The Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit Midrash
Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion
PARASHAT
SHELACH
By
David Silverberg
Parashat Shelach
concludes with a section familiar to us all as the third paragraph of shema, which presents the mitzva
of tzitzit.
The Torah requires that one affix tzitzit to
his four-cornered garments. Strictly
speaking, one must wear tzitzit only if he wishes to
wear a four-cornered garment; he need not specifically purchase a four-cornered
garment for this purpose. Nevertheless,
the practice has developed - to the point where it has become mandatory - to
wear a four-cornered garment and hence bring oneself under the obligation of tzitzit.
The Gemara in Masekhet
Menachot (39b) cites an important dispute between Rava and Rav Nachman as to which kind of garments require tzitzit. Rav Nachman (based
on a Berayta of Rabbi Yishmael)
maintains that the Torah's juxtaposition of the mitzva
of tzitzit with the prohibition of "sha'atnez" in Sefer Devarim (22:11-12) indicates that only garments made of
wool or linen - the materials that create "sha'atnez"
- require tzitzit.
Rava accepts this association between tzitzit and "sha'atnez"
but reaches a different conclusion. The
Torah requires that tzitzit be affixed on all
garments. However, whereas generally a
garment requires tzitzit made from the same material
as the garment itself, strings made from wool and linen may be used as tzitzit for all materials.
Thus, according to Rava, the Torah does not obligate one to affix tzitzit to a cotton or silk garment. Even he agrees, however, that these materials
require tzitzit on the level of "de-rabbanan" (by force of rabbinic enactment).
This debate is of great practical
import. Since the custom has developed
to specifically obligate ourselves in the mitzva of tzitzit, we should presumably do so at the level of Torah
law. Thus, according to Rav Nachman, we should wear only woolen garments for our tzitzit.
So,
what is the halakha?
A major dispute exists
among the Rishonim as to whom the halakha
follows in this regard. The following is
a partial list of prominent Rishonim who adopt Rav Nachman's position, that garments made from materials other
than wool and linen do not require tzitzit on the
level of Torah law: Rif, Rambam,
Ri Migash, Rav Hai Gaon, Ramban,
Sefer Ha-chinukh, Kol Bo and the Nimukei
Yosef. The "Mechaber"
follows this view in the Shulchan Arukh
(9:1). The Rema,
however, adopts Rava's position, obligating all
garments on the level of Torah law, based on the ruling of Tosafot
(Menachot 39b) citing Rashi
and Rabbeinu Tam.
Other members of this group among the Rishonim
include the Ra'avad, Semag,
Mordekhai, and Rashba. The Rosh and his son, the Tur,
likewise adopted this ruling.
Therefore, many
authorities strongly recommend wearing a woolen garment for the purposes of
this mitzva.
(We do not wear linen garments for the mitzva
of tzitzit in compliance with the view of Rabbeinu Tam in Tosafot, Menachot 40a, a position mentioned already in the
literature of the Geonim. The reason behind this halakha
lies beyond the scope of our discussion [which is already getting too
long].) This way, one fulfills the
Biblical obligation according to all opinions.
Indeed, the Radbaz (3:607) records that this
was the prevalent custom his time. More
recently, this practice was recommended by the Chayei
Adam, Ben Ish Chai, and Mishna Berura. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot
Moshe O.C. 1:2) urges men to do so even in the hot summer months, when cotton
garments have far more appeal.
Nevertheless, he does allow those for whom this causes great discomfort
to rely on the position of the Rema, and wear cotton tzizit.
We should also note
that two other prominent poskim, the Vilna Gaon (Ma'aseh Rav 17) and, more
recently, the Chazon Ish (Sefer Dinim U-minhagim),
ruled leniently in this regard and wore garments from other materials for the mitzva of tzitzit. Indeed, many people today wear tzitzit from cotton or silk. For practical guidance, please consult a
competent rav.
David
Silverberg
*****
In its discussion of
the mitzva of tzitzit at
the end of Parashat Shelach,
the Torah says, "you shall see it" (Bemidbar
15:39). Chazal
(Menachot 43a) derive from this clause that one need
not affix tzitzit to a "nighttime garment,"
as nighttime is not a time when one would "see" the tzizit. The Rishonim debate as to the definition
of this ambiguous term. One view,
represented perhaps most prominently by the Rambam (Hilkhot Tzitzit 7:8, as
understood by the Tur; the Chazon
Ish understood the Rambam
differently), takes this halakha to mean quite simply
that the obligation of tzitzit does not apply at
nighttime. Once the daytime ends, so
does the obligation of tzitzit. This is also the position taken by the Geonim, cited by the Ritva
(Shabbat 25b), and the Meiri (Shabbat 25b). The other opinion argues that it all depends
on the type of garment worn. A daytime garment
requires tzitzit even when worn at night, and,
conversely, a nighttime garment is exempt from the obligation, even when worn
by day. This group of Rishonim includes the Rosh, Ba'al
Ha-itur, Sefer Ha-teruma, Semak, Rashba, Rabbenu Yerucham, and Ran.
