8 Days of Chanuka #2

The actual finding of the pach shemen among the "sea of tumah," and that it was in a hidden place that was not made unholy by the Greeks as well was a miracle. So the finding of the oil on the 1st day was itslef a separate miracle from the candles lasting 8 days which we commemorate.

(HaEshkol)

The 1st day was established to be commemorated because there was a victory of the Prushim over the Tziddukim & Mit'yavnim on that day. And since the miracle was with the oil, Chazal established to light candles for the 1st day as well.

(Sfarim)

8 Days of Chanuka #1

The Beit Yosef has a famous kashya: We celebrate 8 days of Chanuka in remembranc eof the 8 days the Menorah remained lit. Yet the miracle was only for 7 days; there was enough oil for the 1st day as the Gemara in Shabbos (21b) tells us. So why do we celebrate the 1st day as well? The Sefer Yemei Shmonah brings down 500 teirutzim to this question, so hopefully I'll post a few by the time Chanuka gets here.

The Beit Yosef himslef offers 3 explanations:

1. The people at that time divided up the oil that they had into 8 portions. Every night they put in one portion and they saw that it lasted until the following day. So they saw that every night, even the 1st night, was a miracle.
2. On the 1st night they poured in all the oil but the jug miraculously remained full, so even on the 1st night they recognized the miracle.
3. On the 1st night they poured in all the oil, and saw the following day that the candles remined full of oil. And so it was every night.

(Yemei Shmonah p.19- Mahut HaKushya)

Mumbai: A Wake Up Call

Today, Rosh Chodesh Kislev, we were forced to hear the sad news of the murder of Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife Rivka Holtzberg as well as the other victims HY"D of the terrorist attack in Mumbai. Being friends with a bocher who is from Mumbai and learns in my yeshiva during the year, this does hurt me and affect me a bit deeper. He knew the Holtzbergs and Chabad provides the frum Indian families with Jewish necessities as he has told me.

Less than a year ago, on Rosh Chodesh Adar, a terrorist emptied rounds and rounds of bullets in Yeshivat Merkaz HaRav Kook, killing 8 of the bochurim learning there HY"D. Now on Rosh Chodesh Kislev, our enemies have attacked us again and killed Jews are maintained a Jewish House of Torah and Mitzvot in a place where such things are scarce. Adar and Kislev contain within them two of the most joyous holidays of the when we celebrated victory over our enemies because we cried out and turned to Hashem; Purim and Chanuka. We learn that Rosh Chodesh contains within it the essence of the month to come. These are both months of joy and celebration. Now the beginnings of both are marked with bloodshed and tears.

WAKE UP! This is what Hashem is crying out to us! We know have 2 rallying calls to return to HaKadosh Boruch Hu! How much longer will we keep ourselves in this galut? How much longer will we ignore the plight of our neshamot? At a time when we should be preparing for the simcha of Purim when Hashem saved us from Haman and annihilation we will always remeber the 8 kedoshim who were murdered. Now, at a time when we should be preparing for an occasion of simcha, learning Hilchot Chanuka and getting ready to publicize the nes which occured, we must mourn a loss and realize that we must do something. We had one wake up call already? We didn't respond. We know have a 2nd. Are we going to need a 3rd chas v'shalom? All Jews are one body. If a limb is infected or damaged, we can't ignore it, it affects the whole body. The source of the problem must be fixed. The cure is right in front of us, we just need to take it. We will soon recall the cry of Matityahu Kohen Gadol to the Jewish People "Mi L'Hashem Alei!" We should be hearing this in our minds now as well.

Inyanei Gittin- Notes from Shiur: ואם יש עליו עוררין

סוגיית טענינן דמזוייף

The Mishnah on דף ב. ends off saying that if people come to be me’ar’er against the get, claiming that it is forged, you should be me’kayem it with the signatures.

