Daf Yomi - Taanis 18 - Torah - the Habitat where we Survive

The Yeshivos Hakedoshos The Nation's Lifeline

Dei'ah Vedibur

This shmuess was delivered by HaRav Shmuel Berenbaum at Yeshivas Beis Hillel in Bnei Brak during a chizuk meeting before the beginning of the summer zman.

I am honored to say divrei chizuk to bnei Torah before the coming summer zman. Although it is always important to strengthen others in Torah study, the gemora (Erchin 16b, according to the reading of the Shitta Mekubetzes) teaches us, "R' Tarfon said, `I wonder if anyone living today can rebuke others. If one man says, "You must remove a splinter from between your eyes [a small sin -- see Rashi]," the other will rebut, "You must remove the plank from between your eyes [a major sin]." ' R' Eliezer ben Azaryah said: `I wonder if anyone living today accepts rebuke willingly.'"

HaRav Yisroel Salanter zt'l, the renowned founder of the mussar movement, once commented that even if a single person out of a large audience will take what the darshan says to heart, the darshan should go ahead and speak. Since I feel I am benefiting from what I am telling you, I feel justified in talking, and perhaps others will be motivated too.

Let us appraise the value of studying Torah. The gemora (Brochos 61b) tells us that "the wicked kingdom [Rome] once forbade Jews to study Torah. Papus ben Yehudah found R' Akiva disseminating Torah in public. Papus said to him: `Akiva! Why are you not afraid of what the government will do to you?' R' Akiva answered: `This can be compared to a fox that walked along the river-bank and saw fish darting from one place to the other. [The fox] asked them: "From what are you fleeing?" [The fish] answered: "We are fleeing from the nets that men cast [in the river]." [The fox] asked: "Perhaps you want to come up to the dry land, and we will live [together] just like our ancestors?" [The fish] answered him: "Why are you considered the most clever animal? You are stupid and not clever! If we live in fear in a habitat where we can survive, surely in a habitat where we cannot survive we will live in fear."'"

What exactly was the argument between Papus ben Yehudah and R' Akiva? Chazal (Taanis 18b, see Rashi, s.v. bekodkiyah) write that Papus gave up his life for am Yisroel. A princess was found murdered, and since it was unknown who committed the murder, the non-Jews accused the Jews. The king decreed that all Jews should be killed. To save all the Jews Papus accepted the blame. He was put to death and the decree was annulled. This was Papus ben Yehudah. [Editor's Note: In Taanis it refers only to "Papus" and not "Papus ben Yehudah," but they may have been the same person.]



Nonetheless, when Papus ben Yehudah saw R' Akiva engaging in Torah study and disseminating Torah publicly when it was forbidden to study Torah, he reproved R' Akiva for not being afraid that the government would punish him.

Papus ben Yehudah's question was actually deeper than that. We are not obliged to die for the sake of studying Torah. It is not one of the three aveiros for which the rule yeihoreig ve'al ya'avor applies. When we do not study Torah we are only passively not fulfilling the Torah--shev ve'al ta'aseh. Even if R' Akiva believed this was a time of shmad, in which we are required to be moseir nefesh, why did he need to teach Torah publicly? He could have studied Torah at home. Why did he place himself in a situation of pikuach nefesh? The Torah instructs us "You shall live by them" (Vayikra 18:1) -- "and not die by them" (Yoma 85b). Papus ben Yehudah asked R' Akiva a solid kashye.

What was R' Akiva's answer? He compared Papus's argument to the fox's proposal for the fish to join him on dry land. Surely the clever fox did not overlook the obvious fact that fish need to live in water. The fox intended to suggest a way in which they could live on dry land, and planned to pour water in a pipe or in an aqueduct so the fish could live there and would not be endangered by the fishing nets. If so, why did the fish answer so defiantly "You are stupid!" and what is the comparison to what Papus asked? Was his question so ridiculous?

Papus ben Yehudah actually asked R' Akiva how he could dare act as he did, since it was not according to halocho. We are not obliged to die for talmud Torah, and at the least we are surely not obliged to teach Torah publicly when danger of death is involved. If R' Akiva disagreed and maintained that according to halocho one is even obligated to die in order to teach Torah publicly, that surely did not make Papus's question ridiculous. Papus ben Yehudah was himself an odom godol.

Let us think a little deeper. Why did the fish summarily reject the fox's suggestion?

The fish claimed that even if the fox provided them with water by pipe, dry land can never be "the habitat where we can survive." The danger of living there is far more than in the river. The moral R' Akiva inferred was that studying Torah can never "cause" one's death. Studying Torah is not a regular mitzvah; it has the special characteristic of being "the habitat where we can survive." If in the end one does die, it can only be because of some other reason, perhaps known only in Shomayim.

What type of Torah are we discussing? Teaching Torah to others. Although undoubtedly we can fulfill the mitzvah of talmud Torah when studying at home, "the habitat where we can survive" is only when we teach Torah publicly to others, and therefore it cannot possibly cause any decree of death. This is exactly what the fish answered: No matter how much water you provide us with, it cannot be an alternative to "the habitat where we survive."

But why did R' Akiva call Papus ben Yehudah foolish simply because he did not understand the above? Was it so simple and evident?

The gemora (Yevomos 9a) tells us that once after Levi asked Rabbenu HaKodosh a question, Rebbe answered: "It seems that you do not have any brain in your skull!" The gemora discusses why the question is not a question. Here too a difficulty must be resolved. Why did Rebbe answer Levi so sharply? Should a talmid be answered in such a way after he asks a question? In addition, we see the gemora itself discusses the various sides of this question, which shows the question is certainly not simple.

A rav's obligation to teach his talmid is not limited to teaching him proficiency in the Talmud's text. He must teach him how to comprehend the gemora properly. When a talmid asks a baseless question the rav cannot be content with just informing him it is incorrect. Doing so is improper chinuch. The rav must clarify to the talmid why he should never have conceived of such a question. His mistake in the process of analyzing the gemora must be fully elucidated to him.

Since Rebbe knew that Levi's kashye was worthless, in order to teach him how to analyze Torah correctly he had to emphasize that such a question only befits someone without a head on his shoulders. The talmid would afterwards think more deeply, and not remain with only a superficial understanding. Compared to correct comprehension, a mistaken understanding is like having no mind at all.

This is what R' Akiva clarified to Papus: One cannot question whether the obligation of yeihoreig ve'al ya'avor is relevant to teaching Torah publicly, whether it is unjustified mesirus nefesh. Such a question is intrinsically erroneous. It is incorrect understanding, actual foolishness. To think that Torah study can possibly cause one's death is absurd. On the contrary, teaching Torah publicly is the essential factor in "the habitat where we survive."

We now understand the inner meaning of what we say each day in davening (Bircas Krias Shema), that "it is our life and the length of our days." This is a halocho lema'aseh. R' Akiva taught Torah publicly although it seemed he was endangering his life, because Torah itself is life and not death. Not only studying Torah is life, teaching Torah publicly also is life. It is not only an additional level in one's study, it is the fact of life.

The yeshiva, where Torah is studied, is "the habitat where we survive." (I am, however, uncertain if individuals studying alone or with a chavrusa are considered studying berabim when they do this within a tzibbur, or perhaps only when many come together to hear a shiur from the Rosh Yeshiva it is considered studying berabim. This must be clarified.)

Although those who study Torah live frugally in comparison to those engaged in making a livelihood, this cannot be considered mesirus nefesh for Torah. On the contrary, we must understand that studying Torah does not induce any loss; it is "the habitat where we survive." We dare not think that for studying Torah we are giving up on life. We are not giving up on life; the Torah generates life. This is true even if it seems to us that it is not so, just as Papus ben Yehudah thought.

Dovid Hamelech said: "Surely goodness and chesed shall pursue me all the days of my life" (Tehillim 23:6). Maran the Chofetz Chaim asks, Do goodness and chesed pursue a person? Being pursued caries a negative connotation.

The Chofetz Chaim answers that sometimes it appears that studying Torah causes one to suffer. Someone who goes into business enjoys luxury, but someone engaged in Torah lives sparingly. When Pesach arrives he may even have to borrow money from a gemach to pay for his yom tov expenses. It looks as if the Torah is "pursuing" him. Dovid Hamelech, however, requested, "If I am supposed to be punished by being pursued, I want goodness and chesed to pursue me."

We must think like this. Torah does not cause any hardships, but it is possible that HaKodosh Boruch Hu will do chessed with a person and so hardship that is intended to come from other causes seem to be caused by the Torah.

The Torah is our lives -- in this world! If you think that in America a person enjoys Olam Hazeh I am telling you that Olam Hazeh has nothing to sell no matter where you are. What does a person gain by eating a more delicious meal or by having more green dollar bills? Nothing at all! When we are studying Torah we feel that it is our lives and the length of our days. In every Tosafos and Rashi we sense enormous chochmah. I feel Hashem's chochmah in every section of the gemora.

How fortunate are we to be zoche to Gan Eden in Olam Hazeh, being able to study Torah without distractions.

I want to say how amazed I am that since rosh chodesh Nisan fell this year on erev Shabbos and Shabbos, the summer zman started on Sunday. How is it possible to restrain oneself until Sunday? Is the Torah not "our lives and the length of our days"? If people were handing out money somewhere, would any normal person patiently wait a few days, or would he run right over to grab some money for himself? "Studying Torah in public" is our life.

The gemora (Avoda Zorah 17b) tells that R' Eliezer ben Parta and R' Chanina ben Tradyon were caught by the government. R' Eliezer said to R' Chanina, "How fortunate are you that you were caught for doing one thing! Woe to me that I was caught for doing five things." R' Chanina was imprisoned only because he taught Torah and therefore had hope to be saved, but R' Eliezer was imprisoned because of five things and therefore had less hope to be saved.

R' Chanina answered, "How fortunate are you that you were caught for five things, for you will be saved. Woe to me that I was caught for one thing, for I will not be saved. You engaged in Torah and gemilus chassodim, but I engaged only in Torah. Anyone who engages only in Torah is like someone without an Elokim." Rashi explains that it is "as if he does not have an Elokim to save him." Rabbenu Chananel adds that he is like someone who does not have an Elokim, and therefore will also not have the reward for studying Torah.

But why did R' Chanina not engage in gemilus chassodim, if he believed that someone who does not engage in it is as if he has no Elokim? Furthermore, if R' Chanina understood that engaging in gemilus chassodim can save one's life, why did he not do so, since he knew he might be condemned to death because of teaching Torah?

R' Chanina was later asked how he could engage in Torah study after the government decreed punishment of death for doing so. R' Chanina answered: "Shomayim will have pity." He afterward asked if he would be zoche to Olam Haboh. He was answered that since he gave money to poor people in an incident of a sofeik whether the money belonged to tzedokoh, he would merit Olam Haboh for this.

One would think that his being moseir nefesh for Torah and being burnt for kiddush Hashem, wrapped in a sefer Torah and wool put around his heart so that his death would take a long time, was enough of a reason to be zoche to Olam Haboh. Even the executioner who removed the wool from over R' Chanina's heart was zoche because of that to Olam Haboh. Is it not logical that R' Chanina himself should be zoche? Furthermore, if it was forbidden for R' Chanina to study when a gezeira was in force, why did he endanger himself?

