.  This preparation would enable every future Jew to successfully pass through the midbar that is “olam hazeh”—with all of its hardships and obstacles.  The generation of the midbar already paved the way for all of us.  [Note that the numerical value of the word ואל"ה equals forty-two.]

Accordingly, we can appreciate the sacred words of the Avodat Yisrael.  The twenty-one days and twenty-one nights of the period of “bein hametzarim” correspond to the forty-two journeys travelled by Yisrael in the midbar.  Their main purpose was to encourage us and strengthen our resolve.  For, we now know that every journey we take during this bitter galut is in some form a repetition of one of the forty-two journeys travelled by Yisrael in the midbar.  The knowledge that they already paved the way for us allows us to endure and successfully withstand all of the trials and tribulations of galut.  Upon completing all forty-two journeys in galut, we will achieve the complete tikun and will thus merit the complete geulah shortly.  

The Name of “Mem-beit” of "אנא בכח" Elevates All of the Mitzvot

So, we now know that HKB”H sent each and every one of us down from the world of the neshamot to the desolate wilderness of this world to endure all forty-two journeys corresponding to the “shem mem-beit.”  Surely, every one of us desires, according to the best of our limited abilities, to comprehend the significance of this name of forty-two letters, upon which the tefilah of "אנא בכח" is founded--a tefilah our blessed sages instituted to be recited daily in the morning service.  

Hence, with the help of Hashem, Who teaches His people Yisrael Torah, we will endeavor to explain the matter in a manner that is beneficial to all.  We will examine the immaculate teachings of our holy Rabbis, with the Arizal first and foremost.  The Midrash explains that HKB”H is named according to His actions.  For example, here is how HKB”H responds to Moshe in the beginning of sefer Shemot (3, 13):  "ויאמר משה אל האלקים הנה אנכי בא אל בני ישראל ואמרתי להם אלקי אבותיכם שלחני אליכם ואמרו לי מה שמו מה אומר אליהם, ויאמר אלקים אל משה אהיה אשר אהיה"—Moshe said to G-d, “Behold, when I come to Bnei Yisrael and say to them, ‘The G-d of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?”  Hashem answered Moshe, “I Shall Be What I Shall Be.”  The Midrash addresses HKB”H’s response: 
"ויאמר אלקים אל משה. אמר רבי אבא בר ממל, אמר ליה הקב"ה למשה, שמי אתה מבקש לידע, לפי מעשי אני נקרא, פעמים שאני נקרא באל שדי, בצבאות, באלקים, בה'. כשאני דן את הבריות אני נקרא אלקים, וכשאני עושה מלחמה ברשעים אני נקרא צבאות, וכשאני תולה על חטאיו של אדם אני נקרא אל שדי, וכשאני מרחם על עולמי אני נקרא ה', שאין ה' אלא מדת רחמים שנאמר (שמות לד-ו) ה' ה' אל רחום וחנון, הוי אהיה אשר אהיה, אני נקרא לפי מעשי".
HKB”H tells Moshe that each particular name of G-d relates to a specific function.  When He judges creation, He is referred to as “Elokim”; when He battles the wicked, He is referred to as “Tzevakot”; when He suspends judgment regarding a person’s transgressions, He is referred to as “Kel Shakai”; and when He shows His world mercy, He is known as Hashem.  So, the answer “I Shall Be What I Shall Be” indicates that the name He is called depends on the particular divine action being displayed.  

Based on this notion, the kabbalists teach us that the name containing forty-two letters is designed to elevate all matters of kedushah a person performs in this world to its heavenly source—until it reaches HKB”H.  This applies to a person’s Torah study, tefilot, fulfillment of mitzvot, and a Jew’s clarification of nitzotzei kedushah.  This name is even at play when a person’s neshamah goes up to heaven every night when he goes to sleep.  All of them ascend to present themselves before HKB”H by means of the “shem mem-beit”; its forty-two letters act like wings carrying our mitzvot and good deeds up to HKB”H.  

As we saw, this name divides into seven shorter names—each containing six letters.  It is important to realize that these shorter names correspond to the seven days of the week.  אב"ג-ית"ץ corresponds to Sunday; קר"ע-שט"ןcorresponds to Monday; נג"ד-יכ"ש corresponds to Tuesday; בט"ר-צת"גcorresponds to Wednesday; חק"ב-טנ"ע corresponds to Thursday; יג"ל-פז"קcorresponds to Friday; שק"ו-צי"ת corresponds to Shabbat kodesh.  

