Daf Yomi - Megillah 22 - Where to Stop and where to Start

Our Gemora cites the Gemora in Taanis discussing how a section consisting of only five verses can be divided into two. Rav said: The second person would go back and rereads the last verse which was read by the first one. Shmuel said: The third verse of the section is split into two parts and the first reader reads the first half and the second reader reads the second half. Rav doesn’t say like Shmuel since he maintains that any verse in the Torah which Moshe did not divide, we are not permitted to divide it. Shmuel holds that since there is no choice, we are permitted to split the verse into two parts. Shmuel does not say like Rav since he wishes to protect against the false impression that only two verses were read. (Those who enter the synagogue late and those who leave early will not realize that the third verse was repeated.) Here is a post for review. (Click the "read more" for the rest of the post please.

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 31 - Where to Stop and Where to Start

The Gemora discusses the hymns that were recited by the Leviim in the Beis Hamikdosh on Shabbos. The Gemora concludes that they would divide Parshas Haazinu into six segments and one segment was recited each week by the korban mussaf.

The Turei Even asks from a Gemora Brochos (12) which rules that any place in the Torah that Moshe Rabbeinu did not pause; we are forbidden to pause as well. How were the Leviim permitted to stop in places that Moshe did not stop? He answers that since they intended to complete it the next week, it is not regarded as interrupting the portion (even though there will be different Leviim the next week).

Magan Avrohom (O”C 282) asks this question as well as inquiring into different verses from the Torah that we recite during tefillah which are incomplete. He answers that we only apply the principle that one can not interrupt in middle of a verse when one is engaged in Torah study or reading from the Torah. If, however, one is reciting verses for the purpose of prayer or mitzvah observance, there is no prohibition of interrupting in middle of a verse.

Rav Nosson Grossman states that perhaps through this principle, we can answer the Turei Even’s question. The Leviim are not reciting these pesukim as Torah, rather they are being said on account of shirah, song and therefore it will not be subject to the prohibition of stopping in an incorrect place. However, it would seem evident that the Magen Avrohom will not concur with this since he states that principle and nevertheless does not apply it to the Leviim’s shirah.

Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky in his sefer Emes L’Yaakov in Parshas Ki sovo uses this principle to answer a Rambam. The Rambam in Hilchos Bikurim cites the pesukim that a person must recite when he brings his first fruits to the mizbeach. The commentators ask that the last words of this recital conclude in middle of a possuk and this is against the dictum of stopping in a place that Moshe did not stop. Reb Yaakov answers that this ruling does not apply by such mitzvos, such as bikurim. It is only a concern when pesukim are being recited because of Torah.

He uses this principle to explain why a kohen is not required to recite the Priestly Blessing while reading from a Torah. There is a halacha that when one recites verses from the Written Law, he is prohibited from saying them “by heart.” The explanation is that that this halacha applies only when someone is reciting verses because of Torah but here they are being recited because of a mitzvah and therefore there is no requirement that these pesukuim should be read from a Torah.

This principle is somewhat troubling as the source for the halacha is the Gemora Brochos which is discussing the mitzva of reciting krias Shema. The Gemora states regarding this mitzva that if Moshe did not stop there, we cannot. How can these Acharonim say that this halacha only applies by Torah and not by mitzvos?

It would seem that this would be a proof to the opinion of the Keren Orah in Sotah and the Brisker Rav who maintain that the mitzva of reciting krias shema every day is actually a mitzva of “Talmud Torah.” The obligation is to recite portions of the Torah twice daily. Obviously there is a mitzva of accepting the yoke of Heaven by reciting these portions but the commandment of the Torah is to learn these portions once in the morning and once at night. This explains why the halacha of stopping where Moshe didn’t stop does apply.

I noticed a piece of Torah regarding this issue from Efraim Stulburg on his blog here. It is extremely informative and thorough. Here it is in its entirety.

Ephraim Stulberg on Shavuot, 5764

As is well-known, there are two sets of notes for the reading of the Ten Commandments[1] recorded in P’ Yisro, usually referred to as Higher and Lower [טעם עליון וטעם תחתון) [2). Whereas the Higher notation seeks to divide the Torah passages according to the breakdown of the Commandments,[3] the Lower notation gives no regard to this aspect, but rather seeks to divide the verses according to more conventional, manageable lengths. There are different opinions as to which system is to be employed at which time. Some are of the belief that the Higher system is only operable on Shavuos, while others feel that any public reading ought to use that system, and that use of the Lower system is to be limited to individuals reading the Torah text on their own. The editor of Ein Ya’akov, in his commentary at the end of Sh’kalim (#30), notes that in his time some people had actually misunderstood the two parallel sets of notes, and had read both versions simultaneously: a phenomenon which does in fact occur occasionally in the Torah (e.g. Vayikra 10:4), but obviously not in this case. This observation certainly highlights some of the vagaries of the dual systems, and elicits a number of questions, notably: whence the two systems, and what do they represent?

The Chizkuni, in his commentary on Yisro, explains that the reason we read the Higher (“Greater”) cantillation on Shavuos is because that day is seen as commemorative of the day on which the Torah was given, “and because we translate the reading on that day,”[4] we reenact the way in which the Torah was actually given, i.e. in these ten separate messages. During the rest of the year, however, this reason is not applicable, and so we use the Lower system. Implicit in his words is the fact that whereas the division of the Torah into parshios, i.e. physically distinct “open” or “closed” paragraphs, is representative of the actual giving of the Torah to Moshe – each parasha represented a place where Moshe could take a break to ponder and internalize the Torah passage he had just received (see Sifra Vayikra 1:9) – the pasuk is not representative of any physical reality, but rather, perhaps, is the way chosen by Moshe to break up the Torah when it came to teaching it to the Jews.[5] One might also add that the more melodious Higher system - so designated because most of the notes therein appear above the letter, as opposed to the Lower system - is employed to commemorate the fact that the Ten Commandments were given in a musical format: see Mechilta Yisro (Ba-Chodesh 4).

In Shulchan Aruch Ha-rav (594:11), it is explained that the Higher system goes according to the “k’siv”, the way the words are actually divided into paragraphs in the written Torah text, while the Lower system follows the “k’ri”, i.e. the way it is supposed to be read. R’ Shne’ur Zalman adds that the real division of the verses, the “p’sukim”, follows the Lower system. Thus, for instance, regarding the prohibition that states that - “כל פסוק דלא פסקיה משה אנן לא פסקינן" “any stop [within a verse] not made by Moshe, we are forbidden to make” - (Megillah 22a), meaning that one may not break up a verse into two pieces, we follow the Lower system. In Mo’adim U-zmanim (7:234), Rav Sh’ternbuch writes that he’d heard of one authority who always read the Lower notes, for precisely this reason: the Higher system breaks up verses 20:13 and 20:14 in the middle. However, as we shall see, and as you can probably guess, this is really not a problem.

We have touched here on a couple of pregnant issues, which have been bothering me for quite some time now. The rule of “any stop [within a verse] not made by Moshe, we are forbidden to make,” and the question of the nature of the cantillary notes, and of the parasha and the sof-pasuk, have not been sufficiently explained, in my view. While I realize my attempt is likely to be less than satisfactory, at the very least I hope to provide the reader with a convenient repository of primary sources from which to for his or her own understanding

כל פסוק דלא פסקיה משה אנן לא פסקינן

The somewhat vague statement of the gemara (B’rachos 12b, Ta’anis 27b, and Megillah 22a), which says that “any stop not made by Moshe, we are forbidden to make,” confronts us with several issues. They may be conveniently be grouped under two categories.

1) One question is whether this applies only to a verse, or whether there is even a prohibition against breaking up an individual parasha, which usually consists of several verses. In B’rachos 12b, our rule is applied to an entire parasha. Thus, explains the gemara, we cannot use a couple of verses in P’ Balak (24:8-9) to fulfill our duty to remember the Exodus from Egypt, since they occur in the middle of a parasha; it would be too unwieldy to have to read the entire parasha. The other instances where this rule is invoked discuss only the prohibition of breaking up an individual verse, namely with regard to the Torah reading of Rosh Chodesh and of the ma’amados (see Megillah 22a).

There are some authorities (see Turei Even on Rosha Hashanah 31a) who seem to take these opinions to be in argument with one another, initially positing that the opinion expressed in Megillah takes no issue with allowing a stop to be made within a paragraph, so long as it comes at the end of a verse. Others (see Responsa Arugas Ha-bosem O.C. 22) feel that the real prohibition is only in splitting up a verse; but, since we are no longer sure as to the true position of each sof-pasuk (see Kiddushin 30a), we extend the prohibition to the level of the parasha, which, this opinion assumes, we can feel comfortable knowing also represents the end of a verse. [6]

Of course, there is a third option, which would be to say that the opinions don’t argue at all, but rather are simply speaking about two different cases. It is possible to be in the middle of a verse and yet at the end of a parasha (such as in the Ten Commandments) or to be in the middle of a parasha and yet at the end of a verse (the more usual scenario). Ultimately, as we shall see, the Turei Even concludes that there is no conflict between the two opinions, though not for this reason.

2) The other basic question is that in practice, it seems that these rules are constantly disregarded in the Jewish liturgy. We split up paragraphs almost every week when we read the Torah. Indeed, the very gemara which speaks of the prohibition of splitting up a single verse in the Rosh Chodesh reading implicitly allows us to end an aliyah in the middle of the parasha.

But even within a single verse, there are numerous examples where a seemingly prohibited stop is made. 1) During Kedusha, the congregation says “ve-kara ze el ze ve-amar”, and then waits for the chazan to say it as well, before concluding the verse in Yeshayahu (6:3) with “kadosh, kadosh, etc.” In fact, Arugas Ha-bosem notes the custom of some not to say “ve-kara zeh el zeh” until the chazan does, for precisely our reason, though he himself dismisses such a practice. In the kedusha that we recite during the first blessing before the Sh’ma, the situation is even worse, since we don’t mention the first half of the verse at all. 2) Following the Torah reading, when we lift the Torah, we say “and this is the Torah which Moshe placed before the Children of Israel…from the mouth of Hashem by the hand of Moshe.” The first part of this statement is from D’varim 4:44, while the second segment is from P’ Be-ha’alos’cha. In the Siddur Otzar Ha-t’fillos, it is recorded that R’ Chaim of Volozhyn used to recite the entire verse from B’midbar 9:23, though not because of our problem, but rather simply to make sense of why we use such a conclusion to the verse from D’varim. However, in Mo’adim U-z’manim (7:234) it is suggested that the reason for R’ Chaim’s custom was indeed so as to avoid our problem. I have adopted this practice, and I recently heard another fellow in shul who does the same. 3) When the Torah is brought back to the ark, the chazan says “yehal’lu es shem Hashem, etc.”, and the congregation concludes by saying “hodo al eretz ve-shamayim,” which are two halves of a verse (Tehillim 148:13). 4) During Hallel, the chazan says “ana Hashem, hoshiah na”, then says it again, before completing the verse (Tehillim 118:25). 5) In kiddush on Friday night, we begin with the words “vayhi erev vayhi voker yom ha-shishi.” There are other examples, but these are some of the better known.

Most of these cases have already been dealt with in the commentaries, and it is interesting to note what they have had to say, for they tend to shed some light on the parameters of the halacha. There seem to be nine factors which have been suggested that have a bearing on the rule under discussion:

1) The Kolbo (# 52), cited in Magen Avraham (422:8), writes that the rule which states that “any stop [within a verse] not made by Moshe, we are forbidden to make,” might perhaps apply only to Torah and Prophets, but not to the Kesuvim. This seems to make little sense, however: if his point is to take literally the phrase “not made by Moshe,” which can realistically be applied only to the Torah, then why does he include the Prophets in the prohibition as well? Moreover, it is clear from Tosafos on Succah 38b that the rule extends to Kesuvim as well. In truth, Kolbo seems rather lukewarm on this suggestion.

