Tefillin; Sefer Torah

Tefillin as a Garb

The Gemora states: Tefillin are called possessions. This is proven from the following Mishna: If someone consecrates his possessions, his tefillin are evaluated (and he redeems the tefillin from hekdesh with money).

The Gemora inquires: What would be regarding a Sefer Torah? Do we say that since it is forbidden to be sold, it is not included in “possessions,” or perhaps, since it may be sold for the study of Torah or to marry a woman, it is regarded as his possession? The Gemora leaves this question unresolved.

The Rashbam explains: Perhaps there is a distinction between a Sefer Torah and tefillin. Since one wears tefillin on his body, perhaps it is considered as part of his garb, and that is why it is regarded as a “possession.”

The Maharsham in his responsa (1:148) was asked regarding someone who took a vow to donate money to clothe the naked; is he allowed to purchase a pair of tefillin for a pauper?

A proof is brought from a Tikunei Zohar, which states that when the Torah states (regarding Adam in the Garden of Eden): And Hashem made for Adam and for his wife shirts of skin, and He dressed them; this is referring to tefillin. This, the Gemora in Sotah (14a) explains to mean that you should go in His ways. Just as He clothes the naked, so too, you should clothe the naked. Accordingly, we can say that buying tefillin for a poor person is regarded as clothing him.

The Maharsham cites our Rashbam as a proof to this as well.

HALACHOS FROM THE DAF
Sefer Torah

The Gemora inquires: What would be regarding a Sefer Torah? Do we say that since it is forbidden to be sold, it is not included in “possessions,” or perhaps, since it may be sold for the study of Torah or to marry a woman, it is regarded as his possession? The Gemora leaves this question unresolved.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 270:1) writes that it is a mitzvah for every single man to write a Sefer Torah, even if he had inherited one. One may not sell a Sefer Torah even if he has many Sifrei Torah, and even in order to buy a newer and nicer one. However, one may sell a Sefer Torah in order to learn Torah or to get married, if he has nothing else to sell. The Re”ma adds that one may also sell a Sefer Torah in order to redeem captives.

The Shulchan Aruch in other places adds a few other cases where one may sell a Sefer Torah. Orach Chaim 153:6 states that it would be permitted in order to have money to support the students, and if money is needed to marry off orphans. The Chelkas Michokek (Even Ha'ezer 1:1) writes that this only applies to a yasom (an orphan boy) and not to a yesomah (an orphan girl). However, the Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim ibid) rules that it applies to a yesomah as well. Bais Shmuel and many others including Mishnah Berurah rule as the Magen Avraham.

As for the answer to the Gemora’s inquiry, the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 248:11) rules that the halachah is in doubt whether it is included or not (because the Gemora did not answer the question), and we will only know once Eliyahu Hanavi comes, and he will resolve this question for us. Therefore, if the recipient has already taken the Sefer Torah, the shechiv mei’ra cannot take it back.

This concept is elucidated by the Drishah, with a fascinating halachic distinction. In cases where the Gemora has a teiku and the halachah is not clear due to the logic that can go both ways, and we will only know once Eliyahu Hanavi comes, then, we say that if the other party grabbed it, we cannot take it away from him, since the halachah may very well be in his favor. However, in cases where the Gemora isn't clear what the halachah is due to a question of what an average person had in mind, then we won't know the answer when Eliyahu Hanavi comes, since some people think like this and some like that. Therefore in our case where the question is due to the logic that can equally be heard both ways, and we will know how to rule when Eliyahu Hanavi comes, the halachah is that if the recipient grabbed it, we cannot take it away from him.

Read more!

Torah Scroll of the Temple Courtyard

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

The Gemora has a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah whether the Torah scroll that was written by Moshe was actually in the Ark with the Tablets, or whether it was in the on the side of the Ark.

The Gemora (14b) refers to this Torah scroll as the scroll of the Temple Courtyard. Why would the scroll that is kept inside the Holy of Holies be called the scroll of the Temple Courtyard?

Rashi is apparently bothered by this question and says that the scroll that Moshe Rabbeinu wrote was used by the king during hakhel, and by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur. Apparently, Rashi held that it was permitted to go into the Holy of Holies to take out the Torah in order to read it.

Tosfos (14a) asks why the Gemora finds it necessary to leave some space in the Ark so that the Torah can be put in and removed easily; it was never removed anyway, since it is forbidden to enter the Holy of Holies except on Yom Kippur, and we don’t find any mention in the Mishnayos that they would use this Torah scroll on Yom Kippur!?

Tosfos clearly assumes not like Rashi and holds that this scroll wasn’t used, and is therefore troubled by why they had to leave space to get it in and out easily.

Tosfos answers that although it was never used, they would sometimes remove it in order to repair it (and one may enter the Holy of Holies in order to fix it, so too, one may enter to fix the Torah scroll). Also, between the destruction of the Tabernacle in Shiloh and the second Temple, they would use the Torah.

The Reshash suggests that even Rashi agrees with Tosfos that one may not enter the Holy of Holies to remove the Torah, but during the second Temple, when there wasn’t any Ark, it was used (and that is why it is called the scroll of the Temple Courtyard – for perhaps during that time, it was actually kept in the Courtyard).

Read more!

A Pawned Sefer Torah Donated to a Synagogue

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

Our Mishna treats the topic of a mashkon (“pledge” or “pawn”) taken from a debtor who fails to pay and rules that the lender must return it when needed. A pillow, for instance, taken as a mashkon must be returned at night. However, a pillow taken as a mashkon at the time of the loan does not have to be returned each night as the borrower gave it willingly (114b).

Our sugya cites other halachos applying to a mashkon taken after payment is due as opposed to that given at the time of a loan. One halachah pertinent to all mashkonos is that the lender must not sell a mashkon by himself and take the proceeds in payment for the loan but rather must bring it to a beis din for valuation. If a lender sold a mashkon without such valuation, the sale is invalid even if the price was correct (Teshuvos HaRosh; Shulchan ‘Aruch, C.M. 73:15).

A lender who thought he was clever ignored this halachah and almost suffered a great loss as a result of his actions. When his debt was not paid he took an antique Sefer Torah as a mashkon. The debtor was later convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison for several years. The lender thought he could what he pleased with the Sefer and donated it with much song and ceremony to a synagogue. Eight years later the debtor was freed and came to the lender to pay what he owed and redeem the Sefer Torah. Discovering what had occurred, he refused to accept the situation and appealed to Rav Yehudah Asad, who ruled in the debtor’s favor (Responsa Yehudah Ya’aleh, Y.D. 283). First of all, the donation was invalid as the lender was forbidden to change the proprietorship of the mashkon without valuation by a beis din and the synagogue administration was ordered to return the Sefer Torah to the borrower. Moreover, according to many poskim, the borrower was exempt from paying the debt as soon as the lender gave away the mashkon. His action showed he despaired of ever collecting the debt and even the borrower’s wish to pay does not renew it! Still, Rav Asad adopted the opinion of the Chacham Tzvi (Responsa, 144), that yeiush (despair) does not cancel a loan, and ordered the debtor to pay. (See Shulchan ‘Aruch 163:3 and Ketzos HaChoshen, ibid, S.K1.)

