The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash
Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion
PARASHAT
VAETCHANAN / TISHA B'AV
BY DAVID SILVERBERG
Among
the halakhot that apply on Tisha B'Av is the prohibition against Torah study,
as this brings a person joy (Ta'anit 30a).
One may, however, read the less joyous areas of Torah, such as the
halakhot of mourning, Iyov, Eichah, and the prophecies of catastrophe in Sefer
Yirmiyahu.
The question arises, is one obligated to study the
permissible material on Tisha B'Av?
Meaning, does the prohibition against Torah study on Tisha B'Av
effectively suspend the obligation of Torah study for that day, only that one
may, if he so desires, study these areas?
Alternatively, does the mitzva requiring Torah learning remain in
effect, only becoming limited to a very restricted corpus of literature? The Kaf Ha-chayim cites an earlier source as
presenting a clear, succinct answer: "If one wishes not to learn at all,
he may, and we do not say that once it is permitted [to learn certain areas] he
may not refrain from the words of Torah."
This ruling does not, however, sanction idleness or general activity on
Tisha B'Av. The Bei'ur Halakha (553)
cites the following from the Ma'amar Mordekhai: "If I were not afraid from
my colleagues I would say that even on Tisha B'Av itself we should be lenient
[and permit regular Torah study], since, in our abundance of sins, the
generations have deteriorated and on Tisha B'Av itself people stroll in the
marketplace and engage in idle talk.
Even those proficient in study and a few among those who learn are
lenient in this regard. It is obvious
that under such circumstances it is preferable for them to learn."
Another issue that arises in the context of this halakha
relates to the depth of study permitted even within the areas excluded from the
prohibition. That is, may one indulge in
intensive inquiry in the laws of mourning ("pilpul" or
"lomdus") or "dig one's teeth" into the sections of Tanakh
permitted by halakha? The Taz and Magen
Avraham, cited as authoritative by the Mishna Berura, forbid intensive study
and allow only superficial review of the material. The Arukh Ha-shulchan, however, rules more
leniently. He notes that it is
impossible for a learned scholar not to engage in questioning and answering as
he studies, and this cannot be forbidden.
Rather, explains the Arukh Ha-shulchan, all Torah study brings one a
certain degree of joy and fulfillment.
Halakha allows the study of certain, saddening areas of Torah because
the distressing nature of the content will neutralize the joy inherent in the
study. This "balancing" occurs
regardless of the level of intensity, and thus even in-depth learning is
permitted. However, in his treatment of
the laws of mourning, the Arukh Ha-shulchan mentions that one should not
intentionally plan on sitting down for an intensive discourse on material taken
from the permissible areas.
A particularly jarring comment relevant to this topic is
cited (by Rav Shlomo Yosef Zevin, in his
(Sources taken from Torah
La-da'at: "Uve-yom Simchatekhem Uve-mo'adeikhem," pp:231-5)
*****
On Tisha B'Av day, many things change after
"chatzot" (midday). It is at
this point where halakha permits us to rise from the floor and sit on comfortable
chairs and benches. Whereas men recite
shacharit and kinot without tefillin, they wear tefillin for the recitation of
mincha. The decor of the synagogues also
improves considerably at this point. The
"parokhet" (ark-covering) is returned to the aron kodesh, as are the
customary coverings of the lectern and "bima" to their appropriate
places. The lights, which we dim with
the onset of Tisha B'Av, are turned back on.
A dramatic change occurs in our liturgy, as well. At shacharit, we read the Torah's prediction
of exile in Parashat Vaetchanan, and for the haftara, we read - usually in the
doleful, "Eikha" melody - Yirmiyahu's painful, prophetic depiction of
the destruction. At mincha, we return to
the standard service conducted on all "ta'aniyot tzibur" (public
fasts). We read the comforting account
of God's having forgiven Benei Yisrael for the golden calf and the famous
"thirteen attributes of mercy," by which we have the opportunity to
earn atonement and favor despite our sinful past. The haftara, too, speaks of the encouraging
prospect of teshuva and God's insistence that anyone from any background has
the ability to change and win the Almighty's grace. Additionally, though many different customs
exist in this regard, most communities insert the special "nachem"
paragraph only at mincha, expressing our longing and desire for God's comfort.
All these differences between the two halves of Tisha
B'Av reflect a fundamental change of focus at midday. The first half of Tisha B'Av is about
mourning; the operative word is "eikha" - "how could this
happen?!" We sit on the floor in
hopelessness and despair, capable of nothing else than
thinking of what we had that has now been lost.
