The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

by Rav David Silverberg

The Rema in O.C. 281 brings down from the Mordechai that prayers on Shabbat should begin later than on weekdays. The Rema cites as a basis for this custom a verse in Parashat Pinchas regarding the Shabbat musaf offering: "On the day of Shabbat, two sheep…" This expression, suggests the Rema, contrasts with the expression "boker" - morning - that appears in the context of the daily "tamid" sacrifice. This change from "morning" to "day," contends the Rema, implies that the service in the Mikdash began later on Shabbat. Correspondingly, our prayers, which take the place of the daily offering, should be delayed on Shabbat morning.

However, as many Acharonim point out, there appears to be a basic flaw in the Rema's citation of this verse as a source. The verse quoted by the Rema applies to the musaf offering. The fact that the musaf was brought later has no impact upon the timing of the "tamid" offering on Shabbat, to which our shacharit service corresponds. Therefore, this verse cannot serve as a source for delaying shacharit on Shabbat mornings. The Bach and the Arukh Hashulchan thus conclude that the Rema cited this verse as merely an allusion; the real basis of the halakha involves the general principle of "oneg Shabbat," the requirement of enjoying oneself on Shabbat, which is fulfilled in part by sleeping late in the morning.

The Maharal of Prague ("Be'er Hagola") also raises this question and sends us to the Maharil, who brings down this halakha only with a slightly different source than the Rema's. Regarding every festival upon which a musaf was offered, the Torah stresses that the musaf, as its name suggests, comes in addition to, not as a substitute for, the daily "tamid" offering. In the context of the Shabbat musaf offering, the Torah writes "… besides the daily burnt-offering." By contrast, the next section, which deals with the musaf on the festival of Pesach, the Torah writes, "besides the burnt-offering OF THE MORNING, which is the daily burnt-offering." The Maharil suggests that this contrast between Shabbat and Pesach is meant to distinguish between the two. On Shabbat, the daily offering is not said to be brought in the morning. Meaning, it is not brought early in the morning. On Pesach, however, the daily "tamid" offering is a "morning offering," and is thus sacrificed bright and early.

Of course, an important halakhic difference exists between the position of the Arukh Hashulchan and that of the Maharil. If we adopt the view that the central reason behind this halakha involves "oneg Shabbat," then presumably it would apply to Yom Tov, as well, and services should thus begin later on the festivals just as on Shabbat. However, according to the Maharil's analysis, this halakha emerges specifically out of the Torah's intentional, textual discrepancy between Shabbat and Yom Tov. Thus, only on Shabbat prayers should be delayed; not on Yom Tov.

An additional difference between these two positions arises in the Magen Avraham on this siman in Orach Chayim. The Magen Avraham cites the Bach's contention that the halakha of delaying services on Shabbat has to do with "oneg Shabbat." He then surmises that since the critical factor is the additional sleeping time on Shabbat, this halakha would not apply in the wintertime. Whereas Shabbat begins early Friday afternoon during the winter months, one can get plenty of sleep that night and still wake up early Shabbat morning. It is only in the summer, when Shabbat begins quite late, that "oneg Shabbat" requires sleeping late on Shabbat morning. Of course, if the source of the halakha is not "oneg" but rather the procedure dictated by the Torah for the offerings in the Mikdash, as the Maharil claims, then the time of year would be of no relevance, and services should be delayed on Shabbat morning in the summer months, too. (These observations were made by Shlomo Spitzer in his footnotes to the Makhon Yerushalayim edition of the Maharil.)

It hopefully goes without saying that none of this implies a license to oversleep the required "zemanim" (deadlines) for shema and tefilah on Shabbat morning. One is obligated to recite shema and shemoneh esreih by the prescribed times on Shabbat morning no less than on any other morning.

As Benei Yisrael prepare for their conquest and division of Eretz Yisrael, the five daughters of Tzlofchad come before Moshe and request their deceased father's portion of the land. Moshe "puts them on hold" while he consulted the Almighty. Many different explanations have been offered as to why Moshe did not issue a ruling immediately. One explanation suggests that Moshe voluntarily declined, afraid that his emotional instincts may cloud his judgment and legal reasoning. Five embittered, orphaned, young women came before him to plead their case. Moshe was naturally moved by their claim, and he felt morally inclined to rule in their favor. Afraid of the possible loss of judicial objectivity, Moshe withdrew, refusing to issue a ruling until he heard a direct pronouncement from God.

