Sukkos. Reb Meir Simcha about When Sukkos Got Its New Name, and My Suggestion about Ancient Origins.

Reb Meir Simcha's interesting addition to the Gaon's vort.  The Gaon, of course, answers the Tur's question about the timing of Sukkos in the Fall when we first experienced being in Sukkos in the Spring.  He says that with the sin of the Eigel the Ananei HaKavod went away.  The sin was forgiven on Yom Kippur, on the eleventh Moshe gave us the tzivui to build the Mishkan, they collected on the twelth and thirteenth, the donations were determined to be sufficient and the people were told to stop bringing on  the fourteenth (or it was Shabbos and it was assur to do anything, see Shabbos 86b,), and they began building on the fifteenth, at which point the ananim came back.  It is the return of the ananim that we celebrate.

Reb Meir Simcha in Parshas Mishpatim points out that the holiday is only called Sukkos in Sefer Devarim.  He says this is because it was only after Moshe's return that it acquired a new meaning and its new name.  The holiday existed before, but it was exclusively agricultural, and it was only called Chag Ha'Asif.  After the kaparah and the return of the Ananim, the date acquired a new meaning and the holiday was given its new name, Sukkos.

Reb Meir Simcha:

חג האסיף. וכן ב'כי תשא' (להלן לד, כב). לא כן בדברים (טז, יג) כתיב 'חג הסוכות'. הטעם על פי דברי הגר"א (שיר השירים ד, טז) כשניתן לוחות השניים ומשה ירד מן ההר וחזרו ענני הכבוד בט"ו לחודש תשרי נצטוו על סוכות כידוע. ולכך, אז קודם דברות שניות נקרא חג האסיף ולא חג הסוכות. ומסולק קושיית ר' חנינא בראש השנה דף יג ע"א יעויין שם והבן, ולא שייך לקרותו חג האסיף על סוכה, ועיין

Reb Meir Simcha's interpretation is reminiscent of the idea that Pesach, or at least celebration that involved eating Matzos, preceded Yetzias Mitzrayim, as we see from the stories of Avraham (as we discussed here) and Lot.  No doubt, it had some meaning even then, but it certainly wasn't called Pesach.  Pasach on what?  It was probably just called Chag HaMatzos.  But once we left Mitzrayim, and Hashem was Posei'ach on our houses, it got a new meaning and a new name- Pesach.

Now that Reb Meir Simcha has told us that the Holiday was celebrated for a different reason until a later date, at which time it acquired a new meaning and a new name, I offer you my speculation about the holiday in even more ancient times, when I had an entirely different meaning.

I suppose this might be of some use for those of us that are asked, by Gentiles or uneducated Jews, to explain why we sit in Sukkos.  One can do as Reb Yaakov does in his Emes L'Yaakov, and offer the alternatives of the agricultural explanation-חג האסיף and  פסולת גורן ויקב, or the religious explanation- ענני הכבוד , סוכות ממש, but I suggest that the simplest thing would be the following.  Sukkos is a holiday that commemorates our national origin as tent-dwelling desert wanderers.  It's kosher, it's simple, and it's not incorrect.  

R' Tal Benschar, in the comments, points out that this pshat disregards the explicit statement in the Torah that Sukkos is because כי בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל and nothing else.  

But I still say that if it's also called Chag Ha'Asif, which tells us that it has a meaning besides בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל.  If it has additional meanings besides כי בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל, I can offer, speculatively, this meaning as well.  

Lulav before Shachris-- A Tadir Kodem Problem

I originally posted this in 2006.  I'm making minor changes and re-posting, because the original post only got one decent he'ara, and I think that you, and you know to whom I'm talking, can help expand the vort.

A friend called me to complain about Reb Moshe’s teshuva in Orach Chaim 4 99, where Reb Moshe says that he doesn’t approve of the minhag to make the bracha on the lulav in the sukkah before davening, because there is a todir, or if you prefer, tadir problem; davening is tadir vis a vis lulav. (Rav Shach says exactly the same thing, that in Kletzk the minhag was to make the bracha on the lulav before davening, but he didn’t do so because of the tadir problem.)

My friend's complaint was the following: The Pri Megadim in hilchos tefillin, in the Eshel Avraham, says that if you don’t want to wear your talis gadol walking to shul, but you do want to wear your tefillin, there is no tadir problem, because since you don’t want to put on the talis now, there is no question about which is todir, the talis or the tefillin. Now you want to put on the tefillin only, so talis is not in the cheshbon. The Pri Megadim shtells tzu the halacha of musaf and mincha in 286, that even if it is zman minchah, you daven musaf first. So, my friend asked, if you want to do the mitzva of lulav now, and you don’t want to daven shachris now, and you have a minyan kavu’a later to daven, according to the Pri Megadim there should be no tadir problem at all.

I told him that it is not a kashe, because the Pri Megadim is only talking about talis, which is not a chiyuv be’etzem. There is no chiyuv of tzitzis unless I want to wear the beged, and since I don’t want to wear the beged now, there is no chiyuv at all. But by shachris, it doesn’t matter if I want to daven now— it is the zman chiyuv of tefilla, so there is a din of todir whether I like it or not. And the din of tadir is mechayev that I cannot do a different, less tadir mitzva.

