A Story about Reb Moshe

I was in Staten Island this week, and heard the following story from Rabbi Yosef Asher Weiss, Reb Reuven Feinstein's son in law.

Rabbi Weiss's brother, Rabbi Moshe Meir, was always close to Reb Moshe as a bachur in Staten Island.  When he was seventeen, he was in the Rosh Yeshiva's office when a package from Russia arrived.  The package was festooned with postage stamps and stickers and customs marks.  It contained the pirush on Yerushalmi Dmai that Reb Moshe had written.   Reb Moshe had written pirushim on much of the Yerushalmi, and all his writings were lost in Russia.  Miraculously, someone found his pirush on Maseches Dmai, and traced its author, and had sent it to Reb Moshe.  Reb Moshe opened the package and lovingly opened his notebook, reading what he had written with great joy.

Moshe Meir was thinking about what it means to write on the Yerushalmi, and he asked, "Did the Rosh Yeshiva write only on the Masechtos that don't exist in Bavli?  Reb Moshe smiled and said, "You are seventeen.  When I was your age, I had already finished my pirush on Yerushalmi Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia, and Bava Basra."

When Yosef Asher told me this story, it reminded me of a similar incident I experienced.  In the summers, I used to spend some time with Reb Moshe.  I remember discussing with him several teshuvos he was in middle of writing, particularly one on כל דפריש בדבר שיש לו מתירים.  In any case, I had learned Yevamos that year, and I had a problem with one of the pirushim on the Yerushalmi about the status of a Yevama after the consummation of Yibum.  I told it to Reb Moshe, and he agreed that the pirush cannot be correct.  I mentioned that the Noda BeYehuda, in a Teshuva, expressed strong words against someone who questioned a ruling in a previous teshuva on the basis of something one of the pirushim on the Yerushalmi says.  I don't remember the Noda Be'Yehuida's words now, but they were something along the lines of "What kind of chutzpah do you have to waste my time with a kashe based on some nonsense that person said?"  Reb Moshe said that although he agrees that the pirush cannot be right, we cannot dismiss the mefareish with words as strong as the Noda BeYehuda, because "before you begin writing a pirush on Yerushalmi, you have to know all of the Bavli clearly."  In the original, איידער מען פאנגט אן שרייבען א פירוש אף ירושלמי מוז מען קענען גאנץ בבלי קלאר.

We continued talking for a few minutes, and he told me about the pirush he wrote on the Yerushalmi, and he mentioned that he began writing his pirush when he was   thirteen   years   old.

There is a plague of audacity in the world, which has led to the infamous justification for disputing the great poskim, namely, "He's a Rabbi, and I'm a Rabbi."  If you don't understand the nuances of psak and lomdus, it is easy to be misled into thinking this attitude has some legitimacy.  It does not.  The examples that come to mind are Mozart and Louisa May Alcott.  Their gifts were not talents that were quantitatively greater than those of their peers.  These were categorically distinct talents.  Imagine, then, one who has been blessed with a full measure of the particular and sublime talent of the Jewish people- a natural skill and affinity for profoundly interpreting and understanding Retzon Hashem, Hashems' will- who then, preceded by innumerable generations of and surrounded by gedolim, indefatigably and humbly works to develop that skill to it's greatest potential.  He's a Rabbi I'm a Rabbi indeed.

~

Balak: Miracles of Speech

I heard this today in the name of my Rebbi, Rav Rudderman.

On the passuk that says that Hashem opened the mouth of the donkey and it was able to speak- ויפתח השם את פי האתון- the Sforno here says that this is similar to  השם שפתי תפתח, the request we make before Shmoneh Esrai that Hashem open our mouths so we can pray to Him.

Rav Rudderman said that it is not correct to think of the human power of speech as adequate for the level of tefilla required to stand before the Ribono shel Olam and praise Him.  Shmoneh Esrai requires a nes nigleh.  Our ability to directly address the Ribono shel Olam is no less of a miracle than that of a donkey being given the means to communicate with a human being.

We all know Reb Chaim's idea of Omeid Lifnei Hamelech.  Rav Rudderman's pshat in the Sforno should also give us a moment's pause as we begin Shmoneh Esrei.

Chukas, Bamidbar 19:11. Tuma Without a Source

If you are not familiar with the basic laws of Taharos, I would advise you to not read this.  It is best to leave some twists of halacha on the side until you have a firm context in which to place them.  But I have to admit I'm gratified that this post elicited positive remarks from several Very Hard to Please Customers.

Tuma is normally incurred under two circumstances.

1.  Tuma resulting from an intrinsic state or condition; Inherent Tuma- טומאה עצמית.  Examples:
a. Being a Metzora
b. Being a Ba'al Keri (SEE END NOTE)

2.  Tuma transferred by interaction with an object that is intrinsically tamei; Transferred Tuma- טומאה מועברת.  Examples:
a. Touching a Metzora or a Sheretz
b. Sitting on the bed of a Nida or Zava
c. Carrying a neveila

There is a third category which at first glance seems impossible, but after a moment's thought turns out to be surprisingly common.

3.  Interaction with certain objects which are not tamei at all, which I call טומאה ע"י גרמא.

Where do we find such a thing?  Where do we find that interaction with an object that is not tamei at all causes tuma in a person or thing?

We find it in the Yalkut here on passuk 19:11.
הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמֵת לְכָל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם וְטָמֵא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים.  One who touches any dead human body will be tamei seven days.

