 |
|
|
Surf A Little Torah PARASHAT VAETCHANAN by Rav David Silverberg
In Friday's S.A.L.T., we addressed the custom of breaking a glass under the "chupa" in order to subdue our joy in solemn recognition of our loss of the Bet Hamikdash. It has become commonplace in Jewish weddings for the guests to jubilantly exclaim, "Mazel Tov!" precisely after the groom breaks the glass (or after the parents break the dish at the "tena'im"). At first glance, nothing seems more ironic. Why do we choose specifically the moment designated for sorrowful reflection upon our bitter exile to burst out in joyous blessings to the newlywed couple? A possible basis for this practice has been suggested in light of a somewhat subtle implication of the Arukh Hashuchan (Eeven Ha'ezer 50:24, 26). As part of his discussion of the "tena'im" signed by the parents at the betrothal, the Arukh Hashulchan takes up the issue of when exactly the mutual agreement between the families takes effect. Namely, at which point must a family pay the stated fine should it break the engagement? The Arukh Hashulchan posits that the "tena'im" take effect after the reading of the document and the customary breaking of the dish thereafter. It seems, then, that he viewed the breaking of the dish as the formal conclusion of the ceremony. Quite reasonably, then, this would be an appropriate time to festively wish "mazel tov" to the families. If so, then we could perhaps extend this principle to the glass-breaking under the canopy, as well. The groom's stomp on the glass signifies the conclusion of the "chupa" ceremony; in commemoration, the band strikes up its chords and the guests shout, "Mazel Tov!" (This would not justify the exclamation of mazel tov in most weddings in Yerushalayim, where the groom breaks the glass before the "sheva berakhot" under the "chupa.") As it turns out, then, the mazel tov wish immediately upon the breaking of the glass actually magnifies - rather than undermines - the significance of this symbolic feature of the wedding ceremony. The breaking of the glass is not merely an additional practice appended onto the wedding ritual. Rather, it is part-and-parcel of the "chupa"; the ceremony does not end before the groom shatters the glass. This reflects the essential lessening of our joy. We consider the wedding inherently incomplete without a concrete expression of grief over the destruction. By exclaiming "Mazel Tov" when the groom breaks the glass, we celebrate the conclusion of the ceremony, thereby - however indirectly - expressing our recognition of the glass-breaking as an essential component of the ritual, the reduction of joy as a sadly integral element of even our most joyous occasions.
In the "nachem" prayer added to the shemoneh esrei in mincha on Tisha B'Av, we make reference not only to the destruction of the Bet Hamikdash, but also to the ultimate construction of the third Temple: "For you, God, set it on fire, and with fire You will, in the future, build it." This seemingly implies that God alone will build the third Bet Hamikdash; we will take no part in its construction. Similarly, Rashi in Masekhet Rosh Hashanah 30a and Sukka 41a cites from the Midrash that the third and final Bet Hamikdash will descend as fire from the heavens. Some Acharonim, however, interpret this prediction in a manner that affords theJewish people a direct role in the rebuilding of the Mikdash. In truth, Benei Yisrael themselves will build the Bet Hamikdash, just as we built the Mishkan and first two Temples. The Midrashic image of God's fashioning a fiery Temple and lowering it from the heavens on top of the Temple Mount merely symbolizes the second, final stage of the process. The building of fire signifies the presence of the Shekhina in the Midkash that will follow the actual construction. Just as God's "residing" in the Mishkan was indicated by a heavenly fire (in Parashat Shemini), so will a "Temple of fire" mark the Almighty's bestowal of His Shekhina, as it were, upon the Bet Hamikdash. If this is correct, then it behooves us to take a closer look at the "nachem" prayer and understand it in this light. "For you, God, set it on fire, and with fire You will, in the future, build it." According to the approach cited above, the second clause of this sentence, referring to the third Temple, speaks specifically about the introduction of the Shekhina into the Bet Hamikdash, not the actual construction. It would stand to reason, then, that the first clause would correspond accordingly. The fire that burnt the Bet Hamikdash stands in direct contradistinction to the fire that will ultimately build the Bet Hamikdash; it marked the departure of the Shekhina from the Bet Hamikdash. Indeed, on Tisha B'av we mourn more than the mere loss of the sacred Mikdash. We lament the loss of God's presence, His close relationship with us which was most clearly manifest in the Bet Hamikdash. The opening verse of Eikha likens Yerushalayim to a widow. The destruction left us alone and isolated, separated from our beloved and doomed to find our way without His guiding hand. We hope and pray that the fires of destruction soon turn into the fires of hope and revival, signifying the Almighty's return to the sacred city of Yerushalayim.