He then asked, if I were right, what is the Pri Megadim’s tzushtell to 286? There, of course, Mincha is a chiyuv, not a choice. We looked, and it came out that 286 is talking about a tzibur that was davening late on Yom Kipur, and they didn’t start musaf before the zman mincha came, that they should daven musaf first. But if you look carefully there, and at Reb Moshe’s teshuva in OC 4 68, you will see that the Rambam says that in such a case, the tzibur should daven musaf first only “shelo yit’u—” because doing Mincah first will confuse them. And Reb Moshe brings that the Rosh used to daven musaf while the tzibur was saying the yotzros of shachris, and later daven mincha with them. So you see that the Rosh holds that tadir is mechayev that you daven the tadir first, even if that means that you will be davenning musaf beyichidus. This is an exact tzushtell to the case of the lulav and shachris— that I cannot take the lulav before davenning, because tadir is mechayev that I daven first. And even though the tzibur has the minyan later, and I cannot daven now unless I daven beyichidus, it’s too bad. The din of tadir says that you cannot take the lulav first, or that you should daven shachris beyichidus and then take the lulav, or, of course, just wait till you daven shachris betzibur and then take the lulav.

So he then asked, if so, what does the Pri Megadim mean when he shtells tzu 286? It seems the 286 says farkert from him!

We realized, though, that it appears that in 286 there is a difference between Mincha Gedola and Mincha Ketana. There might be a chiluk that if it is the time of Minchah Gedolah, then it is better to daven musaf first, but if it is the time of Minchah Ketanah, then you should daven mincha first. If so, this is exactly the difference between other mitzvos and talis: Mincha Gedola is like a talis, because you may choose to daven Mincha Gedola if you like, but it is not the real time of chiyuv. Only then if you don’t plan to daven Mincha Gedola, you should daven musaf first, and that is the Pri Megadim's source for saying that you can wear your Tefillin before your Tallis. . But if it were a real chiyuv, namely Mincha Ketana, then tadir would say that you have to daven mincha first- at least theoretically, but in fact, of course, there's a shema yit’u problem.

The shaylah also comes up in Kiddush Levana— how can we do that if we have a chiyuv to say havdala? And it certainly is not a tadir versus m’kudash issue. Unless you say that you need people to say sholom aleichem to, which you won’t have if you wait until after havdala.

By the way, Rav Shternbuch says as a davar poshut not like Reb Moshe, but instead that if you do not intend to do a mitzvah now, even though it’s the zman, it doesn’t come into the cheshbon and you don’t have to worry about tadir.  It's too bad he didn't explain to Reb Moshe and Rav Shach why it's so pashut, because they, nebach, didn't understand it.

But I do have to mention that in the Keser Rosh, from Reb Chaim Volozhiner's talmid, printed in the Siddur HaGra before the Maaseh Rav, see #109 where he says that Reb Chaim did make the bracha on the Esrog in his Sukka before Davening.

The truth is, most likely this is not an argument about how to apply the rules of Tadir. It is pretty obvious that the precedence of Tadir only applies where the non-Tadir can be done equally well later. If you will lose something significant in the non-Tadir by the delay, you certainly should do it first.  So if making the bracha in a sukkah is significant, and you will not be able to make it in the sukkah after Shachris, you should do it in the sukkah before Shachris. Obviously, Reb Moshe and Rav Shach didn't think that making the bracha in a sukkah was significant.


NOTE:
Now that I've erased the original, I really ought to mention BlackLeibel's comment back in 2006.

The Todir Kodem problem aside, according to the Ar"i, the Chid"a and others, the Ikar of Netilas Lulav is in the Sukka and the appropriate time is after Tefilla, before Hallel. Compliance would necessitate either a mass exit from Shul to the Sukka before Hallel or Davening Shacharis in the Sukka. Instead, we (of noble Hungarian descent or, apparently, most Kletzkers) Bentch Lulav in the Sukka before Davening. (See Pri Etz Chaim, Shaar 29, Ch.3 and Divrei Chaim, Drushei Sukkoth.)

UPDATE 2018
This comment came in - I wish I had time to look into it. I actually was thinking about this possibility recently, and now I can check was RAW says about it.

See Minchas Asher on parshas pinchas. He deals with this Rav Moshe and connects it to a machlokes Tosfos and Talmidei R Yonah Brachos 28a regarding mincha/mussaf precedence when the zman mincha strikes. Talmidei R Yonah seem to say that since I plan to daven mincha later, there's no clash now, so no need to apply Tadir kodem. However, Tosfos needs to invoke the advantage of davening mincha ktana. If not for this advantage, tosfos would have said you are obligated to daven mincha first. TRY like RMF, and Tosfos is the other way 

Great News, but......

It's important to realize that the opportunity presented by the Aseres Yemei Teshuva and Yom Kippur has two sides.  It is the one time in the year that the Ribono shel Olam presents Himself to us and is receptive to sincere teshuva and tefilla.  On the other hand, not properly taking advantage of the favorable moment is far more serious than missing an opportunity.

:
The Gemara in Yoma 87a about the butcher that said "I have nothing to talk to you about,"

רב הוה ליה מילתא בהדי ההוא טבחא לא אתא לקמיה במעלי יומא דכפורי אמר איהו איזיל אנא לפיוסי ליה פגע ביה רב הונא אמר ליה להיכא קא אזיל מר אמר ליה לפיוסי לפלניא אמר אזיל אבא למיקטל נפשא אזל וקם עילויה הוה יתיב וקא פלי רישא דלי עיניה וחזייה אמר ליה אבא את זיל לית לי מילתא בהדך בהדי דקא פלי רישא אישתמיט גרמא ומחייה בקועיה וקטליה

You have to ask yourself,
1. Where did Rav learn that one should present himself to the one that wronged him, instead of waiting for him to come by himself to ask to be forgiven?
2. Why did Rav Huna say "Abba is going to kill a man"?  Why was it so pashut to Rav Huna that if Rav would present himself to the butcher, and the butcher would not ask mechila, he would die?
3.  Why, indeed, did the butcher die?  Was his sin against Rav so severe?
4.  If the offense against Rav was indeed so severe, why did he die only after Rav presented himself?

