Donate Now At

On Shavuos 2448 we stood together at the base of Har Sinai K’Ish Echad B’Lev Echad – as one nation with one heart. This model of Jewish unity has served as the hallmark of our people throughout our history; together in Yirushalayim in the days of the Beis Hamikdash, and in exile in Bavel, Spain, Eastern Europe, the Far East, and here in the United States. Wherever a Jew is found, that Jew knows they are a part of our people, and even though that Jew may be alone physically, they are never apart from us.

At no time in our Shul's history has this message of unity been more important to us than this year. While we might be physically apart, our spirits and hearts remain united and together. During Shavuos this year we will unite to create a communal atmosphere of Torah by bringing our Shul into each of our homes by using the enclosed incredible array of learning topics. Young or old, there is something for everyone, whether to explore on your own or to discuss with your families. Many thanks to Rav Schwartz, Rabbi Rosenbaum, and Yoni and Alyssa Sheer for their hard work in creating and assembling these materials.

Our sisterhood has already hosted an incredible symposium to create a communal connection in Torah leading in to Shavuos. Our youth department is leading a communal Tehillim-a-thon to see how much of Tehillim can we unite to recite over the two days of Yom Tov. Our heartfelt thanks goes out to the sponsors of our Shavuos programming this year - it is thanks to their generosity that much of our programming is made possible.

Traditionally, on the last day of every Chag there is a call for Tzedaka in Jewish communities all over the world. Ashkenazim often gave this Tzedaka as a merit for loved ones who had passed, and thus the custom of Yizkor was born. The Yizkor appeal in fact preceded the Yizkor service itself. This year, while we will have no communal Yizkor service, the opportunity for tzedaka is still very much present. We ask that you please consider a donation to the Shul to help us continue to support all of our current and future activities and programs. Let’s celebrate and support our AI community together.

Wishing you and your loved ones a safe and healthy Chag Sameach,

Rabbi Jonathan Schwartz Rav, Adath Israel

Scott Susser Chairman, Adath Israel Board of Trustees

Donate now at:

https://adathisraelshul.org/donate

This packet includes materials organized in four different topics, including a series dealing with questions raised by the ongoing pandemic. Below is a chart listing the shiurim and suggested timeframes to pace yourself through the night. Enjoy!

Times Corona Halacha Rus Hashkafa

Set up your makom, grab all your sefarim/packets and snacks and get comfy. 11:45-12:00 It’s time to start Tikkun Leil Shavuos!

Ordering Online All You Ever Groceries in the Wanted to Know Orpah - Sealed The Overflowing 12:00-12:50 Midst of About Eiruv with a Kiss (57) Song (78) COVID-19 (3) Tavshilin (33) Voting in The Corona 2020 pt. 1 Sleeping Through 12:55-1:45 Ploni Almoni (63) Conundrum (10) Should I Vote the Night (82) (36)

1:50-2:15 Head to your kitchen for a delicious “collation”!

Measuring Voting in Temperatures in 2020 pt. 2 Megillas Rus: Bruriah - Order to Visit in 2:20-3:10 Choosing and The Unnamed A Role Model a Hospital / supporting a (68) (86) Nursing Home candidate (45) (14)

3:15-3:40 Shul-Wide Tehillim

When we Meet Can I Buy Life Megillas Naami: Again: Blessings Insurance? Identity, The Kiss of 3:45-4:25 Upon Reopening Should I Buy Life Alienation and Hashem (91) & Reuniting Insurance? (53) Redemption (73) (18) Explore something from a different topic, Virtual Minyan 4:30-5:00 or review Mishna/Daf/Nach Yomi (92) (23)

5:00 Set up your home ‘Shul’, it’s time for Shacharis!

Ordering Online Groceries that will be Delivered on Shabbos during the COVID-19 Pandemic

With the ongoing Coronavirus restrictions throughout the country and the need for proper social distancing especially with the elderly, the quarantined and the immunocompromised, many people have become dependent on deliveries made by the grocery stores. As a result, there has been overwhelming demand for such deliveries and it has become difficult and even impossible to receive the delivery at your desired time. (At one point, one needed to get up at 4 am just to access the Shop-Rite “Shop from Home” website!). While in some cases, deliveries will come at any random time, it is more common to find that some window of time will be given, like “Friday or Saturday”. In other cases a person may be told to set a specific day for delivery only to find that the only available day for a several week period might be Shabbos or Yom Tov.

May such deliveries be accepted on Shabbos? If the only date to set is Shabbos is that Permitted? In either case is the food permitted to be eaten that day? If it cannot be eaten is it muktza – which would create a problem for foods requiring refrigeration?

In order for us to come to any conclusion, we need to break down the question into its elements. What might some of the issues we need to explore be?

There are 6 major issues that we might explore that will help us analyze this question a bit more completely. Let’s look at each one separately and then combine:

The status of work done by a non-Jew on Shabbos – מלאכת נכרי בשבת :Issue #1

Can a non-Jew do work for you on Shabbos? What happens if s/he does and it is clearly for you but you didn’t ask him or her to do it? What is the Halacha then?

The Shulchan Aruch weighs in (OC 244:1)

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים הלכות שבת סימן רמד סעיף א פוסק )פירוש מתנה( עם האינו יהודי על המלאכה, )א( וקוצץ דמים, ב'[ והאינו יהודי א עושה א'{ לעצמו, ואף על פי שהוא עושה בשבת, )ב( מותר; א'< בד"א, * )ג( בצנעה, )ד( ב א( שאין מכירים הכל שזו המלאכה הנעשית בשבת של ישראל היא, אבל אם היתה ידועה ומפורסמת, אסור שהרואה את האינו יהודי עוסק אינו יודע שקצץ, ג ואומר שפלוני שכר ב'{ האינו יהודי לעשות מלאכה בשבת “A person can agree with a non-Jew about work to be done and sets a price, and the non-Jew does the work by himself, even if he works on Shabbat, it is permissible. This law is discussed when the work is done in private since most people won’t recognize that this work is being done on Shabbat for the Jew, but if it was well known and publicized, then it is prohibited because when others look at the non-Jew work, they don’t know that the Jew and the non-Jew set a price and they will say that the Jew is hiring the non-Jew to do work for him on Shabbat.”

So it sounds like the Shulchan Aruch notes that work can be done by a non-Jew on Shabbos even if the Jew benefits provided that it is done in private. Mogen Avraham and others are quick to note that “private” or “public” is not an ‘all or nothing’ rather, as the Mishna Berurah notes:

משנה ברורה סימן רמד ס"ק ד שאין מכירים הכל - ואפילו אם קצת יודעים שהיא מלאכת ישראל שרי ואף על גב דמבואר לקמן בהג"ה דיש לחוש :לאורחים ובני ביתו שיחשדו אותו שם שהיא מלאכת מחובר וסתם מחובר שם בעליו נקרא עליו החמירו בו ביותר

Even if some people know that the job being done is being done for a Jew it is still ok. And even though later the Rema will tell us that we need to be concerned about the guests and family members who will accuse him of doing work related to harvesting things attached to the ground and when things are attached they are directly related to the owner and thus the rules are more strict.

It sounds like the work needs to be shrouded in secrecy – just that it not be too well known that the non-Jew is doing the work for you.

The Mishna Berurah seems to highlight a differentiation between things that are attached where one cannot make this deal with the non-Jew and things that are. Why? What is the difference between “attached” and “detached” things?

The simple explanation is that there is no difference. The real reason we differentiate is to distinguish between things that are directly traceable to the Jewish owner versus things that are not. Things that are attached to the ground tend to occur on the property of the owner and word will get out that he is having work done on Shabbos and doing forbidden practice. The same would apply if the work being done was being done with things that are detached but that the work with the detached items are being done specifically for the Jew on Shabbos too. This is the position expressly stated in the Mishna Berurah (OC 244: “B’Tzinah) and in the Aruch Hashulchan (OC 244:4) as well.

How might this bit of information impact our case with the delivery of the groceries? Who is doing the Melacha? For whom is he doing it?

______-

(In our case, the melacha is the act of driving the delivery truck. Delivery trucks make more than one delivery and thus the Melacha is not being done for a specific Jewish person alone. Moreover, most of the time the deliveryman is driving, it is not clear that he is doing Melacha for the Jew. The only time that becomes apparent is when he stops in front of your house – if that much).

Thus, if you make an order out on line, you aren’t demanding that the delivery be made on Shabbos. In fact, you’d prefer it afterward. Thus, the fact that he is delivering on Shabbos, might not be

4 a problem of the non-Jew doing the work for you. In fact the Mishna Berurah weighs in on this exact point:

משנה ברורה סימן רמד ס"ק ב דכיון שקצץ אדעתיה דנפשיה קעביד למהר להשלים מלאכתו ]א[ דלישראל אין קפידא בזה דאם לא יעשהו היום יעשהו למחר דאם קובע לו מלאכתו בשבת אסור

Since the deal was made, the non-Jew made the deal on his own terms and for his own benefit in order to get paid earlier but the Jew does not care if the work is done today or tomorrow. However, if he specifically establishes the work to be done on Shabbos then it would be forbidden

Of course, the impact of specifically ordering the food delivery ON Shabbos might then prove difficult – no?

Issue #2 – Bringing things from beyond the Techum

When one orders from a local market, the food delivery often comes from the stores directly. However, when one orders from an online delivery chain (Amazon Fresh, etc) the online orders often are fulfilled in a warehouse system. In these cases it becomes unclear and almost impossible to know where the food is coming from or to. Moreover, even if you could pin down the warehouse, it is often hard to figure out if the warehouse is within the Techum or not. Is one allowed to order online with the awareness that the order s/he is ordering might come from outside the Techum? What do you think?

The Shulchan Aruch discusses this issue as well. The Shulchan Aruch notes that:

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים הלכות שבת סימן שכה סעיף ח דבר )לד( שאין בו חשש צידה ומחובר, אלא שהובא טו מחוץ לתחום, יח( אם הביאו הא"י לעצמו, )לה( מותר יא'[ אפילו בו ביום; ואם הביאו בשביל ישראל, )לו( יב'[ מותר לטלטל טז אפילו מי שהובא בשבילו; )לז( אבל לאכול, אסור בו ביום )לח( למי י'{ שהובא בשבילו, ולערב )לט( יז יא'{ בכדי שיעשו. ולאחרים, מותר בו ביום.

An item that is not related to catching or picking but was brought from outside the Techum: if the Gentile brought it for himself it is permitted even on Shabbos. If it was brought for a Jew, even the person it was brought for may handle it but it is forbidden for the person it was brought for to eat it until after Shabbos Bich’dei Sheya’asu Others may benefit from it on Shabbos itself.

Based on this source, as far as bringing it in from the outside, would that be ok? Can the person for whom it was ordered, who may not benefit from it on Shabbos move the item or is it Muktzah?

______

Can the ordered items coming from outside the Techum be unpacked, brought into the home and put into the refridgerator? Why or why not?

______-

(Since an item is either Muktza or not and someone can benefit from the items here on Shabbos, it would seem that one CAN unpack these foods on Shabbos EVEN if it was delivered for him.)

Issue #3 – Benefitting from the work of a Non-Jew and Muktza

The above issue concerning the Techum and its non-Muktza status works from the perspective of the Techum issue. However, in our case, we have an additional difficulty. You see, a non-Jew is not allowed to do work and have a Jew derive benefit – perhaps the Non-Jew will go the extra mile for the Jew and add more to directly benefit his Jewish neighbor directly. See how the Shulchan Aruch establishes this principle here:

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים הלכות שבת סימן שכה סעיף י א"י כב שמילא מים לבהמתו מבור שהוא רשות היחיד, לרשות הרבים, יז'[ מותר לישראל * כו( להשקות מהם בהמתו; כז( והוא )נא( שאין הא"י מכירו, דליכא למיחש שמא ירבה בשבילו; ואם מילא לצורך בהמת ישראל, >ח< ;כח( אסור )נב( בכל מיני תשמיש )נג( יח'[ אפילו ישראל אחר A Gentile who drew water for his animal from a waterhole, which is from a private domain to a public domain, a Jew may give his animal to drink from that water provided that the Gentile is not acquainted with the Jew, thus waiving the concern lest he draws more for him. If he drew water for a Jew’s animal the water is totally prohibited even for other Jews. If he drew from a waterhole which is from a private domain to a Carmelis it is permitted for a person it was not drawn for.

What kind of impact does the Shulchan Aruch have on our plan for handling the online shopping order? Would it affect the Heter to use the items and put them away? Why or why not?

______

(The Shulchan Aruch differentiates between a non-Jew doing a Melacha of biblical proportions and that which is forbidden M’D’Rabbonon. In the latter, it is still permitted to benefit from the water on that day thus making the item not muktza.)

Would the carrying of the delivery from outside the Techum be considered a potential violation D’Rabbonon or Deoraisa? Why?

______--

Here there is a small issue to remember --

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים הלכות שבת סימן שג סעיף יח והשתא דלית לן רשות הרבים גמור הוה ליה כל רשות הרבים שלנו כרמלית ודינו כחצר שאינה מעורבת *

Nowadays we do not have a Biblically-identified Reshus HaRabim (public domain) so all of our public domains are treated as if they are the Rabbinically-ordained Karmelis.

With this information, What do we say about the driver coming outside the Techum carrying an order specifically for me on Shabbos?

______-

(It would come out that even if we knew that the food was coming from outside of the Techum via public streets, the food would still not be Muktza – the driver is delivering for his own benefit for many people including non-Jews)

Issue #4 – Ordering specifically for Shabbos delivery

Until now we have discussed situations and solutions for an order that was ordered not to come on Shabbos. What happens when the only possible day to receive a delivery for weeks is Shabbos. Can I have the delivery specified for that day? Is there any basis to allow that? Why or why not?

______

The Shulchan Aruch comments:

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים הלכות שבת סימן רעו סעיף ה ה'( ד( }ג{ בארצות קרות, מותר לא"י )לח( לעשות מדורה בשביל הקטנים )לט( ומותרין הגדולים להתחמם בו, יא'[ ואפי' בשביל הגדולים )מ( מותר אם ט'{ הקור )מא( גדול, )מב( יב'[ יב'< שהכל חולים )מג( אצל הקור; )מד( טו ולא .כאותם שנוהגים היתר אף על פי )מה( שאין הקור גדול ביום ההוא

It is permitted for a Gentile to make a fire in cold countries for children, and adults are permitted to warm themselves thereby. It is even permitted to make a fire for adults when it is extremely cold, as everyone is at risk of catching a cold. Unlike those that are accustomed to permit (lighting a fire) even when it is not an extremely cold day.

So the Shulchan Aruch notes a Heter for people in situations of difficulty since we are all considered ill when we are at risk. But how far does that risk heter go?

Mishna Berurah explains:

משנה ברורה סימן רעו ס"ק מב )מב( שהכל חולים - ומ"מ ]מא[ להסיק אחר מנחה בשבת שיהא למו"ש אסור ]מב[ מאחר דכבר נתחמם בבוקר ואף על פי שכבר נתקרר אינו קר כ"כ שיהא האדם נחשב כחולה אצל קרירות זה ולכן חייבים למחות לא"י שלא :להסיק עוד עד אחר צאת הכוכבים ומ"מ ]מג[ הכל תלוי לפי הקור ולפי בית החורף

One may not order a non-Jew to light the fire on Shabbos afternoon after mincha in order to keep the place warm after Shabbos insofar as the people in the home are already warmed from the morning and it is not sufficiently cold to be at risk for illness because of this. Ergo, we need to implore the non-Jew not

7 to light the fire in this circumstance until after Shabbos. However, it really depends on the weather and the home.

Mishna Berurah highlights that this Heter is only permitted for Shabbos not to allow work to be done after Shabbos. If this is the case, then what does this piece of information do for us who are currently concerned about placing an order to be delivered on Shabbos?

______--

(Right, arguing that the current COVID-19 situation is similar to the cold and it should be ok to order the food, would be limited to food that would be used only on Shabbos and not too helpful for a decent order. What do we do?)

Rav Asher Bush suggests that perhaps making someone wait until after Shabbos to light the fire is not such a big deal since as soon as Shabbos is over, one can have the fire lit and the heat restored relatively quickly so we have a hard time arguing that we are all like Cholim and it would be ok to have a non-Jew do the work for us. But in our case, where the delivery might not happen if it is not for Shabbos perhaps that is more serious and allowed. He is not sure. What do you think?

______

Issue #5 – Telling a non-Jew to tell another non-Jew

When we talk about Amira L’Nochri (Tell a non-Jew to do a forbidden action on Shabbos) being Assur M’D’Rabbonon, does that apply when we tell him/her and then s/he goes and tells another person to do the work? Why or why not?

______

Here, the Mishna Berurah notes the difference of opinions on the matter:

משנה ברורה סימן שז ס"ק כד ודע דמה דקי"ל אמירה לא"י שבות ]כו[ הוא אפילו אם אומר לא"י שיאמר לא"י אחר לעשות לו מלאכה בשבת ]הגאון מו"ה גרשון בעל עבודת הגרשוני[ והחות יאיר בסימן נ"ג מצדד ]כז[ להקל בזה וכ"ש בדבר שאינו אלא משום שבות ועיין בספר החיים שכתב דבמקום הפסד גדול יש לסמוך על המקילין

Know that when we hold Amira L’Nochri is forbidden rabbinically, this is true even if one instructs the non-Jew to direct another non-Jew to do the Melacha. However, the Avodas HaGershuni and the Chvos Yair are lenient in this case. They are CERTAINLY lenient in situations where there is no Issur D’Rabbono

8 at all. The Sefer Hachaim notes that only in the case of a truly great loss may one rely on the lenient opinions.

Would our case, where someone would not be able to get an order for weeks on end count as a “great loss?

______-

Issue #6 – Maaras Ayin

We have concerns as noted above, that people are going to think that you are committing a sin in ordering the food delivery on Shabbos. Why is this not a problem of Maras Ayin? Or is it?

______---

(It could be argued that since the delivery trucks are always out, and no one knows if the food was specifically ordered for Saturday delivery or only happened to come on Shabbos, therefore there is a basis to argue that there is no Maaras Ayin)

Summary and Psak – Rav Asher Bush:

Even if the food has been brought from outside of the Techum, has been transported in an area with no eruv and driven in a vehicle, it may not be eaten on Shabbos but is not muktze and may be brought into the house and placed in the refrigerator.

In cases where a several days window for delivery is given at the time of ordering there is no issue as the Gentile workers have then chosen to deliver on Shabbos. In cases where the only available date for delivery is Shabbos and to not accept that date will mean a many day or week delay and the groceries are needed, there is room to permit. This is based on the idea of “amira l’amira”, as the person with whom the order is placed is not the one delivering; in extreme cases the Mishna Brurah permits relying on this. However, even in this case, if the order is placed on the phone it is still proper to state that ‘I do not really care which day this is delivered’ or the like. If ordering on-line this is clearly not an option but is still permitted if no reasonable alternatives exist.

In all of these cases there is no need to refrain due to Maris Ayin as the observer has every reason to believe that the order was not made to specifically arrive on Shabbos, rather the store has selected this date as is often the case. Additionally, Rav Moshe Feinstein has written that in a case of great discomfort/difficulty, Maris Ayin does not apply; for a person who would not be able to receive a needed food delivery for many days this would certain seem to qualify as a great difficulty.

The Corona Conundrum

Scenario: Someone with a confirmed case of COVID-19 goes to a Shul or School & didn’t listen to CDC’s rules & regulations. These establishments now pay for a special cleaning service to disinfect the whole building. ?obligated) to pay for the damage) חייב Is this person

?level דרבנן level or דארייתא Is this on a ?חייב What would be the reasons for the person to be

?פטור What would be the reasons for the person to be

be different if the person was unaware, he had COVID-19 & only retroactively הלכה Also, would the realized that the school or shul were exposed?

The first source will need background information to be fully understood:

When discussing damages, we usually think of someone giving another person a black eye or breaking a neighbor’s window while having a baseball catch. (I believe I broke 6 neighbors windows when I was younger) If I have a lunch and somebody ruins my lunch, he has to pay me back. What happens if the ?the food was not edible הלכה damage wasn’t tangible (not recognizable) or only in the world of

3 examples of this:

state. When someone puts טהור in a כהן which only could be eaten by a תרומה .Making impure מטמא 1- fruit, now all the fruit cannot be eaten b/c they all are תרומה fruit into a basket of טמא a (טמא there is a chance each fruit is) ספק טמא mixes it into a regular & ישראל which cannot be eaten by a תרומה Mixing fruit. Someone takes מדמע2- .cannot eat it ישראל fruit basket now the to drink אסור wine that was touched by a Non-Jew which is יין נסך Mixing wine. Someone takes מנסך 3- a common practice) and mixes it with יין with the ע'ז b/c we are concerned they might have done) regular wine

?חייב Would you say that is also called a damage and the damager is ?פטור Or there is a difference & there would be a basis to say

(Before reading all sources it is always best to try without the English translation if you cannot figure it out than the English should be used as an aid) (1 משנה מסכת גיטין פרק ה משנה ד המטמא והמדמע והמנסך בשוגג פטור במזיד חייב

חייב If it is done on purpose, he is .פטור inadvertently he is מנסך or מדמע or מטמא Someone is

if done on חייב Summary: Ruining someone else’s property in a Halachik way is a cause for him to be .פטור purpose, done inadvertently he is

The next source though seems to be an issue

(2 משנה מסכת בבא קמא פרק ב אדם מועד לעולם בין שוגג בין מזיד בין ער בין ישן משלם נזק שלם A human is always liable by damages when he damages accidentally, deliberately, awake or sleeping

משנה for damaging. How does that fit with the חייב Summary: Any scenario no matter what a person is ?פטור saying inadvertently damaging in a Halachik way is

?to not only Halachik damage but also to non-recognizable damages משנה Also, can we extend this

:answers this question משנה on that גמרא The

.non recognizable damage היזק שאינו ניכר :Key phrase (3 תלמוד בבלי מסכת גיטין דף נג עמוד א אמר חזקיה דבר תורה אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד חייב מאי טעמא היזק שאינו ניכר שמיה היזק ומה טעם אמרו בשוגג פטור כדי שיודיעו אי הכי אפילו במזיד נמי השתא לאוזוקי קא מכוין אודועי לא מודע ליה

The reason .חייב said on a Torah level whether inadvertently or on purpose the damager should be חזקיה

So ?שוגג פטור that is not recognizable is still considered damage. Then why is הזיק For this is because

it’s an incentive for him to admit because if he has to pay, he) עבירה You inform the owner to not do the

if that is so even if he did it on purpose he won’t admit because he’ll גמ' Wouldn’t say anything) asks the

since his actions were done to damage the other guys property, he certainly גמ' Have to pay. Says the

Wanted the other to know about it. So, we aren’t concerned about the information not being said.

level non recognizable damage both on purpose and inadvertently are תורה Summary: Really on a is so the damager will let the פטור like previous source). The only reason we say inadvertently is)חייב the ,גמרא it’s an incentive to have him confess. Asks the ,עבירה person know that he is about to do an let him not pay to make the owner aware he is about to do מזיד same should be true when it comes to answers and says if he was doing this on purpose, he certainly did it with the גמרא the עבירה the owner’s knowledge.

:has a 2nd opinion גמרא The

ור' יוחנן אמר דבר תורה אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד פטור מאי טעמא היזק שאינו ניכר לא שמיה היזק ומה טעם אמרו במזיד חייב שלא יהא כל אחד ואחד הולך ומטמא טהרותיו של חבירו ואומר פטור אני

Why? B/c non recognizable damage is not פטור is מזיד or שוגג says on a Torah level whether ר' יוחנן

So, someone doesn’t go and impure others ?חייב is מזיד Considered damage. What is the reason that

(to make sure no one takes advantage of this law גזירה it’s a) פטור Pure food and say I am

they aren’t within the realm of damage. (That is פטור Summary: Really non recognizable damages are why source #2 is not an issue b/c that is only true by damages, this is not damage!)

?considered damage or not היזק שאינו ניכר is הלכה Acc. to

(4 שולחן ערוך חושן משפט הלכות נזיקין סימן שפה סעיף א המזיק את חבירו היזק שאינו ניכר כגון שעירב יין נסך ביינו מן התורה הוא פטור אבל חכמים קנסוהו לשלם נזק שלם וכן אם היה שוגג או אנוס פטור שלא קנסו אלא מזיד

יין Someone that damages his friend with a damage that is not recognizable for example someone mixes

.to pay fully (קנס) gave him a penalty חכמים but the פטור in regular wine on a Torah level he is נסך

פטור he is (אונס) or involuntary (שוגג) If he did it accidentally

is considered not really damage & only if you do it on purpose will we make היזק שאינו ניכר :Summary you pay.

on purpose) is)במזיד and פטור inadvertently) is)בשוגג only היזק שאינו ניכר Recap: We established that ?to COVID-19 היזק שאינו ניכר This answers the above questions. But, can we apply the idea of .חייב

?היזק שאינו ניכר What is the definition of (5 רמב"ם הלכות חובל ומזיק פרק ז הלכה א המזיק ממון חבירו היזק שאינו ניכר הואיל ולא נשתנה הדבר ולא נפסדה צורתו הרי זה פטור מן התשלומין דין תורה

Someone damages money of his friend a damage that is not recognizable since the item didn’t change

on a Torah level פטור And its form didn’t change this case is

Nothing physically changed -רמבם .היזק שאינו ניכר Summary: def of

is when two different species mix e.g. wheat & grapes. If כלאים :Background info for the next source they are next to each other but there is a fence blocking than it is fine.

(6 תוספתא מסכת כלאים פרק ג הלכה ג מחיצת הכרם שנפרצה אומ' לו גדור גדרה ונפרצה אומ' לו גדור אם נתיאש הימנה הרי זה קדש וחייב באחריותה

The wall of the vineyard falls the owner of the wheat tells the owner of the grapes to put up the fence

And he puts up the fence but it falls again and he reminds him again to put up the fence if the owner of

that occurred כלאים to pay for the חייב The Vineyard gives up and doesn’t want to put it up again he is

Summary: The owner of the grapes doesn’t put up a fence to block the grapes to go onto the wheat, the .חייב says he is משנה

?are you bothered by anything רמבם Based off the previous information from

(7 תוספות מסכת בבא בתרא דף ב עמוד ב וחייב באחריותו - אף על גב דהיזק שאינו ניכר לא שמיה היזק )גיטין נג.( נראה לר"י דהאי חשיב היזק ניכר שהרי ניכר הוא שהוא כלאים כשרואה הגפנים בשדה

that is not הזיק He is obligated to pay- (Tosfos is asking a question)- even though we know that

!?in our case חייב so how can you say הזיק Recognizable is not considered

כלאים is recognizable damage because it is recognizable that it is כלאים says this case of ר"י Answer- The when you see that the grapes are in the grain

is what isn’t apparent to the eyes. You can היזק שאינו ניכר says that the way to define ר'י Summary: The see the grapes on the wheat so that is recognizable.

as something needing to lose its form. Answering our original הזיק שאינו ניכר explains רמבם :Recap question. Certainty the school or shul building has not lost its form and therefore at the very best this .פטור he’d be בשוגג scenario but מזיד would only be in a חייב so someone who is היזק שאינו ניכר case is

can you explain COVID-19 as something apparent to the eye which would make someone רי Acc to the Is using a microscope under the parameters to say I see the ?חייב who even damages by accident infection in the building and therefore it is recognizable or you’d say to the naked eye I don’t see the ?הזיק ניכר infection in the building it is still

רמבם ר'י הזיק אינו ניכר Damage that isn’t apparent to eye Damaged w/o loss of form Def of מזיד COVID-19 in school חייב הזיק שאינו ניכר ?why חייב שוגג COVID-19 in school הזיק שאינו ניכר b.c it is פטור ?Why or why not פטור or חייב

if you have any questions, thoughts or to clarify if you applied the שבועות Please be in contact after information correctly.

Missing you tremendously, Rabbi Rosenbaum 718-600-3181 [email protected]

Measuring a Hospital Visitor’s Temperature on Shabbos1

With the outbreak of COVID-19, health authorities in many countries around the world have implemented stringent measures in order to reduce the spread of infection. One of the common measures is to measure the temperature of anybody entering certain public buildings (e.g. hospitals). This is often performed using a thermometer which detects thermal radiation such that no contact is made between the device and the person.

Taking a person’s temperature on Shabbos for the purposes of Refuah is generally permitted. Though taking measurements on Shabbos is an Issur d’Rabbanan, it is permitted for a Mitzva such as Refua (Shulchan Aruch O.C. 306:7 & Mishna Berura ibid. 36). However, the use of battery-powered digital thermometers may well involve the Melachos of “Boneh” and “Makeh bPatish”, and causing the numbers to appear on the screen of the device may violate the prohibition of “Koseiv”. Therefore, digital thermometers should only be used in cases of Pikuach Nefesh and where a mercury thermometer is unavailable2.

This leads to our question. May a person go to a hospital on Shabbos to visit a sick relative when he knows that his temperature will be taken at the entrance?3

What issues might we need to consider and what are your thoughts about them?

______

Hospital employees are posted at all hospital entrances to ensure that nobody enters without their temperature being measured, regardless of their state of health. Is it a violation of Lifnei Iveir4 to visit the hospital? After all, in the process, you know that you are going to have someone take your temperature?

There are two important points with which we should begin:

1 Most of this Shiur is adapted from the writings of Rabbi Yossi Sprung Rosh Beis Medrash Govoha for medical Halacha 2 We should note that several of these assumptions are a matter of dispute:  According to some Poskim, battery-powered devices are certainly not a violation of an Issur d’Oraisa.  Some contend that the numbers that appear on a screen are not “Omed l’Hiskayem” – they are impermanent and therefore not an Issur d’Oraisa.  Violating a Melacha may depend upon the type of bulb that the thermometer contains (such as whether it is an LED bulb or other type). 3 This is obviously only in the scenario that the hospital is permitting visitors during the pandemic; many, if not most, hospitals in the United States have forbidden all visitors at this time outside of a few limited exceptions. 4 Placing a stumbling block before the blind man – causing someone to sin

 This is Pikuach Nefesh: The employee does not commit an Issur by measuring peoples’ temperature. In fact, he fulfills a Mitzva as this policy is an essential measure in preventing the spread of the virus which is a matter of Pikuach Nefesh. Moreover, the hospitalized patients are more vulnerable to the virus and at higher risk of complications and mortality than the general population, so protecting them is imperative.5  Furthermore, a visitor to the hospital plays no active role in the Melacha that is performed when his temperature is measured. He merely stands passively while the employee activates the thermometer. Therefore, our only question is whether there is an element of Lifnei Iveir in arriving at the hospital and thereby compelling the hospital employee to take the visitor’s temperature. `

The crux of this question is whether there is actually any element of “Michshol” (stumbling block) in this case. Given that the guard is performing a Mitzva by taking the temperature of visitors, and that the visitor is not performing a Melacha (as stated), where is the prohibition that would invoke the concern of Lifnei Iveir? On the other hand, perhaps it could be argued that since the visitor does not need to visit the hospital at all and his visit compels the hospital employee to perform a Melacha that could have been avoided, he has transgressed Lifnei Iveir by presenting himself at the hospital.

The Poskim discuss a similar question which can be dubbed Hachshalas Chavero b’Ones – “Causing One’s Friend to ‘Stumble’ in a Case of Coercion”. We will examine this question and discuss whether it is comparable to our case.

