Chicago Chesed Fund

https://www.chicagochesedfund.org/

Friday, April 2, 2010

Kri'as Yam Suf and Sefiras Ha'omer; Unconditional Concord, Unyielding Exclusivism

A Classic Havolim post, from '09.

The Zohar (also in Yalkut Shim’oni) says that when the Egyptians were about to be washed away by the returning waters of the Yam Suf the Sattan came before Hashem and said, " Halalu ovdei....These worshiped idols and these worshiped idols," why should you save one at the expense of the other? Hashem defended the Jews and said that the Jews only mimicked the Egyptians under circumstances of great stress and confusion. Nonetheless, the message is clear: there was a moment of danger during the kri’as yam suf.  We learn this from the lettering of the word Choma, a wall. In the passuk ve'hamayim... it says the word Choma without a vav, so that it can be read Cheima, burning anger. The kashe is, that the word choma appears a few psukim earlier, in the same context, and there, the word is spelled choma, with a vav. What changed between the two psukim?


To answer this question,  Reb Meir Simcha, the Rov of Dvinsk, (Parshas Beshalach) discusses the relative severity of sins. When we balance the punishments for aveiros, for example, on the one hand avoda zara and gilui arayos, and on the other gezel and lashon hara and machlokes, there is, of course, no comparison - avoda zara and gilui arayos are cardinal sins, while gezel and lashon hara are not even subject to malkos; theft avoids malkos because restitution can be made, and slander because it is done without a significant physical act. But this contrast is only true for these aveiros when done by individuals. When these aveiros become endemic, and the community is being judged as a community, the balance shifts completely. The Yerushalmi says that the people of the generation of David were holy, but because there were among them those that would malign others for personal gain, men would die in battle. The generation of Achav was idolatrous - the generation of Achav is the paradigm of widespread avoda zara - but because they lived in harmony, they were invincible. As we learned in the gemara in Yoma, hashochein itam betoch tum’asam - Hashem dwells among his people even when they are defiled by idolatry and gilui arayos. But when they are selfish and spiteful, the other pasuk applies - Rummah al shamayim, Hashem withdraws his presence to heaven. Similarly, the first Beis Hamikdash was destroyed because of the three cardinal sins, while the second was destroyed because of baseless hatred. The gemara asks, which generation was greater? The gemara answers, "look at the the Edifice!" In other words, do you see a Bais Hamikdash yet? Has it been rebuilt? The sins of the first generation were expiated in seventy years, while those of the second haven't been overcome to this day. The final straw that brought the mabul was when they began robbing each other - mal’ah ha’aretz chamas. The cheit ha’eigel was forgiven, but the cheit ha’meraglim, which was slander and ingratitude, resulted in the death of the entire generation. We see from all these examples one clear rule - that where a community’s interpersonal relationships are contaminated, it is at much greater risk than where the people are befouled by other sins.

Rav Meir Simcha explains, that when the nissim in Mitzrayim took place, when Hashem protected the Jews and brought the makkos on the Mitzrim, the people were unified and at peace, and the words of the Sattan had no effect at all. The nissim were like a choma - a solid wall that separated the Jews from the Mitzrim. Before krias yam suf, however, the people split into four groups, with some arguing that they split up and go their own ways, with each group viewing the other as an adversary, and that unity was lost. At that point, they were judged as individuals, and as individuals, they seemed no better than the Mitzrim.

The Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva (3:11) makes a statement that is very difficult to understand, but which supports this approach. The Rambam says that even if one has never sinned, if one separates himself from the community, and is indifferent to their suffering, and does not join in their celebrations, ein lo chelek le’olam haba. This is remarkable! The man is a tzaddik gammur. He has never sinned. But if he doesn’t care for his fellow jew, he has no share in olam haba. In fact, this is the basis of what we say to the rasha in the four kashos. The rasha says "lachem," he considers us "others." We tell him , if we are eschem, ilu haya sham lo hayah nig’al. And who died in the makas choshech? Rashi says, "she’hayu bam resha’im shelo ratzu latzeis..." The ones who didn’t care, who were happy to stay in Mitzrayim when the nation left, they died in Mitzrayim. Actually, we say this every day in the beginning of davenning, in Le’olam - mah anu, mah cha’yeinu ...vechachamim kivli mada...the learned know nothing, the understanding are as if they were senseless, and the difference between man and animal is like nothing: God, we know that we are beneath Your notice. But... but we are your people, children of your covenant. That makes all the difference. The threshold issue is, are you a member of Klal Yisrael, do you love your fellow Jew? If you haven’t crossed that threshold, you’re wasting your time, ein lo chelek le’olam haba. And the interesting thing is, that frum doesn’t matter. After the war, when the Ponevizher Rav would meet a Lithuanian jew, frum or resolutely not frum, he would hug him and kiss him as if he had found his own long-lost brother. And that is the word that really matters - your own brother. If in the generation of Achav, when the people were degenerate worshippers of the most profane idols, their unity as Jews protected them, this clearly has nothing to do with religious unity. It is simply a law of Jewish unity.

With this in mind, we can gain an appreciation for this second half of Yomtov. There is a basic difference between the two halves of Yomtov. The first half commemorates the geula from Mitzrayim, and re-enacts the creation of the am hanivchar. The second half has been referred to as the Chag HaGeula Ha’asida, the Yomtov of the coming of Mashiach, as we see in the haftora that we read - Od hayom beNov. But what do we do to prepare for this half of the Yomtov? Think about all the hard work and expense that goes into making the first days, which celebrate the first geula. What do we do to prepare for the second half, which anticipates the ultimate geula? For the Chag Hamatzos, we spend 20, 30 dollars a pound for hand shemura.  (My kids tell me that in Yerushalayim, you can buy Brisker Chabura matzos for three hundred fifty shekel a kilo- Forty Dollars A Pound.) What are we buying for the Chag Hamashiach? What should we be doing to prepare for the Chag Hamashiach?

The herald of the coming of Mashiach is Eliahu, as it says Hinei Anochi...., and Eliyahu prepares the nation for the coming of Mashiach. To merit Mashiach, we must develop behavior that reflects the symbol of Eliyahu. What does Eliahu Hanavi represent? The is a story in Bava Basra (7b) about Eliahu. There was once a tzaddik who merited daily visits of Eliyahu Hanavi. At one time, he built a gatehouse in front of his courtyard, and Eliyahu no longer came to him. When he later saw Eliahu, he asked why he was no longer favored. Eliyahu told him that when his house was open to all the needy and weary, he merited his presence. Once he limited access, and erected barriers which allowed him to pick and choose, he no longer merited the presence of Eliahu. As long as your doors were open, I came too. When you locked your doors, when you locked out the poor, you locked out Eliyahu Hanavi. Lock out the assimilated Jew, or any Jew who is not like you, the Jew who might need your attention or your help, you lock out Eliyahu Hanavi. And when you lock out Eliyahu Hanavi, you lock out Mashiach.

Every Yomtov should be shared with others. But it is only Pesach that we begin, at the seder, with the invitation "Kol Dichfin." This is because the whole Yomtov leads to the climax of the second days - the celebration of the soon-to-come geula. Unless we invite every Jew, regardless of belief, into our own homes, our self-centered lives are an impediment to the geula, not a preparation for the geula.

We are counting Sefiras Ha’omer. During this period, we do not cut our hair or listen to music. This commemorates the death of 24,000 of the greatest men of our history, Rabbi Akiva’s talmidim. Chazal tell us that they died because lo na’hagu kavod zeh ba’zeh. These men, who were the nation’s leaders, died because they lacked mutual love and respect, and that character flaw among these young leaders could not be allowed to infect the nation. And when did this happen? Some say it happened during the time of Bar Kochva, and that they died as his partisans. If so, Chazal taught us the essence of the event in five words. Why didn’t Bar Kochva succeed? Because Lo Na’hagu Kavod Zeh ba’Zeh. The bi’as hamashiach was ruined by lo nahagu kovod: we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

The lesson of hamayim la’hem choma is unconditional love for each and every Jew. But, like every great truth, its apparent simplicity hides a great and challenging complexity. There are dangers involved. Friendship without protest is validation, and validation is endorsement, and endorsement is complicity. On the other hand, while tolerance may mean endorsement, intolerance breeds hatred. It requires an exquisite sense of balance to prevent an abhorrence for a person’s life-style from turning into a personal antipathy, and on the other hand, it requires equal skill to prevent a love and respect for the person from implying validation of that person’s philosophy.