/תוס' ד"ה ואם יש עליו עוררין/

If one has a get and no one has to come to be me’ar’er, it is valid and the woman can remarry with it. We don’t tay’nah that it is mezuyaf because the Rabanan established this to be lenient for an agunah (a woman in chains). However, by mammon we do tay’nah mezuyaf for yetomim and lekuchot because otherwise, “Lo shavkat chayaei l’chol be’riah”- someone can take advantage of them by forging shtar, and getting “edim” to sign it. There would be no defense for this otherwise. The Maharam Shif explains that this rule is applied to all sharot, even if “Lo shivkat chayei” doesn’t apply (לא פלוג).

"ומיהו מזה אין להוכיח"- The Maharam explains, from “Lo shivkat chayei” we cannot bring a proof that we do tay’nah mezuyaf. It’s not even a common thing (דבר לא שכיח הוא), and we don’t tay’nah uncommon things for yetomim. Rather, we can tay’nah paru’ah (it was already paid)!

What is the nafka minah whether we tay’nah mazuyaf or paru’ah? The Maharam says that there could be a case where paru’ah wouldn’t work. If a lo’ve dies b’toch zmano, meaning before the deadline for paying back the loan, then we have a chazakah that he wouldn’t have paid it back then so we can’t tay’nah paru’ah. Also, if a lo’ve travels to medinat hayam and remains abroad until after the deadline for the loan. The Maharam Shif says that paru’ah is more common (מצוי טפי), so it works better.

The Pnei Yehoshua has a kashya on the Maharam’s nafka minah. What would stop a person from forging a shtar which says that the lo’ve died b’toch zmano?

The Achronim have a kashya on Tosfot; how can you say that we tay’nah paru’ah, it’s not common when there is a case of "שטרך בידי מאי בעי"?
According to the Chatam Sofer, beit din can only claim something when there is a ta’anah, and there is a chiluk between whether there is no tay’nah and whether there is an inhibited tay’nah. By mezuyaf there is no tay’nah. By paru’ah there is a ta’anah, but it is blocked. The etzem ma’aseh of paying back a loan b’toch zmano is not common. But the ta’anah that it was paid back afterwards is a real ta’anah; it is simply blocked by the fact that the shtar is on the malveh’s hands.
Rav Shmuel Rizovsky (Reb Chaim & Reb Shimon Shkop) says that from "שטרך בידי", it seems that the shtar is a ra’ayah. But it’s not a proof of the metziut. It is a halachah which tell us that while paru’ah is common, it’s blocked by שטרך בידי. This leaves us with the problem that we can’t ta’anah paru’ah against שטרך בידי מאי בעי. Tosfot continues, that even if we don’t tay’nah mezuyaf, we tay’nah paru’ah because of “migo.” Since the father could have said that the shtar is mezuyaf but didn’t, we believe him that it is paru’ah. The Gemara in Bava Batra דפ' ע.-ע:)) says that by a shtar kis, the malveh can come and swear that he loaned money and claim money from yetomim. In this case he takes half of the money. The other half of the money that went into an investment he can’t take, since we tay’nah that it is paru’ah. The father would have been believed to say that he repaid it with the migo of ne’ensu, that it was lost or destroyed (פרוע במגו דנאנסו).

But we can still prove that we tay’nah mezuyaf, for if not so, any person could forge a shtar mecher or matanah and try to use it in order to claim money from yetomim or lekuchot. In such a case we could not tay’nah paru’ah.

Furthermore, from Bava Batra דף קעד: we see that we ta’ynah mezuyaf:
Rav Hunah says that if a schiv me’rah is makdish his property and says, “I have money that belongs to ploni,” we believe him. There is a chazaka that people don’t make a joke of hekdesh. Rav and Shmuel say that if the person says “t’nu,” “give him the money,” then the children must pay the man. But if he doesn’t say “t’nu” they don’t pay. When the schiv me’rah says that he has someone else’s money, he is modeh that there is a shtar. “T’nu” acts as a kiyum ha’get, whereas not saying it allows us to tay’nah that it is mezuyaf. If we didn’t, then the malveh would be able to take money from the yetomim. We don’t tay’nah paru’ah because Rav says that if the lo’ve is modeh to the shtarit doesn’t need kiyum (מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך קיום).

