Beha'aloscha. Yearning To Do Avodas Hashem

Our parsha illustrates the vast gulf between two groups of people who can be said to have acted in the same way. One was the the מתאוננים, the ones that demanded the food they were used to in Mitzrayim, and the other was the טמאים לנפש אדם, the individuals that were tamei and couldn't bring the Korban Pesach. Both knew that what they already had was sufficient, but both said that they suffered terribly because they knew that there was more that they might have. The Misonenim had the miraculous Mahn, which was a perfect food and fully sufficient for all their bodily needs, but they suffered because they knew there was tastier and more pleasurable food available. The Te'meyim knew that they were pattur from Korban Pesach. Pattur means that under the circumstances, they had no mitzva to bring the Korban. But they were anguished at the thought that they would miss the incomparable joy of participating in the Mitzvah. 

We're written about this in the past.

We're writing about this now because of Reb Moshe's insight as to how a person should feel and how he should behave when he is not being able to fulfill a mitzvah. Instead of saying he's pattur and that's all there is to it, he should do something that has to do with the mitzva, no matter how small it may be, and no matter that he is not fulfilling any commandment by doing to. Especially interesting is that Reb Shlomo Zalman disagreed (I assume because he felt it came too close to bal tosif or shchutei chutz.)  Reb Shlomo Zalman said that Reb Moshe only meant it as a mussar haskeil, but not in practice. But you will see that Reb Moshe really meant it in practice as well.

Reb Moshe in the Darash in this week's Parsha:

למה נגרע לבלתי הקריב את קרבן ה' במועדו (ט' י') תמוה מאוד מה כתב רש"י שהטמאים אמרו שיקריבו עליהם בכהנים טהורים ויאכלו טהורים הא א"א זה דנקרב לטמאין פסול (פסחים מא א) ואף אם נימא שהיתה כוונתם לצרף עם טהורין ויהי' לטהורים ולטמאים שכשר הקרבן לא ירויחו כלום כי לא יוצאין הטמאים בזה. וצ"ל דבר חדש דאף שאין יוצאין מ"מ מיד אהבת המצוות הוא שצריך להשתתף עכ"פ אף שלא יצא אם א"א לו לקיים ממש וכעין הא שעשה משה שהפריש שלש ערים אף שלא קיים המצוה. אך ראיה משום ליכא משום דהתם עכ"פ נשאר מעשיו קיים. ואף שאפשר שהיו רשאין ישראל לשנות ולהפריש ערים אחרים מאחר שלא קלטו עדיין מ"מ ידע שלא ישנו. אבל הכא חזינן שאף שלא יצאו כלום ידי חובתן אף למקצת מ"מ יש לו להשתדל להיות קשור עם המצוה במה שאפשר וכן בזכות האהבה דיהושע לתורה הבטיח לו השי"ת לא ימוש סה"ת הזה מפיך (יהושע א ח) היינו שנתברך שיוכל לעשות כאהבתו בלא מניעות ועיכובים מצד ענינים גשמיים כהברכות דאם בחקותי שהוא לדברים גשמיים שפי' הרמ "ם בהקדמתו למשניות שהוא שלא יהיה לו מניעות לעבודת השי"ת וללמוד התורה 

ומזה יש למילף לאחד שקשה לו לקיים איזה מצוה שמצד האהבה למצוה יראה לעסוק בה לכה"פ במה שאפשר כגון שאסור לו לאכול כזית מרור יטעום מעט וכן בכל מצוה כגון מי שאסור לו לישב בסוכה יראה עכ"פ לעשות סוכה וחזינן כמה היתה גדולה אהבת חמצוות לישראל שהשי"ת נתן מצות תרומות ומעשרות באופן שיוכלו שלא להפריש לעולם בלא איסור כגון להכניס דרך גגות כברכות לה ב ומ"מ סמך הקב"ה על כלל ישראל שיקיימו תו"מ עד שלקח הנחלה משבט לוי ואין זה רק על יחידים חסידים שבדור אלא על כל ישראל ממש והוא משום שאהבת המצוות הי' גדול מאוד לדורות הראשונים והשתדלו בכל עת ובכל ממונם להתחייב במצוות
 וזהו נראה בטעם שתקנו לברך שיכנס לתורה ולמע"ט שלכאורה בלתורה כלול גם מע"ט דעל מנת שלא לקיים נוח לו שנהפכה שלייתו על פניו ובלא תורה אין ע"ה חסיד ולמה אמר תרווייהו אלא שהוא ברכה לאהבת המצוות שיעשה מע"ט אף אלו שיכול ליפטר בדין כגון בתרומות ומעשרות ובציצית ללבוש רק בגדים שפטורים מציצית וכדומ' וע"ז צריך ברכה מיוחדת שיכנס למע"ט מצד אהבת מצוות 

Reb Shlomo Zalman is brought in Halichos Shlomo Tefilla page 87
The first paragraph is the main text. The second (י"ד) is the note. The third 926) is the annotations under the notes.

י מי שציוהו הרופא שלא יוציא מפיו אפילו תיבה אחת במשך זמן מסוים, כגון שבוע, שאם לא כן יאבד קולו או יפגמנו לעולם. אם ברור לו לחולה שאבחנת הרופא אמתית ורוצה לשמוע לו ולנהוג בזהירות יתירה ולא לדבד כלל, רשאי שהרי אין אדם חייב לבזבז כל ממונו כדי לקיים מצות קריאת שמע, וכל שכן שאין עליו לאבד את קולו לעולם כדי לקיים מצות קריאת שמע. ולכן יהרהר בלבו כל התפלה והברכות וקריאת שמע (י"ד)  

