Friday, March 6, 2015

A Guest Post on Ki Sisa

Rav Pinchas Friedman.


The Beit HaLevi’s Fantastic Revelation
All of Torah She’b’al Peh Was Written on the First Luchot
but with the Second Luchot It Was Given to All of Yisrael
We read in this week’s parsha, parshat Ki Tisa (Shemot 34, 27):  "ויאמר ה' אל משה כתב לך את הדברים האלה כי על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת ישראל"—Hashem said to Moshe, “Write for yourself these words, for according to these words have I entered a covenant with you and with Yisrael.”  Concerning the significance of Torah she’b’al peh, we find a wonderful statement in the Gemara (Gittin 60b):  "אמר רבי יוחנן לא כרת הקב"ה ברית עם ישראל אלא בשביל דברים שבעל פה, שנאמר כי על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת ישראל"—Rabbi Yochanan said:  HKB”H only entered into a covenant with Yisrael on account of the Oral Law, as it states, “for according to these words have I entered a covenant with you and with Yisrael.” 
The Gemara elucidates this passuk further (ibid.):  "כתיב כתב לך את הדברים האלה [משמע בכתב], וכתיב כי על פי הדברים האלה [משמע בעל פה], הא כיצד, דברים שבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאומרן על פה, דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרן בכתב"—it is written, “write for yourself these words” [indicating that the Torah is to be written], and later it is written, “for according to these words” [indicating that the Torah is to be transmitted orally], how can both be true?  Teaching that were given in writing, you are not permitted to transmit orally; teachings that were given orally, you are not permitted to transmit in writing.  Rashi provides the following comment:  "מכאן אתה למד שהתלמוד לא ניתן לכתוב אלא מפני שהתורה משתכחת"—we learn from here that the Talmud was not supposed to be conveyed in writing; yet, because the Torah was being forgotten, it became necessary to do so.  This principle is included under the umbrella of (Tehillim 119, 126):  "עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך"—For it is a time to act for Hashem; they have voided Your Torah. 
Regarding this matter, the Rambam writes in his introduction to Yad HaChazakah:  Rabeinu HaKadosh redacted the Mishnah; from the times of Moshe Rabeinu until Rabeinu HaKadosh, the teachings of Torah she’b’al peh were not committed to writing. . . Why didn’t Rabeinu HaKadosh leave things as they were?  He saw that the number of scholars was diminishing and the gravity of the consequences was escalating; the influence of the Roman Empire was spreading in the world; Yisrael were wandering and dispersing to all corners of the world.  Hence, he composed a uniform text for all to have—for all to learn quickly and which would not be forgotten. 
Similarly, Rabeinu Bachayei writes in our parsha (Shemot 34, 27):  Rabeinu HaKadosh redacted the Mishnah; he taught them publicly and committed them all to writing during his lifetime.  His purpose was to avoid the eventuality of Yisrael forgetting the Torah.  He witnessed the spread of the evil regimes in the world and the reality of Yisrael in galut.  Therefore, he permitted himself to do so, in keeping with the words of the passuk:  “For it is a time to act for Hashem; they have voided Your Torah.”
This is an amazing revelation.  The entire Torah she’b’al peh began with the redacting of the Mishnayot by Rabeinu HaKadosh.  Subsequently, Rabbi Yochanan recorded the Talmud Yerushalmi and Rav Ashi recorded the Talmud Bavli.  The Rambam describes these events (ibid.) and classifies them as a form of “aveirah l’shma”—a transgression performed with noble intent—justified on the premise of:  “For it is a time to act for Hashem; they have voided Your Torah.”
Why Did HKB”H Arrange for the Necessity of Recording Torah She’b’al Peh in Writing
Upon careful consideration, we are struck by an intriguing question.  HKB”H only entered into a covenant with Yisrael on account of Torah she’b’al peh.  It was apparent to HKB”H from the get-go that it would eventually be necessary to commit Torah she’b’al peh to writing—so that it would not be lost and forgotten.  So, why didn’t HKB”H give Torah she’b’al peh also in writing from the very onset at Har Sinai?  This would have precluded the necessity of them later having to set it down in writing.  Also, they would not have had to study it from the written text only on the basis of the justification of:  “For it is a time to act for Hashem; they have voided Your Torah.”
It is worth examining a comment presented in the sefer Perach Mateh Aharon, authored by Rabbi Aharon Soloveitchik, on the Rambam.  He cites an amazing comment made by the great Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman, ztz”l, hy”d, to his father Rabbi Moshe.  He remarked that in the times of the Mashiach, the following prophesy will be fulfilled (Yeshayah 54, 13):  " וכל בניך למודי ה' "—all Your children will be students of Hashem.  Hence, Bnei Yisrael will no longer require the written volumes of Torah she’b’al peh.  The permission on the premise of:  “For it is a time to act for Hashem; they have voided Your Torah,” will no longer be valid; consequently, all the volumes of Torah she’b’al peh will require placement in storage. 
Rabbi Aharon’s father, Rabbi Moshe, responded that seemingly Rabbi Elchanan’s point is correct; nevertheless, it is improper to say such a thing.  After all, at the end of Hilchot Megillah (2, 18), the Rambam writes:  In the times of the Mashiach all the books of Prophets and the Writings will be annulled except for Megillat Esther;  it will still be valid just like the five books of the Torah and the halachot of Torah she’b’al peh—which will not be annulled. 
In truth, Rabbi Moshe’s criticism based on the Rambam can be reconciled simply.  For, the Rambam only specifies the halachot of Torah she’b’al peh—stating that they shall not be annulled; he makes no mention whatsoever of the remainder of the texts of Torah she’b’al peh.  Thus, one can suggest that the other texts will require placement in ritual storage. 
In fact, I found a comment in Od Yosef Chai (Ekev), authored by the great Rabbi Chaim Yosef of Bavel, that in the Future to Come, when forgetfulness will no longer prevail, they will no longer learn from the written text; they will only learn orally.  He states that it will no longer be necessary to allow the transgression of committing the Torah she’b’al peh to writing.  It will actually be transmitted orally and not from the written text. 