There is an apparent stira in Tosfot. Earlier, Tosfot stated that we don’t necessarily need ta’yninan mezuyaf because we can tay’nah paru’ah. This last step in Tosfot (Rav explaining why the Gemara in Bava Batra has to be talking about mezuyaf and not paru’ah) says that without mezuyaf, there is no paru’ah? There are two ways to ask a question based on this stira:
The Maharam explains that if the first step is true and we do have paru’ah even without mezuyaf. The later statement is not true and it must be that we don’t hold like Rav.
The Maharsha says the opposite. The second statement is true and that we have a kashya on the first one.

[Rebbe Akiva Eger asks an additional question on the second proof from Bava Batra.]

The Gemara in Bava Metzia דף יג. says, if we find a shtar with no lean (שטר שאין בו אחריות), the Rabbanan says not to return it to the malveh and R’ Meir says we do return it. Shmuel established that when one who is not actually chayav is modeh to the shtar, R’ Meir says to return just so he can have it; it’s useless. But according to the Rabbanan, why would we not return it? Why should we be choshesh? If the shtar is mekuyam, then the din is with him. If not then what loss is there if we give it back? Rather, we are choshesh that perhaps he will take the shtar and use it when the lo’ve isn’t there and we can’t tay’nah mezuyaf. But this can’t be! We could still tay’nah paru’ah!
The Gemara in Bava Batra דף קנד: says, according to R’ Meir if he is modeh to the shtar, it still needs kiyum. And the father would have been believed to say paru’ah because of a migo d’mezuyaf. So the yetomim can make a migo based on what the father would have said. So even if beit din doesn’t tay’nah mezuyaf, they do tay’nah paru’ah migo d’mezuyaf.

So how do we resolve the kashya on the Rabbanan? Tosfot says that the case is actually when the malveh drops the shtar (איתרע בנפילתו). Also, only when the shtar falls and the lo’ve is tay’nah mezuyaf! If he is to’en after the malveh picks it up, then it doesn’t do anything.

Tosfot says that only when the lo’ve is to’en mezuyaf before the malveh is mekayem does the din of itrah (איתרע) apply; but if the malveh was mekayem before the lo’ve was to’en mezuyaf, then ichzak kasher and he can collect.
Rav Shmuel Rizovsky writes that the reason the tay’ninan mezuyaf of beit din doesn’t work is because they are only to’en she’ma mezuyaf, and only the tay’nat bari mezuyaf of the lo’ve works against the kiyum of the malveh.

Rav Shmuel then asks why it is only huchzak kasher; that means that it is still itrah. If so, why does the shtar still work?

He gives two tei’rutzim:
First, the Brisker Rav says that midin shtar, there is no issue of itrah, and it is a perfectly good shtar. The problem is one of Hashavat Aveida since you need to be totally sure that the shtar is really his to give it back. The fact that it is itrah brings in a safek. Therefore, you would give it back if he was mekayem it (before tay’nat mezuyaf shel lo’ve) because then it would be huchzak shelo. But if the finder returned it, mistama he could be goveh (nafka minah with Rav Shmuel Rizovsky).
Rav Shmuel then writes his own opinion that the din of shtar which protects it against ir’ur is only applicable when the shtar is biyad hato’en. But without that, it isn’t self protecting. If so, here where it isn’t huchzak shelo, and therefore not self protecting, it can’t stand up against the ir’ur halo’ve (therefore, even if he got it back still not huchzak shelo, so it’s still pasul).

Inyanei Gittin- Notes from Shiur: לפי שאין בקיאיו לשמה

The Gemara on דף ב. begins by asking, why does a shaliach need to say b’fanai nichtav u’b’fanai nechtam? According to Rabbah, it is because the bnei medinat hayam are not beki’in when it comes to writing a get lishmah. According to Rava it is because there won’t be edim to be mekayem the get.

/רש"י ד"ה לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה/

Rashi explains that bnei medinat hayam are not bnei Torah and don’t know the halacha of writing a get lishmah. Therefore a shaliach must say b’fanai nichtav u’b’fanai nechtam, and then we ask him if the get was written lishmah (שיילינן), to which he responds “yes”.

Why does the get need to be written lishmah and not lishmo? Ibn Ezra explains that when the pasuk says “lah” it’s a drashah for the woman. “Ve’chatav” teaches that it should be lishmah for the husband as well. But the ikar drashah is for lishmah.

