Saturday, September 02, 2006

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Yaakov's Tefilah Voluntary?

One opinion in the Gemora maintains that tefillas maariv is not an obligation but rather only voluntary. A question is asked by the mefarshim. Each of our forefathers instituted one tefillah. Yaakov avinu established maariv. He was known to be the bechir shebovos. How can it be that his tefillah is only a voluntary one.

I once heard from Rabbi Blum (possibly in the name of Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky) an explanation. The Sforno on the possuk "im yeheye Elokim imodi etc." says a fascinating pshat. Yaakov at that time was on such a high level that he begged from Hashem to be treated only with the midas hadin. He did not want to accept Hashem's boundless compassion. Hashem agreed and that is why it is found that Yaakov suffereed the most from all of the Avos.

This is why the tefillah that Yaakov instituted could not be a requirement on Klal Yisroel. The foundation of tefillah is compassion. We beseech and pray to Hashem for Him to shower us with His mercy. Yaakov who personifies midas hadin could not compel others to rely on midas harachamim.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Lekavod Shabbos

The Gemara states that whoever causes the public to do good will not be given the opportunity to sin. This idea has found expression throughout Jewish history in those who have battled to safeguard the sanctity of Shabbos. In Eretz Yisroel, one can find many areas where there are signs declaring that the community should observe the Shabbos. In the Diaspora this is not very practical, but one can have a great impact by impressing on his or her neighbors that observing Shabbos is equivalent to observing the entire Torah. One must prepare for Shabbos during the week so that when Shabbos arrives it is obvious what we are safeguarding and why Shabbos is so critical to the existence of the Jewish People.

For more inspiring thoughts about Shabbos, please visit www.torahthoughts.com

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Maariv is Only voluntary if .....

Rav holds that the tefillah of neilah, the final tefillah prayed on Yom Kippur can be recited at night. Therefore, he rules that if one davened neilah after dark, he will be exempt from davaning maariv that night. His reasoning is neilah is considered an extra tefillah and since one davened a tefillah at night, that will be valid for maariv as well, which is a tefillah that is normally recited at night.

The Gemora asks on Rav that he rules in Berochos that the tefillah of maariv is only voluntary and not required, so why would our Gemora say that neilah exempts him from maariv - he is not obligated anyway? The Gemora answers that his ruling here would be relevant to the one's that hold maariv is mandated.

Tosfos quotes the opinion of the R"i that maariv is only voluntary if he has other pressing needs at the time, such as performing a mitzva that cannot be done at another time, but if there is no other urgent necessities at this time, he would be obligated to daven maariv.

Tosfos asks that according to the R"I, what is our Gemora's question? While it is true that Rav holds maariv is only voluntary, that is only in circumstances where he has other obligations but normally one would be duty-bound to daven maariv. He answers that on Yom Kippur night, there is automatically pressing needs such as the preparing of the meal for after the fast. The Midrash states that the meal after Yom Kippur is tantamount to a Yom tov meal and there would be a mitzva to involve oneself in the preparation. This would cause that the davaning of maariv is only voluntary.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Time for Neilah

Rav holds that the tefillah of neilah, the final tefillah prayed on Yom Kippur can be recited at night. Therefore, he rules that if one davened neilah after dark, he will be exempt from davaning maariv that night. His reasoning is neilah is considered an extra tefillah and since one davened a tefillah at night, that will be valid for maariv as well, which is a tefillah that is normally recited at night.

Many rishonim bring down a Gemora found in the Yerushalmi that disagrees with this and therefore they conclude that neilah must be recited by day. The Mordechai writes that although we witness many congregations davaning neilah after dark, this is not because this is the custom, but rather due to a mistake that the chazanim base themselves on.

The Beis Yosef writes that since tefillas neilah is a time that we beseech Hakodosh Boruch Hu for mercy and compassion, it should be commenced earlier in the day to enable the chazan's repeatal of shmone esrei to be by day and at least the birchas kohanim should be before nightfall. He concludes that based on his reasoning, neilah should be started very early in the day which is not practical, therefore the preferable manner is to shorten some of the slichos and pesukim in the middle of the tefillah and to instruct the chazan not to stretch out the words like he usually does.

