Daf Yomi - Beitza 2 - Two Types of Muktza

If an egg was laid on Yom Tov, Bais Shammai rules that one is permitted to eat it on Yom Tov and Bais Hillel disagrees. Tosfos wonders why the Mishna states tochal, that one is permitted to eat it, and lo tochal, that one is prohibited to eat it. Why did the Mishna not state matirin, it is permitted, and osrin, prohibited? Tosfos answers that one might have erroneously assumed that it is permitted for one to handle the egg but it is forbidden to eat it.

Reb Menachem Kohn zt”l in his Sefer Ateres Avi explains the answer of Tosfos according to the Chasam Sofer who writes that there are two types of muktzeh. One type of muktzeh is derived from the verse regarding the manna where it is said vehayah bayom hashishi veheichinu eis asher yaviu, and it shall be that on the sixth day when they prepare what they bring, which means that one should prepare the Shabbos and Yom Tov meals beforehand and if one does not, one is forbidden to eat from that food. A second type of muktzeh is the muktzeh instituted by Nechemiah that one cannot handle certain objects on Shabbos as there is a concern that he might carry them into a public domain.

There are differences between the two types of muktzeh. One who did not prepare a food item prior to Shabbos or Yom Tov is prohibited from eating the food, whereas an object that is muktzeh because of the decree of Nechemiah cannot be handled on Shabbos or on Yom Tov. A further distinction between the two categories of muktzeh is that the decree of Nechemiah was only instituted with regard to utensils, whereas food cannot become muktzeh unless it was not prepared prior to Shabbos or Yom Tov.

Based on the words of the Chasam Sofer, we can now understand the answer of Tosfos. Given the fact that the decree of Nechemiah was not instituted regarding food items, the egg would only be muktzeh because it was not prepared prior to Yom Tov and one may have assumed that there would be a prohibition from eating the egg. Therefore, Bais Shammai teaches that one is permitted to eat the egg. Bais Hillel, however, who maintains that the egg is muktzeh and cannot be eaten, maintains that the egg forfeits its status as a food item and subsequently the egg also cannot be handled.

The Bircas Avrohom qualifies this novel approach and writes that a food can only forfeit its status as a food item if the food was definitely muktzeh. A food item that is only possibly muktzeh does not forfeit its status as a food and subsequently one would be permitted to handle the food.

Rate this please

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Beitza 2 - Courage to be Lenient

Rav Nachman explains that the dispute in the Mishnah refers to a hen which is designated to produce eggs and is not designated for consumption. Bais Shammai is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon who maintains that there is normally no prohibition of muktzeh and therefore one would even be permitted to eat an item that was not in existence before Yom Tov. Bais Hillel, however, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah and therefore one cannot eat the egg on Yom Tov. The Gemara asks that if the dispute between Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel is regarding a prohibition of muktzeh, then why they not argue regarding the hen itself which will be muktzeh according to Beis Hillel. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah wanted to notify us regarding the extent of Bais Shammai’s leniency that even though the egg was not in existence and should thus be considered nolad, something which just came into existence on Yom Tov and should be forbidden, and one is still permitted to eat it. The Gemara then asks that if Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel would dispute the hen itself, we could learn a novel ruling prohibiting muktzeh as Bais Hillel would prohibit the hen from being eaten. The Gemara answers with the classic principle that it is preferable to render a permissible ruling. Rashi explains that this means that something that is permitted indicates that the Tanna is relying on his knowledge of the subject matter and is not afraid to rule leniently. One can be strict even if he is in doubt and it does not necessarily indicate the conclusiveness of the ruling.

Rashbam in Pesachim (102a) writes that if there is no compelling logic to rule stringently, then ruling leniently is not regarded as a more preferred option. Rather, it is the only option. The Rema in his responsa (54) rules that one is not allowed to be stringent regarding an issue where there is no uncertainty. Pischei Teshuvah (Yoreh Deah 116:10) cites a dispute amongst the Acharonim if one is permitted to be stringent for himself regarding a matter that has been permitted by the Torah, such as prohibited matter that was nullified. Bnei Yissachar writes that it is a mitzvah not to be stringent in such a situation.

The Tzlach writes that it is preferable to record the permitted ruling regarding a situation that may be subject to a biblical prohibition, because if there would be uncertainty, we would be compelled to rule stringently. The Tanna would not be introducing a novel ruling if the ruling was that the matter is prohibited. Regarding a matter that may be subject to a rabbinic prohibition, however, the reverse would be true. It is preferable to record the stringent ruling because if there would be uncertainty, we would rule leniently.
Rate this please

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Beitza 2 - Common Link

The Mishna cites various disputes between Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel.

Regarding an egg that was laid on Yom Tov, Bais Shammai rules that one can eat it on Yom Tov, whereas Bais Hillel maintains that it is forbidden to eat it on Yom Tov. Bais Shammai maintains that one is in violation of seeing chametz on Pesach when he sees chametz the size of a large date and Bais Hillel maintains that one will be liable even if he sees chametz that is the size of an olive. Bais Shammai maintains that if one slaughtered a deer or a bird on Yom Tov, he is allowed to dig with a shovel in order to obtain dirt which is necessary to fulfill the mitzvah of covering the blood of a slaughtered bird or wild animal. Bais Hillel, however, maintains that one should only slaughter on Yom Tov if he has prepared dirt prior to Yom Tov. Rashi and Tosfos both point out that these three disputes regarding Yom Tov have a common theme and that is that Bais Shammai rules leniently and Bais Hillel rules stringently.

The Shita Mikubetzes writes that this Tanna was referring specifically to the festival of Pesach and for this reason he cites a dispute regarding chametz on Pesach.

The Chasam Sofer explains that the discussion in the Gemara regarding the measurement of chametz, besides pertaining to the prohibition of seeing chametz on Pesach, is also relevant to the halachos pertaining to Yom Tov. If one would find chametz on the seventh day of Pesach that is less than the size of a large date, according to Bais Shammai he would not be required to destroy it on Yom Tov because it is less than the required amount of chametz that one would need to see in order to violate the prohibition of seeing chametz on Pesach. According to Bais Hillel, however, he would be obligated to destroy the chametz on Yom Tov.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Beitza 2 - Highlights

1. The Mishnah cites various arguments between Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel.
Regarding an egg that was laid on Yom Tov, Bais Shammai rules that one can eat it on Yom Tov whereas Bais Hillel maintains that it is forbidden to eat it on Yom Tov. (2a1)
2. Bais Shammai maintains that one is in violation of seeing chametz on Pesach when he sees chametz the size of a large date and Bais Hillel maintains that one will be liable even if he sees chametz that is the size of an olive. (2a1)
3. Bais Shammai maintains that if one slaughtered a deer or a bird on Yom Tov, he is allowed to dig with a shovel in order to obtain dirt which is necessary to fulfill the mitzvah of covering the blood of a slaughtered bird or wild animal. Bais Hillel, however, maintains that one should only slaughter on Yom Tov if he has prepared dirt prior to Yom Tov. (2a1)
...Read more


4. Rav Nachman explains that the dispute in the Mishna refers to a hen which is designated to produce eggs and is not designated for consumption. Bais Shammai is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon who maintains that there is normally no prohibition of muktzeh and therefore one would even be permitted to eat an item that was not in existence before Yom Tov. Bais Hillel, however, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah and therefore one cannot eat the egg on Yom Tov. (2a2)
5. Rav Nachman maintains that regarding muktzeh on Yom Tov, Bais Shammai is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon and that Bais Hillel concurs with the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. Regarding Shabbos, however, the opinions are reversed. (2a2-2b1)
6. Rebbe maintains the Halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon regarding Shabbos. Given the fact that we are generally strict regarding Shabbos, people will not belittle the sanctity of Shabbos if we permit them to handle muktzeh. Regarding Yom Tov, however, we are normally lenient and if we permit the handling of muktzeh on Yom Tov, then people will come to belittle the sanctity of Yom Tov. (2b1)
7. Rabbah disagrees with Rav Nachman and Rabbah maintains that the dispute between Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel refers to a hen which was designated for consumption and we are discussing a situation where Yom Tov follows Shabbos. Bais Shammai maintains that the egg is not muktzeh. The reason for this ruling is because the hen is deemed to be a food item and the egg is deemed to be food that was separated from other food. Bais Hillel, however, maintains that one cannot eat the egg on Yom Tov. The reason for this ruling is because given the fact that the egg hatched today, it is evident that the egg had fully formed on the previous day. Rabbah maintains that one cannot prepare from Shabbos to a Yom Tov and since the egg became fully formed on Shabbos, one is prohibited from eating the egg on Yom Tov. This Halacha would similarly apply to an ordinary Yom Tov that does not follow Shabbos because in this manner we will preserve the prohibition when Yom Tov follows Shabbos. (2b2)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Beitzah 2 - Shabbos and the festivals

The Gemara mentions a distinction between Shabbos and Yom Tov, in that the laws of Shabbos are more restrictive so people will not belittle the Shabbos, whereas the laws of Yom Tov are more relaxed so people may come to belittle Yom Tov. The Medrash states that one who belittles the festivals is akin to one who belittles the Shabbos, and one who observes the festivals is akin to one who observes the Shabbos. The Mishnah in Avos (3:15) states that one who belittles the festivals does not have a share in the World to Come. Although the Gemara here mentions a distinction between Shabbos and Yom Tov, essentially they are the same. The sefarim write that when HaShem created the primordial light, He saw that the wicked would not be worthy of benefiting from the light, so He concealed the light for the righteous in the world to Come. Nonetheless, this light returns on the festivals. Thus, the festivals are directly associated with the six days of creation, which was followed by the great light of Shabbos. One who observes the festivals is akin to one who observes the Shabbos, as he is benefiting from the great light of creation which was concealed for the future, and the Gemara teaches us that Shabbos is a semblance of the World to Come. For this reason, one who belittles the festivals forfeits his share in the world to Come, as he is demonstrating that he is not concerned about observing Shabbos either, which is a semblance of the World to Come.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Beitza 2 - Hachana by Reb Jay

According to Rabbah, things that were prepared on Yom Tov for Shabbos, or vice versa are assur m'Doraysa (Hachana D'Rabbah). Tosfos, the Rosh and the Ran learn this as the halacha. The Rambam holds that it is an issur D'rabanan. According to the Rishonim that learn Hachana D'Rabbah is an Issur D'oraysa, then how do we have an Eiruv Tavshilin? Tosfos asks this question and replies that the koach of an Eiruv Tavshilin is based on Ho'eel miklayea leahorchim (like Rav Chisda says; see Pesachim 46a). A nafka minah l'halacha would be, if it is muttar to cook before shkiah if the food will only be ready right before shkiah, thus not allowing for the theory that the cooking might be done for guests. The Rambam would hold it is muttar because of Eiruv Tavshilin, while Tosfos, the Rosh and the Ran would say that it is assur to cook at this time, as hachana is an issur D'oraysa, and there is no opportunity for ho'eel (in fact, the Magen Avraham writes that one who has made an Eiruv Tavshilin should not cook on Yom Tov for Shabbos late in the day for this reason--i.e, that it is k'die to be choshesh for the Rishonim that hold it is an issur D'oraysa--and therefore, one should endeavor to make early Shabbos when
Yom Tov leads into Shabbos).