2) In Magen Gibborim (Shiltei Gibborim 51:3), it is argued that the “stop” referred to by the gemara includes an esnachta or a zakef katon. Thus one may break up a verse whenever one sees even one of these lesser stop symbols. Since these notes are also of Mosaic origin (see Nedarim 37b), just like the sof-pasuk, they can also be described as stops made by Moshe. According to this, there would perhaps be no problem reading the Higher cantillation system, if we extend this rule to the tipcha under the word “tirtzach.” However, as the Chasam Sofer notes (O.C. 10) this is also clearly a difficult answer to accept; if it were true, then the argument in Megillah regarding where to divide the aliyas on Rosh Chodesh would have been moot. We would simply break up the third verse at the esnachta.[7]

3) Tosafos (Succah 38b), dealing with the verse “ana Hashem, hoshiah na, ana Hashem hatzlichah na” suggest that since, as the gemara says (P’sachim 119a), the two halves of the verse were originally said by two different entities (David’s brothers and then David), we may read it as two verses. A similar logic is presented in Rokeach (#319), where he discusses, among other examples, the issue of the verse “yehal’lu es sheim Hashem” which we say when replacing the Torah. The verse contains two “voices” as it were, and is meant to be read responsively by two individuals or groups. The same applies to the first portion of kedusha.

4) The Magen Avraham (282:1) suggests that if one is going to continue reading within the parasha – he makes no mention of within a pasuk – then it is okay. Otherwise, he asks, how could we make seven aliyas out of P’ Vayetze or Miketz, which contain no new paragraphs at all? This loophole, he writes, extends even to a scenario in which on intends to complete the parasha the next day, or over the course of several days, so long as one is proceeding in order, without going back over previous ground (thus he is still troubled by the procedure used in the Monday/Thursday Torah reading, where we don’t continue where we leave off. However, see Megillah 31b, where R’ Meir is of the opinion that the Torah reading never overlaps, but rather we continue where we leave off the previous time. Might this be the reason for R’ Meir’s opinion?). The Turei Even (Rosh Hashanah 31a) is explicit in saying that whether one is going to continue reading eventually is relevant only within a parasha; within a verse, however, no stop is allowed at all.

5) Magen Avraham (ibid.) also suggests that if the partial parasha is read as a supplication, as in the daily prayers, then there is also no problem. I guess this loophole doesn’t apply to the proposed addition to the Sh’ma mentioned in B’rachos 12b, which is not recited as a supplication, but rather as a means of fulfilling a commandment of recitation, i.e. to remember the Exodus in words (see Responsa Sha’agas Aryeh #13). He compares this to the permission granted by some commentaries to recite verses from memory if this is done not in order to learn but rather as prayer: see Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona on 5a of the Rif’s pagination in B’rachos, and Abudarham in his commentary of the Eizehu M’koman chapter recited before Shacharis. This comparison made by the Magen Avraham is suggestive, insofar as it seems from his explanation that the reason one cannot break up paragraphs of Torah text is because one might arrive at erroneous conclusions, similar to one who recites from the Written Torah by heart, who is not aware of the forms or spellings in which words are written. However, according to his comparison it is not so clear why the Sh’ma should be considered as Torah learning: the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 49:1) explicitly includes it among the passages which one may recite from memory. I just don’t see how this distinction really holds.

6) This approach of Magen Avraham is also adopted by the Chayei Adam regarding even a partial verse (Ch. 5 in Nishmas Adam #2): if it’s a supplication, then it’s okay. Rav Shternbuch makes a similar point, writing that using the Higher note system, and thus splitting up verses, is permissible only if we assume that the Torah reading of Yom Tov was instituted not as a means for Torah study (as was the case with the regular reading – see Bava Kama 82a), but rather as an act of commemoration. In my own opinion, however, his argument seems difficult to accept. After all, in the Rosh Chodesh reading, Rav, whose opinion we follow, doesn’t allow us to break up verses. And there should be no fundamental difference between Rosh Chodesh and Yom Tov. (However, see the final mishnah in Megillah 32a, which doesn’t mention Rosh Chodesh.)

According to reasons 2), and possibly 3), 4) and 6) as well, there is reason to allow the reading of the Higher cantillation on Shavuos or any other time.

7) A key text in any attempt to understand the rule we are discussing is found in B’rachos 14b. There, the gemara relates that in the Land of Israel, during the evening prayers, they used to begin the third paragraph of the Sh’ma, reciting up to the words “speak unto the Children of Israel, and say unto them, “I am Hashem your God, the Truth”,” after which they would proceed to say the blessing of “emes ve-emunah.” In this way, they would skip over the passage dealing with tzitzis, which is not relevant to the nighttime. When informed of this practice, Abbaye was puzzled, since Rav had already said that if one begins a passage, he must complete it in its entirety, i.e. without skipping out the middle section, and Rav had also said that whereas if one just read up to the words “speak unto Israel”, it would not have been considered a beginning, by adding “and say unto them” one has begun the passage, and can no longer skip out the middle. Rav Pappa suggests that in Israel, it was felt that, contrary to Rav’s opinion in the matter, one is not considered to have begun the passage until he recites “and they should make for themselves tzitzis.” Abaye concludes by saying that we follow the practice of the Israeli scholars in beginning the passage up to the words “and say unto them.” And since we have begun (according to Rav), we must conclude by reading the entire paragraph.

The Rashba is bothered by this gemara. He wonders how, even if the Israelis felt that “and say unto them” did not constitute the beginning of the parasha, they have broken up the parasha in the middle, and begun again at the end with the words “I am Hashem, your God”? He answers that just as “and say unto them” does not constitute the beginning of a parasha, since the main content of the parasha, i.e. the commandment of tzitzis and the exodus from Egypt, has not yet been engaged with, so too these final words are also not considered a fragment of a parasha, since in these words no mention of the parasha’s topic has been made. He adds that the reason that only these final few words of the parasha, rather than the entire last pasuk, were mentioned, even though this means that we don’t get any reference to the Exodus until the blessing afterwards, is to avoid citing a fragment of a parasha.

The implication of this Rashba seems to be that it is only problematic to split up a parasha if the segment one is mentioning is actually traceable back to the source parasha. If one wishes to mention the verses relating to tzitzis, one must mention all of them. However, to take a few words unrelated to the main thrust of the parasha is okay. Moreover, there seems not to be any problem with taking even portions of verses in this regard; Rashba seems to imply that if we had mentioned the whole final verse, it would have been worse than simply mentioning the final few words, even though these are only a fragment of a single verse. The smaller the fragment, the better.[8] The logic seems to be that what we are really concerned about is citing things out of context. Therefore, if one mentions only a few words, unrelated to the topic of the parasha, indeed to the extent that they form a completely new sentence, one has not violated this prohibition.

Several authorities seem not to have had this understanding of the Rashba’s words, and are troubled by the fact that although he addresses the issue of the partial paragraph, he does nothing to solve the fact that the Israelis have recited two half-verses. They resolve this difficulty by noting that the words recited by the Israelis in fact comprise a complete verse in P’ Acharei Mos (18:1-2). Thus there is no problem regarding having recited a partial verse either. But don’t we simply reencounter the issue of the partial paragraph, this time in the context of Acharei Mos?

8) The Netziv (M’romei Sadeh on B’rachos 12b) writes that whereas it is permissible to end a parasha that one began properly even in the middle, to begin a parasha in the middle is prohibited. Thus there is no problem of reciting these two verses from Acharei Mos, since they are the first two sentences of the parasha.

9) Finally, we would be remiss not to mention the words of R’ Ya’akov Emden, in his notes at the back of the gemara (Kiddushin 30a), where he writes that since we see from that gemara that we are no longer certain of the correct breakdown of the verses of the Torah, the rule of “any stop not made by Moshe…” is not such a practicable one, and that this rule is not strong enough to overturn an established custom. For a similar line of reasoning, albeit concerning a different topic – i.e. the issue of whether or not to leave extra space between verses in the writing of T’fillin – see Magen Avraham on O.C. 32 (#45).

In sum, it seems to me that most authorities feel that there are two separate prohibitions, one relating to paragraphs and one to verses. Certain types of verses are amenable to division, though most are not. In the course of one’s learning, one should be especially careful not to stop within even a single paragraph, unless one intends to carry on at a later point.

Among those scholars who suggested a reason behind this prohibition, one theme is common, which is the need for context in learning. The heart of the problem seems to lie in suggestively quoting Scripture out of context, which might very well lead to misleading understandings. But if the full context will emerge soon enough, there is no problem in pausing momentarily. Indeed, viewed from this vantage point, perhaps it makes sense to differentiate between institutionalized breaks and continuations – i.e. if the Rabbis have instituted that we will continue with the next aliyah momentarily, or if we will recite the next verses from Ha’azinu next Shabbos (see Rosh Hashanah 31a) – and ad hoc ones, such as an individual who wishes to learn Torah and studies a few verses, but is not sure to continue.


* * * * *

All this discussion would seem to lead us into a more general debate over the nature of the pasuk. According to our understanding so far, the pasuk seems to be a way of dividing the Torah so as to make it easier to understand, in that it groups together mutually relevant ideas in manageable sentences. We also suggested that whereas the parasha represents the way in which the Torah was received by Moshe from Hashem, by indicating each new dictate from God, the pasuk seems to have been a Mosaic invention, designed as a teaching mechanism by which he would instruct Israel. Magen Gibborim adds that the notes with which the Torah is read are of a similar status, and that therefore one may make a stop even on a zakef katon or esnachta.

Is this true? What is the relationship between the notes and the sof-pasuk? When were they instituted? In researching the topic of the five verses which have no definitive direction for the email relating to P’ Vayechi, we noted that the cantillation notes written in the Torah were received by Moshe at Mount Sinai along with the rest of the body of the Torah, that they were subsequently forgotten, and that Ezra reestablished a definitive version of them. This is how things are described in Machzor Vitry (# 424). But it isn’t so simple.

The gemara (Nedarim 37a) states that although a teacher is allowed to accept payment for instructing his disciples in “mikra,” the written Torah, he is not permitted to accept compensation for teaching “midrash, halachos and aggados.” It explains that we learn from the example of Moshe Rabbeinu, who was commanded by Hashem to teach the Torah to the Jews for free, that Torah instruction should always be free. So why then is it permitted to accept money for teaching the “mikra”? On this point the gemara brings two opinions: that of Rav, who says that “mikra” is different in that it is usually taught to minors, and that therefore a teacher of “mikra” can be seen as a teacher/babysitter, and can therefore accept payment for the latter task – “s’char shimur”; and that of Rabbi Yochanan, who feels that one can accept recompense not for the teaching of the actual words of the written Torah, but for the teaching of the “pisuk ta’amim,” the notes.

The gemara goes on to ask why it was that Rav didn’t use the reasoning of Rabbi Yochanan to explain the permissibility of accepting a salary for “mikra”; it answers that Rav believed that the “pisuk ta’amim” was a biblical aspect of the Torah, no different from the words themselves which were given to Moshe at Sinai, and which must therefore also be taught for free. At first glance, this would seem to imply that Rabbi Yochanan, who felt that one was justified in accepting payment for the “pisuk ta’amim”, was of the opinion that the ta’amim, the notes, were of a lesser status, perhaps even of rabbinic origin. This understanding is adopted explicitly by the Ran on 37a, and is implied in Tosafos and Rosh as well. And since the rule is that when Rav and R’ Yochanan argue, we follow the opinion of the latter, this would suggest that the notes are of later origin. This is not an idle point: as the Ran points out, the difference between the opinion of Rav and Rabbi Yochanan is that in a case where babysitting was not an issue, i.e. teaching the “mikra” to an adult, Rav would prohibit accepting payment, while Rabbi Yochanan would not, and indeed the halachic authorities do not differentiate between minors and adults in this regard – see Rambam, Talmud Torah 1:7.

