Subscribe
Daily Daf Dose
The Gemora proceeds to discuss the other part of the incident that transpired with Rav in Bavel. Rav was in Bavel on a public fast day. When the congregation fell on their faces to recite tachanun, Rav did not fall on his face.
The Gemora asks: Why didn’t Rav fall on his face to recite tachanun?
The Gemora answers: It was a stone floor and there is a biblical prohibition against prostrating oneself upon stones except in the Beis Hamikdosh.
The Gemora asks: The entire congregation should have avoided falling on the floor as well?
The Gemora answers: The stones were only in front of Rav.
The Gemora persists: Rav should have went to where everyone else was and fall there?
The Gemora answers: Rav did not want to burden the congregation by walking past them; they would be compelled to stand up for him (out of respect).
The sefer Reach Dudaim comments: Although prostrating during tachanun is a mitzva, Rebbe did not want to burden the congregation to stand up for him. This was not an act of piety on Rebbe’s account since it involved a leniency in his own mitzva; rather it is preferable according to halacha to be mevatel some specifics of the mitzva and not disrupt the congregation.
Reb Yitzchak Zilberstein makes a correlation between this Gemora and the following shaila: A congregation does not begin the tefillah until the Rabbi enters the synagogue. The Rabbi was walking to the synagogue when he realized that he had forgotten his lulav and esrog in his house. Should he reverse himself to get the lulav and esrog in order to have them by Hallel or would the time it would take be an unnecessary burden on his congregation? Rav did not perform the mitzva of tachanun in its proper way because he was concerned of burdening the congregation, so here too, the Rabbi should not cause the congregation to wait for him even though it will diminish somewhat his mitzva of Hallel.
However, he concludes that perhaps tachanun is different. The Tur writes (O”C 131) that tachanun is not an obligation like other portions of tefillah and this is why it is not recited when a choson (groom) is there. That is why Rav conceded part of the tachanun on the account of the congregation. This principle would not have been applicable if tachanun was compulsory. Shaking the lulav and esrog during the recital of Hallel is an essential part of the mitzva of the lulav and esrog and perhaps would override the burdening on the congregation.
The Gemora asks: Why didn’t Rav fall on his face to recite tachanun?
The Gemora answers: It was a stone floor and there is a biblical prohibition against prostrating oneself upon stones except in the Beis Hamikdosh.
The Gemora asks: The entire congregation should have avoided falling on the floor as well?
The Gemora answers: The stones were only in front of Rav.
The Gemora persists: Rav should have went to where everyone else was and fall there?
The Gemora answers: Rav did not want to burden the congregation by walking past them; they would be compelled to stand up for him (out of respect).
The sefer Reach Dudaim comments: Although prostrating during tachanun is a mitzva, Rebbe did not want to burden the congregation to stand up for him. This was not an act of piety on Rebbe’s account since it involved a leniency in his own mitzva; rather it is preferable according to halacha to be mevatel some specifics of the mitzva and not disrupt the congregation.
Reb Yitzchak Zilberstein makes a correlation between this Gemora and the following shaila: A congregation does not begin the tefillah until the Rabbi enters the synagogue. The Rabbi was walking to the synagogue when he realized that he had forgotten his lulav and esrog in his house. Should he reverse himself to get the lulav and esrog in order to have them by Hallel or would the time it would take be an unnecessary burden on his congregation? Rav did not perform the mitzva of tachanun in its proper way because he was concerned of burdening the congregation, so here too, the Rabbi should not cause the congregation to wait for him even though it will diminish somewhat his mitzva of Hallel.
However, he concludes that perhaps tachanun is different. The Tur writes (O”C 131) that tachanun is not an obligation like other portions of tefillah and this is why it is not recited when a choson (groom) is there. That is why Rav conceded part of the tachanun on the account of the congregation. This principle would not have been applicable if tachanun was compulsory. Shaking the lulav and esrog during the recital of Hallel is an essential part of the mitzva of the lulav and esrog and perhaps would override the burdening on the congregation.
5 comments:
>>>Shaking the lulav and esrog during the recital of Hallel is an essential part of the mitzva of the lulav and esrog
Why is this essential considering that you are yotzei the mitzvah of lulav just by picking it up?
The Acharonim cite several proofs that the mitzvah of waving the lulav is an integral part of the mitzvah of lulav. One proof is from our Gemara that states that a father is obligated to train his child who is a minor in the mitzvah of lulav when the child knows how to wave the lulav. The proof is from the fact that the Gemara did not state that the obligation begins when the minor knows how to hold the lulav. Rather, the Gemara states that the obligation begins only when the child knows how to wave the lulav.Further proof to this thesis is from the Gemara that we learned earlier that states that a lulav must be four tefachim in height to allow one to wave the lulav. The commentators discuss which waving the Gemara refers to. Is it the waving one performs when reciting the blessing on the lulav or is it the waving that is performed when reciting Hallel?
shulchan aruch 551 :1 nanuim are important
shibolei haleket 367: one cannot pick up a lulav w/o shaking it to be mekayem the mitzva
there should be a brisker Rav also that discusses this
>>>One proof is from our Gemara that states that a father is obligated to train his child who is a minor in the mitzvah of lulav when the child knows how to wave the lulav.
All that proves is that the shiur of chinuch is when the child can do the mitzvah with the additional hiddurim trappings; it doesn't prove that those additional hiddurim are part of the mitzvah itself.
The Shibolei haLeket is on the picking up - wasn't your post about na'anuim specifically during hallel?
if na'anuim are needed for chinuch, that indicates that it is more than a hiddur, btu integral to the mitzva, otherwise, why would that be necessary for chinuch?
Post a Comment