There is a discussion in the poskim if Rav meant that neilah should be recited after dark preferably or did he mean that it can be recited at that time.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Confessing Sins of Father

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Confessing Sins of Father

The Gemora states that the primary confession is when a person says "but we have sinned." The Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva 2:8 rules in accordance with this Gemora. Rabbeinu Yonah in shaarei Teshuva 1:40 writes that one must mention his own as well as his fathers sins for a son can get punished for the deeds of his father if he continues in his ways. Shmuas Cahim wonders as to why this is not mentioned in the Gemora or the Rambam. According to Rabbeinu Yonah, does one have to specify the sins of his father?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Who Saved Aharon's Two Sons?

The righteous not only benefit themselves but also to their descendants. It was in Aharon's merit that his two other sons remained alive. The Maharsha asks from a Midrash in Parshas Ekev where it is evident that the tefillah of Moshe is what saved Elozar and Isomar?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - 2X or 3X?

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - 2X or 3X?

The Gemora states that if one commits a transgression and repeats it, it becomes like it is permitted to him. The Mabit in Beis Elokim (shaar hateshuva ch 11) writes that our sages have said if one commits a transgression three times, it becomes like it is permitted to him. Did he have a different version in the Gemora than us? Our Gemora states this to be correct if a person does an aveira even twice.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Transgression Committed Only Once

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Transgression Committed Only Once

The Gemora states that if one commits a transgression and repeats it, it becomes like it is permitted to him. Rav Shach was once giving rebuke and he questioned if there is any among us that have committed an aveira and not repeated it. Woe is to us.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Highlights

When Rava and Mar Zutra Chasida noticed people bestowing honor upo them, they quoted different pesukim which teach humility. They were concerned that the honor might lead to arrogance.

It is good when rshaim are shown favoritism in this world. a proof is brought from Achav. It is not good when the righteous are shown partiality in this world and a proov is brought from Moshe.

The righteous not only benefit themselves but also to their descendants. It was in Aharon's merit that his two other sons remained alive. Reshaim also cause detrement to their future generations.

One who is mezakeh the public will be guaranteed that he will not sin. Hashem will drive away the opportunity to sin from him. This is because it is not proper for him to reside in Gehinom while his students are basking in Gan Eden. One who causes the public to sin will forego the opportunity to repent on his personal sin. This is for it is not appropriate for him to dwell in Gan Eden while his disciples will be in Gehinom.

The Mishna had stated that if one proclaims that he will sin and repent and sin and repent, he will lose the opportunity to repent. The Gemora learns from the fact that it is repeated twice that one who commits an aveira and repeats it, it becomes as if it is a permitted thing to do.

The Mishna had stated that if one commits a transgression against Hashem, Yom Kippur can provide atonement, however if he perpetrated a wrongdoing against his fellow, he must attemp to appease him.

If one wronged his friend, he must beg for forgiveness three times. Each time he should approach him with three people. If he owes him money, he should compensate him. If the fellow who he wronged is dead, he should have ten men accompany him to his grave and beg for forgiveness.

The Gemora brings different episodes from the amoroim regarding asking forgiveness from a friend. In one instance rav was teaching Nach to a group of disciples. Reb chiya arrived late and Rav started again. He did the same for Bar Kapara and Rebbe Shimon. However when reb chanina arrived later, he did not start from the beginning. Reb Chanina was insulted. Rav approached him on thirteen Erev Yom Kippur's to appease him and Reb chanina did not forgive him. Even though we have learned that a person is only obligated to ask forgiveness three times, Rav was stringent on himself.

It is generally advantageous to forgive someone eagerly. Hashem will forgive your sins as well. Reb chanina had a motive not to forgive Rav. He had seen in a dream that Rav was destined for greatness. He understood that if Rav stays in Eretz Yisroel, he must die in order for Rav to become the Rosh Yeshiva in his place. He therefore didnt forgive Rav compeling him to go to Bavel where he eventually became the Rosh Yeshiva there.