Yet there are several rishonim – see Machzor Vitry # 424 (p. 462) and Sefer Chassidim (#302), who state quite simply that the notes are “halacha le-moshe mi-Sinai”, and indeed this seems to be the suggestion of the gemara in a number of other places (see below). So let’s analyze the situation a bit more.

A simple answer to our difficulty is suggested by the Torah T’mimah on D’varim 4:5. He takes exception to the suggestion of the Ran that Rabbi Yochanan could be of the opinion that the notes are not of biblical origin. He notes that all of the “dikdukei soferim,” the minor details of the commandments later expounded upon by the rabbis, were all revealed to Moshe at Sinai anyway (see Megillah 19b). So if Hashem told Moshe, as he did, that the Jews had a right to the same sort of free Torah education that he, Moshe, had received, then would this not include the notes as well?[9] Rather, he suggests that Rabbi Yochanan allows the mikra to be taught, along with the notes, for a fee, is because the notes are not essential to understanding the meaning of the verse, and thus learning the notes is not really considered “learning” in the same way that learning the mikra or the midrash is.

It is interesting that the Yerushalmi, in its discussion of the mishna in Nedarim (4:3), adopts a different approach in explaining why it is permitted to teach the mikra for a fee. It says the laws, the “chukim and mishpatim” referred to in the verse (Devarim 4:5) which teaches us the law of “just like I [Moshe] must teach for free, so too you”, does not include the mikra and targum. The Chasam Sofer[10] in his novellae on Nedarim, explains the Yerushalmi as meaning to say that the obligation to teach for free was only for those bodies of the Torah which were not yet written down – the Oral Torah, as it is called – which necessarily involved a teacher of some sort. The written Torah, by contrast, was open to anyone who cared to read it, as was the Targum (i.e. in the time of the Mishna. This latter assertion is not so obvious, however). Thus the notes, the ta’amim, though they are surely of biblical origin, would come under the same category of something that is available to the public, which could be taught for a salary. While the Bavli is obviously still in disagreement with the Yerushalmi, and the Chasam Sofer’s attempt to say that according to the Yerushalmi even Rabbi Yochanan feels the ta’amim are de’oraisa seems strange to me, still, since the laws regarding other aspects of teaching for pay are derived from that Yerushalmi, perhaps we might view it as being authoritative in this other matter of the ta’amim as well.

In spite of these attempts to disprove the assertion that the notes are of rabbinic provenance, in light of all we’ve said so far, it seems legitimate to state that in all likelihood, the ta’amei ha-mikra are not considered to be a “halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai.” This raises two interesting questions. First of all, one might wonder whether this is true of all notes, or might we distinguish between the notes and the sof-pasuk, which is perhaps of earlier origin? Furthermore, what halachic ramifications would such a distinction have?

The verse in the book of Nechemiah (8:8) states: “And they read from the Book, from God’s Torah, explained and giving understanding, and they analysed the text.” (Or some translation similar to that.) This verse is explained in a number of places as referring to several different aspects of the Torah. The following represents a summary of the different versions of this analysis.

“And they read from the Book, from God’s Torah”:
1. This is the “mikra” (Bereishis Rabbah (36:8))
2. This is the “mikra” (Yerushalmi Megillah (4:1))
3. This is the “mikra” (Nedarim 37b/Megillah 3a)

“explained”
1. This is the Targum (Bereishis Rabbah (36:8))
2. This is the Targum (Yerushalmi Megillah (4:1))
3. This is the Targum (Nedarim 37b/Megillah 3a)

“and giving understanding”
1. These are the “ta’amim” (Bereishis Rabbah (36:8))
2. These are the “ta’amim” (Yerushalmi Megillah (4:1))
3. The pesukim (i.e. the sof pasuk) – see Ran (Nedarim 37b/Megillah 3a)

“and they analysed the text.”
1. These are the “rashei pesukim”, Rav Huna ben Luliani says these are the “hach’raos and ra’ayos”, and the Rabbis of Caesarea say this refers to the masores. (Bereishis Rabbah (36:8))
2. This is the masores, and some say the “hach’raos”, and some say the “rashei pesukim” (Yerushalmi Megillah (4:1))
3. This is “pisuk ta’amim”, or some say the masores (Nedarim 37b/Megillah 3a)

There are a number of points to be made here. First of all, one sees here a distinction between the idea of a “sof-pasuk” and the “pisuk ta’amim”, which are counted separately by the Babylonian Talmud. It seems as though the sof-pasuk is seen by the Bavli as being of greater explanatory value than the notes; therefore, it is mentioned earlier on in the verse. Conversely, the Yerushalmi seems to believe that the sof-pasuk – for this is what is meant by “rashi p’sukim,” as the Karban Ha-eidah explains – is of lesser importance than the ta’amim. However, both Talmuds seem quite clear on the fact that these are two different things.

Halachically speaking, I don’t believe there is a difference between the ta’amim and the sof-pasuk. However, once we understand that these are two different things, we can perhaps explain the words of Rema in O.C. 142:1, where he seems to say that we only make the one who reads the Torah repeat a mistake if it involves a misread letter – “afilu be-dikduk os achas,” to cite the words of R’ Y. Caro. If it involves a botched note, however, or it came in the “nikkud”, i.e. “the dots”, then he need not correct himself. Mishnah B’rurah (#4), understanding the word “nikkud” to refer to the vowelization of the word, writes that if the notes or vowels involve a change in the meaning of the verse, then he must also repeat it. Yet it is very difficult to square this with what the Rema actually says.

However, if we understand “nikkud” as referring to the two dots of the sof-pasuk (see Ran on Nedarim 37b), then we can say that Rema is telling us that the notes and the sof-pasuk are not of Mosaic origin, and are therefore less “official” than the actual text of the Torah. As R’ Mordechai Breuer notes in the final chapter of his work, Ta’amei Ha-mikra, there are several situations in which the accepted understanding of a verse contradicts that suggested by the notes. E.g. D’varim 26:5, according to Ibn Ezra. It seems to me that rather than dictating what the explanation of a verse ought to be, the real function of the ta’amim, according to the opinion that they were not given to Moshe at Sinai, was to enshrine the commonly accepted explanation of the verse by punctuating it appropriately. They are descriptive rather than prescriptive. And thus, we cannot definitively say that someone is wrong for mispronouncing the notes on a verse, though we may certainly chide him ("גוערין בו"). Similarly, if the sof-pasuk is not of Mosaic origin, then it makes little sense to speak of “kol pasuk d’la p’sakeh Moshe…” and it is perhaps suggestive that Rav, who holds that the notes are of biblical origin, also believes in the concept of “kol pasuk…” more strongly than does Sh’muel, who says that when necessary, one can divide the verses in novel ways.

By way of conclusion, I would just say that this is a very broad topic that requires much study. I would be very appreciative of any comments people might have, and I thank you for your pertinacity in reading this to its conclusion. When we commemorate our acceptance of the Torah, we ought to know precisely what we received back then.

[1] A more precise translation of “Aseres Ha-d’varim” (Sh’mos 34:28) would of course be “Ten Edicts,” “edict” being based on its Latin etymology meaning “something spoken out”, and also having the connotation of a commandment. However, I will bow here to popular convention and employ the word “commandment” throughout this email.

[2] This is in fact not the only place in which a dual note system is employed: see B’reishis 35:22, and comments of the Minchas Shai ad loc.

[3] The identity of the Ten Commandments is something which has frequently been pointed out to me as being in dispute. If we look at the number of paragraphs, i.e. “parshios”, in the Ten Commandments, we find the number to be ten. The First and Second Commandments seem to have been written in one parasha, while the commandment against coveting is split into two parshios. It has been suggested by Rabbi M. Breuer that there is a possibility that the prohibitions against making idols (verse 4) and bowing to them (verse 5) constitute the actual First and Second Commandments, with verse 2 (“I am Hashem, Your God, etc.”) serving as a preamble. However, from the Targum “Yonasan” and from Yerushalmi B’rachos (1:5) - not to mention Makkos 24a, it seems clear that “I am Hashem, etc.” is #1 and that “there shall be no other gods, etc.” is #2. The reason that the First and Second Commandments are written in a single parasha, as the Be’ur Halacha explains, is because these two Commandments were given straight from Hashem to the Jews, not through the intermediation of Moshe. Why the final commandment is divided into two parshios is unclear to me.

[4] It certainly seems from the Targum “Yonasan” on the Ten Commandments in Yisro that a big deal was made of the targum of these verses. However, see Maseches Sof’rim 18:4, where it seems as though the Targum was in fact not recited on Yom Tov at all, but only on Shabbos. It is possible that there were two types of Targum, one during the Torah reading and one at the end of the service done specifically for the women and children; but I’ve never heard of such a thing. One might suggest that on Shavuos there is a special custom to reiterate the Commandments by translating, for that seems to be precisely the way it occurred at Sinai – see B’rachos 45a: “R’ Shimon ben Pazi said: How do we know that the Meturg’man cannot raise his voice above that of the reader? It says: “Moshe would speak, and Hashem would answer him with a voice” (Sh’mos 19)…why does it say “with a voice? In the same voice as Moshe.” For a general overview of the idea of the Targum in relation to the Torah reading, see Tur and Shulchan Aruch O.C. 145.
[5] We find several instances in which a single verse is split into two paragraphs. See, for instance, B’reishis 35:22, Yehoshua 4:1. I’m not sure of the significance of this, especially in the second example.
[6] The fact that we end aliyos in the middle of a paragraph, explains Arugas Ha-bosem, is to be accounted for by the fact that the sages who instituted those stops knew that they did not occur in the middle of a verse. According to this reasoning, he concludes that it is forbidden to create a “hosafa” by stopping in the middle of a paragraph. However, this whole line of reasoning appears to me to be faulty, since it is hardly clear that the current division of the aliyos is as ancient as he makes out. The gemara (Megillah 29b) relates that the custom in Israel was to complete the Torah on a three-year cycle.

[7] The Magen Gibborim answers this question, saying that the real objection of Rav to splitting the verse at the esnachta is that such a half verse does not constitute the third verse of the aliya, and we would still have the problem of having stopped within two verses of a parasha. (This explanation is also given by S’fas Emes).

[8] See also Responsa Rav Pa’alim O.C. Vol. 1 # 11.

[9] This is based on a particular understanding of what “dikdukei soferim” actually means. Mahara”tz Chayes writes in his notes on the gemara in Megillah, as well as in a number of his other works, that the term refers to laws “built into” the Torah text through the mechanism of the thirteen hermeneutic principles by which we permitted to analyze the Torah; in this regard, an institution of purely rabbinic invention, such as reading the megillah, or, potentially, the ta’amim, would not necessarily have been explicitly revealed to Moshe at Sinai. See the introduction of the Netziv to his commentary of the She’iltos (Kidmas Ha’emek) for a similar understanding of the gemara in Megillah.

