Category: Hashkafa

  • Why Do We (Often) Change Tunes/Niggun In the Middle of Lecha Dodi?

    Why Do We (Often) Change Tunes/Niggun In the Middle of Lecha Dodi?

    What is the source and meaning behind the Minhag to switch Niggunim in the middle of Lecha Dodi, specifically by Lo Sovoshi?

    May, 2023

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    There are certain minhagim that we scarcely notice until they are brought to our attention. A few weeks ago, a shul member approached me and said with concern, “Rabbi, whenever Mr. X davens at the amud Friday night, he uses the same niggun for the entire Lecha Dodi! Maybe we can explain to him that he is supposed to switch the niggun at Lo Seivoshi.”

    People may dismiss such a complaint on the grounds that this change in niggun is not a halachah and that the  minhag is not universal; in fact, some have the minhag not to sing Lecha Dodi at all! (For a complete list of minhagim for Lecha Dodi, see Kovetz Beis Aharon V’Yisrael, 70, pp. 135-138.)

    Although certainly not a reason to reprimand a chazzan, the fact that this change in niggun is a popular minhag Yisrael should give us pause, especially since the premise for niggunei Shabbos is rooted in basic halachah. (See posts on other other ‘siddur mysteries’)

    The Rema states a halachah in Shulchan Aruch (siman 281) that we should add melodies to our davening on Shabbos to lengthen the tefillah and make it sweeter.

    The Arugas Habosem comments, “Since on Shabbos there is a great need to daven with complete joy and energy, and because niggun awakens the heart to the joy in mitzvos Hashem, I will quote from the Maavar Yabok [d. 1639]: ‘The Zohar teaches of a special sanctuary in Shamayim that is only opened through song… The song of the chazzan who sings is brought up to the highest realms… And for this reason there is a minhag for the mispallelim in shul to sing [with the chazzan] on Shabbos and Yom Tov” (Otzar Hatefillos, p. 331, and Maavar Yabok, sifsei tzedek, ch. 31; for more sources in halachah for the importance of singing during davening on Shabbos, see Kovetz Halachos, Shabbos, Vol. 1, p. 297, note #5; see also Asifas Gershon L’Shabbos and Piskei Teshuvos, siman 267, notes 35-38).

    There are several suggested reasons for the Lo Seivoshi niggun change, but first, some brief background on Lecha Dodi.

    Chazal state that on Erev Shabbos, Rabi Chanina would dress in his finery, stand and declare, “Let us go out to greet the Shabbos Malkah.” Rav Yannai would put on his Shabbos clothes and declare, “Bo’i kallah bo’i kallah” (Shabbos 119a and Bava Kama 32b; see also Shabbos 26b).

    The pronouncement “Lecha Dodi”is not given in this Chazal; the expression comes from Shir Hashirim: “Lecha Dodi…come, my beloved, let us go out to the field, let us lodge in the villages” (7:12). Based on this and other sources, Rav Shlomo Alkabetz composed the words to the piyut Lecha Dodi in the 1570s or 1580s.

    Some posit that we should omit the phrase Lecha Dodi altogethersince we no longer go outside to greet Shabbos (Yosef Ometz, siman 589).

    The author of the Shulchan Aruch, Rav Yosef Karo, who was a contemporary of Rav Alkabetz, writes, “One should wear nice clothes and celebrate the arrival of Shabbos as one would to greet a king or a bride and groom. Rabi Chanina would wrap himself (in finery) and stand waiting in the evening as Shabbos was approaching and say, ‘Come and go out to greet the Shabbos Queen,’ and Rabi Yannai would say, ‘Bo’i kallah bo’i kallah’” (Shulchan Aruch, siman 262:2).

    Anyone familiar with the Shulchan Aruch knows that it is rare for the author to quote directly from the primary source, as he does here. It is likely that the piyut of Lecha Dodi was already well accepted at the time of this writing.

    A friend shared with me an email from Rav Zilberstein’s kollel, in which he explained that the change in niggun at Lo Seivoshi is based on our relationship to the Shabbos “bride.” In the piyut, we follow the pattern of the two steps of halachic marriage—eirusin and nisuin. At weddings nowadays, we do both of these steps under the chuppah back to back, separating them with the reading of the kesubah. On Shabbos, we separate these two stages of our relationship with Shabbos by changing the melody.

    There are even earlier discussions of this practice. Rav Shlomo Zalman Geiger (d. 1878) was a rav in Frankfurt at the time of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch. Partly due to his disagreement with Rav Hirsch’s perceived change in certain practices, Rav Geiger composed a sefer comprising the shul minhagim for Frankfurt throughout the year in a sefer titled Divrei Kehillah. Since he was also a baal tefillah, he cites many of their niggun practices as well.

    There we find this custom, although with a slight variation. The minhag in Frankfurt was to change the niggun, but not at Lo Seivoshi, the sixth stanza; it was changed at the fifth stanza, Hisoreri. This was because the initial letters of the first four stanzas spell “Shlomo.” This is an allusion not only to the author’s name, but also to “Ben Shlomo”—Moshiach (see Rambam, who describes him as Ben Shlomo in his 13 Ikkarim, Peirush Hamishnayos, Sanhedrin; see also Divrei Hayamim, 1:22:9-1). Indeed, the stanza before Hisoreri mentions Ben Yishai.

    Rav Geiger writes that in Frankfurt, they would sing a simpler tune until Hisoreri, and then switch to a celebratory niggun, alluding to the complete geulah. They would then return to the original niggun at Bo’i Kallah (ibid., p. 61).

    As for the current practice of changing the melody at Lo Seivoshi, some suggest that until that point, the piyut describes our hope for geulah, and from Lo Seivoshi onward it describes that era.

    Nevertheless, some still suggest changing the melody earlier, as they did in Frankfurt, so that the four stanzas that spell “Shlomo” can be sung with the same melody, and the next four stanzas, whose initial letters spell “Halevi,” can be completed with its own melody.

    Over 25 years ago, in the well-known Torah journal Beis Aharon V’Yisrael (Vol. 84, pp. 131-132), Rav Aryeh Butbul requested from its knowledgeable readership the source for this change in niggun, and many talmidei chachamim wrote back with sources and suggestions.

    One respondent cited the sefer Mekor Hatefillos, which states that we change the melody simply because in larger shuls some mispallelim may get lost and not know which stanza the shul is up to! The niggun change aides them in resuming unified singing (ibid., Vol. 86, pp. 142-143).

    It should be noted that some consider the possibility that people will lose the place as a reason to avoid this minhag altogether since a chazzan may struggle to finding his second niggun (Ha’admor Rav Dovid of Luluv; see Mekurei Tefillah, 4:52)

    Another respondent told an amazing story that demonstrates deference for this minhag (ibid., Vol. 87, pp. 116-117).

    When the third Rebbe of Vizhnitz, the Ahavas Yisrael, was escaping the town of Vizhnitz during the First World War, he wound up in another town for Shabbos. The gabbai honored him with the amud on Friday night. Although the minhag in Vizhnitz was not to sing Lecha Dodi, the Rebbe acquiesced to the local custom.

    However, when it came to Lo Seivoshi, the Rebbecontinued with the same niggun with which he had begun, causing a minor tumult. The gabbai explained the issue, and the Rebbe changed to a different melody at the next stanza, V’hayu Limshisa.

    Rav Geiger concludes that this is why Vizhnitz still has the minhag to change the niggun at V’hayu Limshisa!

    Although we have only scratched the surface of this piyut, it is enough to realize that we should not reject out of hand any minhagim regarding the way it is recited. Minhagim are important! ●

  • When To Leave: Safety & American Jewry

    When To Leave: Safety & American Jewry

    Rabbi Moshe Taub for Ami Magazine, December 2025

    The above picture depicts the American flag which was presented to Abraham Lincoln a few weeks before his inauguration by Abraham Kohn. It was embroidered with original Hebrew verses. See footnote for more of its background.[1]

    “When things go badly for Jews in Britain, they can go to Israel. When things go badly for me in Britain — where do I go?” -Douglas Murray

         A member of my shul was annoyed with me. I could sense it.

    To his credit, he soon approached me to share his frustration.

       “I was very unhappy with a recent drasha. The first part was fine…but how you ended shocked me”.

       He was referring to my drasha for Shabbos Chayay Sarah (Genesis 33ff), having taken place right after Mamdani was elected our next mayor.  

        For context, a brief synopsis:

    I opened with the classic scene of two Jews meeting at an airport – an American moving to Israel, and an Israeli moving to America. Each thought the other one was foolish for their respective choice.

    “Which one is correct. Who among these two is being more realistic”, I asked.

    Letting that rhetorical question breath, I then shared a famous speech of the Mir rosh yeshiva, Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz (d. 1979):

    He began by asking how we are to understand the fact that Avraham (Abraham) responded to the idea of sacrificing his son with alacrity, while Sarah reacted with death-through-shock (As the Talmud teaches)?

    Rav Chaim finds the solution in a seemingly unrelated midrash (biblical exposition/tradition from the rabbis of the Talmud), where Esav astonishingly arrives at the burial for Yaakov (Jacob). He soon begins to complain, adamant that maaras hamachpeila (cave of the patriarchs) belonged to him. Naftali is immediately dispatched to swiftly retrieve the deed and prove his uncle mistaken. In the meantimes, Chushim the son of Dan – being a deaf/mute – was confused by all the tumult, seemingly unaware of the situation and what lead up to it.

    Chushim is quickly informed of all of the events…and responds by immediately decapitating Esav, which caused his head to roll into the cave where it remains until today.

    This midrash begs many questions. For one, and assuming Chushim’s act was just, weren’t Shimon, Yehudah, and Levi warriors?! How could they sit idle? How was it that only Chushim responded with such righteous anger?

    Rav Chaim explains that the reason Chushim alone responded appropriately was due to that one feature we know about him:

    He was a deaf/mute.

    This deafness separated him from all the others who slowly adapted to the ever-changing situation and acclimated themselves to their new reality:

    “Oh, Esav came!…He his now making murmurs!… He wants to eulogize his brother!…He seems upset about something…”, until, “Oh, he wants to prevent the burial and deny the sale!”.

    Like the proverbial toad gradually and unnoticeably being boiled in water, we all have the capacity to slowly adapt; to accept, little by little, any situation as being normal, as settling into a new reality, of something once peculiar becoming simply of ‘our times’.

    The deaf/mute Chushim was oblivious to these slow drips, incapable of slowly adapting to circumstances. Chushim was instead informed of everything all at once.

    Now alone in appreciating the matter with clarity, he responded reflexively, without acclimation.

    Similarly, continued Rav Chaim, Hashem put in each parent the sheer inability to slaughter their child, and therefore Hashem communicated this particular command/test in a different manner than He did the others: slowly and as a build-up. This gave Avraham time to adapt, so as not respond reflexively.

    “I have a command….You must offer a sacrifice…A human…Your child…The one that you love…Yitzhak….”.

    Through this method of adjustment and matriculation, Avraham could then fairly and soberly approach the test.

    The Satan cruelly utilized the opposite tact when informing Sarah, throwing all the information at her in one fell swoop.

    Like all human traits, the power of adaption can be used as a poison pill or as an elixir for good -aiding Chushim while aggrieving Sarah.

    I first connected this idea to the abnormal cultural challenges with which our children are presently faced. These are so new to history that they should keep us up at night…unless we have been slowly acclimated to this new reality.

    I then turned to the election, politics, and the American Jew.