Torah is the only absolute in life, and those who cast it aside are ruining their own lives and are a menace to others, and we have to fight to communicate our credo. But during the battle, we must never lose sight of the fact that we love the person we are arguing with. Even indifference, the feeling that the other person is so wrong, so different than me, that I don’t want to care about him or even know him, is a great aveirah. When you lose the love, you should know that part of your own neshama is withering away, and you are chasing away the Shechina and impeding the biyas hamashiach. It is imperative that any such destructive attitude be faced and rooted out immediately, now, during the Chag Hageula, during the time of sefiras ha’omer, and we will be zocheh to the biyas hamashiach bim’heira.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Shipping Chametz Erev Pesach

!CHAG KASHER VE'SAMEI'ACH!


Getting ready for Bedikas Chametz.  That Chametz doesn't stand a chance!
Akiva, Shimi, Yaakov, Moshe, Shima, Aharon, Shana, and Moishie.  Present but not pictured: Rashi.


Soon after Bedikas Chametz, this question was brought to my attention.

An Orthodox Jew is in the business of selling gift and food baskets online.  Though the bulk of his business is with Jews, he does have non-Jewish customers who buy his products for their own enjoyment.

A non-Jewish customer orders chametz cookies.  The seller will ship them out before Pesach via UPS.  But the goods will be en route on Pesach.

The buyer has a range of options as to who will be the shipper: he can choose US Mail, or UPS Land, or UPS Overnight.

If sent by UPS, the shipment is insured.

Do we have a problem here?  Does it belong to him once he ships it?  Does the seller have the right to call UPS and tell them to not deliver it and that he wants the merchandise back? Even if title passes to the buyer when you ship it, what if the risk of loss is the seller's until actual delivery; does this achrayus make it his le'halacha?  Perhaps the fact that UPS would have to pay him if they lost it means that it is his, although he would have to use the proceeds to refund the buyer?  And if the achrayus of "risk of loss" makes it his, perhaps this is a form of ownership that is not amenable to hefker?  Can he be mafkir/mevateil the en route chametz?   The general sale of Chametz done by the local rabbis is not an option.  You can't sell something you're shipping to someone else.

I recently saw that in the Grach al Hashas there's a letter from Reb Chaim about a very similar question.  If I have time, I'll put it in here bl'n.

To pasken this shailah, you have to know Orach Chaim, Choshen Mishpat, and the Uniform Commercial Code.  If you bring this question to the average Orthodox Rabbi (me), let's hope he has the elementary seichel to realize that he needs to pick up the phone and call an attorney who is knowledgeable in the UCC, and then bring all the facts to the higher echelon of poskim.  (I did.  I have a friend who is a professor at a law school who also has Yoreh Yadin, and I have access to a top level Poseik.)  I'm not going to tell you what the poseik said, because 1. On Pesach, the discussion stimulated by a question is more valuable than any one answer, and 2. I'm not convinced that I understand why the poseik paskened as he did.

Another question:
Many businesses sell their chametz before pesach.  Selling their stock is an accepted method of avoiding the chametz problem.  Some, such as grocery stores, food distributors, and whiskey distillers, sell merchandise worth a great deal.
My question is this: what does it say on their insurance policy?  Who would be paid if there was a fire that destroyed the merchandise on Pesach? Would the insurance company pay the goy to whom the chametz was sold?  Of course not.  Maybe the money would go to the goy and then to the Jew.  But once the Jew sells his chametz, does he have an insurable interest in the Chametz?  (That's a rhetorical question.  You can't insure something that's not yours.)  So, if the insurance policy says it belongs to the Jew, and in event of a loss the money would be paid to the Jew, who really owns it?


Having the business owner come to my house erev Pesach, and his telling me that he would do whatever was necessary, was a great experience.  Canceling the order would have cost him a customer and hurt his reputation, and he was determined to do the right thing according to how I would pasken.  It would have been easy for him to rationalize that it's muttar, but he was unwilling to do that.  I think he is a mussar haskel about how an Ehrliche Yid ought to do business.

This is his website, in case you're looking for a reliable source for gift baskets from an ehrliche Yid: Kosherbyte.


Key Words:
UCC
Shipment Contract
Destination Contract
Passing of Title
Risk of Loss
רוצה בקיומו
אחריות
בעלות
מפקיר
דבר הגורם לממון
דינא דמלכותא דינא

Monday, March 22, 2010

Tzav, Vayikra 7:12. Korban Todah: Man was created to struggle.

This post has two sections.  The first deals with the Korban Todah, and the feelings one should have when bringing a thanksgiving offering.  The second part was brought up in the comments when I first posted this, and discusses the meaning of 'Todah' as used in Korban Todah and in Shmone Esrei.

Part I

(Based in part on the Ksav Sofer, Beis Halevi, Tzidkas Hatzadik)

The Korban Todah (Todah meaning gratitude or acknowledgment) is an offering that one brings when he lives through a life-threatening experience.  Chazal (Brachos 54) say, for example, that four events create an obligation to bring this korban: recovery from illness, release from prison, finishing a trip through the desert, and reaching land after a sea voyage.



Tehillim 50:23:
זֹבֵחַ תּוֹדָה יְכַבְּדָנְנִי  וְשָׂם דֶּרֶךְ אַרְאֶנּוּ בְּיֵשַׁע אֱלֹהִים.  
One who slaughters a Korban Todah honors Me, and [I will] prepare the way; I will show him the salvation of God."
The word 'yechabda'ne'ni' would normally be written 'yechabdeini'.  It seems to have a superfluous "nun". The Medrash (sort of like the Gemara Sanhedrin 43b) says that the double ‘nun’ tells us to double our appreciation, to offer “kavod achar kavod”  to Hashem.  What does that mean, Kavod achar kavod, honor after honor?  A person who is saved from a danger and brings a korban todah should recognize that even the tzaros were intended for his benefit; he should praise Hashem for both the tzaros and the yeshuos, the danger and the salvation.  This is why the end of the passuk says be’yesha Elokim”-- the salvation of Elokim.  But Elokim is midas hadin, the trait of strict judgment, not mercy!  The answer is that when the person looks at the gezeira of the midas hadin, and he is “sahm derech”--that is, that it makes a lasting impression on him and he is chozer beteshuva or it is memarek his aveiros, then he will see that the Elokim itself is part of his yeshua.

Sanhedrin 43b:
אריב"ל כל הזובח את יצרו ומתודה עליו מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו כיבדו להקב"ה בשני עולמים העולם הזה והעולם הבא דכתיב זובח תודה יכבדנני 
Medrash Vayikra 9:2
דבר אחר זובח תודה יכבדנני, ר' הונא בשם ר' אחא יכבדני אין כתיב כאן אלא יכבדנני, כבוד אחר כבוד, דבר אחר זובח תודה יכבדנני, ר' ברכיה בשם ר' אבא בר כהנא כבדני אין כתיב כאן אלא יכבדנני, כבדני בעולם הזה, יכבדני בעולם הבא




וישב יעקב. בקש יעקב לישב בשלוה קפץ עליו רגזו של יוסף. לא דיין לצדיקים שמתוקן להם העוה״ב אלא שרוצים לישב בשלוה בעוהיז.

The Medrash in Vayeisheiv (brought in Rashi there) says, Tzadikim should know that life is not about tranquility and peace.  Life is about conflict and tests, and we are expected to bravely face them and overcome them.  Not only are we expected to win our battles, but when we do win, we bring a korban today and thank the Ribono shel Olam for testing us.  Ke'sheim she'mevorchim....

What was the essential difference between Shaul Hamelech and David Hamelech?  Why did Shaul's reign die with him, while David began an eternal dynasty? 

In I Shmuel 16:11-12 David Hamelech is described as
 אַדְמוֹנִי, עִם יְפֵה עֵינַיִם וְטוֹב רֹאִי
rubicund, though with beautiful eyes and handsome appearance.
The Malbim there explains that there was an innate conflict in David's personality.  He was driven by very powerful human urges, but he was so spiritually strong that he not only overcame them, but he incorporated those carnal and aggressive forces into his service of Hashem.  When Shmuel came to Yishai to find the king that would replace Shaul, he first saw Eliav.  He saw in Eliav the same characteristics he saw in Shaul--  who is described as being head and shoulders higher than any other person (I Shmuel 9:2):
מִשִּׁכְמוֹ וָמַעְלָה, גָּבֹהַּ מִכָּל הָעָם.
The same words are used to describe Eliav:
יַּרְא אֶת אֱלִיאָב; וַיֹּאמֶר אַךְ נֶגֶד ה' מְשִׁיחוֹ.    וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל שְׁמוּאֵל אַל תַּבֵּט אֶל מַרְאֵהוּ וְאֶל גְּבֹהַּ קוֹמָתוֹ כִּי מְאַסְתִּיהוּ  כִּי לֹא אֲשֶׁר יִרְאֶה הָאָדָם כִּי הָאָדָם יִרְאֶה לַעֵינַיִם וַיהוָה יִרְאֶה לַלֵּבָב
David was not like Eliav or Shaul.  He was not a perfect, tranquil, natural tzadik.  His life was constant battle against a roaring lion of a Yetzer Hara.  He won every single battle, but the war raged on almost his whole life.  This distinguished David from his brother Eliav and from his predecessor, Shaul.  It was precisely this trait, this weakness/strength, that Hashem wanted in His warrior-king. (It's interesting to think about the difference in perspective between the Greek trope of the hero's 'fatal flaw' that ultimately results in the protagonist's downfall, and the Torah idea of the 'enlivening flaw,' the flaw one strives to overcome, and, by doing so, makes himself a true hero.)