The mitzva of confessing one's sins is upon the commencement of Yom Kippur, however the sages state that it should be recited before one eats the seudah hamefsekes, for we are concerned that he might drink too much wine and not be able to recite the viduy. He nevertheless should repeat it afterwards for perhaps he sinned during the meal. Every tefillah that is recited on yom Kippur, one should confess his sins. A private person says it at the end of shmone esrei and the chazan recites it in the middle.

The Gemora discusses what is included in the confession. The Gemora concludes that stating 'we have sinned' are the primary words of the confession.

There is an argument as to what is the tefillah of neilah. Rav holds that it is an extra shmone esrei. Shmuel maintains that is the tefillah of ma anu meh chayenu. The Gemora refutes shmuel's opinion from a braisa.

Rav holds that the tefillah of neilah, the final tefillah prayed on Yom Kippur can be recited at night. Therefore, he rules that if one davened neilah after dark, he will be exempt from davaning maariv that night. His reasoning is neilah is considered an extra tefillah and since one davened a tefillah at night, that will be valid for maariv as well, which is a tefillah that is normally recited at night.

Read more!

Friday, September 01, 2006

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - Stain Remains

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - Stain Remains

It is said the Kohen shall look, and behold! The tzaraas affliction had been healed from the metzora. Rabbi Refoel Hamburger wonders why the Torah refers to the person who has already been healed from tzaraas as the metzora. Rabbi Hamburger suggests an answer based on the Gemara here that resolves a contradiction in the statements of Reish Lakish. In one statement Reish Lakish maintains that repentance is great because willful transgressions are considered to be inadvertent errors, whereas in a second statement Reish Lakish maintains that willful transgression are transformed into merits. The Gemara resolves this contradiction by stating that in Reish Lakish’s second statement, he refers to repentance that is motivated by love whereas in his first statement, Reish Lakish refers to repentance that is motivated by fear. This idea can equally be applied to a metzora. One who contracted tzaraas repents because he does not wish to undergo the suffering of his condition and he does not wish to be subject to isolation from the rest of the community. This manner of repentance was not motivated by love for HaShem. Rather, his repentance was motivated by external factors, so the Torah still refers to him as a metzora, as he has not yet uprooted the sin from his being.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - From Evil to Good

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - From Evil to Good

The Gemara states that repentance is so great that willful transgressions can be accounted for the penitent as merits, providing that one is motivated to repent by love. Reb Tzadok HaKohen from Lublin writes that although a gentile is also capable of repenting, he will not be motivated to repent by love. Thus, although a gentile can remove the stain that was caused by his sin, he is not capable of transforming a willful transgression into a merit. The source for this idea can be found in the Medrash Tanchumah regarding the priestly blessings. The kohanim would recite the words may HaShem lift His countenance to you. The Medrash wonders how this blessing can be recited if it said in the Torah regarding HaShem, Who does not show favor and Who does not accept a bribe. The Medrash answers that HaShem will show favor to the Jewish People if they repent, but the gentiles cannot merit this favoritism, as it is said may HaShem lift His countenance to you, and this excludes the gentiles. Rabbi Mordechai Miller zt”l extends this idea to explain the Gemara in Shabbos 146a that states that when the primal serpent seduced Chava, he cast impurity into her, which she then passed on to future generations of men. The Jewish People stood at Mount Sinai to accept the Torah, so their impurity was removed. The gentiles, however, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, did not have their impurity removed. It is the power of Torah that motivates a Jew to repent by love and thus a Jew’s willful transgressions will be accounted for as merits, whereas a gentile who does not study Torah cannot be motivated to repent by love.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - Repentance in the same situation

