1- The Gemara introduces the discussion about the definition of a ‘bunch’. אגד.
The Torah requires in three instances to take אזוב אגודת – hyssop, in a ‘bunch’.
Hyssop
[We mentioned in the past that the Bartenura identifies this אזוב as the za’atar plant].
Za’atar
In מצרים when applying the פסח blood on the doorpost, when purifying a טמא מת with the אפר הפרה and the purification of the מצורע.
What is the meaning of אגודה? One אזוב stem is obviously not a ‘bunch’. Is it two or three?
2- We discussed the topic of גרדומי – Gardumi – Stubs.
Briefly – when the Torah instructs one to perform a Mitzvah, say מקווה, one needs to fill a מקוה with 40 סאה.
Now this מקוה needs to always be a full 40 סאה. If it drops to 39 it’s not a valid מקוה.
Another example – לולב. It needs to be a minimum of 4 טפחים. So if one starts with 4 and shakes it violently and it shrinks to 3, it is obviously פסול.
This is very logical and applies to all מצוות that require a שיעור.
However, we find that two מצוות that require one to start with a particular שיעור, but interestingly enough, if this שיעור becomes smaller, less that what is originally required, it is still Kosher!
These two Mitzvos are אזוב and ציצית. With ציצית one must start with about 9.9 inches in length. But if they tear and become shorter it is still Kosher.
Ditto for the bunch of אזוב. Even is there is just a bit left, enough to be able to dip it into the מים של אפר החטאת , it is Kosher.
The children of Rav Chiya said: Stubs (remnants) of Tzitzis and the Eizov are Kosher.
3- What is perplexing is that no reason is offered in the Gemara and not in the ראשונים, as to why these two מצוות are the exception to the rule. Amazing indeed.
The Chasam Sofer was asked by Reb Shlomo Kluger of Brodi for an explanation. (The topic discussed there is a Sefer Torah that aged and its letters turned from black to brown/red).
He begins to explain but finishes off saying ”and whoever, whose intelligence is greater than ours, will offer a logical explanation, we will graciously accept it” !!!
Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk
4- We spoke about the explanation of the אור שמח, by Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk. See here. – אור שמח הל’ לולב פ’ ז’ הל’ ח
It’s a very deep and subtle idea. See below in different words.
Reb Chaim Oizer Grodzinski
In the Yeshiva world there is a story about the above אור שמח. When the Rov of Vilna, Reb Chaim Oizer Grodzinski, would test Yeshiva Bochurim he would ask them to explain to him, in their own words, the meaning of this particular אור שמח!
Reb Pinchos Hirshprung
5- Mentioning Reb Chaim Oizer, we spoke about Reb Pinchos Hirshprung of Montreal.
His photographic memory. His life.
His relationship with the Rebbe.
The publishing house that planned to print his biography. When his family agreed but with the condition that the above relationship be mentioned, they refused. The family printed it on their own.
His genuine memoirs he wrote right after the war. The unadulterated english translation.
His encounter with Reb Chaim Oizer during the war. His dilemma of whether to enter Russia to get to Japan.
Reb Chaim Oizer’s advice. The Chassidisher Bochur who went to hear Reb Chaim Ozer’s advice while planning to do just the opposite……
Who was right at the end?
See below a clear explanation on the Chasam Sofer, and Or Sameach mentioned above, from the Tolna Rebbe, R Yitzchok Menachem Weinberg:
תירוץ עמוק על הקושיא העצומה של רבי שלמה קלוגר מופיע בספר “אור שמח” על הרמב”ם לגאון המפורסם רבי מאיר שמחה אב”ד דווינסק. האור שמח נמצא בהל’ לולב בפ’ ז’ הל’ ח’ היסוד של גרדומים נובע מכך שיש בקיום המצוה משך זמן, אזוב שכבר טיהר אדם אחד יכול לטהר גם את האחר, משום שכבר חל עליו שם של גרדום, כך גם לגבי ציצית, ואין להתפלא על כך שאדם מסוים נטהר באזוב קטן, ואילו זה שקדם לו היה עליו להיטהר באזוב גדול, אנו מוצאים הבדל בין שני האנשים. אדם זה שנטהר באזוב גדול, נטהר בבוקר, ואילו זה שנטהר באזוב הקטן נטהר אחריו מובן מדוע מספיק לטהרתו גם אזוב קצר, כך גם לגבי ציצית, הבגד שבתחילת ברייתו נקשר עם חוטי ציצית ארוכים יכול מעתה להיפטר גם עם חוטים קטנים, ואין לתמוה ע”כ כיצד יתכן שבגד שחייב בציצית יפטר בחוטים קטנים, משום שבגד זה עצמו כבר נפטר באותם חוטים, וכיון שכך אנו מבינים את ההבדל בין הבגד שהיה עליו להיפטר עם חטים גדולים לבין הבגד שנפטר עכשיו עם חוטים קטנים.