The message of this explanation applies to all of us, not only those who sit on the judges' tribunal or the jury's bench. After all, everyone acts as judge throughout his life. One must make decisions of all kinds, be it what color suit to buy, for whom to vote in the forthcoming election, whom to marry, what career to pursue, or what breakfast cereal to eat in the morning. Certainly when it comes to the more critical decisions, one must ensure not to let natural, even healthy emotion cloud his clear sense of judgment. Particularly regarding issues of public concern, the media can very often sway public opinion through sensationalism and graphic descriptions and illustrations that arouse natural emotion. Proponents of any given political stance seek to win subscribers by portraying the opposition in extreme, often vulgar terms. It is sometimes difficult to maintain a balanced perspective and reasonably consider all sides of a given issue. Moshe, knowing himself, refused to fall into that trap. The moment he sensed the possible onset of bias, he withdrew. We can only pray for the same level of integrity as Moshe Rabbenu.

Parashat Pinchas includes the census of Benei Yisrael conducted prior to their entry to Eretz Yisrael. Among the sons of Yissakhar listed in our parasha is Yashuv, a name that does not appear in the list in Parashat Vayigash of Yaakov's children and grandchildren that went down to Egypt. Rashi identifies Yashuv as Yov, who is mentioned in Vayigash as a son of Yissakhar. Several sources (see Torah Sheleima in our parasha) cite a Midrash that when Benei Yisrael first arrived in Egypt, they discovered an Egyptian idol named Yov. Yissakhar felt it inappropriate that his son's name resembled that of an idol, and therefore decided to give one of the letter "sin"'s in his name to Yov. Thus, the second, silent letter "sin" was dropped from Yissakhar's name, and Yov became "Yashuv." (The letters "shin" and "sin" are often interchangeable.)

This Midrash has practical ramifications regarding the proper pronunciation of the name "Yissakhar." This Midrash implies that Yissakhar's name was originally "Yissaskhar" (with both "sin"'s pronounced); only thereafter was the second "sin" dropped, donated, as it were, to Yov. Yissakhar's name then became "Yissakhar," without the second letter "sin." From here arose the practice in Volozhin to pronounce the name, "Yissaskhar" when reading it in the Torah up until - and not including - Parashat Pinchas. From Pinchas on, they read the name as it is usually pronounced, "Yissakhar." It is recorded that Rav Soloveitchik instituted in his minyan that until Parashat Pinchas the name would be read twice, "Yissaskhar" and "Yissakhar," to satisfy both customs. (Nefesh HaRav, p.308.)

Parashat Pinchas tells of the appointment of Yehoshua as Mosh's successor. The Midrash comments that Yehoshua earned this privilege through his devoted service to Moshe's Bet Midrash. Specifically, the Midrash says, Yehoshua took upon himself the responsibility of setting the mats and benches in the study hall every day. Why did specifically this service earn him the distinction of succeeding Moshe?

Rav Moshe Sternbuch suggests that Yehoshua's commitment to the physical necessities of the Bet Midrash demonstrates his devotion to all students of Torah, not just the elite. He concerned himself not only with the honor of Moshe and his best students, but with the needs and respect of everyone who walked through the doors. This commitment revealed Yehoshua's devout sense of kevod haTorah. He honored the Torah itself, not just its esteemed scholars, and therefore ensured that a respectful environment be maintained for all students. It is therefore he who was granted the opportunity of transmitting the Torah to the people after Moshe's death.

Along the same lines, we may suggest that Yehoshua's indiscriminate respect for all students reflected the honor he afforded to each individual, regardless of social or academic rank. He saw to it that every student would feel comfortable in Moshe's study hall, without singling out certain individuals from among others. This attribute may have earned him his leadership role. For a leader must hold himself responsible to each and every one of his constituents, not only the upper social echelons. It was Yehoshua who could ensure that Benei Yisrael would not be "like sheep without a shepherd." Like his predecessor, he cared for each one of his sheep, without exception.

The Midrash, cited by Rashi in his comments to the beginning of Parashat Pinchas, tells of Benei Yisrael's criticism of Pinchas' zealous murder of Zimri and Kozbi. They accused him of following the example set by his mother's side of the family, the family of Yitro, who at one point was an idolater. The Almighty therefore referred to Pinchas as "the son of Elazar, the son of Aharon the kohen," demonstrating to one and all that in fact Pinchas adhered to the example established by his esteemed paternal grandfather, Aharon Hakohen. How are we to understand this discussion surrounding Pinchas' lineage?