The Gemara explains that a true penitent is one who committed a sin in the past and then the opportunity for the same sins comes again a first time and a second time and he is saved from the sin on both occasions. The Sefer Chasidim writes that a person should not put himself into a situation where he is tempted to sin, because he may not be able to withstand temptation. The Tzlach questions the words of the Sefer Chasidim from the commentary of the Kli Yakar in Parshas Chukas, who writes regarding the phenomena of the Parah Adumah that the Parah Adumah was capable of rendering pure those that were impure and conversely, rendering impure those that were pure. The Kli Yakar likens this idea to certain medicines that are beneficial for one who is ill but can prove fatal for one who is healthy. There is a parallel between remedying the body and remedying the soul. One who wishes to repent must be with the same woman that he sinned with the first time, at the same time of the year in which he had sinned, and at the same place where he sinned with her. Thus, the temptation to sin is particularly strong, as his Evil Inclination will entice him to respond exactly as he did before. By resisting the temptation, he demonstrates that he is a true penitent. The Kli Yakar adds that this is what the Gemara (Brachos 34b) means when it states that in the place where penitents stand, the completely righteous do not stand, i.e. the completely righteous cannot stand in a place of temptation.Yet, according to the Sefer Chasidim, a righteous person is not permitted to endanger himself by entering into a such a situation.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - Publicizing Sins to inspire other to repent

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - Publicizing Sins to inspire other to repent

The Nesivos in his commentary on Eicha, Palgei Mayim explains the verse that states (1:18) Hashem is righteous, for I disobeyed His utterance. Listen, now, all you peoples and see my pain etc. The Nesivos writes that although one normally should conceal his sins, when the punishment is horrific and there is a desecration of HaShem’s Name, it is necessary to publicize the sin. The reason it is permitted to reveal the sins is because then HaShem’s Name will be glorified and others will be inspired to repent.

The Beis HaLevi in Parashas Vayera writes in a similar vein that once one has been punished, he is allowed to reveal the sin to show that HaShem’s judgment is just. We find that the Gemara in Sanhedrin 107a states that Dovid HaMelech prayed to Hashem that the sin that he committed with Batsheva should not be publicized, but his prayer was not accepted.

The Gemara in Avodah Zara 4b states that the incident with Batsheva was not fitting for Dovid HaMelech and the sin of worshipping the Golden Calf was not fitting for the Jewish People. Rashi explains that although the Jewish People could have withstood the temptation from their Evil Inclination, HaShem decreed that they should sin so that their repentance would inspire future generations to repent. An individual who sins will be motivated to repent because of Dovid HaMelech’s repentance, and if the masses sin, they will be motivated to repent because of the Jewish People’s repentance from worshipping the Golden Calf.

The Maharal writes that Tosfos understand the Gemara in Avodah Zara to mean that it was not fitting to have their sins publicized, as is stated in the Gemara here in Yoma. Yet, the sins of the Jewish People and the sins of Dovid HaMelech were revealed, so that they would serve as an inspiration to future generations to repent from their sins.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - Reuven's Admission

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - Reuven's Admission

The Gemara states that one should not reveal a sin that he committed in private. Rashi explains that one who reveals a sin that he committed in private is minimizing the glory of HaShem. The Gemara in Sota 7b wonders if one should not reveal a sin that he committed in private, how could Reuven have admitted that he was the one who switched the bed of Yaakov. The Gemara answers that Reuven’s justification for revealing his sin was because he sought to ensure that Yaakov would not suspect any of the other brothers. The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 364) questions Reuven’s approach, because when one publicizes his sin, he is diminishing HaShem’s glory. Certainly the desire to alleviate suspicion from the brothers did not override the glory of HaShem. Shemuas Chaim notes that Rashi in Sota offers a different explanation for the teaching that one should not reveal the sins that he committed in private. Rashi to Sota writes that one should not reveal his sins as it would then appear that he is not ashamed of his actions. Regarding the incident where Reuven switched the beds, Yaakov knew that someone had changed the beds, but he did not know that it was Reuven who had performed the act. Reuven’s admission would not have diminished HaShem’s glory, because both Yaakov and Reuven were aware that a sin was committed and HaShem’s glory had already been diminished. The Gemara only discusses the issue of Reuven revealing his sin, as his admission would demonstrate that he was not ashamed of his actions. In response to that question, the Gemara answers that Reuven maintained that it was more important for him to reveal that he had sinned than for Yaakov to suspect his brothers.

Read more!