Tosfos also writes that there is no stirah between Hachana D'Rabbah and an Eiruv Tavshilin , as Hachana D'Rabbah refers to something prepared by shamayim (like an egg) and not cooking or baking which involves already existing materials.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Siyum and Thanks

Daf Notes would like to take this opportunity to thank HaShem for allowing us to finish Maseches Sukkah, complete with posts and comments. We would like to thank our generous contributors, Rabbi Karr, Reb Dave, Reb Jay, Rabbi Jacobovitz, Rabbi Nisenbaum, Reb Reuven Levitin, and Reb Shia (We hope that we didn't forget anyone - if yes, please be mochel us). Additionally, we would like to thank all those who took the time to comment on the posts, including but not limited to Wally, Barry, Harry, tiny Sam, big Moish, the dude, anonymous, mpost, Stan, Velvel, Chatzkel, Mark, Abba, Dan, Josh, Soferet, and Rafi (We hope that we didn't forget anyone - if yes, please be mochel us). Last but not least, we would like to thank our world wide readership for reading along and for facilitating the objective of making this forum one of the foremost sites for those who study the Daf Yomi in a serious manner. Have a good Shabbos and we look forward to commencing Maseches Beitzah on Sunday.

Avromi and Ben

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 56- Lekavod Shabbos

Masechet Sukkah concludes with a powerful lesson in education. The Gemara states that the utterances of a child in public is a reflection of the opinions of either his father or his mother. What a parent says is the way a child will grow up speaking. If a parent is careful on Shabbos to only talk what is necessary, i.e. words of Torah and singing zemiros, then a child will also conduct himself in this manner. This is why it is important to always say the words lekavod Shabbos kodesh, this is being done for the sake of the Holy Shabbos, as such words will have a great effect on the entire household.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 56 - Women should Recite Kiddush and then Hagafen

Beis Hillel maintains that first one recites the brocha on the wine and then he recites kiddush. This is because the wine is the cause for the kiddush. The Tzlach in Brochos (51b) explains that this is because one has already discharged his obligation of kiddush when he davened maariv. The Chachamim stated that kiddush must be recited with a cup of wine and therefore now the wine is the cause for the kidush.

The Gemora states another reason to explain the opinion of Beis Hillel and that is because of the principle that the blessing which is recited more frequently takes precedence and the brocha on wine is more frequent than the one recited for kiddush. The Tzlach explains this reason in a similar way. He states that the logic of the wine taking precedence because of its frequency is only referring to a case where he previously fulfilled his obligation of kiddush during maariv; however in an instance where one would be reciting kiddush prior to davening maariv, kiddush would take precedence over the blessing on the wine. This is based on a Gemora Zevachim (90b) which concludes (according to the Tzlach) that when presented with two mitzvos and one has more kedusha than the other, but the other is more frequent - the one with the higher level of sanctity takes precedence. If one is still obligated Biblically to recite kiddush, then the kiddush is regarded as being more kodosh and it would take precedence over the brocha on the wine, even though the wine is more frequent.

The Tzlach concludes l'halacha that women who do not daven maariv and thereby are obligated Biblically to recite kiddush, they should make kiddush first and then recite the blessing on the wine.

The Acharonim disagree with the Tzlach arguing that the Gemora in Zevachim is not conclusive and it is quite possible that a mitzva which is more frequent takes precedence over a mitzva with more kedusha.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 55 - Shir shel Yom by Mincha

It is evident from the Gemora Rosh Hashana (30b) that the Leviim would sing a shira by the korban tamid in the afternoon as well. The Maharam Alshich is bothered as to why we do not recite a shir shel yom nowadays by mincha? He answers that since it is ruled that if the Leviim did not sing the shirah in the afternoon, the korban will become passul, they could not institute that we who do not have the korban should recite the shir (in the morning, it is not meakev).

The Magen Avrohom (132:14) offers two answers. Firstly, he cites Tosfos who rules that if the libations of the afternoon were not brought until the evening, they could be offered the entire night, however the shirah cannot be sung then since they didn't sing at night. Since there would be times in the Beis Hamikdosh that they did not sing the shirah in the afternoon (when the nesachim were delayed until the evening), the Chachamim didn't institute that we should recite it by mincha.

Secondly, he answers, that the halacha was that after the korban tamid was offered on the mizbeach, they didn't sing the shirah. Shirah was only sung before the tamid was completed. The Chachamim could not institute that we should recite the shir shel yom after mincha since mincha is corresponding to the korban tamid and after the tamid, they could not sing shirah anymore.

The Chasam Sofer in Beitza (4b) answers that there are two reasons as to why we say the parsha of korbanos and the avodos that were performed in the Beis Hamikdosh nowadays. Firstly, we recite these parshiyos based on the verse which says that our lips are regarded as the offering of the korbanos. There is another reason as well. The reciting of these tefilos is indicating our desire and anxiousness for the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdosh in our time. In the morning, we do not have the second explanation in mind. The halacha is that the mizbeach is only inaugurated with the offering of the aftrenoon tamid. Even if the Beis Hamikdosh would be built today, we would not be able to offer the morning tamid. Our primary kavanah in the morning is that our tefilos should be accepted as if we were offering the korbanos. In the afternoon, the primary kavanah we should have is to signify our desire to see the Beis Hamikdosh built speedily and if the Beis Hamikdosh would be built at that moment (which is what we should be thinking), there would not be a shirah sung, since the Beis Yosef (51) rules that shirah will not be sung in the times of the third Beis Hamikdosh (except mizmor l'sodah). It is for this reason that we do not recite the shir shel yom by mincha for it will prevent us from having our correct kavanos.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 55 - Chart for Korbanos

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 54 - Infrequency of Yom Kippur on Motzei Shabbos

The Gemora cites a Braisa in Shabbos that when Yom Kippur falls out on a Friday, they do not blow like they usually blew in the Mikdash on Friday since the purpose was to indicate that it is time to stop working before Shabbos, when it is Yom Kippur and there is no work anyway, there is no need for the tekios. The Braisa continues that if Yom Kippur is on a Sunday, we do not recite havdala on Motzei Shabbos. Rashi states that we do not recite havdala with a cup of wine like we would do from Motzei Shabbos to Yom Tov since Shabbos is stricter than Yom Tov, however when it's from Shabbos to Yom Kippur where there is still a prohibition on doing work, there is no necessity for havdala.

The Gemora in Eruvin (40b) rules that one does not recite shehechiyonu on Yom Kippur according to the opinion who holds that this brocha obligates someone to drink and on Yom Kippur, this is not possible. The Gemora questions this ruling by asking that the cup of wine can be given to a minor to drink and the Gemora responds that we are concerned that the minor will sin on a future Yom Kippur. He will mistakenly think that drinking is permitted.

The poskim rule that this would be the halacha regarding Tisha B'Av on a Motzei Shabbos. We do not recite havdala and give the wine to a child for we are worried that he will think in the future that it is permitted to drink on Tisha B'Av.

There is an argument in the Rishonim pertaining to an instance where there is a bris milah on Tisha B'Av. Tosfos rules that the wine can be given to the yoledes or a child and we are not concerned that they will sin in the future. The distinction is since this case does not happen on a regular basis and the Chachamim did not issue their decree here. Tisha B'Av on a Motzei Shabbos is frequent and happens once every few years, therefore there is a decree. Beis Yosef (559) cites other Rishonim who disagree and maintain that even by a bris milah, we don give the wine to a child to drink.

All agree when Tisha B'Av is on a motzei Shabbos that havdala is not recited. Rav Elyashiv infers from our Rashi that he would disagree. Rashi explains our Gemora that there is no havdala with wine when Yom Kippur falls on a Motzei Shabbos since there is no necessity for havdala because it is forbidden to perform work on Yom Kippur. It can be inferred that without that reason, havdala with wine would be recited and a child would drink the wine. We would not be concerned that he might sin in the future since it is regarded as infrequent, even though Yom Kippur falls out on Motzei Shabbos every few years. Reciting shehechiyonu on Yom Kippur and giving to a minor to drink is not allowed since this would be a yearly concern.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 54 - Revised Chart

A revised the chart to include R' Yehuda and the machlokes R' Zerah and Rava. Once again, we thank reb shia for providing us all with this. Thanks.Anyone who delivered the Daf yesterday or learned it knows how beneficial this was.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 53 - P.S. Regarding Mechitzah

by Rabbi Ephraim Nisenbaum

It seems that the mechitza in the Beis Hamikdash was only because of the concern of levity because of the festivities of Beis Hashoeiva. There were often women in the Ezras Nashim to bring korbanos, yet we don't find that it warranted a mechitza. How do we learn out a mechitza for davening from Simchas Beis Hashoeiva? It would seem more reasonable to learn out a mechitza for festive occasions such as chasunas, which Reb Moshe says is not really a chiyuv, from Simchas Beis Hashoeiva.
Incidentally, that would explain why they wren't concerned about the tzaddikim dancing in the middle seeing the women. Since they were involved in avodas Hashem, there was no concern of levity. That may be why the plain people didn't actually dance themselves, since there dancing may have led to levity and there was concern about seeing the women.
Rav Elya Lopian's story was specifically by a wedding, where levity was a concern, not necessarily in other situations.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 53 - Shofar Blowing Chart

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 53 - Idolatry in the Beis Hamikdosh

The Mishna states that the Kohanim would turn their faces to the West and declare that their fathers had their faces to the East and their backs to the Heichal and worshipped the sun, but we instead worship Kah, i.e. HaShem. The Gemara asks that if their faces were to the East, is it not evident that their backs were towards the Heichal? It is learned from this language that while they were worshipping the sun, they also defecated themselves. It is indeed mind boggling to even to begin to imagine that people could actually perform such a despicable act, especially in the Bais HaMikdash. Although we know that the first Bais HaMikdash was destroyed in part due to the sin of idolatry, how could the Jews have stooped to such a low level of abomination inside the Bais HaMikdash?

