Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 079

Friday, July 27 2001

• Re: The Mitzvah of Aliyah
• Re: Mazal and Siyata diShemaya
• RE: The Mitzvah of Aliyah
• Re: The Mitzvah of Aliyah
• Re: Mazal and Siyata diShemaya
• Re: Mazal and Siyata diShemaya
• RE: The Mitzvah of Aliyah
• RE: The Mitzvah of Aliyah
• Re: judging the avot favorably
• Amalek
• Re: Amalek
• Re: Yishma'el
• Rashi to Bavel
• Re: the 24,000 that died in a plague
• Re: Rashi to Bavel
• mitzva kiyumis again
• Re: shekia
• Re: Avodah V7 #75
• Waiting for a minyan to finish
• Rav Soloveichik ZTL on Kinos

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 10:39:52AM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
:        However, one can argue that tzedakah, unlike let's say mitzvos
: aseh she'hazman graman, is a general requirement to be fulfilled over
: one's life time. If you don't give to one ani, you'll give to the next....

Is it? Do people have a chiyuv to only give tzedakah a fixed number of
times over one's lifetime? Each opportunity is an opportunity for a kiyum.
Does someone who have no opportunity to give tzedakah qualify as being
mevatal asei? I don't see how this model fits the mitzvah in question at
all.

(You also don't touch on my examples of olah and shelamim.)

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 12:00:19PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
:> if you want to make a neder, you must keep it;

: But surely making a neder and keeping it is a kiyum of an aseh (as is
: being mefer a neder). Failing to keep it violates a lav.

Yes, but RMF is saying (and I've repeated numerous times a shtikl
Torah from R' Dovid Lifshitz on this) that these mitzvos are not so
much kiyum without chiyuv as a conditional chiyuv. R' Dovid called them
mitzvos machshiros.

If you want to eat meat, someone must shecht. (It's a chovas cheftzah,
which is the issue you focussed on. So someone else can do the shechting.)
If no one wants meat (bizman she'ein beis hamikdash kayam), no one is
obligated to shecht a cow anyway.

R' Moshe Feinstein holds that yishuv E"Y is a kiyum without a chiyuv.
It is not a conditional chiyuv (if you want to do XYZ, you must do ABC).

As R' Moshe Feldman posted, this could be a unique case. Which is why
we were looking for other examples.

The only other example posted without being questioned is the relationship
of women to mitzvos asei shehazman geramah -- but those mitzvos are
bi'etzem chiyuvim for another group of people (men). They are therefore
different in kind to what RMFeinstein said about yishuv E"Y, being a
chiyuv on no one.

Actually, thinking about it, if RMF held that yishuv E"Y is a kiyum
without a chiyuv bizman hazeh, it may be comparable to the case of
my wife shaking lulav. There are people who were and will be mechuyavim
-- the mitzvah is be'etzem a chiyuv, but for them, not for us.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On 25 Jul 2001, at 11:20, Micha Berger wrote:
>: Does min hashamayim mean that no matter what level of hishtadlut you
>: exert(including 0) that you will have the same level of income that year?

> No, that would be mazal. 

But isn't that exactly what the Gemara in Rosh HaShanna says about all
of one's income for the year other than what one spends on Shabbosim
and Yomim Tovim is determined on Rosh HaShanna. Why is that not Mazal?

-- Carl

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> (You also don't touch on my examples of olah and shelamim.)

I did in a previous email.  (Though someone with a greater knowledge of
kodshim is welcome to weigh in on this.)

> Actually, thinking about it, if RMF held that yishuv E"Y is a kiyum
> without a chiyuv bizman hazeh, it may be comparable to the case of
> my wife shaking lulav. There are people who were and will be mechuyavim
> -- the mitzvah is be'etzem a chiyuv, but for them, not for us.