As Reb Tzadok says in his Tzidkas Hatzadik #244, (a chapter very much worth reading in the entirety)
כל מלחמותיו הי׳ בניצוח היצר.   כפי מה שנצח ליצר, כך נצח לאומות שהכל אחד
All David's battles were to vanquish his yetzer hara, and concomitant with winning that battle he vanquished other nations in war, for all is one.
(Thank you to R' Moshe Eisemann in his "Music Made in Heaven" for the mareh makom.)

We find anecdotal examples of this happening all around us. Chazal pointed out the tragic irony of how holy geirim, who have voluntarily chosen to take on the obligations and burdens dangers of Judaism, so often face terrible and unending challenges-מפני מה גרים בזמן הזה מעונין ויסורין  באין עליהן.  We see this happen to Ba'alei Teshuva as well. You would think that they would be rewarded with some peace and quiet, that they earned a period of tranquility during which they could fortify and deepen new spiritual circumstances. But nebach, most often they are beset with hard times- physical, financial, and personal.

So the passuk in Iyov (5:7), כִּי אָדָם לְעָמָל יוּלָּד וּבְנֵי רֶשֶׁף יַגְבִּיהוּ עוּף, is not a curse; it is Hashem's will that we overcome challenges and win battles.  Our name itself proclaims this purpose: Yisrael-- ki sarisa- vatuchal.  Having faced the challenge, and having overcome it, we thank Hashem for both, "al hamilchamos ve'al hayeshu'os."  (Beis Halevi on Az Yashir Moshe.)

~
Reb N.G. wrote about a closely related idea, and its connection to Pesach, here.
 ~

I can't help but to put in a story about George Orwell on this topic.  Its relevance will become apparent.


Finally, eight or nine days after leaving the front, I had my wound examined. In the surgery where newly-arrived cases were examined, doctors with huge pairs of shears were hacking away the breast-plates of plaster in which men with smashed ribs, collar-bones, and so forth had been cased at the dressingstations behind the line; out of the neck-hole of the huge clumsy breast-plate you would see protruding an anxious, dirty face, scrubby with a week's beard. The doctor, a brisk, handsome man of about thirty, sat me down in a chair, grasped my tongue with a piece of rough gauze, pulled it out as far as it would go, thrust a dentist's mirror down my throat, and told me to say ‘Eh!’ After doing this till my tongue was bleeding and my eyes running with water, he told me that one vocal cord was paralysed. ‘When shall I get my voice back?’ I said. ‘Your voice? Oh, you'll never get your voice back,’ he said cheerfully. However, he was wrong, as it turned out. For about two months I could not speak much above a whisper, but after that my voice became normal rather suddenly, the other vocal cord having ‘compensated’. The pain in my arm was due to the bullet having pierced a bunch of nerves at the back of the neck. It was a shooting pain like neuralgia, and it went on hurting continuously for about a month, especially at night, so that I did not get much sleep. The fingers of my right hand were also semi-paralysed. Even now, five months afterwards, my forefinger is still numb — a queer effect for a neck wound to have.
The wound was a curiosity in a small way and various doctors examined it with much clicking of tongues and ‘Que suerte! Qye suerte!’ One of them told me with an air of authority that the bullet had missed the artery by ‘about a millimetre’. I don't know how he knew. No one I met at this time — doctors, nurses, practicantes, or fellow-patients — failed to assure me that a man who is hit through the neck and survives it is the luckiest creature alive. I could not help thinking that it would be even luckier not to be hit at all.
- George Orwell, from "Homage to Catalonia", where he describes his hospital stay after being shot in the neck.
~

Part II

What does the word "Todah" mean in, as used in Korban Todah and in Modim in Shemoneh Esrei?

UPDATE, DECEMBER 2011:
I found that the Oneg Yomtov, in his Hakdama, brings a very relevant Maharit as follows:
אמר בתפילתו כי אף שהוא עבד ה' בן אמתו, יליד ביתו ולאמקנת כספו, כי הוא אביך עשך ויכוננך, וברא אותנו יש מאין, וכל
כוחות הגוף והנפש הנמצאים בנו הלא הוא יתברך אשר נתנם לנו, וכל קיומם כל ימי היותנו על האדמה, אך ממנו יתברך, כאמור
"ואתה מחיה את כולם".  ובדין היה שלא נוכל לעשות גדולה או קטנה נגד רצון הבורא יתברך. כי איך נרים יד ורגל לפעול פעולה המתנגדת לרצונו אחרי שכל כוחות ותנועות האיברים שבנו וחיותם הוא מרצונו, והתנועה הזאת היא נגד רצונו. 
אולם זאת היא מנפלאות תמים דעים לתת לנו כח לעשות נגד רצונו בכדי שתהיה לנו לצדקה כי נשמור לעשות כל אשר ציונו. 
וזהו שאמר "פתחת למוסרי". שאני אסור בעבותות רצונך לבלתי סור מהם ימין ושמאל מחמת שרצונך הוא כל חיות
וכוחות נפשי. ואתה פתחת מוסרות האלו ונתת לי כח לעשות נגד רצונך.  ועל כן אמר "לך אזבח זבח תודה ובשם ה' אקרא", שעל ענין זה אזבח זבח תודה, כי קרבן תודה הוא לשון הודאה, ואין ענין הודאה נופל אלא על מה שאדם יכול לכפור ומודה בו, כי רק זה נקרא הודאה, אבל מה שאינו יכול לכפור לא מיקרי הודאה כמבואר בחו"מ (סי' פ"ז) לענין מודה במקצת. ולזה אמר אחרי שפתחת למוסרי לעשות נגד רצונך לכן לא כן אנכי רק אזבח לך זבח תודה ובשם ה' אקרא, להודות כי הכל ממך עילת כל העילות וסיבת כל הסיבות)

1.  Great Unknown pointed out that in the Gemara in Sanhedrin, which is similar to the Tanchuma, the Gemara uses the double nun to mean that one who shechts his yetzer hara honors Hashem in both this world and the next; there, Rashi explains "todah" to mean "confession," like every viduy on an aveirah.
Rashi in Sanhedrin-
זובח את יצרו. לאחר שהסיתו לחטוא הוא זובחו והורגו ושב בתשובה ומתוודה עליו שני נוני"ן דריש לשני כבודים:
However, I said that the Tanchuma (like the Medrash Rabba) is very different than the Gemara in Sanhedrin.  (As you will see, it turns out that the difference between the Gemara and the Tanchuma is a big and widespread machlokes.)

2.  Eli told us that there are many sources that indicate that one who brings a korban Todah must say "vidui," though exactly what the viduy contains is unclear. (I believe that the organizing principle for Eli's mekoros is the machlokes that will become clear in a moment.)

Taanis 23, re: Chony Hame'agel. הביאו לי פר הודאה and Rashi says להתודות עליו (however, it seems from Rashi there that it was Shlamim, not Toda; see Gevuras Ari and Maharsha there). See also Mitzpe-Eytan there.

Rashi Iyov 33:27 -- יעשה שורות של אנשים כשניצול מחליו ויתודה ליוצרו

Rashi Divrey-Hayamim 2:33:16 "ויזבח עליו זבחי שלמים ותודה" - שהביא קרבן תודה והתוודה להקב"ה שהשיבו לירושלים ולמלכותו

Rashi Hulin 12 says that אשר כופר בהם refers to Shlamim. Same in Hulin 130 and Erchin 21. All say that even Shlamim has an aspect of Kapara, thus probably requiring Viduy (compare with Rambam Maase-Hakorbanot 3:15)

So, it seems Toda requires Viduy also. This could go either way: Viduy might just mean "to acknowledge", like in Viduy Maaser, which is a strange kind of Viduy, saying לא אשמתי, לא בגדתי. So the Viduy in Toda is just acknowledging the טובה coming from Hashem. Or we could say that there is an aspect of Kapara in Shlamim, and maybe in Toda too, unlike the the Tanchuma. At least be-derech drush one could argue that the two are not that far away: being thankful requires acknowledgement of not being worthy of what you got. That's why we say "הגומל לחייבים", not just out of Anava, but this is actually part of giving thanks.

Nafka-Mina to this drush is that the Viduy of תודה, even if we accpet it's a Viduy על חטא, does not require תשובה.