Meoros Hadaf HaYomi

Read more!

Name of Hashem Written without the Proper Intent

A braisa (Daf Yomi: Gittin 20a) was taught: A scribe was supposed to write the Name of Hashem in a Sefer Torah, and instead intended to write the name Yehudah. [The name Yehudah is similar to the letters in the Name of Hashem, except that the word Yehudah has a letter “dalet” between the “vav” and the “hey.”] He forgot to insert the “dalet” and ended up writing the Name of Hashem but without the required intention necessary to write the Holy Name. Rabbi Yehudah posits that the scribe can pass his quill over the Name of Hashem and have the proper intention of writing the Name. The Chachamim disagree, claiming that this is not the best way to write the Name of Hashem (and the Sefer Torah is subsequently invalid).

The Rishonim ask: According to Rav Chisda, who holds that the Chachamim maintain that the Sefer Torah is disqualified, why does he use the term that it is not the best way to write the Name of Hashem? This would indicate that the writing is good, but it is not written in the most preferable method! Why didn’t he say that the new writing does not accomplish anything?

The Rashba answers that they actually hold that the tracing over of the word is not regarded as an act of writing at all and the Sefer Torah is disqualified. They only used that term to discuss Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion.

The Pnei Yehoshua suggests a novel approach to explain the Chachamim’s terminology: Although the Chachamim maintain that the Sefer Torah is disqualified, they nevertheless hold that the Name of Hashem retains its sanctity and is forbidden to be erased. He proves that the Name of Hashem, although it wasn’t written with the correct intention, cannot be erased. This is why the Chachamim say that it is not the best way to write the Name of Hashem.

The Tashbatz, however, proves from our sugya that it is permitted to erase the Name of Hashem when it is written without the correct intention.

The Gemora in Yoma (38a) states that Ben Kamtzar had a unique talent that he was able to write four letters with one hand at the same time and he did not teach this talent to anyone else. The Gemora says that this was considered a shame and due to this, he was referred to as an evil person. What were the Chachamim concerned about? Rashi comments that this was referring to the Name of Hashem which has four letters.

The Tosfos Yom Tov explains that there is an advantage for the Name of Hashem to be written at one time, so that His Name should not be missing for a moment.

The Minchas Chinuch has a novel approach and says that if one writes the first two letters of the Name of Hashem which is the “yud” and the “hey,” that itself is one of the Name’s of Hashem, and by subsequently writing the third letter, the “vav,” it constitutes erasing Hashem’s Name. Ben Kamtzar was able to avoid with his special skill.

The Emek Brocha asks that if the Name of Hashem is written without proper intent, there is no prohibition to erase it, so why should there be a prohibition here when the scribe did not intend to write the ‘two letter’ Name of Hashem, but rather His ‘four letter’ Name?

According to the Pnei Yehoshua, this is not a question, for this, in fact, a prohibition to erase the Name of Hashem, even when it is written without the proper intent!

Read more!

WHERE TO STOP AND START

The Mishna (Daf Yomi: Sotah 32a) lists statements that must be made in Hebrew. One of them is the bikkurim (the first ripe fruits which had to be brought to the Beis Hamikdosh in Yerushalayim) recitation. When he brings the fruits to the Beis Hamikdosh to be given to the Kohanim, he recites several verses from Devarim. Rashi writes that he says the verse beginning with Arami oved avi, An Aramean tried to destroy my father [Devarim 26:5], and he continues until the end of the passage.

In truth, however, he does not complete the entire passage. As a matter of fact, he stops in middle of verse 10, when he says asher nasatah li Hashem, that You have given me, Hashem. The Rambam in Hilchos Bikurim states this explicitly.

The commentators ask that the last words of this recital conclude in middle of a verse and this is against the dictum of stopping in a place that Moshe did not stop. The Gemora Brochos (12b) rules that any place in the Torah that Moshe Rabbeinu did not pause; we are forbidden to pause as well. How could they institute to stop the recital in middle of a verse?

Reb Yaakov Kaminetzky in his sefer Emes L’Yaakov in Parshas Ki Savo answers that this ruling does not apply by mitzvos, such as bikkurim. It is only a concern when verses are being recited because of Torah.

There are other examples where this principle may be applicable. The Gemora in Rosh Hashanah (31a) discusses the hymns that were recited by the Levites in the Beis Hamikdosh on Shabbos. The Gemora concludes that they would divide Parshas Haazinu into six segments, and one segment was recited each week by the korban mussaf.

The Turei Even asks from the aforementioned Gemora in Brochos. How were the Leviim permitted to stop in places that Moshe did not stop? He answers that since they intended to complete it the next week, it is not regarded as interrupting the portion (even though there will be different Leviim the next week). According to Reb Yaakov, we can suggest that the hymns of the Leviim were not being sung as Torah; but rather, as a part of the mitzvah of the bringing of korbanos. They therefore were permitted to stop and start in the Torah, even in the middle of a passage.

Magan Avrohom (O”C 282) asks this question as well, inquiring into different verses from the Torah that we recite during tefillah which are incomplete. He also answers that we only apply the principle that one cannot interrupt in middle of a verse when one is engaged in Torah study or reading from the Torah. If, however, one is reciting verses for the purpose of prayer or mitzvah observance, there is no prohibition of interrupting in middle of a verse.

Rav Nosson Grossman states that perhaps through this principle, we can answer the Turei Even’s question. The Leviim are not reciting these pesukim as Torah, rather they are being said on account of shirah, song, and therefore it will not be subject to the prohibition of stopping in an incorrect place. However, it would seem evident that the Magen Avrohom will not concur with this, since he states that principle, and nevertheless, does not apply it to the Leviim’s shirah.

It would seem that many other Acharonim do not agree with this qualification of that rule. The tefillah which is recited when the Sefer Torah is raised in shul is a combination of two different verses. There are those who stop after saying, “lifnei B’nei Yisroel,” for the next part (al pi Hashem b’yad Moshe) is not a complete verse. This reason is brought in the name of Reb Chaim Volozhiner. Once again, according to the qualification mentioned above, we could have explained that there is no concern during tefillah; it is only when we are reciting Torah for the sake of Torah where the dictum applies.

The Chasam Sofer in his Teshuvos (O”C 10) discusses why during kiddush, do we begin with the verse, Va’yehi erev va’yehi boker,” when that is the middle of a verse in the Torah. He explains that the first part of the verse has a reference to “death,” and we did not want that alluded to during kiddush. It is evident that the Chasam Sofer as well did not concur with this qualification.

Read more!

Holding a Sacred Object

The Gemora (Nedarim 25a) relates the following incident: There was a person who was owed money by his friend, and the two of them came before Rava. The lender said: Pay me! The borrower said: I already did! Rava said: Swear that you paid him. The borrower then filled his cane with the amount of money he borrowed and leaned on it while walking to Beis Din. Before he took the oath, the borrower asked the lender to hold his cane for him while he took the oath. The borrower then took a Sefer Torah and swore that he had given the lender whatever he had owed him. When the lender heard this he got upset and broke the cane, causing the money to fall out. It was apparent that he had “paid” him all of the money.

