An Idolatrous Name

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel (Daf Yomi: Gittin 34b): The Jews from abroad sent to Rabban Gamliel the following inquiry: If a man comes here from Eretz Yisroel whose true name is Yosef, but who is known here as Yochanan, or whose name is Yochanan, but who is known here as Yosef, how can he divorce his wife? Rabban Gamliel thereupon stood up and decreed that they should write in the get, “This man So-and-so or by whatever names he is known,” “This woman So-and-so or by whatever names she is known,” in order to benefit the public.

They asked Rabbeinu Tam regarding a Jew who worships idols and he divorced his wife with a get which had only his Jewish name written on it, and not his idolatrous name. What is the status of such a get?

He answered: Heaven forbid to even mention an idolatrous name on a get which is written according to the law of Moshe and all of Israel!

The Ra”dach in his response explains that his idolatrous name is not regarded as his name at all, and if that would be the only name written on the get, it would be as if the get would be written without the name of the divorcing husband.

However, Reb Yosef Engel notes that from the language of Rabbeinu Tam, it would seem that there is a different explanation. It is on account of the sanctity of the get that his idolatrous name cannot be written.

And the Rad”vaz in his response writes like that as well. He says that any holy scroll, such as a Sefer Torah, Tefillin, or Mezuzah, where there lies an obligation that it should be written lishmah, and also a get has sanctity, for it is also has a requirement to be written lishmah.

He concludes that the matzah which is being baked to be eaten on Pesach night also possesses sanctity, for it is required to be baked lishmah.

It is possible that this could explain the custom of many righteous people to kiss the matzah before they eat it on the night of the seder.

Read more!

JUSTIFYING A CUSTOM REGARDING GEBROCHTS

Shoel U’meishiv (I: 1:130) issues a novel ruling based on our Gemora.

The Gemora cites the opinion of Rabbi Chananya ben Akavya, who maintains that when a decree was impelled because of a certain incident, it is limited to the same situation as the original incident.

The Shoel U’meishiv says: The obligation of eating matzah on Pesach, which is lechem oni, poor man’s bread (water and flour) is only on the first night of Pesach and not any other nights or days, including the second night. Eating lechem oni is because the Jewish people baked the dough before it had a chance to rise on the way out of Egypt. Since the mitzvah is based upon that incident and that occurred on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan, that is the only night that we have this obligation.

We know when the night of the fifteenth is, and we are not uncertain regarding the days of the new month. The Chachamim instituted that we must observe two days of Yom Tov since that it what they did in the times of the Beis Hamikdosh. Accordingly, we must fulfill all mitzvos on the second night, as well.

However, that is only regarding mitzvos that if we wouldn’t fulfill, it would be degrading for the Yom Tov. We are required to eat matzah and marror since otherwise, it would be apparent that we are not recognizing this night as a Yom Tov; however, matzah which is not lechem oni would not degrade the Yom Tov at all and therefore it would not be necessary. He cites a Beis Yosef as proof to this.

I heard that this could be the justification for the custom of not eating gebrochts only on the first night of Pesach. If the reason for not eating gebrochts on Pesach is because there is a concern that it might result in chametz, there is no distinction between the first night and all the other nights; but if the reason is based on lechem oni, there can be logic to say that it is only applicable on the first night.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 23 - JUSTIFYING A CUSTOM REGARDING GEBROCHTS

Shoel U’meishiv (I: 1:130) issues a novel ruling based on our Gemora.

The Mishna had stated: One may carry terumah while he is carrying a midras (objects that became tamei when a zav, zavah or niddah place their weight on them – they are classified as an av hatumah and have the ability to contaminate people or utensils), but one may not carry kodesh while carrying a midras.

The Gemora asks: What is the reasoning for this prohibition?

Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel: There was once an incident where a person was transporting a barrel of consecrated wine from one place to another and a strap from his sandal (which was tamei through midras) broke off, and he took it and placed it on the top of the barrel and it fell into the airspace of the barrel, and rendered the barrel and the consecrated wine tamei. It was at that time that they said: One may carry terumah while he is carrying a midras, but one may not carry kodesh while carrying a midras.