Nevertheless, it is only logical and proper that we seek to reconcile Rabbi Elchanan’s remark.  It seems unimaginable that all of the Mishnayot redacted by Rabeinu HaKadosh, the Talmud Yerushalmi recorded by Rabbi Yochanan and the Talmud Bavli recorded by Rav Ashi will require ritual burial.  After all, innumerable Yisrael throughout the generations engaged in the study of these texts incurring tremendous risk and self-sacrifice. 
The Letters Flew off of the Luchot Making Them Too Heavy for Moshe to Bear
Let us begin by introducing an amazing revelation concerning the difference between the first and second luchot.  We find this revelation in the teachings of the great Rabbi Yoshe Ber of Brisk, zy”a, toward the end of his Responsa Beit HaLevi (Drushim 18).
In this week’s parsha, the breaking of the luchot is described (Shemot 32, 19):  "ויהי כאשר קרב אל המחנה וירא את העגל ומחולות ויחר אף משה וישלך מידו את הלוחות וישבר אותם תחת ההר"—it happened as he drew near the camp and he saw the “egel” and the dances, that Moshe’s anger burned; he threw down the luchot from his hands and shattered them at the bottom of the mountain.  In the Midrash (S.R. 46, 1), our blessed sages reveal the reason for the shattering of the luchot:  "שפרחו הכתובים מן הלוחות לכך שברן"—what was written on the luchot flew off, causing him to shatter the luchot.  We find an additional bit of information in another Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni Ki Tisa 393):  "נסתכל משה בלוחות וראה הכתב שבהן שפרחו, וכבדו על ידי משה ונפלו מידיו ונשתברו"—upon seeing that the script on the luchot had flown away, the luchot became too burdensome; hence they fell from Moshe’s hands and shattered.  We must endeavor to explain why the luchot became too heavy for Moshe to bear. 
Concerning this issue, the Beit HaLevi presents a remarkable idea. The Yerushalmi (Shekalim 25a) teaches us:  "חנניה בן אחי רבי יהושע אומר, בין כל דיבור ודיבור דקדוקיה ואותיותיה של תורה דכתיב (שיר השירים ה-ד) ממולאים בתרשיש, כימא רבא"—a wealth of Torah knowledge was contained between each and every commandment.  Based on this Yerushalmi, the Beit HaLevi proposes a novel idea.  All of this additional information was only present on the first luchot—prior to the sin of the egel.  At that point in time, it was not necessary for Yisrael to labor in order to access and comprehend Torah she’b’al peh.  Everything was written clearly on the luchot for Yisrael—in an orderly, accessible fashion. 
To substantiate the notion that HKB”H only conferred Torah she’b’al peh upon Yisrael with the second luchot, he refers to the Gemara (Gittin 60b):  “HKB”H only entered into a covenant with Yisrael on account of the Oral Law, as it states, ‘for according to these words have I entered a covenant with you and with Yisrael.’” 
A careful review of the pesukim reveals that this covenant established between HKB”H and Yisrael in the merit of Torah she’b’al peh is only mentioned in association with the second luchot and not the first luchot.  The passuk cited by the Gemara only appears after HKB”H’s acceptance of Moshe’s entreaty and he is instructed (ibid. 34, 1):  "פסל לך שני לוחות אבנים כראשונים"—chisel for yourself two stone luchot like the first ones.  Thus, it is apparent that the concept of Torah she’b’al peh only originates with the second luchot.  This is because the first luchot—containing Torah she’b’chtav—were all-inclusive. 
The Beit HaLevi explains the benefit of having the contents of Torah she’b’al peh written only on the first luchot and not on the second ones.  According to the Midrash (S.R. 47, 1), HKB”H ordered that Torah she’b’al peh not be committed to writing, because He knew that Yisrael were destined to be in exile among the goyim.  Therefore, it was a necessary precaution to prevent this knowledge from falling into the hands of the goyim. 
Now, we have learned in the Gemara (Eiruvin 54a):  "מאי דכתיב (שמות לב-טז) חרות על הלוחות... אלמלי לא נשתברו לוחות הראשונות... אין כל אומה ולשון שולטת בהן, שנאמר חרות, אל תיקרי חרות אלא חירות"—if not for the sin of the egel, bringing about the shattering of the luchot, Yisrael would never have gone into exile among the goyim. 
Hence, all of Torah she’b’al peh was contained on the first luchot.  For, with regards to the first luchot, Yisrael would never have gone into galut among the goyim; so, there would have been no danger of this valuable part of the Torah falling into the goyim’s hands.  After the sin of the egel and the shattering of the luchot, however, the decree of galut was issued against them.  Consequently, Torah she’b’al peh was not written on the second luchot to prevent it from being seized by the goyim. 
The Letters that Flew off of the Luchot—Torah She’b’al Peh
With this understanding, the Beit HaLevi addresses the Midrash:  "נסתכל משה בלוחות וראה הכתב שבהן שפרחו, וכבדו על ידי משה ונפלו מידיו ונשתברו"—upon seeing that the script on the luchot had flown away, the luchot became too burdensome; hence they fell from Moshe’s hands and shattered.  This is referring to the letters of Torah she’b’al peh that were written on the first luchot.  Upon descending from the mountain, Moshe witnessed the sin of the egel.  As a consequence of that sin, Yisrael’s freedom from future exiles was rescinded.  The danger of Torah she’b’al peh falling into the hands of the goyim—if written on the luchot—became a reality.  Therefore, the letters flew off of the luchot, so that the goyim would not have access to them. 
For this reason, the luchot became too heavy for Moshe to bear.  Only Torah she’b’chtav remained on the luchot, which is incomprehensible without Torah she’b’al peh.  At that point, HKB”H had not yet revealed to Moshe all of the intricacies of Torah she’b’al peh; for they had been written on the luchot.  Hence, HKB”H agreed with Moshe that without Torah she’b’al peh, it was appropriate to shatter the luchot.  The Gemara explains (Shabbat 87a):  "ומנלן דהסכים הקב"ה על ידו שנאמר (שמות לד-א) אשר שברת, ואמר ריש לקיש יישר כוחך ששיברת"—Reish Lakish derives from the words אשר שברת(Shemot 34, 1) that HKB”H congratulated Moshe for his decision to shatter the luchot. 
With the Second Luchot HKB”H Gave Moshe All of Torah She’b’al Peh