אבל לגבי לולב ושופר אין הבדל בין לולב בבוקר לבין לולב אחר הצהרים, ואין שום חלות דין המבדילה בין אדם שנטל לולב בשחרית בבוקר, לבין למי שנטל אחה”צ, שניהם יצאו את אותה מצות לולב, כך שאם נאמר שאדם שנטל לולב בבוקר ואח”כ נפחת הלולב יוכל אחריו אדם אחר לצאת בלולב קטן, יהיה בזה דבר תימה, כיצד יתכן ששיעור הלולב משתנה לפי הלוקחים, לזה צריך דווקא לולב גדול שלשה טפחים, ואילו לשני מספיק לולב קטן, והרי השני שנטל את הלולב אין בנטילתו המשך לנטילת הראשון, הוא כאילו נוטל לבדו, שהרי אין הבדל בין הנוטל בבוקר לבין הנוטל אחה”צ, שניהם התחייבו בבת אחת וכל אחד מהם יוצא ידי חיובו בשעת נטילה, מה הקשר בין זה שנטל את הלולב בבוקר, לזה שנטל אחה”צ, כדי שיפטר זה שנוטל אחה”צ בלולב שונה מזה שנפטר בבוקר, כך גם לגבי שופר, ולכן אין לדמות גרדומי אזוב ותכלת לגרדומי לולב ושופר.
1 – Our Gemore discusses types of סכך that have a foul odor. One is prohibited from using it, least one will not be comfortable and simply walk out of the Sukkah!
We discussed if this rule applies to the walls as well.
2 – The next topic was using סכך that dries out and falls into the סוכה. As above, one may not use it. That is לכתחילה. However בדיעבד, it is fine.
We discussed what בדיעבד means. If one ate in such a Sukkah he is יוצא or if one built such a Sukkah he may use it.
כא יש דברים שאסרו חכמים לסכך בהן קמז לכתחלה קמח והם מיני עשבים שריחם רעקמט אע”פ שאינן ראויין לאכילה ואין מקבלין טומאה קנ וכן מיני סנה שעליהן נושריןקנא תמיד אע”פ שלא בשעת הרוח קנב לפי שאנו חוששין שמא מתוך שריחן רע או מתוך שעליהן נושרין יצא מן הסוכה קנג ואם עבר וסיכך בהן כשרה קנד ומותר לישב בה לכתחלה קנה:
3 – Our Gemara diverges and discusses an interesting topic regarding linguistics.
Horseradish – Sharp!
Briefly – The Torah obligates one to eat מרור on Pesach.
What is מרור? Rashi in Chumash (Shemos 12, 8) writes that ‘any bitter herb’ is considered מרור.
Endive, Somewhat bitter
However, the Mishna in פסחים enumerates the exact five herbs that are classified as מרור.
Romaine Lettuce, Bitter Herb
ואלו ירקות שאדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח: בחזרת ובעולשין ובתמכא ובחרחבינא ובמרור.
Friese Lettuce, Very bitter
Meaning that wasabi or jalapenos would not be considered מרור.
Real Wasabi ( Most of the wasabi you’ll find in restaurants in the United States are Horsradish), very sharp
Our Gemore discusses if one of the five types listed above has an added name. ‘ מרור of the lake’. Is that considered מרור or is it a different species?
Rav Ḥisda said that Ravina bar Sheila said: With these מרור of a marsh, a person fulfills his obligation on Passover. [Meaning מרור, that has an added name to it.].
The Gemara raises an objection to this opinion. With regard to every mitzva that requires use of אזוב – hyssop, such a for the פרה אדומה, one needs to use only standard hyssop, not an אזוב that has an added name to it. Such as Greek אזוב, nor stibium אזוב, nor desert אזוב , nor Roman אזוב, nor any other kind of אזוב whose name is accompanied by a modifier.
The same should hold true for the mitzvah of bitter herbs מרור; ‘מרור of the lake’, whose name is accompanied by a modifier- the lake– are not the bitter herbs mentioned in the Torah.
Abaye said in response: There is a distinction between the cases. Every species whose name was differentiated prior to the giving of the Torah, i.e., the distinction between its different subspecies predated מתן תורה at Sinai, and the Torah then came along and was particular about one specific subspecies, it is known that the chosen species has other subspecies identified with a modifier that are unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzvah.
