[KollelH blog] Chayei sarah

there is a well known "stirah" between Avraham telling the bnei ches "ger v'toshav", which Rashi explains he claimed rights to the land. & yet in lech l'cha - "vayehi riv", rashi says that LOT's shepherds believed they had rights but Avraham argued that for now (till the cna'ani are gone) it was not yet his to have any claim?

Maran answered 'ein kinyan L'akum b'eretz yisrael" (gittin 47a) to absolve mitzvos but "yesh kinyan" to dig up the land... Meaning that the monetary kinyan over the land & the spiritual kinyan is split.

Similarly, the invauable me'oras hamachpelah wasn't a mekach ta'us b/c Efron only had access & ownership to the material monetary value. (Zohar)

Therefore we can say the cna'anim only had monetary rights so long as they were there... In lech l'cha the dispute was just regarding money grazing in others' fields. That Avraham did not allow. But here the malbim (& others) point out thet Avraham specifically made a public spectacle & numerous announcements that he was purchasing the land for kevurah - this was a spiritual endeavor - both on a personal level & as a lesson for mankind about the afterlife & appropriate regard for the body after the neshamah departs. Regarding this an akum does not own eretz yisrael, & Avraham had a claim.

We see that in one item it is possible to have a completely divided ownership, between the material & the spiritual.

In the aftermath of Sandy the mashgiach shlitah asked me with a tone of critique "nu & what was with our na'anu'im?" - of course Sandy was not a punishment for a lack of proper lulav shaking, but whtever sandy was for, we know that the shaking of lulav should protect against destructive winds.... - so what was with them?
Surely we shook the the lulav as described in halacha, but perhaps it was just the material shaking without "RUACH".

Perhaps we can try to instill positive "ruach" into our mitzvos & even more specifically - we can surely add a good dose of ruach to thanking Hashem in modim anachnu, that we've been spared the brunt of the storm.

May the strong infuence of positive Ruach into all of our deeds prevent any more Ruchos Ra'os from coming upon the world.

--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 11/12/2012 01:35:00 AM

[KollelH blog] 10/26/2012 04:25:00 PM

Who Performed Avraham's Bris?

In this week's parshah Hashem commands Avraham Avinu to perform the mitzvah of bris milah. The pasuk tells us that Avraham was 99 when he performed the bris milah on himself. The Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (29) and Tosafos, in Rosh Hashanah 11a, say that Avraham's bris was performed on Yom Kippur. The Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer adds that Shem, Noach's son, performed the bris on Avraham. There are several explanations as to why Avraham had Shem perform his milah.

Some opinions suggest that since the milah was to be performed on Yom Kippur, Avraham did not want to perform the milah himself since this would violate the laws of Yom Kippur. One may only perform a milah on Shabbos or Yom Tov if the bris is on the eighth day. Since Avraham's milah was not on the eighth day after he was born, it was considered not in the proper time – and thus Avraham could not perform the milah. Since Shem, however, did not keep the Torah he could perform the milah. Therefore Avraham asked Shem to perform the milah.

But there is a medrash (Bereishis 49:2) that says that Avraham asked Hashem as to who would perform the milah on him. Hashem told Avraham that he should do it himself. Avraham immediately took a knife and was about to cut, but hesitated because he was worried about his age. Hashem sent His hand and held onto Avraham – and Avraham cut. The medrash's source for this is the well-known pasuk from p'sukei d'zimra: "vecharos imo ha'bris- and he cut with him the bris."

As according to Tosafos and the Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer the milah took place on Yom Kippur, we must then ask the following: since according to the medrash that says that Avraham performed the milah together with Hashem, how can this have been done on Yom Kippur – since Avraham kept the entire Torah even prior to matan Torah?

This question is based on the assumption that the milah of Avraham Avinu was considered "shelo bizmano – not in the correct time." For if it was the correct time (the eighth day of a boy's life) then one is permitted to perform a bris on Shabbos and Yom Tov. There are some Acharonim (the Yehudah Yaleh in Yoreh De'ah 254 and the Sdei Chemed, 7:2) who answer that, in fact, Avraham Avinu's bris was considered to be done on time since he performed it on the day that he was commanded to perform it. Even though he was 99 years old, the bris was still considered to be on time and therefore permitted to be performed on Yom Kippur. Other Acharonim suggest that the reason Avraham's bris was considered on time was because the commandment was for him to perform the bris on that very day, as the pasuk says: "b'etzem hayom hazeh, nimol Avraham v'Yishmael b'no – on that very day, Avraham and his son Yishmael were circumcised." Since the bris was performed at the intended time, it was considered to have been done on time – and permitted to have been done on Yom Kippur.

Yet this is not the general understanding. Most consider the bris of Avraham Avinu to be shelo bizmano and therefore not permitted to be performed on Yom Kippur. It is quoted in the name of Rabbi Meir Soloveitchik, shlita, that it is for this reason that there is no mention that Avraham made a seudah by his or any of his household's bris milah – with the exception of Yitzchak. This is because the Sha'arei Teshuvah (551:31) says that one only should make a seudah for a bris that is on time. We only find that Avraham made a seudah for Yitzchak's bris because that was the only bris that was performed on time.