After asking these questions, think about what the Yaaros Devash says about this time of the year: 

בי׳ ימי תשובה מעורר אותנו בתשובה בלי התעוררות דלמטה כלל רק הוא מעורר אותנו כעין מעשה בראשית שהיה כטל לישראל וזהו דרשו ה׳ בהמצאו שהוא ממציא עצמו לנו טרם קראנו אליו רק אדרבא הוא נמצא מקודם לעורר לבניו לתשובה

  Whatever the pshat in the Gemara is, one thing is clear:  when the Ribono shel Olam gets up from His Kisei HaKavod, and leaves His palace, and presents Himself to you so you can ask for kapara, when the Ribono shel Olam is ממציא עצמו לנו, then ignoring the opportunity of the Aseres Yemei Teshuva and Yom Kippur is being like the tabach that said אבא את זיל לית לי מילתא בהדך

Reb Itzelle Peterburger, in the Kochvei Ohr says this much better than I can translate it.

 וכ״כ בחי׳ מהרש״א שהטבח נענש שהוח חטא עד רב והיה לו לפייסיה לרב . אכן

 מש״כ שם עוד גם שזלזל ברב לקראו בשמו אבא. אינו נכון. דהא ר״ה אמד אזיל אבא למיקטל נפשא. ומהיכן היה יודע ר״ה שהטבח עוד יקרא לרב בשמו. ועוד דהנה בתוס׳ ישנים כתבו דאבא היה דרך כבוד. כמו אבי אבי רכב ישראל. דאל״כ היאך ר׳׳ה תלמידו היה קורא לרבו בשמו ע״ש. וע״כ העיקר הוא כי מה שנענש הטבח הוא בשביל שרב הלך אליו. ובכ׳׳ז הקשה אח רוחו ועמד במרדו ולא פייסיה לרב.

 וזה שאמר ר״ה אזיל אבא למיקטל נפשא כי היה חושב לדבר קרוב . שהטבח יעמוד במרדו ולא יבקש מחילה מרב:

 ומעתה אחרי אשר כבר נתבאר. כי דרכי י החסידות של רב ור״ז. שהמציאו א״ע אל מי שחטא להם והתקרבו אליו . זהו מדתו של הקב״ה ממש. כי כן הוא ית״ש מתנהג במדה זו בימי התשובה. להיות מצוי וקרוב אצל האדם. למען בהמצאו ובהיותו קרוב יתן האדם אל לבו לשוב לפניו ית״ש להתחרט על עונותיו ולבקש מחילה וסליחה כנ״ל:

 נמצא כי אם בכ״ז יקשה האדם את לבו. ויאמץ את רוחו וימנע מלשוב אליו ית״ש . גם ביוהכ״פ שהוא קץ מחילה וסליחה לישראל. הרי היא עושה חלילה כמעשה הטבח לנגד רב. והרי הוא כמשיב ח״ו דבר לפני הקב״ה אשר היא מצוי וקרוב אליו. כמו שאמר הטבח לרב זיל לית לי מילתא בהדך . ואם כ׳׳כ גדלה חטאתו של הטבח נגד רב. ומה גס אם בשר ודם יעשה כזאת נגד ממה״מ הקב׳׳ה . מה כבדה חטאתו . ומה רבה אשמתו. וכמה יגדל ענשו ח״ו. מה נורא הרעיון הזה למעמיק בה

So Reb Itzaleh says not like the Mahrsha.  According to him, when the Tabach called Rav "Abba," it was not a disparaging name, he meant to use a name that shows respect, but he felt that he didn't owe Rav, as great as he was, any apology.  "You're a great man, Rav, and I respect you, but I didn't do anything wrong, and there's no point expecting me to apologize."  It comes out that even if you do talk with respect, you say Avinu (like Abba,) Malkeinu, ein lanu melech ella atta, but you don't properly ask for teshuva, you don't really think you need to ask for teshuva, you say vidui for sinful Klal Yisrael but not for your innocent self, you are, chas veshalom, like the Tabach.

Rabbi Tzvi Haber of TorahLab sent me an excellent thing. He wrote it in a letter, not intended for publication, but I want to quote it verbatim.  Yasher kochcha.

In Limudei Nissan Reb Nissan brings a drasha from Reb Zalman Sorotzkin who asked why there is no aliyah l'regel on Yom Kippur, and is masbir that the reason is because Hashem is קרוב להם בכל מקום שהם , just another smach to what you're saying. Reb Nissan brings this to be masbir Rebbe Akiva's statement of Ashreichem yisrael  - even after the churban, wherever you are, Hashem is karov and metaher you on Yom Kippur.

My son, Reb Shlomo, spoke at Reb Tzvi Kaplan's yeshiva before Yom Kippur today, and he added several things.  I found one thing that he said relevant even to us more worldly people.
A person should undertake resolutions for the coming year, to avoid aveiros, and to do things with more yiras shamayim.  But he suggested two things.
1.  Your resolutions, as far as Avoiding aveiros, do your utmost.  But as far as doing things better, take small steps.  For example, you say you'll bentsch inside instead of by heart, so you can pay better attention.   Be realistic.
2.  Whenever you do the new hanhaga, remember that you're doing it because you'r'e sticking to a resolution you made on Yom Kippur.  If you don't, it will become hergel, and it will lose a lot of it's ruchniyusdikkeh power.