On the other hand מרור, the different types of the 5 mentioned, all their sub-names were not differentiated prior to the giving of the Torah at all; all the subspecies were known simply as bitter herbs. Therefore, when the Torah requires מרור, one may fulfill the mitzvah with all subspecies of bitter herbs.
In practice, we mentioned that in Shulchan Aruch it says that only the five types are good for מרור.
However the Rama says that if one does not have any מרור of the five types, he should use ‘any bitter herb’.
So wasabi or jalapenos would be OK.
Hot and Spicy peppers
[Unless, as Mr. Serebryanski argued, there is a difference between bitter and sharp]
The Magen Avrohom 473,16 takes issue with this and says that one should not make a ברכה on this. Reb Akiva Eiger, DV, questions our Gemore. Seems that his opinion is like the Ramo that any bitter herb is fine.
4- The Gemore above mentioned Roman אזוב that was known with that name prior to מתן תורה.
We spoke about the question of the (תפארת ישראל ( 11,7פרה that Rome didn’t exist at that time!
When did the Italian peninsula come into being? During the time of Shlomo Hamelech. Shabbos 56b
כרך גדול של רומי – שהוא מיצר לישראל והוא (איטליא) של יון :
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: When Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter, the angel Gabriel descended from heaven and implanted a reed into the sea, and a sandbar grew around it, growing larger each year, and upon it the great city of Rome was built, which became God’s instrument to punish Israel.
We, as Lubavitchers, are familiar with the reason we use יאנעווער Esrogim which grow in Calabria.
יאנעווער is the Yiddish translation of Genoa, the port from which Esrogim from Calabria were shipped.
This is based on the Midrash concerning Esrogim from Italy. ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון. ויצא הראשון אדמוני.
יבוא ראשון ויכפר על ראשון.
See here an excellent discussion of Calabria and Italia Shel Yavan.
5- Speaking of linguistics, we mentioned the heart rending story of Reb Efraim one of the בעלי התוספות.
We discussed his life and his disputes with Rabeinu Tam who was his Rebbe.
His most famous dispute is concerning חתיכה נעשה נבילה. See here. And here.
Another dispute concerning יין נסך. See here from the אור זרוע. There is a very sharp rebuke to him from Rabeinu Tam concerning this argument. See Tosfos Avoda Zoro 34a.
The one concerning linguistics is in regards to canvas.
In short – the Mishna states that canvas may be sewn together with wool. Meaning that canvas is not flax/linen and not שעטנז.
Reb Efraim’s opinion was that what we call canvas is not the canvas mentioned in the Mishna, which, according to his opinion, was a different material from a different plant.
The threads and material we call ‘canvas’ are indeed פשתן, flax/linen which are prohibited due to שעטנז.
He was so hurt that others argued with him that he wrote to Rebeinu Tam attempting to convince him to adopt his opinion.
He took this very much to heart. The שיטה מקובצת adds that ‘Reb Efraim inserted into his letter to Rabeinu Tam strands of his beard that he ripped out in anguish from the fact that people wear canvas with wool’!!!
We spoke about the story related by the Rebbe concerning the Chofetz Chaim.
‘If you were truly upset… why didn’t you faint?’
See phenomenal story with Rabeinu Efraim and Rabeinu Tam. סדר הדורות 930.
1- We continued the topic of the production of flax/linen and how it reflects in הלכה in using flax as סכך.
See here from the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch for the bottom line. 629, 5.
2- We spoke about hemp, a plant similar to flax, from which fibers were historically extracted. The fibers were used to produce fabric and rope. The hemp’s leaves and flowers was/is used as a nutrient and the for the production of cannabis. See here. The fruit is eaten – Flax seeds.
3- The Gemara in Zevachim, 18b, says that the material mentioned in the Chumash – כתונת בד קודש ילבש means flax.
Why? Because בד means singular, and the only plant that has a single stem growing from one seed is flax.
Now, the hemp plant also produces a single stem from each seed. That would mean that hemp, or canvas, is considered flax. Hence, it would be forbidden to be used together with wool. שעטנז.
But the Mishna says that ‘canvas’ is not considered flax and can indeed be mixed with wool.
More on this bl”n next week.
4- It was election day in the USA so we spoke about the phenomenon of the eternal optimism of the Jew. Perhaps due to non-stop oppression and persecution a Jew was a natural to become a believer, clinger and proponent of movements that promised freedom in general, and freedom to practice Yiddishkeit in particular. These new movement’s strongest ‘chassidim’ were Jews being duped that the paradise promised will bring peace and tranquility.
Unfortunately, these very movements, in a very short period of time from their formation, turned out to be nothing more than antisemitism redressed in a cloak of ‘social justice’ ‘equality for all’, etc.
