The Tefilla of Rebbi Nechunya ben Hakana: Mandatory?

תפילת רבי נחוניה בן הקנה-  רשות או חובה

This was originally posted in question form.  Reb Chaim B. and Avrohom sent in definitive answers, so the post has been re-written to incorporate their thoughts.  As is often the case, new readers of this post will think that the comments are off the tracks.  That's not the case.  The comments got us on track.  
Yasher kochachem.


The Mishna in Berachos 28b states, שטייט אין דער משנה, that Rebbi Nechunyah ben Hakanah recited a tefilla upon entering the Beis Medrash, asking for siyata dishmaya and hatzlacha in his learning, and that the entire group should learn with warmth and mutual respect.

Is this tefilla required or is it optional?  I don't remember any of my Roshei Yeshiva saying this tefilla, nor do I remember the outstanding members of my cohort saying it.  לא ראינו אינו ראיה, but I don't think that's the case.

*

The Mechaber in 110 states that one should say this Tefilla, and his description of the Tefilla is no different than his description of Tefillas HaDerech, so it stands to reason that either both or neither are obligatory.
OC 110:8

הנכנס לבית המדרש יתפלל יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהינו ואלהי אבותינו שלא אכשל בדבר הלכה וכו' וביציאתו יאמר מודה אני לפניך ה' אלהי ששמת חלקי מיושבי בית המדרש

The Mishna Berura (sk36) brings from the Rambam that this is an obligatory tefilla.

כתב הרמב"ם בפי' המשנה ואלה שתי תפלות חובה

This is the language of the Rambam in Peirush Hamishna there:

ואלה שתי התפילות חובה לכל מי שיכנס בבית המדרש לקרות שהרי לא אמרו: בכניסתו מה היה אומר כדי שיהיה סיפור למה שהיה אומר רבי נחוניא בן הקנה, ואז יהיה רשות בידינו; אבל אמר "בכניסתו מה הוא אומר", רוצה לומר כשיכנס לבית המדרש מה חייב לומר

It is possible that the reason I never saw my Roshei Yeshiva saying this is because they said the Tefilla hours earlier, when they began their day of learning at home.  After all, the Mishna Berura (sk35) brings from the Taz that it should be said even when learning alone:

כתב ט"ז דה"ה מי שיושב ללמוד ביחידות ובפרט אם הגיע להוראה צריך להתפלל שלא יטעה בלימוד ובהוראה לומר על טמא טהור ועל אסור מותר 

On the other hand, he then says that even a person who said it at home should add a tefilla when he comes to the Beis Medrash-

וכשהוא לומד בחבורה צריך לבקש ג"כ שלא ישמח בתקלתם ולא ישמחו בתקלתו וכדאיתא בגמרא

and I never saw this being said.

I was very pleased when Avrohom sent me the Aruch HaShulchan that says clearly that the Tefilla was not said in Litvishe yeshivos.
The Aruch Hashulchan (110:16) says

ועכשיו לא נהגו בזה, ונראה משום דעכשיו הלומדים בבית המדרש אינם מורים הוראות, והרב המורה יושב בביתו

But he, too, says that a posek ought to say a modified form of the Tefilla-

אמנם גם במי שיושב ביחידות, ובפרט כשהוא מורה הוראות, כתבו שנכון שיאמר

יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהי ואלהי אבותי, שתאיר עיני במאור תורתך. ותצילינו מכל מכשול וטעות, הן בדיני איסור והיתר הן בדיני ממונות, הן בהוראה הן בלימוד. "גל עיני ואביטה נפלאות מתורתך". ומה ששגיתי כבר – העמידני על האמת. ואל תצל מפי דבר אמת עד מאוד. "כי ה' יתן חכמה, מפיו דעת ותבונה"   ט"ז סעיף קטן ח

Avrohom also sent in citations to Rishonim (for example, the Ritva-מתני' רבי נחוניא בן הקנה היה מתפלל וכו'. איידי דאיירי מענין תפלה אייתי הא תפלה הכא ולא נפקא לן מידי ואשמועינן דמי שרוצה לומר הכי הרשות בידו) that disagree with the Rambam and say that the tefilla is optional.

So it is simply a machlokes Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan, as usual involving the primacy of a minhag.  As Chaim pointed out, the Aruch HaShulchan's explanation seems weak.  The Rambam doesn't say חובה לכל מי שיכנס בבית המדרש להורות, he says לקרות.  But it doesn't matter.  The fact remains that the Aruch HaShulchan observed and reported that the minhag was not to say it.