Rabbeinu Tam understands this Gemora to mean that the borrower denied the entire claim and was liable only for a Rabbinic oath (called a shevuas hesseis). Nevertheless, he took the Sefer Torah in his hand prior to taking the oath. This would prove that one needs to hold a sacred object even by a Rabbinical oath.

He also presents proof to this from the Gemora in Shavuos (41a) which inquires as to the differences between a Biblical oath and a Rabbinical one. The Gemora does not offer this difference; namely, that a Biblical oath would necessitate the holding of a sacred object and a Rabbinical one would not. This proves that a Rabbinical oath also required the holding of a sacred object.

The Gaonim disagree and maintain that one is not required to hold a sacred object when taking a Rabbinical oath. The Meiri writes that our Gemora cannot serve as a proof against this, for we are discussing a case where the borrower decided himself to hold the Sefer Torah. He did this as a ruse in order to get the lender to hold his cane.

According to the Ran’s explanation of our Gemora, there would be no proof at all. For our Gemora is discussing a case where the borrower admitted to part of the claim made against him. Since he wishes to avoid paying the rest of the claim, he is Biblically obligated to take an oath that he does not owe the remainder of the claim. This oath obviously requires him to hold a sacred object.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 24 - TOUCHING THE MEZUZAH

The Gemora (Shabbos 14a) states that people would place food of Terumah next to Torah scrolls. The reason they did this is they claimed that both the Terumah and the Sifrei Torah are Kodesh, so they should be kept together. The Chachamim realized that the Sifrei Torah were becoming damaged because mice would eat the food and then chew on the scrolls. They sought to put a halt to the practice of placing Terumah next to Sifrei Torah, so they enacted a decree that scrolls are considered tamei and render Terumah unfit.

To ensure that people would not touch a Sefer Torah with bare hands, the Chachamim decreed that one who touches a sefer with bare hands; his hands are rendered tamei and will render Terumah pasul.

There is a debate in the Rishonim if the decree only applies to one who touches Sifrei Torah, or to one who touches any sefer. Tosfos in Shabbos (ibid) maintains that this decree applies to all holy writings. Tosfos (Chagigah 24b) disagrees and holds that it is restricted to a Sefer Torah. The Rama (O”C 146) rules according to the Tosfos in Shabbos.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Teshuvah I, 58) questions the practice of placing one’s hand on top of a mezuzah, when the mezuzah is without any covering. He comments that the concept of placing one’s hand on the mezuzah is without a Talmudic source and should not take precedence over this halacha; it would be considered a mitzvah haba’ah b’aveirah. Thus, he recommends, if the mezuzah is uncovered, one should extend his sleeve over his hand.

The Rama (O”C 285) quotes the custom of placing one’s hand on the mezuzah from the Maharil.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 25 - Switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard

In the teshuvos from the Divrei Chaim (O”C 2:8), he inquires if one is allowed to switch his Nusach Hatefillah from Ashkenaz to Sfard.

The Chasam Sofer (O”C 15) writes that Nusach Sfard contains kavanos according to kabbalah which were established and partially revealed by the Arizal. The Chasam Sofer had a tradition from his Rabbeim, Reb Nosson Adler and the Haflo’ah that Nusach Ashkenaz contains kavanos according to kabbalah as well. All the kavanos contained in Nusach Sfard can also be found in Nusach Ashkenaz and both nuschaos ascent to the same place. Nusach Hatefillah can be analogous to prophecy. Thee identical prophecy can be given to two prophets but they will not be able to say it over in the identical manner. The Arizal, because he davened Sfard, incorporated all of the kavanos in their proper location because he understood the essence of the kavanos and the tefillos. If the Arizal would have davened Ashkenaz, he could have established Nusach Ashkenaz according to the precise understanding of kabbalah. According to this, one would be required to daven in the Nusach that he has accepted from his father because it is with this approach that will enable his tefillos to reach their designated place.

The Divrei Chaim quotes Mekubalim who explain the Nusach Hatefillah in a different manner. Reb Chaim Vital says in the name of the Arizal that there are twelve gates in the Heavens corresponding to the twelve tribes and each tribe has a designated entrance for their tefillos. Each gate and their approach are different than the others. It emerges that each of the tribes had their own specific Nusach Hatefillah. It is therefore incumbent on everyone to keep their particular Nusach and not switch to another since perhaps you are from one tribe and now will be davening the Nusach of another tribe. The Arizal established a Nusach that is corresponding to all twelve of the tribes. If someone does not recognize the tribe that he is from, he can daven using the Nusach Ha’Arizal and the tefillah will be accepted. Therefore, the Divrei Chaim rules that unless one is positive that he is from a specific tribe, he may switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Nusach Sfard and it will be preferable for him to daven using the Nusach of the Arizal.

The Chasam Sofer (O”C 16) writes this concept in the name of the Maggid MiMezritz. He explains that in fact, there are thirteen gates in Heaven for our tefillos to pass through. Each gate is for one of the tribes and everyone’s tefillah can pass through the thirteenth gate. Someone who doesn’t know from which shevet he is from should therefore daven Nusach Sfard, which will pass through the thirteenth gate.

The Chasam Sofer asks on this from our Gemora. The Gemora relates an incident that Rabbi Eliezer recited the twenty-four benedictions at prayer, but he was not answered. Rabbi Akiva followed him at the reading-desk, and said: "Father and King! We have no other king but You. Only for Your sake have mercy upon us!" And his prayer was answered. The people then began to murmur (and say that Rabbi Akiva was a greater man than Rabbi Eliezer). A Heavenly voice went forth and said: It is not because Rabbi Akiva is a greater man than Rabbi. Eliezer that his prayer answered, but rather because he is forgiving, while Rabbi Eliezer is not."

It is known that Rabbi Eliezer was a Levi and according to the Arizal would be davening in the Nusach which was designated for Shevet Levi. Rabbi Akiva was a convert so he obviously was davening Nusach Sfard. How could Rabbi Akiva discharge the obligation of the entire congregation if he davened a different Nusach? This is the Chasam Sofer’s question on the explanation from the Maggid.

The Divrei Chaim disagrees with the Chasam Sofer’s question for several reasons. Firstly, he says, that it seems that the Chasam Sofer’s intent is to disagree with the explanation from the Maggid. This is a wonder indeed when it has been well established that this is the Arizal’s viewpoint and the Arizal has been well accepted amongst all the Gedolei Haposkim. The Divrei Chaim lists the Beis Yosef, Rama (not the Ramah),Alshich, Taz, Shach and Magen Avraham. He lists later Acharonim as well, such as the Chacham Tzvi, Pnei Yehoshua and Tevuos Shor who all trembled ffrom the Arizal’s words. The Chasam Sofer’s question is not on the Maggid but on the Arizal.

Secondly, he asks, the main distinction between Nusach Ashkenaz and Nusach Sfard is in Pesukei D’Zimra and not in the Shemoneh Esrei. There was no need for someone to discharge the obligation for the others in Pesukei D’Zimra. The differences in Shemoneh Esrei are not in the endings of the brochos; in the middle of the brochos there are some changes in the wording but that will not be an obstacle in the chazzan discharging the obligation for others.