It seems that the way R' Chanina acted comes under the category of "an aveira done lishmah, which is greater than a mitzvah done not lishmah" (Nozir 23b), which we learn from Yael, who did an aveira to save Yisroel from Sisra.

This needs to be understood too. If what Yael did was commendable, why is it at all called an aveira and not a mitzvah? When an aseih supersedes a lo sa'aseh, is doing the aseih considered an aveira? Surely not!

It seems that an aveira lishmah remains an aveira, but it is better to do it in order to save all of Yisroel. This is similar to what is written in Shabbos (4a), that it is preferable to commit a mild aveira to save an am ho'oretz from a severe aveira. Chazal (Shabbos 151b) also write, "Profane one Shabbos for him so he can observe Shabbos many times." An aveira to save Klal Yisroel is an aveira, but it worthwhile doing it to save the nation.

It is possible that R' Chanina, who was a godol beTorah, decided that if he engaged himself in gemilus chassodim he would be less of a talmid chochom and Klal Yisroel would lose out. All of am Yisroel needed the Torah of R' Chanina. By not engaging in gemilus chassodim he was moseir nefesh, although it was considered as if he had no Elokim and although he knew that because he acted in this way HaKodosh Boruch Hu would not save him. He nonetheless sacrificed himself for am Yisroel so they would have a godol beTorah who had studied Torah his whole life without stopping even for a moment, not even stopping to do gemilus chassodim.

R' Chanina therefore asked if he would be zoche to Olam Haboh. It was possible that he should not have studied Torah during the time of a gezeira, since it was not a case of yeihoreig ve'al ya'avor, but R' Chanina knew that if he did not engage in Torah publicly the Torah itself would be in danger. He was moseir nefesh for the Torah's sake. He asked whether he would be zoche to Olam Haboh since perhaps he did not act according to the din and forfeited Olam Haboh.

How terrifying it is to think that a person is prepared to be moseir nefesh and forfeit all of his Olam Haboh only for the sake of am Yisroel!

It is worthwhile to forfeit all of one's worlds so that the Torah will remain for am Yisroel. Even for the additional ma'alah of teaching Torah publicly it was worthwhile for R' Chanina to forfeit Olam Hazeh and all of his Olam Haboh for the Torah. This is really awesome.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 18 - Highlights

MEGILLAS TAANIS

It is written in Megillas Taanis that these are the days that one is not allowed to fast on them and on some of them; it is not even permitted to eulogize. From Rosh Chodesh Nissan until the eighth day of Nissan, the Chachamim were victorious over the Sadducees in a debate regarding the korban tamid (The Sadducees maintained that the tamid should be donated by individuals and the Chachamim convinced them that communal funds are required.). These days were declared as minor festivals and it is prohibited from fasting or even eulogizing on these days. From the eighth day of Nissan until after Pesach, the debate regarding the Yom Tov of Shavuos was settled (The Baitusim held that Shavuos must be on a Sunday) and therefore it was decreed that one cannot fast or eulogize on these days.

The Gemora asked on the necessity regarding the decree that it is prohibited from eulogizing on the first day of Nissan; it should be prohibited regardless since it is Rosh Chodesh. The Gemora answers that the decree is needed in order to prohibit the day before the festival as well. The Gemora explains that since Rosh Chodesh is Biblical, it would not require strengthening (by prohibiting the day before also), however the festivals mentioned in Megillas Taanis are only a Rabbinical ordinance and hence they require strengthening.

The Gemora asks a similar question on the second section cited in Megillas Taanis. What was the purpose of including the days of Pesach in the decree? Rav Pappa answers that due to the decree, the day following Pesach is also prohibited.

This Gemora is obviously in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosi who maintains that the day following a day on which Megillas Taanis prohibits eulogizing is also prohibited (According to the Tanna Kamma, only the day preceding such a day would be prohibited). If so, why does Megillas Taanis find it necessary to rule that the twenty-ninth day in Adar is subject to the prohibition of eulogizing because it is the day preceding the first of Nissan, let it be prohibited because it is the day following the twenty-eighth of Adar, which is also a festival. The Gemora cites the braisa in Megillas Taanis which records the incident. The Romans had decreed that the Jews could not study Torah, perform circumcisions or keep Shabbos. Yehudah ben Shamua took advice from a Roman noblewoman and the Jews went out into the streets at night to protest. They cried out that we are brothers (the Jews and the Romans), and we are children from the same father and mother. Why are you (the Romans) issuing such harsh decrees on us? The Romans listened and revoked the decree. This day was pronounced as a festival.

Abaye answers that the decree was necessary in an instance where Adar had thirty days. It would emerge that the day following the twenty-eight of Adar would be the twenty-ninth and the there would be no prohibition on the thirtieth. Since the first of Nissan was declared to be a festival, the thirtieth of Adar will be prohibited since it is the day preceding the first of Nissan.

Rav Ashi answers that declaring the first of Nissan as a festival is necessary even when Adar has twenty-nine days. If the twenty-ninth is only prohibited due to its being the day following the twenty-eighth, it would be forbidden to fast but eulogizing would be permitted; now that the twenty-ninth is located between two festivals, it was considered a festival in itself and even eulogizing would be forbidden.

The Gemora asks another question on this segment of Megillas Taanis. Why was it necessary to say “from the eighth of Nissan,” the eighth of Nissan is anyway subject to the laws against eulogizing because it was included in the first festival (the first eight days of Nissan because of the debate regarding the tamid)? The Gemora answers that if for some reason, the Chachamim would abolish the first festival, the eighth of Nissan would still be prohibited because of the second decree.

The Gemora concludes that we could utilize the same answer to the challenge raised before. The braisa needed to teach that the twenty-ninth of Adar is prohibited on account that it is the day preceding the first of Nissan even though it would have been prohibited anyway since it is the day following the twenty-eighth of Nissan. This is just in case the festival of the twenty-eighth was abolished; the twenty-ninth would still be prohibited. (17b – 18a)

SHMUEL’S RULINGS

 The Gemora asks a contradiction regarding Shmuel’s rulings pertaining to the laws discussed in Megillas Taanis. Shmuel rules that the halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir who maintains that when eulogizing is prohibited on a particular day, the prohibition extends only to the day before and not the day after. Yet, Shmuel is also quoted as ruling in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel who holds that only the days that were declared as festivals are prohibited but the day preceding and the day following the festival is permitted. The Gemora answers that initially Shmuel thought that Rabbi Meir was the most lenient opinion and therefore he ruled like him (since the prohibition against fasting is only a Rabbinical one). When he discovered that Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel was even more lenient, he retracted and ruled according to him. (18a)


RABBI YOCHANAN’S OPINION
 It was said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the halacha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosi. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba clarified this ruling. On a day that Megillas Taanis declared not to fast on them, Rabbi Yochanan ruled that the halacha is like Rabbi Yosi that it is forbidden to fast on the preceding day as well (but not on the following day). However, regarding a day that Megillas Taanis prohibited eulogizing, Rabbi Yochanan rules in accordance with Rabbi Meir that only the day preceding will be subject to the prohibition of eulogizing. (It emerges according to Rabbi Yochanan, that any day mentioned in Megillas Taanis that prohibits eulogizing or fasting, the halacha would be that the preceding day will also be prohibited but not on the day which follows.)

The Gemora asks on Rabbi Yochanan from a Mishna which would seemingly indicate that the day preceding a minor festival recorded in Megillas Taanis will not be prohibited. Since it is an anonymous Mishna, Rabbi Yochanan should rule according to that opinion.

The Gemora cites the Mishna in Megillah that even though the Megillah is sometimes read earlier than the normal day, eulogizing and fasting would be permitted on those days. The Gemora proceeds to analyze as to which day precisely the Mishna is referring to. It cannot mean the fourteenth since that day is Purim and Megillas Taanis explicitly prohibits eulogizing and fasting. It cannot be referring to the thirteenth since that day is Yom Nikanor, which is a minor festival mentioned in Megillas Taanis. It cannot be referring to the twelfth since that day is Yom Turyanus, which is also a festival mentioned in Megillas Taanis. The only remaining day that it can be referring to is the eleventh. The Mishna is ruling that the Megillah can be read on the eleventh but there are no prohibitions against fasting or eulogizing even though this is the day preceding Yom Turyanus. This is inconsistent with Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion that the halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosi.

The Gemora answers that in fact, the Mishna is referring to the twelfth; and the answer to the objection raised above is that the Chachamim had subsequently abolished the festival of Yom Turyanus because of two pious brothers who were killed on that day. The Gemora persists that it should still be prohibited from fasting on the twelfth because it is the day preceding Yom Nikanor. The Gemora answers that if the tragedy was sufficient enough of a reason to abolish the festival, we cannot decree that it is prohibited to fast on the account of it being the day preceding Yom Nikanor. (18a – 18b)

NIKANOR AND TURYANUS

 The Gemora proceeds to explain the festival of Yom Nikanor and Yom Turyanus. Yom Nikanor celebrated the death of Nikanor, a Greek general, who would wave his hand at Yerushalayim and its vicinity and say, "when will these fall into my hands so that I can trample it?" When the Hasmoneans succeeded in driving the Greeks from Israel, he was captured. They cut off his thumbs and big toes and hung them by the gates of Yerushalayim. This incident occurred on the thirteenth of Adar and they declared this day as a minor festival.

Yom Turyanus celebrated the death of Turyanus, a Roman officer who put two Jews - Papus and Lulianus - to death. Before doing so, he mocked them publicly, challenging the Jewish God to intervene on their behalf, as He was reputed to have done on behalf of Chananya, Misha'el and Azariah. Papus and Lulianus responded that they were not deserving of divine intervention, and neither was Turyanus on the level of Nevuhadnezzar to have a miracle take place because of him. They concluded that Hashem probably had made him (Turyanus) the instrument of their death in order to punish him for it. Immediately after their death, messengers from Rome arrived who removed him from his position and cracked his head with clubs. Since this incident occurred on the twelfth of Adar, they declared this day as a minor festival. (18b)

FASTING ON
ROSH CHODESH

 The Mishna cited Rabban Gamliel who said that the Chachamim would never decree that the first day of the series of fasts should be on Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah, or Purim. If the fasts began already and one of the days of the fasts fell out on Rosh Chodesh, we would not interrupt the fasts.

Rav Acha explains that this is only correct if there were already three fasts; then we continue even though one of the fast days fell on Rosh Chodesh. Rabbi Assi maintains that this is true even if they fasted just once.