Within this second position, a dispute exists as to the status of a
garment worn both by day and by night; some Rishonim
require tzitzit on such garments, while others argue
that only a garment used solely by day requires tzitzit.
The "Mechaber" in the Shulchan Arukh merely cites both views, attributing them to the Rambam and Ran, without issuing a definitive ruling. In his Beit Yosef,
however, he expresses support for the Rambam's view
for two reasons. First, he writes, the Rambam is a "rav muvhak" (a distinguished rabbi; precise intent
unclear). Secondly, the halakhic principle dictates that we never recite berakhot whose requirement is in doubt ("safek berakhot le-hakel").
Therefore, when wearing a daytime garment at night, we should not recite
a berakha over the tzitzit,
given the doubt arising in light of the Rambam's
view. Many Acharonim
have questioned this second reason of the Beit Yossef, as it relates only to the case mentioned: a daytime
garment worn at night. What about the
reverse situation, of a nighttime garment worn by day? Here, following the Rambam
would yield the opposite result - to wear it with a berakha! Several answers have been offered, perhaps
the simplest being that of the Ma'amar Mordekhai. He
explains that already in the Beit Yossef's
time, pajamas were not made with four corners and were thus exempt anyway from
the obligation of tzitzit. He therefore limited the practical
application of this dispute among the Rishonim to the
more common instance, of a four-cornered daytime garment worn by night.
In any event, the Beit Yossef's reference to this
issue as a situation of doubt, if only in his second reason for siding with the
Rambam, may suggest that he never arrived at a
definitive ruling on the issue. Indeed,
the Rema rules that one must adopt the stringency of
all views, as no halakhic conclusion has been
reached. Therefore, one recites a berakha on tzitzit only by day
and on a garment worn primarily by day.
Additionally, one may not wear a four-cornered garment without tzitzit except at nighttime when wearing a garment reserved
for nighttime use.
Most Rishonim permit wearing tzitzit
at night, even according to the view that exempts one from this obligation at
nighttime. The Rambam
issues this ruling explicitly in Hilkhot Tzitzit 3:8, and this appears in
the writings of other Rishonim, as well. The Shut Ha-Rid (118), however, forbids
wearing tzitzit at night, based on the verse with
which we opened our discussion. Since
the Torah wrote that "you shall see it," which Chazal
interpret as requiring only daytime wearing of tzitzit,
one who wears tzitzit at night violates this positive
commandment of "you shall see it."
As stated, however, this represents a minor view among the Rishonim. (Rav David
Yosef suggests that the Ravya, cited by the Mordekhai in Masekhet Megila 441, also adopts this stringency of the Rid, thus
resolving the difficulty raised by Rav Moshe Feinstein in Iggerot
Moshe Y.D. 1:180:1.)
The Kabbalists,
however, based on the teachings of the Arizal, forbid
wearing a tallit gadol at
nighttime. A halakhic
reason for such a prohibition is offered by the Bach, who writes that wearing a
tallit at night gives the impression that the
obligation of tzitzit applies at nighttime, as
well. This position appears in many
other works, as well, including the Mishna Berura. In any
event, the custom in some communities is for the chazan
to wear a tallit when leading the arvit
service (or Selichot). Many authorities recommend in these
situations to wear a borrowed talit and not recite a berakha. On Yom
Kippur eve, when we wear a talit gadol,
one should put it on before sundown with a berakha.
For practical guidance on all these and related issues, please consult
a competent rav.
(Sources for
this and yesterday's S.A.L.T. were taken from Rav David Yosef's
very thorough work, "Halakha Berura,"
vol. 1.)
David
Silverberg
*****
A story is told of two
men named Gadi and Yigal,
who came before a certain posek in
The posek
ruled that they need not change their names, but without providing a reason.
One contemporary author
suggested a basis for this leniency in light of an interesting discussion in
the Tur and Beit
Yosef. The Tur, in Orach Chayim
580, lists several days on which there is a custom to fast. This list includes the 17th of
Elul, commemorated as the day on which the ten spies perished in a divine
plague as punishment for their inappropriate report about Eretz Yisrael. The Beit Yosef
questioned this practice on the basis of the principle, "When the wicked
are destroyed - there is joy."