Having said this, you still have to wonder why this Tefilla fell out of general use- nobody would say it is not good to say, and, as the Gemara in Brachos one a half blatt later (30a, twelfth line) says, מהיות טוב אל תקרי רע.  After all, we do say the other tefilla or רבי נחוניה בן הקנה, the tefilla אנא בכח (attributed to him by the Rashba in 120) and that's for sure a reshus, not a chova.

It is possible that the minhag fell out of use because our nusach of Ahava Rabba makes it unnecessary.
Ahava Rabba:

אבינו אב הרחמן המרחם רחם עלינו ותן בלבנו בינה להבין ולהשכיל לשמוע ללמוד וללמד לשמור ולעשות ולקים את כל דברי תלמוד תורתך באהבה. והאר עינינו בתורתך ודבק לבנו במצותיך ויחד לבבנו לאהבה וליראה (את) שמך ולא נבוש ולא נכלם ולא נכשל לעולם ועד. כי בשם קדשך הגדול הגבור והנורא בטחנו בגילה ונשמחה בישועתך

Reb Nechunya's tefilla:

יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלוקי, שלא יארע דבר תקלה על ידי, ולא אכשל בדבר הלכה, וישמחו בי חברי, ולא אומר על טמא טהור ולא על טהור טמא,ולא אומר על מותר אסור ועל אסור מותר, ולא יכשלו חברי בדבר הלכה ואשמח בהם

Nothing is missing.  We have incorporated Reb Nechunya's tefilla into our nusach of Ahava Rabba.

Another example of this concept, where Ahava Rabba can serve as an alternative to a bracha, is Birkas HaTorah.  Although lechatchila we are not supposed to rely on Ahavah Rabbah for being yotzei Birkas HaTorah (Brachos 11b, brought in OC 47,) that is only because we are supposed to use Chazal's nusach, we shouldn't be משנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים.  But there is no such din by a tefilla that we say because we heard it from Rav Nechunya ben Hakanah.  It's not a "nusach" and it doesn't require exactitude.  You see that from the alternative nuschaos in the Taz and Magen Avraham.

*

The Magen Avraham (60 sk2) says that Ahava Rabba was written so that we should have kavana for the Zechiros- banu bacharta=mattan Torah, keiravtanu=maamad har Sinai, leshimcha hagaddol=Amalek, lehodos=Miriam.  Yetzias Mitzrayim you'll think about in the last parsha of Shma.  Ahava Rabba is an amazing Bracha.  Besides the lyrical beauty and emotion in its words, it is packed with halachic power; the Zechiros, Birkas HaTorah, Tefillas Rebbi Nechunya ben Hakanah, and, according to the Ramban in Brachos 22b, a Birkas Hamitzva on Krias Shma.

*

Since I mentioned the Rambam in Peirush HaMishnayos, I want to point out the strange thing that he says at the end of that Mishna.

.....'רבי נחוניא בן הקנה היה מתפלל בכניסתו לבית המדרש כו

.....ואלה שתי התפילות, חובה לכל מי שיכנס בבית המדרש לקרות
ויש לו להתפלל אלה שתי התפילות יושב או עומד או כמו שיזדמן לו, ולא יחזיר פניו למזרח, ולא יברך, ולא יעשה השתחויה בהם ולא נפילת אפים. וקרא שמה תפילה על מנהג הלשון, שהוא מכנה כל בקשה תפילה

I understand when he says that the tefillos of Reb Nechunya ben Hakana are a חובה.  What I don't understand is why he needs to tell us that they are not like Shemoneh Esrei- you can say it standing, or sitting, or in whatever position you happen to be, don't face Mizrach, don't say sheim umalchus, and don't bow down, and don't do nefillas apayim.
That's an unnecessarily long list of what not to do.  The only thing that's missing is that you don't have to do chazaras hashatz.