This is the most famous type of Tuma, טומאת מת, that which is incurred through interaction with a dead human body.  This might be contact, or carrying without contact, or ohel, or heset.  Remarkably, the Yalkut here, quoting the Sifri Zuta here, says the following:

הנוגע במת, נוגע במת טמא ואין מת עצמו טמא. נוגע במת טמא ואין בנה של שונמית טמא. אמרו בנה של שונמית כשמת כל שהיה עמו בבית טמא שבעת ימים, וכשחיה היה טהור לקודש. חזרו ונגעו בו וטמאוהו הם. הרי זה אומר מטמאיך לא טמאוני ואתה טומאתני. השורף פרה ופרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים מטמאין בגדים, והן עצמן אין מטמאין בגדים. הרי זה אומר וכו'. האוכל מנבלת עוף טהור מטמא בגדים אבית הבליעה, והוא עצמו אין מטמא בגדים. הרי זה אומר וכו

We glean certain insights from this Sifri.  First: that a dead human body- the epitome and paradigm of Tuma- is not tamei.  One who touches it, or is under the same roof, becomes tamei, but the body itself is not tamei.  When the son of the Shunamite woman was brought back from the dead, he was not tamei at all; the people who were in the house with him when he was dead are tamei because they had been exposed to his body when he was dead, but he himself is not tamei.  When Elisha touched him after he was brought back to life, Elisha made him a Rishon Le'Tuma
.

This sounds remarkable and incomprehensible.  But as it turns out, it is rather common, as the Sifri Zuta very tersely points out.  It shakes out like this:

There are five Tumos that are incurred without any change of state and without any exposure to or involvement with an object that is tamei.

1.  All persons that are involved (The Tzafnas Pa'anei'ach here brings two Yerushalmis that are metamei even the shomer) in the transport out of Yerushalayim and the burning of those "korbanos" which are intended to be burned outside of Yerushalayim, are tamei.  The "korban" they're involved with is not tamei at all.  

Examples:

a. Parah Adumah.

b. The Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kippur.

c. The Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur.
See Rambam 5 Para Aduma 4.  Although certainly Para Aduma is very different from the rest in this group, they all come under the rubric of "parim use'irim hanisrafim" for our purposes, as evident in the Rambam.

2.  The person that is involved in taking the Sa'ir Hamishtalei'ach to be killed.

3.  A person who touches or carries the water/ash mixture that is made with the burned Parah Adumah  without using it for its intended purpose.

4.  A person who swallows a kezayis of the ne'veila of a kosher-type of bird. 

5.  A person who has interaction with a dead human body.

כשתמצא לומר, closer thought will show that numbers 1 and 2 are identical.  Both deal with the effect of a "korban" that changed into a "non-korban" on the person who is doing the non-korban avoda.  It so happens that the "non-korban avodah" is destructive- burning or pushing off a cliff, but that's irrelevant, I think. (I've heard from Reb Chaim that that they change from korban to non-korban, but I don't know where he says it.)

A person might quibble with number 4.  Who says that neveilas ohf tahor is not tamei?  Maybe it's tamei, but only transfers tuma to one who eats it, and only at the point of the beis habliya.   To that person, I say two things.  First of all, the Sifri itself brings this case to illustrate how interaction tuma can exceed tuma in the source.  The whole point of the Sifri is that sometimes Tuma does not come from העברה but instead from התעסקות.  Second, I say that if נבלת עוף טהור is not me'tamei people or food by touch, it is not tamei at all.  It seems to me that if it were a transferred tuma, then if you would put it on your head and carry it around all day you ought to be tamei.  (I'm not sure any more if I'm right.  The Gemara in Krisus 21a says about neveilas ohf tahor היא גופה טומאה היא, and also calls it סופו לטמא טומאה חמורה.  I'm not saying I'm wrong, just that it needs yishuv hadaas.
UPDATE:  See notes at end of this post.)

So what do we have?  Four common examples of what I call טומאה ע"י גרמא, something that at first glance seemed impossible or, at the most, singular.

1.  A person who is involved in carrying out (tarti mashma) the required avoda of a korban that becomes a non-korban- פרים ושעירים הנשרפים ושעיר המשתלח.

2. A person who touches מי חטאת without using it for its intended purpose.

3. A person who eats נבלת עוף טהור.

4. A person who touches, carries, leans over, etc., a אדם המת.

Every one of these is an example of an action that brings tuma despite the fact that no tuma is present at all.  Interaction with certain objects which are themselves tahor imposes tuma on the actor.

NOTES
1. The Sifri Zuta is here in Chukas.  I brought it from the Yalkut because everyone has a Yalkut.
2. I first heard about this Sifri from Rav Rudderman, when he said something about the pirush there, the Ambuha De'Sifri.  The Ambuha D'Sifri was written by one of the Gerrers, a contemporary of Reb Menachem Ziemba and Reb Meir Don Plotzki, named Reb Yakov Zev Yoskovitz, who, I believe, was a mechutn of the Imrei Emes.
3. The Ambuha D'Sifri asks a lot of questions on the Sifri Zuta, and Harav Tzvi Hirsch Meisels (the Veitzener Rov) in his first volume of his Mekadshei Hashem, in the Dvar Tzvi on page reish nun zayin, does an amazing job explaining the Sifri and answering all the famous kashes.  Rabbi Meisels was a beautiful man, an exemplary Adam Gadol; brilliant, kind, humble, and warm.  I remember once in the early sixties he was in my house and said that he just came back from a weeks long din Torah in which he and Reb Moshe sat on the Beis Din.  He said he could say eidus that there is not a Se'if in the four parts of Shulchan Aruch that Reb Moshe doesn't have on his fingertips.  A young **** interrupted and said "But the Chazon Ish said there is nobody like that bizman hazeh!"  Rabbi Meisels answered "It could be that because of the kavod of the Chazon Ish, Reb Moshe doesn't remember one se'if, but when he needs it, he remembers it; or, pashut, the Chazon Ish didn't know Reb Moshe."
4.  The achronim discuss why the Ben Hashunamis is not tamei because his live self touched his dead self at the moment of death or at the moment of his revival, as might be the pshat in the Mishna in Keilim 27:10, but see Rashi Chulin 72b DH Aval Tamei.  And see Eli's comment about Reb Akiva Eiger in Keilim there.