NOTE:
This doesn't add to the mussar haskeil, but if you're interested in an excellent tzushtell- the famous Tosfos in Nazir (17) asks why making yourself a nazir in a cemetery would result in getting malkos, since speaking is not considered an act.  
Tosfos:

אילימא דאמרי ליה לא תנזור. והוא עומד בבית הקברות למה לי שהייה פשיטא דלקי בלא שהייה דנזיר טהור מאי טעמא דלא בעי שהייה ולא משכחת ליה [כלל] דבעי שהייה משום דקמתרין ביה שלא יטמא והוא נזיר טהור הכא נמי מתרין ביה שלא ידור בו בנזיר והוא עובר לקי כמו היכא דהוה טהור ומתרין ביה שלא יטמא ולאו האי כלאו שאין בו מעשה במה שמקבל נזירות דלאו שיש בו מעשה הוא במה שאינו יוצא משם כשנודר בנזיר

Tosfos is saying is that if you find yourself in a makom tumah, and you don't take the opportunity to get out of there, it's not a sin of omission, it's a lav she'yeish bo ma'aseh.  I think that not doing teshuva at this time is not just אין בו מעשה.  It's a לאו שיש בו מעשה הוא במה שאינו יוצא משם

Adventures with a Shemitta Esrog- UPDATED

My son lives in Givat Ze'ev.  Following the Feinstein shitta regarding a Shemitta esrog, he had to acquire his at the pardes, not from a merchant. After a great deal of effort, he did locate a cooperating pardes, and he found a beautiful esrog.

Another shitta of the Feinsteins is that the Shaas HaBiyur of esrogim is Rosh HaShannah.  So he put his esrog into a bag and put it down in the street in front of his house, and in the presence of three adults he said he was mafkir it, that anyone that wanted could take it.  So he was mekayeim the requirement of biyur.

His nine year old daughter was watching.  She said, Tatti, what do you mean?  My son explained what hefker means.  Miriam asked, does that really mean that anyone can take it?  Yes, my son said.  So dear Miriam grabbed it and said "Now it's mine."

Short of the bag being run over by a truck, this is the worst thing that could have happened.  Sukka 46b-

א"ר זירא לא ליקני איניש הושענא לינוקא ביומא טבא קמא מ"ט דינוקא מקנא קני אקנויי לא מקני ואשתכח דקא נפיק בלולב שאינו שלו 

The immediate reaction of most people is that her kinyan, being without דעת אחרת מקנה is derabanan, so his derabanan right to her metziya would be fine.  Problem is the Shach in 243 sk 6 says that her kinyan, even without דעת אחרת מקנה, is deoraysa.

My father in law presented a bigger problem.  The reason מציאת קטן לאביו is because מריצה אצל אביו.  But in this case, Miriam took it davka not to give it to her father.  She asked her father, what do you mean, he said, "anyone can take it," she said "Good!  Now it's mine!"  You can't have less of a מריצה אצל אביו than that.  It is the opposite of מריצה אצל אביו.

My nephew, Rav Gilan Grant, argued that  מריצה אצל אביו is only one tzad in the Gemara, and the alternative is משום איבה, which probably would apply here.  In Shulchan Aruch, only the svara of משום איבה is brought down, so the  מריצה אצל אביו problem is solved.  Although one might argue that even איבה would not apply where the father was mafkir, it is likely that the svara of איבה creates a universal din, applicable even where there is no real issue of creating איבה.

Someone suggested that my son marry her off to a friend, so her property becomes the husband's, and, as the husband is an adult, he could give the esrog back to my son.  We're hoping it won't come to that.  Anyway, the husband's kinyan on his wife's property is most likely miderabanan, and nobody wants to rely on a kinyan derabanan for a mitzva deoraysa.

R D Eli was bothered by the whole hefker business, since an Esrog is less than מזון ג' סעודות.  I answered that from Tosfos in Rosh HaShanna there's a mashma'us that an esrog is called more than מזון ג' סעודות, but the truth is that we were machmir to be mafkir because Reb Moshe in his Teshuva in OC 1:186 says to be mafkir.  We figured he says so because the person that took the Esrogim in the first place took more than מזון ג' סעודות.  But to tell the truth, he shouldn't have been mafkir.  It was a mistake, and some of the local poskim added the issue of hefker ta'us to the mix.



UPDATE:  Motza'ei Yom Kippur, we listened to the message Shlomo left us after Yom Kippur was over in Israel.  Among other things, he let us know that the infamous esrog turned out to be passul- it is chaseir.

Adopting Chumros During the Aseres Yemei Teshuva

The daf yomi is learning Nazir now, and it's worth putting the analysis of the laws of Nezirus on hold for a moment to think about the fundamental concept of Nezirus.

We sometimes do things because our Yetzer Hara, our desire, pushes us to act without seriously and honestly considering the consequences.   The Torah tells us that it is good to create a bubble in time, a period during which you remind yourself that you do have will-power and you can resist your desires.  Wine and grapes are very enjoyable, but you will not touch them for thirty days.  Certainly, when you drink wine your inhibitions are diminished, and it is important to be vigilant for those thirty days.  You are trying to strengthen your ability to withstand desires, and drinking wine is the worst thing you can do.

Another enemy of spiritual growth is vanity. Physical vanity focuses one's attention on himself to the detriment of others, and it inflames all physical desires. Also, a person who is conscious of his beauty might not put as much single minded effort into the study of Torah and Mussar.  Vanity can impede growth in Torah, in middos, and in chesed.  So the Torah says, grow your hair for thirty days, and perhaps you will look unkempt during that time, or, if you are lucky enough to have beautiful hair, by the end of thirty days you will have brightly shining curls- then go and cut them off and burn them in the Beis HaMikdash.  Unlike Savonarola's foolish exhibition, this is a true bonfire of the vanities.