The Gemora asks: If so, they should have decreed regarding terumah, as well?

The Gemora answers: This Mishna is following the opinion of Rabbi Chananya ben Akavya, who maintains that when a decree was impelled because of a certain incident, it is limited to the same situation as the original incident, and since it occurred by kodesh, the decree was issued only in regards to kodesh and not to terumah.

The Shoel U’meishiv says: The obligation of eating matzah on Pesach, which is lechem oni, poor man’s bread (water and flour) is only on the first night of Pesach and not any other nights or days, including the second night. Eating lechem oni is because the Jewish people baked the dough before it had a chance to rise on the way out of Egypt. Since the mitzvah is based upon that incident and that occurred on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan, that is the only night that we have this obligation.

We know when the night of the fifteenth is, and we are not uncertain regarding the days of the new month. The Chachamim instituted that we must observe two days of Yom Tov since that it what they did in the times of the Beis Hamikdosh. Accordingly, we must fulfill all mitzvos on the second night, as well.

However, that is only regarding mitzvos that if we wouldn’t fulfill, it would be degrading for the Yom Tov. We are required to eat matzah and marror since otherwise, it would be apparent that we are not recognizing this night as a Yom Tov; however, matzah which is not lechem oni would not degrade the Yom Tov at all and therefore it would not be necessary. He cites a Beis Yosef as proof to this.

I heard that this could be the justification for the custom of not eating gebrochts only on the first night of Pesach. If the reason for not eating gebrochts on Pesach is because there is a concern that it might result in chametz, there is no distinction between the first night and all the other nights; but if the reason is based on lechem oni, there can be logic to say that it is only applicable on the first night.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 19 - Praying without the Proper Intention

In the sefer Torah Lishma from the Ben Ish Chai, the following inquiry was asked: Our sages said that prayer without the proper kavanah (intent) is akin to a body without a soul. This being the case, what would be the purpose of prayer when one is unable to concentrate during his Tefillah due to the worries that weigh on his mind? Would such a prayer be accepted?

Furthermore, if one understands the words of tefillah and the basic translation of the prayers but does not comprehend the secrets hidden in the tefillos, then the depths of the prayers revealed to us by the Zohar and the Arizal will remain a mystery to him. One who is capable of performing a mitzvah in its entirety but does not grasp the hidden meanings of the mitzvah would seem to be missing an integral part of the mitzvah. Most people are on this level as they fulfill mitzvos and pray three times a day according to their basic understanding and because it is the will of Hashem. Is it possible, then, that most of our generation is deficient in tefillah and the performance of mitzvos due to a lack of comprehension regarding the profound implications of prayer and mitzvah performance?

The Ben Ish Chai responds: One who cannot concentrate on his prayers because he is entertaining other thoughts during tefillah should nevertheless continue to pray. This can be proven from the following Zohar in Parashas Vayechi: Rav Chizkiyah said that it is said that one should first prepare the praise of his Master and then pray. What should one do, however, if his heart is heavy and he wishes to pray, yet, since he is in distress he cannot properly formulate the praise of his Master? Rabbi Yosi responded that despite the fact that he cannot focus properly on his prayers and he will not be able to formulate the praise of his Master properly, he should still formulate the praises of his Master and he should pray. This is what it is said, a prayer of Dovid: Hear HaShem, what is righteous, be attentive to my supplication. First, hear HaShem righteous, as this is the formulation of praises for his Master, and subsequently, be attentive to my supplication, [give ear to my prayer]. One who is capable of formulating the praises of his Master and does not do so, regarding him it is said, even if you were to intensify your prayer, I will not listen.

