Daf Yomi - Chagigah 21 - Food For Thought

*** There are eleven halachos (stringencies that apply by kodesh and not terumah) listed in the Mishna and yet Rabbi Ila said that there were only ten. It is evident that two of them are based upon the same reasoning; the first (one utensil inside the other) and the fifth (a garment with a knot) are both because of chatzitzah.)

If they are both on the account of chatzitzah, why did the Mishna separate them; shouldn’t they be listen one after the other?

(Turei Even, Merumei Sadeh)


*** The Mishna had stated: We may immerse utensils inside of other utensils in a mikvah for terumah, but not for kodesh.

Rabbi Ila answered: It is because the weight of the inside utensil prevents the water from circulating freely between the two utensils; if this would occur, the immersion would not be valid because the water must touch every part of the utensil. (This case would not constitute a Biblical chatzitzah (an interposition between the water and the utensil) because the water does find a way to pass through the utensils, but since it appears like a chatzitzah, the Chachamim were stringent regarding kodesh, but not in regards to terumah.)

In the sefer Masaas Binyomin (81), he rules that a woman who is physically unable to stand can be immersed in the mikvah while she is laying on a mat that is not susceptible to tumah.

The Sidrei Tahara (198: 47) asks from our Gemora: Shouldn’t her weight on the mat constitute a chatzitzah; the water will not be able to circulate freely between the woman and the mat?

I had a similar question on the Gemora above: If a wave that consisted of forty se’ah separated from the sea and fell on a person or utensils that were tamei, they become tahor. The Gemora explains that the Mishna is referring to a case where the person is sitting on the shore waiting for the wave to separate from the sea and fall on him or on the utensils. It is evident from our Gemora that even though the person did not directly immerse the utensils in the water; he was merely anticipating that the wave will detach itself from the sea and fall on the contaminated utensils, this is sufficient, provided that he has intention that the water should purify the utensils.

How does the water get in between the person or the utensils and the ground on the shore?


*** Dayan Weiss (4:35) has a teshuva regarding the validity of immersion while wearing a bathing suit.



*** Shoel Umeishiv (I:2:122) writes: “In the year 5615, I was learning Meseches Chagigah on the yahrtzeit of my mother because my father told me that the holy seforim say that it is beneficial to study Meseches Chagigah on a yahrtzeit.”

What is the source for this and what is the reasoning?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 21 - Highlights

The Mishna had stated: We may immerse utensils inside of other utensils in a mikvah for terumah, but not for kodesh.

The Gemora asks: Why is this forbidden to do by kodesh?

Rabbi Ila answered: It is because the weight of the inside utensil prevents the water from circulating freely between the two utensils; if this would occur, the immersion would not be valid because the water must touch every part of the utensil. (This case would not constitute a Biblical chatzitzah (an interposition between the water and the utensil) because the water does find a way to pass through the utensils, but since it appears like a chatzitzah, the Chachamim were stringent regarding kodesh, but not in regards to terumah.)

The Gemora asks: One of the other stringencies listed later in the Mishna is on account of chatzitzah; this would imply that the reason for the first stringency is not because of chatzitzah. The Mishna had stated: When immersing garments for kodesh, one must first untie them and dry them, but for terumah one may immerse them while they are knotted (and/or wet). The reason for this halacha is because of chatzitzah (the water cannot touch every part of the garment when it is tied); shouldn’t the first stringency be on account of something else?

The Gemora answers: Both of these stringencies are in fact because of chatzitzah, and they are both necessary. The first stringency is based upon the logic that the weight of the utensil causes the chatzitzah; this does not apply by the latter case, which is referring to a garment where there is no weight. The second stringency is based upon the logic that a knot prevents the water from touching all parts of the garment; this does not apply by the former case, where the water can cause the inside utensil to float and the water will be able to circulate freely. (21a – 21b)

The Gemora comments: Rabbi Ila is consistent with a different statement that he said in the name of Rabbi Chanina bar Papa. He said: There are ten stringencies for kodesh listed in the Mishna. (This is the proof to the consistency: There are eleven halachos listed in the Mishna and yet Rabbi Ila said that there were only ten. It is evident that two of them are based upon the same reasoning; the first (one utensil inside the other) and the fifth (a garment with a knot) are both because of chatzitzah.)

Rabbi Ila continues: The first five apply to kodesh and to chulin which was made according to the tahara standard of kodesh (pious people would treat chulin in their house as if it was kodoshim in order to train the members of their family with these stringencies). The last five only apply to kodesh.

The Gemora asks: Why is there this distinction?

The Gemora answers: The first five are stricter because they have legitimate Biblical concerns; the last five are merely Rabbinic decrees and therefore they apply to kodesh, but not to chulin which was made according to the tahara standard of kodesh. (21b)

Rava presents an alternative explanation to the Mishna: The reason that the Chachamim issued a decree against immersing one utensil inside the other is because they were concerned that people might immerse needles or spinning hooks (small items) inside a utensil whose opening is not the required size of a skin bottle’s tube (if the opening is less than that, the immersion is not valid because we view the water inside the utensil as separate from the water in the mikvah).

The Gemora cites a Mishna in Mikvaos (6:7) which states: In order to connect a mikvah which is lacking forty se’ah to a mikvah which contains forty se’ah, there must be an opening in the wall separating the two mikvaos at least the size of a skin bottle’s tube. The Mishna explains that we measure the outer circumference of the tube, which the Chachamim established to be where one can freely rotate his two fingers inside the hole. (The connection of the two mikvaos is known as hashakah.) (21b – 22a)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 20 - Food For Thought

*** Our Gemara states that one must be more scrupulous regarding utensils that are used on Shabbos than those that are used on weekdays.

The Mabit writes that the Gemara states that one is required to purify himself prior to a festival by immersing in a mikveh. The Mabit wonders why one would not also be required to immerse himself prior to Shabbos? The Mabit answers that one is not required to immerse in a mikveh prior to Shabbos because the sanctity of Shabbos will cleanse the person from any impurities.

Reb Yosef Engel questions this answer, as our Gemara clearly states that one is required to be more scrupulous on Shabbos regarding matters of impurity.

*** The Gemora states that a person cannot watch something that is in his friend's hand. We need to be certain that the utensil did not become tamei; only the holder can provide us with that assurance.

The Minchas Chinuch (10) proves from here that whenever intention is needed, the one who is performing the action must be the one who has the intention. Therefore, he rules that a non-Jew, mute or minor cannot knead the dough for matzah even if there will be someone else watching. Only the person kneading the dough can be certain that it did not become chametz.

Other Acharonim disagree and differentiate between those with intellect and those without. If the person has his own intellect, then he cannot be watched; however, a mute or a minor that have no intellect on their own may be watched.

*** The Mishna states: If one hand became tamei, the other is tamei as well; but only regarding kodoshim and not in respect for terumah.

The Minchas Chinuch (106)writes that if a Kohen loses concentration regarding one of his hands during the Bais HaMikdosh service; he has to sanctify that hand again, but not the other hand.

The distinction is that the mitzvah for the Kohen to wash his hands and feet prior to performing the sacrificial service is a Biblical one; our Mishna is discussing Rabbinical stringencies that were applied to kodoshim.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 19 - Praying without the Proper Intention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 18 - Placing a Stumbling Block by a Rabbinic Prohibition

There is a matter of dispute among the Rishonim if the prohibition against performing labor on Chol Hamoed (the intermediate days of Pesach and Sukkos) is Biblical (Rashi) or Rabbinic (Tosfos).

Our Gemora cites Scriptural verses illustrating that it is forbidden to perform labor during Chol Hamoed. Tosfos states that it is implicit from the Gemora that this is a Biblical prohibition.