Perhaps the greatest enemy of spiritual and Torah growth is despair.  So many people have given up on themselves!  They don't always say it in so many words, but you see them all the time.  They are bitter and unsympathetic, they sit there with the slichos and just stare off into the distance.  They have decided that nothing they've tried has worked, they are failures in Ruchniyus and Gashmiyus, they are just losers.  All they can do is go through the motions, because they are never going to get any better than they are.  In the Slichos for Tzom Gedaliah it says 

טכסת מקדם אלו ימים עשרה, יחיד בם לשוב ולמצוא כפרה, כל השנה כולה לרבים מסורה, לשוע ולענות בכל עת צוקה וצרה, מהר היחיד ושב בינתיים מוחלין לו, נואש ולא שב אין תקנה לעוולו, סדר וערך כל אילי נביות להועילו, עותר וצועק ואין שומע לו

Despair is a terrible problem.  We feel bad for a person that despairs, but from the Pizmon we see that sometimes it's just an excuse- it's the way a person avoids doing what he really knows he can do.  Sometimes, it practically paralyzes a person's initiative and saps his energy. Whatever it is, it is a terrible weapon of the yetzer hara.  Seeing the dead causes greater despair- that person can't do anything any more, oh, what's the point in trying!  But the truth is that as long as you're alive, you can grow, you can change, you can make a difference.  All that you need is life and a decision to try, even if only to try something small.  The only person that cannot do teshuva is the בן סורר ומורה, and a בן סורר ומורה never existed and never will exist. To help deal with the self-destructive trait of despair, the Nazir is told to spend a period of time focused on life.  You are alive- you have been given the gift of life.  Do something with the time you have!  It's not too late for you.

תאוה, גאוה, ויאוש

Nezirus addresses the problems of תאוה  and  גאוה  and  יאוש.  The Torah tells a person to carve out a period of time during which he reminds himself of what is possible and what is worthy. Thirty days really is not long enough to permanently change who you are, but it is a good way to remind yourself of what is important, and what you are capable of doing.  

Every year, people come over to me and say that this whole business of acting different during Ellul, of the Aseres Yemei Teshuva, it's just hypocritical.  We accept chumros (OC 603,) we avoid Pas Palter or we're makpid on Chalav Yisrael, we don't talk in shul or speak lashon hara.  But come the eleventh of Tishrei, all the chumros go out the window.  What's the point?  To them I say, look at the parsha of Nazir.  Obviously, the idea of Nazir is not to say, OK, I'm on the wagon for thirty days, but on day thirty one I'll be flat on my back in the cemetery with a bottle of Thunderbird.  The idea is to create a bubble of time during which you make a conscious attempt to remind yourself of what is important, of what is worthy, of what you are capable of doing.  You probably won't see enormous changes, but the Parsha of Nazir tells us that something is likely to remain, and you will come out a better person.  

Featherless Chickens: Eli, 1. Me, 0.

Two years ago, we posted a discussion on the kashrus issues of a new product, the featherless chicken.  This is a mutation that occasionally appears in populations of birds, and Professor Cahaner has been working for years to stabilize this mutation.  I enjoyed talking to the professor, and I looked forward to the commercialization of this product both because it should be more economical to not have to pluck the chickens and also because I'm disgusted by the feathers left on kosher chickens, an outcome of our not being able to scald them before salting. This queasiness became revulsion after I bit into a piece of fried battered chicken and found that the restaurant, knowing that their sins would be hidden, had made no attempt to clean the piece of chicken inside.  It was like biting into a pillow.  Since then, I haven't been able to eat anything like it that was not home made.  I even have trouble with chocolate coated peanuts.

When we wrote about it, we discussed three kashrus issues:
whether it is treif as a ge'luda because it is missing the natural protection provided by feathers, 
whether its just too ugly to be kosher (not a joke),
and Eli raised the Mesorah issue, that it might be viewed as a different species lacking mesorah.

I scoffed.  I said "Ha, Eli, nobody would ever say that!"  This is how the conversation went-

Despite the author's certainty that nobody could possibly think this is a new species, Eli believes that it remains possible that someone will claim that these birds are so different from standard breeds that they no longer fall under the definition of "Chicken" as far as satisfying the requirement of having a mesora that a particular species of bird is kosher. The definition of species is unclear, as we know from the Muscovy duck and the turkey controversies.  From listening to the Professor, it appears that they don't have scales on their legs either, and that, too, might lend itself to a "too different to be called a chicken" argument.  I certainly hope not.  What it looks like is irrelevant, because a יוצא מן הטהור is טהור, period.  

We felt quite comfortable in our opinion, especially since the Get Mekushar was mattir, more or less.

 עוף שניטלה נוצתו כשר מרן * ויש אוסרים וטוב להחמיר אם נפלו כולם מיהו אם נפלו נוצותיה מרוב שומן אעפ"י שנשאר ערום כשר כיון דנפלו מרוב שמנו * מור"ם * וכמה פעמים באה לידינו מין תרנגולת ערום ושאלתי ואמרו לי שזה המין כך הוא לעולם אעפ"י שאותה שעה שבא לידינו לא היתה שמנה כ"כ התרנו אותה עפ"י מנהג העולם שאמרו לי ששורש וגזע המין הזה הוא מאמו שהיתה שמנה ונפלו נוצותיה וע"כ בניה גדלים כמוה מתחלתם ולבסוף נעשו שמנים וזה מצוי הוא 

The Lamarckian assumption of this psak notwithstanding, the fact is that he's talking about a breed that does not have feathers.  Also, I had the יוצא מן הטהור argument, at least if you had a ספר היוחסין and could prove that the mutated breed stemmed from a normally feathered chicken. 

Well, guess what.  As reported in the JDN,  אידישע טעגליכע נייעס , and forwarded to me by Harav Doctor Eli, someone brought just such a chicken to Hagaon Rav Chaim Kanievsky.  Victory to Eli, albeit Pyrrhic.