[10] See the commentary of the Netziv, “Ha’amek Davar”, on Vayikra 18:5 for a lengthy explanation of this Yerushalmi and similar treatments of “chukim and mishpatim”, which he says usually refer to: 1) the thirteen hermeneutic principles and 2) laws learned from those thirteen principles, respectively. Though this approach differs from that of the Chasam Sofer, it nonetheless yields a similar conclusion, namely that the ta’amim are also excluded from the prohibition against teaching for pay.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 21 - Standing while Learning

The Gemora states that from the days of Moshe until Rabban Gamliel, they would study Torah standing. Afterwards, people became weaker and they would study torah while sitting; they didn’t have the strength to stand. This is what the Mishna in Sotah (49a) is referring to when it states that once Rabban Gamliel died, the glory of Torah terminated.

The Gemora in Brochos (28a) says that when Rabban Gamliel was the Rosh Yeshiva, his policy was that any student who was not "tocho c'baro," his inside was not like his outside, would not be allowed to enter the Beis Medrash. Not everyone who applied was automatically accepted into his Yeshiva. Rabban Gamliel only accepted students who were honest and sincere, through and through, without any hints of fakery or hypocrisy.

The Gemora relates that there was a subsequent change in the leadership and Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah was appointed the new Rosh Yeshiva. He implemented a new policy: Everyone was invited into the Beis Medrash even someone who was not "tocho c'baro." Resulting from that, the Gemora records: Many benches were added to the Beis Medrash.

Two questions can be asked. Firstly, how were they able to ascertain who was a “tocho c’baro” and who wasn’t; only Hashem is capable of peering into someone’s heart? Why does the Gemora state that many benches were added; we are not interested in the amount of chairs there were; it should have said that there were many more students learning on the account of the new policy?

Rav Nosson Gishtetner answers based on our Gemora: In the days of Rabban Gamliel, the sincere students would be learning standing; that was a symbol that he was learning Torah for the sake of the mitzvah and not for any ulterior motive. When the new policy was enacted, more benches were added because the generation was weaker and they did not have the ability to stand while they were learning. (Margoliyos Hashas)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 20 - Megillah at Night

The Mishna states: The entire night is appropriate for the reaping of the omer (in preparation for the barley offering on the sixteenth of Nissan) the burning of the sacrificial fats and limbs.

The Rishonim are bothered why the Mishna doesn’t list other mitzvos that are applicable by night, such as Krias shema and the reading of the Megillah.

The Rashba says: It can be inferred from this Mishna that the primary obligation to read the Megillah is only by day and not by night. This is because the main publicizing of the miracle happens by day. He rules that a brocha is not recited on the reading of the Megillah at night.

This is the reason why the villagers only read the Megillah during the day and not by night. The Rashba does conclude that the villagers should read the Megillah at night, but they are not required to read it publicly.

The Turei Even compares the reading of the Megillah to the celebration of Purim based on the passuk in the Megillah [9:7]: And these days should be remembered and celebrated. Just like the Purim feast must be eaten during the day, so too the primary Megillah reading should be done by day.

Pnei Yehoshua writes that the obligation to read the Megillah is by day because the victory over their enemies transpired by day and the night is not a time for battle; it is merely customary to read the Megillah by night. We nevertheless recite a brocha by night similar to other customs where a brocha is recited.

However, the Sheiltos (78) maintains that the reading of the Megillah by night is more essential than the reading by day.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 20 - RABBINIC MITZVA OF SEFIRAS HAOMER

Tosfos states that after the counting of the omer, one should say the following tefillah: Is should be the will of Hashem that the Beis Hamikdosh should be rebuilt. This is recited because the mitzvah nowadays is rabbinic and serves to commemorate the biblical mitzvah in the times when the Beis Hamikdosh was in existence.

Tosfos asks: What is the difference between the mitzva of sefiras haomer and the mitzvos of sounding the shofar and taking a lulav which is also only rabbinic nowadays and this additional tefillah is not recited?

He answers: The mitzva of sefiras haomer is merely a reminder of the Beis Hamikdosh and the other mitzvos involve an action. The distinction is extremely ambiguous and the commentators struggle to explain the difference.

The Gemora in Menochos (66a) says: Ameimar would count days and not weeks. He said: The mitzva of counting the omer is only to commemorate the Beis Hamikdosh.

The Brisker Rov explains: The rabbinic mitzva of sefiras haomer is different that other rabbinic mitzvos. A regular rabbinic mitzva, such as eating marror on Pesach, is the identical mitzva nowadays as was in the times of the Beis Hamikdosh. The only difference is that then it was biblical and now it is only rabbinic. Sefiras haomer is different. The purpose of the mitzva mitzva of counting the omer nowadays was not for the counting, but rather it was established to commemorate the Beis Hamikdosh. The mitzva nowadays is not the same mitzva as it was then. This is why Ameimar maintains that in the times of the Beis Hamikdosh, they counted days and weeks and nowadays, we only count the days.

According to this, he explains the Ba’al Hamaor at the end of Pesachim. The Ba’al Hamaor says that we do not recite a shehechiyonu on sefiras haomer like we do by other mitzvos because it is only a mitzva of remembering the Beis Hamikdosh. Shehechiyonu is recited at a time of joy and it would not be appropriate to recite it when we are recalling the tragedy of the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh and the present exile. By other rabbinical mitzvos, a shehechiyonu is recited because the purpose of the mitzva was for the sake of the mitzva and not to remind us of the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh.

This is the explanation of Tosfos. The special tefillah of requesting the building of the Beis Hamikdosh is exclusively reserved for the mitzva of sefiras haomer, which was only instituted to commemorate the Beis Hamikdosh.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 20 - It's Night after Plag Hamincha

The Gemora states that it is not regarded as night until the stars come out.

It is brought in the name of the Imrei Emes (Eretz Tzvi (25/26) that if one davens Maariv on Erev Rosh Chodesh (the day before Rosh Chodesh) from plag hamincha (one hour and fifteen minutes before sunset) and on, he should not recite yaaaleh v'yovo for Rosh Chodesh in Shemoneh Esrei.The reason provided is based on a Magen Avraham (419), who cites from the Shalah that one cannot add additional time to Rosh Chodesh like he can to Shabbos and Yom Tov.

The Mishna Berura (693:4) rules regarding one who davens Maariv after plag hamincha before Purim; he should recite al hanisim in Shemoneh Esrei. The Sha'ar Hatziyon comments that this is based on the ruling that one may daven Maariv for the next day after plag hamincha and there are no poskim who rule that one should not recite yaaleh v'yovo when he is davening Maariv early before Rosh Chodesh. One is allowed to recite havdalah after plag hamincha if he already davened Maariv. Mishna Berura concludes that it is evident from here that from plag hamincha and on; it is regarded as night in respect to davening.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 19 - EXCESSIVE HAMAN BANGING

The Rosh Yeshiva of Gateshead declared immediately prior to the reading of the Megillah: I have instructed the reader of the Megillah not to have in mind those individuals who disturb the reading of the Megillah due to excessive noisemaking during the klapping of Haman.

One can inquire if anyone at all fulfilled their obligation of hearing the Megillah. The Rama (581:1) rules that a chazzan is required to have everyone in mind during his prayers and if he has an enemy and decides to exclude him, even his friends will not have discharged their obligation of tefillah. The Mishna Berura (53:57) rules accordingly. If so, how will the remainder of the congregation fulfill their obligation of hearing the Megillah if the reader intended to exclude several people?

Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein makes the following distinction. The Chavos Yair (186) explains the ruling of the Rama: The chazzan is an emissary from the congregation and he was sent to discharge the obligation for everyone. If he changes and resolves to exclude an individual, he is no longer considered their agent. Reb Shlomo Kluger cites the Magen Avraham (53:22) that a chazzan must remove from his heart any jealousy or hatred towards any individual; if he decides to exclude someone, this indicates that he has not removed the hatred from his heart and he is disqualified from being a chazzan.

The Rosh Yeshiva has the jurisdiction to decide who should be included in the congregation and who shouldn’t be. The Chavos Yair’s reason is not applicable here because the reader of the Megillah is not altering anything and he is doing precisely what he has undertaken to do. Rav Shlomo Kluger’s reason is also not applicable because here he does not bear any grudge against anyone at all.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 19 - ARRANGEMENT OF THE MISHNA

The Mishna states: The resident of a town who went to a walled city or a resident of a walled city who went to a town, if he will return to his place, he reads the Megillah on the day he usually would, and if not, he reads with them.

From where (which point in the Megillah) does a man read the Megillah and fulfill his obligation? Rabbi Meir says: One is required to read the entire Megillah. Rabbi Yehudah says: From the verse [2:5]: A Jewish man. Rabbi Yosi says: From the verse [3:1]: After these things.

The Rosh Yosef asks: Why is this Mishna written in this perek? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate if it was inserted in the first perek together with the other halachos regarding the days of the Megillah reading for the walled cities, towns and villages? Furthermore, the Nefesh Chaya asks, what is the connection between the first part of the Mishna and the second half?

He answers that if one would only learn the second half of the Mishna that there are various opinions as to where one must read the Megillah from, one might think that it will depend on which location the Megillah is being read. The people residing in Shushan or in any walled city should read the Megillah from the beginning since it was only the residents of Shushan that derived benefit from the feast of Achashverosh and it is the beginning of the Megillah that discusses Achashverosh’s feast. The townspeople can begin reading from any of the other points mentioned above.

It is for this reason that Rebbe arranged the Mishna here to illustrate that there is no distinction in the reading of the Megillah between those residing in a walled city and those residing in the towns; rather it is a Tannaic dispute.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 19 - Highlights

The Mishna states: The resident of a town who went to a walled city or a resident of a walled city who went to a town, if he will return to his place, he reads the Megillah on the day he usually would, and if not, he reads with them.

From where (which point in the Megillah) does a man read the Megillah and fulfill his obligation? Rabbi Meir says: One is required to read the entire Megillah. Rabbi Yehudah says: From the verse [2:5]: A Jewish man. Rabbi Yosi says: From the verse [3:1]: After these things. (19a)

The Mishna had ruled that a resident of a walled city who went to a town and plans to return to his city reads on the fifteenth. Rava states: This is correct only if he intends to return to his city before the night of the fourteenth, however if he will still be in the town by daybreak of the fourteenth, he must read together with the townspeople on the fourteenth. Rava cites a Scriptural verse to support this halacha.

Rava rules: If a villager read the Megillah early on the day of the gathering and he traveled to the city and was there on the night of the fourteenth; he is required to hear the Megillah again. The leniency of advancing their reading only applies if they are in their village on the fourteenth but not if they are in the city on the fourteenth. (18a)

The Mishna had cited three opinions in regards to the point that one is required to read the Megillah from in order to fulfill the obligation. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: One must read from the verse [6:1]: It was on that night.

Rabbi Yochanan said: All the different opinions have been derived from the following verse [9:29]: Then Esther the queen wrote. . . . together with Mordecai the Jew, with all due strength. The one who says that the entire Megillah should be read maintains that the strength refers to Achasverosh. The one who says that the Megillah must be read from the verse A Jewish man maintains that the strength refers to Mordechai. The one who says that the Megillah must be read from the verse after these things maintains that the strength refers to Haman. The one who says that the Megillah must be read from the verse it was on that night maintains that the strength refers to the miracle. Rav Huna offers an alternative source explaining all of the above opinions. Rabbi Chelbo said in the name of Rav Chama bar Guria in the name of Rav: The halacha is in accordance with the opinion that holds that the entire Megillah must be read. (19a)

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: One who reads from a Megillah that was written together with other scrolls has not fulfilled his obligation (the Megillah must be separate) unless the portions of the parchment where the Megillah is written on is longer or shorter than the other portion of the scroll.

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: The above ruling is limited to when the Megillah is read publicly, but when it is read privately, one may use a Megillah that was written together with other scrolls.