3.  I said that...
It is certainly clear in the context of the Modim in Shmoneh Esrei that the word means acknowledgment, just as 'appreciate' means to recognize and to be grateful. מודִים אֲנַחְנוּ לָךְ. שָׁאַתָּה הוּא ה, and then נודֶה לְּךָ וּנְסַפֵּר תְּהִלָּתֶךָ עַל חַיֵּינוּ הַמְּסוּרִים בְּיָדֶךָ. and וְעַל נִסֶּיךָ שֶׁבְּכָל יום עִמָּנוּ. And of course, the expression is to be "מכיר טוב," to recognize the good that was done for you.

I wonder, though, if someone recognizes that he got a valuable gift from someone, but doesn't feel or exhibit gratitude. He is technically מכיר טוב, but in the real sense, he is a כפוי טוב.

4. Then, great unknown said...

I rather thought that if i gave you enough time, you would back into the gemora in megilla: i.e., the limud that modim comes after avoda from zoveach todah. in fact, there rashi says: אחר זביחה תן הודאה

an extensive study of the connection between vidui and hoda'ah can be found in r mattis wienberg's patterns in time on chanukah, based primarily, iirc, on the sefas emes. i however do not have either available to me to verify that.


5.  Then I said...
I wish I thought of the Gemara in Megilla, on 18a. The Gemara is talking about the order of the brachos in Sh'moneh Esrei, and it goes like this:

וכיון שבאת עבודה באתה תודה שנאמר (תהילים נ) זובח תודה יכבדנני ומה ראו לומר ברכת כהנים אחר הודאה דכתיב (ויקרא ט) וישא אהרן את ידיו אל העם ויברכם וירד מעשות החטאת והעולה והשלמים אימא קודם עבודה לא ס"ד דכתיב וירד מעשות החטאת וגו' מי כתיב לעשות מעשות כתיב ולימרה אחר העבודה לא ס"ד דכתיב זובח תודה מאי חזית דסמכת אהאי סמוך אהאי מסתברא עבודה והודאה חדא מילתא היא

Rashi there:

זובח תודה. אחר זביחה תן הודאה: חדא מילתא היא. אף הודאה עבודה של מקום הוא
in other words, that Modim/Hoda'ah, is a twin of the avodas hakorbanos, they are basically the same thing, and so it should be right next to it, and only then do we say Birkas Kohanim.

6. I said....
Eli, I just read your comment more carefully. I agree. A sense of entitlement is incompatible with hakaras hatov. A craftsman is not makir tov for being paid for his work, and a malveh is not makir tov for being repaid. Actually, a malveh probably is.

As far as the issue of Choni Hame'agel's korban that Eli brought from the Gemara in Taanis 23a, Eli also brought the Gvuras Ari on that Gemara. Here's someone (Zivchei Efraim, a sefer on Zevachim,) who brings the whole Gevuras Ari and the Rambam:

He holds the Todah was a simple Todah, that Choni was saying "Ribono shel Olam, thank you for the fine rain You sent. We've had enough."

Reb Yosef Engel says the same thing in Rosh Hashanna 30a.

7.  Then, I remembered that R' Chaim Brown had written about a very similar matter some months ago at Divrei Chaim.  The bottom line of the discussion there is that there's a machlokes Bavli and Yerushalmi whether Mizmor LeSoda is about the Korban Todah or just about the concept of Vidui by other korbanos, or viduy in general.  He brought Yerushalim Shevuos 6b in the Vilna print that says it refers to the vidui of Korban Chatas, and he connected this Yerushalmi to a Magen Avraham in OC 51:10.  I brought the Bavli in Shevu'os 16b that it was sung when a person brought a personal Korban Todah.

8.  Then R' David Guttman of the Yediah blog brought the Yalkut Shimoni in Tehillim 100 that says that the word Todah means admission, and the Otzar Hatefillos on Modim that says that because Modim means 'admit,' that's why the next word is vocalized "sha'ata" (meaning 'that') instead of 'she'ata' (meaning 'because'.)  I think that even though the Abudraham clearly agrees with that, it's wrong anyway.

The Abudraham: says that you have to say modim yourself, you can't be yotzei with a shliach, because it's kabalas ol malchus shamayim, and KOMS can't be done with shlichus.  If it was thanks, it would have no connection with KOMS.  He must hold it's not Thanks, but rather acknowledgment.

But I think he's wrong.  It means Thanks.  My proof is from Sotah 40a, where it says Modim....ahl.  Ahl means 'for.'  Modim for....doesn't make sense if it means acknowledgment, but it makes sense if it means thank you for....

9.  I later saw that the pirush on the side of the Yerushalmi there, the Tzion vi'yerushalayim, in Shavu'os brings that this is indeed a machlokes what Mizmor LeSodah refers to, and he brings from a sefer Magen Giborim that it's a pervasive machlokes (Radak and Rashi in Tehillim, the Tur and the Beis Yosef in OC 281, and so on) whether it refers to the Korban Todah or the concept of Viduy, and the mefareish says Ha, he didn't remember this Yerushalmi.  But I say that he should have realized that the Tanchuma also says like the Bavli in Shavu'os, and he should have brought the Gemara in Sanhedrin that is like the Yerushalmi.

10.  I sent a letter to Eli, saying the following:
Although the introduction of prakim in Tehillim doesn't always have a lot to do with the content, here it says "de'u ki Hashem...."  I think it's a little unusual, the word "de'u."  But if Todah means acknowledgment, then "de'u" makes perfect sense.  Realize.  Don't live just out of habit.  Don't walk around without an awareness of what you owe and to whom you owe it.  Then the perek ends by saying "hodu lo," now that you remember who made you and what you owe him, you will naturally be grateful for what he's done for you.

11.  So: If you hold like the Yerushalmi in Shavuos and the Bavli in Sanhedrin, you can go ahead and say Mizmor Le'Sodah on Pesach.  According to them, it has nothing to do with the Korban Todah, it's just about the concept of Viduy.  It might be hard to agree with, but you can't argue with the Gemara.


And so that's the mussar haskeil of this piece.  Astonish your friends and neighbors, say Mizmor LeSodah aloud on Pesach, and tell people it's because you hold like the Yerushalmi in Shavuos and the Bavli in Sanhedrin, and that the Tanchuma has no halachic status.  It's wrong le'halacha, but it's no worse than saying "she'hotzi lechem min ha'aretz" (Brachos 38a).

12.  An interesting addition: when we make a birkas hagomel, we say "hagomel lechayavim tovos shegmalani kol tov."  After knowing the above, the odd insertion of lechayavim makes wonderful sense. Vidui and Hoda'ah.

13.  And here's the prize.  Thanks to Eli who noticed it right before the Tanchuma I brought down:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14123&st=&pgnum=291
Second to last line.

שאין תשובה לפני הקב״ת יותר מן הודייה


UPDATES NOVEMBER 2014.
14.  I have been told that Rav Hutner on Chanuka says that in Modim, the word Hoda'ah changes meaning.  מודים אנחנו לך, שאתה הוא  means admission, or declaration.  But נודה לך
 ונספר תהלתך means gratitude.  He says this is true throughout the words of tefilla- מודים שאתה means admission, and  נודה לך means thanks.  This would seem to apply to the Modeh Ani we say in the morning- that it means admission, not thanks.

15.  There's a great Medrash Rabba in Vayeitzei (71:5) that goes like this:
לאה תפסה פלך הודיה, ועמדו הימנה בעלי הודיה. 
יהודה (בראשית לח) ויכר יהודה ויאמר צדקה ממני. 
דוד אמר (תהלים קלח) הודו לה' כי טוב. 
דניאל אמר (דניאל ב) לך אלהא אבהתי מהודא ומשבח אנה. 
You see the Medrash is using the word in two entirely different ways- acknowledgment and gratitude!


