דברי קבלה, קיום דאורייתא

Continuing his discussion of Divrei Kabbalah, Rav Soloveichik points out that, similar to many derabanan mitzvot, divrei kabbalah generally fulfill a deoraita mitzva. This, while at the same time being their own independent mitzva of lesser status.

ונראה עוד יותר, כי בכל מקום שדברי קבלה קובעים דבר חדש ע"י פירוש החובה וניסוחה בכתבי הקודש, אע"פ שהדבר בתורת חובה מיוחדת ומצוה מסוימת הוא מדברי קבלה, בעשייתה ישנו קיום מן התורה, ועל ידה באה מצוה כללית אחרת לידי מילוי גמור.(כיבוד ועונג שבת מתוך שעורים לזכר אבא מרי ז"ל(

The Rav then goes on to elaborate this principal for the three Divrei Kabbalah mitzvot that he previously discussed:

• 4 Fasts- he argues that they fulfill the Torah mitzva of Tefilah
• Megilah- once it was included in the Tanach, it became Torah Shebichtav and gained the status of Talmud Torah
• Kavod Veoneg- they fulfill the obligation of שמור, by treating the day differently from a weekday as a special day

מצוה דרבנן, קיום דאורייתא

The Rav points out that this model of kium deoraita for lesser mitzvot also applies to many Derabanan mitzvot.  As an example, he brings the mitzvas of ביקור חולים, ניחום אבלים, לשמח חתן וכלה... which fulfill the mitzva of ואהבת לרעך כמוך.


You may recall that we mentioned Parshat Zachor as another example which, according to one opinion, was instituted by the sages, but fulfills the Torah commandment of remembering Amalek. (The other opinion views it as תורה מסרה לחכמים)

Between Deoraita and Derabanan

The two main categories of mitzvot are Deoraita and Derabanan. The former is a mitzva mandated by God himself in the Torah.  The latter are rabbinic edicts, that we are Biblically mandated to follow.

Divrei Kabbalah

Rav Soloveichik, in his lecture on כיבוד ועונג שבת (in שעורים לזכר אבא מרי ז"ל) discusses a category of mitzvot that is neither here nor there: דברי קבלה. Divrei kabbala are mitzvot mentioned in Nach, as the Rav explains:

אנו משתמשים במונח דברי קבלה רק במקום שהתקנה או המצוה מדברי סופרים הוזכרה בכתבי הקודש, בנביאים או בכתובים.

These mitzvot or takanot gain their special status by virtue of the fact that they are written in Nach. The Rav explains that Nach has a status of Torah Shebichtav and that it's from this status that divrei kabbalah derive their special authority.

Anyway, let's move on to the examples the Rav brings of divrei kaballah...

Megilla Reading

The Rav points out that the Rambam's(הל' מגילה א:א) formulation in his introduction to Megillah reading is highly unusual:

קריאת המגילה בזמנה, מצות עשה מדברי סופרים. והדברים ידועים שהיא תקנת הנביאים.

The Rav explains that the mitzvot of Purim started out as normal Mitzvot Derabanan, instituted by the beit din hagadol in the form of anshei knesset hagdolah. This takana was accepted by the majority of Am Yisrael(not including the issur melacha). Then, Ester requested the anshei knesset hagdolah to make her book part of Nach. When this request was accepted, then the mitzvot of Purim were elevated to the level of divrei kabbalah by virtue of being mentioned in the Megillah.

Kavod Veoneg Shabbat

This topic also begins with an unusual wording in the Rambam(הל' שבת ל:א):

ארבעה דברים נאמרו בשבת שנים מן התורה ושנים מדברי סופרים והן מפורשין על ידי הנביאים. שבתורה זכור ושמור. ושנתפרשו על ידי הנביאים כבוד ועונג שנאמר וקראת לשבת עונג ולקדוש ה' מכובד.

The Rav says that the mitzvot of Kavod Veoneg Shabbat are also divrei kabbalah. The differ, however, from Megillah reading in that there was no Rabbinic decree that preceded their mention in Nach. The very fact that there were written down as part of Yeshayahu's prophecy, gives them their special status.

The 4 Fasts

Here, the Rambam is in הל' תענית ה:ד

וארבעת ימי הצומות האלו--הרי הן מפורשין בקבלה, "צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי" (זכריה ח,יט):  צום הרביעי--זה שבעה עשר בתמוז, שהוא בחודש הרביעי; וצום החמישי--זה תשעה באב, שהוא בחודש החמישי; וצום השביעי--זה שלושה בתשרי, שהוא בחודש השביעי; וצום העשירי--זה עשרה בטבת, שהוא בחודש העשירי.