Rav Meir Bergman suggests the following answer. The Gemara in Sota (35a) relates the tragic episode of Uza and the Aron, the Holy Ark. The Jewish People were traveling with the Aron and Uza stretched out his hand to grab hold of the Aron. Hashem remarked that if the Aron can carry those who transport it, then the Aron can certainly carry itself. Hashem was angered by Uza’s infraction and He smote Uza al hashal. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree regarding the cause of Uza’s death. One opinion maintains that Uza was killed because he touched the Aron. The other opinion maintains that he relieved himself in front of the Aron. Rabbi Yochanan concluded by stating that Uza merited his share in the World to Come. The literal reading of this Gemara is truly astounding. Uza was the one individual from amongst the Jewish People who was chosen to watch the Aron when it was returned by the Pelishtim. The name Uza was changed from Elazar to Uza as he represented Torah which is the oz, strength, of the Jewish People. Uza served before the Aron for more than twenty years and Dovid selected Uza to transport the Ark from the house of Avinadav to Jerusalem. How is it possible that Uza descended to such a low level in such a short time span that he would actually relieve himself before the Aron and in front of the entire Jewish People? Can there be a greater desecration of Hashem's name than this? Furthermore, why did Rabbi Yochanan state that Uza merites a share in the world to come?

Rabbi Bergman suggests that 'osoh tzrochov' does not mean literally, rather Uza stretched out his hand to protect the Aron and to ensure that it didn't fall. As he was holding the Aron a thought entered his pure mind that it was indeed him that was holding up the Aron. A minor infraction for such a great person brought about his immediate demise, but he was immediately forgiven and merited a share in the world to come.

We can explain our Gemora in a similar vein. The Kohanim did not literally mean that their fathers defecated themselves, rather this was used as a euphemism to indicate that their fathers neglected to care about the honor of Hashem in the Beis Hamikdosh and brought avoda zoro into Hashem's resting place.

Reb Chaim Shmuelewitz states that the avoda zoro of baal peor is the attribute of wantonness. It indicates that a person has no restraint and the feelings or rights of others do not concern him. He is solely interested in himself. This is why Moshe Rabbeinu was buried opposite Peor. Moshe is the epithet of what it means to be interested in his task and mission of leading Klal Yisroel and his own personal concern is the farthest thing from his mind. Moshe is the faithful servant that Hashem has complete trust in him. This is why he can receive the 'klil tiferes' - the crown of glory on his head.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 53 - Hillel's Declaration

Hillel declared his famous words by the Simchas bais Hashoeva, “If I am here, then everyone is here, and if I am not here, then nobody is here.” The commentators wonder about this declaration, as it appears that Hillel was speaking haughtily, something which certainly was not consistent with the humble character of Hillel? I once heard a possible explanation that Hillel was declaring that if the ‘ani’ of a person is involved in performing a mitzvah, then the mitzvah can be performed properly. One can discharge his obligation for a mitzvah by just going through the motions and performing the mitzvah without feeling and heart. Such a performance, however, pales in comparison to the one who performs the mitzvah with devotion and enthusiasm. This can explain the Gemara that we learned earlier that states that the lulavim would be passed on from father to son by way of inheritance. Should not the lulav be invalidated because it was most likely dried out? The Chasidishe sefarim answer that the word lulav is an acrostic for the words ‘lo lev’, i.e. to him there was heart. The greatest inheritance a father can bequeath to his son is the proper method in observing mitzvos. When a father performs a mitzvah with zeal and spirit, the children are naturally inspired and they will continue in their father’s path.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 53 - Charts for Korbanos

Reb Shia Webster from Chicago sent me two charts that can be extremely beneficial in the learning of the Mishna and Gemora on 53b and the korbanos later on 55. It's well worth it to open and print. Thank you Reb Shia. It is a pdf document. If anyone knows how to upload to blogger, I'd appreciate it. Meanwhile, I e-mailed it out to my daf yomi list. If you did not receive it and you would like it, please e-mail me or post a comment here. Thanks.

UPDATE: We have figured it out and it is posted above. Thanks to all my blogging friends.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 52 - Highlights

1. The Mishnah stated that at the end of the first day of Sukkos they went down to the Women’s Courtyard and they made a great adjustment. The Gemara explains that originally the Women’s Courtyard was smooth and at a later date they surrounded it with a balcony. They decreed that the women should sit above in the balcony and the men below so they should not mingle with each other. A Baraisa states that originally the women watching the Simchas Bais Hashoeva would be inside the Women’s Courtyard ant the men observing would be on the outside but this led to frivolity. They then instituted that the women should be on the outside and the men should be on the inside but there was still frivolity, so they decreed that the women should be above and the men below. Although the dimensions of the Bais HaMikdash could not be altered, they found a verse that was said regarding the future when there will be eulogies delivered for the death of Moshiach ben Yosef. It is said that even at a time of sorrow the men and women will be separated. If this could be said regarding the future when it will be a time of sorrow and the evil inclination no longer wields control over man, then certainly at the Simchas Bais Hashoeva, when they are engaged in rejoicing and they could become frivolous and the evil inclination still wields power, certainly men and women should be in separate areas. (51b3-52a1)
2. Regarding the eulogy in the future described in the verse, one opinion maintains that the eulogy will be for Moshiach ben Yosef who will be killed at war and a second opinion maintains that the eulogy will be for the evil inclination that will be abolished in the future. The reason here will a eulogy for the evil inclination is because HaShem will slaughter the evil inclination before the righteous and the wicked. To the righteous the evil inclination will appear like a great mountain that is difficult to climb, whereas to the wicked the evil inclination will appear like a strand of hair that can be easily cut. The righteous will cry when they remember how they struggled to overcome the evil inclination, and the wicked will cry when they realize how easy it could have been to overcome the evil inclination. HaShem will also wonder with them at that time. (52a1)
3. The evil inclination at first appears like the thread of a spider but in the end appears like a cart rope. This means that initially one can resist the temptation to sin, but once a person commits the sin often, it is much more difficult to resist the temptation. The thread of a spider is weak and one can break it easily, and similarly one who confronts sin for the first time can resist the temptation. A cart rope, however, is very strong and is hard to break, and is similar to one who has become accustomed to sin and finds it difficult to resist the temptation of sinning further. (52a1-52a2)
4. When Moshiach Ben Dovid will see in the future that Moshiach ben Yosef will be killed, Moshiach Ben Dovid will ask HaShem for life, and HaShem will respond that Dovid already requested life and HaShem granted him life, as it is said, he asked life of you and you have already granted it to him. (52a2)
5. The evil inclination has seven names. Its names are: evil, uncircumcised, impure, the enemy, a stumbling block, a stone, and the hidden one. (52a2)
6. Abaye said that regarding the evil inclination it is said for he has done greatly, and this implies that the evil inclination incites Torah scholars more than anyone else. Proof to this is because Abaye once overheard a man say to a woman, “let us awaken early and travel together.” Abaye decided to follow them to prevent them from sin. Upon reaching a crossroads, they departed from each other by saying, “our paths are far apart from each other and being together would have been nice.” Thus, they ultimately did not commit any sin. Upon witnessing this, Abaye said about himself, “if this would have occurred with myself, I would have been incapable of restraining myself from sin.” Abaye felt bad about this thought, until an old man came and consoled him, saying, “the greater one is, the greater is his evil inclination.” (52a3)
7. The evil inclination is constantly seeking to overcome a person, and if not for HaShem protecting the person, one would be unable to withstand the overtures of the evil inclination. (52a3-52b1)
8. If the evil inclination attempts to entice a person to sin, he should bring the evil inclination into the study hall, and if he is like a stone he will melt and if he is like iron he will break. This is because Torah is the antidote to the power of the evil inclination. (52b1)
9. The evil inclination incites one to sin in this world and then testifies against him in the next world. Proof to this is from the verse that states he who pampers his servant from youth shall have him as a ruler (manon) at last. According to the rules of atbach introduced by Rabbi Chiya, a witness is referred to as manon. The letter aleph equals one and the letter tes equals nine, which is a sum of ten and these two letters can be interchanged. The same follows with beis, which equals two, and ches, which equals eight, When we apply this concept to the word manon, the result is the word sahadah, which means a witness. Thus, the evil inclination that is pampered in this world will end up bearing witness against the person in the next world. (52b1)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 52 - Names of the evil inclination

The Gemara states that the evil inclination has seven names. Why is it important for us to know that the evil inclination has seven names? I once heard from my Rebbe, Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller, Rosh HaYeshiva of Telshe in Chicago, that when Yaakov encountered the angel of Esav, Yaakov inquired as to the name of the angel. The angel responded, “why then do you inquire of my name?” The obvious question is, why did Yaakov inquire of the angel regarding his name, and why did the angel refuse to divulge his name? The answer is that Yaakov was not merely seeking to validate the name of the angel. Yaakov was saying to the angel, “you are the evil inclination, and you are my enemy. I need to know your name, i.e. your nature, so I and my descendants can know how to do battle with you throughout the generations.” The angel responded, “you cannot fight me, because I always appear with a different name, i.e. in every generation a new group arises that attempts to topple the citadel of Torah and its observance.” Similarly, the Gemara here records the various names of the evil inclination, so we can actually discern its true nature and battle with him until we are successful in vanquishing him.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 52 - Yetzer Horo

The Gemora on Daf 52 deals extensively with the yetzer horo. I found this piece and I couldn't pass it up. There are many thought provoking and inspiring thoughts here. Please read - it can make a difference.