I don't understand.  As I posted before WRT mitzvos aseh she'hazman graman,
those cases are fundamentally different from aliyah in that they are
chiyuvim for men, albeit not women.  Consequently, at their root they are
mitzvos chiyuviyos, not mitzvos k'yumiyos.  Once the mitzvos exist, women
can be mekayim them despite the fact that they don't have to.  RMFeinstein
was arguing that Aliyah is a mitzvah kiyumis for everyone and a mitzvah
chiyuvis for no one.  

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 02:36:08PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
:> (You also don't touch on my examples of olah and shelamim.)

: I did in a previous email.  (Though someone with a greater knowledge of
: kodshim is welcome to weigh in on this.)

But you did so under a misapprehension, that I refered to bringing one
vs the other. In the latter email, I clarified that one can get a kiyum
mitzvah by bringing either even though these korbanos are reshus.

: I don't understand.  As I posted before WRT mitzvos aseh she'hazman graman,
: those cases are fundamentally different from aliyah in that they are
: chiyuvim for men, albeit not women.

Similarly, yishuv E"Y (YEY) is a chiyuv for people who live bizman beis
hamikdash. Even according to R' Moshe who holds it's not a chiyuv to
those of us unfortunate enough to live when it isn't. Those of us who
live between batei mikdash are to YEY as women are to MASG.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 08:12:24PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
:>: Does min hashamayim mean that no matter what level of hishtadlut you
:>: exert(including 0) that you will have the same level of income that year?

:> No, that would be mazal. 

: But isn't that exactly what the Gemara in Rosh HaShanna says about all
: of one's income for the year other than what one spends on Shabbosim
: and Yomim Tovim is determined on Rosh HaShanna. Why is that not Mazal?

I am arguing that "mazal" is close to the rambam's "teva", if not identical.
Whereas siyata diShmaya is a subset of hashgachah peratis.

Therefore, if HKBH is dan on Rosh haShanah (or Hoshanah Rabba) that
one shall have osher, that's siyata diShmaya. If r"l He is dan that
the person deserves being abandoned to luck/nature, that's mazal. If
HKBH thinks the person could use a nisayon or yisurrin WRT parnasah,
then it's hashgachah peratis that is NOT siyata.

Note that a person is better off in the long run with the nisayon that
being abandoned to teva. (Assuming a hashkafah that includes the latter.
Normally I do not. I would assume that "abandonment" is an illusion that
is itself a nisayon.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

> Note that a person is better off in the long run with the nisayon that
> being abandoned to teva. (Assuming a hashkafah that includes the latter.
> Normally I do not. I would assume that "abandonment" is an illusion that
> is itself a nisayon.)

Even for a non-believer?

KT
Joel

On Wednesday, July 25, 2001 2:36 PM, Feldman, Mark [SMTP:MFeldman@CM-P.COM] 
wrote:
> I don't understand.  As I posted before WRT mitzvos aseh she'hazman graman,
> those cases are fundamentally different from aliyah in that they are
> chiyuvim for men, albeit not women.  Consequently, at their root they are
> mitzvos chiyuviyos, not mitzvos k'yumiyos.  Once the mitzvos exist, women
> can be mekayim them despite the fact that they don't have to. RMFeinstein
> was arguing that Aliyah is a mitzvah kiyumis for everyone and a mitzvah
> chiyuvis for no one.

I think the explanation offered earlier was that it is a mitzvah chiyuvit 
but not at this time which is similar to mitzvot aseh sh'hazman graman in 
that they are mitzvot chiyuvit but not for this person.

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Similarly, yishuv E"Y (YEY) is a chiyuv for people who live bizman beis
> hamikdash. Even according to R' Moshe who holds it's not a chiyuv to
> those of us unfortunate enough to live when it isn't. Those of us who
> live between batei mikdash are to YEY as women are to MASG.

Did R' Moshe actually say that there is a chiyuv bizman beis hamikdash?  If
he did say it, then I agree with your analysis.  Does anyone have a cite for
the teshuva?  

