Daf Yomi - Taanis 8 - Highlights

UNSUCCESSFUL STUDENT
Rish Lakish states that if you see a student who is having difficulty in his Torah studies, it is because his knowledge of the Mishna is not arranged in an organized manner. The remedy for him is to spend more time studying in Yeshiva where all the students are learning the Mishna. Rish Lakish would review the Mishna forty times corresponding to the forty days that Moshe studied the Torah at Sinai and only then would he come before Rabbi Yochanan to learn Gemora. Rav Adda bar Ahava would review the Mishna twenty-four times corresponding to the twenty-four books of Scripture and only then would he come before Rava to learn Gemora.

Rava states that if you see a student who is having difficulty in his Torah studies, it is because his teacher is not treating him well. The solution would be to send friends to the teacher to intervene on his behalf. (7b – 8a)

INSINCERE TEFILLAH
Rabbi Ami said that a person’s tefillah will only be accepted if he is truly sincere. The Gemora asks from a statement from Shmuel who states that tefillah is accepted even if it is insincere. The Gemora answers that an individual’s tefillah will only be accepted if he is sincere; however a tefillah of the congregation will be accepted even if some of their tefillos are insincere. (8a)
INTEGRITY, FAITH & JUSTICE
Rabbi Ami states that rain will fall in the merit of people who possess integrity in their business dealings.

Rabbi Ami said: Come and see how great are the people who trust in Hashem. Rabbi Ami points to the story of those who believe in the huldah u-bor - the rodent and the pit - arguing that if you believe in the huldah u-bor, certainly you can believe in Hashem.

It is interesting that the Gemora feels no need to explain what the story of the huldah u-bor entails, taking for granted that it was a story so well known that there was no need to put it in writing. Rashi and Tosfos both tell a short version of the story, but a lengthier version, whose source is in the traditions of the Ge'onim, appears in the Arukh.

As R. Natan ben Yehiel tells it in his Arukh, the story begins with a girl from a noble family who loses her way and, having fallen into a well while drinking, cannot manage to extract herself. A passerby hears her cries and shouts. After a lengthy conversation during which time he ascertains that she is, in fact, a woman and not a demon of some sort, he agrees to save her, on the condition that she will marry him. Upon lifting her from the well he wants to consummate the marriage immediately, but she objects, arguing that a Jewish man surely wants to marry according to the halacha and would not be interested in simply fulfilling animalistic urges. They agree to marry and appoint the well and a passing weasel as witnesses to their pact.

Upon returning home, she scrupulously kept her agreement, refusing the entreaties of all suitors. He, on the other hand, soon forgot the agreement and married another woman, who bore children - the first of whom was bitten by a weasel, the second of whom drowned in a well. Seeing that her children died under unnatural circumstances, she demanded an explanation from her husband, who admitted that he had promised another that he would marry her. They divorced and he searched for the woman who he had saved and promised to marry. When she refused him - as she did all others - he told her of the honest witnesses, the huldah u-bor, that brought him back to her. In the end they married and had many children, proving the passage in Tehillim (101:6) that God's eyes are upon the faithful who merit a close relationship with Him. (Courtesy of the Aleph Society)

Rabbi Yochanan states that one who conducts himself righteously in this world will be judged more strictly Above. There will be a strict judging of his deeds in order to cleanse him and thereby he can receive his total reward in the world to come.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that one who rejoices in his suffering brings salvation to the world. (8a)
RAIN AND DROUGHTS
Rish Lakish cites a Scriptural verse proving that when the sky is filled with rain clouds but they do not produce rain is comparable to a woman who has labor pains but does not give birth. This is dangerous to the world as it is a consequence brought about from sin.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini said that if Hashem had decreed that harsh rains shall fall as a punishment and then Klal Yisroel repented, the fierce rains will be diverted to the unpopulated mountains and hills where they will fall harmlessly and not be detrimental. If good rain is decreed then it will fall on the fields, cisterns and caves.

In the days of R' Shmuel bar Nachmeini, a plague as well as a famine raged through the land.

"How should we act?" the rabbis asked, "to pray that Hashem nullify them both is impossible. We cannot pray [effectively] for two things at once. Let us then pray that the plague should come to an end, and we will suffer through the famine."

"Not so," R' Shmuel bar Nachmani may told them, "rather, we should pray for the end of the famine, and Hashem will remove the plague as well. For, Hashem does not send His abundance to those who will die, only to those who will live. This the Torah teaches when it says, "You open your hand, and satisfy the living with their desires."

In the days of R' Zeira, the government issued decrees against Jewish religious observance and among the decrees, was a prohibition against Jews fasting (e.g. to end a drought). According to Rashi, this decree was to prevent benefit from coming to the world through the efforts of the Jews. R' Zeira said that nevertheless, they should all accept a fast upon themselves, and when the decree will be rescinded, they will then fulfill their promise and observe the fast. When asked how he knew it was possible to do this, he replied that the Posuk says: (Daniel 10:12) that Daniel accepted upon himself twenty one years of fasting, and that his Tefilos were accepted immediately, as soon as he had made the vow.

Rabbi Yitzchak said that even during an extreme drought, rain that falls on a Friday is nothing but a curse since it will inconvenience those that are shopping for Shabbos. Ameimar had said that if it wouldn’t be that rain is so necessary, we would pray to have it abolished since it prevents people from going back and forth.

Rabbi Yitzchak states that rain is so great that even businesses that do not require rain are blessed on a day of rain. (8b)
BLESSING ONLY ON HIDDEN ITEMS
Rabbi Yitzchak states further that one can only find blessing in something that is hidden from the eye. This is similar to a braisa cited in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that blessing will not be found except by something that the eye cannot gaze at.

The Rabbis taught that one who enters his silo to measure the grain should pray that Hashem should send blessing in the work of our hands. Once he has started to measure it, he blesses Hashem for bestowing blessing upon the pile of grain. If he measured it and then recited the blessing, it is in vain, as blessing cannot happen to items weighed, measured or on something that has been counted. Blessing can only be found on those things concealed from the eye. (8b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 7 - GLASS CUPS BY THE SEDER

"Woe, that such beautiful wisdom must sit in such an ugly container," Caesar's daughter said to R' Yehoshua ben Chananya, intimating that he might be wise, but definitely not handsome.

"Tell me," he answered her, "doesn't your father keep wine in the earthenware vessels?"

"What other vessels should he use?" she asked him. "Surely, everyone keeps wine in earthenware vessels?"

"Important people like you," he declared, "should use nothing less than gold and silver."

She told this to her father, and he transferred his wine to gold and silver vessels. The wine soured.

"Who advised you to do this?" the king asked her.

"Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananya," she answered. He summoned R' Yehoshua.

"Why did you tell my daughter this?" he asked.

"I only spoke to her," said R' Yehoshua, "as she spoke to me. She should have realized that just as wine keeps best in plain earthenware vessels, so wisdom only keeps in plain people."

"But surely, there are also good-looking people that are wise?" the king asked.

"If people did not admire them for their good looks," R' Yehoshua answered, "They would be much more learned. To remember wisdom, a person needs great humility, and for people that others admire, this is very difficult.”

It was the custom of the Sanz-Kloizenberg Rebbe that he would only use glass cups for the wine of the four cups on the night of the Seder. The rest of Pesach, he would use his silver cup.

It was said over that the reason for this custom is based on our Gemora which states that wine keeps best in plain earthenware vessels. Since the wine for the four cups will be inside the glass for an extended period of time, it is better to use a glass cup that one made out of gold or silver.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 7 - REBBE AKIN TO A MIKVAH

Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa explains two verses discussing teachers and students. If the student has good character, the teacher should travel to the student but if the student lacks good character, the student must go to the teacher.

The Imrei Emes said over in the name of the Kotzker Rebbe that a Chassideshe Rebbe is akin to a mikvah. Just like a mikvah purifies the unclean, so too a Rebbe has the ability to purify the unclean. When a chasid travels to the Rebbe, the Rebbe is like a mikvah and can purify the unclean even without preparation; however when the Rebbe makes a trip to the Chassidim, he is like a wave that has separated from the ocean. The halacha is in order for the wave to purify the unclean, the person must be waiting for the wave to come down.

This is the meaning of our Gemora. If the student has good character and is anxiously awaiting to learn, he will be successful even if the Rebbe comes to him; however if the student lacks good character, he must go to the Rebbe in order to learn since he lacks the proper preparation.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 7 - Highlights

GREATNESS OF A DAY OF RAIN
Rav Avahu stated that a day of rain is greater than the Resurrection of the Dead since rain is beneficial for the righteous and for the evil people; however the Resurrection will only benefit the righteous. This is different than the opinion of Rav Yosef who said that the mentioning of rain was placed in the second brocha of Shemoneh Esrei dealing with the Resurrection because a day of rain is equal to the Resurrection of the Dead.

Rav Yehuda said that a day of rain is as great as the day on which the Torah was given. Rava proved that a day of rain is even greater than the day on which the Torah was given. (7a)

WORTHY TORAH SCHOLAR
Rava cites a Scriptural verse which indicates that Torah is compared to rain and to dew. He explains that the Torah’s effect on a worthy Torah scholar will be like dew which is always beneficial; however if he is not worthy, then the Torah will be like rain which can be detrimental.

This same idea is mentioned in a braisa. One who learns Torah in order to fulfill Hashem’s commandment will merit that the Torah will become a medicine of life to him. However, regarding one who studies Torah for ulterior motives; the Torah will become like poison to him.

Rabbi Yochanan teaches a similar thought. There are two types of trees. A tree that has fruit growing from it cannot be chopped down. A tree that does not bear fruit may be chopped down. One shall learn Torah from a worthy torah scholar but a Torah scholar who does not possess proper character should be cut down like a non-fruit-bearing tree. (7a)

TORAH ANALOGY
The Gemora states that Torah learning is analogous to iron. Just as one iron blade sharpens another, so too one Torah scholar can sharpen the mind of another Torah scholar when they are learning together.

Rabbah bar bar Chanah explains why Torah can be compared to fire. A fire cannot start from one piece of wood, so too, Torah will not be preserved by someone who learns by himself. He needs another to learn with in order to ensure that he doesn’t make a mistake which can eventually lead a person to sin.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak states that Torah is analogous to branches of a tree. Just as small twigs are used to ignite large pieces of wood, so too, young Torah scholars sharpen the minds of the older Torah scholars. This is the explanation of Rabbi Chanina’s words. Rabbi Chanina said “I have learned a lot from my teachers and from my friend more than my teachers but I have learned the most from my students. Questions posed by young scholars and students sharpen the minds of the teachers.

Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa explains two verses discussing teachers and students. If the student has good character, the teacher should travel to the student but if the student lacks good character, the student must go to the teacher.

Rabbi Chanina bar Idi states that Torah learning is compared to water. Just like water leaves the higher ground and flows to the lower ground, so too, Torah words can only be maintained by someone who is unassuming and who possesses a humble spirit.

Reb Oshaya said that Torah is compared to three liquids, water, wine and milk. This teaches us that just like these three liquids are preserved only in mediocre vessels, so too, Torah can only be maintained by someone who is unassuming and who possesses a humble spirit. (7a)

EARTHENWARE VESSELS
"Woe, that such beautiful wisdom must sit in such an ugly container," Caesar's daughter said to R' Yehoshua ben Chananya, intimating that he might be wise, but definitely not handsome.
"Tell me," he answered her, "doesn't your father keep wine in the earthenware vessels?"
"What other vessels should he use?" she asked him. "Surely, everyone keeps wine in earthenware vessels?"
"Important people like you," he declared, "should use nothing less than gold and silver."
She told this to her father, and he transferred his wine to gold and silver vessels. The wine soured.
"Who advised you to do this?" the king asked her.
"Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananya," she answered. He summoned R' Yehoshua.
"Why did you tell my daughter this?" he asked.
"I only spoke to her," said R' Yehoshua, "as she spoke to me. She should have realized that just as wine keeps best in plain earthenware vessels, so wisdom only keeps in plain people."
"But surely, there are also good-looking people that are wise?" the king asked.
"If people did not admire them for their good looks," R' Yehoshua answered, "They would be much more learned. To remember wisdom, a person needs great humility, and for people that others admire, this is very difficult.” (7a - 7b)

CONNECTION BETWEEN OUR DEEDS AND RAIN
Rabbi Tanchum bar Chanilai states that rain will not fall unless Klal Yisroel’s sins have been forgiven.
Rabbi Tanchum the son of Rabbi Chiya states that rain will not be withheld unless the enemies of Klal Yisroel (a euphemism which is referring to Klal Yisroel) are condemned for annihilation.
Rav Chisda states that rain can be withheld because of the transgression of neglecting to separate Terumos and maasros.
Rabbi Shimon said that rain can be withheld because of the sin of speaking loshon hara. Rav Sala states that rain can be withheld because of the shameless people.
Rav Katina states that rain can be withheld due to the sin of neglecting to study Torah.
Rabbi Ami said that rain can be withheld because of the transgression of stealing. (7b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 6 - NO LIMIT FOR REVIEW

The Gemora cites a Mishna in Peah that the wealthy are permitted to collect the leket, shic’chah and peah from the field after the nemushos have left the field. The Gemora offers two opinions as to the meaning of the nemushos. The first explanation is that these are the elderly people who walk with a cane. The second explanation given is that we are referring to those that collect after others have already collected. An example of this would be a father and a son who work together. The son picks up whatever the father leaves behind.

Reb Chaim Ozer said that the Chazon Ish has a unique perception in the words of the Rishonim. He has the ability to reach conclusions in understanding their words completely different than others who studied the same Rishonim.

The Chazon Ish said about himself that he does not possess any special talent but rather it can be explained according to our Gemora. Our Gemora states that a person can find grain left in the field even after a father and a son collected the fallen grain. It is evident from here that if one searches for something, it can be found even if other people have already looked. The Chazon Ish said that he learns the Rishonim over and over again until he is able to realize the true meaning of their words even if his predecessors did not reach the same conclusion.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 6 - Highlights

YOREH AND MALKOSH
One of the promises that we repeat daily in our recitation of the Keriyat Shema is that the reward for appropriate behavior is rain in its proper time - yoreh u'malkosh. Our Gemara discusses these terms and their meaning. The yoreh, according to the baraita, is the first rain of the year, which occurs in the month of MarHeshvan, and the malkosh is the rain that ends the season in Nissan.

With regard to the meaning of each of these words, several suggestions are made by the Gemara.

Yoreh can be understood to be made up of any one of a number of different root words.
• It can be a form of moreh - teacher - implying that the first rain teaches the people that winter is coming so that they will prepare their roofs, bring in their dried fruits, and get ready for the rainy season.
• It can be a form of yarah - to throw or shoot - indicating that the first rains fall gently to the earth.
Malkosh appears to come from the root lekesh, an unusual root that means "late." Rashi says that it is the name of a type of locust - the Schistocerca gregaria - whose appearance coincides with the end-of-season rains. (The Aleph Society)

The Gemora states that just as malkosh is beneficial, so too the yoreh rainfall is beneficial.

The Gemora explains the root meaning of the word malkosh. One explanation given is that since the Jewish Nation needs it desperately, it removes their stubbornness and drives them to repent. Another interpretation offered is that it fills the stalks with grain. A braisa is cited explaining malkosh to mean something that falls on the ears and stalks. (6a)
THREE YOREH RAINFALLS
 The Gemora cites a braisa which presents an alternative view on when the yoreh rainfall is. Rabbi Meir maintains that yoreh is in Mar-Cheshvan. The Chachamim hold that yoreh is in the month of Kislev. Rav Chisda states that the opinion of the Chachamim is consistent with the viewpoint of Rabbi Yosi cited in a different braisa. There are three times that the yoreh rain descends. The braisa cites three opinions in regards to these times. Rabbi Yosi maintains that the first rain falls on the seventeenth of Mar-Cheshvan. The second rain descends on the twenty-third and the last one falls on Rosh Chodesh Kislev.

The Gemora explains the halachic significance for the three yoreh rains. It is important to know the time for the first rain because this is when we will commence requesting for rain. It is pertinent to know the time for the third rainfall since we need to know when to begin fasting if the rain does not descend. The Gemora offers several explanations for the purpose of knowing the time of the second rain. Rabbi Zeira explains that it is relevant for the halachos of vows. One who makes a vow “until the rains” or “from when the rains begin” is referring to the second rainfall. Rav Zevid states that it is relevant for the halacha in connection to olives. The wealthy are permitted to gather the “forgotten olives” in the field after the second rainfall. Rav Pappa understands the significance of the second rainfall in regards to taking shortcuts through other people’s fields. This is only permitted until the second rainfall because afterwards, the new crop will get damaged. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains the pertinence of the second rainfall in regards to the halachos of Shemitah. (6a – 6b)

MORNING CLOUDS
Rav Yehuda bar Yitzchak states that clouds that appear in the early morning do not bring blessing. The Gemora asks on this from a saying that people say “If rain falls when the gates are opened, donkey driver, fold up your sack and go to sleep.” The rain that falls in the morning will be so beneficial that the grain peddlers will not be productive that day and therefore they should go to sleep. The Gemora answers that the rain which falls in the morning is beneficial if the clouds are thick but thin clouds are not a blessing. (6b)

BLESSING ON RAIN
The Gemora discusses the brocha that one recites when seeing rain. One would recite the brocha when the drops of rain fall into a puddle that is already on the ground and some of the drops move upwards. The Gemora discusses the text of the brocha. There is a dispute regarding the conclusion of the brocha. (6b – 7a)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 5 - TIME TO BECOME ROOTED

The Gemora relates that in the times of Yoel, Klal Yisroel planted on the second, third and fourth day of Nissan from the grain with which they had and the second rainfall came down on the fifth day of Nissan. They miraculously were able to bring the korban omer on the sixteenth of Nissan from the new crop which grew. It emerges that grain which normally grows in six months grew in eleven days.

The Maharsha comments that it was necessary for the grain to take root three days before the second rainfall. This is because the Gemora in Rosh Hashanah (10b) states that in order for grain to be considered from the previous year, it is required to be rooted into the ground and that takes three days.

The Metzapeh Eisan asks that this is only correct according to Rabbi Yehuda; however Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon disagree and maintain that it takes two weeks to become rooted in the ground and the halacha is in accordance with their opinion.

Shulchan Aruch (Y”D 293) rules that grain which took root before the sixteenth of Nissan becomes permitted for consumption with the korban omer offered on the sixteenth. The Shach cites the Terumos Hadeshen (191) who states that it takes three days for the grain to become rooted into the ground.

The Dagul Meirvova asks that this is only correct according to Rabbi Yehuda; however Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon disagree and maintain that it takes two weeks to become rooted in the ground and the halacha is in accordance with their opinion.

The Metzapeh Eisan answers that the Terumos Hadeshen relied on our Gemora that would seem to indicate that three days is sufficient time for the grain to take root into the ground. The Gr”A states that perhaps there is a distinction between trees and grain as to the amount of time it takes for them to become rooted in the ground. He cites a Yerushalmi that makes such a distinction.

The Chasam Sofer (Y”D 284) answers that in truth, there is not a factual dispute as to how many days it takes for a tree to take root since everyone holds that it takes root in three days or less and the facts can attest to this. The argument amongst the Tannaim is regarding a case where for some reason the tree did not take root. After how long can it be stated with a certainty that the tree will not take root any longer. Regarding Shemitah, which is a Biblical transgression, we must rule stringently that grain which is planted two weeks prior to Shemitah receives the sanctity of Shemitah. The prohibition of eating from the new crop outside of Eretz Yisroel is only Rabbinical and therefore we can rule leniently and three days will be sufficient.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 5 - GRAIN FROM THE ANT HOLES

The Gemora provides the details of the miracle that transpired in the times of Yoel. That year, the month of Adar passed and there was still no rainfall. The first rain fell on the first day of Nissan. The prophet Yoel told Klal Yisroel to go and plant their fields. The people protested that since they have a small amount of wheat and barley, they should eat it and not plant it. If they would plant it, they would die from starvation waiting for the new crop to grow. Yoel persisted and told them to plant the grain which they had. A miracle occurred and they found grain in the walls and in the ant holes. They planted on the second, third and fourth day of Nissan from the grain with which they had and the second rainfall came down on the fifth day of Nissan.

Rashi learns that they planted from the grain with which they had and ate the grain from which they found. Rabbeinu Chananel learns exactly the opposite. They ate from the grain from which they had and they planted from the grain with which they found. What compelled Rashi to learn his way? The Rif in the Ein Yaakov asks on Rashi that how was the verse “Those who plant with tears will harvest with bliss” fulfilled? Rashi learns that they were crying since they didn’t have what to eat. Why should they be planting with tears if they had grain which they found in the walls?

The Rif answers that Hashem did not perform the miracle of providing them with the grain in the walls until they showed their faith in Hashem by planting from the grain with which they had.

The Yad Yosef answers that the grain from the ant holes would not be suitable for planting. The saliva from the ants and mice destroys all the moisture in the grain and therefore they ate from that grain and planted the old grain.