סערת העוף הקֵרֵחַ: הגר”ח קנייבסקי מתנגד לשינוי ב מסורת העופות

אב”ד ‘יורה דעה’ הגאון הגדול הרב שלמה מחפוד שליט”א הציג בפני מרן שר התורה הגר”ח קנייבסקי שליט”א ‘עוף קֵרֵחַ’ תוצאה של מחקר ופיתוח ישראלי שנמשך כ-35 שנה ודן עמו בנושא ההלכתי שבדבר

אלחנן לוריא | 16:02 | כ״ד באלול תשע״ה

כמידי שנה, עלה גאב”ד ‘יורה דעה’ הגאון הגדול הרב שלמה מחפוד שליט”א למעונו של מרן שר התורה הגר”ח קנייבסקי שליט”א להתברך בברכת השנים, ולהעלות בפניו את שאלותיו אודות מערכת הכשרות אותה הוא מנהל. תחילה הציג את בנו הג”ר בניהו שליט”א דיין מומחה בב”ד חשובים בארה”ק וסיפר למרן שליט”א כי הוא יד ימינו ועוזר לו בפיקוח הדוק על השחיטה המהודרת שתחת השגחתו.

בפני מרן שר התורה הונחה שאלה עקרונית הקשורה למסורת העופות הנהוגה בידינו דור אחר דור, ולדין “גלודה”. על שולחנו של מרן שר התורה הונח תרנגול ייחודי. חי, ונקי מכל פלומת נוצות. הגר”ש מחפוד שליט”א סיפר למרן שליט”א ש”עוף קֵרֵחַ זה”, הוא תוצאה של מחקר ופיתוח ישראלי שנמשך כ-35 שנה על ידי פרופסור אביגדור כהנר מהפקולטה לחקלאות ברחובות.

מדובר בעוף מזן “ניו המפשייר”, והמיוחד בזן זה, שצוואר שלו נקי מנוצות, וצבעו אדמוני. אותו פרופסור הצליח בסופו של תהליך להעלים את נוצותיו לא רק בצווארו, אלא גם משאר גופו. בתהליך המחקר, עלה בידו לסלק את קשקשי הרגליים שהם בתי הנוצה, ולאחר מכן הוא נחל הצלחה גם בהבלעת נקודות השומן המסמנות את מיקום הנוצות.

למעשה: בזן העופות בעלי הצוואר האדמוני, דנו הפוסקים בליטא לפני כמאה שנים והתירוהו מדין “מסורת”, וכפי עדותו של הגר”ש מחפוד שליט”א שהוא היה מצוי במשחטות. העוף בנידון דידן הוא תולדה ישירה מאותו עוף שהתירוהו, אך ללא מעורבות יד אדם שמנטרלת את הנוצות. אלא, שלאחרונה ישנה דרישה מצד בעלי הלולים להכניס את פרי פיתוחו של פרופסור אביגדור כהנר לתהליך של גידול ושחיטה. עיקר טענתם הייתה, שעוף זה הינו חסין למחלות הגורמות לטרפות בריאות ובגידים, לבד מעמידותו בחום הקיץ הלוהט.

ואכן: כשהגר”ש מחפוד שליט”א, שחט וניתח עוף זה על חלקיו וגידיו וערך בו בדיקות מקיפות, התברר כי איכותו גבוהה מאד ויש סיכוי רב שחוסנו יתגבר על מחלות הריאות והגידים, דבר שנותן לו הידורים הלכתיים מסויימים ביחס לעופות המצויים כיום.

אולם התלבטותו של הגר”ש מחפוד שליט”א הייתה בשתי שאלות מרכזיות:

א. האם אין איסור “גלודה” חל על עוף זה, או שמא דווקא בנקלף עורו אמרינן “גלודה”.

ב. האם ניתן לסמוך על מסורת אבותיו הקיימת, וגם אם נאמר שכן, האם רשאים אנו לשנות את צורת העוף המסורתי בדמות “עוף שגדל ללא נוצות”,

לאחר שהתפלפלו בסוגיא זו, כשהג”ר בניהו שליט”א מציע ראיות לכאן ולכאן, מרן שליט”א פסק: שאין לנו לשנות ממסורת העופות הרגילים בידינו ואין לקבלו עתה, גם אם הוא נראה כעוף רגיל בכל שאר תכונותיו.

צילומים: עוזי ברק


UPDATE:
I regret writing as if Reb Chaim's psak was a mysterious chumra.  I am beginning to understand why he paskened as he did. 
First of all, it's important to see the Rogotchover's psak about a type of chicken that had no feathers on its neck:
The Teshuva can be seen at Hebrewbooks.

יום ד' עשי"ת תרס"ג.

[להרב ר' יהודה ליב גרוברט]

קיבלתי מכ' היום, ע"ד התרנגולים [שצווארם אדום וחלק בלי נוצות] אי זה הוי שינוי לומר שהוא מין אחר.

הנה עי' רש"י  בכורות ג' ד"ה לא מוכח דשינוי צמר הוי שינוי גבי נדמה ותוס'  שם ז' ד"ה זה משמע ג"כ, ועיין  חולין קל"ו אם מה שיש שינוי בצמר לא מקרי שינוי שיהיה ב' מינים, וב"ק נ"ה דזוטר קועי' וכו' ל"ה ב' מינים. ובירושלמי פסחים פ"ט דמבואר שם דשה חלק בלי גיזה לא אכפת לן לפסול לקרבן,

אך העיקר כך דהיכי דעי"ז הוא דומה למין אחר הוי נדמה,

ולעניין טמאים אם הוי עופות טמאים בדומה לזה בנוצות שפיר יש חשש, אבל שזה יהיה שינוי לא. עיי'  בכורות ו' , גבי חמור שילד מין סוס אימא חמור אדום ע"ש בזה ושם י"ז  צמרו קשה, ע"כ דזה ל"ה שינוי, דלימא שהוא מין אחר.

ועיין  חולין ס"ב גבי תסיל דכיוון שהוא ג"כ מוצץ אף דאח"כ מקיאה ויונה אינה מקיאה, ל"ה שינוי ורק גבי מדברי וישובי דאם אין בהם שינוי הוי חד מינא ואם יש בהם שינוי הוי תרי מיני, וכמו הך ד ב"ק נ"ה.