    “Have we adapted to having security guards in front of our buildings? Have we grown used to feeling the weight of our yarmulkas on our heads when on the subway? Are we accustomed to the libelous chants, even now when one of those chanters is our new mayor?”

         Now, a drasha has to ‘land’. It can’t leave people in a lurch, or without some positive message.

       So, after stressing the need to strengthen our emunah, I concluded with the recognition of how much we love we have for our country, America. How thankful we are for her.

    “We must help save her just as she saved so many of us.”

      And then came the line that caused his ire:

    “We mustn’t over-panic. Yes, it is always dangerous to not learn from history, but it can also be calamitous to over-learn those lessons. We still have more yeshivos and shuls being built weekly in this country than at any time in our long galus. Often, the groundbreaking for such institutions is joined by government representatives. We also still have majority support in our government, and a plurality around the country…There is an abundance to be hopeful for ….”

       It was this ‘landing’ that alarmed and confounded this member.

     “Rabbi, aren’t you a historian? Isn’t this what they said in Europe, in Spain…in Bavel?

    “When is it time for rabbanim to tell people to leave, to make aliya? Rabbi Taub, do you want the achroyos of families who stay behind due to your pollyannish diagnosis?”

       Was he over-reacting? Is he over-learning the lessons of history? Or, perhaps it is I who became naïve. Worse, have I allowed this ‘power of adaption’ to overtake my ability to dispassionately reason?

       Should rabbanim and leaders be telling families that they must leave America?

        During the second Intifada a parent called a noted gadol asking if it was safe to send his child to learn in Israel. This gadol responded, “And how do you know he will be safer in America?”.

       His point had little to do with this country at that time, rather to remind that father that the keys to life and death are governed solely by Hashem (see taanis 2b).

    In other words, so long as someone is within his halachic guardrails of being shomer nefesh and is acting l’shem shomayim they must surrender to Hashem’s will.

    [The level of risk sanctioned by halacha impacts a myriad of halacha, such as Shabbos, kashrus…and ‘escape’. This broad topic is well beyond the scope of this short column]

        Has America, or New York, reached such a level of sakana so as to breech the horizons of halachic sakana?

      It seems to me not.

        However, have the seeds been planted in the American youth – of all persuasions – that could predict a future where a slow-drip of deviations from the past, and over time, will take place, thus making life in America, of New York, intolerable for Jews?

       Perhaps.

    Indeed, and due to this, more people are moving to eretz yisroel.

       More, not every decision is a matter of halacha, nor does every family judgment demand rabbinic input (see letter of the Baal HaTanya- found in the back of most volumes of sefer Tanya – where he bemoans those talmidim who seek his counsel about business matters and other areas outside his role as teacher).

       The man continued, “I know eretz yisroel has its risks. Look at October 7th! But I would rather die there then here.”

       When describing Yaakov seeking to find favor in the eyes of Esav, Rashi shares an old French word “appesemento” or appeasement (bereishis, 33:10); ironic that it’s a French word!).

     Yet, in that very same parsha, Shimon and Yehudah go to war with Shechem. Should they have also, at least at first, tried to work it out?

        I believe the answer is hidden within what is perhaps the most famed Rashi in all of chumash:  הלכה היא, עשו שונא יעקב – It is a matter of law: Esav (throughout history) despises Yaakov.

        Few notice the oddity of where chazal transmit this revelation. They don’t mention this rule by the fright of Yaakov, nor when Eliphaz strips him bare, and not even when they now confront each other.
       Instead chazal waited until the phrase “they embraced” (33:4).

    Why here?

    If anything, this seems to be the very antithesis of that very rule!

        Ah, but perhaps this is the secret.

     Sure, we must be pragmatic and notice moments ripe for pacification. But there is one qualifying rule to such appeasement: during those moments of pragmatism, when sitting across from each other, when embracing, that is when we must be reminded and be cognizant that he is an enemy, and not become softened by their smile.

       As demonstrated through Yaakov, even when at the climax of appeasement  – “they embraced” – we are not to forget with whom we are sitting. Only then can we even consider hope for reconciliation. “They embraced”, yes, however Yaakov was consciously aware that he was reviled. His emotions and feelings of brotherly love never deluded him.  

       Shechem came like a lamb, asserting to want only alliance and camaraderie, only to then go back home and continue violating their sister. Esav, as duplicitous as he was, never hid his feelings toward Yaakov (which is why Yaakov originally fled). His intentions were always clear. Yaakov therefore was able to try kabdeihu v’chadsheihu.    

         Indeed, the Esav’s in America are forcing us to enter the stage of kabdeihu v’chadsheihu –trust but verify. During this time, we will do our part of help save this country from this poison, to ‘appease’ its greater nature, as well as creating a ribuy kiddush shaomyaim whenever possible.

       However, we now mustn’t forget the lessons of the past few years: an embrace may not be real (of course, often it is! See the Emek Davar to these same pesukim where the Netziv depicts the ideal world of brotherly love between Yaakov and Esav).  

        While I do not think we are at the stage of rabbanim bringing fear into members’ homes by telling parents and children that America is no longer a safe place to live, or that we must flee, it is certainly time to remind them of the pain of galus, and to appeal to Hashem that He move us just one last time -to Yerushalaim ha’benuyah!

    And, in the meantime, let us fight to protect the America that we know and love.

      Ig history is our guide, the cancer of antisemitism always metastasizes, eating away and corroding the healthy organs of once great empires.

     May the sacrifice and benevolence of this great country, along with the brilliance and sincere foresight of her founders, protect her from such historical repetitions.

    NOTE

    [1] Excerpt from this authors forthcoming newest book, the second volume in ‘Jews in the New World‘ series:

    …Let us go back to January 4, 1861.

    That date happened to fall on an erev Shabbos.

    The nation was cracking, tearing at the seems of the Mason-Dixon line and the Ohio River. The country was being torn asunder due to, largely, the issue of slavery.

    A few months earlier, on Tuesday, November 6, 1860 -for the 19th time since the country’s founding -voting was held for the next President of the United States.

    An astounding 81.2 % of the nation turned out to vote –the second highest voter turnout in American history (slightly beaten-out only by the 1876 election). With a civil war almost certainly on the horizon –there were four candidates running for the office.

     Abraham Lincoln won with 39.8% of the vote.

    The President at the time of Lincoln’s election was, of course, James Buchanan. Unlike Lincoln, who had great admiration for and was close friends with many Jews, James Buchanan was privately disdainful of the Jews in America (see Sarna, et al.).

    When it came to the issue of slavery, Buchanan held views that were odd, and hard to explain.

     He earned the nickname ‘doughface’, an epithet used to describe a Northerner with Southern adherences (see History Dictionary of the Old South, William Richter, page 111; see also William Safire’s ‘Safire’s Political Dictionary’, s.v. ‘doughface’).

    While some describe Buchanan as having been pro-slavery, his position seemed more nuanced.

    While certainly not a fan of the growing and vociferous abolitionist movement, this may have been for pragmatic reasons and feeling that sometimes the way to end evils is to let nature take its course, whereas fighting may only causes the opposing side to become emboldened.

    He thus stated:

    “Before [the abolitionists] commenced this agitation, a very large and growing party existed in several of the slave states in favor of the gradual abolition of slavery; and now not a voice is heard there in support of such a measure. The abolitionists have postponed the emancipation of the slaves in three or four states for at least half a century.”

    -Philip Klein, ‘President James Buchanan: A Biography’, page 150

    Regardless of his motives, Buchanan is often seen as one of the worst presidents, as he did little to prevent the Civil War (see book, ‘Worst. President. Ever’, Robert Strauss)

    Only five weeks after Lincoln’s election – Lincoln would not be inaugurated until March – on December 20, 1860, and largely as a result to Lincoln’s election, South Carolina –historically the most extreme state relating to issues of slavery – seceded from the Union. Within two months the states of Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas would follow.

    By February 9, 1861 this new Confederacy of states would elect their own president, Jefferson Davis.

    Lincoln was inheriting a union divided and the United States of America seemed very vulnerable to collapse; so much so that he would have to sneak into Washington in disguise for his own inauguration!

    Abraham Kohn, a Chicago businessman, and the founder of the first shul in that city, was a proud anti-slavery abolitionist. In fact, after 1860, when he became the first Jewish clerk in Chicago’s history, he was described by some as “one of the blackest Republicans”! (See, Lincoln and the Jews, Sarna, p. 72)

    Other papers, in praise of him, would refer to Mr. Kohn, as the most ‘Hebrew of the Hebrews’. It is interesting to observe that in early America many viewed the term ‘Jew’ as a negative sobriquet, thus we often find the use of terms such as ‘Hebrew’ or ‘Israelite’ (see Sarna, ibid. p. 72).

    Lincoln would meet Mr. Kohn in Chicago just a few weeks following his presidential election. The two spoke about the important role that the Bible played in their lives. (See, History of the Jews of Chicago, Markens, page 45)

    Understanding the difficult road ahead for the new president, Kohn would send Lincoln a gift before his inauguration.

    This gift was a portrait/picture of the American flag.

    What made this particular flag unique was that inscribed in its white stripes were pesukim –in lashon kodesh –taken from sefer yehoshua (1:5-8) relating to his taking over leadership and conquering eretz canaan:

     “No man shall stand up before you all the days of your life…be strong and have courage…do not stray from the Torah left or right…The Torah shall not leave your mouth…then you will succeed in your ways and then you will prosper”

    Buchanan watched helplessly both the election and the issue of slavery coming to its breaking point, and felt the existential crises ahead.

    So, on December 14, 1860 James Buchanan issues a proclamation, that a “National Day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer” should take place on January 4, 1861.

    He stated:

    “In this the hour of our calamity and peril to whom shall we resort for relief but to the God of our fathers? His omnipotent arm only can save us from the awful effects of our own crimes and follies…Let us…unite in humbling ourselves before the Most High, in confessing our individual and national sins…Let me invoke every individual, in whatever sphere of life he may be placed, to feel a personal responsibility to God and his country for keeping this day holy.”

    This was not the first such proclamation issued by an American President, nor was it to be the last.

    John Hancock –one of the signatures of the Declaration of Independence –already in 1775- before the Battle of Lexington, issued such a day, asking that we ‘confess’ our sins and seek forgiveness from Gd.

    President John Adams ordered two such days, and Lincoln would go on to establish one of his won during the heaight of the Civil War.

    Such days of prayer and fasting would eventually lead to a federal law – still in affect today –of a ‘National Day of Prayer’, held each year, the first Thursday in May.

    {Naturally, in 2008, the FFRF (Freedom from Religion Federation) sued, strangely –in my view- arguing that if such a day is allowed then the federal government could also, in theory, pronounce a ‘National Day for Anti-Semitism’. Remarkably, the judge ruled in their favor, stating that such a day is “an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function” (this judgment was later overturned by the Seventh Court of Appeals).}

    How did the Jews, and rabbanim, of 1861 react to such a ‘taanis’?

    Would they support it? Would they fast erev Shabbos?

    Not only would many rabbanim of the time support this fast, but they gave derashos (sermons) discussing the precarious state of the Union. We still have these derashos extant today, and in the next chapters we will discuss what they said, in terms of both slavery and the future of America….

  • Is ‘Zos Chanukah’ Really The End of Our Yemei Hadin?

    Is ‘Zos Chanukah’ Really The End of Our Yemei Hadin?