Thirdly, where does it state in the Gemora that Rabbi Akiva was discharging their obligation? In the tefillos that are recited every day, each person davens by himself and fulfills his own obligation.

He asks other questions on the Chasam Sofer and concludes that one is permitted to switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Nusach Sfard. (Peninei Halacha)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 21 - Studying in Yeshiva

DEI’AH VEDIBUR INFORMATION AND INSIGHT

Preparation for Mattan Torah
Through the Forty-Eight Acquisitions (Kinyan Torah)

Acquiring `Yishuv' can only be Done through Sitting in [Yeshiva] Study

by HaRav Matisyohu Salomon

The reason why we study the chapter of Kinyan Torah before Shavuos

The forty-eight ways to acquire Torah are enumerated in the sixth chapter of Pirkei Ovos, that is sometimes called Kinyan Torah. Even though several reasons are stated, it is worthwhile reviewing the thoughts of the Chossid Yaavetz as quoted in Midrash Shmuel as follows:
Torah can only reside in a [human] vessel which is devoid of evil traits and filled with worthwhile attributes. This is what Hashem hinted at when He said (right before Mattan Torah), "Prepare yourself for three days time. Do not approach a woman" (Shemos 19:15). The Jews were also told to launder their clothing and to purify it from the contamination and dirt which prevent a soul from ascending. All the chapters preceding this are filled with important practices which draw a person's soul closer to its Creator and rouse a person to better serve Him.

This is why it is customary to study this chapter before Shavuos, commemorating the Giving of the Torah, in order to draw Divine mercy upon those who are already worthy, as happened to our ancestors in this season. The entire chapter evokes a yearning for Torah and a love towards it. And even if the other chapters talk about this as well, this one is wholly devoted to the subject of acquiring Torah and it is a summary of all that precedes it.

To be sure, we must always strive to acquire Torah, but this particular season is more conducive to it due to the impact and inspiration which Jewish souls received at that time in history and which sparks and re-ignites our own souls at this time as well.

This chapter is called Kinyan Torah because it concerns those important traits which must precede our entering a covenant of Torah. They must enter a person like water so that he delve in Torah purely for its own sake, just as it is written about Rachel, the wife of R' Akiva. "She saw that he was unassuming and said [to him]: I will agree to be married to you on condition that you go study." In the end, he became the famous R' Akiva.

This chapter begins with the teaching of R' Meir, who was his disciple, and it is studied right before Shavuos, which commemorates the Giving of the Torah. R' Simcha Zissel of Kelm zt'l wrote a letter to his son on erev Shavuos (in Ohr RaShaZ, parshas Emor), explaining that this is why we count forty-nine days before the Giving of the Torah: they are an introduction, a preface, to the acquisition of Torah in nature, to prepare a person so that he and the Torah will be one. It is written first, "That his desire be Hashem's Torah," and afterwards, "and he shall delve in his own Torah . . . "

Upon each of the forty-eight days one should study a different `gateway' so that on the forty-ninth, they will all be united into one single entity. By being unified, a person will find it easier to enter the inner sanctum of the secrets of Torah, which is wholly sweet and preciously desirable. There is no better preparation than this.

How fitting it is to conclude with the words of the Ohr HaChaim on Chukas where he writes: There is no commandment which does not incorporate esoteric secrets which were revealed to Moshe. A person should strive to acquire Torah through the forty-eight ways enumerated in Mishnas Chassidim, for then he becomes privy to the secrets of Torah which were revealed to Moshe at Sinai. Moshe revealed these secrets, as well as the reason and the basis for the mitzvos, to the Jews of his generation.

"And you shall heed My commandments" (Vayikra 26:3). On this posuk he comments that this can be fulfilled through acquiring the Torah in the forty-eight ways mentioned in Pirkei Ovos (Mishnas Chassidim). Not everyone who desires Torah can possess it. He must do so through the 48 steps. This is what is meant by "If you walk in My statutes." If you wish to possess Torah, you must fulfill the condition of "and you shall keep My commandments and do them." This refers to the 48 steps.

In Emunah uBitochon (chapter 3, os 9) by the Chazon Ish, it is written that the Torah is acquired through 48 ways, each of which is supernatural; one must leave behind habit, human nature and foibles, and strive for perfection until he reaches the stage where he is not disturbed or hindered in his devoted aspiration and powerful diligence.

Why is Prayer Not Included in the 48 Steps?

In maseches Niddah 70b we find: The people of Alexandria asked R' Yehoshua ben Chananya what a person should do in order to grow wise. He said: Let him increase his Torah study and reduce the time he spends in engaging in trade.

They said: But many have tried that and not succeeded. What then?

Let them ask for mercy from the One Who possesses all the wisdom, as it is written, "For Hashem shall grant wisdom; from His mouth, knowledge and understanding" (Mishlei 2:6).

What does this mean? Why did he have to suggest that they increase their study time if wisdom is dependent upon Divine mercy? Because one without the other is of no avail.

In other words, since one cannot achieve or attain anything without prayer, it is clear that even Torah knowledge cannot be acquired without accompanying prayer. In fact, the lack of prayer is a very crucial reason why so many tried to increase study time but found that they did not increase their wisdom. If this is so, it seems strange that no mention was made of prayer as one of the forty-eight ways of acquiring Torah knowledge.

We also found it written in Pirkei Ovos (1:2) that the world stands on three things: Torah, avodoh, gemilus chassodim. Rabbenu Yonah explains that avodoh signified the sacrifices, but now that the Beis Hamikdosh is destroyed our prayers take the place of those sacrifices. "And to serve Him with your whole heart." How does one serve with the heart? Through prayer.

Prayer is not only a substitute or an aid; it is a goal unto itself. Anything that is lacking in the world is purposely this way in order to get us to pray to Hashem and worship Him. Prayer is a pillar unto itself, equal to Torah and gemilus chassodim in the upkeep of the world and the channeling of Hashem's bounty to the world, both materially and spiritually.

If we lack wisdom to fully understand Torah, we must pray to Hashem for that understanding. Indeed, Torah is not different from any of the other things that require our prayers. For prayer is not so that we fill our lack in Torah, but rather, our lack in understanding Torah is so that we pray for wisdom!

The pillar of prayer is certainly not a unique requirement for the acquisition of Torah but each and every step, every acquisition, requires separate additional prayer to succeed at it, for you can't have one without the other. So you see that prayer cannot be enumerated separately from the forty- eight steps for building a Torah crown, since it must accompany each one. It is a major supporting pillar for the whole world and not merely one of the ways to gain Torah.

Acquiring `Yishuv' can only be Done through Sitting in [Yeshiva] Study

What does beyishuv (one of the 48 steps) mean?

Rashi says that one must literally sit, sit and learn, for the more one does that, the more knowledge one can absorb, as mentioned before, "What shall a person do in order to be wise? Let him increase his yeshiva."