Reb Chaim B said, and I think he's right, that the Rambam is bavorning it because of the placement and language of the Mishna.  The Mishna is in middle of a perek that talks specifically about Shmoneh Esrei, and the term תפלה usually means Shmoneh Esrei, and in the Mishna right after Reb Nechunya  the term תפלה קצרה  means Havineinu, so there's good reason to think that when the mishna says ר' נחוניא בן הקנה היה מתפלל בכניסתו לבית המדרש וביציאתו תפלה קצרה that the expression תפלה קצרה means a condensed Shmoneh Esrei type of tefilla.  So the Rambam makes it clear that this is not the case.  I still think that for the Rambam to say it doesn't need Mizrach or Tachanun is a little excessive, but maybe he was annoyed that the language of the Mishna was not as precise as he would have written it, so he wrote the whole list of things that are associated with Shmoneh Esrei that don't apply here.

Mussar from Edmund O Wilson and Albert Einstein

An interview with the celebrated scientist and author Edmund O Wilson appeared in the Wall Street Journal (here) on 4/18/14.  Glancing from my study window at a certain house across the alley, one powerful insight from that interview comes to mind.  I am far from a בעל השקפה, so my opinion doesn't matter, but perhaps it will resonate with you as it did with me.  It's sometimes hard to know how to apply חכמה בגויים תאמין תורה בגויים אל תאמין, because there's a lot of overlapping.  This case certainly straddles the line, and it's probably not 100% oisgehalten, but it might be something a Yarei Shamayim, and certainly a Yeshiva person, would benefit from thinking about- not to denigrate others, but as a personal מחייב.  

Humans, he says, are just one of some 8 million species on Earth. In calling for the end of the age of man, he doesn't mean to suggest that humans should be replaced by other species. But he thinks that we should take a cautionary step back and think about how we can cede more of the Earth to nature, to help stabilize the ecosystem. He worries that, if we don't, the planet will come to look like a spaceship run by technical geniuses. He gestures with imaginary levers while explaining that in this futuristic world, scientists would even have to control the climate with switches. "Humans don't know what they're doing. We have no goal," he says. "You can say we want less war, or we want everybody to be happy, or we want everybody to have long lives and have good health … but what kind of a goal is that? That's the goal of your family dog," he says, letting out another guffaw.  (emphasis added.)
What should our goal be? "What we really want is grace," he says. "We want understanding, we want to be surrounded by beauty, and we want to be surprised constantly by discoveries of something unlike ourselves." It's another reason we should leave more of the world to nature, he argues, along with "the shield that biodiversity provides us against catastrophe." A fully functioning ecosystem, he says, could help protect humans from pathogens and parasites that are kept in check by biodiversity.

Soon after, I saw something similar from Einstein:

The ideals which have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth. The trite subjects of human efforts, possessions, outward success, luxury have always seemed to me contemptible.

Emor. The Shalosh Regalim and Agricultural Celebrations. Season's Greetings.

The Torah tells us that the Shalosh Regalim must correspond with the seasons.  This is emphasized most clearly regarding Pesach.  

Devarim 16:1

שמור את חדש האביב ועשית פסח לה' אלקיך כי בחדש האביב הוציאך ה' אלקיך ממצרים לילה 

Rosh Hashanna 21a.

שמור את חדש האביב שמור אביב של תקופה שיהא בחדש ניסן

Although there are several opinions in the Gemara in Sanhedrin, the Rambam says that the most important factor in determining whether to intercalate a second Adar to the calendar (and thereby delay the oncoming holidays) is the relationship between Pesach and the Vernal Equinox, the Tekufas Nissan, the first day of Astronomical Spring.  Still, we do take into consideration the stage of development of grain and tree fruits.  Rambam 4 Kiddush Hachodesh 1-2.

שנה מעוברת היא שנה שמוסיפין בה חדש. ואין מוסיפין לעולם אלא אדר ועושין אותה שנה שני אדרין אדר ראשון ואדר שני. ומפני מה מוסיפין חדש זה מפני זמן האביב כדי שיהא הפסח באותו זמן שנאמר שמור את חדש האביב שיהיה חדש זה בזמן האביב. ולולא הוספת החדש הזה הפסח בא פעמים בימות החמה ופעמים בימות הגשמים

על שלשה סימנין מעברין את השנה. על התקופה ועל האביב ועל פירות האילן. כיצד בית דין מחשבין ויודעין אם תהיה תקופת ניסן בששה עשר בניסן או אחר זמן זה מעברין אותה השנה. ויעשו אותו ניסן אדר שני כדי שיהיה הפסח בזמן האביב. ועל סימן זה סומכין ומעברין ואין חוששין לסימן אחר

But this is not exclusive to Pesach.  All of the Shalosh Regalim are intended to be synchronous with the solar and agricultural seasons.  In our parsha, Pesach and Shavuos are related to the קציר and Sukkos is related to the אסיף, which are seasonal events unrelated to the spiritual aspect of the chag.  