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Joel Rich wrote:
>The gemora(sotah 36b) recounts the incident of Yosef and [eishes]
>potiphar (he was about to sin when he saw dyokno shel aviv). The
>maharatz chiyut refers to a sh"ut Ralbach 126 which discusses the
>question of why would the gemora ever(eg here, david with avigayil
>etc) interpret an unclear reference in a negative manner(for a tzadik)
>If anything chazal usually bend over backwards to interpret fairly
>clear negative references in a positive manner for tzadikkim.

The Maharatz Chajes quotes the teshuvah and expands on it in his Mevo 
HaTalmud (I think around chapter 21).  He is clear that Chazal did not have 
a mesorah on these things but knew who were the good guys and who were the 
bad guys.  For the good guys, Chazal would take every opportunity to darshen 
in his/her favor, even to great extremes.  The opposite for the bad guys.

One of the message that I got from this chapter is that those who choose to 
take a "realistic", i.e. flawed, view of the Avos are deviating from the 
derech of Chazal.  Not a place in which I would like to be.

Gil Student

From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
>Additionally, the Chafetz Chaim (on the haftara for parshas Zachor) says
>that the only mitzvah is to destroy ALL of Amalek.  Shaul's sin was that he
>saved Aggag, thereby rendering all of the other deaths into murders.  By not
>killing all of Amalek, he became liable for killing some of Amalek.  I think
>R. Moshe Shternbuch has a similar mehalech in his Moadim uZemanim.

>Learn from here to those who applaud the killing of some alleged "Amalekim."
>Unless they finish the job, which would mean killing millions of people,
>they are also guilty of murder.

Problem is the shverrkeit from Tanach - Dovid was fighting Amalek several 
months - tops, years - after Shaul's battle. So it is clear that Shaul was 
not waging a war of annihilation against all of Amalek.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 04:32:32PM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: Except that killing is generally forbidden.  Without the aseh to be docheh 
: the lo sa'aseh, it should be forbidden.

The idea as presented here besheim CC would mean that there is no chiyuv
to kill a single Amaleiki unless you are in a position to kill them all.
In addition to RYGB's question, this is neged the Rambam.

The way R' Aharon Lichtenstein presented the idea (via the "Sichot" email
list's summarizer) was that by leaving Agag alive it showed that he didn't
kill anyone else alst mitzvah. The problem wasn't that one remained, but
that it was megaleh that he wasn't out for the sole purpose of being
mekayeim the mitzvah when he killed the rest.

I remember asking Avodah when I saw the email from Gush if this meant that
RAL holds that mechiyas Amaleik tzerichah kavanah. It could be implied by
the chiyuv of "zechor", if you hold that the two are one mitzvah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                          - R' Binyamin Hecht

In a message dated 7/23/01 8:16:22pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Can someone with the sefer mentioned (Eitz Hadaas Tov) fill us in?

For those who want to see what the RaCHaV writes, you can point to:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/etzHadaasTov.pdf>

Thanks RMB.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

Can anyone trace the teachers from Rashi going back to Bavel?

Rashi's teachers were the students of Rabbienu Gershom, but at this point
I'm unclear.  Rabbi Wein says that Rabbienu Gershom studied with Rav Hai
Gaon.  Others say that Rabbeinu Gershom was taught by R Yehuda Leontif.
Others say that the Bavel influence in France/Germany started with
Meshallem ben Kolonykous, whose father, in Lucca Italy, corresponded with
the Gaonim.

Can anyone straighten this out?  Or is it lost to history?

-- Eric

+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Eric Simon     | erics@radix.net                      |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| proud daddy to Joshua Ari  4/18/93 - 27 Nissan 5753   |
|        and Eliana Rebekah  3/12/95 - 11 Adar-2 5755   |
+-------------------------------------------------------+

In a message dated 7/19/01 11:41:41am EDT, erics@radix.net writes:
> I've read that there is a mystical tradition that somehow connects the
> 24,000 that died in the plague surrounding Zimri/Pinchas' actions with the
> 24,000 students of Akiva who died.