If Reuven says to Shimon, “Eat this forbidden food or I will kill you!” then Shimon must eat the food as Pikuach Nefesh overrides all of the Issurim in the Torah. Shimon has committed no sin by eating, but has Reuven violated Lifnei Iveir by forcing Shimon to eat?

The Chelkas Yoav (1) contends that Reuven has not transgressed as he has not caused Shimon to sin. However, the majority of the Acharonim disagree. Among them was Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l (Y.D. 1:3) who explained that even though Shimon has not sinned, “nevertheless an Issur was performed through him (Reuven) and he was not coerced (to act as he did).”

How did Reuven see to it that an was “an Issur performed” despite Shimon being permitted to act as he did? Rav Moshe distinguishes between placing a physical stumbling block in front of a person or offering nefarious advice which is a “Bein Adam laChaveiro” matter (between one man and another), and causing him to sin, which is a “Bein Adam laMakom” matter (between man and Hashem). The latter type of Lifnei Iveir is not a prohibition to cause damage or harm to another Jew, but to ensure that he doesn’t cause a “Michshol of a sin” to occur, even if the act was completely permissible due to the coercion.

5 It should be noted that if hospitals would be governed solely by Halacha, they would remain closed to visitors on Shabbos at this time and entry would be permitted only to medical personnel and essential hospital employees, those who need emergency care, or others whose reason for access is a matter of Pikuach Nefesh. This would reduce the need for measuring the temperature of others unnecessarily. However, in those hospitals that still allow visitors and cannot restrict visitors only on Shabbos, there is no alternative but to take the temperature of all of those who arrive, and doing so is therefore a Mitzva

Rav Moshe adduces an amazing proof for this distinction from the Halachos of Ribis. There are two sorts of Ribis – Ribis Ketzutza (Ribis that has been “fixed” – i.e. agreed upon from the start) which is an Issur d’Oraisa, and Ribis she’Eino Ketzutza (Ribis that was not agreed upon from the start) which is only an Issur d’Rabbanan6. By initiating a loan with Ribis, the lender has presumably transgressed Lifnei Iveir by causing the borrower to take a forbidden loan. Why then is he not in violation of an Issur d’Oraisa (namely Lifnei Iveir) even when he charges Ribis she’Eino Ketzutza? Is causing his friend to transgress an Issur d’Rabbanan any less of a stumbling block than a literal stone placed in his path that causes him to trip? If Lifnei Iveir would only be a Bein Adam laChaveiro matter, there should be no difference between causing another person to stumble in an Issur d’Oraisa or an Issur d’Rabbanan.

We must conclude, argued Rav Moshe, that causing another to sin is purely a Bein Adam laMakom matter in that one is responsible for ensuring that no act of sin occurs in the world. Therefore, by causing someone else to violate an Issur d’Rabbanan, one cannot be in contravention of Lifnei Iveir as Min haTorah this is not a “sin” and therefore does not constitute a Michshol. Therefore, Rav Moshe asserted that even if a person commits no sin with his act (such as if it was an Ones), the person who caused him to do it did transgress Lifnei Iveir as he caused “an act of sin to take place in the world”.

HaGaon Rav Asher Weiss Shlit”a (Shu”t Minchas Asher 2:31) agrees with Rav Moshe’s conclusion that it would be a transgression of Lifnei Iveir but contends that there is no need to characterize this type of Lifnei Iveir as Bein Adam laMakom. It could simply be said that it is Hashem’s will that no act of sin should be performed, even b’Ones7. Irrespective of the person’s culpability for the act, any act of sin is a cause of Hashem’s “Charon Af8” and “Hester Panim9”, and he who instigates it certainly has “stumbled” and one who coerces him to commit a sin therefore transgresses Lifnei Iveir.

Let us return to our question and examine whether it is indeed a case of “Hachshalas Chavero b’Ones”. In a situation of Ones10, though a person is permitted to perform an act that would seem to be sin, the act itself remains a “forbidden act” yet the situation calls for leniency. Therefore, it isn’t difficult to understand that the person who caused it to take place is considered to have “added a sin to the world” (in Rav Moshe’s words) or “contradicted the will of Hashem in the world” (in Rav Asher Weiss’ definition) and therefore transgresses Lifnei Iveir.

However, our case is markedly different. The hospital employee is not in a situation of Ones, but is performing the Mitzva of Hatzalas Nefashos11. Therefore, the act of taking a visitor’s temperature is not an act of sin performed b’Ones but an entirely permissible act. Perhaps there would be no transgression of Lifnei Iveir in those circumstances.

Furthermore, there’s a seemingly obvious distinction between the two cases. In the case of the Poskim, Reuven deliberately and actively caused Shimon to sin. In our case, the visitor has no interest or desire in having his temperature taken (and would prefer that it would not), even though he knows that someone will have to take his temperature when he arrives at the hospital. Perhaps the Poskim

6 A detailed description of these two types of Ribis is beyond the scope of this essay and immaterial to understanding Rav Moshe’s rationale 7 Under duress 8 anger 9 Hiding Himself 10coercion 11 Saving lives

16 would agree that our case would not be considered “Hachshalas Chavero b’Ones”. Nevertheless, it seems logical to say that there would be a violation of Lifnei Iveir in our case, as the visitor made a deliberate choice to visit the hospital in the first place. Though the guard’s act of taking his temperature was a Mitzva, since the Melacha that he performed in doing so was essentially unnecessary as the visitor could have chosen not to come to the hospital, it cannot be said to be purely Hatzalas Nefashos. In light of Rav Asher’s formulation, we may say that it is certain that Hashem’s will is that this visit which will necessitate Chilul Shabbos not occur, even though the act of taking the visitor’s temperature will be a Mitzva if it does.

However, if the employee is a non-Jew it would certainly be permitted to visit the hospital on Shabbos for the purpose of Bikur Cholim12 or another Mitzva. Doing so would not be considered “Amira l’Nachri”13 as the visitor does not instruct or even hint to the guard to perform a Melacha. Though some argue that in this case a visit to the hospital would violate Lifnei Iveir as this would be a Michshol14 in front of the hospital administration who appointed the non-Jew who must now perform a Melacha on their behalf, this is an unreasonable claim. As stated earlier, the hospital cannot prevent visitors only on Shabbos and must therefore appoint someone to take the temperatures of everyone entering the hospital for the safety of all parties. Therefore, neither the hospital administration nor the visitor commits a sin when a visitor’s temperature is taken.

12 Visiting the sick 13 instructing a non-Jew to perform a forbidden Melacha on Shabbos which is itself an Issur d’Rabbanan 14 Stumbling block

When We Meet Again: Blessings upon Reopening & Reuniting A. If I only saw my friends on zoom, do I make a Beracha when we see each other again15? One of the crazy nuances of the world of social distancing that has become familiar to us only because of COVID-19 is the fact that we can have instances where we have had friends and neighbors that have been next to us for 2 months and now we finally have a chance to see them in person for the first time in a long time. Is there a Beracha one should make at that time? What if I saw the person but only on zoom, does that make a difference? The Gemara (Berachos 58) notes: תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף נח עמוד ב אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: הרואה את חבירו לאחר שלשים יום אומר: ברוך שהחיינו וקיימנו והגיענו לזמן הזה, לאחר שנים עשר חדש - אומר ברוך מחיה המתים Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who sees his friend after thirty days have passed since last seeing him recites: Blessed…Who has given us life, sustained us and brought us to this time. One who sees his friend after twelve months recites: Blessed…Who revives the dead16.

Who is considered a “friend” in regard to reciting this Beracha? 4 opinions appear in the commentaries:

 Tosafos – A “friend” is defined as someone who is special to you.  Rosh – A “friend” is someone who is special to you and whom you benefit from seeing  Tur (OC Siman 225) – A “friend” is someone REALLY special to you and whom you are REALLY happy to see  Gra (Vilna Gaon – OC 225:1) – The happiness of reuniting must bring them to want to make a Beracha.

What if it is not the friend you haven’t seen but the Rabbi. Say you see Rav Teitz Shlita, would you recite the Beracha? From the text of the Gemara the friend is used, does this exclude the Rabbi? Or not? What do you think? Why?

______

The Birkei Yosef notes that the Beracha should apply to seeing the Rebbe too. His proof is from the fact that one fulfills the Mitzva of Mishloach manos if one sends it to his Rebbe even though the Mitzva is from man to his friend. Since sending to the Rebbe/Rav counts for the Mitzva fulfillment, it seems that this system is ok there too.

Would you make the Beracha at an inappropriate time or place? It is possible that many have seen loved ones and friends for the first time in awkward situations. Say someone was at a funeral. At this funeral the attendee sees someone s/he has not seen in months. Would you make the Beracha then? It

15 My dear friend & Rebbe, Rav Aryeh Liebowitz discusses most of this section of the shiur in his amazing Sefer HaKoneh Olamo vol. II beginning on page 441. This Shiur is an application of the topic discussion there. 16 See Rabbi Akiva Eiger who notes that we would not make this Beracha with the name of Hashem since it is a part of a fuller Beracha that is found in Shmoneh Esrai that begins Ata Gibor. Cutting it down to simply Michayeh HaMeisim means it is not full so you do not say Hashem’s name. Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky questions that idea.

18 is Shehechiyanu or even Michayeh HaMeisim – a bit tacky for a cemetery no? Rav Aryeh Liebowitz cites the Gemara that notes that one can have different emotional experiences at the same moment – hence an Avel17 can need to recite Kaddish and Dayan HaEmes and SheHechiyanu because of an inheritance that s/he receives in the same moment.18

A final story and a conclusion: Rav Refoel Kook (cited in Uvdos V’Hanhagos L’Beis Brisk II:38) once asked the Brisker Rav if he could recite the Beracha since he had not seen the Brisker Rav for 30 days. The Brisker Rav answered that he did not think that it was allowed. When pressed to explain why not, the Brisker Rav explained that as opposed to a new fruit which by definition defined by Chazal has a guaranteed level of Simcha that obligates a Beracha, the Chachamim established a sense that there needs to be a certain level of Simcha achieved in seeing a friend that is not well defined therefore since we say Safek Berachos L”Hakeil, we would not make the Beracha.

B. Is there a Beracha for reopening the Shul?

There is a fascinating gemara in Berachos worthy of mention. The Gemara explains:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף נח עמוד ב .תנו רבנן: הרואה בתי ישראל, בישובן אומר - ברוך מציב גבול אלמנה, בחורבנן אומר - ברוך דיין האמת

The Sages taught: One who sees the houses of Israel inhabited and tranquil recites: Blessed…Who establishes the border of the widow. One who sees them in ruins he recites: Blessed…the true Judge.

From the text of the Gemara it seems as if there is a Beracha for seeing Shuls that we might not have seen in a little while. What is the context of the recitation of that beracha?

Rashi comments: רש"י מסכת ברכות דף נח עמוד ב .ברוך מציב גבול אלמנה - כגון בישוב בית שני

Rashi notes that when the Jewish people began to resettle their land in Bayis Sheni times it was a good example of the opportunity to recite this Beracha.

If Rashi is correct, what about today, when our Shuls have been closed and we have not been able to appreciate them. When we re-enter do you think we should recite the Beracha? What about without Shem Hashem? Why or why not?

______

17 mourner 18 This issue is a fascinating one but only works for two PERSONAL competing emotions like the one described in the text. Rav Soloveitchik noted that one cannot have a personal Aveilus and a communal mourning which is why Yom Tov and its obligation of Simcha ends the personal Shiva or Shloshim. See “Shiurei HaGrid al Hilchos Aveilus” for more information.

The Shulchan Aruch weighs in on the issue:

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים הלכות ברכת הפירות סימן רכד סעיף י ב< הרואה )יד( ח יב[ בתי ישראל ז'{ בישובן, ט( כגון בית שני, אומר: בא"י אלהינו מלך העולם מציב גבול > .אלמנה; בחורבנן, אומר: ברוך דיין האמת Adopting the Gemara’s text and the example of Rashi, it seems that the Shulchan Aruch DOES agree that a Beracha would be recited upon seeing Jewish homes rebuilt. But which homes are under discussion here. Understanding that might help us understand the parameters of the Beracha which, in turn, would help us apply it to the current situation and help us decide what our position on this Beracha ought to be.

So which Jewish buildings was Rashi talking about? Why? And what is the comparison to the time of the settlement at the time of Bayis Sheni?

Maharsha comments: מהרש"א חידושי אגדות מסכת ברכות דף נח עמוד ב ברוך מציב כו'. פירש"י כגון בישוב בית שני עכ"ל. דקדק לפרש כן הכא משום דבחורבן בית ראשון נמשלו ישראל לאלמנה כמ"ש היתה כאלמנה וכשנגאלו בבנין בית שני מקרי מציב גבול אלמנה דהיינו בנין בהמ"ק ולאפוקי בגלות השתא אין זה מקרי בתי ישראל בישובן כיון דבהמ"ק חרב לא שייך ביה מציב גבול אלמנה אבל בית גאים ודאי :דשייך השתא וק"ל

According to Maharsha the reason Rashi spoke about the resettlement at the time of the second Beis HaMikdash was because the blessing specifically referred to the Second Beis Hamikdash. In other words, at the time of the rededication of the second Beis Hamikdash, then this blessing was to be uttered. The reason? When the first one was destroyed, we noted that Yirushalayim was like an Almanah. When the second Beis HaMikdash was rededicated, it was as if the Almanah was restored. In fact, Maharsha says one CANNOT recite this blessing in Chutz L’Aretz since that is not our borders. Even in Eretz Yisrael he notes that until the Beis HaMikdash is rebuilt one cannot make the Beracha of Matziv Gevul Almana.

What do you think? When a new settlement is built in Israel, should this Beracha be recited? Why or why not?

______

צל"ח מסכת ברכות דף נח עמוד ב הרואה בתי ישראל בישובן. פירש"י, כגון בישוב בית שני. נלע"ד דאין כוונת רש"י שדוקא על בית המקדש יאמר כן, אבל כוונתו דאחר החורבן איך שייך לומר שום שבח על בית גדול וחשוב והלא אסור לבנות בית מסוייד ומכוייר ]או"ח סי' תק"ס סעיף א'[, ואף שאותן שנבנו בהיתר קודם החורבן או שקנה מנכרי מותר לקיימו, היינו משום שלא הטריחוהו לסתור או לקלף בכתלים, אבל לא שייך לשבח על זה ולומר מציב גבול אלמנה. ואולי מזה הטעם כתב הרי"ף ]מ"ג ע"ב מדפי הרי"ף[ הרואה בתי כנסיות, משום דאיירי בזמן הזה ואסור לבנות בית חשוב רק בית הכנסת מותר לבנות אף בזמן הזה כמבואר במג"א סי' תק"ס ס"ק ב'. ומה מאד יש להוכיח בזמנינו זה שבונים בתים כמו השרים ואין זכרון לחורבן בית מקדשינו והגלות והצרות ומיעוט התורה והמצות וביטול כל הגדרים שנהגו אבותינו ואבות אבותינו, אוי לנו שעלתה בימינו כך, והרבה היה לי לדבר בזה אבל מה אעשה ונתרבו בקרב עמינו אנשים .המסרבים לקבל מוסר ואין דברי חכמים נשמעים, ובעל הכרם יחוס על כרמו יגדור גדר לכרמו וירחם על עמו

Rav Yechezkel Landau (1713-1793) famed author of Noda B’Yehudah wrote a commentary on the Gemara in memory of his mother called Tziyun l’Nefesh Chaya which is often known by its abbreviation Tzlach. Herein, he notes that it is not that the Beracha was written for the Beis HaMikdash (As Maharsha suggests). Rather, since the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash it is not possible to find a home that would be finished since all Jewish homes are not supposed to be complete – sections need to be left to remember that the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed – that makes it impossible to recite this Beracha practically anywhere today. (In fact, he also decries the amounts of money that people put into thwie homes and do not think about the Churban and the needs of the community that have come as a result of it..but that is for a later discussion…). He does pause to note in the name of the Rif that only one type of building can be built to be a majestic structure and that is a Shul. Practically, he rules that this is why the Rif noted that the Beracha would be recited when seeing such a building.

Which brings us to the original question. If you haven’t seen the Shul in 30 days, would you recite the Beracha?

משנה ברורה סימן רכד ס"ק יד )יד( בתי ישראל - פי' בתי עשירי ישראל שמיושבים בתוקף ובגבורה כגון בישוב בית שני ]רש"י[ ואפשר דוקא בא"י ובזמן בית שני קאמר אבל בזה"ז אפילו בא"י לא ]ב"י[ ]יא[ ויש שמפרשים כונת רש"י דאפילו אם הם מיושבים עתה כמו בבית שני ג"כ מברכין והרי"ף פי' בתי ישראל בישובן היינו בתי כנסיות שמתפללין בתוכן וכן נהגו העולם שאין מברכין על שארי בתים כ"א על בהכ"נ כשרואה אותה ביפיה ובתיקונה וכתב בא"ר דאין חילוק בין א"י לחו"ל ואפילו :בזה"ז ובפמ"ג מצדד ]יב[ דבזה"ז טוב לברך ברוך מציב גבול אלמנה בלא שם ומלכות

Based on the Mishna Berurah – it sounds like we do not recite the Beracha in most instances except in regard to Shuls and then perhaps only in Eretz Yisrael and therefore it is good not to make the Beracha with Shem Hashem.

Rav Zilberstein in Vavei HaAmudim (Siman 18) notes that today we do not recite this Beracha at all since it requires a certain level of beauty & Hiddur and even in a Shul we are not sure what the proper level of beauty is necessary to recite the Beracha. 19

19 It should be noted that Rav Dov Lior and Rav Chaim Drukman have made the Beracha in Eretz Yisrael. Examples can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAVIg694XTc

Virtual Minyan Rav Avrohom Herman

1) Can a virtual/zoom meeting constitute a minyan? How is this different than joining a minyan that is taking place in different room or house?

 Mishna and Gemara Megillah, page 23b

מתני׳ אין פורסין על שמע ואין עוברין לפני התיבה ואין נושאין את כפיהם ואין קורין בתורה ואין מפטירין בנביא ואין עושין מעמד ומושב ואין אומרים ברכת אבלים ותנחומי אבלים וברכת חתנים ואין מזמנין בשם פחות מעשרה MISHNA: One does not recite the introductory prayers and blessing [poresin] before Shema; nor does one pass before the ark to repeat the Amida prayer; nor do the priests lift their hands to recite the Priestly Benediction; nor is the Torah read in public; nor does one conclude with a reading from the Prophets [haftara] in the presence of fewer than ten men.

גמ׳ מה"מ אמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן דאמר קרא (ויקרא כב, לב )ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל כל דבר שבקדושה לא יהא פחות מעשרה GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, i.e., that ten people are needed in each of these cases, derived? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is as the verse states: “And I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel” (Leviticus 22:32), which indicates that any expression of sanctity may not be recited in a quorum of fewer than ten men.

. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 55:13,20:

צריך שיהיו *כל העשרה **במקום אחד וש"ץ עמהם והעומד בתוך הפתח מן האגף ולחוץ דהיינו כשסוגר הדלת במקום ]שפה [פנימית של עובי הדלת ולחוץ כלחוץ : All of the 10 need to be in one place and the prayer leader with them. And the one who stands in the middle of the doorway between a part of a building and outside such that when one closes the door [one is] in a place from the inside [lip] of the thickness of the door and outwards - it is like outside.

 Mishna Berura: Difference between being in same and different rooms, and the need to see each other

(מח( *כל העשרה - ואפילו אם אינן רואין אלו את אלו כיון שהם בבית אחד ]אחרונים[ אבל אם מקצתם בחדר זה ומקצתם בחדר אחר אינם מצטרפין אע"פ שהפתח פתוח ביניהם משום דאין שם פרצה והפתח

גופא כמחיצה חשובה וה"ל שני בתים ואפילו כשאין דלת ביניהם כל שהם בשני רשויות ואין רואין זה את זה אין מצטרפין ויש מחמירין אפילו ברואין :

Does a partition break up a minyan? (מט( **אחד - היו ט' בבית ואחד בסוכה י"א דמצטרף ויש חולקין. כשיש ט' במקום אחד ואחד אחר הוילון שפורסין לצניעות מצטרפין ודוקא אם פירשו לצניעות בעלמא אבל אי איכא תפילין או ס"ת ופירשו סדין כי היכי דליהוי מחיצה לשמש מטתו הוי נמי מחיצה לצירוף עשרה ולא מצטרפו ]פר"ח[ ופמ"ג מצדד דבכל גווני מצטרפי:

2) Is there significance in davening at home the same time as an existent minyan? Is there any significance to davening at the same time as others without a minyan?

From the following Gemara we learn how our sages went to great lengths to daven at the same time as a minyan. ברכות ז׳ ב אֲמַר לֵיּה רַבִּ י יִּצְחָקלְרַ ב נַחְמָן:מַ אי טַעְמָ אלָ א אָתֵימָר לְבֵיכְנִּישְ תָא לְ צַּלֹויֵי? ראֲמַ לֵיּה: לָ א יָכֵילְ נָא. אֲמַ ר לֵיּה:לִּכַנְפִּי לְמָ ר עַשְרָ הוְלִּ יצַּלֵ י.אֲמַ רלֵ יּה: טְרִּ יחָ א לִּי מִּּלְתָ א.וְלֵימָ אלֵיּה מָר לִּשְ לּוחָ א דְ צִּ בּורָ א, בְעִּידָ נָא דִּמְ יצַּלֵ צִּ בּורָ א לֵ יתֵ יוְלֹודְ עֵ יּה לְמָ ר . The Gemara relates the following incident. Rabbi Yitzḥak said to Rav Naḥman: Why did the Master not come to the synagogue to pray? Rav Naḥman said to him: I was weak and unable to come. Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him: Let the Master gather ten individuals, a prayer quorum, at your home and pray. Rav Naḥman said to him: It is difficult for me to impose upon the members of the community to come to my home to pray with me (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol). Rabbi Yitzḥak suggested another option: The Master should tell the congregation to send a messenger when the congregation is praying to come and inform the Master so you may pray at the same time.

אֲמַרלֵיּהמַאי כּוּלֵי הַ אי? אֲמַר לֵ יּהדְ אָמַר רַבִּ ייֹוחָ נָןמִּ ּׁשּום רַבִּ ישִּמְ עֹון ןבֶּ יֹוחַ י : Rav Naḥman saw that Rabbi Yitzḥak was struggling to find a way for him to engage in communal prayer. He asked: What is the reason for all this fuss? Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him: As Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai:

(8a ח׳ א )מַ אי דִּ כְתִּ יב ״וַאֲנִּי תְ פִּּלָתִּילְ ָך ה׳ עֵת רָ צֹון״. יאֵימָתַ עֵת רָ צֹון — בְשָעָ השֶּהַצִּ בּור מִּתְ פַּלְלִּ ין . What is the meaning of that which is written: “But as for me, let my prayer be unto You, Lord, in a time of favor; O God, in the abundance of Your mercy, answer me with the truth of Your salvation” (Psalms 69:14)? It appears that the individual is praying that his prayers will coincide with a special time of Divine favor. When is a time of favor? It is at the time when the congregation is praying. It is beneficial to pray together with the congregation, for God does not fail to respond to the entreaties of the congregation.

רַבִּ ייֹוסֵי בְרַבִּ יחֲנִּינָא ראָמַ מֵהָ כָא: ״כֹּה אָמַ רה׳ בְ עֵתרָ צֹון עֲנִּיתִּ יָך״ .

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that the unique quality of communal prayer is derived from here: “Thus said the Lord, in a time of acceptance I have answered you and on a day of salvation I have aided you” (Isaiah 49:8).

רַבִּיאַחָא יבְרַבִּ חֲנִּינָא ראָמַ מֵהָ כָא: ן״הֶּ אֵ ל כַבִּ יר וְלֹּא יִּמְ אָ ס״: ּוכְתִּ יב: ״פָדָה בְשָ לֹום נַפְשִּי מִּקְרָ ב ילִּ כִּי בְרַבִּ ים הָ יּו עִּמָדִּ י״ . Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that it is derived from here: “Behold, God is mighty, He despises no one” (Job 36:5). He adopts an alternative reading of the verse: “Behold, God will not despise” the prayer of “the mighty,” i.e., the community. And it is written: “He has redeemed my soul in peace so that none came upon me; for there were many with me. God shall hear and answer them…” (Psalms 55:19–20). This verse teaches that the prayer was answered because there were many with me when it was offered.

תַנְיָאנָמֵיהָכִּ י, רַבִּ י נָתָ ן אֹומֵר: מִּ נַיִּן שֶּ אֵ יןהַקָ דֹוש בָ רּוְךהּוא מֹואֵ ס בִּתְ פִּּלָתָ ןשֶּל רַבִּ ים שֶּ נֶּ אֱמַ ר: ן״הֶּ לאֵ כַבִּ יר וְלֹּא יִּמְ אָ ס״, ּוכְתִּ יב: ״פָדָה בְשָ לֹום נַפְשִּי מִּקְ רָבלִּ י״ וְגֹו׳, אָמַר הַקָ דֹושבָ רּוְךהּוא: כָל הָ עֹוסֵק בְ תֹורָ ה ּובִּגְמִּ ילּות חֲסָדִּ יםּומִּתְ לפַּלֵ עִּםהַצִּ בּור — מַעֲלֶּה אֲנִּיעָלָ יוכְאִּ יּלּו פְדָאַ נִּי,לִּי ּולְבָ נַי, מִּ בֵ יןאּומֹות הָ עֹולָ ם . That last proof was also taught in a baraita. Rabbi Natan says: From where do we know that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not despise the prayer of the masses? As it is stated: “Behold, God does not despise the mighty,” and it is written: “He has redeemed my soul in peace so that none came upon me; for there were many with me.” Rabbi Natan interprets this not as David speaking about himself, but as God speaking to Israel. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Anyone who engages in Torah study, which is called peace in the verse: “All its ways are peace” (Proverbs 3:17); and in acts of kindness, and prays with the congregation, I ascribe to him credit as if he redeemed Me and My children from among the nations of the world.

 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 90:9

(The Shulchan Aruch codifies the parameters for the coordination of one’s davening when the minyan davens) ישתדל אדם *להתפלל בב"ה **עם הציבור ואם הוא ***אנוס שאינו יכול לבא לב"ה ****יכוין להתפלל בשעה שהציבו 'מתפללין ]וה"ה בני אדם הדרים בישובים ואין להם מנין מ"מ יתפללו שחרית וערבית בזמן שהצבור מתפללים סמ"ג [וכן אם נאנס ולא התפלל בשעה שהתפללו הציבו' והוא מתפלל ביחיד אעפ"כ יתפלל בב"ה :

A person should try to pray in the synagogue with a congregation, and if they are unable (lit. "anus", coerced) to come, they should intend to pray while the congregation is praying [This applies to people living in small settlements, unable to pray in a minyan -- they nevertheless, should pray shacharit and arvit during the time of congregational prayer -Sma"g] If they (the person) could not pray at the time when the community pray, and is praying alone, nevertheless they should pray alone in the synagogue.

 Mishna Berura

(כז( *להתפלל בבהכ"נ - ואפילו אם יש לו עשרה בביתו ישתדל בבהכ"נ ועיין בסי"ח במ"ב ס"ק נ"ד :

Mishna Berurah explains why it is important to daven with a minayn (כח( **עם הצבור - מפני שאין הקב"ה מואס בתפלת הצבור ואפילו היה בהם חוטאים לא ימנע מלהתפלל עמהם. אם יש לו שתי בתי כנסיות ואחד יש בו ברוב עם מצוה להתפלל בו יותר. כתבו האחרונים דאם יש בבהכ"נ של רוב עם רוב בלבול ואין אדם שומע לא תפלה ולא קה"ת מוטב להתפלל בביתו בעשרה. ובהכ"נ ביחיד ובביתו בעשרה תפלת צבור עדיף ואפילו יכול לשמוע קדיש וברכו אפ"ה תפלת צבור עדיף ]פמ"ג[. ועיקר תפלה בצבור הוא תפלת י"ח דהיינו שיתפללו עשרה אנשים שהם גדולים ביחד ולא כמו שחושבין ההמון שעיקר להתפלל בעשרה הוא רק לשמוע קדיש וקדושה וברכו ולכן אינם מקפידין רק שיהיו י' בבהכ"נ…

(כט( ***אנוס - היינו שתש כחו אף שאינו חולה. ואם הוא אונס ממון שמחמת השתדלותו להתפלל עם הצבור יבוא לידי הפסד יכול להתפלל בביתו ביחיד או בבהכ"נ בלא צבור אבל משום מניעת ריוח לא ימנע מלהתפלל עם הצבור דחילוק יש בין מניעת ריוח לבין הפסד מכיסו וכ"כ בשם יעקב והעיד על הגאון מוה' זלמן מירל"ש אב"ד דק"ק האמבורג שפעם אחת הלך לבהכ"נ מעוטף בטלית ותפילין כדרכו ופגע בו אדם אחד שהיה לו למכור אבנים טובות ורצה שילך עמו לביתו והגאון השיב לו שימתין עד שיבוא מבהכנ"ס ובתוך כך מכרן לאחר והאחר הרויח בהם כמה אלפים ר"ט ושמח הגאון שמחה גדולה שהשליך מנגד ממון רב עבור תפלת צבור ]מגן גבורים[ וכ"כ בספר אליהו רבא בשם תשובת ב"י דיש לקנוס האנשים שמונעים לילך לבהכ"נ משום שעוסקין בתורה או משום שמשתכרין ממון. ולעשירים יש לקנוס יותר ובעל תורה אף שעוסק בלימוד מ"מ איכא חשדא וחילול השם כמש"כ סי"ח :

(ל( ****יכוין להתפלל וכו' - ודוקא אם טריחא ליה מילתא לאסוף עשרה. משמע בע"א דף ד' ע"ב דאם מתפלל מוסף בשעה שהצבור מתפללין שחרית לא מיקרי בשעה שהצבור מתפללין ואם מתפלל עמהם בבהכנ"ס מיקרי תפלת הצבור:

From the website of DavenTogther.com, one sees that intended purpose of these groups is more chizuk than halacha. Virtual Minyanim Guidelines & Halachos

Virtual Minyanim listed on this site follow the Halachic ruling of R' Mordechai Willig, Sh'lita, that a real Minyan cannot actually be formed over Zoom. Below are some Halachos relating to the Virtual Minyanim listed on this site. The Guidelines mostly relate only to the 'Virtual Minyan - Online Community' listed above and hosted by this website. What is DavenTogether.com? We can't daven with a Minyan, but we can daven together. Shuls across the world are going virtual. They are davening b'yichidus, but together, through Zoom - an online video conference website/application. Led by Shul Rabbanim, many offer their members Divrei Chizuk, Torah and Halacha before or after davening. DavenTogether.com is a new project born from the difficult climate of quarantine. The website lists the Shuls running Virtual Minyanim, along with their zmanim and Zoom links, to enable Jews across the world to access and participate in davening together. What's the point of davening in a Virtual 'Minyan' if it's not Halachically a Minyan?

Although no Minyan is actually being formed through video conference (Tefillos like Kaddish and others requiring a Minyan cannot be said Halachically), there are strong benefits to participating in a Virtual 'Minyan'... 1. Say Amen to Brachos - the 'Chazzan' of the Virtual 'Minyan' can say Brachos out loud and the members can respond 'Amen' (Psak of R' Mordechai Willig, Sh'lita).