The Gemora cites three unconnected statements from Rabbi Chiya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. (19a – 19b)

The Mishna states: Everyone is eligible to read the Megillah, except for a deaf person, a deranged person and a minor. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that a minor is eligible to read the Megillah.

The Gemora assumes that one who hears the Megillah from a deaf person does not fulfill his obligation at all and he must read it again. Which Tanna holds like this? Rav Masna answers: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosi. He cites a Mishna in Brochos: One who recites Shema and doesn’t hear his words has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yosi disagrees and maintains that he has not fulfilled his obligation.

The Gemora questions the initial assumption: Perhaps our Mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah and it is only preferable that a deaf person should not read the Megillah, but if he does read it, it is valid.

The Gemora answers: Our Mishna cannot follow Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion since the first part of the Mishna rules explicitly that a minor is disqualified to read the Megillah.

The Gemora questions this proof: Perhaps the first part of the Mishna is referring to a minor that has not reached the age when he can be trained to perform the mitzva, but once he reached that age, he may read the Megillah since Rabbi Yehuda stated that a minor is eligible to read the Megillah.

The Gemora proves from a braisa regarding the mitzva of separating terumah that our Mishna cannot follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. (19b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 18 - FLYING CAMELS AND MULES

The Mishna had stated: If a foreigner hears the Megillah read in Ashuris (Hebrew), he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemora rules that this is true even if he doesn’t understand every word. Proof to this can be brought from the fact that nobody understands the precise meaning of the words הרמכים בני האחשתרנים, ha’achashtranim bnei haramachim (a species of swift camels), and nevertheless we fulfill the mitzvah. The Gemora provides the reason for this: The obligation of reading the Megillah is to publicize the miracle and that was accomplished.

It is noteworthy that Rashi in the Megillah understands the word achashtranim to be referring to a type of swift camel.

Ibn Ezra understands ramachim to mean horses and achashtranim to mean mules.

Rabbeinu Chananel might have had a different version in our Gemora since he states that women and unlearned men did not know the definition of these words, implying that learned men did know the translation.

The Reshash writes that ha’achashtranim bnei haramachim is referring to the riders on top of these animals.

The Rivash in his teshuvos (390) states that when he arrived in the city of Srakista, he observed that they would read the Megillah written in a foreign language on behalf of the women because they didn’t understand Hebrew. He wished to abolish this practice for two reasons: The Ramban rules that if one understands Hebrew and another language, he cannot fulfill his obligation by reading the other language and if so, the man reading the Megillah for the women could not discharge their obligation. Secondly, how could they know the precise translation of the words ha’achashtranim bnei haramachim?

The Rivash sent his ruling to the Ran and the Ran replied as follows: Perhaps the meaning of the Gemora is that the common person did not know the meaning of those words but the sages did know. The Ran does conclude that the translation of the people of Srakista is most definitely a mistake and therefore he agreed with the Rivash.

Reb Yaakov Emden comments that these animals are found in Persia and they are eight-legged camels who are extremely swift runners. The Gemora, at times, refers to a gamla parcha – a flying camel, must be without a doubt from the same family.

The Mishna Berura (690:34) rules that whenever one is fulfilling his obligation of reading the Megillah in a foreign language; he must recite the words ha’achashtranim bnei haramachim in Hebrew.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 18 - HOW MANY WORDS ARE IN THE MEGILLAH?

It was taught in a braisa: If the scribe had omitted letters or verses and the reader read them from memory, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemora challenges this ruling from a different braisa: If letters from the Megillah are partially effaced or torn, if they are still legible, the Megillah may be used, but otherwise it may not be used. The Gemora answers: It is only invalid if the entire Megillah is illegible, however if a Megillah is missing less than half of its letters, it is still valid.

Shulchan Aruch (690:3) rules that it is preferable that the Megillah should be written in its entirety, and if the scribe missed words in the middle, even close to half the Megillah, and he reads the rest by heart, it is only valid b’dieved (after the fact).

The Mishna Berura inquires as to what the halacha would be if the Megillah would be missing exactly half the words. In Sha’ar Hatziyon, he writes that the inference from the Rambam would be that it is invalid and from the Rosh and the Ran, it would seem that the Megillah is valid.

Reb Yitzchak Zilberstein cites that they asked Reb Elyashiv regarding the possibility of this case since they checked and realized that the Megillah does not have an even amount of words, so how could the Megillah be missing precisely half of the required amount of words. Reb Elyashiv answered that the case can be referring to where the Megillah was written in a foreign language which can be valid for people who understand that language.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 18 - WHICH SURGEON SHOULD HE USE?

The Gemora discusses whether one who knows the Torah by heart would be permitted to write a Scripture scroll without copying from a text. The Gemora states that Rabbi Meir was permitted to write a Megillah from memory because he knew the words fluently by heart.

Reb Elyashiv, cited by Chishukei Chemed ruled on the following inquiry and he derived his ruling from our Gemora.

A person residing in Eretz Yisroel developed a heart issue and he was required to undergo a risky heart surgery. The local doctors said that they do not perform this type of surgery frequently, but they are ninety-five percent confident that the surgery will be a success. There is an expert surgeon outside of Eretz Yisroel who performs this surgery daily and he said that if he would perform the surgery, he would be successful ninety-five percent of the time.

Should this individual travel outside of Eretz Yisroel to have the surgery performed by the expert surgeon? Reb Elyashiv ruled that he should go because that doctor is more accustomed in performing this type of surgery.

The Gemora in Taanis 15a states regarding a communal fast: They would send a chazzan to lead the prayer who was an elder and fluent in the prayers. Rashi explains: One who is fluent in his prayers will not make a mistake.

Our Gemora states that one who is fluent in the words of the Torah will not make a mistake when he is writing the Torah without copying from a text.

This is why it would be preferable to travel to the doctor outside of Eretz Yisroel even though the percentage of success is the same. Someone who is more accustomed to performing this type of surgery will not make a mistake.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 18 - Food for Thought

1. How could the Shemoneh Esrei have been forgotten? (Ben Yehoyada)

2. What should one do if he can’t even read the words ha’achashtranim bnei haramachim in Hebrew? (Chashukei Chemed)

3. Is the obligation of reading Parshas Zochor from a Sefer Torah a biblical one or is it only rabbinic? (Eshkol, Minchas Chinuch, Pnei Yehoshua, Sfas Emes)

4. Where in Shemoneh Esrei should one remember about Amalek? (Magen Avraham, Sdei Chemed)

5. Why doesn’t the Rif rule according to Rav and Shmuel that one can fulfill his obligation of reading the Megillah if it is written in Greek and he understands it? (Rishonim)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 18 - Highlights

The Gemora asks: If one hundred and twenty elders (the Men of the Great Assembly), and among them many prophets, have arranged the order of the Shemoneh Esrei, why was it necessary for Shimon of Pekuli to arrange them in their proper sequence? The Gemora answers: They had been forgotten, so he reintroduced the order. (18a)

The Gemora rules: It is forbidden to add to the brochos of the Shemoneh Esrei. Rabbi Elozar said: It is written [Tehillim 106:2]: "Who can utter the mighty acts of Hashem? Who can proclaim all his praise?" For whom is it fitting to utter? Only one who can publish all of His praises (and since this is impossible to accomplish, only the blessings that have been ordained should be recited).

Rabbah bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: He who praises Hashem too much will be uprooted from the world. Rabbi Yehudah of the village Geboriah said: Silence is the best medicine. When Rav Dimia came from Eretz Yisroel to Bavel, he said: in Eretz Yisroel, they would say: "A word is worth a sela, and silence is worth two." (18a)

The Mishna had stated: If one reads the Megillah by heart, he does not fulfill his obligation. Rava cites a Scriptural source for this.

The Gemora rules that one is obligated to remember Amalek verbally; mentally is not sufficient. (18a)

The Mishna had stated: One may read the Megillah in a foreign language for those who understand it. A braisa is cited which states the opposite: If one reads the Megillah in a foreign language, he does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemora explains that the braisa is referring to a case where the people do not understand the language and therefore do not fulfill their obligation. Rav and Shmuel rule: According to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, who maintains that the Torah is permitted to be written only in Greek (of the foreign languages); if one hears the Megillah being read in Greek, he will fulfill his obligation even if he doesn’t understand it. (This is because he equates Greek to Hebrew.) (18a)

The Mishna had stated: If a foreigner hears the Megillah read in Ashuris (Hebrew), he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemora rules that this is true even if he doesn’t understand every word. Proof to this can be brought from the fact that nobody understands the precise meaning of the words הרמכים בני האחשתרנים, ha’achashtranim bnei haramachim (a species of swift camels), and nevertheless we fulfill the mitzvah. The Gemora provides the reason for this: The obligation of reading the Megillah is to publicize the miracle and that was accomplished. (18a)

The Mishna had stated: If he read the Megillah intermittently, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Chachamim did not know what the word serugin (intermittently) meant, until they heard the maidservant of Rebbe say to the Rabbis who were coming to Rebbe’s house at different intervals, “Until when will you be entering serugin serugin?” The Gemora offers other examples of words that the Chachamim did not know what they meant and they discovered the meaning after hearing the maidservant of Rebbe or from different travelers. (18a)

It was taught in a braisa: If he read the Megillah intermittently, he has fulfilled his obligation but if he read it out of sequence, he does not fulfill his obligation. Rabbi Muna said in the name of Rabbi Yehudah: If he read the Megillah intermittently, but he paused in the amount of time it would take him to read the entire Megillah, he would be required to start the Megillah again. (18a – 18b)

It was taught in a braisa: If the scribe had omitted letters or verses and the reader read them from memory, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemora challenges this ruling from a different braisa: If letters from the Megillah are partially effaced or torn, if they are still legible, the Megillah may be used, but otherwise it may not be used. The Gemora answers: It is only invalid if the entire Megillah is illegible, however if a Megillah is missing less than half of its letters, it is still valid. (18b)

The Mishna had ruled: If one read the Megillah while he was drowsy, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rav Ashi clarifies the case. He is asleep and not asleep, awake and not awake; if he is called he responds, but he cannot give a rational answer, though if he is reminded, he remembers. (18b)

The Mishna had stated: One who was writing it, interpreting it or correcting it, and during that time recited the entire Megillah; if he set his mind to it, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he did not set his mind to it, he did not fulfill his obligation. The Gemora explains the case: There was another Megillah before him and he reads one verse at a time (from the complete Megillah) and then writes it down. The Gemora asks: Shall we say that this supports Rabbah bar bar Chanah, for Rabbah bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: It is forbidden for a scribe to write one letter of any Scripture unless it is copied from a text? The Gemora answers: It is not a proof because the Mishna can be referring to a case where a Megillah was opened in front of the scribe, but in truth, it would not have been necessary.

The Gemora discusses whether one who knows the Torah by heart would be permitted to write a Scripture scroll without copying from a text.

Abaye allowed the members of the house of Bar Chavu to write tefillin and mezuzos without copying from a text. The Gemora states that this follows the opinion of Rabbi Yirmiyah cited in a braisa who states in the name of Rabbeinu that tefillin and mezuzos may be written without copying from a text and they do not require etched lines (sirtut – the letters are written using these lines) on the parchment. The Gemora concludes that while it’s true that tefillin does not require etched lines; mezuzos do. They both may be written without copying from a text because their content is fluent to all. (18b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 17 - SHABBOS IN THE DAF

Reb Ben Says: The Gemora states that the blessing of geulah, redemption, is the seventh blessing of Shemoneh Esrei, as Moshiach will arrive in the seventh year of the Shemitah cycle. We can suggest that it is for this reason that we recite in the prayer of Lecho Dodi the words hisnaari meiafar kumi livshi bigdeich sifarteich ami al yad Ben Yishai Bais HaLachmi karvah el nafshi gealah, shake off the dust-arise! Don your splendid clothes, My people, through the son of Yishai, the Bethlemite! Draw near to my soul-redeem it. Shabbos, the seventh day, is also a time of redemption, and we beseech HaShem to redeem us speedily, in our days.

