Something for Everyone on Tisha Ba'av

Several local synagogues showed a a video Tisha Ba'av afternoon titled "It Is No Dream: the Life of Theodor Herzl."  I was puzzled; I didn't understand how this was an appropriate activity for a day when we mourn the churban habayis and the galus.  But someone explained to me that it is perfectly appropriate.  For some, it expresses the consolation that we begin to feel as the day ends, because Herzel's divine inspiration was a manifestation of the אתחלתא דגאולה, the beginning of the ingathering and the end of the galus, and ultimately the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash.  For others, Herzl and his Zionism compounded the tragedy we mourn in the morning's kinos.  So this is one of the rare cases where almost all the segments of the Jewish community can agree on something- that this video is something we can watch on Tisha Ba'av.

Along the same lines, in 1962 I was in Bnei Brak for Tisha Ba'av, and I expected it to be a day in which the mournfulness of Tisha Ba'av would be experienced especially deeply.  It didn't turn out that way.  Many of the kids there spent the morning pinging each other (and the occasional adult) with pea shooters, before, during, and after Kinnos.  (They weren't shooting peas, they were shooting the little green berries from the local cedar trees.)  I mentioned my fifty year old memory to my son in law, and he told me that this still goes on in Yerushalayim in the old community.  Some kids throw the seeds from weeds that stick to your clothes, נערות נערות וטפשותיה.  In fact, my son in law showed me that the minhag is brought down in Reb Yaakov Emden's siddur.  Reb Yaakov Emden has a unique style of writing, and I decided to reproduce his words intact and untranslated.

ולא אטריח קולמסי לדבר מקלי עולם השמחים לאיד הגרועים מבני נכר שאפי׳ אויבנו השומעים אותנו מתאבלים ובוכים לבם נשבר ונעכר והללו לשחוק עושים לחם שערים גולריין הקטנים מתגרים הבנים מלקטים עצים והאבות מבערים (ירמיהו ז:יח) והגדולים כסומים וכעורים מושכים ידים את לוצצים מלעיגים ומלעיביס ומתעתעים בתוכחות הלא טוב מותם מחייהם אטו ברשיעי כה"ג ובגברי קטילי עסקינן  ולא נחרבה ביתר אלא על שלא התאבלו על ירושלים כראוי אעפ״י שהי׳ להם חסידים  גדולים ותנאים ראשונים והקולר תלוי במי שיש  בידו למחות והמוחה יזכה לנחמות ולשמחות

This is also brought in the Mishna Berura (559:22) from the Elia Rabba, but the best he can muster is רע עלי המעשה and עון גדול הוא.

Celebrating Tisha Ba'av

RH 18b, on the passuk in Zecharia 8:25

דאמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר ר"ש חסידא מאי דכתיב כה אמר ה' צב-אות צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה, קרי להו צום וקרי להו ששון ושמחה, בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה

צום הרביעי is Shiva Asar b'Tammuz;  צום החמישי is Tisha B'av;   צום השביעי is Tzom Gedaliah; צום העשירי is Asara B'Teves.

The navi tell us that the taaneisim will one day become days of celebration.  One might read the term "days of celebration" to mean that now, we are obligated to mourn and fast, but the day will come when we will no longer have to mourn and fast, and we will be allowed to celebrate, not that they will be davka days of celebration.  But from the Yalkut you see that all these days will officially become days of celebration.

(While only Tisha Ba'av is called מועד, all the taaneisim will become days of ששון ושמחה.)

Yalkut Shimoni Eicha 1:998

עתיד הקב"ה להפוך תשעה באב לשמחה, שנאמר כה אמר ה' צב-אות צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה ולמועדים טובים ולבנות את ירושלים הוא בעצמו ולקבץ גלויות ישראל לתוכה, שנאמר בונה ירושלים ה' נדחי ישראל יכנס

And the Beis Yosef in 550 says so, too:

 שיש שלום — שאין יד העו"ג תקיפה על ישראל. 

יהיו לששון ולשמחה — ליאסר בהספד ובתענית.

As the passuk in Yirmiahu (31:13) says, והפכתי אבלם לששון; not just erasing the eivel, but actual sasson.

1.  Reb Tzadok (ט"ו באב א) says that the celebration will be just out of relief from the fact that it's no longer a day of suffering- "Thank God we're not suffering any more."

...ונראה דחגה קאי על ט' באב, דבזמן הבית היה חג, וכמו שנאמר "והפכתי חגיכם לאבל", ואיזה חג נהפך לאבל אם על ה' חגים הלא לא נהפכו לאבל יותר משאר ימות השנה, רק קאי על תשעה באב שבזמן הבית היה חג, וכמו בבית שני ששאלו את יתענו בצומות והשיבום הנביא צום הרביעי וגו' יהיו לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה ולמועדים טובים, אף שידעו שעדיין לא היתה הגאולה בשלימות, מכל מקום בזמן הבית היה יום טוב מפני שהיה צומות מקודם. כן בזמן בית ראשון היה בתשעה באב יום טוב ומועד, ואף שלא היה עוד צומות מקודם מכל מקום מזמן המדבר שנגזר במרגלים כמו שאמרו (תענית כ"ט) אתם בכיתם בכיה של חנם ואני קובע לכם בכיה לדורות, ומן אותה שעה נגזר על בית המקדש שיחרב כדי שיגלו ישראל... וכיון שראו אחר כך שהיו בארץ ישראל ולא נתקיים רק להפיל אותם במדבר והם שרוין בארץ ישראל, לכן עשו אז בזמן בית ראשון גם כן חג בט' באב, כמו שעשו בבית שני שנהפך הצום לששון ולשמחה.

ונראה שהיה החג ז' ימים מט' באב עד ט"ו באב, ויש לומר שזה שלמדו (מו"ק כ) לאבילות ז', דכתיב והפכתי חגיכם לאבל, מה חג ז' אף אבילתו ז'... ובט"ו בו קבעו בזמן הבית חג ומחולות שהיה יום האחרון מן ז' ימי חג אלו... (ט"ו באב א, וראה שם עוד)

I can hear it- if a person has chronic pain, and on several horrible days every year it gets ten times worse, and then suddenly he is cured and he feels better than he ever felt in his life.  When those horrible days come around, he might dance and sing.  But a seven day Yomtov, as Rav Tzadok says will stretch from Tisha to Tes Vav B'av?  And don't you hope that l'asid lavo there'll be better reasons to celebrate than the fact that we aren't suffering any more?  And I think it would be better to just forget the miserable אימה חשכה גדולה we experienced, instead of celebrating the change.