Tosfos asks: It is permitted to work on Chol Hamoed to prevent an irretrievable loss or various types of labor; this would be understandable if the prohibition would be Rabbinic in nature, however, if it is a Biblical prohibition, where do we find distinctions in the types of work that some will be forbidden and some will be permitted?

Tosfos concludes that the prohibition against working during Chol Hamoed is only a Rabbinic injunction and the verses cited are merely Scriptural supports for this decree.

Tosfos asks from a Gemora in Avodah Zarah (22a) which states that there would be a prohibition of placing a stumbling block before a blind man (lifnei iver) by performing labor on Chol Hamoed. (One is forbidden from assisting another fellow to violate a prohibition, where the sinner could not accomplish the transgression without his aid.)

The Reshash explains Tosfos: The prohibition of lifnei iver is only applicable by a Biblical prohibition and not when it pertains to a Rabbinical injunction; accordingly, Tosfos asks why the Gemora states that lifnei iver applies by the prohibition of working on Chol Hamoed, when that is only a Rabbinic injunction.

Tosfos in Avodah Zarah (22a) states explicitly that the commandment of lifnei iver applies by a Rabbinic prohibition, as well. The Steipler Gaon explains a different Tosfos (Avodah Zarah 15b) that Tosfos is uncertain regarding this principle and it is indeed a dispute among two answers in Tosfos if lifnei iver applies by a Rabbinic prohibition or not.

This principle requires an explanation. Why should lifnei iver not apply by a Rabbinic prohibition? One is forbidden from providing flawed advice to his fellow (the Minchas Chinuch discusses if giving shoddy counsel violates this prohibition); every Rabbinic decree entails a Biblical prohibition of not swaying from the words of our sages.

What is the logic to differentiate between assisting someone to violate a Biblical prohibition or one that is merely Rabbinic?

Don't forget to vote please - thanks.

Torah Blog

New Blog

Difference Maker Blog

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 18 - Highlights

The Gemora cites several Scriptural verses illustrating that it is forbidden to perform labor during Chol Hamoed (Intermediary Days).

The Gemora concludes: The Torah delegated the authority to the Chachamim to decide which days are Yom Tov (through their declaration of Rosh Chodesh) and all types of labor is forbidden and which days are Chol Hamoed when certain types of work is permitted; and it was entrusted to the Chachamim to decide which type of labor is prohibited during Chol Hamoed and which types will be permitted. (18a)

The Mishna had stated: It is permitted to eulogize and fast on the Day of Slaughter in order to counter the opinion of the Sadducees, who claimed that Shavuos is always on a Sunday.

The Gemora asks from a braisa: There was once an incident where Alexa died in the city of Lod and everyone came to eulogize him. Rabbi Tarfon prevented them from doing so because it was the Festival of Shavuos.

The Gemora analyzes the braisa: The braisa cannot be referring to the actual day of Shavuos because they would not have even attempted to eulogize him then; it obviously is referring to the Day of Slaughter and nevertheless, Rabbi Tarfon ruled that eulogies are forbidden. This contradicts the ruling of our Mishna.

The Gemora answers: The braisa is referring to a case where Shavuos fell out during a weekday and the Day of Slaughter was not on a Sunday; there was no reason to permit eulogizing on that day. The Mishna was referring to a case where Shavuos fell out on Shabbos and the Day of Slaughter was on Sunday; they permitted eulogies on that day to counter the opinion of the Sadducees, who claimed that Shavuos is always on a Sunday. (18a)

The Mishna states: One is required to wash his hands before involving himself with chulin, maaser (maaser sheini, a tenth of one’s produce that he brings to Yerushalayim and eats there in the first, second, fourth and fifth years of the Shemitah cycle) and terumah. (The Chachamim declared that unrinsed hands are considered tamei because they probably touched unclean parts of his body. They decreed that only his hands will be rendered tamei, but not the rest of his body.) If he wants to eat Kodoshim (sacrifices that are eaten by the owner or the Kohen); he must immerse his hands in a body of water that contains forty se’ah. Prior to handling the chatas water (the water and ashes mixture of the parah adumah used to purify people and tools that have been contaminated through corpse-tumah).

The Mishna continues: One who immersed himself with the intention of purifying himself for chulin, is prohibited from eating maaser sheini; one who immersed himself with the intention of purifying himself for maaser sheini, is prohibited from eating terumah; one who immersed himself with the intention of purifying himself for terumah, is prohibited from eating kodoshim; one who immersed himself with the intention of purifying himself for kodoshim, is prohibited from handling the chatas water. (An immersion with the intention of becoming pure for items of lesser stringency will not be effective for items of greater stringency.) If he immerses himself with the intention of becoming pure for items of a greater stringency, he is permitted to eat items that have a lesser degree of stringency. If he immersed himself with no intention whatsoever (only to wash himself); it is regarded as if he didn’t immerse himself at all.

The Mishna continues: The clothing of an am haaretz (one who is not particular in regards to the laws of tumah and tahara) is regarded as tumas midras (objects that become tamei when a zav, zavah or niddah place their weight on them – they are classified as an av hatumah and have the ability to contaminate people or utensils) for the perushim (people that are meticulous about eating their chulin in a state of tahara). The clothing of the perushim is regarded as tumas madras for those that are eating terumah. The clothing of those eating terumah is regarded as tumas madras for those that are eating kodoshim. The clothing of those eating kodoshim is regarded as tumas madras for those that are handling the chatas water.

The Mishna concludes: Yosef ben Yoezer was the most devout Kohen, but his napkin was regarded as tumas madras for those that are eating kodoshim. Yochanan ben Gudgeda used to eat all his chulin food as if it was kodoshim his entire lifetime and yet his napkin was regarded as tumas madras for those that are handling the chatas water. (18b)

The Gemora asks: Do chulin and maaser require the washing of one’s hands? The Gemora cites a Mishna in Bikkurim which explicitly states that one must wash his hands for terumah but not for maaser or chulin.

The Gemora answers: There is actually a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim if one is required to wash his hands prior to eating maaser.

The Gemora asks: The contradiction regarding maaser has been answered, but not the contradiction pertaining to chulin.

The Gemora answers: Our Mishna is referring to eating bread; one is required to wash his hands prior to eating bread, even if it is only chulin. The Mishna in Bikkurim is discussing the eating of other produce; there it is not necessary to wash one’s hands. (18b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 17 - Shmini Atzeres - Independent Festival or Not?

The Beis Yosef (Y"D 120:20) cites a Yerushalmi in Nedarim: Rabbi Yochanan says: One who makes an oath against drinking wine on the "Chag," is prohobited from drinking wine on Sukkos, including Shmini Atzeres. The Beis Yosef writes that even though Shmini Atzeres is a festival by itself; that is only in respect to the six laws delineated in the Gemora, however in regard to the manner in which people speak, it is included in the festival of Sukkos, and the laws of vows are based on the way people speak.

The Meiri comments: Shmini Atzeres is only included in his vow if he just said "Chag," however if he explicitly said "Chag Hasukkos," Shmini Atzeres will not be included in his vow.

Proof is brought from here to one who mistakenly said "Chag Hasukkos" in Shemoneh Esrei instead of "Shmini Atzeres"; he has not fulfilled his obligation and must recite Shemoneh Esrei again.

The Turei Even (Megillah 5a) disagrees and he states that one who mistakenly said "Chag Hasukkos" in Shemoneh Esrei instead of "Shmini Atzeres" would not be required to repeat Shemoneh Esrei. His proof is from our Gemora which states that Shmini Atzeres is considered part of the compensation period for the korbanos of the first day of Sukkos. Furthermore, one who vows to bring a korban has three festivals to bring it before he will have transgressed the prohibition against delaying. If the third festival is Sukkos, he will not violate this prohibition until after Shmini Atzeres.