From Neveh

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE YETZER HORO
Or THE GREATEST GAME EVER PITCHED
By RABBI SHLOMO PRICE

1) Usually I give this Sichah at the end of the year, and I like to preface it with an interesting Gemoro in Berochos 28b that is quoted by the Lev Eliyahu (Chochmah U'musar pg. 129).

As Rav Yochonon Ben Zakai was sick and lying on his deathbed, his talmidim came to see him. When he saw them he began to cry. They asked him why he was crying, and he replied. "If I was being brought to trial to a King of flesh and blood who won't live forever, and his anger is not eternal... I would certainly cry. How much more so now that I am going to be tried by Hashem Who is eternal, and Who's anger is eternal. Furthermore, there are two roads before me, one to Gan Eden and one to Gehinnom, and I don't know on which road they will lead me".

The Lev Eliyahu asks, why was he afraid, he was still alive and able to do teshuvah? He also quotes the question of the "Alter of Kelm" (Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv), Why did he make this calculation only when he saw the talmidim, why not before?
The Alter answers, that Rav Yochonon knew that he personally kept the Torah diligently. The change came when he saw the talmidim. Here he felt that maybe he was lax in his obligation of the chinuch of his talmidim. Perhaps he didn't rebuke them enough or maybe he should have done something else to help them, and that is why he cried. I too have to ask mechilah from the talmidim for not rebuking enough or too much, I hope that at least those that will return next year, I will be able to be better. We also see how much the talmidim can have an effect on the Rebbi, and the Rebbi is responsible for what the talmid does, so if for some strange reason you don't want to do it for yourself or Mom and Dad, then at least do it for your Rebbi.

2) I would like to speak a little about our "old friend" the yetzer horo. In warfare one of the strategies is not to let the enemy realize how strong you are. If they assume that you are weaker than you really are, they will not prepare properly for the battle, giving you a better chance for victory. This is called underestimating the power of the enemy.

The baalei Mussar label the yetzer horo the "Great Enemy". The Orchos Tzadikim (Sha'ar Haga'avah) brings the story of a chossid who met a victorious regiment returning from their war. He turned to them and said, "You have returned from the small war; now prepare for the big war, namely against the yetzer horo and his armies". Usually an enemy who is beaten once or twice will give up, but the yetzer horo will never give up even if you beat him a hundred times. He waits in ambush throughout your whole life waiting for that moment that you will forget about him and put your guard down. When this happens he will strike.

The yetzer horo attacks a person even as he is dying. The Lev Eliyahu (Chochmah U'musar pg. 126) brings a story about a fine, very righteous person, whose weakness was that he had lust for money. As he was lying on his deathbed the talmidim heard him whispering that he knows that soon he will be dying, but if someone were to give him money he would take it and put it under his pillow.

3) The Lev Eliyahu (Chochmah U'musar pg. 125) gives us an insight in not underestimating and preparing for the yetzer horo of immorality.

The Torah tells us (D'varim 21:10-14) about a pretty gentile woman during time of war. The Torah gives a procedure with which one would be permitted to take her as a wife. The Gemoro (Kiddushin 21) comments about this, "The Torah only spoke against the yetzer horo, it is better to eat meat the kosher way then the unkosher way". In other words, the Torah understood that if it did not give permission, the test would be too great and many people would fail. What kind of people are we dealing with? These people who would not be able to control their desires, are they maniacs?!
...Read more



The Torah (D'vorim 20) tells us exactly what kind of people went out to fight. There were four categories that did not go out to war. The fourth category was the person who was fainthearted. Chazal (Sotah 44) explain that it means he was afraid of the sins that he did. And which sin? Not just chilul Shabbos or immorality, but even the sin of talking between the Tefillin of the hand and of the head (which would require him to make an extra brocho). These people understood that it was not their might and marksmanship that would win the war. The only way they could win is if Hashem would help them be the proper messengers to win the war. If they weren't on the proper spiritual level, they couldn't expect Hashem to join them in the war. Committing even the smallest sin could jeopardize their chances of winning the war. It was therefore that even a person who had committed the slightest sin didn't join B'nei Yisroel in the war.
We are talking of people who hadn't committed even the slightest sin, such as talking while putting on Tefillin, yet the Torah realizes that if it didn't permit them to marry a gentile women in a permitted way, they will nevertheless marry the gentile woman. This should teach us how the powerful the yetzer horo of immorality is. If the Yetzer Horo can have such a strong effect on the most righteous people, where does that leave us? We must prepare ourselves properly for the heavy battle.

4) There is an unbelievable Gemoro (Kiddushin 81) that proves this point.

"A group of captive women were brought to the town of Neharda'a. It was decided that the person who could be trusted most to keep the women in his house was the great tzaddik Rav Amram Chasidah ("The Righteous" (if the Gemoro uses the title - "Righteous" then it means it, not like the titles that we throw around so freely today)). The women were placed in his attic, and the ladder to the attic was removed. As one of the women passed over the skylight her beauty shone through, and Rav Amram had an urge to go up to her. He single-handedly lifted a heavy ladder that normally needed ten people to lift, put it in place and started to climb up. When he was part way up, he just spread his legs and began to scream, "There is a fire in Rav Amram's house". When the talmidim came and saw him they said, "You have embarrassed us". Rav Amram replied, "Better that I should be embarrassed in This World then in The Next One." The Gemoro concludes that Rav Amram forced the yetzer horo to come out, and it appeared as a pillar of fire. Rav Amram said to the Yetzer Horo "You are fire, and I'm only flesh and blood, and I was still able to overpower you"."

There are many important lessons to be learned from this story. Firstly, we see that in order not to do a sin a person should be prepared to humiliate himself. Sometimes a person knows that he shouldn't go with a bad crowd, because it is going to lead to things that he shouldn't be doing. He nevertheless goes with the crowd, fearing that they would mock him and/or call him names (e.g. wimp) if he didn't join. The story of Rav Amram should teach us that it is better to be terribly embarrassed then to do something wrong.

Secondly, is the point we were talking about until now. People think they know all the sichot already, and they are well prepared for the fight in the big world out there. Even if this were true, their knowledge isn't greater than that of Rav Amram's. If Rav Amram wasn't safe from the Yetzer Horo, where to we get our cocky confidence from?! Being aware of the problem is the first step to resolve it. If we realize how strong the Yetzer Horo is, we can start to look for some ways of resolving the problem.

5) The "Lev Eliyahu" Rav Eliyahu Lopian himself was a great tzaddik as we can see from the following stories. Rav Dovid Mishkofsky, the Menahel of Yeshivas Knesses Chizkiyah, in Kfar Chasidim, had the honor of having Rav Eliyahu Lopian for the Shabbos evening seuda. Rav Mishkofsky requested to hear the following story, which Rav Lopian agreed to tell: "When I was a young man, my wife was deathly ill, and the doctors had given up hope. The people were standing around her crying, and I was in the next room pacing with worry. Suddenly the door opened, a Jew walked in and asked me what all the crying was about. When I explained to him that my wife was dying, he inquired what illness she had and what the doctors had to say. I replied that the doctors diagnosed a certain illness, and had given up hope. The stranger than told me that there is no need for worry. "Go to a certain place and cut off the vegetable that is growing there, cook it up, and give it to your wife to drink. With G-D's help she will get better". We followed his advice and miraculously with G-d's help she got better. I'm sure that the "Jew" was Eliyahu Hanavi, who came not in my merit, but in my wife's merit."

When Rav Lopian finished, Rav Mishkofsky told him that he heard there was a continuation to the story. Rav Lopian was unwilling to relate the additional part of the story, so Rav Mishkofsky offered to relate what he heard, in anticipation of a confirmation from Rav Lopian.

"I heard that some time later you went to the Admor of Ger the "Sfas Emes" to get a Brocho. He refused saying that a young man who merited to see Eliyahu Hanavi doesn't need a Brocho from me. You told him that if so, (that the Rebbe knows that secret which Rav Lopian had not told anybody) then I especially want the Brocho from the Rebbe. Rav Lopian said, "Yes, Yes, the Admorim had this sense of smell. (Story found in Lev Eliyahu Chochmah U'musar p.12.)

Another interesting story can be found in Lev Eliyahu (B'reishis p. 42) On a hot day many mosquitoes were flying around and pestering everybody. The Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Noach Shimanovitz was giving a shiur, while Rav Lopian was sitting in the back of the room. In the middle Rav Shimanovitz lowered his voice (so Rav Lopian shouldn't hear) and told the talmidim the following in reference to Rav Lopian. "Look at this G-DLY and Holy Man. While we are scratching ourselves from the thousands of mosquitoes that bite us, not one mosquito can be found in his vicinity". (He was referring to the Gemoro Brachos 10 that brings an opinion that the woman knew that Elisha was a G-dly Man because not one fly came near his table.) All of the talmidim naturally turned around to see this miraculous sight, but Rav Lopian didn't do anything. The following afternoon, he carried around a towel waving it back and forth and complained about the mosquitoes, pretending that they were bothering him."

Despite being such a big Tzaddik when it came to immorality he was extremely apprehensive. This is illustrated in the following story (Lev Eliyahu B'reishis p. 13). A talmid asked permission to go to a wedding. Rav Lopian asked him if there would be any immoral scenes (he didn't mean a bellydancer but whether or not the women would be dressed modestly). The talmid, knowing that there would be a problem, started to rationalize by saying that he would be seated at a special table with his parents…. He concluded by saying, "It won't have an effect on me. "This last statement disturbed Rav Lopian very much. He turned to the talmid and he said, "Listen, I'm already over eighty years old, and blind in one eye, yet despite this when I walk in the street I'm full of fear lest I stumble into seeing immorality. You! a young boy with two good eyes, how can you tell me that it won't have an effect on you?"

He then added a few sharp words which the author refused to print. I was told in the name of Rav Shalom Shwadron Shlit"a that he asked him for his mother's name and saying, "You must be sick, I'm going to make a "Mi Shebeirach" (prayer for a sick person) for you."

L'havdil Shakespeare said, "Only fools jump in where angels fear to tread." The great tzaddikim - the angels, one would figure, they have nothing to worry about, nevertheless tremble with fear when walking the streets. In contrast, we fools think we know it all and have nothing to fear.

