vayaitzai

Is Ma'ariv Really Optional?

In the beginning of this week's parshah the Torah writes about Yakkov Avinu's departure from his father's house in Bear Sheva. The passuk says "Vayifga bamakom" and he met the place. This passuk carries many deeper levels of understanding aside from the pashut pshat. Rashi explains that the "place" that the passuk is referring to is Har Hamoria. The Gemara in Chullin 91b explains that Hashem lifted the mountain and brought it to Yakkov, hence the wording "and he met the place". The Gemara in Brachos 26b explains that the word "vayifga" means to daven, and that it was at this point that Yakkov Avinu instituted the tiffela of ma'ariv.

The Gemara in Brachos 27b says that although all of the tiffelos are mandatory, the tiffela of ma'ariv is a rishus (voluntary).  Tosafos (Brachos 26a) points out that one may not decide not to daven ma'ariv unless there is an adequate reason i.e. another time sensitive mitzvah.

The Gemara in Brachos 21a discusses the halacha in a scenario where one is in middle of davening shimoneh esray and realizes that he had already davened this tiffela. The Gemara says that he should stop davening immediately, even if he is in the middle of a bracha. Even though one may daven a tiffelas nidavah (a voluntary tiffela) whenever he desires, he must stop in the middle since he initially began davening under the impression that the tiffela was obligatory. The Tosafos Harash explains that just as there are not any korbanos that are part obligatory and part voluntary so too there cannot be a tiffela that is part obligatory and part voluntary.

Based on this, the Rambam (hilchos tiffela 10:6) wrote a tremendous chiddish. He wrote that the abovementioned Gemara that discusses the halacha of when one realizes in the middle of shimoneh esray that he has davened that tiffela, should not apply when the tiffela that one is in the middle of is ma'ariv. The reason for this ruling is since the tiffela of ma'ariv is voluntary it can connect to a tiffelas nidavah.  Therefore if one was in the middle of davening ma'ariv and realized that he had already davened ma'ariv if he desires he may continue davening as a nidavah. Since both tiffelos are voluntary they should be able to connect as one voluntary tiffela.

The Ra'avad disagreed with this psak and, as explained by the Kesef Mishnah, argued that for many generations Klal Yisroel have accepted upon themselves an obligation to daven ma'ariv. Even the Rambam himself writes (hilchos tiffela 1:6) that all of Yisroel wherever they are have accepted to daven ma'ariv involuntarily. So how can the Rambam say that the tiffela of ma'ariv can connect with a tiffelas nidavah since they are both voluntary?  

Reb Chaim Solovatchik zt'l in his sefer on the Rambam suggests the following approach to understand the ruling of the Rambam: although Klal Yisroel have accepted upon themselves to daven ma'ariv involuntarily, nevertheless the type of tiffela remains the same. Since the tiffela of ma'ariv was instituted as a voluntary tiffela it remains that type of tiffela in its essence. In other words, one can have an obligation to daven a voluntary type of tiffela. The obligation to daven a particular tiffela does not affect the type of tiffela that it is in its essence. Therefore the tiffela of ma'ariv can connect with a tiffelas nidavah since they are both voluntary tiffelos in essence.

On the other hand, the Ra'avad believes that whether one is obligated to daven a certain tiffela will affect the type of tiffela that it is. Therefore since we have accepted upon ourselves to daven ma'ariv involuntarily the tiffela becomes an obligatory tiffela and can no longer connect to a tiffelas nidavah.

The Rambam (hilchos tiffela 1:10) writes that there are some Ge'onim who were of the opinion that one may not daven a tiffelas nidavah on Shabbos since we do not bring a korban nidavah on Shabbos. The implication from the Rambam is that he agrees with this view. This however raises a problem, how can one daven ma'ariv on Shabbos if according to the Rambam himself it is a voluntary tiffela in essence?

I want to suggest that although ma'ariv is a voluntary tiffela in its essence, it differs from a nidavah. The similarity that ma'ariv shares with a tiffelas nidavah is that they are both voluntary, and therefore they can be connected. However the Gemara in Brachos 26b says that all of the tiffelos correspond to different korbanos; shachris corresponds to the tamid shel shachar, mincha to the tamid shel bain ha'arbaim, and ma'ariv corresponds to the aimurim of the korbanos (which even if they are not brought the korban is effective- it is for this reason that ma'ariv is a rishus). Therefore even though ma'ariv is voluntary, it corresponds to the aimurim which are brought even on Shabbos. A korban nidavah however is not brought on Shabbos, and therefore one cannot daven a tiffelas nidavah on Shabbos.

It would appear to me that the Rambam's ruling that one may continue davening ma'ariv even if he realizes that he already did so, does not apply on Shabbos. Since one cannot daven a tiffelas nidavah on Shabbos he cannot end off the shimoneh esray with a tiffelas nidavah.  