(י"ד) דאע"ג דקיי"ל (סי' ס"ב ס"ג ובמ"ב סק'ו) הרהור לאו כדיבור דמי בכה"ג הו"ל כאלם שצריך להרהר וזהו תפלתו, ואף דלכשנתרפא בתוך זמן התפלה ודאי צרין לחזור אין זה משום דההרהור לאו כלום הוא דהרי עיקר חיוב תפלה וברכות הוא ההודאה לד' והרי הודה וקיים המצוה (26)  אלא משום דעכ"פ לא קיימה כתקון תכמים  ולכן צריך לחזור, 

(26)  והיינו דוקא בנד"ד דאף שאינו עושה כתקון חכמים מקום כיון שאינו יכול להוציא בשפתיו יש כאן קיום מצוה בהרהורו כמי שנתבאר. אבל אין זה משום זכר למצות תפלה, דאין לנו לחדש דברים כעין אלו לעשות זכר למצוות במקום שאי אפשר לקיימם. וכעין זה נראה בהא דמבואר בסי' תרע"א במ'"ב סק"ו לענין נרות חנוכה דבשיש לו מעט שמן יתן בנר אהד בשיעור והשאר יחלק לנותרים, הגם שלא יהי' בהם שמן בשיעור כלל, דהתם נמי אין זה משום זכר למצוה אלא משום דסו"ס יש באן קצת פרסומי ניסא, שזהו עיקר תוכן המצוה. ולכן נראה דאף המל"מ דס"ל בפ"א מהל' חמץ ומצה ה"ז דחצי שיעור במצוות עשה לאו כלום הוא מ"מ בהא מודה, ורק במקום שהזכירו כן הפוסקים כגון בסי" תרמט ס"ו בקהל שאין להם לולב וכדו' עבדינן זכר למצוה (כתבי תלמידים) וכשהראו לפני רב מש"כ הגר"מ פנשטיין ז"ל בס' דרש משה פ בהעלתך אמר שזהו רק ע"ד הרעיןן אבל לא בגדרי ההלכה. 

On the other hand, Rav Zilberstein brings it down lehalacha in his Chashukei Chemed Beitza 15b, where he introduces the piece from Reb Moshe by saying the following:

שאלה יהודי אשר אינו יכול לאכול ולקיים מצות שמחת יו"ט מה בכל זאת אפשר לו לעשות 

תשובה כתב השו"ע או"ח סימן ש' לעולם יסדר אדם שלחנו במוצאי שבת כדי ללוות את השבת אפילו אינו צריך אלא לכזית וכתב השערי תשובה עיין בא"ר בשם של"ה מי שמפסיק מבעוד יום יטריח להכין סעודה זו לאחרים עכ"ד ולפי זה הוא הדין בעניננו אם לא יכול לאכול בעצמו לפחות יכין סעודה לאחרים כדי שאחרים ישמחו ובזה יקיים קצת מצוות שמחת יו"ט. 

Shavuos ayin tes/2019. Derech Eretz Kodma LaTorah

I saw this in Rav Yeruchem Olshin's Yarei'ach L"moadim. It speaks for itself.

ושמעתי מעשה נפלא על הג״ר משה פיינשטיין זצ״ל בעל האגרות משה שכיבד פעם רב אחד לדרוש בישיבתו וישב שם הגר״ם זצ״ל מרוכז באזנים מקשיבות לכל מילה ומילה היוצאת מפי הדורש. אחר הדרשה ניגש אליו אחד מתלמידיו [הג״ר שמחה בונם קאהן שליט״א - רב דקהל עטרת ישעיה  ליקוואוד] ושאלו, הרי הדורש דרש בשפת אנגלית, והרי אין כת״ר מבין שפת אנגלית.

להפתעתו השיב לו הגר״מ זצ״ל שאכן לא הבין אפילו מילה אחת

א"כ, שאלו התלמיד, מה זה שישב שם כת"ר והקשיב כאילו הוא מבין ומאזין לכל דברי הדורש?

השיב לו הגר"ם זצ"ל, הרי אחר הדרשה אני חוזר לביתי ומשיב צשובות לשואלים בהלכה, והרי אמרו חז"ל (מגילה כ"ז:) דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה,  ובלי דרך ארץ לא אזכה לסייעתא דשמיא. ולשבת אצל דרשה ולא להקשיב אינו דרך ארץ, לכן עשיתי כל מה שביכלתי להתנהג בדרך ארץ כלפי הדורש, אע״פ שלא הבנתי מילה, ע״כ.

Harav Moshe Soloveichik on Yom Hashoah

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mrf0Ro9RQWmQyptDK7NzCzVhUEHG1Pdd/view?usp=drivesdk
This shiur is an articulate and encyclopedic discussion of the significance of Yom Hashoah.

Tzav: The Minchas Chavitin

I posted in Shemini on the Rishonim that say that a Kohen Hedyot on the day of his investiture, when he brings his Minchas Chavitin which is called a Minchas Chinuch, has certain dinim of a Kohen Gadol. This is based on the fact that the korban brought on by a young kohen on his first day is brought by the Kohen Gadol every day he is in office.  This is the shakla v'tarya Rabbi Avraham Bukspan (Miami, author of Classics and Beyond/אבני קודש/Parsha Pearls) and I had mei'inyan le'inyan.

From Rabbi Bukspan:

Tzav 2 — Kohanim and Korbanos and Klal Yisrael

זה קרבן אהרן ובניו אשר יקריבו לה' ביום המשח אתו עשירת האפה סלת מנחה תמיד מחציתה בבקר ומחציתה בערב:

הכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו יעשה אתה חק עולם לה' כליל תקטר…

This is the offering of Aharon and his sons, which each shall offer to Hashem on the day he is inaugurated: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a meal-offering; continually, half of it in the morning and half of it in the afternoon…The Kohen from among his sons who is anointed in his place shall perform it; it is an eternal decree for Hashem; it shall be caused to go up in smoke in its entirety (Vayikra 6:13, 15).