2.  Perhaps we can answer with the Gemara in Kiddushin 31b about Rav Avahu's kibbud Av:
איסתייעא מילתיה ודרש אבימי מזמור לאסף
Rashi-

איסתייעא מילתא. בעודו גחין לפניו שהבין במדרש מזמור אחד שבספר תהלים שלא היה מבין בו קודם לכן לדורשו וי"מ שמקרא זה לבדו דרש מזמור לאסף אלהים באו גוים בנחלתך וגו' קינה לאסף מיבעי ליה ודרש כך שאמר אסף שירה על שכילה הקב"ה חמתו בעצים ואבנים שבביתו ומתוך כך הותיר פליטה בישראל שאלמלא כך לא נשתייר משונאי ישראל שריד וכן הוא אומר כלה ה' את חמתו ויצת אש בציון (איכה ד

So if it can be called a mizmor, it can be called a holiday.  A mizmor is a song, and a song expresses joy.  Now, while there is no BHMK, the churban is our dominant experience of the day, and the churban is mourned.  This is similar to the Beis HaLevi in Beshalach by Az Yashir.  But when the Beis Hamikdash is returned, we will see in retrospect that the churban enabled Klal Yisrael to survive and it allowed our ultimate geula shleima bimheira beyameinu.  This is similar to one of the Chasam Sofer's answers to this question, here, dh Vera'isi.
הצום וקבלת היסורים המה בעצמם ששון ושמחה ע״ד [ישעי׳ י״ב] אודך ה׳ כי אנפת בי פי״ז ישוב אפך ותנחמני. 



3.  Another answer from the Chasam Sofer, end of second column and beginning of next page.

הצום עצמו יהפך לששון ולשמחה כשנזכור ימי ענינו נשמח בסבלותינו כל זה ע״ד אודך כי אנפת בי [ישעי׳ י״ב] אודך כי עניתני [תהלים קי״ח]. והנה מצינו רנה נאמר על הצער כמו [מ׳א כ״ב ל״ו] ויעבור הרנה במחנה. והנה אמר לע״ל ימלא שחוק פינו לא שנשמח עצמנו וגופינו בהוללת וסכלות בבתי קאפע וטיאטראות כ״א פינו ימלא שחוק ולשוננו רנה שנספר תמיד על הרנה והצער שעבר עלינו וזכינו לסבול

 No Starbucks.  

4.  See from Lubavitcher Rebbe here.

כי עיקר ה­תענית אינו העינוי שבו, כ״א זה שהוא ״יום רצון לה׳״, אלא שבזמן הגלות, כשעדיין לא בטלו חטאינו (שגרמו ל־ ״גלינו מארצנו״), הרי הדרך להרגיש ולנצל מעלת היום היא על ידי עינוי הגוף, שזה מעורר את האדם לתשובה וכדו'. משא״כ לעתיד לבא, כאשר ״את רוח הטומאה אעביר מן הארץ״, אין מקום לעינוי (הגוף), אלא להוספה בעבודת ה׳ ועבודה זו ה״ה מתוך שמחה וטוב לבב, ולכן יהיו ימי רצון אלה ימי שמחה, שיהפכו לימים טובים

5.  Harav Dovid Goldberg of Telshe Cleveland, in his sefer Shiras Dovid, quotes Rav Gifter in the name of Rav Avraham Yitzchok Bloch, as follows.

שענין מועד הוא ענין ועד, ר"ל התועדות עם הקב"ה, וכמו שבימי המועדים שהזמן הוא התגלות של חסדי ה' עמנו כשהוציאנו ממצרים ונתן לנו את התורה ומתוך ששון ושמחה שבהכרה זו כביכול מתועדים אנו עם השי"ת, כמו כן בזמן של התגלות מדת הדין מתוך הכרה ברורה באמיתת משפטו יתברך כביכול מתועדים אנו עמו.  ואכן מועד ה' הוא ואין אומרים בו תחנון.  כי לאור הכרה זו אין שבר ואין אנחה רק אור הנפלא של השגתו יתברך 

The only comment I would make on Rav Bloch's words is that his pshat would apply to all fast days, as the Lubavitcher said, but the word and din of Moed only is found by Tisha Ba'av.  I suppose the pshat is that only Tisha Ba'av is a din taanis, while the other ones are a reshus, so they're not as highly charged.

Devarim 1:1 and 2:7. Wealth Etiquette, and די זהב.

כי ה' אלקיך ברכך בכל מעשה ידך, God has blessed you in all your endeavors, go and use that money to buy food from the nations. Rashi says a remarkable thing.

לפיכך לא תכפו את טובתו להראות כאלו אתם עניים, אלא הראו עצמכם עשירים:

Therefore you should not be ungrateful for His goodness [to you] by acting as though you were poor. Rather, show yourselves as rich people.
Let people know that God has blessed you with wealth.

This seems to be contrary to normal derech eretz, and also inconsistent with what it says in Breishis 42:1, “למה תתראו, ” where Yaakov told his children to join the caravans which sought to purchase food from Egypt during the famine, although they had plenty stored away. Why, Yaakov asked rhetorically, should you show off in front of all the others who are stricken with the famine.

Many possible distinctions come to mind, but I didn't find them in the mefarshim. They are only my suggestions.

• It is possible that Rashi is referring only to the Jews in the desert, and the point was that people shouldn't say that Hashem had taken us out of Mitzrayim in a state of poverty. We needed to let people know that Hashem had taken us out birchush gadol. However, if this were pshat, it most likely would have said “lo s’chalelu es Hashem,” not “lo sichpu tov.” 
• Or, pshat could be that it would be like a child who was well provided for by his father who goes around saying that he is poor, that he has nothing. His assertion of poverty belittles and disparages his father's efforts and kindness, and thereby insults his father.  Such a person is a kafui tov.  What he should say is that he earned nothing on his own, and all that he has was given to him as a gift by his generous father.  
• Perhaps showing wealth in a time of plenty is good, but showing satiation when others are starving is very bad.
• Or that the case of the Midbar was a neis, and part of a miracle is that it be publicized for Kiddush Hashem.

Eli directs us to the Divrei David in Breishis that asks this question on Rashi.  He explains that if you truly are wealthy, you should not hide it.  Only those people that are not really wealthy and act as if they are, are criticized in למה תתראו.  He supports his pshat with Rashi's 's interpretation there of למה תתראו as כאילו אתם שבעים- "as if you are satiated-" which implies that if they were truly שבעים, there would be no problem.

In the light of this Rashi, and the Divrei David's well founded pshat in Rashi, it’s particularly interesting to see what the Kli Yakar says here four psukim before, on “P’nu lachem tzafonah,” turn yourselves northward. Tzafonah, צפונה, is a homynym for "the hidden," like Tzafun in the Haggadah.  The Medrash here (1:19) says that when Eisav is ascendant, the wise Eitzah is to be matzpin yourself, to hide. So the Kli Yakar says pshat in the Medrash is that whenever a Jew is rich, the Bnei Eisav feel that he stole his wealth from them. (We find exactly this reaction by the sons of Lavan in Breishis 31:1, who said “Yaakov has taken away everything of our father's, from our father's wealth Yaakov created all his honor..”) So the point of the Medrash is that now, that we live in golus among Bnei Eisav, we should be careful to not show our wealth, but instead to hide it, unlike, as he says, the Jews who, as soon as they have a manah, buy fancy and expensive clothing and show off in front of the goyim, which, he says, is the reason for “kol hatla’ah asher m’tza’asnu” in our galus.