I'm not sure how this fits in, but I have to have it here:
 ויקרא רבה · כז · יב
יב "וכי תזבחו זבח תודה לה'" ר' פנחס ור' לוי ור' יוחנן בשם ר' מנחם דגליא לעתיד לבא כל הקרבנות בטלין וקרבן תודה אינה בטלה לעולם כל ההודיות בטלין והודיות תודה אינה בטלה לעולם הה"ד (ירמיה לג, יא): "קול ששון וקול שמחה קול חתן וקול כלה קול אומרים הודו את ה' צבאות כי טוב" אלו ההודיות "מביאים תודה בית ה'" זה קרבן תודה וכן אמר דוד (תהלים נו, יג) "עלי אלהים נדריך אשלם תודות לך" תודה אינו אומר אלא תודות ההודיה וקרבן תודה.

and a Medrash Tadshei
מדרש תדשא:
שלשה מינין יש בזבחים, שלמי תודה, נדבה, נדר, ונקרבין על ג' דברים, על לשעבר, ועל דבר העומד ועל שעתיד לבא. זבח תודה נקרב על הודיית עסק טוב שכבר בא עליו, לכן נקרא שמו תודה, שהוא מהלל ומודה ומברך את המקום על הטובות שקיבל הימנו, וקרבן תודה חביב לפני המקום, שנאמר (תהלים נ') זובח תודה יכבדנני, לפיכך אתה מוצא אותה מלאה מכל דבר בסעודה מלאה, כל מאכל יש בקרבן התודה, חלות, חלת לחם חמץ, לחם מצה, יש בה שמן ויש בה רקיקין ועוד. (פרק יט)
which is similar to the M Rabba in Vayikra 9:7,
ר' פנחס ור' לוי ור' יוחנן בשם ר' מנחם דגליא, לעתיד לבא כל הקרבנות בטלין וקרבן תודה אינו בטל, כל התפילות בטלות, ההודאה אינה בטלה, הדא דכתיב (ירמיה ל"ג) קול ששון וקול שמחה קול חתן וקול כלה קול אומרים הודו את ה' צבאות וגו' זו הודאה, מביאים תודה בית ה' זה קרבן תודה

Monday, March 15, 2010

Vayikra 1:2. Adam ki yakriv mikem korban. Areivus- The Nation as an Organism.



אָדָם כִּי יַקְרִיב מִכֶּם קָרְבָּן
"If a man among you will bring a korban."

This passuk starts with in the singular-Adam- and ends with a reference to the plural- mikem. The medrash here (4:6) talks about mutual responsibility and group identity of the nation.
תני חזקיה (ירמיה נ) 'שה פזורה ישראל' נמשלו ישראל לשה. מה שה הזה לוקה על ראשו או בא' מאבריו וכל אבריו מרגישין. כך הן ישראל אחד מהן חוטא וכולן מרגישין. (במדבר טז) האיש אחד יחטא תני רשב"י משל לבני אדם שהיו יושבין בספינה נטל אחד מהן מקדח והתחיל קודח תחתיו. אמרו לו חבריו מה אתה יושב ועושה? אמר להם מה אכפת לכם? לא תחתי אני קודח? אמרו לו, שהמים עולין ומציפין עלינו את הספינה! כך אמר איוב (איוב יט) ואף אמנם שגיתי אתי תלין משוגתי. אמרו לו חביריו (שם לד) כי יוסף על חטאתו פשע בינינו יספוק אתה מספיק בינינו את עונותיך

A person on a boat takes an chisel and begins gouging a hole in the floor of his cabin. Everyone screams at him to stop, and he answers, “What business is it of yours?  I'm making the hole in my own cabin.” The passuk here is telling us that a man’s behavior is “mikem”, he is a part of the organic whole of the nation. His sin affects the community as a whole, by coarsening and polluting the entire world. When he does teshuva and brings a korban, he elevates and benefits the entire briyah.

Same idea— Sanhedrin 27, going on the passuk in Vayikra 26 “vekashlu ish b’achiv,” that “ish b’avon achiv, shekulan areivin zeh bazeh.”  This is one of the places that Chazal say "Kol Yisrael areivin zeh Bazeh," usually quoted as "Kol Yisrael areivin zeh lazeh."  We are responsible for each other, and we answer for each others' behavior.

One of the practical ramifications of this concept is this: Sometimes, a person can fulfill a mitzva through an agent.  Example- blowing the shofar or reading the megilla.  However, the agent needs to be obligated to do the mitzva as well.  A woman cannot blow the shofar for men, because women are, technically, not obligated to blow the shofar.  If so, can a person who has already fulfilled a mitzva do it as an agent for someone else?  And can he make a bracha when doing so, because the words of the bracha are "asher kidshanu be'mitzvosav ve'tzivanu," who has obligated us to do this mitzvah," and the agent is no longer obligated.  But because of the rule of Arvus/Areivus, the agent is considered to have a current "obligation" to do the mitzvah: the obligation to see to it that others fulfill it.  Thus, not only can he be an agent on behalf of the others, he can even say "vetzivanu", because he is still obligated.  As long as the others haven't done the mitzva, I haven't fulfilled the mitzva.

The word Areivin and the idea of Arvus has often been associated with the rules of a guarantor or a co-signer on a loan, also called an Areiv.

The sefer Shearim Metzuyanim Behalacha brings from the Siach Yitzchak the following: The opinion of the Bahag is that if you already fulfilled a mitzvah, you can't be motzi someone if the person knows how to make a bracha himself.  This Sefer explains the reasoning of the Bahag like this: there's no din arvus where the loveh can pay himself.  The guarantor of a loan is not liable unless the debtor cannot or refuses to pay.  Here too: if the other person is willing and able to make the bracha, you have no arvus at all.


I assume the Siach Yitzchak he brings is the pirush in the Siddur Hagra from Rav Yitzchak Maltzan, who was a well known talmid chacham and posek and mechaber of several sefarim, and who am I to disagree, but I beg to differ.  I think he is wrong for several reasons:

1. The bahag is talking about the bracha, not the mitzvah. If he can't do the mitzva himself, then you have arvus on the mitzvah, and once you're an arev on the mitzvah, you can make the bracha even if the guy could make the bracha himself.

2. See the sefer Mishulchan Gavoah in Nitzavim that brings that Reb Chaim explains the difference between areiv (guarantor) and kablan (co-signer); An areiv is only responsible for results of loveh's default; it is not a liability for the loan, it is a promise to pay that only comes into being when triggered by the debtor's default.  A Kablan, on the other hand, is responsible for the loan itself. Since you can use arvus to make a bracha for other person, Reb Chaim says it must be that the arvus of mitzvos is really kablanus. Reb Boruch Ber says this explains the Gemara in Shabbos that when Klal Yisrael is punished for failure to be mekayeim mitzvos, the tzadikim are punished first. Why? As areivim, they should not be first. Answer- they're not just areivim, they're kablanim.

So according to Reb Chaim, the pshat in Bahag is wrong, because if we're kablanim, our obligation exists even where the principal is capable of fulfilling his obligation.

On the other hand, it could be that this is gufa the machlokes: Because R' Akiva Eiger there brings from Pri Chadash that we don't hold like the Bahag. What's the machlokes?  Maybe the Bahag holds we have a din Areiv, and the Pri Chadash holds we have a din Kablan.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

What does נישואין (Nisu'in) mean?

I spoke at a Sheva Brachos yesterday, and one of the things I talked about is the word "Nisu'in."  נישואין means marriage; it is the second stage of the Eirusin and Nisu'in marriage process, and it finalizes the marriage.  I want to know the meaning of the word itself.

I mentioned this question at the table Friday night, and Someone answered that it means "to become burdened," from רחיים בצווארו, a millstone around the neck, an idiomatic expression used in the Gemara to refer to the responsibilities of marriage.  This Person meant that נישואין/marriage is like שאת וספחת  by Metzora, two types of skin growths that symptomize Leprosy.  I asked This Person which of the parties is thus burdened, and she answered "The one who was chased."  Very funny, but I don't think that's the only answer, at least I hope not, and it's certainly not something you want to hear from one of your parents.  (Full disclosure: see Yevamos 63b:  אשה רעה צרעת לבעלה מאי תקנתיה יגרשנה ויתרפא מצרעתו)

אירושין, which is spelled ארוסין in the literature, Eirusin, is easier.  It's pretty obvious that Eirusin comes from the same shoresh as ארשת  שפתיו, which means speech or words; so, eirusin means to give your word, to agree or to pledge to marry.  The agreement is made binding through the kinyan, and the woman becomes prohibited to all other men, but the essence is the promise.  The word is identical with the English 'Troth,' which means to promise or to pledge.  Eirusin=betrothal.  Simple.  But what does Nesuin mean?  If you'll look around on the web, you'll see hundreds of people that say it means 'elevation.'  If anything, that's a raya that it doesn't mean that.  One clown makes an assertion, puts it on a website, and every lazy ignoramus assumes it's correct.  For a drasha, it's ok-- כל אדם שאין לו אשה שרוי בלא שמחה בלא ברכה בלא טובה... במערבא אמרי בלא תורה"—“ (Yevamos 62b.)  Or maybe it means the elevation of simcha.  But for pshat, I highly doubt it.


In any case, the question is particularly timely, because in the three parshios, Ki Sisa, Vayakhel, and Pikudei, we find the word used remarkably often, and in many different ways--
כִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר נָדְבָה רוּחוֹ אֹתוֹ, 
 וְאֶל כָּל אִישׁ חֲכַם לֵב אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה'  חָכְמָה בְּלִבּוֹ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ לְקָרְבָה אֶל הַמְּלָאכָה לַעֲשֹׂת אֹתָהּ,
אשר נשא לבן אותנה בחכמה, 
 נֹשֵׂא עָו‍ֹן וָפֶשַׁע וְחַטָּאָה,
 אַהֲרֹן וְכָל הַנְּשִׂאִים בָּעֵדָה
and many, many, more.