Why, indeed, is a place of Torah study called a yeshiva? We find other names for this, such as beis medrash. But since acquiring Torah knowledge is the most difficult of all, one who doesn't have the patience, the sitzfleish to apply himself, to be diligent, to study without interruption, cannot achieve this kinyan. We shall now attempt to explain what it means "to increase one's sitting."

Studying biyeshiva was already practiced by our Ovos. We find it written in Yoma 28b that our ancestors were always involved in yeshiva and never stopped learning. "Avrohom Ovinu was old and sat in yeshiva . . . Yitzchok Ovinu was old and sat in yeshiva . . . Yaakov Ovinu was old and sat in yeshiva . . . "

Studying in Yeshiva Means Being Occupied in Eternal Life and Forsaking Temporal Life
It is written in Taanis 21a that Ilfa and R' Yochonon were studying Torah together. Being both poverty stricken, they decided to stop learning and engage in business to keep themselves alive. After all, they argued, the Torah does state that "there shall be no pauper in your midst" (Devorim 15:4). And so, they left the walls of the beis medrash.

They were sitting eating their bread near a crumbling wall which threatened to collapse, when two [invisible] angels came and one said to the other, "Let us topple the wall onto them and kill them." Why? Because, explains the gemora, they were abandoning eternal life (says Rashi - - Torah) in exchange for temporal life [preparing to earn a livelihood]. The second angel replied, "But one of them is destined to become great in Torah. His time has not yet come to die."

R' Yochonon heard this but he realized that Ilfa didn't, and he concluded that it must apply to him and not to Ilfa. "I will return to the beis medrash," he said to himself, "and fulfill the verse, `For there shall never cease to be paupers in the midst of the land.' "

At first, R' Yochonon felt it was permissible to seek his livelihood by going out to work so as not to starve, but having heard the words of the angels, he decided to enter the other category mentioned in the Torah and live in poverty.

And so, Ilfa went forth to seek his fortune, while R' Yochonon returned to the beis medrash where he was shortly afterwards appointed rosh yeshiva. It was customary at that time for those who appointed a rosh yeshiva to support him in material comfort.

And they said to Ilfa, "Had you continued to stay here and study, we would have appointed you as our head, as we did to R' Yochonon." He was very perturbed at these words and went to the harbor, where he climbed up on a high ship's mast, declaring, "Whoever has a question [in Torah] to ask, can still ask me." . . . despite the fact that I am engaging in trade and not study.
Along came R' Chiya and R' Oshiya with their questions, which Ilfa was unable to answer. Thereupon, he cast himself into the water and drowned. [This is the way it is written in Dei'ah vedibur, however there is a printers mistake. This is what Ilfa would have done if he didn't respond correctly. However, he did answer correctly and never cast himself into the water.]

R' Yochonon became a famous rosh yeshiva who had many disciples in his lifetime and after his death. To this day, his lips `murmur in the grave' each time his teachings are reviewed. In contrast, Ilfa lost his Torah knowledge, even though in his prime, he had been considered very astute and brilliant. So we cannot help but see the power of yeshiva, of sitting and persevering in study.

Let us further examine the words of the angels, "They are abandoning eternal life in exchange for temporal life." A Jew must view the world, his goal in life, as Torah being "our life and the length of our days." A Jew must bear in mind that every moment which he spends in the beis medrash is a moment of eternity. How can he countenance the thought of leaving that, of exchanging Torah study for momentary, mundane activities of no lasting value. Above all, it is denigrating the honor of Torah!

A person may, of course, argue that setting aside eternal life to engage in mundane activities is dictated by need; he is being coerced by circumstances to do so. The answer is that perhaps this is true, but he must not rely on this argument. It does not altogether address his problem. We see that at the onset, both R' Yochonon and Ilfa felt they were forced to leave their study and decided to seek work. But they made this decision on their own, when they should have asked their masters and teachers.

This was the prosecuting argument of the angels. And this argument is still as valid today as it was with regard to R' Yochonon and Ilfa. Whoever has the opportunity to remain within the sanctuary of the beis medrash, to acquire more Torah knowledge and occupy himself with eternal life, is required to do so. If at any point he feels forced to leave those walls, he must weigh this matter very carefully and consult his Torah superiors before doing so. He must realize that if he does opt to leave, he is verily abandoning eternal life in exchange for mundane life.

In Hilchos Talmud Torah (perek 3:13), the Rambam states: "For it appears that he showed no deference to the words of Torah at all. So long as he is able to continue studying Torah and does not do so, or if he studied at length and then left his study in favor of worldly pursuits - - he is considered to be abusing and offending the word of Hashem."

The Difference Between a Ben Yeshiva and a Secular Student

In Letter 74 of a compilation of his responsa and correspondence, HaRav Yitzchok Hutner zt'l writes an essay titled, "It is good for a man to bear the yoke [of Torah] in his youth." He quotes Maran HaRav Chaim Volozhiner ztvk'l who insisted on changing the terminology that was prevalent in his days regarding yeshiva life. Instead of using "yeshiva student," he preferred to call his disciples bnei yeshiva.

Why did he feel it important to change the accepted usage? By illustration, R' Yitzchok Hutner explains the difference between a secular university student who listens to lectures from his professors and the thousandfold difference of a yeshiva student listening to a shiur from his rov. He compares them to a nursing mother and a cook.

They both provide nourishment, but whereas the cook processes the material at her disposal, the nursing mother gives of herself, of her own flesh and blood. The nursing mother is feeding her infant so that he should grow and be strong; she is willing to give of her very essence for that purpose. The cook, on the other hand, is only interested in producing a tasty meal from the ingredients at hand and nothing more; she does not give anything of her own resources or essence.

This is the difference between a university lecturer and lehavdil a master teaching Torah. The latter provides his students with his own lifeblood; he gives from his quintessence, his very core. The professor merely teaches the material at his disposal, without adding any element from within himself. The moment his pride is injured, his whole spirit will be shattered.

It should also be remembered that if the rov were not teaching, he would be learning Torah on his own and improving himself, raising himself to a more exalted spiritual level, in greater measure than the mere time allotted for giving the shiur. In this aspect, as well, the Torah teacher is sacrificing his own self for the sake of his pupil.

This, then, was the pressing reason why R' Chaim changed the terminology from "yeshiva student" to "ben yeshiva" or "ben Torah." In other words, the yeshiva hall is not a place where spiritual food is prepared, but a virtual place for soul sustenance and nourishment.

This obligates the Torah student to persevere in pure yishuv, sitting power. He may be considered a student even if he comes and goes, but he is only called a ben yeshiva if he perseveres in sitting, staying put, because the act of sitting in study application is the source of a person's vitality; it is the origin of his nurture, nourishment, and his designation as a true ben Torah.

This is the acquisition of yishuv, as Rashi notes, that he amplify and increase his yishuv, for yeshiva — sitting and learning — is eternal life. Chazal tell us that one must yarbeh biyeshiva, for whoever disconnects himself from Torah is as if he is detaching himself from life.

Based on material from the sefer Matnas Chaim, by HaRav Matisyohu Salomon on the 48 Steps to acquire Torah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 18 - Torah - the Habitat where we Survive

The Yeshivos Hakedoshos The Nation's Lifeline

Dei'ah Vedibur

This shmuess was delivered by HaRav Shmuel Berenbaum at Yeshivas Beis Hillel in Bnei Brak during a chizuk meeting before the beginning of the summer zman.