Kli Yakar:

פנו לכם צפונה - ודרשו בזה: אם הגיע שעתו של עשו, הצפינו עצמכם... אם ימצא האיש הישראלי איזו הצלחה, זעיר שם, אזי יטמינו ויצפינו הכל בפני עשו, כי אין לך אומה שמתקנאת בישראל כמו עשו, כי לדעתם הכל גזולים בידם מהם מן ברכת יעקב אבינו שלקח ברכותיו של עשו במרמה, וכן יעקב ציווה לבניו (בראשית מב1) למה תתראו, פירש רש"י: בפני בני ישמעאל ועשו, כאילו אתם שבעים, כי שניהם סוברים שיצחק גזל הצלחת ישמעאל ויעקב גזל הצלחת עשו ע"י השתדלות, על-כן ציווה דווקא על עשו פנו לכם צפונה, שלא יתקנא בכם. וזה היפך ממה שישראל עושין בדורות הללו בארצות אויביהם, כי מי שיש לו מנה הוא מראה את עצמו במלבושי כבוד ובתים ספונים וחשובים, כאילו היו לו כמה אלפים, ומגרים האומות בעצמם, ועוברים על מה שנאמר פנו לכם צפונה, ומנהג זה הוא ברבת בני עמינו, והוא המסבב את כל התלאה אשר מצאתנו, והמשכילים יבינו ליקח מוסר

So, here's another vote for common sense in deriving lessons from Chazal. Rashi and the Kli Yakar seem to be diametrically opposed. This is not the case at all, though. Rashi is saying that we should express publicly our gratitude for success in our endeavors, and we should never plead poverty when Hashem blesses us. The Kli Yakar is saying that there is a difference between expressing your gratitude that God has granted you a comfortable life, and flaunting your conspicuous consumption.

Eli also brings the Maharsha in Taanis 10b that says that the problem of jealousy is most serious within a close family, not when the others are strangers.  The Gemara says

 ויאמר יעקב לבניו למה תתראו אמר להם יעקב לבניו אל תראו עצמכם כשאתם שבעין לא בפני עשו ולא בפני ישמעאל כדי שלא יתקנאו בכם

 הא דנקט בני עשו וישמעאל שלא היו אז בארץ כנען, ולא אמר בפני בני כנען. תירץ הרמב״ן (בראשית מב, א): ואולי היו באים בני עשו וישמעאל דרך ארץ כנען וכו', עיי״ש. והרא״ם דחה דבריו עיי״ש, ותירץ עיי״ש. ואץ זה מוכרח... אבל נראה כי הקנאה שנאמרה הבא לא שייכא רק באחים קרובים ומטעם שיהיה האדם עם אחיו בצרה כדמוכח כל הסוגיא, ודבר זה אין לחוש רק בצרת אחים וקרובים, ולהכי נקט בני עשו וישמעאל שהיו מזרע אברהם נחשבים אז כאחים וקרובים לבני יעקב, אבל שאר אומות לא שייך ביה קנאה זו להיות בצרה עמהם, וכך מטין דברי הר״ן בזה שכתב בסוגין (ד"ה: ההולך ממקום שמתענים, דף ב, ב מדפי הרי׳׳ף) בענין איסור תשמיש, דיוסף שלא ידע שהיו שבעים, היה אוסר עצמו בתשמיש בשבילם, אבל הם ידעו וכו', עכ״ל. מדבריו מוכח שלא היה להם לחוש לאסור את עצמם בתשמיש משום דשאר אומות היו בצער, ואפילו משום בני עשו וישמעאל, דלא שייך בתשמיש קנאה אלא באכילה שהיא בנגלה כמו שנאמר: ״למה תתראו״ — ואל תוציאו פרוסת לחם בידכם.

I don't understand the Maharsha.  Maybe he means like the Maharal in the Gur Aryeh there, that says

מאחר כי עשו וישמעאל אחים לכם יאמרו לכם "וחי אחיד עמך״  לפיכך היו יראים מפני עשו וישמעאל ולא מאנשי כנען

I'd like to point out one more thing. The discussion until now has focused on wealth. But the same question applies to any attribute that is not evenly distributed. It applies to intelligence, and beauty, and charisma, and yichus.  Some of the explanations we've discussed apply equally to these things, for example, Rashi, and some don't, like the Kli Yakar.

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

On a similar topic:

Avraham Avinu, Shlomo Hamelech, Rabbeinu Hakadosh, the Rashash, Rav Hutner, my father Zatzal, were all rich men, and they were all spiritual giants.  But Chazal tell us something that everyone knows from simple observation, that for some people, wealth is deadly.  One of the sojourns of the Bnei Yisrael was Di Zahav.  The Gemara in Brachos 32 says that this name was actually a description of what happened there.  Moshe Rabbeinu defended the Bnei Yisroel after the chet ha’egel by saying that it was the sudden wealth that caused them to sin (אמרי דבי ר' ינאי אין ארי נוהם מתוך קופה של תבן אלא מתוך קופה של בשר the lion only roars when he's glutted with meat, not after eating straw.)  Also, Sifri in Bamidbar 18— טוב לי תורת פיך מאלפי זהב וכסף שזהב וכסף מוציאין את האדם מן העולם, אבל תורה מביאה את האדם לחיי העולם הבא..”  Sanhedrin 7b— לא תעשון אתי אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב'. אלהי כסף ואהקי זהב הוא דלא עבדי הא דעץ שרי? אמר רב אשי: אלוה הבא בשביל כסף ואלוה הבא בשביל זהב..  And Koheles 5— יש רעה חולה, ראיתי תחת השמש: עשר שמור לבעליו, לרעתו.  And Mishlei 30:9— ראש ועשר אל תתן לי הטריפני לחם חקי. פן אשבע וכחשתי  ואמרתי, מי ה.

I saw that Reb Chayim Volozhener in Ru’ach Chayim on Pirkei Avos 5:5 on the Mishneh of Asara Nissim in the Beis Hamikdosh says a good pshat in “לא כבו גשמים אש של עצי המערכה,” rain never extinguished the fire on the mizbei'ach.  He says it means that geshem is symbolic of gashmiyus.  The pshat in the mishna is that having geshem/gashmius did not extinguish their fire of ruchnius.  This, according to our Mishna, was a miracle.  (To be perfectly honest, he interprets גשמים/גשמיות as הדאגה וטרדת הפרנסה, a general reference to the distractions and worries of making a living, not specifically the distractions of wealth.  But he certainly means that as well.)

Massei, The Arei Miklat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.  According to the Riva, the idea of אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה is because although the asei is docheh the lav, you remain with asei against asei, and we say sheiv al taaseh (as the Imrei Moshe explains in siman 14.) Applying the Riva to the case of a metzora in the Ir Miklat, we ought to say that the asei to stay inside is docheh the lo saaseh of staying inside, and you remain with asei against asei; but in that case, we would say sheiv al taaseh, and he should stay in the city.  True, Tosfos in Kiddushin 34 holds that the logic of אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה is that the asei strengthens the lav, so even the lav is not nidcheh, but the Riva and Tosfos in Chulin 141 hold that the asei if docheh the lav and you're left with asei/asei, so his teretz wouldn't work.

     Additionally, Rabbi Sochaczewski's idea that according to the Rambam it would be assei/assei and the rotzei'ach would stay in the city is only true if he was in the city before he became a metzora.  If, on the other hand, he was a metzora before he entered the Ir Miklat, the assei/assei would require that he stay out of the city- another sheiv al ta'aseh.  So even according to the Rambam that should make the city unfit to be an Ir Miklat.

As an indication of what a great lamdan Rav Sochaczewski is, I faxed a copy of this to his law office in Baltimore, and evidently he considered it beneath himself to acknowledge receipt, and certainly not to comment upon it. I don't mean this sarcastically chalilah; my chinuch in how Bnei Torah should relate to each other is the law of predators in the jungle.