The Mishna had stated that Rabbi Meir maintains that even though Rabban Gamliel said that they do not interrupt, he would admit that the fast should not be completed. This halacha is identical to a case where Tisha B’av fell on Erev Shabbos.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav that the Chachamim disagree and maintain that the fast must be completed. Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Huna that the halacha is in accordance with the opinion of the Chachamim. (18b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 17 - STORY REGARDING KOHANIM

The Ponovezher Rav relates the following story. He recalled how it was only a short while after he arrived to the Yeshiva in Radin and one morning after Shacharis, the Chafetz Chaim was standing by the doorway of the Yeshiva with his tallis bag in his hand. He looked at me in a striking manner as the baalei mussar commonly do when they wish to speak with someone. I went over to him and he grabbed my arm and said, “You are kohanim and I want to ask you a question. The Gemora in Taanis 17a states that Rebbe maintains that it is appropriate for kohanim nowadays to abstain from drinking wine. This is because we anticipate the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdosh at any moment and the kohanim will be needed to perform the service. However, since the kohanim cannot identify as to which mishmar they belong to and there will be a long line of kohanim by Eliyahu Hanavi discovering their mishmar, by that time the effect of the wine will dissipate and they will be able to perform the service.”

The Chafetz Chaim continued, “This is a legitimate answer regarding wine, but what will a kohen who is not familiar with the correct methods of performing the service do? Kohanim who are not proficient in all facets of the service will not be able to serve. Sleep and traveling can help a drunkard but what is the remedy for an ignorant kohen?”

He concluded by telling me “You are a kohen and we are anxiously awaiting Mashiach’s arrival any moment. You must be prepared to perform the service in the Beis Hamikdosh. It is essential that you begin to learn the halachos of kodoshim immediately.”

The Ponovezher Rav said, “I had just arrived from learning in Telz and I was accustomed to making distinctions. I answered the Chafetz Chaim and regrets what I said then even today.
I told him that since he, the Chafetz Chaim was a kohen, and he is proficient with all the laws of kodoshim, so I will observe how the Rebbe performs the service and I will do it in that precise manner.”

The Chafetz Chaim didn’t retract and said sternly, “Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon you to learn kodoshim.”

It was these words that inspired the Ponovezher Rav to join the Kodoshim Kollel.

The Maggid from Eretz Yisroel, Rav Yaakov Galinsky says over that the Ponovezher Rav once told him this story in his house and he added one point. The Rav was greatly disturbed as to how he could have even contemplated that he would merit being able to stand next to the Chafetz Chaim in the Beis Hamikdosh.

The Chafetz Chaim told him then that the Gemora Sotah (5a) states that Hashem says regarding one who is haughty, “I and him cannot exist in the world together.”

Why is one who is conceited worse than a wicked person or a thief that they both can merit Hashem’s kindness and they are not pushed away so strongly?

The Chafetz Chaim explained that one who is haughty is actually a fool. Regarding what can a person honestly brag about? Everything comes from Hashem. A person that understands that and nevertheless chooses to be arrogant, he is a foolish person and Hashem does not reside together with fools. (Meir Einei Yisroel – chelek hey)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 17 - BEIS HAMIKDOSH BEFORE MASHIACH

The Gemora in Taanis 17a states that Rebbe maintains that it is appropriate for kohanim nowadays to abstain from drinking wine. This is because we anticipate the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdosh at any moment and the kohanim will be needed to perform the service. However, since the kohanim cannot identify as to which mishmar they belong to and there will be a long line of kohanim by Eliyahu Hanavi discovering their mishmar, by that time the effect of the wine will dissipate and they will be able to perform the service.

The Minchas Chinuch (152:9) asks from the Gemora Eruvin (43a) which rules that if one makes a vow to become a nazir on the day that Mashiach ben David will arrive, he is permitted to drink wine on Shabbos and Yom Tov since Eliyahu does not come on Erev Shabbos. According to this, why doesn’t our Gemora mention that the kohanim are allowed to drink wine on Shabbos and Yom Tov?

He answers, based on a Yerushalmi that while it’s true that Eliyahu does not arrive on Erev Shabbos but the Beis Hamikdosh can be built on Shabbos even without Eliyahu arriving first.

Rashi wonders how the Beis Hamikdosh could be built on Shabbos; isn’t that a desecration of Shabbos? Rashi answers that it is only regarding a Beis Hamikdosh built by humans that there is a restriction of building it on Shabbos. The third Beis Hamikdosh, however, will descend from Heaven miraculously, thus there are no restrictions regarding the building of the third Beis Hamikdosh.

The Maharil Diskin is troubled by this answer, as the Jewish People have an obligation to build the Beis Hamikdosh, so why would Hashem prevent us from performing this mitzvah?

The Maharil Diskin answers based on a Medrash in Eicha that states that when the Beis Hamikdosh was destroyed, the gates of the Beis Hamikdosh sank into the ground and in the future, the Jewish People will excavate the gates and affix them to the Beis Hamikdosh. The Gemora in Bava Basra rules that one who secures the gates in an ownerless field is deemed to be the one who acquires the field. Thus, we will fulfill the mitzvah of building the Beis Hamikdosh when we secure the gates of the Beis Hamikdosh. This can also be the explanation of the words that we recite in the Shemoneh Esrei of Mussaf on the festivals, show us its rebuilding and gladden us in its perfection. The word for perfection is tikkuno, which can allude to the securing of the Beis Hamikdosh gates.

According to this, we can still question the permissibility of constructing on Shabbos if we will still be required to affix the doors to the walls, which is obviously forbidden to do on Shabbos. Shemuas Chaim, in his introduction to the Mikdash Dovid answers that korbanos can still be offered even without the doors of the Beis Hamikdosh.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 17 - ULTIMATE REDEMPTION

The Gemora in Taanis 17a states that Rebbe maintains that it is appropriate for kohanim nowadays to abstain from drinking wine. This is because we anticipate the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdosh at any moment and the kohanim will be needed to perform the service. However, since the kohanim cannot identify as to which mishmar they belong to and there will be a long line of kohanim by Eliyahu Hanavi discovering their mishmar, by that time the effect of the wine will dissipate and they will be able to perform the service.

The Gevuros Ari asks that the Gemora in Rosh Hashanah (11a) cites a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua if the ultimate Redemption will transpire in Nissan or in Tishrei. Why does our Gemora rule that the kohanim cannot drink wine the entire year; it should be forbidden only during Nissan or Tishrei?

He answers, based on a Yerushalmi that while it’s true that the Redemption will occur in Nissan or in Tishrei, but the Beis Hamikdosh can be built even beforehand.

Alternatively, he answers that there are two types of Redemption. The Gemora in Rosh Hashanah is referring to the Redemption in its proper time. That will be in Nissan or Tishrei. However, there can be a Redemption that does not have a designated time and if Klal Yisroel is worthy, Mashiach and the Geulah can come at any time even if it’s not Nissan or Tishrei.

The Kli Chamdah disagrees with regard to the chronology that is implied by the Yerushalmi. In his opinion, the final reestablishment of Moshiach as king after he will have completed all the wars will take place either in Nissan or Tishrei. The original arrival of Moshiach will transpire much before then. During the time that Moshiach will be fighting, the Beis Hamikdosh will be rebuilt, and the Kohanim will be busy with the Avodah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 17 - Anticipation for Mashiach

RABBI CINER'S WEEKLY PARSHA PAGE
Parshas V'eschonon

This Shabbos, upon which we read parshas V'eschonon, is the Shabbos after Tisha B'Av-Shabbos Nachamu. Coming after the mourning of the Temple's destruction, we read (in the Haftorah) the comforting words of the Prophet Yishayahu: "'Nachamu, nachamu, {Be comforted, be comforted,) my nation,' says your Elokim {G-d}. [40:1]"

After having completed the three-week mourning period, culminating with last Shabbos's reading of Parshas Chazone and then Tisha B'Av itself, we now switch gears into the geulah {redemption} mode with the reading of Nachamu.

Readings are easy to change-feelings are much, much harder. The length of the exile has caused Moshiach {Messiah} to seem almost surrealistic.

This feeling of somewhat despair actually expresses itself in a tangible, halachic {Jewish Law} way. The kohanim {priests} that served in the Beis HaMikdash {Temple} were divided into twenty-four mishmaros {shifts}, each serving for one week in this twenty-four week rotation. Each shift was then subdivided with each Beis Av {family} serving one day of the week. Since a kohen who had partaken of intoxicating beverages could not perform the service, kohanim were forbidden to drink wine during their shifts.

The Talmud [Taanis 17A] shows how these laws apply to our present times.

The Chachamim {Sages} taught: a Kohen who knows that his forefathers were of those kohanim who served in the Temple, but doesn't know which week or day they served, will be forbidden to drink wine during the entire year. The reasoning being that the Temple will be speedily rebuilt and it might be his week to perform the service! He must be ready at all times and therefore cannot drink wine the entire year.

Rabi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees both in reasoning and in halachic outcome. Who is to say that the rotation will be the same once the Temple is rebuilt? Furthermore, when it will be rebuilt, perhaps all the kohanim will be needed for the re-consecration of the Temple? Therefore, all kohanim, regardless of their history of serving in the Temple should be forbidden to drink wine the entire year.

But, Rabi Yehuda HaNasi explains, the very fact that it has lied in ruins for so many years will allow the kohanim to drink wine in the present times-we do not halachically take into account the possibility of the Temple being suddenly rebuilt.

According to who, the Gemara concludes, do kohanim drink wine in the present times? According to the opinion of Rabi Yehuda HaNasi.

If that was the prevalent feeling during the time of Rabi Yehuda HaNasi, how are we, about two thousand years later, supposed to keep our hopes up? How can we optimistically feel that this will be the year of wonders and miracles, the likes of which haven't been seen since the churban {destruction}?

The Darchei Mussar brings from Rav Moshe Rosenstein, zt"l, the Mashgiach of the Lomze Yeshiva, the following explanation:

If a person is waiting for a package to arrive and it doesn't, then with each passing day his confidence that it will come keeps diminishing. It was supposed to have been here a week ago! If it didn't come when it was supposed to, then chances are it won't come now that we're moving past that point.

However, in a different type of situation, our feelings would be the opposite. Let's say a person has a penny collection-over the years he has accumulated tens of thousands of pennies. He has meticulously kept records of which pennies he has from each year with each different type of design that was issued. He carefully follows the news to hear which ones are in demand and are worth the most. One day he hears the most incredible thing. Another collector is willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a certain type of penny and he knows he has that exact type. He is exuberant but has quite a job ahead of him. He must now go through his entire collection to find that one, single penny. He rolls up his sleeves and starts to go through them, one at a time.

His attitude is very different. He doesn't look at the pile that he's gone though already and think that he'll never find it. He knows that it's there! Rather, he looks at the diminishing pile of what still hasn't been checked with his confidence growing every minute, thinking "I'm almost there, I'm almost there."

We have been waiting for Moshiach for thousands of years. We hoped he would come each day, but when that day passed it became painfully clear that that was not the day that Hashem had pinpointed, back at the time of creation, to be the day of the ultimate redemption. We're not moving further from the day, we keep getting closer. The pile of remaining days keeps diminishing…

We are now nearing the end of year 5762 and he must come well before the year six thousand. We ourselves have witnessed the chaotic speeding up of history that precedes Moshiach. The last minute, frenzied details are being completed to set the final stage for the purpose of humanity to be realized.