We brought down 7 questions on this Rashi:

1. We do we only care about lishmah?
2. Why does Rashi say that the bnei medinat hayam as not bnei Torah because of this?
3. If a shaliach says b’fanai nichtav, don’t we know that he is referring to the get being lishmah?
4. If we ask him about the get (שיילינן), why is b’fanai nichtav necessary?
5. Is there שיילינן according to Rava?
6. Why do we not say b’fanai nichtav lishmah? And why do we care about this word if we ask whether it was written lishmah right after?
7. What does Rashi get this concept of שיילינן from?

/תוס' ד"ה לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה (א)/

Tosfot asks an obvious question on Rabbah’s shita: why is lishmah different than the other halachot of a get which can pasul it[1] that it should be singled out for this?

The implied answer in Tosfot is that perhaps the issue of lishmah is more common. However, they say that one should not say that there is a common problem of people using a get with the same name on it, or that a sofer who writes tofsei gittin will just fill in the names. And this applies to all of the halachot of gittin.

The Gemara on דף ט. teaches that gittin are similar to shichru’rei avadim in three ways:

1.In regards to מוליך ומביא; one must say b’fanai nichtav (Rashi).

2.An עד כותי is kasher to use.

3.If the get/shtar shichrur is made by a beit din of ovdei kochavim or signed by ovdei kochavim it is pasul.

What about lishmah? Both of these have to be written lishmah as well! It fits according to Rabbah because he includes it in מוליך ומביא, which is saying b’fanai nichtav, since Rabbah holds that we say this because of lishmah (Rashi). However, it remains a kashya on Rava[2]. Furthermore, according to both there is the problem of mechubar[3]. But Rabbah specifically teaches lishmah and not mechubar in saying b’fanai nichtav![4] So therefore we see that lishmah is the only problem according to Rabbah, and not that everything is a problem included in b’fanai nichtav just that lishmah is more common.

Rabbeinu Tam explains that those they are beki’in in hilchot gittin, but they don’t hold by the drashah of lishmah from "וכתב לה". When it says they are not beki’in, it means they are not choshesh to the drashah of lishmah. And later when the Gemara says that they learned it, it means that they accepted this drashah.

Then, Tosfot asks two questions on Rashi’s shita of "שיילינן". First of all it doesn’t seem to come up anywhere else; where does he get it from? Furthermore, it this were so, the Gemara should have said that a nafka minah between would be whether or not to apply to שיילינן.[5]

This Tosfot has two halves; the first half on the issue of why “lishmah” is singled out, and the second half on שיילינן. Why does Tosfot put these together instead of making a new דיבור המתחיל?

The Maharsha[6] explains that in the havah aminah of Tosfot, bnei medinat hayam are not beki’in in all the halachot and you wouldn’t be able to say that they are all included in b’fanai nichtav. Therefore we would have to hold like Rashi and say that they are included in שיילינן. However, once we have the maskana of Rabbeinu Tam we can explain it differently since the kashya is only on “lishmah”.

The Maharam Shif[7] essentially says like the Maharsha. He adds a clearer explanation of the maskanah according to Rabbeinu Tam, clarifying that since we are left with only a chashash on lishmah, there is no need for שיילינן. And it is clear that when the shaliach says b’fanai nichtav he is referring to lishmah.

The Tosfot HaRosh[8] brings down the opinion of the Riva which is that Rabbah doesn’t necessarily mean specifically lishmah, but also includes all the halachot of gittin. He brings a ra’aya from the Yerushalmi, that R’ Yehoshua ben Levi explains the Mishnah as being "לפי שאין בקיאין בדקדוקי גיטין". When a shaliach says b’fanai nichtav he is including all of the halachot of gittin. What it should have said is “b’fanai nichtav u’b’fanai nechtam k’mishpato (כמשפטו).” It only says lishmah here because it is more commonly an issue. Also, when the Gemara brings down Rava’s kashya on Rabbah as to why we don’t say b’fanai nechtav lishmah according to his shita, is not necessarily only worded in regards to lishmah because that is how Rabbah says it.