2. Mechazek Tefillos- allotting adequate time to say all the words and have proper Kavannah when davening alone can be quite difficult. With a Virtual 'Minyan' we get the support of others davening along with us.

3. Mechazek Learning - many Shul Rabbanim are offering their communities Divrei Chizuk, Torah and Halacha before or after davening. 4. Accountability and Routine - waking up with nowhere to be is hard. Remembering to daven Mincha/Maariv without having a set daily routine is also hard. Being accountable to a set schedule of Virtual 'Minyanim' while in quarantine can ensure a strong connection to Hashem, consistency, productivity, and even sanity. 5. Sense of Community and Socializing - seeing other human beings live is reassuring and positive when living in isolation, or with just one's family. Virtual 'Minyanim' give us the opportunity to 'spend time' with community members while we daven, and allows us to socialize before and after davening. Having a sense of community and reminds us we are all struggling with similar issue and we are all in this together. In short, we have been thrust into an unprecedented way of living. We are stuck at home, but we still want (and are obligated) to pray. Therefore, we shall go through davening together, albeit via video conference, to help us allocate proper time to speak to Hashem and somewhat regulate our bizarre schedules. Plus, since Tefillah stands a better chance of being answered in a minyan (Brachot 8a), perhaps it can’t hurt to daven together via video conference. Regardless, let’s not forget that our Tefillos truly have the power to change the course of this pandemic.

3) Can one answer amen to a bracha and fulfill an obligation of hearing the shofar blown, Kiddush or Havalah recited, the Megilla read, etc. by listening though a microphone, telephone, webcam, zoom or even a recording? Answering amein when one cannot hear the bracha. Sukkah 51b:6:2 תניא רבי יהודה אומר מי שלא ראה דיופלוסטון של אלכסנדריא של מצרים לא ראה בכבודן של ישראל אמרו כמין בסילקי גדולה היתה סטיו לפנים מסטיו פעמים שהיו בה )ששים רבוא על ששים רבוא( כפלים כיוצאי מצרים והיו בה ע"א קתדראות של זהב כנגד ע"א של סנהדרי גדולה כל אחת ואחת אינה פחותה מעשרים ואחד רבוא ככרי זהב ובימה של עץ באמצעיתה וחזן הכנסת עומד עליה והסודרין בידו וכיון שהגיע לענות אמן הלה מניף בסודר וכל העם עונין אמן It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One who did not see the great synagogue [deyofloston] of Alexandria of Egypt never saw the glory of Israel. They said that its structure was like a large basilica [basileki], with a colonnade within a colonnade. At times there were six hundred thousand men and another six hundred thousand men in it, twice the number of those who left Egypt. In it there were seventy-one golden chairs [katedraot], corresponding to the seventy-one members of the Great Sanhedrin, each of which consisted of no less than twenty-one thousand talents of gold. And there was a wooden platform at the center. The sexton of the synagogue would stand on it, with the scarves in his hand. And because the synagogue was so large and the people could not hear the communal prayer, when the prayer leader reached the conclusion of a blessing requiring the people to answer amen, the sexton waved the scarf and all the people would answer amen.

Rashi on Sukkah 51b:6:8 לענות אמן - שהיה שליח שלפני התיבה גומר ברכתו והן לא היו יכולין כולן לשמוע קולו:

The problem with answering amein to a brach one does not hear, amein ysoma. Tosafot on Sukkah 51b:6:2 וכיון שהגיע לענות אמן מניף בסודר וכל העם עונין אמן. בערוך קשיא ליה לרבינו נסים הא דאמר בריש גמרא דשלשה שאכלו) ברכות דף מו (.אין עונין אמן יתומה והא הכא לא שמעו הברכה אלא בהנפת הסודרין יודעין שהגיע עונת אמן והן עונין אמן יתומה? ומפרש בשם רבנן דבני מערבא שעל מי שהוא חייב ברכה קאמר ובענייתו אמן רוצה לצאת ידי חובתו צריך שישמע ואחר כך יענה אמן ולא יענה אמן יתומה והא דעונין אמן בהנפת סודרין היינו בקריאת ספר תורה ולא בתפלה ולא בדבר ששליח מוציא רבים ידי חובתן

One cannot fulfill an obligation to hear a brach if they didn’t actually hear it. The Shulchan Aruch rules like Tosfos.

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 124:8 ולא יענה אמן יתומה דהיינו שהוא חייב בברכה אחת וש"ץ מברך אותה וזה אינו שומעה אע"פ שיודע איזה ברכה מברך הש"ץ מאחר שלא שמעה לא יענה אחריו אמן דהוי אמן יתומה :הגה ויש מחמירין דאפי 'אינו מחויב באותה ברכה לא יענה אמן אם אינו יודע באיזה ברכה קאי ש"צ דזה נמי מקרי אמן יתומה ]טור בשם תשב"ץ] Is a voice or sound heard through an electronic device considered a human voice or natural sound so that one can fulfill his or her obligation to hear devarim she'b'kedusha? This is the subject of debate among the poskim:

Rav Shomo Zalman Auerbach (Minchas Shlomo Vol. I #9) Rules that one cannot fulfill an obligation when hearing through an electric device. This is the ruling of Rav Elyashiv, zt’l, Rav Ovadiah Yosef (Yabia Omer Vol. I #19:18), and, lbc’l, Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Moadim uZmanim Vol. VI #105).

Rav Shomo Zalman Auerbach (Minchas Shlomo Vol. I #9) …משא"כ כשעומד רחוק ושומע ע"י טלפון נלענ"ד שאין לענות כלל אמן על שום ברכה ודינו כעונה אמן לבטלה, הואיל והוא שומע את הברכה רק מממברנה ולא מפי אדם, וכמו"ש כמה פעמים שע"י תנודות הממברנה חשוב רק כיודע לכוין את הרגע שהאדם עומד ע"י המיקרופון ומברך )וגם זה לא תמיד כי יתכן שזה כבר נשמע מתקליט(, וכיון שכך מסתבר דבכה"ג שהוא עומד רחוק ואין לו שום צירוף עם המברך דאין לענות אמן על ברכה זו . וקל וחומר הוא לפי"ז שהשומע קול שופר, מקרא מגלה או סתם ברכה ע"י רדיו שאינו עושה כלל שום מצוה וגם אינו רשאי לענות אמן אחר המברך, כי הקול היוצא מהממברנה (the thin membrane in the condenser capsule in a microphone) של מקלט receiver הרדיו איננו כלל קול התוקע או המדבר אלא גם כאן רק הממברנה עצמה היא המדברת ונמצא שרק קולות עץ ואבן הוא שומע ולא קול אדם. אי אפשר כלל לצאת בשמיעה זו בשום דבר שחייבים לשמוע מפי אדם ואף שיודע אני רבים יתמהו על כך וכמו זר יהי’ דבר זה בעיניהם עם כל זאת האמת הוא כדברינו וברור הוא בעיני שזה מוזר רק לאלה שאינם יודעין כלל מה טיבם של המכשירים האלה וחושבים מחשבות הבל שחוטי הטלפון או גלי הרדיו מוליכים ממש את קול האדם וכדי להוציא מלבם טענה זו הארכתי מאוד בביאור הדברים אבל לא ליודעין את האמת כי בדברי בזה עם מבינים מדע ויודעים בהלכה כולם הסכימו לי

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Responsa Iggerot Moshe OC 2:108, 4:126) entertains the possibility that one can be yotzeh hearing this way, but is hesitant to allow this under normal circumstances, as he is not wholly convinced that it is considered a human voice.

שו"ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ב סימן קח בקריאת המגילה ע"י מיקראפאן /מיקרופון/ מע"כ הרב הגאון המפורסם מוהר"ר חיים דובער גינזבערג שליט"א הגאב"ד וואנקאווער. הנה בדבר קריאת המגילה ע"י מיקראפאן קשה לומר בזה הלכה ברורה כי לא נתברר כראוי איך נשמע ע"י זה ע"י אנשים הראוי לסמוך עליהם. ולכן אין ראוי לקרא המגילה שישמעו ע"י המיקראפאן ועד עתה כמדומני שלא נשאלתי על זה לומר בזה הלכה ואיני זוכר כלל מה שכותב כתר"ה בשם רב צעיר אחד שאמרתי שאין למחות בידם. אבל מה שפשיטא ליה לכתר"ה שאין יוצאין בשמיעה ע"י מיקראפאן מטעם שהוא כמו ששומע מאינו בר חיובא לפ"מ דאומרים המומחים בטיבו של מיקראפאן שלא מוציא ממש הקול של האדם המדבר אלא הד הברה בעלמא, ולא דק כתר"ה בלשונו דאין שייך זה לקול הברה שבמתני' דר"ה דף כ"ז שהרי הכא נשמע קול חזק ובריא אך כוונת כתר"ה היא שאומרים שנשמע קול אחר שנברא מקולו ולכן שייך דמיונו לנשמע מלאו בר חיובא דקול הברה לא שייך ללאו בר חיובא, הנה לדידי מספקא טובא אף אם נימא שהאמת כאמירת המומחים שלא נשמע קול האדם אלא קול אחר שנעשה מקולו, מטעם שכיון שעכ"פ רק כשהוא קורא נשמע הקול יש להחשיב זה כשמיעת קולו ממש דהרי כל זה שנשמע עושה קולו ממש. ומנין לנו עצם כח השמיעה איך הוא שאולי הוא ג"כ באופן זה שנברא איזה דבר באויר ומגיע לאזנו. *וכן מסתבר לפי מה שאומרים חכמי הטבע שהקול יש לו הלוך עד האזן וגם יש קצת שיהוי זמן בהלוכו, ומ"מ נחשב שהוא קול האדם לכן אפשר שגם הקול שנעשה בהמיקראפאן בעת שמדבר ששומעין אותו הוא נחשב קולו ממש וכן הא יותר מסתבר. וגם לא ברור הדבר מה שאומרים שהוא קול אחר. **ומטעם זה אפשר אין למחות ביד אלו שרוצים לקרא המגילה ע"י המיקראפאן מצד ההלכה. וקלקול למצות אחרות שהוא לשופר וקריאת התורה בשבת וי"ט אי אפשר לבא מזה דהא אסור לדבר במיקראפאן בשבת ויום טוב ובמצות דבור שבחול אם ג"כ יקראו במיקראפאן הא אם אין למחות במגילה כ"ש באלו. אך מ"מ כיון שלא ברור להיתר והוא ענין חדש, בכלל יש למחות כדי למונעם מלרדוף אחרי חדשות אחרות שלהוטים בזה במדינות אלו כמו שכותב כתר"ה. ידידו מוקירו, משה פיינשטיין. …*According to what scientists say, sound needs to travel in order to reach its destination, and there is a short delay between when any sound is pronounced and when it is heard. Nevertheless, halachah views a normal sound heard as connected to the person who spoke it, and, so too, it is possible that sound generated by a person on a microphone while speaking is considered his actual voice as well... **Hence, one should not protest against those who wish to hear the Megillah via a microphone, [or who fulfill other obligations via a microphone]… However, since it is not totally clear that a microphone is actually considered an extension of one’s voice, and since microphones are still a new technology, one should protest against those who attempt to fulfill obligations via microphones just for the sake of being innovative…(Translation from Rabbi Dovid Lichtenstein , from Headlines NCSY)

R. Chaim Jachter (Gray Matter, vol. 2, p. 239) writes: The majority of authorities believe that one does not fulfill any mitzvot by hearing a sound through a microphone. In particular, most mid- and late-twentieth century authorities, who benefited from a greater understanding than their predecessors of how microphones operate, reject the use of microphones for the performance of mitzvot,[6] with the possible exception of Torah reading. They argue that one hears an electronically reproduced sound over these devices, whereas the Halachah requires one to hear the actual sound of a shofar, or voice of the reader. [6] Besides Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, these authorities include Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (Kitvei Hagaon Rav Y.E. Henkin 1:122), Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:155 and Mo’adim Uzmanim 6:105), Rav Eliezer Waldenberg (Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 8:11), Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yechaveh Daat 3:54), Rav Levi Yitzchak Halperin (Teshuvot Ma’aseih Chosheiv 1:1), and Rav Yitzchak Weisz (Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak 3:38:16).

 OU Torah Practical Halacha Performing Mitzvos Through The Use of Telephones and Microphones Rabbi Avi Zakutinsky 1. The poskim discuss whether one may answer Amen to a blessing that is said using a microphone and whether one may fulfill any mitzvos, such as havdalah and megillah, using a microphone or telephone. This debate is extremely relevant at weddings, since in most cases the rabbi uses a microphone when reciting the brachos under the chuppah. 2. Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l (Minchas Shlomo 1:9) writes that one may not fulfill any obligations through the use of microphones, telephones, radios or hearing aids. Both the telephone and the public address system “transform” sound waves in air, e.g., spoken words, into an electrical current within the instrument, and, ultimately, back into sound waves. The sound that people hear was not the actual sound waves created by the speaker. This disconnect, between the speaker and the audience, prevents the listener from fulfilling any mitzvos through this medium. 3. Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l explains that when one hears a blessing over the microphone, from a hallachic perspective, one has not actually heard the blessing because there is a separation between the speaker and the listener. Rather, one is merely aware that a blessing is being recited. This is very similar to the synagogue in Alexandria (see Gemara Succah 51b), where most people did not hear the blessings being recited because of its vast size, but were nevertheless permitted to answer amen when signaled to do so by the waving of a flag. Therefore, concludes Harav Auerbach zt”l, one may only respond Amen to blessings that he is not obligated to hear, as was

31 the case in Alexandria, but one may not respond Amen to blessings that one must hear, such as havdalah. He adds, that it is only permitted to respond amen if one is in the same room as the person who is reciting the blessing. If one hears a blessing over the telephone, one may not respond amen. 4. According to Harav Shlomo Zalman one should not recite the blessings using a microphone. If one did, then the assembly may respond Amen. Indeed, the Beis Din Tzedek of Yerushalayim signed a petition against the usage of microphones under the chuppah.(See Koveitz Ohr Yisroel 13) 5. The Chazon Ish (cited in Minchas Shlomo) questioned the view of Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l. He feels that because the person is creating the sound wave and it is heard immediately, perhaps one can fulfill his mitzvah by listening to the microphone or telephone. Harav Moshe Feinstein zt”l (Igros Moshe O.C. 2:108, O.C. 4:91:4) likewise argued that one may fulfill mitzvos using these devices. He adds that every time someone hears havdalah he does not hear the person’s voice in his ears, rather, the speaker causes sound waves which travel from the speaker’s mouth to the ear of the listener. Since one always fulfills mitzvos by hearing sound waves created by the speaker, it may not make a difference whether one hears the original waves or waves that were temporarily converted into electrical currents. As long as one hears sounds that originated from an adult jewish male (without a time delay), one can fulfill his mitzvos. Harav Moshe concludes that in case of necessity one may fulfill mitzvos through listening to a microphone. A similar view is expressed by the Tzitz Eliezer (8:11). [It should be noted that using these machines for the shofar on Rosh Hashana is far more complicated and not part of this discussion] 6. According to Harav Moshe Feinstein zt”l one may respond amen to blessings recited using a microphone. 7. Harav Ovadia Yosef zt”l (Yechava Daas 4:54) rules that one may not fulfill mitzvos through the use of telephones and microphones. However, if one is standing close enough to the one who is speaking that he would have been able to hear him without the microphone, then he may fulfill his obligation. This is true even if he also hears the sound of the microphone and the sound is louder and more amplified. Those who are sitting far away and would not be able to hear him if not for the microphone, may not fulfill their obligations. 8. The common custom is to use a microphone when reciting the blessings under the chuppah. For normative halacha, a rabbi should be consulted.

Frequently Asked Questions about Eiruv Tavshilin

1) I heard the Rabbi announce that we will need to make an Eiruv Tavshilin before the Yom Tov this year. What is that all about?

As far as Yom Tov is concerned, one is only permitted to perform certain actions involved in preparing food on Yom Tov for that day of Yom Tov itself. It is forbidden to do any Melacha on Yom Tov to prepare for a day that is not that day of Yom Tov itself. This is the reason why we must wait until AFTER the first day has ended in order to make preparations for the second day of Yom Tov. When Yom Tov is on a Friday the question arises as to how one should cook or prepare food for Shabbos that will occur as soon as Yom Tov ends.

The Rabbis instituted that if one prepares an Eiruv Tavshilin one is allowed to cook and prepare food for Shabbos on Friday. The Eiruv Tavshilin is a food prepared before Yom Tov and set aside for Shabbos. It permits the preparation of food on Friday of Yom Tov for Shabbos.

2) How does this Eiruv work?

The Gemara20 identifies 2 opinions to explain the rationale for how Eiruv Tavshilin works. Rabbah notes that biblically (MeDioraisa) one may prepare as much food as one wants on Yom Tov as long as there is a possibility that the food will be eaten on Yom Tov. Therefore one can cook a lot of food when there is a possibility that unexpected guests may come to eat it21. It is only Rabbinically that we do not allow this22. The Eiruv Tavshilin is a Rabbinic enactment that allows for the repeal of this Rabbinic enactment returning the law to its Deoraisa level.

Rav Chisda maintains that preparing for the next day even if it is possible that the food will be used today – is a Biblical violation. However, he holds that one may prepare for Shabbos on Yom Tov even on a Biblical level. The Rabbis came along and allowed this rule to work only if one prepares the Eiruv Tavshilin23.

According to Rabbah one may not prepare food late on Yom Tov afternoon if the food will not be ready for guests before the end of Yom Tov24. According to Rav Chisda this would be permitted as long as an Eiruv Tavshilin was prepared.

20 Pesachim 48b 21 Rashi. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (O.C. 587:2) says that even the possibility of having guests who have not eaten is a reason to be lenient. 22 See Sefer HaYashar (385), Shulchan Aruch HaRav 527:1for explanations as to why they set the rules this way 23 See See Rashi Pesachim 46b D”HMin HaTorah and Tosafos 47a “V’EE” for 2 explanations of this position. 24 In fact Mogen Avraham uses this as a reason to encourage people to daven earlier on These Friday nights to prevent Chilul Shabbos

3) But why did they require this Eiruv Tavshilin?

The Gemara offers 2 possible rationales for the Eiruv. One reason is that Chazal were worried that a person might come to use all of best food for Yom Tov without setting aside a proper amount for Shabbos. By having an Eiruv Tavshilin set before Yom Tov, one will remember to set aside good food for Shabbos as well. According to this reason, the Eiruv Tavshilin is a protection of Kavod Shabbos25

Alternatively, the Eiruv was established to ensure that a person remembers that melachos done to prepare for any other day other than Shabbos are prohibited. Accordingly, the Eiruv Tavshilin is a protection of Kedushas Yom Tov26.

4) What am I allowed to do once I make an Eiruv Tavshilin?

Any Melacha permitted on Yom Tov in order to prepare food would be permitted to do for Shabbos with an Eiruv Tavshilin27. Likewise, one would be able to carry food through a public thoroughfare. One would even be able to wash dishes in hot water28 and light candles for Shabbos29 as these are considered part of things needed for food preparation.

The Eiruv Tavshilin also allows one to do preparation that does not involve Melacha even if it is not directly connected to food preparation. Thus, one is permitted to roll a Torah to the proper location for Leining on Shabbos before Shabbos or to fold one’s clothes30 or prepare a room that will not be used on Yom Tov but will be needed for Shabbos.31

5) How do I make the Eiruv Tavshilin?

The procedure is simple. One takes a cooked food and a baked item and holding them making the Beracha “Al Mitzvas Eiruv” After reciting the Beracha, one recites the language in the siddur: בהדין ערובא יהא שרא לנא לאפויי ולבשולי ולאטמוני ולאדלוקי שרגא ולתקנא ולמעבד כל צרכנא מיומא טבא לשבתא לנא ולכל ישראל הדרים בעיר הזאת32 (“With this Eiruv, it will be permitted for us to bake, cook, insulate, light candles, make preparations, and do all of our needs on Yom Tov for Shabbos for myself and every other Jew in the city”33) If he forgot to say the accompanying declaration and remembered before Yom Tov , he can make the declaration then.34

25 See Beitza 14b, Rashi, Ran and Meiri for explanations of this reasoning 26 See Rambam Hil. Yom Tov 6:1 27 O.C. 528:2 28 See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 503:3 and Shut Lehoros Nosson VI:34 29 Levush 528:2 30 Mishna Berurah 302:3 31 Shaar Hatziyun 302:17 3232 Shulchan Aruch 527:12. See also “The Laws of Yom Tov p. 279) to see if one needs to include the rest of the city 33 Rema writes that one who does not speak Aramaic should say this language in a language he understands. 34 See Mishna Berurah 527:63

6) What should I do with the Eiruv Tavshilin?

The Eiruv must remain intact in order to rely on it to prepare for Shabbos. Store it in a safe place35. Since it is elevated for Mitzva performance, it would be ideal to use on Shabbos for other Mitzvos – let the baked item be used in being a Lechem Mishneh and eat the cooked food at one of the Shabbos meals36.

7) When can I make the Eiruv Tavshilin?

The Eiruv Tavshilin should be made on Erev Yom Tov. If it were made before Erev Yom Tov it .formula37 בהדין should be re-established on Erev Yom Tov by re-reciting the

8) I forgot to make an Eiruv Tavshilin. What should I do?

If you remembered after sunset on Erev Yom Tov but before Tzeis, you can make the Eiruv Tavshilin then – with a Beracha38. If one left to Shul, he can call home and ask someone there (an adult) to make the Eiruv on his behalf39. If this too, is impossible but it is still before Tzeis, he can note “The bread and cooked food I will take when I go home should be designated from this moment as an Eiruv Tavshilin.”40

If he forgets that, he can rely on the Eiruv of the Rav41. Relying on the Rav’s Eiruv cannot be used twice in succession42.

35 See Shulchan Aruch 527: 15-17 36 Mishna Berurah 527: 11 and 48 37 See Mishna Berurah 527:45. As for making it on Tuesday Night Rav Wosner ztl. was opposed Eruv Tavshilin HaAruch I:p. 317. 38 O.C. 261:11 39 Mishna Berurah 527:4. See there also whether he should give up Mincha in Shul to go home to do the Eiruv himself. 40 Tiferes Yisrael Beitza 2:1. This practice is not agreed to by all Poskim. See Minchas Yitzchak VII:36. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ztl. is cited in Sefer Meoros HaShabbos I:493 as to differing whether a Beracha can be recited. 41 O.C. 527:7 but this cannot be used out of laziness 4242 See Kaf HaChaim 527:48. Aruch HaShulchan O.C. 527:18 who is lenient even if it happens more than once in a row. Chayeii Adam 102:7 notes that forgetting twice even if not in succession is not allowed.

Halachic Voting in 2020

Politics is an ugly business. We have seen a major decline in the civility of the public discourse radically in the last 20-30 years. Even in Israel, where we would expect more, from our fellow Jewish brothers, the country had to hold elections 3 times and even after the 3rd time, it was still unclear if a working government could be formed. The following is a guide to some of the sources to consider when approaching the question of choosing to vote and for whom in the voting process:

Part I: Should I vote?

Voting is supposed to be both a right but also a responsibility. Sometimes, the right doesn’t seem to be a big deal. Indeed, in Israel where election day is primarily a day off, many opt not to bother returning to their home cities in order to cast their votes. Besides, we know that we are supposed to listen to our leaders. It raises the question about where the proper place for the concept of voting exists in Judaism. What do you think? Is there a place in a Torah view – where we believe that Hashem has control of the world, for putting things to a vote? How? When?

The Rosh notes that communities need to have abilities for its people to unite to handle the needs of the community. What system of government would work to make sure that anarchy didn’t reign supreme?

1) שו"ת הרא"ש כלל ו סימן ה

וששאלת אם שנים או שלשה מהבינונים שבעיר יכולין להוציא עצמן מן ההסכמה שיעשו הקהל או מגזרת חרם שיעשו על שום דבר. דע כי על עסק של רבים אמרה תורה אחרי רבים להטות. ועל כל ענין שהקהל מסכימים הולכים אחר הרוב והיחידים צריכים לקיים כל מה שיסכימו עליהם הרבים. דאם לא כן לעולם לא יסכימו הקהל על שום דבר אם יהיה כח ביחידים לבטל הסכמתם, לכן אמרה תורה בכל דבר הסכמה של רבים אחרי רבים להטות. ועל הסכמה שבין הקהל ובין אביך ולא היה בה קנין. דע שכל עסק ממון שבין אדם לחברו בלא קנין דברים בעלמא .ישנו בחזרה חוץ ממוחל ממון לחברו דלא בעי קנין. נאם הכותב אשר בן ה"ר יחיאל זצ"ל

The Rosh explains that it is the principle of majority rules that obligates EVERYONE in the town in a practice. The Rosh explains that if were not to be the case, then the minority could hold everyone hostage. Therefore, communities need a process to get opinions, opinions are determined by votes and the ultimate rule of voting is that majority rules.

The Rosh’s position describes how society must use the principle of majority rules in determining the Town function. But what about whether the individual needing to comply. Can I absent myself from the rules of the majority?

The Rashba says no. 2)שו"ת הרשב"א חלק ז סימן תצ

אין רשות ביד אדם להסתלק ולפטור עצמו מתקנות הקהל ולומר לא אכנס בגזרותם וכיוצא בזה לפי שהיחידים משועבדים לרוב וכמו שכלל הקהלות משועבדים לב"ד הגדול או לנשיא כך כל יחיד ויחיד משועבד לצבור שבעיר על כן מנודה לעירו מנודה לעיר אחרת ומנודה לעיר אחרת אינו מנודה לעירו כשם שהמנודה לנשיא מנודה לכל :ישראל ומ"מ אם קפץ ונשבע קודם לכן הרי זה אסור

According to the Rashba mentioned above, the individual, by choosing to live in a neighborhood, needs to follow the rules of the neighborhood since individuals are tied to the rules of the majority.

What is interesting to note is that we find a Shavuos/Har Sinai connection here. The Torah tells us of an episode that occurred as Bnei Yisrael were getting ready to enter the land of Israel. At that time they were told that they were going to receive a Beracha and a Klala (a blessing and a curse) wherein, the Leviim spoke out a blessing in the positive and a curse for those who were not following. To each, the entire nation needed to answer Amen. Why?

2a)שו"ת הרשב"א המיוחסות לרמב"ן סימן רפ

שאלה ציבור שמתקנין תקנות לצורך הציבור ובחרמים על המסים ועל התשחורות. ועמדו שנים או שלשה ונשבעו בפני עדים שלא יכנסו באותם הסכמות1 ובאותם חרמות. אם עשו הקהל לאחר מכאן הסכמות וחרמות יהיו אלו פטורים, דכיון שקדמה שבועתם להסכמת הציבור וחרמיהם כאותה שאמרו אם נדרו קודם לגזירתנו תדחה גזירתנו מפני נדרו, או לא

תשובה דע שכל ציבור וציבור יש להם רשות על יחידיהם שכל ציבור רשאין לגדור ולתקן בעירם כמו שב"ד הגדול יכולים לגדור ולתקן על כל ישראל. ומקרא מלא דבר הכתוב במארה אתם נארים הגוי כולו. והרוב ככלם. כדאיתא בע"ז פרק אין מעמידין )ל"ו:(. וגרסינן פ"ק דב"ב )ח':( רשאין בני העיר וכו' להסיע על קיצתן. ואלו שנשבעו בתקנת הקהל עשו שלא כדין ושלא כהוגן ואין רשאין לעשות כן. וכל שאינם נוהגים כציבור נכשלו בחרמות הציבור שגדרו ותקנו על ענין המסים ותשחורות שלא יונה איש חבירו בפרעונו. שזה כנשבע שלא יפרע מלותו ושלא ישלם מה שחייב עם הציבור כמו שישלמו חביריו. וצריכים הם לישאל על שבועתם ולקבל עליהם חרמי הציבור ותקנתם. ומה ששנינו פ' ד' נדרים )כ"ג:( הרוצה שלא יתקיימו נדריו יעמוד בר"ה =בראש השנה= ויאמר נדרים שאני עתיד וכו'. ואמרו בתוספות שאינו אלא דוקא שנשבע ונדר לעצמו אבל אם השביעו או הדירו חבירו אין ביטול זה מועיל כלום .שע"ד =שעל דעת= חבירו נשבע ונדר. וכן בשבועת ממון או שמשביעים הקהל אינה בטלות עוד השיב הרב ז"ל במקום אחר וז"ל אותם בני אדם שלא היו בעיר בשעת הנדוי2 והחרם חייבים הם לנהוג נדוי וחרם. ואם עברו בשום דבר מכל מה שגזרו והסכימו הקהל נפלו באותם עונשים שענשו הקהל. שהציבור יכולים להסיע כל אנשי עירם בקיצתן ובלבד שיסכימו עליו רוב הציבור. דכתיב הגוי כולו, דרובו ככולו. וכ"ש בהסכמת ת"ח דהיינו הסכמת אדם חשוב. ואין אדם צריך לענות אמן במה שהציבור מנדין ומחרימין3 ולא במה שהם משביעים על גזירותם כיון שרוב הציבור נסכמים. וראיה לדבר ויהונתן לא שמע בהשביע אביו את העם. עכ"ל הרשב"א. עוד ותוספת על דברי הרב וסיוע אף על פי שאין דבריו צריכין חיזוק. כי אף על פי שרז"ל אמרו גבי שבועת העדות ושבועת הפקדון גבי מושבע מפי אחרים אינו חייב אא"כ ענה אמן כדאיתא במס' שבועות )ל"א:(. היינו מושבע מפי יחידים. כלומר מפי התובעים. אבל מושבע מפי הציבור ממה שיסכימו הרוב לאו כל כמינייהו בין יענו אמן בין לא יענו בין שיהיו בשעת הנדוי והחרם בין לא יהיו. ואפילו יהו מוחים בחרם כיון שהמוחים מיעוט אינו מועיל להם המחאה כיון שרוב הציבור מסכימים. ואפילו יהא הדבר שלא כדין כיון שיראה להם כדין רשאין ובלבד בהסכמת אדם חשוב. ומה שהוצרכו ישראל לענות אמן בהר גריזים והר עיבל לאו דוקא. כי אפי' לא ענו אמן היה עניין מקובל שהרי ציבור היה. אלא הם מעצמם אנו אמן להראות שקבלו התורה בסבר פנים יפות. א"נ קבלת התורה שאני שהוצרכו לענות אמן משום שהם תרי"ג מצות. ואחר שיענו הפעם ההיא שוב אינם צריכים שבועה כי מושבע הוא כל יחיד מהר סיני לעשות מה שרוב הציבור מסכימים דאיכא הגוי כולו ורובו ככולו. וכן בענין סוטה היתה עונה אמן .אמן כדי שלא יוציאו לעז על מי המרים. אבל שלא מן הדין

The Rashba explains that the reason that each person needed to answer an Amen of acceptance was proper etiquette. For in truth, once the Torah was accepted, the majority rule continued to be

37 paramount even where the individual didn’t accept a particular community principle. If you are a part pf the people, you agree to the idea of Rov – majority rules.

Rema notes that even taxes can be compelled from a person who does not follow the majority. One who does not follow the community is able to be compelled against his will even via the use of secular authority.