There is no comfort or any reason for optimism. But while desperation emerges as the dominant
theme of the evening and morning of Tisha B'Av, teshuva takes over as the
primary goal of the afternoon. Tisha
B'Av suddenly becomes akin to any other fast day. (Strictly speaking, all public fast days
should have the same restrictions as Tisha B'Av and Yom Kippur; the communities
only accepted the abstention from food and drink given the difficulty
involved.) We focus not on hopelessness,
but on the prospect of return, restoration and rebuilding. Now we can rise from the floor and ask God to
comfort us, promising to do our share - sincere introspection and repentance.
The
Mishna Berura explains (citing from earlier sources) that, ironically enough,
we mitigate the mourning practices in the afternoon specifically because the
David
Silverberg
*****
This
Shabbat we read the famous haftara after which the Shabbat is named,
"Nachamu." The prophet
Yeshayahu calls for the consolation of Am Yisrael, that the nation be told
"that her term of service is over, that her iniquity is expiated; for she
has received at the hand of God double for all her sins" (Yeshayahu 40:2). The prophet here comforts the downtrodden
nation with the knowledge that the suffering they endured amounts to twice the
punishments warranted by their misdeeds.
The obvious question arises, why did they receive a punishment so
severely disproportionate to their wrongdoing?
How could the Almighty have brought upon them more suffering than they
deserved?
As
we find elsewhere in Tanakh, punishment for wrongdoing can become more severe
as a result of the specific circumstances surrounding the sin. For example, it may be argued that a thief
harms his victim only slightly more - if at all - than the value of the stolen
property itself. Yet, the Torah fines a
thief - in some instances - with a required payment of twice the item's value,
a fine that does not apply to cases of intentional property damage, for
example. Given the particular gall of
theft, the Torah saw fit to punish the criminal far more than the crime
itself. Similarly, after the incident
involving David and Batsheva, the prophet admonishes the king by drawing an
analogy between his misdeed and a wealthy man who steals the lone sheep of his
poor neighbor. David immediately issues
a death sentence against such a thief.
Once again, the unique circumstances intensify the severity of punishment. Indeed, in the "tokhecha" section
in Parashat Bechukotai, where we read of the disasters that could befall Benei
Yisrael should they disobey the Torah, God repeats several times over that He
will punish the people "sevenfold" for their sins. If the nation does not repent after the
initial punishments, then their continued disobedience will bring upon even
harsher decrees. Here, too, Benei
Yisrael face disproportionately severe punishment due
to a particular situation, their failure to answer God's call to teshuva.
In
a broader sense, Benei Yisrael always run the risk of harsh punishment at the
hands of the Almighty as a result of their unique relationship with Him, a bond
characterized by the eternal covenant between the two parties. Any misdeed committed by Benei Yisrael
involves not only the crime itself, but a breach of this sacred bond, a
violation of the special agreement between God and His people. Given the abundance of kindness God has
bestowed upon Am Yisrael, their misconduct warrants especially harsh
punishment.
Therefore,
with the destruction of the Beit He-mikdash, Benei Yisrael were indeed punished
"double," and the prophet thus calls for a doubly reinforced process
of comfort and consolation: "Comfort, comfort My nation… "
(Based on Rav Amnon Bazak's
column in Shabbat Be-Shabbato, Shabbat Nachamu 5760)
David Silverberg
*****
Parashat
Vaetchanan features the first of the three paragraphs of shema recited twice
daily. The third verse of this parasha
(6:7) instructs, "Ve-shinantam le-vanekha," which is generally
translated as, "You shall teach them to your children." In his Hilkhot Talmud Torah, the Rambam,
based on the Gemara, cites this verse as the source of an important halakha. After introducing the obligation upon every
father to teach his son Torah, the Rambam adds, "And not only one's son
and grandson, but there is a mitzva upon every scholar among Yisrael to teach
students even though they are not his children, as it says, 'Ve-shinantam
le-vanekha.' Tradition teaches that 'banekha'
['your sons'] refers to students."
Interestingly,
however, the Gemara understands this verse as introducing another obligation,
as well, that of acquiring proficiency in Torah scholarship:
"'Ve-shinantem' - that words of Torah shall be sharp in your mouth, that
if someone asks you something you do not stammer and answer, but rather tell
him immediately." As Rashi there
explains, the Gemara derives from this verse the obligation to constantly study
and review in order to achieve mastery over the Torah. What relationship is there between the two
halakhot derived from this verse, that of teaching students and the acquisition
of proficiency?