However, this conflicts with Tosfot’s maskana of Rabbeinu Tam! But rather, it makes more sense to say like the Riva’s shita that sofrei gittin hold by halachot and are either beki’in or not, rather than to say that they hold by this drashah or not. And that which the Gemara asks, "והא איכא מחובר" is because they were not beki’in in the other halachot but they were beki’in in regards to mechubar.

The Pnei Yehoshua[9] writes that according to Rashi, the ikar takana of b’fanai nichtav is that the shaliach should be at the writing and signing of the get. Therfore, we ask him about it, because when we can clarify the matter, there is no reason to rely on rov beki’in. Even those who say otherwise by shchita would agree due to the seriousness of arayot, as we have found that the chachamim are sometimes choshesh to the מיעוטא מן המיעוטא. It seems that for this reason we have the minhag to ask the sofer, ba’al, and edim about everything.

It seems from his words that saying b’fanai nichtav is only a hachanah for שיילינן. Asking about the get is the real ikar takana. Saying b’fanai nichtav is not a halacha, but a way of making a witness for the writing and signing of the get. It is also apparent from his words that שיילינן is not a din in gittin but a halacha for beit din.

The Rashba[10] has a kashya. The Gemara on דף ג. teaches that Rabbah is afraid that if a shaliach would be required to say “b’fanai nichtav u’b’fanai nechtam lishmah”, it might be too many words and he could forget to say something, thereby changing that which the chachamim established to be said; "יהוי משנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים בגיטין". And this fits with the one who says to say plain b’fanai nichtav because “lishmah” is included. But according to the opinion that the shaliach is supposed to say “lishmah”, even if he forgets to say it, why can’t it be fixed through שיילינן?

The Maharam Shif[11] provides an answer to this kashya. Once it has been established to say “lishmah” not doing so changes the nature of the statement of b’fanai nichtav. If so, שיילינן can’t fix it because it is not going on the same thing.

So apparently, שיילינן cannot fix b’fanai nichtav lishmah if “lishmah” was forgotten. But for b’fanai nichtav stam, שיילינן only further defines it to tell us that it is lishmah.

The Ran[12] also explains that really b’fanai nichtav should really be said with a “lishmah,” but we are afraid that perhaps the shaliach might leave it out. And since everyone normally says it and this guy didn’t say it, it would seem from his words that he is saying the get is not lishmah. Furthermore, “דהוה משנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים”.

So in the end, once a shaliach speaks, he cant make a new testimony. B’fanai nechtav is a din in the get and it ends once the shaliach says it, whether he includes “lishmah” or not. The shlichut itself is finished according to the Gra. And שיילינן is a din in beit din according to most Rishonim. It can only fix b’fanai nechtav stam, which doesn’t say if the get is lishmah or not, by defining and explaining it. But Rashi’s shita is that שיילינן is a din in the get.

---

[1] "כגון מחובר, ושינה שמו ושמה, ונכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה"

[2] Rava holds "משום שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו".

[3] We learn that this applies to these both from the gzeirat hakatuv of "לה, לה" (Rashi).

[4] דף ט:

[5] Since Rava isn’t choshesh for lishmah, he wouldn’t require asking whether the get was written lishmah.

[6] בד"ה לפי שאין בקיאין וכו' והא דפירש הקונטרוס...

[7] בתוס' בד"ה לפי שאין בקיאין וכו' אלא לרבא קשה...והא דפירש הקונטרס כו' ואור"י כו'

[8] ד"ה לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה

[9] ד"ה רש"י לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה וכו' וממילא שיילינן ליה (ב)

[10] ד"ה גמ' מ"ט אמר רבה לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה

[11] בתוס' בד"ה לפי שאין בקיאין וכו'...ולפירש"י

[12] ד"ה גמ' לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה...אלא הכי קאמר

מה...אלא הכי קאמר

The Chiddushei HaRim on Chayei Sarah

ויהיו חיי שרה מאה שנה ועשרים שנה ושבע שנים שני חיי שרה:
חיי שרה כ"ג:א

“Sarah’s lifetime was one hundred years, and twenty years, and seven years; the years of Sarah’s life.”

The Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 138:3) relates; R’ Akiva was once giving shiur and the tzibbur began to doze off. He wanted to wake them up so he said a piece of Torat Remez. It was the norm do to this in order to arouse people back to the learning since people like to learn remazim since they are easy to understand without hard thinking (Etz Yosef). So he said; why did Ester merit ruling over 127 medinot? See that she was a descendent of Sarah who lived for 127 years, and therefore she ruled over 127 medinot.

How was this supposed to arouse the people in R’ Akiva’s shiur? The Chiddushei HaRim explains; we see from this that Sarah lived for 127 years and in that zchut Ester ruled over 127 medinot. This means that in the zchut of one year, there was a future medinah for Ester. If this is so, then perhaps for every week there was a city. And for every hour there was a village; all of which amounted to number in the thousands. If so, when a person lets himself doze off, from his Torah and avodah, he might be losing all of this in the thousands as well! Upon hearing this R’ Akiva’s talmidim woke up.

Thoughts from Vayera: Hachnasat Orchim

A gut voch! As we just read this past Shabbos, Avraham Avinu was a paradigm for chesed and the great mitzvah of hachnasat orchim. B'ezrat Hashem Yitbarach we should try to emulate this middah in the ways of Avraham Avinu. Chazal even tell us that if one does not have the middah of chesed he should be wary because he may not actually come from the line of Avraham.

וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים, נִצָּבִים עָלָיו; וַיַּרְא, וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתָם מִפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אָרְצָה

"And Avraham raised his eyes, and he saw, and there three men standing upon him. And he saw, and he ran to greet them from the entrance of the tent, and he bowed to the ground."

Why is there a double usage of the word "va'yar", and he saw? Did Avraham Avinu not see something the first time? What was different the second time he "saw"? Rashi explains thats first Avraham saw the men standing there. Then again he "saw," meaning he realized that they were standing at a distance so as not to trouble him. Upon realizing this he immediatley got up and ran to them. I learned from Rav Moshe Taragin, that similarly the 2nd "va'yar" is not refering to a physical sight. Avraham Avinu looked up and saw men standing there. But he didnt just see them as men standing there. He realized that this meant he had a mitzvah to do. He envisioned that he had to now hurry to do hachnasat orchim. He didn't just see what was before him, but visualized what it meant and what he had to do with it. He was immediatelt mezarez to do this great mitzvah as quickly as possible and ran over to them.

The Medrash (according to R' Levi) says that when the 3 mal'achim came to Avraham Avinu they appeared not only as men, but specifically in the forms of a bread seller, a sailor, and an Arab. The Torah Temimah points out that there seems to be no allusion to any of these in the psukim. He gives his own explanation based on the psukim to resolve this. First, Avraham says to the the greatest of the mal'achim, "Please my lord, if I have found favor in your eyes, pass not from your servant." According to the first interpretation offered by Rashi based on the Gemara in Shvuot, this request is addresed towards the guests as opposed to Hashem. However, the wording which Avraham used, תַעֲבֹר, shows that he appeared to be a sailor. How so? This is implied from the fact that עבר is commonly used by crossing water: "va'yavru b'toch hayam", "va'yavor et haYarden". Secondly, when Avraham offers them water to wash their feet, Rashi comments that he thought them to be Arabs who worshipped the dust of their feet and he didn't want them bring their avodah zarah. Thirdly, Avraham says וְאֶקְחָה פַת-לֶחֶם, "I will fetch (take) a piece of bread." Instead of v'ekcha it should have said v'eten, "I will give." But Avraham saw that one of them was a bread merchant and we learn from here that he was actually offering to buy bread from him if he had any.