The source is the Asarah Mamoros (from the Rama of Panu) brought also in the 
Yalkut Haruveini at the end of Balak, he says that the 24,000 who died in the 
Maseh Zimri corespond to 24,000 that were killed in Shechem (as Zimri/Kozbi 
corespond to Shchem/Dina), these were Msukon thru the death of the 24,000 
students of Rabi Akiva

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

Eric Simon wrote:
> Can anyone trace the teachers from Rashi going back to Bavel?

Try Avraham Grossman's book Hachmei Tzarfat HaRishonim.

David Riceman

I'm extremely puzzled by the concepts mentioned by Rabbis Feldman and
Berger, so I'm going to write at length , hoping that someone will
explain where I've gone wrong. RsF&B take as their paradigm the mitzva
of shechita. As they correctly say, God doesn't give you a gold star
whenever you shecht, instead the mitzva is to eat only meat which has
been geshochten. They contrast this to Rabbi Feinstein's opinion on
dwelling in Eretz Yisrael, where the desired action is itself the mitzva.

Before considering some other cases let's imagine that they had said
"putting food in your mouth is not part of eating, instead eating can
only be performed on that which has been previously placed in the mouth."
The distinction seems rather silly here. In that light, consider these
(non-obligotory) mitzvoth:

1. Hekdesh. The mitzva is precisely to transfer ownership to hedesh,
which is what being makdish something does.

2. Minui melech (according to Ibn Ezra). The Torah says "if you want
to appoint a king, appoint a king". It's true that the Rambam gives a
procedure, but, naively, the mitzva is the appointment, as is the desire.

3. Yefas toar. You wish to marry her, and the Torah prescribes the
procedure [more about this case later].

Puzzle #1: normally a chiluk clearly classifies things into discrete
states. These mitzvoth seem rather to fit along a continuum, from shechita
(independent of the desired goal) through the mitzva being the initial
stage of the desired act (yefas toar) to the mitzva being the act
(hekdesh). What kind of chiluk is this?

Now consider:
4. Nedarim (the aseh - kchol hayotzei mipiv yaaseh). You can do or refrain
from whatever-it-is without performing the mitzva. Furthermore, making
a neder isn't the mitzva; the mitzva is fulfilling the neder you've made.

Puzzle #2: what good is a chiluk if it doesn't classify all possible
cases?

Now consider yefas toar a bit more. The pasuk "vchashakta bah vlakachta
lcha lisha" might be rendered as "you desire to marry her" or "you
desire her, and so must marry her". Arguably these options explain the
machloketh about when biah rishona takes place; if you want to marry her,
it's after the entire procedure, if you desire her, it's at the onset.
But in the second case, according to RsB&F, the mattir takes place after
the act being permitted.

I await explanation.

David Riceman

> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:21:24 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Eli Turkel <turkel@icase.edu>
...
> Dear Rabbi Neustadt,
...
> It is well known that Shitat Rabbenu Tam and also the modification
> of Minchat Cohen do not conform with the physical reality. Hence,
> most communities in the U.S. and Israel follow the opinion of the Gra,
> Ball haTanya and Geonim that night is about 20-25 minutes after sunset
> (depending on season and location)....

IIRC this is a redux from a year or two ago
The straighforward svara is simple, i.e. to be meikel on bein hashmashos
on a Ta'anis like 17 Tammuz.

OTOH, there are communities that are concerned that "nacht" in one
circumstance will be confused with "nacht" in other circumstances
and that not every "acmha" Yid is sophisticated enough to make this
distcintion and then may come to problems of edning Shabbas too early.
So they simply "lo plug" into a later zman.

To tell you the truth, it is hard to find consistent shitos {or is
that shEEtos?} on zmanim even within a single kehillah. I once asked
the compiler of the Breuer/KAJ zmanim: "When is the kehillah's plag
haminchah?" The answer I got was: "legabei what?"

Isn't there a Shita midway between RT and GRA? AIUI the
Mechabeir/MGA?Kitzur seem to have such a shita, but I'm a bit fuzzy
on this...