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    Chanukah, 2021

    The days of din that commence with Elul do not culminate on Yom Kippur or even Hoshana Rabbah; rather, they continue until the final days of Chanukah, when we still have the potential to change our din. Before we explain this incredible mesorah, a brief introduction to the “days” of judgment is in order, derived largely from Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky.1

    There is something mysterious about our yemei din. For thousands of years, from nesinas haTorah through the Anshei K’nesses Hagedolah’s writing of our siddur, there was never any explicit mention of even Rosh Hashanah itself being a day of judgment. It was only in the Mishnah and the Gemara that this became clear.

    There are other days of din that even Chazal are silent about. Several years ago, I was speaking in my shul and mentioned in passing the notion that Hoshana Rabbah is the final day of din following Yom Kippur. Someone asked why Chazal chose not to explicitly inform us of this important, even imperative fact anywhere in Gemara or Midrash, instead leaving it for later sefarim to share with us.

    I replied that I recall that Rav Kalman Epstein asked this question to Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. Mentioning many of the points raised above, he explained that certain mysteries were reserved for tzaddikim and the keepers of our secrets. In later generations, the hamon am (general public) would need some of these secrets due to their own shortcomings and need for growth and a deeper connection to the Ribbono shel Olam.

    Initially, even Rosh Hashanah was publicly reserved only as a day to be mamlich Hashem, without a focus on it being a yom din, thereby allowing us to attain a good din lishmah, without even knowing we were being carefully watched or judged. However, Chazal soon saw that spiritually weakened masses would be better able to be mamlich Hashem if they also understood the deeper truth of the day—that it is the Yom Ha’din.

    As for Hoshana Rabbah, Rav Yaakov explained that we find many gezeiros Chazal that until their day were not needed. Chazal saw a yeridas ha’doros and sought to fix it with these new decrees. A similar thing happened as it related to the secret of Hoshana Rabbah. There was a concern that the weight of this being the final day of din would eclipse our necessary simchas ha’chag, and therefore only the greatest tzaddikim, whose joyous attitude would not be shaken by din, were let in on this secret. Sadly, continued Rav Yaakov, due to our further yeridah, our Chachamim realized that even something as weighty as a yom din would no longer counter our joy, and so they let it be known the true value of Hoshana Rabbah as well.

    Chanukah shares a similar secret. Many Chassidishe sefarim teach us a remarkable revelation: the final din of Rosh Hashanah goes through many phases. It begins during Elul, culminating on Yom Kippur, when the din is sealed. These papers can still potentially be modified with sincere repentance and action. This continues through Hoshana Rabbah, when the sealed din is delivered, as it were. But this is not the end of the road. Rather, our din continues and can still be changed through the days of Chanukah, terminating on the last day, known as Zos Chanukah.2 While some sefarim mention the kisvei Arizal as the source for this secret, in truth, it is not found in the Arizal’s writings, but rather, similar to what Rav Yaakov writes regarding Hoshana Rabbah, “this matter was passed down among the fearful members of the keepers of secrets, one man [generation] to the next [generation].”3

    Indeed, although the bikkurim may be brought until Sukkos, they may still be brought until Chanukah with the caveat that “meivi v’eino korei”—one brings [the bikkurim] but does not recite [the special verses]. Many see this as an allusion to this secret, in that we, too, may only speak publicly about our ability to gain atonement through Sukkos, but after, while we can still repent and atone through Chanukah, “eino korei,” we do not (in the past, “we did not”) speak about it.

    Others add that notwithstanding this being a long-held secret, many allusions and hints to this fact are scattered throughout divrei Chazal.4 In fact, we find such allusions mentioned by those outside the camp of Chassidus. Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, a student of the K’sav Sofer, is quoted as teaching the following remez to Chanukah being the finality to the yemei din: The Gemara teaches that a borrower has ninety days to prove a loan document fictitious or pay up.5 Upon failure to prove this within that time period, the beis din will then demand that the creditor take assets away from the borrower. So, too, explains Rav Yosef Chaim, there are ninety days from Rosh Hashanah until Zos Chanukah, and we, too, have that same time to prove the verdict wrong!

    Others explain the designation of this last day of Chanukah by the title “V’Zos Chanukah” as an allusion to the verse “B’zos yechupar avon Yaakov— Through this will the iniquity of Jacob be atoned.”6 In other words, on the day of zos, we will have a last opportunity to repent.7

    Another verse that speaks to this theme and also hints to just how secretive this day is comes from Tehillim: “U’chesil lo yavin es zos—And the fool does not understand this,”8 as hinting to the yetzer hara (often referred to as or called a kesil) being oblivious to the power of this day, thereby allowing us to accomplish much spiritual gain. (Perhaps, at times, the fool is us: we let days of Chanukah go by without significant improvement and change.)

    The grandson of the B’nei Yissaschar, the B’nei Binyamin (quoted above), brings another verse, as heard from his grandfather: “Zos chanukas haMizbeiach—This is the dedication of the Altar,”9 meaning that until the day of zos (Chanukah), we can still atone.

    However, the question remains: Why is this so? What is so special about Chanukah, which did not even exist in the times of Tanach, that makes it so unique as to have the culmination of kapparah happen during its waning moments?

    The Kedushas Levi10 suggests that Rosh Hashanah and Chanukah have something very exclusive in common. Whereas all other Yamim Tovim take place when the moon is at its strength (or on its way), only Chanukah and Rosh Hashanah are holy days also when the moon is at its weakest, as Chanukah, too, takes place on the first of a month. Indeed, some observe that “Rosh Hashanah” has the same gematria as “Mattisyahu,” alluding, perhaps, to this connection.

    But it is the Aruch Hashulchan11 who illuminates the Rosh Hashanah- Chanukah connection even more. He observes that due to the assaults of the Syrian-Greeks, as recorded in Sefer Hamacabim, we were unable to celebrate properly (i.e., unable to bring the korbanei ha’chag) the Sukkos and Shemini Atzeres prior to the miracle of Chanukah. For this reason, explains the Aruch Hashulchan, Chanukah is eight days and not seven, as the other holidays are, so as to recall the seven days of Sukkos and the one day of Shemini Atzeres for which we fought to regain in full.12

    Indeed, the Shibolei Haleket explains that it is for this reason that we see so many Sukkos-Chanukah connections in Chazal (e.g., Beis Shammai says that we go down in candles each night l’zecher the korbanos ha’chag). Based on this, I wonder if we can suggest that Hashem therefore granted them an extension of din, a respite, until the end of that war, and retained it until today. B’chasdei Hashem, I then saw that the late Klausenberger Rebbe13 makes this same connection. As the paytan writes (in a piyut for a second Shabbos Chanukah): “On Sukkos, all the enemies came to destroy, and on Chanukah they returned home.”

    Let us conclude with two ideas. Rabbi Aryeh Pinchas Strickoff, in his astounding series of sefarim on the Yamim Tovim, brings the following amazing insight in the name of Rav Moshe Wolfson. Parshiyos Nitzavim, Vayeilech, and Haazinu are all read around the time of the Yamim Noraim.

    • Vayeilech has thirty pesukim, alluding perhaps to the thirty days of Elul.
    • Nitzavim contains forty pesukim, perhaps hinting to the forty days from Elul through Yom Kippur.
    • Haazinu has fifty-two pesukim, perhaps suggesting the fifty-two days from Elul through Hoshana Rabbah.
    • When one adds these together, we get a total of 122, the exact number of days from Elul through Zos Chanukah.

    Rav Wolfson concluded this idea by pointing out that the next parashah is called V’zos Haberachah, hinting to the idea that Zos Chanukah is where we can find berachah and atonement.

    Finally, an allusion of my own:

    We know that in U’nesaneh Tokef, the tefillah that best represents our fear and awe of the yemei hadin, on top of the words teshuvah, tefillah, and tzedakah are found (in most machzorim) the words tzom (fasting), kol (voice or prayer), and mammon (money), respectively. It has been pointed out by many that each of these three words equal the value of 136, and together they equal 408, which is the value of the term used for Aharon when he was to enter the Mishkan on Yom Kippur. And that term? “B’zos yavo Aharon.” The word zos also equals 408. Perhaps this is also an allusion, a hint, said on Yom Kippur to the true end of our din: Zos Chanukah!

    NOTES

    1 Emes L’Yaakov al HaTorah, Vayikra 23:24.

    2  See Likutei Maharil (a student of the Noam Elimelech) D’rush L’Chanukah, p. 53; B’nei Yissaschar, Chodesh Kislev; Imrei Noam, Behaalosecha, among others.

    3 See L’Dofkei B’Teshuvah 746; Shaar Yissaschar (from the Munkatcher Rebbe), Kislev 4:4.

    4 See Pardes Eliezer, Chanukah; Inside Chanukah, p. 76.

    5  Bava Kama 112b.

    6  Yeshayahu 27:9.

    7  B’nei Binyamin, as brought in Pardes Yosef, p. 545.

    8  Tehillim 92:7.

    9  Bamidbar 7:84.

    10  Derushim L’Chanukah.

    11  Aruch Hashulchan, siman 670:5.

    12  See She’iltos D’Rav Achai Gaon 27, who posits the same.

    13 Shu”t Divrei Yatziv 283.

  • Understanding the Connection Between Chanukah and Mezuzah

    Understanding the Connection Between Chanukah and Mezuzah

    Rabbi Moshe Taub, 2024

    Ami Magazine

    As discussed in another post, most living outside eretz yisroel light their menoros indoors.

    Although chazal and the Shulchan Aruch rule that we should only light inside in times of danger, the Rema (672:2) states that the standard practice is to continue to light indoors.

    Above, we shared numerous approaches to this issue, ending with the words of Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Moadim U’zmnaim, vol. 2, p. 79) who suggests that just because we live in peace now does not mean that we should forget or abandon the concerns of the past, and that they may, l”a, revisit us at some future time, l”a.

    For obvious reasons, following the pogrom of October 7, 2023, his argument came to mind, and I repeated it in shul.

    After, a young boy asked, “Shouldn’t we also now cover our mezuzos?”

    Seeing the surprise on my face, he continued. “I understand that the obligation for a mezuzah is from the Torah, as opposed to Chanukah. But if the issue is sakana, why don’t we find chazal or poskim discussing covering or hiding it presence?”

    Sadly, it has not been only little boys wondering this:

    “Do Not Take Down Your Mezuzos!” yelled the headline in The New York Times op-ed page right after the October 7th attacks. The article went on to state how some non-religious Jews were indeed taking theirs down due to fear.

    More positively, and on the other hand, reports have also been published of mezuzos being vandalized, R”l, causing a reaction to the other extreme: non-Jewish neighbors putting up (empty) mezuzos of their own! While potentially an issue of halacha, their intent is beautiful.

    I explained to this boy that there is a deeper significance here: The story of Chanukah is about surviving the culture around us. In our days, such chinuch, such light, must begin in the home. As we shall see below, I am not alone in this idea.

    Interestingly, Chanukah is in fact deeply rooted in the mitzvah of mezuzah.

    First, contemporaneously, relating to this just this year and the current eis tzara: I’ve heard from a very prominent sofer sta”m how there is now a shortage of klaf due to the fact that many Palestinian Arabs would do the stretching for the klaf and, obviously, are not now available (a frum yid always begins the ibud process lishmah, and with the Gentile there to hear, for more details, see Shulchan Aruch, siman 32:8 and Mishneh Berurua sif kattan 30).

    However, the connection to Chanukah and mezuzah runs far deeper.