The Nishmas Adam rules that even though Shmini Atzeres is an independent festival, it is nevertheless related to Sukkos by the fact that one still eats in the sukkah and therefore one who mistakenly said "Chag Hasukkos" in Shemoneh Esrei instead of "Shmini Atzeres" would not be required to repeat Shemoneh Esrei.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 17 - RABBINIC MITZVAH 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 mitzvah 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 mitzvah of counting the omer is only to commemorate the Beis Hamikdosh.

The Brisker Rov explains: The rabbinic mitzvah of sefiras haomer is different that other rabbinic mitzvos. A regular rabbinic mitzvah, such as eating marror on Pesach, is the identical mitzvah 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 mitzvah mitzva of counting the omer nowadays was not for the counting, but rather it was established to commemorate the Beis Hamikdosh. The mitzvah nowadays is not the same mitzvah 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 mitzvah 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 mitzvah was for the sake of the mitzvah 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 mitzvah of sefiras haomer, which was only instituted to commemorate the Beis Hamikdosh.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 16 - Food For Thought

*** The Gemora states that the demons can hear what is being announced from behind the Partition in the same manner as the ministering angels.

The question is asked: If they can hear from behind the Partition, what is the purpose of the Partition?

*** Why was the Satmar Rebbe extremely particular that the beds should be placed next to a wall and not in the middle of the bedroom, even the beds that children sleep on?

*** The Gemora states: If a person feels that his evil inclination is overpowering him, he should travel to a place where he will not be recognized, dress in black and there he could do whatever his heart desires; this way, he will not be desecrating Hashem’s name.

How should this Gemora be understood?

*** The Gemora states: The stones located in a person’s house will testify against him if he sins; the beams of his house will testify against him. The Chachamim say: His soul will testify against him. Rabbi Zreika said: The two ministering angels that accompany a person will testify against him. Others say: A person’s limbs will testify against him.

Are all these opinions arguing with each other? What is the significance of all these testimonies?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 15 - REPENTANCE IS ALWAYS ACCEPTED

The Gemora records various incidents where Rabbi Meir discussed Torah subjects with Acheir, his teacher. When Rabbi Meir questioned why Acheir would not repent, Acheir responded that he had already heard from behind the barrier in heaven, “Return O wayward sons, except for Acheir.”

The commentators ask: Isn’t it true that there is nothing that stands in the way of repentance?

It is brought in the sefer Zichron Eliezer from Rabbi Shlomo from Sassav as follows: The heavenly voice that calls out has the capabilities to inspire all who hear it towards repentance except for Acheir. He can hear the voice, but he will not become motivated because of it. If he would have decided to repent by himself, it would have been accepted.

A parable is given: A son was constantly rebelling against his father and the father’s rebuke was not resulting in any positive change at all. It came to a point, where the father simply gave up and informed his son, “From now on, I will not be reprimanding you anymore – you are on your own.” If the son would reflect upon the words of his father in a serious manner, he would become brokenhearted that his father has become so disgusted with him that he will not even be admonishing him; this will propel him to regret his past actions and beg his father for forgiveness, which he knows will be accepted.

The Shalah explains in a very similar manner: The Gemora Pesachim (86b) states: One should listen to everything that the host tells him except to leave. Even if the Holy One, Blessed is He notifies a person that he will not be assisting him any longer and it is as if he is being chased out of this world, it is incumbent upon that person to gird himself and harness all of his strength to repent and ask forgiveness; if he accomplishes this, there is no doubt that his repentance will be accepted.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 15 - POMEGRANATES

The Gemora states: Rabbah bar Shila met Eliyahu the Prophet and asked him what HaShem was doing at that moment. Eliyahu responded that HaShem was repeating words of Torah from the mouths of all the sages except for Rabbi Meir because Rabbi Meir had studied Torah from Acheir. Rabbah bar Shila wondered about this, because Rabbi Meir was akin to one who ate the inner part of a pomegranate and discarded the rind. Eliyahu responded that now HaShem was declaring, Meir my son says thus.

The commentators ask: What novelty did Rabbah bar Shila state thtat wasn’t known before? Why did the parable with the pomegranate result in Hashem repeating statements from Rabbi Meir?

The Gemora in Chagigah (27) states: The transgressors of Israel are full of mitzvos like a pomegranate.

A question is posed: Generally, transgressions are considered to be the most offensive kind of sin. Why, then, are transgressors deemed so worthy by the Gemora?

Kollel Iyun Hadaf cites from Rabbi Shimon Maryles, the Yoruslaver Rebbe in Toras Shimon as follows: The Midrash (Bereishis Rabah 84:19) says that after Reuven repented for his sin, Hash-m promised him, "No one has ever sinned before me and repented [like you did]. My son, in reward for introducing Teshuvah to the world, I promise that your descendant will introduce Teshuvah as well." The Midrash identifies that descendant as the prophet Hoshea, who issued a prophecy which begins with the words, "Return o' Israel to Hash-m your G-d!" (Hoshea 14:2).

The Midrash's assertion that Reuven was the first person to do Teshuvah is difficult to understand. The very first man, Adam ha'Rishon, as well as his son, Kayin, engaged in Teshuvah long before Reuven! Apparently, the intention of the Midrash is as follows: Reuven was the first to introduce Teshuvah as a necessary prelude to the performance of a Mitzvah (in his case, returning to rescue Yosef from the pit). The importance of doing Teshuvah prior to performing a Mitzvah is derived from the Tikunei Zohar (Tikun 6), which states that any Mitzvah performed without an adequate blend of "fear and love" of Hash-m does not succeed in rising heavenward, for these two qualities serve as the "wings" of the Mitzvah. This is hinted to in the verse, "They shall raise you up in their palms, lest you knock your foot against a stone" (Tehilim 91:12) -- the "palms" allude to the qualities of fear and love of Hash-m aroused through Teshuvah which protect one's performance of a Mitzvah from the dangers of the Yetzer ha'Ra, often symbolized by a stone.

Thus, when a person performs a Mitzvah it is necessary that other elements be present -- besides the actual execution of the Mitzvah -- in order for the Mitzvah to be credited to that person in Shamayim. Those elements include fear of Hash-m, love of Hash-m, and doing complete Teshuvah before performing the Mitzvah, so that the Mitzvah is performed with the utmost sincerity. When a Mitzvah is performed in that manner, it acquires wings, so to speak, to fly up to Shamayim.

A perpetual transgressor (or "Posh'ei Yisrael") invests none of these elements into the few Mitzvos which he manages to carry out in this world. As a result, his Mitzvos have no means with which to fly heavenward, and instead they settle and accumulate around him, convincing him that he is "full of Mitzvos like a pomegranate." In contrast, the Tzadik -- whose Mitzvos, borne by the thrust of his fear of Hash-m, love of Hash-m, and his Teshuvah, soar immediately heavenward, always appears to himself as bereft of Mitzvos because all of his Mitzvos go straight to Shamayim.

This is also the meaning of the verse (Devarim 30:2), "And you shall return to Hash-m your G-d" -- that is, when you first do Teshuvah, you may "[then] heed His voice" -- proceed with the performance of His Mitzvos, "according to all which I command you this day," so that the Mitzvos can rise heavenward.

This is also the intention of the prayer we recite each morning, "May He place in our hearts love of Him and fear of Him, and [may those two qualities give us the ability] to do His will and serve Him with a perfect heart." It is the love and fear of Hash-m, aroused through Teshuvah, which elevates one's actions.