5- We presented a copy of the אוצר דינים ומנהגים published first in 1917.
This ספר was printed right after the Russian revolution and the world believed that a new era of freedom was forming in Russia. The Jew, having suffered the open antisemitism of the czars, immediately joined the ranks of the communists. The rest is history. The guns of the communist were turned onto the Jew and of course did not spare the die hard Jewish communists as well.
We as Lubavitchers know first hand what atrocities these liberal minded Jews brought upon their fellow brethren. The cruelty of the Yevsektzia is well documented, but in general Jews know very little about these ‘enlightened’ individuals that caused imprisonment and murder of countless Chassidim and basically obliterated Yidishkeit from the millions of Russian Jews.
Tragically, early Zionist considered Russia as their ‘second homeland’ and mourned Stalin YMS when he died! See here. Here.
The prolific author, Rabbi Yehuda Dovid Eizenstein, dedicated his book to ‘the New Russia’. Interesting to note that he was born in Mezritch!
1- Rashi writes that a פסוק mentioned in the Gemara is from ספר עזרא. In our תנ”ך is in Nechemia.
Gilyon Hashas Our daf
We spoke about this in a previous shiur Beitza 27b :
“We discussed the gloss written by Reb Akiva Eiger about this Rashi.
In short: The two books of Ezra and Nechemia, despite them being printed and labeled today as two separate ספרים, are in actuality only one ספר of the 24 in the תנ”ך.
This single ספר has the story of Ezra as well as Nechemia. So it would make sense for Nechemia to have his own ספר.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin, 93b addresses this issue and explains that Nechemia was punished and didn’t merit to have his ספר called in his own name.
Hence, all references in Sha’s to a פסוק in (what today we call) נחמיה are written as עזרא.
The partition of Ezra into two books is not of Jewish origin. Much like the partition of Shmuel into two books. The first time the split shows up in our mesorah, is in Venice, in the Bomberg edition of 1525.
The Alter Rebbe in אגרת התשובה 11 also refers a posuk in (what today we call) נחמיה as עזרא
ומה שמשבחים ומברכים את ה’: “חנון המרבה לסלוח”, “המרבה” דייקא, וכמו שכתוב בעזרא: “ורב לסלוח”, דהיינו שבמידת בשר ודם, אם יחטא איש לאיש וביקש ממנו מחילה ומחל לו ואחר כך חזר לסורו, קשה מאד שימחול לו שנית, ומכל שכן בשלישית ורביעית”
2- Mishna about placing tied bundles of Kosher סכך on a Sukkah.
This can be an issue, as our Gemara explains, on a Torah level and also on a דרבנן level.
A- If the bundles were placed during the summer for the purpose of drying, not for the purpose of creating ‘shade’ – צל, then when Sukkos arrives and one decides to use them as סכך, the problem is תעשה ולא מן העשוי. Since the actual ‘placement’ was not made for סכך, the decision now to turn it into סכך is מן העשוי, and therefore invalid מדאורייתא.
B- However, if one places tied bundles right before Sukkos for the purpose of סכך, the only issue would be is a גזירה מדרבנן, least he places these bundles in middle of the summer for drying purposes.
3- Same would apply in the case of burrowing into a haystack. [Thanks to Hillel for the correct word…]
Carving out a Sukkah inside a haystack would be פסול מדאורייתא because of תעשה ולא מן העשוי as the סכך was not placed for shade purposes.
Hollowed out Haystack
On the other hand, burrowing into a haystack, opening a hole thru the top and then covering the opening with hay as סכך would be ok מדאורייתא since the סכך was placed intentionally.
Giant Hollow Haystack
מדרבנן it would not be valid because allowing this may cause someone to think that even without this ‘hole’ the סוכה is Kosher.
4- Flax.
In order to understand the different הלכות of using flax as סכך we suggested some site to understand the production process.
מציאת האשה ומעשה ידיה לבעלה. ומה היא עושה לו הכל כמנהג המדינה. מקום שדרכן לארוג אורגת. לרקום רוקמת. לטוות צמר או פשתים טווה. ואם לא היה דרך נשי העיר לעשות כל המלאכות האלו אינו כופה אלא לטוות הצמר בלבד. שהפשתן מזיק את הפה ואת השפתים והטויה היא המלאכה המיוחדת לנשים שנאמר וכל אשה חכמת לב בידיה טוו:
6- We find that flax has three names פשתן, בד, and שש .
רש”י “פישון” – הוא נילוס נהר מצרים וע”ש שמימיו מתברכין ועולין ומשקין את הארץ נקרא פישון כמו ופשו פרשיו ד”א פישון שהוא מגדל פשתן שנאמר אצל מצרים (ישעיהו יט) ובושו עובדי פשתים.