Ya'akov Avinu was afraid to go to Lavan until he prepared himself by learning in the Yeshivah of Shem and Ever for fourteen years.

6) So what should we do? The first thing is not to underestimate the enemy, and realize how strong he is, which by now, I hope we realize.

7) Secondly, we should not fight him head on (where possible). We should try to avoid the problem and conflict or at least minimize it. Don't go looking for trouble. To be specific, avoid movies, TV, magazines, even the Reader's Digest. True, some of the articles may be good, but there may be immodest advertisements. Even if you do not want to look at them, the eye nevertheless sees it anyway, having a terrible effect. I'm not saying that we are going to change our lifestyle overnight, but at least if we have outlook to change in the future, we can start little by little. Even if we unfortunately have these things in our parents home (as I did), we should make up our minds that when we get married and make a home, we won't let these things in. Obviously, when you are looking to get married you will search for a woman with views similar to those of yours. Stay away from the test, don't look for it.

8) Coming back for another year is another good piece of advice. Now that we know what a big war is waiting for us, it's not enough just to hear the sichot once or twice, but we have to keep on preparing as much as we can, and incorporate the sichot into ourselves. Sometimes a guy has a chance to leave all this garbage behind, but instead chooses to brings the yetzer horo with him. An example of this is hanging immodest posters on the walls. It's because they don't realize what they are doing - they are bringing the test to them.

9) Sometimes a person rationalizes going to improper places saying he wishes to see if he absorbed the lessons of the sichot he heard. Is he now strong enough to withstand the temptation? This is unfortunately a terrible mistake as clearly evident from the following Gemoro (Bava Basra 57b).

Yesha'ayahu Hanavi (33:15) lists the exceptional behavior of a tzaddik. Among the deeds mentioned is: "he closes his eyes from seeing evil". The Gemoro states that this is referring to a person who closes his eyes when passing by the river, where the women are washing clothing. (At this point the women are slightly immodest since they have to lift their dresses when entering the water). The Gemoro questions: "If there is an alternative route to get to where this person wants to go, thus he could have avoided passing by the river, this person is no tzaddik. He is a Rosho for choosing this route."

Why should he be a rosho - he closed his eyes? The Rashbam (ibid.) explains, that even if you close your eyes, your job is to avoid the problem, not fight it head on. Consequently, we can apply this to mixed beaches chas v'shalom. Some people claim they are not going for the scenery, and they even close their eyes. Firstly, he's probably lying. Secondly, even if his story were true, this Gemoro teaches us that this thought is wrong. We should look for separate beaches thus avoiding the test . Unfortunately, there will be plenty of tests coming our way. There is no need to look for one. You want to go to town, go eat somewhere, fine. Don't go walking down "Ben Yehuda" just to see if you can pass the test. Especially, based on what we learned before, we'll probably fail the test.

10) Now that we understand how much we have to prepare, we realize how much we need to listen to and go over the sichot. We also understand how preparation of one year is really not enough, and as much as possible we should try to come back for another year. Of course we should also not forget the list that the Mash usually prepares. It is called, "How Not To Lose It", simple advice on how not to lose whatever over the summer you gained in Yeshiva. It reminds me, during the Gulf War, when gas masks were being distributed, those people who didn't get one, panicked. They feared the consequences of facing a gas attack G-d forbid, while lacking the proper protection. The yetzer horo is a bigger danger; he goes within, and a gas mask won't help; we had better get all the protection that we can get.

11) The following is a common problem people face. Sometimes you're doing well, going to minyan, keeping a seder, etc., then all of a sudden you miss one time. At this point your entire world collapses. The yetzer horo tells you, that's it, you broke your streak, and then it's all over and downhill from then on.

This is a terrible mistake as can be seen in the following article (The Sporting News, May 26, 1959), about a pitcher from the Pittsburgh Pirates. It says in short:

"Harvey Haddix...achieved baseball immortality on the night of May 26, in Milwaukee, when he turned in the greatest pitching performance in the long history of the game. Haddix pitched perfect ball for 12 innings, retiring the first 36 batters, before the Braves broke through on an error, a sacrifice, an intentional walk, and a home run, that later was ruled a double, to down the Pirates 1 to 0 in the 13th inning on just one solitary hit..."

He also has a special mention in the "Guinness Book of World Records, and I even remember seeing that he got a special trophy of 12 silver cups. The question is, how can this be the "greatest pitching performance," and why is in the record books, he lost the game? The answer is, he may have lost the game, but you can't take away the achievement that he did up to that point. Pitching 12 perfect innings is great, regardless what happens after that. This is the attitude we must have. After doing well for a while even if we mess up once, it doesn't take away what you did till then. Start again, as Rabeinu Yonah advises a person who wishes to do t'shuvah, but is bogged down with all of his sins.

"On this day he should throw away all of his iniquities that he has done. He should consider himself as if he was just born on that day, thus having no merit or guilt. He should have the attitude that today is the beginning of his deeds."

Rav Ya'akov Kaminetsky zt"l (quoted by his son Rav Noson) says "Put it in a locker and get back to it later". Lehavdil, the commercial says, "Today is the first day of the rest of your life." My Rebbi always quotes Rabbi Zeidel Epstein who says, "We think the difference between a tzaddik and a rosho is that the tzaddik doesn't do sins while the rosho does. Shlomo Hamelech however says (Mishlei 24:16) "A tzaddik falls seven times, and rises again". A tzaddik falls many times too, the difference is that he picks himself up and starts again as opposed to the rosho who stays down".

[There is another important lesson that this story teaches us. The war is never over. A person should never have that false confidence that he is a tzaddik and has nothing to worry about. Chazal say, "Never believe in yourself till the day of your death". In this case the pitcher already threw nearly twelve complete innings of perfect ball, but in the end a small mistake cost him the game. Y.L.]

12) There is another very powerful weapon against the yetzer horo, Tefillah. Pray to Hashem that we should not fall into the hands of the yetzer horo. In Parshas Shlach we find that two of the m'raglim (spies), Yehoshua and Calev, didn't buckle under the peer pressure they faced. They refused to participate with their counterparts, who brought back a bad report about Eretz Yisroel. The question is, what gave then the courage to do this? How weren't the two of them convinced by the other ten? Chazal tell us that it was the power of Tefillah that saved them. Moshe Rabeinu prayed for Yehoshua, while Calev traveled to Me'aras Hamachpeilah and prayed for himself.

From the Gemoro in Yoma (53b) we can discern the power of a sincere Tefillah, (even for the wrong thing). The Kohen Gadol (high Priest), had a yearly opportunity, on Yom Kippur, to pray right in front of the Holy of Holies. His tefillah is very short, so understandably only the most important things were included. Yet we find that part of the prayer is that, "Hashem shouldn't listen to the prayers of the wayfarers". The wayfarers used to pray that it should not rain, (lest the roads get muddy and travel on the dirt roads would be impossible.) while we need the rain. The question is, why is this topic so important that it merits being included in this exclusive prayer? Couldn't this prayer be said at any other time?

This teaches us the power of a sincere tefillah. In Tehillim, (in Ashrei) it says, "Hashem is close to all those that pray to him, provided that it is with sincerity". Imagine the wayfarer going on the road with his family in a wagon with horses. He sincerely asks Hashem that it shouldn't rain, fearing what might happen to his family on the muddy roads. Should it begin to rain, he starts crying and beseeching Hashem with all sincerity that it should stop. (I once heard from Rav Shraga Moshe Kalmanowitz Shlit"a about the power of tears. The Gemoro in B'rachos says "All the gates [of prayer] are closed [at some point] except the gates of tears. "Rav Kalmanowitz explained that there are two ways to open a gate, either with a key or with an ax. Tears are just like an ax that bust down the gate and lets your prayer through.) Now since Hashem listens to a sincere Tefillah, He should really listen to this one, despite the fact that it is bad for the general populace who needs the rain. The only possible way to try to counteract this sincere Tefillah, is by including it in that exclusive Tefillah on Yom Kippur. (This idea can be found in Yalkut Lekach Tov - Bamidbar pg. 181 in the name of the Alter of Kelm-Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv.)

If this is the power of a sincere tefillah for the wrong thing, it surely is a very strong force when it's for the right thing.

13) The problem is as usual, that it's not easy to do a lot of these things. I therefore refer you to the sicha "The Importance Of Tefillah", for a lesson on how not to be lazy.

I will also tell you over a Moshol that I heard over from my Rebbi in the name of Rav Zeidel Epstein Shlit"a, (also can be found in my sicha "How To Listen To A Sicha"). A person had to make a 2,000 mile trip in his car, but the road was pitch dark with no lights. Fearful to drive in the dark, his friend advised him to first put on his headlights, thus lighting up the way. The driver was still reluctant. "How could the beam of the headlights which reach only a few hundred feet, light up a 2000 mile road"? He Asked. The friend responded "Let it first shine just a few hundred feet, after traveling those first few hundred feet, the headlights will light up the next few hundred feet. In this manner you'll be able to complete the journey safely".

The same idea can be used for all these concepts. Nobody changes completely overnight. Don't look at it as all or nothing. Take it step by step, a little at a time.

14) I will conclude with a true story that I heard from my Rebbi. When he first came to establish Neveh at a Moshav called Beit Yehoshua there was an existing one story building. He desired to add another story to it, but was advised against it. "The building might collapse", he was told by the Moshav people. "The foundation is strong enough to hold only one story, not two". This statement taught my Rebbe an important lesson for life. When building a good Jewish family, all depends on the strength of the foundation that we build at a young age. It's very hard to strengthen the foundation after the building has begun.

In summation, we must do the following; listen to all these things, minimize the tests, listen to the sichot, (especially on how not to lose it) daven with sincerity, know the enemy and not underestimate him. With these, we can beat him and live a happier life in this world and the next.
List of Rabbi Price's sichot
Back to Neveh Homepage

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 52 - Purpose of a Mechitza

The Gemora states that originally during the simchas beis hashoevah, the men and the women were not separated completely and it led to levity. The Gemora relates that a balcony was created to separate the men and the women. The men remained in the azarah and the women went to the balcony.