With the second luchot, HKB”H revealed to Moshe that the method of transmitting Torah knowledge would change.  As explained, under the system of the first luchot, both Torah she’b’chtav and Torah she’b’al peh were written down and available.  Whereas on the second luchot only Torah she’b’chtav was written down; the aggadot and the all the clarifications of halachot would be transmitted to Yisrael orally by Moshe and the Torah scholars in each and every generation. 
This is the reason why only regarding the second luchot did HKB”H say to Moshe:  "כתב לך את הדברים האלה"—write for yourself these words—instructing him to only write down Torah she’b’chtav without Torah she’b’al peh.  The text goes on to explain:  "כי על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת ישראל"--for according to these words have I entered a covenant with you and with Yisrael—in the merit of Torah she’b’al peh, which was not committed to writing on the second luchot, but was given to Yisrael to reveal through laborious study, HKB”H entered into a covenant with Yisrael.  Here the vital principle that HKB”H, the Torah and Yisrael are one was revealed. 
Based on this interpretation, he explains the significance of the following passuk in our parsha (Shemot 34, 1):  "ויאמר ה' אל משה פסל לך שני לוחות אבנים כראשונים, וכתבתי על הלוחות את הדברים אשר היו על הלוחות הראשונים אשר שברת"—Hashem said to Moshe, “Chisel for yourself two stone luchot like the first ones, and I shall inscribe on the luchot the words that were on the first luchot, which you shattered.”  Now, seeing as HKB”H already told him:  “and I shall inscribe on the luchot the words that were on the first luchot,” why was it necessary to add the comment:  “which you shattered”
Yet, based on our previous discussion, HKB”H was conveying to Moshe a precise, unambiguous message.  HKB”H was indicating to Moshe that on the second luchot, He would only inscribe the “Aseret HaDibrot” that remained on the first luchot at the time they were shattered—after all the letters of Torah she’b’al peh had flown away.  This message is implicit in HKB”H’s statement:  “and I shall inscribe on the luchot the words that were on the first luchot, which you shattered”—only the words that remained on the luchot at the moment you shattered them. 
The Beit HaLevi concludes with the following addendum.  Let us not be under the misconception that Yisrael lost out as a result of Torah she’b’al peh not being inscribed on the second luchot.  On the contrary, Yisrael gained tremendously.  As a result, their bodies became a form of parchment upon which Torah she’b’al peh could be inscribed—fulfilling the words of the passuk (Mishlei 3, 3):  "כתבם על לוח לבך"—inscribe them on the tablet (luach) of your heart.  Just as the parchment and the letters and words written upon it form a sefer Torah, so, too, the Torah and Yisrael are one single entity. 
Our Holy Rabbis Deduced What Was Written on the First Luchot
I was struck by a wonderful idea based on the words of the Beit HaLevi.  So, now let us return to the perplexing question we raised initially.  How is it even conceivable that all of Torah she’b’al peh—which millions of Yisrael have toiled over, day and night, throughout every generation—was not set down in writing legitimately?  As we have learned, “teachings that were given orally, you are not permitted to transmit in writing.”  The fact that they were eventually written down is classified as an “aveirah l’shma”--a transgression with noble and proper intent--justified on the premise of:  “For it is a time to act for Hashem; they have voided Your Torah.”  Additionally, according to the great Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman, in the Future to Come, when forgetfulness of Torah will no longer exist, it will be necessary to place all of the volumes of Mishnayot, Talmud, Rambam and Shulchan Aruch in ritual storage; for, we will no longer need to study them from the written page.  How can this be possible?!
It appears that we can resolve this issue based on a tremendous chiddush found in the writings of the Rama of Pano, in his Asarah Ma’amarot.  There we find support for the Beit HaLevi’s chiddush that the entire Torah she’b’al peh was contained on the first luchot.  He adds that whoever merits proposing true and novel Torah ideas, is correctly discerning the nuances of the halachot as they appeared on the first luchot.  This, in fact, is the intent of our request at the conclusion of Shemoneh Esreh:  "ותן חלקנו בתורתך"—and grant us our portion in Your Torah—that we should merit discerning accurately the words of Torah that were inscribed on the first luchot. 
How nicely this helps us understand a tremendous concept presented by the great Rabbi Yonatan Eibeschitz, zy”a, in Urim V’Tumim.  He explains how the later scholars (Acharonim) were able, through their erudition and exegesis, to determine the intent of the Rambam, the other early scholars (Rishonim), the Tur, the author of the Shulchan Aruch and the Rama in various ways—despite the fact that occasionally they themselves did not necessarily intend to do so.  According to Rabbi Yonatan Eibeschitz, they were ultimately guided by the hand of Hashem unwittingly.  For the task is too immense and it is impossible that they could have discerned and resolved so many laws and issues alone. 
If we combine this with the Rama of Pano’s idea, we gain a deeper appreciation for Rabbi Yonatan’s concept.  The holy Rabbis who determined the halachot over the generations, both the Rishonim and the Acharonim, merited discerning the true meaning of the Torah.  As a result, HKB”H enlightened them with the light of Torah, allowing them to set down in writing the very same precepts that were inscribed on the first luchot.  Therefore, their writings are considered like actual genuine Torah—exhibiting its seventy distinct aspects.
Torah Scholars Captured the Letters Floating in the Air
At this point, I would like to propose a marvelous chiddush--with the utmost reverence and adoration--as to why the letters of Torah she’b’al peh from the first luchot flew off into the air as a result of the sin of the egel.  This was indeed the Almighty’s will.  From that moment on, the letters of Torah she’b’al peh have been afloat in the atmosphere of this world.  They are unable to rest again in this world until they find their way into the mouths of Yisrael’s sages—the Tannaim, the Amoraim and the scholars in each generation who determine the halachot based on their analysis of Torah she’b’al peh. 