“Born Reuben Ticker of Rumanian immigrant parents, Tucker began his musical training at six when he sang alto in the choir of the Allen Street Synagogue on New York’s Lower East Side”
Eventually, he progressed from a part-time cantor at Temple Emanuel in Passaic, New Jersey, to full-time cantorships at Temple Adath Israel in the Bronx and, in June 1943, at the large and prestigious Brooklyn Jewish Center.
AKA today as Oholei Menachem.
Throughout his opera career, Tucker maintained a Jewish identity. He kept kosher, and regularly officiated as a cantor on Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur and other sacred events in the Jewish liturgical calendar, especially in Chicago.[12][13] He oversaw the religious development of his three sons, Berel (Barry, b. 1938); David N. Tucker, M.D. (b. 1941); and Henry (b. 1946).[13
On a general topic, our Gemara introduces 2 opinions as to which Sukka the פסוק is referring to. Rebbi Eliezer says we commemorate the miraculous clouds. Rebbi Akiva says it was physical סוכות.
3- We spoke about these clouds and whether they were also shielding the sides of מחנה ישראל. If yes, it would mean that they were proper מחיצות and thus would result in the entire מחנה ישראל as a רשות היחיד!
But we know that מחנה ישראל was considered a רשות הרבים due to its wide plazas and 600,000 present. Noda BiYehuda 13 דורש לציון.
[In passing we spoke about the Eiruv in front of 770 this past Tishrei. A full enclosure was built with doors at each entrance. Although the Halacha is that they do not need to be closed at night, the Alter Rebbe (364, 2) writes ויש להחמיר that they should actually be closed].
4- The story of בני ישראל retreating י”ב מיל at each of the Aseres Hadibros. The question about traveling beyond the תחום שבת. Unless it was a רשות היחיד as above.
5- תורת חסד OC 35. Speaks about the two גרסאות in the above Machlokes. In other places Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva are switched.
The מהר”ץ חיות proves the גרסא as we have in our Gemore as the correct one.
We see that the Targum translates כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל as ‘clouds’. He follows the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. The Targum Onkelos was a student of Rebbi Eliezer: –
וכאן תרגם אונקלוס ענני הכבוד, כפי דעת ר’ אליעזר בבבלי
וא”ר ירמיה ואיתימא רבי חייא בר אבא תרגום של תורה אונקלוס הגר אמרו מפי ר’ אליעזר ור’ יהושע
6- The famous ב”ח. Being aware of the reason we sit in the Sukkah is part of the Mitzvah since the פסוק itself states למען ידעו. Unlike most other מצוות that just being aware of what one is doing is sufficient.
1- We continued the topic of תעשה ולא מן העשוי, discussing a few more interesting examples.
A- The Pri Megadim – – פרי מגדים או”ח , משבצות זהב- י”ח A pair of ציצית that has 4 woolen strings and one linen (flax), creating a case of כלאים. One is prohibited from wearing this בגד. Now, what would happen if the linen string would be pulled or cut out of the ציצית, leaving the wool bundle intact? Would that be a case of תעשה ולא מן העשוי?
B- The controversy about sewing the ציצית to the בגד prior to placing it in a wash machine. This would avoid the strings becoming tied up and unusable. After the washing is complete – is the removing the sewn threads תעשה ולא מן העשוי?
C- If one ties the ציצית strings, does that cause the ציצית to become פסול and consequently, when untying them create a case of תעשה ולא מן העשוי.
We mentioned the Beis Yosef who writes regarding the prohibition of לועג לרש, ‘mocking the poor’ which dictates that one should not perform Mitzvos in the presence of the deceased, such as in a cemetery.
When entering a cemetery one should hide his ציצית since the deceased buried there cannot perform Mitzvos.
The Beis Yosef (OC 23) writes that some לומדים tie their ציצית thinking that it makes their ציצית פסול. He disagrees for a few reasons. One of them is: If the tying causes the ציצית to become פסול then untying the knot upon leaving the cemetery is תעשה ולא מן העשוי!
Such is also the opinion of the Alter Rebbe. 23 3.
( יש נוהגין לקשור ב’ ציציות שבשני כנפות זה עם זה כשנכנסין לבית הקברות (ז כדי שתתבטל מצות ציצית שעליהם (ח) אבל לא הועילו כלום בתקנתם דאע”פ שקושרים זה עם זה לא נתבטל מצות ציצית על ידי זה שהרי סופם לחזור ולהתיר אותם:
2- We learnt the סוגיא of אגד. The binding of the Lulav.
3- The holding of the ארבע מינים.