Please note that in musaf of Yom Tov, we also says "והשיאנו ה' אלוקינו את ברכת מועדיך." And there's  
וַיִּשָּׂא מַשְׂאֹת מֵאֵת פָּנָיו אֲלֵהֶם וַתֵּרֶב מַשְׂאַת בִּנְיָמִן מִמַּשְׂאֹת כֻּלָּם where it means a gift,
and ישא מדברותיו,
and  הֲלוֹא אִם תֵּיטִיב שְׂאֵת
and שאת וספחת
and others.  So, please tell me what you think it means in the context of getting married.  And please, I already did the drushy thing (Marriage is a gift  (מַשְׂאַת) from the Chasan to the Kalah, and from the Kalah to the Chasan, and from Hashem to both of them; Marriage is an opportunity to elevate (כִּי תִשָּׂא) yourself by learning to love another person more than yourself; Marriage is when you take on responsibility for a family; Marriage is when you have to listen to your heart (נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ) as well as your mind;  חתן דומה למלך and the word נישואין comes from נְּשִׂאִים because the Chasan and Kallah become a king and a queen (נְּשִׂאִים), and so on).  I'm looking for something rational.

In a salute to ingenuity, and since it's still Adar, let me point out that Devora in the comments suggested that nisuin is related to  נסיון, nisayon, a test.  Every marriage is a test. Rabbi Dr. SMS suggested in a conversation that Eirusin is related to ארס, eres, poison.  Also, see great unknown's law- "The Conservation of  Golomus" based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin.  These are people who, when I ask why we learn the dinim of kidushin from the dinim of buying a plot of land for a grave, don't understand what the kashe is.

AFTER THE UPDATES, YOU WILL FIND AN CONCISE VERSION OF THE COMMENTS THAT CAME IN ON THIS TOPIC.  I ATTEMPTED TO EDIT THEM FOR LOGICAL FLOW.  THESE COMMENTS ARE HEREWITH MADE A PART OF THIS POST, AND WILL IMPROVE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE TWO UPDATES THAT PRECEDE THE EDITED COMMENTS.

UPDATE:
1.  Eli points out that the roots with the shin smalis and the shin yemanis have completely different meanings, so it's not likely that nisu'in would be pronounced with a smalis if it came from Nasha; it is more likely that the Midrash is homiletics, not etymology.

2.  More comments that came in on the topic (though I would prefer getting them in the comment section, I am happy to hear from you through any media):
a.  The Gemara in Sanhedrin 31b uses the root to mean "compel."
השיאוהו ויראה פנינו בטבריא. הכריחוהו והזקיקוהו לבוא כאן

b.  A connection to the expression "נושא בעול עם חבירו", which means to accept their burdens and duties as if they were your own.

UPDATE:
LKWD GUY sent me a little note, to look at Rashi Sotah top of 9b.  What do you know! Another Rashi I forgot!  (And thank you Eli, for twisting the knife by pointing out that Rashi says exactly the same thing on top of Shabbos 146a.  I wonder what life would be like if I had a good memory.)
נחש הקדמוני נתן עיניו בחוה ובא עליה. והיינו דכתיב (בראשית ג) הנחש השיאני- לשון תשמיש ונשואין הוא

Now that we decided that Nisuin means "taking on," here we have a Rashi that throws the entire discussion up in the air again.  I could, of course, argue that Rashi is not referring to the denotation of the word "nisu'in" but instead to its connotation, but I need a while to convince myself that this might be true.  (writing a year later, I've decided that Rashi is purely Drush, it's homiletic and not interpretive.  But it's interesting that Rashi relates the word Hishi'ani to Nisu'in, since Hishi'ani primarily means deluded me, and so I suppose Nisu'in means delusion.  But that's just drush, right?  We all go into marriage with an completely accurate knowledge of whom we're marrying, right?)

LATER UPDATE:
I learned of a Tiferes Yisrael in Yevamos 7th perek comment #7 who asks this question, and, in Drush mode, suggests many of the answers that appear here, including some that I made fun of, and additional explanations as well. 

בת ישראל שניסת
[נ"ל לפעמים נקט שנשאת ופעמים שניסת, ע"ש ב' בחינות שבאשה, לעזר וכנגדו, בזמן שהיא לו לעזר. היא לו כמתנה, כמו וישא משאות מאת פניו, ובזמן שכנגדו היא לו לנסיון, או איפכא בזמן שלעזר היא כנס מתנוסס לבעלה, ואם לאו, היא כמשא עליו. או נ"ל דנישאת הוא ע"ש לא תשא שם ד"א לשוא, ובל"א "אנגעשווארען ווארדען", כמ"ד כי ה' העיד בינך ובין אשת נעוריך, וניסת הוא לשון למען ענותך לנסותך, שגם היא מורגלת ע"י הנשואין בדברים קשים, והם אעפ"כ להיטיב באחרית, כדכתיב הרבה ארבה עצבונך. ואח"כ תגל האם בפרי בטנה]:

AND here are the edited comments.

Eli said...
First it should be noticed that נישואין is not symmetric (grammatically), it's the man who is נושא and the woman נשאת, so the answer to your query to That Person is self-evident.  נשא in Tanach can mean many things, but the four common meanings are (a) to carry (b) to take (or, better translated, get hold on something) and, (probably derived from (a) and (b)), (c) to suffer (d) to forgive. As much as (c) and (d) might seem relevant, I guess the meaning here is (b). Just recall that the alternative form in Tanach to לשאת אשה is לקחת אשה.
Barzilai said...
You know, Eli, I thought about nisuin as 'taking', but I thought it was odd that we distinguish between the two steps of marriage by calling one eirusin and the second nisuin, while in Chumash, ki yikach refers to eirusin. It's odd that likuchin and nisuin are different forms of the same word. Unless the "taking" of nisuin is more firm or permanent that the "taking" of likuchin. But then there's the shitta of Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon (brought in Tosfos Kiddushin 10 d'h Kol) that the word kicha (which we use for a gzeirah shavah to learn ha'ara'ah from arayos) refers to NISUIN, not EIRUSIN. That would make life easier. But, as Tosfos says there, Rabbeinu Nissim is very shver, because in all of Shas Kicha kicha from Sdei Efron means Kiddushin, not Nisuin. Still, I agree with you. It's like כאשר ישא האומן את היונק. You are taking someone to yourself, not just 'taking,' but committing yourself to follow through with full dedication. 
 
lesser unknown said...
i would argue/comment that eli left out the common meaning of the root of the word nissuin of "to elevate or to lift". and that to lift something includes the meanings of both to carry and to take. granted this is a bit of a semantical distinction, but i feel entitled considering the whole context here. In regard to the difference between kiddushin and nissuin, i was grappling with this a few months ago, as my yeshiva is currently learning kesuvos. Where I left off, is that kiddushin is not so much taking her to you as much as removing her from others, where nissuin is the actual taking of her to you as one entity/partnership.
 