Harav Moshe Feinstein (O"C 1:39) states that the primary purpose of a mechitza is not to prevent the men from looking at the women. He proves this from our Gemora which states that the balcony was erected due to lightheadedness which occured between the men and the women. He further states that the balcony which was constructed did not consist of a dividing wall and in actuality, the women could still be seen. While it is true that the men directly underneath the balcony could not see the women, the men in the middle would be able to see. The purpose of the balcony was to prevent intermingling and frivolty.

Rav Moshe rules that the most preferable mechitza in a Shul would be a balcony. If that is not possible a dividing wall should be erected at least eighteen tefachim high. This will not prevent the women from being seen, however it will prevent intermingling and levity.

The Rambam in his explanation to the Mishna here does seem to indicate that the balcony was constructed in order to prevent the men from seeing the women. In his explanation to the Mishna in Middos, the Rambam states that it was erected due to the concern of intermingling amongst the men and women.

The Tosfos Yom Tov states that those under the balcony could not see the women and those that were dancing in the middle were righteous and saintly and therefore there was no need to be concerned.

This is quite perplexing as we know the yetzer hora can never be underestimated. There is a well known story told about Rav Elya Lopian. Rabbi Shlomo Price relates it here.

Despite being such a big Tzaddik when it came to immorality Rav Elya Lopian was extremely apprehensive. This is illustrated in the following story (Lev Eliyahu B'reishis p. 13).

A talmid asked permission to go to a wedding. Rav Lopian asked him if there would be any immoral scenes (he didn't mean a bellydancer but whether or not the women would be dressed modestly). The talmid, knowing that there would be a problem, started to rationalize by saying that he would be seated at a special table with his parents…. He concluded by saying, "It won't have an effect on me. "This last statement disturbed Rav Lopian very much. He turned to the talmid and he said, "Listen, I'm already over eighty years old, and blind in one eye, yet despite this when I walk in the street I'm full of fear lest I stumble into seeing immorality. You! a young boy with two good eyes, how can you tell me that it won't have an effect on you?"

He then added a few sharp words which the author refused to print. I was told in the name of Rav Shalom Shwadron Shlit"a that he asked him for his mother's name and saying, "You must be sick, I'm going to make a "Mi Shebeirach" (prayer for a sick person) for you."

The Piskei HaRid learns that there was a wall that was constructed in a manner that the men could not see the women but the women were still able to see the men (one way glass, perhaps?).

Rabbi Doniel Neustadt discusses the halachic aspects of this issue and cites our Gemora as the source here.

MECHITZAH IN SHUL: WHY AND HOW?

The halachah that requires men to be separated from women while davening in shul has its origins in the procedure followed in the Beis ha-Mikdash. Our Sages in the Mishnah(1) report that a major "adjustment" was made in the Beis ha-Mikdash during the festive holiday of Succos. The Talmud explains that the adjustment consisted of building a balcony over the men's section so that the women could witness the festivities of Simchas beis ha-shoeivah. Had they stood where they normally did, the mingling of the crowds and the festive holiday air would have led to kalus rosh, excessive frivolity. The Talmud attests that the need for a balcony was so pressing that its construction was approved even though it is generally prohibited to expand or modify the original structure of the Beis ha-Mikdash. The Biblical source for the separation of men and women, says the Talmud, is found in the verse in Zecharyah in which the prophet foretells the eulogy of Mashiach ben Yosef, where men and women will be seated separately. If separate seating is required even at so solemn an affair as a eulogy, how much more so must separate seating be required on a joyous occasion!

Following the example set by our Sages in the Beis ha-Mikdash, the age-old tradition has been to make a clear division and a separation between the main sanctuary and the women's section. Some shuls built a balcony, like the Beis ha-Mikdash had, while others constructed a thick wall that completely separated the two sections. This arrangement was so taken for granted, so undisputed, that it is not even explicitly cited in the Shulchan Aruch as a requirement(2). About a hundred years ago, when some shuls in Germany and Hungary began to question the need for a mechitzah, all the leading rabbis(3) strictly prohibited davening in any shul that lowered or removed the traditional separation between the two sections.

With the mass immigration of Jews to the United States in the late 1800's, many modern synagogues did not insist upon a mechitzah that completely blocked off the women's section. First Reform and Conservative temples, and then even more traditional ones, began to openly defy our hallowed tradition and gradually lowered or removed the barrier which separated the men from the women. The following questions were then posed to the venerable poskim in the U.S.: Is this practice justified? Is a mechitzah halachically required? How high does a mechitzah have to be?

REASON FOR THE BALCONY IN THE BEIS HA-MIKDASH

In order to answer these questions correctly, we must first examine what, exactly, was the purpose of the balcony in the Beis ha-Mikdash. We explained earlier that a balcony was constructed to prevent kalus rosh, excessive frivolity. The Talmud does not, however, elaborate on how the separation was effective in guaranteeing that kalus rosh did not prevail. There are two possible ways to understand this:

A.Kalus rosh prevails when the men can freely gaze at the women. It interferes with their concentration and profanes the sanctity of the Beis ha-Mikdash. By seating the women on a balcony over the men's section, the men can no longer view the women(4). To accomplish this purpose, the balcony was constructed in one of two ways: 1) The men's section was directly underneath the balcony, hidden from the women's line of vision. The women were nevertheless able to see a small clearing in the middle of the men's section where the few dancers would perform(5). (The majority of the men did not actively participate in the festivities; they were merely spectators(6).) 2) The balcony was built above the sides of the men's section, but it was enclosed with a curtain or a one-way mirror. This permitted the women to watch the men from above but completely blocked the men's view of the women(7).

B.Kalus rosh prevails when men and women are free to mix socially with one another. By relegating the women to a balcony and physically separating them from "mixing" with the men, the proper decorum and sanctity of the Beis ha-Mikdash was duly preserved(8). According to this understanding, then, the balcony did not completely block the men's view. Rather, it separated the two sections and prevented the men and women from communicating or interacting with each other in any way.

The question, then, as it applies to present day mechitzos, is as follows: Do we follow the first interpretation and require a mechitzah that completely blocks the men's view, or is it sufficient to have a mechitzah that divides the two sections in a way that prevents frivolity?

THE TWO VIEWS OF THE POSKIM

There are two schools of thought among contemporary authorities as to the practical halachah. Many poskim(9) hold that the purpose of the mechitzah is that the men should not be able to view the women. Accordingly: The mechitzah must be high enough to completely block the entire women's section.

The mechitzah must be made entirely from an opaque material. Glass, flowers and decorative wood slats are not acceptable for any part of the mechitzah. Even a balcony must be completely encircled by a curtain, etc.

As stated previously, this practice was universally accepted, wherever Jews davened. The women's section, whether in the balcony or at the back of the shul, was totally separated from the men's. Such a separation was a fundamental feature of shul architecture, as basic as positioning the amud at the front of the shul and a bimah in the middle. It was and still is part of the standard model for a Jewish place of worship.

Harav M. Feinstein(10), however, after establishing that the basic requirement for separating men and women during prayer services is a Biblical obligation, holds that the basic halachah follows the second approach that we mentioned earlier. Although he agrees that it is commendable and praiseworthy to maintain the age-old traditional mechitzah, he nevertheless rules that the widespread practice of many shuls to lower the mechitzah somewhat is permitted according to the basic halachah. As long as the mechitzah is high enough to effectively block out any communication or interaction between the men's and women's sections, it is a halachically valid mechitzah. Accordingly:

1. The minimum height for a mechitzah is shoulder-high, which the Talmud(11) calculates to be 17 to 18 tefachim high. Allowing for a difference of opinion concerning the exact size of a tefach, Harav Feinstein rules that a 66-inch mechitzah is permitted(12), while in extenuating circumstances 60 inches will suffice(13). Any mechitzah lower than that, however, is not considered a mechitzah at all.
2. A balcony does not need to be encircled with a partition or a curtain. It is preferable and recommended, however, to do so if possible(14).
3. Although, technically, the upper part of the mechitzah may be made out of glass since it serves as a physical barrier between the sections, it is self-defeating and inadequate to use glass, as many women, unfortunately, come to shul improperly dressed and /or with their hair not covered properly(15).
4. A mechitzah which has sizable gaps towards the top is not acceptable since it does not effectively guard against kalus rosh(16). A mechitzah which has tiny openings in the lattice work is permitted(17).
5. The mechitzah must reach the required height (60") in both the men's and women's sections. Raising the floor of the women's section-which in effect lowers the height of the mechitzah-defeats the purpose of the mechitzah(18).

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 51 - Highlights

1. The Gemara cites a dispute regarding who held the musical instruments when the Leviim were singing the sacrificial songs. Rabbi Meir maintains that servants of the Kohanim held the musical instruments and Rabbi Yose maintains that Israelites with pure lineage held the musical instruments. Rabbi Chanina Ben Antignos maintains that the Leviim themselves held the musical instruments. The practical difference regarding who played the musical instruments is whether we elevate the status of one who sang on a platform in the Courtyard of the Bais HaMikdash to the level of one who was genealogically fit and that he could receive Maaser. (51a1)
2. Rabbi Yirmiyah bar Abbah maintains that the dispute between the Tanaaim regarding the musical instruments overriding Shabbos refers to the song at the Simchas Bais Hashoeva. Everyone would agree, however, that the instruments used to accompany the sacrificial song would certainly override Shabbos. (51a1-51a2)
3. The Mishna states one who did not see the joy of the Simchas Bais Hashoeva was never witness to true joy in his life. On the second night of Sukkos they would enter the courtyard of the Bais HaMikdash and light candelabra that were very high and the light from the candelabra would illuminate the entire Jerusalem. They would use the worn out trousers and belts of the Kohanim for the wicks. The pious and saintly people would dance and juggle torches in the center and sing songs of praise to HaShem. The Leviim would play with various musical instruments and the Kohanim would sound trumpets in various locations throughout the courtyard. The Mishnah states that the Kohanim would declare that they are not sun worshippers. Rather, they worshipped Kah, i.e. HaShem. (51a3-51b1)
4. The Gemara states that one who did not witness the glory of Jerusalem never saw a beautiful city in his lifetime. If one did not see the Bais HaMikdash when it stood, he never saw a glorious edifice in his life. This refers to the Bais HaMikdash that was built by King Herod. It was fashioned with stones of green, blue and white marble and it gave the appearance of the ocean waves. This edifice was so beautiful that had Herod plated it with gold it would have detracted from its beauty. (51b2)
5. The Gemara states that the synagogue in Alexandria was a sight to behold and there was once a time when the synagogue accommodated one million and two hundred thousand people. The Gemara relates that ultimately the entire Jewish community was killed by Alexander of Macedon, and the reason they were punished so harshly is because they violated the biblical prohibition not to return to Egypt. (51b2-51b3)
6. The Gemara states that in the magnificent synagogue of Alexandria, a bimah, a wooden platform, was located in the center of the synagogue and the sexton would stand there and wave a flag to notify the congregation that they should answer amen. (51b2)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 51 - Worn Out Trousers