As we hear the words "Nachamu, nachamu" we must hear and feel in our hearts his ever-approaching footsteps.

Good Shabbos,
Yisroel Ciner

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 17 - Highlights

RABBI YEHUDA

The Mishna had stated that there were six additional brochos recited on the public fast day. The six additional brochos are: Zichronos and Shofaros, "To Hashem, in my distress I called Him and he answered me," "I will lift up my eyes to the mountains…," "From the depths, I have called you, Hashem," "A prayer of the afflicted, when he faints." Rabbi Yehuda says that he did not have to say Zichronos and Shofaros, but instead he said, "If there be a famine in the land, if there will be a plague…," and "The word of the Hashem that came to Yeremiya concerning the droughts."

The Gemora explains that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the brochos of Zichronos and Shofaros are only recited on Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur during a Yovel year and during war time. (16b – 17a)

KOHANIM NOWADAYS

The Mishna had stated that members of the mishmar are permitted to drink wine at night but not during the day because they might be called upon to help perform the service and a kohen who drinks wine is prohibited from serving in the Beis Hamikdosh. Members of the beis av are not allowed to drink wine during the day and even at night.

The Gemora cites a braisa which explains the reason for these halachos. Members of the mishmar are prohibited from drinking wine during the day because there might be an extraordinary number of korbanos on that day and the members of the mishmar might be called upon to assist the members of the beis av perform the service. Members of the beis av are not allowed to drink wine during the day and even at night since they are constantly occupied in performing the service in the Beis Hamikdosh.

It emerges that we can derive from here that even the chance that a kohen might serve in the Beis Hamikdosh prohibits him from drinking wine. Therefore, a kohen nowadays when there is no Beis Hamikdosh, who happens to know which mishmar and beis av his family is from, will be prohibited from drinking wine on the day of his beis av’s turn. This is because we anticipate the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdosh at any moment and he will be needed to perform the service. If he knows which mishmar he is from but does not recognize the specific beis av, he would be prohibited from drinking wine the entire week of his mishmar’s turn. If he doesn’t know the mishmar or the beis av that he belongs to, he would be prohibited from drinking wine the entire year. Rebbe disagrees and states that if this is a legitimate concern, every kohen should be forbidden from drinking wine even if he can identify his mishmar and beis av because we are uncertain that the order of the mishmaros will not change. However, Rebbe concludes that since there have been so many years since the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh and it hasn’t been rebuilt.

Abaye comments that the kohanim nowadays rely on the viewpoint of Rebbe thereby permitting them to drink wine. (17a)

HAIRCUTS

 The Mishna had stated that the members of the mishmar and members of the ma'amad are prohibited from cutting their hair and from laundering clothes, however on Thursday; they are permitted to cut their hair and perform laundering in honor of Shabbos.

Rabbah bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that we did not want them entering their week of service disheveled.

The Gemora cites a braisa that a king is obligated to take a haircut every day. The Gemora brings a Scriptural verse proving that a king is supposed to be seen in all his beauty. The braisa continues that the kohen gadol should take a haircut every Friday. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak explains the reason for this. The new mishmar arrives on Shabbos and it is only fitting that the kohen gadol appear well groomed when he is first seen. The braisa concludes that an ordinary kohen is required to take a haircut every thirty days. This is derived from the laws of a nazir who must let his hair grow for a minimum of thirty days.

The Gemora questions why this halacha does not apply nowadays. The Gemora answers that since the prohibition of a kohen growing his hair long and the prohibition of performing the service in the Beis Hamikdosh after drinking wine are juxtaposed in a verse in Yechezkel, we learn one from the other. Just as the prohibition of drinking wine only applies when serving in the Beis Hamikdosh, so too the prohibition against growing his hair long applies only when the Beis Hamikdosh is in existence.

The Gemora persists with its question by stating that the Chachamim prohibited a kohen from drinking wine even nowadays because of the anticipation of the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdosh. The same reasoning should apply to growing his hair. The Gemora answers that even if the Beis Hamikdosh is rebuilt, a kohen can quickly cut his hair and enter the Beis Hamikdosh.

The Gemora asks that there is a quick remedy for a kohen that drank wine as well. He can sleep a little and then enter the Beis Hamikdosh to perform the service. The Gemora cites Rami bar Abba who states that sleeping a little or walking at least a mil will dissipate the effect of the wine.

The Gemora answers that Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha regarding one who drank more than a revi’is of wine; sleeping and traveling will intensify the effect of the wine and therefore they were compelled to prohibit the drinking of wine nowadays.

Rav Ashi offers a different answer to the original question. There is a basic distinction between the prohibition of a kohen growing his hair long and the prohibition of performing the service in the Beis Hamikdosh after drinking wine. A kohen who performs the service after drinking wine will disqualify the service and that is why the Chachamim prohibited him from drinking wine nowadays. However, a kohen who perform the service with long hair does not invalidate the service and therefore the Chachamim did not feel that it was necessary to establish the laws of cutting hair nowadays.

The Gemora asks on Rav Ashi from a braisa which states that a kohen who performs the service in the Beis Hamikdosh with long hair is liable to death by the hands of Heaven. This is derived from a Scriptural verse that compares the prohibition of drinking wine to the laws of growing his hair. The Gemora assumes based on this comparison that it should follow that just as performing the service after drinking wine disqualifies the service, so too performing the service with long hair should invalidate the service. The Gemora answers that the comparison is limited to the death penalty and not for invalidating the service. (17a – 17b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 16 - PRAYING BY A CEMETERY

The Gemora states that it was the custom to visit a cemetery on a fast day. One reason given is that the Jewish people were saying that they consider themselves like corpses and this will stimulate them to repent. Another reason is that this will enable the deceased who are buried in the cemetery to pray for them. According to the second reason, they would not visit a cemetery that contained the graves of gentiles.

The Ritva writes that they didn’t go to the cemetery in order to daven there because that is forbidden on the account of “loeg lerosh” – it is considered mocking to the dead who cannot perform the mitzvos; rather they davened in the streets and went to the cemetery afterwards.

The Ran adds that they did not take the sefer Torah with them when they went to the cemetery.

The Noda B’yehuda (O”C 2:109) was asked on a year that there was no rain and there was tremendous suffering; if they would be permitted to go to a cemetery with a sefer Torah and daven there for rain.

He cites a Zohar (Acharei Mos) which states that davening by a cemetery inspires the souls of those buried there to inform those that are buried in Chevron (Patriarchs and the Matriarchs) who subsequently will arouse Hashem’s compassion.

However, there is a Gemora in Brochos (18a) which rules that a person should not enter a cemetery with tefillin on his head or read from a sefer Torah in his arm. We can infer from this Gemora that reading from the sefer Torah is forbidden but holding it would be permitted. The Kesef Mishna in Hilchos Sefer Torah (10:6) learns that both are forbidden; reading from the sefer Torah or holding it.

The Noda B’yehuda concludes that although he is not an expert in the hidden portions of Torah, the Zohar cited does warn against bringing a sefer Torah that might be missing letters into a cemetery since this can cause terrible consequences.

The sefer Igra D’taanisa wonders why the Noda B’yehuda makes no mention of our Gemora which would indicate that one can go daven by a cemetery.

The Minchas Elozar discusses the permissibility of people davening by Kever Rochel. Some say that we are not mocking Rochel since she was living before the Torah was given; she was never obligated in mitzvos.

The Netziv rules that in his days, it would be permitted because the custom was to bury them deeper than ten tefachim from the ground and it is considered like a different domain.

The Rama (O”C 581:4) writes that there are places that have the custom to go to cemeteries on Erev Rosh Hashanah and to recite lengthy Tefillos there. The Chidah asks on this Rama from the Ritva here that states explicitly that one should not daven in the cemetery.

There are those that create a distinction between a compulsory tefillah and a tefillah which is only voluntary.

The Elya Rabbah (581) quotes from the Maharil that one should be careful when going to the graves of Tzadikim that your tefillos should not be directed towards those that are buried there, rather one should daven to Hashem and ask for compassion in the merit of these Tzadikim.

Some say that you can ask the dead to be an advocate on your behalf.

The Bach (Y”D 217) rules that it is forbidden to daven to the dead because of the prohibition of being “doresh el hameisim.” He points out that even though we find that Calev did daven in Chevron by the Meoras Hamachpeila, he wasn't davening to the Avos. Rather, since a cemetery is a place of holiness and purity, the tefillos davened there will be more readily accepted.

Nefesh Hachaim
has some good information on this topic as well.

Parshas Nitzavim-VaYeilech:Davening At A Cemetery

This weeks shiur was on the sugyah of davening at a cemetary. The Shulchan Aruch brings down the inyan of davening at a cemetary in 3 places. In Hilchos Ta'anis it is quoted as one of the halachos that a tzibbur should do when there is a ta'anis for rain. It is also mentioned in Hil' Tisha B'Av and finally in Hilchos Rosh Hashana. Although everyone agrees one should or could go to a cemetary there is a machlokes about why we are going.

The gemara in Ta'anis 16a brings two reasons why we go to a cemetary on a fast day. One opinion holds it is to arouse in ourselves a feeling of teshuva by saying that if we don't do teshuva we are like meisim. The 2nd opinion is that we are davening to the meisim that they should intercede on our behalf. The gemara says the nafka mina is whether one should go to a non-Jewish cemetary if no other cemetary is available. Acc. to the first reason one could go but not according to the 2nd reason. Tosafos writes from here we have a minhag to go to the cemetary on Tisha B'Av.

Also the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch seem to pasken like the first reason (to arouse in ourselves a feeling of teshuva).

Davening To Meisim

PLEASE NOTE: JUST TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO CONFUSION, WHEN I WRITE "DAVENING TO MEISIM" WHAT I MEAN IS DAVENING TO A MEIS AND ASKING THE MEIS TO INTERCEDE ON OUR BEHALF. I DO NOT MEAN THAT WE ARE DAVENING TO A MEIS SO THAT THE MEIS WILL FULLFILL OUR REQUEST. ONLY HKBH CAN DO THIS.

Shittas HaMachmirim
The question is, is there anything wrong with davening to the meisim. The Bach (end of Y.D. 217) brings a shittah that it is assur to daven to a meis and to do so is a violation of "doresh el hameisim". The Be'er Heitev in Hil Rosh Hashanah (581:17) also quotes a Maharil who holds it is assur and the only reason to go to a cemetary is because it is a mokom kodosh v'tahor. Teh Maharil writes that a person is only allowed to daven to Hashem and not to any other intemediary. The Bach also points out that even though we find that Kaleiv davened in Chevron by the Ma'aras HaMachpeila (Sotah 34b) he wasn't davening to the avos. Rather, since a cemetary is a mokom kodosh v'tahor it is a place where ones tefillos will be readily accepted.