This idea explains the Mishnah in Avos (4:21-22): "Rebbi Yakov says: This world is like an anteroom before the World to Come; prepare yourself in the anteroom, so that you might enter the banquet hall." The Mishnah continues, "He would also say: Better one hour of Teshuvah and good deeds in this world than the entire life of the World to Come, and better one hour of contentment in the World to Come than all the life of this world." The connection between these two statements of Rebbi Yakov may be explained as follows: How should one prepare himself in the anteroom of this world for the reward of the World to Come? One should prepare himself in this world by doing Teshuvah before every Mitzvah that he does, so that those Mitzvos will rise heavenward on the strength of the fear and love that is aroused through his Teshuvah.

In this sense, it may be said that Rebbi Yakov was actually offering a defense for his grandfather, Elisha ben Avuyah (Kidushin 39b), the Tana who became a heretic and thereafter was referred to as "Acher." The Gemara (Chagigah 15a) attributes Acher's persistence in maintaining his rebellious lifestyle to a voice he once heard echoing from behind the heavenly curtain, which said, "Return, all you wayward children, except for Acher!" One might ask that, granted, the heavenly voice rejected the possibility of Acher repenting for the sins which he had already committed, but what prevented him, in the event that he did feel remorse, from accumulating a new store of Mitzvos that would count in his favor for the future? In answer to this question, Rebbi Yakov offers his insight: "Better one hour of Teshuvah and good deeds in this world than the entire life of the World to Come" -- for without the spiritual advantage of Teshuvah, all of the Mitzvos one does in this world have little effect. This might have been Acher's reasoning which caused him to despair of ever correcting his ways.

Based on this, perhaps we can say that this was the meaning behind Rabbah bar Shila’s statement. Rabbi Meir understood Acher’s flaws but he viewed him as a pomegranate. Acher’s sins were all around him, but Rabbi Meir took the rind from the pomegranate and discarded it, demonstrating that Acher’s mitzvos were worthless and he should not consider himself righteous because of those deeds.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 15 - Highlights

Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Chananiah was standing on a step in the Temple Mount and Ben Zoma saw him but did not stand before him. Rabbi Yehoshua queried Ben Zoma as to where he was coming from and where he was headed. Ben Zoma responded that he was gazing into matters regarding creation and he observed that there was only a space of three fingers between the upper waters and the lower waters. This is because it is said, and the Divine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters, and this means that the Divine Presence hovered like a dove hovers over its young but does not touch them. Rabbi Yehoshua told his disciples that Ben Zoma was still considered to be on the outside. The reason for this is because the verse that Ben Zoma quoted was said on the first day of creation, whereas the separation of the waters did not occur until the second day of creation. Rav Acha bar Yaakov posited that the separation of the waters was like a hair’s breath. The Chachamim maintain that the separation is like the separation between boards that are used for the construction of a bridge. Mar Zutra, and others say that it was Rav Assi, maintains that the separation was like the separation of two garments that are spread on top of each other. Some say that the separation of the waters is akin to two cups where one is stuck inside the other. (15a)

We learned earlier that Acheir entered into Pardes, i.e. heaven, by using the Name of HaShem, and this resulted in Acheir cutting off saplings, i.e. he adopted false theological beliefs. Regarding Acheir it is said, let not your mouth bring guilt on your flesh. Acheir saw that Matatron, an angel, was granted permission once a day to sit in heaven and record the merits of the Jewish People. Acheir was bewildered by this sight, because there is a tradition that in heaven there is no sitting, contention, no back, as the angels are all one-dimensional, and no fatigue. Acheir thus declared, “Perhaps there are two entities, heaven forbid!” Matatron was subsequently removed from his position and he was struck with sixty lightning rods. Matatron was told, “When you saw Acheir you should have risen.” Matatron was then given permission to erase the merits that Acheir had accrued. A Heavenly Voice then announced, “Return O wayward sons, except for Acheir. When Acheir heard this proclamation, he declared, “Since I have been banished form the World to Come, I may as well derive pleasure from this world.” Acheir then strayed to the ways of bad society, and he requested from a harlot to engage in promiscuity. The harlot asked him, “Are you not Elisha Ben Avuyah, whose name has spread throughout the land?” Acheir proceeded to pluck a radish on Shabbos, in violation of the Torah, so the harlot decaled, “He is Acheir,” i.e. he has been transformed into another person. (15a)

The Gemara records various incidents where Rabbi Meir discussed Torah subjects with Acheir, his teacher. When Rabbi Meir questioned why Acheir would not repent, Acheir responded that he had already heard from behind the barrier in heaven, “Return O wayward sons, except for Acheir.” (15a)

When Acheir died, heaven did not wish to judge him because he had engaged in Torah, yet he was not granted entry to the World to Come because he had sinned. Rabbi Meir then said, “Better that heaven judge Acheir and ultimately he will be granted entry into the World to Come. When will I die I will cause smoke to rise from his grave?” When Rabbi Meir died, smoke rose from the grave of Acheir. (15b)

The Gemara wonders how Rabbi Meir was allowed to learn Torah from Acheir, as it is said, for the lips of the Kohen shall safeguard knowledge, and people should seek teaching from his mouth; for he is an agent of HaShem, Master of Legions. This verse is understood as follows: if the master is akin to an angel of G-d, then one should seek Torah from his mouth, but if the master is not like an angel of G-d, then one should not seek Torah from his mouth. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir merely learned from Acheir’s teachings but not from his devious acts. Alternatively, one who is grown can study from a teacher who is not akin to an angel of G-d, but one who is young should not study from such a teacher. In the west they said that Rabbi Meir ate the outer part of the date but discarded the inner pit. (15b)

Rabbah bar Shila met Eliyahu the Prophet and asked him what HaShem was doing at that moment. Eliyahu responded that HaShem was repeating words of Torah from the mouths of all the sages except for Rabbi Meir because Rabbi Meir had studied Torah from Acheir. Rabbah bar Shila wondered about this, because Rabbi Meir was akin to one who ate the inner part of a pomegranate and discarded the rind. Eliyahu responded that now HaShem was declaring, Meir my son says thus. (15b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 14 - OUR LEADERS ARE THE EYES OF THE NATION

Our Gemora cites a compelling statement from Rav Dimi. He said, "Yeshayahu cursed Klal Yisrael with eighteen curses. Yet, he was not satisfied until he pronounced, "The youngster will behave insolently against the elder, and the base against the honorable." Yeshayahu uttered eighteen terrible curses, each one grave and serious with awesome ramifications. That was not sufficient. He wanted to deliver the final blow, the blow that would have the greatest effect. What was that curse that would outdo all the others, that would devastate Klal Yisrael's chance for survival? It was the one that pronounced an end to the authority of the zekeinim, elders, and talmidei chachamim, Torah scholars. We cannot survive without their leadership.

Why is this? Why is Klal Yisrael so unique that it cannot exist without the institution of elders?

Rabbi A. Leib Scheinbaum in his Peninim al Hatorah explains: Rabbi Akiva compares us to a bird. Just as a bird cannot fly without its wings, so, too is Klal Yisrael helpless without its elders. A bird uses its wings to go higher and to remain airborne. Otherwise, it will fall to the ground, a helpless broken bird. Without its leadership, Klal Yisrael will not only not go forward; it will actually fall and cease to exist. A generation's greatest disgrace is demonstrated when the people do not show respect to their gedolim, leaders. How shameful is it when people refer to gedolei haTorah in the most pedestrian terms? The arrogance of the common Jew, his self-declared scholarship, provokes chutzpah towards our leaders. One cannot accept leadership from another if he is filled with himself.