Barzilai said...
I think Eli's (a), to carry, is close to your elevate. As for the difference between eirusin and nisu'in, I always explain that an arusa is an eishes ish for the whole world except for the chassan. This is like buying an option on a property; you don't own it yet, but nobody else can buy it. I will be happy to hear what you have in the Rambam.   (I like lesser unknown's approach of Likuchin being taking in the sense of taking away, and Nisu'in also being taking in the sense of taking for yourself.)
Chaim B. said...
On the Rambam's definition of nesu'in: http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2007/11/rambams-definition-of-marriage-yichud.html http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2007/11/rambams-definition-of-nesuin.html "an arusa is an eishes ish for the whole world except for the chassan" Achilas terumah? Get? But of course you will just tell me any halacha I conjure up stems from the idea of having an option, not from real ishus status.
Barzilai said...
Chaim, I like the posts from 2007, that even the Rambam will agree that chupa lipsulos shafs a greater degree of ishus than just eirusin, but it's not mattir bi'ah. I suppose that this can be true specifically according to the Rambam that even if she's meyuchedes to one man, like a pilegesh, it's still znus and an issur de'oraysa. So, having said that, you yourself are agreeing that ishus is incremental-- even ishus of nisuin. So what's wrong with saying that she's an eishes ish to the whole world but not to the husband? As far as hetter bi'ah, she's not muttar to her husband, but as far as ishus regarding other people, that degree of ishus is there. Of course it's not just an "option to buy." The kinyan of eirusin does create some madreiga of ishus. But as far as "eishes ish," she's not his eishes ish. For other people, she's an eishes ish and chayav missas beis din for znus. By the way, you know that the Rogotchover holds that every married woman is assur midin eishes ish even to her husband, except for the din hutrah for her husband. That's whats missing in an arusa- the hutra.
lesser unknown said...
First a correction from my earlier post. The Rambam, in 10:1, says that nisuin is "bringing her to your home, yichud, and yafreshena lo". I remember having trouble with what exactly those last two words meant. I was remembering incorrectly that they were a part of kiddushin, which is what I was referring to before, but clearly I was wrong. Which still leaves me with a question as to what he means by this... Now to comment on other points: I don't understand exactly what you mean by your option plan. Are you implying that there is no marital connection between them, even in regard to themselves? On a d'oraysa level they are allowed to have biah before nissuin. The Rambam (in the previously mentioned halacha) mentions that it is only an issur soferim with malkos mardus. In addition in yehuda, he couldn't claim ta'anus besulim since they regularly were misyachaid in her father's house and likely had biah already. Which is hard to hear if it was an issur d'oraysa, or even a lack of any ishus d'oraysa between them. And while I wouldn't ask from trumah or get like Chaim did, since an eved can also have trumah and needs a get, alternatively, after erusin she falls under the category of kinyan kaspo for trumah and a get is needed to matir her to others even if she isn't really an eishes ish for him. But the fact that he can be matir her n'darim or become tameh to her if he is a cohen might be better examples that show a real relationship. I don't remember seeing it, but if he is pasul as a witness after kiddushin, that would also show an intrinsic connection, more than just a bought future option... I didn't click the link that chaim posted, it is after midnight here, but from the end of 10:6 in the Rambam it seems clear he holds that chuppah with a niddah is better than nothing, and creates a level higher than erusin. I apologize if I'm just repeating what is already stated in the other link. Lastly, I would point out again that I do not think there is an intrinsic issur to be with ones erusa, but rather erusin would technically permit biah, but chazal imposed an external prohibition on them. I would appreciate (and not be surprised) if you can prove me wrong on this point.
lesser unknown said...
I forgot to mention in my last comment that the aruch ha'shulchan has a novel understanding of the Rambam, which removes the need to say that there are multiple degrees of nissuin. It is in even ha'ezer 61:4 (and also in sif 5 he further explains it)
Eli said...
Thank you, LU, elevate too. I also think my "suffer" should better be translated "burden" or something similar, as in ונשא עוונו. Yet, the relevant one for the present is "get". Re: RNG, it's actually the Tosfos that is shver. It's clear that in Tanach קיחה means the whole process of marriage, if not just Nissu'in: (a) we find Kicha before Matan-Torah, so it must be just מכניסה לביתו, the first instance I believe is ויקחו להם נשים מכל אשר בחרו, and many others follow. (b) The pasuk clearly says מי האיש אשר ארש אשה ולא לקחה. As for understanding Tosfos, I guess what he means is not that the word Kicha in Tanach cannot mean Nissuin, but just that the *גזרה שוה* of Kicha does not refer to Nissuin.
Barzilai said...
LU, let me apologize for a possible misconception. I edited the post to say that the line so often repeated on the net about nisuin meaning elevation, and characterizing it as something a clown would say before you brought it up. Of course, you also didn't mean to say that's pshat in nisuin. Chaim B. did discuss exactly what you said, that even according to the Rambam, chupas niddah creates more ishus than eirusin. When I used the 'option' comparison, it was not meant as a perfect model. It's more like an option with a letter of intent. In the context of marriage, this creates a relationship such that she is considered to be a member of his household, a wife-in-waiting. Eli, nice that you pointed out מי האיש אשר ארש אשה ולא לקחה. I'm convinced that you're right about nisuin being another form of likuchin, a stronger form, meaning more commitment. Forgive the mashal hedyot, but there's a famous line that speaks to the distinction: “The difference between involvement and commitment is like ham and eggs. The chicken is involved; the pig is committed.”
great unknown said...
עי' טעם המלך ס"ק י"ד משכ' על החופת חתנים פרק י' בשער המלך דחופה אין לה מקור מן התורה. וכמובן היו אלה שלא בדיוק הסכימו - וכלשון הברוך טעם" שקר ענה in any case the gemora sanhedrin 22b says that a woman is a golem until she gets married; the marriage corrects that. however, note that there is conservation of golemkeit. guess whom marriage converts into a golem.
Barzilai said...
That's strange. Bishlema you say that there are many alternative definitions of chupa, that's one thing. But this is something else entirely. Unless he means the canopy thingy. That I can hear. It would be nice to see someone that says that it's chukos ha'amim.
lesser unknown said...
gu: 1) I am assuming that you are kidding, but unfortunately since sarcasm/witty humor does not convey well through blog comments, in case you are being serious, I would argue that the gemara in sanhedrin you quoted is not at all referring to marriage itself, but rather the biah rishona, as evident by a) the pasuk the gemara brings down as a proof b) the maharsha on this gemara and c) the tosefos in kesuvos 4a that brings down this gemara as the reason that biah rishona is called bias mitzvah. 2) I thought it was before marriage, during courtship and engagement, that a man turns into a mindless fool. After marriage (or maybe at least after shana rishona) he begins to get some of his chochma back. although, maybe I am just in denial... The simplest translation is to take, as he is taking her to him as a wife. But at the same time, why is the root word of nasah being used instead of just the root of kicha? Because there is some form of elevation, at least potentially, going on here. Similar to a nasi, that doesn't become elevated by being a leader and doesn't elevate others by becoming a leader, there is intrinsic potential in this relationship for elevation. By fulfilling the role and responsibilities entailed the nasi becomes a better person that he could have been without the yolk of the masses upon him, etc... same as with marriage. there is great potential for growth because of the marriage that was not there when both are single. Especially considering that his Toarh isn't complete, his happiness isn't complete etc. as the gemara in yevamos (I think) says.
Barzilai said...
You know, I kind of agree that certain words become popular because of an inherent duality of meaning. It is possible that Nisuin was chosen because of its additional connotations, though I'm pretty convinced that its fundamental meaning is "taking," as Eli illustrated.
great unknown said...
the meaning of the word golem is basically unformed raw material. the wife is formed by the commitment of marriage (and hence is elevated into usefulness [i.e., kli status]), whereupon she immediately (if not sooner) proceeds to re-form the suddenly raw critter she just married. although as a great neo-platonic philosopher once said: the three most important words in a marriage are not, "I love you," but rather, "he'll never change." I think her name was broomhilda.
lesser unknown said...
GU: How would you fit that idea of her elevation due to her commitment to marriage into the pasuk the gemara quotes "ki BOALAYICH osayich"? And to the tosefos in kesuvos 4a which uses this gemara in sanhedrin to explain why biah rishona is called b'elas mitzvah and the maharsha on this gemara in sanhedrin which (if I remember correctly) clearly explains her golem/unfinished status referring to her inability to conceive while a besulah?
lesser unknown said...
I quickly scanned through both the Toras Moshe and the Chasam Sofer on Chumash in the beginning of Miketz and in Vayichi, and I cant find the point you are trying to make. Can you give me a hint?
LkwdGuy said...
See Sotah 9b first rashi.
Barzilai said...
lkwdguy, I see. This needs to be in the post gufa, and that's where I put it. See the end of the post. Yasher koach for your laconic comment.
Eli said...
My appreciation to LkwdGuy's impressive Bekiuss notwithstanding, it should be noted that הנחש השיאני is with right-Shin while נישואין is left-Shin (i.e. sin). While pronunciation of both might be similar, depending on your family tradition, they belong to completely separate roots. נשא with a right-Shin means to seduce/incite, as in זדון לבך השיאך or השא השאת לעם הזה etc. Obviously not all occurrences of this root can be related to נישואין. Thus, it seems the midrash brought in Rashi Sotah (and Shabbos 146a too, also first in Daf(!))is a midrash based on the similarity in written form of both words, but should not be taken as an interpretation of the word נישואין itself.
Barzilai said...
Metzudas Tzion on Yeshaiya 9:4 explains 'sa'on' to mean the same as 'sha'on,' and again in Yeshaiya 10:13 saying that 'shoshati' means the same as shosati'. Besides Rav Hirsch's use of this tool, I believe that many rishonim use it as well. Though it could be that davka Yeshaiya was a Litvak from Shevet Efraim.
Eli said...
actually Yeshaiya 10:13 *says* Shosati (with Sin), but 9:4 is a case in point. Yet, as we find across Tanach more than ten places where נשא with Shin means one thing, completely different than the many meanings of נשא with Sin, I think it's unlikely to merge them together.
Barzilai said...
There are times, though, when you have to be careful to use the right letter. I remember thinking about the pitfalls of being a Litvak one Rosh Hashanna. ותגער בשטן לבל ישטינני

Monday, March 8, 2010

Vayakhel Pekudei. Reification and Incorporeality


In my discussion of the breaking of the Luchos, I used what Linguists call Hypostatization, or The Reification Fallacy.  Briefly, these terms refer to the human tendency to ascribe physical reality, or personality, to concepts or spiritual beliefs; viewing the abstract as if it were concrete.  This can range from the benign conceptualization, such as "Lady Liberty," or "Lady Luck," to straightforward Avoda Zara.  I applied the idea, lehavdil, to the letters of the Luchos.  When the Luchos were broken, the letters were said to be flying in the air.  There were no letters; the engraved stone surrounded and defined empty spaces in the shapes of letters, not physical letters.  Nonetheless, the letters assumed a reality such that even after the Luchos were broken, they floated in the air.  I just came across a Gemara/Rashi that mentions this point, in Sanhedrin 26b: 
דבר אחר תושיה דברים של תוהו שהעולם משותת עליהם
 Rashi:

דברים של תוהו. דיבור וקרייה בעלמא. וכל דיבור אין בו גשישה ממש, כתוהו הזה, ואעפ״כ עולם משותת עליהם. ונוטריקון הוא תי״ו תוהו שייה משותת:
This week, I want to tell you about an irony involving this concept.