Shittas HaMeikilim

There are poskim who hold that it is muttar to daven to meisim. It should be pointed out that there is a similar machlokes regarding davening to ma'lachim (eg. machnisiei rachamim in selichos). However, as we will see one can be m'chaleik between davening to a meis and davening to a malach. The Maharam Shik (O.C. 293) writes that it is muttar. He asks how is it possible to ask a living tzaddik to daven for us? He answers that when the tzaddik hears our problems the tzaddik himself is in paon. Therefore the tzaddik is really davening that HKBH should help him (i.e. the tzaddik). It just happens to be that the way to ease the tzaddik's pain is by helping the other person. This sevara would apply to a meis as well. The meisim know what is going on in this world and when they hear we are in pain they will also be in pain. Therefore, they can ask HKBH to heal their pain (i.e. the pain of the meis) and m'meilah the pain of the other person will also be healed. Although the Maharam Shik doesn't mention it, I saw brought down in the Minchas Yitzchak (Chelek 8 Siman 53) that this idea is found in the Chasam Sofer (O.C. 166) who was actually the rebbi of the Maharam Shik. The Chasam Sofer used this sevara to distinguish between davening to malachim (which he held was asasur) and davening to a live person (which is muttar) . It seems the Maharam Shik took itone step further and applied it to meisim as well.

The Minchas Elazer (Chelek 1 Siman 68) has a lengthy teshuva why it is muttar. He quotes many gemaras and medrashim as proofs. Rav Moshe (Igros Moshe O.C. chelek 5 Siman 43:6)also discusses this issue. However, Rav Moshe doesn't seem to come out with a final psak. He just says that the machlokes is based on whether meisim are better than malachim.

I would like to say that maybe we have a rayah that Rabbi Akiva Eiger held it was muttar. In Hil Rosh Hashana the Magan Avraham writes that the minhag to go to a cemetary is found in the gemara. But he doesn't say which gemara. The GR"A points you to the gemara in Ta'anis. However, Rabbi Akiva Eiger says that the MG"A is referring to the gemara in Sotah about Kaleiv. Why did Rabbi Akiva Eiger choose this gemara? It could be that Rabbi Akiva Eiger held it was muttar to daven to meisim and therefore he chose the gemara in Sotah which clearly states it is muttar (unless you learn like the Bach that it was a din in the mokom).

One more mareh mokom to look at (which I didn't get a chance to see) is an article in Techumim vol 21 by Rav Moshe Tzuriel. (also see here at the end of the article)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 16 - Hashem's Distress

HASHEM’S DISTRESS
ONLY BY A TZIBUR
AND NOT BY AN INDIVIDUAL

The Gemora presents two reasons as to why they would place ashes on the Ark. Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi says that it is as if Hashem is saying “I am with him in distress.” Rish Lakish states that it is as if to say: In their every distress, He is in distress.

The Beis HaLevi in his Dorshos (7) states that there is a huge difference between the two verses. Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi maintains that Hashem, so to speak, suffers even when an individual member of Klal Yisroel is suffering. Rish Lakish holds that Hashem is in distress only when Klal Yisroel is in distress but not by an individual.

Based on this, the Beis HaLevi explains a Gemora in Megillah (31b). Rish Lakish maintains that we cannot recite a brocha on the curses mentioned in the Torah. Tosfos cites a Medrash that since Klal Yisroel is suffering, Hashem is distressed and it is not proper for us to be making a blessing when Hashem is in pain. The Ran asks on this explanation from a Mishna inn Brochos which explicitly states that one is obligated to recite a brocha on misfortunes in the same manner that he would recite a brocha if something good occurred to him. The Beis HaLevi answers that the Mishna in Brochos is referring to a misfortune of an individual where Hashem is not in distress and therefore a brocha can be recited, however the Gemora in Megillah, which is discussing the curses for the entire Klal Yisroel, Hashem is in pain and therefore a brocha cannot be recited.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 16 - Forging our own Happiness

I happened on an interesting article pertaining to the daf, parenting and happiness. This is from http://Rabbi Abraham J. Twersky

Some of the theories that have been popularized in recent times seem to indicate that it is the parents’ sacred obligation and responsibility to make sure that their children are happy. If a child mopes or otherwise shows any signs of being unhappy, this triggers a guilt trip within the parents: “What am I doing that is wrong?” There seems to be a prevailing attitude that “Life is going to be hard enough on these kids when they grow up. Let them at least have a happy childhood.” The logic of this attitude may appear convincing, but it is misguided. Many youngsters have picked up on this theme, and if happiness eludes them, they may try to find it through the use of marijuana or other mind-altering substances.

The true parental responsibility toward a child is not to provide him with happiness, but with chinuch, a preparation for life, and a preparation for reality. The Torah tells us that G-d relates to us as a Father to a child (Deuteronomy 8:2-10), and although G-d is Omnipotent and could certainly have given the Israelites an immediate and permanent euphoria, he nevertheless disciplined them while providing for their essential needs.

There is indeed a mitzvah to “rejoice . . . and be happy” (Deuter-
onomy 16:14, 15), but the word mitzvah means a commandment, or something which a person must do. Joy and happiness are something we must work to achieve, rather than something G-d gives to us. It is no different with human parents. We must provide our children with the skills and resources to enable them to function optimally in the real world, but happiness is something that only they can achieve. Parents cannot give children happiness.

There is a great deal of emphasis in the news these days on child abuse, and unfortunately, some parents are capable of traumatizing their children. We must be careful that in our abhorrence of child abuse, we do not go to the other extreme of overindulgence, of considering every sign of displeasure as a failure on our part to make the child happy. Such an attitude may result in a spoiled but unhappy child, and a frustrated, guilt-ridden parent.

Let us reiterate. It is the parental responsibility to provide children with the tools for an optimal adjustment to the real world, to be independent learners, and to be people who can overcome challenges and master situations they have never previously encountered, but feelings of happiness must come from within. It is not our job to give our children happiness, but rather to allow them learning opportunities that give them the skills to gain happiness by themselves, and to regain it when it is temporarily lost.

Since happiness is something that the child must achieve, attempts by the parents to give him happiness rob him of something that can enrich and strengthen him: mastery of difficult situations and fortitude in the face of adversity. As we have pointed out earlier, when parents do something for the child that he can do for himself, this deprives the child of the necessary stimulus for maturation and independence.

Let us look at an example of how a parent might deal with a child’s obvious unhappiness. Sarah, Rivvy’s younger sister, received a beautiful doll for her birthday. Rivvy, who is all of 6 years old, is jealous and upset, because she, too, wants a doll. Should the mother feel guilty because Rivvy is unhappy and buy her a doll too? Should the mother try to talk Rivvy out of her feelings of unhappiness? How should she react if Rivvy starts to cry? Should she feel guilty for giving Sarah a doll as a birthday gift? Is it possible that Rivvy feels unloved? Is it possible that Rivvy will have an emotional scar throughout her life, and be permanently scarred because she did not receive a gift equal to her sister’s?

If the mother feels she must make Rivvy happy, she is in trouble. Unless she succumbs and buys Rivvy a doll, Rivvy will be unhappy. This is the wrong path to take. Instead the mother might point out to Rivvy that she received a dollhouse for her birthday just a short while ago, or she may give her some other fully reasonable explanation. The problem is that when a child is upset, the impact of words, however wise and logical, is unlikely to change the way the child feels. If the mother, like many other parents, is unable to tolerate Rivvy’s distress and tries to fix it right away, which in this case would mean buying Rivvy a doll, she will have failed to prepare the child for reality, because the real world will not give her everything she wants just to keep her happy.

Children may often be unhappy because of many things that displease them, and this is perfectly normal. If parents believe that it is their duty to see that the child is happy, they may interpret this unhappiness as a failure on their part, and they may therefore become angry with the child for being unhappy and making them feel they are a failure as parents. The danger of the “happiness trap” is now evident: Parents may become frustrated and angry, and children may feel helpless and dependent, incapable of making themselves happy, which lowers their self-esteem. If they become totally dependent on their parents to make them happy, the parents’ inability to do so may lead to resentment.

If Rivvy’s mother sees herself as a teacher of happiness skills, and sees it as her job to provide practice opportunities for these skills, she may look at the situation with different eyes. This is a chance for problem solving, generating options, and emotional regulation. The mother reframes the situation for her daughter: This is a challenge, both intellectually as well as emotionally. The mother sees it as her job to lead Rivvy along the way and to facilitate her regaining her emotional equilibrium. The mother would realize that her goal is to dosage the stress and to keep the problem at a level where it is solvable both intellectually and emotionally. If Rivvy is 10, the mother will treat her differently than a 3-year-old. Regardless of the specifics, mother can turn the situation into a learning experience. How does she do this?

First, it is most important that the mother accepts Rivvy’s feelings of hurt and jealousy, even verbalizing them for her. “I know you also wish you had such a doll. Yes, it is hard at times to be at a sister’s birthday. I can remember when I was very hurt that I did not have things that others had.” Instead of trying to fix Rivvy’s feelings, she lets her know that she understands them and can accept them. Mother also has to let Rivvy know that whining or crying and trying to upset everyone is not acceptable. She can remind Rivvy that not everyone in the family gets and needs the same things. By identifying and empathizing with Rivvy, mother defuses the situation.

Most importantly, however, mother is on the alert for the first indication that Rivvy is controlling her jealous feelings, and lets Rivvy know, by a smile, a nod, or a special word, that she is truly a great girl. By not giving and by not fixing, mother is helping Rivvy develop strengths and competencies. The mother herself is not in a situation where she feels a failure because her child is unhappy. The mother thus preserves the relationship between herself and her child, and in this fashion gives her a lot more than the mother who burns herself out trying to keep her children happy all the time.

The regulation of feelings, sometimes called affective regulation, is a very important skill that underlies happiness in life. We can model this skill for our children, but we cannot do it for them. We can suggest a variety of self-soothing strategies for them and help them think thoughts that are productive and that reduce the conflict, but ultimately the job has to be done by the child himself. Children need to learn to re-align their emotions by practicing this in a variety of situations. This means that a dose of suffering and distress has to be part of a healthy childhood. Teaching the child acceptance of the distress and sincerely celebrating the child’s mastery of his feelings are the psychological task of the parent.

The Talmud repeatedly states that when Jews are in distress, G-d suffers along with them (Taanis 16a). But since G-d is all powerful, why is there any need for Him to suffer at all? He can just relieve our distress so that everyone will be happy. The answer is that similar to a human parent, it is not in our best interest for G-d to make us happy. He provides us with skills and strengths and teachings, but we must forge our own happiness.

A parent has to learn to walk the delicate balance between protecting the child and letting him come to terms with his own feelings. Adults who have not mastered self-regulatory skills in childhood are often very unhappy and at the total mercy of their emotions.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 16 - Highlights

ASHES ON THE HEAD

The Mishna had stated that they would place ashes on the head of the Nasi and upon the head of the Rosh Beis Din (Head of the Court). Each person would place the ashes on his own head. The Gemora questions why the Nasi and Rosh Beis Din do not place the ashes on their head by themselves. Rabbi Abba answers that being embarrassed by one’s own hand pales in comparison to being embarrassed by the hands of others and this will help make their prayers more successful.