The
second obligation, to become an expert in Torah, does not rest upon the
shoulders of all Jews. After all, not
everyone has the ability to become a Torah sage. It rather applies to the scholars, those
blessed with the talents necessary to achieve proficiency in Torah
knowledge. Therefore, the mitzva as it
regards teaching cannot possibly refer to one's children; after all, not every
parent and not every child possesses the tools required for this level of
expertise. Therefore, the Rambam
understood, this obligation to teach is separate from the general halakha
requiring every father to provide his child with a Torah education. It rather calls upon erudite and talented
scholars to perpetuate the rich tradition of intensive, advanced Torah study by
training gifted students to study at an advanced level.
This
distinction, between the obligation of all parents and that specifically of
scholars, explains an interesting halakhic difference drawn by the Rambam. In Hilkhot Talmud Torah 1:3, the Rambam rules
that whereas one must pay money for the sake of his children's Torah education,
one need not - strictly speaking, that is - provide funding on behalf of the
learning of other children. The
obligation of a parent is to ensure their child's religious education; he must
therefore do whatever necessary towards that end. As for teaching others, this obligation rests
only upon the scholars, as we saw. Quite
reasonably, then, they cannot fulfill their obligation by hiring others to
teach on their behalf. They must rather
personally accept the responsibility of disseminating advanced-level Torah
study to as many students as they can.
(Based on Rabbi Menachem Genack, Shoshanat
Ha-amakim, p.1.)
David Silverberg
*****
Parashat
Vaetchanan introduces us to the prohibition of "bal tosif," adding
onto mitzvot (Devarim 4:2). What does
this prohibition include? Rashi writes
that this verse forbids adding onto the performance of a mitzva, such as adding
a fifth parasha to one's tefillin or a fifth species to the "arba
minim" on Sukkot. The Ramban cites
Rashi's interpretation and adds, "In my view, even one who makes up on his
own an independent mitzva, such as if one makes up a holiday in a given month,
as did Yeravam, violates the prohibition."
According to the Ramban, then, this prohibition includes two forms of
additions: adding onto the performance of a given mitzva, and the creation of a
new mitzva.
The
Rambam likewise appears to recognize this second category of "bal
tosif." In Hilkhot Mamrim 2:9, the
Rambam distinguishes between two types of enactment by the High Court, or Bet
Din Ha-gadol. Standard legislation and
lawmaking are permissible and, moreover, an integral function served by the
nation's supreme halakhic body. What the
court may not do, the Rambam writes, is introduce a new law and establish it as
Torah law. The Rambam gives the example
of meat and milk, the join consumption of which, as we know, is forbidden by
Torah law. Chazal instituted as a
safeguard to this prohibition a halakha forbidding the consumption of foul with
milk. Were they to have done so by
claiming that the Torah itself forbids eating chicken meat with milk, they
would have violated the prohibition of "bal tosif." Clearly, the Rambam, like the Ramban, views
the introduction of a new law as a violation of this prohibition.
Rav
Soloveitchik (Reshimot Shiurim - Masekhet Sukka) observed, however, that
the Rambam limits this prohibition to the level of Bet Din. While the Ramban claims that anyone who innovates a new "mitzva" violates "bal
tosif," the Rambam appears to apply this form of "bal tosif"
only to a Bet Din, not to ordinary individuals.
Why?
Rav
Soloveitchik explained that individuals are not empowered to lend halakhic
significance to halakhically meaningless actions. A person may decide to institute a new
"mitzva" requiring him to sing his country's national anthem every
day at noon, but by definition, this ritual cannot possibly be considered an
addition to the Torah. Nothing has
infused it with a stature rendering it a prohibited innovation. Only the Bet Din Ha-gadol, who is empowered
to interpret the Torah and thereby deduce the relevant halakhic rulings for its
generation, can introduce a mitzva with authoritative stature. Such an innovation violates the Torah's
prohibition of "bal tosif."
The
Ramban, apparently, is not bothered by the meaninglessness of a privately
ordained innovation. To the contrary, he
may have viewed the prohibition as specifically intended to prevent religious
anarchy, by which any individual can write his own laws. In his view, "bal tosif" comes to
outlaw religious subjectivity of any kind, as this could, ultimately, undermine
the authority of the Torah, which would, Heaven forbid, give way to personal,
man-made rules and regulations.
