Parshas Chayei Sarah: Gittin-related Halachos

First, From Haftorah:
אמר להו קראו לי לבת שבע וכתיב (מלכים א א) ותבא בת שבע אל המלך החדרה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב באותה שעה קינחה בת שבע בשלש עשרה מפות
(Sanhedrin 22)
Rashi says we know Bas Sheva wiped herself 13 times because there are 13 words in the Pasuk:
טו וַתָּבֹא בַת-שֶׁבַע אֶל-הַמֶּלֶךְ הַחַדְרָה וְהַמֶּלֶךְ זָקֵן מְאֹד וַאֲבִישַׁג הַשּׁוּנַמִּית מְשָׁרַת אֶת-הַמֶּלֶךְ
So, the Gra said we see from this that the name Bas Sheva is one word - if it is 2 words, then this Pasuk has 14 words - so in a Get it is written as one word.
--Kol Eliyahu, Sanhedrin 22

Second,

In a Get, we write the city and the water sources of the city - river, ocean, sea, wellsprings, wells, etc. (see here for an example). See Shulacha Aruch E"H 158. Haghos Ashri (Gittin 4:7) says we write the river just as a siman (perhaps if there are multiple cities with the same name. For example, in The Aryeh Kaplan Reader, there is an article about how to spell Monsey in Hebrew in a Get. He mentions that there are 3 cities in the US with that name, (one is spelled Muncie in English). The significance of that is in the determination of the proper pronunciation of Monsey (e.g., not Moonsey). Then they (meaning Rav Moshe Feinstein) had to determine if Lake Suzanne was a nahar or not. [I think Lake Suzanne has since dried up, but that's a different issue.] So we would know that a Get from "Monsey on Nahar Lake Suzanne" was not the Muncie in Indiana.)

Meshech Chochma proves from our Parsha that Maayan and Be'er are used interchangeably in the Torah and Gemara. Because one Pasuk says Rivka came to the Maayan and in another Pasuk it says she ran back to the be'er.

--Meshech Chochma, Breishis 24:16

9th Yahrzeit of Harav Ahron Halevi Soloveichik zt"l

Sheidim

Gittin 68 says that Shlomo Hamelech was cast away by Ashmedai, the king of sheidim (demons). So I want to bring some opinions about what sheidim are.

Ramban to Vayikra 17:7 (tha pasuk says "do not sacrifice to seirim, which Onkelos translates as sheidim) says that people are made up of all four elements - fire, water, earth and air, but sheidim consist of only fire and air, and therefore cannot be perceived by the senses. They can fly because they consist of only light elements. They know what will happen because they hear things when they fly (near the heavens).

Rav Ahron zt"l said that sheidim are germs, a disruptive force that cannot be seen. When the Gemara (Gittin 66a) says sheidim have shadows it means hallucinations can be lifelike (sheidim are also psychological).

Eating on Erev Yom Kippur, Part 2

See Rav Zevin's Moadim B'Halacha for Yom Kippur "Tzom He'asor." The achronim he cites all seem to focus on the last of the reasons offered by Rabbeinu Yonah in Shaarei Teshuva.

What are some nafka minas between the different answers of R"Y? One would be if you're not fasting (As R' Zevin mentions). To the third reason, there is no reason to eat a special meal. To the second reason, if someone is not fasting, perhaps they should eat a yom tov meal on Yom Kippur itself. To the first reason, they should perhaps eat on Erev Yom Kippur, since that is when everyone also is celebrating the kaparah.

As a note to the very last point, Rav Yoshe Ber zt"l said Sukkos is Zman Simchaseinu - the simcha is that of receiving the Kapparah on Yom Kippur, and we just wait a few days to celebrate.

Another Nafka mina would be should you eat the night before Erev Sukkos. The mashmaus of Rashi (Kesuvos 5a s.v. shechal lihyos) is that you do eat the night before Erev Yom Kippur, but no one has such a custom. To the first and third reasons, there is little rationale for eating on the night before Erev Yom Kippur. To the second reason, if we keep Erev Yom Kippur special because we can't eat on Yom Kippur itself, maybe there is some rationale to eat on Erev Yom Kippur eve.

On this second reason of R"Y, my Rebbi Rav Ahron zt"l explained that Yom Kippur should be a Yom Tov like Shavuos because Moshe returned with the second Luchos on Yom Kippur. So really Yom Kippur is a joyous celebration of receiving the Torah and that is why we have a seudah on Erev Yom Kippur.