The interesting thing here is that Zecharia's words imply that some people were already fasting on these days, but that it wasn't an official taanit tzibur ordained by the sages. By mentioning these fast days in his prophecy, the navi elevated them to official fast days on the level of Divrei Kabalah.

The Reason Behind Writing a Sefer Torah

The second half of Rav M's shiur on the mitzva of writing a Sefer Torah, focused on the rationale behind the mitzva. The main chakira revolved on this question:

• To Learn: is the purpose of the mitzva that you will have a sefer Torah ava?
• To Connect: or perhaps it's something more akin to the King's obligation, which seems to be more about creating a relationship with the Torah: וְהָיְתָה עִמּוֹ, וְקָרָא בוֹ כָּל-יְמֵי חַיָּיו--לְמַעַן יִלְמַד, לְיִרְאָה אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו, לִשְׁמֹר אֶת-כָּל-דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת וְאֶת-הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה, לַעֲשֹׂתָם. The writing it oneself is in order to develop a more personal relationship with the Torah.

1. Buying a Sefer Torah

The first nafka mina is whether one can fulfill his obligation by buying a sefer torah.

The Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot(עשה יח) mentions the possibility of buying a sefer torah, but with the possibility of writing it oneself being a greater level of fulfillment. So the basic mitzva seems to be about having the sefer available to learn, while the connection that comes from writing it oneself is extra.

ציווי שנצטווינו שיהא לכל-זכר ממנו ספר תורה לעצמו. ואם יכתבו בידו - הרי זה משבח מאד והוא עדיף, כמו שאמרו: "כתבו מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו קיבלו מהר סיני". ואם אי אפשר לו לכתבו בידו - חייב הוא לקנותו או יבקש שיכתבו בשבילו...

In the Mishneh Torah(ספר תורה ז:א), however, the Rambam doesn't mention the possibility of purchasing a sefer torah, and in fact he describes the basic mitzva as writing it oneself. So here the main pupose of the mitzva seems to be to create a connection between the writer and Torah.

מצות עשה על כל איש ואיש מישראל, לכתוב ספר תורה לעצמו:  שנאמר "ועתה, כתבו לכם את השירה הזאת" (דברים לא,יט), כלומר כתבו את התורה שיש בה שירה זו--לפי שאין כותבין את התורה, פרשייות פרשייות.  ואף על פי שהניחו לו לאדם אבותיו ספר תורה, מצוה לכתוב משלו.  ואם כתבו בידו, הרי הוא כאילו קיבלו מסיניי; ואם אינו יודע לכתוב, אחרים כותבין לו.  וכל המגיה בספר תורה, אפילו אות אחת--הרי זה כאילו כתבו, כולו.

The Rosh

A second nafka mina is the chiddush of the Rosh on מנחות ל א(brought in the טור יורה דעה ער:ג), who says that now that we keep sifrei torah in the synagogue, the mitzva is now to write chumashim and gemaras etc. The Rosh is a rather extreme example of the view that the point of the writing is to facilitate learning, so much so that he even drops the requirement of it being a kosher Sefer Torah! Note, that most of Am Yisrael seems to follow the Rosh, since we buy books, but most people aren't machmir to write their own personal sefer torah.

Other Nafka Minot

A third nafka mina is whether a lost torah needs to be replaced. If the point is learning, then you need a new one. If the point is to create the connection, that perhaps still exists even when the physical scroll is no longer in your posession.

The final nafka mina that was mentioned was the question of whether you can fulfill the mitzva by donating a scroll to the synagogue. Assuming that the point is that you should own the scroll so you can learn it, some poskim say that when you donate the scroll you shouldn't renounce your legal ownership of the scroll.

Writing a Sefer Torah

OK, let's do this! The latest shiur I attended on Sanhedrin:

Two Mitzvot to Write

By the Rambam's count(סה"מ יז, יח) there are two mitzvot to write a torah scroll, one applying to every Jew, the other only to a king. The source of the King's obligation is explicit in the Torah(דברים יז:יח), while the source of the general obligation is סנהדרין כא ב.