I am honored to say divrei chizuk to bnei Torah before the coming summer zman. Although it is always important to strengthen others in Torah study, the gemora (Erchin 16b, according to the reading of the Shitta Mekubetzes) teaches us, "R' Tarfon said, `I wonder if anyone living today can rebuke others. If one man says, "You must remove a splinter from between your eyes [a small sin -- see Rashi]," the other will rebut, "You must remove the plank from between your eyes [a major sin]." ' R' Eliezer ben Azaryah said: `I wonder if anyone living today accepts rebuke willingly.'"

HaRav Yisroel Salanter zt'l, the renowned founder of the mussar movement, once commented that even if a single person out of a large audience will take what the darshan says to heart, the darshan should go ahead and speak. Since I feel I am benefiting from what I am telling you, I feel justified in talking, and perhaps others will be motivated too.

Let us appraise the value of studying Torah. The gemora (Brochos 61b) tells us that "the wicked kingdom [Rome] once forbade Jews to study Torah. Papus ben Yehudah found R' Akiva disseminating Torah in public. Papus said to him: `Akiva! Why are you not afraid of what the government will do to you?' R' Akiva answered: `This can be compared to a fox that walked along the river-bank and saw fish darting from one place to the other. [The fox] asked them: "From what are you fleeing?" [The fish] answered: "We are fleeing from the nets that men cast [in the river]." [The fox] asked: "Perhaps you want to come up to the dry land, and we will live [together] just like our ancestors?" [The fish] answered him: "Why are you considered the most clever animal? You are stupid and not clever! If we live in fear in a habitat where we can survive, surely in a habitat where we cannot survive we will live in fear."'"

What exactly was the argument between Papus ben Yehudah and R' Akiva? Chazal (Taanis 18b, see Rashi, s.v. bekodkiyah) write that Papus gave up his life for am Yisroel. A princess was found murdered, and since it was unknown who committed the murder, the non-Jews accused the Jews. The king decreed that all Jews should be killed. To save all the Jews Papus accepted the blame. He was put to death and the decree was annulled. This was Papus ben Yehudah. [Editor's Note: In Taanis it refers only to "Papus" and not "Papus ben Yehudah," but they may have been the same person.]



Nonetheless, when Papus ben Yehudah saw R' Akiva engaging in Torah study and disseminating Torah publicly when it was forbidden to study Torah, he reproved R' Akiva for not being afraid that the government would punish him.

Papus ben Yehudah's question was actually deeper than that. We are not obliged to die for the sake of studying Torah. It is not one of the three aveiros for which the rule yeihoreig ve'al ya'avor applies. When we do not study Torah we are only passively not fulfilling the Torah--shev ve'al ta'aseh. Even if R' Akiva believed this was a time of shmad, in which we are required to be moseir nefesh, why did he need to teach Torah publicly? He could have studied Torah at home. Why did he place himself in a situation of pikuach nefesh? The Torah instructs us "You shall live by them" (Vayikra 18:1) -- "and not die by them" (Yoma 85b). Papus ben Yehudah asked R' Akiva a solid kashye.

What was R' Akiva's answer? He compared Papus's argument to the fox's proposal for the fish to join him on dry land. Surely the clever fox did not overlook the obvious fact that fish need to live in water. The fox intended to suggest a way in which they could live on dry land, and planned to pour water in a pipe or in an aqueduct so the fish could live there and would not be endangered by the fishing nets. If so, why did the fish answer so defiantly "You are stupid!" and what is the comparison to what Papus asked? Was his question so ridiculous?

Papus ben Yehudah actually asked R' Akiva how he could dare act as he did, since it was not according to halocho. We are not obliged to die for talmud Torah, and at the least we are surely not obliged to teach Torah publicly when danger of death is involved. If R' Akiva disagreed and maintained that according to halocho one is even obligated to die in order to teach Torah publicly, that surely did not make Papus's question ridiculous. Papus ben Yehudah was himself an odom godol.

Let us think a little deeper. Why did the fish summarily reject the fox's suggestion?

The fish claimed that even if the fox provided them with water by pipe, dry land can never be "the habitat where we can survive." The danger of living there is far more than in the river. The moral R' Akiva inferred was that studying Torah can never "cause" one's death. Studying Torah is not a regular mitzvah; it has the special characteristic of being "the habitat where we can survive." If in the end one does die, it can only be because of some other reason, perhaps known only in Shomayim.

What type of Torah are we discussing? Teaching Torah to others. Although undoubtedly we can fulfill the mitzvah of talmud Torah when studying at home, "the habitat where we can survive" is only when we teach Torah publicly to others, and therefore it cannot possibly cause any decree of death. This is exactly what the fish answered: No matter how much water you provide us with, it cannot be an alternative to "the habitat where we survive."

But why did R' Akiva call Papus ben Yehudah foolish simply because he did not understand the above? Was it so simple and evident?

The gemora (Yevomos 9a) tells us that once after Levi asked Rabbenu HaKodosh a question, Rebbe answered: "It seems that you do not have any brain in your skull!" The gemora discusses why the question is not a question. Here too a difficulty must be resolved. Why did Rebbe answer Levi so sharply? Should a talmid be answered in such a way after he asks a question? In addition, we see the gemora itself discusses the various sides of this question, which shows the question is certainly not simple.

A rav's obligation to teach his talmid is not limited to teaching him proficiency in the Talmud's text. He must teach him how to comprehend the gemora properly. When a talmid asks a baseless question the rav cannot be content with just informing him it is incorrect. Doing so is improper chinuch. The rav must clarify to the talmid why he should never have conceived of such a question. His mistake in the process of analyzing the gemora must be fully elucidated to him.

Since Rebbe knew that Levi's kashye was worthless, in order to teach him how to analyze Torah correctly he had to emphasize that such a question only befits someone without a head on his shoulders. The talmid would afterwards think more deeply, and not remain with only a superficial understanding. Compared to correct comprehension, a mistaken understanding is like having no mind at all.

This is what R' Akiva clarified to Papus: One cannot question whether the obligation of yeihoreig ve'al ya'avor is relevant to teaching Torah publicly, whether it is unjustified mesirus nefesh. Such a question is intrinsically erroneous. It is incorrect understanding, actual foolishness. To think that Torah study can possibly cause one's death is absurd. On the contrary, teaching Torah publicly is the essential factor in "the habitat where we survive."

We now understand the inner meaning of what we say each day in davening (Bircas Krias Shema), that "it is our life and the length of our days." This is a halocho lema'aseh. R' Akiva taught Torah publicly although it seemed he was endangering his life, because Torah itself is life and not death. Not only studying Torah is life, teaching Torah publicly also is life. It is not only an additional level in one's study, it is the fact of life.

The yeshiva, where Torah is studied, is "the habitat where we survive." (I am, however, uncertain if individuals studying alone or with a chavrusa are considered studying berabim when they do this within a tzibbur, or perhaps only when many come together to hear a shiur from the Rosh Yeshiva it is considered studying berabim. This must be clarified.)