We can now comprehend why it is prohibited to commit Torah she’b’al peh to writing.  As we have learned, all of Torah she’b’al peh was once inscribed on the first luchot.  Within Torah she’b’al peh are concealed explanations based on the various methods of פרד"ס—an abbreviation for “pshat,” “remez,” “drush” and “sod.” 
If Torah she’b’al peh were to be written down, there is a concern that it will not be written down exactly as it was inscribed on the first luchot—conveying the secret dimensions of the Torah.  By merely expressing a halachah orally, as it was taught, no harm is done; for, the words of Torah she’b’al peh themselves are still floating around in the air, containing all of their inherent secrets and allusions. 
Notwithstanding, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi redacted the Mishnayot.  After him, Rabbi Yochanan recorded the Talmud Yerushalmi and Rav Ashi recorded the Talmud Bavli.  Due to their extreme levels of holiness, they were able to discern the letters of Torah she’b’al peh precisely as they appeared on the first luchot.  As mentioned, after the sin of the egel, those letters flew off of the luchot and remained afloat in the air that fills this world.  They remained in that state until these holy Rabbis brought them down to the written page—saving Torah she’b’al peh from being forgotten.
In truth, Rabeinu HaKadosh, Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Ashi, due to their extreme humility, did not trust themselves to accurately record the Torah as it was inscribed on the first luchot.  Therefore, they justified their actions on the basis of:  “For it is a time to act for Hashem; they have voided Your Torah.”  Thus, they succeeded in saving Torah she’b’al peh from being forgotten. 
In reality, however, they merited discerning the Torah accurately; they recorded the entire Torah she’b’al peh precisely as it was inscribed on the first luchot.  Due to their intense labor and efforts in their Torah study, combined with their immense kedushah, they succeeded in drawing the letters that had flown off into the air—as a result of the sin of the egel—back down to the written page.  Thus, the letters were finally able to find their proper resting place; they were once again set down in writing available to every member of Yisrael. 
The Mishnayot and the Gemara Were on the First Luchot
It turns out that the Torah she’b’al peh in our possession today was only committed to writing based on the justification of:  “For it is a time to act for Hashem; they have voided Your Torah.”  They relied on this justification, because they did not rely on themselves to accurately record these words of Torah exactly as they appeared on the first luchot.  Nonetheless, HKB”H knew that they had accurately discerned what was originally on the first luchot, including the secrets of the Torah—alluded to and concealed within the Mishnah and the Talmud.  So, in reality, when we engage in the study of Torah she’b’al peh from our written texts, there no longer exists any taint of “aveirah l’shma.”  On the contrary, it is an essential mitzvah to return to Yisrael the letters that flew off into the air. 
We can now reconcile Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman’s comment.  He remarked that in the Future to Come, Yisrael’s Torah study will no longer be subject to forgetfulness.  Hence, it will be necessary, seemingly, to place all of the written volumes of Torah she’b’al peh in ritual storage.  For, the justification for keeping these volumes and learning from them--“For it is a time to act for Hashem; they have voided Your Torah”—will no longer be valid. 
Yet, as we have explained, this will not be the case.  When HKB”H returns the first luchot to us, including all of the letters that once flew off of them, we will see with our very own eyes how accurately Rabeinu HaKadosh, Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Ashi committed things to writing.  Consequently, the prohibition to learn Torah she’b’al peh from a written text will no longer exist, just as there was no such prohibition when HKB”H originally gave us the first luchot.  After all, HKB”H had inscribed everything on those luchot. 
It is with great pleasure that we conclude this essay with an explanation of Chazal’s statement that the future geulah is dependent on the merit of engaging in the study of Torah she’b’al peh.  The Midrash teaches us (V.R. 7, 3):  "אין כל הגליות הללו מתכנסות אלא בזכות משניות, מאי טעמא (הושע ח-י) גם כי יתנו בגוים עתה אקבצם"—the end to all of the exiles depends on the merit of learning Mishnayot, because the passuk (Hoshea 8, 10) states:  “Although they pay tribute amongst the goyim, now I will gather them in.”  The Matnot Kehunah explains that the word "יתנו" in the passuk (translated as “pay tribute”) refers to the study of Mishnah—based on the Aramaic translation of the word.  Let us recall an amazing allusion regarding this subject presented by the great Rabbi Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld, ztz”l.  The passuk in Yeshayah reads (1, 27):  "ציון במשפט תפדה ושביה בצדקה"—Tziyon will be redeemed through justice, and those who return to her through tzedakah.  The words ציו"ן במשפ"ט תפד"ה possess the same numerical value as תלמו"ד ירושלמ"י; the conclusion of the passuk, ושבי"ה בצדק"ה possesses the same numerical value as תלמו"ד בבל"י.  Thus, in the merit of the Talmud Yerushalmi and the Talmud Bavli, the redemption will come and we will return to Tziyon. 
Let us explain.  All of the Torah she’b’al peh—the Mishnayot and the two Talmuds, Bavli and Yerushalmi—are, in fact, the letters that were originally inscribed on the first luchot.  While they were yet engraved on the luchot--"חרות על הלוחות"--Yisrael were exempt and free from exile.  This elucidation is based on a play on the word "חרות", which can be read to mean engraved or to mean freedom.  Therefore, by engaging in their study, we will merit to effectively return them to their proper position of eminence—just as they were when HKB”H bestowed them upon us as part of the first luchot.  May they free us from exile, swiftly, in our times.  Amen.