5. It's not the Sifri, it's the Sifrei.  I prefer my pronunciation, even if it's wrong.
6. With the Sifri Zuta, we have another answer to the Rav Ami's question (Moed Kattan 28a) למה נסמכה מיתת מרים לפרשת פרה אדומה.  The Smichus is because they are share the characteristic of tuma through התעסקות with  דבר שאינו טמא.
7.  Regarding נבלת עוף טהור .  Above, I brought the SZ that listed this case among the unusual ones that generate more tumah than they themselves have.  I used it as an example of an object that itself is not tamei at all but causes tumah, and then I said I wasn't sure if that was true.  It turns out that this might be a machlokes; some hold the tuma of n'veilas of tahor is a din in maga, some hold it's a din in ma'aseh achilah.  If it's a din of ma'aseh, then for sure I'm right.  If it's a din maga, it's still not clear.
Reb Chaim in Avos Hatumah, who holds that nivlas of tahor is metamei on the basis of contact when achilah is happening, and the Minchas Chinuch 161 and the Chazon Ish and the Asvon d'Oraysa, who hold that it is a pure din of ma'aseh achilah.  Reb Chaim is based on the Rambam that is going like the Sifra that holds there's no din of toch kdei achilas pras on nivlas of tahor, and the Minchas Chinuch seems to be going like the Gemara in Menachos 70a that associates tumas of tahor with what's called a ma'aseh achila, and the Gemara in Zevachim 70a where Reb Meir needs a pasuk that more than shiur achilas pras by oh tahor will not be metamei, so obviously he holds that it is metamei if you eat it toch achilas pras.  Another raya to the second approach is from Sanhedrin 7b that says that it is not a tumas maga. Rashi there - 

דלאו בר נגיעה. שאינו מטמא בנגיעה אלא בבית הבליעה על ידי אכילה כדכתיב (ויקרא יז) אשר תאכל נבלה וטרפה וכבס בגדיו ומוקמינן לה בנבלת עוף טהור בתורת כהנים ואמרינן התם יכול תטמא במגע ת"ל לטמאה בה אין לך אלא האמור בה שאין לה טומאה אלא אכילתה: 

8.  This is another example of הכל בחזקת סומין עד שהקדוש ברוך הוא מאיר את עיניהם.  
~

END NOTE:
I mentioned in the beginning that Tumas Baal Keri stems from an event, not from contact.  I used this Tuma as an example, a paradigm.  As it turns out, it's not that simple.  While saying the Daf in 2012, I saw that this is a machlokes Rabbah and Rav Huna in Nidda 22a.   See there, and Rashi D"H למימרא דנוגע הוי.  But Poletes certainly is an example, because it's beis hastarim.

Chukas, Bamidbar 20:1-2. The Life and Death of Miriam: Role and Recognition

Two powerful observations from Reb Berel Povarsky (Ponevezh) about the role of women in our spiritual life, and the vital need to recognize what they do.  As always, when I quote, I take liberties.


I
Moed Kattan 28a– Why is the death of Miriam next to the parsha of the Parah Adumah?  Because just as the Parah brings foregiveness, so, too, the death of a Tzidkanis (or Tzadik) is mechapeir.

Rabbeinu Chananel there says that from the fact that the Parah is called a Chatas it is evident that it must be a mechapeir.  This is how we know that it brings kapparah, and so the contiguity to the death of Miriam acquires a message of Kapparah. 


Reb Berel Povarsky, in his Bahd Kodesh, asks, so why put Miriam next to Parah Adumah, whose aspect of forgiveness is obscure, when the message of Kapparah would be so much more clear if it were placed next to regular Korban Chattas?  If Rabbeinu Chananel has to address the problem that there really is no apparent kappara in Parah Adumah, why make the smichus to Parah Adumah and have to go hunting for din kappara?

He answers that Parah Adumah was outside the Mishkan, but it was done “nochach pnei Ohel Mo’eid,” on Har Hazeisim, far from the Beis Hamikdash- it was vital that the sacrificial service of the Para Aduma be done facing the entrance of the Ohel Moed.  The work of nashim tzidkanios is not in the Beis Medrash, it is in the home and in the street, but it is  nochach pnei Ohel Mo’eid, it is done for the purpose of chizuk hatorah ve’hayir’ah.

He makes an excellent tzushtell: Horios 13a– “Yekarah hee mi’pninim (Mishlei 3::15)”, "it" is more  precious than the avodah of the Kohen Gadol who goes into the pnim, the kodesh kadashim, the sanctum sanctorum.  Now, the "it" in that Gemara refers to limud hatorah, but he makes a tzushtell to all avodos that are done outside the kodesh but whose purpose is to lay the groundwork and create the environment for kedushah.  These preparatory and supportive and foundational works are more precious than the actual service that is done in Pnim, in the Beis Hamikdash.

We can say that הִיא means the avodah that is associated with women.  יְקָרָה הִיא מִפְּנִינִים  The Avodah of women, albeit outside the Beis Hamikdash, albeit quiet and without ceremony and publicity, that avodah is more precious than the cynosure of Avodah, the avoda of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur.

II
20:1-2.  Vatamas sham Miriam...velo hayah mayim la’eidah.  Miriam died....the populace had no water.  Rashi (from Taanis 9a)– the well that had previously supplied their needs, the be’er, was in the merit of Miriam.

Kli Yakar here: the be’er disappeared because they didn't eulogize her properly: when Moshe and Aharon died, (Bamidbar 20:29, Devarim 34:8) it says “vayivku...” but not when Miriam died.

Reb Berel Povarsky asks: if the be’er was in the zechus of Miriam, how can the Kli Yakar say that it disappeared because they weren’t maspid properly?  It disappeared because she died!  It was only there because of her, and with her death, the zechus that brought this miraculous well was no longer there!