3)שולחן ערוך חושן משפט הלכות שותפים בקרקע סימן קסג סעיף א

הגה: ה[ וה"ה לכל צרכי העיר )ו[ }ג{ עיין ג( בא"ח סי' נ"ה דין שכירות חזן לבני העיר גם סי' נ"ג שם(. ז[ וכופין בני העיר זה את זה להכניס אורחים ולחלק להם צדקה וליתן בתוך כיס של צדקה )מרדכי פ"ק דב"ב ותשובת מיימוני ספר קנין סימן נ"ט(. וע"ל סימן ד' וסימן ו' בני העיר שיש להם דין עם יחיד אם יכולים לדונו, ואם נקראים מוחזקין. דין שכירות למנין, עיין בא"ח סוף סימן נ"ה. ח[ ועל הוצאות שהוציאו לבער מסור, כל הדרים בעיר חייבים ליתן לזה )הרא"ש בתשובה כלל ו' סי' כ"א כ"ו וכפול לקמן סי' שפ"ח(. ט[ כל צרכי צבור שאינן יכולין להשוות עצמן, >א< יש להושיב כל בעלי בתים הנותנים מס י[ ויקבלו עליהם שכל אחד יאמר דעתו לשם שמים, יא[ וילכו אחר הרוב. יב[ ואם המעוט ימאנו, הרוב יכולין לכוף אותן אפילו בדיני גוים, ולהוציא ממון על זה, יג[ והם צריכין לתת חלקם. יד[ והמסרב מלומר דעתו על פי החרם, בטלה דעתו ואזלינן בתר רוב הנשארים האומרים דעתן )תשובת מוהר"ם ספר קנין סימן כ"ז והגהת מיי' פי"א דתפלה(. ועיין בי"ד סימן רנ"ו אימת חייב ליתן לכיס של .צדקה

Now of course, we cannot have a town meeting on every single matter. It would take up hours and hours of everyone’s day. How then does the community expect to function within this democracy structure?

Maharam Shick, student of the Chasam Sofer, offered a perspective:

4)שו"ת מהר"ם שיק חושן משפט סימן יט והנה כל ציבור וציבור במקהלות ב"י הם כשותפים ויש לכל אחד ואחד זכות ורשות לכל עניני הציבור כמו שארי שותפין. אבל כדי שלא להיות הדבר כקדירה דבי שותפי ויהי' זה מושך לכאן וזה מושך לכאן. ונאמר מקרא מלא בפשע הארץ רבים שריה. ולזאת המנהג בכל קבוצת ישראל לבחור להם טובי העיר ולהם מסרו זכות שלהם כדי לעשות כל הדברים וכל התיקונים וכל הצטרכות של כל הציבור על פיהם וקי"ל בחו"מ סי' ב' דטובי העיר בעירם יש להם רשות לענין תיקוני העיר כב"ד הגדול אלא שבמקצת דברים של דיני ממונות אין להם כח אלא לפי המנהג עיין :שם. והמג"א בסי' קנ"ג ס"ק ל"ז הביא בשם המשאת בנימין דהאידנא יש לשבעה טובי העיר כח יותר עיין שם

סוף דבר לפי מ"ש לעיל לדעתי עפ"י דעת תורה יש רשות לקהל למנות גבאים לגבאי אר"י אלא שאין להם כח למנות אותם אלא על אותו הזמן שנתמנו הם להיות טובי הקהל אבל רוב הציבור בוודאי יכולין למנות אבל צריכין אז להיות כל הציבור ביחד. ואם קראו אותם לבוא לאסיפת הקהל ולא באו הוי כאלו באו וכפי מה שהסכימו רוב הציבור וכ"ש אם הרב מרא דאתרא הסכים עמהם חלילה לשנות מדבריהם. והנה ידעתי אתכם שכלכם אהובים וברורים ואין ספק אצלי שתשמעו לד"ת וגם אין ספק אצלי שתעשו ותשמעו להרב הגדול מרא דאתרא שלכם ותשתדלו בכל עוז להיות שלום בקהלתכם. וה' יברך אתכם ואת כל אשר לכם בברכה המשולשת וחיים ושלום וכל .:טוב דברי אהובכם ושוחר טובתכם ודורש שלומכם כל הימים הקטן משה שיק מברעזאווע

Maharam Shick notes that there can be a concept of a town council or a board of trustees elected to serve the people. It is their responsibility to act in the best interest of the town and that best interest is determined by majority. The town is to set up meetings to poll the interests of the town. If one effuses to attend the meetings, it is understood that those not showing, are agreeing to the majority and either way, must follow the interest of the council or board.

(So to this point, we have learned that there IS a concept of voting that is identified in the Halacha. It is important for the community to have it, and it is a responsibility for every member of the community to utilize his vote or be counted among those agreeing with the authority. At the very least, we see an important value in halacha of the individual’s vote.)

Of course, in politics, the power of the vote helps make the majority for people to be able to get their agendas across. From the perspective of the community, this is called politics but to the individual who might not care about a particular issue being voted upon, may s/he sell his/her vote? What do you think?

______

Chasam Sofer weighs in on the matter:

5) שו"ת חתם סופר חלק ה )חושן משפט( סימן קס אמנם אותם המקבלי' שוחד לא יבואו לתוך האסיפה כלל אפי' אחר שהחזירו השוחד ויקבלו עליהם באלה ושבועה שלא יקבלו תו שום שוחד עבור זה מ"מ לא יבואו אל המינוי הזה כלל ואפשר אפי' לעולם כסולי' /פסולים/ להתמניות עד שישובו בתשובה אבל למינוי זה פסולי' לעולם דכיון שכבר נתקרב דעתם אצלו לא יחזרו בהם וה"ל נוגעי' בדבר לעולם ועיי' היטב בסי' ט' בכל פרטיו מבואר אפי' לא קבל הדורן מ"מ אינו ראוי להיות דיין מפני שנתקרב דעתו ולא מהני בזה סלוק ופשוט הוא. ואפשר אפי' אם הם הרוב לא מצי למימר נהי מקובלנא שוחדא מ"מ איך יקבלו המעוט לרב ומורה עלינו על כרחנו את מי שאין אנו חפצים בו י"ל דהא עכ"פ כבר הסכימו כלם על .'א' מד' אלו שהניחו אל הקלפי ואין כאן הפסד כל כך והעיקור שא"א בלא"ה והכי דיינינן להו ולכל אלמי דכוותי

Chasam Sofer compares the situation of selling one’s vote to being bribed. He is so opposed to the idea of sellng one’s vote for ulterior reasons that he argues that one who does so, should lose his right to vote forever.

But how does one know if one is being bribed in his or her vote and when one is acting properly but sees a value in a compromise on a particular issue?

______

Rav Eliezer Waldenberg weighs in with an opinion:

6)שו"ת ציץ אליעזר חלק יט סימן מט למדים אנו מהדברים החותכים האלה של הגאון החזו"א ז"ל כי הכיוון לשם שמים בעסקי - ציבור הוא לעיכובא גם לדרישת עצם הטבעת חותמת שם - מנהיגות על העוסק בצרכי ציבור, וכאשר חסר מהעסקן עיקר גדול זה הרי האיש הזה משולל ואינו ראוי לשמו אשר נקרא עליו, וכמה גדולים המה דברי ההסבר שכותב בזה בספר דרך החיים למהר"ל מפראג על מסכת אבות שכותב לאמר: "כי "כאשר כוונתו לשם שמים אז בודאי נאמר עליו שהוא מתעסק בדבר שהוא כלל", שאם אין כוונתו לשם שמים הרי יוצא דבר זה מעסק הציבור שהוא עסק רבים ששכרו גדול, כי כאשר כוונתו להתגדל ולהתפאר אינה עושה לשם הציבור שהם הכלל, אפילו אם היה כוונתו שיעשה לשם אלו האנשים שהם הציבור אין זה כעושה אל הכלל מה שעושה בשביל אלו האנשים, רק אם יעשה לשם שמים רצה לומר בשביל שיש להטיב עם הציבור מפני שהם כלל ודבר זה הוא לשם שמים כי הוא השם ית' עם הציבור,

ולפיכך אמר במס' שבת מפקחים על עסקי ציבור בשבת, והיינו מפני שנחשב מילי דציבור מילי דשמיא והוא בכלל .חפצי שמים שהם מותרים, וזהו שאמר שיהיה כוונתו לשם שמים בשביל טובת הציבור שהוא מילי דשמיא" עכ"ל ועוד מוסיף שם המהר"ל מפראג לבאר שלכן כאשר עושים דברים לשם פעלם בלי שום פניות ונגיעות עצמיות, והדומה להם, רק אז זכות אבותם מסייעתן וצדקתם עומדת לעד, מפני "כי האבות שהם אברהם יצחק ויעקב זכות שלהם מסייעתן כאשר מתעסקין בצרכי ציבור, כי האבות הם אבות לכלל, ואינם נקראים אבות לפרט, כי הפרט יש לכל אחד ואחד בפני עצמו, אבל האבות אברהם יצחק ויעקב הם אבות הכלל וזכות האבות עומד ומסייע לכל אשר הם אבות להם כאשר הם צריכים, ולפיכך זכות אבותם מסייעתן וצדקתם עומדת לעד כמו שהכללים הם עומדים לעד, ואין הכלל שהוא הציבור נחשב כמו הפרט, שהפרטים הם החולפים ומשתנים, אבל הכלל עומד לעד, אפילו אם זה הציבור שהיה עוסק עמו ג"כ עבר וחלף, מכל מקום שם ציבור עליהם שהוא הכלל, שהכלל מקוים ועומד במה שהוא כלל, ולפיכך אמר וצדקתן עומדת לעד כלומר שיש להם זכות גדול כיון שעושים טוב עם הציבור שהוא הכלל אשר הכללים מקוימים לעד, והנה זכות מתחיל מן האבות שהיו האבות בתחילת העולם ועומד לנצח, וז"ש שזכות אבותם מסייעתן וצדקתן עומדת לעד, ר"ל כמה וכמה זכות גדול עושים שהרי זכות אבות מסייעתן, וכאילו עושים זכות שמתחיל מן האבות שהיו בתחילת העולם ועומד הזכות לנצח שכך הוא הענין הכללי שיועמד לנצח, ולכן העוסקים עם הציבור מתחיל זכות שלהן מן האבות ומגיע עד סוף כל הדורות עד שעשו העוסקים עם הציבור זכות מתחילת העולם עד סופו" יעו"ש ודפח"ח

There is a difference between voting for one’s own personal benefit versus voting L’Shem Shomayim (for the sake of Heaven). The former is personal and open to bribery. The latter is community oriented and positive. When one really believes that his motivations are in the interest of the entire community, he can be assumed to be acting positively.

But how did our rabbis look at the issue of voting. What do you think? Having voting is a good thing. But SHOULD I vote? MUST I vote?

______

Within the Rabbinic world, we find a diversity of opinion. Let’s look at each position separately:

A. No – it is a Chilul Hashem to be with a bad Tzibbur

7) Rav Yoel Teitelbaum, Satmar Rebbe

The Satmar Rebbe ztl. felt that you are whom you vote with. If that group is not a pure group, then simply voting with them is a bad plan for you to follow.

Clearly, we understand why the Rebbe was so opposed to joining in the Israeli government and voting on civil matters, even if it meant paying taxes with no representation.

B. Yes – it is a Big Mitzva p. 156 שיחות על ספר בראשית ,Rav Nebenzahl (8

So the Chaon Ish felt it was important enough to sell one’s tefillin in order to be able to vote. Why might this be the case?

1. To make ourselves known

9) Kovetz Beis Yaakov 027-028

Based on the Pashkevil above , it is because of making the Jewish and Torah observant community known and relevant that we are instructed to vote. We vote because we matter. Thus, it is important for each of us to do it.

Rav Shach added:

9a) Rav Shach Speaks, p. 52-53

So according to this opinion, we vote to make a Kiddush Hashem in properly making our views known and so we count.

Rav Moshe Feinstein offered a different answer:

2. As a Hakaras HaTov 10) Rav Moshe Feinstein, 10/3/84

Rav Moshe added that the opportunity to vote is an expression of Hakaras HaTov.

To sum:  The community has a responsibility to establish a governmental structure including one that has voting rights built on the principles of majority rules  One does not have the right to not participate or ignore the rules of the community even if s/he doesn’t want to vote.  One may not sell his or her vote. Voting is a means of a person doing what s/he believes is in the best interest of the community.

 While the Satmar Rebbe felt that one should not vote if it means joining a group you should not be a part of, Chazon Ish, Brisker Rav, Rav Nebenzahl and many other Gedolim urged people to vote in order to be counted and have the opinion of the frum community counted in formulating policy. Rav Moshe Feinstein added that voting confirms our Hakarat HaTov for a country that gives us the right to vote and counts our opinion.

Halachic Voting in 2020 Part II: How to Choose a Political Candidate

Elsewhere we debated the question as to whether it is a is a good idea to vote and whether or not it might even be an obligation (see Halachic Voting in 2020 pt. #1). However once we have decided that we are going to vote, we then enter the second component of the debate – for whom shall we vote? Should we vote for candidates that agree with our ideals? Must we ask Daas Torah for whom to vote? What if the candidates support lifestyles or policies that are not consistent with our Torah values, are we allowed to support those candidates?

How do YOU think we should choose a particular candidate for office?

______

For some background, let’s turn to some basic sources about supporting the government and why we should:

When we examine the first 3 sources below, let us pick up on a theme concerning how we are to consider the role of government. What might the resources suggest?

1. Avot 3:2 R. Chanina, the official of the priests states: Pray for the welfare of the government for if not for fear [of government] man will swallow his friend. 2. Chorev, Pirkei HaMitzvot no.25 It is obligatory for all Jews to follow this mitzvah: In each country and province where a Jew lives as a guest, resident or refugee, there is an obligation on him to honor and love the king, the governor and the government who shelter and protect him and he must seek their peace and wellbeing with whatever means possible. Regarding the province and its ruler, one should accept and fulfill all obligations incumbent on him, the resident relating to his own land and the guest relating the land where he is situated.

3)פירוש רבינו יונה על אבות פרק ג משנה ב

ב רבי חנניה סגן הכהנים אומר הוי מתפלל בשלומה של מלכות שאלמלא מוראה שהיא קשה עלינו איש את רעהו חיים בלעו - זה הענין ר"ל שיש לאדם להתפלל על שלום כל העולם ולהצטער על צער של אחרים. וכן דרכן

של צדיקים כמו שאמר דוד ע"ה ]תהלים ל"ה י"ג[ ואני בחלותם לבושי שק עניתי בצום נפשי שאין לאדם לעשות תחנוניו ובקשתו לצרכיו לבד. אך להתפלל על כל בני אדם שיעמדו בשלום ובשלומה של מלכות יש שלום לעולם:

“…The issue here is that a person should pray for peace throughout the world and to develop an appreciation of the suffering of others.”

According to the sources what are the main ideas behind praying for the government?  Chorev: Hakarat Hatov  Rabbeinu Yonah: Personal growth and personal need to pray and play a role in the suffering of society.

From the above, we see that a Jew has a responsibility to be a good citizen. However, on today’s democratic stye of government, we might ask about what type of candidates we should be supporting. For instance, can a Jew support a candidate who supports a platform of partial birth abortions? What about one who supports other positions that run counter to the Torah? Can we support them? What issues might we need to consider?

______

Issue#1 Supporting a Candidate whose positions are a Chilul Hashem: חילול ה'

When we debate the ideas of supporting a candidate, we really need to look at his or her platform. We always need to be concerned about Chillul Hashem in the process and sometimes, that we we represent makes a difference. For instance, if our candidate supports a positon that is contrary to Torah values and even the non-Jews find it unacceptable, then it becomes forbidden for us to be supportive of such a “progressive” policy. Rav Yehuda HaChassid makes tht clear here:

4)ספר חסידים )מרגליות( סימן תתכט43

אם יש דבר שהנכרים נוהגים בו איסור וליהודים אינו אסור אסור לו ליהודי שיאכל פן יתחלל שם שמים על ידו כגון נכרי שראה שנכרי חברו רבע בהמה ואמר לנכרים שלא לאכול אותה ונמכרה ליהודי לא יאכלנה ישראל.

If it is a matter that the non-Jews forbid but it is not forbidden for Jews, one is not allowe to consume it for in doing so, you will come to desecrate the name of Hashem.

Rabbi Abba Cohen, Agudath Israel of America’s policy expert makes this clear. He reminds us of the importance of avoidance of any Chilul Hashem espcially when lobbying on governmental issues:

5) Rabbi Abba Cohen, “Letter to my younger self” Mishpacha Magazine

43 See Also Mogen Avraham 244:8 in regard to building a Shul on Shabbos and Melamed L’Hoiel (O.C. 1:112) not to smoke on Tisha B’Av.

Who and what you represent must always be at your work’s core. Don’t say what you shouldn’t; don’t go where you shouldn’t; don’t distort your views to make them more palatable to others. Some will say that your code of social conduct puts you at a lobbying disadvantage. The exact opposite is true. Torah adherence helps you in your work. Government officials want Jews to be Jewish.

Remember that you will be scrutinized by both friends and adversaries. Stay far from the inappropriate and unseemly. The possibility for chillul Hashem hovers above and the consequences are inestimable. They will ultimately reflect on the community and Torah Judaism itself. No justification, no possible benefit, can outweigh the tragedy caused by chillul Hashem.

So the first lesson in lobbying and voting for a candidate is to make sure that you do not make a Chilul Hashem. But what about the fact that your vote is a support and if your candidate supports positions that violate Torah law, does voting for him create a different problem? How about Lifnei Iver44?

Issue #2 Supporting he who will violate a prohibition : לפני עור

In regard to Lifnei Iver, the Gemara gives us certain guidance:

4)תלמוד בבלי מסכת עבודה זרה דף ו עמוד ב מנין שלא יושיט אדם כוס של יין לנזיר, ואבר מן החי לבני נח? ת"ל: ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול; והא הכא דכי לא יהבינן ליה שקלי איהו, וקעבר משום לפני עור לא תתן מכשול! הב"ע - דקאי בתרי עברי נהרא. דיקא נמי, דקתני .לא יושיט ולא קתני לא יתן, ש"מ

From where is it derived that a person may not extend a cup of wine to a nazirite, who is prohibited from drinking wine, and that he may not extend a limb severed from a living animal to descendants of Noah? The verse states: “And you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). But here, in both cases, if one does not give it to him, he can take it himself, and yet the one who provides it to him transgresses due to the prohibition: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind.” The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where they are standing on the two sides of a river, and therefore the recipient could not have taken it himself. Since his help was instrumental, the one who conveyed the item has violated the prohibition of putting a stumbling block before the blind. The Gemara adds: The language of the baraita is also precise, as it teaches: A person may not extend, and it does not teach: One may not give. Learn from the usage of the term extend that the baraita is referring to one located on one side of a river, who extends the item to the one on the other side.

So to be involved in Lifnei Iver, you need to provide the stumbling block in a manner where the person could not achieve the Avaira without your assistance. In regard to the political candidate, does our endorsement of him/her mean that we have placed the stumbling block in front of him insofar as the candidate would not have been able to vote for his or her platform without our vote?

______-

Rabbi Mark Dratch says no. Here’s why:

44 Placing a stumbling block before a blind man

5) Rabbi Mark Dratch, “The Ethics of Selecting a Political Candidate” RJJ Journal vol. XI

Rabbi Gil Student notes that his Rebbe, Rav Mayer Twersky, Rosh Yeshiva at YU/RIETS added that we cannot make decisions based on one policy of any particular candidate.

6) R. Gil Student, Hirhurim/Torah Musings

To be more specific, in 1990 I asked my rebbe — R. Mayer Twersky — whether it is assur to vote for Clinton because he was pro-choice, therefore a vote for him enabled more abortions. (I was young at the time.) He answered that you can’t judge a candidate by any one position. You have to look at the candidate’s total positions and judge him based on them. I can’t remember whether he said this, but if he didn’t I am, you also have to judge a candidate’s abilities and experience. This is all more complex than a pesak can encompass. The evaluation is very personal and subject to significant judgment.

Issue #3 Flattery :חניפה

What about the fact that when we endorse a candidate whose positions are antithetical to Torah values it is as if we are flattering him/her and supporting the lifestyle and policies that s/he supports. The Talmud has an opinion on the matter:

6)תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוטה דף מא עמוד ב וכשהגיע ללא תוכל לתת. תנא משמיה דרבי נתן: באותה שעה נתחייבו שונאי ישראל כלייה, שהחניפו לו לאגריפס. אמר ר' שמעון בן חלפתא: מיום שגבר אגרופה של חנופה - נתעוותו הדינין ונתקלקלו המעשים, ואין אדם יכול לומר לחבירו מעשי גדולים ממעשיך. דרש ר' יהודה בר מערבא, ואיתימא ר' שמעון בן פזי: מותר להחניף לרשעים בעולם הזה, שנאמר: לא יקרא עוד לנבל נדיב ולכילי לא יאמר שוע, מכלל דבעולם הזה שרי. ר' שמעון בן לקיש אמר, מהכא: כראות פני אלהים ותרצני. ופליגא דרבי לוי, דאמר רבי לוי: משל של יעקב ועשו, למה הדבר דומה? לאדם שזימן את חבירו והכיר בו שמבקש להורגו, אמר לו: טעם תבשיל זה שאני טועם כתבשיל שטעמתי בבית המלך, אמר: ידע ליה מלכא, מיסתפי ולא קטיל ליה. אמר רבי אלעזר: כל אדם שיש בו חנופה - מביא אף לעולם, .שנא': וחנפי לב ישימו אף; ולא עוד, אלא שאין תפלתו נשמעת, שנאמר: לא ישועו כי אסרם סימן: א"ף עוב"ר גיהנ"ם ביד"ו ניד"ה גול"ה( ואמר רבי אלעזר: כל אדם שיש בו חנופה - אפילו עוברין שבמעי אמן ) מקללין אותו, שנא': אומר לרשע צדיק אתה יקבוהו עמים יזעמוהו לאומים, ואין קוב אלא קללה, שנא': לא קבה אל,

ואין לאום אלא עוברין, שנא': ולאום מלאום יאמץ. ואמר רבי אלעזר: כל אדם שיש בו חנופה - נופל בגיהנם, שנא': הוי האומרים לרע טוב ולטוב רע וגו', מה כתיב אחריו? לכן כאכל קש לשון אש וחשש להבה ירפה וגו'. ואמר רבי אלעזר: כל המחניף לחבירו - סוף נופל בידו, ואם אינו נופל בידו - נופל ביד בניו, ואם אינו נופל ביד בניו - נופל ביד :'בן בנו, שנא': ויאמר ירמיה... לחנניה... אמן כן יעשה ה' יקם ה' את דבריך, וכתי And when Agrippa arrived at the verse: “You may not appoint a foreigner over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), tears flowed from his eyes because he was a descendant of the house of Herod and was not of Jewish origin. The entire nation said to him: You are our brother. It is taught in the name of Rabbi Natan: At that moment the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people, were sentenced to destruction for flattering Agrippa. Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta says: From the day that the power of flattery prevailed, the judgment has become corrupted, and people’s deeds have become corrupted, and a person cannot say to another: My deeds are greater than your deeds, as everyone flatters one another and people no longer know the truth. Rabbi Yehuda of the West, Eretz Yisrael, and some say Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, taught: It is permitted to flatter wicked people in this world, as it is stated concerning the future: “The vile person shall no longer be called generous, nor shall the churl be said to be noble” (Isaiah 32:5). By inference, this indicates that in this world it is permitted to flatter them… Rabbi Elazar says: Any person who has flattery in him brings wrath to the world, as it is stated: “But those with flattery in their hearts bring about wrath” (Job 36:13). And moreover, his prayer is not heard, as it is stated in that same verse: “They do not cry for help when He binds them.”

Clearly the Gemara does not look well on the flattery of someone undeserving. Rav Moshe Feinstein discusses a modern day application as he deals with a case where a congregation wished to honor someone who had intermarried. The congregation had benefitted from the person’s charity and wanted to honor him. Rav Moshe noted:

7)שו"ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ב סימן נא

אבל להחניף בענינים שלא שייכים לומר שהוא מסכים להאיסורים ודברים הרעים שעושה אפשר שליכא איסור כלל כגון לשבחו ביפיו ובחכמתו בעניני העולם ובמדותיו אף אם מגזמים מעט משום שצריכים לו אפשר ליכא איסור כיון שאין זה כאלו שבגמ'. וכן הוא לכבדו בפתיחת וסגירת הארון וכדומה שהוא רק ענין כבוד בעלמא ולא נראה מזה שום הסכם למעשיו הרעים, כי להכל ידוע על מה מכבדים לו שהוא בשביל שרבים צריכים לו ויש לו גם מעלות הרבה במעשיו שבין אדם לחברו שראוי לכבדו בשבילם אך שבדברים שבביהכ"נ הנהיגו שלא לכבד לבעלי עבירה כזו שנשואין לנכריות שהוא כפי הראוי וכשיכבדו לזה יהיה זה לחניפה על שצריכין לו, עכ"פ כיון שאין בזה שום שייכות להסכמה למעשיו וגם הוא ידוע שאין מסכימין למעשיו אך שמכבדין אותו בשביל שהוא רופא מפורסם .ושצריכים לו אין זה בכלל החנופה שאמרינן בסוטה ולכן אף שגם מזה צריך להתרחק אף מחנופה כזו, שהוא כשמשבחו יותר ממה שהוא ראוי, כי לשבחו במה שהוא ראוי באמת ודאי ליכא איסור דרק בעכו"ם נאמר לאו דלא תחנם לא תתן להם חן בע"ז דף כ' אבל בישראל אף בעוברי עבירה ליכא איסור זה אבל לשבחו ביותר יש להתרחק, ואולי יש גם איסור בדבר לא רק מצד מדבר שקר תרחק אלא גם מצד חנופה, דמצד שקר כיון שהוא לכוונת שלום אין לאסור כהא דכתובות דף י"ז, וא"כ גם לכבדו בפתיחת וסגירת ארון שאין בזה ענין שקר נמי אולי יש איזה איסור מצד חנופה. אבל כיון שאין איסורו ברור ויותר נוטה שאין בזה איסור אלא מעלה טובה הוא להתרחק אף מחנופה כזו יש להקל אם רואה כתר"ה וראשי העיר אשר יש צורך גדול להקהל ולאנשי העיר שיכבדו אותו באיזה דבר בביהכ"נ כהא דפתיחת וסגירת הארון וכדומה. .אבל לקריאה בתורה אין להתיר מטעם שכתבתי לעיל. ידידו מוקירו, משה פיינשטיין

When it comes to flattering in a manner that cannot be interpreted as sanctioning his violations and evil deeds, such as praising his appearance, general wisdom and character traits, it is possible that there is no prohibition whatsoever., even if some exaggeration is made because he is needed…This applies as well to giving him the honor of opening and closing the aron and the like, which is simply an expression of honor and does not give the appearance of sanctioning his misconduct, for it is known to all why he is being honored, that it is simply because many people depend on him and because he has many fine qualities in terms of his interpersonal conduct for which he is worthy of honor…One must distance himself from this kind of flattery- praising him for more than he deserves, as opposed to praising him deservedly, which is certainly not forbidden…but one must avoid excessive

49 praiseand this might be forbidden because of M’Dvar Sheker Tirchak but also because of Chanufa…thus honoring him with the opening and closing of the Aron where there is no falsehood entailed might also involve a prohibition on the grounds of Chanifa but since this prohibition is not clear-cut, and it seems more likely that this does not involve a prohibition but rather a propriety to avoid even this type of flattery, there is room to be lenientif you and the community leaders feel there is a great need for the congregation to give him some honor in the synagogue such as opening and closing the aron and the like.

Rav Moshe seems to suggest that Chanifa is not forbidden per se but rather a matter of propriety. In cases of great need, it may ok but as a general rule should be avoided.

But there is one question left to ask: Should my rabbi be telling me whom to vote for? Should I even ask him? Should I ask my local Orthodox Rabbi whom to vote for?

8) תניא איגרת הקודש פרק כב אהוביי אחיי ורעיי מאהבה מסותרת תוכחת מגולה לכו נא ונוכחה זכרו ימות עולם בינו שנות דור ודור ההיתה כזאת מימות עולם ואיה איפוא מצאתם מנהג זה באחד מכל ספרי חכמי ישראל הראשונים והאחרונים להיות מנהג ותיקון לשאול בעצה גשמיות כדת מה לעשות בעניני העולם הגשמי אף לגדולי חכמי ישראל הראשונים כתנאים ואמוראים אשר כל רז לא אנס להו ונהירין להון שבילין דרקיע כ"א לנביאים ממש אשר היו לפנים בישראל כשמואל הרואה אשר הלך אליו שאול לדרוש ה' על דבר האתונות שנאבדו לאביו כי באמת כל עניני אדם לבד מדברי תורה וי"ש אינם מושגים רק בנבואה ולא לחכמים לחם כמארז"ל הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים ושבעה דברים מכוסים כו' אין אדם יודע במה משתכר כו' ומלכות בית דוד מתי תחזור כו' הנה הושוו זה לזה ומ"ש בישעיה יועץ וחכם חרשים וכן משארז"ל ונהנין ממנו עצה ותושיה היינו בד"ת הנקרא תושיה כמארז"ל יועץ זה שיודע לעבר שנים ולקבוע :חדשים כו' שסוד העיבור קרוי עצה וסוד בלשון תורה כדאיתא בסנהדרין דף פ"ז ע"ש בפרש"י

My beloved, my brethren and friends:

An open rebuke out of a love concealed : come now and let us adjudge, remember the days of old, consider the years of every generation. Has such ever happened since the days of the world, and where, oh where have you found such a custom in any one of the books of the early and latter sages of Israel, that it should be usage and regulation to ask for advice in mundane matters— what one is to do in matters pertaining to the physical world. (Such was not asked) even of the greatest of the erstwhile sages of Israel, as the Tannaim and Amoraim "For whom no secret is hidden" and "All the paths of heaven are clear unto them," except for the real prophets that were aforetimes in Israel, as Samuel the Seer to whom Saul went to enquire of G‑d about the asses that were lost to his father. For in fact, all matters pertaining to man, except for the words of Torah and the fear of Heaven, are apprehended by prophecy only "And there is no bread unto the wise," as our sages, of blessed memory, said: "Everything is in the hands of Heaven except for the fear of Heaven;" and "Seven things are hidden .... man does not know how he will profit, and when the Kingdom of David will return ..." Note, these are likened one to the other!

So according to the author of the Tanya, it sounds like he does not think the Rabbi is the source for voting advice. Unless your Rabbi is a prophet that is!

9) Rav Y. B. Soloveitchik ztl, Hesped for Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzenski

The very same priest whose mind whose mind was suffused with the holiness of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer, of Abaye & Rava , of the Rambam and the Rabad, of the Beth Yosef and Rema, could also discern with the holy spirit the solution to all current political questions, to all worldly matters, to all ongoing current demands.

Here it sounds as if Rav Soloveitchik felt that the same person who is the Chacham in Torah can and should be the address to worldly matters. Are we to understand that he is telling us to ask the Rabbi whom to support? Is he suggesting that e must submit?