Monday, March 2, 2015

Back to Public

For personal reasons, I made this blog private for two months.  The need to do so no longer applies.

Mordechai and Esther: Conflict between Ruach Hakodesh and Halacha

Rashi in Megillas Esther brings that Mordechai told Esther to hide her background in the hope that Achashveirosh's court would reject her as being an undistinguished commoner who was unfit for a king's harem.  Had they known of her royal lineage, they would certainly want to keep her.  He did this to save Esther from the horrors of becoming a concubine to this pagan king.

In the next passuk, Rashi says that Mordechai obsessively kept track of Esther's daily experiences because he was given a sign that she would be the source of the salvation of the Jews.  He said, it cannot be that Hashem would allow this pure and righteous woman be taken to bed by this heathen unless she is intended to be Hashem's instrument for the salvation of the Jews.

Inside:
י לא-הגידה אסתר, את-עמה ואת-מולדתה:  כי מורדכיי ציווה עליה, אשר לא-תגיד.  יא ובכל-יום ויום--מורדכיי מתהלך, לפני חצר בית-הנשים:  לדעת את-שלום אסתר, ומה-ייעשה בה
Rashi:
אשר לא תגיד - כדי שיאמרו שהיא ממשפחה בזויה וישלחוה שאם ידעו שהיא ממשפחת שאול המלך היו מחזיקים בה


"ומה יעשה בה" - זה אחד משני צדיקים שניתן להם רמז ישועה דוד ומרדכי דוד שנאמר (שמואל א יז) גם את הארי גם הדוב הכה עבדך אמר לא בא לידי דבר זה אלא לסמוך עליו להלחם עם זה וכן מרדכי אמר לא אירע לצדקת זו שתלקח למשכב ערל אלא שעתידה לקום להושיע לישראל לפיכך היה מחזר לדעת מה יהא בסופה


10  Esther did not reveal her nationality or her lineage, for Mordecai had ordered her not to reveal it.  

not to reveal: so that they should say that she was from an ignoble family and dismiss her, for if they knew that she was of the family of King Saul, they would detain her.
 
11  And every day, Mordecai would walk about in front of the court of the house of the women, to learn of Esther's welfare and what would be done to her.
and what would be done to her: He was one of two righteous men to whom a hint of salvation was given: David and Mordecai. David-as it is said (I Sam. 17:36): “Both the lion and the bear has your bondsman smote.” He said [to himself], “This incident happened to me only to teach me to have faith that I can battle with this one [Goliath].” Likewise, Mordecai said [to himself], “The only reason that this righteous woman was taken to the bed of a gentile was because she is destined to arise and save Israel.” He therefore went around to find out what would be her fate.


The problem is, if Mordechai realized that Esther was put into this position davka so that she would be able to save the Jews, why was he still trying to get her out of the palace?  Once he realized this, he should have told Esther that she can let her background be known, so that her status in Achashveirosh's eyes would be so much more elevated.

Harav Michel Feinstein is quoted as answering that Ruach HaKodesh cannot interfere with what the halacha requires.  The halacha requires that Mordechai do all that he can to save Esther and get her away from that horrible king.  The fact that Ruach HaKodesh told him that she needed to be there cannot affect even one iota his halachic obligation to get her out.

Reb Michel shows how this serves to explain the Gemara about the terrible punishment for Chizkiyahu's unwillingness to get married.

This is how he is quoted in a sefer called Shelmei Todah.

במגילה פּײב פּיײא “ובכל יום ויום מרדכי מתהלך לפני חצר בית הנשים לדעת את שלום אסתר ומה יעשה בה”. ופּרש"י שניתן לו רמז שיהא ישוﬠה על ידה, אמר מרדכי לא אירﬠ לצדקת זו שתלקח לאחשורוש אלא שﬠתידה לקום ולהושׂיע לישראל, לפיכך היה מחזר לדעת מה יהא בסופה, ע"כ. וכן הוא בלקוט שמﬠוני פרשת בשלח רמז רס"ז.

ושם בפסוק יי כתיב, "לא הגידה אסתר את עמה ואת מולדתה כי מרדכי צוה עליה אשר לא תגיד׳׳ָ ופרשׂ׳׳י׳ כדי שיאמרו שהיא ממשפחה בזויה ויּישלחוה, שאם ידﬠו שהיא ממשפחת שאול המלך היו מחזיקים בה, ﬠ׳כ.

וצ"ב דכיון שהבין מרדכי שע” אסתר  יבא ישועה לכלל ישראל, א"כ למה צוה עליה שלא תגיד את אומתה כדי שתתבזה וישלחוה?

 ושמﬠתי מהגרי"מ  פיינשטיין שליטײא לפרש, שאף שניתן לו רמז שיהא ישועה ﬠל ידה, מ"מ מצד הדין הרי היה מרדכי מחויב לעשות השתדלות להוציאה משם, כדי שלא תבﬠל לנכרי, וא“כ אף שידע שע"י שהייתה אצל אחשורוש יבא טובֿה לישראל, מ"מ אסור היה לו למרדכי לעבור על מה שׁמחויב מצד הדין מפני חשבונות של הצלה ורוח שיכול לצמוח מזה לישראל אם תשאר תחת אחשורוש.

והביא על זה דברי הגמ' בברכות (י' ע"א) דאמרינן. דחזקיהו המלך לא רצה לישא אשה לפי שראה ברוח הקודש שיצא ממנו בן רשע, ואמר לו ישעיה "צו לביתך כי מת אתה ולא  תחיה", בהדי כבשי דרחמנא למה לך, מאי דמפקדת איבﬠי לך למעבד, ומה דניחא קמיה קודשא בריך הוא ליﬠביד. כי במה שהיה מחויב מצד הדין לעשותו, אסור לו לבטלו מפוני חשבונות של רוח והפסד. ואמר עוד,
דבגמ' שם אמרו, מאי "כי מת אתה ולא תחיה", מת אתה בﬠוה"ז ולא תחיה לעוה"ב, ולכאורה צריך ביאור, אטו משום ביטול עשה דפּרייה ורביה יהא לו ﬠונש כל כך שלא יהא לו חלק לﬠוה"ב, אלא יש לבאר, ובודאי אם היה מבטל מפריה ורביה משום סיבה אחרת שלא היה רוצה לישא אשה, לא היה נﬠנש כל כך, אבל מכיון שלא רצה לישא אשה משום שראה ברוח הקודש וכו', הרי שהﬠדיף את הﬠנינים שראה ברוהײק יותר משמירת ההלכה הכתובה, ובזה היה כבר ﬠנין של עקירה מיסודי הרת, ולכן נענש על וה כל כך שלא יהא לו חלק לﬠוה"ב

(I realize that there is a problem in Rashi as to whether it was Ruach HaKodesh or just a conviction based on analysis and faith.  But I'm working with Reb Michel's approach.)