Parashat Vaetchanan includes the first of the three parshiyot of shema we recite twice daily. In the second verse of shema, Moshe bids, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might." Rashi interprets "with all your soul" as indicating that one must maintain his unbridled love towards the Almighty even at the expense of his life: "Even if He takes your life." One may not worship any other alleged deity, even if his life is at stake. The Chiddushei HaRim suggests that a similar interpretation may be offered regarding the first clause in the verse: "with all your heart." In this context, argues the Chiddushei HaRim, Rashi's interpretation would read as follows: "even if He takes your heart." Meaning, one's devotion to God must withstand the spiritual challenges and obstacles that confront every one of us regularly. Even when it seems as though God has taken from us our heart - when we lack the desire and motivation to apply ourselves to Torah and mitzvot accordingly, we are still bidden to love the Almighty. He is fully aware of the challenges facing us, of the difficulties that exist in maintaining a Torah lifestyle. He expects us to do our best, to demonstrate our devotion and commitment even through the rough times, even at moments when it seems as though He has left us, taking our hearts with Him. Extending the Chiddushei HaRim's approach one step further, we may proceed to the final clause in the verse, "with all your might." Chazal interpret this phrase in reference to money in particular. Thus, the verse demands our allegiance to God even during times of financial hardship. Whereas "with all your heart" requires devotion even in the face of spiritually trying circumstances, and "with all your soul" calls upon us to give our lives for His service, "with all your might" demands our unquestioning loyalty to God even when it appears that He has "turned against us," as it were. No matter what the circumstances, the strictures of the Torah bind us at every moment. This is the critical lesson that we must repeat - with all our heart and soul - at least twice every day.
Moshe admonishes in Parashat Vaetchanan, "Do not test the Lord your God…" The Semag understands this verse as prohibiting against performing a mitzvah with the specific intent of testing God, to see if He will reward him for the act. Since we do not have access to the Almighty's infinitely complex calculations and considerations in governing His world, we have no right to demand compensation for our deeds. (The Rambam - Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 10 - understands this verse as prohibiting skepticism with regardto the prophecies of an established prophet.) The Gemara in Masekhet Ta'anit 9a mentions one exception to this general prohibition. The verse in Malakhi 3:10 states, "Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, and let there be food in My house, and thus put Me to the test… I will surely open the floodgates of the sky for you and pour down blessings on you…" From here the Gemara derives that God Himself allows one to "test" Him with regard to the mitzvah of tithes. That is, one may give the required tithes with the specific intention of seeing whether or not the Almighty will reward him on account thereof. The Rema, in Y.D. 247:4, cites a dispute among the poskim whether or not we may extend this allowance to the general mitzvah of charity. As we know, many authorities maintain that one is obligated to donate one-tenth of his income to charity. According to the Tur, one may test the Almighty through the performance of this act of charity just as he may through the other tithes. Others, however, restrict the Gemara's provision to agricultural tithes, not monetary tithes. Another interesting qualification of this halakha appears in the Pitchei Teshuva (citing the "Mishnat Chakhamim"). The aforementioned Gemara began its discussion with a well-known extrapolation of the verse, "aser t'aser," the source of the mitzvah of tithes. The Gemara interprets this verse as meaning, "aser bishvil shetitasher" - tithe in order that you become wealthy, implying that one may have this specific intent while donating his tithes. The Mishnat Chakhamim claims that the permission granted to test God through tithing is limited to this specific form of testing, that he may test God to see if he will become wealthier as a result of his tithes. One may not, however, do so for the sake of some other good fortune. Since the verse sanctioned only "tithing for the sake of becoming wealthy," one may not give charity with the expectation of some other reward, besides financial success. It would seem, however, that this allowance granted in the context of tithing and perhaps charity does not represent the ideal model of mitzvah observance. Pirkei Avot bids us, "… v'kho ma'asekha yihyu leshem Shamayim" - everything we do should be for the sake of Heaven. Ultimately, we should strive to perform all the mitzvot for one reason and one reason only: to fulfill the will of our Creator.