Rabbi Karr adds: In explaining the Shemoneh Esrei the Gemora cites Scriptural passages explaining why one brocha follows the other one. But, surprisingly a new concept is introduced; that on numbers. Evidently the position number is significant. Not all the numbers but just a few. The first is seven. The Gemora states that the blessing of geulah, redemption, is the seventh blessing of Shemoneh Esrei, as Moshiach will arrive in the seventh year of the Shemitah cycle. When the number seven is mentioned, one immediately thinks of Shabbos. The connection between Shabbos and Moshiach is that when the Jewish people observe the Shabbos properly, the Redemption will come.

The eighth brocha is the brocha of Healing. The mitzva of circumcision is on the eighth day of a child’s life. The mitzva of Bris Milah is only for Jews. This prayer for healing is unique for Jews that have, and receive a different type of healing than non-Jews. The Gemora in Shabbos explains that the body of a Jew is different than a gentile because of the kosher food that we eat and the non-kosher food that they eat. The medicine and healing are different for Jews than non-Jews. Therefore this brocha is number eight to remind us of this fact.

I am adding: Perhaps this is the reason that the brocha concludes by saying rofei cholei amo Yisroel. Although Hashem heals everyone, there is a special type of healing that is uniquely reserved for the Jewish people.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 16 - HAMAN AND THE OMER

The Gemora relates that Achashverosh ordered Haman to get Mordechai, dress him in the royal garments and lead him through the city on the king’s horse proclaiming, “Thus shall be done for the man whom the king wishes to honor.” Haman located Mordechai teaching his students the laws of kemitzah (scooping the flour for the mincha offering).

Rashi states that this occurred on the sixteenth of Nissan, the day the korban omer is offered in the Beis Hamikdosh.

The Maharal explains the connection between the omer offering and the story of Purim. The Omer offering reveals the miracles that are hidden inside of nature. By bringing the first grain to the Beis Hamikdosh, we are demonstrating that even the nature of the world is governed by Hashem. This was the method used to overcome Haman. The miracles were concealed from the human eye. The means to conquer Haman and Amalek is by exposing the concealed miracles, thus confirming that all which appears natural is controlled by Hashem.

The idea that Amalek can only be defeated through natural means was mentioned before and it bears repeating.

The Mishna states that whenever Moshe held up his hand, Israel prevailed [against Amalek]…'. The Mishna asks, do Moshe's hands make or break the battle? Rather, this teaches you that so long as Israel were looking upwards and subjugating their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were victorious; if not, they would fall.

The Netziv in Merumei Sadeh asks on the Mishna's question. What was so strange about Moshe's hands making the battle? Didn't Moshe's hands split the sea and perform other miracles as well through his hand?

He answers that the fight against Amalek had to be won in a natural way and not through a miracle. Perhaps we can add that fighting Amalek is in essence the fight that we have daily with our evil inclination. This fight could not be left to miracles. This is what is bothering the Mishna. Could the battle have been won through Moshe's hands like the other miracles? The Mishna's answer is no, it could not have been since this battle required a victory through natural means.

Let us examine the answer of the Mishna. Rather, this teaches you that so long as Israel were looking upwards and subjugating their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were victorious; if not, they would fall. Isn't the Mishna stating that they relied on a miracle from Above. They looked upwards and they were victorious. How can this be explained?

The Gemora in Kiddushin (29b) relates an incident with Abaye and Rav Acha bar Yaakov. There was a certain demon that haunted Abaye's Beis Medrash, so that when two people entered, even by day, they were injured. Abaye instructed the community not to provide Rav Acha shelter when he would arrive in the city, thus forcing the father to spend the night at the Beis Medrash; perhaps a miracle will happen [in his merit]. Rav Acha entered the city and spent the night in that Beis Medrash, during which the demon appeared to him in the guise of a seven-headed dragon. Every time Rav Acha fell on his knees in prayer one head fell off. The next day he reproached them: ‘Had not a miracle occurred, you would have endangered my life.'

The Maharsha in his commentary to Kiddushin asks that how did Abaye have permission to place Rav Acha in such a precarious position. One is forbidden to rely on a miracle? He answers that Abaye understood the potency of Rav Acha's prayer. Abaye was certain that Rav Acha's prayers to the Almighty would be answered and that this is not a miracle. Hashem has instilled in this world the power of prayer and incorporated it into the natural order of the world.

This is what our Mishna is answering. Amalek has to be defeated through natural means and that is what Klal Yisroel did at that time. They cried out to Hashem and subjugated their hearts towards Him and were answered.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 15 - ESTHER CLOTHED HERSELF IN THE DIVINE SPIRIT

It is written in the Megillah [5:1]: On the third day, Esther donned [garments of] royalty and stood in the inner courtyard of the palace, facing the palace. The Gemora asks: The Megillah should have written that she clothed herself in royal clothing? Rabbi Elozar answers in the name of Rabbi Chanina: The verse is implying that Esther was clothed in the Divine spirit.

Pachad Yitzchak uses this verse to explain a difficulty regarding the story of Purim. The Gemora teaches us that the mitzva of destroying Amalek is only applicable after a king has been appointed over the Jewish people. According to this, the question is asked, how could the Jews in the times of Purim have fulfilled the mitzva of destroying Amalek by killing Haman and his sons, if they did not have a king at that time.

Pachad Yitzchak answers: It is written in the Megillah that Esther donned garments of royalty. This teaches us that she assumed the reign over the Jews, similar to a king, thus allowing the Jewish people to destroy Amalek.

Who gave Esther this right? Pachad Yitzchak does not explain this point.

Rabbi Eliezer Ginzburg, in his sefer Ginzei Hamelech answers: The Shem Mishmuel states that the primary role of a king is to unite his constituents. He explains: “Esther did not literally assume the throne. Rather, she enveloped herself with the intense love for fellow Jews which a monarch must possess if he is to succeed in uniting the people.”

This is the explanation of the Gemora. Esther cloaked herself with an abundance of love towards her fellow Jews and by doing so; she united the entire Jewish people. As a result of this, the Divine spirit rested upon her.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 15 - SAYING OVER IN THE NAME OF THE ONE WHO SAID IT

Rabbi Elozar said in the name of Rabbi Chanina: Whoever says a statement in the name of the one who said it will bring redemption to the world. Proof to this is cited from the verse in Megillah [2:22]: The matter became known to Mordechai and he informed Queen Esther. Esther then informed the king of it in Mordechai's name.

The Gemora is always careful in regards to saying statements in the name of the one who said it initially; why didn’t the redemption come already?

The sefer Ohr Lashamayim cites from the Rebbe from Lublin that the Gemora is not referring to the ultimate redemption; rather it is referring to each person’s individual success. Similarly, the blessing of Goel Yisroel in Shemoneh Esrei is referring to the redemption of the individual communities and not for the entire Klal Yisroel.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 14 - REINCARNATIONS

Rav Nachman said: Chuldah was a descendant of Yehoshua. Rav Eina the Elder asked Rav Nachman from a braisa which explicitly states that Chuldah was a descendant of Rachav, the innkeeper. Rav Nachman responded: Both statements are correct since Rachav converted and subsequently Yehoshua married her. The Gemora states that although Yehoshua did not have any sons; he did have daughters.

It is written [Breishis 39:10]: Now it came about when she (Potiphar, Pharaoh's chamberlain’s wife) spoke to Yosef day in and day out, that he did not obey her, to lie beside her and to be with her.

Rashi cites the Medrash: to be with her in the World to Come.

Rabbi Yonason Eibshitz asks: Where did Potiphar’s wife get the idea that she was destined to be with Yosef in the World to Come? He answers: It has been passed down through a tradition that Yehoshua was a gilgul (reincarnation) of Yosef and that Rachav was a gilgul of Potiphar’s wife.

It emerges that her words were accurate; though she was a bit hasty. Her soul was fated to be with Yosef’s soul but not in this lifetime. This attachment would have to wait until a later time when Yehoshua married Rachav.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 14 - THE MOUND AND THE PIT

Rabbi Abba said: The parable of Achashverosh and Haman resembles two men, one of whom had a pile of dirt in his field and the other had a ditch. The one who had the ditch said: I wish that the owner of the pile would sell me the dirt so that I can fill up my ditch. The one who had the pile said: I wish that the owner of the ditch would sell me the right to use his ditch so that I can dump my dirt into it. One day, they happened to meet and the owner of the ditch said to the owner of the pile: Sell me your pile. The owner of the pile replied: Take it for nothing. Achashverosh and Haman both wished to destroy the Jewish people; when Haman offered to buy the right to kill them, Achashverosh was ecstatic and he agreed without demanding any payment at all.

The commentators ask: If Achashverosh hated the Jews as much as Haman and also wished to annihilate Klal Yisroel, why did he remain in power after the miracle of Purim? Why was Haman hung on the gallows and not Achashverosh?

The Ben Ish Chai explains this with the following parable: A son of a certain King was taken captive and he fell into the hands of two enemies (of the king) that intended to kill the prince. They both resolved to delay the killing, but for two different reasons. One said that he did not feel that it was becoming to kill a prince with a sword and have his blood flowing on the ground like an animal; he would rather wait and place poison in a goblet of wine and have the prince drink it. This way, he would die on his couch; a pleasant death and one that is fitting for a prince. The other one felt that killing the prince by sword would not be painful enough. He would rather wait, light a fire and burn him to death; this would cause tremendous embarrassment to his father the king and the prince would suffer tremendously.

Due to their procrastination in carrying out the execution, the king was able to locate their hideaway and rescued his son from the captors. The king released the one who wanted the prince to die in an honorable manner because it was due to the delay that the king was able to rescue his son. The other fellow was not so fortunate and the king burned him at the stake in the same manner that he intended to kill the prince.

Achashverosh was like the first captor. He wanted to destroy the Jews but he didn’t want to degrade them. He didn’t want them sold like cattle and that is why he refused to accept the money which Haman offered. He told Haman: Choose a decent death for them, one that you would be comfortable yourself to die with. Haman, on the other hand, had no such compunction. He wanted to humiliate the Jews. His plan was that they should initially be sold like animals in a market place and then there should be a decree to cut their heads off like donkeys. He wanted that Mordechai should be hung on the gallows and remain there. This is why Achasverosh was vindicated and Haman was punished measure for measure.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 14 - MEGILLAH AND HALLEL

There is a dispute cited in the Gemora regarding the reason that Hallel is not recited on Purim. One reason offered is that once Klal Yisroel entered Eretz Yisroel, we do not recite Hallel on a miracle that occurred outside of Eretz Yisroel. This reason is challenged because it can be said that once they were sent into exile, Hallel can be recited even on a miracle that transpired in the Diaspora. Rav Nachman states that the reading of the Megillah replaces the obligation to recite Hallel. Rava explains that there is no obligation to recite Hallel on the miracle of Purim because we are still servants of Achashverosh.

Shulchan Aruch (O”C 693:3) rules that Hallel is not recited on Purim. The Mishna Berura (7) cites Rava’s explanation that it was not regarded as a complete redemption since we are still servants of Achashverosh.

The Rambam in Hilchos Chanukah (3:6) writes that the sages did not establish the obligation to recite Hallel on Purim because the reading of the Megillah is regarded as if he would be reciting Hallel.