The Gemora states that they would place the ashes on the place where the tefillin are worn on one’s head. (15b – 16a)

ASHES ON THE ARK

The Mishna had stated that they would take the Ark into the streets of the town and pray there. The Gemora offers two reasons as to why they went into the center of town. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba says that they previously prayed in private to no avail, so now let them try praying in public where there is more shame and can bring about true repentance. Rish Lakish says that perhaps the exile from their synagogues will atone for them. A difference between the two of them would be if they went from one synagogue to another. It would be considered exile but there is no public humiliation.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains the purpose of taking the Ark outside. It is to convey the idea that the Ark, which is private, has been degraded as a consequence of our sins. This will help lead to a true repentance.

The Gemora explains that the significance of wearing sackcloth is to convey the idea that we are regarded as animals (sackcloth is generally made from goats’ hair).

The Gemora presents two reasons as to why they would place ashes on the Ark. Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi says that it is as if Hashem is saying “I am with him in distress.” Rish Lakish states that it is as if to say: In their every distress, He is in distress. Rabbi Zeira commented that when he initially observed them placing the ashes on the Ark, his entire body trembled.

The Gemora offers two opinions as to why each person placed ashes on his head. One opinion cited is because Klal Yisroel is regarding themselves unworthy like ashes. The other opinion is that they were beseeching Hashem to remember the ashes of Yitzchak. (16a)

GOING TO THE CEMETERY

 The Gemora states that it was the custom to visit a cemetery on a fast day. One reason given is that the Jewish people were saying that they consider themselves like corpses and this will stimulate them to repent. Another reason is that this will enable the deceased who are buried in the cemetery to pray for them. According to the second reason, they would not visit a cemetery that contained the graves of gentiles. (16a)

CHAZAN

 The Mishna had stated that the eldest among them addressed them and said words that would inspire them to mend their ways. Abaye elaborates that if there is an elderly person who is also a scholar, he would address the people. If not, then a young scholar would address them. If there were no scholars present, a man of stature (Rashi – tall man Rosh – a learned man Meiri – a pious individual) would address them.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said that a person who stole and repented but did not return the stolen object is compared to a person who is holding a dead sheretz in his hand; even if he immerses himself in all the waters of the world, the immersion is not valid. Once he releases the sheretz and immerses himself in a mikvah which contains forty se’ah, he is tahor.

The Mishna had stated that they would send a chazzan to lead the prayer who was an elder and fluent in the prayers. He should have children and his house should be empty (lacking the necessary funds to support his family) in order that his heart will be completely devoted in the prayer.

The Gemora cites a braisa which rules that even if there is an elderly person who is a scholar, it is still preferable to send someone to be the chazzan who is fluent in the prayers.

Rabbi Yehuda elaborates on the attributes which are necessary for the chazzan to have. He should have small children and no means to support them. He should be someone who works on a farm and needs rain but his house is empty (from sin). He should be a person that does not have a bad reputation even from his younger years. He should be humble, acceptable to the congregation and have a sweet voice. He should be an expert in Scripture, halacha and aggadah. The Rabbis heard this braisa and looked at Rabbi Yitzchak bar Ami who possessed all these attributes.

The Mishna had stated that the chazzan will recite the eighteen brochos of Shemoneh Esrei plus an additional six brochos. The Gemora asks that the Mishna actually lists seven conclusions. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answers that the first conclusion mentioned in the Mishna is the conclusion of the brocha of Geulah. (16a - 16b)

ELABORATION OF MISHNA

 The Gemora cites a braisa that explains the soundings of the shofar which the Mishna mentioned. After each one of the extra blessings, they sounded the shofar. They alternated between sounding a tekiah after one of the brochos with sounding a teruah afterwards. Rashi explains that when it was announced “tekiah,” they blew a tekiah, teruah, tekiah and when it was announced “teruah,” they blew teruah, tekiah, teruah.

The Gemora cites a Scriptural verse proving that they didn’t answer Amen in the Beis Hamikdosh; rather they answered Boruch shem kevod malchuso l’olam vo’ed.

The Gemora asks from a braisa which states that regarding matters of misfortune, we would always begin with the least important person.

The Gemora answers that placing the ashes on the head of the Nasi and the Rosh Beis Din is an honor for them since the people are telling them that they are prominent enough to beg for compassion for the entire congregation. (16b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 15 - PURCHASING FOOD FOR SHABBOS - THURSDAY OR FRIDAY?

The Magen Avraham (250:1) quotes the Arizal as saying that it is more preferable to purchase items for Shabbos on Friday, rather than on Thursday. Some explain that the reason for this is based on the verse “v’hayah bayom hashishi, v’heichinu eis asher yaviu” – “And it will be on the sixth day, you should prepare for Shabbos.”

The Magen Avraham concludes by instructing us to analyze the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (O”C 572:1) where it is implicit that purchases for Shabbos were done on Thursday and not on Friday.

The Mishna in Taanis states that they would not decree an initial fast on Thursday because that would cause an unwarranted price increase. Rashi explains that when the storekeepers will observe people purchasing food in large quantities, they will assume that a famine is coming and thereby raise all the prices. The sellers would not realize that people are buying food for two large meals, one to break the fast this evening and the other for Shabbos. It is evident from this Gemora that people purchase food for Shabbos on Thursday.

A proof to the Arizal’s viewpoint can be found in the Gemora Taanis (8b). 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.

Rabbi Tzvi Yaakov Abramowitz in the sefer Ta’am Hatzvi answers the Magen Avraham’s question from our Mishna. Generally, people purchase food for Shabbos on Friday, but when they are going to the stores on Thursday anyway to buy food for the meal after the fast, they will simultaneously purchase food for Shabbos. While it is true that the meticulous people will wait for Friday to prepare for Shabbos, most of the community will not wait and that is why we try to avoid beginning the first series of fasts on a Thursday.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 15 - Highlights

PROCEDURE OF THE FAST

The Mishna proceeds to describe the process of the prayers that were recited on a communal fast due to lack of rain. They would take the Ark into the streets of the town and we would place ashes on the Ark and on the head of the Nasi and upon the head of the Rosh Beis Din (Head of the Court). Each person would place the ashes on his head. The eldest among them addressed them and said words that would inspire them to mend their ways: "Our brothers, it is not said regarding the men of Nineveh, "And Hashem saw their sackcloth and their fast," but rather, "And Hashem saw their actions that they repented from their evil way" (Yonah 3:10); and in the Kabbalah it states, "And rend your hearts, and not your garments" (Yoel 2:13).

They would send a chazzan to lead the prayer who was an elder and fluent in the prayers. He should have children and his house should be empty (lacking the necessary funds to support his family) in order that his heart will be completely devoted in the prayer. He recites before them the twenty-four blessings; eighteen as on every day and there are an additional six due to the fast.

The six additional brochos are: Zichronos and Shofaros, "To Hashem, in my distress I called Him and he answered me," "I will lift up my eyes to the mountains…," "From the depths, I have called you, Hashem," "A prayer of the afflicted, when he faints." Rabbi Yehuda says that he did not have to say Zichronos and Shofaros, but instead he said, "If there be a famine in the land, if there will be a plague…," and "The word of the Hashem that came to Yeremiya concerning the droughts."

The Mishna continues that each of these blessings had a conclusion as well. For the first brocha (this was actually for the brocha of Geulah as the Gemora will explain) he would conclude, "He Who answered Avraham on Mount Moriah, He will answer you and He will listen to the sound of your crying on this day. Blessed are You, Hashem, Redeemer of Israel." For the second brocha, which is Zichronos (the first of the additional blessings), he says, "He Who answered our forefathers at the Red Sea, He will answer you and He will listen to the sound of your crying on this day. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who remembers forgotten things." For the third brocha, which is Shofaros (the second of the additional blessings), he says, "He Who answered Yehoshua in Gilgal, He will answer you and he will listen to the sound of your crying on this day. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who hears the blowing of the shofar." For the fourth brocha, he says, "He Who answered Shmuel at Mitzpah, He will answer you and he will listen to the sound of your crying on this day. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who hears crying." For the fifth he says, "He Who answered Eliyahu on Mount Carmel, He will answer you and He will listen to the sound of your crying on this day. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who hears prayer." For the sixth he says, "He Who answered Yonah from the fish’s belly, He will answer you and he will listen to the sound of your crying on this day. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who answers in time of distress." For the seventh he says, "He Who answered Dovid and his son, Shlomo in Yerushalayim, He will answer you and he will listen to the sound of your crying on this day. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who has mercy on the land."

The Mishna relates an incident which occurred during the time of Rabbi Chalafta and Rabbi Chananyah ben Tradyon. The leader passed before the Ark and concluded the entire blessing, and they did not respond after him "Amen." They responded by saying Boruch shem kevod malchuso l’olam vo’ed, which is the response usually reserved for the Beis Hamikdosh.

The attendant announced: "Blow the tekiah, kohanim, blow the tekiah!" He then said: "He Who answered our father Avraham on Mount Moriah, He will answer you and listen to the sound of your crying on this day." "Sound the teruah, sons of Aaron, sound the teruah!" "He Who answered our forefathers at the Red Sea, He will answer you and listen to the sound of your crying on this day." And when the issue came before the Sages, they said, this was not our custom, (responding with Boruch shem instead of answering Amen) except at the Eastern Gate and on the Temple Mount.

The kohanim were divided into twenty-four groups, referred to as mishmoros. Each mishmar contained seven families, batei avos. Each mishmar had a turn to serve in the Beis Hamikdosh for one week on a rotating basis. Each beis av had a designated day of the week to perform the service.

The first three fasts, members of the mishmar (who were not working on that particular day) would be required to fast but they would not complete the fast; and members of the beis av (the group that was performing the service on that day) did not fast at all. Regarding the second series of fasts; members of the mishmar would fast and complete it; and members of the beis av would fast but not complete it. On the last seven fasts; the members of the mishmar and the beis av would fast and complete. These are the words of Rabbi Yehoshua. The Chachamim disagreed and maintain that on the first three fasts, the members of the mishmar and the beis av would not fast at all. Regarding the second series of fasts; members of the mishmar would fast but not complete it, and members of the beis av would not fast at all. On the last seven fasts; members of the mishmar would fast and complete it, and members of the beis av would fast but they would not complete it.

The Mishna digresses to discuss other distinctions between the members of the mishmar and the members of the beis av.

Members of the mishmar are permitted to drink wine at night but not during the day because they might be called upon to help perform the service and a drunkard is prohibited from serving in the Beis Hamikdosh. Members of the beis av are not allowed to drink wine during the day and even at night. The members of the mishmar and members of the ma'amad (Klal Yisroel was divided into twenty-four groups in order to fulfill the requirement of standing by the korban tamid – some went to the Beis Hamikdosh and others remained in their cities) are prohibited from cutting their hair and from laundering clothes, however on Thursday, they are permitted to cut their hair and perform laundering in honor of Shabbos.

