Category: Hashkafa

  • 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….

  • Dip the ‘Apple’ In the Honey?

    Dip the ‘Apple’ In the Honey?

    Is the ‘Tapuach’ Really an Apple?

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    September, 2024

        In a shiur a few weeks ago, I mentioned a fascinating shailah I had received concerning lashon hara.

         I opened by reminiscing about a book our rebbeim in Eitz Chaim Toronto had once given us in elementary school, titled ‘Apples of Gold’, which is on the laws and power of shemiras halashon (Rav Dovid Berstein, Torah U’Mesorah publications).

        “The book’s name was taken from a pasuk that describes well proper communication as tapuchei zahav, meaning ‘golden apples’ (mishlei, 25:11)”.

       Simple enough, right?

        Not to one member, who yelled out:

    “Rabbi, that is incorrect. Tapuach means orange, or perhaps som other citrus fruit!”

        “Excuse me?” I said, genuinely confused.

    The man, one of our wonderful gebbeim, replied by adding, “In fact, tapuach may likely refers to an esrog”!

         There went my planned shiur, as instead we had a geshmak-and very public – beautiful argument about this issue.

         Defending himself, he continued:

    “Chazal say we are to add some tapuach to our seder’s chorases because it will add tartness/sourness to it, and, because it reminds us of the tapuach trees under which Jewish women gave birth in mitzraim (pesachim 116a).”

    Concluding his point, “Citrus fruit are tart, not apples! More, there were no apple trees at the time in Egypt.”

    He further supported his arguments -sharing later he had first heard them from his rebbeim –, by marshaling a Tosefos that posits that ‘tapuach’ mentioned in a pasuk was referring to an esrog. I later found that Tosefos (shabbos 88a), and that particular pasuk (shir hashirim 2:2). I would assert that Tosefos only meant such a transation to tapuach in this one pasuk because, elsewhere, chazal list tapuach and esrog as two separate entities (e.g. the fourth mishneh in maaseros)!

        After maariv, I privately shared with him that while delighted he spoke up, I think offering his comments under the guise of a ‘correction’ was a little extreme, as he was not simply ‘correcting’’ me. “After all, ‘puk chazi mah d’amah devar-go out and observe minhag yisroel’, we must respect the understandings and actions of our holy nation. Perhaps a better method would be to say, ‘I once heard…’ or ‘Have you ever heard…’ or ‘But this seems difficult to understand…’, or the like”.

        More saliently, I shared, “Leaving aside if anthropologists, botanists and other secular chokrim have yet to confirm the existence of contemperanous apple trees in mitzraim, anachronistic arguments are hardly a challenge to the Exodus story when we begin to consider the sextuplets born under those same trees and the melachim who raised them. This is not to mention the ten makkos, the splitting of the sea, and the myriad of wondrous nissim that are either explicit in chumash or mentioned by chazal during our exile in and exodus from mitzraim.

     “Of all these extraordinary events in mitzraim, are you really bothered by apple trees?!”

          As for the ‘tartness/charoses’ proof, apples too can be acerbic. In fact, Rav Yaakov Kamanetzky rules that on Rosh Hashana one should make sure “not to use a tart apple, rather a sweet one” (Emes LYaakov, siman 188). In other words, the gemara regarding choroses may simply be referring to Granny Smith or other more bitter apples, while on Rosh Hashana we are to use Big Red Delicious (my personal favorite).

        Nevertheless, he piqued my interest. I later found that Rav Moshe Shternbuch agrees that we are indeed unsure if our apples are the tapuach of chazal or tanach. He brings some of the same proofs mentioned above (shu”t Teshuvos V’Hanhagos 5:183; see also Kaf Hachaim, siman 583:18 and shabbos 88).

         Nevertheless, Rav Shternbuch does not suggest forgoing apples on Rosh Hashanah.

      So as not to leave the reader with doubts, I will offer four proofs to our use of apples for ‘tapuach’:

    -One of the earliest sources for the minhag of apples dipped in honey on the night of Rosh Hashanah is the Tur (d. 1340). In that same siman, after mentioning this minhag, he mentions that some use ‘esrogim’ as one of the simanim. Clearly, he saw these as two separate entities. (siman 583; cf. Knesses Gedolah who says that the Tur’s use of the word ‘esrog’ was a misprint!).

    -The 11th century Rabbeinu Simcha ben Shmuel, in his Machzor Vitry (siman 323) states: “In France the custom is to eat on Rosh Hashana tapuchim edomim [red ‘tapuchim’]…all foods that are either new, light and good [sweet]…”. I doubt he was referring to blood oranges. Rather, this very early source seems to support apples and, like Rav Yaakov, specifically red/sweet ones.

    -The Pardes Yosef (hachadash, rosh hashana, p. 196) suggests that many of the simanim listed in the gemara were not commonly available in Europe, Russia, Spain, etc.. So, we chose the ubiquitous apple precisely because of its commonality. The uncommon esrog would certainly not assuage their concern for availability.

    -Finally, even if our translation of tapuach is inaccurate, it would still be ‘correct’ to use apples, and not just because of the vitality of mimetic practice. My proof? The Alef L’Magen (d. 1828) brings an amazing ruling of the Pri Megadim (d. 1792): What should one do if he does not have a ‘tapuach’ [whatever a tapuach may be!] for the night of Rosh Hashanah?

         He writes that in replacement, they should eat with honey,…tapuach adama/potatoes, as has the term “tapuach” in its name!

       “Dip the Potatoes In The Honey, Make A Beracha Loud And Clear…” doesn’t seem to have the same ring to it!