The Satmar Rebbe, zl, once set forth criteria for a gadol to be accepted. He must first be a talmid chacham, totally proficient in all areas of Torah erudition. Secondly, he must be a yarei Shomayim, G-d fearing person, who will not adapt his psak, halachic decision, as a result of outside pressures or personal vested interests. Third, he must have special, common sense. He must possess an acute ability to understand and deal with all people. He should be able to ferret out those who would undermine the Torah way of life. A gadol is the embodiment of Torah; he reflects it in his total demeanor. To respect a gadol is to respect the Torah. To deny a Torah leader the respect he deserves is to challenge the Torah itself.

One of the distinguished laymen who heard the Satmar Rav's comments questioned him regarding a certain rav who fit the criteria, yet whose views regarding Orthodoxy were in contradiction to the Satmar Rav's. The Rav responded that indeed the gadol in question truly "fit the bill," but was deficient in one area. He was not "meshamesh," did not serve in such a capacity that he understood how to deal with the incursions against Torah Judaism. Only certain rabbonim, such as those who served in a number of the larger communities in Hungary, in which they were compelled to fight a holy war to preserve the sanctity of Torah and mitzvos from those who would do anything to impugn and destroy the Torah way of life, were able to impart lessons based upon their own life's experience. The Satmar Rav was an individual who, in addition to being a brilliant talmid chacham and pikeach, had absorbed a wealth of wisdom and knowledge from his rebbeim, who themselves were the gedolei Yisrael of the previous generation.

It is written [Devarim 1:13]: Provide for yourselves distinguished men, who are wise, understanding, and well known to your tribes, and I shall appoint them as your heads. (1:13)

In a play on the word "and I will appoint them," the Midrash changes the "sin" to a "shin", transforming the word to "and I shall hold them guilty". The Midrash is teaching us the importance of listening to our spiritual leaders. If they lead properly and the common people still do not respond with respect, the people are liable. They cite an interesting analogy. Once a snake was sliding along its path, when the tail began complaining to the head, "Why are you always in the front with me dragging along behind? I want to lead, while you follow in the rear."

The head responded, "Very well. We will switch positions, and you will lead. Since the tail has no eyes, we can well understand what happened. The snake fell into a pit, then it was singed by fire. Finally it was scratched by a thorn bush into which it had run. The fate suffered by the snake was to be expected, given the fact that the tail had guided it.

Similarly, when the common Jew attempts to usurp the spiritual leadership of Klal Yisrael, we are beset with bruises -- and in many instances -- serious injury. Our Torah leaders are the "eyes" of the nation. They lead because they have vision. They have the necessary perspective to guide the people on the correct and safe path.

Even the best leader will succeed only if he has the respect and approbation of the people he is to lead. One earns this respect by virtue of his character and scholarship. At times, however, the people themselves are not worthy of their leadership, not recognizing the leaders' virtue and capabilities.

Rabbi Scheinbaum continues : Horav Yeruchem Levovitz, zl, explains that when the youth lose respect for their elders -- when they wrest the reins of leadership away from those whose wisdom is tempered by life's experiences, from a leadership whose counsel is inspired by the Torah giants of a previous era -- Klal Yisrael is as good as dead. This is not life! Indeed, such a circumstance represents the greatest curse. A nation whose leadership is not "mekabel," will not accept advice from their elders, who are obsessed with their arrogance and sheer chutzpah; who denigrate the authority of their elders and render decisions based upon their own brash ideas, and shaped by their own vested interests, is not living a Torah life. Such a generation does not truly live.

Horav Chaim Shmuelevitz, zl, explains that the Jewish people are unlike other nations, in that they cannot survive without the institution of "zekeinim," elders. While other nations manage to survive without the leadership of sages or elders, our uniqueness renders our elders an essential prerequisite for our existence, rather than a mere luxury. It is Rabbi Akiva who says, "Yisrael is likened to a bird. Just as a bird cannot fly away without its wings, so, too, is Yisrael helpless without its elders." Rav Chaim explains that a bird without its wings is in a worse situation than an animal who never had wings. It remains a helpless, pitiful creature, victimized by any creature bigger and more powerful than it. Klal Yisrael without elders is just like that bird. It cannot survive. Undermining the power of our elders is tantamount to striking a powerful blow to the core of the life force of the Jewish People.

Horav Yechezkel Abramski, zl, put the idea into perspective with the following illustration: Imagine sitting at a distance of one hundred yards from a given point and asking a group of people if they are able to see a picture at this distance. One person will say he can only see thirty yards, while another will see forty yards, and yet another will see up to seventy yards. Suddenly, someone comes along with incredible eyesight who can see up to one hundred yards! Indeed, if all of the other people would get together, they could nevertheless not see as well as he, because the sight is limited. Having them all get together is to no avail because the eyesight of the individuals is still deficient.

The same idea applies to our Torah leaders: They see what others cannot; their vision extends beyond the grasp of the average person. Thus, if an entire group gets together to express their opinion in opposition of one gadol, their position carries no weight, because they cannot see what he sees. Their vision is stinted; their perspective is myopic. This is the reason that our Torah leaders are referred to as "einei ha'am," the eyes of the nation.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 14 - Highlights

Shmuel told Chiya bar Rav, “son of the lion! Let me relate to you a good matter that your father said. Every day angels are created from the River of Dinor and they sing HaShem’s praises and they disappear. This is based on a verse that states, they are new every morning, great is Your faithfulness.” This statement is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani who said in the name of Rabbi Yonasan that every utterance of HaShem cerates a new angel, as it is said, by the word of HaShem the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host. (14a)

One verse states, His garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like clean wool. Yet, another verse states, His crowns hold mounds of statutes written in raven-black flame. The first verse refers to HaShem as old when He is so to speak at ease, because an old man epitomizes being at ease, whereas the second verse refers to HaShem in battle, because a young man epitomizes battle. (14a)

One verse states, His throne was of fiery flames, which implies that HaShem has one throne, whereas a second verse states, as thrones were set up, and the One of Ancient Days sat, which implies that HaShem has two thrones. The resolution to this discrepancy is that the second verse that was quoted refers to the throne of HaShem and the throne of Dovid HaMelech. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, whereas Rabbi Yose HaGlili maintains that to suggest that HaShem has a human sitting next to Him on a throne would render the Divine Presence profane. Rather, Rabbi Yose HaGlili maintains that one throne is for justice and one throne is for charity. Rabbi Akiva accepted this interpretation. Rabbi Eliezer Ben Azaryah rebuked Rabbi Akiva for expounding on Agaddic matters and Rabbi Eliezer Ben Azaryah maintains that one throne is for sitting and one throne is for a footstool. (14a)

Rav Katina taught that even at the time of Jerusalem’s downfall, there were still people of truth, as it is said, when a man will grasp his relative, a member of his father’s house, [saying,] ‘You have a garment! Become a benefactor for us.’ The word garment is interpreted to refer to matters of Torah which people would cover up like a garment. People were lax in Torah study and when asked a question they would feign ignorance and pretend that they had not heard the question. When they would discover someone who was knowledgeable in Torah, they would grasp him and ask him to be their leader, i.e. to teach them Torah. It is said further in that verse, and let this stumbling block be under your hand. This stumbling block refers to Torah, which are matters that students do not pay close attention to until they have been corrected several times. It is said further, he shall raise up an oath that day saying: I will not be a ruler, and in my house there is no bread and no garment; do not install me as a chief of the people. The word ‘raise up’ refers to an oath. The words ‘I will not be a ruler’ means I did not become one of those who locked themselves up in the study hall, i.e. I was not diligent in my Torah study. The words ‘and in my house there is no bread and no garment’ means that I do not have a knowledge of Scripture, Mishnah or Talmud. When the person would respond, ‘I am not accustomed to locking myself up in the study hall,’ he meant that he never knew the answer to the question. This statement that even at the time of Jerusalem’s downfall there were still people of truth is contradicted from Rava’s statement that Jerusalem was only destroyed because people of truth had disappeared from it. The Gemara answers that Rav Katina was speaking regarding words of Torah, as regarding words of Torah people were honest in that they were not knowledgeable. Rava’s statement, however, was regarding business matters, as in this respect, people of truth had disappeared from Jerusalem. (14a-14b)

Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai was once riding on a donkey and Rabbi Elazar Ben Arach was riding behind him, and Rabbi Elazar Ben Arach requested that Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai teach him one chapter regarding the Heavenly Chariot. Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai responded, “Did I not teach you that one cannot expound the matter of the Heavenly Chariot to an individual unless he is wise and can understand on his own?” Rabbi Elazar Ben Arach requested of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai that he allow him to relate one teaching that he had learned from Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai. Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai agreed, and Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai descended from his donkey, wrapped his face and sat on a stone under an olive tree. When Rabbi Elazar Ben Arach questioned Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai regarding his behavior, Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai responded, “is it possible that you are expounding on matters regarding the Heavenly Chariot, and the Divine Presence is amongst us and the angels are escorting us, and I will remain riding on the donkey?” Rabbi Elazar Ben Arach immediately began to expound on matters regarding the Heavenly Chariot and a fire descended from heaven and scorched all the trees in the field. All the trees then sang praise to HaShem. An angel from the fire declared that what Rabbi Elazar Ben Arach had expounded on was precisely the matters regarding the Heavenly Chariot. (14b)

Shabbos in the Daf

The Gemara states that Rav Katina taught that even at the time of Jerusalem’s downfall, there were still people of truth, as it is said, when a man will grasp his relative, a member of his father’s house, [saying,] ‘You have a garment! Become a benefactor for us.’ The word garment is interpreted to refer to matters of Torah which people would cover up like a garment. People were lax in Torah study and when asked a question they would feign ignorance and pretend that they had not heard the question. When they would discover someone who was knowledgeable in Torah, they would grasp him and ask him to be their leader, i.e. to teach them Torah. It is noteworthy that Shabbos is the sign of truth, and the Mishnah (Demai 4:1) states that even an am haaretz, one who is not scrupulous in separating tithes, has the fear of Shabbos upon him. Thus, we can adapt the statement of our Gemara to be referring to Shabbos, as even one who stumbles during the week in falsehood, heaven forbid, will state the truth on Shabbos.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 13 - TEACHING TORAH TO AN IDOLATER

Rabbi Ami said: One is forbidden from teaching Torah to a non-Jew. This is derived from the verse [Tehillim 147: 19 – 20]: He declared His word unto Yaakov, His statutes and ordinances unto Israel. He has not done so with any nation; and as for His ordinances, they have not known them.

Tosfos asks: The Gemora in Sanhedrin (59a) states explicitly that a non-Jew who studies Torah is liable for death; accordingly, one should be forbidden to teach him Torah because he is transgressing the prohibition against placing a stumbling block in front of a blind man? The idolater cannot study Torah, so the Jew should not be able to teach him Torah, why is this new verse necessary?

Tosfos states: The gentile is permitted to study the seven Noahide laws as the Gemora Sanhedrin (ibid) states: Rabbi Meir said: A gentile who engages in the study of Torah is like a Kohen Gadol and the Gemora explains that this is referring to the seven laws which are incumbent upon him to adhere to. A Jew has an obligation to teach him these halachos.

Tosfos answers: Our Gemora is referring to a case where the idolater has another idolater who is willing to teach him Torah and therefore there would be no prohibition (based on the Gemora in Sanhedrin) of teaching him Torah; our Gemora teaches us that nevertheless, a Jew is forbidden from teaching a non-Jew Torah.

The Meor Veshemesh (Parshas Chukas) writes that it is permitted to teach the Written Law to an idolater as we find that Moshe wrote the Torah in seventy languages. The prohibition of teaching Torah to a gentile applies only to the Oral Law.

The Divrei Chaim (Chanukah) rules similarly: The Torah was written on the stones and the nations of the world copied it over. The Medrash states that the Holy One, Blessed is He did not protest and allowed them to study the Written Law. It is forbidden to teach them even one word of the Oral Law.

There are many commentators who disagree with this vehemently and they maintain that it is evident from many sources that it is even forbidden to teach the Written Law to a non-Jew.

In the sefer, Beis Pinchas (I P. 169) from Rabbi Pinchas HaLevi Horowitz, he writes that all are in agreement that it is forbidden to teach even the Written Law to a non-Jew; the aforementioned commentators are merely stating that we are not obligated to protest and prevent a non-Jew from studying the Written Law. This is derived from the Medrash which stated that Hashem allowed the idolaters to copy over the Written Law. It is incumbent on us, however, to ensure that the gentiles do not study the Oral Law.

This explanation is seemingly inconsistent with a ruling issued by Reb Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe (Y”D II: 132): He states that it is forbidden to directly teach Torah to a gentile; however, if he happens to be in the room when one is teaching Torah to other Jews, the teacher is permitted to continue teaching Torah since it is not his intention to teach the gentile.

If there is an obligation to ensure that the gentile does not study the Oral Law, it should follow that one would be compelled to cease his discourse and wait for the non-Jew to leave before continuing with the teaching of Torah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 13 - Highlights

There is a rakiya above the heads of the chayos as is stated in a verse in Yechezkel. Until this point one can discuss, but one cannot discuss any further. In the Book of Ben Sira it is written that one should not expound on matters that are concealed from him, one should not investigate what is covered from him. One can only contemplate matters of which he has been granted permission, because one has no dealing with hidden matters. (13a)

When Nevuchadnezzar king of Babylon declared, ‘I will ascend over the tops of the clouds; I will liken myself to the Most High,’ a heavenly voice responded: ‘wicked one, son of the wicked one, descendant of Nimrod the wicked one, who in his reign caused the entire world to rebel. Man’s years are seventy years. From the earth till the rakiya is a distance of five hundred years. The thickness of the rakiya is five hundred years. The distance between each rakiya is five hundred years. Above all the rakiyos are the holy chayos. The feet of the chayos alone correspond to the measurements mentioned above. The karsulim of the chayos correspond to all of the above mentioned measurements. Corresponding to all of those measurements are the thighs of the chayos. The thighbone (which is near the thigh) of the chayos corresponds to all of the above mentioned chayos. The thigh of the chayos corresponds to all of the above mentioned measurements. The body of the chayos corresponds to all of the above mentioned measurements. The neck of the chayos corresponds to all of the above mentioned measurements. The head of the chayos corresponds to all of the above mentioned measurements. The horns of the chayos correspond to all of the above mentioned measurements. Above all of the previously mentioned measurements is the Heavenly Throne. The feet of the Heavenly Throne correspond to all of the above mentioned measurements. The Heavenly Throne itself corresponds to all of the above mentioned measurements. The living and existing G-d is sitting upon the Heavenly Throne, and you dare declare, ‘I will ascend over the tops of the clouds; I will liken myself to the Most High?’ But to the nether-world have you been lowered, to the bottom of the pit!’ (13a)

We learned in the Mishna that we do not expound upon the discussion of the Heavenly Chariot to an individual. The Gemara qualifies this ruling to mean that we do give over the main ideas of the Heavenly Chariot discussion. This ruling is further qualified to mean that we only give over the main ideas to the head of the court and to one who takes the matter seriously. Alternatively, we only give over these matters to the head of a court who takes the matter seriously. (13a)

Rabbi Yochanan sought to teach Rabbi Elazar regarding the Heavenly Chariot. Rabbi Elazar responded that he was not old enough. When Rabbi Elazar became old enough, Rabbi Yochanan died. Rabbi Assi told Rabbi Elazar that he would teach Rabbi Elazar regarding the Heavenly Chariot. Rabbi Elazar responded, “had I merited, I would have learned it from Rabbi Yochanan your teacher.” (13a)