Any minor festival that is written in Megillas Taanis with the restraint of "not to eulogize" on it, the day beforehand is also prohibited but the day afterwards would be permitted. Rabbi Yosi maintains that the day before and after is prohibited. Any minor festival that is written in Megillas Taanis with the restraint of "not to fast” on it, the day beforehand and afterwards is permitted. Rabbi Yosi holds that the day before is prohibited but afterwards is permitted.

The Mishna resumes discussing the fasts that were decreed because of the lack of rain. The Chachamim would not decree a communal fast which would begin on a Thursday, in order to prevent a raise in the market prices. The first three fasts would be declared for Monday, Thursday and Monday and the second series of fasts would be on Thursday, Monday and Thursday. Rabbi Yosi maintains that just like the first series cannot commence on a Thursday, so, too, the second series and the last seven do not begin on a Thursday.

Rabban Gamliel said that the Chachamim would never decree that the first day of the series of fasts should be on Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah, or Purim. If the fasts began already and one of the days of the fasts fell out on Rosh Chodesh, we would not interrupt the fasts. Rabbi Meir maintains that even though Rabban Gamliel said that they do not interrupt, he would admit that the fast should not be completed. This halacha is identical to a case where Tisha B’av fell on Erev Shabbos. (15a – 15b)

ASHES

 The Mishna had stated that they would place ashes on the head of the Nasi and upon the head of the Rosh Beis Din (Head of the Court). Each person would place the ashes on his head.

The Gemora asks from a braisa which states that regarding matters of misfortune, we would always begin with the least important person.

The Gemora answers that placing the ashes on the head of the Nasi and the Rosh Beis Din is an honor for them since the people are telling them that they are prominent enough to beg for compassion for the entire congregation. (15b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 14 - SHOFAR OR TRUMPETS ON A FAST DAY

The Mishna had stated that they would cry out during the last seven fasts. The Gemora presents a dispute as to the meaning of “cry out.” Rav Yehuda maintains that they would cry out by sounding the shofar and it was said in the name of Rav that they would cry out by reciting aneinu. It is evident from this Gemora that shofaros were used on a fast day.

The Rishonim ask that from the Gemora in Rosh Hashanah (27a), it would seem that they blew chatzotzros (trumpets) on a fast day. The braisa there states that outside of the Beis Hamikdosh, whenever there is an obligation for shofar (Rosh Hashanah), there are no trumpets and whenever there is an obligation for trumpets, a shofar is not blown. Rashi learns that the day we are referring to is a fast day.

The Ramban (in Milchamos R”H) disagrees with Rashi in Rosh Hashanah and explains that the Gemora in Rosh Hashanah is not referring to a fast day; rather it is referring to a time of war as the passuk there explicitly states. The obligation of sounding the trumpets is only by matters that are relevant to the entire Klal Yisroel. In the Beis Hamikdosh, where a large representation of Klal Yisroel was present, there also was a mitzva to sound the chatzotzros. Even though, other sufferings are derived from that passuk, nevertheless the obligation for trumpets is exclusive to a war. Therefore, only the shofar is blown on a fast day, and not the chatzotzros.

The Raavad answers that there are actually two distinct times that we blow on a fast day. The Gemora in Rosh Hashanah is referring to the blowing during the Shemoneh Esrei and the obligation was to sound the trumpets then. There were additional blowings after the Shemoneh Esrei when they recited additional supplications and prayers; this is what our Gemora is referring to when it states that they sounded the shofaros.

The Ritva answers that when our Gemora uses the term “shofar,” it actually means the chatzotzros. This is based on the Gemora Shabbos which states that what was once called a chatzotzarta is now referred to as a shofar, and what was called shofar is now referred to as chatztortzta.

The Meiri writes that that perhaps our Gemora is referring to the times after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh and nowadays only a shofar is blown and not chatzotzros.

The Mitzapeh Eisan answers that our Gemora is referring to a fast on account of a drought and since we daven and recite the blessing of shofaros, a shofar is used. The Gemora in Rosh Hashanah is referring to fast days for other sufferings and there the chatzotzros are sounded.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 14 - REASON FOR NOT BLOWING TRUMPETS NOWADAYS

The Rambam in Hilchos Taanis (1:40 writes that there is a Rabbinical obligation to fast when Klal Yisroel is in distress and on the fast day, we call out in prayer and sound the trumpets. .

The Magen Avraham (576) wonders why the trumpets are not blown today.

The Nesiv Chaim answers that since the mitzva is derived from the passuk which states “And when the battle will enter your land,” it emerges that the obligation is only in Eretz Yisroel and not in any other lands.

The Mishna Berura cites this answer and adds from the Pri Megadim that the mitzva in Eretz Yisroel is limited to the times that the Beis Hamikdosh is in existence and Eretz Yisroel is in Klal Yisroel’s control but now, it is not called “our land.” The Ramban in one answer seems to say that the mitzva of sounding the trumpets is only in Eretz Yisroel.

The Minchas Chinuch (331:3) questions this explanation because generally a mitzva which rests on the head of a person (and not the ground) does not get excluded from the fact that the passuk states “your land.”

The Netziv cites a proof against the Nesiv Chaim from the incident where Pinchas was waging war against Midyan and he sounded the chatzotzros even though he wasn’t in Eretz Yisroel.

The Netziv answers that the mitzva is limited to the times that the Aron (Holy Ark) is with us and traveling along with Klal Yisroel during the war.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 14 - Highlights

TWENTY-FOUR BROCHOS

The Gemora had reverted back to its original thinking that it is referring to a communal fast. The Gemora had asked that there should be twenty-four brochos and not nineteen; the Gemora explains that the braisa is referring to the first series of fasts where the extra six brochos are not recited.

The Gemora asks on this explanation from a braisa which states that the only difference between the first series of fasts and the second series is regarding the prohibition against working. It can be implied that in regards to the twenty-four brochos, both series of fasts are the same and even the first series of fasts have twenty-four brochos.

The Gemora answers that the braisa is only referring to prohibitions and not to the tefillos.

Alternatively, the Gemora answers that the second series of fasts did not have Shemoneh Esrei with twenty-four brochos either.

The Gemora cites a braisa where it can be inferred that the second series of fasts are identical to the last seven fasts that they have twenty-four brochos.

Rav Ashi states that it is implicit from our Mishna that the only differences between the second series of fasts and the last seven is that by last seven, they would cry out and close the stores but there is no difference in the tefillah. This proves that twenty-four brochos were recited by the second series of fasts. (13b – 14a)

PREGNANT AND NURSING WOMEN

The Gemora presents three opinions regarding the obligation of pregnant and nursing women to fast on communal fast days. The Tanna in the first braisa maintains that they should fast on the first series of fasts but not on the last set. The second Tanna holds that they should fast on the last series but not on the first. The third Tanna holds that they are not obligated to fast on the first series or the last one.

Rav Ashi states that if we would say that they should fast on the second series of fasts, all the braisos can now be reconciled. Each braisa referred to the middle series of fasts as something else but the halacha would be identical according to all three braisos. (14a)

CRYING OUT

 The Mishna had stated that they would cry out during the last seven fasts. The Gemora presents a dispute as to the meaning of “cry out.” Rav Yehuda maintains that they would cry out by sounding the shofar and it was said in the name of Rav that they would cry out by reciting aneinu.

The Gemora cites a braisa which clearly indicates that they would sound shofaros on the seven fasts.

The Gemora explains that everyone would agree that the shofar would be sounded; the dispute is if aneinu would also be recited.

The Gemora concludes that there is an argument amongst the Tannaim if “crying out” can be referring to tefillah or only to shofar. A braisa states regarding other types of punishments, such as skin disease, locusts, hornets, mosquitoes and snakes and scorpions which are dispatched by Hashem; they would not cry out but they would call out to Hashem and beg for mercy. It is obvious that the term “cry out” is not referring to tefillah, rather to shofaros. However, there is a Mishna that clearly indicates that “cry out” refers to tefillah and not to shofaros. The Mishna rules that there are certain situations where they would cry out on Shabbos. It is forbidden to sound the shofar on Shabbos, so it is evident that “crying out” means to call out to Hashem in tefillah. (14a)

MORE THAN THIRTEEN

 The Gemora relates that in the years of Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi, he had decreed thirteen fasts for a certain distress (not due to lack of rain) but they still were not answered. He wanted to decree that there should be more fasts but Rabbi Ami told him that the community should not be overburdened. Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Ami ruled in that manner for his own benefit; he wanted to avoid fasting again. It is said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that for sufferings other than rain, we fast until we are answered. The Gemora cites a braisa which explicitly states like Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Ami holds that it is a dispute amongst the Tannaim. He cites a braisa which states that Rebbe maintains that we never decree more than thirteen fasts on the public. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel holds that this limitation is only by a drought where rain that falls now will not be beneficial. Rabbi Ami ruled in accordance with Rebbe that more than thirteen fasts is always an excessive inconvenience. (14a)

NINVEH

 Rebbe ruled that the residents of Ninveh should recite the tefillah of aneinu in the blessing of Shomeah Tefillah just like individuals do. They thought that since they need rain even in the summertime, perhaps aneinu should be recited in the Birchas Hashonim. The Gemora cites a braisa that refutes Rebbe’s ruling. The braisa states that places that require rain in the summertime and they are fasting, the tefillah of aneinu should be recited in Birchas Hashonim. Rebbe is also a Tanna, so he can disagree with the braisa. The Gemora concludes that the halacha is that it should be recited in Shomeah Tefillah. (14b)

The Mishna ruled that if it still did not rain after the seven fasts, they should conduct less business. They should not become involved with building, planting, marrying or greeting their friends. They should conduct their lives as if they were condemned by Hashem.

The Gemora explains that building is referring to construction for pleasure, such as building a wedding house for his son. The planting that is forbidden is also only if the planting is for a joyous occasion, such as planting a tree in honor of the king’s new son.

The Gemora elaborates on the ruling of the Mishna that one should not greet his friend. The Gemora states that Torah scholars should not greet each other at all. If an unlearned man greets a Torah scholar, he should respond in a low tone and in a somber manner.

Rabbi Elozar said that a prominent person is not permitted to prostrate himself while praying in public unless he is certain that he will be answered like Yehoshua bin Nun.

Rabbi Elozar also said that a prominent person should not wear sackcloth unless he is certain that he will be answered like Yehoram ben Achav.

Rabbi Elozar stated further that not everyone will be answered through rendering their clothes and not everyone will be answered through prostrating themselves. Moshe and aharon were answered by prostrating themselves and Yehoshua and Calev were answered by rendering their clothes. Rabbi Zeira maintains that Yehoshua was answered on the account of both (prostrating and rendering his clothes).

Rabbi Elozar said that at the time of the Redemption, not everyone will greet Klal Yisroel in the same manner. Kings will be standing and Princes will prostrate themselves. Rabbi Zeira maintains that the Princes will greet Klal Yisroel by prostrating themselves and by standing.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak states that the righteous will merit light in the World to Come and the decent people will merit joy.

WE SHALL RETURN TO YOU, ME’EIMASAI

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 13 - 18 or 19?