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> To revive a really old thread, I suggested a while back that perhaps
> "anan lo beki'in becheseiros umlei'os" refered to a lack of beki'us
> about how to darshen them, and not necessarily the spelling itself....

> However, I learned over Shabbos that R' Moshe Shternbuch uses this
> idea to explain why we need not reread from a kosher sefer Torah
> after finding a pesul in the first one....

First I did talk about the spelling changes, but the suggestion comes from
my teachers, i.e. that in any given time the Standard Torah of that era
is the Halachically correct one. How changes creepin is another subject.

re: R. STerbuch I find this strange unless the context of the psul was
davka in malei and choseir. In the case where a malei/chasier is the
issue you might not be better off with Sefer #2. But if the psul was in
the heart of a word seems pshut that you would be gaining by going to
Torah #2.

Am I missing something?

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe  

Chevra,

I just came home and found that my 15.5 year old left me this 
question to post. Thanks.

-- Carl

I had a Sufaik tonight in Ma'ariv. When there are more then 20 people in
a minyan - lets say 25, and 10 finished Shmoneh Esray - can the Chazan
start? I remember once hearing that you have to wait until most of the
Tzibur has finshed. [This Halacha may not be well Known today in the
average Shul, because most Minyanim are small, and Memaila when you have
ten people who finished they constitute a majority of the minyan.]

Does anyone know if this Halachah is true? if so - what is the source
for it?
		Thank you -
	        Avraham Yaakov Sherer

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

kinos76_1

Explanation/Commentary on Kinos by HaRav Soloveichik ZT"L

[Tisha B'Av, 1976]

Kaddish is usually recited after Krias HaTorah. On Tisha B'Av, we don't
say Kaddish till after the kinos. On Shabbos to Mussaf though we say
Kaddish before the Tefilah but it is still associated with the Krias
HaTorah. On Monday and Thursday mornings we say Kaddish immediately
after Krias HaTorah. In short, Krias HaTorah requires Kaddish. To Mincha
on a Tannis Tzibbur we don't say Kaddish before the Haftorah. We rely
on the Kaddish that is recited after returning the Sefer Torah to the
Haychol. Tisha B'Av morning is unique in this regard, in that we do not
recite Kaddish till after Uva L'Tzion after Kinnos. Why?

The Rav said that the Haftorah of Yirmiyahu is one of Tzidduk Hadin
and rebuke. It also introduces a new concept unknown without the
Haftorah. This concept redefined the concept of Tisha B'Av. According
to the Talmud, Tisha B'Av is a Tannis Tzibbur. But there were many
Tannis Tzibbur in Eretz Yisrael, though not in Bavel. Tisha B'Av was THE
Tannis Tzibbur in Bavel. For instance we begin the fast the night before,
Laylo Kyomo. We start a little before Sh'kiah. Tisha B'Av also has the 5
Inuyim. There is a third trait of Tannis Tzibbur: Tefilas Neilah. People
make mistakenly think that Neilah applies only to Yom Kippur. However
Neilah is associated with Tannis Tzibbur. The Ramban apparently says
in Toras Haadam that we should pray Neilah on Tisha B'Av. However our
custom is not to say Neilah. Why not? Neilah goes hand in hand with
Techina, supplication. The Gemara (Rosh HaShonah 17a) says that Hashem
told Moshe the secret of the 13 midos. On a fast day we say Selichos
and we recite the 13 midos since supplication applies and Selichos is
the medium. However on Tisha B'Av we don't offer any supplication. We
even omit the daily Tachanun.