Then there is a possibility that Erev Yom Kippur has some of the sanctity of Yom Kippur itself. One source is the din of tosefes Yom Kippur. The Gemara discusses this (Yoma 81b). "Bitisha lachodesh ba'erev, mi'erev ad erev..." The inui of Yom Kippur starts on the ninth of Tishrei. Rambam, however, only mentions tosefes for Yom Kippur (Shevisas Asor 1:6) and not for Shabbos or Yom Tov. We see, therefore, that Erev Yom Kippur already has some element of Yom Kippur. (And see Harirei Kedem I 47, you can interpret it like I am saying or you can interpret it differently.) Another possibility for this is in the Rambam, Hilchos Teshuva 2:7 regarding saying viduy before the seudas hamafsekes. Rav Yoshe Ber said (see Machzor Mesoras Harav, p. xix) that "Erev Yom Kippur is appended to Yom Kippur in respect to the kedushas hayom." We could suggest, though it is not totally compelling, that if the ninth is special, its uniqueness begins the night before - that is, the night before the ninth of Tishrei.

According to this, let me depart for a moment from my normal rigid seriousness. The mekubalim say Yom Hakippurim means "the day which is like Purim." Now Yom Kippur is from Har Sinai and Purim was not until after chrurban bayis rishon? Using the previous idea - that Yom Kippur is really 2 days (or 1+ days), we can compare it to Purim. See Rambam Taanios 5:5 that 13 Adar, commonly known as Taanis Esther, is midivrei Kabbalah, because it is from the pasuk in the megillah "divrei hatzomos vezaakasam." (Note: this Halacha in the Rambam needs a lot of explanation. The simple reading says that we fast the 4 fasts as minhag, but Taanis Esther is midivrei Kabbalah. See Magid Mishna, that Taanis Esther is not mentioned in the Gemara. But the 4 fasts are, so it seems that the fast mentioned in the Gemara would have a higher status? One answer is that Taanis Esther is midivrei Kabalah. And if you want to suggest the 4 fasts are also divrei kabbalah because of the passuk in Zecharya tzom harevii vetzom hachamishi - please comment, because I don't think that is a compelling question. A simple but elegant explanation is that of Rav Zelmeleh, the brother of Rav Chaim Volozhiner, that remove the vav from "u'v'yud-gimmel baAdar." Thus this entire Halacha is only discussing Taanis Esther and none of the 4 fasts.) Now, my brother told me that our Rebbi Rav Moshe shlit"a and his brother Rav Yosef shlit"a gave the same shiur with opposite conclusions. In 2 sentences, why is Taanis Esther called Yemai Hatzomos - that would include Purim as a tzom? They both answered that Purim and Taanis Esther are one combined holiday. However, Rav Moshe said that Taanis Esther is a happy fast, and Rav Yosef answered that Purim is a sad holiday. regardless of that dispute, having a holiday where one day you fast and one day you eat, would be like Purim, and thus Yom Kippurim - that we eat on the ninth and fast on the tenth - is like Purim, where we fast on the 13th and eat on the 14th.

Eating on Erev Yom Kippur

Rabbeinu Yonah, Shaarei Teshuva 4:8
The Gemara (Rosh Hashana 9a) says whoever has a set meal on Erev Yom Kippur is as if he was commanded to fast on the ninth and tenth [of Tishrei] and he did, because he shows his excitement at the arrival of the day of his atonement, and it testifies his worry for his guilt and his sorrow for his sins.

[9] The second reasonis on holidays we have a meal for the happiness of the mitzvah...but because we must fast on Yom Kippur, we are obligated to have the meal on Erev Yom Kippur.

[10] And the third reason is to strengthen ourselves to be able to say the many prayers and supplications on Yom Kippur and to be able to make personal resolutions about Teshuva.

Added Aliyas on Haazinu

I was asked the following Shaila: This Shabbos we lain Haazinu. We are not allowed to make the aliyos during the shira in places other than where the aliyas are. Can we add aliyas during shevii?

Everything very quickly: the prohibition to make extra aliyos in Haazinu is in Rosh Hashana 31a. Shulchan Aruch paskens it in 428:5. From Rambam's lashon (Tefila 13:5) it sounds like you can't add in the shira, but in shevii you may add. Mishna Brurah brings Eliyahu Rabbah and Pri Megadim that you may add an aliya in shevii. Aruch Hashulchan (428:5) says you may not add aliyas in Haazinu at all.