Rabbeinu Bachay notes this in Parshas Bo, where Pesach is connected to אביב, Spring.

Rabbeinu Bachay, Shemos 13:4

קבעה תורה חג פסח בזמן האביב שהוא זמן קציר שעורים שהרי קנה השבלת נקרא אביב מלשון אב כי הוא המוליד גרגירי החטה וידוע כי כל מועדי התורה תלויים בזמנים חג הפסח בזמן האביב, חג שבועות בזמן הקציר והוא קציר חטים שנאמר  (שמות כג ט"ז)  וחג הקציר בכורי מעשיך חג הסכות בזמן האסיף, לכך תקנו לנו ז"ל בתפלה ובברכות לומר מקדש ישראל והזמנים ולא המועדים כלשון הכתוב לפי שכל המועדים תלוים בזמן.

Reb Yaakov interprets this duality beautifully.  He says that the dual themes of commemoration of great miracles that formed our nation, and agricultural celebration, are independently significant, but the question remains as to the degree of their independence:  Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue as to whether they are alternative or synergistic.  What he says is classic Toras Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky, and I would only add a few little comments after quoting him.

Reb Yaakov in his Emes L'Yaakov in Beitzah:

ר׳ אליעזר אומר אין לו לאדם ביו״ט אלא או אוכל ושותה או יושב ושונה ר׳ יהושע אומר חלקהו חציו לה׳ וחציו לכם וכו׳. הנה ביאור מחלוקת התנאים שם הוא. דהנה אם נחקור בשורש המועדים שנצטוו בני ישראל לשמור נראה דבאמת יש

 בכל יום טוב טעמים שונים. ולמשל חג הפסח נקבע כזכר ליציאת מצרים וגלוי שכינה בתפארתה. וכל המצוות שאנו מקיימין בו הם זכר לחרות האומה במובן הרוחני. ואף על פי כן הדגישה התורה כמה פעמים כי ״חג האביב״ הוא. כלומר שקמת התבואה כבר במילואה ועושים יו״ט בשביל זה. וכן סוכות שבתורה נקבע הטעם לזכר ענני כבוד, וכן בארו חז״ל כי עיקר שמחת החג היא מה שזכינו לכפרה גמורה ביהכ״פ, ואעפ״כ הוא נקרא בתורה [שמות כ״ג פט״ז] גם בשם ״חג האסיף״. וכן חג השבועות שהוא זמן מתן תורתנו מכל מקום נקרא בתורה [שם] בשם ״חג הקציר״. וכן גם הדינים: שבפסח דנים על התבואה ובעצרת על הפירות ובסוכות על המים [ראש השנה דף ט״ז ע״א], הלא אלו הם דברים השייכים לגוף ולא לרוח. ולכאורה אין שום שייכות ביניהם. כי או שנאמר שהטעם הוא רוחני או שהוא גשמי, ועל נקודה זו סובבת המחלוקת בין רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע:

ר׳ אליעזר סובר שכל אחד יכול לבחור איזה חלק מהשמחה הוא חוגג. דאם רצה יכול האדם לתפוס את השמחה הרוחנית ויושב ושונה. ואם רצה הוא יכול לחגוג את השמחה הגשמית ויושב ואוכל — אבל שניהם אינם משלימים זה את זה, והיינו משום ששיטתו [בראשית רבה י״ב י״א] היא דכל מה שבשמים ברייתו בשמים וכל מה שבארץ ברייתו מן הארץ ואין לערבב ביניהם, אבל ר׳ יהושע סובר שגם החלק הארצי שמימי נינהו, ובאכילה ובשתיה ג״כ יש צד רוחני. ולכן יכול לחלוק את החג חציו לכם וחציו לה׳ ואין בזה שום סתירה. והיינו משום שהוא סובר [מדרש שם] שכל שברייתו בשמים ובארץ ג״כ ברייתו מן השמים, דהכל שמימי הוא. ואם נעמיק יותר אפשר לומר דמחלוקת ר׳ אליעזר ור׳ יהושע [בבא מציעא דף נ״ט ע״ב] אם משגיחין בבת קול כנגד סברת החכמים נמי תלויה בזה, ודו״ק. ועיין בפסחים [דף ס״ח ע״ב]: הכל מודים בעצרת דבעינן נמי לכם וכו', וכמש״כ שם לבאר זה.