Parashat Vaetchanan includes the first parasha of keri'at shema. The Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 64:4) addresses a situation where while one is reciting keri'at shema he reaches the verse, "Uchtavtam al mezuzot beitekha…," which appears in both the first and second parshiyot of shema, and realizes that he does not know whether he is in the first or second parasha. In other words, he is in doubt whether or not he is saying this verse for the first time, as he had not yet completed the first parasha, or if his recitation of this verse is already the second instance, in the second parasha. The Shulchan Arukh rules that one should be stringent, and proceed as if he is reciting this verse for the first time, at the end of the first parasha. The Shulchan Arukh then adds, however, that if one finds himself already past the second instance of this verse, i.e. he has already proceeded to the verse, "L'ma'an yirbu yemeikhem...," then he may assume that he followed his habitual pattern of correct recitation and indeed had recited both parshiyot. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, O.C. vol. 5, 4), however, notes an apparent difficulty with this ruling. Why should we assume that the individual had indeed recited both of the first two parshiyot just because he now find himself reciting the verse "L'ma'an yirbu…"? Given that the verse "Uchtavtam" appears in identical form in both parshiyot, why would one's habitual pattern of recitation lead him to recite "L'ma'an yirbu" specifically after the second instance of "Uchtavtam"?! If one is not concentrating properly, he is just as likely to recite "L'ma'an yirbu" after the first instance of "Uchtavtam" as the second instance! Apparently, Rav Moshe speculates, the timing of recitation is as significant a habit as the sequence of recitation. Halakha assumes that one habituates his tongue not only with respect to which words follow which, but also to a given period of time. Apparently, one becomes accustomed to reciting "L'ma'an yirbu" not only after the words "mezuzot beitekha uvisharekha," but also after a certain amount of time after beginning the recitation of shema. Therefore, even while not paying attention, one would naturally recite "L'ma'an yirbu" only after the second instance of "Ukhtavtam," not earlier. (Rav Moshe notes a precedent to this phenomenon in the laws of "melikha" - see Taz, Y.D. 69:24, who himself draws a comparison between the halakha there and our case.)
Twice each day we recite shema, the first paragraph of which appears in this week's parasha. Among the mitzvot mentioned in this parasha is that of tefillin. Unlike other mitzvot, which we train youngsters to perform even prior to the age of bar/bat mitzvah, tefillin is reserved for those who have already reached bar mitzvah. The reason is that tefillin requires a standard of bodily cleanliness and responsibility that develops only with maturity. Therefore, we do not allow a youngster to wear tefillin until he becomes formally obligated. As we know, however, many people have the practice of introducing their sons to the mitzvah if tefillin some time before their bar mitzvah. The Magen Avraham (O.C. 37:4), for example, notes the custom of donning tefillin two or three months prior to one's bar mitzvah. Many people today, particularly among Ashkenazic communities, are accustomed to have their sons wear tefillin one month before the bar mitzvah. Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (Tzitz Eliezer vol. 13, 10) offers two reasons for this custom. The more straightforward explanation has to do with the establishment of a routine. In an effort to ensure that the young man wears tefillin properly and correctly when he becomes a bar mitzvah, we give him a one-month training period. Rav Waldenburg then proceeds to suggests a second, more novel approach. A serious halakhic problem arises when a child is born in Adar of a non-leap year and becomes bar/bat mitzvah in a leap year (which contains two Adars). When does the youngster become a bar/bat mitzvah - on Adar 1 or Adar 2? Although common practice is to observe the bar/bat mitzvah on the second Adar, in accordance with the majority view in the poskim, considerable discussion and debate exists in halakhic literature (see Shut Bet Shelomo, Even Ha'ezer 56). Therefore, given the severity of the sin of refraining from wearing tefillin, a young man in such a situation should begin wearing tefillin on the date of his birthday in the first Adar, so as to satisfy the minority view that he becomes obligated already in Adar 1. Rav Waldenburg speculates that from here developed the custom of having every bar mitzvah boy begin wearing tefillin a full month prior to his bar mitzvah. Communities wished to standardize the extra month of tefillin-wearing so as to ensure that those becoming bar mitzvah in Adar of a leap year would begin donning tefillin from their birthday in Adar I, in order to conduct themselves according to all opinions.