Rav Tzvi Hirsch Grodzinsky says not to add an aliya, because you would make it at the place we read maftir, and then you will read the same aliya two aliyos in a row (as acharon and maftir). But he mentions that Shaar Efrayim says you may add an aliya there in Haazinu.

It seems that we may add an aliya in shevi'i of Haazinu.

Intermarriage Article

An interesting article about the prohibition of Intermarriage in The Jerusalem Post.

To everyone, have a Happy and Healthy New Year.

Chodosh Guide #1

Yashar Koach as always to R' Yoseph Herman.

Chodosh Guide #1 August 2010

13 Elul

Today was the 7th yahrzeit of Rabbi Dr. David Appelbaum and his daughter Nava. They were killed in a terrorist bombing in Jerusalem the night before Nava's wedding. Reb David was a highly accomplished individual. I am not qualified to address the greatness of Reb David, but besides for being a physician who revolutionized emergency medicine in Israel and a talmid chacham (see the obituary in The Lancet), he had many - like dozens and dozens - other talents and skills. One of them was coming once a week, every week, to learn with his sons in yeshiva.

This week's parsha, Ki Tavo, begins with laws about Bikkurim. In Makos (18b) there is a machlokes tanaim if the main part of bikkurim is placing them in front of the mizbe'ach, or is the main part when the kohen takes the hand of the bringer and they wave the basket together.

Sometimes in life we have to do things ourselves. Just putting the basket down fulfills the mitzvah. But sometimes we cannot do things alone. Sometimes we must be a member of a group to accomplish things, like the waving which could only be while the bringer and the kohen hold the basket.

In life, Dr. Applebaum inspired thousands of people by the way he cared for and about people. His murder incited outrage.

Seven years later, the pain has not diminished. There are many projects that are left unfinished because Reb David is no longer with us. What remains with me is that there is no limit to what man can accomplish. Reb Dovid accomplished so much in his short life, but doubtless would have accomplished mush more had he not been stolen from us so soon. The terrorist murderer destroyed so much - a young couple's journey of life together, as well as the many projects that Reb David had in progress (some of which were completed), but others are still in progress, and some are, unfortunately, lost. But the perseverance of Reb David, and his knowledge of when to act alone, when to act as part of a group, when to assemble a team, and when to let someone else take the lead (at Reb David's insistence) was a rare talent indeed.

ה' יקום דמם

Rambam about Lo Yihye Kadesh (Parshas Ki Seitzei)

יח לֹא-תִהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה מִבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. (Devarim 23)

Onkelos says A Jewish woman may not marry an eved, and a Jewish man may not marry a shifcha. Rashi, however, says a woman must not be available for illicit activities, and a man may not be available for mishkav zachor. Rambam, Ishus 1:4 says from this passuk we see kedeisha became forbidden after matan Torah. (see Pilegesh posts here; scroll down). Chinuch 570 says this pasuk is a mitzvah that you may not live with a woman without chuppa and kiddushin.

But what I want to discuss here is the Rambam, Issurei Biah 12:11-14

הלכה יא -העבדים שהטבילו אותם לשם עבדות וקבלו עליהם מצות שהעבדים חייבים בהם יצאו מכלל העכו"ם ולכלל ישראל לא באו לפיכך השפחה אסורה לבן חורין אחד שפחתו ואחד שפחת חבירו והבא על השפחה מכין אותו מכת מרדות מדברי סופרים שהרי מפורש בתורה שהאדון נותן שפחה כנענית לעבדו העברי והיא מותרת לו שנאמר אם אדוניו יתן לו אשה.
הלכה יב -ולא גזרו חכמים בדבר זה ולא חייבה תורה מלקות בשפחה אא"כ היתה נחרפת לאיש כמו שביארנו.
הלכה יג -אל יהי עון זה קל בעיניך מפני שאין בו מלקות מן התורה שגם זה גורם לבן לסור מאחרי י"י שהבן מן השפחה הוא עבד ואינו מישראל ונמצא גורם לזרע הקדש להתחלל ולהיותם עבדים הרי אונקלוס המתרגם כלל בעילת עבד ושפחה בכלל לא יהיה קדש ולא תהיה קדשה
הלכה יד -הבא על שפחה ואפילו בפרהסיא ובשעת עבירה אין הקנאין פוגעין בו וכן אם לקח שפחה דרך חתנות אינו לוקה מן התורה שמעת שטבלה וקבלה מצות יצתה מכלל העכו"ם.