Although the Gemara does not mention that the אתרוג should touch the Lulav and move around with it when performing the נענועים there is fascinating story of the Rikanti quoted by Beis Yosef. 651,11.
י א אם צריך לחבר האתרוג ללולב בשעת הנענוע ולנענע שניהם יחד או אם אינו מנענע אלא אגודת הלולב לבד ויד שמאלו שהאתרוג בה תהא עומדת במקומה בלי נענוע דבר זה לא נתבאר בגמרא ולא בדברי הפוסקים
Does one need to connect the Esrog and Lulav at the time of the Naanuim (directional movements), and to move them together, or, does one merely need to move the bound Lulav, and the left hand containing the Esrog remains in its place without movement? This has not been explained in the Gemara or Poskim.
אבל ה״ר מנחם מרקנ״ט כתב בפרשת אמור צריך לסמוך האתרוג עם שאר המינים שלא להפריד מן המין.
However, R’ Menachem of Recanati – הרקנטי – writes in Parshas Emor, that one should hold the Esrog close to the other of the 3 Kinds, so that they should not (be) separate.
וסוד זה נגלה אלי בחלום בליל י״ט האי של חג הסוכות בהתאכסן אצלי חסיד אחד אשכנזי שמו הרב ר׳ יצחק ראיתי בחלום שהיה כותב השם יו״ד ה״א והיה מרחיק הה״א אחרונה מן הגי האותיות הראשונות ואמרתי לו מה זה עשית והשיב כך נוהגים במקומינו
The reason for this was revealed to me in a dream the night of this Yom Tov of Succos, when a Chassid by the name of R’ Yitzchok was a guest in my home, whom I saw in a dream writing G-d’s name, separating the final ה, from the other 3 letters, and I asked him “what are you doing?”, and he answered that this was the custom in his place.
ואני מחיתי בו וכתבתי אותו שלם. ואשתומם על המראה ואין מבין. למחר בעת נטילת לולב ראיתי שלא היה מנענע רק הלולב ומיניו בלא אתרוג. והבנתי פתרון חלומי וחזר בו.
I rebuked him and wrote it completely. I was stupefied from this vision, and do not understand it. The next day, when we performed the mitzvah of taking of the Lulav, I saw that he only moved the Lulav without the Esrog. I then understood the meaning of my dream…
1- We spoke about the famous statue that is at the center of the symbol of academia. The Statue of the Three Lies. Here.
2- We briefly went through the history of the Agudas Yisroel.
The Rebbe Rashab’s initial support and his subsequent withdrawal. His efforts to sway Reb Chaim of Brisk to do likewise.
Rabbi Solomon Breuer
3- The leadership eventually shifted to the Gerrer Rebbe. His spokesman at the Aguda was Reb Menachem Zemba.
Imrei Emes
4- We went through the history of Reb Menachem. Although he never held any position as Rov or Rosh Yeshiva he was considered of the great Torah mind of his generation.
His meeting with the Rogatchover.
His most tragic end during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Was he for the revolt? His lost writings. The relocation of his ארון to Israel in 1958 by his nephews his nephews Rabbi Avraham and Rabbi Yitzchok Meir Ziemba.
R’ Menachem Ziemba HY”D
5- His saying on the verse יקרה היא מפנינים. Torah is more valuable than pearls of precious stones. Unlike gold where the value of 10 kilos of gold is the same, per kilo, as 1 kilo, pearls and precious stones the unit price increases with the size. A 2 carat stone is more valuable per carat than a one carat stone.
Torah, Reb Menachem used to say, is very similar. Two people that study גמרא- one learns 200 Dapim the other just 100. The 200 page fellow does not just have ‘double the knowledge. ’ He who knows 200 Dapim of גמרא is in a totally different league than one who knows only 100 Dapim.
6- We discussed the famous ‘dirty trick’ of Israeli politics. Hebrew – התרגיל המסריח. The Chabad involvement.
אליעזר מזרחי
7- We finished with a parallel (perhaps) of the Rebbe Rashab’s reluctance to join the Aguda and the Rebbe’s instructions to his Chassidim that after Gimmel Tamuz everything should be decided by the local Chabad Beis Din.
The Rebbe Rashab’s reasoning for not joining the Aguda was their refusal to commit that the all committees of the organization needed to be headed by Rabbanim that are fully committed to Yiddishkeit without compromise.
This is a general principle that when performing a Mitzvah (or the preparation to a Mitzvah) the Mitzvah must be performed at that time. One cannot perform a Mitzvah in an improper way, correct it and it becomes valid indirectly.
The classic example is our Mishna where one covers the Sukkah with branches still attached to the tree or with ivy attached to the ground. This is invalid because it is מחובר.