So here's my question: He is saying that you can't allow what you know al pi ruach hakodesh to change what you would do al pi halacha minus the ruach hakodesh.  But if min hashamayim you know what's happening, and what's going to happen, why shouldn't you do your hishtadlus based on that information?
How is this different than the classic woman of מנשים באהל תבורך, Yael?
Why is this not like Asei docheh lo sa'aseh?
From Rabbeinu HaKadosh'es Eis Laasos?
Why wouldn't you call this an aveira lishma or lo efshar velo komichavein?

 (I don't want to hear that he is basing it on the din of לא בשמים היא, because that only applies to decisions of what the halacha is.  This is not a question of halacha, it was a question of what to work for, what to try to accomplish.)


I think that answer is simple, that Reb Michel means that davka Ruach HaKodesh can't influence the halacha.  But realism of strategy involving facts and analysis certainly can.  Why is ruach hakodesh so "disdained?"  Because sometimes it is given specifically so that it should not be fulfilled, like in Ninveh and Sedom.


Along the same lines, from the Chaftez Chaim.

The connection is that in this case too, he says one must do what the halacha requires without taking into consideration the possible consequences.


וגם ממעשה דמרדכי שהתחזק שלא להשתחות להמן מפני שעשה עצמו אלוה כמו שאחז״ל אף שהיה ע״פ הטבע בסכנה גדולה עבור זה, ויש ללמוד מזה הלכתא רבתי, שאפילו אם הוא רואה שעי״ז שלא ישתחוה לעבודת כוכבים יוכל לסבב ריעותא גדולה לכמה אנשים בנפשם אעפ״כ לא יחוש לזה כלל ולא יוציא עצמו מחוקי התודה שהרי במרדכי ע״י שלא כ רע ולא השתחוה יצא קצף המן על כל כלל ישראל והיו בסכנה גדולה עי״ז ואעפ״כ לא הביט ע״ז, ולא תאמר מפני שלא חשב מתחלה שיהיה קצף עי״ז שהרי אפילו אח״כ כשיצא הגזירה ע״י הקצף לא חיפש שום עצה לפייס את המן אלא אדרבה שמר דרכו והנהגתו שלא ליתן שום כבוד להמן אפילו בקימה בעלמא לפניו [כדמוכח ב קפיטל ה׳ פסוק טי״ת] אף שעי״ז בודאי נתגדל הקצף יותר

 וראה אחי את קדושת תורתנו כי בודאי בשעה שיצא הקצף להשמיד ולהרוג כל  יהודים היו כמה אנשים מרננים אחר מרדכי שניסבב על«דו צרה סו והוא בודאי השיב להם שכן נכון לעשות על פי התורה, ונמצא לפי״ז שח״ו חוקי התורה גרמה להם הצער אבל ראה מה עלחה לבסוף מזה שחלילה לא היתה עי״ז שום היזק לא לו ולא לכלל ישראל, ואדרבה היתה תשובה גדולה עי״ו. שנהרג המן וכל בניו ותלו אותם על העץ לעיני הכל על אשר שלח ידו כיהודים וע״ה אלף מהעמלקים ושאר שונאי ישראל נהרגו וכל היהודים נעשו לשם ולתהלה בארץ,  כי האמת שהבורא ית׳ קורא הדורות מראש כשהוא חקק את חוקי תורתו הקדושה קבעה אותה אחר כל הסיבובים שעתידים להיות וכשנסתכל עליה אחר כל הסיבובים נראה כי הוא הטוב האמיתי כמו שהעיר עליה היוצר ואמר כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם וגר, ולדעתי פשוט שמפני זה הדר קבלו התורה ברצון בימי אחשורוש(כמו שאחז״ל) כי ראו בחוש שמחוקי התורה אפילו החוקים היותר חמורים [כמו בדיד עכו״ם שדין הוא ליהרג ולא לעבור] אפ״ה אין יוצא מהם שום ריעותא רק חיים וטוב.



Saturday, February 28, 2015

Titzaveh, Shemos 30:2. One by One, Square.

Describing the Mizbei'ach Hazahav,
א ועשית מזבח מקטר קטרת עצי שטים תעשה אתו.  ב אמה ארכו ואמה רחבו רבוע יהיה ואמתים קמתו ממנו קרנתיו.
"an amah in length, and an amah width, it shall be squared, and two amos its height...."
Shai LaTorah II asks that once we have been told that the top is one amah by one amah, to be told that it should be square seems unnecessary and repetitive.  It is redundant.

I asked this question at my kiddush, and got two answers.  One was that in Kodshim, there is a rule of שינה עליו הכתוב לעכב, that if a din is stated once, it is a mitzva, but if one fails to fulfill the instruction, the korban or utensil remains kosher bedi'eved.  Only if the mitzvah or instruction is repeated does it become essential to the kashrus of the avodah or keli.  By saying Rav'uah, the Torah has invoked the rule of שינה עליו הכתוב לעכב.  This sounds like a good teretz, but the Shai LaTorah brings an answer from Reb Chaim that evidently assumes that this answer is not correct.

The answer he brings from Reb Chaim is that from here we see that the din ravu'a by the mizbei'ach is not merely a result of being one amah by one amah, but an independent requirement.  His words-
על כרחך היוצא מזה דהא דהמזבח "רבוע" הוא, אינו רק תוצאה ל"אמה ארכו ואמה רחבו," אלא דהוא דין מיוחד שעל המזבח להיות רבוע.
I would explain Reb Chaim as saying that even if the dimensions of the mizbei'ach didn't matter, it would have to be ravu'ah.  It so happens, that besides the din of ravu'ah, the dimensions do matter, and they happen to be one long and one wide.  But the essential requirement of ravu'ah is independent of the din of the dimensions.