Another solution is that even though Avraham kept the entire Torah (as the Gemara says), certain discrepancies existed. Generally a bris milah that is not on time is not allowed to be performed on Shabbos or Yom Tov. However, since Avraham was not yet commanded to keep the Torah – and, for that matter, he was not commanded to keep Shabbos or Yom Tov – they were treated differently concerning this matter. Since they were not yet commanded to keep Shabbos or Yom Tov before matan Torah, a bris could be performed on Shabbos or Yom Tov even if it was not on time. Thus Avraham was allowed to perform his bris on Yom Kippur.

I would like to suggest another explanation that answers the question of how Avraham was able to perform the bris on Yom Kippur according to the medrash that says that Shem did not perform the bris. The medrash says that Hashem sent His hand and helped Avraham cut. The halacha is that when two people do a melachah together they are not liable on Shabbos or Yom Tov. Therefore, since Avraham performed the bris together with Hashem he did not violate the laws of Yom Kippur.

For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.


--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 10/26/2012 04:25:00 PM

GREATNESS and SELFLESS.... Are synonyms.

[KollelH blog] Noach

Are There Times One May Kill Himself?

Toward the end of this week's parshah Rashi quotes a Medrash that relates the familiar episode of when Avraham Avinu was thrown into a furnace. Rashi recounts that Avraham's father, Terach, had reported to Nimrod that his son had broken all of his idols. Avraham was then thrown into a fire and was saved. The wording of the Medrash, however, is that Avraham had gone into the fire by himself (kesheyarad Avraham letoch kivshan ha'eish – when Avraham went into the fir and in another place it says that Nimrod decreed that he should leireid lekivshan ha'eish – go down into the fire.)

Several Acharonim were bothered by this event. First, they ask how Avraham could have thrown himself into a fire. Although avodah zarah is one of the three aveiros for which one must sacrifice his or her life instead of transgressing – in addition, when one is forced to perform any aveirah in public before 10 or more people, the person's life must be given up instead of committing a transgression – there is nevertheless a dispute among the Rishonim as to whether one may actively kill himself or only allow himself to be killed. Second, the Acharonim ask that since bnei Noach are not commanded in Kiddush Hashem, if a ben Noach is forced to transgress he should do so and not give up his life.

Earlier in the parshah the Torah commanded Noach that although animals may now be killed humans may not be killed. The pasuk says: "v'ach es dimchem lenafshoseichem edrosh – but the blood of your souls I will seek." Rashi brings the drasha that this is the source in the Torah that one may not kill oneself. The Das Zekeinim Miba'alei Tosafos quote an ambiguous Medrash and offer two interpretations of that Medrash that differ on this point. The Medrash makes a drasha that teaches us whether we should or should not be like Chananya Mishael and Azarya, and whether Shaul Hamelech – who killed himself before he would have been captured – acted correctly, for as the pasuk here says: ach, to exclude. One opinion says that the Medrash teaches us that one may kill oneself or others to prevent avodah zarah. The other opinion says that one may only allow himself to be killed; one may never kill to prevent avodah zarah.

Tosafos continues by saying that in his time there was a decree against the Jews (one of the crusades), and that one rabbi was slaughtering little children in an effort to prevent them from growing up in the church. Another rabbi, angered with this practice, called the first rabbi a murderer and said that if he is correct, the first rabbi will die a strange death. Indeed, the first rabbi was captured and given a strange death. In short order, the decree was abolished.

The Gemara in Avodah Zarah 18a says that when Rabbi Chanina ben Tiradyon was being killed, his students asked him to open his mouth so he would die faster. He responded that he could not do this since that would be considered as if he was killing himself. The Ritvah, on that Gemara and quoting the same Medrash, says that Rabbeinu Tam ruled that one is permitted to take his own life under such circumstances.

Returning to the original question, it is possible that Avraham did not go into the fire himself but rather allowed himself to be thrown into the fire – as seems to be the case from Rashi's wording. Thus, in that event, the first question is not applicable. But if we understand the events as the Medrash implies, we must then explain the opinion that one may never kill oneself (in this case, that Avraham went into the fire on his own). Additionally, even if we understand that he was thrown into the fire we must still explain that if he had the status of a ben Noach, he should have transgressed and not allowed himself to be killed.

The Maharimt suggests that since Avraham Avinu, as a ben Noach, should have transgressed and not be killed, he acted incorrectly by allowing himself to be killed. He says that it is for this reason that the Medrash says that Avraham was saved in the zechus of Yaakov Avinu.

The sefer, Prashas Derachim, says that according to the Rishonim – who opine that Avraham had the status of a Yisrael – Avraham acted correctly by not transgressing.

The Nimukei Yosef (Sanhedrin 18a) says that although one may not give up his life for other mitzvos (aside from not practicing avodah zarah, murder, and arayos), if an adam gadol – a chassid and yirei shamayim – sees that the generation is parutz in a certain area he may give up his life for that particular cause. in order that his generation will learn from him.