         Now, potatoes were certainly unknown to chazal, only making their worldwide debut after Columbus’ discovery of the Americas! Clearly then, what matters is not so much which fruit (or tuber!) we dip in honey, rather that is an entity for which we colloquially choose to use the term ‘tapuach’.

        This seems to be because more important than whichever food this term is used for, it’s the name which carries the significance, in that it has the same numerical value as pru ‘urevu (see, e.g. Imrei Noam, moadim, 2, likutim, ois 9, et al.).

        We should note that the Sdei Chemed and many others do bring a separate minhag of eating an esrog as one of the simanim. Many reasons are offered for this, one being that chazal tell us (berachos 57) that seeing an esrog in a dream is a sign of being special in the eyes of Hashem, thus this is a good sign for Rosh Hashanah.  

      In addition to surrendering to our mesorah, and what our own parents and rebbeim have done, there is further significance to an apple (or a potato) and honey:

       An apple slice will turn brown after time. Historically, they would protect such fruits from oxidation by securing it in honey or sugar; hence the name for jam, ‘preserves’, as in to preserve. That is the lesson of the tapuach in honey on this night:

       It is as if we are saying: “Hashem, without You and Your Torah we will, chalila, naturally wilt away”! (see Pardes Yosef p. 194).

    This lesson certainly works with an apple, honey…and a tear.

    See here regarding the Simanim in general.

    See here regarding the myth of the ‘Apple’ in the Garden of Eden.

  • Siddur Brackets & Mysteries

    Siddur Brackets & Mysteries

    The Secret ‘melech’ Rosh Chodesh Bracket

    Does the Chazan Say “Hashem Yimloch’ in Uva L’Tzion Out Loud?

    Does the Chazan Say Hashem S’fasei Out Loud?

    Is It Al Hanissim or V’al Hanissim?

    And much more…

    March, 2023

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    For why we swicth Lcha Dodi’s niggun by Lo Seivoshi, see this link

    For other siddur mysteries, see this link

    The Secret Melech Rosh Chodesh Bracket

    Recently, at shalosh seudos, I challenged my shul members
    with a riddle:

    “What is a difference between the Yaaleh V’yavo
    we say in Shemoneh Esrei and the one we say in bentching?”

    Some predictable responses were given—for example, the
    fact that Yaaleh V’yavo is recited standing and the other sitting.
    Then I gave the answer I had in mind, as well as the story behind the question.
    That Erev Shabbos, the first day of Rosh Chodesh Adar I,
    someone approached me after davening to ask why the word
    “Melech” at the end of Yaaleh V’yavo is often in brackets, and
    why this occurs only in some siddurim.
    Odder still, some of the siddurim that place this word in
    brackets add a comment: “Some say to say this word on Rosh
    Hashanah.”
    What is this about?
    Chazal state, and the Shulchan Aruch rules, that since in the
    third brachah of bentching we must make mention of Malchus
    David, we therefore should not mention Malchus Shamayim as
    we can’t risk drawing any equivalence between the kingship of
    Hashem and that of a human being. This explains why in
    bentching we say “Avinu Ro’einu” (our Father, our Shepherd)
    and not “Avinu Malkeinu,” so that we do not mention Hashem’s
    kingship once the rulership of David is cited (siman 188:3; see
    Brachos 58).
    The Rema adds that this concern in bentching extends to the
    mention of Malchus Hashem at the end of Yaaleh V’yavo, so
    that the word “Melech” is omitted in the passage “Ki Kel Melech
    chanun v’rachum atah.” The Rema adds, however, that he
    doesn’t see many who observe this practice.
    A number of reasons are offered for why many people are
    not careful to omit the word “Melech” from bentching. The Chofetz Chaim supports this omission, but he explains at the
    same time that since Yaaleh V’yavo is considered its own
    separate tefillah, somewhat distinct from Birchas Hamazon, the
    concern about equating Malchus Shamayim with Malchus David
    is mitigated enough that we do not have to correct people.
    Others, such as the Kaf Hachaim, actually show support for
    the common practice of including the word “Melech.” Omitting
    it would give the appearance of reversing the praise that one
    has already offered in Shemoneh Esrei, chalilah.
    As for Rosh Hashanah, the Mateh Ephraim states that even
    those who follow the Rema and omit this word from bentching
    should include it on this day, because on Rosh Hashanah we
    celebrate Hashem’s malchus, and there is no fear that anyone
    will make a comparison to human sovereignty.
    Segulah Secret
    Speaking of siddurim and Rosh Chodesh, I was curious for
    the longest time about another oddity found in many siddurim.
    At the end of Hallel, many siddurim recommend that a verse
    be repeated: “V’Avraham zakein ba bayamim v’Hashem beirach
    es Avraham bakol, and Avraham was aged, advanced in days,
    and Hashem blessed him in all ways” (Bereishis 24:1).
    ArtScroll states, “On Rosh Chodesh many people recite the
    following verse after Hallel.” Its Hebrew siddur adds some
    context, stating, “This is a segulah for arichas yamim.”
    Where does this come from, and why is it specific to Rosh
    Chodesh?
    For many years I could not find the answer to this mystery.
    Recently, someone gave me a wonderful gift—the Mesivta
    edition of the siddur, which provides some sources for this
    minhag but makes it clear that they are rooted in Kabbalah.