10) Rav Soloveitchikztl. – 5 Derashos

In his addresses to the American Mizrachi Association, which were subsequently transcribed as the Chamesh Derashot, the Rav explained the first aspect of this change of heart. The Rav noted that in the realm of halachah, the rabbinic majority reigns supreme. G-d gave the Torah to man and our capacity for halachic creativity and decision-making is axiomatic to a live and vibrant relationship to G-d. In hashkafah however, the rules are different. For questions that are outside the four volumes of the Shulchan Aruch, the focus is not on man’s insight and deduction, rather we have to be constantly evaluating what it is that G-d wants of man. We have to continually reevaluate our decisions to ensure they align with ratzon Hashem (the will of G-d), and we have to adapt to the world around us. In hashkafah, there is no edict that is infallible and no rebbe who is exempt from this obligation for constant reappraisal and review. Once halachah is fixed by man it becomes law that even G-d cannot alter, the heavenly voice affirms lo bashamayim hi—it is not in heaven. Hashkafah, however, must be in a constant state of flux and adaptation.

Here it sounds as if Rav Soloveitchik was not of the opinion that one needed to ask the Rav whom to vote for. It is this opinion that Rav Schachter has suggested in his name on a host of non-Kodesh issues from voting to whom to marry and when to get engaged. These things are in flux and we need to evaluate these situations in an ongoing state.

11) Rav Yisrael Brog Shlita, Telshe Yeshiva

I once asked this of Rav Meir Soloveitchik, whom I’m a talmid of. He said that the Chofetz Chaim once took a position in Europe on voting for the parliament—and he was very mechazeik it [supported it]—that people should vote for this side and not for that side. After the voting, they came to him and asked him, ‘Do you know who won?’ He said, ‘S’geit mir nisht on. [It doesn’t matter to me]. The Ribbono Shel Olam won.’ It doesn’t matter who won.

“In other words, he wasn’t trying to make somebody win. That’s not up to me. The Ribbono Shel Olam firt de velt. Most people approach voting saying, ‘I’m afraid of this guy. Will he take my check away, my food stamps away? Is he going to take my parnassah away? Will he make my mortgage go up or my life easier?’ People see it from a personal standpoint, and they see it from a kefiradikke [heresy] standpoint, as if there’s no Ribbono Shel Olam.

Rav Brog Shlita suggests that the main thing to consider in a candidate is whether the particular candidate gives us a better awareness of Hashem’s role in the world or not. This idea needs to guide our voting. Do you agree? How might you propose confirming that?

12) Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zweibel, Agudath Israel of America “There are moral issues, economic issues, issues concerning our rights to live as Orthodox Jews, religious freedom, and liberty issues. There are issues that relate to bringing resources into our communities. There are other issues, too. Who services the constituency best? Who is most likely to be responsive to individual phone calls for assistance on individual matters?

“We have several times brought the question before the Moetzes, in different scenarios. The guidance of the Moetzes has been that we definitely need to care about the broader moral issues that are out there. Where a candidate stands on those issues are definitely relevant. At the same time, we need to look where the candidate stands on other issues, the resource issues, the economic issues, the religious liberty

51 issues, and accessibility. You have to judge a candidate based on the totality of the situation. Though moral issues are certainly a relevant factor, they are not the only factor.

“We don’t usually go to the Moetzes and ask them which candidate we should support. That’s usually not the specific context of the question. Sometimes there is a question in the abstract. For example, should the community give support to candidates who support same-gender marriage? Their answer was, well, definitely that is a major negative, but you have to consider the totality of the situation. You have to consider what position in government he is going to be holding, whether he will play a decisive role on that issue, whether the issue is ever going to come before him, and whether his opponent perhaps has a terrible track record on other things.

There you have it: One needs to support the world by finding Hashem’s place in it. Sometimes this involves challenges in the candidates we support and the policies and platforms that they run on. Finding Hashem in the world should also direct our thinking about whom to vote for, but in the end – that needs to be a matter that people need to figure out individually.

Can I buy life insurance? SHOULD I buy life insurance?

One of the terrible aftershocks of the plague of death that accompanied the wave of the COVID-19 was the almost immediate recognition that there was a lack of financial-preparedness on behalf of the many families who lost loved ones to the crisis. Indeed, if you check your news on yeshiva world or Matzav, I’m sure you’ve seen the many appeals to help fresh Almanos45 and Yesomim 46 who are currently not only in mourning but also destitute and in need of serious financial support. Indeed, some of the members of our Jewish leadership pointed out how important it is, and remains, for to purchase life insurance and to see to it that every head of household purchase some form of life insurance. This shiur will help us look at the question of whether one can and perhaps must purchase life insurance.

Is it even Mutar?

The first dilemma we need to ask is whether one may purchase life insurance. After all, life in surance is a declaration of a gamble. Some might argue that to buy life insurance is to demonstrate a lack of Bitachon in Hashem. Do you agree? Why or why not?

______

Check out this possuk:

דברים פרק ח פסוק יח זָָֽכַרְ תָאֶּ ת־יְקֹּוָ קאֱֹלהֶֶּ֔יָךכִּיהּ֗ואהַ ןנֹּתֵֵ֥ לְָךָ֛ כֹֹּּ֖ חַ לַעֲש ֹותחָָ֑ יִּללְמַַ֨ עַן יםהָקִִּ֧ אֶּ ת־בְרִּ יתָ֛ ֹואֲשֶּ ר־ נִּשְבֵַ֥ע לַאֲבֹּתֶֹּּ֖ יָך כֵַּ֥֥ ֹום הֶֶַָּּֽֽ ה

And you shall remember Hashem, your God, because He is the One Who gave you strength to make wealth

Is the possuk reminding us to remember that Hashem is the one who gives us everything? If so, can we assume that as long as we remember that, we are not demonstrating a lack of Bitachon?

Onkelos translates: תרגום אונקלוס דברים פרק ח פסוק יח :)יח( ותדכר ית יי אלהך ארי הוא יהיב לך עיצא למקני נכסין בדיל לקיימא ית קימיה דקיים לאבהתך כיומא הדין Remember that it is the LORD your God who gives you the power to get wealth, in fulfillment of the covenant that He made on oath with your fathers, as is still the case.

What does the fact that Onkelos equates strength with financial ability do for our dilemma? How might you explain it?

______

45 Widows 46 orphans

Rav Moshe argues first, that insurance is a business with an investment like the others:

שו"ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ב סימן קיא וא"כ גם אינשורענס הוא ככל עניני מסחר וכדומה שעושין לפרנסת עצמו ופרנסת בניו שרשאין ליקח זה כיון שהוא מעשה פרנסה, וגם אולי יקיל זה מעליו שלא יצטרך לעבוד הרבה להניח שישאר לעת זקנותו ולירושה לבניו אחריו, כיון שבדרך נס אינו זוכה וגם אסור להתפלל ע"ז, ולכן כיון שהשי"ת נתן דעה בדורות האחרונים שיהיה עסק זה של אינשורענס בעולם שהוא השארה לזקנותו ולירושה בדרך טבעי, הוא דבר טוב וראוי גם לאנשים כשרים יראי השי"ת ובוטחים רק על השי"ת שהוא הנותן עצה למיקני נכסין, דגם מי שקונה אינשורענס הוא נמי עצת השי"ת למיקני אינשורענס ובוטח על השי"ת שיוכל לשלם בהגיע הזמן בכל שנה וזהו הבטחון שאנו מחוייבין, וכן הוא באינשורענס של שריפה וגניבה והאינשורענס של הקארס, /ביטוח של מכוניות/ שכל אלו הוא דבר שאין בזה שום .חסרון לענין הבטחון וכמו שנהגו היתר כל העולם אף יראי השי"ת ביותר

Rav Moshe points out that Hashem endowed humanity in recent generations with the idea of establishing insurance. Moreover, Hashem provides the individual with the intelligent idea to purchase insurance. As long as we grasp that Hashem deserves the credit for giving us these ideas, Hashem credits us with having complete faith in Him. Rav Moshe notes that we should have faith that Hashem will provide us with the means to pay the insurance premiums each payment period. He extends this Heteir to life, fire, theft, and car insurance.

An additional argument begins with a Gemara in Kiddushin. The Gemara notes: תלמוד בבלי מסכת קידושין דף מא עמוד א האיש מקדש את בתו כשהיא נערה. כשהיא נערה אין, כשהיא קטנה לא; מסייע ליה לרב, דאמר רב יהודה אמר .רב, ואיתימא רבי אלעזר: אסור לאדם שיקדש את בתו כשהיא קטנה, עד שתגדל ותאמר בפלוני אני רוצה

It is forbidden for a father to marry off his daughter when she is a minor (Kiddushei Ketanah) unless the girl is old enough to express her wish to marry a specific individual.

Tosafos quickly adds תוספות מסכת קידושין דף מא עמוד א ועכשיו שאנו נוהגים לקדש בנותינו אפי' קטנות היינו משום שבכל יום ויום הגלות מתגבר עלינו ואם יש סיפק ביד .אדם עכשיו לתת לבתו נדוניא שמא לאחר זמן לא יהיה סיפק בידו ותשב בתו עגונה לעולם The practice among Jews in the time and area (twelfth-thirteen century France-Germany) was to marry off very young daughters, (against the Gemara’s recommendation) The reason, Tosafot explain, is that that since they live in time of distress (apparently referring to the Crusades), they must seize an opportunity to marry off a daughter because if one had sufficient funds to provide a dowry, he did not know if he would have those funds when the girl would come of age.

Clearly Tosafos also sees no lack of Bitachon in that “pre-insurance” insurance plan. Why would the Tosafists see a problem with life insurance?

An additional proof can be found here:

תוספות מסכת בבא מציעא דף ע עמוד ב ומה שנהגו עתה להלוות לנכרים אור"ת משום דבשל סופרים הלך אחר המיקל וקי"ל כאידך לישנא דמתני הא דרב הונא אברייתא דרב יוסף ולא אסרו מעולם רב נחמן ורב הונא רבית דנכרי ואפי' ללישנא קמא יש להתיר לפי שיש עלינו מס מלך ושרים והכל הוי כדי חיינו ועוד שאנו שרויין בין האומות ואי אפשר לנו להשתכר בשום דבר אם לא נישא וניתן עמהם הלכך אין לאסור רבית שמא ילמוד ממעשיו יותר משאר משא ומתן

The Gemara (Bava Metzia 70b) notes the opinion that there is a rabbinic prohibition to charge interest even when lending to Nochrim under certain circumstances. Tosafos here quote Rabbeinu Tam who defends the practice of that time to lend money to Nochrim with interest in all situations. The argument is, that since it is impossible for us to survive in business unless we charge interest to Nochrim, we may rely on the lenient opinions that permit such lending. Tosafos doesn’t advocate simply relying on miraculous intervention to earn an adequate living, or warn us to bolster our faith in God’s ability to deliver us from economic distress. Rather, they condone relying on lenient opinions when necessary.

This leads to Rav Ovadiah Yosef’s conclusion (Yichaveh Daas III:85)

שו"ת יחוה דעת חלק ג סימן פה בסיכום: מותר לאדם לבטח את עצמו ביטוח חיים, ואין בזה משום חוסר בטחון בהקדוש ברוך הוא. ובלבד שהכל .ייעשה על פי ההלכה על יסוד תורתינו הקדושה, אשר דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום You can purchase life insurance and not worry about Bitachon.

Other religions:

It is interesting to note that in Islamic Law, the institution of life insurance is forbidden. In fact, life insurance is illegal in Libya and Iran. And, based on an editorial that appeared in the New York Times (February 23, 1853) which condemned the use of life insurance as leading to laziness it seemed that many Christian theologians in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries condemned it for similar reasons. However Rav J. David Bleich (Tradition 31:3, page 61) notes that these non-Jewish objections to life insurance are not reflected in the rabbinic literature from the time of the Rishonim until today. Indeed, both Rav Moshe and Rav Ovadiah note that common practice even among the most pious of individuals is to purchase insurance, a further indication of the permissibility of this venture. Rav bleich too cautions, however, that the policy should be in harmony with Halacha and not violate the prohibition to charge interest or require an autopsy in case of death.

A Hashkafic Lesson Gleaned from Rav Moshe’s Teshuvah

Rav Chaim Jachter adds that there are certain key critical Hashkafic notes that we should take note of in regard to Rav Moshe’s Teshuva. First, Rav Moshe Feinstein’s assertion that Hashem has endowed mankind with the idea of establishing insurance. This expresses a major idea in Torah thought – that divine revelation continues until this very day (albeit in a subtle manner). Indeed, on Shabbat and Yom Tov we specifically request from Hashem such revelation, beseeching Him to “enlighten our eyes in [His] Torah.” This may be understood as asking HaKadosh Baruch Hu to provide us with novel insights (Chiddushim) in Torah.

In addition, Rav Moshe’s statement teaches that such revelation is not limited to Torah matters, but also applies to non-spiritual matters. We seem to daven for such revelation in the fourth Berachah of the weekday Shemoneh Esrei in which we ask Hashem for intelligence. Based on the Targum Onkelos that Rav Moshe cites, we may also say that when we pray for Parnassah (sustenance), we are not only asking Hashem to create opportunities for us to earn money, but also requesting an endowment of intelligence to make the appropriate business choices.

Rav Jachter adds that this also highlights the importance of studying history from a spiritual perspective. Rav Moshe’s assertion about continuing divine revelation teaches that the study of history

55 actually is the study of the ongoing divine revelation in all areas of life. This is especially true according to the Ramban (Devarim 17:15) and the Zohar (in “Berich Shemei,” which we recite when we open the Aron HaKoshesh to remove a Sefer Torah), who teach that Hashem controls both the appointment and actions of leaders.47

We should note, in fairness, that although the ideas expressed in this Teshuvah may be marshaled to encourage secular education, Rav Moshe in this Teshuvah writes that one should prepare to earn a living only when the need presents itself.

Is there a Chiyuv to buy insurance?

Rabbinic authorities not only permit acquiring insurance, but even require it in some cases. For example, Teshuvot Beit Shlomo (Choshen Mishpat 48) rules that since it is customary to acquire insurance, one partner who pays the premium for fire insurance may recover half the cost from the second partner. He cites as precedent the Mishnah (Bava Batra 7b) which states that all residents of a town are required to contribute to the construction of a protective wall around the town. He reasons that insurance costs fall under the same category as expenditures for protecting a city. (See Rav Bleich’s essay for further sources regarding authorities who seem to either support or disagree with the Beit Shlomo’s ruling.) Rav Bleich notes that “Beit Shlomo’s analogy of insurance to the erection of fortifications for the defense of a city certainly indicates that seeking protection against financial loss is ideologically no different from seeking protection against marauders.”

Clearly Rav Bleich finds a precedent for buying fire insurance, does he argue the same for life insurance? Would you?

______-

Rav Bleich concludes: “A quite similar argument might be made for a communal policy requiring mandatory life insurance coverage. Sadly, there have been cases in which a young breadwinner has died at an early age leaving a widow and minor children destitute. The support of the widow and orphans then becomes a communal burden. The community certainly has a charitable obligation with regard to their support. It also has the authority to impose a tax in order to establish a charitable fund in anticipation of such needs. It would appear that the community would also have the right to use those funds to defray the cost of a group life insurance policy for each of its members, if for no other reason than on the grounds that such an arrangement is cheaper, more efficient, and more dignified than simple charity.”

At the least, it would seem like an obligation on the individual to contribute to a communal life insurance policy but at least to establish such a policy within our homes. Doing so is the best form of Tzedaka at the most heart-breaking time – when families are suffering. The charity would begin at home wherein the person passing would see to it that at least financially, the families would be taken care of.

47 This fits in nicely with the Chofetz Chaim’s comments noted in our Shiur on selecting and endorsing political candidates elsewhere in this volume.

Biblical People, Places & Things Orpah: Sealed with a Kiss48

When we speak about the heroines of Shavuos Rus comes to mind. Naomi also is a critical player in the story. Both women lost husbands, social status and wealth. Both could have suffered crises of faith and instead turned it around. Both women are mothers of Jewish royalty.

But there was a third woman in the picture. We do not speak about her as much. What is the purpose of knowing about Orpah in the Megillah? What is her role in our Shavuos holiday and in the home of Malchus?

Let’s look at the section where she appears. 1)רות פרק א

ו( ותקם היא וכלתיה ותשב משדי מואב כי שמעה בשדה מואב כי פקד יקוק את עמו לתת להם לחם:)ז( ותצא מן המקום אשר היתה שמה ושתי כלתיה עמה ותלכנה בדרך לשוב אל ארץ יהודה:)ח( ותאמר נעמי לשתי כלתיה לכנה שבנה אשה לבית אמה >יעשה< יעש יקוק עמכם חסד כאשר עשיתם עם המתים ועמדי:)ט( יתן יקוק לכם ומצאן מנוחה אשה בית אישה ותשק להן ותשאנה קולן ותבכינה:)י( ותאמרנה לה כי אתך נשוב לעמך:)יא( ותאמר נעמי שבנה בנתי למה תלכנה עמי העוד לי בנים במעי והיו לכם לאנשים:)יב( שבנה בנתי לכן כי זקנתי מהיות לאיש כי אמרתי יש לי תקוה גם הייתי הלילה לאיש וגם ילדתי בנים:)יג( הלהן תשברנה עד אשר יגדלו הלהן תעגנה לבלתי היות לאיש אל בנתי כי מר לי מאד מכם כי יצאה בי יד יקוק:)יד( ותשנה קולן ותבכינה עוד ותשק ערפה לחמותה ורות דבקה בה:

She started out with her daughters-in-law to return from the country of Moab; for in the country of Moab she had heard that the LORD had taken note of His people and given them food. Accompanied by her two daughters-in-law, she left the place where she had been living; and they set out on the road back to the land of Judah. But Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Turn back, each of you to her mother’s house. May the LORD deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me. May the LORD grant that each of you find security in the house of a husband!” And she kissed them farewell. They broke into weeping. and said to her, “No, we will return with you to your people But Naomi replied, “Turn back, my daughters! Why should you go with me? Have I any more sons in my body who might be husbands for you. Turn back, my daughters, for I am too old to be married. Even if I thought there was hope for me, even if I were married tonight and I also bore sons should you wait for them to grow up? Should you on their account debar yourselves from marriage? Oh no, my daughters! My lot is far more bitter than yours, for the hand of the LORD has struck out against me They broke into weeping again, and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law farewell. But Ruth clung to her.

Orpah is part of the dynamic daughters in law. She too, volunteers to return with her mother in law. She too, is identified by Naomi as one who does Chessed with her. She too, cries with the other women and goes “with” them. Why does she get moved off the chart. What happens to HER?

Take a look at a Gemara in Sotah:

48 Much of this shiur is built on the teachings of Rav Avraham Rivlin, Former Mashgiach, Kerem B”Yavneh

2)תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוטה דף מב עמוד ב

ואת ארבעת אלה יולדו להרפה בגת ויפלו ביד דוד וביד עבדיו - מאי נינהו? אמר רב חסדא: סף, ומדון, גלית, וישבי בנוב. ויפלו ביד דוד וביד עבדיו - דכתיב: +רות א+ ותשק ערפה לחמותה ורות דבקה בה, אמר רבי יצחק, אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא: יבואו בני הנשוקה ויפלו ביד בני הדבוקה.

The Gemara continues its discussion of the battle of David and Goliath. “These four were born to Harafa in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants” (II Samuel 21:22). The Gemara asks: What are the names of the four siblings mentioned here? Rav Ḥisda said: They are Saph, and Madon, Goliath, and Ishbi in Nob (see II Samuel 21:16–20). It says: “And they fell into the hands of David and his servants.” Why? It is because of the acts of their forebears, as it is written: “And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, and Ruth cleaved to her” (Ruth 1:14). Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: The children of the one who kissed, referring to the four giants descended from Orpah, will come and fall into the hand of the children of the one who cleaved, referring to David, who was descended from Ruth

Wow! So Orpah’s reward for trying to stick to Naomi and for everything she did was to be the mother of Goliath and to have him fall into the hands of her sister’s descendant? How? Why? What lesson can we learn from this?

______

(?the kissed one – נשוקה - And while we are at it, what is the point of calling her the)

3)רות רבה )וילנא( פרשה ב

כא ותשק ערפה לחמותה כל נשיקה של תיפלות בר מן תלת, נשיקה של גדולה, ונשיקה של פרקים, ונשיקה של פרישות, של גדולה דכתיב )שם /שמואל א'/ י'( ויקח שמואל את פך השמן ויצק על ראשו וישקהו, של פרקים דכתיב )שמות ד'( ויפגשהו בהר האלהים וישק לו, של פרישות שנאמר ותשק ערפה לחמותה, רבי תנחומא אמר אף נשיקה של קריבות שנאמר )בראשית כ"ט( וישק יעקב לרחל, למה שהיתה קרובתו, ותאמר הנה שבה יבמתך וגו' כיון ששבה אל עמה שבה אל אלהיה.

And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law farewell (Ruth 1:14)": every kiss is frivolous except for three: kisses of greatness, and kisses of meeting, and kisses of leaving. Of greatness, as it is written: "Samuel took a flask of oil and poured some on Saul’s head and kissed him (1 Samuel 10:1)". And kisses of meeting, as it is written: "He went and met him at the mountain of God, and he kissed him (Exodus 4:27)". And kisses of leaving, as it is said: "And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law farewell". Rabbi Tanchuma said: "Also kisses of affinity, as it is said: "Then Jacob kissed Rachel (Genesis 29:11)". Why? Because she had affinity with him. "So she said, “See, your sister-in-law has returned to her people and her gods (Ruth 1:15)".

The Midrash highlights three kisses – that of Shmuel, Aharon HaKohein and Orpah as being descriptive of the types of kisses that are meaningful. Orpah is not a faker, even in her kiss. After all, look at the company she is in! So how is she set up for such a downfall? What is it about her actions that force her into such a turn-around?

Generally at this point in any class in our ongoing series of “Biblical People, Places & Things” we tend to ask certain key questions:

?What does the name mean ? ערפה Why is she called .1 2. Why is she in the book? The theme of Rus, says the Midrash, is to show us the reward to those What is HER role in highlighting this message? If anything she . גומלי חסדיםwho are 49 demonstrates that the reward is limited!

Rav Yitzchock Hutner50 suggests that when 2 things seem so similar on the surface, it is critical to identify the differences between them. If this is true for “things” (like the goats of Yom Kippur) then it should also be true for two people. Let’s look at the two people who seem to act similarly.

4)רות רבה )וילנא( פרשה ב

שם האחת ערפה, שהפכה עורף לחמותה, ושם השנית רות, שראתה בדברי חמותה, ר' ביבי בשם ר' ראובן אמר, רות וערפה בנותיו של עגלון היו שנאמר )שופטים ג'( דבר סתר לי אליך המלך ויאמר הם וגו' וכתיב )שם /שופטים ג'/( ואהוד בא אליו וגו' ויאמר אהוד דבר אלהים לי אליך ויקם מעל הכסא אמר לו הקב"ה אתה עמדת מכסאך לכבודי חייך הריני מעמיד ממך בן יושב על כסא ה'

"The name of the one was Orpah" because she turned her back (oref) on her mother-in-law. "The name of the other was Ruth" because she looked (ra'atah) to the words of her mother-in-law. Rabbi Beivai in the name of Rabbi Reuben said: "Ruth and Orpah were the daughters of Eglon, as it is said: "I have a secret message for you.” The king thereupon commanded, “Silence!” (Judges 3:19)". And it is written: "and when Ehud approached him...Ehud said, “I have a message for you from God”; whereupon he rose from his seat. (Judges 3:20)", and he said to him: "The Holy One, blessed be He said: "You stood from your throne for my glory, as you live I will cause to rise from you a son sitting on the throne of Hashem"

Both girls were descendants of the same person – Eglon. He had shown a certain respect to Hashem. That action led both women to be similarly impressed with the God of the Jews. So why does one fall off the wagon?

49 See Rus Rabbah 1:8 50 Pachad Yitzchak Purim 6

Before we ask why? Let’s make sure she does. The Midrash states that as she fell, she fell hard.

5)רות רבה )וילנא( פרשה ב

א"ר יצחק כל אותו הלילה שפרשה ערפה מחמותה נתערבו בה ערות גוים של מאה בני אדם, הה"ד )שם /שמואל/ א' י"ז( והוא מדבר עמם וגו' ממערכות פלשתים, ממערות כתיב, ממאה ערלות גוים שנתערו בה כל הלילה, ר' תנחומא אמר אף כלב אחד דכתיב )שם /שמואל א' י"ז/( ויאמר הפלשתי אל דוד הכלב אנכי.

Rabbi Yitzhak said: "The whole of that night when Orpah separated from her mother, a hundred uncircumcised heathens bedded her". Rabbi Tanchuma said: "Even one dog raped her, as it is written: "And the Philistine said to David, am I a dog

Wait a second – In ONE night she was changed so drastically? How? And what’s up with the dog? And fundamentally difficult – It sounds as if she was with Philistines! But she was a Moabite? Where did the Philistines come from? 6)שמואל א פרק ט

)טז( כעת מחר אשלח אליך איש מארץ בנימן ומשחתו לנגיד על עמי ישראל והושיע את עמי מיד פלשתים כי ראיתי את עמי כי באה צעקתו אלי:

In the times of Shaul HaMelech (when the episode between Dovid HaMelech and Goliath took place) it was the Philistines – not the Egyptians or the Moabites who were fighting the Jewish people. But why did she go to them? And what does this do for our understanding of the Megillah and the ultimate showdown in the future with Dovid & Goliath?

7)תלמוד בבלי מסכת עבודה זרה דף יט עמוד א

ובמושב לצים לא ישב - שלא ישב במושב אנשי פלשתים, מפני שלצנים היו, שנאמר: +שופטים טז+ ויהי כטוב לבם ויאמרו קראו לשמשון וישחק לנו

Nor sat in the seat of the scornful” (Psalms 1:1); this means that Abraham did not sit in the seat of the Philistines, because they were scorners who engaged in jest and buffoonery. As it is stated with regard to the Philistines in a later period: “And it came to pass, when their hearts were merry, that they said: Call for Samson, that he may make us sport” (Judges 16:25)

Being with Philistines is indicative of a particular style of person. What type of person is a Philistine? They sound like a bunch of takers. People who want to see what they can get out of you. Orpah seeks to be a giver – a Baalas Chessed?

8) Michtav M’Eliyahu vol. I p. 36

אך אם יתבונן האדם כי לאשר יתן יאהב, וגם יהיה לו חלק בו וידבק אליו, אז יבחין כי זה אשר לזר נחשב לו, הוא רק כי טרם נתן לו, ועוד לא היטיב עמו. אם יתחיל להיטיב לכל אשר ימצא, כי אז ירגיש אשר כולם קרוביו, כולם .אהוביו, כי בכולם יש לו חלק, ובכולם התפשטה עצמותו לאדם אשר הגיע למדרגה זו מובנת כפשטותה מצות התורה "ואהבת לרעך כמוך". אהבת המין היא פלא בכוחות הנפש. לכאורה היה נראה שאין תוכן ממשי באהבה זו, אלא שהיא עצה עמוקה של הבורא יתברך, למען קיום העולם. אבל זה רחוק להבינו, הן כבר נתונה התאוה בלב האדם, וכן הכוסף לבנים, ואלה יספיקו לתכלית הנ"ל. על כן נאמר, כי אהבה זו באה על ידי השלימם זה את זה, כאמרם ז"ל, כל שאין לו אשה... אינו אדם שלם )ב"ר פרשה י"ז(. ובהיות האדם לבדו חסר הנהו, כי לא יוכל למלא את תפקידו. על כן בהיותם נותנים השלמה זה לזה יאהבו זה .את זה, כאשר התבאר כי הנותן יאהב. וזהו אשר באהבתם, כל שאיפתם היא ליתן ולהשפיע נחת ועונג זה לזה כך אני אומר תמיד לזוג בעת שמחת כלולתם: הזהרו יקרים, שתמיד תשאפו להשביע נחת זה לזה... ודעו כי ברגע שתתחילו לדרוש דרישות זה מזה, כבר אושרכם מכם והלאה... Rav Dessler notes that Chessed is a builder of love. One loves that which s/he GIVES to. In fact, if you are always a taker, you will never find love. But to the universal giver there is always a bottomless pit of emptiness in a partner who always takes. A dog is a symbol of someone who always takes. He always says “Hav Hav” – Keep giving. To this, I believe that the influenced Orpah erred. She had learned the value of giving – but not of proper Chessed and the ruthless Philistines took advantage of her as did the dogs.

Our Torah notes that not all relationships are permitted. In fact the Torah notes of 2 that are so forbidden they are called a Chessed. What kind of message is that?

9) Points to Ponder – Achrei Mos/Kedoshim 5780

It is a Chessed (20:17) - Rav Dessler ztl explains that Chessed is an incredible middah but that it חֶ דֶ֣סֶ ה֔ ּוא can be misused in the wrong circumstance. This is why Hashem tells Avraham that He will shield him. The Shield is a protection from the misuse and overuse of Chessed. Hence the Beracha of Mogen Avraham.

Orpah misused it. She missed the boat. Hence in the Megillah of Chessed, there is someone who shows up to show us that true Chessed is not selfless. It begins with having a value for oneself. One cannot pay lip service to Chessed.

Take a look why…

10) Even Shisiya – Rabbi Norman Lamm on Pirkei Avos (ed. Rabbi Mark Dratch) p. 74

Kissing and Clinging And Orpah kissed (n-sh-k) her mother-in-law, whereas Ruth clung (d-v-k) to her. Their descendants, David and Goliath, are referred to in the Talmud as the sons of devukah who vanquished the sons of neshukah. There are two universal types: clingers and kissers those who are authentically loyal and those who merely blow kisses. R. Yohanan b. Zakkai challenges his students to discover the trait to which a person should cling, not to which he might merely pay lip service.

The difference between Orpah and Rus is that while on the surface they looked the same, the difference was in their level of commitment. When you commit theoretically, but not really, you make mistakes and the bigger the mistakes, the harder the fall.

Rav Nebenzahl offer one more thought…

11) Rav Nebentzahl (Rav of the Old City – Sicha 5761)

There is yet another way to understand Chazal's statement that the evil promise much and do not even do little. Many people who promise a lot really do intend to keep their word, it is only in the end that they do not stand up to their initial promise and do not even do little. The end result is a total retraction from what they had intended. An example of this, is the behavior of Orpah. Ruth and Orpah both accompanied Naomi, at which time their mother-in-law Naomi insisted that they each return to their birthplace. We read of both of their responses: "and they said to her, 'no, we will return with you to your people'" [4] (Ruth 1:10). Naomi's persistence convinces Orpah to return, at which time she kisses her mother-in-law and bids her farewell. Orpah had every intention of converting and returning with Naomi as Ruth did. What was it that Ruth did that made her successful in her quest to follow Hashem and the Jewish nation despite Naomi's persistence to the contrary, while Orpah could not stand up to Naomi's arguments? The difference was that Ruth acted immediately upon her spiritual awakening to make it a permanent part of her life. Orpah also felt a spark of holiness, yet she did not follow through with that which was required to effect a permanent change in her level of spirituality.

Chazal, in fact tell us (Ruth Rabba 2:20) that the very night following Orpah's having parted from Naomi she had descended to depths of depravity, and it was from her that descended Goliath who cursed the ways of Hashem and His savior. What could account for such a sharp decline? It was because of her awakening that she fell. She had aroused forces within herself that had great potential, once those forces were not utilized they had the power to bring her down. Chazal tell us "as a reward for the four tears which Orpah dropped upon her mother-in-law, she merited that four mighty warriors should issue from her" [5] (Sotah 42b).

Orpah is ultimately rewarded for her actions but like the actions which were misguided and incomplete, her rewards also are misguided and not enduring. We learn valuable lessons about what true Chessed means and how it builds. What does Chessed mean to YOU?