Perhaps we can apply this to Avraham Avinu who, whether he had the status of a ben Noach and therefore should not have allowed himself to be killed for this aveirah or if he had the status of a Yisrael and attempted to kill himself, saw that the entire world was lacking in any knowledge of Hashem and therefore felt the need to make a statement in order to teach the world that there is a God. Hence he was permitted to go into the fire to pronounce to the world that there is a God.


--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 10/19/2012 01:09:00 PM

[KollelH blog] Yom Kippor

Maftir Yonah and the Parshah of Arayos

There is a machlokes between the Mechaber and the Ramah concerning the berachos recited on the Yom Kippur haftarah by Minchah. The Mechaber says (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 622:2) that we take the Torah out and read the parshah of arayos and then read Maftir Yonah. He says that we recite the berachos of the haftarah before and after the haftarah. If Yom Kippur falls out on Shabbos, we mention Shabbos in the berachos. The Ramah argues that we do not recite the berachah of "al haTorah v'al ha'avodah" by Minchah.

The Vilna Gaon explains that this machlokes is based on a fundamental difference of opinion as to the nature of why we read the Torah and haftarah at Minchah on Yom Kippur. The Mechaber holds that the reason why we read a the Torah and haftarah at Minchah on Yom Kippur is because it is part of the service of Yom Kippur. This is similar to the fact that we read from the Torah on Shabbos by Minchah; . Therefore the Mechaber rules that the berachah of "al haTorah…" is recited, like it is recited on Shabbos. And if Yom Kippur falls out on Shabbos, we mention Shabbos in the berachah.

The Ramah's view is that the Torah reading at Minchah on Yom Kippur is unrelated to the kedushah of Yom Kippur; rather, we read the Torah and the haftarah because Yom Kippur is a fast day, and on all fast days we read the Torah and haftarah at Minchah. Even though on a general fast day the reading of the Torah is from the parshah of "Vayechal Moshe…" the specific reading may be changed. On a regular fast day we do not recite the berachah of "al haTorah"; therefore the Ramah rules that we should not recite that berachah on Yom Kippur.

A halachic ramification should result from this machlokes. Take this scenario, for example: A sick man who must eat on Yom Kippur, may he receive an aliyah by Minchah on Yom Kippur? If the essence of why we read the Torah by Minchah on Yom Kippur results from the kedushah of Yom Kippur, this sick man may receive an aliyah since he has not violated the kedushah of the day. But if the reason why we read the Torah is because Yom Kippur is a fast day and on fast days we read the Torah by Minchah, then he would not be able to receive an aliyah, as he is not currently fasting. As the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 566:6 rules: one who is not fasting may not receive an aliyah on a fast day.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger, in Teshuvos 24, rules that one who must eat for medical reasons may receive an aliyah at Shacharis on Yom Kippur. This is because the Torah reading at Shacharis definitely stems from the kedushas hayom. However, he says that he is unsure if he may receive one at Minchah, for perhaps that Torah reading results from the fact that it is a fast day.

Based on the Vilna Gaon's explanation, this matter should depend on the machlokes between the Ramah and the Mechaber. According to the Mechaber one should be able to receive an aliyah even if he is not fasting. According to the Ramah he should not be able to receive an aliyah.

The difference between whether the Torah reading results from the kedushas hayom or if it results from the fact that it is a fast day is a fundamental difference in the essence of the Torah reading. If it results from the kedushas hayom, it is a regular Torah reading that is essentially public study of Torah. If we read the Torah because it is a fast day, then the purpose of the reading is essentially to rebuke the congregation. The main rebuke is actually found in the haftarah, except that we cannot read a haftarah only without reading from the actual Torah first. This is the understanding behind the opinion in Megillah 22b that says that only one aliyah is required on a fast day, since the main purpose is to reach the rebuke found in the haftarah.

There are two different sources for why we read the parshah of the arayos at Minchah on Yom Kippur. Rashi, in Megillah 31a, says that it is because one who has committed the sins of arayos should do teshuvah. Similarly Tosafos there says that we read that parshah because women dress nicely on Yom Tov and thus we want to remind everyone of the possible aveiros about which they should be cautious.

Tosafos there also quotes a medrash that says that the reason that we read the parshah of the arayos is to remind Hashem that just as we are commanded not to commit any aveirah with arayos, so too Hashem should not be megaleh ervasom beavonesem (commit an act of arayos with Bnei Yisrael's sins).

The sefer, Harirai Kedem, suggests that these two different reasons regarding the reading of the parshah of arayos could be dependent on the machlokes mentioned above. According to the Mechaber the reading of the Torah at Minchah on Yom Kippur results from the kedushas hayom; therefore we read a portion that relates to the kedushas hayom (namely, as the medrash explained, that Hashem should not punish us for our sins). According to the Ramah's view that we read the Torah at that time, as we would on any fast day when the essence of the Torah reading is primarily to rebuke the congregation, the portion that we read should be of rebuke (namely, as Rashi and Tosafos explained, to remind people not to do aveiros – and to do teshuvah).


--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 9/21/2012 10:12:00 AM