The Meiri writes that if one does not have an accessible Megillah, he has an obligation to recite Hallel. The Poskim dispute if this Hallel should be recited with a brocha or without.

The Chasam Sofer (O”C 192) asks the following question on this Meiri. If Purim falls out on a Friday, the cities that are surrounded by a wall will also read the Megillah on Friday. Shouldn’t they recite Hallel on Shabbos since that is their actual day of Purim? The Pri Megadim does state that this indeed would be the halacha.

In the sefer Birchas Refoel (14), he explains that when the Gemora states that “reading the Megillah is regarded as reciting Hallel” it does not mean that reading the Megillah is a fulfillment of the obligation of reciting Hallel; rather the meaning is that one is not obligated to recite Hallel after he already publicized the miracle of Purim. Once the Megillah was read, there is no necessity or reason to recite Hallel. According to this, there would not be any necessity to recite Hallel on Shabbos after the Megillah was read the day before.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 13 - Rachel's Modesty

The Gemora proceeds to record the incident of Rachel’s modesty. It is written [Breishis 29:12]: And Yaakov told Rachel that he was her father's brother. Was he her father's brother? Wasn’t he in fact the son of her father's sister? This is the explanation: Yaakov said to Rachel, Will you marry me? She replied, yes, but my father is a trickster, and he will outwit you. He replied: I am his brother in trickery. Rachel asked him: Is it permitted for the righteous to indulge in trickery? He replied: Yes, and the Gemora cites a verse in Shmuel proving that one is permitted to act crookedly with a crook. Yaakov asked her: What is his trickery? She replied: I have a sister who is older than me and he will not let me get married before her. Yaakov gave to Rachel certain identifying signs in order that Lavan would not be able to exchange Leah, the older sister, with Rachel. When the wedding night came, Rachel said to herself (upon realizing that her father intended to give Leah to Yaakov instead of her), my sister will be embarrassed. She handed over the secret signs to her. It was due to this act of modesty that Rachel merited having Shaul descend from her.

Dr. Mark Berkowitz cited the Ben Yehoyadah who explains this Gemora. He states that the secret message and signs that Rachel and Yaakov exchanged on the first day that they spoke at the well were kept secret by both of them for the seven years that Yaakov labored for Rachel’s hand in marriage. He states that the only way that this secret could have worked and Leah could have possibly replaced Rachel was if Yaakov and Rachel did not meet or talk during those seven years. He points out that this is the great modesty that she displayed over these seven years.

Rabbi Aryeh Leib Scheinbaum in Peninim on the Torah Parshas Korach provides a similar explanation. [This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network.]

The Midrash teaches us that On ben Peles was saved as a result of listening to his wife. She asked him, "What do you gain by being involved in this dispute? Regardless who triumphs, you still emerge as the loser. If Aharon is selected as Kohein Gadol - you are his student. If Korach becomes the Kohein Gadol - you are still nothing more than a student. Why involve yourself in a 'no win' situation?" On's wife spoke with seichal, common sense. Is this a reason to praise her? Basically, she only did what any level-headed person would do.

Horav Nosson Vachtfogel, zl, offers a penetrating insight into the matter. He cites the Talmud in Megillah 13b where Rabbi Elazar claims that as reward for Rachel Imeinu's tznius, modesty, she merited that Shaul Hamelech be descended from her. When did she demonstrate such exemplary tznius? Chazal explain that when she gave her sister, Leah, the simanim, special signs, that Yaakov Avinu had given her, she acted with exemplary modesty. Rashi explains that her tznius lay in the fact that she never publicized her selfless act of devotion to her sister. She never divulged to Yaakov what she had done. She was prepared to give up that for which she had strived for so much - the opportunity to be the progenitor of the Shivtei Kah, tribes of Klal Yisrael. She did not once call attention to her exemplary act of kindness. This is tznius at its zenith.

Rav Nosson posits that included in the middah of tznius is the ability to maintain a shev v'al taaseh, status quo, attitude in regard to a situation in which one is unsure of what to do. He does not take a chance and plunge forward regardless of the consequences. No - tznius demands that one sit back and not act, rather than act rashly. Likewise, one who is a tzanua will not divulge a secret. If one is asked for information about someone and he does not know the person, it takes tznius to say, "I do not know." Regrettably, there are those who are quick to conjecture and state their own opinions about someone, even though they are baseless.

Rav Nosson remembers that, prior to being asked by Horav Aharon Kotler, zl, to become the first Mashgiach of the Beth Medrash Govohah, he was asked by a talmid, close student, of Rav Aharon regarding a controversial sefer that was on the table in one of the yeshivah's classrooms. The Mashgiach responded, "I do not know." This response prompted the talmid to approach Rav Aharon and suggest that Rav Nosson be appointed as Mashgiach of the yeshivah. It takes someone who possesses the strength of character to assert "I do not know" to be the Mashgiach of the Lakewood Yeshivah. This was the power of On ben Peles' wife. She had the ability to see and stress the shev v'al taaseh attitude: "If either way you will not be the victor, why bother involving yourself in the fray of the controversy? Stay at home and stay out of trouble." It takes tznius to act in such a manner. On was fortunate that his wife had the necessary character trait - and he had the wisdom to listen to her.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 11 - Calculations

by Rafi G. life in israel

We recently learned in daf yomi the calculations, and miscalculations, of the 70 years of exile after the destruction of the first Beis Hamikdash and prior to the rebuilding of the second Beis Hamikdash.

One would think that 70 years is not too difficult to keep track of, especially when you are living within the thick of it. However, we see Ahashverosh miscounted the 70 years. So did other people. Nobody knew from when to begin the count of 70, therefore everybody's count was skewed and nobody had the correct target date. It was only after the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash began that we could look back and say we know when the count of 70 years of exile began.

The same is true in the upcoming parsha regarding the creation of the golden calf. The Jews knew Moshe was going to be on Mt. Sinai for 40 days. How hard is it to count 40 days? Yet they miscounted and that led them to making the mistake of creating the golden calf.

We have many dates and calculations throughout tanach and Jewish history. Great Rabbis have calculated with varying conclusions the dates of the coming of Moshiah, the end of the world, the redemption, etc. These dates come and go. We then question how the great Rabbis could be wrong and lose faith (sometimes) or simply become cynical when hearing such things.

We have to realize that we never know where to begin the count, and therefore our counts and calculations are always wrong. It is only in hindsight we can look back and say where the count began.

The gemara says the world will only last 6000 years. That is pretty good reason to start getting nervous. We are now in the year 5767 (of the Jewish calendar). That only leaves 233 years left to go before armageddon!

But considering the fact that pretty much every count in the Torah and Jewish history was found to be miscalculated, we have to consider that we have no idea when the count of 6000 years begins. Did the 6000 years begin from the first day of creation? Maybe from Avraham recognizing monotheism? Maybe from matan Torah? Maybe from the jewish nation entering Eretz Yisroel? Or maybe from multitudes of other placemarks in jewish history. We have no idea when the count begins, and will only know after it actually happens.

I think it was the Rambam who said not to bother calculating the coming of the mashiah, as doing so only causes people to lose faith when the predicted event does not happen. Instead of worrying about specific dates and calculations that will almost definitely be wrong anyways, we should heed the advice of the great masters and be "mefashfesh b'maasav" - look at our ways and correct our actions and try to prepare in that way for the days of Mashiah.

--
Kol tuv,

Rafi
http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com
http://torahthoughts.blogspot.com
http://parshaquestions.blogspot.com
http://yomtovthoughts.blogspot.com

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 12 - A Boor Leaps to the Front

It is written [1:16]: Memuchan declared before the king and the ministers. The Gemora states that Memucan is Haman, and he was called Memucan because he was destined for punishment.

Rav Kahana said: From here we see that an ordinary man (by the fact that he was mentioned last, it is obvious that he was the least important amongst them) always pushes himself in front.

My brother, Reb Ben asked me: we say by dinei nefashos maschilin min hatzad (min hakatan), meaning that by capital punishments, Beis Din begins debating with the smallest. Accordingly, what was wrong with Memuchan speaking first?

I saw from the Sha'ar bas Rabim an answer: Haman is the one who said (3:8): There is one nation, scattered and dispersed among the nations throughout the provinces of your kingdom, whose laws are unlike those of any other nation and who do not obey the laws of the King. It is not in the King's interest to tolerate them. Haman is stating that we do not follow the Jewish laws. If he doesn't follow the Jewish laws, then evidently he jumped first to state his opinion out of haughtiness and not because the halacha is that way. (It is a bit drushy though.)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 12 - HASHEM WANTS OUR TEFILLOS

It is written in the Megillah [2:5]: There was a Jewish man in Shushan the capital, whose name was Mordechai, son of Yair, son of Shimei, son of Kish, from the tribe of Binyamin. The Gemora asks: What is the significance in mentioning all these names? The Gemora cites a braisa which states that all these names are in fact referring To Mordechai. He is called the son of Yair because he brightened the eyes of the Jewish people in prayer. He is referred to as the son of Shimei because Hashem listened to his prayers. He is called the son of Kish because he knocked on the Gates of Mercy and they were opened for him.

The Shem Meshmuel asks: According to this explanation, the phrases are seemingly in reverse order. First, one knocks on the Gates of Mercy, then Hashem would listen to his prayers and afterwards he would brighten the eyes of Klal Yisroel.

Rabbi Eliezer Ginzburg in his sefer, The King’s Treasures cites an important principle that was often said by the Mirrer Mashgiach, Reb Yerucham Levovitz.

The Medrash in Parshas Beshalach (61:5) states: Why did Hashem scare the Jewish people? The Medrash answers: Because Hashem desired their prayers. The Medrash is teaching us that the primary purpose behind the Splitting of the Sea was to stir Klal Yisroel to prayer.

Chazal (Yevamos 64) tell us that Hashem desires the prayers of the righteous. The Matriarchs were barren only so that they should pray to Hashem for children. Their desire for progeny caused the Matriarchs and the Patriarchs to pray to Hashem at a level that under normal circumstances they would not have done.

This can be said in regard to the hardships that happened to the Jewish people in Shushan. It was to chase away the spiritual gloom that comes with exile and to brighten the eyes of Klal Yisroel through tefillah. The phrases are thus arranged in levels of importance.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 11 - Food for Thought

1. Why is Mordechai's name associated with a pleasant fragrance?

2. What was the significance of the fact that Vashti was related to Nebuchadnezzar? Why was this considered pivotal to the story of Purim, according to Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeini? (Shem M'Shmuel)

3. Neither will I loathe them is referring to the times of the Greeks, as I appointed for them Shimon Hatzaddik, the Chashmenoi and his sons and Matisyahu the Kohen Gadol to save them. Shimon Hatzaddik was in the times of Alexander the Great and in his time there were no decrees against the Jews. What does the Gemora mean that Shimon Hatzaddik was appointed to save them from the decrees; there weren't any at the time? (Rav Nosson Vachtfogel)

4. Why didn't Achashverosh die because he used the vessels of the Beis Hamikdosh? (Maharal, Sfas Emes)

5. Is there a factual argument between Rav and Shmuel as to the locations of Hodu and Cush?

6. "My handiwork is drowning in the sea and you should sing songs of praise?" When does this principle apply and when doesn't it?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 11 - DEFEAT AMALEK WITH TORAH

Rabbi Elozar introduced his lecture on Megillas Esther with the following interpretation: It is written [Koheles 10:18]: Through laziness the ceiling collapses and with idleness of hands the house leaks. Because the Jewish people were lazy regarding the study of Torah, the enemy of Hashem (referring to Hashem Himself) became poor.