Biblical People Places and Things Ploni Almoni: The Selfish Selfless

1) רות פרק ד

:א( ּובַֹּ֨עַ ז עָלָ ה הַּׁשַ עַר וֵַּ֥שֶּ ב שָ ם וְהִּ נֵַ֨ ה הַ גֹּאֵֵ֤ ל עֹּבֵר אֲשֶּ ר דִּ בֶּ ר־בֶֹּ֔עַ ז וַֹֹּּּ֥֪ אמֶּ ר סֵ֥ ּורָ ה שְ בָ ה־פֹֹּּ֖ ה פְ ֹלנ ִ֣י אַלְ מֹנ ִ֑י וַָֹּּ֥֖סַ ר וֵַּ֥שֵָֽ ב) :ב( וִַּּ֥קַַּ֫ ח עֲשָרִָ֧ ה אֲנָשִֹּּ֪ ים מִּ ִֶּּֽקְ נֵֵ֥י הָעִֹּּ֖ יר וַֹּּ֥ אמֶּ ר שְ בּו־פָֹּ֑ ה וֵַּ֥שֵָֽ בּו) :ג( וַֹּּ֥ אמֶּ ר לַגֹּאֵֶ֔ ל חֶּלְקַ ת הַשָדֶֶּ֔ ה אֲשֵֶּ֥ ר לְאָחִֹּּ֖ ינּו לֶּאֱלִּ ימֶָּ֑לֶּ ְך מָ כְרָ ה נָעֳמִֶּ֔ י הַּׁשָֹּ֖בָ ה מִּשְדֵֵ֥ ה מֹואָָֽ ב) ד( וַאֲנִַּ֨ י אָמַַ֜רְתִּ י אֶּגְלִֶּ֧ה אָזְנְָך לֵ אמֹּ֗ ר קְְ֠ נֵה נֵֶֶּ֥֥גֶּד הַָֽ ֹּּ֥שְ בִּים וְנֶּ ֶ֥גֶּד זִּקְ נֵ י עַמִּ י אִּ ם־תִּ גְאַ ל גְאֶָ֔ ל וְאִּ ם־לַֹּ֨ א יִּגְאַַ֜ ל הַגִּ ידָ ה ּלִּ֗ י ואדע ) :וְאֵָֽדְ עָה כִּ י אֵֵ֤ ין זּולָָֽתְ ָך לִּ גְאֶ֔ ֹול וְאָ נֹּכִֹּּ֖ י אַחֲרֶָּ֑ יָך וַֹֹּּּ֥֖ אמֶּ ר אָ נֹּכִֵּ֥י אֶּגְאָָֽ ל ה( וַֹּּ֥ אמֶּ ר בֶֹּ֔עַ ז בְ יֹום־קְנֹותְ ָךֵ֥ הַשָדֶֹּּ֖ ה מִּ ַּ֥ ד נָעֳמִָּ֑ י ּוְ֠מֵאֵ ת ר ּות הַ מֹואֲבִּ ֵָּ֥֤ה אֵָֽשֶּ ת־הַמֵת קניתי קָ נִֶּ֔ יתָ ה לְהָקִֵּ֥ ים שֵ ם־הַמֵֹּ֖ ת עַ ל־) :נַחֲלָתָֽ ֹו :ו( וַֹּּ֥ אמֶּ ר הַ גֹּאֵ֗ ל לֵֹּ֤ א אּוכַל לגאול־לִּ גְאָ ל־לִֶּ֔ י פֶּ ן־אַשְחִֹּּ֖ ית אֶּ ת־נַחֲלָתִָּ֑ י גְאַ ל־לְָךֵ֤ אַתָה אֶּ ת־גְאֻּלָתִֶּ֔ י כִֵּ֥י לֹּא־אּוכַֹּ֖ל לִּ גְאָֹּֽ ל) ז( וְזֹּאת לְפָנִַּ֨ ים בְ יִּשְרָ אֵַ֜ ל עַ ל־הַגְ אּוּלֵָ֤ה וְעַ ל־הַתְמּורָ ה לְקַ ֵּ֥ ם כָל־דָ בֶָ֔ ר שָלֵַ֥ף אִֹּּ֪ יש נַעֲלֹּ֖ ֹו וְנָתַ ן לְרֵעֵָ֑הּו וְזֵֹּ֥ את הַתְעּודָֹּ֖ ה ) :בְ יִּשְרָאֵָֽ ל :ח( וִַֹּּ֥֧ אמֶּ ר הַ גֹּאֵֹּ֪ ל לְ בֹֹּּ֖ עַז קְ נֵה־לְָָ֑ך וִַּּ֥שְ ֹלֹּ֖ ף נַעֲלָֽ ֹו)

 Why V’Henei? Why was he just “Passing through?” Why is this important to the Megillah?  Why is he left nameless in the Megillah? Does he even HAVE a name?  Why is this part of the story important anyway?  What does his concerns with HIS Nachalah have to do with Yibum?

Family ties:

2) רש"י רות פרק ב פסוק א

א( מודע - קרוב בן אחיו של אלימלך היה אמרו רבותינו ז"ל אלימלך ושלמון אבי בועז ופלוני אלמוני הגואל ואבי ) :נעמי כולם בני נחשון בן עמינדב היו ולא הועילו להם זכות אבותם בצאתם מהארץ לחוצה לארץ

2a) רות רבה )לרנר( פרשה ו

ד"א: טאב טוב אלימלך בעז אחים. ר' יהושע בן לוי, סאב, סלמון אלימלך בעז אחים. התיבון ליה, והא כתיב אשר .לאחינו לאלימלך )רות ד: ג(? אמר להם, אין אדם נמנע מלקרות לדודו אחיו

 Two opinions mentioned here – also 2 names. Is there significance?  What, if any, is the connection to Nachshon Ben Aminadav?

The concerns of Ploni:

3) רות רבה )וילנא( פרשה ז

ז ]א[ ובועז עלה השער וישב שם והנה הגואל עובר אשר דבר בעז מה לאחורי תרעא הוה קאים, א"ר שמואל בר נחמן אפי' היה בסוף העולם הטיסו הקדוש ברוך הוא והביאו לשם כדי שלא יהא אותו צדיק יושב ומצטער מתוך ישובו, אמר רבי ברכיה כך דרשו שני גדולי עולם רבי אליעזר ור' יהושע, ר' אליעזר אומר, בעז עשה את שלו ורות עשתה את שלה ונעמי עשתה את שלה, אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אף אני אעשה את שלי, ויאמר סורה שבה פה פלוני אלמוני, ר' יהושע אומר פלוני אלמוני שמו, ר' שמואל בר נחמן אמר אלם היה מדברי תורה, אמר הראשונים

לא מתו אלא ע"י שנטלו אותן ואני הולך ליטלה, חס לי ליטלה לית אנא מערבב זרעייתי איני מערב פסולת בבני ולא היה יודע שכבר נתחדשה הלכה עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית

3a)תרגום רות ד ו)

ואמר הגואל כי האי גונא לית אנא יכיל למפרוק לי על דאית לי אתתא לית לי רשו למסב אוחרניתא עלהא דלמא תהי למצו בביתי ואהא מחבל ית אחסנתי פרוק לך את ארום דלית אתתא ארום לית אנא יכל למפרוק )-במקרה איני יכול לגאול כיוון שיש לי אישה, אין לי רשות לשאת אחרת עליה, פן תהיה למריבה בבית, ואשחית את נחלתי. (גאל לך אתה כי אין לך אישה כי לא אוכל לגאול  Why are these concerns not taken seriously?  Why punish the man because of placing his family first?

Wenger Corollary: What do Ploni Almoni mean?

4) רש"י רות פרק ד פסוק א

:פלני אלמני - מתורגם בנביאים )שמואל א' כא( כסי וטמיר :פלני - מכוסה ונעלם לשון )דברים יז( כי יפלא )בראשית יח( היפלא מה' דבר אלמני - אלמון מבלי שם, )ס"א אלמוני שהיה אלמן מד"ת שהיה לו לדרוש עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית :(והוא אמר פן אשחית את נחלתי  What is he hiding?

The other 2 PLACES of Ploni Almoni 5) מלכים ב פרק ו

:ח( ּומֶּ לֶּ ְך אֲרֶָ֔ ם הָ יֵָ֥ה נִּלְחָֹּ֖ ם בְ יִּשְרָאֵָ֑ ל וִַּּּ֥וָעַץ אֶּ ל־עֲבָדָ יו לֵ אמֹּ֗ ר אֶּ ל־מְקֹּ֪ ֹום פְ ֹלנִֵּ֥י אַלְ מֹּנִֹּּ֖י תַ חֲנֹּתִָּֽ י) :ט( וִַּּ֥שְ לַַּ֫ ח אִּ יש הָאֱ ֹלהִּ֗ ים אֶּ ל־מֵֶּ֤ לֶּ ְך יִּשְרָ אֵ ל לֵ אמֶֹּ֔ ר הִּּׁשָָּׁ֕ מֶּ ר מֵ עֲבֹֹּּ֖ ר הַמָק ֹום הֶֶַָּּֽ֑ה כִָּֽי־שָֹּ֖ ם אֲרֵָ֥ ם נְחִּתִָּֽ ים) :י( וִַּּ֥שְ לַַּ֫ ח מֶּ לֶּ ְך יִּשְרָ אֵ֗ ל אֶָּֽ ל־הַמָקַּ֫ ֹום אֲשֶַּ֨ ר אָָֽמַ ר־לִ֧ ֹו אִּ יש־הָ אֱֹלהִֹּּ֪ ים והזהירה וְהִּ זְהִּ ירֹּ֖ ֹו וְנִּשְמַ ר שָָ֑ ם לֵֹּ֥ א אַחַֹּ֖ ת וְלֵֹּ֥ א שְתָָֽ יִּם) :יא( וִַּּ֥סָעֵר לֵ ב מֶָּֽ לֶּ ְך־אֲרֶָ֔ ם עַ ל־הַדָבָֹּ֖ ר הֶֶַָּּֽ֑ה וִַּּ֥קְרֵָ֤ א אֶּ ל־עֲבָדָ יו וַֹּּ֥ אמֶּ ר אֲלֵ יהֶֶּ֔ ם הֲ לֹוא תַגִּידּו לִֶּ֔ י מִֵּ֥ י מִּּׁשֶּּלָֹּ֖נּו אֶּ ל־מֵֶּ֥לֶּ ְך יִּשְרָאֵָֽ ל) יב( וַֹּּ֥ אמֶּר אַחַ ד מֵָֽ עֲבָדֶָ֔ יו לֹּ֖ ֹוא אֲ דֹּנִּ י הַמֶָּ֑לֶּ ְך כִָּֽ י־אֱלִּ ישֵָ֤ ע הַ נָבִּיא אֲשֶּ ר בְ יִּשְרָ אֵֶ֔ ל יַגִּ יד לְמֶּ לֶּ ְך יִּשְרָ אֵֶ֔ ל אֶּ ת־הַַ֨ דְ ֶ֔ בָרִּ ים אֲשֵֶּ֥ ר ) :תְדַבֵֹּ֖ ר בַחֲדֵַ֥ ר מִּשְ כָבֶָּֽ ָך  Where was that place? Why is it significant?  What WAS revealed at that place? How? How does it connect to OUR Ploni Almoni?

6) שמואל א פרק כא

:א( וֶַָֹּּ֥֖֥קָ ם וֵַּ֥לְַָ֑ך וִּיהֹונָתָֹּ֖ ן בֵָ֥ א הָעִָּֽ יר) :ב( וַָּ֥בֵֹּ֤ א דָ וִּד נֶֹּ֔בֶּ ה אֶּל־אֲחִּ ימֶֹּּ֖לֶּ ְך הַ כֹּהֵָ֑ ן וֶַּּ֥חֱרַַ֨ ד אֲחִּ ימֶַּ֜ לֶּ ְך לִּקְרַ את דָ וִּ֗ד וֵַֹּּ֥֤ אמֶּ ר לֹו מַ דֵּ֤ועַ אַתָה לְבַדֶֶָּ֔ך וְאִֹּּ֖ יש אֵֵ֥ ין אִּתָָֽ ְך) ג( וַַֹּּ֥֨ אמֶּ ר דָ וִַּ֜ד לַאֲחִּ ימֶּ לֶּ ְך הַ כֹּהֵ֗ ן הַמֶּ לְֶּך צִּּוַנִּי דָ בָ ר וַֹּּ֥ אמֶּ ר אֵלַ֗ י אִּ יש אַ ל־יִֵֶ֧֥דַ ע מְאֹּ֪ ּומָ ה אֶּ ת־הַדָבָֹּ֪ ר אֲשֶּ ר־אָ נֹּכִֵּ֥י שֹּלֵָֽחֲָךֹּ֖ וַאֲשֶּ ר ) :צִּּוִּיתִָּ֑ ָך וְאֶּ ת־הַ נְעָרִּ ים יֹודֶַ֔עְתִּ י אֶּ ל־מְקֵ֥ ֹום פְ ֹלנִֹּּ֖י אַלְ מֹונִָּֽ י :ד( וְעַתָ֗ ה מַ ה־ִֵּ֥֧ש תַָֽ חַ ת־יָדְ ָךֹּ֪ חֲמִּּׁשָ ה־לֶֹּּ֖חֶּ ם תְ נָ ה בְ יָדִָּ֑ י אֹּ֖ ֹו הַ נִּמְצָָֽ א) ה( וַַַּ֥֨עַ ן הַ כֹּהֵֵ֤ ן אֶּת־דָ וִּד וֶַֹּּ֥֔ אמֶּ ר אֵָֽ ין־לֵֶּ֥חֶּ ם חֹֹּּ֖ ל אֶּ ל־תַ חַ ת יָדִָּ֑ י כִָּֽ י־אִּ ם־לֵֶּ֤חֶּ ם קַֹּ֨דֶּ ש יֵֶ֔ש אִּ ם־נִּשְמְרֵ֥ ּו הַ נְעָרִֹּּ֖ ים אֵַ֥ ְך מֵאִּּׁשָָֽ ה: פ)

6a) ילקוט שמעוני שמואל א רמז קלא

. ולמה נקרא שמו אדומי.. ר' חנינא אמר מה אדום מבלע זכיותיו של ישראל כך דואג מבלע זכיותיו של דוד. רבותינו אמרו מה אדום נוקם ונוטר ושונא אף דואג כך לדוד. מהו )ויגד( ]כי הגד יגיד[ לשאול אמר ליה ואגיד ליה, אמר לו עשית דוד מלך בחייך אין נשאלים באורים ותומים אלא למלך ודוד הוא נשאל באורים ותומים, כיון שאמר לו

דואג הדבר הזה הכניס בו רוח קנאה מנין שכן שאול אמר לאחימלך בתתך לו לחם וחרב ולא דייך אלא ושאול לו באלהים לפיכך מות תמות אחימלך. כיון שראה שפניו של שאול זועפות מיד ויען אחימלך )אל( ]את[ המלך ויאמר ומי בכל עבדיך כדוד נאמן וחתן המלך וגו' היום החלותי לשאול לו באלהים חלילה לי אין יום זה תחלה למוד הייתי אני להיות שואל לו, אמר לו כל כך היית שואל לו ואין אתה חייב מיתה. כיון שהוציא עליו אפופסין של מות מיד ויאמר המלך לרצים ולא שמעו לו זה אבנר ועמשא ולא הניחו לפגוע בהם. כיון שראה שלא שמעו לו אמר לו לדואג מה אתה עומד הכיתם בלשון הכם בחרב עמד והכה אותם שנאמר וימת ביום ההוא שמונים וחמשה איש ראה גבורה שהיה בו שלא סייעו אדם בעולם אלא הוא עצמו הרגן, ולא אלו בלבד אלא ואת נוב עיר הכהנים הכה לפי 'חרב, ודוד צווח מה תתהלל ברעה הגבור וכו

6b) מדרש תהלים )בובר( מזמור נב

ה[ ]נב, ב[ ויגד לשאול. מהו ויגד, ]ואגיד ליה, מה אמר לו[ כך אמר לו, עשה דוד מלך בחייך, לפי שאין שואלין ] באורים ותומים אלא למלך ולבית דין ולמי שצורכי רבים תלויין בו, ודוד הוא נשאל באורים ותומים, כיון שאמר לו הדבר הזה, מיד נכנס רוח קנאה בשאול, מניין שכן שאול אמר לאחימלך בתתך לו לחם וחרב )ש"א =שמואל א'= כב יג(, ולא דייך, אלא ושאול לו באלהים )שם שם /שמואל א' כ"ב/(, לכן מות תמות אחימלך )שם שם /שמואל א' כ"ב/ יו(, כיון שראה פניו של שאול זועפות עליו, מיד ויען אחימלך )אל המלך( ]את המלך יאמר[ ומי בכל עבדיך כדוד נאמן וחתן המלך )שם שם /שמואל א' כ"ב/ יד(, אמר ליה לא זה ולא זה, וכי ותחילה קרא היום )הזה( החלותי לשאל לו באלהים חלילה לי )שם שם /שמואל א' כ"ב/ טו(, אין תחילה למוד אני להיות שואל לו, אל ישם המלך בעבדו דבר )ועל( ]בכל[ בית אבי )שם שם /שמואל א' כ"ב/(, אמר ליה וכך היית שואל לו והולך, ואין אתה חייב מיתה, כיון שהוציא עליו איפופסין של מות, מיד ויאמר המלך לרצים הנצבים עליו ]סובו והמיתו כהני ה'[ )שם שם /שמואל א' כ"ב/ יז(, ולא שמעו לו, אמר שלמה שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע )קהלת ח ה(, זה אבנר ועמשא, שלא הניחו לנגוע בכהנים, שנאמר )ולא שמעו איש מהם( ]ולא אבו עבדי המלך[ )ש"א =שמואל א'= כב יז(, כיון שראה שלא שמעו לו, אמר לדואג מה אתה עומד אתה הכיתם בלשון, קום והכה בחרב, שנאמר ויאמר המלך לדואג סוב אתה ופגע בכהנים )שם שם /שמואל א' כ"ב/ יח(, מיד עמד והכם, שנאמר וימת ביום ההוא שמונים וחמשה איש נושא אפוד בד )שם שם /שמואל א' כ"ב/(, ראה איזה גבורה היה בו שלא סייעו אדם בעולם, אלא הוא בעצמו הורגן, ולא אלו בלבד, אלא ואת נוב עיר הכהנים הכה )בחרב( ]לפי חרב[ )שם שם /שמואל א' כ"ב/ יט(, ודוד צווח .ואמר מה תתהלל ברעה הגבור חסד אל כל היום  What is the difference between the 2 sides of the argument in the Nov disagreement. How is it the opposite of Ploni Almoni? 7) רש"י רות פרק ד פסוק א

:א( פלני אלמני - ולא נכתב שמו לפי שלא אבה לגאול)  Why?

The Evils of Anonimity 8)Rabbi Dr. Lamm, The Varieties of Anonymity

Finally, the fifth variety of anonymity is that of fear, or better, cowardice. Anonymity is often the cloak of the spineless and gutless…

Related to this form of cowardly anonymity is the anonymous letter writer. As a public figure, it has not been unusual for me in the course of the years to receive an occasional anonymous letter.

I confide to you: I never pay attention the them. I never try to figure out who the writer is, never try to decipher his handwriting or discern how he changed his style or punctuation or spelling in order to disguise his identity. I just don’t care. People who do not have the courage of their convictions, and are not willing to engage in serious dialogue, do not deserve to have others listen to their monologue. I consider them nothing but pathetic.

And yet I recognize that it is often difficult for a person to voice criticism and place himself squarely behind it…

Sometimes I think that the anonymous letter-writer is really revealing his true identity as symbolized by his anonymity: namely, nothing, the absence of personality, or better–the absence of character. The anonymous letter has the same value as a check signed by “Anonymous”…

 How does this impact Ploni Almoni’s references in Tanach? Is it “Tov” or “not so good?”

9) 'משנה שכיר - מועדים מגילת רות והיה בבוקר אם יגאלך טוב יגאל וגו

וכן עשה בועז, שלקח את רות והוליד ממנה את משיח צדקינו. ורש"י פירש, "פן אשחית את נחלתי" - זרעי, כמו "נחלת ה' בנים" ]תהלים קכז, ג[, לתת פגם בזרעי. הרי, דהך גואל היה 'איין פרוממער', שהיה ירא לקחת את רות ולהצמיח את אורו של משיח, פן יגרום על ידה פגם לבניו, ואמר: "לא אוכל לגאול פן אשחית את נחלתי". והפסוק האשימו על כך, וכמו שכתב רש"י על "פלוני אלמוני" - 'ולא נכתב שמו, לפי שלא אבה לגאול'. אף שהיתה טענתו בצידו "פן אשחית את נחלתי", אעפ"כ האשימו הכתוב שלא טוב עשה, יען דארט וויא עס האנדעלט זיך לגלות אורו של משיח טור מען ניכט זיין קיין נאר און קוממען מיט פרומקייט ]כאשר עוסקים בענין גילוי אורו של משיח אין לבוא .['עם ענייני 'פרומקייט

10) 'משנה שכיר - מועדים מגילת רות והיה בבוקר אם יגאלך טוב יגאל וגו

בועז הלך בשיטת הרה"ק מרופשיץ הנ"ל ובועז הלך בשיטת רבינו הקדוש הנ"ל, במה שלא היה מתיירא מפני ה"פן אשחית את נחלתי", יען - הגם שהיה ירא שמים והיה גם חכם וידע מדברי ה'חובת הלבבות' ]בהקדמה[ מן הזהירות שלא תיזהר הרבה, עשה רק מה דמיפקדת והקב"ה יעשה את שלו. וידע 'דאס עס האנדעלט זיך לגלות אור של משיח דארף מען ניכט קומען מיט .קיינע פרוממע זאכען'. בגלל כן זכה שנתגלה על ידו אור של משיח, כיון דהוא עשה את שלו כמו כן בענין בנין הארץ, דכבר הבאתי מגדולי רבותינו הקדושים, שבזכות בנין וחיבת הארץ נזכה לאורו של משיח. קוממען זייא דיא פרוממע צו געהן מיט דיא טענה 'פן אשחית את נחלתי', גראדע זא וויא דער פלוני אלמוני. אבער בועז איז געווען א חכם און האט ניכט געגעבין אויף דיא טענה פון 'פן אשחית את נחלתי', איז טאקע נולד געווארין אורו של משיח ]באים כאלו בטענה, 'פן אשחית את נחלתי'. בדיוק כמו 'פלוני אלמוני'. אבל בועז היה חכם ולא שעה לטענה הזאת של 'פן אשחית את נחלתי', ובאמת מזה נולד אור של משיח[. כמו כן אין לשים לב כלל לטענתם זו פון דיא פרוממע, אלא נלך ונחבב את ארצנו הקדושה, ונמסור נפשינו עליה, ועי"ז יתגלה על ידינו בעזר השם .אורו של משיח בב"א The Failures of Ploni Almoni In his name 11) מלבי"ם רות פרק ד

א( ובועז עלה השער, ששם מושב הסנהדרין, והיה דעתו להזמין את הגואל ע"י שלוחא דבי דינא והזמין ה' ) שהגואל עבר שם ועז"א והנה הגואל עובר, שמלת הנה מורה דבר חדש כי לא היה דרכו לעבור דרך שם רק אשר דבר בועז מצד שדבר בועז שי"ל ענין עם הגואל הזמין ה' שיעבור, וע"כ אמר סורה שבה פה שיסור מדרכו שרוצה ללכת ולישב, וקראו פלוני אלמוני ר"ל שיש עמך דבר פלא, כמו לפלא נדר, שמורה על בחירת המחשבה, וענין אלמוני היינו קשר כמו מאלמים אלומים, כי דבר מן הקשר שיש לו עם גאולתו שיפלא ויברר דבר זה

12) אסתר פרק ד

:יג( וֵַֹּּ֥֥ אמֶּ ר מָרְ דֳכַֹּ֖י לְהָשִּ יב אֶּ ל־אֶּסְתֵָ֑ ר אַ ל־תְדַמִּ י בְ נַפְשֵֶ֔ ְך לְהִּמָלֵֵ֥ט בֵ ית־הַמֶֹּּ֖לֶּ ְך מִּ כָל־הַ ְּ֥הּודִָּֽ ים) יד( כִּ י אִּ ם־הַחֲרֵ ש תַ חֲרִּ ישִּ י בָעֵ ת הַ ֶֹּּֽאת רֶּ וַח וְהַ צָלַָּ֫ ה יַעֲמֵ֤ ֹוד לְַּ֥הּודִּ ים מִּמָק ֹום אַחֵֶ֔ ר וְאֵַ֥תְ ּובֵ ית־אָבִֹּּ֖ יְך תֹּאבֵָ֑ דּו ּומִּ י יֹודֵֶ֔ עַ ) :אִּ ם־לְעֵ ת כָזֶֹּ֔ את הִּ גַֹּ֖עַתְ לַמַלְ כָּֽות

12a) Rav Soloveitchik “Mordechai and Esther” Days of Deliverance p. 92

The Jew should be adult and child, grown up and immature at the same time. When called upon to act as Divine agent, to be a history maker, the Jew must be mature, courageous, and intellectually developed. When it is time to pray, the Jew must shed his maturity and reach out for either the enthusiasm or the grief of the child. The woman is more of an expert in playing this double role. Esther performed it magnificently. She knew how to be cunning and how to pray. Therefore the Megillah is named for Esther.

To his family 13) במדבר רבה )וילנא( פרשת נשא פרשה יג

א"ר יהודה בר' אלעאי כשעמדו ישראל על הים היו השבטים מדיינים אלה עם אלה זה אומר אני יורד תחלה וזה אומר אני יורד תחלה קפץ נחשון לתוך גלי הים וירד ועליו אמר דוד )שם /תהלים/ סט( הושיעני אלהים כי באו מים עד נפש אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה ידידי שוקע בים ואתה מתפלל )שמות יד( דבר אל בני ישראל ויסעו הוי נודע ביהודה אלהים ולפיכך הגדיל הקדוש ברוך הוא שמו של נחשון בישראל שזכה להקריב ראשון שנאמר ויהי המקריב ביום ראשון וגו' הוי בישראל גדול שמ

To the Book of Ruth

14) רות רבה )וילנא( פרשה ב

א"ר זעירא מגלה זו אין בה לא טומאה ולא טהרה ולא איסור ולא היתר ולמה נכתבה ללמדך כמה שכר טוב לגומלי .חסדים To Jewish Destiny 15)Rokeach

נחבר המסורת, עתיד הקב״ה כאילו אומר למשיח טורה ״שבה פה פלוני אלמוני״ כלומר בירושלים תשב שם אשכן שכינתי וזהו ״מקום פלוני אלמוני תחונתי,״ זו ירושלים, ״תחנתי״ זו חנייתי ושם יתקבצו ישראל, וזהו ״ואת הנערים מדעתי אל מקום פלוני אלמוני,״ ״הנערים״ אילו ישראל שנאמר )הושע יא, א( ״כי נער ישראל ואהבהו.״

Biblical People, Places & Things Megillas Rus: The unnamed

I. Reminder of the Theme of Rus:

1)רות רבה )וילנא( פרשה ב יד יעשה ה' עמכם חסד, ר' חנינא בר אדא אמר יעשה כתיב כאשר עשיתם עם המתים שנטפלתם בתכריכיהון ועמדי שויתרו לה כתובותיהן, א"ר זעירא מגלה זו אין בה לא טומאה ולא טהרה ולא איסור ולא היתר ולמה נכתבה .ללמדך כמה שכר טוב לגומלי חסדים

II. The Reactions of the unnamed in the Megillah

2)רות פרק א :יט( וַתֵלַ כְנָה שְ תֵ יהֶֶּ֔ ם עַ ד־בֹּאָֹּ֖ נָה בֵ ית לָָ֑חֶּ ם וַיְהִּ֗ י כְבֹּאָ נָה בֵ ית לֶֶּ֔חֶּ ם וַתֵ הֵֹּ֤ ם כָל־הָעִּ יר עֲלֵ יהֶֶּ֔ ן וַתֹּאמַֹּ֖רְ נָה הֲ זֵֹּ֥ את נָעֳמִָּֽ י) :כ( וַתֹּ אמֶּ ר אֲלֵ יהֶֶּ֔ ן אַ ל־תִּקְרֵֶּ֥ אנָה לִֹּּ֖ י נָעֳמִָּ֑ י קְרֵֶּ֤ אןָ לִּ י מָרֶָ֔ א כִּ י־הֵמֵַ֥ ר שַדַָ֛ י לִֹּּ֖ י מְ אָֹּֽ ד) :כא( אֲנִּי מְ לֵאָ ה הָלֶַ֔ כְתִּ י וְרֵ יקָֹּ֖ ם הֱשִּיבַנִּי יְקֹּוָָ֑ק לָ מָ ה תִּקְרֵֶּ֤ אנָה לִּ י נָעֳמִֶּ֔ י וַָֽיקֹּוָק עָ נָה בִֶּ֔ י וְשַדַֹּ֖ י הֵֵ֥רַָֽ ע לִָּֽ י) :כב( וַתָ שָ ב נָעֳמִּ֗ י וְרַ֨ ּות הַ מֹואֲבִּ ֵָּ֥֤ה כַּלָתָּה עִּמֶָ֔ ּה הַּׁשָֹּ֖בָ ה מִּשְדֵ י מֹואָָ֑ ב וְהֵ֗ מָ ה בָ אּו בֵ ית לֶֶּ֔חֶּ ם בִּתְחִּּלַֹּ֖ת קְצִֵּ֥ יר שְ עֹּרִָּֽ ים)

 Why were they so startled?  Why does she change her name?  What is the rest of the story? Where do they keep to the theme?

2a)תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא בתרא דף צא עמוד א כן היה ר"ש בן יוחאי אומר: אלימלך, מחלון וכליון, גדולי הדור היו ופרנסי הדור היו, ומפני מה נענשו? מפני שיצאו מארץ לחוצה לארץ, שנאמר: ותהם כל העיר עליהן ותאמרנה הזאת נעמי. מאי הזאת נעמי? א"ר יצחק, אמרו: חזיתם, נעמי שיצאת מארץ לחו"ל מה עלתה לה? וא"ר יצחק: אותו היום שבאת רות המואביה לארץ ישראל, מתה אשתו של בעז. והיינו דאמרי אינשי: עד דלא שכיב שיכבא - קיימא מנו בייתיה

 So there was Chessed on the people’s minds. Why not toward Rus and Naomi?

3)רות פרק ב :ה( וֵַֹּּ֥֤ אמֶּ ר בַֹּ֨עַז לְ נַעֲרֶ֔ ֹו הַ נִּצָֹּ֖ב עַ ל־הַקָֽ ֹוצְרִָּ֑ ים לְמִֹּּ֖ י הַ נַעֲרֵָ֥ ה הַ ֶָֹּּֽֽ את) :ו( וַַּ֥֗עַ ן הַנַָ֛עַ ר הַ נִּצֵָ֥ב עַ ל־הַקֹוצְרִֹּּ֖ ים וַֹּּ֥אמַָ֑ ר נַעֲרֵָ֤ ה מָֽ ֹואֲבִּ ָּ֥ה הִֶּ֔ יא הַּׁשֵָ֥בָ ה עִָּֽ ם־נָעֳמִֹּּ֖ י מִּשְדֵֵ֥ ה מֹואָָֽ ב)

 What is a Naar? Do we normally hire a teenager to watch over the workmen?  Why is he so repetitive about Rus’s origins?