He answers that the idea of a proper hesped is that by deep consideration of the life of a Tzadik, one gains an understanding and appreciation of what the Tzadik was, and is motivated to emulate them as well as possible,  and thereby brings forward in this world their life and influence.  It ties the life of the tzadik to the life of the living world.  If they had been maspid Miriam properly, her zechusim would have continued to benefit the generation.  Unfortunately, they just wiped away a tear, and said goodbye, and left her in her grave.  She was no longer tied to this world, and her zechusim no longer were able to benefit them.

III
A comment was sent in, and I like it so much that I'm putting it into the post.  Yasher Koach!
I appreciated this insight into the Gemura in Moed Kuton, and I thought that the homiletic reading of to the Gemura in Horios was also a nice touch. Thanks for sharing this.

I tucked it away in the back of my head for a year, and then I was asked to speak to a group of camp counselors last week, Parshas Chukas. (In my small town, we have a day camp, and every year we bring girls in from "the city" to help out.)

Anyway, I mentioned this insight, and I amplified it by describing the intricate arrangement that was needed to make the pura adima possible (See the Mishna in Pura about the cave in NE Yirushaloyim where women went to give birth and raise their childern in a state of taharah until they were big enough to ride on top of the doors strapped onto the backs of oxen ...).

I said "Who were these women? These children?" We don't know. Their names aren't recorded. But every avodah in the Beis HaMikdash was made possible by their mesiras nefesh outside.

I also pointed out that while the kohen gudol was sequestered for seven days prior to Yom Kippur, and sprinkled on the first and seventh day, the person who burned the pura adima was sprinkled each of the seven days. I said that the avoda outside the BH"M, which is the preparatory work without which the avoda inside the BH"M would not be possible, is more precious and more sensitive to taharah. The mishna says that even those who carried the clay jugs to the cave for the children to carry became tamei after handing them over. Our dealings with gashmius, when dedicated to making possible dealings with kedisha, are the arena of tuma and tahara in our lives.

Rav Mottel Pagremanski

The recent hundredth birthday of Bel Kaufman, Sholom Aleichem's grand daughter, was the subject of an article in the New York Times.  This reminded me of a story.

My mother's sister was married to Rav Mottel Pagremanski's brother, Reb Yosef Pagramansky, the Rov of Shidlova, or Shidleve.  In case you don't recognize the name of the town, it was a couple a miles down the road from Tzitavian.  Reb Mottel used to spend summers with his brother, and, lehavdil bein chaim l'chaim, my mother used to go there as well to visit her sister.

Late one night, the household was woken by hearty laughter.  It turned out that Reb Mottel was reading a book of stories by Sholom Aleichem and he had burst out laughing.  Busted!

This story will mean nothing to people who are unaware of who Reb Mottel was.  To those people who know something of him, and of his awesome gadlus in Torah and Yiras Shamayim and Ahavas Chesed and Mussar, it will mean a great deal about shleimus in the tradition of Rava and Reb Yirmiah.

A short bio of Reb Mottel.
Rabbi Mordechai Pogremanski was a great Torah scholar and famous in the world of the Lithuanian yeshivas. Two years before the war he became the spiritual leader of the Heide yeshiva in Belgium. He returned to Lithuania a short time before the outbreak of the war and spent the war years in the Kovne ghetto. He was scrupulous in preserving the life of Torah in the ghetto with great devotion. By a miracle he was saved from extermination and fled to Poland when Lithuania was annexed by Russia after the war. When it became known to Rebitzen Recha Shternbuch that Rabbi Pogremanski was in Poland, she made contact with him and managed to smuggle him to Czechoslovakia and later into France, for his presence in Polish territory without documents was hazardous. In Bailly, France, the rabbi immediately became the spiritual leader. He moved to Aix Les Bains and thereafter to Versailles, where he headed a yeshiva. The state of his health was bad, and the Sternbuchs called out the best doctors to save him. They brought him to Switzerland, but in 1949 Rabbi Pogremanski passed away. 

Korach, Bamidbar 18:8. Counting Resurrected People to a Minyan

This is not only about counting the risen dead for a minyan.  I chose the title because I thought that if it worked for the Chacham Tzvi (#93), it would work for me.

Synopsis:
Hashem promised that Aharon would get Teruma.
Aharon died before we entered Israel and before any Teruma was set aside.
Reb Yochanan uses this as proof of Techiyas Hameisim in the Torah.
Elsewhere, Reb Yochanan state that Mitzvos will be annulled at the time of the resurrection, so from whom will Aharon get Teruma?
A discussion of why mitzvos will be rescinded after the rising of the dead: either because mitzva obligations lapse when a person dies and don't return when he is revived, or because the epoch of the rising of the dead will be free of mitzvos- a ptur on the Gavra or on the Tekufa.
Many are of the opinion that Reb Yochanan never meant that mitzvos will be rescinded, and when he said "B'teilos le'asid lavo" he meant that mitzvos will become kiyumis, or that people will be like malachim, so intensely aware of Hashem's will that the concept of commandment and choice will become meaningless.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our passuk says 

וַיְדַבֵּר ה אֶל אַהֲרֹן וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לְךָ אֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת תְּרוּמֹתָי  לְכָל קָדְשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְךָ נְתַתִּים לְמָשְׁחָה וּלְבָנֶיךָ לְחָק עוֹלָם

Hashem said to Aharon "Here, I have given you guardianship of my Teruma, given to you, to respectfully deal with, and to your children, forever.