The Maharal comments that it is evident from this Gemora that the only merit that can save Klal Yisroel from the hands of Amalek is the studying of Torah. Klal Yisroel can become elevated through the study of Torah and only then can we overcome Amalek.

The Riaf explains that this is why the salvation of Purim came after Mordechai gathered the twenty-two thousand young children and studied Torah with them. The Gemara later on (16b) expounds on the verse that states: (Esther 8:16) layehudim haysa orah visimcha visasson vikar, the Jews had light and gladness and joy and honor. Light is referring to Torah; Gladness is referring to the festivals; Joy is referring to bris milah; Glory is referring to tefillin. Torah is mentioned first because that is the method to prevail over Amalek.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 11 - LOCATION OF THE ARON

Rabbi Levi also said: This is a tradition that has been passed down from our ancestors that the place of the Aron (the Holy Ark in the Beis Hamikdosh) miraculously did not take up any space inside the Kodesh Hakodoshim (Holy of Holies). This can be proven from the following braisa: the Aron that Moshe made had ten amos (cubits) of space in each direction between it and the walls of the Kodesh Hakodoshim. However, the space of the Kodesh Hakodoshim itself was only twenty amos by twenty amos. It emerges that the place of the Aron did not take up any space.

The Rambam writes that the Aron was located on the west side of the Kodesh Hakodoshim. Some explain (Chasam Sofer, Chanukas Habayis) that this is because the Shechina resides towards the west of the Kodesh Hakodoshim. The Chanukas Habayis adds that this way there would be a greater miracle that the poles could reach the curtains in front of the Heichal. Rabbi Dovid Meyers in his sefer M’leches Hamishkan V’keilav (p. 453) cites the Ezras Kohanim who explains the Rambam as follows: The stone where the Aron was situated on top of was originally in the west of the Kodesh Hakodoshim. After the Aron was placed on top of the stone, a miracle occurred and the Aron was precisely in the center. When the Aron was hidden, the miracle was removed and the stone was located on the west side.

The Ritzva (cited in Tosfos, Bava Basra 25a) writes that the Aron was located on the east side of the Kodesh Hakodoshim. The Minchas Chinuch (95) explains: There were sometimes that the Aron and the Sefer Torah needed fixing and they would be required to enter the Kodesh Hakodoshim. If the Aron would be situated in the east, it would minimize the amount of steps that would be required to reach the Aron.

The commentators ask from our Gemora which explicitly states that the Aron was in the center of the Kodesh Hakodoshim. Minchas Chinuch (95) answers based on the Rashbam (B”B 25a) that the Aron was only in the center in respect to north and south; however, the Gemora is not discussing where the Aron was located in respect to east and west. This would be consistent with the Rashbam who writes later in Bava Basra (99a) that there were twenty amos from the Aron until the Heichal.

Rashi seemingly would not subscribe to this opinion since he states here that the Aron was ten amos away from the wall in all directions.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 11 - VAYEHI CONVEYS ANGUISH

The Gemora begins discussing various verses in the Megillah. The Megillah begins: And it was in the days of Achashverosh. Rabbi Levi and according to others Rabbi Yochanan, said: This is a tradition that has been passed down from the men of the Great Assembly, that wherever it is written vayehi, (and it was), this introduces some disaster. Regarding the Megillah, there was Haman who wanted to destroy the Jews. The Gemora cites many other examples from Scriptures proving that vayehi introduces disaster.

The Pnei Yehoshua asks that there is a distinction between here and all the other places. All the places cited have the impending disaster written immediately after the word vayehi, but Haman’s decree against the Jewish people is not written until much later?

He answers that the root cause that brought about Haman’s decree was the fact that Klal Yisroel benefited from Achashverosh’s feast and that is written immediately after vayehi.

The Megillas S’tarim answers: The Gemora Pesachim (87b) states that Hashem does a kindness to Klal Yisroel by scattering them among the nations, so that if some of the nations make decrees against us or wish to destroy us, at least those of us living under other rulers will survive and Klal Yisroel will not be completely destroyed. Here, the anguish is immediate by the fact that Achashverosh ruled over the entire world and there was no safe haven.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 11 - Highlights

The Gemora begins discussing various verses in the Megillah. The Megillah begins: And it was in the days of Achashverosh. Rabbi Levi and according to others Rabbi Yochanan, said: This is a tradition that has been passed down from the men of the Great Assembly, that wherever it is written vayehi, (and it was), this introduces some disaster. Regarding the Megillah, there was Haman who wanted to destroy the Jews. The Gemora cites many other examples from Scriptures proving that vayehi introduces disaster. The Gemora challenges this contention that whenever it is written in Scripture states vayehi, it introduces disaster and the Gemora cites several examples where it denotes fortunate times. The Gemora amends the statement and says: Wherever it is written vayehi bimei, (and it was in the days), this introduces some disaster. (10b)

Rabbi Levi also said: This is a tradition that has been passed down from our ancestors that the place of the Aron (the Holy Ark in the Beis Hamikdosh) miraculously did not take up any space inside the Kodesh Kodoshim (Holy of Holies). This can be proven from the following braisa: the Aron that Moshe made had ten amos (cubits) of space in each direction between it and the walls of the Kodesh Kodoshim. However, the space of the Kodesh Kodoshim itself was only twenty amos by twenty amos. It emerges that the place of the Aron did not take up any space. (10b)

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini introduced his lecture on Megillas Esther with the following interpretation: It is written [Yeshaya 55:13] Instead of the thorn, shall come up a cypress, and instead of the nettle shall come up the myrtle. Instead of the thorn, i.e., instead of Haman the wicked, who made himself an idol, shall come up a cypress, i.e., Mordechai, who was the essence to all the spices, Instead of the nettle, i.e., Vashti the wicked, who was granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar the wicked, who had burnt the Beis Hamikdosh, shall come up the myrtle, i.e., shall rise Esther the righteous, who was called Hadassa (myrtle), And it shall be to Hashem for a name, i.e., the reading of the Megillah; for a sign of everlasting that shall not be cut off, i.e., the Days of Purim. (10b)

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi introduced his lecture on Megillas Esther with the following interpretation: It is written [Devarim 28:63]: And it shall come to pass that as Hashem rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you, so will Hashem rejoice to destroy you. Does Hashem rejoice when the wicked are in misfortune? Rabbi Yochanan states that Hashem does not rejoice at the downfall of the wicked. Rabbi Yochanan also said: The angels of heaven wanted to sing a song of praise when the Egyptians were drowning, and Hashem said to them: My creations are drowning in the sea, and you want to sing songs? Rabbi Elozar answers: He Himself does not rejoice, but He makes others rejoice. (10b)

Rish Lakish introduced his lecture on Megillas Esther with the following interpretation: It is written [Mishlei 28:15]: As a roaring lion, and a ravenous bear; so is a wicked ruler over a poor people. A roaring lion is referring to Nebuchadnezzar the wicked; a ravenous bear is referring to Achashverosh. Proof to this is learned from Rav Yosef who states that the Persians eat and drink like a bear and are corpulent like a bear and grow hair like a bear and do not repose like a bear. A wicked ruler is referring to Haman and a poor people is referring to the Jewish people who were considered poor because of their deficiencies in observing mitzvos. (11a)

Rabbi Elozar introduced his lecture on Megillas Esther with the following interpretation: It is written [Koheles 10:18]: Through laziness the ceiling collapses and with idleness of hands the house leaks. Because the Jewish people were lazy regarding the study of Torah, the enemy of Hashem (referring to Hashem Himself) became poor. (11a)

Rabbi Elozar introduced his lecture on Megillas Esther with the following interpretation: It is written [Vayikra 26:44]: I will not cast them away, neither will I loathe them, to destroy them utterly, to break my covenant with them, for I am Hashem, their G-d. I will not cast them away is referring to the times of the Greeks; neither will I loathe them is referring to the times of Nebuchadnezzar; to destroy them utterly is referring to the times of Haman; to break my covenant with them is referring to the times of Persians; for I am Hashem, their G-d is referring to the times of Gog and Magog.

The Gemora cites a braise that understands the above verse differently. I will not cast them away is referring to the times of the Chaldeans, for in that time I appointed for them Daniel, Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; neither will I loathe them is referring to the times of the Greeks, as I appointed for them Shimon Hatzaddik, the Chashmenoi and his sons and Matisyahu the Kohen Gadol; to destroy them utterly is referring to the times of Haman, as I appointed for them Mordechai and Esther; to break my covenant with them is referring to the times of Persians, as I appointed for them Rebbe and other sages of that generation; for I am Hashem, their G-d is referring to the future, when no nation will be able to control the Jewish people. (11a)

The Gemora discusses the interpretation of the name Achashverosh. Rav said: He was the brother of the head. This is referring to Nebuchadnezzar the wicked, who was called head. Achashverosh was similar to Nebuchadnezzar in several ways. Nebuchadnezzar killed and Achashverosh intended to kill. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the Beis Hamikdosh and Achashverosh wished to destroy it. Shmuel interprets the name Achashverosh: In his time the faces of the Jews were black as the bottom of a pot. Rabbi Yochanan says: Everyone who remembered him would say "woe to his head." Rabbi Chanina said: His taxes were so heavy that everyone became poor. (11a)

It is written: Achashverosh, who is Achashverosh. The Gemora understands this to mean that he remained wicked from the beginning to end. The Gemora cites other examples like this. It is written [Divrei Hayamim 2, 1:26]: Avram, that is Avraham. The Gemora understands this to mean that he remained righteous from beginning to end. The Gemora cites other examples like this. (11a)

It is written: Achashverosh, who is Achashverosh, who ruled from Hodu to Cush. Rav says these countries were at opposite ends of the world, thus the verse teaches that Achashverosh ruled the entire world. Shmuel says they were adjacent to one another and the verse teaches that he ruled the entire world as easily as he ruled these two countries. (11a)

It is written: Achashverosh, who is Achashverosh, who ruled from Hodu to Cush, one hundred and twenty-seven provinces. Rav Chisda said: Initially, he ruled over seven provinces, later he ruled over another twenty, and at the end he ruled over all one hundred and twenty-seven provinces. (11a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: There were only three kings that ruled over the entire world; Achav, Achashverosh and Nebuchadnezzar.

The Gemora asks: Didn’t King Shlomo rule over the entire world? The Gemora answers: He didn’t complete his reign (he became a common man towards the end of his reign). Alternatively, he was a ruler over the being above (demons) and below, so he wasn’t included in the listing.

The Gemora asks again: Didn’t Sancheriv rule over the entire world? The Gemora answers that he didn’t capture Yerushalayim.

The Gemora asks again: Didn’t Daryavesh (Darius) rule over the entire world? The Gemora answers that there were seven countries that he did not rule over.

The Gemora asks again: Didn’t Koresh (Cyrus) rule over the entire world? The Gemora answers that the only proof we have for this is Koresh’s own words and they are not reliable. (11a – 11b)

It is written: In those days, when King Achashverosh sat on his royal throne, which was in Shushan the capital. This would seem to be referring to the beginning of his reign; yet from the next verse, it explicitly says the third year. It is written: In the third year of his reign, he made a feast for all his ministers and servants. Rava explains: In the third year, his mind was put at ease and he celebrated with a grand party. Achashverosh said: “Balshetzar calculated the seventy years of exile but made a mistake; I calculated the seventy years (which concluded now) and I did not make any mistakes.”

The Gemora explains: Balshetzar’s mistake was to calculate the starting point of the seventy years with the time that Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne. Achashverosh sought to correct that and he calculated from the exile of Yehoyachin. The Gemora states that the correct calculation would have been to count from the destruction of Yerushalayim. (11b – 12a)

Read more!