וכותב ספר תורה לשמו: תנא ובלבד שלא יתנאה בשל אבותיו אמר (רבא) אף על פי שהניחו לו אבותיו לאדם ספר תורה מצוה לכתוב משלו שנאמר (דברים לא, יט) ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה איתיביה אביי וכותב לו ספר תורה לשמו שלא יתנאה בשל אחרים מלך אין הדיוט לא לא צריכא לשתי תורות וכדתניא (דברים יז, יח) וכתב לו את משנה וגו' כותב לשמו שתי תורות אחת שהיא יוצאה ונכנסת עמו ואחת שמונחת לו בבית גנזיו אותה שיוצאה ונכנסת עמו (עושה אותה כמין קמיע ותולה בזרועו שנאמר (תהלים טז, ח) שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד כי מימיני בל אמוט) אינו נכנס בה לא לבית המרחץ ולא לבית הכסא שנאמר (דברים יז, יט) והיתה עמו וקרא בו מקום הראוי לקראות בו

So Rava introduces the general obligation to write a torah from "ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה...". Abaye disagrees, but Rav M pointed out that it's not clear what assumption he disagrees with:

• Perhaps he disagrees that the general obligation has a requirement of לשמו, reserving that requirement only for the king
• in which case the baraita about the king's two scrolls refers to one for his general obligation and another for his kingly obligation
• Or perhaps he disagrees that there even is a general obligation to write a Torah scroll
• in which case the baraita apparently is saying that the king requires two scrolls as king, one that he carries around and the other that he keeps in his home

Parshat Zachor: Derabanan or Deoraita

So, in the second half of Rav M's lecture, I noticed that he understands the machloket whether Parshat Zachor is derabanan or deoraita differently than I did. I spoke to him briefly afterwards and indeed he takes a more subtle approach and I'm going to try and do it justice.

Both the Sefer Hachinuch and the Magen Avram(או"ח תרפה:ב) describe the debate about Parshat Zachor, whether it is Miderabanan or Mideoraita. I took this at face value to be saying that either the sages instituted it as a way to fulfill the mitzva of remembering Amalek or else it is simply the Torah method to fulfill the mitzva. There are several problems with this understanding:

• The Mitzva, as stated in the Torah, doesn't sound like it involves reading this exact parsha
• There was clearly some involvement of the Sages, at the very least in setting the time for reading Parshat Zachor, since yearly torah reading is a much later minhag
• The Gemara in Megilla 18A that I quoted in the previous post learns halachot of Megilla reading from Parshat Zachor. If Parshat Zachor is mideoraita, then how can we learn from it to Megilla reading, something that was instituted later

Rav Markus gave a more subtle explanation of the debate, both sides of which involve the participation of both the sages and Torah law. 

• Chazal instituted Parshat Zachor along with the other 4 special parshiot. One does fulfill the Torah commandment to remember Amalek but ultimately there are other paths to fulfillment and any verbal retelling of the story should suffice.
• The Torah commanded us to remember Amalek, but left it to Chazal to decide how. Chazal instituted Parshat zachor as the means and so it is now the only method to fulfill the mitzva. This concept of תורה מסרה לחכמים is also used to explain issur melacha on chol hamoed and שאר עינוים on Yom Kippur.

Relationship Between the Amalek-Related Mitzvot

So, the first half of Rav M's class focused on a fundamental question that I didn't consider in my learning of the sugya: what is the relationship between the mitzva to eliminate Amalek and the mitzva to remember Amalek? (similar to the question of Maakeh and Lo Tasim Damim)

• Sefer Yereim says that these are actually two parts of a single mitzva. The obligation to remember Amalek is simply a requisite for bringing about their eventual destruction
• The Rambam Sefer Hamitzvot(מ"ע קעט) says they are two separate mitzvot. He ultimately agrees with the Yereim though that the mitzva to remember is there to help implement the mitzva to eliminate Amalek
• There was some discussion about whether the Rambam's Mishneh Torah(מלכים ה:ה) took a different approach to that in Sefer Hamitzvot. I wasn't really convinced by those who were arguing there was a difference--the Rambam is very succinct here and what he says sounds compatible with his approach there.
• The Sefer Hachinuch sounds basically the same as the Rambam, although he does mention an independent reason for the mitzva to remember: so that we should know that Hashem hates those who want to harm the nation of Israel
• The Minchat Chunuch goes further, suggesting that the two mitzvot are independent of one another

So ultimately we have two basic answers:

1. The mitzva to eliminate Amalek is the dominant one, with the mitzva to remember being subservient to it
2. The mitzvot are independent of one another, despite their similar context

 The Rav brought 3 nafka minot of this machloket:

1. The Sefer Hachinich states that women are excluded from the obligation to remember because it's the men who are actually required to make war on Amalek. The Minchat Chinuch argues that the mitzvot are independent so women should be obligated to remember Amalek(he also argues that in any case women are obligated to make war on Amalek too)
2. Once Amalek ARE destroyed are we still obligated to remember them?
3. Rav Frank in מקראי קודש brings the question of whether one can fulfill his obligation if he reads the parsha at the end of Beshalach instead of parshat Zachor. If the mitzvot are independent, then yes. If not then only Zachor mentions the obligation to eliminate Amalek, so only it will suffice.