2.   Another point- the Gemara and Rashi in Megilla 10a indicates that to have the dinim of a walled city regarding sending out a metzora requires an act of kiddush.  It's not automatic; Beis Din, or someone, would have to be mekadesh the city as a mukaf choma.  As the Chazon Ish (OC end of 153) points out, the Gemara in Erchin says that if a walled city fell to the Leviim they would have to knock down the wall.  According to the Gevuras Ari/Liflagos Reuven, that wouldn't be true.  They could keep the wall, just don't be mekadeish the city.  The Chazon Ish answers that Beis Din was mekadeish all the walled cities, and only afterwards did they distribute cities to the Leviim with a goral.  This is a good teretz only if the kiddush is just kedushas peh (Turei Even Megilla 10 and Tosfos Arachin 32b,) because that can be done wholesale.  If an act is required (Rashi Arachin 32b, but see Tosfos there regarding a stirah in Rashi,) it's not mistavra that they did the kiddush on every ir choma before the Goral.

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

After I said this to my shiur, someone (Banny Singer) came over to me and asked, how can it be that Arei Miklat and Arei HaLeviim cannot be walled cities, when in the parsha of Arei HaLeviim it says

ומגרשי הערים אשר תתנו ללוים מקיר העיר וחוצה אלף אמה סביב ?

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

One might answer that while it says קיר/כותל/שור, not every city with a wall has the dinim of a walled city.  For example, in Megilla 5b the Gemara says that it's not called a walled city if the houses are next to each other and comprise the city wall.  It has to be a wall built separate from the houses.

אשר לו חומה ולא שור איגר.

Rashi-

חומה ולא שור איגר - בבתי ערי חומה כתיב עיר חומה ולא עיר שאין לה חומה בפני עצמה אלא מוקפת בתים סמוכות זו לזו וחומות חיצונות של בתים נעשות חומה לעיר והיינו שור איגר שגגותיה חומותיה גג מתרגמינן איגר.

Similarly, if the wall was built after the houses were built, it doesn't have a din or kedusha of a walled city.

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

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

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

Eli sent in this response, slightly edited:

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

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

Rav Shapiro, מנחת אברהם א page 123.

Rav Kanievsky, נחל איתן page 108.

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

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

Earlier, I suggested that the word always means something other than a city wall, while a proper wall of a city is a Choma.  I had no proof of the distinction, other than the obscure word used by Rav Saadia Gaon.  Since then, I came across a something written by a friend's son- Harav Aryeh Leib Keller of the Dirshu chabura in Lakewood, an extraordinary young talmid chacham.  He brings Tosfos Ri'd in his peirush on Eicha (2:8), where he says

 חל וחומה: חו­מה היא גבוה, ו״חיל״ היא קיר נמוך בצדו לחוזק

We see here a clear distinction between חו­מה and חו­מה ,קיר being a tall enclosure, while קיר refers to a short wall.

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

He also brings the Chazon Ish (OC 110:29) as follows:

 ואמנם אם כל העיר מוקפת מחיצות נותנין עיבור חוץ לחומה לר״מ דנותנין קרפף לעיר אחת אע״ג דיש אויר בין הבתים לחומה כן מבואר בע״ה ובמ״מ פכ״ח ה״ה, ולכאורה האויר שבין חומה לבתים דינו כחצר ואי חצר אינו נמדד גס אויר

 החומה אינו נמדד מן העיר אבל י״ל דאויר שכל בני העיר משתמשין כו טדיף וכמש״כ ריטב״א בנחל שיש כו דקה דמודדין

 משפת השני של הנחל, וכתב ריטב״א דאע״ג דאין מתעבר אלא דירה ומקום דירה מ״מ נחל עדיף שכל בני העיר משתמשין ואינו דבר מסוים נוח הוא ליבטל להעיד וה״נ י״ל אויר שבתוך החומה, מיהו התם י״ל לרכנן קיימינן ויהבינן קרפף וכמש״כ לעיל, אכל הכא יהבינן קרפף חוץ לחומה נר״מ, כמש״כ המ״מ,

וקרוב הדבר לומר דדוקא חומה המגינה על העיר ולפיכך תוך החומה מקרי עיקר העיר אבל מחיצה במסיפס בעלמא לא, ולענין בתי ערי חומה ודאי דוקא חומה והא דמספקא לי׳ מגילה ה׳ ב׳ בטברי׳ אי משוס מגליא או משום דלא מיגנא ודוקא לענין קריאה המגילה אבל לענין בתי ערי חומה ממעטינן טברי מ״מ בלא מגליא לחוד לא סגי אלא תרתי בעינן לא מגליא ומגני, וכדכתיב דברים ג׳ ה׳ כל אלה ערים בצורות חומה וגו׳ לבד מערי הפרזי, אלמא דבעינן דמיגני

 וכיון דהגגה מלתא היא י״ל דהא דמודדין ממומחה למיהב עיבור ע׳ אמה חוץ לחומה הוא דוקא בחומה מקפת ומגינה.

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

B'nos Moav. Arayos and Avoda Zara

Bilam advised the king of Midian to do something that would bring Hashem's anger upon Klal Yisrael.  It worked, and it brought about a disaster.  A plague broke out among the Jews, and the judges were told to take up their swords and slay those that had sinned.  According to Rashi, they actually went and killed people, and the numbers are beyond belief (two each for every judge,so Rashi says they killed something like one hundred sixty thousand men, out of six hundred thousand- more than one quarter of the Jewish men.  The Ramban finds the numbers so extreme that he says that because of Pinchas' intervention, the gzeira for the judges to kill was nullified.)  As terrible as it was, it would have been far worse if not for Pinchas' intervention.

וישב ישראל בשטים ויחל העם לזנות אל בנות מואב.  ותקראן לעם לזבחי אלהיהן ויאכל העם וישתחוו לאלהיהן.  ויצמד ישראל לבעל פעור ויחר אף ה בישראל.  ויאמר ה אל משה קח את כל ראשי העם והוקע אותם לה נגד השמש וישב חרון אף ה מישראל.  ויאמר משה אל שפטי ישראל  הרגו איש אנשיו הנצמדים לבעל פעור.   והנה איש מבני ישראל בא ויקרב אל אחיו את המדינית לעיני משה ולעיני כל עדת בני ישראל והמה בכים פתח אהל מועד.  וירא פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן ויקם מתוך העדה ויקח רמח בידו.   ויבא אחר אישישראל אל הקבה וידקר את שניהם את איש ישראל ואת האשה אל קבתה ותעצר המגפה מעל בני ישראל.   ויהיו המתים במגפה ארבעה ועשרים אלף

Pesukim and maamarei Chazal spread over the three parshios seem to give  inconsistent explanations for exactly what sin it was that precipitated the terrible punishment.  Some indicate that it was the Avoda Zara (ויצמדו לבעל פעור), while others talk of the z'nus (אמר להם אלקיהם של אלו שונא זימה הוא).

The achronim bring an interesting mesora.  They say that they have a mesora in the name of the gaon איש מפי איש עד משה רבנו- an amazing expression that we find almost nowhere outside of הלכה למשה מסיני, and certainly never where it involves something found nowhere in Chazal.  The mesora is that every avoda zara has arayos, and arayos is a necessary ingredient in every avoda zara.  According to this, Rav Steinman (Ayeles HaShachar al HaTorah) says, the kashe is not shver.  It is a false dichotomy.  Avoda Zara is Arayos, and Arayos can be Avoda Zara.