by Rabbi Yosef Dov Karr

Tosfos wonders why they used the worn out trousers and belts of the Kohanim for the wicks. Why did they not use the worn out Kesones, the shirt worn by the Kohen? Perhaps one could answer based upon the Gemara in Zevachim which states that the pants worn by the Kohen atoned for the sin of arayos, immorality, and the belt atoned for improper thoughts of the heart. When they performed the nissuch hamayim, the drawing of the water, there was a large gathering of men and women who would mingle together and the Chachamim were concerned about the men having improper thoughts and there was a general concern about the mingling. It was precisely for this reason that they erected a balcony to keep the men and women separate. The Kesones, however, atoned for the sin of murder which was not relevant at the performance of the nissuch hamayim.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 51 - Sun Worshippers

by Rabbi Yosef Dov Karr

The Mishna states that the Kohanim would declare that they are not sun worshippers but instead worship Kah, i.e. HaShem. It is difficult to understand why they would need to declare this. Perhaps one could answer that the Kohanim intended to teach us a lesson. They were saying, "Do not worship HaShem in the same manner as the sun, i.e. by rote." The Sun rises in the east and sets in the west daily in the same manner. We, however, should pray with proper kavanah, and not merely by rote.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 51 - Bimah in the Center

The Gemora states that in this magnificent Beis hakneses in Alexandria, the bimmah was located in the middle of the Beis Hakneses and the gabbai would stand there and wave a flag when it was time for the congregation to respond with saying amen. (There is a big halachic discussion regarding answering amen when the blessing was not heard and also answering amen some time after the chazan finished reciting the brocha. We might have time to post on these issues. If anyone has any information for us on this topic (or any topic for that matter), we would greatly appreciate it if you sent it to us. Thank you.)

The Rambam in Hilchos Tefillah (11:3)rules that the bimah should be in the center of the shul in order for the congregation to be able to hear the chazan and the Rav (what a concept!).

The Kesef Mishna writes that perhaps we can judge favorably those Shuls that have the bimah in the back by saying that nowadays that the Shuls are small in comparison with those from previous generations, it is not necessary to have the bimah in the center.

The Chasam Sofer proves from our Gemora not like this. In Alexandria, the bimah was in the middle of the Beis Hakneses even though the chazan was not heard anyways.

Perhaps we can answer this question by saying that the bimah should be in the center to give the opportunity for the most possible people to hear. In Alexandria, it was so large that not everyone was able to hear, but that was their intention.

The Chasam Sofer states that the reason for the bimah in the center is because the bimah is regarded as the mizbeach since we read the parshiyos of the korbanos there. This is why we circle the bimah with the lulav and esrog. The inside mizbeach was located between the menorah and the shulchan. Therefore the Chasam Sofer rules that any size Shul must always have the bimah in the center.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 51 - Returning to Egypt

The Gemora states that the Bais Hakneses in Alexandria was a sight to behold and was able to contain 600,000 Jews at one time. The Gemora relates that there was a tragic ending as they were all killed by Alexander Mokdon. The reason given is because they violated the commandment in the Torah of returning to Mitzrayim.

The Rishonim and Acharonim deal with the issue of people presently living in Mitzrayim. How is this permissible?

We discussed this question before and it is always an interesting one, so we will post what we wrote on Yoma 38 and more.

Nikinor went to get the doors for the azarah from Alexandria, Egypt. The Ritva asks that there is a prohibition in the Torah to go back to Mitzrayim? He answers that this applies only if his intent is to dwell there, but for businees it will be permitted. He proceeds to ask on the Rambam and others who lived in Mitzrayim on a permanent basis? The Rishonim give different answers on this question. Some say that the cities were destroyed and rebuilt and therefore the issur does not apply. The סמג answers that סנחריב mixed up the world and the people living there are not מצריים and the reason behind the prohibition is not to emulate the Egyptians actions. Reb Eliexer MiMitz answers that the issur is only if one goes back to Mitzrayim in the same way Bnei yisroel left there. (That could explain how the passuk in the תוכחה says that Hashem will take us back there on ships, for that is not the way we left.) The Ritva concludes that the prohibition is only when Klal Yisroel are all living in Eretz Yisroel, however now that there is a decree of exile, all lands are equal. The גבורת ארי seems to hold that it is אסור even nowadays. The חידא says that there is a מקור to what the Ritva says from the Arizal. It is brought down in some seforim that the Rambam used to sign his name "I am Moshe the son of Maimon who is transgressing three aveiros every day." Obviously, he held that under the conditions, he was compelled to stay.

David said...

The statement of the rambam you refer to ( " transgress 3 aveiros every day") has been conclusively proven to be the stuff of legend. There is a very good annotated edition of the letters of the Rambam, edited by R. Daniel Shilat, and none of them contain this. I suppose it is theoreticaly still possible that the Rambam woudl have once written it, buit if he did, it was only an anomaly, and not a practice of his. At any rate, of his many surviving letters, none of them say this.

Reb Dave, can you give us the sources for this conclusive proof?

Rabbi Solovetchik answers this question on the Rambam differently. He states that in those days, Mitzrayim was a haven for the Karaaim and they were convincing many Jewish families to convert to their way of life. The Rambam went to Mitzrayim to save these Jews from the Karaaim's missionary tactics and it is well documented that the Rambam saved many families who remained G-d fearing Jews.

In a footnote to the sefer, a student explains that Rabbi solovetchik did not mean that the permissibility of the Rabmam to live in Mitzrayim was hatzolas nefoshos which overrides all prohibitions, rather the issur of returning to Mitzrayim is only if one's intention is to dwell there, but to go to conduct business will be permitted. Travelling to Mitzrayim with the intention of saving Jewish sould is no worse than going for business purposes and therefore will be permitted.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 50 - Snake Venom

The Gemora rules that water which has been exposed cannot be used for the mizbeach. We are concerned that a snake drank from it and left it's venom there. Something that a Yisroel will not drink cannot be used for the mizbeach.

The Gemora states that even according to Rabbi Nechemia who generally rules that if one used a strainer on the water it would be permitted, nevertheless pertaining to water which will be poured on the mizbeach, our standards are stricter and hence the water would be unfit to be used. The Gemora cites a verse in Malachai indicating that we are more concerned when we are offering something as a korban to Hashem.

The Ritva quotes from the Gaonim that this Gemora is a proof that the oil which is used in a Bais Hakneses should be oil that would be proper to use in front of king. Shulchan Aruch rules that if a mouse or weasel is found in the oil, if it seems disgusting, the oil should not be used. The Magen Avrohom writes that this is even if it would be permitted for a commoner to eat, nevertheless for the Bais Hakneses it would be prohibited. The Rashba in Toras Habayis disagrees and maintains that if it would be permitted to eat, it can be used in the Bais Hakneses.

It is noteworthy that Shulchan Aruch (272:1) rules that even though snake venom is not common nowadays thereby permitting one to drink uncovered wine, nevertheless one should not recite kiddush on Shabbos using such wine.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 50 - Was the Kiyor Covered?

Rabbi Dovid Meyers is the world's authority on the precise appearance of all the utensils that were used in the Mishkan. He told me that all the pictures of the kiyor have it with a cover, but he searched and could not locate a proof for this. Rav Getzel Fried cited a proof to him. The Gemora rules that if the water of the kiyor was revealed, it was left over night uncovered, the water cannot be used. The reason is because we are concerned that a snake drank from the water and left some of it's venom in there. Something that a Yisroel cannot dring is unfit to be used on the mizbeach. It is evident from this Gemora that the kiyor normally had a cover. It is still not known what it's dimensions were, but it certainly was covered.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 49 - Highlights