Daf Yomi -Yoma 86 - Highlights

Highlights

1. We learned in the Mishnah that repentance alone provides atonement for all lenient transgressions. Rabbi Yehudah explains that the Mishnah means to say that repentance atones for the violation of a positive commandment and for the violation of a lav hanitak l’aseh, a prohibition removed to the remedy of a positive commandment. A negative commandment that is punishable by lashes, however, is considered a severe transgression and repentance alone is insufficient to atone for such a sin. Rather, one also needs Yom Kippur to gain atonement for such a transgression.
2. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya maintains that are three divisions of atonement. If one transgressed a positive commandment and repented, he is forgiven. If he transgressed a negative commandment and repented, the repentance suspends punishment and Yom Kippur atones for the sin. If one committed a sin that is punishable by kares or by judicial execution, repentance and Yom Kippur suspend, i.e. protect him from premature death or alternatively, from full retribution, and suffering purges the sin. Regarding one who has committed the sin of desecrating the Name of HaShem, however, repentance is insufficient to suspend punishment, Yom Kippur will not atone, and suffering will not purge the sin. Rather, all three of those together will suspend the sin and death purges the sin.
3. The Gemara offers different examples of chillul Hashem, the desecration of HaShem’s Name. Rav maintains that if someone like himself would take meat from a butcher and not pay for it immediately, that would constitute the desecration of HaShem’s Name. This is only considered a desecration of HaShem’s Name if the shopkeeper does not demand payment of the money owed to him, but in an area where the shopkeeper demands payment, it is not considered a desecration of HaShem’s Name. Rabbi Yochanan maintains that if he would walk four amos without studying Torah or wearing Tefillin, this would constitute the desecration of HaShem’s Name. Yitzchak of the academy of Rabbi Yanai maintains that if ones friends suffer embarrassment because of his bad reputation, that would constitute the desecration of HaShem’s Name. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak maintains that if people say that Hashem should forgive someone for his actions, that would constitute the desecration of HaShem’s Name.. Abaye maintains that a Torah scholar who conducts himself honestly in business and converses pleasantly with others accords honor to HaShem’s Name. One who does not conduct himself honestly in business and does not converse pleasantly with others causes dishonor to HaShem’s Name. Such conduct will cause people to say about him, “woe unto that person who learned Torah, woe unto his father who taught him Torah and woe unto his teacher who taught him Torah. See how corrupt are his deeds and how ugly are his ways.”
4. Repentance is great as it brings healing to the world and great is repentance that it reaches the Heavenly Throne. The Gemara states that repentance is so great that a willful transgression is transformed into a merit for the penitent. This teaching is qualified to mean that if the penitent was inspired by love of HaShem, then his sins are erased completely and his sins will be a source of merit, as they have motivated him to perform acts of righteousness.
5. Great is repentance that it can override a negative commandment of the Torah. One cannot remarry his wife after he divorced her and she married another man in the interim. HaShem, who is likened to the husband of the Jewish People, will still welcome them back if they repent. Repentance is also great because it brings the redemption nearer, and repentance also lengthens the years of a person.
6. The Gemara poses a contradiction in statements made by Reish Lakish. In one statement Reish Lakish maintains that repentance is great because willful transgressions are considered to be inadvertent errors, whereas in a second statement Reish Lakish maintains that willful transgression are transformed into merits. The Gemara resolves this contradiction by stating that in Reish Lakish’s second statement, he refers to repentance that is motivated by love, whereas in his first statement, Reish Lakish refers to repentance that is motivated by fear.
7. The Gemara states that the manner in which HaShem conducts himself with man is in contrast to the way man conducts himself with his fellow. If one aggravates his fellow with words, it is doubtful if the victim will be appeased by the one who harmed him, and even if he will be appeased, it is doubtful whether he will be appeased with words. If one sins against HaShem in secret, however, HaShem is appeased through words, and HaShem even considers the person’s repentance as a good deed. Furthermore, it is as if the penitent has offered voluntary sacrifices.
8. The Gemara explains that a true penitent is one who committed a sin in the past and then the opportunity for the same sin comes again a first time and a second time and he is saved from the sin on both occasions.
9. The Gemara poses a contradiction in verses, as one verse states that one who conceals his sins is fortunate, whereas a second verse states that one who conceals his sins will not succeed. The Gemara resolves this contradiction by answering that the verse that condemns one who conceals his sins refers to one whose sins are public knowledge, whereas the verse that condones concealing ones sins refers to sins that are not public knowledge. Alternatively, the Gemara answers that regarding sins between man and his fellow, one should not conceal his sins, whereas regarding sins between man and HaShem, one should conceal his sins.
10. One who commits a sin three times will be forgiven but once he commits the sin a fourth time, he is not forgiven. If one confessed his sins on this Yom Kippur, he should not confess those sins on another Yom Kippur. If he repeated the sins, however, he should confess them on another Yom Kippur. One opinion maintains that one who confesses sins that he did not repeat is likened to a dog that returns to its vomit, whereas a second opinion maintains that one who confesses his sins is praiseworthy.
11. There is an debate if one who is confessing his sins should specify the sin he committed.
12. We publicize hypocrites who are wicked people and pretend to be righteous, because otherwise there will be a desecration of HaShem’s Name, as others will attempt to emulate their flawed deeds.
13. One who is completely wicked and repents will cause his punishment to be blocked, and this is so even if the decree of punishment against him has already been sealed.
14. The tranquility of the wicked results in trouble, because while they enjoy the tranquility, they are devising ways of committing evil.