Rather than conducting a solemn fast day, we should instead celebrate
the demise of the wicked!
The Beit
Yosef thus concludes that contrary to what we may think upon reading this parasha, the ten spies, in the end, repented. Although God did not accept their teshuva and killed them, they are nevertheless considered
"ba'alei teshuva"
and hence did not die as wicked people, but rather as tzadikim. The custom thus evolved to fast on this day.
Along the same lines,
then, no prohibition exists to bear the same name as one of the scouts, since,
at the very end of their lives, they repented.
We could perhaps learn
two important lessons from the tragic end of the spies. First, we must never lose hope of teshuva for either ourselves or others. Judging by their punishment, the spies' sin -
however we understand it - must have been quite severe. Moshe himself stresses their wicked nature
later, in Parashat Matot
(see 32:14). Yet, even they managed to
repent, to the point where their death is cause for sorrow rather than
celebration. Secondly, we see here that
God does not necessarily grant the requests of even sincere and genuine
petitioners. According to the Beit Yosef, their teshuva earned
them the title of tzadikim, but yet God did not spare
them His wrath. We stand humbly before
the infinite wisdom of the Almighty, knowing that only rarely can we figure out
His ways. Why the righteous suffer and
the wicked prosper remains a question to which we have no answer. Our job is teshuva;
how the Almighty responds depends solely on Him.
David
Silverberg
*****
Much has been written
in an attempt to pinpoint the sin of the scouts' report and the nation's
reaction thereto. The scouts seem to
have done their job: they reported both sides of Eretz Yisrael, its wondrous
agricultural prospects as well as the intimidating challenge of security. We will suggest here one simple approach that
is far from new, and we do so on the basis of the following story, cited from
Rabbi Dr. Abraham Twerski's It's Not As Tough As You Think: How to Smooth Out Life's Bumps
(p.21):
In the villages of the
old country, many people were illiterate, and if they needed to write a letter
they would go to the town scribe. One
woman, whose son had immigrated to the
Dear Son,
I'm sorry that I have not heard from
you for several months. Please write me
and let me know how things are going for you.
With me, things are quite well. We have had a difficult winter, and the cold
wind would come through the crevices in the walls, but thank God, I was able to
seal the crevices with some old garments.
The price of food has gone up very high, but thank God, day-old bread is
much cheaper, and I can afford this. I
still have my house-cleaning job, and thank God that at my age I am still able
to do this kind of work.
I am anxiously waiting to hear from
you.
Love,
Mother.
The woman then asked
the scribe to read what he had written.
The scribe, who was outraged at the son's neglect of his mother, wrote
as follows:
Dear Son,
What in the world is wrong with you
that you have not written to me?
Conditions here are intolerable.
The icy wind blows through the crevices of the walls and I have to try
and stuff them with rags. I can't afford
proper food, and I have to eat day-old bread.
At my old age I still have to get on my hands and knees to scrub floors
in order to survive. This is the kind of
life I am leading here while you seem to be enjoying yourself in
When the scribe
finished reading the letter, the woman grabbed hold of her head with her hands
and said, "Oy vay! I never knew how bad
off I was until now!"
Rabbi Twerski
concludes, "It is not always necessary to change conditions. Sometimes all that is needed is a change in
perspective."
Many situations,
including Benei Yisrael's
anticipated entry into Eretz Yisrael, have two sides to them, one positive and
one negative. Someone comprehensively
describing the general situation - as did the scouts - will include both
aspects with the conjunction "but."
The sequence of presentation generally makes a world of a difference:
the second aspect described leaves the greatest impact upon the audience and
reflects the point of the report's focus.
Herein lies the spies' tragic mistake. They first describe the luscious fruits,
rolling hills, and rich soil. But then
they make the transition: "However, the people who inhabit the country are
powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large… "
(13:28). After the nation breaks
out in panic, Yehoshua and Kalev insist, "The
land… is an exceedingly good land. If
God is pleased with us, He will bring us into that land, a land that flows with
milk and honey."
Yehoshua and Kalev would have told the scribe to write, "Sure, it
will be a bit difficult at first, but God is with us and it will be worth it in
the end." The other ten would have
written, "Sure, it's a great land, but how on earth are we supposed to
capture it from its mighty inhabitants?!!"
As it was then, so is
it now. During times like these it is
all too easy for us to overlook the remarkable achievements of the modern State
of Israel and focus instead on the crises it currently faces. If we learn the message of the scouts, we
will follow the lead of Yehoshua and Kalev. However difficult, discouraging, and painful
the current situation, we cannot forget the incredible miracle of the rebirth
of our nation, its strength, prosperity and remarkable resolve to continue
furthering the dream of Jewish statehood on our ancient soil, come what
may. We have two sides of the coin on
which to focus; let us select wisely.
David
Silverberg
*****
The Torah describes the
spies' return from their forty-day mission in Eretz Yisrael as follows:
"They went and they came to Moshe and Aharon and
all of Benei Yisrael… " (13:26). Rashi explains that
the term "they went" actually refers to their initial departure to
Eretz Yisrael. The verse here seeks to
compare their mindset upon embarking on their mission and their attitude when
their returned. Just as they returned
with the intent of discouraging Benei Yisrael, so had
they planned from the very outset.
Many later commentators
struggle to reconcile Rashi's comments here with an
earlier comment (to 13:3), that the twelve tribal leaders chosen as scouts
started out as righteous tzadikim. Apparently, only upon seeing the dangers of
Eretz Yisrael did their faith and trust in the Almighty begin to wane. How could Rashi
claim that these tzadikim had in mind all along to
lead Benei Yisrael's hearts
astray? Secondly, why would the verse
make a point of transmitting this piece of information? What significance can we find in the precise
point at which the scouts decided to rebel?
One answer might be
that the righteous men had not actually made up their minds about misguiding
the people until their brief sojourn in Eretz Yisrael. Rashi meant that
the idea had already entered their minds as they left. Righteousness does not mean the absence of
any "yezter ha-ra"
(evil inclination) and total freedom from challenges and struggles. Even before observing the formidable armies
of
In a famous exchange
between Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt"l
and a disciple, the latter describes to his esteemed rebbe
his frustrations in pursuing his goals, his inability to withstand the
challenges he faces and grow to the extent that he knows he can. In his response, Rav Hutner
informed his student that the Chafetz Chayim went through the same struggles. Great people do not live without temptation
or spiritual challenge; if they did, we could hardly consider them great
people. The true tzadikim
are the ones who face the same difficulties and experience the same forms of
"yetzer ha-ra,"
only they surmount these obstacles while we often stumble.
According to Rashi, perhaps, this verse comes to teach us this very
lesson. The spies were great men, only
they lost this critical battle against their natural fear of combat in Eretz
Yisrael. From them we perhaps learn that
our shortcomings may not lead us to despair, but rather to increased
strength. Even tzadikim
confront struggles, and occasional setbacks are natural. Rather than triggering discouragement, they
must instead spur us towards further growth and concentration of our efforts to
maintain our ongoing pursuit of perfection.
David
Silverberg
*****
How should one conduct
himself when situated among unscrupulous, corrupt company? Should he withdraw and completely dissociate
himself from the group, or should he try to work with them while remaining
steadfastly committed to his ideals, far as they maybe from his comrades'?
In Parashat
Shelach, Yehoshua and Kalev,
the two heroic scouts who opposed the sinful efforts of the other ten, faced
precisely this challenge. While we
usually think of the two together, some have suggested that their approaches to
handling the situation differed fundamentally from one another, as implied by
the various verses and Midrashim about their
involvement in the debacle of the spies.
Chazal
comment that before sending the mission, Moshe took note of Yehoshua's
"humility," and, foreseeing trouble ahead, prayed that God should
"save" his student from the spies' plot (Rashi,
Targum Yonatan 13:16). He did not, however, formulate such a prayer
for Kalev.
Instead, as the Midrash relates, Kalev himself, upon embarking on the scouting mission,
headed towards the Cave of the Patriarchs in Chevron to beseech the Almighty
for the strength to oppose the scouts (Rashi
13:22). Yehoshua,
Moshe's "humble" student, "did not budge from the tent" (Shemot 33:11).
He was withdrawn and introverted and would therefore not overtly oppose
the scouts. Moshe thus feared that the
others would force their will upon him, and he prayed accordingly. Kalev, by contrast,
the leader of the royal tribe of Yehuda, worked from within. Rather than withdrawing, he actively and
courageously engaged with the others and hoped to exert his influence upon
them. He had no reason to fear their
coercive efforts, but he did pray "that he would not be drawn to his
brothers to join their plot." When
working with the other spies, Kalev needed the
strength of character to adhere to his principles even as the minority.
This distinction also
explains the different reactions of Yehoshua and Kalev
upon hearing the report of the others.