    The gemara states:

    “Rabbah taught: ‘It is a mitzva to place one’s menorah within a tefach/handbreadth adjacent to the entrance.’ On which side does he place it? Rav Achah ben Rava said: ‘On the right;’ Rav Shmuel of Difti said: On the left. The halacha is to place it on the left, so that the menorah will be on the left and the mezuza on the right.” (shabbos 22a)

    Chazal are teaching that by placing one’s menorah opposite one’s mezuzah he will thereby be surrounded by mitzvos. Chazal here teach that by placing one’s menorah opposite one’s mezuzah, he will thereby be surrounded by mitzvos.

    Meseches sofrim expands on this:

    “…The mezuzah should be on the right, and the ner chanukah to the left. Thereby fulfilling the verse (Shir HaShirim 7:7) ‘mah yafis u’mah y’amt…-how fair and how beautiful-. ‘Mah yafis’ -is mezuzah; ‘u’mah y’amt’ is ner Chanukah.” (Sofrim 20:5; cf. Shir HaShirim Rabbah, 7:1)

    But why specifically mezuzah? What is its unique connection to Chanukah?

    The Shem M’Shmuel (mikeitz) shares that the goal of the menorah is m’bifnim l’chutz-to take the kedusha created in our homes and bring it to the outside world. Whereas the goal of mezuzah is in the opposite direction – serving as our home’s most vital ‘filtering’ system, placed based on our way of entering our homes from the streets of life; our cue to first strain any-and-all tumah.

    The Sefas Emes (Chanukah trn’t; see Sefer HaChinuch #423) explains that mezuzah ought to remind us of Hashem’s Torah u’mitzvos. After the yevanim wished for us to ‘forget Your Torah,’ we, dafka, wait until people are found in the street (tichleh regel) when they will then bear witness to the ner Chanukah and mezuzah – our constant symbiotic tools to succor our combat against the potent pull of regilos and tevious (culture and conditioning).

    As to connecting the leniency by danger in regard to Chanukah to that of mezuzah, the Shulchan Aruch shares that whoever is careful in mitzvas mezuzah will be protected for a long life; he and his family (yoreh deah, siman 285). In other words, there is a built-in structure of protection already. (Of course, and as the Aruch HaShulchan stresses, we do not keep this or any mitzvah due to any specified protection that it may bring, rather, and only, as a gezeira from Hashem.)

    In fact, it is not just ner Chanukah that we place opposite our mezuzos.

    Growing up, following sukkos, we would lean our lulavim on the left side of the doorway, opposite our mezuzah, until nissan when the dried lulavim fueled the burning of our chometz (see Rema, orach chaim, siman 664:9).

    Our mezuzos are uniquely empowered to bring an abundance of steady stimulus and koach, and also have the power to accentuate the other mitzvos performed in our homes (see further, Shir HaShirim Rabbah, ibid.).

    In fact, this is why we have the minhag to touch the mezuzah upon passing it. The Shulchan Aruch (see Rema, yoreh deah, siman 285:2) writes:

    “Some say that when one leaves a house/doorway, he should place his hand on the mezuzah…as well as when he enters.”

    One of the sources for this practice is the famous gemara (sanhedrin 11a), regarding the soldiers sent to bring Onkeles back to Rome (after his gerus). When they witnessed him touch his mezuzah, they asked for an explanation. Onkeles responded: “The way of the world is that a king of flesh and blood sits inside his palace while his servants stand guard outside; but with regard to Hashem, His servants sit inside their homes and He guards over them outside. As it is stated: ‘Hashem guards your going out and your coming in, now and always’ (tehillim 121:8).When kissing one’s mezuzah, it is brought, al pi kabbala, that one should use, specifically, his middle finger (‘amah’), kissing his finger after (Birkei Yosef, siman 285:2; see Taz, sif katan 5; see shu’t Rav Akiva Eiger 1:58 regarding touching the actual klaf).

    It is recorded, amazingly, how the Chasam Sofer once revoked a semicha after witnessing the young musmuch consistently ignoring the mezuzah when entering and leaving rooms (Maamer Mordechai [2007] p. 494)!

    May we, too, follow toras chazal and their guidelines in how to protect ourselves.

    May we have a safe and growing Chanukah, as we await the menorah of bayis shlishi!

  • The House That Ruth Built

    The House That Ruth Built

    Secrets Contained in the Book of Rus (Ruth)

    2013 – Shavuos Feature, Ami Magazine
    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    For this year’s Shavous feature, I wish to focus on but one stealthily hidden wonder contained in megillas Rus [the Book of Ruth]; the book which is read across the world on this holiday.

    I. The Mystery

    What I wish to share begins with just one line in a midrash.

    [‘Midrash’ refers to the many books of commentary on the bible by the rabbis of the Talmud, from about 300 BCE to 300 CE. Far more authoritative than a standard commentary, it is rather seen as part of the chain of the Oral Tradition].

    In this midrash (Midrash Zutta, parsha 2), a mysterious element of the story is shared (I will paraphrase):

    In the entire book of Rus –all of its eighty-five pesukim – each and every pasuk begins with letter vav; save for eight verses.

    [Pesuk=Verse; Pesukim=Verses]

    I can assure the reader that this checks out, as I went through Rus and counted myself.

    The great rabbi and mystic, Rav Shlomo Alkabetz (d. 1584)–the composer of lecha dodi – posits that this is to be expected, since that the letter vav often plays the role of continuity, called the ‘Vav Hachibur; Connective Vav‘.

    The function of this letter -when found at the start of a sentence – is no different that the word ‘and‘ in the English language, although it plays a slightly deeper role, conceptually akin to ‘Yes and…” used in drama and improv classes; it is the glue that binds and then pulls forward the ‘before‘ to the ‘now‘.

    Indeed, the literal meaning of the word we use to represent this letter ‘vav‘ is ‘hook’.

    A megilla, by its very definition, is one long story; one thing should lead naturally into the next and then that into the next, and so on; it is to flow. Vavim make sense in a megilla.

    Although only the Book of Esther is given the official title of ‘Megillah’, Jews colloquially use this same term also for the following books: Ruth, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and sometimes, Jonah

    For example, the Shabbos reading of parshas Vayeitzei [Genesis 28:10-32:3] is also one long story where only twenty-one out of one-hundred-and-forty-five pesukim begin without a vav!

    In other words, the fact that Rus contains so many pesukim which begin with a vav must not the sole chiddush of this midrash, rather, explains Rav Alkabetz, the midrash is drawing our attention to the exceptions to the norm – those eight verses that do not begin with a vav.

    II. The First Secret

     Rav Alkabetz goes on to explain that the lack of vavim in those pesukim come to signify that Rus, in those places perhaps, chose to break from her natural order, her flow and rhythm of life –her vavim – in order to convert and to become the matriarch of the holy Davidic monarchy.

    III. The Secret Within the First

    I then took a closer look at context of these eight pesukim.

    The first one (1:9) is when Naomi says her goodbyes to Rus and Orpah, blesses them, and they all weep together.

    Here are the rest:

    • Naomi seeks to change their minds about joining her.
    • Naomi explains that joining her would turn into a period of waiting.
    • When Rus, referencing death, “Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried…”.
    • After that it is when Naomi recounts how much had changed since she had last been to beis lechem, and that she must change her name from Naomi.
    • Boaz speaks to Rus for the first time, and tells her not to glean in other fields.
    • Boaz promises Rus that Hashem will reward her in the future.
    • In a verse that begins with an enlarged lamed, Boaz promises a redeemer, and if not he will take his place.

    Amazingly, and in support with Rav Alkabetz, each one of these verses reflects a change of some kind; a change that Rus, or another, had been through, are going through, or will go through. Whether it’s from life to death, wealth to poverty, the company of loved ones to loneliness, or change in mazel, the theme seems clear by each.

    This break of connection to the past is seen through the absence of the letter vav commencing those verses/themes.

    IV. The Second Secret

    But why eight?

    If Shmuel [Samuel, the author of Ruth] wished to draw our attention to the many vavim – to their role when used and when not – he could have done so one or two times.

    Is there any signifiance to this number?

    • We can suggest that Shmuel chose precisely eight pesukim, perhaps, to allude to King David, who was the eighth of Yishai’s [Jesse’s] sons.
    • Furthermore, the gemara [Talmud] tells us (sanhedrin 97a) that in the ‘seventh year’ will be war, and in the eighthth year ben-Dovid (messiah) will arrive.
    • This may be alluded to in Tehillim/Pslams 12:1 “lamnateach al haShminis…”, a reference to eight being representative of mashiach tzeiten (Messianic times).
    • Eight being a symbol to the Davidic line is hinted to in the gemara (arachin 13) where we are taught that although the harp has seven strings, this same instrument of moshiach will have eight.
      • (See ‘Jewish Wisdom in the Numbers‘ by Rabbis Levene and Hartman, for further allusions regarding the significance of the number eight).
    • Furthermore, the Chida (died. 1806) and others famously posit that the reason we read Rus on Shavous is because, like Rus herself, we are all converting to the Torah anew each and every Shavous. Perhaps, then, these eight comes to symbolize bris mila, typically performed on the eighth day, the final step for a male in converting -their ‘eighth day’ as it were.

    Indeed, many suggest that ‘Rus’ was chosen as her name only after her conversion. This is because, as we know, the Torah commands all Jews in 613 mitzvas, which is an additional 606 mitzvas from the seven laws which are incumbent upon all of humanity [the seven Noachide laws, sheva mitzvos bnei noach]. ‘Rus’ was chosen because it has the exact gematria [numerical value] of 606 [Reish=200, Vav=six, Tav=400], which is the precise number of mitzvas a convert must accept upon themself on top of the seven laws -just as the Jews had to do at Sinai!

    Alas, there still seems to be a piece missing from this puzzle…

    V. The Third Secret

    We shared above how Rav Alkabatz suggests that any megillah, or long-form connected event, would naturally have verses that begin, mostly, with vavs, ‘and‘…’.

    Yet, if that is the case, why don’t we find this same feature in the Book of Esther, or our other megillos?!

    (While they too certainly contain a large amount of vavim, only Rus is has a percentage this high).

    So, I decided to take a different tact: To look at these anomalous eight pesukim in Rus; the exceptions that do not begin with the letter vav.

    They are to be found in:

    • 1:9,
    • 1:12,
    • 1:13,
    • 1:17,
    • 1:21,
    • 2:9,
    • 2:12,
    • and, 3:13.

    I then wrote down the letters with which those outlier pesukim began.

    Although I am not good at word jumbles, I started to consider how Rus represents the seeds of moshiach.

    This was all the impetus I needed to be inspired to the follwing thought:

    These letters spell ‘yeshua bo l’kah’ –’a salvation shall come to Hashem‘.

    We borrow a similar term in in our weekly havdala, taken from King David, who may have been alluding to this term in Tehillim/Psalms when he writes (3:9) ‘la’Hashem Hayeshua…’/’to Hashem is salvation…,’ which the Zohar (vol. 3 90b) explains to refer to Hashem’s awaiting His own salvation from exile through moshiach.[1]

    A Lesson To Take Home

    The vavim of our lives pull us into a senseless rotation; what we did yesterday is what we will do today, and what we will do again tomorrow.

    the holiday of Shavous is when we are supposed to accept the Torah anew; to re-discover why it is so dear, to re-affirm that it is our precious life-jacket.

    Shavuos is a time to tear down the vavs of our existence and re-enter our lives; to take control…as did Rus.