In Emes L'Yaakov Pesachim:

הכל מודים בעצרת דבעינן נמי לכם מ״ט יום שניתנה בו תורה הוא. ביאור הדבר, דהנה יש מחלוקת עיקרית בין ישראל לעמים, דלדידן הנפש והגוף יש להם קשור סינטטי — וכמו שביאר הרמב״ן בפרשת בראשית [ב׳ פ״ז] בפסוק דויפח באפיו נשמת חיים שגם הגוף נתעלה על ידי הנשמה, וכן פירשו הפרשנים על הפסוק לא ידון רוחי גו׳ בשגם הוא בשר, כלומר שגם הרוח נעשה לבשר, והיינו דעל ידי ההרכבה נעשה האדם למין בריה חדשה, אבל העכו״ם אומרין כי הנפש נמצא בתוך

 הגוף ואינה ממלאה כל הגוף אלא שיש לה מדור בתוכו אבל אינה מעורבת עם הגוף, ולפיכך כשהוצרכו להמציא להם מחוקק הוצרכו לבדות שנולד על ידי רוח — דעל ידי בשר אי אפשר להם לצייר שיצא קדושה מבעלי חומר. משא״כ בתוה״ק ספרה התורה כי הלך איש מבית לוי ולקח את בת לוי וגר. והנה בהלכה אנו רואין כי שלמי העכו״ם עולות מ ״ט דלבו לשמים, והיינו שא״א לעכו״ם להבין איך יתכן שיאכלו הבשר ויהיה זה קרבן של קדושה, אבל בישראל אמרינן כהנים אוכלים ובעלים מתכפרים. וזהו ביאור מאמרם הכל מודים בעצרת דבעינן נמי לכם מ״ט יום שניתנה בו תורה הוא, דלכאורה אדרבה אפילו לר׳ יהושע הו״ל בעצרת להיות יושב ושונה דהלא יום שניתנה בו תורה הוא, אבל לפ״מ שבארתי הרי זו חידשה התורה דגם הגוף שייך לתורה, וזהו צריך להוכיח על ידי אכילתו.

I would add is that the dual themes may not be coincidental.  It is possible that in view of our natural and proper (and trans-cultural) celebration of the bounty of the seasons, the Torah davka wanted to infuse a spiritual aspect into these celebrations, and that's one of the reasons the Torah was makpid that the spiritual commemorations take place during the seasonal celebrations.  As Rabbeinu Bachay said, לכך תקנו לנו ז"ל בתפלה ובברכות לומר מקדש ישראל והזמנים ולא המועדים.  The point is that it is by combining the ruchniusdikeh experience- the מועדים- with the celebration of the season- the זמנים, we are mekadeish the זמנים.

We find this concept in the Gemara regarding a sixteen day Winter Solstice celebration as well, although we didn't get a corresponding religious holiday.  The fact that others co-opted these celebrations into inimical belief systems does not diminish the reality that the fundamental concept is universal.  As my mother says, in Litteh, they used to color eggs brown with cocoa powder for Pesach.  We have a habit of automatically denigrating anything that is not exactly like what we do, and there is value in doing so, as we find by the issur of a single-stone Matzeiva altar.  Indeed, the manner of celebration, and the theology the celebration is dressed in, can be diametrically opposed to ours.  But in all honesty, you have to admit that there is some commonality deep down at the beginning.
Avoda Zara 8a:

ת"ר לפי שראה אדם הראשון יום שמתמעט והולך אמר אוי לי שמא בשביל שסרחתי עולם חשוך בעדי וחוזר לתוהו ובוהו וזו היא מיתה שנקנסה עלי מן השמים עמד וישב ח' ימים בתענית [ובתפלה] כיון שראה תקופת טבת וראה יום שמאריך והולך אמר מנהגו של עולם הוא הלך ועשה שמונה ימים טובים לשנה האחרת עשאן לאלו ולאלו ימים טובים הוא קבעם לשם שמים והם קבעום לשם עבודת כוכבים

We can find a practical lesson in this as well.  In life, we celebrate our blessings and accomplishments, and that's a perfectly natural and appropriate thing to do.  But it would be a good thing, as Rav Yehoshua says, to ensure that we join that celebration with a ruchniusdikeh element as well.  Doing so will not diminish the celebration.  On the contrary, the two will create a beneficial synergism that will give the entire experience a greater power and beauty.