            Often, a topic's location in the Torah speaks volumes, clueing us into wonderful lessons to learn and live life by. The placement of the korbanos the Kohanim brought upon being initiated into their holy service is such an instance. 

            Though the final third of Parashas Tzav describes the seven days of the inauguration of the Mishkan and the Kohanim, the minchas chinuch, the flour-offering brought by a Kohen on his first day of service, is found earlier in the parashah (between the korban minchah and korban chatas). If this is an inaugural sacrifice, why is it not placed near the laws that apply to the inauguration of the Kohanim?

             In general, a man of means would be the one to offer a large animal as a sacrifice, since that comes at a considerable expense. One with less disposable income would bring a less expensive bird, and one in the most dire straits would bring a minchah, a small amount of flour, scraped together from the free-for-the-taking leket, shichechah, andpe'ah.  

            Rav Zalman Sorotzkin (Oznayim LaTorah ad loc.) describes how feelings of worthlessness may shroud the pauper as he self-consciously, and with great embarrassment, brings what he perceives is the least of the korbanos. In Rav Sorotzkin's words, the poor person says to himself, "Everyone else brings animals and birds, while I, the poor man, have nothing with which to honor Hashem but a tenth of an ephah of flour!"

            For this reason, writes Rav Sorotzkin, right after the poor man's meal-offering, we find the meal-offering brought by the Kohen at his investiture into office. Hashem is showing the pauper who else is bringing a meal-offering: the Kohen, from the elite of Klal Yisrael. As Rashi explains (verse 13), though this korban was brought by all Kohanim only on the day of their inauguration, the Kohen Gadol brought it every day. In fact, he even brought it on Yom Kippur. Hashem was telling the pauper, "Even Aharon, on the day he enters the Kodesh HaKodashim, is to offer the same. What's more, the Kohen Gadol brings half of the measurement (of a tenth of an ephah) in the morning, and the other half at night, not even all at once — while yours is whole, offered all at one time. You have nothing to feel bad about."

            We can turn around the idea of the Oznayim LaTorah to demonstrate how it is also for the sake of the Kohen that he and the pauper bring the same korban. After undergoing a chinuch process and then waiting seven days (Vayikra 8), Aharon and his sons officially became Kohanim. From that point on, they were Klal Yisrael's elite. They were supported by the Klal, and had access to places that would render others guilty of a high crime. Bnei Yisrael needed their services and came to them with their problems. They were the holders of high office, with unique power and prestige. There is even a mitzvah to treat them with special honor (Vayikra 21:8).

            All of this could subtly induce feelings of superiority and unjustified importance. To preempt this, the Kohen, at the moment of his advancement, had to learn the lesson that only a minchas chinuch could teach. By bringing a poor man’s korban, he was making a statement: "I realize that I was not selected to lord over others but to serve, not to receive rewards but to help make life rewarding to others." At the very moment that he was elevated to high office, he had to be made aware that he should not feel elevated.

            The challenge facing the Kohen Gadol was far more serious, as he was the principal figure in the Beis HaMikdash. In contrast to the Kohen Hedyot, who served in theBeis HaMikdash for only two weeks a year, the Kohen Gadol served there all year long. And on Yom Kippur, he performed the special avodah of the day, even entering the Kodesh HaKodashim, the holiest place on earth. The other Kohanim, whom we have to honor, must themselves honor the Kohen Gadol. To thread the needle between accolades and humility could not have been easy for him.

             A Jewish king had to have a personal copy of the Torah strapped to his arms at all times:  "Le’vilti rum levavo mei’echav — So that his heart does not become haughty over his brothers” (Devarim 17:20).He may have been king, but he could not allow it to go to his head.  In order to uphold his moral and ethical compass, a Kohen Gadol also needed a tangible reminder.

            Yet one minchas chinuch, at the beginning of his career, would not have been sufficient. On a daily basis, the Kohen Gadol was to bring the same korban as the pauper did, to demonstrate that he may have merited high office, but he should not feel any higher than the people.  Like his forebear Aharon, who was praised for not allowing the office to change him (Bamidbar 8:3: Rashi, Ohr HaChaim), the Kohen Gadol had to maintain his spiritual equilibrium. As the Abarbanel (verse 13) explains, the Kohen Gadol had to offer a minchah every day, thereby bringing the feeling of humility into his heart, since after all, his offering was the same as the poor person's.

            Perhaps that is why he had to bring only half of the korban every morning and the other half every evening, taking the same tenth of an ephah as the most destitute person and dividing it into two. He thereby acknowledged that though he was the representative of the entire nation, he was not even giving as much as the poorest person at any one time.

            Rav Michel Zilber (cited in VeShalal Lo Yechsar ad loc.) has a far different pshat to explain why the Kohen Gadol brought what was essentially an inaugural korban every day.

As we saw in Rashi's explanation cited in the beginning of this piece, the pasuk weaves together the laws of the one-time minchas chinuch of the Kohen Hedyot with the dailyminchas chavitin of the Kohen Gadol. Why is this?

            Rav Zilber explains that even the daily korban of the Kohen Gadol was, to a certain extent, an inaugural one. The Kohen Gadol was supposed to be in a constant state of spiritual growth, with no ceiling or limits. As such, every day he was like a new person, different and greater than the day before. Consequently, his avodah on any given day was also new, filled with novel facets in his service to Hashem and the Klal. That is why he brought a daily meal-offering, which was essentially no different from a minchas chinuch, as he underwent a new inauguration on a daily basis.

            Rav Zilber concludes that this can serve as a lesson for us all. We need to constantly find new ways to grow and serve Hashem. The depth of our mitzvos and the care we put into them can always be improved and brought to the next level, as we constantly offer Hashem our personal minchah chadashah.

My response:

I would use a slightly different approach, based on an idea I heard from Reb Moshe innumerable times. Davka the Kohen Gadol, who has reason to think that he stands on the highest plateau, needs to be reminded that as far as what he might achieve, he is no farther along than a kohen hedyot on the first day he is doing the avoda.