הרמ"מ משקלאוו (בס' מים אדירים על האידרא זוטא) כתב שמעתי מהגר"א ז'ל קבלה בידינו מן הגאונים איש מפי איש עד משה רבינו ע'ה שכל עבודה זרה הי' צריך דבר ערוה ולכן כתיב אצל כל ע'ז ויזנו אחרי הבעלים וקם העם הזה וזנה עכ'ל

In the Hebrewbooks copy the sefer is not called Mayim Adirim, it's called מנחם ציון.  (For those of you that never heard of the Idra Zuta, or even the Idra Rabba, it is from the Zohar in Haazinu, describing the passing of Rav Shimon bar Yochai.  Wiki articles in Hebrew and English.  For an explanation of why it has two different names, Mayim Adirim and Menachem Tzion, I direct your attention to the handwritten note on page two of the Menachem Tzion at hebrewbooks.org)

The language of the Gaon's talmid Reb Menachem Mendel in his sefer is even more clear- that arayos is not only a tool of avoda zara, but a part of its essential character.  I don't understand the discussion that leads up to this point, but he says that the reason arayos is not mentioned among the things that are makchish famaliah shel maalah is because arayos is included in Avoda Zara:

...........
והמדבר זה הוא קוצץ בנטיעוח שמפריד בין נגל׳ לנעלם והמה מהפכין ממטה לנחש ואם נותנין אות ומופת לדבריהם אזי גם האות והמופת מן המכחישים פמליא ש״מ והן עע״ז וש"ד וג׳׳ע ממש ומה דלא חשיב ג״ע נמי שא״צ כי שמעתי מאדמו״ר הגאון ז״ל שכך קבלה בידינו מהגאונים איש מפי איש עד מרע״ה שכל ע״ז צריך עבודת דבר ערוה ולכן כ' אצל ויזנו אחרי הבעלי׳ וקם העם הזה וזנה

We don't need historical support for this, but when I said it over on Shabbos, our professor of classics, Rabbi Dr. Yitzchak Resnik, said that this is well known to be the case in the classic era.  There were temples where the priestesses were mukdash to have relations with supplicants, through which a state of "holy" ecstasy would be attained.  We all are familiar with the erotic carvings associated with Hinduism as well.

Rav Schwab (in his Maayan Beis HaShoeiva) says something that relates to this.  He asks, how can it be that such a great man as Zimri could do such a disgusting thing.  Besides the fact that he was quite elderly, if you're reading this you know what a great man he must have been to be a nasi of a Shevet in Klal Yisrael, and he did something that even a prosteh person would not do, and davka with a shiksa, knowing full well what consequences he was risking.  Rav Schwab answers that the Gemara (San 63b) says

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב יודעין היו ישראל בעבודת כוכבים שאין בה ממש ולא עבדו עבודה זרה אלא להתיר להם עריות בפרהסיא

Rav Schwab says that Zimri saw that many Jews were inflamed with lust for the Moaviyos and it was that lust that drove them to do Avoda Zara, because their consciences would not let them sin.  The idea of this kind of hefkeirus of arayos was so horrible, it was so shameful, that they simply could not do the aveira.  It was only by saying to themselves that they now are worshippers of Pe'or, and zenus is the right and "holy" thing to do, that their conscience stopped bothering them!  It's not shameful, it's not horrible, it's not hefkeirus, it's our way of worshipping our god!.  They used the excuse of becoming ovdei avoda zara to kasher their irresistible taiva for zenus.  So Zimri decided that the best eitza is to remove the extreme stigma of ze'nus; to show people that even a holy and great man can give in to his desires.  Once the people would see this, then they would be willing to consort with the Moavi and Midani women without having to drop Yiddishkeit entirely.  Thus, although they would be punished for zenus with goyim, it would be a far smaller sin than Avoda Zara.  Rav Schwab says that Zimri was wrong because the sin of publicly consorting with Moaviyos and Midianos was terrible as well, and you don't solve the worse problem of avoda zara by being mattir a lesser but also terrible sin of arayos.

With the Gaon, we can enhance Rav Schwab's teretz.  Zimri's error was thinking that Arayos and Avoda Zara can be separated. But that is not true.  Arayos is a av melacha in the parsha of avoda zara; and lav davka avoda zara,- it can be minus or kefira, too, which are also in the parsha of avoda zara.  Zenus and arayos are inseparable from avoda zara.  Zimri thought it was worth it to cut off the leg to save the body.   If they don't feel so guilty about zenus, at least they won't need to throw away Yiddishkeit and adopt avoda zara to rationalize their zenus.  What he didn't realize was that he was inflaming the disease, not eliminating it.  Allowing zenus is not only a sin because of the inherent aveira of zenus, but also because it ultimately brings a person to avoda zara.

Update: Thank  you Reb Chaim B for bolstering the point with the Gemara in Sanhedrin 81b and with slight changes the Rambam 12 I'B 6:

הבועל ארמית קנאין פוגעין בו, בעא מיניה רב כהנא מרב, לא פגעו בו קנאין מהו, אינשיה רב לגמריה, אקריוהו לרב כהנא בחלמיה בגדה יהודה ותועבה נעשתה בישראל ובירושלים, כי חלל יהודה קדש ה' אשר אהב ובעל בת אל נכר, אתא אמר ליה הכי אקריון, אדכריה לרב לגמריה, בגדה יהודה זו עבודת כוכבים, וכן הוא אומר בגדתם בי בית ישראל נאום ה', ותועבה נעשתה בישראל ובירושלים זה משכב זכור... כי חלל יהודה קדש ה' זו זונה, וכן הוא אומר לא יהיה קדש, ובעל בת אל נכר זה הבא על הכותית, וכתיב בתריה יכרת ה' לאיש אשר יעשנה ער ועונה מאלקי יעקב ומגיש מנחה לה' צב-אות, אם תלמיד חכם הוא, לא יהיה לו ער בחכמים ועונה בתלמידים, אם כהן הוא לא יהיה לו בן מגיש מנחה לה' צב-אות. אמר רבי חייא בר אבויה כל הבא על הכותית כאילו מתחתן בעבודת כוכבים, כדכתיב ובעל בת אל נכר, וכי בת יש לו לאל נכר, אלא זה הבא על הכותית

The only comment I would make is that כאילו מתחתן בעבודת כוכבים is talking about specifically a kusis, in that the passuk being interpreted uses the words בת אל נכר, while the Gaon, I think, is talking about Arayos in general- צריך עבודת דבר ערוה.

But there is a Chazal brought in two places by Rabbeinu Bachaye that does relate all to Avoda Zara:  It is in his peirush on Chumash towards the beginning of Kedoshim and in his Kad Hakemach.  It says

 כל המסתכל באשה (בפני אשה) עובר משום אל תפנו אל האלילים

Still, it's not exactly what the Gaon says.  With a Chazal or not, the Gaon stands on its own merits- it's a mesora from the Geonim all the way to Moshe Rabbeinu.