One more tiny thing I have to point out about Reb Yaakov's pshat.  While he says that ר׳ אליעזר סובר שכל אחד יכול לבחור איזה חלק מהשמחה הוא חוגג, this does not mean that Rebbi Eliezer considers them equal alternatives.  Sukka 15b- 

ת"ר מעשה ברבי אליעזר שהיה יושב ודורש כל היום כולו בהלכות יום טוב יצתה כת ראשונה אמר הללו בעלי פטסין כת שניה אמר הללו בעלי חביות כת שלישית אמר הללו בעלי כדין כת רביעית אמר הללו בעלי לגינין כת חמישית אמר הללו בעלי כוסות התחילו כת ששית לצאת אמר הללו בעלי מארה נתן עיניו בתלמידים התחילו פניהם משתנין אמר להם בני לא לכם אני אומר אלא להללו שיצאו שמניחים חיי עולם ועוסקים בחיי שעה בשעת פטירתן אמר להם לכו אכלו משמנים ושתו ממתקים ושלחו מנות לאין נכון לו כי קדוש היום לאדונינו ואל תעצבו כי חדות ה' היא מעוזכם 

so Rebbi Eliezer was clearly not happy with those- at least those Bnei Torah- who chose the  second of the two options in רבי אליעזר אומר אין לו לאדם ביום טוב אלא או אוכל ושותה או יושב ושונה.

(An even tinier thing- Christians complain that the secularization of America resulted in people saying "Season's greetings," instead of wishing them a merry holiday in December.  Reb Yaakov and Rabbeinu Bachay might approve of saying Season's Greetings instead  of Good Yomtov or Moadim l'Simcha- it is indeed a season's greeting, another way of saying מקדש ישראל והזמנים. )

Kedoshim. Imitation Issur

Over Pesach, we spent time discussing the wondrous kosher le'pesach pastries that mimic chametz- bagels and white bread that are difficult to distinguish from the real thing, but that are made from various root starches and quinoa.  Similarly, advances in food science are making it possible to create a kosher version of all kinds of shekatzim and remasim, basar b'chalav, and other maachalos asuros.  Is this a problem? We wrote an essay about this, but, in order to highlight how grotesque this can be, we wrote it in an ironic style, so it was posted at the other website.

Nonetheless, the question is important, and the issues raised there are relevant to Parshas Kedoshim, particularly in light of the Ramban at the beginning of the parsha about נבל ברשות התורה, and the Toras Kohanim at the end about לא יאמר אדם נפשי קצה בבשר החזיר, as brought by Rashi (20:26.)  The specific issues that need to be examined are

מראית עין, 

מאוס, 

מיגדר מילתא, 

לא שינו, 

מגרה יצר הרע בנפשיה 

and

והאספסוף אשר בקרבו התאוו תאוה.  

Direct mekoros include the Shibuta Gemara in Chulin 109 where Rav Nachman gave his wife K'chal because she wanted to taste basar b'chalav, and the Gemara in Krisus 21b about eating fish blood.

As a pe'shara, we're not posting it on this site, but here's a link:

Kedoshim, and a Plan for a New Restaurant: FLAG Kosher 

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

A דבר בעתו for Erev Pesach.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me:

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

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

Anonymous:

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

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

Me:

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




NOTE

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ponovezher Rov.

I recently had a discussion with someone about the Ponovezher Rov and his family and their relationship with my family.  (The original version of this post had a Torah discussion at the end, but it grew too long to be ancillary, so I posted it elsewhere.)  Here are some photographs.

Around 1958.  Rabbi William Z. (Bill) Novick, Ponovezher Rov, my Father zatzal, and Rabbi Leonard Oschry.  The painting on the wall is by Saul Rabino, and instead of Chasidim dancing, it shows a Litvishe Yid learning, with a glass of hot tea in front of him.  If you don't see the chut shel chesed, the Hashraas haShechina on the Rov's face, please see the Gemara about the מטרוניתא in Brachos 55a)

In my parents' home, around 1964, Rav Zvi Hirsch Meisels (Veitzener Rov, author of מקדשי השם and others,) my brother שיעבמ"צ, and Ponovezher Rov.

 At my Bar Mitzva, 1965.