Avnei Milu'im 16:5 says that that from these Halachos we see Rambam holds it is only asur to marry a shifcha midirabanan, because he does not agree with Onkelos as to the pshat in this passuk.

However, my Rebbi zt"l said that his father Hagaon Rav Moshe zt"l did not agree with the Avnei Miluim, because the Rambam cites Onkelos in Halacha 13! If so, why is there no malkos? Because there is a principle that you only get malkos for the main issur of the passuk. If there is an additional law extended fro mthe main law, there is no malkus. For example, there is an isur to destroy a fruit tree, punishable by makos. But that lav extends and tell us we may not destroy any usable object. However, for the extended lav, there is no malkos. So too, explained Rav Moshe zt"l, is this Halcha about shifcha here. Rambam holds the main lav of the pasuk is about not being allowed to cohabit outside of marriage. But he agrees that Onkelos' explanation is an extension of this lav. So marrying a shifcha is asur midioraissa according to the Rambam, but there is no malkos because it is not the main issur of this passuk.

Tax Rates and Halacha

In last week's Parsha, the Torah lists a command for the king: he may not amass large quantities of gold and silver (see 17:17). Why not?

Rabbeinu Bechaye explains the ibn Eza that the reason for this prohibition is so the king does not excessively tax the people.

So, Torah says High taxes = Bad!
What exactly is considered high? Not sure.

Seudos Mitzvah and Bas Mitzvah

There is a very famous Yam Shel Shlomo Bava Kama, Perek 7 siman 37, and also after the end of Chapter 7 there is a paragraph, (it begins "garsinan") about siyum being a seudas mitzvah. He makes a new principle, that a feast for completing or publicizing a mitzvah is a seudas mitzvah, as we see from the end of Taanis about Tu B'av. He discusses Bar Mitzvahs, Chanukah, a new house and more; see there if each of these things are seudas mitzvah or not. He says a siyum is definitely a seudas mitzvah, and we see from Shabbos 118b-119a that Abaye would make a yom tov for all the students when a young talmid chacham finished a masechta, yom tov meaning a seuda, that there is an inyan to make a seuda for a siyum. Magen Avraham, O"C 591:33 (commenting on Rama there) cites this.

It is a little surprising that he does not mention an early source - a Midrash - for making a seudah on finishing learning Torah. In Melachim I 3:5-15 Hashem offered Shlomo, in a dream, a choice and Shlomo chose to understand everything, and he did not choose wealth or power over enemies. After he woke up and had so much understanding, he made a big feast. Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1:9 says: R. Elazar said from here we learn to make a seudah on the completion of the Torah.

A few days before we graduated high school, Rav Ahron Solovechik zt"l told us that Chosson Breishis is more important than Chosson Torah. Finishing isn't what's important. The more important thing is to start learning the completed books again, in greater depth, with deeper understanding. (See Reshimos Shiurim of the Rav on Sukkah at the very end, beinyan siyum, similar thoughts are presented there in Rav Ahron's name).

While we're on the topic of this Yam Shel Shlomo, he very strongly supports the minhag of making a seuda for a Bar Mitzvah. He feels "ein mitzvah gedola mizu." However, Igros Moshe O"C I 104 (from the year 1957) says if it were up to him, he would not have anyone make a bar mitzvah the way they make them in the US.

Some points about Bas mitzvah-
Rav Ahron Soloveichik in Perach Mateh Ahron Tefila 7:6 discusses making "barush sheptarani" on one's daughter's bas mitzvah. Basically, he says according to the Levush you would, and according to Magen Avraham peopel claim you would not, but he rejects that and says even to M"A you would.

Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l was very much against Bas mitzvah seudas (and above we said he wasn't thrilled with Bar Miztvahs either). See Igros Moshe O"C I 104, O"C II 30 & 97 (cites Magen Avraham O"C 225:4 & Dagul Mervavah Y"D 391:2). He syas Bas Mitzvah is no different than a birthday party. It's not a seudas mitzvah, it can't be in a shul, and a reason why Bas Mitzvah is different tyhan Bar Mitzvah is that when a boy turns 13 we see something has changed - before we can't count him in a minyan but now we can. But for a girl there is no recognizable change before 12 and afetr 12, so there is no inyan to have a seuda.