Sefer Tehilla L’yonah found an answer that since they would be bringing the grain with which they planted for the korban omer; grain from a miracle is not fitting to be used for a korban.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 5 - Highlights

CEASE REQUESTING RAIN

The Mishna presents a dispute regarding the date that we cease asking for rain. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that v’sen tal u’matar is recited until Pesach is over and Rabbi Meir holds that it is recited until the end of the month of Nissan. Rabbi Meir cites a Scriptural verse proving that it can be recited in the month of Nissan.

The Gemora asks on the verse which Rabbi Meir had cited to prove that we request rain throughout the month of Nissan. Rav Nachman asked that the word ‘yoreh’ which Rabbi Meir explained to be referring to the yoreh rain of Nissan is seemingly incorrect. He cites a braisa which explicitly states that yoreh rain falls in the month of Mar-Cheshvan and malkosh rain falls in the month of Nissan.

Rabbi Yitzchak answered that in the times of Yoel, there was yoreh rain which fell in the month of Nissan and that is what the verse is referring to. (5a)

MIRACLE IN THE
DAYS OF YOEL

The Gemora provides the details of the miracle that transpired in the times of Yoel. That year, the month of Adar passed and there was still no rainfall. The first rain fell on the first day of Nissan. The prophet Yoel told Klal Yisroel to go and plant their fields. The people protested that since they have a small amount of wheat and barley, they should eat it and not plant it. If they would plant it, they would die from starvation waiting for the new crop to grow. Yoel persisted and told them to plant the grain which they had. A miracle occurred and they found grain in the walls and in the ant holes. They planted on the second, third and fourth day of Nissan from the grain with which they had and the second rainfall came down on the fifth day of Nissan. They miraculously were able to bring the korban omer on the sixteenth of Nissan from the new crop which grew. It emerges that grain which normally grows in six months grew in eleven days. Regarding this generation, it is said “Those who plant with tears will harvest with bliss.”
(5a)

SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE

 The Gemora discusses what Klal Yisroel ate during the seven years of famine prior to that miraculous harvest. Rabbi Yitzchak stated in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that in the first year they ate the food that they had stored in their houses. The second year, they ate from the food which was in the fields. The third year, they ate from kosher animals. During the fourth year, they ate from non-kosher animals. The fifth year, they ate from non-kosher creeping creatures. During the sixth year, they ate from the flesh of their children. In the seventh year, they ate from the flesh of their own arms. (5a)

RABBI YOCHANAN’S INTERPRETATIONS

 The Gemora cites questions which Rav Nachman inquired of Rabbi Yitzchak and Rabbi Yitzchak’s responses in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Yochanan explained a verse in Hoshea to mean that Hashem said that He will not enter the Yerushalayim located in heaven until He enters the Yerushalayim on earth.

Rabbi Yochanan explained a verse in Yirmiyahu to mean that that there is one sin that causes the evil people to be burned in Gehinom and that is idolatry. (5a)


SHMUEL

 Rabbi Nachman asked Rabbi Yitzchak another question. It is written in Shmuel that Shmuel was old. How can this be when we know that Shmuel died when he was fifty-two years old? Rabbi Yitzchak answered in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that Shmuel became old-looking suddenly.

SHMUEL, SHAUL AND DOVID

 Rabbi Yochanan elaborates on what transpired towards the end of Shmuel’s life. Hashem related to Shmuel that it was time for King Shaul to die and for Dovid to replace him as king. Shmuel said that it was improper for Shaul, who was anointed to be king by Shmuel, to die while he, Shmuel, was still alive. Hashem said that he cannot cause Shmuel to die young because people will claim that he died young because of a sin that he committed. He cannot keep Shaul alive since once it is time for Dovid to become king, one reign cannot impinge upon another even by a hairbreadth. Hashem said that he will make Shmuel appear old and this way Shmuel can die without anyone alleging that he sinned and then Shaul can die in order for Dovid to become king. (5b)

A SPECIAL BLESSING

 Rabbi Nachman and Rabbi Yitzchak were eating together. Rabbi Nachman asked Rabbi Yitzchak to relate some Torah words. Rabbi Yitzchak said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that one should not talk while he is eating since food might enter the windpipe causing him to choke. After they finished eating, Rabbi Yitzchak said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that Yaakov Avinu never died and he cited a Scriptural verse proving this.

When Rabbi Nachman and Rabbi Yitzchak were leaving each other, Rabbi Nachman asked Rabbi Yitzchak to give him a blessing. Rabbi Yitzchak responded with a parable. A person was walking in a desert and he was hungry, tired and thirsty. He happened upon a tree which had sweet fruits, a pleasing shade and a spring of water flowing beneath it. The man ate from the fruits, drank the water and sat in its shade. When he was leaving the tree, he pondered as to how he can bless the tree. He could not bless the tree that its fruits should be sweet, its shade should be nice or that it should have a stream of water flowing beneath it since it already possessed all these things. The blessing he gave was that it should be the will of Hashem that all the shoots planted from this tree should be just like it. Rabbi Yitzchak explained to Rabbi Nachman that he cannot bless him with Torah, riches or children since he already had all that. Rabbi Yitzchak blessed Rabbi Nachman that all his children should be just like him. (5b – 6a)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 4 - ALL ABOUT ANGER

Rav Ashi states that a Torah scholar who is not as hard as iron is not considered to be a true Torah scholar. Ravina says that nevertheless, he should conduct himself calmly as the Torah teaches us to avoid anger.

The Gevuros Ari asks from a Gemora in Pesachim which states regarding one who becomes angry; if he is a Torah scholar, his Torah will depart him and yet our Gemora states that a Torah scholar who is not harsh like iron is not considered a talmid chocham.

He answers that if he becomes angry for the honor of Hashem and if it would have been impossible to accomplish this without getting angry; it is not only permitted but warranted. An example for this would be to instill fear into one’s students ensuring that they will not stumble into sin.

The Acharonim ask from the Gemora (20) which states that a person should always strive to be soft like a reed and not harsh like a cedar tree. It is brought in the name of Reb Yonason Eibshitz that if a person needs to get angry, he should make sure that the anger is only on the surface but inside he should remain soft. This is what Ravina meant when he said that one should conduct himself calmly as the Torah teaches us to remove anger from one’s heart.

The Mishna in Avos (5:10) states that it should be difficult for a person to get angry and easy to be appeased. Rabbeinu Gershom explains our Gemora to mean that a person should get angry and it should be difficult to appease him. This is seemingly not consistent with the Mishna in Avos.

Harav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe (O”C 54) answers that here the Gemora is referring to a talmid chocham that issues a ruling. He is required to exhibit anger in order to ensure that the listeners will adhere to the halacha. He should not be easily appeased so people will not say that his ruling was actually a mistake but he is too embarrassed to admit it. This is what Rav Ashi meant when he said that a Torah scholar who is not as hard as iron is not considered to be a true Torah scholar. If he is appeased readily, they will not rely on his rulings in the future.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 4 - Highlights

RAIN, SEEDS
AND TORAH SCHOLARS

Rava states that snow is as beneficial to mountains as five rains are for the ground. He states further that heavy rain is favorable for trees and gentle rain is of assistance for produce. Drizzling rain is beneficial for the seeds underneath a lump of earth.

Rava taught that a young Torah scholar can be compared to a seed underneath a lump of earth. Once a seed breaks through the ground, its growth is not impeded, so too the young student grows in status once his name is recognized.

Rava said another statement regarding young students. When a young scholar becomes angry, it is the Torah which boils within him that causes him to become angry.

Rav Ashi states that a Torah scholar who is not as hard as iron is not considered to be a true Torah scholar. Ravina says that nevertheless, he should conduct himself calmly as the Torah teaches us to avoid anger. (3b -4a)

IMPROPER REQUESTS

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini said in the name of Rabbi Yonason that there were three people who asked inappropriately. Two of them were answered generously and one was not.

Eliezer, the servant of Avraham requested that the first girl who offers him and his camels water to drink will be the one who he will bring for Yitzchak as a wife. It could have happened that a lame or blind girl would have responded to his request and if Eliezer would not notice her defect, he would bring her back to Yitzchak. He was answered appropriately since Hashem sent Rivkah to be the one.

Shaul made an improper guarantee when he promised wealth and his daughter to whoever would kill Goliath. The possibility existed that it could have been a slave or mamzer, but Hashem responded to him properly and sent David.

Yiftach made an inappropriate promise before heading out to wage a war against the Ammonites. He pledged that he would bring as a Korban whatever would come out of his house first. It was considered improper since it could have been a non-kosher animal. Hashem responded in an improper manner and sent out his daughter. The prophet complained about Yiftach that he did not go to Pinchas to have his vow annulled.

Rabbi Brachya cites another example where an inappropriate request was answered appropriately. Klal Yisroel asked of Hashem to resemble the rain. Hashem responded to them that rain is sometimes undesirable and instead, He will be to them like dew which is always beneficial. (4a)

MENTIONING AND REQUESTING ARE NOT THE SAME

 The Mishna stated that we ask for rain close to the rainy season. The Gemora inquires as to whose opinion is reflected in this ruling. Rava says that it is the viewpoint of Rabbi Yehoshua who maintains that we begin mentioning rain on Shmini Atzeres. This is considered close to the rainy season. Abaye suggests that the Mishna can be following the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer who holds that we begin mentioning rain on the first day of Sukkos. The Mishna is referring to the request for rain, v’sen tal u’matar. Rabbi Eliezer agrees that we do not begin asking for rain until the rainy season. (4a – 4b)

RABBI YEHUDA’S OPINION

 The Gemora asks a contradiction in the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. In our Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda stated that we stop mentioning rain on the first day of Pesach. A braisa is cited that presents a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir regarding the time during the year that we cease requesting for rain. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that v’sen tal u’matar is recited until Pesach is over and Rabbi Meir holds that it is recited until the end of the month of Nissan.

The Gemora attempts to resolve this contradiction by making a distinction between the mentioning of rain and the request for rain. This is proven to be illogical. If we stop mentioning rain on the first day of Pesach, we would certainly not continue asking for rain until the conclusion of Pesach. The Gemora is compelled to say that there are two Tannaim who have different versions of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.

Rabbah answers that when Rabbi Yehuda stated that we ask for rain until Pesach is over, he meant until the time of the slaughtering of the korban Pesach is over. It emerges that we would stop requesting rain during tefillas mincha on the day before Pesach.

Rabbah explains that just like in the beginning (Shmini Atzeres), we mention rain even though we do not request rain until much later (during the month of Cheshvan), so too at the end, we mention rain (the first Shacharis during Pesach) even though we stopped requesting rain the day before.