    On a less profound level, many note that pasuk about
    Avraham Avinu is the only pasuk in Tanach that associates old
    age with blessing.
    However, it doesn’t draw a parallel to Rosh Chodesh.
    It is here that more mysterious elements enter. Mishnas
    Chasidim (Rosh Chodesh, perek 2) explains that this pasuk is an
    allusion to a particular malach. The siddur of the Baal HaTanya
    even says that one should think of this malach as stating the
    verse. This is because we typically do not say aloud the names
    of certain malachim, as we see in the special added tefillos
    found in Avinu Malkeinu and during tekias shofar (see Arizal,
    Shaar Hamitzvos, Shemos; Sefer Chasidim #205 and 469, and
    Mor U’ketziah on Tur, siman 299; see also Siddur Rabbeinu
    Hazakein, pp. 480-481).
    There are many other siddur bracket mysteries—for
    example, why we say “Adir Adireinu” only in Kedushah on some
    Yom Tov days; the significance of the bracketed words in the
    Friday-night Kiddush; and whether we say “Re’eh nah
    v’anyeinu” in Shemoneh Esrei or leave out the word “nah.”

    “Hashem S’Fasei’s” Whisper
    One of the uncertainties that first-time chazzanim encounter
    is whether the opening words of Shemoneh Esrei—“Hashem
    sefasei tiftach u’fi yagid tehilasecha” (Tehillim 51:17)—are to be
    recited aloud at the beginning of Chazaras Hashatz, quietly, or
    not at all. Although Chazal state that one must begin with these
    words (Brachos 4b and 9b), it is unclear how central that is.
    Before I moved to Queens, I never heard a chazzan say this
    verse aloud. But in my current shul there are members and
    previous rabbanim who studied under Rav Soloveitchik and said
    he held that the verse must be recited aloud at the start of the
    repetition.
    This question has significant ramifications beyond an aveil
    and a first-time chazzan.
    The Shulchan Aruch rules that this verse must be said by the
    chazzan (siman 111:2). However, many poskim assert that he
    meant it should be said quietly (Magen Avraham, Ba’er Heiteiv,
    and Shulchan Aruch Harav, inter alia). Others disagree with his
    premise and argue that the chazzan need not say it at all.
    The Chofetz Chaim wonders if this issue hinges upon
    another. If one forgets to say this verse at the beginning of his
    private Shemoneh Esrei, must he repeat the tefillah? If the verse
    is part and parcel of the tefillah, it would mean that not only
    must the chazzan say it, but so must the private mispallel.
    In the end, he argues that both can be true. The chazzan
    should say it, even if in a whisper; however, it is not an integral
    part of Shemoneh Esrei, and one who forgets to say it does not
    need to repeat Shemoneh Esrei (Biur Halachah, ad loc.).

    Several years ago, I was researching the matter of davening
    for Moshiach. I was astounded to find that Rav Moshe argues
    that, aside from whatever is part of our mesorah, tefillos for
    Moshiach must be avoided (Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim, chelek 5
    24:8; see page 84, second column, second paragraph). This
    matter came up as he was discussing the opening and closing
    verses of Shemoneh Esrei, “Hashem sefasai tiftach” and “Yehi
    l’ratzon” (see there for how they are connected to Moshiach).
    Arguing with the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Moshe says that one who
    forgets the opening verse must repeat Shemoneh Esrei!
    The Riddle of U’va L’Tzion
    If one looks into most siddurim, he will find that three
    pesukim are highlighted in U’va L’Tzion—“Kadosh,” “Baruch,”
    and “Yimloch.” Chazal say that this tefillah, which we call
    Kedushah d’Sidra, sustains the world (Sotah 49), and that is why
    we say the first two pesukim out loud as a tzibbur, introduced
    by the chazzan.
    However, many new chazzanim—and some experiences
    ones—are unsure whether the final line, “Yimloch,” should be
    introduced and recited out loud. Walk into any shul and you will
    notice that the first two are announced, but the third,
    “Yimloch,” often is not. And yes, it is highlighted in most
    siddurim.
    Some chazzanim do have the minhag to introduce
    “Yimloch,” so that it too is recited together (even though its
    introduction consists of Aramaic words which we typically only
    whisper), but most do not.
    The explanation behind this siddur mystery is wrapped in
    another enigma. We will explain this, along with a few other
    siddur mysteries, in our final installment below.

    Rav Dovid Kaplan, z”l, my rosh yeshivah in Nachalas Tzvi in
    Toronto, was a true original. His consummate dedication to
    Torah and mesorah was unmistakable and became ingrained in
    every bachur in his yeshivah.
    This passion came from his esteemed parents, the famed
    Rav Baruch and Rebbetzin Vichna Kaplan (née Eisen), who
    developed the Bais Yaakov movement in America. In the famous
    words of Rav Aharon Kotler, “If not for Rav Baruch and
    Rebbetzin Vichna Kaplan, who started a large-scale Bais Yaakov
    movement on these shores, there would be no true
    appreciation for a ben Torah, for an aspiring talmid chacham,
    for a life consecrated to Torah. There would be no willingness to
    forgo material comfort for the sake of talmud Torah. There
    would be no kollelim in America” (From A Living Mishnas Rav
    Aharon).
    The Brisker Rav himself had urged the Kaplans to move here
    (The Brisker Rav, Vol. 1, p. 225).
    Rav Dovid Kaplan was a captivating, often hilarious speaker
    whose shmuessen were unforgettable. He once told a story of a
    friend of his who went to visit an acquaintance in a prison in
    New York. The prison had Daf Yomi shiurim and daily minyanim,
    and after driving a long way to get there, his friend joined the
    minyan for Shacharis.
    Near the end of davening, he watched as one of the
    prisoners headed to the back table to take off his tefillin. The so
    he turned to this prisoner and said, “I understand why the
    Shulchan Aruch warns us not to end davening or leave shul
    before U’va L’Tzion [132:2] since many people are busy and are
    rushing to get to work. But where are you going?”
    My rosh yeshivah shared this memorable story to remind us
    of the power of regilus—our tendency to err and do aveiros not so much out of taivah as out of habit—and it also brings us back
    to where we left off last week.
    Over the past few weeks we have been discussing various
    mysteries of the siddur, concluding last week with an
    imponderable that contains many secrets. Many who daven
    before the amud are unsure if the line “Hashem yimloch” in
    U’va L’Tzion should be introduced and recited out loud just like
    the two lines of Kedushah that precede it.
    Most shuls do not introduce this line or say it aloud,
    although it is highlighted in most siddurim.
    For the answer to this issue, we have to dig a little deeper
    and understand the importance of U’va L’Tzion (also called
    Kedushah d’Sidra).
    In the tochachah in Sefer Devarim, Hashem alerts us to the
    reality of our present galus: “In the mornings you will say, ‘If it
    were only still evening!’ and in the evenings you will say, ‘If it
    were only still morning!’—because of what your heart will fear
    and your eyes see” (28:67).
    Chazal (Sotah 49) explain this pasuk as informing us that in
    galus nothing will be static; each day will bring a novel
    discomfort. The Gemara wonders how it is possible that a
    continual progression of pain like this won’t consume the world.
    It answers that the world would indeed be consumed if not for
    two zechusim—the merit of answering, “Amein yehei Shemei
    Rabbah” and our daily recital of U’va L’Tzion. Rashi explains that
    this tefillah contains both the pesukim of Kedushah and the
    targum, thereby enabling every single person, no matter how
    busy he is, to learn a little bit of Torah each day.
    Each morning we say the pesukim of Kedushah three
    times—in birchas Krias Shema, during Chazaras Hashatz, and in
    U’va L’Tzion. The Aruch Hashulchan (132:6) explains that this is
    the reason the chazzan introduces each line of the Kedushah in
    U’va L’Tzion, distinguishing it from the others.

    But if you look into most siddurim, you will find that three
    pesukim in this tefillah are highlighted: “Kadosh, kadosh,
    kadosh,” “baruch kevod” and “yimloch.” So why do so many
    people leave this last line of Kedushah out?
    The Avudraham (R. Dovid Avudraham, d. circa 1350), the
    most celebrated of our siddur commentators, points out a
    greater anomaly. The third line of any Kedushah is always
    “yimloch Hashem,” from Tehillim (146:10). Why, then, in U’va
    L’Tzion, do we exchange this verse for the similar “yimloch
    Hashem” that is in the Shiras Hayam in Beshalach (Shemos
    15:18)?
    This switch often goes unnoticed until it is pointed out, and
    it is not the only one. The Rokeach (Vol. 2, p. 441) and the Kol
    Bo (siman 8) observe that “yimloch” and even “Hashem
    yimloch” are completely left out of the Kedushah we say in
    birchas Krias Shema!
    As for the switch in U’va L’Tzion, the Avudraham explains as
    follows: The purpose of this tefillah is to recite pesukim with
    their proper targum. However, the books of Kesuvim—which
    contain the pasuk “yimloch Hashem” from Tehillim—do not
    have a classic mesorah targum. We therefore exchanged it for a
    verse with a similar theme.
    Because this change had to be made, many suggest that it be
    said quietly so as not to compare Toras Moshe to the rest of the
    pesukim in Nevi’im and Kesuvim (see, for example, Ba’er Heiteiv,
    siman 132:2).
    There is another reason some people say this verse quietly.
    Many poskim (but not all; see Arizal as brought in the Shaarei
    Teshuvah) rule that the targum of Kedushah in Aramaic must be
    said quietly. “Yimloch” is the only one that is introduced with
    Aramaic statements, making it questionable whether the
    chazzan should say them aloud so as to alert the tzibbur.

    Al Hannisim vs V’Al Hanissim?
    (For a more detailed discussion of this issue, see the post dedictaed to this subject).

    As Purim is drawing near, I’d like to conclude this mini-series
    on the siddur with a mystery about which everyone has
    wondered—do we say “al hanissim” or “v’al hanissim”?
    As I mentioned a few weeks ago, not always is adding letters
    or words in brackets in the siddur a way of fulfilling all views,
    and this case is no exception.
    For those who may think it makes little difference,
    remember that a single letter in Hebrew can make all the
    difference!
    In siddurim going all the way back to Rav Amram Gaon (d.
    875), through the Tur, and up to the Vilna Gaon (Maaseh Rav48), the vav is absent, and therefore, many argue that the original version should not be changed.
    Others, such as Rav Zalman Henna (d. 1746; see Shaarei
    Tefillah, siman 110) and the Aruch Hashulchan (siman 682),
    urge us to add the vav, which generally signifies a connection to
    what came previously.
    To confuse matters even more, some say that the vav is only
    needed in bentching but not in Shemoneh Esrei. In the latter, Al
    Hanissim does indeed follow the words before it well, and it
    also serves to conclude the hodaah (thanks) section. This is not
    the case in bentching, however, where the brachah of hodaah
    must still be said following Al Hanissim.
    Although Rav Henna is a famed grammarian, other
    medakdim, such as the Yaavetz (Bais Yaakov) and Rav Wolf
    Haddenheim (Safah Berurah), argue that the vav should always
    be omitted.
    Is this a case where the stringency is to say the vav or to
    omit it?
    If you do not have a clear minhag, the only answer is to ask
    your local rav! ●

  • Giraffes and Other Halachic Myths

    Giraffes and Other Halachic Myths

    Including: Tevila for First-Time Use, Bakasha & Public Tehillim on Shabbos,

    March, 2023

    Compiling a list of popular halachic myths would compromise more than one full column, but a few examples will prove helpful.

    Although giraffes have simanei kashrus, kosher signs, we don’t eat them because we don’t know where on the neck to shecht it.

    Although certain utensils require tevilah, one may use them the first time without toiveling them.

    Both statements are false.

    A giraffe’s long neck would make shechitah easier, not harder! How did this ficticious halachic rumor come about? Well, the real reason we don’t eat this mammal is because we generally avoid eating any land or air creature that does not have a tradition of being eaten by Jews. (This is aside from the impracticality of its consumption due to their expense and difficulty of finding and raising them.)

    Among many concerns, without a mesorah, we may not be aware of issues that are unique to the animal in question, such as whether it should be classified as a chayah or beheimah, how to treiber (devein) it, how to deal with its forbidden fats, and whether certain signs of diseases render it treif.

    A rav who is asked this question may explain succinctly, “We simply wouldn’t know how to shecht it.” Hearing this, one may incorrectly assume that the rav is referring to the animal’s most notable feature—its neck.

    As for tevilah, whether it’s a vessel’s first use or its 465th, the halachah is the same -tevilah is required before use. I understand how this myth is perpetuated because I once saw it develop in real time. I was once explaining during a shiur that disposable pans do not require tevilah as long as they will only be used once, and an attendee commented, “Do you mean to say that first-time use never requires tevilah?”

    No! But now understood where the confusion comes from. There are a number of factors that warrant tevilah; the utensil must be one that will be used directly with ready-to-eat food, and it must be made out of certain materials, etc. But first and foremost, it must be classified as a kli, a vessel, something of significance. Many poskim therefore posit that a flimsy item that is intended for one-time use is not a kli to begin with and hence would not require tevilah. (Some poskim even allow these disposables to be used two or three times before requiring tevilah.)

    This is as opposed to a fancy, expensive dish, which is automatically considered a kli. In any event, it is easy to mistake the “one-time” halachah for the “first-time” myth.

    Another common halachic myth that is much more nuanced is connected to the subject of war, which we have been discussing these past few weeks.

    If asked why we don’t daven the regular Shemoneh Esrei on Shabbos, many would respond, “Because we are not allowed to make personal requests on Shabbos.”

    But this is not the reason Chazal give (cf. Yerushalmi, Shabbos, 15:3 and Brachos, 5:2). Nor is it so simple that bakashos are generally not allowed on Shabbos; after all, we say Sim Shalom, Yekum Purkan, and the Yehi Ratzon for cholim—not to mention bentching and many other tefillos that remain unchanged on Shabbos. Consider as well Birchas Hachodesh, which is only said on Shabbos and is full of personal requests!

    The background for these halachos is fascinating, and it relates directly to the way we should respond to an eis tzarah on Shabbos and as a kehillah.

    The Gemara states that the reason we shorten the Shemoneh Esrei from 19 brachos during the week to seven on Shabbos is in order not to burden people (Brachos, 21a). Although the intention seems to be that Chazal wanted to shorten davening, it is clear from the rest of our Shabbos liturgy and leining that this is not the case.

    Instead, the poskim explain that Chazal were referring to emotional tirchah. Our prayers, when recited with conviction, should awaken painful realities, and on Shabbos we are given a break from some of them (see Tanchuma, beginning of Vayeira, and Sefer Hamanhig, Shabbos, siman 11).

    Knowing this is not simply academic Torah l’shmah but also affects halachah. For example, if one accidentally says even the first word of a weekday Shemoneh Esrei blessing on Shabbos (for example, “Atah Chonein” or “Refa’einu”), he must finish that brachah and then return to the Shabbos Shemoneh Esrei (Shulchan Aruch, siman 268; this is true even if he realizes his error before uttering Hashem’s name). The reason for this is precisely due to the fact that one is technically allowed on Shabbos to make a bakashah that he recites consistently.

    However, it is true that Chazal also say that we must avoid certain types of bakashos on Shabbos (e.g., Bava Basra, 91a). Clearly, the prayers that were composed just for Shabbos—such as the Yehi Ratzon after candle-lighting and Birchas Hachodesh—and those for Yomim Tovim that happen to fall on Shabbos, such as Rosh Hashanah, are allowed (see Shulchan Aruch Harav, siman 288:8; shu”t B’tzeil Hachamah, 5:41; Bnei Yissas’char, Shevat 2:2; and Magen Avraham, siman 128:70). Last week we mentioned a view that even allows Avinu Malkeinu to be said when Yom Kippur falls on Shabbos.

    What emerges from all of this is that daily tefillos may be recited on Shabbos, except for the middle blessings of Shemoneh Esrei. All other constant prayers, such as Elokai Netzor, may be recited. Special tefillos, even if they are bakashos, may also be said, especially those such as Yekum Purkan and Mi Shebeirach, which many see as a brachah and not a tefillah (Ohr Zarua, 2:89, and Shulchan Aruch Harav, siman 284:14). All other unique personal tefillos should not be said (Shulchan Aruch, 288:9).

    However, if there is a sakanah, even for one choleh, one may daven for that person on Shabbos as long as he does not do so in a public way (ibid. 8, with Acharonim; see also Piskei Teshuvos, p. 489).

    Now we arrive at our main question. May a shul hold a public Tehillim recitation for the current crisis? On the one hand, it’s sakanas nefashos, but on the other hand, although unique prayers are allowed in a dangerous and time-sensitive situation, doing so with others in a public way is not.

    The Steipler ruled that when Eretz Yisrael is at war, Tehillim should be recited just as on a weekday (Orchos Rabbeinu Vol. I, p. 124). Some have said that during World War II, the special Yehi Ratzons and Acheinu that are recited on Mondays and Thursdays were said publicly on Shabbos after leining (shu”t Tiferes Adam 3:18).

    A few weeks ago, a friend sent a group an email with a list of the hostages, asking that each person he sent it to take one hostage’s name and dedicate a perek of Tehillim to that person. He ended, “Chazal share that when one saves a life, it is as if he has saved the world (Sanhedrin 37a).”

    This is certainly true, and has practical application when it comes to a physical act of salvation. However, obviously, we would not be allowed to be michallel Shabbos so as to purchase a Tehillim from which to daven!

    Rather, when it comes to divrei ruchniyus and tefillah, we must yield to the Torah and halachah and allow Hashem to do the rest.

    May Hashem accept our tefillos, save us from michshol, and enable us to defer, always, to halachah. ●

  • Boots For Israel

    The Hashgacha Pratis Seen When Starting a Chesed Organization

    Below: An Image of the founder R’ Yakir Wachstock

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    November, 2023

    “Serendipity” may be my favorite word in the English language. In addition to its melodious sound, this word comes closest to the meaning of our colloquial use of the term “mazal” (for the accurate understanding of this term, see sefer Chemdah Genuza).

    Many of us likely know people who are successful in their fields—including those in klei kodesh—yetwho were initially introduced to their work through obvious hashgachah pratis; cases where the ‘serendipity’ is clear.

    A rebbi of mine offered a fascinating example of this phenomenon in regard to Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz.

    Recognized as an iluy since his youth, Rav Chaim became a maggid shiur under the guidance of Rav Shimon Shkop when he was only 18 years old. A few years later, he moved to Mir and began his ascendency as perhaps the greatest galus rosh yeshivah, serving in this capacity across three continents— in Europe, then Kobe and Shanghai in Asia, and in New York in North America- all this before settling in his role at the Mir Yeshiva in Yerushalayim, which he would help nurture into what it is today: the largest yeshivah since the time of Rebbe Akiva.

    His knowledge of Toras Chazal was so extensive that respected geonim visited him before giving their own shiurim. They would share which Gemara the shiur was to be on and he would immediately jot down a list of marei mekomos from across shas and the Rishonim and Acharonim.

    On the boat to America after the war, he was studying the Shev Shmaatsa, a very complex sefer that discusses legal guidelines in Chazal. His war-torn volume was missing the last few pages…so he wrote them by heart! My rebbi– Rav Chaim’s nephew-Rav Refael Shmulevitz of Toronto, has seen this edition, as it is still kept, guarded, and treasured by the family.

    So where does serendipity arise in his story? After the passing of Rav Chaim’s brother-in-law, the Mir needed someone to take over the weekly Chumash shmuess. Short of any obvious options, they asked Rav Chaim if he would deliver it until they found a proper replacement.

    Until that moment, no one had associated Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz with mussar, drashos, and aggadah (see, e.g., Rav Chaim, CIS publishing, p. 170). So by the time he concluded his first substitute shiur, everyone in attendance sat with awestruck shock. It was decided that Rav Chaim should continue with these shmuessen, and soon his weekly audience would reach close to a thousand people.

    Today, Sichos Mussar, a sefer based on these drashos, has been published many times, in many languages, and is studied in yeshivos, seminaries, and at Shabbos tables.

    In fact, although until then he was most known for his piercing lomdus, drush and Sichos Mussar became Rav Chaim’s legacy (for the average Jew). He never sought such prominence; instead, it found him.

    Hashem knew that this gadol had important messages to share and made sure that it happened.

    Like most kehillos, our shul collected funds for the new yesomim, almanos and others affected by the horrendous Simchas Torah attacks in Eretz Yisrael on October 7. We did our part, and then we continued to daven for the hostages, to increase our Torah learning, and to beseech Hashem for an end to this crisis.

    It was during this time when our Shul also witnessed something quite ‘serendipitous’, an episode of profound hashgachah.

    On October 10, at two o’clock in the morning, my neighbor Yakir Wachstock – a dedicated Hatzolah volunteer – received a phone call from Brigadier General Daniel Jacobs. Why this general thought to call him is its own story of hashgachah.

    Briefly, Yakir’s younger brother Oren attended dental school in Buffalo when I lived there. After graduating, Oren moved to Eretz Yisrael and opened an Amazon business. This general wanted to know if Oren, through his Amazon connections, or his brother, my neighbor Yakir, knew of any warehouse(s) in Queens that was stocking tactical boots. He explained that most of the men being called up to the army (miluim) did not have boots, and those who did had boots that were quite worn; some were in tatters and were being held together by duct tape!

    Yakir quickly contacted another member of our shul, Avi Shakarov, who is a wholesale shoe distributor. Avi indeed had boots in his warehouse and was selling them for a nice profit online. He immediately pulled its listing and donated their first shipment to Eretz Yisrael.

    He and Yakir packed duffle bags filled with these boots, contacted El Al, and were able to get the bags onto a flight.

    Done…or so they thought.

    The next day, Yakir received a message that concluded, “Thank you from the Yakir Battalion.” Although he was honored, he thought naming a battalion after him was a little over the top. The battalion members responded, “No! This is hashgachah pratis. Our battalion has always been named Yakir!”

    Wild! 

    Word gets around fast. Soon, other soldiers in need of tactical boots learned about this shipment and contacted Yakir, asking for boots in specific sizes. Typically, these calls came/come from mothers whose sons aren’t able to call, and they are often accompanied by pictures of old sneakers, or worse.

    So Yakir found volunteers, and our shul went to work, sending out another shipment.  But it didn’t stop there.

    This by-chance organization now sends more than 80 duffle bags every week.

    Hashgacha still is seen daily, always taking over at moments of frustration. The other day, for example, a plane that was supposed to carry a shipment of boots simply ran out of space. El Al quickly informed us that some American families of hostages would be delighted to take them for us on their El Al chartered flight!

    Odd complexities have also arisen. Most of these boots are made in Italy with American hunters in mind. These customers rarely need a size nine, so sizes in that range are more expensive. Our younger soldiers however indeed need such sizes.

    The other night, a man from New Jersey called and said, “I just wanted to contact you to make sure this is a legitimate tzedakah because I want to get my colleagues to give you a donation.”

    I explained that every dollar goes to purchase boots. “What do you do, and who are your colleagues?” I asked him.

    “I’m a podiatrist.”

    I responded, half jokingly, “These are boots! The Podiatry Association of America should be sponsoring several orders!”

    Over the past two weeks, our kehillah raised well over half a million dollars, bought out all of a particular size duffle bag from Amazing Savings, and sent more than 6,000 pairs of boots to our soldiers in Israel. Our coat room in the shul is now a warehouse, and minivans and SUVs line up daily so that volunteers can load the bags and take them to the airport.

    Last Shabbos, Yakir came to my house after the seudah. He was justifiably nervous. “It’s tens of thousands of dollars each day. How can this work going forward?”

    I don’t know…but it has…and it will. Hashem gave us this project, and He will continue to aid us.

    Our shul never asked for this, and I am still not exactly sure how it came to us.

    Serendipitous? Perhaps. As I mentioned to a volunteer, “Hashem’s hashgachah constantly brings us chesed opportunities; we just have to be open to sensing them and be quick to act.”

    The word for boots in Hebrew is “magafayim.” It’s not found in Tanach and first appears in Chazal (see, for example, the  Mishnah on Shabbos 6:2). The root is similar to “gafaf,” referring to a certain type of embrace (see, e.g., Rambam, avos hatumos, perek 13). However, its true shoresh seems to be “gaf,” which comes from the word for a type of limbed wing that fully surrounds its host (see, e.g., Mishlei 9:3). an example of this is a bat, whose wings fully surround its body when it is at rest. This explains why Chazal use this root for an embrace that fully surrounds and supports an entity.

    This is klal Yisrael. We soar with our wings, or we use them to embrace the needs of others.

    The serendipity of these events is still a mystery to me, and how we managed to raise all this money is not only a mystery but a neis. (To donate, go to THIS LINK)

    One phone call “by chance,” and a neighbor who didn’t turn over to go back to sleep.

    Amazing. ●

  • What Are The Origins of Popular Jewish Sayings?

    What Are The Origins of Popular Jewish Sayings?

    Where Do Many Of Our Aphorisms Comes From?

    From ‘Hamakom Yinachem eschem…’, to ‘Devarim HaYotzim…’,

    From ‘Ein Navi B’Iro’ to ‘Maaseh Avos…,‘

    ‘Kol Harodef...’, to’Kabdeihu V’Chadsheihu‘,

    & More….

    April, 2014

    Rabbi Moshe Taub

    “Don’t believe every quote you read on the internet”

    Abraham Lincoln

    This will hopefully be a fun, yet illuminating article in honor of Shavous.

    “Ein navi b’iro”-It is hard to be a Navi in one’s hometown, is a common expression used to articulate the idea that it is hard to find honor among those who knew a person from back in their youth.

    Where is the adage taken from?

    One can search all the ‘Bar Ilan’ Torah software’s, as well as all the libraries of the world, yet come to one conclusion –it does not come from chazal, rather it comes from a book within a series of books that, lets just say, is often found in hotel room drawers.

    This does not mean that it did not emanate first from within klal yisroel, rather that we do not find it written in toras chazal.

    In past Shavous issues we discussed the idea of hufuch bu v’hufuch bu sh’kulu bu, that everything can be found within the Torah. Be it science or mathematics, we sought to demonstrate the inherent truth of this statement.

    Ironically, this year, I wish to show saying that while people often assume come from the Torah or chazal in relaity are not found, at least not in the written form. Many gedolim and mechabrei sefarim have published their own lists of unsourced ‘chazals’ (see, for example, ‘Otzar Hayedios’ chelek 2 by Rav Yechiel Michel Stern, and, ‘Mitzuveh V’Oseh’ ch. Talmud Torah by Rav Shmuel Freidman), and we will offer ours.

    While many of the sayings we will mention may indeed be alluded to in chazal, they are either not said the way we same them, and sometimes not clearly even hinted at.

    Some axioms have their provenance in early rishonim. For example, ‘Bo Shabbos, bo menuchah’ –with Shabbos’s arrival comes tranquility, is a Rashi, but not a chazal.

    Others have their source in kabala. For example, “Ein davar omed b’fnei haratzon”-nothing can stand in the way of will, is stated, although in different terms, by the Zohar.

    In fact, the latter category may help illume history. Rav Chaim Kinievsky writes (Krias Melec,h p.282, in the footnote) that the Rambam never saw or studied the Zohar. However, some disagree. Rav Reuvein Margolios wrote an article seeking to prove that the Rambam must have studied the Zohar. One of the famous examples is a ruling in Rambam (hilchos deos 2:7) that has now become a famous Jewish proverb: ‘kol hakoes k’ilu oved avodah zara’- whoever loses their temper it is as if he served idolatry.

    This statement can not be found anywhere in chazal, however it is stated by the Zohar several times.

    While some indeed use this, among other statements of Rambam, as evidence that he had access to the Zohar, Rav Chaim (ad loc.) explains that such examples more likely came from the sefarim of the geonim or midrashim that Rambam had access to yet that are no longer today extant.

    Indeed, this proverb is strongly alluded to by chazal themselves. The gemara (Shabbos 105) states, “Anyone who tears his clothing in anger, or breaks utensils, etc. is as if he served idolatry”.

    A similar example of a famous proverb that likely came from an analogous chazal is ‘maaseh avos siman la’banim’-the actions and histories of our forefathers allude to the future history of klal yisroel. Although originated and mentioned by the Ramban several times in his peirush on chumash (see, e.g., 12:6), we have no chazal utilizing this phrase. However, chazal do say that Hashem told Avraham “Stay! –as you are a siman for your children” (Bereishis Rabba).

    But there are still maxims for which we seemingly find no written source at all. One of the most famous examples of these may be, ‘Devarim hayotzim min halev nichnasim el halev’ –things said from the heart enter the hearts of others. Although a very popular expression, it is not found in any writing from chazal or kabala!

    The well-known three volume encyclopedic work ‘Michlol Hamaamarim V’Pisgamim’, sources this adage to R’ Moshe Ibn Ezra (d.1066), while others (see the yarchon Nezer Hatorah, kislev 5769 p. 305, as well as Metzuveh V’oseh p.367) source this proverb to a gemara (Berachos 6) where we are taught that any person with yiras shomayim will find his words listened to.

    Another, perhaps even more surprising, axiom that has no known source is ‘Yeshuos/Teshuos Hashem b/k’heref ayin’ –the salvations of Hashem can/will come in the blink of an eye. While certainly a statement in fact to any baal emunah, it is not a pasuk as some may asume, and in truth is not found even in chazal.

    While some quote Rav Aryeh Levin as asserting that this came from a piyut said on the Yomin Noroim, in the Torah journal Ohr Yisroel, Rav Gedalia Oberlander offers other potential sources. He first brings from other sefarim and likkutim that sought to find its source, one even suggesting, incorrectly, that it came from a midrash Tanchuma. In the end he shows numerous piyuttim over the centuries that use this idiom.

    This should not trouble is, for as a nation suffering through two-thousand years of galus we likely developed this phrase, as well as many others, as a response to amazingly swift salvations, as well as in the hope of future ones.

    Moments before I sent this article in to the editor, I found one last amazing potential source for this most famous adage. In a Hebrew academic work on the siddur (‘Teffila L’yisroel Bihitpachusa Ha’historiot’) where the authors lay out every nusach of the siddur ever discovered, they show a nusach of Shemoneh Esreh from a geniza in Eretz Yisroel that reads as follows (ibid. p. 392): “…michalkel chaim b’chesed…m’chayei meisim k’heref ayin yeshuah lanu tatzmiach…”!

    Another famous proverb goes, ‘mi sh’yeish lo manah ratzah ma’asaim’-when one acquires a hundred (he will not be satisfied, rather) he will then desire two hundred. No such chazal exists, although it is strongly alluded to in Koheles Rabbah (1:32).

    There are so many more examples of proverbs from unknown sources.

    • ‘Kol harodef achar hakavod, kavod baorech momenu’-whoever chases honor will find honor allude him (likely taken from the Shelah, korach).
    •  ‘Mitzvah habah l’yadecha al tachmitzenah’-when a mitzvah comes up do not push it off (mentioned by the Rama siman 625 and perhaps first formulated by Rashi to Megilla 6b)
    • ‘Kabal es ha’emes m’mi sh’amro’-accept the truth from whoever says it
    • ‘Kabdeihu V’Chadsheihu’-Honor (all) but remain suspectful. (In America there is a simaler saying, rooted in Reganism: ‘Trust but verify’)
    • ‘B’yoser sh’yehudi shomer es hashabbos, hashabbos shomeres es hayehdui’-As much as the Jew kept Shabbos (throughout the generations), Shabbos has ‘kept’ us Jewish.
    • ‘Osiyos machkimos’ –letters make us wise. This is a very common expression with a few meanings, yet that has no known provenance.

    But perhaps the most famous example of this column’s topic is the one that will surprise the most.

    ‘Hamakom yenachem eschmen b’soch shaar avlei tzion v’yerushalim’. Although commonly said upon taking leave of an avel, its provenance is a mystery. Although the Tur and others give other sentences to say that strike some of the same themes, the hamakom we say must have developed over time.

    In fact, even before shiva, by the levaya itself, there is a pasuk often quoted (Yeshayahu 25:8) that although exists, is so often misquoted. The famous niggun based on this pasuk goes, ‘umucha Hashem dima m’al kol panim’-Hashem (in the days of Moshiach) will erase the tears from upon our faces. Although popularized through this song, the actual pasuk reads ‘umucha Hashem Elokim dima m’al kol panim’.

    All of this should only serve to galvanize ourselves this Shavous to study as much of the Torah Shb’ksav and Baal Peh for ourselves, thereby knowing what indeed stems from chazal and what does not, and by which will bring the merits to hasten the very day to which the Yeshayahu hanavi was reffering.

    A gutt yom tov to all!