In Ponovezher Yeshiva, around 1967.  Ponovezher Rov, my Father, and my uncle Yitzchak.

The next two pictures have nothing to do with this post, but I like them.

Around 1970, my parents' house, my father behind Reb Moshe.  Out of their mutual respect came my marriage to his granddaughter seven years later.

Same time, my father, Rabbi Chaim Regensberg, and the Veitzener Rov- each a great talmid chacham, each an illuy, but very different from each other.  Reb Moshe stayed at his brother in law's house, Rabbi Small.  While the olam was waiting for Reb Moshe to come, the Veitzener Rov said that he had just returned from a lengthy and very hard din Torah, and he and Reb Moshe sat together on the Beis Din.  He said that he can say eidus that there is not one se'if in the four chalakim of Shulchan Aruch that Reb Moshe does not have in his pocket.  A young (fool) Rebbi from the yeshiva spoke up said that he heard in the name of the Chazon Ish that bizman hazeh nobody has every se'if of Shulchan Aruch arois klor.  Rabbi Meisels answered, "I said I could say eidus, and I saw what I saw, so there can be two explanations.  Either that for the kavod of the Chazon Ish, Reb Moshe forgets a se'if, but when he needs it, he remembers it.  Or, the Chazon Ish didn't know Reb Moshe."

At the same event, seated next to Reb Moshe is his brother in law, Rav Isaac Small.  I am standing behind them.

Metzora: Being Tamei, but not Mekabeil Tumah. בית המנוגע

Reb Chaim (Stencil, Sukka 12b) asks: assuming that there's a din (הוויתו על ידי דבר המקבל טומאה) that a mikva is not kosher if it's kashrus depends on something that could become tamei, then you shouldn't be able to have a mikva in a house in Eretz Yisrael, because the house could become tamei if it has צרעת and is declared to be a בית המנוגע.  If the wall of the house is a wall of the mikva, and removing the wall would mean there would be no mikva, then the potential for the wall to be tamei would mean that the mikva is הוויתו על ידי דבר המקבל טומאה, its existence and kashrus relies on something that is susceptible to Tumah.

יש לחקור אם יכול לעשות מקוה בבית ולא יהא כאן החסרון דהוויתו על ידי דבר המקבל טומאה אף דבית מתטמא בנגע צרעת. 

Reb Chaim answers that a בית המנוגע is inherently tamei, but is totally incapable of receiving any Tumah, and all we care about by Mikva is the susceptibility to "received" Tumah.

וצ"ל דטומאת צרעת היינו דעצם הבית נעשה לדבר טמא ולשרץ אבל לא שיש לבית תורת קבלת טומאה מנגע ומה דבדבר המקבל טומאה אינו יכול לעשות מקוה הוא משום דין זה שמקבל טומאה הוא כמו חלות דין של טומאה על החפץ אבל מה שבית יכול להתטמא בנגע אין עוד על הבית שום טומאה ולא מקרי הוויתו על ידי דבר המקבל טומאה.

He asks, but if so, then why does the Gemara in Sukkah say that fibers of flax, אניצי פשתן ,  cannot be used for Schach, inasmuch as they are subject to Tumas Tzaraas if they develop the marks of Tzaraas?  But he just postulated that an object that has Tzaraas cannot be said to have contracted Tumah!  He answers that flax with the sign of Tzaraas, besides being an object of Tzaraas, also separately contracts Tumas Tazaraas.

והא דאיתא דאין מסככין סוכה באניצי פשתן משום דשתי וערב מתטמא בנגעים ומקר' ממלא דבר המקבל טומאה משום דבגד המתטמא בנגע מלבד דהוא נעשה לדבר טמא ולשרץ עצמו עוד יורד עליו דין קבלת טומאה וסימנך דאחרי טהרתו צריך טבילה לטהור הרי דקבל טומאה מהנגע דבדין שהוא נגע צרעת לא שייך טבילה וכיון שריבתה התורה לענין נגעים שגם שתי וערב תורת בגד לו לענין נגעים אינו כמו בית המתטמא בנגע אלא כמו בגד שיש לו גם תורת קבלת טומאה  דיש להשתי או להערב תורת בגד לדין נגעים

Additionally, the fact that these linen fibers require tevilla to become tahor shows that besides being objects of Tumah, they received tumah, because tevilla would do nothing for a Tzraas identity.