So there are two lessons. One, that a kohen hedyot should realize that he must seize the new opportunity and that he has the ability to be as great as the Kohen Gadol, and Two, the great Kohen Gadol has to be reminded never to rest on his laurels, that he has great horizons that remain to be achieved.

The Hedyot needs to know that he has the potential to be a Gadol. The Gadol needs to be reminded that he is just a Hedyot.

(Or, if you apply it to a Bar Mitzvah, 

The Bar Mitzva bachur needs to know that he now has the opportunity to become the greatest man in Klal Yisrael, and the greatest person in Klal Yisrael must be reminded to have the humility and receptiveness of a Bar Mitzva bachur.

This reminds me of a Rashi in Melachim I 5:13 that I just learned with my wife the other day, which also relates to this week's parsha, Tazria. Speaking of the wisdom of Shlomo HaMelech, the passuk says

וַיְדַבֵּר֮ עַל־הָֽעֵצִים֒ מִן־הָאֶ֙רֶז֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּלְּבָנ֔וֹן וְעַד֙ הָאֵז֔וֹב אֲשֶׁ֥ר יֹצֵ֖א בַּקִּ֑יר וַיְדַבֵּר֙ עַל־הַבְּהֵמָ֣ה וְעַל־הָע֔וֹף וְעַל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ וְעַל־הַדָּגִֽים׃

Rashi says

וַיְדַבֵּר עַל הָעֵצִים. מָה רְפוּאַת כָּל אֶחָד, וְעֵץ פְּלוֹנִי יָפֶה לְבִנְיָן פְּלוֹנִי, וְלִטַּע בְּקַרְקַע פְּלוֹנִית וְכֵן עַל הַבְּהֵמָה, מָה רְפוּאָתָהּ, וְעִקַּר גִּדּוּלֶיהָ וּמַאֲכָלָהּ. וּמִדְרַשׁ אַגָּדָה: מָה רָאָה מְצֹרָע לִטָּהֵר בְּגָבוֹהַּ שֶׁבַּגְּבוֹהִים, וּבְנָמוּךְ שֶׁבַּנְּמוּכִים. וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה וְעַל הָעוֹף, מָה רָאָה זֶה לִהְיוֹת כָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה בְּסִימָן אֶחָד, וְזֶה בִּשְׁנֵי סִימָנִין, וְדָגִים וַחֲגָבִים בְּלֹא כְלוּם.

The classic drush about needing to be reminded of gavhus and of nemichus, עפר ואפר ובשבילי נברא העולם. Like the Chovos Halevavos in שער הכניעה פרק ב

Shemini. The Cohen Upon His Initiation

I saw the following in a Parsha publication "Likutei Peshatim," produced by the Hebrew Theological College in Skokie, Illinois, under the direction of an adam chashuv me'od, Rabbi Ben-Zion Rand. After sharing what he says, I expand on it a little bit.


*************************************************** 
THE DAY OF INITIATION 

ויקרא משה אל מישאל ואל אלצפן בני עזיאל דד אהרן ויאמר אלהם קרבו שאו את אחיכם מאת פני הקדש אל מחוץ למחנה

Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said to them, “Come forward and carry your kinsmen away from the front of the sanctuary to a place outside the camp.” Vayikra 10:4
"From here we learn that Kohanim may not become defiled by contact with dead bodies, for Elazar and Isamar were there and were not called upon to carry away the bodies of their brothers." -- Toras Kohanim 
The Midrash is amazing. What need is there to present a roundabout proof that Kohanim may not become contaminated by contact with a corpse, when it is explicitly stated at the beginning of Parashas Emor? Furthermore, why indeed did Elazar and Isamar not remove the corpses of their brothers, since the Torah (Vayikra 21:2-3) explicitly states that one’s father, mother, never married sister, brother, son and daughter are excluded from the general prohibition of contact with corpses. 

The Da’as Zekeinim teaches us that both these questions can be answered by assuming that the meaning of the Midrash is that on the day of an ordinary Kohen’s inauguration, he will assume the status of the Kohen Gadol. In fact, the Mincha offering of a Kohen Gadol every day is the same korban as that of the standard Kohen on the day of his inauguration. For this reason, just as a Kohen Gadol may not attend to the body for the funeral of even his closest relatives, so, too, may a כהן הדיוט (a plain Kohen) not attend to the body of his close relatives on his inaugural day, and the laws regarding the grooming of a Kohen Gadol apply to him as well. 
**********************************************************

Here is the Daas Zkeinim (and he says that the Bechor Shor says the same idea. It is not in our editions of the Bechor Shor, but it's brought by several Rishonim, such as Reb Chaim Paltiel and the Paaneiach Raza.)

ויקרא משה אל מישאל. אתמר בת"כ מכאן שאין הכהנים מטמאין למתים שהרי אלעזר ואיתמר  לא נטמאו להם.

ותימה שהרי במקום אחר מצינו בפי' שהכהנים מוזהרין על טומאת מת דכתיב לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו. ועוד אלעזר ואיתמר כהנים הדיוטי' היו ולמה לא נטמאו לאחיהם? וי"ל דהא דקאמר מכאן שהכהני' אין מטמאין למתים היינו כהני' הדיוטים ביום משחתם שאין מטמאין לקרובים שיש להם דין כהני' גדולי'. וכן פי' הרב בכור שור גבי ראשיכם אל תפרעו דאע"ג דכהנים הדיוטי' לא הוזהרו על פריעה ופרימה דמטמאין הן לקרוביהן ביום משחתם הרי הן ככהנים גדולים. ונ"ל דהיינו האי דקאמר בסיפיה דקרא כי שמן משחת קדש עליהם:

The idea that the Kohen brings a Minchas Chavitin on the day of his inauguration, his Chinuch, clearly teaches that on that day, an unlimited future opens up, and he can accomplish anything, he can reach for the stars.  I've said this many times, but I never thought to relate it to the fact that Elozor and Isomor were not allowed to carry Nodov and Avihu's bodies. If we are to take his idea at face value, it has tremendous halachic application - that every Hedyot, on his day of Minuy, is assur to become tamei to his seven kerovim. Indeed, it seems from the Bechor Shor and the Raavad on the Toras Kohanim here (1:25-6) that they do hold like that. 