Mattos, Bamidbar 31:22. Tevillas Keilim. Materials

I recently read a book by Mark Miodownik, "Stuff Matters: Exploring the Marvelous Materials That Shape Our Man-Made World."  He is a professor of materials science and an engineer.  The book examines the science behind the behavior and appearance of concrete, chocolate, steel, glass, paper and carbon.  What I found most fascinating is that there are two very important elements in how a material behaves.  One is the chemistry of the component molecules.  The other is the structure those molecules take.  For example, soot, pencil graphite, diamonds and carbon nano-tubes are all made of the same material.  The only difference between the black soot on the ceiling above your shabbos candles and your pencil lead and a diamond and a carbon nano-tube is whether the carbon atoms are are unjoined, joined in two or three dimensions, or joined in two dimensions and arranged into tubes.  This is a point that he makes again and again.  The structure of a material is at least as important as what kind of molecules it is made of, whether it's carbon or steel or glass or chocolate.

When I was in Ner Israel forty five years ago, the Mashgiach was Harav Dovid Kronglass.  (Reb Dovid was a gadol in Torah and mussar.  He wrote his sefer Divrei Dovid on Zeraim while he was in Shanghai, and he was, as far as the human mind could tell, a tzadik gamur.  He said the second Beis Medrash shiur, after which you would go to Rav Rudderman's shiur klali, and some of the baalei kishron tried to avoid his shiur by staying two years with Rav Kulefsky and skipping him, because he eschewed fireworks in favor of crystalline clarity.)  I once heard him say that when he began his work as a mashgiach, he thought that the picture was Torah, and seder, order, was the frame around the picture.  He said that he came to realize that the picture is seder, and Torah is the frame.  Sometimes, I think I understand what he meant.  For one thing, I believe that when you have a safek in halacha, and you ask for a psak, or, if you know the sugya you pasken for yourself, the most important thing is not figuring out what the ultimate truth is.  What's most important is that when you have a safek, you seek an answer from the Torah.  The process is more important than the result.  The word Halacha, perhaps, refers to the halicha to find the answer.  After all, the word הלכה stems from בחוקתי תלכו, which refers to the discipline of seeking knowledge.

Also, you have the Rashi in Menachos 7a.  Rav Avimi learned Menachos in the Beis Medrash of Rav Chisda.  The Gemara asks, but Rav Chisda was a student of Rav Avimi!  The Gemara answers that Rav Avimi forgot that masechta, and he needed Rav Chisda to remind him of what he had forgotten.  But why didn't he send for Rav Chisda to come to him!  Because going to him is more effective.

רבי אבימי תני מנחות בי רב חסדא ואבימי בי רב חסדא תני והאמר רב חסדא קולפי טאבי בלעי מאבימי עלה דהא שמעת' בא להכריז רצופין ל' יום שני וחמישי יג] (ושני) ס' יומי אבימי מסכתא איתעקרא איתעקר ליה ואתא קמיה דרב חסדא לאדכורי גמריה ולישלח ליה וליתי לגביה סבר הכי מסתייעא מילתא טפי

Rashi explains

מסתייע מילתא. משום יגעתי ומצאתי

You have to ask yourself, who cares if he had to walk to his student's beis medrash?  The Yegi'ah of  יגעתי ומצאתי is the brain work, not the walking.  But you see that's not the whole truth.  The effort of going where you need to be gives you siyata dishmaya as well. (Reb Yerucham's observation in his Sichos Chu'M.)

The next part of this discussion is directly related to this.  It won't seem to be relevant, but it will eventually tie Miodownik's book and lehavdil Reb Dovid's observation to the dinim of Tevillas Keilim. Patience.

Our parsha teaches the dinim of tevilas keilim in Klei Midyan (going with the great majority of the Rishonim and poskim that it is deoraysa.)  The Torah mentions six metals:   את הזהב ואת הכסף את הנחושת את הברזל את הבדיל ואת העופרת.  There is a machlokes among the poskim whether all metals are deoryasa, or only the ones listed.  Obviously, aluminum is not listed, as it was not isolated and refined until the late eighteen hundreds.  The Tiferes Yisrael in his introduction to Taharos says that all metals are deoraysa.  Many later poskim, such as Reb Moshe, disagree and say that only the ones listed are.  Nowhere does the Torah say the word  מתכות in the context of Tevilla or Tumah, and having mentioned six types of metals should make it a שני כתובים הבאים כאחד.  Reb Yaakov Kaminetzky in his Emes L'Yaakov in our parsha distinguishes between Tevilla deoraysa and Tuma deoraysa. (More marei Mekomos on this topic in the post pasted below.)

Last fall, I posted the following regarding Zirconium knives.  There, as here, I highlight the futility of defining materials neatly as one thing or another.  I am copying that post to this one, where it belongs.


Ceramic Knives and Tevillas Keilim: Do ceramic knives require tevilla?

Earthenware does not need tevilla.  Metals and glass do.  Ceramic dishes are the subject of some discussion, (שאלת יעבץ א, סז, פת"ש יו"ד קכ, ב say no; ערוה"ש קכ, כט says one should be tovel without a bracha because it is similar to glass) and most people are not tovel them.  But what we call ceramic knives might not fit neatly into any of these categories.  As a result, it is not at all clear whether they need tevila at all, and if they do, whether the tevila is midoraysa or miderabanan.

To address this question you have to know basic hilchos tevillas keilim and materials science.  The chemistry issue is that ceramic knives are made of Zirconium Dioxide.  This material appears in many forms with very different characteristics.  It can be made into imitation diamonds, cubic zirconium.  And it can be sintered into knives that are harder than steel.  Pure Zirconium is, in the language of science, a metal.  As Eli points out, the fact that pure Zirconium is a metal means very little.  Pure Silicon is also metallic, but, like Zirconium, does not exist in nature in its pure form.  It occurs as Silicon Dioxide- sand- which is definitely not a metal.  In halacha, are articles formed from zirconium dioxide metals, and if they are metals, are they included in the metals mentioned in the parsha of tevillas keilim?  Or perhaps halacha would categorize them as ceramics, or even glass?

Here is a scientific discussion of glass, ceramic, and pyrocerams.

As I said, even if in Halacha it would be viewed as a metal, it is not clear what its status would be for tevilla.  The reason is as follows.  According to Din Torah, metallic utensils requires Tevilla.  But to say that all metal requires tevilla also is not an explicit fact.  It is an extrapolation.  The Torah only identifies gold, silver, copper, steel, tin or lead as requiring tevilla.   What about metals that are not mentioned, such has aluminum or uranium?  There are three opinions.  Some say they are obligated mi'doraysa and should be toveled with a beracha, some say with a beracha but only Miderabanan (Igros Moshe- Miderabanan.  O.C. 3:58, Y.D. 2:164, 3:22, Divrei Chachachim page 189:3:footnote 37, Chai Ha’Levi 4:56:3.)  Others say there is no requirement to tovel them at all, like plastic (Divrei Chachachim page 189:3, Emes L’Yaakov Y.D. 120 footnote 51. But as I mention above, Reb Yaakov holds that it's derabanan only for Tevillas Klei Midyan, but deoraysa for Tuma.)  For most people, as a matter of practical rabbinics, it has been suggested that one just avoid the issue and be tovel such metals after one has already recited the beracha on metal or glass.

So even if Zirconium were to be defined as a metal, the question would remain.  But I don't think that can be assumed.  To the uneducated eye, it is no more glass than metal and no more a metal than ceramic.  And we cannot look to what chemists or metallurgists or advertising departments say.  We need to prove how it would be categorized according to halacha.  Since we don't know the rationale for Tevilla, it is difficult to extrapolate.