In regards to the second question, the Ben Ish Chai writes that one is obligated to attempt to learn and understand the secrets of Hashem as Dovid told his son Shlomo: Know the G-d of your father and serve Him. Nonetheless, one who did not merit understanding these concepts and concentrates on the basic translation of the words and performs a mitzva with all its intricacies, his tefillah and mitzvos are considered complete and they are not deficient. This idea can be proven from the words of the Zohar in Parashas Yisro: If a mitzvah comes his way and he focuses on it, he is meritorious. If one did not have the proper intention he is meritorious as he has performed the will of his Master. Yet, he is not deemed to be like one who has fulfilled HaShem’s will selflessly and has performed the deed with the intention of fulfilling HaShem’s will for the sake of HaShem’s glory like one who does not know how to think. The reason for this is because the matter is dependant on the will performed selflessly and with the action selflessly performed below, the action above is removed and is purely rectified. In a similar vein, the action of the body rectifies the action of the soul with that will, as HaShem desires the heart and will of a person. Nonetheless, one needs to act wholeheartedly, which is the essence of everything, and regarding this Dovid prayed and said, may the pleasantness of the Lord, our G-d, be upon us, our handiwork, establish for us. No man is wise enough to align his will and his heart to rectify a matter completely, and for that reason he prays, our handiwork, establish for us. What is meant by the words establish for us? Establish and rectify Your rectifications above appropriately upon us. This, despite the fact that we are not capable of aligning our will completely. Rather, we perform the action, and You establish our handiwork. One who is on that level who requires rectification, establish it as one so that this matter should be rectified properly.

It thus emerges that this is precisely what Dovid requested of HaShem; a mitzvah or tefillah should not be regarded as deficient because of one’s lack of understanding regarding the secrets that are contained in the mitzvos. Rather it should be considered complete and whole without the slightest blemish.

For this reason our sages have instructed us to recite the tefillah of vihi noam prior to the performance of any mitzvah or the recital of any tefillah. The
recital of this verse inspires Dovid’s prayer and our deeds will be accepted completely despite the fact that we did not have the proper intention.

Rabbeinu Chaim, son of Rabbeinu Yitzchak, one of the Rishonim quotes our Gemora: We have learned in a Mishna in Mikvaos (5:6): If a wave that consisted of forty se’ah separated from the sea and fell on a person or utensils that were tamei, they become tahor. The Gemora explains that the Mishna is referring to a case where the person is sitting on the shore waiting for the wave to separate from the sea and fall on him or on the utensils. It is evident from our Gemora that even though the person did not directly immerse the utensils in the water; he was merely anticipating that the wave will detach itself from the sea and fall on the contaminated utensils, this is sufficient, provided that he has intention that the water should purify the utensils.

The Gemora in Chulin (31) states a similar halacha regarding a woman who was a menstruant. If water fell on her and her friend anticipated this and had intention for her, the immersion would be valid even though the menstruant herself was not intending for this to happen.

It would follow that we can apply this principle to other mitzvos as well. One who bakes matzah must have intention that it is being baked for the commandment of matzah. If one was baking without the proper intention, but another person was observing and did have the proper intention, the baking is valid and the matzah may be used for the mitzvah.

Rabbeinu Chaim concludes: If the intention of one’s fellow can facilitate the fulfillment of the mitzvah for his friend, then certainly the intentions of the Holy One, Blessed is He can achieve the same result. We entreat of HaShem before our prayers and prior to the performance of a mitzvah that He should establish our handiwork and rectify our actions for we are not capable of aligning our will completely. It is our mission to perform the actions to the best of our capabilities and Hashem will rectify the deeds appropriately.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 4 - Food (Round Matzos) for Thought

1. The Gemora concludes that the halacha of extending the restrictions of Shemitah prior to the seventh year was transmitted to Moshe at Sinai only according to Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva derived this halacha from the Scriptural verses.

It emerges that there is a dispute if there was an Oral Law transmitted to Moshe at Sinai regarding the pre-Shemitah restrictions.

Doesn't the Rambam state that there cannot be disputes regarding any halacha l'Moshe misinai?

2. Rabban Gamliel’s source (that there are no pre-Shemitah limitations) was through a gezeira shavah of the words “Shabbos, Shabbos,” from the Shabbos of Creation. Just as there, it is forbidden to perform labor on the day of Shabbos, but prior to that day and afterwards it would be permitted; so too regarding Shemitah, only the seventh year would be subject to the Shemitah restrictions and not the sixth or the eight years.

Isn't there a halacha that one is required to add time to the beginning of Shabbos and afterwards as well (tosfos Shabbos)?