Now, if one cuts the branches after they are on the Sukkah, that would not be Kosher due to תעשה ולא מן העשוי. His last action, cutting the branches, is not considered ‘placing the סכך on the Sukkah’. The סכך has already been placed. The cutting, ‘Kosherizes’ the,סכך. Not ‘applying the סכך’.
2- The Gemara discusses this topic in relation to ציצית as well. If one were to insert one long string into the בגד and tie the knots it would be invalid since there are no four individual strings. However if he snips the ends, thus creating four individual strings, it would seem to be Kosher.
However, due to the concept of תעשה ולא מן העשוי it would be פסול. Why? As explained above, when he cuts them he is not performing the ועשו להם ציצית as that was done when he strung the long string. True, the cutting creates 4 individual strings, but that is not the ‘application’ ועשו that the Torah requires.
3- We mentioned other examples of the concept of תעשה ולא מן העשוי.
He quotes, the ספר גן המלך that writes an interesting Halacha.
If there is a hole R”L in a Sefer Torah, making the ס”ת pasul, the proper way to repair it is by attaching a patch of parchment to cover the hole. Once attached, the missing letters are then written on the parchment patch.
However, writes the גן המלך, if one were to first write the letters on the patch and only then glue or sew the patch to the ספר תורה, that would be considered תעשה ולא מן העשוי !!!.
We discussed this at length.
4- We mentioned the famous אבני נזר. He writes that תעשה ולא מן העשוי is only when the improper performance was done 100%, and then corrected.
For example, one covered the entire Sukkah with connected branches. Cutting them would be תעשה ולא מן העשוי.
However, if one only covered 49% of the Sukkah with connected branches and then added 2% of Kosher and then cut the 49% it would not be considered תעשה ולא מן העשוי.
Or simpler yet: If one covered a Sukka with vines up to 50% and then cut them it would notbe considered תעשה ולא מן העשוי !!!
His reasoning is that the 49% is not considered סכך פסול since it would theoretically never create a proper Sukkah.
If however the attached סכך פסול would cover 51% of the Sukkah, meaning that there is sufficient (Pasul) סכך, then the cutting them is considered תעשה ולא מן העשוי.
His proof was discussed as well. More after Yom Tov.
5- There is a story told of Reb Akiva Eiger. A Sefer Torah was found an its origins were unknown. The question was whether this scroll was written as a legitimate Sefer Torah by a pious סופר. Or perhaps it came from a dubious source.
Rumor had it that perhaps it was written by a scribe who was not a ירא שמים at the very best or perhaps by a non-Jew. Some claimed that it was a Torah used in the past in various Shuls. The doubters claimed that this unknown ‘scribe’ was proficient and would write many Torah’s quickly but with no קדושה etc. and offer them for sale .
In short, Reb Akiva Eiger was asked to rule on its Kashrus.
He opened the Sefer Torah, rolled it to the very end and declared it as Kosher.
If you look at the last few words, he said, you will see that they are written unlike much like the rest of the Sefer.
All Kosher Sefer Torahs are finished with great fanfare. Members of the community are invited to fill in the last few words. Inevitably, some letters while Kosher, are a bit smudged or out of proportion. This is a sign of Kashrus.
This Sefer Torah, he concluded, indeed had a Siyum. It was written for non commercial purposes by an proper scribe!
After a bit of investigation it was indeed verified to be so.
When asked how he came up with this idea, Reb Akiva Eiger responded that we know the saying מנהג ישראל תורה היא. The custom followed by Yiden is part and parcel of the Torah itself.
So the Minhog to complete a Sefer Torah with pomp and letter writing is the proof that it is indeed a properly written Torah.
So מנהג ישראל is the proof that תורה היא – a proper Torah.