The Maharal Diskin brings the Gemara in Chelek that points out that Aharon never saw Teruma in his life; Aharon died before entering Israel, and Teruma only applies to crops grown in Israel.  So how can Hashem tell Aharon that he and his children are granted an entitlement toTeruma?  His children, yes, but Aharon himself never got Teruma!  Reb Yochanan (Sanhedrin 90b) says that this hints to the resurrection of the dead, to Techiyas Hameisim.  Although Aharon died before entering Israel, he himself will receive Teruma after Mashiach comes when the dead are brought back to life.  

Reb Yehoshua Leib Diskin says that he saw in the sefer “Emek Yehoshua” the following question:  Reb Yochanan in Niddah 61b says that mitzvos will be rescinded after Techiyas Hameisim, mitzvos beteilos le’asid lavo.  (He therefore allows burial in shatnez.)   If so, he asks, how can Reb Yochanan in Sanhedrin say that after techiyas hameisim there will once again be Teruma?  If Reb Yochanan himself holds that after Techiyas Hameisim mitzvos will be batteil, then nobody will be chayav to give Teruma to Aharon, and so once again Aharon will get nothing!  He brings that the Emek Yehoshua distinguishes between asei (which will still stand) and lo sa’aseis (which will be bateil), but it is clear that Rav Diskin was not impressed with that teretz.  Rav Diskin answers, that only the people who died and are brought back to life are pattur, but the people that will be living normal lives when Mashiach comes will continue to be chayav in mitzvos, and they will have to give teruma, and so Aharon will get their teruma.

This approach assumes that the ptur from Mitzvos "Le'asid lavo" is is not an epochal ptur on the time of techiyas hameisim, but instead is based on the general rule of ‘lameisim chofshi’, which apparently means that even after they get up they will still be pattur.  But if so, we have a problem with the story in Chelek about R’ Yehuda be Bova who proved that the story of the Atzamos of Yechezkel was not just a dream, because “ani meihem, ve’eilu tefillin shel avi abba,” I am descended from them, and these are my grandfather's tefillin.  So we see that even though they were dead, as soon as they were brought back to life they were chayav in mitzvos again, because otherwise, why would his grandfather wear tefillin.   I suppose you could say the same thing about the Ben Hashunamis and anyone who is brought back to life after being halachicly dead.  That would be really convenient on Shabbos, you wouldn't have to go looking for a goy.

My son said, maybe it means the tefillin they wore when they were alive?  The answer is, of course, that these people were from Shevet Ephraim, who left Mitzrayim before the time of yetziah, and there was not only no chiyuv to wear tefillin, but it would have been impossible to wear tefillin, because there were no parshios to put into them, so obviously it means tefillin they started wearing after they were brought back to life.

The Ritva in Niddah says that although mitzvos will not be obligatory, people will fulfill them out a desire to do Hashem's express will, as a kiyumis.

I later saw that Reb Elchanan in Kovetz Shiurim 2,  #29, klers whether the din of beteilos le’osid lavo is a din in the zman or a din in having been dead, nafkeh mineh for the people who happen to be alive normally at that time. 

At the end of the piece he brings the Ritva in Niddah 61 who asks from Yechezkel’s bones on the shittah that mitzvos beteilos le’osid lavo.  So: 1.  The Ritvah thought of the kashe first, and 2.  obviously the Ritvah held that it was a din in bameisim chofshi, not a din in the zman.  And then he brings the Kashe about Teruma and Aharon, and says the teretz we brought, that it refers to the people who hadn’t died then.

I don't post unless I have a chidush to say.  In this case, much of what we said was said by Reb Elchonon, but I said it before I saw Reb Elchonon.  Anyway, there are things here he doesn't say. 

Finally, there is a piece by the Lubavitcher Rebbe in the Hamaor of Tof Shin Nun Beis that discusses this matter.  He says that the mitzvos will absolutely never be rescinded, but that after Techiyas Hameisim our will and Hashem's will are going to be inseparable, somewhat like that of Malachim, and so the concept of command and duty will be meaningless.

In any case, to address the burning issue of the day: Can you count a resurrected person to a minyan?  It depends on the opinions of the rishonim on how to understand Mitzvos B'teilos L'asid Lavo.  According to some, this means that any person that was once dead is not chayav in mitzvos, and so cannot count toward a minyan.  According to others, the ptur mitzvos is not on just anyone who was once dead.  It is on the time of the general resurrection of the dead.  So the Ben Hashunamis and Elisha's ganav would count toward a minyan.


Here's a Tosfos (BB 74a) which gives a nice overview of all the Gemaros that talk about this.  
Background: the Gemara there is one of Rabbah bar bar Channa's stories in Hasfina.  In this one, he is in the desert and is shown the bodies of those who died during our forty years of wandering before entering Eretz Yisrael.  He cut off the tzitzis on the garments of one of the bodies (because he wanted to use them to prove who was right in the machlokes Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel about how many threads are in the tzitzis,) but he found himself stuck and unable to move.  His guide told him that whoever takes something from these bodies is thus stuck, and when he put it back, he was released.  Tosfos points out that evidently they were buried wearing their Tzitzis.  

פסקי חדא קרנא דתכלתא. 

