web analytics
November 28, 2014 / 6 Kislev, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Harirai Kedem’

Mentioning Rosh Hashanah In Davening

Wednesday, September 12th, 2012

The Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah 32a lists the Yom Tov’s berachos and the order in which we must daven on Rosh Hashanah. The Mishnah says in the name of Rabbi Akiva that we begin with the berachah of avos. We then recite, in this order: gevuros (atah gibor); kedushas Hashem; kedushas hayom (we incorporate malchuyos in that berachah); zichronos; and shofros. This is followed by avodah hoda’ah and birchas kohanim (sim shalom). The Gemara there brings a beraisa that cites a source in the Torah for reciting each one of these berachos.

The Achronim discuss two basic questions on this Gemara: First, why does the beraisa need to bring a special pasuk to tell us that we must recite a berachah on the kedushas hayom of Rosh Hashanah? The Gemara in Sukkah 46a derives from the pasuk, “Baruch Hashem, yom yom,” that we must always mention in our davening and bentching the kedushah of that day. Why then would Rosh Hashanah differ from every Shabbos, Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh when we always mention the kedushas hayom?

Second, why does the beraisa that is discussing the source for reciting the berachos of the Rosh Hashanah amidah need to bring pasukim that are the source for reciting the first three and last three berachos of the amidah? We only change the middle berachos of the amidah, while the first three and the last three are always recited and never change. Why then did the Mishnah have to mention that we recite those berachos, and why did the beraisa deem it necessary to cite a pasuk as the source for it?

The Pnei Yehoshua, in Rosh Hashanah, suggests that the Gemara in Berachos says that one is forbidden to add praise of Hashem to his davening; rather we can only recite the praises that Chazal, based on pasukim, instituted. Since the Torah commanded us to recite malchiyos zichronos and shofros on Rosh Hashanah, one may have thought that we should omit the general praise that we recite in the amidah and only recite the praises of malchiyos zichronos and shofros. Therefore the Mishnah and the beraisa felt that it was necessary to teach us that we do indeed recite the first three berachos of the amidah – even on Rosh Hashanah.

The Aruch LaNer points out that the Pnei Yehoshua’s answer does not explain why the beraisa also included the source for the last three berachos. I would suggest that perhaps once the beraisa must mention the first three and the middle berachos it is not strange for it to continue to mention the last three berachos. The Aruch LaNer suggests that the beraisa is in fact a Tosefta (Rosh Hashanah 2:11) and there the Tosefta does not mention any of the first three or last three berachos – only the middle ones. The Gemara here in Rosh Hashanah added the source for the other berachos based on the beraisa from the Gemara in Megillah, since it was mentioning the source for the other berachos.

The Aruch LaNer concludes that at a later point in time he received the Ritvah’s commentary on Rosh Hashanah and noticed that the Ritvah asks this same question. The Ritvah answers that the Mishnah wrote the first three and last three berachos to teach us that we may not add to those berachos; rather we must recite them as we always do. The Ritvah adds that this is contradictory to our custom to add zachreinu l’chaim, mi kamocha, vekasveinu, and b’sefer chaim. However, he says that our custom is based on the Masechta Sofrim, which is implicit that we should add those prayers into those berachos.

The sefer, Harirai Kedem, suggests that the opposite can be deduced from our Mishnah and beraisa. Maseches Sofrim says that each berachah on Rosh Hashanah is different from the rest of the year. Our Mishnah and beraisa are teaching us that very same idea. Thus it was necessary to write about those berachos as well, in order to teach us that there is a new obligation to add to those berachos.

Regarding the question of why the beraisa needed to write the source for why we mention the kedushas hayom on Rosh Hashanah when we should have already known that we must mention it (as we do on every other Shabbos or Yom Tov), the Harirai Kedem offers this beautiful explanation: It is clear from this that there is a new and separate halacha that requires us to mention the kedushas hayom of Rosh Hashanah on Rosh Hashanah – aside from the general halacha. Based on this we can explain a discrepancy that is found between the mentioning of the kedushas hayom of Rosh Hashanah and that of all the other Yamim Tovim. On all other Yamim Tovim we do not mention the particular Yom Tov; rather we conclude the berachah with “mekadesh Yisrael vehazmanim.” On Rosh Hashanah we conclude the berachah by mentioning the actual essence of the day, for we say, “melech al kol ha’aretz [malchuyos]… mekadesh Yisrael v’Yom Hazikaron.” This exclusive mention of the actual kedushah is only done on Rosh Hashanah because there is a new halacha on Rosh Hashanah to mention the kedushas hayom.