    As I was writing this I recalled something I had written about ten years ago.

    In parshas Pekudei [end of the book of Exodus] we are taught that Moshe rabbeinu [Moses] had trouble accounting for 1775 talents of silver that made up the vavim/hooks[2] of the mishkan [tabernacle]. Several years earlier I had figured out that the only pasuk in all the chamisha chumsha Torah [the Five Books of Moses] that has the exact gematria of 1775 is from Shmos [Exodus] 2:12: “And he (Moshe) turned in all directions…”.

    A man was beating a Jew, so he killed him.

    This was Moshe’s chance to discover his own vav. Meaning, and as the Ibn Ezra (died. 1167) explains, that at that juncture Moshe had to decide whose side he was on, and how his future would turn out.

    Should he continue his life an an Egyptian? Or was this the moment to throw off his princely status and align with his brethren?

    Indeed, he broke off that hook, that vav, and became our leader.

    I came upon another discovery: there is one parsha in the Torah that also has a vav at the start of each pasuk except for eight pesukim: parshas Vayeshev (Genesis 37:1-40:23). Indeed, the Rokeach (died. 1238) mentions this fact without reference to megillas Rus. [3]

    This is extraordinary for two reasons.

    • Vayeshev contain the story of Tamar and Yehudah –the first seeds of moshiach before Rus, and indeed Tamar’s son Peretz is mentioned in the genealogy up to Dovid found at the end of Rus!
    • This is also the first story of someone forced to make a change in his life; when everything he knew was altered. He thought it was for the worse; we know it would be for the better. I refer, of course, to Yosef [Joseph].

    So many secrets contained in the Torah…even in one midrash!

    May the only continuity we see be that of Torah, kindness, and health.

    Gutt Yom Tov!

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    NOTES

    [1] This that Gd awaits His own salvation, as it were is a deeply mystical concept, and impossible to review without a deep familiarity with Torah subjects and the Talmud. Briefly: See Rashi to Devarim 30:3 and Megilla 29a (see also Yerushalmi to Taanis 1:1; MechiltaBo; Yalkut, Shmuel remez 92) that “kaviyochel, the Shechina rests with bnei yisroel in galus and its hardships and when we are redeemed He writes it as if He too has been redeemed, for He shall return with them. Although Hashem is under no authority other than His own, there is a concept of Hashem waiting for us to act before He does. See also Berachos 7a where Hashem requests a beracha from the kohein gadol, as it were. See Even Yisroel that l’asid lavo Hashem will not just put us in judgment (see Rosh Hashana 16b, Ramban Shaar Hagmul based on Sanhedrin) but Himself as well. This last source can be found quoted in Shalal Rav yomim noraim p. 58 (although Shalal Rav quotes this source as saying Hashem judges Himself each Rosh Hashana, this is not what the source he bring seems to be saying when one looks inside the source).

    [2] While we are tying the idea of the hooks being called vavim to the idea above, as well as the idea to follow, I would be remiss not to mention that my father has a different, and wonderful, interpretation to the hooks in pekudai meaning vavim –by way of a halacha in the Shulchan Aruch –that one can find on O.U.’s website.

    [3] (Vayeishiv non-Vav pesukim, are:

    • Aleph; 37;2;
    • Lamed  37:27;
    • Hei 35:25;
    • Aleph 39;9;
    • Aleph 39;23;
    • Beis 40;13;
    • Choff 40;13;
    • Choff 40;15;

  • Exploring Connections Between Joseph (Yosef) and Esther’s

    Peculiar Similarities Between Mechiras Yosef and Megillas Esther

    Many have written showing the connections between the parshiyos of Vayeishev, Mikeitz, Vayigash, and the story of Chanukah. However, what is most striking is that the story of Yosef does not read

    like any other in the Torah, in that this episode is laid out in over ten chapters, like a megillah. No other event or episode in the Torah is given this much Scriptural detail or space.

    Moreover, throughout the story of Yosef one can believe he is reading Megillas Esther—consider:

    • A king has trouble sleeping (41:4);
    • two men are punished for a crime against the king (40:1).1
    • A king’s party ensues, helping to lay out the foundation of as- tounding chains of events to come (40:20).
    • Someone was killed (by the order of the king) at said party because of their lack of proper respect for the king (sar ha’opheh, 40:22; although, in truth, Vashti’s death is only implied and is not written explicitly).
    • The protagonist is honored by becoming the ‘mishneh l’melech’ (see Ramban 41:43).
    • Also, he is repaid by being afforded the luxury of riding on the king’s horses while wearing the king’s clothing (41:42–43); Pharaoh removed his ring to place it on Yosef (41:42).
    • See Baal HaTurim 41:34, who makes a few grammatical and textual comparisons to Megillas Esther without further comment;
    • Yaakov, while “giving in” to an ultimate sacrifice, exclaims, “Ka’asher shacholti, shachalti” (43:14), which is strikingly and eerily familiar to Esther’s statement when she had to make the ultimate sacrifice, “V’cha’asher avadeti avadeti.” [Indeed, see Ramban (to 43:14), who also draws this comparison without further comment]
    • The Midrash Tehillim states: “You sold your brother, then sat down to eat…there will come a time when your descendants will be ‘sold’ by a feast as well (Esther 3:5), when Haman and Achashveirosh will partake in a feast and decide there to exterminate the Jews.”3
    • See Rav Hirsch on 43:32, that Yosef never revealed that he was a Jew, for that would have compromised his position. This is similar to Esther (as the megilla shares). (However, clearly, Pharaoh was aware that Yosef was Jewish – see Ramban to 41:45 where he explains the name Pharaoh gave Yosef as being from the Hebrew language, as a courtesy to this new leader. See, as well, 40:15, where it is apparent that Yosef revealed his lineage to the sar hamashkim, who in turn revealed it to Pharaoh there. We would be remiss not to mention that Yosef did not offer correction when he was called an “Ish Ivri“, and is indeed praised for this)
    • See Moshav Zekenim to 50:4, where he explains the need for Yosef to send a messenger to Pharaoh as being similar to Esther 4:2 (his comparison), that since Yosef, like Mordechai, was in sackcloth, it was not becoming for him to approach the king.
    • See Rashi to 37:3, where he correlates the meaning and translation of the kesones pasim (an essential element in Yosef’s story) to key words found in the Megillah; once we develop this connection between Purim and the story of Yosef, we can then investigate deeper into the story, so we even find drinking until the point of intoxication by the story of Yosef (43:34).
    • When Pharaoh is first introduced to us in Parashas Lech Lecha, we find Avraham hiding Sarah in order to save her from the king’s men discovering her beauty and reporting it to the king, exactly what happened in the story of Purim: both Mordechai and Avraham failed in this regard.
    • Both stories end with a seemingly unrelated recording of a mas (tax) levied on the populace of each story (see Rashi 47:25).
    • The Megillah ends with a pasuk (10:3) that says Mordechai was not loved by all. The Midrash explains this to mean that Mordechai was not universally loved because he was too involved in politics. The Gemara in Berachos 55a comments that Yosef died sooner than his brothers because he, too, dedicated too much time to politics.
    • See Megillah 16b, where verse 45:22 here—and Yosef’s favoritism to Binyamin as shown by giving him five times the clothing of his brothers—is explained to be an “homage” to the future grand- child of Binyamin, Mordechai, who would also wear five kingly garments (8:15). See also Ramban to 48:9. While I will leave it to the reader to darshen the true depths of these allusions, I share this in a Chanukah book so as to share the following: We have two Rabbinic holidays: Chanukah and Purim. How intriguing that we read the story of Yosef—along with its many shared Esther elements—during Chanukah, and we read the commandment of the Menorah at Purim time.

    NOTES

    1. This theme of two men and their plans or actions being of great consequence is a repeated theme: Moshe being confronted by Dasan and Aviram, who threatened to inform the king (Shemos 2:11); Mordechai, here; Yosef, here.
    2. As brought by Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz in his stupendous two-volume ‘Bereishis’ (ArtScroll, 1977), p. 1645, first column.
    3. Midrash Tehillim 10.

  • Yehudis & Latkes: Solving Two Chanukah Mysteries

    For more on Chanukah see:

    ‘Why We (still) Light the Menorah Indoors‘

    &

    ‘Chanukah’s Absence from Mishneh & Brevity in the Talmud‘

    We are all taught as children about the heroine within the story of Chanukah, Yehudis. As we will show, there is a lot more here than meets the eye.

    I. THE KARTOFFEL KERFUFFLE
    Take a poll on what is the most common Chanukah food staple, and

    latkes would come in at number one, with sufganiyot nipping at their heels. However, fried potatoes are a very recent addition to Chanukah. While most assume that potatoes were first brought to Europe either

    by the sixteenth-century conquistadors or by Sir Walter Raleigh, either way they only reached widespread use during the mid-1700s. Indeed, the fact that most of us make the berachah Ha’adamah on potatoes proves how late potatoes entered Jewish kitchens.

    Briefly, some argue that the proper berachah should be Shehakol, like mushrooms. This is due to several halachic factors, and especially the fact that close to one thousand years ago the Aruch used an odd term to refer to these truffles: “tartfulls” (which I always assumed was simply a transliteration of “truffle.”)

    Some, especially early Chassidishe poskim, asserted that the Aruch was referring to a kartoffel, a term used for the lowly potato. While there are a number of reasons that most poskim argued with Shehakol being the berachah for potatoes, an important factor was the point that the Aruch could never have been referring to a potato, as he did not even know what they were back then.

    If latkes, while a nice minhag, do not and could not have any provenance in classic minhagei Yisrael—and are certainly not brought in the Shulchan Aruch—is there any truly halachic food on Chanukah? Yes, there is!

    II. CHEESE, PLEASE

    The Rama makes an interesting aside in the Shulchan Aruch.2 While discussing the lack of an official obligation to make a seudah on Chanukah, the Rama adds that there is an inyan to be marbeh b’seudos and to eat cheese on Chanukah. We have finally found a clear minhag relating to food on Chanukah.

    The explanation for this minhag is likely familiar to many. Cheese was one of the foods Yehudis fed the enemy so as to later trap and kill him. The Mishnah Berurah fills in the rest of the story: “Yehudis was the daughter of Yochanan Kohen Gadol and there was a law…so she fed cheese to a leading general so as to tire him. She chopped off his head [causing] the enemy to flee.”3 This is no small matter, and it is more than a story.

    The Gemara teaches that women are also obligated in mitzvas neir Chanukah because “they, too, were in this miracle.”4 While many Rishonim, like the Ritva,5 understand this simply to mean that they, like the rest of Klal Yisrael, were in turmoil, Rashi understands the reasoning differently. He explains that it means that they were at the center of our salvation. Without mentioning Yehudis by name, he gives us this same story as the reason that women are obligated in Chanukah lights.

    The Ran6 goes one step further, quoting an unknown Midrash. While he, too, does not mention her name, he does add to the story by claiming the heroine was the daughter of Yochanan Kohen Gadol. A few years later, the anonymous sefer Kol Bo puts it all together as we know the story today, resulting in the heroine being identified as Yehudis the daughter of Yochanan Kohen Gadol.