3a)תורה תמימה רות פרק ב פסוק ו ו( נערה מואביה היא - ]אמר ליה, את אמרת מעשיה יפים ונעימים, והלא נערה מואביה היא, אלא גבירתה רפאה ) :[לה[יג( ]מ"ר

3b)תורה תמימה הערות רות פרק ב הערה יג יג( הנער הבין בשאלת בועז כי הפיקה רצון ממנו, וחשש שמא עיניו נתן בה וקנא בה, ולכן רצה להקטין ערך פעולותיה שנראו לבועז לנאים ויפים, ואמר, כי היא בעצמה באמת רוח מואביה בה, וקצת מעשיה הטובים באו לה :רק מנעמי, ולכן היא מצד עצמה אינה ראויה לשום עליה עין לטובה

 Not worthy? Really? Even with all of the Tznius and awareness of the Halachos?

4)רות פרק ד :ו( וַֹּּ֥ אמֶּ ר הַ גֹּאֵ֗ ל לֵֹּ֤ א אּוכַל לגאול־לִּ גְאָ ל־לִֶּ֔ י פֶּ ן־אַשְחִֹּּ֖ ית אֶּ ת־נַחֲלָתִָּ֑ י גְאַ ל־לְָךֵ֤ אַתָה אֶּ ת־גְאֻּלָתִֶּ֔ י כִֵּ֥י לֹּא־אּוכַֹּ֖ל לִּ גְאָֹּֽ ל)

 What was he worried about? What Nachala?

4a)רות רבה )וילנא( פרשה ז י ]ה[ ויאמר בועז ביום קנותך השדה מיד נעמי ומאת רות המואביה אשת המת קנית קניתי כתיב, והא מסייעא לההיא דאמר רבי שמואל בר נחמן אלם היה מד"ת, אמר הראשונים לא מתו אלא ע"י שנטלו אותן ואני הולך ליטלה, חס לי ליטלה לית אנא מערבב זרעייתי איני מערב פסולת בבני ולא היה יודע שכבר נתחדשה הלכה עמוני .ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית  What lesson do we learn from his statement?  (Why is he also anonymous? What about everyone else?)

5)רות פרק ד יא( וַַֹּּ֥֨ אמְרַ֜ ּו כָל־הָעִָ֧ם אֲשֶּ ר־בַּׁשַָ֛ עַ ר וְהְֶַּֽקֵנִֹּּ֖ים עֵדִָּ֑ ים יִּתֵ ן יְקֹּוַָ֨ק אֶָּֽ ת־הָאִּּׁשַָ֜ ה הַבָאָ ה אֶּ ל־בֵיתֶּ֗ ָך כְרָחֵֵ֤ ל׀ ּוכְלֵאָה אֲשֶַּ֨ ר בָנֵ֤ ּו ) :שְ תֵ יהֶּם אֶּת־בֵ ית יִּשְרָ אֵֶ֔ ל וַעֲשֵ ה־חַיִּל בְאֶּפְרֶָ֔תָ ה ּוקְרָא־שֵֹּ֖ ם בְבֵֵ֥ ית לָָֽחֶּ ם :יב( וִּיהִֵּ֤ י בֵָֽ יתְ ָך כְבֵ ית פֶֶּ֔רֶּ ץ אֲשֶּ ר־יָלְדֵָ֥ ה תָמָֹּ֖ ר לִָּֽ יהּודָָ֑ ה מִּ ן־הַ ֶֶּּֽ֗רַ ע אֲשֶַּ֨ ר יִּתֵֵ֤ ן יְקֹּוָק לְָךֶ֔ מִּ ן־הַָֽ נַעֲרָֹּ֖ ה הַ ֶָֹּּֽֽ את)

 Nice attitude shift but why the connection to Tamar and Yehuda?

6)רות פרק ד :יג( וִַּּ֥קַַ֨ ח בֵֹּ֤ עַ ז אֶּ ת־רּות וַתְהִּ י־ל ֹו לְאִּּׁשֶָ֔ ה וַָּ֥בֹֹּּ֖ א אֵלֶָּ֑יהָ וִַּּ֥תֵַ֨ ן יְקֹּוֵָ֥ק לָָּ֛ה הֵרָיֹּ֖ ֹון וַתֵֵ֥לֶּ ד בֵָֽ ן) :יד( וַתֹּאמֵַ֤רְ נָה הַ נָשִּ ים אֶָּֽ ל־נָעֳמִֶּ֔ י בָרּוְך יְקֹּוֶָ֔ק אְֲ֠ שֶּ ר לֹּא הִּשְבִֵּ֥ ית לְָָ֛ך גֹּאֵֹּ֖ ל הַָּ֥֑ ֹום וְיִּקָרֵֵ֥ א שְמֹּ֖ ֹו בְ יִּשְרָאֵָֽ ל) :טו( וְהֵָ֤ יָה לְָך לְמֵשִּ יב נֶֶּ֔פֶּ ש ּולְ כַלְכֵֹּ֖ל אֶּ ת־שֵ יבָתֵָ֑ ְך כִּ י כַּלָתֵֵ֤ ְך אֲֽשֶּ ר־אֲהֵבַתֶּ ְך יְלָדֶַ֔תּו אֲשֶּ ר־הִּ יא ט ֹובָ ה לֶָ֔ ְך מִּּׁשִּ בְ עָֹּ֖ה בָנִָּֽ ים) :טז( וַתִּקַַ֨ ח נָעֳמִֵּ֤ י אֶּ ת־הַ ֶּּ֥לֶּד וַתְשִּתֵהּו בְחֵ יקֶָ֔ ּה וַתְהִּ י־לֹּ֖ ֹו לְ אֹּמֶָּֽ נֶּת) :יז( וַתִּקְרֶּ אנָה לַ֨ ֹו הַּׁשְ כֵנֵ֥ ֹות שֵם לֵ אמֶֹּ֔ ר יֻּלַ ד־בֵֹּ֖ ן לְ נָעֳמִָּ֑ י וַתִּקְרֵֶּ֤ אנָָֽה שְ מֹו עֹובֵֶ֔ ד הֵ֥ ּוא אֲבִּ י־יִּשַֹּ֖ י אֲבִֵּ֥ י דָוִָּֽד)  Not the nicest of compliments here…why can’t these people take some lessons in social graces?  Whose baby was this? Naomi or Rus?

III. Some interesting parallels

נעמי לוט Leaving רות פרק א פסוק א בראשית פרק יג the Land וַיְהִּ֗ י בִּ ימֵ י שְ פֹּט הַ ּׁשֹּפְטִֶּ֔ ים וַיְהִֵּ֥ י רָעָֹּ֖ב בָאָָ֑רֶּ ץ י( וִַּּ֥שָ א־ל ֹוט אֶּ ת־עֵ ינָ֗ יו וַַּ֥רְ א אֶּ ת־כָל־כִּכַ ר הַ ַּ֥רְ דֵֶ֔ ן כִֵּ֥י כֻּלָֹּּ֖ה ) וֵַַּ֥֨לֶּ ְך אִַּ֜ יש מִּבִֵ֧ ית לֶּחֶּ ם יְהּודָ֗ ה לָגּור בִּשְדֵ י מַשְקֶָּ֑ ה לִּפְנֵ י׀ שַחֵ ת יְקֹּוָ֗ק אֶּ ת־סְ דֹּם וְאֶּ ת־עֲמֹּרֶָ֔ ה כְגַן־יְקֹּוָק :מֹואֶָ֔ ב הֵ֥ ּוא וְאִּשְ תֹּ֖ ֹו ּושְ נֵֵ֥י בָנָָֽיו : כְאֶּרֶּ ץ מִּ צְרֶַ֔ יִּם בֹּאֲכָֹּ֖ה צָֹּֽעַ ר יא( וִַּּ֥בְחַ ר־ל ֹו ל֗ ֹוט אֵ ת כָל־כִּכַ ר הַ ַּ֥רְ דֵֶ֔ ן וִַּּ֥סֵַ֥ ע לֹּ֖ ֹוט מִּקֶָּ֑דֶּ ם ) :וִַּּ֥פָ רְ דֶ֔ ּו אִֹּּ֖ יש מֵעֵַ֥ל אָחִָּֽ יו יב( אַבְרָֹּ֖ ם יָשַ ב בְאֶָּֽרֶּ ץ־כְנָָ֑עַ ן וְל֗ ֹוט יָשַ ב בְ עָרֵ י הַכִּכֶָ֔ ר וֶַּּ֥אֱהַֹּ֖ ל ) :עַד־סְ דָֹּֽ ם Spouse and 2 sons Number ,נעמי בראשית פרק יט of people טז( וִֶַָּּֽ֥֥תְ מַהְמָָ֓ ּה׀ וַַּ֥חֲזִַּ֨ יקּו הָ אֲנָשִַּ֜ ים בְ יָד ֹו ּובְ יַד־אִּשְת֗ ֹו ּובְ יַד ) in the :שְתֵ י בְ נֹּתֶָ֔ יו בְחֶּמְלֵַ֥ת יְקֹּוָֹּ֖ק עָלָָ֑יו וַֹּּ֥צִּאֵֻ֥הּו וַַּ֥נִּחֹֻּ֖הּו מִּחֵ֥ ּוץ לָעִָּֽ יר party who left the land

Result to רות פרק ד רד"ק בראשית פרשת וירא פרק יט פסוק טז those ג( וַֹּּ֥ אמֶּ ר לַגֹּאֵֶ֔ ל חֶּלְקַ ת הַשָדֶֶּ֔ ה אֲשֵֶּ֥ ר ) טז( ויתמהמה - עדיין היה מתמהמה כאילו היה חס על ) who left לְאָחִֹּּ֖ ינּו לֶּאֱלִּ ימֶָּ֑לֶּ ְך מָ כְרָ ה נָעֳמִֶּ֔ י הַּׁשָֹּ֖בָ ה ממונו שהיה מניחו לפי התעכבו עד שעלה השחר ולא the land :מִּשְדֵֵ֥ ה מֹואָָֽ ב הניחו לקחת בידו מאומה אף על פי שאמרו לו וכל אשר ד( וַאֲנִַּ֨ י אָמַַ֜רְתִּ י אֶּגְלִֶּ֧ה אָזְנְָך לֵ אמֹּ֗ ר קְְ֠ נֵה ) :לך נֵֶֶּ֥֥גֶּד הַָֽ ֹּּ֥שְ בִּ ים וְנֶּ ֶ֥גֶּד זִּקְ נֵ י עַמִּ י אִּ ם־תִּ גְאַ ל גְאֶָ֔ ל וְאִּ ם־לַֹּ֨ א יִּגְאַַ֜ ל הַגִּ ידָ ה ּלִּ֗ י ואדע וְאֵָֽדְ עָה כִּ י אֵֵ֤ ין זּולָָֽתְ ָך לִּ גְאֶ֔ ֹול וְאָ נֹּכִֹּּ֖י אַחֲרֶָּ֑ יָך וַֹֹּּּ֥֖ אמֶּ ר אָ נֹּכִֵּ֥י :אֶּגְאָָֽ ל Yibum רות פרק ד בראשית פרק יט י( וְגַ ם אֶּת־ר ּות הַ מֹּאֲבִּ ָּ֥ה אֵַ֨שֶּ ת מַחְלַ֜ ֹון ) לא( וַתִֹּ֧ אמֶּ ר הַבְ כִּירָָ֛ ה אֶּ ל־הַצְעִּירָֹּ֖ ה אָבִּינּו זָקֵָ֑ ן וְאִַּ֨ יש אֵֵ֤ ין ) קָנִִּ֧יתִּ י לִּ י לְאִּּׁשָ֗ ה לְהָקִֵּ֤ ים שֵ ם־הַמֵת עַ ל־ :בָאָרֶּ ץ לָב ֹוא עָלֵֶ֔ ינּו כְדֶֹּּ֖רֶּ ְך כָל־הָאָָֽרֶּ ץ נַ חֲלָתֶ֔ ֹו וְלֹּא־יִּכָרִֵ֧ ת שֵ ם־הַמֵָ֛ ת מֵעִֵּ֥ ם אֶּחָֹּ֖ יו לב( לְ כַָ֨ ה נַשְקִֶּ֧ ה אֶּ ת־אָבִָּ֛ ינּו יֶַֹּ֖֥יִּן וְנִּשְ כְבָ ה עִּמָ֑ ֹו ּונְחֵֶַּּ֥֥ה מֵאָבִֹּּ֖ ינּו ) :ּומִּּׁשַ עַ ר מְ קֹומָ֑ ֹו עֵדִֵּ֥ ים אַתֶֹּּ֖ ם הַָּֽ֥ ֹום :זֶָָֽ֥רַ ע

( ?s grandsons were whom? Which nations‘ לוט  (and

A. Why does Elimelech run away? 7)מדרש זוטא - רות )בובר( פרשה א סימן א וילך איש מבית לחם יהודה. מי גרם לו גלות, עין רעה שהיה בו, שכך אמר למחר עניים מתכנסין ואיני יכול לגור ביניהם, הוי שעין רעה שהיה בו גרמה גלות לו וליצא חוצה לארץ. ]א"ר פרחיה באותה שעה היה הקדוש ברוך הוא דן את העולם, וב"ד שלמעלה עומדין והקב"ה מסתירו, שנאמר וילך איש, עמדה מדת הדין והזכירו, שנאמר ושם .[האיש אלימלך, מיד נגזר עליו ועל בניו, מה כתיב בתריה וימת אלימלך

B. When did Elimelech run away?

8) Rav Medan, Megadim, VI, Elul 5748

C. Why was this especially bad?

9) Rav Medan, Tikvah MiMaamakim p. 22

Not only did Elimelech and his family leave their people for their money, they went to the land of the enemy who was oppressing the Jewish people. They attached themselves to the aristocracy that was causing their own to be oppressed – whether it was Eglon, king of Moav or the people of Ammon. These were the days when together Ammon and Moav were oppressing the Jewish nation prior to the leadership of Yiftach. This was nothing short of an act of rebellion against the Jewish people. It was an action that justified the punishment that the people observed. It explains why the people of Beit Lechem left the returning Naomi to her own devices in order to sustain herself from the Leket. It also explains the actions of the lads of Boaz who reacted with disdain toward the Moabite woman in their midst. It explains the actions of the Go’el who was disgusted by the woman who was the enemy with him he was to engage in the ultimate act of Chessed – creating an everlasting name for his relative.

1. Moav as the Anti-Chessed:

10)דברים פרק כג :ד( לָֹּֽ א־יָבִֹּ֧ א עַ מֹונִָּ֛י ּומֹואָבִֹּּ֖ י בִּקְהַ ל יְקֹּוָָ֑ק גַ ם ד ֹור עֲשִּ ֶ֔ ירִּ י לֹּא־יָבֵֹּ֥ א לָהֶָּ֛ ם בִּקְהֵַ֥ ל יְקֹּוָֹּ֖ק עַ ד־עֹולָָֽם) ה( עַל־דְ בַַ֞ ר אֲשֶַּ֨ ר לֹּא־קִּדְמֵ֤ ּו אֶּתְ כֶּם בַּלֶּחֶּ ם ּובַמֶַ֔ יִּם בַדֶֹּּ֖רֶּ ְך בְ צֵאתְ כֶּ ם מִּמִּ צְרָָ֑ יִּם וַאֲשֶּ ר שָ כַַ֨ ר עָלֶַּ֜ יָך אֶּ ת־בִּלְעָ ם בֶּ ן־בְע֗ ֹור ) :מִּפְתָ֛ ֹור אֲרֵַ֥ ם נַהֲרַֹּ֖ יִּם לְקַָֽ לְלֶָּֽ ךָ

10a)כלי יקר במדבר פרק כה ואומר אני שהדבר כפשוטו והא בהא תליא, כי אין הסברא נותנת להרחיק שתי אומות על דבר שלא קדמום בלחם ובמים, אלא על דבר כוונתם, כי ידע ה' שלכך לא קדמום כדי שיהיו רעבים גם צמאים מן טורח הדרך ויהיו מוכרחים לאכול מזבחי אלהיהן ולשתות יין נסיכם המרגילים לערוה, כי כך הדרך בכל הבא מן הדרך עיף ויגע מטורח הדרך והוא רעב וצמא שהוא שואף לאכול ולשתות מן הבא בידו לא יבקר בין אסור למותר, וכל כוונתם היתה להכשילם בזנות ולהביאם על ידו למעשה פעור על כן לא קדמום בלחם, כדי להרעיבם ולהאכילם מזבחי אלהיהן ולא קדמום במים כדי להשקותם כוס התרעלה ויין נסיכם וכל זה נכלי דתות וערמומית. ופירוש זה יקר לא ידעתי מאיזה טעם לא מצאוהו בשכלם מפרשי תורתינו אשר קטנם עבה ממתני chooses to follow Hashem צנועה  So the anti-climax of the Moabite plan is a Moabite woman who, husbandless and .with her mother in law חסד and engages in

cannot be named for they too, pass the buck מגילת החסד The nameless people in .2

11)מלבי"ם דברים פרק כג ה( קיד על דבר אשר לא קדמו, פי' למה הרחיקום בשביל שלא קדמו הלא אין יחיד יוכל לקדם רק כל העם ביחד ) וא"כ כל אחד יוכל להצטדק הלא אין בי האשם לזה אמר על דבר שנתיעצו כל העם וכולם כאיש אחד הסכימו שלא לקדם וזה שאמר בספרי על דבר על העצה. ומה שמביא ראיה מפסוק עמי זכר נא מה יעץ אף שהוא לענין אשר שכר אבל לימד משם שענין בני מואב נגד ישראל היה הכל בעצה לא במקרה וכמו ששכירות בלעם היה בעצה כך :שלא להקדים היה על פי עצה

12) 'משנה שכיר - מועדים מגילת רות והיה בבוקר אם יגאלך טוב יגאל וגו

יהודה Leaving בראשית פרק לח the א( וֶַָֽ֥יְהִּ י בָעֵ ת הַהִֶּ֔ וא וַי ֵּ֥רֶ ד יְהּודָֹּ֖ ה מֵאֵ ת אֶּחָָ֑ יו וֵַָּ֥֛ט עַ ד־אִֵּ֥ יש ) land :עֲדֻּלָמִֹּּ֖ י ּושְמֵ֥ ֹו חִּירָָֽ ה

Possukim tell us that Bas Shua and his 2 sons all Result died to those who left the land

Yibum בראשית פרק לח כו( וַַּ֥כֵ ר יְהּודָ֗ ה וַֹּּ֥ אמֶּר צָָֽדְקָ ה מִּמֶֶּ֔ נִּי כִָּֽ י־עַ ל־כֵֵ֥ן לֹּא־נְתַתִֹּּ֖ יהָ ) :לְשֵלָ ה בְנִָּ֑י וְלָֹּֽ א־יָסֵַ֥ ף עֹּ֖ ֹוד לְדַעְתָָֽ ּה

steps up to the plate and uses his name בעל חסד A. A

13)העמק דבר בראשית פרק מג ט( אנכי אערבנו. אין הפירוש ערב להעמידו חי לאביו, דזה אינו ערבות אלא השבת מלוה או שאלה, אלא כמש"כ ) :לעיל הנני ערב על עוונותיו לקבל דין שמים בעת הסכנה תחתיו מידי תבקשנו. להצילו מבני אדם, והיינו דאי' ברבה ר"פ ויגש בני אם ערבת לרעך זה יהודה אנכי אערבנו, תקעת :לזר כפיך מידי תבקשנו, הרי דשני דברים הן ערבות על חוב עוונותיו, תקיעת כף על שמירה מעולה

14)תפארת שלמה בראשית פרשת מקץ .כי שורש ענין הערבות לקבל על עצמו חוב זולתו ולסבול עבור חבירו זה הוא בבחי' המלכות כיל"ח

B. And True descendants learn from and live by it

15)אלשיך במדבר פרק ז והנה על ידי כן בא ליטהר האדם בצד מה, אז מסייעין אותו מן השמים. וזהו אומרו הוא יתברך, ורם, הוא הקדוש ברוך הוא. הוליד את עמי, הם האיברים שהיו כאבודים. ומולידם על ידי שומו בלבו נדב, הוא נדבת לב טוב להיטיב. ועדיין אינו פועל הטובות. והנה, מזה ימשך שעמי נדב הוליד את נחשון, עושה בפועל נחת רוח ליוצרו. ואז נעשה היצר הטוב הלז, נשיא על האיברים, הם העם הנזכר. כי יקראו הם בני יהודה צדיקים, נותנים תודה לה' על אשמותם, מתודים ושבים וראויים לשבחם, מה שנהפוך היה בראשונה

16) תפארת שלמה מועדים מגילת רות

ובעז עלה השער וישב שם והנה הגואל עובר אשר דבר בעז. הנ"ל לרמז בזה. דהנה כתיב זה השער לד' צדיקים יבאו בו. כי הצי"ע הוא העולה בשער לה'. והנה בעז הוא הי' הצדיק הדור הממשיך השפעות טובות פרנסות וקדושות לישראל כמ"ש והנה בעז בא מבית לחם ויאמר לקוצרים ד' עמכם ]הרמז למחצדי חקלא. וזה שהשיבו לבעז יברכך ד'. פי' כל הברכות כולם הולכים על ידך כאשר אתה הצדיק יסוד עולם[ והנה בית לחם הוא רומז לבחי' ההשפעה שהי' משפיע לחם לכל עם הארץ. ובזכותו פקד ד' את עמו לתת להם לחם. כי כן בוע"ז הרמוז ב"ו ע"ז. ע"ז עה"כ גימ' לחם. וב"פ לח"ם גימ' יוסף. וזהו סוד לחם משנה של שבת שהוא נגד בחי' יסוד כי כל ברכאין דלעילא ותתא ביומא שביעאה תליין. הם שני מיני השפעות פרנסות וקדושות ביסוד תליין והוא לחם משנה הכפול כמו ויכלכ"ל יוסף ב' פעמים כ"ל רמוז לב' השפעות כנ"ל וכן בעז ב"פ ע"ז עה"כ גימ' יוסף רומז לב' השפעות הנ"ל. וכן רמוז בעז ב עז. ר"ל שני מיני ע"ז. ד' עז לעמו יתן זהו התורה. גם מהעז יצא מתוק מהאוכל יצא מאכל זה .פרנסה גם שניהם יושפעו ע"י בעז הצי"ע להשפיע לבני דורו מחדושין דאורייתא

Megillas Naami: Identity, Alienation and Redemption

Dr. Yitzchak Schechter Adjunct Clinical Supervisor, Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology Clinical Director, Center for Applied Psychology (CAPs), Bikur Cholim Director, Institute for Applied Research and Community Collaboration

The Overflowing Song Some food for thought from Rav Kook Adapted from the series Mareh Kohein of Nathan Hyman

Translation (Orot haTorah, 3:3-4 and 4:3-4):

It is essential that a person’s heart and mind cling to the all-encompassing, expansive dimension of Torah, through recognizing its underlying unity and fundamental principles. Through this, a comprehensive commitment to Torah will spill over to meticulous adherence of every individual mitzvah and halachic detail. This is similar to the way the heart provides life force to every one of the body’s organs and cells. When the heart is healthy and full of vigor, it pumps blood to even distant arteries and capillaries. Similarly, someone with a unitary perspective on Torah perceives how even mundane details express higher dimensions of ethics and holiness. He sees the light and the life within every aspect of Torah, which he regards as a splendorous treasure worthy of honor.

Without this all-encompassing state of consciousness, every part of Torah stands on its own and its vitality withers away. A person experiences Torah in a limited

78 and fragmented way, and is thus unable to serve God with passion and complete resolve. This is what Isaiah described when he lamented “And [God’s word] became for them a commandment here and a commandment there, a line here and a line there.” [1]

To acquire a broader perspective, we must remind ourselves that every component of the Torah flows from a greater Divine totality. Granted, halacha acknowledges that not all laws and obligations share the same stature, since every part of the Torah system manifests the Divine light in its own specific and unique way. However, every particular of Torah living and learning – whether it be written or Oral Torah, a mitzvah, a halakhic detail or proper midot– contains a latent totality of light and life, holiness and supernal spirituality. Someone who acquires this perspective sees to the inner essence of every halachic detail, and perceives therein a world of splendor that fills the entire universe. Out of every detail he can compose an entire song, [2] a song that overflows until every aspect of the Torah, from the most mundane to the most sublime, resonates with a pleasing and refined melody.

Commentary

Consider the following insights from R. Moshe Weinberger about the need to perceive the Torah as a single, interconnected system:

(1) Throughout history, Jews were generally satisfied with their place in Hashem’s world. They accepted the disparate details that comprise Yiddishkeit without requiring an explanation of how they fit into the larger picture of their lives and into the puzzles of history, philosophy and so on. They even believed that they had no business making such inquiries. After all, how dare a little person expect to understand the big picture?

When the Mashiach comes, the bigger picture will be revealed. All Jews will experience Divine inspiration, and prophecy will return. So, as the spirit of that era begins to make itself felt, people are no longer satisfied with fragments. They expect to understand the relationship of the parts to the whole. And since the world is at a point where Jews are demanding how all the details are related to the bigger picture, telling them to focus on particulars will not satisfy their hearts and minds. A detail that remains unrelated to a person’s understanding of why he is a Jew will not bring him clarity or tranquility. [3]

(2) When a person lives a life of disconnected particulars, he only thinks of what he must do to get by, and when he looks over his life, he wearily asks, “What is the point?”… Without an awareness of the bigger picture, a person starts to feel that he is suffocating. Yiddishkeit itself can feel stultifying when it seems to be solely about unrelated details – about what a person may and may not do. [4]

(3) In order for a person to realize expansive, noble ideals in his day-to-day life, he must adhere to halachah… There are no shortcuts. Only through keeping every such detail can the power of a person’s dreams and hopes be unleashed. Otherwise, a person can talk about that idealism, sing about it, roll his eyes, and sway to guitar music after learning the Mei HaShiloach – but practically speaking his life will not change. [5]

It seems like the above teaching from Orot haTorah is partly autobiographical, in the sense that Rav Kook was a towering spiritual personality who saw great light in every detail of Torah. Consider the following incident from one of his Purim seudot:

When the festivities reached their height, the Rav stood at the head of the table and began a lengthy Purim discourse. He examined every mitzvah in the Torah, interpreting each one as a source for the obligation to drink on Purim. With a wonderful blend of erudition and ingenuity, he derived from every mitzvah a metaphorical, homiletic, mystical, or even literal proof that one is obligated to drink “until one is unable to distinguish between cursed Haman and blessed Mordechai.” [6]

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

1. Would Rav Kook would claim that minhagim also emanate from the same all-encompassing, unitary dimension of the Torah? Or do those have a different status? 2. Have you ever had an experience where you perceived the significance of what had seemed like a mundane aspect of halacha or Jewish practice? 3. According to some, much of the ‘off the derech’ phenomenon can be attributed to an approach to Judaism where the ‘big picture’ is lacking. Do you agree?[7] 4. How can we educate ourselves and our children to perceive the underlying unity of the entire Torah system? Is it even something that can be taught, or does a person have to attain it on their own? Does it require familiarity or training in Jewish mysticism? 5. Are there any particular sectors of the Orthodox community that you think excel at seeing “the light and the life within every aspect of Torah,” like Rav Kook idealizes? If so, what do they do to foster that kind of perspective?

About this Piece

Orot haTorah contains insights from Rav Kook regarding various aspects of the experience and value of Torah learning. Rav Kook’s son, Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook, compiled it from various writings of his father. It was first published in the 1960s. Multiple commentaries have been published in Hebrew, but the work has never been translated or adapted in English.

[1] Isaiah 28:10.

[2] Consider the statement attributed to Rav Kook that “Just as there are rules to song, so too there is a שיחות הרצי”ה, פרשת Quoted in) .כשם שיש חוקים בשירה כך יש שירה בחוקים .song in the rules.” Lit (.האזינו [3] Song of Teshuva, Vol. 1 pg. 157-158. [4] Song of Teshuva, Vol. 3, pg. 195-196. [5] Song of Teshuva, Vol. 3 pg. 180. [6] Mo’adei HaRe’iyah pg. 264. [7] Rav Kook certainty would. See Orot haTeshuva, 4:10, which the first excerpt from R. Moshe Weinberger above is commenting on.

Sleeping Through the Night Some food for thought from Rav Kook Adapted from the series Mareh Kohein of Nathan Hyman

Rav Kook (Olat Re’iah)

“And Avraham rose up early in the morning.” (Bereishit 22:3).

Evidently, Avraham slept soundly the night before the Akeidah. The peace of mind of this holy soul, of the holy father, the mighty native, did not cease. His sleep was not gone from him, because of the clear knowledge, which came to him through the word of G-d, and no feeling of darkness, negligence, or depression became intermixed in the longings of his purified heart. He passed the night in the restful and gaily holy sleep of the upright, and the time of rising arrived as usual. And the strength of G-d which turns his legs into hinds, to run as a stag and be mighty as a lion, to do the will of G-d, blessed be He, supported him, for he rose early in the morning…

This holy old man went off to this amazing task, the opposite of all the natural ways of the human soul, neither stooped nor with failed strength, but rather fully

82 erect and girded in might. His entire journey was powered by the fullness of supremely elevated love.

Food for Thought

Rav Soloveitchik (Divrei Hashkafa, pg. 254-255): I recoil from all talk that goes round and round a single topic: that the observance of mitzvot is beneficial for digestion, for sound sleep, for family harmony, and for social position.

The religious act is fundamentally an experience of suffering. When man meets G-d, G-d demands self-sacrifice, which expresses itself in struggle with his primitive passions, in breaking his will, in accepting a transcendental “burden,” in giving up exaggerated carnal desire, in occasional withdrawal from the sweet and pleasant, in dedication to the strangely bitter, in clash with secular rule, and in his yearning for a paradoxical world that is incomprehensible to others. Offer your sacrifice! This is the fundamental command given to the man of religion. The chosen of the nation, from the moment that they revealed G-d, occupied themselves in a continual act of sacrifice.

G-d says to Avraham: “Take now your son, your only one, whom you love, Isaac, etc.” That is to say, I demand of you the greatest sacrifice. I want your son who is your only son, and also the one whom you love. Do not fool yourself to think that after you obey Me and bring your son up for a burnt-offering, I will give you another son in place of Yitzchak. When Yitzchak will be slaughtered on the altar – you will remain alone and childless. You will not have another child. You will live your life in incomparable solitude. I want your only son who is irreplaceable. Neither should you think that you will succeed to forget Yitzchak and remove him from your mind. All your life you will think about him. I am interested in your son whom you love and whom you will love forever. You will spend your nights awake, picking at your emotional wounds. Out of your sleep you will call for Yitzchak, and when you wake up you will find your tent desolate and forsaken. Your life will turn into a long chain of emotional suffering. And nevertheless, I demand this sacrifice.

Clearly the experience, which was rooted in dread and suffering, ended in ceaseless joy. When Avraham removed his son from the altar at the angel’s command, his suffering turned into everlasting gladness, his dread into perpetual happiness. The religious act begins with the sacrifice of one’s self, and ends with the finding of that self. But man cannot find himself without sacrificing himself prior to the finding.