For questions or comments email: RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com 

Toldos

How Did Yitzchak Eat From Eisav's Shechitah?

In this week's parshah we read about the berachos that Yitzchak had intended to give Eisav, but instead (unintentionally) gave to Yaakov Avinu. Yaakov was able to receive the berachos instead of Eisav because Yitzchak had requested Eisav to go out to the field and hunt game for him. This provided Yaakov sufficient time to prepare everything in order for him to receive the berachos. When Yitzchak requested of Eisav that he hunt game for him, he told him to "…sa na keilecha telyecha vekashtecha – sharpen your gear, your sword, and your bow" (Bereishis 27:3). Rashi explains that Yitzchak was telling Eisav to sharpen his knife so that he would shecht (slaughter) properly; thus the food would not be a neveilah. The Sifsei Chachamim explains that by sharpening his knife he would ensure that there were not any nicks on the knife. Regarding this pasuk, the ba'alei Tosafos and the Rush add that the word in the pasuk, "tzayid," is written with the letter "hay" although it is not pronounced. This is to inform us that Yitzchak taught Eisav the five (the numerical value of the letter "hay") halachos of shechitah that can disqualify a shechitah.

The Chasam Sofer (She'eilos V'teshuvos, Yoreh De'ah 15) asks the following question regarding Yitzchak's request to Eisav: Why did Yitzchak have to tell Eisav to sharpen his knife now? For if Yitzchak was indeed concerned that Eisav would otherwise not have sharpened his knife, how could he trust him now? And if Yitzchak felt confident that Eisav would generally check his knife, why was he compelled to remind him now? Similarly, one could ask why Yitzchak would now teach Eisav about hilchos shechitah. Shouldn't he have taught him many years earlier, as Eisav was already 63 years old at the time of the berachos? Additionally, the ba'alei Tosafos ask another question on this episode. The Gemara in Chullin 5a says that a mumar (heretic) is unfit to shecht. How then could Yitzchak have eaten from Eisav's shechitah, since the Gemara in Kiddushin 18a says that Eisav was a mumar?

            As a result of this and other questions, the Chasam Sofer disagrees with the Sifsei Chachamim, saying that Yitzchak told Eisav to sharpen his blade for a different reason other than to ensure that it did not contain nicks. He explains that the purpose of telling Eisav to sharpen his knife was to remove the fat that was remaining on the knife from the avodah zarah foods that Eisav's wives would serve. Generally this would not have prohibited the meat if it was rinsed, but since Yitzchak had asked for tzeli (roasted meat), as it was a korban Pesach, the meat would otherwise be prohibited unless the knife was cleaned via sharpening.

            I would like to suggest the following solution to explain the opinion of the Sifsei Chachamim: The Gemara in Chullin 4a says that there are two types of mumars: a mumar leteiavon – one who sins out of temptation – and a mumar lehachis – one who sins without temptation but solely to spite Hashem. The halacha that a mumar is disqualified from shechting only applies to a mumar lehachis. A mumar leteiavon may shecht, provided that a trustworthy person checks his knife. In order to shecht properly there must not be any nicks on the blade of the knife. If there is, the shechitah is invalid. Therefore one must carefully check the blade prior to shechting, to ensure that there are no nicks on the blade. Since the process of checking the blade is burdensome, we may not rely on a mumar leteiavon exerting himself and checking his knife properly. Thus if a mumar leteiavon shechts without anyone checking his blade for him, the shechitah is invalid – for we assume that he did not properly check his blade and there may have been a nick on it. However, if someone else checks the blade, a mumar leteiavon may shecht.

The Gemara in Kiddushin that refers to Eisav as a mumar does not specify which type of mumar he was. I suggest that perhaps Eisav was considered a mumar leteiavon, and not a mumer lehachis. Therefore, if someone else would check his knife for him, he would be allowed to shecht. Yitzchak knew that Eisav was outstanding in the mitzvah of kibud av (honoring one's father) and he was certain that Eisav would fulfill any of his requests. As a result, Yitzchak told Eisav now to sharpen his knife in order to be certain that he would check the blade. Yitzchak felt that the level of certainty whereby he knew that Eisav would follow his command was sufficient to ensure that the knife was checked – as if someone else actually checked it. Thus Eisav – a mumar leteiavon- was permitted to shecht.

Although Yitzchak had reason to be concerned that Eisav would not check his knife on his own since he was a mumar leteiavon, he nonetheless knew that commanding him to do so would be the equivalent of someone else checking his knife for him. This permitted the meat to be eaten. Based on this, we can also answer the question that the ba'alei Tosafos asked (how Yitzchak could have eaten from the shechitah of a mumar). Since Eisav was considered a mumar leteiavon, once his father commanded him to check his knife his shechitah was permitted.

                For questions or comments e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.