Rav Ovadia Yosef's Recent Psak Allowing Pregnant Woman to Marry

See ynet for the story. What are the issues involved?

The Gemara in Yevamos 42 a-b says that the sages decreed that a pregnant woman or a nursing mother can't marry because if she's nursing and gets pregnant again, she will not be able to produce milk to feed the older baby, and if she's pregnant she can't marry because her new husband may injure the fetus during marital relations, and the father of the fetus has an interest in the fetus. (I'm skipping a few details because it's not our issue.)

Rambam paskens in Geirushin 11:25:

כד המארס בתוך תשעים יום, מנדין אותו; אירס וברח, אין מנדין אותו. כנס בתוך תשעים יום, מפרישין אותן עד אחר הזמן; ויעמוד עם אשתו.

כה וכן גזרו חכמים שלא יישא אדם מעוברת חברו, ומניקת חברו, ואף על פי שהזרע ידוע למי הוא: מעוברת--שמא יזיק הוולד בשעת תשמיש, שאינו מקפיד על בן חברו; ומניקה--שמא יתעכר החלב, והוא אינו מקפיד לרפאות החלב בדברים המועילין לחלב כשיתעכר.

כו כמה הוא זמן היניקה--ארבעה ועשרים חודש, חוץ מיום שנולד בו ומיום שתתארס בו. [כז] כשם שאסור לישא, כך אסור לארס עד אחר זמן זה; ואפילו נתנה בנה למניקה, או שגמלתהו בתוך ארבעה ועשרים חודש--לא תינשא; מת בנה--מותרת לינשא, ואין חוששין שמא תהרגנו.

כז [כח] עבר ונשא מעוברת, או מניקה בתוך זמן זה--יוציא בגט, ואפילו היה כוהן; ואם היה ישראל, יחזירה אחר עשרים וארבעה חודש של מניקה. נשאה וברח, ולאחר זמן בא--יישב עם אשתו, ואין בכך כלום. אירס מעוברת או מניקה, אין כופין אותו להוציא; ולא יכנוס עד אחר זמן היניקה, או עד שימות הוולד.

So: a woman always needs 3 months, actually 94 days, between being divorced or widowed and getting remarried. If she became pregnant from the first (or earlier) husband, her pregnancy will be noticed by 3 months, and that husband is the child's father, and if she is not pregnant by then, if she has a baby, even if it is born early, at 6 or 7 months, we will know it is from the second (or later) husband, since she was not pregnant at the time of the wedding.

If, upon divorce or after her husband's death, she is pregnant, or if she is nursing (until the baby is 24 months old), she cannot remarry. This is a Rabbinic decree. (I know that the Rabbanut in Israel, if they issue a get and the couple has a child under age 2, they document that the woman cannot remarry until that child reaches age 2.)

Shulchan Aruch also paskens this in E"H 13:11.

In this situation, where the woman is pregnant, if the woman becomes pregnant again after giving birth to the child she is currently carrying, she will not be able to produce milk to nurse the baby. For this issue, Rav Ovadia Yosef said they can feed baby formula to the baby. (While this option was not available in the time of the Gemara, there is a discussion about hiring wetnurses.)

This solves the meinekes issue. But how does it help the other issue in this case how can they get married because she is pregnant, and therefore they can't have relations lest the baby be harmed? The Pischei Teshuva there says: if a woman conceived artificially (b'ambatya), see Birkei Yosef. He does not say what Birkei Yosef says.

But we see a point: where the woman underwent IVF with semen from a sperm bank, and not from a husband, there is a biological father, but in the legal framework, it is almost as if there is no father. In that case, does the Rabbinic decree still apply?

Even though I don't know what the Birkei Yosef says, the Otzar Haposkim (os 71b) mentions other shitos who do weigh in on this matter:
Toras Chesed (by R'S"Z MiLublin) 13 says as a simple matter that she may marry because the Sages did not make their decree in an unusual case like this [meaning insemination without bi'ah]. However, Kerem Shlomo E"H (to R"Sh. Ha'elm) says that when the Sages made the decree, they made a blanket decree and it applies even in an unusual situation.

So the easiest way to understand Rav Ovadia Yosef's psak - I have not seen a teshuva, so I am only speculating on his reasoning - is like the Toras Chesed, that the Sages did not make their decree in an unusual situation like this.