Rav Chaim Navon (Genesis In Jewish Thought, Chapter 22]): According to the thinkers thus far mentioned, the message of the Akeida emphasizes the worship of G-d through fear and acceptance of His yoke. This is also what follows from the plain sense of Scripture, which, following the Akeida, designates Avraham as “one who fears G-d.” Those thinkers who advocate other approaches can argue, of course, that the Akeida gives expression to only one element of religious experience. Indeed, Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook, whose approach to serving G-d emphasizes loving G-d and identifying with Him, refused to accept this interpretation, even partially, and even with respect to the act of the Akeida itself…

How different are Rabbi Kook’s words from those of Rabbi Soloveitchik! In contrast to the sleeplessness described by Rabbi Soloveitchik, Rabbi Kook speaks of “the restful and gaily holy sleep of the upright.” As opposed to the sacrifice emphasized by Rabbi Soloveitchik, Rabbi Kook speaks of “supremely elevated love.”

As we stated earlier, one may adopt Rabbi Kook’s theological approach without forcing this idea onto the Akeida. It would suffice to argue that whereas Avraham’s initial feeling may have been one of sacrifice, what is most important from our perspective is what happened at the end: Yitzchak’s ultimate rescue, which is the dominant element that has become impressed in the hearts of believers. It would appear that Rabbi Kook wished to go a step further, emphasizing the love that was in Avraham’s heart the entire length of the Akeida saga.

Prof. Chaim Charles Cohen (contemporary): We who want to build a Jewish State in the Land of Israel frequently are called upon to respond to crisis. We are engaged in frequent crises because we are still in a ‘revolutionary’ stage of building our homeland and state, and hastening the redemption. Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Kook describe ways of heroically coping with crisis. Sometimes, like Rav Soloveitchik’s Abraham, we cognitively and emotionally debate- within ourselves and with others-the anxieties, demands, and dilemmas of the crisis, and then we make a heroic leap of faith and commitment, and engage the crisis with all of our powers.

Or, like Rav Kook’s Abraham, we respond to the crisis by instinctively and ‘explosively’ identifying and feeling one with our People of Israel (Klal Yisrael), our G-d, and our Torah. We then heroically rush into action, like an attacking soldier in an elite fighting unit. As the adage says, for true believers there are no questions, only a plethora of answers. Total identification with our People and our G-d brings us to spiritual heights we could not achieve simply relying on our own sense of selfhood.

In my own life, I understand and identify with Rav Soloveitchik’s description of Abraham’s self- sacrifice/transformation. I was only able to make the leap of faith and become an observant Jew through a very incremental, lonely six-year internal debate of ‘trial and error’ doing of mitzvoth.

In contrast, most of my children and sons/daughters in law more spontaneously and dramatically throw themselves in spiritual self-transformation.

I did my spiritual searching in America. They did their spiritual ‘leaping to heights’ in Israel, growing up in embattled Judea and Samaria. G-d seems happy to accept both types of self- transformation and self-sacrifice. Both types of Jewish heroism are necessary.

Questions for Discussion

1. How does one express or develop ahavat Hashem? 2. What does the Torah tell us about Avraham that makes him a model of ahavat Hashem? 3. Which is more disconcerting – Rav Kook’s position that Avraham enthusiastically embraced the command to sacrifice Yitzchak or Rav Soloveitchik’s position that “the religious act is fundamentally an experience of suffering”? Why?

4. Why is ahavat Hashem important to a Jew’s spiritual life? 5. Rav Kook says that Avraham’s love of G-d gave him the capacity to sacrifice his son. How does this fit with what the angel says to Avraham after the Akeidah, that “Now I know that you are a fearer of G-d”? 6. Do you agree with Rav Kook that Avraham slept soundly the night before the Akeidah?

BRURIAH- BRILLIANCE IN BINAH

WHO IS BRURIAH?

Family History Her father was the famous Rabbi Hanina ben Teradyon, the Talmud speaks of Bruriah standing next to her father as he is being slowly burnt to death by the Romans because he had violated the Roman ban on the study or teaching of the Torah in public places. Her father's death was a dramatic public affair. He was wrapped in the Torah scroll which was set afire but the Roman soldiers applied water soaked wool over his heart so as to keep him alive as long as possible. It was reported that his attitude was heroic and that even the executioner was moved by it. The executioner is said to have called out to the Rabbi asking that if he stopped the wet wool sponges, would the Rabbi assure him of entry into the World to Come. Hanina ben Teradyon gave him the assurance and the executioner took away the wool sponges and raised the flame. After the death of Hainin ben Terdyou, the executioner jumped into the flames and died also.

Bruriah is one of the few women mentioned in the Gemara. She was married to Rabbi Meir and is recognized as a Talmidah Chachama in her own right.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת פסחים דף סב עמוד ב Talmud Bavli: Pesachim 62b רבי שמלאי אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן, אמר ליה: ניתני לי R' Simlai came before R' Yochanan, and he said מר ספר יוחסין. - אמר ליה: מהיכן את? - אמר ליה: מלוד. to him, teach me Divrei Hayamim. He said to - והיכן מותבך? - בנהרדעא. אמר ליה: אין נידונין לא him, where are you from? From Lod. Where do ללודים ולא לנהרדעים, וכל שכן דאת מלוד ומותבך you live? Neharda. He said, I don’t judge בנהרדעא. כפייה וארצי. אמר ליה: ניתנייה בשלשה ירחי. people from Lod or Neharda, and certainly you שקל קלא פתק ביה, אמר ליה: ומה ברוריה דביתהו דרבי who are from Lod and live in Neharda. He מאיר, ברתיה דרבי חנניה בן תרדיון, דתניא תלת מאה urged him and he consented. He said, let us שמעתתא ביומא משלש מאה רבוותא - ואפילו הכי לא learn it in three months. He took a clod of יצתה ידי חובתה בתלת שנין, ואת אמרת בתלתא ירחי? earth and threw it at him, saying, if Bruriah, the wife of R’ Meir, the daughter of R’ Chanina ben Tradyon, who learned 300 laws a day from 300 Rabbis, and yet she had not fulfilled her obligation in 3 years, and you say you want to learn it in three months?!

 WHAT DOES THIS GEMARA TELL US ABOUT BRURIAH’S INTELLECTUAL PROWESS?

SHARP AND WITTY

Bruriah made her thoughts known to the Tannaim of her time. These were the leading scholars of the times of the Mishna.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת עירובין דף נג עמוד ב Talmud Bavli: Eruvin 53b רבי יוסי הגלילי הוה קא אזיל באורחא, אשכחה לברוריה, R’ Yose Haglili was going on the road, he found אמר לה: באיזו דרך נלך ללוד? - אמרה ליה: גלילי שוטה, ?Bruriah, he said to her: What’s the way to Lod לא כך אמרו חכמים אל תרבה שיחה עם האשה; היה לך She said to him: Foolish Galielan, didn’t the לומר: באיזה ללוד Chachamim say do not speak excessively with a woman, you should have said “Where’s Lod?”

 WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF BRURIAH’S CONVERSATION WITH REBBI YOSE?

תוספתא מסכת כלים )בבא מציעא( פרק א Tosefta- Keilim- Chapter 1 הלכה ו Chapter 6 קלוסטרא ר' טרפון מטמא וחכמים מטהרין וברוריא A door-bolt, R’ Tarfon says that it can become אומרת שומטה מן הפסח זה ותולה בחברו בשבת כשנאמרו impure, but the Chachamim disagree. And דברים לפני ר' יהודה אמר יפה אמרה ברוריא Bruriah said, remove it from the entrance and suspend it on another one. When she said this in front of R’ Yehuda, he said, Bruriah has said well.

 DO YOU RELATE TO BRURIAH? DO YOU SEE HER AS A ROLE MODEL? WHY?

TEACHING RABBI MEIR

מדרש תהלים )בובר( מזמור קד Midrash Tehillim Chapter 104 ר' מאיר הוה ליה ההוא מינא בשיבבותיה והוי מצער ליה ’There was a heretic who lived in the town of R בקראי הוה בעא רחמי עליה דלימות אמרה ליה ברוריה Meir and he used to antagonize him by citing איתתיה, מהו דעתך משום דכתיב יתמו חטאים, מי כתיב psukim. He davened that he should die. His חוטאים חטאים כתיב, יסופין חייביא, מיד ורשעים עוד wife Bruriah said to him, what’s your intent? it אינם, בעי רחמי עלייהו דליהדרו בתיובתא, באותה שעה ,doesn’t say that the sinners should dissipate ברכי נפשי את ה'. י rather that the sins should stop, rather daven for them to do teshuva.

WHEN IT יתמו חטאים מן הארץ  HOW DID RABBI MEIR UNDERSTAND CAME TO THE HERETIC WHO WOULD ANTAGONIZE HIM?

 HOW DID BRURIAH EXPLAIN THE PASSUK?

 WHAT DOES THIS TEACH US ABOUT BRURIAH?

SENSITIVITY LIKE NO OTHER

מדרש משלי פרשה לא Midrash Mishlei Chapter 31 אמרו מעשה היה ברבי מאיר שהיה יושב בבית המדרש There was an incident with R’ Meir who was בשבת בשעת מנחה ודורש, מתו שני בניו, מה עשתה אמן, sitting in the beis midrash on Shabbos around הניחה שניהם על המטה ופרשה סדין עליהם. במוצאי שבת mincha time and he was expounding, if the two בא רבי מאיר מבית המדרש, אמר לה היכן שני בני, אמרה sons died, what should the mother do, she should לו לבית המדרש הלכו, אמר לה צפיתי בבית המדרש ולא leave them on the bed and cover them with a ראיתי אותם, נתנה לו כוס של הבדלה, חזר ואמר היכן שני .blanket On Motzei Shabbos R’ Meir came from the beis בני, אמרה לו פעמים הלכו למקום פלוני ועכשיו הם באים. medrash, and he said, ‘where are my two sons?’ הקריבה לפניו לאכול, מאחר שבירך אמרה לו רבי, שאלה they went to the beis medrash’ she said. He said‘ אחת יש לי לשאול, אמר לה אמרי, אמרה לו קודם היום I waited in the beis medrash and I didn’t see‘ בא אדם אחד ונתן לי פקדון, עכשיו בא נחזור לו או לאו, ,them.’ He made Havdalah, and then asked again אמר לה בתי, מי שיש לו פקדון אצלו אינו צריך להחזירו where are my two sons?’ she said that they‘ לרבו? אמרה לו חוץ מדעתך לא הייתי נותנה אותו. מה usually go to a certain place and they should be עשתה, תפשתו בידו והעלתה אותו לאותו החדר והקריבה back now. She came before him to eat, and after אותו למטה, ונטלה הסדין מעליהם וראה שניהם מתים he bentched she said, ‘I have one question to מונחים על המטה, התחיל בוכה ואומר בני בני, רבי רבי, ask,’ he said, ‘ask away,’, she said to him, ‘A time בני בדרך ארץ ורבי שהיו מאירין פני בתורתן. באותה ago a man came and gave me a collateral, will he שעה אמרה לו רבי מאיר, לא כך אמרת לי שאנו צריכין now return or not?’ He said to her, ‘one who has להחזיר הפקדון לרבו, כך ה' נתן וה' לקח )איוב א'(. בדבר a collateral in his possession, does he not have to הזה נחמתו ונחה דעתו ונתיישבה, לכך נאמר אשת חיל מי return it to his owner?’ She said ‘if not for you I never would have given it.’ (ימצא. What did she do? She took him by the hand and brought him into that room and brought him near that bed and removed the blanket and he saw the two children lying there dead. He began to cry and he said “My son, my son, My teacher, My teacher, my son in how to act, my teacher in that his face radiated with Torah.” At that time she said to him, didn’t you say that you need to return the collateral to the master, Hashem gives and Hashem takes, and through this he was comforted, and therefore she is called a valiant wife.

 NOTICE THE SMALL DETAILS OF HOW THE STORY UNFOLDS: WHY DO YOU THINK EVERY DETAIL IS WRITTEN?

 HOW DOES BRURIAH EXPLAIN HER CHILDREN’S DEATH TO RABBI MEIR?

BRILLIANT BINAH

בראשית ב:כב Bereishis Chapter 2: 22 - ויבן ד' אלקים את הצלע .[And G-d built up the side [of man תלמוד בבלי: נדה מה: עמוד ב Talmud Bavli: Niddah 45b מלמד שנתן הקב"ה בינה יתירה באשה יותר מבאיש This teaches that G-d gave an extra dimension of Binah to women over that of men.

Binah :A Source of Divine Insight By Mrs. Esther Wein The Biblical Matriarchs used the attribute of Binah to create the Jewish people. Sarah's decision to banish Yishmael was the result of intellectual preciseness - Binah - that enabled Sarah to act decisively for the good of the Jewish Nation. Rivkah, the next great Matriarch again decides the course of Judaism. She gives birth to twins, Yaakov and Esav. Yitzchak and Rivkah intend for them to work as a team, towards the good of the Jewish people. In this regard, Yaakov is supposed to oversee spiritual and intellectual growth, while Esav is charged with physical and material sustenance. … It is apparent to Rivkah that Esav will eventually use his father's blessing to undermine Yaakov's scholarly pursuits, thus jeopardizing the future of Judaism. Rivkah sees that Yaakov must become spiritually and materially independent of his brother. When Yitzchak discovers what has happened - and why - he acknowledges the righteousness of his wife's scheme (Genesis 27:33). Without Rivkah's clarity, Judaism would have ended then and there. … Yaakov lives and works for many difficult years in the house of his father-in-law, Lavan. G-d ultimately commands Yaakov to return with his wives and children to the land of Israel. At this turning point, Yaakov asks his wives' advice about whether to leave on good terms with Lavan or whether they should depart abruptly (Genesis 31:4). Rachel and Leah are aware that their father hopes to infect the young Jewish Nation with his pagan ways and they urge Yaakov to sever all connection to Lavan's household (Genesis 31:14). Yaakov heeds their advice and the family leaves under cover of darkness. Again, due only to the insight of Rachel and Leah, Judaism progresses to its next stage of development, within the land of Israel. Each woman possessed the ability to see what was not obvious to her husband, and that is why there is a Jewish Nation today.

 WHAT DOES MRS ESTHER WEIN SUGGEST ABOUT WOMEN’S BINAH?

 CAN YOU THINK OF A TIME WHEN YOU UTILIZED YOUR BINAH?

ruriah is known as a sharp and witty brilliant scholar. This however does not take away from her abilities to see a situation from the outside and explain to her husband the way to approach a B passuk in relation to being tolerant of others. Bruriah’s intellectual brilliance is not to be outshined by her superhuman sensitivity in how she told her husband of their children’s deaths.

 WHICH SIDE OF BRURIAH’S CHARACTER DO YOU IDENTIFY WITH MORE?

The Kiss Of Hashem Rabbi Avraham Rosenbaum

בַחֹּדֶּשהַּׁשְ ילִּישִּ לְ צֵאתבְ נֵי־יִּשְרָ אֵ למֵאֶּרֶּ ץמִּ צְרָ יִּםבַ ֹּ֥ום הַ ֶֶּּֽה בָ אּו מִּדְ רבַ סִּ ינָי

“In the 3rd month from when the Jewish people left Mitzraim on this day the Jewish people came to the desert of Sinai.” Rashi is bothered: why does the Torah say “bayom hazeh” instead of “bayom hahu”? The Torah is retelling the story that occurred. Therefore, the Torah should have said that Bnei Yisrael got to midbar Sinai on that day(bayom hahu) and not on this day(bayom hazeh) since they didn’t get there today. Rashi answers that the Torah should be new to you each day as it was the day it was given. The Torah is teaching us the perspective of how we should approach our Torah learning. We should make sure we approach learning Torah with freshness, energy, and newness each day and not be lackadaisical when learning. Therefore, the Torah says that the giving of the Torah is today - that every single day it is as if the Torah was given. When hearing that Rashi, I thought to myself: how awesome would it be if every day that I learn I had that perspective and energy. How can I make this into a reality? The Mishnah in Avos says that every single day a Heavenly voice comes from the Mountain of Chorev ( Har Sinai) and calls out and says Woe to the creations for the insult of Torah whoever doesn’t involve himself with Torah is called a swine! What is the reason that every single day a heavenly voice needs to come and announce this? " יִּּׁשָקֵ נִּי מִּ נְשִּ יקֹות פִּ יהּו“ "Hashem should kiss us from the kiss of the mouth. (Shir Hashirim 1:2) Why does the pasuk say that the kiss should come from the kiss of the mouth? Shouldn’t the pasuk just say n’shikas pihu, a kiss from the mouth, not a kiss from the kiss of the mouth? Rashi says that Hashem gave us the Torah and spoke to us “Face to Face” and that connection that we had at Har Sinai is still attached to us (on our lips), so every time we learn, we are not only tapping in to a new kiss from Hashem (the words of Torah), but we are also getting that same kiss that Hashem gave us the day the Torah was given. We see from this Rashi that what occurred at Har Sinai is still alive and on our lips every single day. With this knowledge we could understand the Mishnah in Avos. The reason the Bas Kol calls out and is so sad that we are not learning every single day is because we are missing out on that k’dushah that occurred at Har Sinai that is still on our lips living with us and we are not taking advantage of it. This is how we can actualize Rashi’s way of teaching us how to approach learning every day that the Torah was given today. How? Because the k’dushah of the connection we had with Hashem is still on our lips and every time we learn, we are tapping into that special moment of Har Sinai with that knowledge. This can give us a better appreciation before we learn and be zocheh to approach our learning with an enthusiasm, passion, and newness that the Torah expects from us.

The “Yomi” Schedule for Shavuos First Day of Shavuos 6 Sivan 5780 – May 29, 2020

Mishna Yomis – Kerisus 3:5-6

Mishna 5 - The Mishnah obligates a person who has relations with his daughter who is also his sister, his brother's wife and his father's brother's wife to whom she is still married, during the time that she is a Nidah to bring - six Chata'os.

 The woman will be both his daughter and also his sister - if she was born from a relationship with his mother.  his brother's wife, and his father's brother's wife - if she was married first to his brother and after he died (See Tosfos Yom Tov), his uncle married her.

'Ein Isur Chal al Isur (one issur cannot pile on another) does not apply:

 to the Isurim of daughter and sister - since they took effect simultaneously.  despite the fact that she is a Mamzeres, the Kidushin of the uncle takes effect (even if he is not himself a Mamzer) - because the Isur of Mamzeres is only a plain La'av, and the Kidushin of Chayvei La'avin takes effect Bedieved (See also Tosfos Yom Tov).  The Isur of Eishes Achiv takes effect, in spite of the fact she was already forbidden to her father because of Av - since, when she married the uncle, she became Asur to all his brothers (Isur Mosif).  Achi Aviv take effect, seeing she was already Asur because of Av and Eishes Ach - for the same reason. He is also Chayav for:

 Eishes Ish - since the Kidushin to his brother rendered her Asur to everybody else (Isur Mosif [See also Tosfos Yom Tov]).  Nidah - because it rendered her Asur even to her husband (Isur Mosif).

The Mishnah discusses the case of a man who has relations with his daughter's daughter who also became his daughter-in-law - when his son married her (See Tosfos Yom Tov). She will also be his:

 Wife's sister - if he was married to his son-in-law's sister (See Tosfos Yom Tov).  Brother's wife - if his brother married her after the death of his son.  She is also the wife of his paternal uncle - who married her after his son died and to whom she is still married, and  a Nidah.

Rebbi Yossi adds an additional Chiyuv, where 'the old man' - the sinner’s father married her in which case the sinner is also Chayav - because of 'Eishes Av' (See Tosfos Yom Tov). The father's Kidushin is effective, despite the fact that she is Eishes Achiv - in a case where the father's brother, who was married to her first, died and she fell to the father for Yibum . Despite the fact that the father did not transgress the Isur of Eishes Ach, the Tana uses the expression 'Avar ha'Zakein' - because he transgresses the Sheniyah (the secondary Isur de'Rabbanan) of his son's granddaughter and daughter-in- law. Nor is the Kidushin not effective on account of the Isur of daughter-in-law, having obligated his son because of his brother's wife - since it is his son's maternal brother whose wife the son married (the wife of his stepson), not the wife of his son. In spite of the fact that the sinner is already forbidden to the woman because of Bas Bito, the new Isur of Eishes Av is an Isur Mosif - assuming the father has another son (See Tosfos Yom Tov DH 'Rebbi Yossi Omer'), to whom she became forbidden when he married her.

Finally, when the Tana says that the same applies to someone who has relations with his ...

 wife's daughter, he means that - he can transgress all the same Isurim as the ones that he does with his own daughter.  wife's daughter's daughter, he means that - he can transgress all the same Isurim as the ones that he does with his own daughter's daughter.

The case of his wife's:

 daughter who is also his sister is - where he married (be'Heter) the woman that his father raped or seduced and from whom he (the father) had a daughter.  daughter's daughter who is also his wife's sister - where his wife's father had relations with her daughter and they bear a daughter, who is both his wife's granddaughter and her sister.

MISHNAH 6- The Mishnah now discusses a case of a man's mother-in-law who is also his daughter-in- law (See Tosfos Yom Tov), his wife's sister, his brother's wife and a Nidah. If Shimon has relations with his daughter and they give birth to a daughter whom Reuven marries - the mother becomes both his (Reuven's) mother-in-law and his wife's sister.

In the event that Reuven's son marries her - she also becomes his daughter-in-law.

The Isur first, of Eishes Achiv and then of Eishes Achi Aviv then falls into place - if Reuven's son dies or divorces her and Reuven's brother marries her, and then, when he dies or divorces her, she marries his father's brother. For the Isur of Eishes Ish (and Nidah) to take effect, he, in turn, needs to die or to divorce her and she becomes married to somebody else (See Tiferes Yisrael, note 35, 7).

 If Reuven now has relations with her - he transgresses all of the above-mentioned Isurim.

The Tanna now rules that if Reuven has relations with the mother of his mother-in-law or of his father- in-law - he will transgress the same seven Isurim as in the previous case, and will therefore be obligated to bring the same seven Korbanos.

 The former case (of his mother's mother-in-law) begins with Lavan having relations with Dinah, the daughter of his daughter Le'ah, from whom they have a daughter (Serach),

and with Dan marrying Serach. Should Dan have relations with Le'ah, he will transgress - the Isur of Eim Chamoso and Achos Ishto.) If Le'ah then marries Dan's son, the Isur of - Kalaso will be added to the list.  For the Isurim of Eishes Achiv, Eishes Achi Aviv and Eishes Ish (and Nidah) to take effect, too - she will need to marry - first, Dan's brother, and then, his paternal uncle.The latter case (of his father's mother-in-law) begins with Reuven having relations with his grandmother (the wife of Lavan (his grandfather) from whom they have a daughter (Dinah) whom Dan marries. Should Dan have relations with Le'ah, he will transgress - the Isur of Eim Chamiv and Achos Ishto. For Dan to transgress Eishes Achiv, Eishes Achi Aviv and Eishes Ish (and Nidah) - the same procedure will need to take place as in the previous case (of Eim Chamoso).

Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri cites a case where a person must bring three Chata'os for having relations with his mother-in-law - Chamoso, Eim Chamoso and Eim Chamiv.

 The case is where Lavan's wife has two daughters (Rachel and Le'ah) and a son (Asher), who has a daughter (Serach). Yishmael marries Rachel, Serach and Yocheved, Le'ah's daughter. He will have to bring three Korbanos - if he has relations with Lavan's wife.  The Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri - because, they say, Chamoso, Eim Chamoso and Chamiv are all learned from the same Pasuk, in which case, he will only be Chayav to bring one Chatas. The Halachah is - like the Chachamim. Daf Yomi Preview Shabbos 84

1) Chananyah’s opinion: Rava states that according to Chananya, who maintains that a boat that is carried when full is susceptible to tum’ah, even if the boat is carried by oxen it is still susceptible to tum’ah. A Mishnah is cited as proof.

2) Earthenware utensils: A Baraisa is quoted that teaches about the susceptibility of earthenware utensils to tum’ah, although the language of the Baraisa is vague. R’ Pappa explains: An earthenware utensil is not subject to tum’as midras but is subject to the tum’ah of touching. Wooden utensils are subject even to tum’as midras and boats are never susceptible to tum’ah like the author of our Mishnah. R’ Yosi rules that even boats are susceptible to tum’ah following the opinion of Chananya. Two sources are presented that exclude earthenware utensils from tum’as midras. Both sources share a common reason, namely, tumas midras applies only to those items that can be purified in a mikveh. This assumption is unsuccessfully challenged. Rava presents a third source that excludes earthenware utensils from tum’as midras.

3) MISHNAH: The Mishnah teaches how a field measuring six by six tefachim can be planted with five different varieties of seeds and the prohibition against kilayim will not be violated.

4) Clarifying the Mishnah: The Gemara explains how the verse quoted in the Mishnah indicates that five different types of seeds are planted in one garden patch. So to review:

1. For a vessel to qualify as movable when both full and empty, must it be movable by a person? ______

2. Is an earthenware utensil susceptible to midras tum’ah? ______

3. Why is a reed mat susceptible to midras tum’ah if it can not be made tahor through immersion in a mikveh? ______

4. How many different varieties of seeds can be planted in a garden patch six by six tefachim without violating the prohibition against kilayim? ______

Nach Yomi – Melachim Bet Perek 20 (summary)

Perek 20: Chizkiyoh became deathly ill and Yeshayoh told him that he would die; Chizkiyoh offered a prayer and wept to Hashem. Before Yeshayoh left the courtyard of the King’s palace and Hashem told him that Chizkiyoh would live for a further 15 years and would protect Yerushalayim from Ashur. Chizkiyoh asked for proof of this and on Chizkiyoh’s request, behold the sundial went back 10 degrees unnaturally. King Beroadach Balaadon of Bovel sent letters and a gift to Chizkiyoh when he had recovered from his illness. When Chizkiyoh recovered, he gave Beroadach Balaadon a tour round his treasury. Hashem scolded him for this and Yeshaya prophesised that in the future Bovel will take all of the Jewish people’s valuables and children to serve as officers in the palace of Bovel. Chizkiyoh accepted this as good and was relieved it would not apply immediately and there was time for repentance (Malbim). Chizkiyoh died and his son, Menashe ruled in his stead.

Second Day of Shavuos Shabbos 7 Sivan 5780 – May 30, 2020

Mishna Yomis – Kerisus 3:7-8

MISHNAH 7- When Rebbi Akiva asked Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua the following question, they were standing - in the butchery of the town of Am'um where they were buying an animal for the wedding-feast of Rabban Gamliel's son.

Rabbi Akiva asked them whether, if someone has relations with his sister who is also the sister of his father and his mother in one He'elam – does he transgress one Isur or three?

 In one He'elam' means - that he forgot about the Isurim before sinning and did not remember between one transgression and the next.

o The case begins with Reuven having relations with his mother, from whom he has two daughters, with one of whom he has relations and who bears him a son - who then has relations with his mother's sister (See Tosfos Yom Tov).

Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua initially answered that - they do not know.

 What they did know however, was the Din concerning someone who has relations with his five wives who are all Nidos - and who is Chayav five Chata'os. Because he transgresses the La'av (in Kedoshim) of - El Isha B’Nidas Tumasa Lo Sikrav". o And if one is Chayav five Chata'os, even though it is the same La'av - Kal va'Chomer is one Chayav for each La'av in the case of Achoso, she'Hi Achos Aviv va'Achos Imo (which are three different La'avin).  The Kal va'Chomer is flawed however - inasmuch as the case of the Nidos refers to five different women (Gufim Mechulakim'), whereas in the case in question, it is one and the same woman.We ultimately learn from the Pasuk there "Ervas Achoso Gilah" - which is superfluous (since the Torah has already written "ve'Ish asher Yikach es Achoso that the sinner is Chayav for each Isur.

MISHNAH 8- Rebbi Akiva also asked Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua about 'Eiver ha'Meduldal' - the limb of an animal that is mostly detached but still slightly attached.

Whereas an Eiver min ha'Chai (a limb that is detached from a live animal is Metamei - like a Neveilah, an Eiver min ha'Meis (one that is detached from a dead animal) is Metamei - like a Meis. Consequently, Rebbi Akiva's She'eilah was - whether an Eiver ha'Meduldal is considered Eiver min ha'Chai (despite the fact that it is still slightly attached) or not.

Here too, they answered that they did not know the answer directly, but they derived it - from the case of lepers who came to Yerushalayim to bring their Korban Pesach.

 The doctors in Yerushalayim used to - tie the loose limbs of the lepers who came to them on Erev Pesach to thorns that were still attached to the ground.  The lepers would then pull away from the thorns, leaving their detached limbs sticking to the thorns.

Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua learned that an Eiver ha'Meduldal does not have the Din of Eiver min ha'Chai - from the fact that both the lepers and the doctors subsequently brought the Korban Pesach (a proof that the limbs did not render them Tamei). The lepers avoided becoming Tamei as they (inevitably) touched the limb after it became detached - by pulling away from the thorns with force. And they learned the Din of Eiver ha'Meduldal by an animal from Eiver ha'Meduldal by a human-being - from a Kal va'Chomer (See Tosfos Yom Tov [from the fact that, unlike a human-being, an animal is not subject to Tum'ah whilst it is still alive]). Daf Yomi Preview Shabbos 85

1) Clarifying the Mishnah (cont.)- In addition to the exposition that indicated that the verse quoted in the Mishnah refers to five varieties of seeds planted in one garden patch the Sages determined that this

96 could be accomplished in a garden six by six tefachim. The Gemara demonstrates how we know that the determinations of the Sages are reliable. R’ Asi clarifies that the six tefachim square does not include the borders. A Baraisa supports R’ Asi’s comment and the Gemara determines the width of the border to be a tefach. Rav asserts that the Mishnah refers to a case of an isolated garden patch. If it was surrounded by other gardens, a kilayim issue would arise between the seeds of one garden and the next. Shmuel disagrees and maintains that the Mishnah can even refer to a garden patch surrounded by others and it would be permitted to plant five varieties in each of the gardens as long as the seeds in parallel rows are staggered.

2) Maximizing the use of a garden patch- Ulla quotes the scholars from Eretz Yisroel as inquiring about the consequence of plowing a furrow down the center of the garden patch. Will it still be permitted to plant five species in that field or not? R’ Sheshes ruled it prohibited whereas R’ Asi ruled it permitted. R’ Yochanan is quoted as ruling that one who wants to maximize the use of his garden should make a patch six by six tefachim, plant one variety in a five-tefach-diameter circle in the center and fill each row of the perimeter with another variety. Following a clarification of R’ Yochanan’s suggestion the Gemara unsuccessfully challenges his ruling. So to review:

1. Why are Bnei Seir called, “Inhabitants of the land”? ______

2. Does the measurement of six by six tefachim include the border? ______

? ראש תור What is a .3

______

4. How should a person plant his garden to maximize the available space? ______

Nach Yomi Melachim II – Perek 21 Summary

Menashe, 12 reigned for 55 years and did despicable evil. He rebuilt and served the idolatry including the Molech his father eradicated deliberately in order to anger Hashem. He placed an idol in the Beis Hamikdosh. Hashem delivered a clear, frightening warning that due to the evil of Menashe’s regime terrible things will befall the Jewish people. Yerusholayim will be destroyed; the remaining Jews will be wiped out and plundered by the enemy. Additionally, Menashe killed many innocent people, when he died his son, Amon ruled. Amon 22 reigned for 2 years and carried on in the abhorrent ways of his father. His servants assassinated him and Yoshiyoh was appointed as the next King of Yehuda.