(Rav Zevin extrapolated from here to explain why they didn't use oil that was tamei for the  the Menora after the Nes of the Chashmona'im. Just as here on the day of Chinuch tuma was assur without exception, so, too, when they were mechaneich the replacement Menorah you don't say hutra be'tzibbur. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank disagrees. I discussed this here.)

So here's a question. Given that this special status of the Yom Hachinuch gives a Kohen dinim of the Kohen Gadol, what if, on Yom Kippur, both the Kohen Gadol and the Sgan became unfit to do the avodah. Could you just call in a new Kohen, have him do his Minchas Chinuch, and continue Avodas Yom Hakippurim?

Of course, the answer is no. But why? According to these Rishonim, a Kohen Hedyot on his day of Chinuch has the dinim of a Kohen Gadol!

The answer is, of course, that there are two dinim in "Kehuna Gedola." One is the kedusha of the Kohen Gadol, which might apply to a hedyot on his day of Chinuch. But the other is the minui, the fact that he is "Gadol mei'echav," that he was appointed to be the head of the Kohanim. The proof of the difference is that even according to these Rishonim, the Hedyot on his day of Chinuch serves in arba begadim. For Yom Kippur, you need Kehuna Gedola in the sense of being the head of the Kohanim.  

Vayikra. Korbanos and Fiscal Probity; Aveilus and Shalach Manos; Aveilus and Davening for the Amud.

This is the Kollel Horaah of America's Parsha Sheet. Each of the three sections is insightful and informative, and I found it particularly interesting this week.  

Gaining a Closer Relationship with Hashem R' Moshe Orgel The תורה in this weeks פרשה writes a one פסוק introduction prior to detailing the specifics of the korbanos, “אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן וכו” The גמ׳ derives many הלכות from this פסוק. One of them is derived from the word כי יקריב מכם קרבן אדם. Rashi explains that we learn that someone bringing a קרבן must do so from his own animals and money and not from stealing someone else’s, just like אדם הראשון did not possess any stolen objects – as he had no one to steal from; so too one's קרבן may not be from stolen property. There are many other מצות which have the same exclusion – not to come from stolen property, for example; the תורה says that a לולב must be לכם from your property, not of someone else’s. קרבנות is the only place where the תורה alludes to this using the word אדם . What is unique about the פרשה of קרבנות that requires a different more complicated לימוד as opposed to the תורה simply writing לכם or something of that sort?  The word קרבן denotes קורבה, closeness. The purpose of bringing a קרבן is to gain a closer relationship with Hashem and strive higher in רוחניות. The תורה is teaching us that in regard to this מצוה it is not merely enough to do the mitzvah with your own money, but rather you should be like אדם הראשון. He did not have one penny that was not his, nor could he covet someone else’s property as there was no one else in the world but him. Theft by him was an impossibility, not simply a choice. When someone steals, he is not only doing the actual sin, he is in addition demonstrating his lack of אמונה ובטחון. If he truly knows that Hashem will provide with all he needs and that it is predestined each year what he will attain that year, he wouldn’t be stealing as there would be no point he is only getting a certain amount of money anyway. A person needs to recognize that just as is was impossible for אדם הראשון to steal, so too it is impossible for one to achieve anything through theft. With this idea in mind it is easy to understand what is unique about קרבנות that requires the law of stealing to come from the word אדם. The word אדם is not just teaching us a single focused law, rather an idea of how someone should conduct themselves. While attempting to come closer to Hashem through קרבנות or through תפילה one must make sure that the rest of one’s actions and thoughts are also up to par. Working on אמונה ובטחון to a level where one recognizes that all is from Hashem and one’s actions can’t change that is an integral aspect of the עבודה of the קרבנות. May we all be זוכה to become closer to Hashem, both through תפילה as well as אמונה ובטחון.