    In fact, Tosafos7 takes women’s centrality to Chanukah one step further. In the name of the Rashbam, it is stated that on both Chanukah and Purim, we were only saved because of the two famous women in each story, and for this reason, all women are obligated in these days, even though they are mitzvos bound by time. Rav Eliyahu Hakohen M’Izmir, the Orah V’Simchah, even wonders why, then, it doesn’t say in Al Hanissim

    “Bimei Mattisyahu v’Yehudis”!8

    III. A CHANUKAH CHUMRA FOR WOMEN

    Because of the above, another halachah is codified. The Shulchan Aruch9 brings a minhag that women should refrain from doing melachah (accord- ing to most this only includes that which would also be forbidden on Chol Hamoed) during the first half hour that the Chanukah neiros are burning. Many wonder why this halachah/minhag is codified to apply specifically to women. While the Be’er Hagolah and many others simply explain that this is because it is more common that they are home at that time and therefore should have a reminder that they cannot benefit from these lights, others give another reason.

    The Mishnah Berurah explains: “This minhag is unique to women be- cause the neis happened through them!”10 Again, we see their centrality to this Yom Tov.11

    IV. WHO WAS YEHUDIS? WHO WAS YOCHANAN?

    If Yehudis was the daughter of Yochanan Kohen Gadol, would that not make Mattisyahu her brother? After all, we say in Al Hanissim, “Bimei Mattisyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol.” In addition, which Yochanan is this? The Gemara teaches that one should not trust in himself until he dies, for Yochanan was a tzaddik and served as Kohen Gadol and then became a Tzeduki at the end of his life!12 Could this be the father of Mattisyahu, the father of Yehudis? If so, why would we mention him in a tefillah of praise? He left Toras Chazal!

    The Imrei Noam13 brings from the Vilna Gaon, and the same is brought in the Seder Hadoros, that in truth there were two Yochanans. The first is the one we mention in Al Hanissim. Mattisyahu would then have a grand- son that he would name after the baby’s great-grandfather, Yochanan. It was this second Yochanan who would go on to become a Tzeduki.14 There are still others15 who say that this Yochanan was indeed one and the same as the Tzeduki, and they each offer varying explanations as to why we still mention him by name in such a lofty tefillah recounting this neis.

    But the mystery is not yet over. Many wonder—like Rashi and others who assert that Yehudis’s story is so central to the neis—why Chazal do not mention it at all. It’s not even found in Megillas Antiochus. (Although, I would answer that the Ran indeed did seem to have a Midrash that discussed the story.)

    The Ben Ish Chai suggests that the story of Yehudis took place many years earlier and is only being remembered on Chanukah. This explana- tion requires further study, for it would make her father being named Yochanan Kohen Gadol a tremendous coincidence. It would also call into question Rashi’s view regarding the women’s obligation in mitzvas Chanukah being due to the story of Yehudis being so central to the neis. However, even the Ben Ish Chai still maintains that this story—although not during the classic Chanukah story—took place during the Greek rule over us.

    This is as opposed to Sefer Yehudis (of unclear origin, see below), which places her events in the time of Nevuchadnetzar. Indeed, Rav Yaakov Emden also states that this event took place during Bayis Rishon.16 Even if, according to other sources, this incident indeed took place during the Chanukah story, the piyut for the second Shabbos Chanukah names her Chanah, brother of Yehudah Hamacabi, continuing to add to the confusion.

    The Aruch Hashulchan combines many versions of these events and says that (as the first piyut for Shabbos Chanukah teaches) the Greek king was livid when he heard how the Jews killed his general after the wedding of the daughter of the Kohen Gadol; at a later time in the story, there was a woman named Yehudis who fed the enemy dairy. Like the Ben Ish Chai, he is asserting that these events did happen around the time of Chanukah, although not necessarily during the main events.

    In Megillas Taanis (the earliest work of Torah She’baal Peh), the story of Yehudis is recorded (by the date 17th of Elul) without her name, only describing the woman as the daughter of Yochanan Kohen Gadol. It also states that it was her brother Mattisyahu who avenged an evil act against her. This, to me, seems most authoritative and is also in line with the piyut mentioned by the Aruch Hashulchan. As for Yehudis, as he states, she must have been another woman who later took matters into her own hands.

    As we say each Chanukah and Purim when we delve into their various mysteries, there is so much more to minhag Yisrael than meets the eye. One thing is for sure: this Yom Tov, like Purim and geulas Mitzrayim, could not have ever occurred without nashim tzidkaniyos.

    NOTES

    2  Shulchan Aruch 670:2.

    3  Mishnah Berurah, ad loc., seif katan 10.

    4  Shabbos 23a.

    5  See also Tosafos to Pesachim 108b.

    6  Ad loc.  Megillah 4a.

    8  See also Yafeh L’Lev 5:682:2, as brought in Shiltei Gibborim to the Mordechai on the second perek of Shabbos.

    9  Shulchan Aruch, ad loc., seif 1.

    10  Mishnah Berurah, ad loc., seif katan 3.

    11  See also Pardes Yosef, Chanukah, pp. 149–50.12  Berachos 29a.

    13  Ibid.

    14  In a later chapter, “Chanukah’s Many Bracketed Words: Part II,” we further discuss who this Yochanan was and how his name—and perhaps more—can be included in our siddur.

    15  The B’nei Yissaschar as brought by the Klausenberger Rebbe in Divrei Yatziv, Orach Chaim 282; Divrei Shaul; Rav Sternbuch in Moadim U’Zemanim 2:137.Mor U’Ketziah 670.

    See Also:

    Chanukah’s Absence from Mishneh & Brevity in the Talmud
  • Antisemitism & The Campus Idealists

    Antisemitism & The Campus Idealists

    For more on this theme, see link for: “Jews and ‘Dual Loyalty’“

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    Published in Ami Magazine, 2024

    “I’m no Nazi. I am an idealist!”

    So asserted on Wilfried Böse, one of two Germans who, along with two Arab Palestinians, hijacked Air France Flight 139 on its way from Tel Aviv to Paris in 1976.

    His preposterous comment was made even more ludicrous by the fact that is was said to a Holocaust survivor.

    Böse was separating the Jewish and non-Jewish passengers (naturally, they were not separated by Israeli vs non-Israelis, mind you; rather by ‘Jew’ and ‘non-Jew’), when this older survivor rolled up his sleeve to display the numbers the Nazis had tattooed on his arm. This forced Wilfried Böse to come face-to -face with his native country’s past evil -an evil he was now perpetuating, causing his above remark (see: Time Magazine, “Hitler’s Children,” August 8, 1977).

    One would imagine that similar machinations of self-delusion and cognitive dissonance go through the minds of some of the modern protesters at our universities as they lay down to sleep each night. Even if they are informed that some of their Jewish brethren on campus are in fear, they comfort themselves with the soft lullabies of—“I am but an idealist”.

    I challenge the reader to guess which ‘crime’ committed by the Jewish State led to the following (an excerpt) notes of consideration undertaken against Israel by the United Nations Security Council:

    “The Security Council considered the matter at five meetings held between 9 and 14 July 1976. The representatives of Cuba, the Federal Republic of Germany, Guinea, India, Israel, Kenya, Mauritania, Mauritius, Qatar, Somalia, Uganda, the United Republic of Cameroon and Yugoslavia were invited, at their request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. The case before the Council raised a number of complex issues… He hoped that the Council would find a way to point the world community in a constructive direction…”

    What had Israel done this time?

    One may think this incident involved the Yom Kippur War and the lands that had not yet been exchanged. Or maybe it was about the unverified-yet-well-known nuclear developments in Israel.

    No.

    The above was from July 9-14, 1976, when the United Nation’s many voting members were aghast at Israel’s miraculous rescue of the hostages in Entebbe!

    Here is an excerpt from the United Nations yearbook (emphases mine):

    “The representative of Qatar, who spoke on behalf of the Arab group of Member States, said the Council was concerned not with the hijacking but with the fact that a Member State had violated the territorial integrity of another Member State by flagrantly landing its troops on that State’s territory and menacing its population and security forces.

    “While the Israeli murderers were preparing for their aggression… [In] its surprise attack on this unsuspecting, peaceful country in the heart of Africa…[an] illegal act of state terrorism…flagrant violation of international law…[and] called upon the Security Council to condemn Israel in the strongest possible terms…and consider sanctions against this longtime violator of the United Nations Charter and of international law.

    “A number of speakers—Benin, China, Cuba, Guinea, Mauritius, Romania, the USSR, the United Republic of Tanzania, and others—made the point that it was inadmissible to react to terrorist acts of individuals or groups, which had been condemned by the international community, by another terrorist attack. Israel’s action, they said, was a premeditated and naked act of aggression committed against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Uganda; they called on the Council to condemn the action in the most vigorous manner and compel Israel to pay compensation for the damage inflicted on Uganda…

    “The Chinese representative [!!} said that…the Israeli Zionists had subjected the Palestinian and other Arab peoples to frenzied aggression and brutal massacre. Whatever excuses they might find to justify and whitewash their criminal acts of aggression were completely untenable and of no avail…”

    Yearbook of the United Nations, Vol. 30, 1976, pp. 315-320

    ———————

    Many Jews today are experiencing growing anxiety as they watch young Americans show support for those who brutally target and kill Jews. Even the events of October 7th -we are now told -must be given ‘context’, as if the world should ever not respond with disgust and fear from such actions.

    No Jew that I know, for instance, would support someone escaping a Nazi death camp to only then go inside the town of Auschwitz and butcher children, or hold them in tunnels for years.

    For Jews it is easy: should Israel support the sanctioned rape, baby-hostage-taking, and targeted murder of Palestinians then virtually every synagogue will take down their Israeli flags. No one would be angrier than Jews at having their faith spit-upon in such a manner, having children created in ‘the image of Gd’ used for land-sport. We would be the first to protest.

    A small part of me believes that the world deep down is aware that the very things that many are now falsely libeling Jews with are the very actions Jews have been at the forefront of fighting against and protecting the world from. More than projection, they are inverting our nature and watching us twist and turn, dizzy with how to even respond to such horrid lies.

    +_____________________________________

    Alas, they don’t make antisemties as they used to.

    The level of ignorance found among modern day Israel-haters is astounding (I’m not reffering to Israel-dislikers, disagree-ers, policies, or the like; indeed there are more of those among Jews than Gentiles!)

    From my experience, most protesters are not even informed to the most basic of October 7th being an attack not on disputed territory or land.

    Regrettably, that information would anyway often not change minds, as, to most arguments, they often simply retort, “All of the land belongs to the Palestinians…”, or, “What did you expect they would do when treated the way they are by Israel for all these years?”?

    Forgetting the sheer sophistry of such a position for a moment, one has to wonder where their agreeable professors and mentors are. Have they never prepared these shepherded interlocutors with basic facts, or a map? Have they not stress-tested their arguments, if only to make them more persuadable to the genuinely curious?

    When confronted with such hatred and ignorance, I seek to distill my points down to the following 7 questions:

    • “Even if you believe it is all Palestinian land, is everything and anything allowed in such cases, and against civilians, even against those citizens dedicated to this very struggle (as was the case regarding the victims of Oct. 7)? If not, which tactics would be off the table? Why?”
    • “May all peoples who argue or feel to be in a similar position respond in kind, in the same manner? -E.g. Kashmir, Rwanda, Western Sahara…Native Americans, etc. – If not, why not? And, if not, how will you now prevent that after offering your support here?
    • May Israeli’s who argue or feel that Arabs are on their land now target Arabs for killings, rapes, and the maiming of innocents? If not, why not? (The interlocutor would often be shocked to learn that two million such Israeli citizens exist).
    • If they argue, “But this is different…”, explain that this is why we have set and pre-stated morals. For example, “Just because you understand that the father who killed his child’s victimizer is different than other cases does not mean your support to let him walk will not open a pandora’s box of other, less moral, vengeful acts, nor will such posturing and equivocating prevent your justifications to lead to a far more dangerous society”.
    • “If you get your way, would Jews be able live on Palestinian land, as Arabs do on Israeli?”
    • “Why did the Israelis remove the remains and graves of buried Jews when they annexed Gaza in 2005?” (If they even know Israel gave them all of Gaza then)
    • “How would you want America to respond to the exact same circumstances, with hostages, held in an urban area, aided by citizen protection, tunnels, etc.?”