Abaye disagrees with Rabbah’s logic and states that there is a clear distinction between the beginning and the end. It is correct to mention rain in the beginning even though we are not yet requesting rain since we are praising Hashem that He provides rain in order that our request later will be listened to; however there is no reason to mention rain at the end when we are not requesting rain any longer. (4b)

MENTIONING AND REQUESTING

 Rabbi Yochanan ruled that the halacha is according to Rabbi Yehuda who maintains that we begin mentioning rain on Shmini Atzeres.

The Gemora questions this statement from a Mishna that presents a dispute regarding the asking for rain. One Tanna holds that we begin on the third day of Cheshvan and Rabban Gamliel maintains that we begin on the seventh day of Cheshvan. Rabbi Elozar said that the halacha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel.

Rav Assi answers that the first halachic ruling was issued by Rabbi Yochanan and therefore you cannot ask a question on this from a halachic ruling issued by Rabbi Elozar.

An alternative answer is given that Rabbi Elozar’s ruling is in regard to requesting rain and Rabbi Yochanan was referring to mentioning rain.

The Gemora rejects this answer because Rabbi Yochanan explicitly rules that the mentioning and requesting for rain must coincide in the beginning and in the end.

The Gemora offers a different answer. Rabbi Elozar’s ruling is relevant only to the people residing in Bavel and Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling applies to the people living in Eretz Yisroel. The harvest is gathered much later in Bavel and therefore the request for rain is postponed until Cheshvan.

The Gemora asks that even in Eretz Yisroel, we should be concerned on behalf of the people traveling back from their pilgrimage to the Beis Hamikdosh and we should postpone the request for rain until they return home.

The Gemora answers that Rabbi Yochanan was referring to the time that the Beis Hamikdosh was not in existence and that is why the request for rain commenced on Shmini Atzeres.

The Gemora concludes that Rabbi Elozar was referring to the time that the Beis Hamikdosh was in existence and that is why the request for rain is postponed until the month of Cheshvan. (4b)

SHMINI ATZERES

 Rav rules that outside of Eretz Yisroel, where they observe two days of Shmini Atzeres, rain should be mentioned during Mussaf of the eighth day and withhold from mentioning rain again until Mussaf of the ninth day.

Shmuel vehemently objected to this ruling. How can we stop mentioning rain by Mincha of the eighth day? If the day was already considered holy, how can it now be regarded as ordinary?

Shmuel maintains that we mention rain by Mussaf and by Mincha of Shmini Atzeres. We withhold from mentioning rain by Maariv and Shacharis of the ninth day and resume during Mussaf of the ninth day.

Rava and Rav Sheishes rule that once we begin mentioning rain during Mussaf of the eighth day, we continue mentioning rain without stopping. The Gemora concludes tat this is indeed the halacha. (4b – 5a)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 5 - Yaakov lives on by Reb Ben

In this weeks parashah the Torah records the demise of Yaakov. Yet, the Gemara informs us that Yaakov never died. How is this to be understood? It is fascinating once again that Yaakov is the symbol of Shabbos. It is said: כי ששת ימים עשה ה' את השמים ואת הארץ וביום השביעי שבת וינפש, in a six­-day period Hashem made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed. The Gemara states that the word וינפש, and was refreshed, is an acrostic for the words וי נפש, woe to the soul. When Shabbos ends, a person loses the extra soul that he received at the onset of Shabbos. The obvious question that has been raised numerous times is why do we learn that a Jew has an extra soul on Shabbos in a seemingly negative context? Would it have not been preferred to teach us that a Jew has an extra soul from a verse that describes the beauty and holiness of Shabbos? The answer to this question is alluded to in the statement that Yaakov never died. Certainly the Torah records his death to inform us that Yaakov died and was buried in the physical sense. However, it is specifically said regarding Yaakov that when the righteous person departs from a locale, the shine, the glory, and the splendor depart with him. This teaches us how to value a gift. Were the Torah to inform us in a different context that a Jew receives an extra soul at the onset of Shabbos, we may view the gift as a luxury but not as a necessity. As the expression goes, “absence makes the heart grow fonder.” When Yaakov leaves the town, the shine, glory and splendor that Yaakov reflects departs with him. When Yaakov dies, the righteous person has departed, and we have become bereft of that special gift that the righteous person offers. Similarly, when Shabbos comes to an end, we experience that feeling of missing something. Bearing this idea in mind, we should realize how fortunate we would be if we were to use every minute of Shabbos to its maximum potential.

Read more inspiring thoughts about Yaakov and Shabbos at www.torhathoughts.com

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 5 Lekavod Shabbos

The Gemara states that Yaakov Avinu never died. Based on a verse, the Gemara expounds that just like the descendants of Yaakov are alive, so too Yaakov is alive. The Maharal writes in Gur Aryeh (Bereishis 49:33) that death is finite, and from all the Patriarchs, it is specifically regarding Yaakov that there is no end. Based on the words of the Sfas Emes, we can explain this to be alluding to Shabbos, as one who delights in the Shabbos will merit that which is said, az tisanag al HaShem vihirkavticho al bamasei haaretz vhaachalticho nachlas Yaakov avicho ki pi HaShem dibeir, then you will delight in Hashem, and I will mount you astride the heights of the world; I will provide you the heritage of your forefather Yaakov, for the mouth of Hashem has spoken. Death is finite, but Yaakov and his descendants live on through the merit of Shabbos, which is a heritage that has no parameters.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 3 - DEW, WINDS & CLOUDS - VARIOUS CUSTOMS

The Gemora cites a braisa which rules that it is not compulsory to mention dew and winds in Shemoneh Esrei since the world cannot exist without them. If one desires to mention them, he may do so. The Gemora cites Scriptural verses that dew and wind are never withheld.

There are several different customs regarding the saying of tal during Shemoneh Esrei. It can be implied from Tosfos that in the winter season, they would say mashiv haruach u’morid hageshem u’morid hatal. The Ran writes that they would not say morid hatal in the winter. The Rambam in Hilchos Tefillah (2:15) rules that morid hatal is not recited during the winter season.

In regards to the summer season, the Tur (114) and the Rama write that it is the Ashkenazi custom not to mention tal at all. The Rambam cites the minhag Sfard that tal is mentioned during the summer months. The Gr”A states that this viewpoint can be found in the Yerushalmi.

The Bach explains the opinion of the Tur to mean that they would recite mashiv haruach u’morid hatal. The Beis Yosef disagrees and maintains that they would only say morid hatal. The Magen Avraham seemingly states like the Bach; however the Machtzis Hashekel claims that there was a printer’s mistake in the Magen Avraham and in truth, he holds like the Beis Yosef that mashiv haruach is not said in the summer time.

There are different customs regarding the request for dew. Some have the custom to ask for dew during the summer season and during the winter. It has become our custom to request dew only in the winter.

It is noteworthy that there are different customs regarding dew, wind and clouds even though the Gemora states by all three that one is not obligated to mention them but if one desires to mention them, he may do so. Why is it that we find different customs for each one?

The Ran answers that dew is something that is always desired. It is beneficial in the summer season and during the winter. It is for this reason that dew is mentioned throughout the year. This is in contrast to wind which is only preferred in the rainy season when it is required to dry the soil and that is why mashiv haruach is only mentioned during the winter and not in the summer. Clouds are not mentioned at all since the benefit received from them is not recognizable to the world. [The Ritva has a different approach in answering these questions.]

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 3 - GESHEM OR GASHEM? THAT IS THE QUESTION

The following insight is brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
HALACHAH: "MORID HA'GESHEM" OR "MORID HA'GASHEM"?
QUESTION: In the wintertime Shemoneh Esreh, we mention the praise of Hash-m Who brings rain -- "Morid ha'Geshem" -- in the blessing of Gevuros ("Atah Gibor..."). The custom among Sefardic Jews (Edot ha'Mizrach), as well as those who pray according to Nusach Sefard (such as Chasidim), is to mention "Morid ha'Tal" in the summertime in the blessing of Gevuros (see previous Insight). This is also the custom in Eretz Yisrael, based on the practice of the Vilna Ga'on and the Ba'al ha'Tanya. Most other Ashkenazic communities (outside of Eretz Yisrael) do not make this addition in the Shemoneh Esreh in the summertime.
Many Sidurim vowelize the word "Morid ha'*Geshem*" with a Segol (the "eh" sound) and not "Morid ha'Gashem" with a Kamatz (the "aw" or "ah" sound). This seems grammatically correct, because only at the end of a sentence (or at the semi-sentence break marked by an Esnachta) is the Segol under the Gimel replaced by a Kamatz. The words "Morid ha'Geshem" are in the middle of a sentence in the Shemoneh Esreh, and thus the word "ha'Geshem" should retain its Segol. The fact that the word "ha'Geshem" does not mark the end or pause in a sentence is evident from the words of the TUR (OC 114). The Tur writes that the reason why we recite "Morid ha'Geshem" immediately before the words "Mechalkel Chayim" (and not at another point in the blessing) is because rain is also a form of Kalkalah (sustenance) and Parnasah (livelihood). Hence, the mention of rain is the beginning of the passage which mentions Kalkalah, and it is not the end of the previous passage ("Atah Gibor...").
However, there is an apparent inconsistency in the Sidurim. In most Sidurim which include the text "Morid ha'Tal" (for the summertime), the word "Tal" is spelled with a Kamatz (pronounced "ha'Tawl" in the Ashkenazic pronunciation) and not with a Patach ("ha'Tahl"). According to the rules of grammar, the word should have a Patach and not a Kamatz since it comes in the middle of a sentence and not at the end. When the word "Tal" appears in the Torah, the letter "Tes" usually is vowelized with a Patach, which changes to a Kamatz only when it is at the end of a sentence or at a pause marked by an Esnachta (see, for example, Shemos 11:9, Devarim 32:2). Since "Morid ha'Tal" is recited in place of "Morid ha'Geshem" and is in the middle of a sentence, why is the word "Tal" spelled with a Kamatz and not a Patach? If the Sidurim consider "Morid ha'Tal" (with a Kamatz") to be the end of the sentence, why do they not spell "Morid ha'Gashem" with a Kamatz as well? [CLICK WHERE IT SAYS "READ MORE" FOR THE ANSWERS]