It is so amazing to see the great extent to which we should perform this mitzvah. Avraham Avinu paid attention not just to the fact that he had guests whom he could serve but what type of people they were and he acted accordingly! He didn't just see people before him, he envisioned and realized beyond that how he needed to act. This shouldn't be taken lightly at all. The Gemara (Bava Metzia 66b) says: Tana d'bei Rabbi Yishmael- As a reward for three things [that Avraham did, Bnei Yisrael were] zoche to three things. Avraham brought his guests cream and milk; Hashem gave Bnei Yisrael the mann. Avraham stood over them as they sat under the tree eating (עומד עלהים); Hashem gave Bnei Yisrael the Ananai HaKavod (עמוד הענן). Avraham gave them water; Hashem gave Bnei Yisrael the Be'er Miriam.

Avraham Avinu was simply careful to do the mitzvah of Hachnasat Orchim properly to the best of his ability and in merit of this HaKadosh Boruch gave reward to an entire nation of children.

The Gemara (Shabbos 127a) says that Hachnasat Orchim is greater than receiving the Divine Prescence. "גדולה הכנסת אורחים מהקבלת פני שכינה". The Baal Shem Tov zy"a taught that even though this mitzvah can lead to bittul Torah or the speaking of lashon hara, or anything of that sort, nonetheless Hachnasat Orchim is greater.
(Toldot Yaakov Yosef)

Yahrtzeit of Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Naftali

Today, 16 Cheshvan, is the yahrzeit of the hailege Reb Shlomo Carlebach (January 14, 1925 - October 20, 1994) zy"a. Many would say that Reb Shlomo was one of the greatest tzaddikim of our time and perhaps the most influential Jewish musician. His ahavat yisrael and chesed was unsurpassable. When he died, he left nothing for his family since whenever he received a paycheck, he gave it away. He was so kind in greeting people with a hug and a smile, no matter who they were, where they cam from, what they looked like, how they smelled, how dirty they were... Reb Shlomo's captivating and inspirational stories as well as his unforgettable and entrancing melodies remain unforgettable to this day. "The holiest of the holy, the deepest of the deep. The sweetest of the sweet" The most amazing stories of Reb Shlomo, the beauty of his music, and the Torah connected to both, simply can't be typed up here in a single post (at least not by me).

If you don't know about Reb Shlomo please do yourslef a favor and look for his biography and his music.

(I was zoche to be at Reb Shlomo's gravesite and take some pictures myself, except the one on the right here which a friend took on my camera)

Vayerah: The Ahavah of Avraham Avinu

The medrash (Bereishit Rabbah 56:4) says that when Avraham Avinu was going to do the Akeida, the Satan came to him to dissuade him. He kept calling him crazy for going to kill his own son whom he had waited so long for. Avraham kept ignoring his antagonizing remarks, intent on doing Hashem’s will. The Yetzer HaRa then discouragingly asked, “If you are tested anymore, will you be able to withstand it?”

A person needs to familiarize himself with the tactics of the Yetzer HaRa so that he can defend himself against it. Rav Henoch Leibowitz tz”l teaches (Chiddushei HaLev Vayerah) that we learn from this medrash, that one of those tactics is that the Yetzer HaRa is to make a person give up. He will tell a person that he will never amount to the level a tzaddik gamur, and therefore should not bother to do any mitzvot. This is what the Yetzer said to Avraham; that he would not be able to do anymore difficult tests, and therefore should not bother with even doing the Akeida. This is certainly a discouraging thought that affects many people.

However, what the Yetzer HaRa says doesn’t make so much sense. Even if Avraham Avinu had done just the Akeida and not been able to do any greater tests after, he would still be a great tzaddik, even if he wasn’t a tzaddik gamur. What is the Yetzer HaRa’s logic in telling Avraham that since he won’t be a tzaddik gamur for doing the greater, harder tests, he should not even attempt to be a regular tzaddik by doing the Akeida? We know that inside every person is the desire to attain shleimut, completeness. If one doesn’t reach this he can become very upset and perhaps even stray from his Avodat Hashem in despair. [We know that despair, ye’ush, is the lowest negative middah and is associated with Amalek.] The Yetzer Hara’s intent in his words to Avraham was to put despair in Avraham that he would not be able to accomplish anything past the Akeida and therefore he would not reach the great level he yearned towards. From this feeling of incompleteness and failure to reach the ultimate goal, Avraham would lose hope and give up doing the Akeida, even though he had reached such a high level. This logic of the Yetzer Hara is strong and he felt this would be effective even against Avraham Avinu. Even his love for Yitzchak didn’t stop him from doing the Akeida, so he could only be dissuaded by something more powerful. But Avraham Avinu was so rooted in his Avodat Hashem; he was unwavering in bending to His will! The Yezter HaRa was not able to have any hold over him.