ועי' ברמב"ם פ"ט מהל' כלאיים ה אבל לעשות עיי"ז שיהי' ב' מינים לא, עי' בירושלמי מגילה פ"א דממעט מן ציפור כל כנף פרט למרוט אבל בלי קרא הוי בכלל ציפור ודוחק דמייר שנמרט אח"כ.

לכן כיוון שהוא ג"כ מין ישובי ק משום שינוי הנוצות אין שום חשש בזה, ומחמת הטרדה אקצר.

ועי'  ירושלמי נדה פ"ג דהוי מחלוקת ר"ש ורבנן אם צפורניו דומים לאמו הוי מין אדם ע"כ כיוון דינו בגופו עי'  נדה נ"ה.

(The breed the Rogotchover was talking about is what's called the Naked Neck, or New Hampshire.  They are available for purchase here in the US.   I found a great article titled "Why Transylvanian Chickens Have Naked Necks" in The National Geographic.  They are called "Vampire friendly.")  

1. It is possible, even according to the Rogotchover, that the total absence of feathers means it is a different species, even if it is a genetically trivial mutation. In any case, Reb Chaim Kanievsky is not meshubad to any achron, even the Rogotchover.

2.  But, you say, even if it is a different species, it is obviously kosher, because it comes from chickens and has all the simanim of kashrus of chickens.  Just because it lost its feathers does not mean that its kurkevan is not niklaf or that it became a doreis.  BUT a bird without feathers might be different enough to require its own mesora (despite its obvious status as an of tahor) because of the requirement of mesora even when we know it's not a doreis.  The point it that we require a mesora not because we're not sure of how to understand the simanim.  We require a mesora just because over time we were makabel to not eat any birds that do not have a mesora. Why we made that kabala does not matter, it was not a conditional kabala.
Additionally, some rishonim hold that within a breed, the male might be tamei and the female tahor, i.e., Rashi's pshat in Tarnegolta de'Agma, in Niddah 50b.  So proving that it's of the same breed does not necessarily prove kashrus if there is some clear difference in behavior- or in appearance.

3. Although in Yoreh Deah 79:2 we pasken that טהורה שילדה כמין טמאה מותרת שהיוצא מן הטמא טמא ומן הטהור טהור, so a camel born from a cow is kosher, it is very possible that Reb Chaim is machmir like Tosfos in Niddah 50b that this rule does not apply to oviparous animals. Therefore, although a camel born to a cow would be kosher, an an ostrich born from a chicken would NOT be kosher. So the rule of היוצא מן הטהור טהור will NOT serve in place of a mesora.  It will NOT mean that a mesora on the hen counts as a mesora on the chick.

To sum it up: 

No feathers gives it the status of a different breed.

This breed, like all breeds of birds, requires a mesorah.  

We have no mesora on this breed. 

The fact that it's born from a chicken doesn't help, because of Rashi and Tosfos in Niddah.  

Therefore, it is assur to eat this kind of bird.

HOWEVER:
Having said all this, it is still, for me, a surprising psak.  I would never have thought it is kedai to be machmir to this extent on the issue of mesorah on birds.  The whole idea of mesora is a minhag, not a chashash of issur temei'ah, and since there is enough of a smach to say that losing its feathers does not make it a new "kind" that requires a separate mesorah, why be machmir? What would Reb Chaim say about the five-toed Silkie, which has black bones and dark gray meat, or the Sultan or the Polish Crested? 

I could understand if a chicken laid an egg and something whose feathers made it look like a vulture came out of it, there would be a problem.  But simply losing all its feathers seems relatively minor.

Additionally, Eli pointed out that the Rambam Maachalos Asuros 1:14 and as quoted in YD 82 says that if you can identify all the 24 non-kosher species, you can eat whatever is not one of them.  It seems that "knowing what it is not" renders a mesorah unnecessary.  If so, then our naked friends should not require a mesorah, because we know for an absolute fact that whatever they may be, they are not one of the 24 minim temei'im.


In the comments, Tal Benschar pointed out that the Avnei Nezer (Yoreh De`ah 1:75:19-21) uses the Gemara in Bechoros to establish a rule, that any two animals that can mate and produce live offspring are proven to be either both Tamei species or Tahor species.  Although, as pointed out in the notes, many have said that this is only true for animals and not for birds, the Avnei Nezer says it applies to birds as well.  I believe that in my conversations with Professor Cahaner he said that the featherless chickens are fully capable of breeding with common feathered chickens.  According to the Avnei Nezer, then, they are 100% kosher and need no special mesora.  In other words, for the Gerer Chasidim, these chickens are kosher, period.  For Moroccans, who would follow the Get Mekushar, they are kosher.  Of course, Rav Chaim Kanievsky is more than competent to pasken differently than the Avnei Nezer and Rav Avraham Ankawa and the Rogotchover, too.  Besides that, the Chasam Sofer (Yoreh De`ah 74) says that it is arguable whether the hybridization proof applies to birds.

Regarding, generally, the Hybridization Principle:  see
 http://www.kashrut.com/articles/ThreeBirds/, especially notes 36 through 43.
which also has application to the Muscovy duck issue, which we discussed here.


In short: Reasons to be mattir:
1. The Rogotchover
2. Tal's Avnei Nezer
3. The Get Mekushar
4. Eli's Rambam in Maachalos Asuros 1:14.

Here's hoping that Rabbi Belsky and American hechsheirim will pasken that it is kosher.  As surprising as Rav Kanievsky's psak may be, I wouldn't eat it without a posek of stature being mattir.

Inasmuch as I am an adult, I declined the temptation to title this post Tennessee Birdwalk.  Nonetheless, here is a link to that fine old song, including lyrics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zSU1ia467Q

The Sefer Torah During Tekiyos

This post has been reworked to include the contributions of 
Rabbis Yehuda Oppenheimer and Chaim Brown.