משמע הכא שיש ציצית למתים 

ויש לדחות שהיו נכנסין מחיים בקבר כדאמר במדרש שכל ערב תשעה באב היו הולכין כשהן חיים לתוך קבריהם והיה בת קול יוצאת ואומרת הבדלו החיים מן המתים 

אבל יש להביא ראיה מפרק התכלת (מנחות דף מא.) דאמר שמואל כלי קופסא חייבין בציצית ומודה שמואל בזקן כשעשאן לכבודו פירוש לתכריכים וההיא שעתא ודאי רמינן להו

וכן יש במדרש למה נסמכה פרשת מקושש לפרשת ציצית לומר לך שהמתים חייבים בציצית

 וקשה דאמרינן בפרק מי שמתו (ברכות דף יח.) רבי חייא ורבי יונתן הוו קא שקלי ואזלי בבית הקברות הוה שדיא תכילתיה דרבי יונתן אקיברא א"ל רבי חייא דלי כנפך שלא יאמרו למחר באין אצלנו ועכשיו מחרפין אותנו ואי יש למתים ציצית מאי מחרפין אותנו דקאמר 

וי"ל דאע"ג דיש להן ציצית מ"מ מחרפין אותם שמראין עצמן שהן חייבים והמתים 
פטורים כדאמר (שבת דף ל.) כיון שמת אדם נעשה חפשי מן המצות 

אבל קשה על המנהג שנוהגים להסיר ציצית מטליתות של מתים 

ואר"ת ששמע מזקני לוטי"ר לפי שציצית עדות הוא שקיים כל התורה דציצית עולה ת"ר וח' חוטין וה' קשרים הרי תרי"ג ועכשיו שאין חשובין כל כך הרי הוא כאילו מעיד עדות שקר 

וה"נ דרשינן במדרש ועשו להם ציצית לדורותם לדור תם 

ואור"י דבימיהם היו כולן מקיימין מצות ציצית לפי שהי' לכולן טליתות של ד' כנפות ולכך היו עושין להן אף במותן אבל עתה שאין לכולן בחייהן אין לעשות במותן אפי' מי שהיה לו בחייו שלא לבייש את מי שאין לו וכענין זה מצינו בפרק בתרא דנדה (דף עא.) בראשונה היו מטבילין כלים ע"ג נשים נדות מתות התחילו חיות מתביישות כו' 

ועוד דאנו סומכין על מסכת שמחות (פי"ב) דאמרינן אבא שאול בן בטנית צוה את בניו קברוהו תחת מרגלותיו של אבא והטילו תכלת מאפיליוני פירוש מטליתו ויש לגרוס התירו מדקאמר מאפיליוני 

ורבינו חיים כהן צדק פירש דאנן קיימא לן כרבי יוחנן דאמר (נדה דף סא:) מצות בטילות לעתיד לבא וההיא דמנחות איירי אליבא דשמואל דאמר אין בטילות ולכך צריך שיהא לו ציצית דעתידין צדיקים שיעמדו בלבושיהם ואם יסירו לו הציצית במותו נמצא שלעתיד יעמוד בלא ציצית והמדרש נמי אתי כשמואל וההיא דלקמן יצתה בת קול ואמרה דביתהו דרבי חנינא בן דוסא עתידה למישדא בה תכלת לצדיקים לעתיד לבא אתיא נמי כשמואל 

ועוד אומר ר"י דהכי פירושו דההיא שעתא ודאי רמינן להו היינו שמשימין בו ציצית ומסלקים אותו מיד להודיע שקיים מצות ציצית לפי שהבגד חדש ולא הושם בו ציצית מעולם צריך להשים בו וכן נוהגים בארץ אשכנז להשים ציצית בטלית של מת שיהא ניכר שקיים מצות ציצית ומיד מסירין

Also: the Rashba in Yevamos says pshat in lameisim chafshi that although one is not allowed to feed a child things that are assur, no such halacha applies to dressing a dead person in Kilayim.  I saw it in the Ritva, but I didn't believe the Rashba really said it: but then I saw it in the Rashba, and it is indeed what he says.


And just because if you're reading this you might be interested: 

Although everyone is familiar with the tshuva in the Chacham Tzvi, few are aware of what his son writes in his Tshuvos Yaavetz II:82, as follows.

בהא דמספקא ליה למר אבא, בספרו (סימן צ"ג), בנוצר ע"י ספר יצירה, אם מצטרף לעשרה. קשיא לי, מאי קמבעיא ליה? אטו מי עדיף מחרש שוטה וקטן, דאינן מצטרפין?! אף על גב דמבני ישראל הן ודאי, וחשובין כשאר אדם מישראל לכל דבר חוץ מן המצות, וההורגן חייב, ואית להו דעתא קלישתא מיהא, וכל שכן הקטן דאתי לכלל דעת, ואפילו הכי לא מצטרף. האי גברא, דלאו בר דעה הוא כלל, צריכא למימר מיהת בכלל חרש הוא?! דהא אשתעי רבי זירא בהדיא, ולא אהדר ליה. הא ודאי גרע מניה. אלא שיש לדקדק: לכאורה נראה שהיה שומע, דהא שדריה לקמיה דרבי זירא. אי הכי, הוי ליה 'חרש השומע ואינו מדבר', שדינו כפקח לכל דבר. אבל אין זה נראה אמת, כי אם היה בו כח השמיעה, היה ראוי גם לכח הדבור בודאי, ולא היה מהנמנע אצלו, אלא מבין ברמיזות וקריצות היה, כמו שמלמדים את הכלב לילך בשליחות להוליך ולהביא מאומה מאדם אחר, כן שלחו לזה והלך. וכתוב בספר חסד לאברהם [לר' אברהם אזולאי], שאין חיותו אלא כחיות הבהמה, ולכן אין בהריגתו שום עברה. אם כן, פשיטא דאינו אלא כבהמה בצורת אדם וכעיגלא תילתא דמיברי להו לרב חנינא ולרב אושעיא. אגב אזכיר כאן מה ששמעתי מפה קדוש, אבי מורי הרב ז"ל, מה שקרה באותו שנוצר ע"י זקנו הגראב"ש [=הגאון ר' אליהו בעל שם] ז"ל, כי אחר שראהו הולך וגדל מאד, נתיירא שלא יחריב העולם. על כן לקח ונתק ממנו השם שהיה דבוק עדיין במצחו, ועל ידי זה נתבטל ושב לעפרו. אבל הזיקו, ועשה בו שריטה בפניו, בעוד שנתעסק בנתיקת השם ממנו בחזקה

On the topic of a minyan of people who have risen from the dead, I'm going to vent a little steam.  I daven at an early minyan on Shabbos.  I understand that the whole early minyan milieu is one of avoiding unnecessary delay.  But when the baalei tefilla sound like the undead and their tefilla sounds like it is completely dead as they mumble the davening in a monotonous drone more quickly than our lips can shape the words, it can be very upsetting.  There are prevailing reasons for my attendance at that minyan; and I am not in a position to rebuke my fellow 'mispallelim.'  I just wish the davening was a little less like an burdensome and flavorless obligation and more like a privilege and joy.