Tisha B'Av is called Moed. Moed does not mean Yom Tov, but rather
a set day of Avaylus. The characteristic of Tisha B'Av is different
that all other Tannis Tzibbur. On all other public fast days the focal
point of our prayers is Techina, 13 Midos. But Tisha B'Av is a day
of Avalyus. The verse Sasam Tefilasi applies. Hence we don't even say
Tiskabel in Kaddish. We suspended saying it the night of Tisha B'Av till
Mincha on the day of Tisha B'Av. We would not say a Mi Sheberach for a
sick person because of Sasam Tefilasi. We recite only what we say daily,
Siduro Shel Yom, but we don't add any additional supplication because
Tisha B'Av is removed from supplication. On Tisha B'Av the Mitzvaso Shel
Yom is recital of Kinos. On Yom Kippur, a day of Tachanun and Teshuva
the Mitzvaso Shel Yom is recitation of Selichos. It is a day of Tachanun,
K'hodata Le'anav Mikedem. Even though Tisha B'Av has no Kedushas Hayom,
it still has a Mitzvas Hayom of reciting Kinos.

Ko Amar Hashem Kiru Lamkonenos etc. The Haftorah on Tisha B'Av is a
Kiyum Kinos, it is one long Kinah. We recite Kinos at night in the form
of Eicha. In the Mesorah, Eichah is called Kinos. We sit on the ground
on Tisha B'Av not because of Avaylus. (If Avalylus was the obligation
to sit on the ground, we would have to do so all day.) Tisha B'Av is Yom
Kinah as well as Yom Avaylus. For instance one should not do work on Tisha
B'Av. After Chatzos one may do work. The Issur Melacha of Avaylus is very
different than the prohibition against working on Tisha B'Av. The Issur
on the mourner is dependent on the day of Avaylus and is a straight Issur
Melacha. On Tisha B'Av, the crux of the prohibition is against any work
that takes time, [that takes one away from focusing on the Kinos and
destruction]. The mourner is enjoined from all types of work, complex
or simple. The obligation to recite Kinos is the mechayev against work,
not avaylus. Both are Kiyum Blev, fulfilled via the intent and state
of heart/mind.

There are certain restrictions and abstentions that apply to Tisha B'Av
that are beyond regular Avaylus. There is no pause Between the reading of
Eicha and reciting of Kinos at night and the same applies by day. Rabbi
Eliezer Hakalir usually begins his Kinos with the word Eicha. Eicha is
the characteristic word of Kinos. The word Eicha appears sparingly in
Tanach. And typically is accompanied by the tune of lamentations. One is
normally enjoined from asking questions like Eicha, how did this terribly
calamity befall us. After all, one is obligated to praise Hashem in
bad times just like he is obligated to in good times. The Jew does not
ask why or complain. The Gemara tells the story of the tragic death of
Rabbi Chanina Ben Tradyon and how Chazal and his family accepted the
story of his death and said HaTzur Tamim Paalo. They had no right to
ask why. But on Tisha B'Av we have special permission to ask why, Eicha.
Job was punished for raising questions. Yet we have a special license on
Tisha B'Av granted us by Yirmiyahu's writing of Eicha. He was preceded
by Moshe, who used the word Eicha in Parshas Devarim.

The story of Moshe and the spies is directly connected to the destruction
of the temple. Had the people been more respectful and willing to listen
to Moshe, there would not have been an incident with the spies and Jewish
History would have unfolded much differently. The Mitzvah of Kinos is to
ask questions. "Why has this happened to us?". Kinos are an extension of
the readings from Tanach: Eicha at night and the Haftorah in the morning.

Megilas Esther is read at night and day, but the reading by day, according
to Kabbalah, is the more important one. Ruth and Shir Hashirim and Koheles
are read only by day. Why is Eicha only read at night (although some
have a tradidtion to read it by day as well)? Because in the morning
I don't need Eicha to introduce Kinos, I have another introduction to
Kinos, the Haftorah. Eicha is the introduction to the Kinos recited at
night. In the morning, we immediately start Kinos after we conclude the
blessings for the Haftorah.

Th Gemara (Megila 31a) tells us that in the time of the Tanaim and Beis
Hamikdash, they used to read the story of the spies from Shlach on Tisha
B'Av. Now the tradition is to read Ki Tolid Banim. What is the connection
between Ki Tolid and Tisha B'Av? I could well understand the connection
to Shlach, but what is the connection for Ki Tolid?