ANSWERS:
(a) RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN zt'l (IGROS MOSHE OC 4:40) writes that the Kamatz of "Tal" is correct because this phrase is indeed at the end of the sentence (as many Sidurim place a period after "Morid ha'Tal"). Accordingly, it is proper to say "Morid ha'Gashem" with a Kamatz as well, in contrast to the spelling in many Sidurim. Such an opinion is cited by the LIKUTEI MAHARICH. This is the way the word is punctuated ("ha'Gashem") in the authoritative Redelheim Sidur.
(b) Others, however, point out that the text of "ha'Geshem" (with a Segol) appears in all early Sidurim, of all Jewish communities, as well as most current Sidurim (except for those based on the Redelheim Sidur). Moreover, as mentioned above, the logical flow of the sentence clearly indicates that "Morid ha'Geshem" is not the end of the sentence (regardless of whether or not the printer placed a period there). According to SEFER MECHALKEL CHAYIM, Rav Moshe Feinstein himself retracted his opinion. Why, then, do most Sidurim spell "ha'Tal" with a Kamatz and not a Patach?
The author of SEFER SHA'AR HA'KOLEL, printed in the back of the SHULCHAN ARUCH HA'RAV (who explains the Nusach of the Sidur of the Ba'al ha'Tanya) suggests that the word "Tal" is spelled with a Kamatz because it is not part of the regular text of the Shemoneh Esreh as established by the Anshei Keneses ha'Gedolah (as indicated by the fact that many Ashkenazic communities do not say it, and the Gemara says that it is not obligatory). Rather, it was added to the text of the Shemoneh Esreh by the Mekubalim. As such, it is a separate insertion that stands by itself and is not part of the phrase that follows, and therefore it has a Kamatz and not a Patach.
(c) RAV YAKOV KAMINETZKY zt'l (IYUNIM B'MIKRA, p. 26) suggests that "Morid ha'Geshem" is part of the sentence which continues with "Mechalkel Chayim," as the TUR says, because rain brings Kalkalah and Parnasah. In contrast, the words "Morid ha'Tal" do not refer to the Parnasah-providing elements of dew. Rather, they refer to the Tal of Techiyas ha'Mesim, the Tal which will resurrect the dead. It is mentioned at this point because it follows the phrase "*Mechayeh Mesim* Atah Rav l'Hoshi'a." As such, it is actually a continuation of the previous sentence and it does not flow into the following sentence. Therefore, it is appropriate to pause after "Morid ha'Tal" before the phrase "Mechalkel Chayim," which discusses a different topic. Accordingly, "Morid ha'Tal" is the end of the previous sentence which discusses Techiyas ha'Mesim, while "Morid ha'Geshem" flows into the following sentence which discusses Parnasah! (Even though the verse in Tehilim 68:10 refers to "*Geshem* Techiyah" (see Targum there), that is not the Geshem to which we refer in the Shemoneh Esreh.)
(d) Grammarians point out that this may not be an inconsistency at all. Although the Segol of "Geshem" becomes a Kamatz only when the word completes a sentence or a clause (either at the end of a verse or at an Esnachta pause), the Patach of "Tal" is different. It becomes a Kamatz even at a "semi-stop," such as when the word "Tal" has the cantillation "Zakef-Katan" (see, for example, Shemos 16:13 and Devarim 33:13). (It is easier to turn a Patach into a Kamatz than a Segol into a Kamatz.) Since a slight pause (a "comma") follows the words "Morid ha'Tal" in the blessing, even though it is not a full stop the word "Tal" acquires a Kamatz.
(It is also possible that the pronunciation of the word in rabbinical texts may differ slightly from the Biblical pronunciation. Perhaps in the times of the Mishnah, the word "Tal" was commonly pronounced with a Kamatz, like "Par" or "Har," unless it was associated with the word that followed it, such as "Tal ha'Shamayim" or "Tal Techiyah.")

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 3 - Highlights

WATER-LIBATIONS
Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira maintains that we begin mentioning rain on the second day of Sukkos. The Gemora cites a Scriptural allusion indicating that the water-libation services began on the second day of Sukkos and therefore that is the time designated to begin mentioning morid hageshem.

Rabbi Akiva rules that we begin mentioning morid hageshem on the sixth day of Sukkos. The Gemora cites a Scriptural verse allusion indicating that the water-libation services began on the sixth day of Sukkos and therefore that is the time designated to begin mentioning morid hageshem.

The Gemora cites a Mishna in Sukkah (42b) that the water-libations were performed on all seven days of Sukkos and the Gemora inquires as to who the author of this Mishna could be. The Gemora assumes that all the Tannaim maintain that the commencement date of the water-libation services coincide with the beginning of mentioning morid hageshem. Rabbi Yehoshua rules that we begin mentioning morid hageshem on Shmini Atzeres and it would therefore emerge that the water-libations are performed for only one day and not seven. Rabbi Akiva maintains that we begin mentioning morid hageshem on the sixth day of Sukkos and it would therefore emerge that the water-libations are performed for only two days and not seven. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira holds that we begin mentioning rain on the second day of Sukkos and it would therefore emerge that the water-libations are performed for only six days and not seven. The Gemora concludes that the Mishna can be following Rabbi Yehoshua’s viewpoint that the mentioning of rain begins on Shmini Atzeres but the water-libations is for seven days. We do not mention rain until Shmini Atzeres since rain during Sukkos is nothing more than a curse and the water-libations are for seven days was learned from Moshe at Sinai. (2b -3a)

DEW AND WIND
 The Gemora cites a braisa which rules that it is not compulsory to mention dew and winds in Shemoneh Esrei since the world cannot exist without them. If one desires to mention them, he may do so. The Gemora cites Scriptural verses that dew and wind are never withheld.

Based on this braisa, Rav Chanina rules that if someone, during the summer season, states “He makes the wind blow,” (which is supposed to be recited only in the winter) does not have to repeat the Shemoneh Esrei since the wind is never withheld anyway. If, during the summer season, he says “He makes the rain fall,” will have to repeat Shemoneh Esrei since the rain can at times be withheld. If, during the winter season, one does not recite “He makes the wind blow,” is not required to repeat the Shemoneh Esrei since the wind is not withheld anyway but if he does not recite “He makes the rain fall,” he must repeat Shemoneh Esrei.

The Gemora cites a braisa which is contradictory to the first braisa regarding clouds and winds. The Gemora resolves the contradiction by stating that there are two kinds of clouds and two types of winds. The clouds which come prior to the rain are never withheld and therefore there is no need to mention them but the clouds that come after the rain can be withheld at times. Normal winds are never withheld and therefore we are not obligated to mention winds in our tefillah but an unusual wind can be withheld. (3b)
CLOUDS, WIND AND SUNLIGHT AFTER THE RAIN
 The Amoraim explain a braisa that clouds and winds that come after the rain are beneficial. The Gemora concludes that we are referring to a gentle rain and the wind which came afterwards did not lift the dust and therefore it is beneficial, however a fierce wind that comes after a strong rain will pick up the dust and will be disadvantageous.

Rav Yehuda states that wind, clouds and sun after a rain is extremely beneficial, however the glow after sunset and the sunlight between the clouds is not favorable. (3b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 2 - Pituchei Chosom

Rabbi Yochanan states that there are three keys that Hashem does not delegate to the hands of an agent. They are the key to rain, the key for childbirth and the key for reviving the dead.

It is written in the name of the Gaon that the three keys have the roshei teivos 'chosem.' The first letter of each of the three words spells out 'chosem.'

חיה - Childbirth

תחייה - Resurrection of the Dead

מטר - Rain

It is written in Parshas Tzezaveh ופתחת עליו פתוחי חותם קדש לה and you shall engrave upon it like the engraving of a seal: Holy to Hashem.

The Gaon explains that we can interpret the word ופתחת to mean a key as the word for key in לשון הקדש is מפתח. The keys of the 'chosem' is kodesh since the keys for childbirth, Resurrection and rain are not given over to any agents but rather limited to Hashem Himself.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 2 - Hashem's Personal Keys

Rabbi Yochanan states that there are three keys that Hashem does not delegate to the hands of an agent. They are the key to rain, the key for childbirth and the key for reviving the dead.

The commentators ask from the tefillah which we recite on Shmini Atzeres when we say that Af-Bri is the name of the Heavenly angel who is appointed over the rain clouds.

The Gemora in the third perek (25b) cites Rabbah who said that he saw an image of the angel Ridya who is the angel placed in charge of rain (Rashi).

Tosfos in Niddah (16b) answers that the angel Af-Bri can only accomplish his mission with the permission of Hashem.

One can infer from Tosfos that the other emissaries of Hashem do not require His permission before performing their task. Mishna L’melech in his sefer Perashas Derochim (21) asks on Tosfos that is it possible to say that Yurkani, the angel appointed on hail and Gavriel, the angel placed in charge of fire can perform their mission without permission being granted from Hashem. There is nothing in this world that can function without Hashem’s authorization.

The Peri Megadim in Mishbitzos Zahav (114:9) explains that all matters are given over to an intermediary and Hashem’s supervision is constantly upon them. The exception is regarding rain where Hashem did not give over this responsibility to a messenger at all. When Hashem decides to give rain, He instructs Af-Bri to carry out His will.

Sfas Emes writes that Hashem Himself opens and closes the storerhouse of rain and after they are opened, permission is granted to Af-Bri to cause the rain.

The Perashas Derachim answers based on a braisa cited later in the perek (10a). The braisa states that Eretz Yisroel is watered personally by Hashem but the remainder of the world is water by Hashem’s messenger. Our Gemora is referring to the rain in Eretz Yisroel which is administered solely by Hashem. The angel Ridya and Af-Bri are appointed on the rainfall of all the rest of the world.

The Chidah in his sefer Pesach Einayim answers that while Hashem gives the rain, the angels distribute it to different places. The Tosfos HaRosh in Niddah seems to say similar to this.

The Maharsha answers based on Rashi that our Gemora means that the three keys were never given together to one messenger but they could have been given one at a time. This would answer a question that Tosfos asks. Tosfos cites a Gemora in Sanhedrin (113a) where the Gemora records an incident that Eliyahu was given over the keys for rain and for reviving the dead. According to Rashi, this is not difficult since our Gemora means that all three keys were not given over to the same messenger at the same time.

The Raavad answers Tosfos’ question by stating that Eliyahu was not handed the keys to bring forth rain, rather he was given the key to prevent the rain from coming.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 2 - Highlights

TIME TO MENTION RAIN
The Mishna begins by asking when is the time in the year that we begin to mention the Powers of Rain. [This is referring to the “morid hageshem” that we recite in the second brocha of Shemoneh Esrei.] Rabbi Eliezer maintains that we begin on the first day of Sukkos and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that we begin on the last day of Sukkos. Rabbi Yehoshua asked Rabbi Eliezer that it is not proper to mention rain during Sukkos when rain is regarded as a curse (since there is no obligation to sit in a sukkah during the rain). Rabbi Eliezer responded that this is why rain is only mentioned on Sukkos but we do not ask for rain.

