The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

According to one view among the Tannaim, the mitzva of sukka commemorates the "ananei hakavod," the clouds of glory that encircled Benei Yisrael as they traversed the wilderness. The famous question that has occupied the minds of many is, why, then, do we celebrate Sukkot in Tishrei, rather than Nissan? If this mitzva corresponds to the miraculous protection afforded to Benei Yisrael in the wilderness, then it should apply on Pesach, when the clouds of glory first surfaced!

The Vilna Gaon answers that according to this view, our sukkot commemorate not the initial provision of the clouds of glory, but rather the restoration of those clouds. According to one Midrashic interpretation of a verse in Sefer Shemot (32:25), the clouds of glory dissipated after the sin of the golden calf. As we know, God forgave the people for this sin on Yom Kippur. On the following day, Moshe gave the orders regarding the Mishkan (beginning of Parashat Vayakhel), and on the two subsequent days (12^th & 13^th of Tishrei) materials were collected for this project (see Shemot 36:3 - "baboker baboker"). On the next day, the craftsmen took the materials from Moshe, and, finally, the work began on the following day, the 15^th day of Tishrei. As soon as the work got underway, the clouds of glory returned. Thus, the festival of Sukkot commemorates the return of God's special protection that had been absent for three months (since the seventeenth of Tammuz, when the golden calf was fashioned).

This approach of the Gaon may shed an entirely new light on the holiday of Sukkot, particularly its relationship to Yom Kippur. If on Yom Kippur we achieve atonement, then on Sukkot - according to this explanation of the Vilan Gaon - we celebrate the very concept of atonement. On Sukkot we thank the Almighty for this unique ability he has granted us to restore our relationship with Him, to correct our wrongdoing and work our way back towards His favor. It is no wonder, then, that we refer to Sukkot as "Zeman Simchatenu" - the time of our joy. There is no greater reason to rejoice than our ability to perform teshuva, perhaps the greatest expression of God's eternal love for us, which always offers us the possibility of return.

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

Yesterday we discussed the explanation of the Vilan Gaon as to why the mitzva of sukka - which, according to one view, commemorates Benei Yisrael's miraculous protection through the wilderness - applies specifically during the month of Tishrei. The Gaon suggested that this mitzva commemorates the return of the "clouds of glory" which had left as a result of the sin of the golden calf. When the construction of the Mishkan got underway on the fifteenth of Tishrei, these clouds returned. Therefore, we begin observing this mitzva on this date.

At first glance, there appears to be a small flaw in the Gaon's logic. As we noted yesterday, the schedule of events starting from Yom Kippur that year (of the golden calf) was as follows:

Yom Kippur (tenth of Tishrei): atonement for the golden calf finalized, Moshe descends

Mount Sinai with the second tablets.

Eleventh of Tishrei: Moshe assembles the nation and presents the instructions

regarding the Mishkan.

Twelfth & Thirteenth: Materials for the construction of the Mishkan are collected.

Fourteenth: The skilled workers take the materials from Moshe.

Fifteenth (Sukkot): Construction of the Mishkan begins, clouds of glory return.

The question that arises according to this presentation is, why would the clouds return specifically on the fifteenth, when the construction actually got underway? Why did they not return immediately as the people zealously and enthusiastically donated wagon-loads of precious metals for the construction? Were they still unworthy of the restoration of divine protection? And if the Mishkan itself was a necessary prerequisite for the return of the clouds of glory, then they should have been withheld until Nissan, when the Mishkan was actually erected!

You'll pardon this dvar Torah if it reads into the Vilan Gaon's comments too rigorously, but it would seem that this teaches us an important lesson. The process of teshuva is still incomplete until the individual (or nation) gets down to work towards the correction of the flaw. Unquestionably, Benei Yisrael are to be commended for their enthusiastic response to that year's "Yom Kippur appeal." However, their checks weren't enough to bring back God's clouds of glory: they had to roll up their sleeves and get down to work. If the people sinned by fashioning an incorrect representation of the Almighty, then the correction of that sin necessarily involved the rigorous process of building a Mishkan - the correct representation. Only once the people got intensely involved in this project could God restore His miraculous clouds of glory.

A second lesson may emerge, as well. As we noted, the clouds of glory did not wait until the Mishkan was completed. Indeed, the mishna in Avot (taken from the popular song) states, "You are not responsible to finish the work; yet, you are not free to neglect it." The story of the restoration of the clouds of glory as work on the Mishkan began - as told by the Vilna Gaon - accurately captures this notion. Although the work had to begin before the clouds came back, Benei Yisrael received them before the work was finished. Teshuva does not require perfection to be considered meaningful. Once the person commits himself to correcting his wrongdoing, he earns the "clouds of glory" even before he completes the lifelong process of spiritual growth.