Ki Tiolid talks about 3 things: 1) exile and destruction. The Torah
expresses its intolerance on the part of Eretz Yisrael to sin and
sinners. 2) Teshuva, repentance. And you shall seek Hashem with all your
hearts and you will find Him. No matter how far removed we may feel from
Hashem, the road back to Hashem is always open. We don't mention Teshuva
much in Kinos, but it is an important theme. The Torah foretells that
the Jew will do Teshuva, but he will be driven by some mysterious force
to do Teshuva. The Rambam says that the Torah promised that at the end
of exile, all Jews will do Teshuva, spontaneously and be driven back to
Hashem. 3) The Torah promises that we will return to Hashem forever. The
first time the Jews entered Eretz Yisrael it was for a limited time. The
same was true of the second commonwealth. But the Torah promises that
eventually there will come a time when our association with the land
will be permanent.

The content and theme of the Haftorah is pure Kinos and destruction. It
expresses the utter despair without mention of consolation. While
we normally end a Haftorah of rebuke with a positive statement, we
don't on Tisha B'Av morning. The concluding verses are rebuke, not
consolation. Tisha B'Av is the exception to the rule. Kinos means utter
despair, there is no room for consolation within them or the Haftorah
that introduces them. The Krias Hatorah tells us to continue to hope,
that ultimately Hashem will return us to our rightful station. So Tisha
B'Av is both a day of despair and churban for the Jewish nation as told
in Haftorah and Kinos, but we also have faith in the ultimate redemption
of the Jewish nation, as told in the Krias Hatorah.

Shavas Suru implies an abrupt unexpected stop. Hakalir wants to express
that the people were forewarned that the churban would come and all would
be destroyed. The Navi tells us of the story of Yirmiyahu, the prophet
of the Churban, who went to purchase land from his uncle to symbolize
that they would return to the land. Chazal say that people would be
able to see the smoke of the Mizbeach rising from a distance. When
he returned he lifted his eyes to see the smoke rising from the
Mizbeach. One of the miracles in the Bays Hamikdash was that the wind
never dispersed the rising smoke from the altar. He saw that the winds
were now dispersing the smoke. He understood that the destruction was
inevitable and fast approaching. He warned the people, told them about
the imminent destruction, yet it suddenly was upon him and them. This
is implied by Shavas.

What are the main motifs of Zchor Hashem Meh Hayah Lanu? What is Galus
to Chachmay Hakaballah? It is Schi Umaos, being treated like refuse
and scum by the other nations. This suggests that there was Chilul
Shem Shamayim. Hashem's great name was desecrated because there was
Chilul Shem Yisrael. Hashem is Kvayachol, in Galus when the Jews are
in exile. If they are treated with contempt, then Kvayachol, then so is
Hashem. The Midrash comments on the verse Kumah Hashem Vyafutzu Oyvecha:
does Hashem have enemies? This refers to the enemies of the Jewish people,
Hashem's chosen nation. For anyone who attacks the Jewish People also
attacks Hashem. An enemy of the Jewish People is an enemy of God.

Chazal tell us that when the first Bays Hamikdash was destroyed, all
the nations entered the Mikdash to loot it. Amon and Moav didn't want
any of the gold or valuables, rather they wanted to vilify the Jewish
people as liars for preaching against idolatry while they worshipped the
2 cherubim in their Holy of Holies. This was the ultimate desecration of
the Jewish People and the name of Hashem. Our enemies were not content to
destroy the people. They also wanted to contradict and deny the notion
that the Jewish People are chosen by God. No matter how accepted the
Jew may be in corporate and social circles, there is always a distrust
of the Jew. Basically the nations of the world dislike us. Our presence
irritates them. There is a certain gap and tension between Jew and Umos
Haolam that keeps us separate. The motif of Tisha B'Av is the tension
between Jew and non Jew.