Read more!

Repentance is part of the Divine Throne of Glory

The Gemara states that repentance is great because it reaches unto the Divine Throne of Glory, as it is stated Return, O Israel, unto HaShem your G-d. This Gemara is difficult to understand, as repentance can only reach the Heavenly Throne, as is evidenced by the Medrash that states that wisdom, prophecy, and the Torah all offered various responses as to the retribution of the sinner, and only HaShem Himself responded that the sinner should repent from his sins. There are many interpretations to this enigmatic Gemara, but we can suggest that the Gemara means that repentance is not just a one time performance like other mitzvos. The Gemara states that a mitzvah protects a person at the time he is performing the mitzvah. Repentance, however, is so beloved to HaShem that HaShem incorporates repentance into the Divine Throne of Glory. We find that when Moshe ascended upon high and the angels dueled with him regarding the Jewish People receiving the Torah, HaShem instructed Moshe, “take hold of the throne of My Glory and give them an answer.” The word for answer in the Gemara is Teshuvah, which also means repentance. HaShem was alluding to Moshe that the correct response to the angels’ protests was that the Jewish People can repent from their sins, and in this regard man is superior to the angels. Thus, repentance is great because it reaches the Divine Throne of Glory, i.e. it is the response to the angels as to why man was created and why the Jewish People received the Torah.

Read more!

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Daf Yomi - Yoma 85 - Healing the “Hard of Hearing”

Daf Yomi - Yoma 85 - Healing the “hard of hearing”

The Gemara states a source for the law that one can save a person from a life-threatening danger even if the laws of Shabbos will be violated. The Medrash in Haazinu poses a question regarding one who has an ear ache, if we are allowed to heal him on Shabbos. The Medrash answers that we are permitted to heal one who has an ear ache because when one is in a situation of a life-threatening danger, we are allowed to violate the Shabbos. The Chasam Sofer explains that this Medrash is referring to Shabbos Shuva, the Shabbos between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and especially when the Rav delivers his sermon. One may claim that it is forbidden to rebuke the congregation harshly on the Shabbos preceding Yom Kippur, as one is forbidden to cause pain and anguish on Shabbos. The Medrash therefore states that this is a life-threatening situation, because if one does not hear and accept the rebuke on Shabbos Shuva, he never will repent before Yom Kippur.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 85 - One who Mocks his Friend is Akin to Denying the Existence of HaShem

Daf Yomi - Yoma 85 - One who mocks his friend is akin to denying the existence of HaShem