Editor's remark: 1. Chazal learn from the words Adam ki yakriv that just as Adam Harishon brought korbanos that were 100% his, with no admixture of theft, our korbanos must be equally pure. Rabbi Orgel sees this as a far broader lesson - if you want to bring a korban, YOU have to be like Adam. If you possess any stolen property, your korban is undesireable. I would put it this way: By Korban Pesach, if you own Chametz at the time of the hakrava, the korban is improper (you're over a lahv, but the Korban is kasher - Rambam Pesach 1:5.) Just as it is assur to bring a Korban Pesach when you own Chametz, so too it is assur to bring any Korban if you possess property that was acquired dishonestly.  It's not a lahv, and it doesn't passel the korban, but it's meguneh, and if you're looking for Ritzui, that's not where to look.  It might be interesting to think about whether this applies to Shemoneh Esrei. אורח חיים Rabbi Shmuel Goldstein Question: Can an Avel give and be given Mishloach Manos? Answer: The Gemara says that an Avel during Shivah, (the first seven days, counting from the funeral), may not say Shalom Aleichem to others [a]. One may not say Shalom Aleichem to an Avel throughout Shloshim, (the first thirty days counting from the funeral), and for the twelve months if the Avel is in Aveilus for a parent [b]. There are different opinions with regard to greeting someone with saying Shalom Aleichem on Shabbos [c]. It is permitted to give a Bracha to an Avel, and therefore one can say “good Shabbos” [d]. Saying “good morning” is also technically permitted. Some refrain from doing so, especially during Shivah [e]. The Ramah says that many people say Shalom after thirty days, during the twelve months of Avielus for a parent, but he says that he doesn’t know what they rely on, unless our greeting isn’t like the one in the time of Chazal [f]. Most Acharonim do not give credence to this leniency [g]. However it seems the Ramah may have been referring to statements like “good morning” [h]. The Maharil says that giving someone a present is the same as saying Shalom Aleichem, and therefore one may not give Mishloach Manos to an Avel. This would apply to giving an Avel throughout Shloshim, and for the twelve months if the Avel is in Aveilus for a parent [i]. Although an Avel during Shivah may not give presents, since Mishloach Manos is an obligation, they may and must give [j]. Some Acharonim say an Avel should only give Mishloach Manos to one or two people [k]. Either way an Avel should not give extra happy things in the Mishloach Manos [l]. Those who are lenient, and give an Avel, are relying on those who opine that Purim is like Shabbos regarding Aveilus combined with relying on those who opine that Shalom Aleichem is permitted on Shabbos [m]. If an Avel is after the third day of Aveilus, and they were given Mishloach Manos, they may accept it [n]. It is permitted to give Mishloach Manos to a Rebbe or someone whom the gift is almost like part of a salary [o]. Editor's remark: This halacha of Mishloach Manos and Aveilus is not widely known, nor is the proscription from greeting an aveil with Shalom Aleichem during the entire year. As Rabbi Goldstein quoted from the Maharil, these two laws are the same - giving Shalach Manos is like greeting with Shalom Aleichem. It's also worth remembering that this applies during Kiddush Levana. יורה דעה R' Mechi Plittman

Question: When should an Avel serve as the Shatz? Are there any times when he should not act as שליח ציבור? Answer: The רמ''א writes that the minhag has become that an avel does not daven for the amud on שבת ויו”ט [a]. The ש''ך explains that the same applies to the ימים נוראים [b]. The נודה ביהודה understands that to mean only ראש השנה ויום כפור and not ימי סליחות ועשרת ימי תשובה [c], during which the אבל can indeed lead the ציבור. The reason for this minhag is that it is inapropiate for one in mourning to lead the congregation when the congregation is in a state of שמחה [d]. It is important to note that his is a minhag and not an איסור [e]. This applies, both, to a son during the twelve months after losing a parent, and to any mourner for the duration of שלושים of a close relative [f]. Many אחרונים ask [g]; the רמ''א himself writes his sefer דרכי משה, that an אבל refrains from serving as שליח ציבור on ראש חודש as well. Furthermore, the source for רמ''א is the מהרי"ל who implies that this halacha applies to any day that we say הלל. That would include חנוכה ופורים [h]. So why then, does the רמ''א only mention שבת ויו''ט in the שלחן ערוך. The ערוך השלחן answers that the רמ''א only listed the days on which an אבל does not daven for the amud the entire day i.e. שבת ויו"ט. On ראש חודש or חנוכה ופורים just refrain from davening in the morning, but he may daven for the עמוד for מנחה ומעריב [i]. This is the opinion of the משנה ברורה [j] as well. There are some who understand this minhag to allow the אבל to daven שחרית as well and just not daven הלל ומוסף [k]. On חול המועד there is a dispute if an אבל should daven for the amud at all. Some maintain that he should refrain from serving as ש''ץ for it is similar to a יו”ט [l]. However, many אחרונים are of the opinion that on any day we say הלל an אבל should not daven for the amud even מנחה ומעריב. This was the opinion of Rav Moshe [m]. All other days that we don’t say תחנון for example, ל"ג בעומר ט"ו שבט ט"ו באב an אבל may daven for the amud [n]. There is an opinion that rules that any day that you don’t say קל ארך אפים and למנצח an אבל should not daven for the amud. That would include ערב פסח, ט' באב, ערב יו"כ, שושן פורים, פורים קטן [o]. However, it’s clear from the source of the רמ''א that only days which הלל is said is there a minhag for an אבל not to be the ש''ץ. This minhag comes from a different source which doesn’t agree with the רמ''א.  If the chazon for the shul during the ימים נוראים is an אבל he may daven for the עמוד if no one can replace him and his abilities [p]. On Shabbos and יו''ט if no one inspires the shul like him then he may be the Shatz [q], but just because he sounds good is not a heter. The same applies to the reading of the מגילה if no one can pronounce the words and read כהלכה like him then he may read the מגילה [r]. Otherwise he should refrain. Editor's remark: The halacha that an aveil may daven for the amud on yomtov if the tzibbur needs him became relevant to a friend this past year. He had retained to daven on the Yamim Nor'aim, and he became an aveil the day before Rosh Hashannah. He was the only Shliach Tzibbur available for that certain shul. I told him to leave the Shiva house during shiva, and fly back to Chicago to daven for the Amud on Rosh Hashanna.

To receive Points to Ponder weekly via email, please contactkollelhoraah@gmail.com or text KHAWEEKLY to 22828

מראה מקומות לדין אורח חיים

a) גמרא מו"ק טו. וכא:

b) גמרא מו"ק טו. וכא:

c) ע' רא"ש מו"ק פרק ג' סי' כ"ח ול"ח

מירושלמי ברכות ב:ז, רמב"ם אבל י:א. ש"ע שפה:ג.