The angels that are called chashmal are thus called because chashmal is an acrostic for the words chayos eish mimalelos, i.e. fire emanates from their speech. Alternatively, the word chashmal can be interpreted to mean that at times they are chashos, i.e. silent, and at times they are mimalelos, i.e. speaking. When Hashem talks they are silent, and when HaShem is not talking they speak. (13b)

Everything that Yechezkel saw was also seen by Yeshaya. Yechezkel was akin to a villager who saw the king whereas Yeshaya was akin to one who lives in the city and sees the king. (13b)

The king of the wild animals is the lion, the king of the animals is the ox and the king of the birds is the eagle. Man is exalted above all those, and HaShem is exalted above all of them and above the entire world. (13b)

One verse in Yechezkel mentions the ox, whereas another verse substitutes the cherub for the ox. The reason for this discrepancy is because Yechezkel prayed to HaShem that the ox should be transformed to a cherub. Yechezkel posited, “Master of the world! Should the prosecutor, i.e. the ox who was worshipped by the Jewish People when they fashioned the Golden Calf in the Wilderness, become a defense attorney?” (13b)

Yeshaya lived in the time when the Bais HaMikdash was standing, so he saw the angels with six wings, whereas Yechezkel lived immediately prior to the destruction of the Bais HaMikdash, so he only saw the angels with four wings. Rav Chananel maintains that the wings with which the angels sing HaShem’s praises were diminished, whereas the Chachamim maintain that the wings that cover the angels’ feet were diminished. (13b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 12 - CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE WORLD, CREATION OF DARKNESS AND THE BLESSING ON THE MANNA

* Adam HaRishon initially stood from the ground until the heavens. Upon sinning, HaShem placed His hand on Adam and diminished his stature.

The Chasam Sofer (Chulin) asks: One Gemora says that the circumference of the world is equivalent to a person’s journey around the world for five hundred years; yet the Rambam in his introduction to Mishnayos Seder Zeraim states that the world is precisely twenty-four thousand milin. How can these two different measurements be reconciled?

The Chasam Sofer goes to great lengths, with extraordinary calculations, illustrating how every word of Chazal is precise and accurate.

UPDATE: Please see the comments (click 'comments' below this post) where we present the Chasam Sofer's explanation.

NEWER UPDATE - Rabbi Mordechai Kornfeld from Kollel Iyun HaDaf responds:

THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST

brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
daf@dafyomi.co.il

1. Ramban's source is Pesachim 94a. That same Gemara rejects that figure based on the Beraisa of Chagigah 13a that you quoted.

Note that it also presents the Beraisa which contradicts this value, giving a size for the world of 3600 x 400 x 4 Mil. Considering that the average person does 40 Mil/day (ibid.) and can walk approximately 300 days/year (without Shabbos and Yom Tov), this figure is pretty consistent with the 500 year walk of Chagigah 12a and 13a.

2. Tosfos ibid DH Kol points out that the other two Midrashim (the 500 years and one "Yishuv") about the size of the Earth are contradictory (even putting aside the 24,000 Mil figure). However, the figure Rashi offers there (DH Tachas) seems to reconcile the two Midrashim.

3. Regarding the scientific figure, if you look at the Gemara in Pesachim you will find it is discussing just a single hemisphere. (The hemisphere opposite Israel was not considered a habitable or inhabited region - see Rosh Hashanah 20b and Ba'al ha'Me'or). If so, the figure of 24,000 Mil is pretty compatible with the scientific figure.

4. As for answering the Gemara's (unanswered) question from the larger 500 year figure, apparently it includes much more than the Earth itself (about 31 million miles). Perhaps it includes the entire "Goldilocks zone", as it is called in which the distance from the sun is neither too little nor too much to support life.

Of course, this is what I would say to explain the Gemara about 500 years in its literal sense - the way Tosfos understands it and the way the Gemara seems to want us to understand it in the Sugya in Pesachim. However, there certainly are much deeper lessons cloaked in the Agadah. For instance, it might have to do not with physical distance, but with philosophical "distance" measered in terms of years of contemplation until it is fully understood. Nevuchadnezar the Rasha thought he knew everything and the Gemara (Chagigah 13a) is reprimanding him that he knew nothing.

This would of course vindicate Rava's 24,000 Mil figure of physical distance, in Pesachim.

Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Kollel Iyun Hadaf

You can write to them at at daf@dafyomi.co.il or visit them at http://www.dafyomi.co.il
Fax(US):(206) 202-0323; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004

* Ten items were created on the first day of creation; tohu and vohu were two of them. The Gemora states that tohu is a green line, which surrounds the entire world and darkness emerges from it.

Reb Yaakov Emden comments that it is evident from this Gemora that ‘darkness’ is something physical, not merely an absence of light.

There can be a distinction between the darkness in the night, which may be only an absence of sunlight and the darkness which was created during the Six Days of Creation. The darkness of the ninth plague was also not the regular darkness, but rather, one of a miracle.

Rabbi Sinclair regarding the plague of darkness: The Torah describes the plague of darkness thus: "And there was darkness on the land of Egypt and the darkness removed the light." When the Torah tells us the "the darkness removed the light" it means that darkness is not the absence of light, it means that darkness is a creation just as much as light is a creation. In the normal course of events, G-d allows light to push away the darkness. In the ninth plague, He chose to reverse nature's polarity and it was the darkness that removed the light.

Rabbi Winston cites the Vilna Gaon: G-d said to Moshe, "Stretch out your hand towards Heaven, so that darkness will come over Egypt, a darkness which can be felt (vayamaish)." (Shemos 10:21)

What is a "darkness which can be felt"?

Why do we ask such a question? Because to us, darkness is merely that absence of light, the result, for example, of when the sun leaves our part of the world for another. However, the truth is that it is not so simple, as the Vilna Gaon (Gra) indicates: "There are some who say that light is an independent creation, and that darkness is an independent creation, not like those who say that darkness is just an absence of light. In truth, it is not like this, but rather, darkness is in fact an independent creation that is pushed away by light, and that's the way The Holy One, Blessed is He, made nature. Therefore, here (in this plague), G-d changed nature, because it says, 'a darkness which can be felt,' which means that the darkness 'pushed' away the light, and not the light, the darkness (the root of the word 'vayamaish' is from 'and he [Yehoshua] didn't move (yamish) from his tent (Shemos 33:11)'." (Kol Eliyahu, Bo 53)

In other words, says the Gra, the posuk means "a darkness that can move light." A sefer called HaK'sav v'HaKabbalah on Parashas Bereishis also quotes the Gra saying that darkness is in fact an independent creation. However, the Radak seems to hold that darkness is the result of an absence of light.

The Talmud, which treats darkness as an "object," seems to provide support for the Gra's opinion: This is what it means to say: G-d called to the light and commanded it in the mitzvos of the day, and G-d called to the darkness and commanded it in the mitzvos of the night (Pesachim 2a) As well, the Talmud states that: We must mention the "trait" of night during the day blessings, and the "trait" of day during the evening blessings, to counter the heretics who claim that He who made the day did not also make the night. (Brochos 11b)

If darkness is only the absence of light, then how could the heretics think such a thing? We would only be dealing with one creation, the creation of light, and the lack of its presence. (Nevertheless, the Bach on theTur considers darkness to only be an absence of light, though there are so many proofs to support the Gra.)


* The Gemora stated that there are various heavens and each one of them have different functions. In shechakim there are mills that grind manna to the righteous.