Rabbi Yehuda rules that we begin mentioning the Powers of Rain on Shmini Atzeres (the last day of Sukkos). The chazzan for Shacharis does not mention it but the chazzan for Mussaf does. We cease to mention the Powers of Rain on the first day of Pesach. The chazzan for Shacharis does mention it but the chazzan for Mussaf does not. (2a)

POWER OF RAIN
The Gemora elaborates on why this addition that we mention is referred to as the Powers of Rain. The Gemora cites verses that compare the Creation of the World and rain. Just like the Creation indicates Hashem’s power, so too power is associated with rain. [The Gemora states that rain descends by Hashem’s power. The Perisha (114) writes that the second brocha of Shemoneh Esrei begins with the word ‘gibor,’ strength, so too it was instituted to mention rain in this brocha with a language of strength and power.] (2a)

HASHEM’S KEYS
Rabbi Yochanan states that there are three keys that Hashem does not delegate to the hands of an agent. They are the key to rain, the key for childbirth and the key for reviving the dead. The Gemora cites Scriptural sources which indicate that these three matters are not entrusted to a messenger but rather are administered by Hashem Himself. In Eretz Yisroel they added that Hashem does not give over the key for sustenance either. Rabbi Yochanan did not incorporate this in his listing because it is included in the key for rain since rain provides basic sustenance. (2a – 2b)

WHEN TO BEGIN –
BY NIGHT OR BY DAY?
Rabbi Eliezer maintains that we begin mentioning rain on the first day of Sukkos. The Gemora inquires if we begin on the first night of Sukkos or during the daytime on the first day. This depends on where Rabbi Eliezer learned that the time to begin mentioning rain is the first day of Sukkos. If he derived it from the mitzva of lulav (which begins on the first day of Sukkos), we can say that just like the mitzva of lulav begins by day, so too the mentioning of rain begins by day. Perhaps he learns from the water-libation service (which begins on the first day of Sukkos), and just like that can be performed even at night, so too the mentioning of rain begins at night. Rav Avahu cites a braisa which explicitly states that Rabbi Eliezer derived the designated time for mentioning rain from the mitzva of lulav. This would indicate that we begin mentioning rain during the daytime and not at night.(2b)

WHICH DAY SHOULD WE BEGIN?
The Gemora cites a braisa which discusses several different opinions regarding the correct date to begin mentioning rain. Rabbi Eliezer states that we begin on the first day of Sukkos and this is derived from the mitzva of taking the lulav. Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that we begin mentioning rain on Shmini Atzeres, the day after we put down the lulav. Rabbi Eliezer explained his opinion by saying that just like the lulav and the other species are taken in order to beseech from Hashem to issue a positive judgment regarding water and just like these four species cannot grow without water, so too the entire world cannot survive without water. This would indicate that we should begin to mention rain on the first day of Sukkos corresponding to the day in which we begin to take the lulav.

Rabbi Yehoshua asked Rabbi Eliezer that it is not proper to mention rain during Sukkos when rain is regarded as a curse (since there is no obligation to sit in a sukkah during the rain). Rabbi Eliezer responded that this is why rain is only mentioned on Sukkos but we do not ask for rain. Rabbi Eliezer proves that it is fitting to mention rain even prior to its appropriate season from the fact that we constantly mention the Resurrection of the Dead even though it will only happen in its proper time. Rabbi Yehoshua countered that the Resurrection of the Dead can be mentioned all year since every day can potentially be its suitable time.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira maintains that we begin mentioning rain on the second day of Sukkos. Rabbi Akiva rules that we begin on the sixth day of Sukkos. Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that we begin mentioning the Powers of Rain on Shmini Atzeres (the last day of Sukkos). (2b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 35 - WHICH NUSACH SHOULD THE CHAZZAN USE BY HIS QUIET SHEMONEH ESREI?

Rabban Gamliel is cited in a braisa explaining that the congregation davens prior to the chazzan davening out loud because we want to give the chazzan time to prepare his tefillah.

Harav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe (O”C 2:29) writes that this is true even according to the Sages who disagree with Rabban Gamliel. The reason the chazzan davens quietly beforehand is in order to prepare him for his recitation out loud.

Rav Moshe rules that the chazzan, in his quiet Shemoneh Esrei, is required to daven in the same nusach as he will be using when he davens out loud. The reason he is davening the quiet Shemoneh Esrei is to prepare him for the recitation out loud and it can only be regarded as preparing if he is using the same nusach. Rav Moshe cites support for his opinion from the Magen Avraham (O”C 124:3) who writes that the reason the chazzan is davening the quiet Shemoneh Esrei is to prepare him for the recitation out loud.

Rav Elyashiv Shlita disagrees and maintains that the chazzan can recite the quiet Shemoneh Esrei according to his usual nusach of tefillah. Rav Elyashiv maintains that the Magen Avraham only means that one should prepare himself for anything that will prevent him from discharging his obligation of Tefillah. The nusach of Tefillah, however, will not preclude him from fulfilling his obligation of Tefillah. Thus, he is permitted to daven according to his usual nusach of Tefillah.

The editor of Rav Elyashiv’s sefer relates an incident that took place with the Cahfetz Chaim in Radin. A chazzan asked of him if he was required to daven in his quiet Shemoneh Esrei with the same nusach as he will be using in the repetition. The Chafetz Chaim responded that logically he is correct, however the ruling is that he can daven in his usual nusach.

Dayan Weiss (6:31) was asked this question and he ruled that the chazzan is not required to daven with the same nusach that he will be using during the Repetition of Shemoneh Esrei. His reason is based on Shulchan Aruch (101) that we now use a siddur and therefore there is not such a concern that he will make a mistake when he repeats the Shemoneh Esrei.

Rav Elyashiv writes that one can argue with the reasoning of the Magen Avraham, as perhaps it is only Rabban Gamliel who maintains that the congregation davens prior to the chazzan davening out loud because we want to give the chazzan time to prepare his tefillah. This rationale, however, will not apply according to the Sages, because the reason the chazzan davens quietly is for the same reason that the congregation davens. Although the congregation has already fulfilled the mitzvah of tefillah when they daven their tefillah, the Chachamim instituted that the congregants should listen to the tefillah of the chazzan. The chazzan is equivalent with the rest of the congregation and he must daven his own Shemoneh Esrei first and then recite the tefillah out loud. [Rav Elyashiv also writes that according to Kabbalah, every worshipper must daven twice, once quietly and then a second time with the chazzan.]

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 35 - Highlights

SHOFAR BY THE BROCHOS

The Mishna had stated that if one davened Mussaf without hearing the shofar and later a shofar became available to him, he should blow the shofar then. It can be implied from the Mishna that if he would have had the shofar at the time that he was davening Mussaf, he should blow then according to the order of the brochos even though he is davening by himself.

The Gemora records a connected incident. Rav Pappa was davening by himself and he told his attendant that when he signals to him that he finished one of the brochos, he should blow the shofar for him. Rava said to Rav Pappa that shofar is blown together with the brochos only by the congregation and not when an individual is davening.

The Gemora cites a braisa which supports Rava’s viewpoint. The braisa states explicitly that the shofar is blown according to the brochos when the congregation is davening and not by the tefillah of an individual.

The braisa continues that one who did not blow shofar may hear it from someone else but one who did not recite the brochos of Mussaf may not fulfill his obligation by hearing it from someone else.

The final halacha in the braisa is that the Biblical mitzva of hearing shofar takes precedence over the Rabbinical mitzva of davening Mussaf. If there is one city that he can certainly hear tefillas Mussaf and another city where he might hear the shofar (if he arrives on time), he should go to the city where the shofar will be blown even though he might arrive too late and thereby miss the blowing of the shofar. (34b)

DISPUTE REGARDING THE CHAZAN’S TEFILLAH

The Mishna had stated that each individual must recite the tefillah himself and cannot rely on the tefillah of the leader to fulfill his obligation. Rabban Gamliel disagreed and maintains that the leader can discharge the congregation’s obligation for them.

Rabban Gamliel is cited in a braisa explaining as to why the congregation davens before the leader davens out loud. He says that it is to give the leader time to prepare his tefillah. Rabban Gamliel asked the Sages why the leader davens out loud if the congregation does not fulfill their obligation by listening to him. They responded that one who doesn’t know how to daven will fulfill his obligation by listening to him. Rabban Gamliel replied that just like the leader can discharge the obligation of someone who cannot daven, so too he can discharge the obligation of someone who has the ability to daven himself and chooses not to.

There is a discussion in the Gemora if the Sages ultimately agreed with Rabban Gamliel that the leader can discharge the congregation’s obligation for tefillah even though they are able to daven themselves.

Rabbi Meir conceded to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel in regards to the tefillah of Rosh Hashanah and Yovel. The Gemora explains that since the tefillah contains many lengthy brochos and people can become confused, the leader can discharge the congregation’s obligation for this tefillah. (34b – 35a)

PREPARING YOUR TEFILLAH

Rabbi Elozar states that one should prepare his tefillah in advance and only then should he begin to daven. Rabbi Abba qualified this ruling to be referring to the tefillah of Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and other festivals; however this would not be necessary for the tefillos of the entire year, which are commonly recited.

Rav Yehuda would finish reviewing his learning every thirty days and only then would he have time to daven. He would prepare his tefillah beforehand since he only davened once every thirty days. (35a)

DISTINCTION BETWEEN PEOPLE IN THE FIELDS AND IN TOWN

It was said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Chasida that Rabban Gamliel exempted only the people working in the fields from davening themselves and they can rely on the leader’s tefillah because they are preoccupied with their work; however people who are in the city must daven themselves. This is analogous to the halacha regarding the people who stand behind the kohanim during the Priestly Blessing. The people in the shul are not included in the kohanim’s brocha since they have the opportunity to stand before the kohanim. The people in the fields are included in their brocha since they are preoccupied with their work and are unable to come. (35a)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 34 - TWO REASONS TO SOUND THE SHOFAR ON ROSH HASHANAH

The Gemora cites two sources demonstrating that a teruah must have a tekiah preceding it and a tekiah should follow the teruah. One source is through a hekesh comparing the sounds that are blown on Yovel to the sounds that should be blown on Rosh Hashanah. The alternative source is derived from a gezeira shavah from the sounds of the trumpets blown in the desert.