The bottom line is that it is so different from each of them, that it really ought to be in a class of its own, like plastic, and one could make an argument that it does not require tevilla at all.

It happens that the status of corelle and pyrex, among other pyrocerams, is also not simple.  The crystalline structure of these materials resembles ceramic more than glass.  In fact, ceramic is subject to differences of opinion regarding kashrus, some considering it to be glass, but many hold that it is Kli Cheres (מ"ב תנא, קסג), which has very different halachos both for tevilla and kashrus.  Porcelain is cheres that is heated to a much higher temperature than usual cheres, to a point where glass is created and flows into the spaces between the clumps of cheres, so it's as much glass as cheres.  But at least in those cases, the raw material is the same as cheres and the appearance and smoothness is the same as regular glass.  That is not the case here.

Additionally, I think that the determinant regarding Cheres/earthenware for Tevillas Keilim is not identical with that of Cheres/earthenware for Kashrus.  For Kashrus, the only issue is its absorbtiveness.  The Gemara discusses various utensils that are coated with tar, or made from various earths, and uses simple observation of fact to determine whether they have a law of kli cheres for kashrus.  For Tevilla, absorbtiveness is not necessarily a determinant.  For all we know, Cheres for Tevilla has nothing to do with be'li'ah, but instead with tumah.

More mar'ei makom on porcelain vis a vis kashrus-

 בשכנה"ג או"ח תנא, הב"י ל', כתב שמנהג העולם להשתמש בפורצלאן בפסח, אף שהשתמשו בו בכל השנה בחמץ, שהם כזכוכית. והוא לעצמו החמיר כדברי הרדב"ז, אבל לאחרים לא החמיר. גם בשאלת יעבץ א, סז, התיר. והפר"ח כתב, שגם המקילים היו מקילים בפורצלאן אמיתי, אבל עתה יש מזויפים שבולעים, ולכן לכו"ע צריך להחמיר. וכ"כ מחב"ר תנא, י. והובא בכה"ח תנא, שה. וכן פסק בקול מבשר א, פ. וכן המנהג. אבל בצירוף של ספקות נוספים אפשר להקל, כמובא בדברי האחרונים שנזכרו בס' הגעלת כלים יג, שסח; וביבי"א א, יו"ד ו; וח"ז יו"ד י.

So, I'm sorry to say that I'm left with the default position- one should get a regular metal utensil and take it to the mikva when you're taking a ceramic knife, and make a bracha on the regular metal utensil to cover the ceramic knife.  (I don't think glass would be a good idea.  Glass is derabanan.  A bracha on a derabanan before doing a deoraysa might be a problem in over le'asiyaso and not over de'over.)


Rabbi Dr. Nachum Stone was kind enough to discuss these matters with his Rav, Harav Rabinovich of Maaleh Adumim.  Dr. Stone's presentation of the question is particularly important in that he is a musmach, a talmid chacham, and a dentist who is very familiar with ceramics and metals and their chemical and physical characteristics.  This is what he reports.

בעניין חומרים חדשים טבילתם והכשרתם

מה דינו של סכין מחומר קרמי –האם זכוכית? 

צריכים לבדוק מה זה בדיוק

אבל לגבי טבילה כנראה כמו זכוכית- לחומרא

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

האם דינו ככלי הכנה בלבד ולא כלי סעודה , ואולי מן הדין אינו חייב אפילו מדרבנן

?

ייתכן שלא חייב אבל בכל מקרה יהיה טבילה בלי ברכה

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  לגבי חרסינות חדישות כגון

CORNINGWARE + CORRELLE

 חול, כמו כל זכוכית, אלא עיבוד שלהם בחום  SiO2 שחומר גלם שלהם הינו בעיקר

גבוהה מאד.

המראה חיצונית היא כמו זכוכית אטומה  , אבל במבט של

 ELECTRON MICROSCOPE המראה

 היא של אירגון פנימי

מאד ,מאד מסודר  כמו של מתכת. 

כשנשברים, זה דומה לזכוכית לכל דבר.

לגבי טבילה  והכשרת כלים  איך להתייחס לאילו?

להתייחס אליהם כזכוכית .אפשר  הגעלה להכשירם. לא יודע למה אומרים 3 פעמים .

Checking on the web, I found the following on a website written by Rav Ovadiah's grandson, Harav Yaakov Sasson, "member of the prestigious Bet Midrash Yechave Da’at in Jerusalem," and based on Harav Ovadiah's psakim.   I mention it only because of its simple honesty.

שאלה:   האם סכין קרמי חייב בטבילה

תשובה:  החומר ממנו עשויה סכין קרמית, אינו מתכת. אך אין לנו ידיעה ברורה ממה היא עשויה, אם היא עשויה מחומר הדומה לחרס, או חומר הדומה לזכוכית, שאז יש להטבילה, או שמדובר בחומר הדומה לפורצליין, שאין חיוב להטבילה. ובכל אופן, נכון להטבילה בלא ברכה.

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

Now, as in my earlier post, I've some to realize that what we assume are defining characteristics of metals are not definitive as far as the halacha is concerned.  The word Mateches is of no use, because it refers to the ability to melt and re-cast the material, which applies to glass, but glass is derabanan.  Plastic is no less ductile than metal, while zirconium knives are variously called ceramics or metals, but they don't bend and they're made from a kind of sand.  A great deal of a materials behavior depends on its molecular arrangement, and it will someday be possible to make a petroleum derivative polymer that acts like what call metal.

It certainly would be easier to say that although in the world of physics the microscopic arrangement of the component molecules are an essential factor in the behavior of a compound, and maybe that's true in the parsha of Mussar, but in dinei Tevilla and Tumah, what matters is not the structure or behavior, but instead the constituent molecules or atoms, in which case it would be limited to these six and no more.

Pinchas, Bamidbar 28:2. Anshei Ma'amad and Bris Milah

Synopsis: Anshei Maamad are those men who stood- ma'amad- in the Beis Hamikdash during the avodas hakorbanos.  Their primary function was to represent the Jewish People while communal korbanos were brought.  The idea of Anshei Ma'amad is mentioned in the Sifri in our parsha. We don't find the idea of Ma'amad by other mitzvos.  Tosfos Rid in Kiddushin says that an obligation to "see to it that a mitzva gets done" can be more stringent than an obligation to "do a mitzva."  The Ba'al Ha'Itur says that the father should stand near the mohel during the bris just as the Anshei Ma'amad stand in the Beis Hamikdash during the avoda. I am mechadesh that the din of Ma'amad derived in the Sifri from Tishmeru teaches that by avoda there is a din to "see to it that the korban is brought properly," and that requires constant personal vigilance; vigilance cannot be delegated.  This is consistent with the Tosfos Rid's chiddush in Milah.

The Mishna (Taanis 26a) bases the idea of Anshei Maamad on the passuk in our parsha in 28:2.