The Intricacies Of Selichos

Thursday, September 6th, 2012

There is a custom to say Selichos before Rosh Hashanah. Sephardim have the custom to say Selichos during the entire month of Elul, while Ashkenazim follow the custom of the Ramah (Orach Chaim 581:1) to only say Selichos for a minimum of four days prior to Rosh Hashanah – beginning with Motzaei Shabbos. The Ramah quotes from the Kol Bo that certain communities had the custom that the ba’al tefillah should also be the chazzan for the remainder of the day. The Magen Avraham explains that this is because of the general rule that when one begins a mitzvah he should complete it.

The Magen Avraham adds that the chazzan for Selichos should also serve as the chazzan for Ma’ariv. Several Achronim took issue with this ruling, for Ma’ariv is part of the davening of the next day and is not connected to the davening of the day before. The Chasam Sofer, in his commentary to Shulchan Aruch, explains that the Gemara in Berachos 26b says that the Ma’ariv tefillah was instituted in correspondence with the burning of the eivarim (sinews), which were left over from the korban tamid of the evening that the tefillah of Minchah corresponds to. Therefore, even though the tefillah is technically part of the next day’s davening, it is nevertheless connected to the tefillah of Minchah that precedes it.

Many Achronim were bothered by the explanation of the custom that the ba’al tefillah for Selichos should also be the chazzan for the rest of the day because he must complete a mitzvah that he began. They asked the following questions: What connects the rest of the day’s davening to each other and to Selichos? Do we apply this rule to one who davens Shacharis and thereby tell him that he should also be the chazzan for Minchah? Certainly not. The rule is only applicable to parts of one mitzvah; davening Selichos for the amud and davening for the amud the rest of the day are separate mitzvos. Thus this rule should not apply.

The Livush suggests a different understanding for this custom. He writes that in the place where this custom was practiced they also had a custom that the chazzan for Selichos would fast the entire day. Therefore, as it would be too difficult for the general chazzan to daven everyday, they would alternate; the one who was fasting would daven all of the tefillos of that day.

The sefer, Binyan Shlomo, disagrees with the Magen Avraham and offers an alternate explanation for the custom. He suggests that we often find that we offer encouragement for people to do certain services that they might be hesitant to do. For example, the Gemara in Yuma 22a says that the person who did the terumas hadeshen would be granted the honor of arranging the maracha, which was more desirable to do. Similarly people do not regard Selichos as being an honorable tefillah in which to serve as chazzan; therefore we must give them an incentive and grant them the position of chazzan for the remainder of the day. The Binyan Shlomo adds that today, when most people say Selichos on their own and the chazzan must only finish each paragraph, it is no longer too burdensome in people’s eyes – and thus it is unnecessary to continue this custom today.

The sefer, Harirai Kedem, suggest that in order to understand the Magen Avraham we must first understand what the essence of Selichos is. He says that the essence of Selichos is an introduction and an addition to the day’s regular tefillos. That means that if one only davens Selichos and does not daven any other tefillah that day, he has not even fulfilled his obligation to recite Selichos. This is because the Selichos are additions to the regular tefillos.

Based on this we can explain the reasoning of the Magen Avraham. Since Selichos are additional prayers to the davening of the day, they are connected to all of the davening of that day. Therefore, when one serves as chazzan for Selichos (the addition to all of the day’s tefillos) we tell him to finish the mitzvah by also davening the rest of that day’s tefillos. On a day when Selichos are not recited, we do not tell the ba’al tefillah for Shacharis to daven Minchah since they are not connected in any way.