There's a Netziv (Teshuvos 15) that gives an insight into the experience of Tekias Shofar that I think should be better known.

  ועיקר הטעם שקריאת התורה צריך להיות באמצע ביהכ"נ נראה משום דהשולחן שקורין עליו הוא במקום מזבח שבעזרה כמש"כ הגר"א ז"ל בסי תר"ס דמש"ה אנו מקיפים בלולב את הבימה וס"ת שעליו כמו שהיו מקיפין את המזבח בעזרה וכן אנו נוהגין לאחוז ס"ת בשעת תקיעת שופר על הבימה כדי שיהיה כעין תקיעת חצוצרות על הקרבת הקרבנות על המזבח ומיום שחרב ביהמ"ק אין לנו מגין ומעלה זכרונות לטובה כמו התורה והיא עמידתנו והיקום אשר לנפשנו ואומתנו בקרב פזורינו ואנו מצטיינים בה כמו בביהמ"ק לפנים ועל כיוב"ז נאמר "אל תבוז כי זקנה אמך" הכונה לפי הפשט שאם אין אתה מוצא בהדרכת האם הזנה טעם נכון וכמליצת חז"ל (שבת פ"ט) לא בסבי טעמא מ"מ אל תבוז, כי בלא ספק ידעה טעם ונמוקה עמה טעמא מ"מ אל תבוז, כי בלא ספק ידעה טעם ונמוקה עמה 

The Bimah ought to be in middle of the shul is because it corresponds to the Mizbeiach, as we've discussed in Parshas Teruma.  And, he says, וכן אנו נוהגין, so we are noheig to hold a Sefer Torah during Tekiyos.  The basic idea is brought in the Rama in 585, that the tekiyos should be done at the Bimah, but only in the Netziv did I see that the Sefer Torah should be held during Tekiyos.

I don't recall ever having seen a minhag to hold the Sefer during tekiyos. What I have seen is that the first set is done before the Sefar is returned to the Aron.  It seems to me that the Netziv's minhag, the minhag of Volozhin, was to take the sefer out for the tekiyos de'me'umad as well. We do find that a sefer can be taken out even if it is not going to be read during Hakafos as well

The Netziv explains that the Tekiyos should be like those Tekiyos done over the Korbanos; since the Churban of the Beis HaMikdash, we have nothing that protects us and recalls us favorably before Hashem more than the Torah.  It stands us erect and helps us retain our identity and our spirituality through our diaspora.   

We find a similar idea in the case of a Bris on Rosh HaShanna.  The minhag is to do the Bris before Tekiyos so that the zechus of the Bris should combine with the zechus of the Tekiyos.

In the post on Parshas Teruma I had written that 

In OC 660, the Gaon and the Pri Megadim in the Mishbetzos sk1 bring that on Sukkos we are makif the Bimah that has a Sefer Torah on it as a zecher le'mikdash based on Megilla 31b, that reading the Parshios of Korbanos is mechaper like physically bringing korbanos. Why, you may ask, don't they bring the Reish Lakish memra from Menachos which seems to be on eisek Torah in general and not just parshos hakorbanos? I suppose that they are mechalek between 'korin' in Megilla and 'oseik' in Menachos. Now, the Gaon/PM are mashma that the ikkar thing to be makif around is the sefer Torah, that the Sefer Torah, not the Bimah, is like the Mizbei'ach. But the Taz in sk 1 says that the Bimah is like the Mizbei'ach "when it has a sefer Torah on it," and there is no reason to say that the Gaon or the PM are saying different than him.

Initially, I was not sure if our Netziv means what I quoted from the Gaon, that the Bimah is only like the Mizbei'ach when it has a sefer Torah on it, or he means that in general, when we seek to be recalled favorably before Hashem, it is wise to hold in our hands the primary source of that favor.  The lashon of the Netziv in the teshuva we're discussing is דהשולחן שקורין עליו הוא במקום מזבח שבעזרה כמש"כ הגר"א ז"ל בסי תר"ס דמש"ה אנו מקיפים בלולב את הבימה וס"ת שעליו כמו שהיו מקיפין את המזבח בעזרה.  I thought that knowing that the Netziv also had the Taz in mind, I said pshat that the Netziv is teaching two separate ideas.  First of all, the Bimah is like a Mizbei'ach davka when it has a Sefer Torah on it. Additionally, the Sefer Torah represents what we're hoping to accomplish with our Tekiyos- namely, Ritzui and Zikaron le'Tovah.  There should be a period between  המזבח and  ומיום.  They are two separate ideas.

However, Rav Yehuda Oppenheimer wrote the following in a comment, and I think he's right.

I would have said P'shat in the Netziv differently. Similar to the blowing of Chatzotzros, which was done "Al Olosiechem V'al Zivchei Shalmeichem" - not over an empty Mizbeach, so, too, the blowing of the Shofar should be done over Korbanos, not just over an empty Bimah. The Netziv therefore goes on to explain that the Torah serves B'mkom Korbanos since "אין לנו מגין ומעלה זכרונות לטובה כמו התורה" (Tosfos Megilla 3a בשביל הקרבנות שמגינים עלינו מצרינו)

The Tosfos he brings is in the Agadeta of the Malach appearing with a threatening mien Yehoshua during the siege of Yericho, and Yehoshua asks whether the threat was due to bittul of the korban Tamid or bittul Torah.   Tosfos:

וא"ת והיכי משמע לישנא דקרא דבטלו התמיד ותלמוד תורה ויש לומר דה"פ מדקאמר הלנו אתה הכי קאמר בשביל תלמוד תורה באת דכתיב תורה צוה לנו אם לצרינו או בשביל הקרבנות שמגינים עלינו מצרינו

The malach answered that he came because of bittul Torah.   Evidently, Torah is at least as much of a meigin as korbanos.