The Bnei Yisoschar quotes the Rama Mipano that in the World to come by the feast of the Livyasan, a jar of manna that was hidden in the times of Yoshiyahu will be taken out and the righteous will recite the blessing, “He who brought out the bread from the heavens” before eating the manna. Sefer Chasidim (1640) and the Zohar in Parshas Beshalach concur.

There are those that disagree and state that there is no blessing recited on eating manna because the purpose of a blessing is to separate the favorable portions of the food away from the parts which have an adverse effect; the manna that fell in the Wilderness was purely spiritual and it did not require any separation. Perhaps the Rama Mipano was only referring to the manna in the future.

Sefer Gan Raveh posits that perhaps the blessing of “mezonos” should be recited on the manna because the Torah records that it had a taste of dough mixed with honey.

Birkas Aharon writes that the Gemora Brochos (35a) rules that it is forbidden to derive pleasure from anything in this world without reciting a blessing beforehand. The manna, he says, was not from this world, and therefore did not require a blessing. (Sedeh Tzofim)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 12 - Highlights (Click the 'click more' link for more - like usual)

Adam HaRishon initially stood from the ground until the heavens, as it is said, from the day that HaShem created man on earth. Upon sinning, HaShem placed His hand on Adam and diminished his stature as it is said, back and front You have restricted me, and You have laid Your hand upon me. Alternatively, Adam HaRishon’s body filled the entire world, which means that when he lay down, his head was in the east and his feet were in the west. Yet, these are not contradictory statements, as they all define one measurement. (12a)

Ten items were created on the first day of creation, and they are the heaven, the earth, desolation, astonishment, light, darkness, wind, water, the measurement of day and the measurement of night. These are all derived from verses in the beginning of Bereishis. (12a)

Initially, when HaShem created the primordial light, Adam HaRishon was capable of seeing from one end of the world to the other. When HaShem saw that the Generation of the Great Flood and the Generation of Dispersion would act corruptly, HaShem concealed the great light from them and this light was hidden away for the righteous in the future. (12a)

The world was created with ten ideas, which were wisdom, intellect, knowledge, strength, rebuke, might, righteousness, judgment, kindness, and compassion. These are all derived from various verses throughout Scripture. (12a)

When HaShem created the world, the world began to expand like two unraveling balls of warp thread, until HaShem rebuked the world and it ceased to expand. Furthermore, when HaShem created the sea, it began to expand until HaShem rebuked it and the sea dried up. (12a)

Bais Shammai maintains that the heavens were created first and then the earth and Bais Hillel maintains that the earth was created first and then the heavens. Bais Hillel asked Bais Shammai, “would a person first build the upper story of a house and then the main floor?” Bais Shammai countered, “Would a man fashion a footstool and then the seat upon which it rests?” The Chachamim, however, maintain that the heavens and the earth were created simultaneously. (12a)

The heavens are called shamayim because the word is an acrostic for the words sham mayim, there is water. Alternatively, the word shamayim is an acrostic for the words eish and mayim, fire and water, as HaShem mixed fire and water together to create the heavens. (12a)

The verse first states that the heavens were created and then the earth was created. Yet, regarding their description, the Torah commences with the earth. This is compared to a king of flesh and blood who instructs his servants to arise early and in the morning the king finds women and men waiting. The king will certainly praise those who are not accustomed to rising early. Similarly, since HaShem called the heavens first, the earth is not accustomed to rising early. Additionally, the actions of the earth are more deliberate, whereas the actions of the heavens are with haste. Yet, the earth arose simultaneously with the heavens, so Scripture commenced with the description of the earth. (12b)

Rabbi Yose taught, woe to people who see and do not know what they see, and they stand, yet they do not know what they stand on. The earth stands on pillars, and the pillars stand on the water. The water stands on the mountains and the mountains stand with the wind. The wind stands in a stormy wind, and the stormy wind is suspended on the arm of HaShem. The Chachamim maintain that the earth stands on twelve pillars, and some say that the earth stands on seven pillars. Rabbi Elazar Ben Shamua maintains that the world stands on one pillar, and that is the righteous person. (12b)

Rabbi Yehudah maintains that there are two heavens and Reish Lakish maintains that there are seven heavens, and they are vilon, rakiya, shechakim, zevul, meon, mechon, and aravos. Vilon has no function except that it enters its sheath in the morning and the light is visible, and in the evening it leaves its sheath and spreads itself out before the light, causing the world to become dark. The sun, moon and stars are fixed inside the vilon. In shechakim there are mills that grind manna to the righteous. In zevul is Jerusalem and the Bais HaMikdash, and an altar is built and Michael the archangel offers daily sacrifices on that altar. In meon are groups of angels who sing their songs at night and are silent during the day in deference to the Jewish People. (12b)

One who toils in Torah study in this world which is akin to night, HaShem will extend over him a thread of kindness in the World to Come which is akin to day. One who interrupts his Torah study and engages in idle chatter is fed hot coals. (12b)

In mechon is storehouses of snow, storehouses of hail, an attic full of bad dew and water that ruin the fruits and an inner room of stormy winds and a cave of vapor, and their doors are made of fire. Initially, these chambers were in heaven and Dovid prayed that they should be brought down to earth. (12b)

In aravos there is righteousness and judgment and charity and treasures of life, peace and blessing. In aravos there is also the souls of the righteous, spirits and souls that will be resurrected in the future and the dew with which HaShem will resurrect the dead. (12b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 11 - AVERAGE AMAH

The Gemora had stated: A person must immerse himself in an amount of water that is sufficient for his entire body to enter the water at one time. The Gemora states that the ritual bath must contain at least three cubic amos of water since a person’s average height is three amos and his width is one amah. The Chachamim concluded that this measurement is equivalent to forty se’ah.

The Chasam Sofer comments: Every person has his individual measurement of an amah (from his elbow (correction from my Uncle Shloime and others) to the tip of his middle finger). The height of each and every person (excluding his head) is equivalent to three of his personal amos and not the size of the average amah. The Chasam Sofer said that he can attest to this for he personally investigated this and confirmed it many times.

The measurement of a mikvah follows the average amah (three cubic amos) and not the amah of each unique individual.

The Bach (Y”D 120) states that Biblically, one can immerse himself in a mikvah that contains water sufficient for his entire body to enter at one time even if there isn’t forty se’ah; the Chachamim decreed that the mikvah must contain forty se’ah.

The Chasam Sofer asks: Even if the Bach is correct regarding the measurement of water required for a person to immerse himself in; he is also referring to the immersion of new utensils, where the Torah requires its immersion in a mikvah fit for a niddah to immerse in. It is evident that the Biblical amount of water needed for a valid mikvah is measured according to the average person (niddah) and not according to each individual, for otherwise, to whom is the Torah referring to when it states that the water needed for the immersion of utensils should be water sufficient for a niddah. He concludes that the words of the Bach are extremely perplexing.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 11 - OVERWHELMING DESIRE

The Gemora had stated: A person has a powerful desire for an illicit relationship whether the object of his desire is in front of him or not. It is because of this that it is forbidden to teach three students the secret details regarding the laws of illicit relationships; we are concerned that when one student is conversing back and forth with his teacher, the other two students will talk among themselves and will not learn the halacha that their teacher is saying; subsequently they might eventually permit an illicit relationship.

The Rambam in Hilchos Issurei Biyah (22:20) writes: Therefore, it is incumbent on each and every person to acclimatize himself to increased levels of sanctity and pure thoughts at all times in order to refrain from sinning in these matters, where there is an overwhelming physical urge to sin.

Reb Moshe Feinstein (Y”D III: 80) cited this Gemora and Rambam as proof to his ruling regarding a Beis Yaakov in Baltimore, that they cannot build their new school adjacent to a Yeshiva for boys. He states that we must be vigilant in these areas for otherwise, it can result in the spiritual destruction of this world.

Read more!