My wife answered the question by saying that a rhombus can also be described as having sides of one amah by one amah, so of course the Torah needed to tell you that the mizbei'ach had to be square.  The idea is that you can describe something as being one amah long and one amah wide even if the corners are not exactly ninety degrees.

Since she never reads this website, I can admit that she is making a good point.

Rabbi Dr. GS independently said that one by one might also describe a cylinder, but I disagree.  The only place in Tanach that I can remember where the dimensions of a cylinder are described is the Yam shel Shlomo, and the passuk there just mentions the diameter and the circumference- Divrei HaYamim II 4:2,
 ויעש את הים, מוצק  עשר באמה משפתו אל שפתו עגול סביב וחמש באמה קומתו וקו שלשים באמה יסב אתו סביב 
The Rabbi Dr. wrote back:
Could respond where it must be cylindrical it describes it in terms as per Yam shel Shlomo and if it must be square it says merubah
If left ambiguous then either shape would be acceptable 
(By the way, the previous passuk describes the Mizbei'ach Ha'Olah:
ויעש מזבח נחשת עשרים אמה ארכו ועשרים אמה רחבו ועשר אמות קומתו.  )

Another thing I was wondering about is why Reb Chaim didn't ask the question by the Choshen, which is described in 28:16 as being square, a zeres by a zeres- רבוע יהיה כפול זרת ארכו וזרת רחבו.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Stepping back after Kaddish

After Shemoneh Esrei, we walk back three steps before saying Oseh Shalom.
OC 123:1.
כורע ופוסע ג' פסיעות לאחריו בכריעה אחת ואחר שפסע ג' פסיעות בעודו כורע קודם שיזקוף כשיאמר עושה שלום במרומיו 
Although many people say Oseh Shalom while stepping back, this is an error.  As the Mishna Berura says in 123 sk3 from the Eliah Rabba-
ואחר שפסע - ולא כאותן שאומרין עושה שלום בעוד שפוסעין דאין נכון לעשות כן וכן הדין בעושה שלום דקדיש  
Even without the Elia Rabba, anyone reading the source in the Gemara would know that he should step back first and only then say Oseh Shalom; Yoma 53b,


אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי המתפלל צריך שיפסיע שלש פסיעות לאחוריו ואחר כך יתן שלום אמר ליה רב מרדכי כיון שפסע שלש פסיעות לאחוריו התם איבעיא ליה למיקם משל לתלמיד הנפטר מרבו אם חוזר לאלתר דומה לכלב ששב על קיאו תניא נמי הכי המתפלל צריך שיפסיע שלש פסיעות לאחוריו ואחר כך יתן שלום ואם לא עשה כן ראוי לו שלא התפלל ומשום שמעיה אמרו שנותן שלום לימין ואחר כך לשמאל שנאמר מימינו אש דת למו ואומר יפול מצדך אלף ורבבה מימינך מאי ואומר וכי תימא אורחא דמילתא היא למיתב בימין ת"ש יפול מצדך אלף ורבבה מימינך רבא חזייה לאביי דיהיב שלמא לימינא ברישא א"ל מי סברת לימין דידך לשמאל דידך קא אמינא דהוי ימינו של הקב"ה אמר רב חייא בריה דרב הונא חזינא להו לאביי ורבא דפסעי להו שלש פסיעות בכריעה אחת:

Chazal impute a great deal of importance to stepping back, and say that if one does not step back, he would be better off if he had not davenned at all-  ואם לא עשה כן ראוי לו שלא התפלל.  Rashi says
 ואם לא עשה כן. נראה כמו שלא נטל רשות להיפטר: וראוי לו שלא התפלל. ראוי לו שלא התפלל גרסינן כלומר נוח היה לו אם לא התפלל כמו ראוי לו שלא בא לעולם:

We are given many reasons for stepping back, which pertain specifically to leaving the presence of the Ribono shel Olam, as the Beis Yosef says in 123.  Only during Shemoneh Esrei are we told to view ourselves as if we are standing in the presence of the Shechina.  Another idea is brought from Rav Hai Gaon that associates the three steps to the movement of the Kohen after bringing the limbs of a Korban Tamid, again exclusively relevant to Shemoneh Esrei which is related to the Temidim.
כתב עוד רבינו הגדול מהר"י אבוהב בשם ארחות חיים (סי' כה) שאלו הפסיעות צריך שיהיו עקב בצד גודל וגודל בצד עקב ככהנים. ועוד כתב (א"ח סי' כז) טעם לשלש פסיעות שלאחר התפילה כנגד שלשה מילין שרחקו ישראל מהר סיני בשעת מתן תורה. ועוד נמצא בהגדה שמשה רבינו ע"ה נכנס בחושך ענן וערפל לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא וכשיצא יצא מאלו השלשה ולכך אנו עושים שלש פסיעות ע"כ. ושבלי הלקט (סי' יח) כתב בשם הגאונים טעם לשלש פסיעות מפני שכשאדם עומד בתפילה עומד במקום קדושה ושכינה למעלה מראשו וכיון שנפטר מתפילתו צריך לפסוע שלש פסיעות לאחוריו כדי שיצא ממקום קדושה ויעמוד במקום חול וראיה לדבר שכן הוא כיון שחוזרים לאחוריהם שלש פסיעות נותנים שלום זה לזה כלומר עד עכשיו היינו במקום קדוש ויצאנו למקום חול עכ"ל. ובשם רבינו האי מצאתי כתוב שטעם שלש פסיעות משום דתפילות כנגד תמידין תקנום וכשכהן עולה למזבח עם איברי התמיד היה עולה דרך ימין ומקיף ויורד דרך שמאל ובין כבש למזבח היו שלשה רובדין של אבן ויורד בהם שלש פסיעות על עקב ואנן עושים כמו שהם היו עושים עכ"ל. וכתב ה"ר מנוח (ספר המנוחה תפילה פ"ה ה"י) דהני שלש פסיעות ילפינן להו מדכתיב (יחזקאל א ז) "ורגליהם רגל ישרה". 'רגליהם' – תרי. 'רגל' – חד. ויש אומרים שש, דהא כתיב בתריה "וכף רגליהם ככף רגל עגל". ואף על גב דשלש פסיעות אשכחן, ששה לא אשכחן, סבירא ליה דפסיעה אינה אלא כשמניע שתי רגליו וכן מנהג חכמי צרפת. ויש אומרים תלת הוו בשובו למקומו שיש לו לחזור בשלש פסיעות כאשר בתחלה עכ"ל וכסברא אחרונה כתב ה"ר דוד אבודרהם (עמ' קד:


None of this applies to Kaddish.  It doesn't make any sense to step back for the Oseh Shalom of Kaddish.  It does make sense for the Kaddish Shalem/Tiskabel, because that Kaddish follows and completes Shemoneh Esrei, as the Mechaber says in 123:5 (even though you walked around and said tachanun and krias hatorah before that.) .  But for the other kaddeishim, there is no reason to step back. The concept of respectfully and fearfully backing away from the Shechina applies exclusively to Shmoneh Esrei, not to Kaddish or Kedusha or the Yud Gimmel Middos. Because of this obvious distinction, the Kaf HaChaim (נו, לוsays that one should not step back by any Kaddish other than Kaddish Shalem/Tiskabel.


Additionally, it would seem to me that if the logic of three steps back applied to Kaddish, the Rokeach's hanhaga (brought in the Rema 95:1) of three steps forward before Shemoneh Esrei would apply to Kaddish as well, but the fact is that absolutely nobody says that you should take three steps forward before Kaddish.  I say, "If there's no forward, then no backward."


Even so, Achronim try to find reasons to do it by all kaddeishim, because the Mechaber says to do it by Kaddish.  

The Mechaber in 56:5 says, ,
לאחר שסיים הקדיש פוסע ג' פסיעות ואחר כך אומר עושה שלום וכו

Frankly, it seems likely that we do it out of habit because of the phrase Oseh Shalom at the end of a tefilla, but it's really out of place in Kaddish.

Although sometimes it's nice to do things in a chidushdikeh way to show that you're a talmid chacham, (Hamotzi/She'hotzi, see Brachos 38a/b, story of Reb Zeira and Reb Zevid's son) in this case, the issue is just not interesting enough to make it worth it to davka not step back after Kaddish, and you'll only end up looking like a smart aleck.


And there's no escaping the fact that the Mechaber says to do it.  So, meaningful or not, there might be a poretz geder issue, and I recommend that you step back even after Kaddish.  (Rav Ovadiah-יבי"א ה, ט- also says to do what the Mechaber says.)


Maybe, maaaybe, the reason we step back by Kaddish is because we are going with Rabbeinu Manoach, the last pshat brought in the Beis Yosef above.  If you say that for some reason, Kaddish requires that we act like the Malachim (a good example of ignotum per ignotius, solving a puzzle with something doubly puzzling,)  then the ורגליהם רגל logic would apply here.  

A Medrash (Mishlei 14:28) might be read to reflect the idea that Kaddish is akin to the Shir of the Malachim.
 רב עם הדרת מלך, ובאפס לאום מחיתת רזון" - אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא: בא וראה שבחו וגדולתו של הקב"ה, שאף על פי שיש לפניו אלף אלפי אלפים ורבי רבבות כתות של מלאכי השרת שישרתוהו וישבחוהו, אינו רוצה בשבחן של כולם, אלא בשבחן של ישראל, שנאמר "ברב עם הדרת מלך", ואין עם אלא ישראל, שנאמר (ישעיהו מג כא): "עם זו יצרתי לי תהילתי יספרו", בשביל שיגידו שבחי בעולם.

וכה"א (תהלים מז י): "נדיבי עמים נאספו, עם אלהי אברהם, כי לאלהים מגני ארץ מאד נעלה". אמר רבי סימון: אימתי הקב"ה מתעלה בעולמו? בשעה שישראל נאספים בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות, ונותנין שבח וקילוס לפני בוראן. רבי ישמעאל אומר: בשעה שישראל נאספין בבתי מדרשות ושומעין אגדה מפי חכם, ואחר-כך עונין (קדיש): "אמן יהא שמיה רבא מבורך", באותה שעה הקב"ה שמח ומתעלה בעולמו, ואומר למלאכי השרת "בואו וראו עם זו שיצרתי בעולמי, כמה הן משבחין אותי", באותה שעה מלבישין אותו הוד והדר, לכך נאמר ברוב עם הדרת מלך

But if so, Kaddish would require that we hold our feet together, (the רגל ישרה part,) and although people tend to do that, no such thing is required in Halacha.

So the final word is that it appears that we walk back three steps because Kaddish is in some way, to some extent, similar to Shemoneh Esrei.  Exactly what the similarity is can't be pinned down, but that has to be the idea.

For further discussion, some of which is pretty good, see

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8837&st=&pgnum=230
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40024&st=&pgnum=171 at length
and generally, 
http://daf-yomi.com/DYItemDetails.aspx?itemId=25472

Sunday, February 1, 2015

End of shiva, end of Epoch

Shiva for my mother ended a few hours ago.   וזרח השמש ובא השמש.  As the sun rose, the epoch of the Talmud Torah of Kelm ended.  There are still several women who attended Yavne seminary in Telz- one of her teachers at Yavne is baruch hashem maarich yamim veshanim, but the doors of the Talmud Torah in Kelm have now closed.

The loss is made more bitter by the universally accepted reality that my parents did not leave children  of anything close to a comparable stature.

Still, and this is a chizuk, from what I've seen and heard this week, it seems that something of my father's Slabodker mesora of Torah and Mussar, and my mother's Kelmer mesora of Mussar and Torah, is reappearing in their grandchildren.  It may have an American accent, it may have an Israeli accent, but it's there.

Monday, January 19, 2015

From Reb Shimon Shkop

Rav Micha Berger put this together as a pdf and a jpg, and I had it printed on a wooden plaque.  The original can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/shaarei-yosher-meaning-life