.  והראי' על זה דגם הם צריכים טבילה ולכן פסולים לסכך שיש עליהם תורת קבלת טומאה לענין נגעים ולא דמי לבית

There is a natural tendency to read into Reb Chaim the approach of the Sifri Zuta in Chukas that says that a dead human body is not tamei, it only causes tumah in people or things through ohel or maga or hesit.   

(The Sifrei was popularized in the US by Reb Leizer Silver, here, responded to here and here, it's brought down by Reb Aharon in his משנת ר' אהרן טהרות כז in the footnote at the very end, and written about by me here.)

But with all due respect to the people that learn Reb Chaim like that, (not really; I think they should be ashamed of themselves, because it's the lazy way out,) that's not what Reb Chaim means.  He says that the house is tamei.  It's only that it is not a received Tuma, it is an inherent tuma by being defined as a בית המנוגע- it became a Sheretz.  Only susceptibility to received Tumah is a problem either for Mikvaos or Sukkah.

How does Reb Chaim know to make this chiluk?  By S'chach, that's a simple question to answer.  He doesn't need a svara, all he needs is the source for the psul of mekabel tumah. The Gemara (11b-12a) gives us three drashos that tell us that schach cannot be made of something that is mekabel tumah.  Reb Yochanan's drasha is from the words באספך מגרנך ומיקבך, that you use פסולת גורן ויקב, whose prominent characteristics are gidulei karka and, for our discussion, that are not mekabeil tumah.  The fact that they could become tamei if they become a sheretz does not change this character.  As long as they are not mekabeil tumah from something else that is tamei, this characteristic matches פסולת גורן ויקב.

By Mikva, I don't know how his chiluk matters.

I don't have the patience to type up the other place Reb Chaim says this, in Niddah, but here's the picture.

I think the Netziv says the same thing, but with more clarity, in the name of his son Reb Chaim.  Everyone asks, how can the Rambam say that Nigei Batim can cause Tumah to everything in the house, no matter what it is (based on Reb Meir's pshat in וצוה הכהן ופנו את הבית בטרם יבא הכהן לראות את הנגע, ולא יטמא כל אשר בבית ואחר כן יבא הכהן).  If so, nothing should be kasher for S'chach, because even psoles goren and Yekev are mekabel tumah if they're in a  בית המנוגע.  He says the teretz from his son R' Chaim:

הקשה המל״מ ... מסוכה ד׳ י״ב דחבילי עצים אין מסככין בהם משום תעשה ולא מה״ע ותיפוק לן משום דמקבלים טומאה היינו שנטמאים בבית המנוגע• וע״ז יישב בני הרב מ׳ חיים ברלין שי׳ דודאי הני לא מקבלי טומאה אלא בשעת ביאת הכהן ומטמא את הבית  בזה גזרת הכתוב דכשם שהבית מיטמא, כך כל אשר בו מיטמאין, אפי׳ דברים שאינם מקבלים טומאה לעולם. אבל הנכנס  בבית אח״כ אינו מקבל טומאה אלא כמו בכ״מ.  וממילא מיושב הא דסוכה ג״כ דאי נימא דבזה מיקרי מקבל.טומאה  אפי׳ פסולת גורן ויקב גמי מקבלי טומאה. וזה ברור

That means that they are not mekabeil tumah in the normal sense.  The Kohen's declaration of Tuma on a בית המנוגע creates a one step chalos tumah not only on the house but also on all its contents, but that's a one step event, not two steps of "tuma on house and then house to contents."  It is a direct chalos tumah on the house and all its contents.  This is not a psul schach.


I mentioned above that Reb Aharon briefly talks about the Sifri Zuta.  This is what he says:

אך אין הדבר פשוט כל כך לומר דמת אין בו טומאה דהא אסור מן התורה להכניסו בעזרה, כמו שרץ, ורק במחנה לויה הותר להכניסו כמבואר בסוטה דף כ', ואפשר דרק לאיזה ענין פרטי כיוונו בספרי זוטא הנזכר לעיל.

Reb Aharon's problem was addressed by the אמבוהי דספרי brought by Reb Leizer Silver, as well as the responses I linked to above, but in the end, it's still most likely a stira to the Gemara in Sota Reb Aharon brings.  I don't think Reb Aharon saw the SZ inside, because if he had, it would have changed a lot of what he writes in the main body of the piece regarding נבלת עוף טהור.