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

The Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 651:7) cites a view that one does not fulfill the mitzva of "arba minim" (the four species) if his hand is wrapped in some material. Since he does not directly touch the lulav with his hand, he does not fulfill the obligation of "taking" the lulav. It should be noted that earlier in that same passage the Shulchan Arukh allowed the taking of the lulav with a handle attached to the lulav itself, so long as this handle was of a "respectable" type. Taking the lulav through the means of a proper handle constitutes direct "taking," since we consider the handle as part of the lulav. By contrast, a covering over the hand, such as a glove and the like, is considered by this view as an interruption in between the individual's hand and the lulav, thereby disqualifying this attempted performance of the mitzva. The Mishna Berura notes, however, that the Ran disputes this ruling, and maintains that something wrapped around the hand is to be considered part of the hand, and therefore does not form an interruption in between the hand and the lulav.

Addressing the stringent view (as cited in the Shulchan Arukh), the Rema records a practice to remove one's tefillin (if one wears tefillin on Chol Hamoed) and rings before taking the lulav. The Rema quickly adds, however, that since these items cover only part of the hand, they strictly speaking do not constitute an interruption; the custom he observed was an added stringency. The Mishna Berura, however, notes that other authorities maintain that such measures are actually required - not merely as a measure of added piety. He therefore concludes that one who took the lulav with part of his hand covered should do so again only without the berakha.

This discussion will of course yield very important ramifications for people with bandages or casts, God forbid, on their hand. According to the Rema, if only part of the hand is covered one need not remove the bandage. Indeed, several contemporary authorities allow one to rely on the Rema's lenient ruling. With regard to a cast covering the entire hand, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt"l is cited as ruling that if the doctor ordered for medical reasons that the cast must not be removed at all, then we consider the cast, for all intents and purposes, part of the hand itself. Assuch, one may fulfill the mitzva of lulav with the cast on his hand. (Based on Piskei Teshuvot, 651:11)

For practical guidance, please consult a competent rabbinic authority.

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

As Bilam made his way to Moav for the purpose of placing a curse upon Benei Yisrael, his donkey miraculously begins speaking and objects to his master's repeated beatings: "What have I done to you that you have beaten me three times?" (Bemidbar 22:28). Noting the unusual usage of the word "regalim" in this verse in reference to "times," Rashi explains that the donkey here alluded to Bilam, "You plan on uprooting the nation that celebrates three festivals a year!?" Apparently, Benei Yisrael's observance of the three "regalim" - Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot - reflected some quality that rendered them immune to Bilam's curse. To what specific quality does the donkey refer?

The Kotzker Rebbe answers based on Chazal's comment regarding Bilam's ability to detect the moment of divine wrath against Benei Yisrael. Bilam's confidence in his effort to curse Benei Yisrael evolved from his alleged capacity to calculate when God's anger is kindled against them. The festivals, however, put Benei Yisrael one step ahead of Bilam. Unlike Shabbat, the Yamim Tovim are determined by Benei Yisrael themselves, through the High Court's jurisdiction over the Hebrew calendar. Whereas the Court has the power to determine when each new month begins, they, in effect, determine the date upon which to observe the various festivals. Benei Yisrael's control over time thus supersedes Bilam's, effectively rendering his efforts futile.

We may, perhaps, offer a slightly different approach along the same general lines as that taken by the Kotzker. Bilam's confidence in his detection of the moment of divine wrath reflects a fundamentally flawed outlook on God's relationship with Benei Yisrael, which he perceived as predetermined. He apparently felt that God's attitude towards Benei Yisrael followed a rigid, structured, pre-decided system. In truth, however, Benei Yisrael directly influence their relationship with the Almighty through their observance - or neglect - of the mitzvot. This power is symbolized in the extreme by the High Court's control over the calendar. The Court alone determines when the many mitzvot relevant to the festivals apply. As such, Bilam's calculations are worthless. So long as Benei Yisrael remain steadfastly loyal to the Torah, no curse - no matter when it is administered - can bring them harm.

In this sense, then, the institution of the "moadim" symbolizes the axiom of free will, that God's treatment of us depends primarily on our conduct.

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

Towards the end of Parashat Re'eih (from the reading for Shemini Atzeret), the Torah presents the festival of Sukkot as follows: "You shall make a festival of Sukkot for yourself for seven days, after ingathering from your threshing floor and vat" (Devarim 16:13). What does the Torah mean by the expression, "lekha," "for yourself," and why does this terminology not appear in the context of the other festivals in that same section?

Chazal (Sukkah 27b) derive from this term a specific halakha regarding the mitzva of sukka. The Malbim, however, suggests an interpretation of his own along the lines of "peshat." He explains this verse in light of the Torah's reference to Sukkot two verses later: "You shall make a festival for Hashem your God for seven days, in the place that God will choose; for Hashem your God will bless all your crops and all your undertakings…" The first verse, suggests the Malbim, acknowledges the agricultural festival that farmers would observe during this period even without a divine command. It is natural for one to celebrate upon the successful completion of the harvest. This is the holiday "for yourself" - the festival that would have been observed even without the Torah's initiation. However, God bids the farmer to observe this festival "for Hashem your God… in the place that God will choose." This festival of the harvest must be accompanied by a keen sense that "Hashem your God will bless you…" In other words, this agricultural holiday must take on a religious dimension: the farmer must celebrate not the successful harvest per se, but God's bestowal of a successful harvest.