d) שלמת חיים תכ"ה [קל"ג], גשה"ח כא:ז:ד-ז, להורות נתן חלק ב' סי' ל"ז

e) ע' לקט יושר עמ' ק"י, מ"ב תקנ"ד ס"ק מ"א, באר משה חלק ד' סי' ק"ו, להורות נתן חלק ב' סי' ל"ז

f) רמ"א שפה:א

g) ש"ך יו"ד שפ"ה ס"ק ג' ומג"א או"ח תקנ"ד ס"ק כ"א

h) ע' בה"ט יו"ד שפ"ה ס"ק ב', מ"ב תקנ"ד ס"ק מ"א, לקט יושר עמ' ק"י, באר משה חלק ד' סי' ק"ו, להורות נתן חלק ב' סי' ל"ז

i) הובא ברמ"א יו"ד שפה:ג ובאו"ח תרצו:ו

j) ש"ע או"ח תרצו:ו עם מ"ב ס"ק י"ז

k) נחלת שבעה סי' י"ז וקובץ הלכות פרק ט"ו הע' מ"ד

l) מ"ב תרצ"ו ס"ק י"ח

m)  ע' מג"א או"ח תרצ"ו

n) כתב סופר או"ח סי' קמ"א

o) דברי למכיאל חלק ה' סי' רל"ז 

מראה מקומות לדין יורה דעה

a רמ"א יו"ד שע"ו

b) ש"ך שם סקי"ד בשם המהרי"ל

c) נו"ב או"ח סי' ל"ב

d) שו"ת מהרי"ל סי' כ"ב

e) רמ"א שם

f) מ"ב או"ח תקפ"א סק"ז

g) ערוך השלחן שע"ו סקי"ד

h) כל בו על אבילות עמ' רפ"ז

i) ערוך השלחן שם ועיין מהר"ם שיק או"ח קפ"ג שכן נוהג החת"ס

j) מ"ב תקפ"א סק"ז ותרע"א סקמ"ד ותרפ"ג סק"א

k) גליון מהרש"א סי' שע"ו ובא"ר או"ח סס"י תקפ"ב ופרמ"ג תרע"א מ"ז סק"ח וגשר החיים כ"ג:ה

l) מ"ב תרע"א סקמ"ד בשם הפמ"ג וגשר החיים כ"ג:ד סברו לא התפלל ושו"ת מהר"ם מינץ מ"ג וערוך השלחן שם סברו יכול התפלל

m) רבבות אפרים ח"א תמ"ג בשם ר' משה

n) מ"ב תרע"א סקמ"ד וגשר החיים כ"ג:ו

o) מ"ב קל"ב במאמר קדישים ונועם מגדים להפמ"ג מנהגים א'

p) ש"ך שע"ו סקי"ד בשם מהרי"ו

q) כן משמע מדרכי משה במה שכתב "אף" ימים נוראים ומ"ב תקפ"א ז' ותרצ"ו י"ב ולא כב"ח יו"דשפ"ו

r) מ"ב תרצ"ו סקי"ב

To receive Points to Ponder weekly via email, please contact kollelhoraah@gmail.com or text KHAWEEKLY to 22828

UPDATE:

From a column by  by Rabbi Daniel Mann. Rabbi Mann is a Dayan for Eretz Hemdah and a staff member of Yeshiva University's Gruss Kollel in Israel. He is a senior member of the Eretz Hemdah responder staff, editor of Hemdat Yamim and the author of Living the Halachic Process, volumes 1 and 2 and A Glimpse of Greatness.

Question: Is it permitted for an avel (mourner) to serve as a chazan for Yamim Noraim (Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur)? Whose decision is it – the shul’s or the avel’s?

Answer: The classical source on the topic is the Maharil (15th century, Ashkenaz), based on the Maharam. In contrast to the rabbi who asked him the question, the Maharil (Shut 128) states that the minhag is that an avel does not serve as a chazan on Shabbat and Yom Tov or on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. The Rama (Yoreh Deah 376:4) cites this minhag in regards to Shabbat and Yom Tov and adds on “… even though there is no prohibition in the matter.” The Shach (ad loc. 14) and Pitchei Teshuva (ad loc. 8) posit that the rule is the same for the Yamim Noraim.  

The Meir Netivim (80) posits that there is no problem with an avel being a chazan on special days. What the sources are saying is that as opposed to a regular weekday, when an avel makes a point of being the chazan, the minhag is that they do not make an effort on Shabbat, etc. However, if it works out for the avel to do so, there is no reason to stop him. 

However, the great majority of Acharonim understand that we do not allow an avel to be the chazan on these days. The Rama only means that it is not a classic prohibition but a bad idea which we do not choose to allow (see Noda B’Yehuda I, OC 32). The Maharil implies that the problem is that all of these days are happy days (in varying degrees and aspects). It is possible to explain either that it is not appropriate for an avel to expose himself to the happy tefilla as a chazan (Shut Maharam Shick, OC 183) or that the avel is insufficiently capable of giving the tzibbur’s tefilla the level of festivity it deserves (see Zera Emet III, 164). 

There is another approach to the reason for the avel not to be chazan on special days. The Pri Megadim (Eshel Avraham 581:4) invokes the idea (see Taz, OC 660:2) that during aveilut, there is an element of din (strict judgment) that hangs over the avel. Therefore, it is unwise for the community to be represented by one who is more likely than usual to attract negative judgment. According to this approach, even if the avel decides that he wants to be chazan, it is appropriate for the tzibbur to refuse. The Pri Megadim raises another ramification of this approach. Although the onset of Rosh Hashana after completion of shiva removes the halachic status of avel from a mourner for a relative other than a parent, the spiritual situation of the effect of din continues until thirty days have passed. Therefore, even such a person should not be a chazan at that point. 

The Maharil (ibid.) says that if there is no viable alternative to the avel as chazan, then he is allowed to serve. The biggest difference in practice between different communities is in determining what is and is not an alternative. According to some (see opinions Divrei Sofrim, YD 376:92), it is enough that the chazan serves on a yearly basis so that it not look as if he is being chazan because he is in aveilut. The Afarkasta D’ania (I:156) explains that we don’t want it to look like the deceased is wicked, as others do not need protection on special days. He also suggests that having been chazan once before is enough (once may create chazaka rights – Shaarei Teshuva 581:7). The Mateh Ephrayim (581:24) says that it is permitted as long as the avel is clearly more qualified (on cantorial or religious grounds) to the alternative. If the avel receives payment that is financially significant for him, this is reason for leniency (ibid.). 