Yehoshua remains silent, realizing that as an outsider he would not be
given an audience. Kalev,
however, was "one of them." He
could ask for the microphone and speak as an insider. He therefore seized the opportunity in an
attempt to defend Eretz Yisrael against the disparaging remarks of his comrades
(13:30). Only thereafter did Yehoshua
join the opposition.
Thus, our initial
question remains, as two different models present themselves in our parasha. Careful
thought, thorough self-knowledge, and consideration of current circumstances
must all play a role in determining which of these two models ought to be
followed in a given situation.
Importantly, both Yehoshua and Kalev required tefilot in anticipation of the difficult challenge
ahead. For when dealing with those
opposed to our values, there is never any guarantee of successfully resisting
their influence. We therefore ask the
Almighty to grant us the strength to adhere to His mitzvot
even in a society often hostile thereto.
David
Silverberg
*****
In response to the
scouts' derisive remarks about Eretz Yisrael, God rhetorically asks Moshe,
"How much longer [shall there be] that wicked community!?"
(14:27). In Masekhet
Megila 23b, Chazal
understand the term "eida" (community) here
as a reference not to all of Benei Yisrael, but to
the ten sinful spies. From here the Gemara derives the general principle that the phrase "eida" refers to a minimum of ten people. Therefore, whenever in halakha
an "eida" is required, such as for any
"davar she-bikedusha,"
prayers discussing God's sanctity (kadish, kedusha and the like), ten people
must be in attendance.
Rabbeinu
Bechayei (Vayikra 22:32),
however, insists that we emend the text of the Gemara. He refuses to accept that the Gemara would learn the laws of "davar
she-bikedusha" from the wicked, sinful
scouts. That God referred to them as an
"eida" cannot possibly affect the term
"eida" as far as the recitation of sacred
prayers is concerned.
Most other Acharonim, however, strongly dispute Rabbeinu
Bechayei's claim, noting that throughout the Gemara we find references to this derivation of the halakha.
But how do we resolve Rabbeinu Bechayei's difficulty?
Many authorities have
written that from here we learn the exact opposite of Rabbeinu
Bechayei's claim.
Chazal here teach us that even sinners are
counted in the quorum required for the recitation of a davar
she-bikedusha.
Indeed, even the presence of ten sinners brings the Shekhina
into Benei Yisrael.
As for the halakhic sources, the Beit Yosef (O.C. 55) cites the Sefer
Ha-manhig's position that a sinner counts as one of
the ten men needed for a minyan, a view quoted as
well by the Hagahot Maimoniyot
(Hilkhot Talmud Torah 6) in the name of the Rokei'ach. This
ruling is codified by the Shulchan Arukh. Some
controversy exists, however, as to the scope of this provision. The Peri Megadim maintains that this refers only to those who sin
"le-tei'avon," to satiate their appetites,
so-to-speak, but not to those who violate the Torah "le-hakhis," with the specific intention of angering the
Almighty. The Kaf
Ha-chayim, however, cites from earlier sources that
even those of the latter group may be counted towards a minyan. Many poskim,
including Rav David Tzvi Hoffman (Melamed
Le-ho'il O.C. 29) and Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe vol. 1, O.C. 23), allow counting public
Shabbat violators towards a minyan.
Food for thought: relate the dispute between the Peri
Megadim and other authorities to the Gemara's derivation of the ten-man minimum from the
spies. Did they sin "le-tei'avon" or "le-hakhis"? Does it matter? We recommend carefully reviewing the
aforementioned Gemara in Megila
as you answer these questions.
Additionally, consider
Rabbeinu Bechayei's
position cited above. Would he rule
"halakha le-ma'aseh"
that violators are not counted towards a minyan? If so, to which type of violators would this
ruling apply? What are the possible,
broader ramifications of his approach?
Thoughts on this (or any) topic are encouraged. Please write to silverb@etzion.org.il.
David
Silverberg
|
|
|
|
||
|
To see this year's S.A.L.T. selections: |
|
www.vbm-torah.org/salt.htm |
||
This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.
Make Jewish learning partof
your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit
Midrash
(c) YeshivHar EtzioAll rights reserved to Yeshivat Har Etzion
Yeshivat Har Et
Alon Shvut,
|
|
|
|
||
|
To see this year's S.A.L.T. selections: |
|
www.vbm-torah.org/salt.htm |
||
This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.
MakeJewish learning partof your week on a
regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit
Midrash
(c) YeshivHar EtzioAll rights reserved to Yeshivat Har Etzion
Yeshivat Har Et
Alon Shvut,