David Silverberg
*****
Parashat
Vaetchanan opens with Moshe's unsuccessful petition to the Almighty to allow
him to enter Eretz Yisrael: "O Lord God, You have begun showing Your servant Your greatness and Your mighty hand, that Your
powerful deeds no god in heaven or on earth can equal. Let me, I pray, cross over and see the good
land… " (Devarim 3:24-25). In Masekhet Berakhot 32, the Gemara derives
from the structure of Moshe's petition the proper sequence for our standardized
prayer. Namely, we first speak of God's
praises and only thereafter proceed to plead our case and submit our
request. Thus, the first three blessings
of our shemoneh esrei discuss God's kindness, power and singular sanctity. After these introductory berakhot we arrive
at the main body of the shemoneh esrei, the specific requests for wisdom,
forgiveness, redemption, health, etc.
Rav
Moshe Feinstein questioned the reasoning behind such a requirement. True, when submitting a request to a fellow
human being it is worthwhile to first engage in some flattery as a means to
earn his favor. But why do we employ
this trick when addressing the King of kings, the all-powerful and all-knowing
Master of the world? Will magnificent
praises of His strength result in greater efficacy of our prayers?!
Rav
Moshe explains by describing the attitude with which we must approach
prayer. Before asking a friend for a
favor, we understand that the friend may not have the ability to grant the
request. For example, if Reuven wants to
invite himself over to Shimon's house for Shabbat the 20th,
he understands that on that day Shimon may have a full house or that he has
planned to spend that weekend out of town.
This degree of uncertainty accompanies virtually every request we make
of another. As we approach the Almighty,
however, we must think differently.
Nobody may come forth with a request to the Almighty unless he fully
believes and understands that God possesses unlimited capability to either
grant or refuse the petition. Such a
mindset is indispensable to Jewish prayer.
Following Moshe's example, Chazal instituted that we begin our shemoneh
esrei by reminding ourselves of God's unlimited capacity and willingness to
give. Only thereafter may we proceed to
submit our requests.
As
an example of how far many of us remain from the necessary perspective on
prayer, Rav Moshe observes an all-too-common phenomenon with regard to prayers
for the ill. Very often, loved ones turn
to the Almighty only after the doctors have given a bleak diagnosis. So long as the patient's condition did not
alarm the medical staff, God did not enter the picture. Only after the first signs of hopelessness
set in do the friends and relatives turn to God as a last resort. Rav Moshe admonishes, "This is not the
way. Rather, from the outset one must
say Tehillim to God and realize that only He cures, though He does so through messengers." From the structure of tefila we are reminded
of God's exclusive control over world events, and everything that transpires
does so only by His will.
David Silverberg
*****
The reading of Parashat Vaetchanan affords us the
opportunity to take a careful look at the verses of the first paragraph of
shema, which appears in this parasha, and hopefully enhance our daily
recitation of this critical part of our liturgy.
The third verse of this paragraph reads, "These
words, that I command you today, shall be upon your heart." Rashi views the seemingly innocuous word
"hayom" (today) in this verse as providing crucial information as to
the meaning of this imperative: "They shall not be in your eyes like an
antiquated ordinance that no one cherishes, but rather like a new one, that
everyone runs to greet." Placing
God's commandments "on our hearts" involves a proper attitude towards
them, viewing them as "new."
We must strive to look upon the mitzvot as the most precious gift in the
world, the great privilege of living under the system of God's law. Rav Soloveitchik, in a lecture delivered in
the 1950's, described this feeling towards Torah as follows:
"When
I say that the Jewish community is emotionally involved in talmud Torah and the
great message, God's Word becomes a precious treasure, something which lends
meaning and purposeness to one's existence, or a great vision which captivates
the imagination, that stirs the soul, and gives me a feeling of happiness and
pleasure, and actually sometimes fills me with ecstasy, when I think that I'll
realize the great goal. One not only
abides by the Word, by the norm, but loves it; it's a question of loving the
Word, not only abiding but loving. He's
not only committed to it, but also devoted and passionately attached to the
Word. In a word, the carigma becomes the
central value around which one's axiological system revolves, the focus of all
emotions and sentiments, and it is the highest good after which one feels a
deep yearnaing and a great longing."
Rav Soloveitchik's grandfather, Rav Chayim of Brisk, is
cited as offering a different approach towards the significance of the
reference to "today" in this verse.
Rav Chayim explained that one's obligations towards
the Almighty on any given day differs from those on the previous or next
day. As external situations and
circumstances, as well as one's personal growth and development, undergo
change, so do his responsibilities. Therefore,
at any point one must identify the unique obligations resting upon his
shoulders at that moment; for one day's work will not be the same as the next.
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 rights reserved to Yeshivat Har Etzion
Yeshivat Har Et
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il
|
|
|
|
||
|
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, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il