    ____________________________________

    In one of the schools where I teach, a student approached me and said anxiously, “There is so much chaos. It’s so scary!”

    I asked the students in the class to take their seats and spoke to them all. I told them that in Shemoneh Esrei, we offer thanks in Modim. It is easy to relate to the gratitude described there, except for one line: “Al chayeinu hamesurim b’yadecha v’al nishmoseinu hapekudos lach”—we thank Hashem for our lives, which are in His hands, and for our souls, which are entrusted to Him.

    It would be understandable if this statement appeared in Tachanun or in U’nesaneh Tokef, but why here? Are we thanking Hashem for the fact that He may decide to take us to the Olam Ha’emes at any moment?

    The answer seems to be that this part of the tefillah is for moments like the ones we are experiencing now, when we are at war and our enemies abound, when life seems capricious, when the arbitrary nature of suffering keeps us up at night. At times like this, we thank Hashem that He is in control. Chazal state that only Hashem has the keys to life and death, and He gives them to no one else (Taanis 2).

    Although we may not understand the reason for what is happening, we do know He has a plan.

    Hostage-taking is not new to the Jewish people. A number of people in Chumash experienced this horror—Lot, Sarah Imeinu, Dina. (Interestingly, the Rambam, the Ramban and the Maharal, among others, discuss the issue of allowing civilian casualties during a war, one purpose of which would be to save even a single hostage.)

    And then there was Yosef. Last week was the yahrtzeit of Rachel Imeinu (according to many; cf. Rashi on Bereishis 48:7 with Pesikta Rabbasi).The following Chazal, which discusses the initial moments of Yosef’s capture by the Yishma’elim, is fitting for this moment(Sefer Hayashar, Vayeishev, ch. 8). 

    “And the Yishma’elimcontinued their journey and passed Efrat, where Rachel was buried. Yosef ran to the grave, falling and weeping upon it. He cried out upon his mother’s grave, saying, ‘Oh, my mother! My mother, you who gave me birth to me! Awake! Arise now! See how your son has been sold into slavery with no one to have compassion upon him. Oh, arise! Look at your son! Weep with me in my affliction!…

    “‘Oh, my mother! Rouse! Awaken! [I have been] torn away from my father… Bring my complaints before Hashem! See…who is to be condemned. Arise! Oh, my mother, awaken from torpor! Distinguish my father, whose soul is with me this day, and comfort him and console his heart.’

    “Yosef continued to cry aloud and to weep bitterly upon his mother’s grave. From the bitterness of his heart, he finally became silent, like a stone upon the grave.

    “Yosef then heard a voice speaking to him, answering him in a voice of weeping and prayer: ‘My son! Yosef! Oh, my son! I haveheard the voice of your weeping and crying, and I haveseen your tears, and I haveseen your affliction. Oh, my son, I amgrieved for your sake… Now a new sorrow has been added to my sorrow.

    “‘Now, my son Yosef, place your hope in Hashem… Do not fear, for Hashem is with you to deliver you from all trouble…’”

    The navi informs us (Yirmeyahu 31:14, 15): “So says Hashem: A voice is heard on high, a lamentation, a bitter weeping; it is Rachel weeping for her children, and she refuses to be comforted for her children while they are not comforted. ‘Know that there is hope for your future,’ says the Lord, ‘and the children shall return to their own border.’”

    Chazal (Pesikta #24 on Eichah Rabbah) share Rachel’s tefillah with us. She reminds Hashem, “It is revealed before You that Your servant Yaakov treasured me greatly and worked for my father seven years for me. When those seven years were completed and the time for my marriage arrived, Lavan plotted to exchange my sister for me. This plot was very difficult for me, and I gave Yaakov a signal. Afterward, I regretted what I had done, and I had mercy on my sister…”

    Immediately Hashem’s rachamim was aroused, and He said, “For you, Rachel, I will restore Israel to its place.”

    On Simchas Torah this year, we were expecting a chasan Torah; we were looking forward to dancing after weeks of teshuvah and hard work. Instead we were met with tragedy and pain.

    Perhaps this is the reason we choose Rachel as our advocate in galus. She understands the feeling of hope and excitement, of trust and anticipation—and she understands what it means to have her hopes torn asunder.

    May Hashem accept her cries once more and bring the yeshuah we so desperately need. ●

  • Fingernail Halacha: Insights & Mystical Significance

    Fingernail Halacha: Insights & Mystical Significance

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    December, 2024

         I was recently by a friend’s home, when he showed me a newly purchased two-volume set titled Otzar HaKippah, an encyclopedic work on the history, halacha, and hashkafa of the yarmulka.

        It seems that there is no shortage today of sefarim on specialized topics that scattered throughout halacha.

        If there is a mechaber looking for a muse, searching for a fascinating-yet-specialized topic on which to write, and whose tentacles reach into so many areas of halacha, machshava, and even kaballa, I would recommend: tzipornaim/fingernails.

        From Shabbos, to adam harishon, to the danger of leaving fingernails laying around, chatzitza/mikveh, aveilus, rosh chodesh, havdala, chol hamoed, etc. this topic is found scattered throughout the Shulchan Aruch. In fact, I would not be shocked if some type of Otzar HaTzipornaim already exits!

    1. Shabbos

         I was in 11th grade when this topic was first impressed upon me. Our yeshiva –Nachalas Tzvi in Toronto – arranged that we spend tamuz in the legendary Camp Ohr Shraga.

         Many gedolim of the last generation spent their summers on those grounds. In fact, on the first day there, someone pointed to a gazebo, remarking, “This is where Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky would learn”.

        Our grade’s shiur that summer was given by Rav Nesanel Quinn, zt”l. Born in 1910, Rav Quinn attended the very first class of Torah V’Daas, and soon became a towering talmud chacham and celebrated rebbe at the yeshiva. Along with Rav Zelik Epstein, Rav Quinn helped found the camp and, in his younger days, I was told, he would often be seen on a ladder or upon a bunk’s roof with his tool set. 

         That first day of shiur, Rav Quinn told us that he may have trouble remembering all of our names at first, so he asked permission to give us nicknames by which to remember us. Mine was ‘Modzitz’. Although not related, ‘Taub’ is the last name of many of their rebbes, making it an easy choice.

        He came up with sometimes funny and often brilliant nicknames for each bochur. He soon came to a boy who happened to be biting his nails at the time. “I will call this boy ‘Shabbos’’, he quipped.

        This was long before Shabbos Kestenbaum came onto the scene, so we all chuckled at such an odd name.

       He then explained his deeper message behind this nickname:

       “I have a mesorah that anyone who bites their nails during the week is b’chezkas chilul Shabbos. Such a habit becomes routine, is done without thinking, therefore, one who practices it during the week will almost certainly – and without thinking – also do so on Shabbos kodesh, thereby violating the melacha of gozez. If I call him ‘Shabbos’, the kedusha of that word will perhaps alert him to stop”.

        Gozez is the melacha of shearing, and applies to the removal, cutting, or uprooting of any growing part of a living creature, alive or dead. The Shulchan Aruch rules that when hair or nails are removed with a designed tool it is a Torah violation (siman 340:1). Removing such things with one’s hand or mouth would be a shvus/dereabanan. If the reader happens to have this nasty habit, maybe this story alone will be the catalyst to stop.

    1. Erev Shabbos

        I was reminded of this story the other day when I received a fascinating shailah from Yerushalaim where one of my daughters is in seminary for the year. She was curious if I could help her find a source. She shared that in one of the classes, the rav was reviewing the halacha that we should be cutting our nails in honor of Shabbos (Shulchan Aruch siman 260:1).

        Aside for the general logic in entering Shabbos in a fresh and clean state, there are more mystical significances attached to this (see, e.g., Elyah Rabba here, siif 4). There is a much complexity to this halacha. The poskim debate if this is a mitzvah each-and-every week, and, if Friday is the only day to do so.

        Some, like the Taz, posit that the reason we do not cut nails on a Thursday is specific to that day – as the third day after such cutting -i.e. Shabbos- is when the new growth starts or will becomes noticeable. The achronim explain that his concern is therefore for a type of adjacent melacha/zilzul Shabbos (see shu”t Eretz Tzvi 1:109 and shu”t Shevet HaLevi 6:21;2).

        However, many others explain that the reason to avoid cutting nails on a Thursday is simply because by doing so it is less apparent that this action is l’kavod Shabbos (see, e.g. Mishneh Berrurah siif 5). Rav Nissim Karelitz takes this ideal to also mean we should not cut nails even on Thursday night. Even though that is halachicly Friday, it is not seen as an action performed uniquely for Shabbos (Chut Shani, 1:5;1).

        As for other days of the week, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Magen Avraham and many others share concerns based on kaballa, and say it should be avoided (halachicly too-as all the more so would this negate kavod Shabbos).

    1. Men vs. Women

       As my daughter was being taught these halachos, the rav shared with the class the concern of cutting one’s nails in order. The Rema mentions this concern and gives us a suggested order in which to cut them.

         The Mishneh Berrura comments that many -including the Ari’zal -were not concerned about this, and allowed nails being cut in order, but the Chofetz Chaim concludes that we should still be careful regarding this. 

         “My teacher than shared that in any event this concern does not apply to women. Do you know his source?” she asked me.

        We raise our children never to question the Torah taught by their holy teachers, and her request was one of curiosity not challenge. “I won’t have this teacher for another week or so, and was curious to know now”.

        My initial reaction was shared curiosity. The Mishneh Berrura makes a point earlier to inform us that bathing erev Shabbos applies to women as well (siif 2), so why would he not mention women exclusion here a few siifim later?

          But I trusted this amazing seminary and its rebbeim. After a little digging, I found something amazing.

          While many lofty and kabbalistic reasons given to not cut nails in order, there was one reason that was purely halachic in nature, and would indeed explain this rav’s words.

         The Elef L’Magen and others bring from earlier sources that the concern here is for lo silbosh-acting in a cross-gender fashion. Women, when cutting their nails, do so with purpose, make sure they are all even and the same length, and facilitate this goal by cutting them in order. This is why men -and only men-are told to avoid such an effeminate action!

    (See Alef L’magen to siman 606:18, Agudas Shmuel to Rashi sefer daniel, 8:15; see Piskei Teshuvos, siman 260 note 76 in the new editions).

         But we have only scratched the surface!

        Just last motzai Shabbos my wife commented that for twenty years she saw me do something with my nails by the beracha of morei haeish -that most don’t do. “I always thought it was a mistake, so I didn’t say anything. But now I just need to ask…”.

        What do I do with my nails at that time, and, many other fingernail halacha and history when we return to this topic at some later date, iy”H.

    1. Adam’s Clothes and Halacha

        The idea that Adam harishon and Chava were clothed in skins of fingernails is one we have all heard since childhood. Its source, however, is a little murky.