אלו הן מעמדות לפי שנאמר צו את בני ישראל . . את קרבני לחמי וכי היאך קרבנו של אדם קרב והוא אינו עומד על גביו התקינו נביאים הראשונים עשרים וארבעה משמרות

The Rambam uncharacteristically brings our Mishna unchanged, and says (6 KhM 1)

אי אפשר שיהי' קרבנו של אדם קרב והוא אינו עומד על גביו וקרבנות הציבור הן קרבן של כל ישראל ואי אפשר שיהיו ישראל כולן עומדין בעזרה בשעת קרבן לפיכך תקנו נביאים הראשונים שיבררו מישראל כשרים ויראי חטא ויהיו שלוחי כל ישראל לעמוד על הקרבנות והם הנקראים אנשי מעמד

But Rashi in our parsha brings from the Sifri a slightly different limud,

צו את בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם:  את קרבני לחמי לאשי ריח ניחחי תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו

Rashi-

תשמרו - שיהיו כהנים ולוים וישראלים עומדין על גביו מכאן למדו ותקנו מעמדות

The Sifri inside says

תשמרו   שיהו כהנים ולוים וישראלים עומדים עליהם

The drasha of the Sifri is also brought by Rashi in Megilla and Sotah.
Megila 3a

ד"ה וישראל במעמדן... עומדין על תמידי ציבור בשעת הקרבן כדתנן במסכת תענית תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו היאך שומר אם אינו עומד על גביו תיקנו נביאים הראשונים

Sotah 5a

ד"ה אקורבנייהו...ומצוה על האדם שיעמוד וישמור על קרבנו ונפקא לן בסיפרי מתשמרו להקריב לי במועדו '

The Rav in Mishnayos in Taanis adds an interesting thing, that the mitzva of Shmira is to watch the Kohanim doing the avoda.

תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו לישראל מצוה שיעמדו על הכהנים בשעת עבודה

So let us assume there is a fundamental distinction between the way the Rambam and Rashi learn the din of Maamad.  The Rambam says this din requires the presence of the baal hakorban; Rashi learns that the din requires that the baalim do "shemira" during the hakrava.

The Tur (YD 265) brings from the Baal HaItur that the father should stand near the Mohel during the Bris, because it wouldn't make any sense for one's korban to be brought without him there.  This is also brought in the Mechaber in 265:9.

מנהג שאבי הבן עומד על המוהל להודיע שהוא שלוחו כדאמרינן לגבי קרבן אפשר שיהא קרבנו של אדם קרב והוא אינו עומד על גביו
 שו"ע שם סע' ט'- אבי הבן עומד על המוהל להודיע שהוא שלוחו

The Sifri needs explanation.  Bishlema according to our Mishna and the Rambam who brings our Mishna verbatim, it applies specifically to korbanos.  וכי היאך קרבנו של אדם קרב והוא אינו עומד על גביו.  Bris Mila, as Zohar mentions and Rabbeinu Bachya ( בראשית י"ז, יג) elaborates upon, is like a korban, since blood is spilled in the process, and, neither may be done within eight days of birth.

 מצות מילה היא כענין קרבן וכשם שדם הקרבן לכפרה על המזבח כך דם המילה מכפר וע״כ מצותה ביום השמיני כי הקרבן לא יכשר עד יום ח

But according to the Sifri's drasha that there is a new din of Shemira, what is the idea of Shemira?  What is added to the kiyum hamitzva by doing Shemira?  If shlichus helps, then it helps.  Even assuming there's a concept of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו by mitzvos other than preparation for Shabbos and kiddushin, why isn't this applied to other mitzvos, like hafrashas teruma; and more fundamentally, would standing there mitigate that problem of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו?

(Harav Dovid Oppenheimer of Chicago proposes that in shlichus in general, there is a chkira among the achronim whether it is considered the act of the baalim or the act of the shliach; see section on Shelichus in Sefer HaZikaron for Reb Chaim Shmuelevitz.  If the baalim is standing there, he suggests, everyone would agree that it is considered the act of the baalim, just as the Gemara in Gittin has a hava amina that if chatzer is a yad, it needs to be next to the woman.  I'd like to offer a different pshat.)

Let us think for a moment about the Tosfos Rid in Kiddushin 29a.  The Gemara has a passuk to teach that the obligation to perform mila on one's child only applies to the father but not the mother.  All the rishonim ask, but it's a zman grama, so the passuk is not necessary.  Tosfos Rid answers that if the mitzva on the parent was simply to do an act of milah, since that act is time-related, it would be called Zeman Grama.  But the obligation on the parent is to see to it that the milah is done.  The obligation of "see to it that it gets done" is not time-related.  It begins when the child is born and goes on every moment of the day and night until it actually takes place.  This Tosfos Rid is remarkable for many reasons, among which is that this logic ought to apply to every single zman grama- although tefillin is only on a weekday, the obligation to see to it that I have and wear tefillin is constant, and the same for lulav and shofar.    Additionally, it is amazing that where the act of the mitzva milah is Zman Grama, and would exclude women, that the seemingly more vague and distant obligation to "see to it that it gets done" would be not zman grama and therefore not exclude women- that it would create a greater obligation.

In any case, you see that the Tosfos Rid learns that Milah is different in that it has a defining characteristic that it creates an obligation to see to it that it's done, not only an obligation to do it.  I believe that the Sifri is applying that logic to Korbanos.  The Torah does not merely obligate Klal Yisrael to bring korbanos via kohanim.  They are obligated in a din of תשמרו, and תשמרו creates a new obligation to see to it that it's done.  It's not enough to pay for it, it's not enough to book the best kohein.  תשמרו means that you yourself have to ensure that it's done and that it's done right.

This concept of תשמרו creating a higher level of obligation can be seen by Matza Shmura as well, to the extent that there used to be a minhag to moisten the grain- לתיתה- before milling so that the watchers would have a chance to be vigilant to ensure that no chimutz would result.  Pesachim 35a- אמר רבא מצוה ללתות, שנאמר  ושמרתם את המצות, אי לא דבעי לתיתה, שימור למאי.

For Milah and Matza Shemura and Avodas HaKorbanos, Due Diligence is not enough.  For these Mitzvos the Torah requires Due Vigilance.

I was zocheh to attend a bris mila this week.  My daughter and son in law named their new son Aharon Tzvi after my father zatzal.  One clear character trait of my father was ameilus, and this was known by every one of his chavrusos and business associates and lawyers and employees.  When he decided something needed to be done, he did it בלב ונפש.  He would follow it to the very end, and not rely on anybody.  He could have the best lawyer in Chicago draw a contract or a mortgage, but he would go through it line by line and would often point out important modifications that the lawyer immediately incorporated into his practice.  When he gave tzedaka, he would make sure that it got to the right person and that it was used in the right way.  It goes without saying that when he learned, he learned בלב ונפש.  My father learned with Reb Leizer Platzinsky for most of his thirteen years in Slabodka.  Reb Leizer's grandson bumped into my son in Yerushalayim, and told him that his grandfather told him that at one point, he and my father shared a room.  Reb Leizer was the Alter's grandson, and he was a yachson in the yeshiva, so he had a comfortable bed.  But my father davka slept on the floor, because he decided that if he slept in a bed and was comfortable, it would be harder to get up early to learn.  That is a level of dedication and Ameilus BaTorah that inheres to the concept of תשמרו.  May Hashem give us siyata dishmaya to see Aharon Tzvi and all his siblings and cousins do their avodas Hashem with that level of Ameilus.

Here is big brother Akiva holding Aharon Tzvi  שיחיו עד ביאת משיח צדקנו

Aharon Tzvi wore a cotton kimono at his bris.  Lo these many years ago my mother made it for me and I wore it at my bris, and my kids wore it at their brisos, and theirs wore it at theirs.  It's not the Aderes Eliahu, but it's a nice family tradition.