The Aveilus Of Tisha B’Av Week

Wednesday, July 25th, 2012

One may not perform several actions during the week in which Tisha B’Av falls. This is referred to as shavua she’chal bo. For example, one may not take a haircut or wash his clothing (Ashkenazi Jews are forbidden in these actions prior to the week of Tisha B’Av in accordance with the ruling of the Ramah). The Mechaber (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 551: 4) writes that in a year when Tisha B’Av falls on Shabbos and is pushed off to Sunday (as it does this year) there is a machlokes as to whether there are any prohibitions during the week before Tisha B’Av. The Mechaber seemingly sides with the view that there are no halachos of shavua she’chal bo in such circumstances.

Many Achronim explain that the dispute is based on the understanding behind the establishment of the fast of Tisha B’Av. The Gemara in Ta’anis 29a says that the Beis HaMikdash was lit close to the end of the ninth day of Av and continued burning throughout the tenth day of Av. Reb Yochanan said, “Had I been in the generation when Tisha B’Av was established, I would have established it on the tenth day of the month since the majority of the Beis HaMikdash burnt on that day.” The Gemara says that the Rabbanan who established the fast on the ninth day of the month did so because they felt that it was better to establish the fast day on the day of the troubles’ onset.

Based on this, they explain that the first opinion holds that there is no shavua she’chal bo in a year when Tisha B’Av falls on Shabbos and is pushed off to Sunday because the Rabbanan only argued that, when possible, the fast should be established at the onset of the troubles. However, when it is not possible to fast on the ninth day of Av (i.e., when it falls out on Shabbos), they would agree with Reb Yochanan’s view that the fast should take place when the majority of the Beis HaMikdash burnt – namely on the tenth day of Av. Based on this, the week that precedes Tisha B’Av is not the week when the fast falls out, since in a year like this year we fast on the tenth day of the month (Sunday) – which is the beginning of the following week.

The other opinion holds that the halachos of shavua she’chal bo do apply to the week prior to Tisha B’Av, even when it falls on Shabbos, because they opine that the Rabbanan hold that the fast should always be on the ninth day – even when one cannot fast on that day. The reason why we fast on Sunday is merely to make up for not being able to fast on Shabbos. However, the fast day is primarily on the ninth day. Hence all the halachos of shavua she’chal bo apply, since Tisha B’Av falls out during that week – namely on Shabbos.

This permits us to explain another machlokes, the one between the Mechaber and the Ramah (554:19) regarding whether one must keep aveilus betzina (hidden aveilus, i.e. marital relations) on Tisha B’Av that falls on Shabbos. The Mechaber says that one may have marital relations on the ninth day of Av when it falls out on Shabbos. The reason: The fast was primarily established to be on the tenth day, and the ninth day is not a fast day at all. Therefore, the Mechaber holds that one need not keep any aveilus betzina on the ninth day. But the Ramah argues that this is forbidden and that one must keep aveilus betzina since the Rabbanan established Tisha B’Av to always be on the ninth day of Av – even when one cannot fast.

There is one problem, however, with this suggestion. Why does the Mechaber say that, when Tisha B’Av falls on Shabbos and is pushed off to Sunday, there is a leniency regarding one making a bris milah? In siman 559:9, the Mechaber writes that one who makes a bris milah on a Sunday Tisha B’Av (that really fell on Shabbos) does not have to fast and may wash his body. In contrast, one must fast and may not wash his body if making a bris milah on the regularly scheduled day of Tisha B’Av. If we explain that the Mechaber is of the opinion that when Tisha B’Av falls out on Shabbos and is pushed off to Sunday (making Sunday the actual day of the fast, and thus Tisha B’Av didn’t fall in the prior week), permitting one to have marital relations on Shabbos, why is there any leniency or discrepancy regarding the fast on Sunday?

Koshering An Earthenware Utensil

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

In this week’s parshah the Torah teaches many of the halachos of the korbanos. Each of the korbanos has a limited amount of time when they may be eaten, after which they become nosar and forbidden. When a utensil is used to cook the flavor, the food is absorbed into the walls of the utensil. Therefore if a forbidden food was cooked, it is prohibited to use the utensil again until it is koshered, since the flavor of the forbidden food will mix into the next food. Amid the halachos of the korban chatas, the Torah writes that since the flavor of the korban will become nosar after its allotted time, any earthenware utensil that was used to cook part of the korban must thereafter be broken. If it was cooked in a metallic utensil, the utensil must be purged and then rinsed in water in order to remove the flavor that was absorbed.