According to this approach, the holiday of Sukkot reflects a basic characteristic of Judaism: the placing of mundane affairs into a religious context. The Torah expects us to live within the framework of this world, but to endow this involvement with a sacred quality. We eat within the framework of berakhot; we conduct marital lives within the framework of family purity laws; we work for a living within the framework of Torah, allocating time each day for Torah study. Likewise, on Sukkot we celebrate our success and prosperity, only elevating this celebration by turning it into a formal opportunity to praise and thank the Almighty.

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

Parashat Vezot Haberakha records Moshe's final blessings to the various tribes. He opens his blessing to the tribe of Levi with a reference to the "Urim V'tumim," the sheet inside the high priest's breastplate. When the need arose, the high priest would consult with the Urim V'tumim on issues of pressing, national concern. The letters of the sheet would illuminate, at which point the high priest would use his "ru'ach hakodesh" (spiritual intuition) to unscramble the letters to arrive at God's answer to the query.

Several commentaries have pointed out that here Moshe refers to the Urim V'tumim in reverse sequence: "Tumekha V'urekha" - mentioning "tumim" before "urim" (contrast with Shemot 28:30). Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch explains that Moshe thereby transmits a critical lesson to the tribe of Levi relevant to the kohanim's power to read the Urim V'tumim. "Urim," which literally means "lights," refers to spiritual illumination and inspiration, which the kohen required in order to conduct this process. The term "tumim," by contrast, comes from the word, "temimut," which denotes good character and high moral standards which must also accompany the kohen's service. Moshe here reminds the kohanim of the tribe of Levi that the "tumim" must precede the "urim." In the absence of proper character traits and general conduct, any deep, spiritual involvement becomes meaningless. For the kohanim to execute their responsibilities competently, they must first ensure the development of good manners and qualities, and only then pursue loftier, spiritual goals.

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

When we finish the Torah on Simchat Torah, the entire congregation exclaims, "Chazak, chazak, ve-nitchazek" - "Strong, strong - we shall be strengthened!" The Orchot Chayim (Hilkhot Sheni Vachamishi 15, cited in part by the Bet Yosef O.C. end of 139) observes two customs as to whether this declaration should be pronounced upon the conclusion of each of the five Chumashim, or only when the entire Torah is completed. Clearly, common practice today has adopted the first view.

Another controversy surrounds the precise syntax of this exclamation. While our custom is declare, "Chazal, chazak, ve-nitchazek," the Chatam Sofer was accustomed to announcing simply, "Chazak, chazak, chazak." The difference in syntax most likely reflects two different positions as to whom this proclamation refers. The Maharam Mintz (85) suggests that this declaration parallels the blessing of "yasher koach" customarily conferred upon a chazan when he finishes conducting the service. This greeting essentially congratulates the cantor on a job well done and wishes him continued performance of mitzvot. This comparison indicates that the exclamation of "chazak" serves as a congratulatory greeting to the one who just finished reading the Torah. Indeed, the aforementioned passage in the Orchot Chayim states explicitly that the congregation would say "chazak" to the reader. If so, then the Chatam Sofer's version would seem more correct. Our text, which concludes in the first-person plural - "ve-nitchazek," appears inappropriate for a blessing directed towards a single individual. Apparently, our version of the proclamation sees it as the blessing of the entire community, who collectively prays for continued achievement in Torah.

These two perspectives - whether "chazak" is a blessing to the reader or of the congregation as a whole - may impact an interesting and very relevant halakhic question. Namely, should the one receiving the final "aliya" of the sefer exclaim "chazak"? Recall that the one receiving the "aliya" is essentially the reader; what we call the "ba'al korei" merely fills his place. Therefore, if we view "chazak" as a blessing to the reader, then it would seem inappropriate for the individual himself to confer upon himself this blessing. By contrast, if "chazak" is a communal prayer, then the one receiving the "aliya" should join in, as well.

It should be noted, however, that another issue may arise regarding this question, and that is the problem of "hefsek." Some authorities have forbade the recipient of the final "aliya" from participating in the declaration of "chazak" since his participation constitutes an unlawful interruption between the reading of the Torah and the berakha he recites upon the conclusion of reading ("asher natan lanu Torat emet…"). Since the berakha relates directly to the reading, the individual may not speak in between them. An opposing view is cited in the name of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe zt"l. He claimed that "chazak…" constitutes an integral part of the concluding reading, and therefore should not be considered an interruption. As such, the recipient of the "aliya" should also declare "chazak" along with the congregation.

Once again, please seek competent halakhic guidance for a final ruling.

(Taken from Pardes Yosef Hachadash, Vezot Haberakha 95.)

SALT shiurim by David Silverberg

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

Yeshivat Har Et
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il