Let's Learn: Amalek-Related Mitzvot

So today's source sheet at the yeshiva next door said "No sources today. Learn the mitzvot regarding Amalek on your own." So let's try that.  Today's post will be a summary of what I learned on my own. Then I'll make another post once I've read some contemporary sources and I'll note some of the things I missed, mistakes I made, other approaches, etc.

So Amalek is mentioned twice in the Torah:

• at the end of parshat Beshalach when they attack Bnei Yisrael
• at the end of parshat Ki Tetzeh when Moshe commands Bnei Yisrael in the mitzvot

Sefer Hachinuch lists three mitzvot we learn from parshiah in Ki Tetzeh:

1. Remember what Amalek did
2. Don't forget what Amalek did
3. Wipe-out all of Amalek's descendents

Parshat Zachor with a Minyan

One of the more interesting questions I came across regards the status of Parshat Zachor, which we read, directly from the Torah, once a year. It's an interesting question because it gets to the heart of the matter as to how to fulfill the mitzva of Remembering. Basically the two opinions are:

1. The mitzva is to remember what Amalek did and express it verbally, but there is no formal way you're supposed to express it. Chazal then came and instituted Parshat Zachor in order to formalize this a bit more.
2. Reading Parshat Zachor as we read it is actually the Torah mitzva.

This second approach would seem to be the more surprising one, since other mitzvot to "remember" don't need to be read from an actual Torah scroll. Nevertheless, the Magen Avraham(או"ח תרפה:ב)lists the rishonim who hold of this view. So where does this approach come from?

The Magen Avraham lists the gemara in Megila 18A as a possible source. It learns out our obligation to read megilla from a sefer from our obligation to read Zachor from a sefer. The question we need to ask, presumably, is whether the drashot are legit or are merely an asmachta:

קראה על פה לא יצא וכו':מנלן אמר רבא אתיא זכירה זכירה כתיב הכא והימים האלה נזכרים וכתיב התם (שמות יז, יד) כתב זאת זכרון בספר מה להלן בספר אף כאן בספר וממאי דהאי זכירה קריאה היא דלמא עיון בעלמא לא סלקא דעתך (דכתיב) (דברים כה, יז) זכור יכול בלב כשהוא אומר לא תשכח הרי שכחת הלב אמור הא מה אני מקיים זכור בפה:

Two weird things about this limmud are:

• The hekkesh is from Beshalach, rather than from Ki Tetzeh where we actually get the mitzva of remembering Amalek
• The gemara brings a drasha that Zachor needs to be vocalized, but it doesn't bring any proof that it needs to be read from the sefer Torah with a minyan. For example, maybe you could say it when you're alone from a copy of the parsha or even from memory. Shema, vidui maaserot/bikumim, and the obligation to remember the Exodus all have less stringent requirements, for example.

So maybe it's just an asmachta. But maybe we just need to dig a little deeper... left So let's actually look at the pasuk in Beshalach:

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, כְּתֹב זֹאת זִכָּרוֹן בַּסֵּפֶר, וְשִׂים, בְּאָזְנֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ:  כִּי-מָחֹה אֶמְחֶה אֶת-זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק, מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם (שמות יז:יד(

The Ramban understands the pasuk as follows: Moshe is commanded to write the Amalek story in the Torah in order that we remember it:

יאמר כתוב זאת בספר תורתי שיזכרו בני ישראל מה שעשה עמלק. 

According to this understanding, when we are actually commanded to remember Amalek in Ki Tetzeh, it's quite natural to assume that the way we are supposed to do so is by reading from the Torah, since that's the reason Moshe included the story there to begin with. So that explains the opinion that Parshat Zachor is Mideoreita a bit better.

Other Topics

Some other topics I stumbled upon were how often do we have to remember, are women required to remember, as well as the question of why Amalek deserve such harsh retribution, but those will have to wait for another time...