As we know, Aharon is admiringly remembered for all times as the paradigmatic "ohev shalom ve-rodef shalom" - a lover of peace and pursuer of peace. The Midrashim tell of his concerted efforts on behalf of social harmony and devotion to the maintenance of internal peace among Am Yisrael. Understandably, then, Pinchas' opposition saw him as the ideological heir of his maternal grandfather, rather than that of Aharon. Aharon stood for the precisely opposite ideal, inspiration through kind words and warmth. Although Pinchas was biologically descendant from Aharon, charged Benei Yisrael, his spiritual heritage was that of his idolatrous ancestors from his mother's side.

God therefore intercedes, insisting that Pinchas was, in every sense, the grandson of Aharon Hakohen, the lover and pursuer of peace. His zealousness notwithstanding, Pinchas fully embodied the ideals and teachings of Aharon. Even a lover and pursuer of peace must, at times, take a strong stance. True, Pinchas' killing of Zimri and Kozbi was an extreme act of zeal towards which there is much ambivalence. However, firm opposition to what deserves condemnation does not undermine one's fervent devotion to peace. Just as we are bidden to follow Aharon's example of pursuing social harmony, so must we, at times, fight courageously for what's right, even should this come at the expense of some degree of harmony. As much as we yearn for peaceful resolutions to problems, not always is this possible. God reaffirmed Pinchas' love towards his people, a feeling that he had to overcome for the sake of truth and justice. Likewise, our genuine yearning for unity and peace must not result in blind, a priori acceptance of any and every mode of behavior. Everyone, like Pinchas years ago, is at times called upon to take a stand. When this happens, one must proceed cautiously and responsibly, maintaining the delicate balance between the unbridled pursuit of peace and the unwavering devotion to truth.

Parashat Pinchas includes the laws regarding the division of Eretz Yisrael among the nation. As the verses tell us, this division was determined through the "goral," a special lottery conducted by the national leaders. An interesting story involving lotteries and the halakhic issues arising therefrom occurred during the time of Rav Chayim of Brisk. A group of people conducted a lottery over a given sum of money, whereby they each wrote their name on a piece of paper and placed it into a box. One unscrupulous participant entered two pieces of paper to increase his chances of winning. In the end, his plan failed; someone else won the lottery. Afterwards, however, somebody checked the box of papers and discovered that one of participants had submitted two entries. The other participants argued that the lottery should be declared invalid in light of the tampering they had discovered. They brought the issue to several scholars who upheld the validity of the lottery. Since the trickster did not win, they contended his fraud was of no consequence and thus cannot affect the legitimacy of the lottery.

The issue ultimately came before Rav Chayim, who ruled in accordance with the participants who sought to disqualify the drawing. He based his decision on the halakha that if a lottery is conducted and it was discovered that a name was missing, the lottery is disqualified. Rav Chaim reasoned that since were the swindler to have won, the lottery would have been invalidated, he is considered as not having participated in the drawing. As such, the lottery was not valid.

This ruling also appears in Pitchei Teshuva, C.M. 175:1.

(Taken from Pardes Yossef, Parashat Pinchas 95)

Parashat Pinchas includes Moshe's official appointment of his student, Yehoshua, as his successor. In a formal, public ceremony prescribed by God Himself, Moshe lays his hands upon Yehoshua's head, thereby effecting the transfer of leadership. What does the hand-laying signify?

Rav Moshe Feinstein suggests that Moshe's laying of his hands on Yehoshua's head symbolizes subservience. Even after his mentor's passing, Yehoshua was to see himself as a loyal student, bound to the teachings of Moshe Rabbenu. As he becomes an independent leader, he must remember his eternal obligation to Moshe and the Torah he taught.

Rav Moshe adds that herein lies the meaning of the "semikha" that continued for generations after Moshe, to the times of the tanna'im. The one administering the "semikha," who was himself ordained by his mentor, submits his student to the tradition of Sinai that dates back to Moshe. Although every leader must translate the Torah into terms appropriate for his generation, he must ultimately accept the yoke of his mentor, who had previously submitted himself to the teachings of his predecessor, and so on. Thus, the hand-resting effectively ensured the maintenance of an unaltered tradition from Moshe onward.

In our very impatient world, Jewish leaders often earn popularity specifically through innovation. People today are not impressed by continuity; they prefer creativity. We must realize, however, that the most vital role of Jewish leadership is the accurate transmission of the Torah to the next generation. Although the means of communication must often be tailored to meet the needs of a given period, the content must always remain the same. This is the true function of "semikha."

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, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il