Pnei Yehoshua states that there would be a difference in the tekios based on where it is learned out from. Rav Avahu instituted that one should blow a tekiah, three shevarim, teruah and tekiah. This cycle is done three times. The Gemora explains that Rav Avahu was uncertain that perhaps a teruah should be a moaning and a sobbing sound and therefore he blew a teruah and a shevarim together. The Gemora asked that perhaps the teruah should precede the shevarim. The answer given is that normally, when a tragedy occurs and a person is driven to cry, he will first moan and then he will sob.

The Bach asks on Rav Avahu that he is seemingly against the Mishna which explicitly stated that a teruah is either a sob or a moan but not both.

Pnei Yehoshua explains that actually the entire idea of a teruah on Rosh Hashanah referring to a cry needs further explanation. There is no calamity transpiring on Rosh Hashanah for there to be a reason to sob and to moan. This is why the Tannaim did not entertain the possibility that a teruah should be sobbing and moaning together.

Rav Avahu, however, was concerned for the braisa that derived the blowing on Rosh Hashanah from the sounding of the trumpets in the desert. They blew in the desert when a calamity was developing or during a war. This is why Rav Avahu stated that a teruah can be referring to a sob and then a moan.

Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld cites a Chasam Sofer that in actuality, there are two reasons to sound the shofar on Rosh Hashanah. Besides the obligation to blow on account of the mitzva, there is a requirement to blow because the enemy is besieging us. The Evil Inclination that is within us is the greatest adversary one can have. This is why the shofar was blown in the Beis Hamikdosh even on Shabbos. The Sages negated the obligation to blow on Shabbos but that was only the obligation due to the mitzva. It is still compulsory to blow on account of the battle is within us.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 34 - Highlights

TEKIAH, TERUAH, TEKIAH
The Gemora cites Scriptural proof that there is an obligation to blow the sets of tekiah, teruah, tekiah three times.

The Gemora cites another source demonstrating that a teruah must have a tekiah preceding it and a tekiah should follow the teruah.

A braisa is cited which concludes that there are in total three teruos and six tekios. One opinion in the braisa maintains that two teruah sounds are Biblically required and the third one is only Rabbinically mandated. Rebbe Shmuel bar Nachmani states in the name of Rabbi Yonason that only one of the teruah sounds are Biblically required and the other two are Rabbinic.

The Gemora learns out other halachos from these passages. We learn out that the shofar can be blown by day and not by night. Another phrase is expounded to teach Rav Masna’s halacha that one cannot fulfill his obligation by using an inverted shofar (widening the narrow end and narrowing the wide end). (34a)

SHEVARIM, TERUAH
The Gemora relates that Rav Avahu instituted that one should blow a tekiah, three shevarim, teruah and tekiah. This cycle is done three times. The Gemora inquires as to what Rav Avahu holds regarding a teruah. If a teruah is the sobbing sounds, then one should blow a tekiah, teruah, tekiah. If a teruah is a moaning sound, then he should blow a tekiah, shevarim, tekiah. For what reason did Rav Avahu combine the two? The Gemora answers that he was uncertain as to what a teruah was referring to and therefore he did both ways. The Gemora questions this reasoning since if a teruah is in fact a sobbing sound, then the shevarim in between should be regarded as an interruption between the tekiah and the teruah. The Gemora answers that afterwards he would blow tekiah, teruah, tekiah without the shevarim. The Gemora asks that this is still not sufficient for perhaps a teruah should be a moaning sound and then there would be an interruption between between the shevarim and the tekiah. The Gemora answers that afterwards he would blow tekiah, shevarim, tekiah. The Gemora persists that if so, what was accomplished by blowing the shevarim and the teruah together (if anyway he would blow tekiah, teruah, tekiah and tekiah, shevarim, tekiah). The Gemora answers that Rav Avahu was uncertain that perhaps a teruah should be a moaning and a sobbing sound and therefore he blew a teruah and a shevarim together. (34a)

SOUNDS OF THE SHOFAR
Rabbi Yochanan rules that if one hears nine sounds of the shofar at nine different hours of the day, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemora cites proof to Rabbi Yochanan from a braisa.

The Gemora cites Rabbi Yochanan stating in the name of his Rebbe Rabbi Shimon that one who is reciting hallel and pauses in the middle in the amount of time it would take to complete the entire hallel, he must begin hallel again. Rabbi Yochanan himself does not subscribe to this viewpoint and that is why he can hear nine shofar sounds at nine different hours and fulfill his obligation even though he paused in between the amount of time it would take to blow those sounds.

This issue would apply by krias shema as well. If one would be reciting shema and he would pass by an unclean place and pause during that time; if the interruption was in the amount of time it takes to recite the entire krias shema, he would have to repeat the shema according to Rabbi Yochanan’s Rebbe. (34a – 34b)

BROCHOS AND TEKIOS

During a time of a drought, the Chachamim would establish special fast days where extra brochos were recited in the Shemoneh Esrei and they were accompanied by trumpet sounds. We have learned in a braisa that the brochos and the tekios are not critical to each other. One can fulfill the obligation of the brochos without hearing any trumpets and vice versa as well. On Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur by Yovel, this is not the case. Rabbah learned that Hashem had told us to recite before Him Kingship, Remembrance and Shofaros on Rosh Hashanah and Yovel in order that we should accept His dominion upon us and in order that He will remember us favorably we should recite these passages together with the shofar. (34b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 33 - Understanding the Sounds of the Shofar

A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE TEKIOS by Rabbi Doniel Neustadt

One of the most important mitzvos of Rosh Hashanah(1) is the Biblical command to blow the shofar. Although the significance of this mitzvah has been expounded at length - Rav Saadiah Gaon enumerates ten different reasons for blowing shofar(2) - still many people are unfamiliar with the basic procedures involved: how many blasts are sounded, how long or short must they be, etc. While the tokea and the makri (the individual who instructs the tokea which blast to sound) must be thoroughly versed in these intricate laws(3) - since it is they who determine if a particular blast was invalid and must be repeated - still it is important for the entire congregation to have some degree of familiarity with the general laws governing this mitzvah.

THE BASIC MITZVAH

The Biblical command is to blow three sets of blasts on Rosh Hashanah. A set of blasts means one teruah sound preceded and followed by a tekiah sound. Thus, the sum total of blasts which one is required to hear on Rosh Hashanah is nine - six tekiah sounds and three teruah sounds.
The tekiah sound was always well defined and agreed upon by all authorities - a long, straight (without a break or pause) blast. The teruah sound, however, was not well defined and the Rabbis were unsure of how, exactly, it was supposed to sound(4). The Talmud(5) describes three possibilities:
Three short, straight blasts - what we commonly refer to as shevarim; Nine(6) very short, staccato blasts - what we commonly refer to as teruah; A combination of both of the above sounds - a shevarim- teruah compound.
To satisfy all of the above opinions, the Rabbis established that the three sets of tekios be blown in three different ways, alternating the teruah sound in each set. Thus we blow tekiah shevarim-teruah tekiah (TaSHRaT) three times; tekiah shevarim tekiah (TaRaT) three times; tekiah teruah tekiah (TaSHaT) three times. All together that adds up to thirty different blasts - eighteen tekios, three shevarim-teruahs, three shevarim and three teruahs. This is the minimum number of blasts that every adult male(7) is required to hear on Rosh Hashanah. These are called tekios d'myushav, since the congregation is permitted to sit while they are being blown. In practice, however, it is universally accepted to stand during these tekios(8).
[A person who is in dire circumstances (a patient in the hospital, for example) and is unable to hear (or blow) thirty blasts, should try to hear (or blow) 10 sounds, one TaSHRaT, one TaRaT and one TaSHaT(9). No blessing, however, is recited over these blasts.]
In addition to these Biblically required blasts, we blow sixty more. Thirty more are blown during Musaf, ten each after the malchiyos, zichronos and shofaros divisions of Shemoneh Esrei. Every adult male is Rabbinically obligated to blow or hear these blasts in their designated places in the Musaf service. They are called tekios d'meumad, since one is required to stand while they are being blown(10).
In addition, it is customary to blow forty more blasts for a sum total of one hundred blasts. While this custom is based on several early sources(11) and has been almost universally adopted, there are various practices regarding when, exactly, they are blown. Generally, these blasts are blown towards the end of and after the Musaf service, and one must refrain from speaking(12) until after all one hundred sounds have been blown.

HOW LONG SHOULD EACH BLAST BE?

The length of a tekiah, both before and after the teruah, must be at least as long as the teruah which it accompanies(13). Thus, since it takes about 2-3 seconds to blow a shevarim or a teruah, the tekiah before and after must be at least 2-3 seconds long. Since it takes longer than that to blow the combination shevarim-teruah sound, the tekiah which precedes and follows these sounds must be longer as well. Most congregations allot about 4-5 seconds for each of these tekios. The makri is responsible to keep time.
[It is important to remember that each tekiah must be heard in its entirety no matter how long it takes. If, for example, a tekiah is blown for 7 seconds, which is much longer than required, the entire 7 seconds' worth must be heard by the congregation. Care must be taken not to begin reciting the yehi ratzon until after the blast is concluded(14).]
A teruah is at least nine short blasts (beeps), although in practice, many more beeps are sounded when the teruah is blown. No breath may taken between the short beeps; they must be blown consecutively.
Each shever should be about three teruah-beeps long. B'dieved the shever is valid even if it is only two beeps long, provided that all three shevarim are of that length(15). No breath may be taken between each shever; they must be blown consecutively(16).

SHEVARIM TERUAH - HOW IS IT BLOWN?

There are two basic views of how to blow the shevarim-terurah combination. Some opinions hold that no breath may be taken between them and even b'dieved, a breath between them invalidates the blast. Others hold that a breath may be taken as long as it takes no longer than the split second that it takes to draw a breath. The custom in most congregations is to do it both ways; the tekios before Musaf are blown with no breath being taken between the shevarim-teruah, while the tekios during and after Musaf are blown with a break for drawing a breath between the shevarim-teruah(17).

MISTAKES WHILE BLOWING

There are basically two types of mistakes that the tokea can make while blowing shofar. The most common is that the tokea tries but fails to produce the proper sound. The general rule is that the tokea ignores the failed try, takes a breath, and tries again(18).
The other type of mistake is that the tokea blows the blast properly, but loses track and blows the wrong blast, e.g., instead of shevarim he thinks that a tekiah is in order, or instead of teruah he thinks that a shevarim is due and he blows the shevarim. In that case, it is not sufficient to merely ignore the wrong blast; rather the tokea must repeat the tekiah which precedes the shevarim(19).
When a tekiah needs to be repeated, it is proper that the makri notify the congregation of that (by banging on the bimah, etc.), so that the listeners do not lose track of which blasts are being blown.