Another explanation, though much more far-fetched, is along the same lines: we can say that the decree wasn't a blanket decree, it only applied when the rationale for such a decree applies: not harm the unborn child of Mr. Ex-Husband. But here, there was no husband and there was no bi'ah, the Tzitz Eliezer has a possibility that for such a child there is no halachik father. It is very difficult, and I have no reason to suspect Rav Ovadia Yosef would accept this even for a ruling like this, but if there is no father, there is no reason to make the decree in this situation.

Rashi & Yerushalmi

Some wonder why Rashi only rarely quotes the Yerushalmi while Tosfos frequently quotes it. This morning I found an intriguing answer offered in the name of Rav Chaim Volozhiner.

Kerem Yehoshua By Rabbi Yehoshua Cohen, Chapter 10

(excerpted)
For all disagreements between Rashi and Tosfos, we will find that the simple explanation of the Gemara at hand is according to Rashi and not Tosfos...Tosfos usually attacks Rashi by showing his interpretation contradicts some Gemara or passage...so Tosfos offers a different explanation of the Gemara, which does not fit so well with the plain meaning of the text....

Did Rashi fail to see those difficulties which were raised by Rabbeinu Tam, Rabbeinu Yitzchak and others based on other Gemaras or logic?...The Gaon Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin showed that...there is only one dispute - a dispute about convention, tradition and method - from which stem the vast majority of disagreements.

We see many places where the Gemara shows two parts of a single Mishna or braisa seem to contradict each other....If no simple explanation exists, there are two ways to resolve the problem - although neither one is completely satisfactory. One way is to conclude that the mishna or braisa contains the conflicting opinions of two different tanaim...tavra...or the beginning is the opinion of Rabi Yishmael and the end is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva....The other way is to conclude that both parts of the mishna do indeed reflect the opinion of a single Tanna, but each part refers to a different case (see BM 41a, Sanhedrin 62b, Kiddushin 63b, Shabbos 86a).

A careful examination shows Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbah almost always resolve the problem by saying "it is split - whoever taught this did not teach that." On the other hand Rava always takes the other approach, attributing the mishna to a single author, but concluding that it deals with two different topics.

(Similarly...Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak takes a third approach called litzdadim ketani...but we will not elaborate).

Why did Rava not use the other approach and why didn't Rabbi Zeira et. al. use Rava's approach?

The Gaon Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin explained that what divides the two groups is the tradition which they received from their teachers. Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbah had a tradition that Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi wrote the mishnayos in clear, simple language, to be understood by everyone, not only his greatest disciples. This also applies to braisos....Thus they could not accept Rava's explanation that the beginning and end of a mishna are speaking of two separate topics. If it were so, then according to their tradition, Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi would have said so explicitly. If he did not say so, it must be that there is no change of subject. Thus Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbah have no choice but to say Tavra....

Rava sees things differently, for he had a different tradition....Occasionally he would write a complex mishna...to sharpen the minds of his students....He assumed his students' hard work would yield them the correct understanding of the mishna and bring them to the conclusion that the end of the mishna dealt with a different subject....Rava maintains Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi did this on purpose....

In light of all this, the gaon Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin elegantly explains the disagreements between Rashi and Tosfos. Just as Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbah disagreed with Rav over how Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi wrote the Mishna, so Rashi and Tosfos disagreed how Rav Ashi and Ravina transmitted the Gemara.

According to the tradition Rashi received from his teachers, when Rav Ashi and Ravina compiled the Talmud they wrote in such a way than anyone could understand their words, with no need to employ hair-splitting logic or search for some restricted case (okimta) to which the Gemara might apply. Now, when Rashi encountered a difficult passage, he could explain the Gemara according to its simple meaning, even though that meaning might contradict some other Gemara or might involve certain logical problems, or he could depart from the simple meaning of the Gemara and assume the Gemara referred to some special, restricted case. Faced with such a choice, and based on the tradition he recieved form his teachers, Rashi could not by any means adopt the second alternative. He was forced to adopt the first one, and interpret the meaning according to its simple meaning.

However, Rabbeinu Tam, Rabbeinu Yitzchak and the other Tosafists had a different tradition. They were taught that occasionally Rav Ashi and Ravina would teach a law without mentioning that it applied only to a certain restricted case. They did this in order to sharpen their students and force them to work harder....After much hard work and deep thoughts, the students on their own accord would come to the proper conclusion: the Talmud is not to be understood according to its simple meaning and applied to all cases, but refers only to one particular and unstated case....