.והנה לפי הדברים המתבארים לעיל דחזינן דבל אחד מישראל יש לו אחיזה באות אחת בתורה הקדושה יש לבאר בס”ד את ענין המנהג שנוהגים לתת לציבור הנאספים לכבודה של תורה בהכנסת הספר תורה בעת כתיבת סיום האותיות לתת לכל אהד מהם לכתוב אות בספר תורה ואכן ענין מנהג זה יסודתו בהררי קודש וכמבואר נמי בס’ שירה חדשה ריש פרק ח עמוד סח שהביא שם מהרב אבני בית היוצר מעשה פלא דהוה בזמנו של הגאון רבי עקיבא איגר ומזה יש ללמוד שענין כתיבת האותיות על ידי הציבור בסיום כתיבת הספר תורה מנהג ישראל קדוש הוא דההוה עובדא בזמן הגאון רבי עקיבא איגר שמצאו ספר תורה בשדה ונספקו בו אם כתבו גוי או מין שדינו מבואר בשו”ע יו”ד סי’ רפא דיגנז או ישרף והציעו את השאלה הזאת לפני הגאון רבי עקיבא איגר זצ”ל והשיב להם הגאון דבאשר מנהגן של ישראל תורה וכשבאים לכתוב את השורות האחרונות של פרשת וזאת הברכה נהגו שכל אחד כותב אות לפי שמו בספר תורה כגון אם שמו משה כתוב מ’ ומכיון שאותיות שנכתבו על ידי הרבה בעלי בתים אינן דומים זה לזה והנה אם היה הכותב ישראל בלי ספק היה עושה כמנהגן של ישראל הזה ולכן אם יש בהם שינוי סימן שישראל כתבו אבל אם לא ימצאו כן אלא גם סופי השורות של פר’ וזאת הברכה הם דומים ואין בהם שום שינוי מזה הוכחה שגוי כתבו ועל כן יגנז וכמבואר בשו”ע יו”ד הנ”ל ע”כ עובדא דהוה
1-. In continuation of the last shiur concerning the ‘greeting ones Rebbe on Yom Tov, חייב אדם לקבל פני רבו ברגל, and therefore the two Chachamim were עוסק במצווה פטור מן המצווה we mentioned the Noda Biyehuda (OC1, 94). His question is as to why the Rambam does state that it is a Mitzvah but the Shulchan Aruch omits it.
Briefly, this Mitzvah flows from the the Mitzvah of עליה לרגל. One need to perform this pilgrimage since there is an added קדושה at that time in the בית המקדש. It also has an effect on one’s Rebbe. Thus the obligation to greet him.
Sadly, when there is no בית המקדש and one cannot go to Yerusholayim, it would be improper to accord more respect to his Rebbe than he accords to Hashem. So this Mitzvah does not apply today. (in its fullest form at least).
ומעתה גם לקבל פני רבו אי אפשר לחייב בכל שבת ור”ח דא”כ יהיה כבוד רבו גדול מכבוד השכינה
The Rambam lists all mitzvos, including ones not applicable today.
הביא הרמב”ם הא דר’ יצחק שכן דרכו להביא כל הנוהג בזמן המקדש
On the other had the Shulchan Aruch only wrote Mitzvos and Minhagim relevant to our time in גלות.
2- We mentioned the well known Reb Chaim concerning the Mitzvah of Tefilla. The Rambam seems to contradict himself in regard to the minimum כוונה one needs to have during davening.
In one place he writes that the entire שמונה עשרה needs to be said with כוונה, and one needs to repeat it if said while not concentrating. In another Halacha the Rambam writes that if one had כוונה just in the first three ברכות , there is no need to repeat it.
[Parenthetically we mentioned the interesting דין, as per the רמ”א (OC 101, 1) that if someone does not have כוונה in the first three ברכות he is not יוצא, and in reality would need to say the entire שמונה עשרה again.
The reason he should not repeat it ‘since he will (probably) not have כוונה when repeating it again and it will be ברכות לבטלה!!!
The Rambam presents his view in a more perplexing way. Initially, he identifies that one must have Kavana throughout his Tefilla while later on, he returns to the understanding that one can merely have Kavana in the first Beracha of Shmoneh Esrai and still fulfill his prayer obligations. How can the Rambam take two diametrically opposed positions within his understanding of the laws of Kavana?
Rav Chaim Soloveitchik (Grach al HaRambam Hil. Tefillah 4:1) notes that the Rambam identifies two forms of Kavana. In the first, one must understand all the words that he recites during the Tefilla. The second type of kavana is an awareness that one is in the presence of Hashem. The former can be cumbersome and difficult and therefore, if one merely understands the meaning of the words in Avos, s/he has fulfilled the obligation of Shmoneh Esrai’s Kavana. However, one who lacks the awareness that s/he is standing in front of Hashem, has ruined the concept of tefillah and as such, at any point,, must return and re-recite the Tefilla
3- We mentioned the Halachah of a ‘gartel’, and why today it is only a Minhag.
Quoted the Tzemach Tzedek that explains the concept of a Gartel in a unique perspective.
The cloak or overcoat represents the wishes a person has of things that he wants to accomplish. These goals are ideas floating around him much as a robe flows around a person’s body. Occasionally these goals and wishes never materialize. They remain in a ‘floating’ stage. Not grounded.
The Gartel, which gathers the flowing robe and adheres it tight to the body, symbolizes the realization of these floating ideas. It ‘ties’ these lofty goals to the real world. Causes them to ‘land’ and actually happen.
/horseradish-56a5b0663df78cf772896e38.jpg)