Although those who study Torah live frugally in comparison to those engaged in making a livelihood, this cannot be considered mesirus nefesh for Torah. On the contrary, we must understand that studying Torah does not induce any loss; it is "the habitat where we survive." We dare not think that for studying Torah we are giving up on life. We are not giving up on life; the Torah generates life. This is true even if it seems to us that it is not so, just as Papus ben Yehudah thought.

Dovid Hamelech said: "Surely goodness and chesed shall pursue me all the days of my life" (Tehillim 23:6). Maran the Chofetz Chaim asks, Do goodness and chesed pursue a person? Being pursued caries a negative connotation.

The Chofetz Chaim answers that sometimes it appears that studying Torah causes one to suffer. Someone who goes into business enjoys luxury, but someone engaged in Torah lives sparingly. When Pesach arrives he may even have to borrow money from a gemach to pay for his yom tov expenses. It looks as if the Torah is "pursuing" him. Dovid Hamelech, however, requested, "If I am supposed to be punished by being pursued, I want goodness and chesed to pursue me."

We must think like this. Torah does not cause any hardships, but it is possible that HaKodosh Boruch Hu will do chessed with a person and so hardship that is intended to come from other causes seem to be caused by the Torah.

The Torah is our lives -- in this world! If you think that in America a person enjoys Olam Hazeh I am telling you that Olam Hazeh has nothing to sell no matter where you are. What does a person gain by eating a more delicious meal or by having more green dollar bills? Nothing at all! When we are studying Torah we feel that it is our lives and the length of our days. In every Tosafos and Rashi we sense enormous chochmah. I feel Hashem's chochmah in every section of the gemora.

How fortunate are we to be zoche to Gan Eden in Olam Hazeh, being able to study Torah without distractions.

I want to say how amazed I am that since rosh chodesh Nisan fell this year on erev Shabbos and Shabbos, the summer zman started on Sunday. How is it possible to restrain oneself until Sunday? Is the Torah not "our lives and the length of our days"? If people were handing out money somewhere, would any normal person patiently wait a few days, or would he run right over to grab some money for himself? "Studying Torah in public" is our life.

The gemora (Avoda Zorah 17b) tells that R' Eliezer ben Parta and R' Chanina ben Tradyon were caught by the government. R' Eliezer said to R' Chanina, "How fortunate are you that you were caught for doing one thing! Woe to me that I was caught for doing five things." R' Chanina was imprisoned only because he taught Torah and therefore had hope to be saved, but R' Eliezer was imprisoned because of five things and therefore had less hope to be saved.

R' Chanina answered, "How fortunate are you that you were caught for five things, for you will be saved. Woe to me that I was caught for one thing, for I will not be saved. You engaged in Torah and gemilus chassodim, but I engaged only in Torah. Anyone who engages only in Torah is like someone without an Elokim." Rashi explains that it is "as if he does not have an Elokim to save him." Rabbenu Chananel adds that he is like someone who does not have an Elokim, and therefore will also not have the reward for studying Torah.

But why did R' Chanina not engage in gemilus chassodim, if he believed that someone who does not engage in it is as if he has no Elokim? Furthermore, if R' Chanina understood that engaging in gemilus chassodim can save one's life, why did he not do so, since he knew he might be condemned to death because of teaching Torah?

R' Chanina was later asked how he could engage in Torah study after the government decreed punishment of death for doing so. R' Chanina answered: "Shomayim will have pity." He afterward asked if he would be zoche to Olam Haboh. He was answered that since he gave money to poor people in an incident of a sofeik whether the money belonged to tzedokoh, he would merit Olam Haboh for this.

One would think that his being moseir nefesh for Torah and being burnt for kiddush Hashem, wrapped in a sefer Torah and wool put around his heart so that his death would take a long time, was enough of a reason to be zoche to Olam Haboh. Even the executioner who removed the wool from over R' Chanina's heart was zoche because of that to Olam Haboh. Is it not logical that R' Chanina himself should be zoche? Furthermore, if it was forbidden for R' Chanina to study when a gezeira was in force, why did he endanger himself?

It seems that the way R' Chanina acted comes under the category of "an aveira done lishmah, which is greater than a mitzvah done not lishmah" (Nozir 23b), which we learn from Yael, who did an aveira to save Yisroel from Sisra.

This needs to be understood too. If what Yael did was commendable, why is it at all called an aveira and not a mitzvah? When an aseih supersedes a lo sa'aseh, is doing the aseih considered an aveira? Surely not!

It seems that an aveira lishmah remains an aveira, but it is better to do it in order to save all of Yisroel. This is similar to what is written in Shabbos (4a), that it is preferable to commit a mild aveira to save an am ho'oretz from a severe aveira. Chazal (Shabbos 151b) also write, "Profane one Shabbos for him so he can observe Shabbos many times." An aveira to save Klal Yisroel is an aveira, but it worthwhile doing it to save the nation.

It is possible that R' Chanina, who was a godol beTorah, decided that if he engaged himself in gemilus chassodim he would be less of a talmid chochom and Klal Yisroel would lose out. All of am Yisroel needed the Torah of R' Chanina. By not engaging in gemilus chassodim he was moseir nefesh, although it was considered as if he had no Elokim and although he knew that because he acted in this way HaKodosh Boruch Hu would not save him. He nonetheless sacrificed himself for am Yisroel so they would have a godol beTorah who had studied Torah his whole life without stopping even for a moment, not even stopping to do gemilus chassodim.

R' Chanina therefore asked if he would be zoche to Olam Haboh. It was possible that he should not have studied Torah during the time of a gezeira, since it was not a case of yeihoreig ve'al ya'avor, but R' Chanina knew that if he did not engage in Torah publicly the Torah itself would be in danger. He was moseir nefesh for the Torah's sake. He asked whether he would be zoche to Olam Haboh since perhaps he did not act according to the din and forfeited Olam Haboh.

How terrifying it is to think that a person is prepared to be moseir nefesh and forfeit all of his Olam Haboh only for the sake of am Yisroel!

It is worthwhile to forfeit all of one's worlds so that the Torah will remain for am Yisroel. Even for the additional ma'alah of teaching Torah publicly it was worthwhile for R' Chanina to forfeit Olam Hazeh and all of his Olam Haboh for the Torah. This is really awesome.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 16 - PRAYING BY A CEMETERY

The Gemora states that it was the custom to visit a cemetery on a fast day. One reason given is that the Jewish people were saying that they consider themselves like corpses and this will stimulate them to repent. Another reason is that this will enable the deceased who are buried in the cemetery to pray for them. According to the second reason, they would not visit a cemetery that contained the graves of gentiles.

The Ritva writes that they didn’t go to the cemetery in order to daven there because that is forbidden on the account of “loeg lerosh” – it is considered mocking to the dead who cannot perform the mitzvos; rather they davened in the streets and went to the cemetery afterwards.

The Ran adds that they did not take the sefer Torah with them when they went to the cemetery.

The Noda B’yehuda (O”C 2:109) was asked on a year that there was no rain and there was tremendous suffering; if they would be permitted to go to a cemetery with a sefer Torah and daven there for rain.