Shlach: Three Easy Pieces

All three pieces in this post are associated to some extent with the Kli Yakar.  

I

Synopsis:

Human humility and honest self awareness are congruous.

Godly Humility: How we can describe Hashem as having the apparent trait of humility.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bamidbar Shlach 12:3, Moshe was more humble than any man on the face of the earth.

1.  It has been noted that  if you were to ask Moshe Rabbeinu "Who is the most humble man on earth?"  He would respond "I am."  He wrote it in the Torah because Hashem told him to, and he knew it was true, and that it was a praiseworthy and unprecedented achievement to have reached that madreiga of humility.  Bishlema his yedi'as hatorah, of course he knew was far beyond any other man.  But to be aware that you are the most humble of men seems to be self-contradictory.  In fact, however, this awareness did not diminish his humility at all:

Similarly, the Gemara (end of Sotah, 49b), Reb Yosef's ve'ha  ika ana, where the Mishnah says that with the death of Rebbi, humility died.  Reb Yosef protested, but what of me?  (Of course, some interpret the "Ana" in Rav Yosef's statement as referring not to himself but to some other Tanna who was famously humble.  This is not pashut pshat in the Gemara.)

Here is a famous example:

Reb Chatzkel Abramsky, the Av Beis Din in London from 1934 to 1951, a talmid of Reb Chaim Brisker, and author of the great Chazon Yechezkel on Tosefta, was was once sued by a shochet who claimed he had been fired unfairly.  As his testimony began, his attorney asked him to state his name and his position. The attorney then asked, "Is it true that you are the greatest halachic authority in the United Kingdom?  Rav Abramsky said, "Yes. That is true."

At that point the judge interjected and said, "Rabbi Abramsky, do your laws and ethics not teach you to be humble?  Would you not say that this is somewhat haughty on your part?  Rav Abramsky responded, "Yes, we are taught to be humble. But I am under oath."

So it is an inescapable fact a man can know he is humble, and remain humble.

But if humility means knowing that you are no better than anyone else, how do we explain this?  He knew he was a tzadik in anivus, and that anivus is the key to a relationship with the Ribono shel Olam!

• Life is not a sports event.  In a race, you are judged by comparing your position to that of others, irrespective of the competitors disparate natural talents.  Perhaps life is similar, and we are judged by comparison with others: see, e.g., the machlokes Rav and Shmuel by Noach Tzadik Tamim Hayah Bedorosav.  But the score is based on how close you have gotten to your tafkid, to your personal potential.  Your primary competition is your perfect self.  Moshe, knowing his flaws and failures, was humble.  He knew that he was not where he ought to be.  This awareness of his flaws and his regret for his failures meant that he was humble.  His humility was simply a matter of honest self awareness.  Nobody can be proud of an unflinching awareness of his failings.  
• Kesef Mishna: Awareness of the greatness of other creations of Hashem makes you realize the vast chasm that separates you from perfection makes renders utterly trivial any superiority you may have over others human beings.  (Kesef Mishna in 4 Yesodei Hatorah 12.)
• 
  

2.  Rav Yosef, earlier in Sotah, says that you always find that Hashem appears with anivus.  Although Hashem is "clothed with Gei'us," that is only His 'garb,' but within that garb, Hashem chooses the middah of Anivus.  Hashem, says Rav Yosef, chose Har Sinai and the Sneh to demonstrate that anivus.  How is anivus shayach by Hashem?  

That is the other part of anivus: appreciating the good qualities of others, irrespective of what you are, or of what others are.  A small mountain, a thornbush, have qualities of their own.  Respecting those qualities and loving the thing or person who has them is a form of anivus as well.  See, for example, how the Ruach Chaim explains this in Avos 4:1.

The Kli Yakar (first piece in Mikeitz, Breishis 41:1) begins with another Gemara (Megilla 31a) that associates the Ribono shel Olam with the Middah of Anivus, and explains it as follows:

 אמר רבי יוחנן, כל מקום שאתה מוצא גבורתו של הקדוש ברוך הוא, אתה מוצא ענוותנותו, דבר זה כתוב בתורה ושנוי בנביאים ומשולש בכתובים, כתוב בתורה, כי ה' אלהיכם הוא אלהי האלהים ואדוני האדונים, וכתיב בתריה, עושה משפט יתום ואלמנה, שנוי בנביאים כה אמר רם ונשא שוכן עד וקדוש וגו', וכתיב בתריה, ואת דכא ושפל רוח, משולש בכתובים, דכתיב סולו לרוכב בערבות ביה שמו, וכתיב בתריה אבי יתומים ודיין אלמנות   בנוהג שבעולם, שאדם שיש לו איזו מעלה יתר שאת על חבירו, אינו זוכר את חבירו הקטן מערכו, ובל ישא את שמו על שפתיו, מצד רום לבבו, וזו היא טענת הפילוסופים על השי"ת לאמר שלגודל רוממותו ית' אינו משגיח בשפלים בכל מה שתחת גלגל הירח, ולבטל דיעה נפסדה זו נאמר (ש"א ב ג) אל תרבו תדברו גבוה גבוה יצא עתק מפיכם כי אל דיעות ה' ולו נתכנו עלילות, ר"ל אל תדברו שמצד שהקב"ה גבוה מעל כל גבוהים אין לו ידיעה בפרטי מעשינו, כי אל דעות ה' שיש לו ידיעה בכולם ולו נתכנו כל עלילות מעשה איש. וכדי לאמת דבר זה שהקב"ה שוכן את דכא ושפל רוח, צירף הקב"ה בשמו הגדול ית' ארבע אותיות של מספר מועט יותר מכל האותיות שבאלפ"א ביתא, כשתכתוב יו"ד ה"א וי"ו ה"א הסתכל בכל האותיות כשתכתבם במלואם לא תמצא שום אות שיעלה למספר מועט כמו אלו. וכן אמרו רז"ל (מגילה יא.) א"ר יוחנן כל מקום שאתה מוצא גדולתו של הקב"ה שם אתה מוצא ענותנותו כו' מן הכתובים שנאמר (תהלים סח ה) סולו לרוכב בערבות ביה שמו, ר"ל שבחוהו ביה שמו כי עם היותו רוכב בערבות גבוה מכל אע"פ כן יה שמו, שהם האותיות הקטנים במספר והתיבה רק בעלת שני אותיות דהיינו המועט בצירוף האותיות וכל זה מופת על ענותנותו ית.