The Gemara in Ta'anit 29a cites a curious comment by Rabbi Yochanan concerning the date of Tisha B'Av. Rabbi Yochanan remarked that given the fact that the Bet Hamikdash was set afire late afternoon on the ninth of Av and continued burning through the tenth of Av, he would have selected the tenth, rather than the ninth, of Av for the commemoration of the destruction. After all, the burning of the Temple only began on the ninth; the bulk of the destruction occurred on the tenth. The Gemara then explains that the Sages selected the ninth because "the beginning of the calamity is more significant." An intriguing question regarding Rabbi Yochanan's comment is cited in the name of the Kotzker Rebbe. Rabbi Yochanan himself (Bava Kama 22b) maintains that when one lights a fire which later proceedto burn something or things, he is considered as having personally set fire to all that has been consumed, even that which was burnt some time after the initial kindling. The Gemara refers to this view as "isho mishum chitzav" - "his fire is because of his arrows." Meaning, when the Torah required one to pay for damages incurred as a result of a fire he lit, it is because we consider his fire as an extension of his initial kindling. Thus, should the fire carry for a mile or two yonder and consume someone's table, we consider the lighter as having himself set the table ablaze - no matter how distant in time or space the initial lighting was from the table - just as one is liable for arrows he fires no matter how much later the damage occurs. Now the Nemukei Yossef asks, if this true, then how do we light candles just before Shabbat in order that they continue lighting into Shabbat? According to Rabbi Yochanan, we should all be considered as having lit the candles on Shabbat itself! The Nemukei Yossef answers that according to Rabbi Yochanan, one who lights a fire is considered responsible for anything the fire does already from the moment of the lighting. (Just as when one shoots an arrow, from that very moment he bears responsibility for any consequent damage.) Therefore, we are not considered as having lit the Shabbat candles on Shabbat itself; everything is considered as having been done prior to the onset of Shabbat. If indeed this is Rabbi Yochanan's position, asks the Kotzker, then the ninth of Av is indeed the most appropriate date for the commemoration of the destruction of the Temple! According to Rabbi Yochanan, from the moment Titus and his army set the Temple on fire, they were considered as having directly caused all the ensuing damage. As such, specifically Rabbi Yochanan himself should have wholeheartedly agreed to the establishment of the ninth of Av as the day of mourning for the Mikdash! Why would he have preferred the tenth? Perhaps the answer lies in a somewhat subtle distinction between the responsibility of the culprit and the actual event. Halakha clearly does not consider the consumption of the given item as having occurred any earlier than it did in reality. If the Mikdash burned on the tenth, then no one will convince us otherwise. "Isho mishum chitzav" relates only to the association of the result with the instigator. That is, we consider the individual as responsible for whatever occurs as a result of his lighting already from the moment he struck the match. Since fire generally burns and proceeds rapidly and wildly, the individual is held responsible from the moment he let the fire go. This is not to say, however, that we consider the results as having actually occurred from the moment the fire was lit. Therefore, although we may hold Titus responsible for the entire destruction of Yerushalayim from the moment he lit the fire, we do not consider the Mikdash as having been destroyed until the tenth of Av. This is why even Rabbi Yochanan would have established the tenth of Av as the day of national mourning. (See Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Yair, Chamudei Tzvi, vol. 5 - "Tisha B'Av.")
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 (c) YeshivHar EtzioAll rights reserved to Yeshivat Har Etzion Yeshivat Har Et | ||||||||||