We Jews, starting with Avraham Avinu, were the first to grasp that  G-d is incorporeal.  The idea that the Creator of the universe, the Source of all reality, is intangible and incorporeal, was a great leap forward in mankind's spiritual evolution.  Even now, and even among the Jews, many find such an ethereal notion challenging, and prefer an anthropomorphic visualization.  Indeed, nevi'im were often shown visions of a human form, which seems to have been necessary to enable them to experience a 'conversation.'  (This is found, of many such examples, in Tosfos Yeshanim in Yoma 39b Nichnas Imi, from the Yerushalmi.)  Still, no one (cf comments below) can dispute the assertion that we absolutely reject, we abhor, the natural mental propensity and emotional preference to attribute form to Hashem.  As the Rambam (3 Teshuva 7) says,
חמשה הן הנקראים מינים... האומר שיש שם רבון אחד אבל שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה.... הוא מין
and see, on this topic, the Or Zarua in Krias Shma #7. 

It seems to me that hypostatization, which attributes physical form to the abstract, is incompatible (or, at least, incongruous) with the philosophical approach of the doctrine of incorporeality.  In that light, it is ironic to find instances of hypostatization in our Mesorah.   For example, the famous Menoras Hamaor, quoting a Medrash Tanchuma that he saw:


בספר מנורת המאור (ה״ב סוף פ״ה נר גי כלל הי) מביא מעשה נורא בשם המדרש תנחומא, וז״ל: מעשה
בחסיד אחד שהיה מתיחד במקום אחד והיה למד בו במסכת חגיגה, והיה מהפך בה ומהדרה כמה
פעמים, עד שלמד אותה היטב והיתה שגורה בפיו ולא היה יודע מסכתא אחרת מן התלמוד והיה שוגה בה כל
ימיו. כיון שנפטר מן העולם, היה בביתו לבדו ולא היה שום אדם יודע פטירתו. באה דמות אשה אחת ועמדה
לפניו והרימה קולה בבכי ומספד ותרבה אנחתה וצעקתה, עד אשר נתקבצו ההמון ותאמר להם, ספדו לחסיד
הזה וקברוהו וכבדו את ארונו ותזכו לחיי העולם הבא, שזה כבדני כל ימיו ולא הייתי עזובה ולא שכוחה. מיד
נתקבצו כל הנשים וישבו עמה ועשו עליו מספד גדול ועצום והאנשים התעסקו בתכריכיו וכל צרכי קבורתו
וקברו אותו בכבוד גדול. ואותה אשה בוכה וצועקת. אמרו לה, מה שמך, אמרה להם, חגיגה שמי. כיון שנקבר
אותו חסיד נעלמה אותה האשה מן העין. מיד ידעו שמסכת חגיגה היתה, שנראית להם בצורת אשה ובאה
בשעת פטירתו לספד לו ולבכותו ולקברו בכבוד, על שהיה שונה אותה תמיד ושוקד ללמד בה. והלא דברים
קל וחומר, ומה חסיד זה שלא למד אלא מסכתא אחת בלבד, כך, הלומד תורה הרבה ומלמדה לאחרים
ומעמיד תלמידים הרבה על אחת כמה וכמה.

There was once a pious man who was secluded in a certain area and he studied Maseches Chagiga. He would study the Maseches over and over, until he learned it so well and he was so familiar with the Maseches. He did not know any other Maseches in the Talmud, and he would only study Maseches Chagiga. When he departed the world, he was alone and there was no one who knew of his passing. The apparition of a woman arrived and stood before him, and she raised her voice in wailing and eulogy. She moaned and cried so loud until a crowd gathered. She then told the people who had gathered, “Eulogize this pious man and bury him and show honor to his coffin and you will all merit the World to Come. The reason I ask you to do this is because he honored me his entire life and I was not forsaken and forgotten.” Immediately all the women came and sat with her and they made a great eulogy and the men took care of the deceased’s shrouds and all of his burial needs. They then buried him with great honor and the woman was wailing and crying. The people asked her, “What is your name?” She responded, “My name is Chagiga.” Subsequent to the man’s burial, the woman disappeared from view. Immediately the people understood that she was really Maseches Chagiga, who appeared in the image of a woman. She had appeared at the time of the man’s death so that he would be eulogized and cried over, and that he would receive an honorable burial. This was all due to the fact that he had constantly studied Maseches Chagiga and was diligent in studying it.

(This Menoras Hamaor is also brought down in the Chafetz Chaim's Ma’amar Toras haBayis chapter 6 in the footnote.)

We are giving human form to a masechta! And remember Brachos 47b, where there is a suggestion that two talmidei chachamim that vigorously discuss the halacha are counted as three for bentching- because their Torah counts as one towards the mezuman- אמר רבי אמי שנים ושבת מצטרפין אמר ליה רב נחמן ושבת גברא הוא אלא אמר רבי אמי שני תלמידי חכמים המחדדין זה את זה בהלכה מצטרפין 

And this is not an isolated case.  Think about Shabbos: The Medrash in Breishis perek 11, echoed in Sanhedrin 58, says that Shabbos came before Hashem and said, "Every day of the week has a spouse, a pair, but I am the odd day, and I have no pair!  Hashem answered, Knesses Yisrael is your Ben Zug, as the passuk says, Zachor es Yom Hashabbos leKadsho (kiddushin)."  This idea is reflected in the Maharsha in Bava Kamma 32b, where he says that our Kiddush on Shabbos is like the Kiddushin of a Kallah (also in Nachlas Binyamin Mitzvah 31, who says that we say kiddush on a kos yayin, because it's like Birkas Eirusin.  Funny thing is that the Ritva in Kesuvos 8a that says we make Birkas Eirusin on a kos yayin because it's like kiddush on Shabbos.  You can't have it both ways, people!.)  Every week, we turn and greet Shabbos as if it were a queen, as if it were our bride.  It's not; it's a day of the week.  But we give it form and identity and personality.  We reify it, we hypostatisize it.

Also regarding Shabbos- the Hafla'ah in his pirush on Chumash, the Panim Yafos, brings the Mechilta in Ki Sisa 31:16 that says two things.
רבי אלעזר בן פרטא אומר כל המשמר את השבת כאלו עשה השבת שנאמר לעשות את השבת
and "ne'esah shutaf im HKB"H be'ma'aseh Breishis."  And he brings Rashi in Breishis that after the first six days, the world was lacking menuchah, so HKB"H created Shabbos.  He says that from these places, you see that refraining from doing melacha on Shabbos is a ma'aseh asiyah, not a shlili.

There are many more examples.  Let's see what turns up this week.

In the first comment, Reb Micha Berger said:
...R' Yosef Caro's Maggid was an embodiment of the Mishnayos. Not the soul of their author, a mal'ach formed of the book itself.

Micha's remark made me realize that the Rambam says that a malach is no more than Hashem's will given form, a condensation of the shlichus of Hashem.  That being said, it's similar to the Chazal that when we come to the final judgment, our mitzvos and aveiros will not just be listed; the mitzvos and aveiros themselves will come and testify.  Anything that has a shlichus, anything that has a tafkid, can be said to have a independent existence, an it-ness or a thing-ness. 
If you have a better word than it-ness, I solicit your suggestions.

Please note: the comments are more interesting than the post.  That's what I'm here for, to start fights.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

How Chad Gadya Should Be Sung

It's getting ready for Pesach time, and in the name of cultural diffusion, here are some suggestions for Chad Gadya.



Or (kol isha)




There are certain verses for which the sound effects require some planning.
In my house, individuals specialize; I have the first verse, ostensibly because I'm Abba, but also because I do the gadya so well.
Bah.

Here is Moishe Oysher's version. No animal sounds, and some silly graphics, but it does have the Barry Sisters. Seems to work better on the higher resolution, so click on that to get it to work.


A Moyshe Oysher cover, without sisters:



And here's one that might be new to Ashkenazim.

Here is an Arabic version.

and a Tunisian version