The Gemara (Yerushalmi Taanit Perek 2 Halacha 4) says in that when Hashem told Avraham to carry out the Akeida he said to Him, “Master of the World, You know that when You said bring him [Yitzchak] up as an olah, I had what to respond. Before You told me that through Yitzchak I would have children, and now You tell me to bring him as a korban. But I conquered my Yetzer HaRa to do Your will…” If one were to just think about this for a moment he would realize that this doesn’t seem right for Avraham Avinu to say HaKadosh Baruch Hu. After all, the ways of Hashem are truthful and just. The Torah Temimah writes, that perhaps we can resolve this based on the Gemara in Shabbos (55b) which says that a good thing was never said by Hashem that was then changed to bad. The Rambam writes that if a navi has a prophecy that good will turn to bad, “shinuy m’tovah l’ra’ah,” he need not heed it. Furthermore, it is asur to listen to a navi who proclaims such a prophecy for it is not a the way of Hashem to do such a thing. Perhaps this was what Avraham Avinu meant. L’halacha, he didn’t have to listen to the ruach hanevuah which told him to take Yitzchak; nor did Yitzchak have to listen to his father. After Hashem’s first promise to Avraham of his posterity, the instruction to do the Akeida was a change from good to bad. But despite this Avraham Avinu said he conquered his own will, “elah she’kavashti ritzoni.” His love of doing the mitzvot Hashem was so great that doing the Akeida was not in his eyes tovah l’raah, rather it was tovah l’tovah! It was all good to him because of his great Ahavat Hashem! He conquered whatever there was inside of him that said this was bad.

We should strive to emulate Avraham Avinu and overcome our Yetzer HaRa. Sometimes his tactics are clever and strong, but we must always keep Hashem before us and overcome him. Sometimes things may seem too hard for us to do, and sometimes things may be presented in a way where it seems like we don’t even have to do them (this happens a lot). However, we must try to internalize the same Ahavat Hashem which Avraham Avinu had so that we can succeed in our Avodat Hashem and bring ourselves even closer to Hakadosh Boruch Hu.

Yahrtzeiten

There are two yahrtzheits I would like to mention (of course there are others of note during these days as well):

On 8 Cheshvan, 3 days ago, was the yahrzeit of Reb Nachumke Kaplan of Horodnah tz"l. He was born in 5572 (1812) and was niftar in 5640 (1879). He was a great tzaddik and talmid chochom. He learned in various yeshivot including the famed Volozhin yeshivah. Reb Nachumke had incredible humility and did not accept any rabbinic post even though it was offered to him. He was a great baal chesed, collecting and distributing tzedakah. Even though he burried most of his 17 children, he remained steadfast in his avodat Hashem. The holy Chofetz Chaim considred Reb Nachumke to be his rebbe. The Chofetz Chaim tells of Reb Nachumke that he once saw him in shul when he thought he was alone. Reb Nachumke went over to the boxes reserved for sheimot and took out a sefer kabbalah. He sat down and began to learn while the Chofetz Chaim watched in hiding. He then saw a fire surround him and watched his rebbe learn, shaking the whole time. When he returned the sefer, the fire left. The Chofetz Chaim kept a picture of Reb Nachumke with him so that he could show it to his children and tell them, "this is what a tzaddik looks like."

Today, 11 Cheshvan is the yahrtzeit of Rachel Imeinu. There is not enough room here to write about the holy tzaddeket. The chesed of Rachel is so incredible and inspiring, as well as her yirat shamayim. She cried over her children to Hashem, and becasue of her tfillah He will bring the geulah. Her children have continued to visit her gravesite for thousands of years. We hold the site to be dear to us and even though the area presented itselfto be dangerous at times we have not stoppped from praying at the site of our Ima. In fact, we have only strengthened the defenses around the kever and we probably send more people to daven there ever year than there has ever been.