ADDITIONAL HIDDURIM

As there are different views and/or stringencies pertaining to various aspects of tekias shofar, one who wishes to be extremely particular in this mitzvah may blow (or hear) additional blasts after the davening is over in order to satisfy all opinions. These include the following hiddurim: There are several ways of blowing the shevarim sound; while some blow short, straight blasts, others make a slight undulation (tu-u-tu). Some opinions maintain that l'chatchillah, each shever should be no longer than the length of two beeps(20).
Some opinions hold that when the shevarim-teruha sound is blown, there may not be any break at all between them (even if no breath is taken); the shever must lead directly into the teruah(21). Some authorities insist that the tekiah sound be straight and clear from beginning to the end, with no fluctuation of pitch throughout the entire blast(22). (Courtesy of Rabbi Doniel Neustadt)

FOOTNOTES

1. This year, the shofar is blown only on the second day of Rosh Hashanah as the first day is Shabbos.
2. The most fundamental reason to perform this mitzvah, however, is simply that Hashem commanded us to do so.
3. Mateh Efrayim 585:2.
4. While the basic definition of a teruah is a "crying" sound, it was unclear if that resembled short "wailing" sounds or longer "groaning" sounds.
5. Rosh Hashanah 33b.
6. There are Rishonim who hold that a teruah is three short beeps. B'dieved, we may rely on that view to fulfill our obligation (Mishnah Berurah 590:12).
7. The obligation of women regarding tekias shofar was discussed in The Weekly Halachah Discussion, pg. 532-534.
8. Mishnah Berurah 585:2. A weak or elderly person may lean on a shtender or a table during these sets of tekios (Sha'ar ha-Tziyun 585:2).
9. Based on Mishnah Berurah 586:22 and 620:7. See also Mateh Efrayim 586:7 and Ktzeh ha-Mateh 590:1. See, however, Mateh Efrayim 593:3 who seems to rule in this case that three TaSHRaTs should be blown.
10. Mishnah Berurah 592:2. B'dieved, one fulfills his obligation if he sat during these tekios; ibid.
11. See Mishnah Berurah 592:4.
12. Asher Yatzar, though, may be recited; Minchas Yitzchak 3:44; 4:47.
13. This is based on the minimum length of time required for the teruah, not on the actual time it took to blow a particular teruah.
14. Mishnah Berurah 587:16; haTekios k'Halachah u'Behidur 1 quoting several sources.
15. Shulchan Aruch Harav 590:7.
16. O.C. 590:4.
17. Mishnah Berurah 590:20 and Sha'ar ha-Tziyun 18. The makri, too, should take a breath between the announcement of shevarim-teruah, so that the tokea will follow his lead (Elef ha-Magen 22).
18. Based on Mishnah Berurah 290:34, Aruch ha-Shulchan 290:20 and Da'as Torah 590:8.
19. Another example is when the tokea mistakenly blows [or begins to blow] two sets of shevarim or teruos in a row. The original tekiah must be repeated.
20. See O.C. 590:3.
21. Avnei Nezer 443; Chazon Ish O.C. 136:1. This is difficult to perform properly.
22. Harav Y.L. Diskin, based on the view of the Ramban and Ritva, see Moadim u'Zmanim 1:5. Chazon Ish, however, was not particular about this; Orchos Rabbeinu 2:183.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 33 - Women Performing Voluntary Mitzvos

Kollel Iyun Hadaf

PERFORMING A MITZVAH FROM WHICH ONE IS EXEMPT

QUESTIONS: The Gemara cites an opinion that women may not blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah that coincides with Shabbos, even though children are permitted to blow the Shofar. The Gemara says that this is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who says in a Beraisa that "Ein Benos Yisrael Somchos" -- women may not perform Semichah on a Korban. RASHI (DH Ha Nashim) explains that the reason women are not permitted to blow the Shofar on Shabbos is because the act constitutes a transgression of Bal Tosif, adding to the Mitzvos, since women are exempt from the Mitzvah of Shofar.
Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand.
(a) Why does the performance of a Mitzvah which one is not obligated to perform constitute Bal Tosif? Bal Tosif applies only when one is obligated to perform a Mitzvah and he adds some detail to its performance which the Torah does not mandate. If the Mitzvah of Shofar does not apply to women at all, why does their act of blowing the Shofar constitute Bal Tosif? (MAHARSHA)
(b) If Bal Tosif is the reason why women may not blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah that coincides with Shabbos, then women should be prohibited from blowing the Shofar on any day on which Rosh Hashanah occurs, even on a weekday. The Gemara, however, refers specifically to blowing the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah that coincides with Shabbos. If women are prohibited from blowing the Shofar on Shabbos but not on weekdays, then the reason for the prohibition must not be because of Bal Tosif. Rather, the reason must be related to the prohibition against blowing the Shofar on Shabbos when it is not blown for the Mitzvah of Shofar (see 29b). Similarly, it is prohibited for women to perform Semichah on a Korban because -- with no obligation to perform Semichah -- their act of leaning on a sanctified animal constitutes Avodah b'Kodshim, an unauthorized use of a sanctified animal. The reason is not because of Bal Tosif. (TOSFOS, Eruvin 96a; TUREI EVEN)

ANSWERS:
(a) It is clear from the words of RASHI in Eruvin (96a) that he does not mean literally that a woman who performs a Mitzvah from which she is exempt transgresses the prohibition of Bal Tosif. Rashi there says that "it appears like Bal Tosif." That is, the Rabanan decreed that a woman may not perform an act of a Mitzvah from which she is exempt because it appears as though she is adding a Mitzvah to the Torah. Rashi does not mean that one who performs a Mitzvah from which he is exempt transgresses the prohibition of Bal Tosif. (See Insights to Eruvin 96:1.)
(b) Perhaps Rashi infers from the Gemara in Eruvin that the reason why women may not blow the Shofar on Shabbos is not due to the prohibition against blowing a Shofar on Shabbos. The Gemara in Eruvin (96a) says that according to the opinion that women may not blow the Shofar on Shabbos and may not perform Semichah, women also may not perform the Mitzvah of Aliyah l'Regel (visiting the Beis ha'Mikdash during the festival). Why may a woman not perform the Mitzvah of Aliyah l'Regel? TOSFOS in Eruvin explains that the Gemara means that a woman may not perform Aliyah l'Regel in order to offer a Korban Re'iyah; since she is exempt from the obligation to offer a Korban Re'iyah, the animal she would bring into the Azarah would be considered an animal of Chulin (non-sanctified), and one may not bring such an animal into the Azarah.
Rashi may understand that the Gemara there means simply that a woman may not perform a Mitzvah which she is not obligated to do, such as Aliyah l'Regel, because of the Rabanan's decree which prohibits doing an act which has the appearance of Bal Tosif.
When the Gemara here says that women may not do Semichah, it does not limit this prohibition to the opinion which maintains that Semichah must be done with all of one's strength ("b'Kol Kocho"; see Chagigah 16b). Rashi may understand that even according to the opinion that Semichah does not need to be done with all of one's strength, women may not do Semichah. Consequently, the reason they are prohibited from doing Semichah cannot be because of Avodah b'Kodshim, since Semichah done without all of one's strength does not constitute a use of the animal (as one does not actually use the animal to support himself). It must be that the prohibition is due to another reason -- a decree of the Rabanan against performing an act that looks like Bal Tosif. (M. Kornfeld) (Courtesy of Kollel Iyun Hadaf)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 33 - Highlights

SHOFAR
The Mishna states that one may not go beyond the techum boundary in order to hear the shofar. The Mishna lists other Rabbinical prohibitions that a person cannot violate in order to fulfill the mitzva of shofar. One is permitted to place water or wine into the shofar to improve the sound. The Mishna rules that we do not restrain the children from blowing the shofar and we can even instruct them how to blow the shofar. One who accidentally blew a shofar does not fulfill his obligation and one who hears the shofar from someone who blew accidentally does not fulfill his obligation.

The Gemora infers from the Mishna which rules that we do not restrain the children from blowing the shofar that we do restrain women from blowing the shofar. This is in contradiction to a braisa which states explicitly that we do restrain children and women from blowing the shofar. The Gemora answers that it is a Tannaic dispute. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that we restrain women from blowing the shofar and Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon permit her to. Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon hold that a woman who performs a mitzva that she is not obligated in does not violate the prohibition of adding to a mitzva and therefore she can blow the shofar if she so desires. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and thereby prohibits a woman from blowing the shofar.

These positions stem from the disagreement between these Tannaim on the issue of semichah - part of the sacrifice ceremony when the person bringing a korban in the Beis Hamikdosh would put pressure on the animal's head before it was slaughtered and brought to the mizbeach. Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon rule that women can perform semichah even though they are not obligated in it, from which we conclude that they generally permit women to perform mitzvos on a voluntary basis, even when they are not obligated in them. Rabbi Yehuda forbids women from doing semichah. (This last paragraph is courtesy of the Aleph Society.) (32a)

CHILDREN BLOWING
The Gemora cites the opinion of Rabbi Elozar that one can instruct children how to blow a shofar on Rosh Hashanah even if it is Shabbos. The Gemora states further that a child that has reached the age where he can be trained to do a mitzva, we instruct him how to blow a shofar, however a child that has not reached that age, we do not instruct him but we do not restrain him from blowing himself. (33a – 33b)

SOUNDS OF THE SHOFAR
The Mishna teaches the particulars of the shofar blowing. There should be three sets, consisting of three sounds each – tekiah, teruah, tekiah. The length of the tekiah should be equal to that of three teruos. The length of a teruah should be like three short sobs. If one blew a long tekiah for the duration of two regular tekios, he only receives credit for one. Someone who davened Mussaf without blowing and later found a shofar; he should blow a tekiah, teruah, tekiah three times.

The Gemora cites a braisa which conflicts with the opinion ion the Mishna. The braisa states that the length of a teruah should be like three shevarim. Abaye explains the dispute as follows: It is written in the Torah ‘yom teruah’ and the Targum translates this to mean ‘a day of yevava.’ We know from a verse discussing the mother of Sisra crying that ‘yevava’ means crying. The braisa maintains that yevava means moaning, like a sick person where the cries last for some time, and thereby he expresses the teruos as shevarim. The Tanna of our Mishna holds that yevava means to sob, which is a group of very short cries, and therefore he expresses the teruos as short sobs. (33b)

The Gemora cites the Scriptural source showing that one must blow a tekiah, teruah, tekiah. The Gemora also provides the source that there should be three sets of these three sounds. (33b – 34a)

Read more!