3. the Mishna had stated that one should not make ugiyos for the grapevines. The Gemora asks: What are ugiyos? Rav Yehudah answers: They are ditches.

Rashi states that the word "ugiyos" means agul, round, similar to the words "ag ugah," he drew a circle around himself.

The Torah says [Shmos 12:39]: And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt. The term used for the unleavened cakes, i.e. matzos is "ugos" matzos. This would be a source that matzos should be round and not square.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 28 - Eating Matzah Without Reclining

The Gemora state that if the Persians forced someone to eat matzah, he has fulfilled his obligation of eating Matzah on Pesach.

Rav Shach asks that the person should not be considered as if he discharged his obligation since he ate the matzah without reclining and the halacha is that one who eats matzah without leaning has not fulfilled his mitzvah. He continues that even if he did recline it should not be regarded as leaning because reclining under duress being forced to eat) is the exact opposite of freedom and the sole purpose of the obligation to recline is in order to indicate freedom.

Rav Elyashiv shlita, in his Haggadah shel Pesach answers that a person that has the ability to recline and doesn’t has not fulfilled his obligation of eating matzah while leaning since he is lacking in the mitzvah of showing freedom; however someone who cannot recline is not regarded as being deficient in the mitzvah of leaning. A student by his Rebbe or a kohen in the Temple Courtyard fulfills the mitzvah of eating matzah even though they can not recline.

Reb Dovid Solovetchik shilta answers that the case is speaking about where the person did recline and the action of leaning is sufficient for one to fulfill the mitzvah even though the person is not feeling freedom.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 13 - MATZAH FROM THE PEDDLERS

Rav Kahana was asked by his contemporaries regarding the korban omer that the Jews brought when they entered Eretz Yisroel. They inquired of him as to where did the barley come from for this korban. It could not have been grown by a non-Jew for the Torah states that it should be from “your harvest.” The Gemora proves that the korban omer was brought that year from the verses in Yehoshua which state that the Jews ate from the new grain only on the day after Pesach began. It is evident that they originally did not eat because the korban was not brought and it was only on the second day of Pesach, which is the day the korban omer is brought that they began to eat from the new grain.

Tosfos wonders as to how they ate matzah on the first night of Pesach that year. The new grain only became permitted on the second day of Pesach. Tosfos answers that the gentile merchants sold them grain which did not have this prohibition.

The Mekor Chaim brings a proof from this Tosfos to the opinions that hold that one can fulfill the mitzva of eating matzah even if the grain was not watched from the time of the harvesting since here the gentiles did the harvesting and afterwards sold the grain to the Jews. It is ruled in halacha that in extraordinary situations, one can buy flour from the market place and use it to bake matzah with.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 6 - Majority Rules

Rabbi Shlomo Kluger writes that there is a novel idea that can be derived from the halacha LeMoshe MiSinai that teaches us biblical measurements. If these measurements would only be derived from a verse in the Torah, we would apply the principle of rubo kikulo, a majority of a matter is akin to the entire matter. The halacha LeMoshe MiSinai therefore teaches us that one is required to immerse in a mikveh that contains forty se’ah and it would not be sufficient if there would be just thirty-nine se’ah. Furthermore, one will not fulfill his obligation of eating matzah by eating anything less than a kezayis, because the halacha teaches that one must eat the full the entire amount. The Chasam Sofer disagrees and maintains that one cannot apply the principle of rubo kikulo in these instances, because a majority is sufficient as long as there is a complete matter. The Chasam Sofer cites a number of examples to prove this point. One example would be if the entire Sanhedrin convened, they can rule according to the majority opinion. It is obvious, however, that we do not convene a majority of the Sanhedrin and allow them to rule. Another example would be that if ten people convene to hear borchu and seven of them have not yet heard borchu, the group is deemed to have comprised a minyan quorum. Nonetheless, we cannot merely convene seven men and allow them to reckon themselves as a minyan quorum by applying the principle of a majority. Similarly, a mikveh is required to contain forty se’ah and then can we apply the principle of majority.

Take a moment to rate this post please

Read more!