       The pasuk states “Hashem made Adam garments of skin (‘uhr’) and clothed them” (3:21). While the midrash (Rabbah, 20:12) brings a number of views as to the meaning of this word ‘uhr’ (with an ayin), Rashi only brings two of them: Either this simply refers to furs/hides taken from other animals that kept them warm, or, in the name of Rav Yitzchak Ravya, that their skin was smooth like fingernails and shown like jewels.

       While Rashi never quotes it, the meforshim on this midrash draw our attention to another, related, midrash, which states: “What was the clothing of Adam? It was a skin of/like fingernails and the Cloud of Glory upon him. When he sinned, this fell off and the Cloud departed, and this is what it means by Adam being ‘naked’ (Pirkei D’ Rav Eliezar 14:3)”.

        Meforshim to this last midrash marshal the words of the Zohar, which may be the source to the commonly repeated ‘fingernail/Adam cimnection’: “…When Adam sinned, the original special garment -given to him upon entering Eden – was removed, causing him to now wear a different garment. The first garment was…called ‘levushei tziporon/nail clothing’…once he sinned, this was removed…but a remnant remains on mankind as fingernails…” (Zohar, vaykehl, 282).

    How did this mystical information become so well known, and how does it relate to halacha? This is likely due to the Shelah Hakodosh, who brings from the sefer Tola’as Yaakov what he calls the ‘great secret of nails’. {Many may not be familiar with this sefer or its author. It was written by Rav Meir ben Yechezkel ibn Gabbai (d. circa 1540). After escaping the inquisition, he would go on to become one of the earliest mekubalim of the achronim, slightly preceding the Ari’zal and others}

        Rav ibn Gabbai begins by quoting the Zohar, including where he says that this skin of nails was protected from the mirkavah before the sin, but after the sin became susceptible to great tumah. He then concludes by stating that for this reason do we cut our nails before Shabbos, as we mustn’t enter kedusha with growth of potential tumah.

        We will now soon see how others bring this idea to other halachos as well.

    1. Nails and Havdala

    How does this all relate to my wife’s curiosity?

    The Shulchan Aruch states that we are to look at our fingernails by Havdala (as well as the back of our fingers, the creases). While steeped in kabbala, he does not mention Adam. Rather, on the contrary, he says this is because fingernails are a siman beracha because they are constantly growing (siman 298:3).

        Rather it is the Pri Megadim (d. 1792) who quotes the Tola’as Yaakov and then states that for this reason do we look at our nails at this time (Eshel Avraham 298:5). But how does this connect to havdala? I would suggest the following: Pri Megadim concludes this short comment with the seemingly unrelated reminder of the danger that cut nails can be for pregent women. Since we can’t cut nails on Shabbos (as discussed in part 1), now after Shabbos we wish to remind everyone again of this concern.

        Amazingly, long before the dispersion of the Zohar, we find the Rav Mordechai ben Hillel, hy”d (murdered 1298) discussing this custom by havdala (Mordechai, yoma, at the beginning). He was asked why this is not a concern for nichush/divining. He explains that we do this for a specific purpose: to recall what Adam had as skin before the sin. Seemingly, he is suggesting that before the work week we remind ourselves that there was and will be a time of kulo Shabbos, as well as the danger and impact of sin.

         All of this led to my wife wondering why I first look at my nails, then make the beracha, and only after look again and at the skin lines below them. “I always wanted to ask you why you benefit from the fire before the beracha”.

         A beracha on pleasure is always recited before the pleasure, while a beracha of praise (e.g. lightning) is typically said after witnessing the subject of our praise. What is me’orei ha’eish? If it’s for the pleasure of light/fire then it makes sense to do like most and first make the beracha and only after to look at one’s nails.  

       Suprisingly, while some it is a beracha of pleasure, most rule it is praise (see, e.g., Biur Halacha, siman 296, et al.). This means one can enjoy it without a beracha, and certainly one can make a beracha after. I try to accomplish both views.

        Well, we still didn’t discuss which nails to look at by havdala, and on which hand, nor the issue of danger of cut nails for pregnant women, and why the word for nails is so simaler to that for birds, and even Moshe’s wife.

       We will return to this vast topic from time to time iy’H, but don’t expect it to be soon!

  • Simanim: A Deeper Understanding to Our Rosh Hashanah Customs of Symbolism Through Food

    Simanim: A Deeper Understanding to Our Rosh Hashanah Customs of Symbolism Through Food

    September, 2024

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

         Chazal tell us, simanah milsa hi, that simanim can carry weight and portend somehow toward the upcoming year (horios 12a; krisos 5b-6a).

      From all the halachos codified in the Shulchan Aruch, and the myriad minhagim and hanahgos urged by chazal, I can think of none that are as openly pondered and deliberated as is the simanim of Rosh Hashana. It is among those subjects that often leads to confusion, is open to more errors, and brings more shailos to rabbanim over these Days.

        For many, the Rosh Hashana simanim is their earliest mitzvah memory, which may cause the reader to be surprised to learn of the mountains of ink spilled trying to ascertain not just their significance, but even their allowance as, at first blush, the concept seems to run counter to the prohibition of nichush/divination (see below).

         I will seek to not only clarify this issue for the reader, but to also answer some common questions that arise in many homes each year.

         We will not be focusing on all the untold of halachos involved in the simanim – e.g. when to make the berachos, in what order, when to say the yehi ratzon, issues of hefesk, etc.

       Those should be left to one’s personal rav and family minhag.

    1. Only On the First Night?

        “What did we do last year?” is a common shailah in many homes as some struggle to follow minhag avoseihem. In my home, this question is always asked regarding if we serve chrayn and pickles on the yom hadin.

        A most common quandary in homes is if they are to also put out simanim on the second night of Rosh Hashana.  

        On its face, any second night of yom tov should mirror the first, as its whole point is in case this is the true day/date. Indeed, many poskim opine that this is true for the simanim as well, and this was the minhag of the Ben Ish Chai, Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach (see Shaarei Teshuva, 583:1; see further sources in Simanim U’Minhagim, p. 161, footnote 25).

         On the other hand, others, such as Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, posit that the simanim are unique to the first night of Rosh Hashana only. The Esehel Avraham further explains that the simanim are for the very start of the year, hence we serve it at night, and only the first night at that. The Bnei Yisashchar goes further, seeking to prove directly from the words of chazal that the simanim are only for the first night.

        Rav Shmuel Kamenetzky is quoted in Kovetz Halachos that there is certainly no harm if someone wishes to say a yehi ratzon, eat, and daven for a good year on the second night as well. In other words, no matter one’s minhag, according to him there is no concern in having simanim on the second night as well.

       The Bnei Yisaschar brings a fascinating mystical reason as to why some only have simanim on the first night (tishrei, 2:11).

        The sifrei kabbalah teach how the first night of Rosh Hashana corresponds to Leah and the second to Rachel (Pri Eitz Chaim, 324:1). Now, we all know how Rachel gave the ‘simanim/the secret signs which Rachel and Yaakov agreed upon to Leah so as to protect her dignity when she married Yaakov. So that on the second night- Rachel’s night -we no longer have the ‘simanim’, as we already gave them away!

        We can find further allusion to this in chazal where we are taught that one of the items remembered by Hashem on Rosh Hashana is Rachel’s chesed in giving over the simanim to her sister (see rosh hashana 11a).

    II. Shehechiyanu-On Which Night?

        Another area where both days of a yom tov may not exactly mirror each other relates to the shehechiyanu-fruit where all agree that this requirement is unique to the second night only.

        To rabbanim, this is most obvious, but many otherwise informed holy Jews may not be aware.

       Let me explain:

    The new-fruit is due to the view that the two days of Rosh Hashana are seen as a yoma arichta/one long day. Based on this approach, kiddush’s shehechiyanu on the first night covers the entire yom tov, and to make it again on the second night would be a beracha l’vatala. To satisfy this concern, we have a new fruit or an article of clothing present by the second night’s kiddush and have in mind that the beracha by kiddush is either like any other second night of yom tov, or, according to the above concern, is for this new item.

        Nevertheless, and perhaps causing the confusion, some have a separate and independent minhag of having a new fruit on the first night of Rosh Hashana as well, but for a unconnected reason: as a good sign that the year should bring good and new things, as alluded to by the Tur and others. Should one follow this minhag, they must make sure that the new fruit for the second night is one they have not yet enjoyed on the first!

    III. Davening or Divining?

        Chazal teach that if bread falls out of one’s mouth, or a stick from one’s hand, and he sees this is as a ‘bad sign’ they have thereby transgressed the Torah prohibition of nichush (sanhedrin 85b with vayikra 19:26).

        If so, how can chazal elsewhere support the concept of simanim on Rosh Hashana?

        In fact, the Meiri explains the gemaros relating to the simanim of Rosh Hashana as informing us that such simanim are in fact forbidden! While the Rambam omits the simanim minhag (see shu”t Maharsham 9:34 that was due to similar reading to the Meiri), almost all other rishonim disagree with the Meiri -as does halachic practice and minhag.    

         The Marharsha explains that there is no concern for nichush by the simanim, for only when one seen a siman as a bad sign does it become forbidden, as opposed to the simanim of Rosh Hashana that portend to the positive.

         Many other explanations have been offered over the centuries.

        I will conclude with an idea I shared with my shul that can be a source of growth:

    IV. Becoming a Vessel For Beracha

         Notice how there is no brisket, or steak among the simanim. They are instead a mix of poor man’s food, sometimes smelly (a sheep’s head!), and otherwise common (e.g. tzimus) foods.

    • Simanim are not magic, but rather a practice session.

     In what way?

    • We want Hashem to give us beracha this yearm yet Hashemis aware how so many of us, regrettably, and far too often, only allow ourselves to see or search for the negative side of things.

    “One who has 100 are sad they don’t have 200”.

    One may have health, live in a beautiful home, etc., yet… can’t sleep because their friends have pools, better vacation etc.

    • On Rosh Hashanah, can we first assure Hashem that we will be able to even notice when He provides us with blessing this year?

       So, perhaps, therfore, on Rosh Hashana, we train our eyes to see the value, the beauty and the blessing in even the most mundane items.

    • We used to clean shechted animals, and then salt them, at home. The wife may say: “The blood, sinews, and body parts of the animal you shechted for yom tov have not been disposed of or cleaned-up! Its head is still sitting out on the table!!”. Instead, she will say, “Wow! How fortunate are we to have meat for yom tov!”
    • Instead of the husband arriving home from shul, complaining, “Tzimus?! That’s what you made for hayom haras olam?!”, he will say, “Wow! Tzimus, mehrin, this is such a wonderful vegetable. May our merits be mehr!” Beets and cabbage, as well, were from the most common, pedestrian of vegetables for centuries, and yet, we will see the good in them.

    This can be seen even when it comes to the names of the simanim we use: specifically choosing items that can have either positive or negative connotations; e.g. ‘dug‘/fish, which can also allude to the word for worry (daageh). Demonstrating to Gd, that we shall only see the positive side of things!

    No more will we suffer through negativity of our own invention, Rather we will search for, and discover, the good, the positive, the light, in everything.

        And then…

    …If we can practice seeing the positive in even our small frustrations…

    Maybe, juts maybe, we will be able to see all the beracha in larger and more important things that Hashem wishes to give to us this year.

    Thereby becoming a worthy receptacle for Gd’s bounty.

       V’chen Yehi Ratzon….