(form here to end is verbatim)
I would like to take this insight one step further and apply it to a fact noted above. In the more than 500 disagreements between Rashi and Tosfos which are connected to the Jerusalem Talmud, we see that Rashi never adopts the viewpoint of the Jerusalem Talmud, while Tosfos always does. This cannot be merely because Rashi lacked certain parts of the Yerushalmi while the Tosafists, who lived 100 years later, had these parts. Rather, in my humble opinion, when we clsoely examine these disagreements between Rashi and Tosfos, we will find that in the cases where Rashi interprets contrary to the Jerusalem Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud cannot be easily reconciled with with the wording of the Babylonian Talmud. Thus Rashi simply remained true to his tradition that Ravina and Rav Ashi, the compilers of the Babylonian Talmud, always wrote in such a way that anyone could understand their words. Based on this tradition, he maintained that if the Babylonian Talmud had agreed with the Jerusalem Talmud, Rav Ashi and Ravina would have written their text to express this agreement more clearly. They would have stated the law in phraseology parallel to that of the Jerusalem Talmud; or they would have restricted the law to the same specific case to which the Jerusalem Talmud restricted it. If they did not do so, this shows (according to Rashi) that they disagreed with the Jerusalem Talmud.

The Tosafists' opinion, however, maintained that not evey law in the Babylonian Talmud is stated in the clearest possible way. Rather, Rav Ashi and Ravina, in order to sharpen their students, would occasionally teach a law without mentioning that it applied only to a certain restricted case. Wherever there is an apparent disagreement between the Babylonian Talmud and Jerusalem Talmud - for example, where the Babylonian Talmud presents a law as being broadly applicable, while the Jerusalem Talmud presents it as applying to one restircted case - Tosfos reasons as follows: why should we assume the Babylonian Talmud disagrees with the Jerusalem Talmud? Let us assume instead that the Babylonian Talmud agrees that the law applies only to one restricted case, but this is one of those places where Rav Ashi and Ravina deliberately did not mention it. Although this involves interpreting the Babylonian Talmud in a way that does not fit the plain meaning of the words, Tosfos does not see this as far-fetched. Tosfos maintains that such occasional discrepancies were intentional. According to Tosfos, it is better to interpret the Babylonian Talmud in this way than to assume a disagreement between it and the Jerusalem Talmud.

Tanchuma Bamidmar 4 & Shavuos

There is a beautiful Tanchuma this week (maybe more, but I saw this one). Comments as we go along:
סימן ד
וידבר ה' אל משה במדבר סיני. זה שאמר הכתוב, שררך אגן הסהר, אל יחסר המזג, בטנך ערמת חטים, סוגה בשושנים (שה"ש ז ג). מדבר בסנהדרין של ישראל, שהיתה נתונה בלשכת הגזית, והיא משולה בשרר הזה. ולמה נמשלה בשרר. מה השרר הזה נתון באמצע הגוף, כך הסנהדרין יושבין באמצעית של בית המקדש. אל יחסר המזג, שלא היו חסרין אחד משלישתן. אל יחסר המזג. מי שהוא מוזג כראוי, מוזג שלישי של כוס יין ושני חלקים מים. כך היו סנהדרין יושבין מתמיד של שחר עד תמיד של בין הערבים. ולא היה אחד מהן נפנה לצרכו. ומה היו עושין כשהיה אחד מהם מבקש לצאת היה סופר, אם היה שם עשרים ושלשה, היה יוצא. ואם לאו, אינו יוצא. למה. שכך כתיב, אל יחסר המזג.
Parts are very similar to Sanhedrin 37a and some aren't.
The belly is the center of a person - see Sotah 9:4 - this is like R' Eliezer.
1/3 & 2/3 seems to be that they sit between tamid shel shachar & tamid shel bein ha'arbaim, which is 1/3 of the day, about 8 hours. See Pesachim 5:1 & Yoma Ch 3; Rambam Temidin Umusafim 1:2-3. Just like you would fill the cup with 1/3 wine and 2/3 water, 1/3 of the day was "filled" with the very fine, valuable Sanhedrin (derech agav compared to wine) and 2/3 was not. Additionally, we could have explained al yechsar hamazeg referring to the fact that 1/3 of the Sanhedrin must always be there - not all 70 members must sit at all times, but at least 23, a third of 70, must remain there during the day.