In essence, each name is designed to elevate the Torah and mitzvot of its corresponding day.  For example, the name אב"ג-ית"ץ elevates the Torah learned and the mitzvot performed on the first day of the week, Sunday—while the other six names assist in the process.  Each name performs this same function on its corresponding day of the week.  Finally, when Shabbat arrives, one should focus on the name שק"ו-צי"ת; for this is the main name acting to elevate our tefilot and mitzvot, with the assistance of the other names.  

Six Letters Corresponding to the Six Wings of a Malach

Continuing on along this exalted path, let us proceed to explain why each of these seven names is composed of precisely six letters.  We shall refer to the words of the prophet (Yeshayah 6, 1): 
"בשנת מות המלך עוזיהו ואראה את אדני יושב על כסא רם ונשא ושוליו מלאים את ההיכל, שרפים עומדים ממעל לו שש כנפים שש כנפים לאחד, בשתים יכסה פניו, ובשתים יכסה רגליו, ובשתים יעופף"—in the year of King Uzziyahu’s death, I saw the Lord sitting upon a high and lofty throne, and its legs filled the Heichal.  Seraphim were standing above, at His service.  Each one had six wings:  with two it would cover its face, with two it would cover its legs, and with two it would fly.”  Rashi comments:  the Seraph uses two wings to cover its face so as not to gaze upon the Shechinah; it covers its legs with two wings for the sake of “tzniut”—modesty—so as not to expose its body in the presence of its Creator; with its remaining two wings it carries out Hashem’s will.  

With this scheme and structure in mind, the divine Tanna Rashb”y discusses the “shem mem-beit” in the Tikunei Zohar (Tikun 69 103b).  He explains that the six letters which compose each of the seven names are divided up functionally just like the six wings of the Seraphim.  For instance, let us examine the first name, אב"ג-ית"ץ:  the first two letters, א"ב, act to cover up the face of a person’s neshamah, which ascends nightly along with all of the mitzvot performed on that corresponding day; the function of the middle two letters, ג"י, is to cover up its feet—protecting them from the harmful effects and influence of the angels of destruction; finally, the last two letters, ת"ץ, serve as the wings—transporting the neshamah up to HKB”H.  

Here is what Rabbi Chaim Vital writes in Sha’ar HaKavanot according to the Arizal concerning this subject: 
"אנא בכח גדולת ימינך כו', ויאמר כל שני תיבות ביחד, אנא בכח ויפסיק, גדולת ימינך ויפסיק, תתיר צרורה ויפסיק. ונראה לפי עניות דעתי שהטעם הוא לכוין אל מה שנתבאר אצלינו, כי כל שם מאלו הז' שמות של מ"ב יש בו ששה אותיות, ומתחלקים לג' בחינות, בשתים אותיות יכסה פניו, ובשתים יכסה רגליו, ובשתים יעופף, ולכן צריך לחבר כל שני אותיות ביחד".  Each two words should be uttered together as separate units.  One should say אנא בכח and pause; then גדולת ימינך and pause; then תתיר צרורה and pause.  In my humble opinion, this is done so that we have in mind that each of these seven names comprising the “shem mem-beit” is composed of six letters; they are divided up into three functional units; two cover its face; two cover its legs; with two it flies.  Therefore, each set of two should be uttered together.  

In summary, every Jew should find strength as he completes the journeys that comprise his life.  He should realize and believe wholeheartedly that every step he takes is guided by Hashem—aimed at accomplishing a particular tikun.  As the passuk states (Tehillim 37, 23):  "מה' מצעדי גבר כוננו ודרכו יחפץ"—Guided by Hashem, the footsteps of a righteous man are firm; his way shall He approve.  Let us always remember the valuable lesson learned from the holy Baal Shem Tov, zy”a.  Each and every one of us—from the day of one’s birth to the day of one’s passing—experiences the forty-two journeys corresponding to the forty-two letters of "אנא בכח".  This will insure that we utter this magnificent tefilah with greater focus and intent—allowing us to complete our sacred task with ease and understanding.  Amen.