Vayikra. Korbanos and Fiscal Probity; Aveilus and Shalach Manos; Aveilus and Davening for the Amud.

This is the Kollel Horaah of America's Parsha Sheet. Each of the three sections is insightful and informative, and I found it particularly interesting this week.  

Gaining a Closer Relationship with Hashem R' Moshe Orgel The תורה in this weeks פרשה writes a one פסוק introduction prior to detailing the specifics of the korbanos, “אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן וכו” The גמ׳ derives many הלכות from this פסוק. One of them is derived from the word כי יקריב מכם קרבן אדם. Rashi explains that we learn that someone bringing a קרבן must do so from his own animals and money and not from stealing someone else’s, just like אדם הראשון did not possess any stolen objects – as he had no one to steal from; so too one's קרבן may not be from stolen property. There are many other מצות which have the same exclusion – not to come from stolen property, for example; the תורה says that a לולב must be לכם from your property, not of someone else’s. קרבנות is the only place where the תורה alludes to this using the word אדם . What is unique about the פרשה of קרבנות that requires a different more complicated לימוד as opposed to the תורה simply writing לכם or something of that sort?  The word קרבן denotes קורבה, closeness. The purpose of bringing a קרבן is to gain a closer relationship with Hashem and strive higher in רוחניות. The תורה is teaching us that in regard to this מצוה it is not merely enough to do the mitzvah with your own money, but rather you should be like אדם הראשון. He did not have one penny that was not his, nor could he covet someone else’s property as there was no one else in the world but him. Theft by him was an impossibility, not simply a choice. When someone steals, he is not only doing the actual sin, he is in addition demonstrating his lack of אמונה ובטחון. If he truly knows that Hashem will provide with all he needs and that it is predestined each year what he will attain that year, he wouldn’t be stealing as there would be no point he is only getting a certain amount of money anyway. A person needs to recognize that just as is was impossible for אדם הראשון to steal, so too it is impossible for one to achieve anything through theft. With this idea in mind it is easy to understand what is unique about קרבנות that requires the law of stealing to come from the word אדם. The word אדם is not just teaching us a single focused law, rather an idea of how someone should conduct themselves. While attempting to come closer to Hashem through קרבנות or through תפילה one must make sure that the rest of one’s actions and thoughts are also up to par. Working on אמונה ובטחון to a level where one recognizes that all is from Hashem and one’s actions can’t change that is an integral aspect of the עבודה of the קרבנות. May we all be זוכה to become closer to Hashem, both through תפילה as well as אמונה ובטחון.

Editor's remark: 1. Chazal learn from the words Adam ki yakriv that just as Adam Harishon brought korbanos that were 100% his, with no admixture of theft, our korbanos must be equally pure. Rabbi Orgel sees this as a far broader lesson - if you want to bring a korban, YOU have to be like Adam. If you possess any stolen property, your korban is undesireable. I would put it this way: By Korban Pesach, if you own Chametz at the time of the hakrava, the korban is improper (you're over a lahv, but the Korban is kasher - Rambam Pesach 1:5.) Just as it is assur to bring a Korban Pesach when you own Chametz, so too it is assur to bring any Korban if you possess property that was acquired dishonestly.  It's not a lahv, and it doesn't passel the korban, but it's meguneh, and if you're looking for Ritzui, that's not where to look.  It might be interesting to think about whether this applies to Shemoneh Esrei. אורח חיים Rabbi Shmuel Goldstein Question: Can an Avel give and be given Mishloach Manos? Answer: The Gemara says that an Avel during Shivah, (the first seven days, counting from the funeral), may not say Shalom Aleichem to others [a]. One may not say Shalom Aleichem to an Avel throughout Shloshim, (the first thirty days counting from the funeral), and for the twelve months if the Avel is in Aveilus for a parent [b]. There are different opinions with regard to greeting someone with saying Shalom Aleichem on Shabbos [c]. It is permitted to give a Bracha to an Avel, and therefore one can say “good Shabbos” [d]. Saying “good morning” is also technically permitted. Some refrain from doing so, especially during Shivah [e]. The Ramah says that many people say Shalom after thirty days, during the twelve months of Avielus for a parent, but he says that he doesn’t know what they rely on, unless our greeting isn’t like the one in the time of Chazal [f]. Most Acharonim do not give credence to this leniency [g]. However it seems the Ramah may have been referring to statements like “good morning” [h]. The Maharil says that giving someone a present is the same as saying Shalom Aleichem, and therefore one may not give Mishloach Manos to an Avel. This would apply to giving an Avel throughout Shloshim, and for the twelve months if the Avel is in Aveilus for a parent [i]. Although an Avel during Shivah may not give presents, since Mishloach Manos is an obligation, they may and must give [j]. Some Acharonim say an Avel should only give Mishloach Manos to one or two people [k]. Either way an Avel should not give extra happy things in the Mishloach Manos [l]. Those who are lenient, and give an Avel, are relying on those who opine that Purim is like Shabbos regarding Aveilus combined with relying on those who opine that Shalom Aleichem is permitted on Shabbos [m]. If an Avel is after the third day of Aveilus, and they were given Mishloach Manos, they may accept it [n]. It is permitted to give Mishloach Manos to a Rebbe or someone whom the gift is almost like part of a salary [o]. Editor's remark: This halacha of Mishloach Manos and Aveilus is not widely known, nor is the proscription from greeting an aveil with Shalom Aleichem during the entire year. As Rabbi Goldstein quoted from the Maharil, these two laws are the same - giving Shalach Manos is like greeting with Shalom Aleichem. It's also worth remembering that this applies during Kiddush Levana. יורה דעה R' Mechi Plittman

Question: When should an Avel serve as the Shatz? Are there any times when he should not act as שליח ציבור? Answer: The רמ''א writes that the minhag has become that an avel does not daven for the amud on שבת ויו”ט [a]. The ש''ך explains that the same applies to the ימים נוראים [b]. The נודה ביהודה understands that to mean only ראש השנה ויום כפור and not ימי סליחות ועשרת ימי תשובה [c], during which the אבל can indeed lead the ציבור. The reason for this minhag is that it is inapropiate for one in mourning to lead the congregation when the congregation is in a state of שמחה [d]. It is important to note that his is a minhag and not an איסור [e]. This applies, both, to a son during the twelve months after losing a parent, and to any mourner for the duration of שלושים of a close relative [f]. Many אחרונים ask [g]; the רמ''א himself writes his sefer דרכי משה, that an אבל refrains from serving as שליח ציבור on ראש חודש as well. Furthermore, the source for רמ''א is the מהרי"ל who implies that this halacha applies to any day that we say הלל. That would include חנוכה ופורים [h]. So why then, does the רמ''א only mention שבת ויו''ט in the שלחן ערוך. The ערוך השלחן answers that the רמ''א only listed the days on which an אבל does not daven for the amud the entire day i.e. שבת ויו"ט. On ראש חודש or חנוכה ופורים just refrain from davening in the morning, but he may daven for the עמוד for מנחה ומעריב [i]. This is the opinion of the משנה ברורה [j] as well. There are some who understand this minhag to allow the אבל to daven שחרית as well and just not daven הלל ומוסף [k]. On חול המועד there is a dispute if an אבל should daven for the amud at all. Some maintain that he should refrain from serving as ש''ץ for it is similar to a יו”ט [l]. However, many אחרונים are of the opinion that on any day we say הלל an אבל should not daven for the amud even מנחה ומעריב. This was the opinion of Rav Moshe [m]. All other days that we don’t say תחנון for example, ל"ג בעומר ט"ו שבט ט"ו באב an אבל may daven for the amud [n]. There is an opinion that rules that any day that you don’t say קל ארך אפים and למנצח an אבל should not daven for the amud. That would include ערב פסח, ט' באב, ערב יו"כ, שושן פורים, פורים קטן [o]. However, it’s clear from the source of the רמ''א that only days which הלל is said is there a minhag for an אבל not to be the ש''ץ. This minhag comes from a different source which doesn’t agree with the רמ''א.  If the chazon for the shul during the ימים נוראים is an אבל he may daven for the עמוד if no one can replace him and his abilities [p]. On Shabbos and יו''ט if no one inspires the shul like him then he may be the Shatz [q], but just because he sounds good is not a heter. The same applies to the reading of the מגילה if no one can pronounce the words and read כהלכה like him then he may read the מגילה [r]. Otherwise he should refrain. Editor's remark: The halacha that an aveil may daven for the amud on yomtov if the tzibbur needs him became relevant to a friend this past year. He had retained to daven on the Yamim Nor'aim, and he became an aveil the day before Rosh Hashannah. He was the only Shliach Tzibbur available for that certain shul. I told him to leave the Shiva house during shiva, and fly back to Chicago to daven for the Amud on Rosh Hashanna.

To receive Points to Ponder weekly via email, please contactkollelhoraah@gmail.com or text KHAWEEKLY to 22828

מראה מקומות לדין אורח חיים

a) גמרא מו"ק טו. וכא:

b) גמרא מו"ק טו. וכא:

c) ע' רא"ש מו"ק פרק ג' סי' כ"ח ול"ח

מירושלמי ברכות ב:ז, רמב"ם אבל י:א. ש"ע שפה:ג.

d) שלמת חיים תכ"ה [קל"ג], גשה"ח כא:ז:ד-ז, להורות נתן חלק ב' סי' ל"ז

e) ע' לקט יושר עמ' ק"י, מ"ב תקנ"ד ס"ק מ"א, באר משה חלק ד' סי' ק"ו, להורות נתן חלק ב' סי' ל"ז

f) רמ"א שפה:א

g) ש"ך יו"ד שפ"ה ס"ק ג' ומג"א או"ח תקנ"ד ס"ק כ"א

h) ע' בה"ט יו"ד שפ"ה ס"ק ב', מ"ב תקנ"ד ס"ק מ"א, לקט יושר עמ' ק"י, באר משה חלק ד' סי' ק"ו, להורות נתן חלק ב' סי' ל"ז

i) הובא ברמ"א יו"ד שפה:ג ובאו"ח תרצו:ו

j) ש"ע או"ח תרצו:ו עם מ"ב ס"ק י"ז

k) נחלת שבעה סי' י"ז וקובץ הלכות פרק ט"ו הע' מ"ד

l) מ"ב תרצ"ו ס"ק י"ח

m)  ע' מג"א או"ח תרצ"ו

n) כתב סופר או"ח סי' קמ"א

o) דברי למכיאל חלק ה' סי' רל"ז 

מראה מקומות לדין יורה דעה

a רמ"א יו"ד שע"ו

b) ש"ך שם סקי"ד בשם המהרי"ל

c) נו"ב או"ח סי' ל"ב

d) שו"ת מהרי"ל סי' כ"ב

e) רמ"א שם

f) מ"ב או"ח תקפ"א סק"ז

g) ערוך השלחן שע"ו סקי"ד

h) כל בו על אבילות עמ' רפ"ז

i) ערוך השלחן שם ועיין מהר"ם שיק או"ח קפ"ג שכן נוהג החת"ס

j) מ"ב תקפ"א סק"ז ותרע"א סקמ"ד ותרפ"ג סק"א

k) גליון מהרש"א סי' שע"ו ובא"ר או"ח סס"י תקפ"ב ופרמ"ג תרע"א מ"ז סק"ח וגשר החיים כ"ג:ה

l) מ"ב תרע"א סקמ"ד בשם הפמ"ג וגשר החיים כ"ג:ד סברו לא התפלל ושו"ת מהר"ם מינץ מ"ג וערוך השלחן שם סברו יכול התפלל

m) רבבות אפרים ח"א תמ"ג בשם ר' משה

n) מ"ב תרע"א סקמ"ד וגשר החיים כ"ג:ו

o) מ"ב קל"ב במאמר קדישים ונועם מגדים להפמ"ג מנהגים א'

p) ש"ך שע"ו סקי"ד בשם מהרי"ו

q) כן משמע מדרכי משה במה שכתב "אף" ימים נוראים ומ"ב תקפ"א ז' ותרצ"ו י"ב ולא כב"ח יו"דשפ"ו

r) מ"ב תרצ"ו סקי"ב

To receive Points to Ponder weekly via email, please contact kollelhoraah@gmail.com or text KHAWEEKLY to 22828

Ki Sisa. Interesting Facts About the Chelbenah in the Ketores

The chelbe'na symbolizes "Poshei Yisrael," and RChbBiz in Krisus 6 says that a community fast that does not include sinners is not a fast at all.
Krisus 6b

א"ר חנא בר בזנא א"ר שמעון חסידא כל תענית שאין בה מפושעי ישראל אינה תענית שהרי חלבנה ריחה רע ומנאה הכתוב עם סממני קטרת אביי אמר מהכא (עמוס ט, ו) ואגודתו על ארץ יסדה

A similar thought is expressed in two other places.

Menachos 27a by the four minim on Sukkos

ד' מינין שבלולב ב' מהן עושין פירות וב' מהם אין עושין פירות העושין פירות יהיו זקוקין לשאין עושין ושאין עושין פירות יהיו זקוקין לעושין פירות ואין אדם יוצא ידי חובתו בהן עד שיהו כולן באגודה אחת

Maharsha there

ד' מינין שבלולב ב' מהן עושין פירות כו' וב' מהם אין עושין כו'. כל דברי המאמר מפורש בפיוט יום ראשון דסוכות וכמו בעץ הדר ריח וטעם כן כו' וכמו הם אגודים כו' ולכפר אלה על אלה כו' ע"ש באורך דהיינו ב' כתות מהן שעושין פירות דהיינו מעשים טובים נדמו לאתרוג ולולב שעושים פירות ושנים מכן שאין עושין פירות ומעשים טובים נדמו להדס ולערבה דאין עושין פירות וצריכין להיות אגודה א' שיגינו צדיקים על רשעים וק"ל:

Sanhedrin 37a by Yitzchak's bracha to Yaakov where it says וירח את ריח בגדיו.

סוגה בשושנים שאפילו כסוגה של שושנים לא יפרצו בהן פרצות והיינו דאמר ליה ההוא מינא לרב כהנא אמריתו נדה שרי לייחודי בהדי גברא אפשר אש בנעורת ואינה מהבהבת אמר ליה התורה העידה עלינו סוגה בשושנים שאפילו כסוגה בשושנים לא יפרצו בהן פרצות ריש לקיש אמר מהכא (שיר השירים ו, ז) כפלח הרמון רקתך אפילו ריקנין שבך מלאין מצות כרמון ר' זירא אמר מהכא (בראשית כז, כז) וירח את ריח בגדיו אל תיקרי בגדיו אלא בוגדיו 

There are four approaches to that statement.

1. They are sinners, but they still join us in the fast, and we should not reject them. (Rashi here)

2. They are sinners, but they still join us in the fast, and they play an important part in our community so we should welcome them. (Drashos HaRan Drush 1.)

3. This are only welcome when they are sincere about their tefillos, and want to do teshuva, but they are not strong enough to really do teshuva, so our prayers will join with theirs and enhance their Teshuva. (Maharal, his neighbor the Kli Yakar, and their contemporary the Mabit, and the Chida.)

4. This are only welcome if they already did teshuva. If they didn't, we don't want them. (Rabbeinu Gershom in Krisus, the Maharsha in Krisus.)

Another interesting fact about the Chelbenah for Purim:

We all know that Mordechai is alluded to in the fragrances that comprised the shemen hamishcha in Mor Deror, translated as "Mira Dachya." This Mor was also used in the Ketores - the Mor that we mention in Pittum HaKetores, which is among the other ingredients that are not explicit in the Torah. (The Ramban/Malbim in 30:34 say they are hinted at in the word "Samim" that begins the Ketores, which means "take the samim mentioned above that were used in the Shemen HaMishcha, and also....."  However, the Avnei Nezer holds that the Mor (cholem) in the Shemen HaMishcha was musk from the musk ox and the Mor (kametz) in the Ketores was a plant derivative.)   Not everyone knows that the Chelbe'nah, in the Ketores, is the same gematria as Haman. Off the cuff, this might be reflected in the fact that Haman's grandchildren were talmidei chachamim. Alternatively, it might be because it was Haman's threat of extermination that led to Kimu v'Kiblu. And, of course, many baalei machshava have said that the former is related to the latter.

It would be nice if we could find a connection between the Ketores and Esther, but all I can think of is the fact that she was perfumed for a year in several of the ingredients used in the ketores, a pretty poor connection - ששה חודשים בשמן המר וששה חדשים בבשמים. Or that she was called Hadassa, a fragrant plant, but it is not an ingredient of the Ketores.

Alternatively, we could say that Esther was not merumaz in the Ketores, but she is in the daled minim, in the Hadassim. True, the Haddas is a symbol of maasim tovim without peiros, but, unfortunately, that was Esther's fate as well, considering that her children were not part of Klal  Yisrael. So both Mordechai/Mor Dror, and Esther/Haddas, are present in places where they are bound up with people without any zechusim of their own, the Chelbenah and the Aravos. 

Terumah: Always, Constant, Forever. Tamid in the Mishkan and on Purim

Several years ago, I posted the following on the word "Tamid."  That discussion actually relates very nicely to Rosh Chodesh Adar Rishon, as we will demonstrate.

In (Teruma and Titzaveh) we come across the word Tamid many times.  Once you're on the lookout, you will realize that it is found here at a frequency far greater than anywhere else in Tanach.   What you may not realize is this:
The word תמיד appears in the Torah exactly 24 times, either as תמיד  or as התמיד. How many of those times are in dinim of Kodshim?
Twenty three.
Of the twenty four in Chumash, twenty three are in dinim of Kodshim.  "HaTamid" appears seven times, every single one in kodshim.  Of the seventeen 'Tamids' in the Torah, sixteen are Kodshim and one is not.  The single, the solitary, the sole exception is in Devarim 11:12.

אֶ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ דֹּרֵ֣שׁ אֹתָ֑הּ תָּמִ֗יד עֵינֵ֨י יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹהֶ֙יךָ֙ בָּ֔הּ מֵֽרֵשִׁית֙ הַשָּׁנָ֔ה וְעַ֖ד אַחֲרִ֥ית שָׁנָֽה׃

A land the Lord, your God, looks after; the eyes of Lord your God are upon it constantly from the beginning of the year to the end of the year.

In a case like this, it is obvious that the exception proves the rule: that the one ostensible anomaly actually teaches us something important about the other iterations.  I intend to speak about this at greater length in Vayikra, but I will put it briefly here:  תמיד is a state of being.  In an ephemeral, time-bound world, תמיד can truly apply only at its nexus with the eternal, where the physical and the spiritual are kneaded together.  Hashgacha Pratis is another manifestation of this integration.  The physical cannot be permanent; solidity is a symptom of impermanence.  It is that which appears to our senses to be insubstantial, the spiritual, that can be permanent.
The main focus of this post is to discuss the various meanings the word has, and also to analyze its place in the structure of certain sentences.
In these two parshios, the word תמיד is found regarding:
the Lechem Hapanim/Shulchan,
the Menorah,
the Choshen Hamishpat (twice),
the Tzitz,
the Korban Tamid (twice),
and the Ketores.
But 'Constant' is inconstant.  The meaning of the word varies with almost every application.  Sometimes it means constant/every night, sometimes it means constant/every twelve hours, and sometimes it means constant/every second of every day.  Sometimes תמיד means that the object itself should be constantly present, sometimes it refers to the object's effect, and sometimes constancy means there should be no lapse of attention.  In our parsha, Rashi mentions this twice: in 27:20 by the Menora and in 29:42 by the Olas Tamid.  Rashi in Chagiga 26b also discusses this, saying that תמיד in the Menora is like by the Olas Tamid and the Chavitin, that 24 hours shouldn't go by without them, but by the Shulchan, it means (according to the Rabanan in Shabbos 133b) constant without a moment's lapse.  In English, the words "continuous" and "continual"  and "constant" distinguish among various sorts of tamid, but in Lashon Hakodesh we often have single words comprising numerous variations, and we are expected to determine the specific meaning from drashos or context.
The Mizrachi and the Gur Aryeh in this parsha speak briefly about the variation.  Nothing I've seen is completely satisfying, and I wouldn't even bother trying to find the principle myself.  (In fact, the Mizrachi, Gur Aryeh, Malbim and others here assume that Tosfos in Chagia 26 argues with Rashi regarding the Menorah, that Rashi holds it means every night, and Tosfos holds it refers to the Ner Maaravi, but I don't see that is what Tosfos means.  Not only is Tosfos not arguing on Rashi at all, I think that Tosfos is reinforcing Rashi's pshat.)

Now let's talk about sentence structure.  Reb Shimon (Yoma 7b) says that regarding the Tzitz, in the passuk of והיה על מצחו ,תמיד לרצון להם the word תמיד is tied to the following words-- Tamid Le'Ratzon; Reb Yehuda holds it finishes the first phrase-- Ahl Mitzcho Tamid. ;Reb Shimon says a similar thing in another context in Menachos 23. The Shaagas Aryeh in Teshuvos OC 38 writes one of his oft cited pieces on the Rambam's psak regarding the machlokes on the Tamid of the Tzitz, as it applies to Tefillin

טומאה דחויה בציבור כרב שמעון, אפילו אינו על מצחו מרצה כרב שמעון, לא יסיח דעתו מן הציץ ומן התפילין כרב יהודה.)

It's interesting that in the passuk in Devarim 11:12, the word תמיד can be read either way, too, and the Trop shows that it is read as the first word of the second phrase. There's an esnachta under the preceding word. 

(אֶ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ דֹּרֵ֣שׁ אֹתָ֑הּ) תָּמִ֗יד עֵינֵ֨י יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹהֶ֙יךָ֙ בָּ֔הּ מֵֽרֵשִׁית֙ הַשָּׁנָ֔ה וְעַ֖ד אַחֲרִ֥ית שָׁנָֽה׃

In Maariv, both at the end of the first bracha and at the end of the last bracha (Baruch Hashem Le'olam, which is not said in Israel, but is said in most places in the US,) there is a word that is called אין לה הכרע.  This means that we do not know whether it belongs at the end of the first half of the sentence or the beginning of the second.  This word is, of course, תמיד.  In the last bracha, it goes המלך בכבודו תמיד ימלוך עלינו לעולם ועד.  Tamid might mean בכבודו תמיד, or it might be intended to mean  תמיד ימלוך עלינו לעולם ועד.  Before saying "Ha, it can't mean the latter, because then it would be repetitive!" please note that the Magen Avraham in  OC 236 favors that way of saying it, without offering any explanation.  The Abudraham says like the Magen Avraham.  On the other hand, the Prisha there, and the Eliahu Rabba brought in the Machtzis Hashekel there, disagree and say it ends the first phrase.   Also, as I mentioned before, the word תמיד in the passuk in Devarim 11:12 seems redundant exactly as our sentence does- תמיד/mei'reishis hashana ve'ahd achris hashana is just likeתמיד/le'olam va'ed.
great Unknown said"we have a parallel construct in "la'ad ul'e olmai olamim [or olmai olmaya"," where no rephrasing is possible. Similarly, "l'olam ul'e olmai olamim."It is possible that we are dealing here with olam hazeh and olam haba."
The Magen Avraham is particularly interesting to me because around eleven years ago, my father Ztz'l davenned on his father's yahrtzeit and said it like the Magen Avraham.  I heard it from him so the same a year later, but even without hearing it again, my father, who could finish any passuk in Tanach if you read him the first half, simply did not make mistakes.  I found it interesting that the Magen Avraham's opinion has survived in a world of homogenized nusach and "right way" "wrong way" attitudes.
So, coincidentally, the word תמיד in Maariv and in the passuk of the Tzitz is ein lah hechra.  This really doesn't mean that Reb Shimon and Reb Yehuda's approaches would yield different meanings to the sentence in Maariv, because it obviously depends on the context.  But certainly, the Magen Avraham's opinion echoes Reb Shimon's pshat in the passuk by the Tzitz, and also the passuk in Devarim, where it would make perfect sense as the end of the first phrase but is given the Trop as the first word of the second phrase.

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

The reason I re-posted this is because of the marvelous Rema in Orach Chaim that pertains specifically to today's date, February 5, 2019, Rosh Chodesh Adar I (תשע"ט.) 

The last Rema in Orach Chaim is on the topic of Purim and Adar Rishon. OC 697:

אין אומרים תחנה בי"ד וט"ו שבאדר ראשון ודין תענית והספד בהן ובו סעיף אחד:

יום י"ד וט"ו שבאדר ראשון אין נופלין על פניהם ואין אומרים מזמור יענך ה' ביום צרה ואסורים בהספד ותענית אבל שאר דברים אין נוהגים בהם וי"א דאף בהספד ותענית מותרים: הגה והמנהג כסברא ראשונה. י"א שחייב להרבות במשתה ושמחה בי"ד שבאדר ראשון (טור בשם הרי"ף) ואין נוהגין כן מ"מ ירבה קצת בסעודה כדי לצאת ידי המחמירים (הג"מ בשם סמ"ק) וטוב לב משתה תמיד:

The Shaarei Teshuva brings the Chida's observation that the Rema chose these closing words very carefully to echo his first words on Orach Chaim, where he said

הגה שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד הוא כלל גדול בתורה ובמעלות הצדיקים אשר הולכים לפני האלהים כי אין ישיבת האדם ותנועותיו ועסקיו והוא לבדו בביתו כישיבתו ותנועותיו ועסקיו והוא לפני מלך גדול ולא דבורו והרחבת פיו כרצונו והוא עם אנשי ביתו וקרוביו כדבורו במושב המלך כ"ש כשישים האדם אל לבו שהמלך הגדול הקב"ה אשר מלא כל הארץ כבודו עומד עליו ורואה במעשיו כמו שנאמר אם יסתר איש במסתרים ואני לא אראנו נאום ה' מיד יגיע אליו הירא' וההכנעה בפחד הש"י ובושתו ממנו תמיד (מורה נבוכים ח"ג פ' כ"ב) ולא יתבייש מפני בני אדם המלעיגים עליו בעבודת הש"י גם בהצנע לכת ובשכבו על משכבו ידע לפני מי הוא שוכב ומיד כשיעור משנתו יקום בזריזות לעבודת בוראו יתברך ויתעלה (טור): 

He explains 

.......................................מסיים רמ"א וטוב לב משתה תמיד ועיין ברכי יוסף שכת' מור"מ ז"ל בחכמה יסד חתימה מעין פתיחה שני תמידין כסדרן הוא פתח בריש הגהותיו שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד וחתם וטוב לב משתה תמיד כו' ע"ש

And most interesting in the connection to Purim, are the words of the Imrei Emes. He brings the Girsa of the Ein Yaakov (Gittin 57b) that Rav Shmuel bar Shilas was the descendant of Haman who learned in Bnei Brak. He brings from the Ari Za"l that the letters of the name bar Shilas are the first letters of shivisi Hashem l'negdi samid. He adds that the appellation of Mordechai HaTzadik, "Yehudi," are the last letters of that phrase. Thus, Rav Shmuel bar Shilas epitomized the lesson of שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד, and absolutely contradicted the middah ra'ah of Haman by embodying the middah tova of Mordechai Hatzadik. The holiday of Purim, the high point of a month of מרבים בשמחה, a month which epitomizes טוב לב משתה תמיד, is  best understood by looking at those individuals, Mordechai HaTzadik and Rav Shmuel bar Shilas, whose very names expressed their lives of שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד.

אמרי אמת - שושן פורים

ותשם אסתר את מרדכי על בית המן, הם הוציאו כל ניצוצות הקדושה מקליפת המן.

איתא מבני בניו של המן למדו תורה בבני ברק. ואיתא בעין יעקב, ומנו רב שמואל בר שילת. 

איתא מהאר"י ז"ל דשיל"ת הוא ר"ת שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד, רב שמואל בר שילת היה מייחד יחודים חדשים בכל יום, וזהו שאיתא בגמרא הטיילין בכל יום וכו' כגון רב שמואל בר שילת, כשנמצאים תמיד במלכות שמים אין לנו שעבודים אחרים, וזהו שויתי וגו' כי מימיני בל אמוט. 

שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד ס"ת יהודי, איתא בגמרא בבא בתרא שרב שמואל בר שילת היה מלמד תינוקות ולימד לו רב כי מחית לינוקא לא תימחי אלא  בערקתא דמסנא. דקארי קארי דלא קארי ליהוי צוותא לחבריה. וברש"י וסופו לתת לב. 

ערקתא דמסנא זהו רמז למה שאיתא שבשעת השמד צריך למסור נפש אפילו על ערקתא דמסנא, וזה קיים מרדכי דכתיב ולא קם ולא זע ממנו היינו משום דאיתא שהמן עשה עצמו עבודה זרה, ורב שמואל בר שילת הכניס זאת בכל בני ישראל שימסרו עצמם. ואף שכבר הלך מאתנו, דעתו עלינו. וזה שאיתא עוד בגמרא  דרב אשכחיה לרב שמואל בר שילת דהוה קאי בגינתא א" ל שבקתיה להימנותך! א"ל הא תליסר שנין  דלא חזיא לי והשתא נמי דעתאי עלויהו. 

דלא קארי ליהוי צוותא לחבריה היינו כדאיתא כל העולם כולו לא נברא אלא לצוות לזה, ועל ידי זה מתעלים הכל, וזהו וסופו לתת לב. 

וכן מרדכי הכניע את כל היהודים אליו כדאיתא בשפת אמת שזהו שכתוב ושאר היהודים שנעשו שיריים אליו, פורים נותן כח על כל השנה וזהו כי מימיני בל אמוט

In light of what I had written about the word תמיד, that the word whose literal meaning is  "constant" is ironically inconstant, one can say that the different types of תמידיות also apply to the uses of the word in Shivisi samid and Mishteh tamid - there's tamid, and then there's tamid. The Rema says that it is כדי לצאת ידי המחמירים that one should make the decision to be marbeh ktzas b'simcha. ותן לחכם ויחכם עוד. 

Green Kreplach and Self Portrait. Purim 2014

I don't think my Litvishe mother shetichyeh will touch them, to say nothing of eating them, so we made the usual kind too.

And the test-

My Rebbitzen's verdict:

EXCELLENT!

My mother's verdict:

Vos ee dos???

Here's the Purim self portrait, as a shikereh poyer, but wearing a fedora.

It's not really me, although as a symbol, it may succinctly portray my life's work.  In any case, the statue is of Mr. Booker Noe, sixth generation bourbon master.

A Freilachen Purim.

Purim 5773/2013. Matanos L'Evyonim, -wiches, Selling Olam Haba, and Ipecac

It's Shushan Purim, and my mind is clearer.  I'm not going to go back and fix the original post (other than one update), despite some flaws in tone and content.  Instead, here is a condensed version.  

Section I: Does Matanos Le'Evyonim have the dinim of Tzedaka or is it a mitzvah of the day that is fulfilled by an action that is similar to Tzedaka.

Answer: Although the Magen Avraham brings from the Shlah and the Maharil that you can't use Maaser money to pay for Matanos L'evyonim, which indicates that it's not tzedaka, it appears that this is a machlokes rishonim.  Reb Chaim Brisker is quoted as saying, in the Rambam at least, that ML'E is tzedaka with distinct halachos regarding time and manner; according to this Reb Chaim, I think, the Shlah/Maharil's rule would not be true.

Section II:  There are some towns in England that end in -wich, and in Slavic countries that end in -wich or -vich.  Like Bloxwich, Droitwich, Dunwich, Fordwich, Harwich, Horwich, Ipswich, Middlewich, Nantwich, Northwich, Norwich, Prestwich, Sandwich, and West Bromwich in England, and Rugewicz, Baranovich, Ponevezh, Skiernewicz, and Lechowitz in Europe.  Are they etymologically related?

Answer: No.  The -wich in England and the -wich in Poland, used in the names of towns, are totally unrelated.  The English -wich means fortified market town, often associated with the production of salt, while the Polish -wich is just the suffix of the name of the town's owner or founder, and -wich means "son of."

Section III:Can you buy or sell your reward for doing Mitzvos.

Answer: No, you can't.   Putting aside the Davar shelo ba le'olam thing, Hashem doesn't owe you anything.  Schar Mitzvos is a gift by the grace of G-d, and when someone who loves you says he's going to give you a gift, you can't sell the anticipated gift.  Also, it's not schar in the sense of payment.  It is the consequence of doing Hashem's will.  A thrown ball can't sell its trajectory to an inert object.

          Section IV:  Reading the Gemara (Shabbos 123b) that says that on Shabbos one who desires to eat more but is unable to because he is full is not allowed to take an emetic; which seems, to our sensibilities, to be repugnant and wasteful, I made a comment that I think deserves preservation.  What was that comment?

Answer:  Ipecac: the Glutton's Viagra.


What follows was written on Purim, other than one update in middle.

First, let me make it clear that I am not responsible for the tone and content of what I'm writing now.  I can guarantee that it will be clever, but beyond that, no guarantees.

1.  The annoying Maharil in 694.  

The Magen AVraham in  OC (no kidding) 694 brings the Maharil that you can't pay for Matonos l'evyonim from Maaser ksafim.  This is because of hte rule that a dovor she'bichova has to come from chulin, and since matonos l'evyonim is obligatory, you can't pay for it from maaser ksofim. Nobody argues, everybody's happy, its a halacha psuka.  Finishned
Wrong.  I think that we don't hold like th maaharil.

The Rambam in 2 chagiga 8 says that you can't pay for your olas riya or shelmei chagiga from maser sheini money, because of the rule that chova can't come from here's hte Rambam, let him speak for hismlef.

עולת ראייה אינה באה אלא מן החולין כשאר הקרבנות שאדם חייב בהן. אבל שלמי חגיגה באות ממעות מעשר שני המעורבות עם מעות חולין לוקח מן התערובת בהמה ומקריבה שלמי חגיגה. והוא שיהיה שיעור אכילה ראשונה מן החולין. מפני ששלמי חגיגה חובה וכל שהוא חובה אינו בא אלא מן החולין:

Very simple.  riyah and chagiga, pay out of discretionary funds.  Shelmei simcha, you can use maser sheini money.  The rambam explains the differencetwo halachos later:

יוצאין ישראל ידי חובת שלמי שמחה בנדרים ונדבות ובמעשר בהמה. והכהנים בחטאת ובאשם ובבכור ובחזה ושוק. שמצוה זו היא לשמוח באכילת בשר לפני ה' והרי אכלו. אבל אין יוצאין ידי חובתן לא בעופות ולא במנחות שאינן בשר המשמח. כבר ביארנו בפסחים שחגיגת ארבעה עשר רשות. לפיכך אין אדם יוצא בה ידי חובת חגיגה אלא יוצא בה חובת שמחה:

so it's very simple.  For chiyuvim, you have to use pocket money.  but even though you're chayav to bring shelmei simcha, since hte tachlis is to have a good time, and the point of maser sheini money is to have a good time, so what's the problem.

It should be obvious to any straight thinking person that on the basis of the this Rambam, you can use maser sheini money for matanos le'evyoinim.  The purpose is to make sure that the evyonim have a good time, that that have what to eat and rejoice, so who the uheck cares what you used to pay for it with.  The tachlis is fulfilled.

tThe Roish koilel, harav yoisef Rajchenbach, whanted to be mechaleik.  Whent tachlis is your simcha, no problem. When the tachlis is yenems' simcah, not the same.

We are not impressed.

anyway, The maharil knew the Rambam very well, and he wasn't nispoeil.  so what's the pshat?

Very simple The maharil holds that matonos le'evyonim is a mitzva of a maaseh nesina,.  that you need to fulfill the mitzva by the act of giving.  so the tachlis of the mitzva is not the simcha of the poor guy, who cares about tehpoor guy, my mitzva is to do the maiseh nesinah, and the heck with the poor guy, he's just a cheftza shel mitzva, like kthe beis halevi says in the end of parshas truma. Fine.  Let the Maharil hold like that.  It's not weirder than the Tosfos Rid inKiddushin that says thatt milah is not zman grama because the father's mitzva is the hishtadlus that the bris shouild be done, and that's not zman gromo.  It's a free country, you can say what you want.

But my problem is that if the Maharil holds that the ikker mitzva of Matonos le'evyonim is the maaseh nesina, not the hano'oh of the oni, then you can't be mekayeim the mitzva if you give the money before purim.  You can't fulfil the arba kosos if you have a headache on Pesachy, can you?  NO.  Retorical quesiton.  But the fact is that we all give matonos le'evyonim before purim "to be distributed on purim."  if it's a din of maaseh nesina, what good is that?  Your nesina needs to be on purim.  Ahh, but you answer, we insist that the nesina should be done on Purim.  But there are many poskim that say that you can fulfill the mitzva by giving it to  the oni before purim IF YOU'RE SURE HE WON'T EAT IT UP BEFORE PURIM.  Like by kiddushin.  If the mitzva was the nesina, that WOULDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE ATALL.  It must be that we hold that hte ikker is the hana'ah of the oni, not the neshina.

If so, we obviously don't hold like th emaharil.

So don't drei a kop and tell me that oh, the maharil is a halacha psuka, you can't pay for ml'e from maiser money.  OUr minhag, in my cnsidered opinion, is not to fir zach like th emaharil.

UPDATE:

I'm writing on Shushan Purim, and so it should be more legible.  I just saw a tshuva in the Chasam Sofer on another teshuva from the Maharil, in which he clarifies the svara.   The Teshuva is in the Chasam Sofer YD 231, here.

More importantly:  Eli pointed out that this is most likely a machlokes Rishonim, to wit:  (Language credit to R Tzvi Reizman from Los Angeles, from an article in Kovetz He'oros U'Biurim.  Although I'm not taking achrayus for the words attributed to Harav Soloveichik in the Harerei Kedem, it makes sense to me.)

ובספר הררי קדם (סימן רו) הביא הגרי"ד סולובייצ'יק בשם זקנו הגר"ח מבריסק שאמר כי "מתנות לאביונים הוא חיוב מסויים ליתן צדקה ביום הפורים". והוסיף והסתפק: "וצ"ע דאם יש בזה קיום מצות צדקה, בודאי כל המוסיף מקיים בכל פרוטה ממצות צדקה נוספת. ומדברי הרמב"ם (הלכות מגילה פ"ב הי"ז) "מוטב לאדם להרבות במתנות אביונים מלהרבות בסעודתו ובשלוח מנות לרעיו", נראה שאין בזה קיום מצוה בפני עצמה, אלא שהוא רק משובח". 

On the other hand, you have Rishonim that indicate that it is not exactly a din of Tzedaka:

הב"ח דייק מלשון הטור (שם) "חייב כל אדם ליתן מתנות לעניים, כלומר, כל אדם, אפילו עני המקבל צדקה חייב לתת ממה שנתנו לו לשאר אביונים בפורים". וכתב הב"ח בטעם הדבר: "דאין דין מתנות לאביונים בפורים כדין שאר צדקה, דהכשר מצות פורים הוא לתת מתנות לאביונים, וכדין ארבע כוסות בפסח [שגם עני המחזר על הפתחים חייב], ואפילו משלוח מנות חייבים בו העניים, אע"פ שלא יספיק להם בסעודתם לאכול עצמם ולשלוח גם לאחרים, וכדמשמע מרב חנינא ואביי. אם כן הוא הדין למתנות לאביונים בפורים, אבל שאר צדקה דכל השנה אין עני המקבל צדקה חייב בה, אלא פעם אחת בשנה יתן דבר מועט לצדקה, כדי לקיים מצות צדקה". וכן נקט להלכה הט"ז (סי' תרצד ס"ק א) כדבריו: "כתב מו"ח ז"ל, אפילו אני המתפרנס מהצדקה, כמו בד' כוסות של פסח. מה שאין כן בשאר צדקה שאינו חייב רק פעם אחת בשנה כדי לקיים מצות צדקה". ביאור דבריהם, דהנה יש לדון בגדר מצות מתנות לאביונים, האם החיוב הוא מהלכות צדקה, שתיקנו לקיים ביום הפורים את מצות הצדקה, כדי שיהיו כל צרכי הפורים מצויים לעניים. או שהחיוב אינו קשור כלל להלכות צדקה, אלא הוא נובע מכלל החיוב להרבות בשמחה בפורים, לתת מתנות לאביונים, כדי לשמחם ביום הפורים. ונראה כי נחלקו בזה רבותינו הראשונים. הרמב"ם (הלכות מגילה פ"ב הי"ז) כתב: "מוטב לאדם להרבות במתנות אביונים מלהרבות בסעודתו ובשלוח מנות לרעיו, שאין שם שמחה גדולה ומפוארה אלא לשמח לב עניים ויתומים ואלמנות וגרים, שהמשמח לב האומללים האלו דומה לשכינה". ומשמע מדבריו, שטעם הענין להרבות במתנות לאביונים נובע מחיוב השמחה בפורים, המפורש בדברי המגילה (אסתר ט, כב) "לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָם יְמֵי מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה וּמִשְׁלוֹחַ מָנוֹת אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיוֹנִים". וכדי שגם האביונים יהיו בשמחה בימי הפורים, חייבו לתת להם מתנות. והדברים מפורשים בביאורו של הריטב"א (מגילה ז, ב) לדברי הירושלמי (מגילה פ"א ה"ד) "כל הפושט יד נותנים לו", שהסיבה לכך היא לפי "שאין נתינה זו מדין צדקה גרידתא, אלא מדין שמחה, שהרי אף לעשירים יש לשלוח מנות, ולפיכך נהגו ליתן מעות פורים לגויים ואפילו עשירים". ומפורש בדבריהם, כי גדר מצות מתנות לאביונים אינו מדין צדקה, אלא מדין השמחה בפורים. 

The important mussar haskeil today is that it's not wise to just state an opinion based on a seat of the pants sense of what makes sense or doesn't make sense to you at the moment.  I was annoyed by the idea that matanos l'evyonim is like shaking a lulav; it seemed to me that it's obviously a din of tzedaka, albeit tzdaka with extra dinim both in manner and time.  But whether I like it or not, the fact is that it's clear, and not just from the Maharil and the Shlah, that this is debatable, and both sides have standing.

  II.  This is copied from a post I didn't know where to put.  Here it is.  The difference between Northwich and Baranovich.  

In Anglo-Saxon England the "-wich towns" designated by the suffix -wic identified coastal trading settlements, equivalents of emporia, provisioned from outside the protected community and characterised by extensive artisanal activity and imports, which have left material traces in excavations.[1] The Anglo-Saxon wic signifies a dwelling place[2] or fortified place.[3] The wic form appears to give two endings, wichand wick[4] (for example Papplewick in Nottinghamshire). Four are known through archaeological excavation, two on waterfront sites outside London (see Lundenwic) and York (see Jorvik) the others at Hamwic(Southampton), occupied from the end of the seventh century to the mid-ninth century, and Ipswich.[5] By the mid-ninth century there is a hiatus in seaport occupation at many sites, in consequence of Vikingdepredations.
Wich and wych are names also used to denote brine springs or wells. By the eleventh century use of the 'wich' suffix was extended to town placenames associated with salt production; at least nine English towns/cities carry the suffix, although only five are commonly connected to salt, Droitwich in Worcestershire and the four Cheshire 'wiches' of Middlewich, Nantwich, Northwich and Leftwich.

BUT

Patronymic & Matronymic Surnames - Based on an ancestor's first name, this category of surnames is usually derived from a father's first name, although occasionally from the first name of a wealthy or well-respected female ancestor. Such surnames can often be identified through the use certain endings including -icz, -wicz, -owicz, -ewicz, and -ycz which usually mean "son of." As a rule, Polish surnames which include a suffix with -k- (-czak, -czyk, -iak, -ak, -ik, and -yk) also mean something like "little" or "son of." More commonly found in eastern Poland, the suffixes -yc and -ic also mean "son of." There are also cases of patronymic surnames where the ending has been dropped and only the original root word remains. (Pawel Adamicz - Paul son of Adam).

Geographical Surnames (Place Names) - The most common type of Polish surname, these Polish last names are derived from the location of the homestead from which the first bearer and his family lived. In the case of nobility, the surnames were often taken from the names of their estates. Other place names which were adapted into surnames include towns, countries, and even geographical features. While you might think that such surnames could lead you to your ancestral village, that isn't often the case with Polish surnames because so many places in Poland had the same name, changed names or disappeared in the centuries since the surnames developed, or were subdivisions of a local village or estate too small to be found on a gazetteer or map. Surnames ending in -owski usually derive from place names ending in -y, -ow, -owo, -owa, and so on. (Cyrek Gryzbowski - Cyrek from the town of Gryzbow).

AND THEREFORE, TOWNS THAT WERE NAMED AFTER THE HOMESTEAD OF A FOUNDING FAMILY WERE OFTEN CALLED -ICH, BECAUSE THE FOUNDER'S NAME WAS SOMETHING-ICH, LIKE BARANOVICH AND PONEVITCH.

SO THE WICH IN ENGLAND AND THE OVITZ IN POLAND HAVE ZERO SHAYCHUS.  JUST A MEANINGLESS COINCIDENCE.

III  Another post I didn't finish, but that's worht knowing, about selling your schar mitzvos, selling your oilom habo.

Basically, the mekoros I have say that it's delusional to think you can buy or sell schar or olom habo.   

Netziv in teshuvos, Cheilkek 3 14, here
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1096&st=&pgnum=189

Eikev, matanah, Rav Hai, Reb Yehuda Hachasid, Margoliyos, but what about Tzedakah, maybe even tzedaka is only a kinyan peiros. But at least you can sell the kinyan peiros. What about schar going with yerusha; obviously, it doesn't, because abba lo mezakeh bra, but that it not true in olam hazeh, abba is mezakeh bra in olam hazeh; so maybe you can indeed sell whatever schar you're entitled to in olam hazeh.

A Shalach Manos Gift from the Rashash

The Rashash has comments on the Gaon's Ma'aseh Rav, and in #249 he says that he believes that when Reuven sends Shalach Manos to Shimon, and Shimon accepts it, then they both were mekayeim the Mitzva of Shalach Manos.  This is why the mitzva is referred to as משלוח מנות, in a noun form, instead of שולחים מנות, in a verb form.

A Puzzling Hanhaga from the Gaon on The Seudas Purim

The Tosfos Ma'aseh Rav, which was written by geonim and talmidim of the Gaon, says that the Gaon used to sit at the Seuda and eat the entire day, and then, toward evening, he let the effect of the food and wine wear off, and he bentched.   Obviously, when it says that  he sat down at the seuda, it means after Mincha Gedola, at one pm. But still, we're talking about staying at the seuda from one thirty till six thirty.   The Entire Day.  

Why did the Gaon do this?  Do you realize what that means to the Gaon?  Bishlema the Gemara (Megilla 3a) says מכאן סמכו של בית רבי שמבטלין תלמוד תורה ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה, so we're mevateil Torah for the Megilla.  And Bishlema the Bach in the beginning of OC 695 says that the makor for a lengthy seuda is the story (Megilla 7a) about the talmidim whose absence from the shiur on Purim on Purim was excused by saying they were busy with the meal- רב אשי הוה יתיב קמיה דאמימר נגה ולא אתו רבנן אמר ליה מאי טעמא לא אתו רבנן דלמא טרידי בסעודת פורים.  But that just means 'longer than usual.'  But the whole day???  How is this seuda different than any other seudas hoda'ah, or seudas yomtov?

It seems to me that the Gaon held that the same way there's a din of כל המרבה לספר by the Seder, which the Tanna'im, as a middas chasidus, continued the entire night until זמן קריאת שמע של שחרית, so too there is a middas chasidus to sit the whole day at the seder.  But do we know why the Seder has this unique halacha?  I don't.  But if you do, maybe it will shed light on the Gaon's hanhaga on Purim.

Another possible lead is the Gemara in Sukka 41b, that says that the Men of Yerushalayim used to carry the Lulav around with them the whole day, even though they were yotzei in the first moment of picking it up, and did the na'anu'im early in the morning, because they were diligent in the Mitzvos- 

תניא רבי אלעזר בר צדוק אומר כך היה מנהגן של אנשי ירושלים אדם יוצא מביתו ולולבו בידו הולך לבית הכנסת לולבו בידו קורא קריאת שמע ומתפלל ולולבו בידו קורא בתורה ונושא את כפיו מניחו על גבי קרקע הולך לבקר חולים ולנחם אבלים לולבו בידו נכנס לבית המדרש משגר לולבו ביד בנו וביד עבדו וביד שלוחו מאי קמ"ל להודיעך כמה היו זריזין במצות:

So I understand there is hiddur or zerizus in doing more than necessary.  The Tur in 652 paskens like this, although the Mishna Berura says that these days, it would be showing off to do so- מחזי כיוהרא.  But in any case, the Gaon only did this on Purim.  Why?
To answer this question, I would suggest that there is a basic difference between the seudos of other Yamim Tovim and the Seuda of Purim.  The other seudos are a fulfillment of the mitzva of Simcha and Oneg.  How do you have simcha and oneg?  By eating a festive meal.  On Purim, it's not only the din of Simcha, it's a din of eating per se, that having a festive meal is itself the mitzvas hayom, to commemorate the meal with Achashveirosh that began our downfall and Esther's meal that ended it.  So on Yomtov, even according to the hanhaga of the Anshei Yerushalayim there's no ma'alah of a day long seuda, because the eating is not the cheftza shel mitzva.  But on Purim when the eating is the mitzva itself, then doing the mitzva the whole day is exactly what the Anshei Yerushalayim did with their Lulavim.   I am told that the Brisker Rov also says this distinction between Seudas Yomtov and Seudas Purim.   I haven't seen it inside.


Dr. Meir Zahtz suggested that because Purim is seen as the חציו לכם aspect of Yom Kippur, the same way the din Taanis of Yom Kippur is in force the entire day without interruption, so too the mitzvas Lachem of Purim, the Seuda, is in force the entire day without interruption.  Dr. Zahtz gets points for ingenuity.  His pshat is especially good in light of the Gaon who quotes the Gemara in Pesachim 68b that מר בריה דרבינא fasted every day of the year with three (3) exceptions:  Erev Yom Kippur, Purim, and Shavuos.  The Gaon (I don't have the Mareh Makom, but it's common knowledge, and Rav Hutner brings it down in Pachad Yitzchak Purim #8) says pshat that each of these three days is a day of Kabbalas Hatorah, and that the two days, Purim and Yom Hakipurim, are inextricably tied together, as Meir said, with one functioning as the חציו לכם and the other as the חציו לשם.  The Zohar also says that each day serves as a השלמה for the other.  But his teretz doesn't appeal to me from a Gaon standpoint- it's a fine reason for a Rebbe to sit at the table and eat a whole day, but it's not a good enough reason for the Gaon to sit at the table the whole day.

The Supernal Light of Megillas Esther

The Rambam (2 Megilla 18) quotes a Tosefta in Megilla and the Gemara in the first perek, as follows:

All books in the Canon of Prophets and Holy Writings are destined to become naught when the Mashiach comes, other than Megilas Esther.  It will stand like the Five Books of the Torah and like the Oral Law of the Torah which never will be nullified.  Even though all the memory of suffering will be extirpated, as it says "for the old suffering will be forgotten and hidden away from my eyes,"  the days of Purim will never come to an end, as it says "and these days of Purim will never pass from among the Jews and their memory will never end among their descendants."

כל ספרי הנביאים וכל הכתובים עתידין ליבטל לימות המשיח חוץ ממגילת אסתר והרי היא קיימת כחמשה חומשי תורה וכהלכות של תורה שבעל פה שאינן בטלין לעולם. ואע"פ שכל זכרון הצרות יבטל שנאמר כי נשכחו הצרות הראשונות וכי נסתרו מעיני. ימי הפורים לא יבטלו שנאמר וימי הפורים האלה לא יעברו מתוך היהודים וזכרם לא יסוף מזרעם:

In fact, there is a word-association of the Megilla to the Torah.  Regarding the Torah from Sinai, it says קול גדול ולא יסף , and regarding the Megilla, as the Rambam notes, it says   לא יסוף מזרעם.  Both are eternal, only these two share the word Lo Yasuf, never ending.

The Ra'avad there says 

א"א לא יבטל דבר מכל הספרים שאין ספר שאין בו למוד. אבל כך אמרו אפילו יבטלו שאר ספרים מלקרות בהם מגילה לא תבטל מלקרותה בצבור

Nothing from the Canon will be nullified, for every Book has a lesson.  All the Gemara means is that only the Megilla and the Torah will be publicly read.

The Ra'avad has a point, especially since the Gemara also says that all the other holidays will be as naught, but Purim will be celebrated forever.  How can this be?  Are the laws of the Torah limited to only certain epochs?  The Rambam was not, after all, antinomian.

The Chasam Sofer brings from a Sefer M'nos Levi (thanks to Hebrewbooks.org, we have that sefer, too.  It's here and go to page 405 in their numbering system) that when the Gemara says that the other holidays will be "Bateil" it doesn't mean deconsecrated, it means bateil like bittul b'rov, we won't celebrate them as joyously, because the events they commemorate will be trivial compared to the great events of the days of the Mashiach.  But, the Chasam Sofer asks, the Raavad's question deserves an answer.  How can we say that the other books of Nevi'im will be null?

The Chasam Sofer explains that the days of Mashiach will bring deep and widespread spiritual wisdom, and the lessons about the Will of G-d in the books of the Nevi'im will be self-evident and universally known.  

But the Megilla, he says, is different.

And the words that follow in the Chasam Sofer are so amazing, so awesome, that it's hard to believe he wrote them.  Or, put it this way: if I didn't see it myself, I would have thought it was written by someone whose theology was suspect, chas veshalom.  But it's there.

The Chasam Sofer is in Drashos Chasam Sofer, Volume I, page164, (page 368 at Hebrewbooks), beginning of second column, and this is what he says:

דקבלת תורה בימי משה רבינו עליו השלום היה באונס והדר קיבלוהו בימי אחשורוש באופן שאור קדוש הכלול במגילה הוא ממש יותר גדול ונכבד  מתורתנו הקדושה בעצמה

The acceptance of the Torah in the days of Moshe Rabbeinu was under duress (Shabbos 88a).  They later accepted it willingly in the days of Achashveirosh, in a manner that the holy light that inheres in the Megilla is literally greater and more splendid than that of our holy Torah itself.

For may years, I scoffed at people who bought the Megillos written on Klaf.  You fulfill the mitzva by hearing it from the baal korei, for goodness sakes.  You like having a holy megilla?  They buy a Megillas Rus, or, if you're a Litvak, buy a Megillas Eicha.  Why waste so much money?  Is it just another geegaw to put in your breakfront and flaunt in shul?

Well, according to the Chasam Sofer, I was wrong.  Not about what the buyers' conscious motivation, but about the unique spiritual resplendence of Megillas Esther.  The Megilla somehow comprises אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר   I don't know in what sense Megillas Esther holds this numinous light.  Is it a source? A lens? An amplifier?  Is it in the written word or in the reading?  Whatever it is, it is unique.  Once again, our subconscious, our race-memory, our inherent spiritual sensitivity, shepherds us and guides our hands to do sublime things.

A reader in New Hampshire sent in a comment about what aspect of the Megilla involves the Chasam Sofer's light, which belongs here:

Suggestion: reading the megilla with the proper appreciation and simcha regarding the narrative and the nes creates a bond to torah sheba'al peh greater than can be attained from the Torah itself.

This is, after all, the light of kiy'mu v'kiblu.

Also, on the most basic level, it is the only torah shebiksav that is torah sheba'al peh.

And on that note, I direct your attention to an analogous if not identical concept in the Netziv, in an addendum on Purim at the end of Shemos (after Megillas Esther).

When I read it, I immediately checked if my katana was sufficiently sharp.

(note: great unknown's latter line refers to the part of the Netziv that explains that the Torah is symbolized by the sword; Torah She'bichsav by the gloriously bejeweled scabbard, and Torah She'Baal Peh by the sharp and dangerous blade.)

(For interested parties: The Chasam Sofer echoes Reb Chaim Vital in his Shaar Hakavanos - Drush le'Purim on the Ha'ara of the Ataras Ha'yesod.   But irrespective of other layers of meaning, the Chasam Sofer always wrote to be understood literally.)

Two good things that add to this discussion:
I     At a kiddush, we were discussing the difference between Sinai and Purim.  One individual put it nicely.  He said "There's a big difference between Kabalas Hatorah under a mountain and Kabalas Hatorah on top of a  mountain."

II    As for the Chasam Sofer, I realized later that there is a very interesting way (and with all due humility, a very, very good way) of looking at it.  When did Moshe Rabbinu's face begin to emanate rays of light?  After he received the Torah- but not after the first forty days.  Only after the second time he was taught the Torah did his face shine with that light.  Why?  Why only the second time?  The Beis Halevi and the Mabit in his introduction to the Kiryas Sefer both say that only when Torah She'Baal Peh was found only in Moshe Rabbeinu's mind, and not written on the Luchos, and only after Moshe Rabbeinu achieved his Torah knowledge through hard work, was he considered a living sefer torah.  Though they don't mention it, it is obvious that this also explains why only after the second luchos did his face shine.

With this in mind, the Chasam Sofer's idea becomes very reasonable.  Klal Yisrael came to the Ribono shel Olam, not the other way around.  They discerned Hashem's presence and made the unilateral decision to revisit the idea of Torah She'Baal Peh and to accept it with desire and enthusiasm.  For this, Karan Ohr Pnei'hem.  That is the light in Megillas Esther.

The next part is just the Rambam in the previous halacha.  It's worded very strongly, and it's good to be reminded of how he puts it as we prepare for Purim.

מוטב לאדם להרבות במתנות אביונים מלהרבות בסעודתו ובשלוח מנות לרעיו. שאין שם שמחה גדולה ומפוארה אלא לשמח לב עניים ויתומים ואלמנות וגרים. שהמשמח לב האמללים האלו דומה לשכינה שנאמר להחיות רוח שפלים ולהחיות לב נדכאים

Better that a person augment his gifts to the poor rather than make a big feast or fancy Shalach Manos to his friends.  There is no greater or more splendid joy than gladdening the hearts of the poor and the orphans and widows and strangers.  One who gladdens these poor people's hearts is likened to the Holy Shechina, about which it says "To revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the downtrodden."

And for a final curiosity, I was looking at Reb Shlomo Alkabetz's sefer, M'nos Halevi, which the Chasam Sofer brought, as I noted above, and he says that Megillas Esther has 166 psukim, which matches the 166 letters in each of parshas Zachor and parshas Vayavo Amaleik, and there are 166 words in Hallel Hagadol (Hodu of Shabbos morning), and it is the gematria of the words יעלזו חסידים בכבוד (because on Purim it's ok to act like Chasidim).

Titzaveh, Shemos 29:14. Rare Korbanos. And, The Joyful Month of Adar, משנכנס אדר מרבים בשמחה.

The first part of this post is about Mishenichnas Adar Marbim BeSimcha, once Adar has begun, we increase our joy.  The second part of this post is focused Kodshim.  For the ninety nine percent of us that haven't learned kodshim seriously yet, I hope you enjoy the beginning, but I encourage you to get a chavrusa and buckle down.  Don't leave this world without having touched a very big part of the Torah!

Rashi in Taanis 29 says that we try to be more joyful in Adar because it is the month of the great miracles that saved our nation, Purim in Adar, which then leads into Nissan and Pesach.

The Sfas Emes there offers a different explanation which directly relates Av to Adar.  He says that in the month of Av we diminish our simcha because of the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash.  Adar, he says, is the converse of that event, because in Adar we joyfully used to give the Machatzis Hashekel, the annual half-shekel donation which was used to buy communal offerings and appurtenant utensils, and to pay for the maintenance of the Beis Hamikdash.

Reb Reuven Feinstein points out that the Gaon distinguishes Simcha from Sasson.  The Gaon says that Sasson is the celebration of a joyful experience or achievement.  Simcha celebrates a new opportunity to do wonderful things.  שמחים בצאתם וששים בבואם.  A chassan and kallah have both Sasson and Simcha, Sasson for what they've gotten, and Simcha for the opportunity to achieve more happiness and to do new and special mitzvos in the future.  Simcha is enthusiasm, Simcha is excitement.  Of course, we are forever grateful that Hashem saved us from our enemies.  But when we say Mishenichnas Adar Marbim BeSimcha, it doesn't mean just that we are happy about what happened in the past.  Simcha means we take the time to realize that this month gives us special opportunities to grow, to achieve, to contribute to the Geula and the Binyan Beis Hamikdash and the return of the Shechina to Klal Yisrael.  Charles DeGaulle, of a famously sober mien, was asked by a reporter whether he was happy.  He answered "What do you take me for, an idiot?"  He had a point.  Simcha that is satisfaction with what is is a dead end.  Simcha that is enthusiasm for what you can do is the beginning of a journey to greatness.  Marbim BeSimcha is not just commemoration; it is a celebration of an opportunity.  See to it that you really have something to celebrate: take advantage of the opportunity!  Be mechazek others, bring happiness to your friends and neighbors, raise the level of your community-  including the people who are not exactly like you.  Surprise someone whom you barely know with a nice Shalach Manos- not a trivial apple and grape juice.  Give a pastrami sandwich.  B'dieved, pizza will also do.  And don't forget the beer (the mature palate prefers IPA).

(It's been noted that the idea of Marbim does not necessarily apply to the first Adar in a leap year.  Indeed, the Yaavetz holds like that.  Others hold it does apply.  Since safek derabanan lekula, you don't have to be machmir to be marbeh simcha in Adar Rishon.  But you can be marbeh besimcha if you want to, and you won't be nikra hediot.)


AND NOW, KODSHIM.

There is a category of Korbanos called "The Nisrafim."  Unlike most korbanos, which are burned in the Beis Hamikdash, this category comprises Korbanos that, when correctly brought, are burned outside of Yerushalayim.  The only members of this group are:

פר העלם דבר של ציבור

פר ושעיר (העלם דבר של) עבודה זרה

(פר (העלם דבר של) כהן המשיח (ולא כהן  גדול מרובה בגדים

פר כהן גדול ושעיר של יום הכיפורים

All these korbanos are burned outside of Yerushalayim, outside Machaneh Yisrael.  (Yes, Para Aduma is also burned outside of Yerushalayim.   Parah Aduma is irrelevant to this discussion.  It is sui generis.)  These korbanos share one more element.  By most korbanos, the blood is applied to the exterior Mizbeiach, and absolutely not in the Heichal/Ohel Moed.  For these korbanos, however, the blood is applied in various places within the Heichal.

So we find two rare avodos in this group, which we will call A and B.  'A' is the avoda in the Heichal, and 'B' is burning outside the Machaneh.  

When we find association of two atypical characteristics, there are four possibilities:

A → B.
B → A.
Unknown C → both A and B.
Unknown C → A and Unknown D → B.

Evidence for the first linkage, that A causes B, is to be found in the case of a standard Chatas whose blood was inappropriately brought into the Heichal for the purpose of Kapara.  Such a Chatas is not eaten.  Instead, it must be completely burned, as are the Nisrafim listed above.  We see that A, bringing the blood into the Heichal, even where this is erroneous, results in B, the application of the rule of Nisrafim.  It is possible that this converts the exterior Chatas into an interior Chatas, at least to some extent.  Indeed, the Aruch Hashulchan in Kodshim 122  speculatives that bringing it into the Heichal elevates the kedusha of the blood and renders it unfit/overqualified for the lower-kedusha external Mizbeiach.

In fact, the Sfas Emes (Zevachim 82) says a remarkable thing.  Although we hold, like Rebbi Eliezer, that External Chatas blood brought into the Heichal with intent to do the blood avodah there is enough to render it unfit, Rebbi Shimon holds that only actually using the blood in the Heichal renders it unfit.  The Sfas Emes says that there is a world of difference between Rebbi Eliezer's "Unfit" and Rebbi Shimon's "Unfit."  Rebbi Eliezer holds that the korban becomes useless and deconsecrated.  Rebbi Shimon, he says, holds that using the blood in the Heichal generates a kapara for the owner of the korban, although we have to burn the meat outside of Yerushalayim.  The former understands the result to be a derogation, a deconsecration, of the korban.  The latter understands it to be a conversion from one form of Chatas to another, such that the korban is then burned, but the owner gains the intended benefit of the korban.

What does all this have to do with Parshas Titzaveh????

This parsha describes the Miluim, the inauguration of the Mishkan, which included the investiture of the Kohanim.  This involved certain Korbanos.  One of these Korbanos was a Par, a bull, as a Chatas.  The service of this korban was the same as that of any other Chatas, namely, that lines of blood were placed on the corners of the top of the Mizbei'ach, but there was one aspect of this korban that is unique.  It is the one and only exterior Chatas that is burned outside the Machaneh.  In other words, it is the only Chatas whose blood is not placed on the interior mizbei'ach that must be burned outside the Machaneh, and not in the Azara.  Rashi notes this fact in  Shemos 29:14.

וְאֶת בְּשַׂר הַפָּר וְאֶת עֹרוֹ וְאֶת פִּרְשׁוֹ תִּשְׂרֹף בָּאֵשׁ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה חַטָּאת הוּא, and Rashi says  תשרף באש: לא מצינו חטאת 

 חיצונה נשרפת אלא זו

Reading just this Rashi will leave you with the wrong impression, because there actually was one other such exception- the calf Chatas brought by Aharon on the eighth day of the Miluim.  There Rashi says the same as he says here, that the only exterior chatas's that are burned outside the encampment are that calf and our parsha's bull.  The two are essentially the same, in that they were both investiture Chata'os, one for Kohanim in general, and one for Aharon alone.  (Yes, the korban Chatas that invested the Leviim in Be'haaloscha was also burned.  But I believe it was burned like an Olah, on the Mizbei'ach.) Now this is a classic case of a Gzeiras Hakasuv, a halacha that clearly will defeat any attempt to understand it.  Nonetheless, it does seem to contradict our assumption that burning the internal  chataos is tied to the avoda being done in the Heichal.  Here, the avoda is not done in the Heichal, and it was burned anyway.  But this morning, when I was saying the shiur, I mentioned the Rashi, and someone pointed out that it might be incorrect to say that the unique aspect of this korban is that it is burned outside the machaneh even though the blood avoda in in the Azara.  The chidush might be that although it is a par of the kohen gadol, like that of Yom Kippur, and therefore needs to be burned outside, nonetheless the blood is put on the exterior mizbeiach. To review: We assumed that bringing inside for avoda results in burning outside the Machaneh.  A leads to B.  It is possible, though, that an unknown external factor, C, results in both A and B.  This was shown to be unlikely from the case of an exterior Chatas whose blood was brought into the Heichal for Avodah, so that an undesired A occurs, and the result is B.  Clearly, then, we cannot say that A and B are the results of some outside X.  It seems clear that A results in B.  But if so, how are we to understand the Chatas of Miluim?  There is no A, and still there is a B.  So we might say either that yes, A does cause B, but some other factor can also cause B, or that A and only A causes B, but here, by the miluim, what seems to be non-A has the same effect as A.  So the question is rephrased.  Why, by the Miluim, is an outside Avoda essentially the same as an inside Avoda? And the answer to this comes partially from Ramban, but mostly from the Netziv. The Ramban says that these Miluim Korbanos were really forms of Kapara for Avoda Zara, and so are included in the standard category of Se'ir Avoda Zara.  The Netziv argues and says that they must be Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur, a similar idea.  But why was the blood on the outside Mizbei'ach? The answer is, as the Netziv says in Shemos 40:9 DH Vehaya Kodesh, that there were No Avodos Pnim until the eighth day of the Miluim, because until then, only the outside Mizbei'ach had been annointed and only it had kedusha- and that kedusha happened to be Kedushas Bama.  According to him, there was no concept of Avodas Pnim until then, or, alternatively, Chutz had the same din as Pnim, because ein pnim mimenu.  Now if Chutz could serve as Pnim, this all makes sense.  Yes, the Miluim had the din of Par He'elam Davar, or Se'ir Avoda Zara.  Therefore, their avodas hadam resulted in Sreifa outside the Machaneh.  The fact that this was done on the outside mizbei'ach didn't matter.  The definition of A is either that the Torah requires an avoda called Zerikas Pnim, and this type of Zerika was done, or that in fact the zerikas dam was done in the Heichal.  Here, the avodas hadam of these korbanos was A.  So even though it was done on the outside mizbei'ach, it had a din of Zerikas Pnim.  Other chata'os done on this mizbei'ach had a din of Zerikas Chutz.  But for these unusual korbanos, what was done was a kiyum of a requirement for a Zerikas Pnim, and so it is called A.  And A results in B. And if that's not marbim be'simcha, I don't know what is. (please note that I am not interested in discussing why these korbanos are burned outside the machaneh.  I am not qualified to discuss that, and I am not at all interested in listening to people who think they are.) I tried to use the Gemara in Rosh Hashanna 26a, that Shofar, which comes l'zikaron, is like pnim, but as attractive as it sounded, it turned out to be a dead end.