Rabbi Meir Bergman writes at length in his discourse on Parshas Kedoshim regarding the gravity involved in the sin of one who ridicules or defames another Jew as this is akin to a direct affront on Hashem. Rav Bergman offers a proof to this thesis from the fact that the Torah juxtaposes the mitzvah of providing for the poor next to the laws regarding the festival of Shavuos and Rosh Hashanah. He writes that showing concern for the needs of a friend is in the category of accepting on oneself the yoke of the Heavenly Kingdom. This demonstration of concern is in a sense a prerequisite to the mitzvah of blowing shofar on Rosh Hashanah, which is the ultimate crowning of Hashem. Rav Bergman cites the Gemara in Yevamos that states that when a gentile seeks to convert to Judaism, we inform him of certain mitzvos, one of which is the severity of one who refuses to give charity. The reason why we inform him of the obligation to give charity is because we are demonstrating to the potential convert that if one does not show concern for a fellow Jew, he is in essence demonstrating that he does not have concern for his creator. Rabbi Klonimus Kalman Shapiro hy”d writes that it is a greater mitzvah to give up one’s life for his friend than to give up ones life for Hashem, because when one gives up one’s life for the son of the king, this signifies how much one loves the king. This, Rabbi Klonimus Kalman explains, is why the Gemara here states that Yom Kippur atones for all sins, regardless of a person repenting, except for the sin of one who removes from himself the yoke of Heaven. The Sheiltos of Rabbi Acahai Gaon (V’Zos Habracha 167) states that Yom Kippur atones for all sins except for the sin of one who mocks his friend. The reason that ridiculing a fellow is so severe is because when one mocks his friend, it is akin to denying the existence of HaShem.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 85 - Arrogance is a Sin Between Man and his Fellow

Daf Yomi - Yoma 85 - Arrogance is a Sin Between Man and his Fellow

The Mishnah states that Yom Kippur atones for sins between man and HaShem but Yom Kippur does not atone for sins between man and his fellow until he appeases his fellow. Rav Shach zt”l is quoted in the Sefer Machsheves Mussar (page 109) as having said that one who is arrogant or who constantly seeks honor may erroneously assume that this is a sin between man and HaShem, but this thought is a grave mistake. In truth, the arrogant person or one who seeks honor is slighting his friend, as he is demonstrating that he is better than others, and for such sins one must seek forgiveness from his fellow and only then will Yom Kippur atone for his sins.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 85 - Violate one Shabbos to have many Shabbosos Observed

One opinion in the Gemara derives the source for the law that saving a life overrides the Shabbos laws from the verse that states the children of Israel shall observe the Shabbos in order to perform the Shabbos throughout their generations. This teaches us that one should violate one Shabbos by saving a life so that the person whose life was saved may live to observe many Shabbosos. The implication from the Gemara is that if we know for certain that the person whose life is being saved will not live until the next Shabbos, one is forbidden to violate the Shabbos on his behalf.

The commentators question this theory from the Gemara that we learned earlier (Yoma 71) that states that we allow the Shabbos to be violated even if the person for whom the Shabbos is being violated will only live for a few hours.

It is worth noting that the Ohr HaChaim in Parashas Ki Sisa (31:16) writes that we do not violate the Shabbos to save a life if the person will only live for a few more hours. The ruling of the Ohr HaChaim would appear to contradict the accepted halacha.

The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 32) resolves this issue by writing that we allow the laws of Shabbos to be violated to save a person’s life even for a few hours if a rabbinical prohibition will be violated. Regarding a biblical prohibition, however, we do not allow one to violate the Shabbos laws to save a life for only a few hours. The verse quoted earlier which teaches us that one can violate the Shabbos laws to save ones life so that one will be able to observe many Shabbosos refers to violating biblical prohibitions.

The Minchas Chinuch concludes that the final halacha is that one can violate even the biblical prohibitions of Shabbos to save a life, even if the person whose life is being saved will only live for a few hours. This is based on the exposition of the Gemara that derives the source for saving a life on Shabbos and overriding the laws of Shabbos from the verse that states you shall guard My decrees and My laws that man shall carry out and by which he shall live.

Read more!