He cites a Zohar (Acharei Mos) which states that davening by a cemetery inspires the souls of those buried there to inform those that are buried in Chevron (Patriarchs and the Matriarchs) who subsequently will arouse Hashem’s compassion.

However, there is a Gemora in Brochos (18a) which rules that a person should not enter a cemetery with tefillin on his head or read from a sefer Torah in his arm. We can infer from this Gemora that reading from the sefer Torah is forbidden but holding it would be permitted. The Kesef Mishna in Hilchos Sefer Torah (10:6) learns that both are forbidden; reading from the sefer Torah or holding it.

The Noda B’yehuda concludes that although he is not an expert in the hidden portions of Torah, the Zohar cited does warn against bringing a sefer Torah that might be missing letters into a cemetery since this can cause terrible consequences.

The sefer Igra D’taanisa wonders why the Noda B’yehuda makes no mention of our Gemora which would indicate that one can go daven by a cemetery.

The Minchas Elozar discusses the permissibility of people davening by Kever Rochel. Some say that we are not mocking Rochel since she was living before the Torah was given; she was never obligated in mitzvos.

The Netziv rules that in his days, it would be permitted because the custom was to bury them deeper than ten tefachim from the ground and it is considered like a different domain.

The Rama (O”C 581:4) writes that there are places that have the custom to go to cemeteries on Erev Rosh Hashanah and to recite lengthy Tefillos there. The Chidah asks on this Rama from the Ritva here that states explicitly that one should not daven in the cemetery.

There are those that create a distinction between a compulsory tefillah and a tefillah which is only voluntary.

The Elya Rabbah (581) quotes from the Maharil that one should be careful when going to the graves of Tzadikim that your tefillos should not be directed towards those that are buried there, rather one should daven to Hashem and ask for compassion in the merit of these Tzadikim.

Some say that you can ask the dead to be an advocate on your behalf.

The Bach (Y”D 217) rules that it is forbidden to daven to the dead because of the prohibition of being “doresh el hameisim.” He points out that even though we find that Calev did daven in Chevron by the Meoras Hamachpeila, he wasn't davening to the Avos. Rather, since a cemetery is a place of holiness and purity, the tefillos davened there will be more readily accepted.

Nefesh Hachaim
has some good information on this topic as well.

Parshas Nitzavim-VaYeilech:Davening At A Cemetery

This weeks shiur was on the sugyah of davening at a cemetary. The Shulchan Aruch brings down the inyan of davening at a cemetary in 3 places. In Hilchos Ta'anis it is quoted as one of the halachos that a tzibbur should do when there is a ta'anis for rain. It is also mentioned in Hil' Tisha B'Av and finally in Hilchos Rosh Hashana. Although everyone agrees one should or could go to a cemetary there is a machlokes about why we are going.

The gemara in Ta'anis 16a brings two reasons why we go to a cemetary on a fast day. One opinion holds it is to arouse in ourselves a feeling of teshuva by saying that if we don't do teshuva we are like meisim. The 2nd opinion is that we are davening to the meisim that they should intercede on our behalf. The gemara says the nafka mina is whether one should go to a non-Jewish cemetary if no other cemetary is available. Acc. to the first reason one could go but not according to the 2nd reason. Tosafos writes from here we have a minhag to go to the cemetary on Tisha B'Av.

Also the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch seem to pasken like the first reason (to arouse in ourselves a feeling of teshuva).

Davening To Meisim

PLEASE NOTE: JUST TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO CONFUSION, WHEN I WRITE "DAVENING TO MEISIM" WHAT I MEAN IS DAVENING TO A MEIS AND ASKING THE MEIS TO INTERCEDE ON OUR BEHALF. I DO NOT MEAN THAT WE ARE DAVENING TO A MEIS SO THAT THE MEIS WILL FULLFILL OUR REQUEST. ONLY HKBH CAN DO THIS.

Shittas HaMachmirim
The question is, is there anything wrong with davening to the meisim. The Bach (end of Y.D. 217) brings a shittah that it is assur to daven to a meis and to do so is a violation of "doresh el hameisim". The Be'er Heitev in Hil Rosh Hashanah (581:17) also quotes a Maharil who holds it is assur and the only reason to go to a cemetary is because it is a mokom kodosh v'tahor. Teh Maharil writes that a person is only allowed to daven to Hashem and not to any other intemediary. The Bach also points out that even though we find that Kaleiv davened in Chevron by the Ma'aras HaMachpeila (Sotah 34b) he wasn't davening to the avos. Rather, since a cemetary is a mokom kodosh v'tahor it is a place where ones tefillos will be readily accepted.

Shittas HaMeikilim

There are poskim who hold that it is muttar to daven to meisim. It should be pointed out that there is a similar machlokes regarding davening to ma'lachim (eg. machnisiei rachamim in selichos). However, as we will see one can be m'chaleik between davening to a meis and davening to a malach. The Maharam Shik (O.C. 293) writes that it is muttar. He asks how is it possible to ask a living tzaddik to daven for us? He answers that when the tzaddik hears our problems the tzaddik himself is in paon. Therefore the tzaddik is really davening that HKBH should help him (i.e. the tzaddik). It just happens to be that the way to ease the tzaddik's pain is by helping the other person. This sevara would apply to a meis as well. The meisim know what is going on in this world and when they hear we are in pain they will also be in pain. Therefore, they can ask HKBH to heal their pain (i.e. the pain of the meis) and m'meilah the pain of the other person will also be healed. Although the Maharam Shik doesn't mention it, I saw brought down in the Minchas Yitzchak (Chelek 8 Siman 53) that this idea is found in the Chasam Sofer (O.C. 166) who was actually the rebbi of the Maharam Shik. The Chasam Sofer used this sevara to distinguish between davening to malachim (which he held was asasur) and davening to a live person (which is muttar) . It seems the Maharam Shik took itone step further and applied it to meisim as well.

The Minchas Elazer (Chelek 1 Siman 68) has a lengthy teshuva why it is muttar. He quotes many gemaras and medrashim as proofs. Rav Moshe (Igros Moshe O.C. chelek 5 Siman 43:6)also discusses this issue. However, Rav Moshe doesn't seem to come out with a final psak. He just says that the machlokes is based on whether meisim are better than malachim.

I would like to say that maybe we have a rayah that Rabbi Akiva Eiger held it was muttar. In Hil Rosh Hashana the Magan Avraham writes that the minhag to go to a cemetary is found in the gemara. But he doesn't say which gemara. The GR"A points you to the gemara in Ta'anis. However, Rabbi Akiva Eiger says that the MG"A is referring to the gemara in Sotah about Kaleiv. Why did Rabbi Akiva Eiger choose this gemara? It could be that Rabbi Akiva Eiger held it was muttar to daven to meisim and therefore he chose the gemara in Sotah which clearly states it is muttar (unless you learn like the Bach that it was a din in the mokom).

One more mareh mokom to look at (which I didn't get a chance to see) is an article in Techumim vol 21 by Rav Moshe Tzuriel. (also see here at the end of the article)

Read more!