בטנך ערמת חטים. למה נמשלו לחטים. מה ערמת חטים זו נכנסה לאוצר במנין ויוצא' במנין, אף כאן אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא, שיהיו נמנין בכל שעה. לכך נאמר, בטנך ערמת חטים.
At this point the Midrash seems to still be talking about the Sanhedrin - because no one can leave without counting and checking that a quorum of 23 dayanim remain, they are considered always being counted. However, from the continuation of the midrash this seems to be discussing Bnei Yisrael (they were counted in this week's Parsha). Why does it jump from Sanhedrin to Bnei Yisrael? Maybe like Rav Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik's yesod that Sanhedrin is a judicial body, but they are also representatives of Bnei Yisrael. So what is true of the Sanhedrin is true to an extent, in regard to Bnei Yisrael.

And regarding comparing counting Bnei Yisrael to the wheat which is counted by number to & from the storehouse - a friend (M. Kanter) once told me a vort on this week's parsha, comparing counting Bnei Yisrael to what is considered in Y"D 98 "davar shebiminyan" - something always counted (I think they give eggs as an example - maybe because they are sold "by dozen" - a number, not a weight) each and every Jew is important, and none are batel.

אבל התבן והקש אינן נמנין ולא נמדדין. כך אומות העולם נמשלין כתבן וכקש, שנאמר, יהיו כמוץ לפני רוח (תהל' לה ה). וכן הוא אומר, ובית עשו לקש (עובדי' א יח). למה. שאין לו להקדוש ברוך הוא מהן הנאה, שנאמר, כל הגוים כאין נגדו, מאפס ותוהו נחשבו לו (ישע' מ יז). אבל ישראל להקדוש ברוך הוא, הנאה לו בהן, קורין קריאת שמע ומתפללין, ומברכין שמו בכל יום ובכל שעה על כל דבר ודבר, לפיכך הם נמנין בכל שעה. ולכך נמשלו בחטים, בטנך ערמת חטים:

What is the Hana'ah?
Kriyas Shma is simple - Yichud Hashem; we acknowledge Hashem as the One, Supreme G-d.
Davening - even though the chiyuv to daven 3 times a day is midirabanan, when we do daven and say Borchu and Kiddusha, we have a kiyum of "Venikdashti besoch bnei Yisrael."
But we can't say that for every Bracha we make. But there are at least 2 answers to explain the Hanaah Hashem gets when we say Brachos. There are two opinions of what is a Bracha - what do we mean "Baruch Atah Hashem..."? One explanation is that we acknowledge that Hashem is the source of Bracha. So Hashem gets hanaah when we make a Bracha. But the other opinion of Bracha is somewhat Kabbalistic, that when we make a Bracha, we give Hashem more power, because our deeds affect the upper worlds (see Nefesh Hachaim). Then, too, whenever we make a bracha, we are giving Hashem hanaah.

Boaz was a member of Sanhedrin. (Even out of session, members of Sanhedrin had a special status - see Chidushei HaGram, Hil. Kiddush Hachodesh.) While he did not make his drasha of Moavi v'lo Moaviah in the Sanhedrin, the Brisker Rav says he took 10 people - a minyan, to make the drasha birabim. Tosfos somewhere explains when the Gemara says "pasach rabi ___ v'darash" that he opened a sefer Torah, started reading, and then made drashos. Maybe Boaz did that also, and maybe you would have a kiyum of kriyas Hatorah bitzibur when you would do this, so it requires a minyan, and also you would have a kiyum of Venikdashti besoch bnei Yisrael.

Furthermore, Rus was in Boaz's field to get matanos aniim, which you had to COUNT to see if 2 sheaves fell (& it is mutar for the ani to take, because it is shichicha), or if 3 sheaves fell.

Happy Yom Yerushalayim

Yes, that is snow in Meah She'arim, very close to the pre-1967 border...


...and this is what we fought for.

To connect this to Asarah Yuchsin, Rav Chaim Zimmerman zt"l did not visit the Kotel because he felt that, as a Levi, he would have to remain there to do shmiras hamikdash (I guess so tamei people don't go up there). I don't know if there is a discussion about "Levi Meyuchas" or "Leviim Bizman Hazeh."