So, there are two aspects of anivus:

Awareness and hyper-criticism of one's own flaws, irrespective of whether you are ahead or behind others.

Appreciation and respect for others, irrespective of their flaws and humble state.

The idea of appreciation and respect for others is how the Netziv in our parsha explains Anivus by the Ribono shel Olam as well.  

I'm putting in a piece from the Gemara in Sotah 5a, for several reasons.  It talks about the repugnance of Ga'ava and the beauty of humility, and because it reiterates the idea of Hashem's middah of Anivus, but mostly because of the wonderful line about B'shamta if you do and B'shamta if you don't, which the Rambam brings in his pirush to Avos (4:4), and which we discuss more fully vis a vis the Ma'apilim, here.

א"ר אלעזר כל אדם שיש בו גסות הרוח ראוי לגדעו כאשירה כתיב הכא (ישעיהו י) ורמי הקומה גדועים וכתיב התם (דברים ז) ואשיריהם תגדעון וא"ר אלעזר כל אדם שיש בו גסות הרוח אין עפרו ננער שנא' (ישעיהו כו) הקיצו ורננו שכני עפר שכבי בעפר לא נאמר אלא שכני עפר מי שנעשה שכן לעפר בחייו ואמר ר' אלעזר כל אדם שיש בו גסות הרוח שכינה מיללת עליו שנאמר (תהילים קלח) וגבוה ממרחק יידע דרש רב עוירא ואיתימא רבי אלעזר בא וראה שלא כמדת הקב"ה מדת בשר ודם מדת בשר ודם גבוה רואה את הגבוה ואין גבוה רואה את השפל אבל מדת הקב"ה אינו כן הוא גבוה ורואה את השפל שנא' (תהילים קלח) כי רם ה' ושפל יראה אמר רב חסדא ואיתימא מר עוקבא כל אדם שיש בו גסות הרוח אמר הקב"ה אין אני והוא יכולין לדור בעולם שנא' (תהילים קא) מלשני בסתר רעהו אותו אצמית גבה עינים ורחב לבב אותו לא אוכל אל תקרי אותו אלא אתו לא אוכל איכא דמתני לה אמספרי לשון הרע שנא' מלשני בסתר רעהו אותו אצמית א"ר אלכסנדרי כל אדם שיש בו גסות הרוח אפילו רוח קימעא עוכרתו שנאמר (ישעיהו נז) והרשעים כים נגרש ומה ים שיש בו כמה רביעיות רוח קימעא עוכרתו אדם שאין בו אלא רביעית אחת עאכ"ו א"ר חייא בר אשי אמר רב ת"ח צריך שיהא בו אחד משמונה בשמינית א"ר הונא בריה דרב יהושע ומעטרא ליה כי סאסא לשבולתא אמר רבא בשמתא דאית ביה ובשמתא דלית ביה א"ר נחמן בר יצחק לא מינה ולא מקצתה מי זוטר דכתיב ביה (משלי טז) תועבת ה' כל גבה לב

II

Kli Yakar: Tzitzis- tcheiles like sea, like sky, like kisei hakavod- from Yalkut Shimoni in Haazinu:  The turbulent, restless sea always tries to break the rules and inundate the earth, but Hashem stops it.  The placid sky goes about its work with calm determination.  Same idea here- yiras onesh and ahava.  First, like Sea, which stays in bounds because of fear of Hashem's judgment.  Then like Sky, which does its work because it is the right thing to do.  Then you can come to the kisei hakavod.


III
Kli Yakar: Yom LeShana, a day for each year; in that this refers to the punishment for the Meraglim, it should be written the opposite way, Shana le'yom.  He explains that the term has a dual meaning.  Of course it means they were sentenced to wander in the desert for forty years (minus fifteen days, as explained here), one year for each day of the willful blindness of the Meraglim.  But “yom” also refers to Tisha Ba’av.  There will be one day every year that you re-experience the tzaros that resulted from what you have done here.

Postscript.
There was a man named William Temple, a Bishop of the Church of England, who happened to be a Judeophile and friend of Chief Rabbi Hertz.  He once said an interesting thing:
Humility does not mean thinking less of yourself than of other people, nor does it mean having a low opinion of your own gifts.  It means freedom from thinking about yourself at all.  

Since I wrote about humility, and that many people misunderstand it, I have to write the famous mussar joke about anivus.  A new bachur comes into Navoradok and sits down to learn mussar with hispa'alus, and begins to cry and moan "oy, I am nobody, I am nothing...."  An older bachur nudges his friend, and says "Look who thinks he's nobody."

And let us remember Winston Churchill's instructive observation, if only to eschew it.  Churchill once said "Yes, Man is but a worm, but I think that perhaps I am a glow-worm."



~