Karasi Lmahavay Hayma Rimuni, I called to my friends and they deceived
me. We are also interested in Kiddush Shem Shamayim and Chilul Shem
Shamayim. As the scope of the holocaust unfolded, the tragedy of the 6
million was amplified by the desecration of the name of Hashem and the
Jewish people. Non-Jewish missionaries would exult in their arguments
that God has rejected the Jewish People. Medinas Yisrael was the major
answer to the missionaries who said that the Jews will be completely
destroyed. They can't abide by the rejuvenation of the Jews in Israel
and Jerusalem. The approach of the church to Israel and Jewish control of
Jerusalem has been very negative because it contradicts their viewpoint
that the Jews have been deserted. Such statements against the Jews was and
is one of the most visible forms of desecration of God's name. Churban is
so tragic because it slowed the realization of the great eschatological
promise and ultimately led to the desecration of the name of Hashem.

Chazal tell us that 5 tragedies occurred on Tisha B'Av: the spies returned
from surveying the land and caused the people to instigate against
entering Eretz Yisrael, both temples were destroyed, the fall of Beitar,
the death of Bar Kochba and Jerusalem was plowed under in an attempt to
blot out the memory of the existence of the temple. When Hakalir talks
about Churban, he mentions both temples as well as the loss of the 10
tribes. Chazal tell the story of the exiles who passed by the children
of Ishmael who fed them salty foods and gave them empty pitchers that
led to their deaths. We don't know which temple is referred to here. It
could be that this pattern occurred in both destructions. Chazal are
interested in mentioning ALL the Churbanos because all their tragedies
identify with this date.

The last motif is the recognition of the death of Yoshiahu Hamelech. Why
was so much of Eicha (nearly 25%, the chapter of Eicha Yuam Zahav)
devoted to the death of Yoshiahu? Because Chazal were telling us that
not only must we cry for the collective death and holocaust, but we must
also take note of the death of great individuals. It is as deserving of
lamentation as the destruction of the larger community.

In the Kinah of Aadeh Ad Chyg Shamayim, we have the phrase Adveh Bchal
Leiv Lhamtzayhu. This is reminiscent of Selichos and the chapter of
Zchor Lanu Bris Avos that concludes with Himatzay Lanu Bbakahshasaynu.
We say this every time we recite Selichos, but what do these 3 words
mean? The simple translation is: make Your divine presence be known
to us. The Chasam Sofer says on the verse Vraisa Es Achoray Ufany Lo
Yayrau that many times we don't recognize Hashem's presence when a tragic
incident occurs. On the contrary we ask questions. Why did this happen
to us? Why must we suffer for so long? We don't understand at the time
of the incident. But in retrospect, sometimes many years later, we see
the hand of Hashem was there all along.

Hashem told Moshe that He will place him the crevice of the stone. Man's
vision is obscured at the time of an incident by the inflexible
rock. Only in retrospect, Achoray, can we recognize the presence of
Hashem. Himatzay Lanu means whenever we search for You, and we search for
You so frequently, make Your presence known immediately. I don't want
to wait till later. Hashem, You have promised that to us (in the Krias
Hatorah that we have just read on this day of Tisha B'Av), the Torah
promises that at the end of exile, Batzar Lcha, Hashem will return to
the Jew immediately when the Jew starts to look for Hashem. Bchal Leiv
Lhamtzayhu means I am lonely for Him. I want to announce His presence
to other people. We can't wait even a day because one day in the eyes
of Hashem is 1000 years in physical/human time.

The Torah tells us that there is one stipulation: we must search
for Hashem with all our heart and soul. The Kinah describes how I am
lovesick for Hashem. I can't be alone and separate from Hashem. Sin is
the cause for the separation between Hashem and man. Had Adam not sinned,
the Shechina would have dwelled among us, we would be able to point to
the Shechina. Adam lost Hashem and then the Jewish people lost Him again
with the sin of the golden calf. If not for that sin our history would
have been very different.

Copyright 2001, Joshua Rapps and Israel Rivkin, Edison, NJ. Permission
to reprint this summary, with this notice, is granted. To subscribe to
this list, send email to listproc@shamash.org with the following message:
subscribe mj-ravtorah yourfirstname yourlastname

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]