In a past discussion, about an avel as chazan on Rosh Chodesh, we explored the topic of whose decision it should be to allow the avel to serve as chazan; the findings were not conclusive. This is true here as well, and much depends on the reasons given above. It is best if a decision is made based on consultation between the rabbi and the chazan, and it is best if all involved explore the matter with flexibility and sensitivity. Certainly, a congregant should not make a fuss over the matter (see Meir Netivim ibid.).  

Ki Sisa. Interesting Facts About the Chelbenah in the Ketores

The chelbe'na symbolizes "Poshei Yisrael," and RChbBiz in Krisus 6 says that a community fast that does not include sinners is not a fast at all.
Krisus 6b

א"ר חנא בר בזנא א"ר שמעון חסידא כל תענית שאין בה מפושעי ישראל אינה תענית שהרי חלבנה ריחה רע ומנאה הכתוב עם סממני קטרת אביי אמר מהכא (עמוס ט, ו) ואגודתו על ארץ יסדה

A similar thought is expressed in two other places.

Menachos 27a by the four minim on Sukkos

ד' מינין שבלולב ב' מהן עושין פירות וב' מהם אין עושין פירות העושין פירות יהיו זקוקין לשאין עושין ושאין עושין פירות יהיו זקוקין לעושין פירות ואין אדם יוצא ידי חובתו בהן עד שיהו כולן באגודה אחת

Maharsha there

ד' מינין שבלולב ב' מהן עושין פירות כו' וב' מהם אין עושין כו'. כל דברי המאמר מפורש בפיוט יום ראשון דסוכות וכמו בעץ הדר ריח וטעם כן כו' וכמו הם אגודים כו' ולכפר אלה על אלה כו' ע"ש באורך דהיינו ב' כתות מהן שעושין פירות דהיינו מעשים טובים נדמו לאתרוג ולולב שעושים פירות ושנים מכן שאין עושין פירות ומעשים טובים נדמו להדס ולערבה דאין עושין פירות וצריכין להיות אגודה א' שיגינו צדיקים על רשעים וק"ל:

Sanhedrin 37a by Yitzchak's bracha to Yaakov where it says וירח את ריח בגדיו.

סוגה בשושנים שאפילו כסוגה של שושנים לא יפרצו בהן פרצות והיינו דאמר ליה ההוא מינא לרב כהנא אמריתו נדה שרי לייחודי בהדי גברא אפשר אש בנעורת ואינה מהבהבת אמר ליה התורה העידה עלינו סוגה בשושנים שאפילו כסוגה בשושנים לא יפרצו בהן פרצות ריש לקיש אמר מהכא (שיר השירים ו, ז) כפלח הרמון רקתך אפילו ריקנין שבך מלאין מצות כרמון ר' זירא אמר מהכא (בראשית כז, כז) וירח את ריח בגדיו אל תיקרי בגדיו אלא בוגדיו 

There are four approaches to that statement.

1. They are sinners, but they still join us in the fast, and we should not reject them. (Rashi here)

2. They are sinners, but they still join us in the fast, and they play an important part in our community so we should welcome them. (Drashos HaRan Drush 1.)

3. This are only welcome when they are sincere about their tefillos, and want to do teshuva, but they are not strong enough to really do teshuva, so our prayers will join with theirs and enhance their Teshuva. (Maharal, his neighbor the Kli Yakar, and their contemporary the Mabit, and the Chida.)

4. This are only welcome if they already did teshuva. If they didn't, we don't want them. (Rabbeinu Gershom in Krisus, the Maharsha in Krisus.)



Another interesting fact about the Chelbenah for Purim:

We all know that Mordechai is alluded to in the fragrances that comprised the shemen hamishcha in Mor Deror, translated as "Mira Dachya." This Mor was also used in the Ketores - the Mor that we mention in Pittum HaKetores, which is among the other ingredients that are not explicit in the Torah. (The Ramban/Malbim in 30:34 say they are hinted at in the word "Samim" that begins the Ketores, which means "take the samim mentioned above that were used in the Shemen HaMishcha, and also....."  However, the Avnei Nezer holds that the Mor (cholem) in the Shemen HaMishcha was musk from the musk ox and the Mor (kametz) in the Ketores was a plant derivative.)   Not everyone knows that the Chelbe'nah, in the Ketores, is the same gematria as Haman. Off the cuff, this might be reflected in the fact that Haman's grandchildren were talmidei chachamim. Alternatively, it might be because it was Haman's threat of extermination that led to Kimu v'Kiblu. And, of course, many baalei machshava have said that the former is related to the latter. (מאדים is the same gematria.)

Drashos HaRan 1:15

וזהו הענין הנרמז בחלבנה הנכנסת בסמני הקטורת, כי עם היות ריח החלבנה מצד עצמה בלתי נאותה, אפשר שיהיה לה כח לעורר ולהוציא איכויות הסמים האחרים ולעורר בשמיותם. 

It would be nice if we could find a connection between the Ketores and Esther, but all I can think of is the fact that she was perfumed for a year in several of the ingredients used in the ketores, a pretty poor connection - ששה חודשים בשמן המר וששה חדשים בבשמים. Or that she was called Hadassa, a fragrant plant, but it is not an ingredient of the Ketores.

Alternatively, we could say that Esther was not merumaz in the Ketores, but she is in the daled minim, in the Hadassim. True, the Haddas is a symbol of maasim tovim without peiros, but, unfortunately, that was Esther's fate as well, considering that her children were not part of Klal  Yisrael. So both Mordechai/Mor Dror, and Esther/Haddas, are present in places where they are bound up with people without any zechusim of their own, the Chelbenah and the Aravos.