1. The Sadducees did not agree with the mitzvah of nissuch hamayim, the water libations, because it is not stated explicitly in the Torah. The Mishna relates that a Sadducee once poured the libation water on his feet instead of pouring the water into the designated bowl and the people stoned him with their esrogim. Rashi learns that they also pelted him with stones and as a result the mizbeiach became chipped. They patched the mizbeiach with a fistful of salt and although the mizbeiach was still unfit for the avodah, they did this to conceal the damage that had been wrought. (48b4)
2. The mizbeiach is required to have the ramp, the four horns on top of the mizbeiach, a base and it must be shaped in a square in order to be valid. Rabbi Yose maintains that in order to be valid, it must also have the sovev, which was a ledge on top of the second section of the mizbeiach which was thirty by thirty amos with a height of five amos. The ledge was extended one amah from each side and the kohanim would walk on the ledge to perform specific avodos. (49a1)
3. Beneath the mizbeiach was a deep opening corresponding to the location where the libations were poured. The Kohen would pour the libation into the bowl, and the libation would then flow from the spout of the bowl onto the mizbeiach and then the libation would flow into a hole in the mizbeiach that led to the deep opening known as the shisin. The shisin existed since the six days of creation. (49a1)
4. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that there was a small gap between the ramp and the mizbeiach near the western side of the ramp and once in seventy years the Kohanim youth would go down there and gather up the congealed wine from the libations, and the congealed wine was akin to pressed figs. They would then burn the wine in a holy location in the Courtyard of the Bais HaMikdash. (49a2-49a3)
5. When they poured the wine on the mizbeiach, they would plug up the hole on top of the mizbeiach which led to the shisin. They did this so the wine would gather on top and it would appear like a throat that is full with wine. This practice is derived from the verse that states and its libation is…. to be poured on the holy [mizbeiach] an intoxicating (sheichar) libation for HaShem. The word sheichar denotes intoxication, and the plugged up hole gave the appearance of a throat full with wine. (49b1-49b2)
6. The Gemara cites a verse in Shir HaShirim that states mah yafu peomayich baneolim bas nadiv, how lovely are your steps in sandals, O daughter of the noble? The Gemara explains that this verse refers to the lovely steps of the Jewish People when they ascended to Jerusalem for the festival. The words bas nadiv refer to Avrohom Avinu who is referred to as the nadiv, the noble one. (49b2)
7. Scripture likens the words of the Torah to the thigh, as just as the thigh is a private area, so too one should study Torah discreetly. Thus, one should not study at the high point of the city and one should not teach his students in the marketplace. (49b2)
8. The Gemara learns a kal vachomer. Funerals and weddings are normally public affairs, yet the Torah exhorts us to perform them discretely, then certainly regarding private matters, such as giving charity to the poor, one should act discreetly. (49b3)
9. The Gemara expounds on the merits of giving charity, as one who gives charity is greater that one who offers sacrifices. Yet, one who performs kindness is greater than one who gives charity. Charity is only regarded according to the kindness that one exhibits when giving the charity. (49b3)
10. One who performs kindness is greater than one who gives charity because charity is done with money whereas kindness can be performed with ones person and with ones money. Furthermore, charity is only received by the poor whereas one can exhibit kindness to both the poor and the rich. Lastly, only the living can be recipients of charity, whereas both the living and the dead can be recipients of kindness. (49b3-49b4)
11. One who performs charity properly is deemed to have filled the entire world with kindness. However, one must exert himself to attain this level of giving charity. Yet, those who fear HaShem can reach this level easier than others. One who finds favor in the eyes of man is known to be a G-d-fearing person. (49b4)
12. Torah that is studied lishmah, for its own sake, is referred to as Torah of kindness, whereas Torah that is not studied for its own sake is not referred to as Torah of kindness. Alternatively, Torah that one studies with the intent of teaching others is deemed to be Torah of kindness, whereas Torah that one studies without the intention of teaching others is not deemed to be Torah of kindness. (49b4)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 49 - Spiritual ascent to Jerusalem

The Gemara cites a verse in Shir HaShirim that states mah yafu peomayich baneolim bas nadiv, how lovely are your steps in sandals, O daughter of the noble? The Gemara explains that this verse refers to the lovely steps of the Jewish People when they ascended to Jerusalem for the festival. Rabbeinu Bachye in Parashas Mishpatim cites a Medrash that states that when the Torah instructs the Jewish People to ascend three times a year to Jerusalem, it is said shalosh peamim and shalosh regalim, which literally mean three times. In Yeshaya it is said tirmisenah ragel raglei ani paamei dalim, it is trampled underfoot: the feet of the poor, the soles of the meek. From the verse in Shir HaShirim we derive a law that one is only allowed to ascend to Jerusalem for the three times a year pilgrimage by foot and one is forbidden to ascend in any other manner. This law is derived from the fact that Scripture uses the words peomayich and neolim, which allude to one walking as opposed to traveling on an animal or in a wagon. It is noteworthy that the Sfas Emes explains that the concept of neilas hachag, the traditional festive meal that is eaten at the end of the three festivals, is based on this verse in Shir HaShirim. The word baneolim alludes to the lock, i.e. the safeguarding of the festival. Perhaps we can extend this idea further, based on what the Sfas Emes writes elsewhere that the word regel alludes to the physical and what a person performs by rote. On a festival, however, one should take the physical acts that he is engaged in and he should make a manul, i.e. a lock to it. When one is ascending in a physical sense to Jerusalem, he should essentially trample the regel, i.e. he should negate the physical and capture the spirituality of the festival. One should trample the feet of the poor, i.e. the poor in knowledge, who until now was starving for a spiritual ascent. One should trample the soles of the meek, i.e. the one who until now was not courageous enough to ascend the spiritual ladder should cast away his physical existence and conduct himself on a spiritual plane. This was the focus of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, as one “rose” above the physicality of this world and acquired spiritual gains on the festivals.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 49 - Pilgrimage with Shoes Only

The Gemara cites a verse in Shir HaShirim that states mah yafu peomayich baneolim bas nadiv, how lovely are your steps in sandals, O daughter of the noble? The Gemara explains that this verse refers to the lovely steps of the Jewish People when they ascended to Jerusalem for the festival. The words bas nadiv refer to Avrohom Avinu who is referred to as the nadiv, the noble one. What is the connection between the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Avrohom Avinu? The Mahretz Chayus in his responsa (7) quotes Rabbeinu Bachye in Parshas Mishpatim who cites a Medrash that states that from the verse in Shir HaShirim we derive a law that one is only allowed to ascend to Jerusalem for the three times a year pilgrimage by foot and one is forbidden to ascend in any other manner. This law is derived from the fact that Scripture uses the words peomayich and neolim, which allude to one walking as opposed to traveling on an animal or in a wagon. The Mahretz Chayus writes that he was not able to locate the source of this Medrash. The Mahretz Chayus also cites the Yerushalmi in Pesachim (4:7) that would indicate that the law is the opposite of the Medrash that is quoted by Rabbeinu Bachye. There is a dispute between Rabbi Yose and the Tanna Kamma if a leather craftsman is permitted to work on Erev Pesach. Rabbi Yose permits them to work because the people who were making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem needed to have their shoes and sandals fixed in honor of the festival. The Tanna Kamma disagrees and maintains that it was not necessary to have leather craftsmen as the Jewish People were wealthy and they all ascended to Jerusalem by riding on animals. This discussion indicates that it was permitted to ascend to Jerusalem by riding on an animal and walking was not the only permitted means of transportation. Rav Elyashiv heard from a Torah scholar who said that whether the halacha is in accordance with Rabbeinu Bachye that one could only ascend to Jerusalem by foot or whether it was merely the poor people who ascended by foot, it is evident from the Yerushalmi that there was a concern that people required shoes in order to fulfill the mitzvah. In all likelihood, this concern would have resulted in a collection for the poor prior to the festival , similar to a collection of food that was orchestrated on behalf of the poor. Perhaps it is for this reason that the Gemara mentions Avrohom Avinu regarding the pilgrimage. The character of kindness displayed by the Jewish People is an inheritance from Avrohom Avinu and in a sense, it was Avraham Avinu who catalyzed the outpouring of kindness that the Jewish People demonstrated when the Jewish People ascended to Jerusalem for the festivals.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 48 - Throw the book at him!

The Mishna relates that a Sadducee, who was from a group of Jews who denied the authenticity of the Oral Law, poured the water on his feet instead of pouring the water into the bowl, and all the people threw their esrogim at him. Why did they choose to throw their esrogim at him? Were they attempting to kill him? If he was truly liable the death penalty, throwing esrogim was definitely not the prescribed method for stoning a sinner. Perhaps the reason that they pelted him with esrogim is because the Sadducees denied the validity of the Oral Law and they only subscribed to the terse meaning of the Written Law. Regarding the esrog, the Torah only states that one is required to take a pri eitz hadar, which is literally translated as a beautiful looking fruit. The Gemara teaches us from various expositions that the fruit that the Torah refers to is the esrog, and this is a Sinaitic tradition. Thus, the people pelted the Sadducee with esrogim to demonstrate that he had denied the validity of the Oral Law and they upheld the belief in the Oral Law.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 48 - Highlights

1. The Mishna rules that one recites Hallel all eight days of Sukkos including Shemini Atzeres. There is an obligation to offer a korban shelamim and eat its meat for all eight days. The Gemara learns from the verse that states vhoyisa ach sameach, and you shall be nothing but joyous, that there is an obligation for one to be joyous on the night of Shemini Atzeres. There is a contradiction in the words of Rashi if this obligation also applies to Shemini Atzeres by day. (48a1)
2. The Mishna rules that one is required to sit and sleep in the Sukkah for all seven days of Sukkos. One should not dismantle his Sukkah on the seventh day. Rather, he should bring the utensils from the Sukkah into his house to prepare for Shemini Atzeres. (48a2)
3. The Gemara states that if one does not have any other place to eat besides the Sukkah, he should remove four tefachim of s’chach, thus disqualifying the Sukkah. This should not be done by those who reside outside Eretz Yisroel where there is an obligation to sit in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres, because there is a concern that the eighth day is really the seventh day. The solution for those who reside outside of Eretz Yisroel is either to light a candle inside a small Sukkah or to bring soiled dishes into a large Sukkah, thus demonstrating that he no longer wishes to fulfill the mitzvah of dwelling in the Sukkah. (48a2-48a3)
4. The Mishna explains the process of the water libations that are performed on the mizbeiach on Sukkos. A golden jug that could contain three lugin would be brought from the Shiloach, a spring outside Jerusalem. As they approached the Water Gate of the Bais HaMikdash, they would sound the shofar. The Kohen walked up the ramp and turned towards the left of the mizbeiach where there were two silver bowls, one used for the water and one for the wine. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the bowls were made from plaster but they appeared black because of the wine. The bowl with the thick spout was used for wine and the bowl with the thin spout was used for the water and in this manner, the water and the wine would finish draining simultaneously. The Mishna rules that if the wine was poured into the jug that was designated for water or if the water was poured into the jug that was designated for wine, it is still valid. (48a3-48a4-48b1)
5. Rabbi Yehudah disagrees with the Chachamim regarding two aspects of the libation ceremony. First, Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the jug contained only one lug and second, Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the water libation was performed on the seven days of Sukkos and on Shemini Atzeres. (48b1)
6. The Mishna relates that a Sadducee, who was from a group of Jews who denied the authenticity of the Oral Law, poured the water on his feet instead of pouring the water into the bowl, and all the people threw their esrogim at him. (48b1)
7. The Gemara states that the Kohen would normally walk up the mizbeiach and he would turn towards the right. The three exceptions to this procedure were when the Kohen would perform the water libation, the wine libation, and the avodah with the blood for the bird olah, when there was an excess of bird olos and there were too many kohanim who had congregated on the east side of the mizbeiach. In those cases the Kohen would walk up the mizbeiach towards the left and after completing his task, he would go down the way he had ascended. (48b3).

Read more!