Our Gemora mentioned that on a regular day, there are eighteen brochos in Shemoneh Esrei. We know that we now have nineteen brochos because of the brocha of v’lamalshinim. Rashi asks as to the reason that our Gemora neglected to mention that brocha. Rashi answers that when the Gemora states eighteen, it is referring to the original amount of brochos and not the one that was added later. Kollel Iyun Hadaf here elaborates on this discussion.

INSIGHTS INTO THE DAILY DAF

brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
daf@dafyomi.co.il http://www.dafyomi.co.il


1) THE SHEMONEH ESREH: 18 OR 19 BLESSINGS?
OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which says that the only difference between the Shemoneh Esreh recited on a Ta'anis by an individual and the Shemoneh Esreh recited by the Shali'ach Tzibur is that the individual's Shemoneh Esreh contains 18 blessings and the Shali'ach Tzibur's Shemoneh Esreh contains 19 (because of the additional blessing of "Aneinu").
RASHI asks why the Gemara refers to the ordinary Shemoneh Esreh of an individual as having only 18 blessings when it actually has 19 blessings (even without the blessing of "Aneinu").

(a) RASHI answers that the title of the prayer, "Shemoneh Esreh," refers to the 18 blessings which it contained when it was originally composed. The blessing of "v'la'Malshinim" was instituted later by the sages in Yavneh (Berachos 28b).

(b) The TOSFOS RID disagrees with Rashi. He explains that the reason why the Beraisa says that the ordinary Shemoneh Esreh contains 18 blessings is because the Beraisa maintains that there indeed are only 18 blessings in the Shemoneh Esreh. He cites a Tosefta in Berachos (end of chapter 3) which states that the 18 blessings include the blessing of "v'la'Malshinim" (which mentions the downfall of the Minim and the Posh'im). The blessing of "Boneh Yerushalayim" (which mentions the rebuilding of Yerushalayim) and the blessing of "Es Tzemach David" (which mentions the restoration of the dynasty of David ha'Melech) are merged into a single blessing. The Tosefta concludes that if one recites two separate blessings, one in which he mentions David ha'Melech and the other in which he mentions the rebuilding of Yerushalayim, he fulfills his obligation to recite Shemoneh Esreh. This implies that the Tosefta maintains that l'Chatchilah one should include "Boneh Yerushalayim" and "Es Tzemach David" in a single blessing, and thus, according to the Tosefta, the Shemoneh Esreh indeed contains only 18 blessings even after the addition of the blessing of "v'la'Malshinim."

The view of the Tosefta is reflected in the Piyutim, the additional prayers composed for the Shali'ach Tzibur to recite during each blessing of Shemoneh Esreh on festivals and fasts, and which reflect the theme of each blessing. There are consistently only 18 of these additional prayers; the Piyut which mentions the rebuilding of Yerushalayim is always the same as the one which mentions the restoration of the dynasty of David ha'Melech.

The Tosfos Rid points out that this opinion was also the practice of the Yerushalmi (Berachos 4:5, Rosh Hashanah 4:6). The Yerushalmi mentions that the Chasimah (closing blessing) of one of the blessings of Shemoneh Esreh is "Baruch Atah Hash-m Elokei David u'Voneh Yerushalayim" -- it includes David ha'Melech and Binyan Yerushalayim in one blessing. This is what the Beraisa means when it says that the ordinary Shemoneh Esreh contains only 18 blessings.

The Bavli, however, clearly counts "Boneh Yerushalayim" and "Es Tzemach David" as two separate blessings (Megilah 17b). In addition, the Gemara in Sanhedrin (107a) relates that David ha'Melech asked Hash-m that a mention of "Elokei David" be included in the Shemoneh Esreh, like "Elokei Avraham." The Gemara says that Hash-m did not acquiesce to David's request. Accordingly, the Bavli is consistent with its view that the blessing of Boneh Yerushalayim does not include the words "Elokei David," and instead a separate blessing of "Es Tzemach David" is recited. (The Tosefta itself says that if one recites separate blessings for David ha'Melech and Yerushalayim he does not need to repeat the Shemoneh Esreh, and this apparently was the practice adopted l'Chatchilah in Bavel.)

The practice today follows the view of the Bavli. Rebbi Elazar ha'Kalir and the other authors of the Piyutim lived in Eretz Yisrael and followed the practice of the Yerushalmi, and thus they wrote Piyutim for only 18 blessings and merged the prayer for Yerushalayim and the prayer for David ha'Melech into a single blessing.

Although no Jewish community today follows the practice to combine the prayer for Binyan Yerushalayim with the prayer for David ha'Melech. Even in contemporary Sidurim remnants of the early practice can be found. In the end of the blessing of Boneh Yerushalayim, the words "v'Chisei David..." are said. This phrase is probably a remnant of the original practice to conclude the blessing with the words, "Elokei David u'Voneh Yerushalayim," since the end of the blessing (before the Chasimah) must reflect the words recited in the Chasimah. RAV YEHUDAH LANDY adds that this also explains why the blessing of Boneh Yerushalayim begins with a Vav - "*v*'li'Yerushalayim Ircha..." -- the Vav ("and") indicates that this blessing was added to the Shemoneh Esreh when the single blessing for Yerushalayim and Malchus Beis David were separated into two. (Perhaps "v'la'Malshinim" begins with a Vav for a similar reason. The Vav indicates that it was added later and was not part of the original Shemoneh Esreh.)

The Tosfos Rid implies that the original practice, before the addition of the blessing of "v'la'Malshinim," was to recite only 17 blessings in the Shemoneh Esreh. When the additional blessing of "v'la'Malshinim" was instituted in Yavneh it brought the total to 18, and not 19, blessings. Indeed, the Midrash states this explicitly (Bamidbar Rabah 18:21, and Tanchuma, end of Parshas Korach; see also Midrash Tehilim 17:4). The Midrash says that the number of blessings in the Shemoneh Esreh is equal to the Gematriya of the word "Tov" (17). Even though our Shemoneh Esreh contains 19 blessings, the original Shemoneh Esreh contained only 17 blessings because "v'la'Malshinim" and "Es Tzemach David" (or "v'li'Yerushalayim") were later additions. According to the Midrash, the blessing of "Es Tzemach" was added even later than "v'la'Malshinim."

(The Midrash seems to disagree with the Gemara in Berachos (28b) which states that the blessing added in Yavneh was the nineteenth blessing. It seems that the original enactment of Shemoneh Esreh included only 17 obligatory blessings as well as an option to split "Boneh Yerushalayim" and "Es Tzemach" into two blessings (as the Tosefta clearly permits). Consequently, both the Midrash and the Gemara are correct: In Yavneh the eighteenth blessing was added, but that blessing could be viewed as the nineteenth because a person was entitled to divide "Boneh Yerushalayim" and "Es Tzemach" into two blessings. It is interesting to note that according to a common Girsa in the Yerushalmi's version of how "v'la'Malshinim" was added in Yavneh (Berachos 4:3 and Ta'anis 2:2), the Yerushalmi cites the story to explain why there are 18 -- and not just 17 -- blessings.)

The Bavli, which says that the words "Elokei David" are not recited in the Shemoneh Esreh, implies that it was never the practice to mention "Elokei David." Apparently, before the blessings of "Boneh Yerushalayim" and "Es Tzemach" were split, the Chasimah was "*Magen* David vi'Yerushalayim," and not "Elokei David u'Voneh Yerushalayim." When the people of Bavel divided the blessing into two, the people of Eretz Yisrael correspondingly gave the single blessing a double ending, thereby granting David ha'Melech special status by mentioning him separately in the Chasimah. The people of Bavel did not accept this practice for two reasons. First, the Gemara says that "Elokei David" should not be said in the Shemoneh Esreh. Second, the Gemara (Berachos 49a) says that two subjects should not be included in the Chasimah of a single blessing.

RAV DAVID COHEN shlit'a (in a special section at the end of OHEL DAVID, vol. 2) uses this approach to explain the words of TOSFOS in Megilah (17b, DH v'David). Tosfos implies that Rashi had a tradition to count chapters 9 and 10 of Tehilim as one chapter. (Indeed, there is a strong contextual connection between the two chapters, which implies that they should be connected: In chapter 9, every other verse starts with a consecutive letter of the Hebrew alphabet, but reaches only until the letter Kaf. The first verse in chapter 10 starts with the letter Lamed, and the final alternating verses of the chapter begin with the letters Kuf, Reish, Shin, and Taf.) Why, then, in contemporary books of Tehilim are they divided into two separate chapters?

Rav David Cohen explains that they originally were one chapter and later the Chachamim divided them into two chapters. The Gemara in Berachos (9b) says that, originally, chapters 1 and 2 were one chapter. The MAHARSHA there explains that the first 18 blessings of Shemoneh Esreh were instituted to correspond to the first 18 chapters of Tehilim. The Shemoneh Esreh concludes with the verse from Tehilim, "Yiheyu l'Ratzon Imrei Fi...." When the Chachamim added a new blessing in the Shemoneh Esreh (bringing the total to 19 blessings), they decided to add a new chapter number in Tehilim so that the verse of "Yehiyu l'Ratzon" would appear after 19 chapters, and therefore they divided the first chapter into two.

Similarly, chapters 9 and 10 were originally one chapter. However, after the Chachamim added the blessing of "Es Tzemach David" to the Shemoneh Esreh, they wanted to add a new chapter so that "Yiheyu l'Ratzon" would still appear in Tehilim after the corresponding number of blessings in the Shemoneh Esreh, and therefore they split another chapter of Tehilim into two. (He points out that the contents of Psalms 2 and 10 correspond to the contents of these two blessings. The content of Psalm 2 corresponds to "Es Tzemach," while the content of Psalm 10 corresponds to "v'la'Malshinim.")

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 13 - Washing on Tisha B'av

We asked Rabbi Doniel Neustadt as to the practical halachos regarding washing on Tisha B’av. Here is his response.

Washing any part of the body on Tishah B’av is forbidden. Washing is permitted in the case of…
*Dirty or soiled hands or other parts of the body. Any substance or discharge (e.g., a glutinous gel in the eye) may be rinsed off . [If soap is needed, it may be used. ]
*Awakening in the morning. One may wash netilas yadayim three times on each hand , but the water should reach only until the knuckles . After the hands are wiped but remain slightly damp, they may be passed over the face or the eyes .
*After using the bathroom and/or after touching a part of the body that is normally covered, but the water should reach only until the knuckles .
*Rinsing the mouth, but only in case of great discomfort . Care must be taken not to swallow the water. Mouthwash should not be used .
*Preparing food . If warm water is necessary, it may be used .
*Medical needs . Hot water may be used when needed .
*Preparation for davening . Some say that only the tips of the fingers [until the first joint ] should be washed .
*Washing dishes [after midday], if leaving them unwashed will attract insects , etc. It is proper not to use warm water.
*Eating bread, for those who are allowed to eat on Tishah b'Av. The hands should be washed to the wrists in the usual manner . Several poskim mention that one may also wash with mayim acharonim if he is always particular to do so .
*A baby who is bathed daily .
*A bride, who is allowed to wash her face up to 30 days after her wedding .

Read more!