This halacha applies to all of the korbanos. However, the Rambam and Ra’avad disagree regarding the halacha of an earthenware utensil. The Rambam (Hilchos Ma’aseh Korbanos 8:14) says that any utensil that was used to cook any korban must be purged and rinsed, whether it is a metallic or earthenware utensil. (The exception is a korban chatas, whereby an earthenware utensil must be broken and may not be purged.) The Ra’avad argues that earthenware utensils may never be purged and must always be broken, regardless of which korban was cooked in it.

The Rambam holds that purging earthenware utensils effectively koshers the utensil; but, specifically by a korban chatas, the Torah commands that an earthenware utensil must be broken and not purged. The Ra’avad disagrees and posits that purging is ineffective and is unable to remove the flavor from earthenware utensils.

The question that arises about the Rambam is that the Gemara in Pesachim 30b says that the Torah testifies that it is impossible to completely remove the forbidden flavor from the walls of an earthenware utensil; hence it must be broken. However, according to the Rambam, purging an earthenware utensil indeed removes the flavor, and only when a korban chatas was cooked in the utensil does the Torah command that the utensil must be broken.

The sefer, Harirai Kedem, suggests that according to the Rambam, when an earthenware utensil is purged not all of the flavor is removed; rather a ta’am kalush (weak flavor) in fact remains. If there would be no flavor remaining, there would be no mitzvah to break the utensil that a korban chatas was cooked in – since there is no remnant of the chatas’s flavor. The reason that the Rambam says that one may purge an earthenware utensil that other korbanos were cooked in is because purging removes all of the flavor except for a weak flavor. Since the purging is done before the allotted time that the korban may be eaten, the flavor has not yet become forbidden. Whenever only a weak flavor remains, the utensil is permitted to be used again, provided that at the time of absorption it was not a forbidden flavor (this is known as heteira bala). Only a utensil with a strong flavor is forbidden to be used with another food. The Gemara that says that the flavor never leaves the walls of an earthenware utensil means that a weak flavor will always remain, which if at the time of absorption was a forbidden flavor will prohibit the use of the utensil. But since a weak flavor remains, there is still room for the Torah to command that regarding a korban chatas, the utensil be broken.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger mentions this idea – that whenever the flavor that was absorbed was not forbidden one should be permitted to purge an earthenware utensil. However, he asks the following question: according to many opinions chametz before Pesach is considered heteira bala because when it was absorbed it was not forbidden. Why then do we paskin that earthenware utensils before Pesach must be broken and may not be purged?

Other Achronim ask another question. The Rambam (Hilchos Chametz U’matzah 5:23) says that metallic or stoneware utensils that cooked chametz (in order to use them on Pesach) must be purged and afterward rinsed in cold water. The Maggid Mishnah and the Hagaos Maimonios explain that the source for this halacha (that the utensil must thereafter be rinsed in cold water) is derived from the halacha of korbanos. However, in Hilchos Machalos Asuros 17:4 – regarding the halachos on koshering utensils that cooked forbidden foods – the Rambam does not mention that the utensil must be rinsed after it is purged. Why the discrepancy?

The sefer, Harirai Kedem, suggests that in order to use a utensil on Pesach one needs to do more than is normally required, in order to use a utensil that was used to cook a forbidden food. Namely, the utensil must lose its identity as a utensil of chametz. Regarding other forbidden foods that were cooked in a metallic utensil, they are permitted to be used again once they are purged. But a utensil that was used to cook chametz is compared to that of korbanos that requires more than just removing the flavor. It also needs to not be identified as a utensil that cooked that item. This second requirement is met when one rinses after purging the utensil; this is derived from the pasuk that requires the purging and rinsing of a utensil that was used in the cooking of a korban.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/koshering-an-earthenware-utensil/2012/03/28/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: