Is there a hidur mitzva after the mitzva is done?

There is a concept of hidur mitzva, which means that we can make the mitzvos we do more beautiful. Examples of this are taking nice esrogim on Succos, getting larger tfillin, getting a megillah written by the best scribe, among many countless others.

The basic level of the mitzva of Chanuka is ner ish uveiso, where the man of the house will light one candle each night for his household. A step up is called mehadrin (beautiful), where the man will light progressively as the holiday progresses. The best is called mehadrin min hamehadrin, which is what most tend to do, whereby each member of the household will light progressively.

The Rambam (a Sephardi) says something most interesting that people don't normally notice, but the Griz (The Brisker Rav) points out that the Rambam says the word Madlik, as opposed to Madlikin, which indicates his view is that there is no such step as the final one we mentioned, that the best mitzva one can do is for the householder to light progressively or recessively, but not for each member to.

This is at odds with the Rema (R' Moshe Isserles, whom Ashkenazi Jews tend to hold like) who holds that each person lighting is mehadrin. So whow are we to understand the Rambam's position, and why does the Rema argue?

We can look to a Gemara in Shabbos that can perhaps shed light on this issue. The context is Bris Milah, where the Mohel realises afterwards that he has left something called tzitzin (small piece of skin). There are two types of tzitzin, the type that leaves the baby boy considered uncircumcised, and the type that doesn't matter. The Gemara concludes that eino chozrin al tzitzin she'einon meakvin, that there is no need for the Mohel to perform the Bris again if it is the type which does not matter.

Rashi explains that this is only on Shabbos that the Mohel doesn't return, but that on weekdays he would. The Rambam says that he wouldn't go back to perform the operation again even on a weekday.

So the Brisker Rav, the Griz, explains to us what the issue really is: after the shaas mitzva is gone, you can't make it better. There is no doubt that this is the case on Shabbos, where everyone agrees that you don't break it for the hidur, but the Rambam sas that once the Mohel is finished the Bris, he can't make it any more mehudar than it was, as the Mitzva has been completed.

The Rema and Rashi disagree, and say that yes, you can! This is the difference with regard to lighting Menoras; The Rambam says that once the householder has lit, there is no hidur mitzva for the rest of the householders to perform a hidur, as the mitzva has already finished when the householder lit the first light, so the hidur stops once he has lit additional lights. Any further attempts at hidur ie mehadrin min hamehadrin are after the shaas hamitzva, so are unnecessary.

We hold like the Rema and Rashi, that we can do hidur after the main mitzva has been completed, which is why each of us lights our own Menora.

Because That If....?

The Pasuk says: " כִּי אִם זְכַרְתַּנִי אִתְּךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר יִיטַב לָךְ וְעָשִׂיתָ נָּא עִמָּדִי חָסֶד וְהִזְכַּרְתַּנִי אֶל פַּרְעֹה וְהוֹצֵאתַנִי מִן הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה - ??? remember me when things go well with you, and please do me a favor and mention me to Pharaoh, and you will get me out of this house." (40:14). The words כִּי אִם do not really belong here, as the translation above clearly shows - they do not add or change any meaning in the Pasuk. כִּי אִם translates loosely as "because that" and many variations. Certainly this translation isn't helpful in understanding the Pasuk, so what are they there for? As we have seen many times, it is because we have not understood the context clearly enough.

There is a story told by the Brisker Rov in the name of his father R' Chaim Brisker about the Rav of Kovno, (present day Kaunas in Lithuania). The story occurred while General Napoleon was marching through Eastern Europe. The lords and gentry wanted to please Napoleon as his armies passed through their lands, and they wanted to honour him by making a lavish evening whereupon they would bestow gifts and treasures to him. The province's leaders each took their turn to present him and his delegations with their offerings, and after a while, he noticed none of the Jewish community were represented, and he was relatively good to the Jews and questioned how come there were no Jewish leaders at the ball. The pronvince's leaders shuffled around uncomfortably, and explained that they did not feel the Jews to be members of society worthy enough of honouring Napoleon. He flew into a rage and insisted they bring a rabbi, and the gentry grew nervous. They sent for the rabbi from the nearest town, which happened to be the Rav of Kovno. (I couldn't find out who this was at the time of writing...) He was rushed to the ball and Napoleon requested that the rabbi say something truthful, something he'd felt was lacking in the previous speeches. The gentry were quaking at this point.

The Rav said that that week's weekly portion was ours, Vayeshev, and he'd never understood why the Pasuk had said כִּי אִם until the sequence of events that had unfolded that night that had enabled him to have an audience requested by Napoleon. He explained that without context, we don't see the bigger picture, (a concept we discussed regarding Chanuka already,) with regards to what on earth Napoleon was doing in this far flung corner of Europe. He said that things do not just happen "by the way". Everything is ordained, everything is planned in Heaven. Yosef was saying to the butler that he was innocent, and certainly that was the case: how does one prevent a fly falling into the wine as you drink it? But nevertheless he was imprisoned? Loosely applying this with the translation of כִּי אִם, "you are here because ie in order that you must remember me when things go well with you".

The Rav then proceeded to tell Napoleon that the reason he was near Kovno was because the Jews were being oppressed terribly, and he was here to save them. Napoleon applauded, and save them he did - he removed the gentry's stewardship over the Jews (albeit temporarily!).

Geshmack!

What's so special about Jewish children?

The Pasuk says "ה. וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת הַנָּשִׁים וְאֶת הַיְלָדִים וַיֹּאמֶר מִי אֵלֶּה לָּךְ וַיֹּאמַר הַיְלָדִים אֲשֶׁר חָנַן אֱ־לֹהִים אֶת עַבְדֶּךָ - And he (Esau) lifted his eyes and saw the women and the children, and he said, "Who are these to you?" And he (Yakov) said, "The children with whom God has favored your servant." (33:5)

Esau wasn't a fool, he knew Yakov had his family and entourage with him. This is obvious, as he brought a small army with him to kill them all. So why then, does this conversation take the form of a chance meeting, as if it weren't apparent who they were and what their connection to Yakov - the head of the family, was?

Clearly, there is something else afoot. The Chafetz Chaim says that Esau saw something different in these children, and he was correct for identifying this difference. They were the first Jewish children - we are Bnei Yisrael, and Yakov's children were the first of the lot! He saw a difference in them from other children he'd encountered, and we need only look at Yishmael and Esau themselves to see how children behaved in that society, so naturally Yakov's children owuld act differently.

The Chafetz Chaim explains that the answer to what made them different is in Yakov's answer. He answered "אֲשֶׁר חָנַן אֱ־לֹהִים אֶת עַבְדֶּךָ - with whom God has favored your servant". Why did it not say the normal word for giving - נתן, instead it says חָנַן. The Chafetz Chaim teaches us that there is something else to be learned here that what made these children different was the merit of חָנַן- the Roshei Teivos of the 3 Mitzvos only women can perform - חלה ,נר , נידה - the laws regarding the seperation of Challah, lighting Shabbos candles, and family purity. Yakov said within his reply to his brother what made his children special, that his wives observed these laws. (Hamekubal's blog pointed these obligations out just the other day).

There are other interpretations of the נר part of observance, which just translates as light. The Sforno explains it to mean the light of Torah - it is a mother's obligation to ensure her children know Torah - "v'al titosh Toras imecha". How do we see this? There is a Gemara in Niddah which says that every baby in its mother's womb has 2 things - an angel that teaches the baby the whole Torah, which it forgets at birth when the angel taps its lip, and a light above its head. We don't see babies born with lights above their heads, so what does this mean? This means that the mother provided the circumstances through which the light of Torah shone on the child before its birth, and the mother is meant to nurture this "spark" into a full blown flame throughout the child's life.

There is a short story told about R' Yaakov Galinski and the Chazon Ish circa 1953, that explains us what the light or Torah does. They were walking together in the street at night, and were walking under streetlights. The Chazon Ish said "Wow!" every time he walked under a light, and his student, R' Yaakov asked what was going on. The Chazon Ish obliged, and explained a phenomenal lesson that Neil will appreciate. We are not meant to be arrogant people, but how does one work on this character trait if it is innate? The further away from the streetlight/light of Torah we are, the bigger your shadow appear. The closer we get to the streetlight/the light of Torah, the smaller we realise we actually are.

Geshmack ! Feedback appreciated :)

Why did G-d "relent" to Isaac and Rivka's prayers?

You'll find we've already written a Dvar Torah that explains a Pasuk in Toldos, located here

This Dvar Torah blew me away. When it was clear that they would be unable to have children, Isaac and Rivka prayed, and the Pasuk (21:25) says:

'וַיֶּעְתַּר יִצְחָק לַיהוָה לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ, כִּי עֲקָרָה הִו וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה - "And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and He relented to him"

A gentleman once told R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld a short Dvar Torah on this. Why does the Pasuk say "and He relented to him". Does this not seems an odd way of saying that G-d heard and heeded his prayer?

The gentleman explained that there is a tradition that all the Patriarchs were meant to live until the age of 180. Yet Avraham died aged 175 (25:2). We can work this out: Avraham was 99 when he circumcised himself, 100 at Isaac's birth, 137 at the Akeida, at which point Isaac was obviously 37. Isaac was 40 at his marriage, and 60 at the birth of Yaakov and Esau (25:26) making Avraham 160 at their birth. Esau first murdered aged 15, making Avraham 175. There is a Rashi that Avraham would live to see Yishmael repent (25:9), but die before Esau killed someone for the first time (25:30). If he died aged 175, where are the missing 5 years?

The gentleman said to R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld that 'וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה is the answer. There was never any doubt that Isaac would have children, his father had been promised "nations", certainly Isaac would have children then, and Rivka would certainly be their mother as she was the one deemed worthy, as evidenced by the miracles Eliezer witnessed. וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה can be interpreted to mean that G-d did not want to give them children just yet, He simply wanted them to wait a bit longer so Avraham would not live to see his grandson become a murderer.

When R' Yosef Chaim heard this, he jumped up and exclaimed that this vort was Emess, because 'וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה is Gematria (numerical value) 748 (686+36+26), which is the same Gematria as חמש שנים - five years - 748, which represents G-d relenting to their prayers to have children at the expense of חמש שנים from Avraham Avinu's life.

R'Yosef Chaim also said that we say " רְצוֹן-יְרֵאָיו יַעֲשֶׂה; וְאֶת-שַׁוְעָתָם יִשְׁמַע, וְיוֹשִׁיעֵם - He will fulfil the desire of them that fear Him; He also will hear their cry, and will save them ". Isn't this in the wrong order? Doesn't Hashem fulfil their desires to placate their cries? R' Yosef Chaim explains that the prayers of a devout person are able to change what is meant to happen to people, which explains fulfilling their desires. But people don't know what's best for them, and sometimes suffer as a consequence of getting what they desire. The pasuk teaches that Hashem will even repair this later cry of suffering that is of their own doing.


Geshmack !

Benefitting from Miracles

R' Chaim Brisker asks how the jug of oil the Hasmoneans found in the Chanukah story was suitable for use beyond the first day, seeing as it wasn't olive oil after the first day, it was שמן נס, and the commandment to light the Menorah was with olive oil specifically. However you answer the Beis Yosef's legendary question, at the end of the day, 7/8 days were lit with something that might physically have been olive oil, but wasn't from an olive! What was the point of using it after the first day? And secondly, there is a Gemara in Taanis 24 that states that one shouldn't benefit from a miracle:

"...מהא לא תזבנון, דמעשה נסים הוא..."

An example of this maybe the stories of old school Rabbonim in Eastern Europe who didn't have food for Shabbos, and when the Rebbetzin found something for them to eat, the Rabbi would refuse it on the grounds it would diminish from his Olam Habah, perhaps with this Gemara in mind.

Let us go on a tangent for a moment, to R' Yonasan ben Uziel by Parshas Vayakhel, in Shemos 35:27, where it says the princes, הַנְּשִׂאִם, brought הַשָּׁמֶן לְמָאוֹר and spices, but it says הַנְּשִׂאִם without the letter י. which Rashi explains to mean that their intentions were good, but their actions were lacking, in that they underestimated the will of the Jewish people to donate materials for the construction of the Mishkan, so their name was shortened here to teach us to act wholeheartedly. R' Yonasan ben Uziel explains differently, and he read Nesiim with no letters as Neshaim, Aramaic for clouds.

(כז) וענני שמיא אזלין לפישון ודליין מתמן ית אבני בורלות חילא וית אבני אשלמותא לשקעא באיפודא ובחושנא ומחתן יתהון באנפי מדברא אזלין רברבני ישראל ומייתן יתהון לצרוך עיבידתא

(כח) ותיבין ענני שמיא ואזלין לגן עדן ונסבין מתמן ית בושמא בחירא וית משחא דזיתא לאנהרותא וית אפרסמא דכיא למשח רבותא ולקטורת בוסמיא

Essentially, clouds came to the princes, with stones, oil and spices from Heaven! Hafla VaFeleh! (Unbelievable!)

R' Chaim Zevin asks R'Chaim Brisker's question here, how could they use these for the Mishkan, they might have physically been olive oil/stones/spices, but again, they were Maasei Nissim. And again, the Gemara in Taanis.

We can answer this by looking at our Sidra, 8:11

וַתָּבֹא אֵלָיו הַיּוֹנָה לְעֵת עֶרֶב, וְהִנֵּה עֲלֵה-זַיִת טָרָף בְּפִיהָ - the bird came back in the evening with an olive branch in it's mouth.

Hardly earth-shattering.

On this, the Ramban says:

"רבי ביריי אמר, נפתחו לה שערי גן עדן והביאה אות"

that ".....the olive branch was from Gan Eden". Earth-shattering!

Knowing this, R' Tzvi Pesach Franck concludes that we can differentiate between miracles. The cases we are discussing were not Yesh Meayin- something from nothing. These were Yesh MeYesh, something from something, they were in Heaven! They were then moved to Earth. They were thus completely permissible, much like the Manna, which was not a new "thing", rather, it is what the angels grind to make their bread (Tractate Yuma). He draws the conclusion that nothing new was created, which was what the issur by Taanis was referring to. That is to say that the miracle was not their creation, which would be forbidden to benefit from according to Taanis 24, but rather, their miraculous manipulation to be somewhere else at the relevant times.

Sneak peak at Parshas Toldos 27:25, where it says:

"וַיֹּאמֶר, הַגִּשָׁה לִּי וְאֹכְלָה מִצֵּיד בְּנִי--לְמַעַן תְּבָרֶכְךָ, נַפְשִׁי; וַיַּגֶּשׁ-לוֹ, וַיֹּאכַל, וַיָּבֵא לוֹ יַיִן, וַיֵּשְׁתְּ"

"And he said: 'Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son's venison, that my soul may bless thee.' And he brought it near to him, and he did eat; and he brought him wine, and he drank."

If we read backwards slightly, the more astute reader will note that at no point did his mother prepare wine, and R' Yonason ben Uziel again points out the previous idea of things existing in Heaven and says

ואמר קריב לי ואיכול מצידא דברי בגין תברכינך נפשי וקריב ליה ואכל ולא הוה חמרא גביה ואזדמן ליה מלאכא ואייתי מן חמרא דאצטנע בעינבויי מן יומי שירוי עלמא ויהביה ביד יעקב ויעקב אמטי ליה לאבוי ושתי

".......an angel brought wine made from grapes that were in heaven since Creation......"

We can ask the same questions, Maasei Nissim, and assur to benefit from, and the answer is in the quote. They were in Heaven from creation. No problems! But what a phenomenal Yesod about the nature of Heaven...

Geshmack !

The Nature of Marriage

R' Shamshon Refael Hirsch explains an idea where the first use of something in the Torah explains how it is used in all other cases. He cites the blessing by a Pidyon Haben "זה קטן, גדול יהיה" - this small one, may he become big". This blessing on the face of it, is pretty odd to say the least. He explains that the first instances of the words קטן/גדול, are in reference to the מאורות, the sun and moon. The moon only reflects light, whereas the sun actually produces light. The blessing thus means, that the baby, at the time, reflects the parents, and is incapable of looking after itself, should become like the sun, or a great person of his own right.

Adam has a problem of finding himslef an עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, a partner, and this problem is concluded when it says at 2:21

"וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר, תַּחְתֶּנָּה" - and He closed the flesh in its place.

This is the first time the letter ס is used in a non-name word in the Torah. Using the previously stated idea, there are several points to draw from here:

1. The letter ס, when spelt out, reads סֶמֶך, a support, meaning that the woman was meant to support the man and be there for him.
2. The letter ס is circular, and in Kabbalah, a woman is like a circle, and a man like a square. The woman is meant to be an עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, around him always. Incidentally, old rings in the cities of mekubalim like Tzfat have had rings found that were used at weddings, which have a square, the Kabbalistic representation of a man surrounded by a circle, illustrating this concept.
3. This circular idea is further demonstrated by the Gematria of עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, which equals 360, which happens to be the amount of degrees in a circle.

Geshmack !