Rosh Chodesh vs. Chol Hamoed

In his speech “הזכרת ראש חודש וחול המועד” in שיעורים לזכר אבא מרי ז"ל, Rav Soloveichik discusses Rosh Chodesh and how it is different at the most basic level from other Moadim.

קדושת היום

The central chakira that the Rav develops is whether the day has:

• Full Kedusha: the entire day has Kedusha, as is the case with the Holidays 
• Limited Kedusha: the day’s Kedusha is limited to its unique service in Beit Hamikdash, and for all other purposes it is a יום חול

Chol Hamoed, like Yom Tov, is a day of Full Kedusha:

קדושת חולו של מועד מקיפה הרבה דינים וחלותים, ובעצם קדושתו היא חפצא של קדושת חג הסוכות או חג הפסח. (הזכרת ר"ח וחוה"מ:ג)

Rosh Chodesh’s Kedusha, on the other hand, is limited to the Mussaf offering and therefore is limited only to Beit Hamikdash:

נקרא הוא יום מקודש אבל קדושתו תחומה ומוגבלת רק לקרבן מוסף. (הזכרת ר"ח וחוה"מ:ג)

אין קדושת היום של ר"ח מעלה ולא מורידה בגבולין. (הזכרת ר"ח וחוה"מ:ד)

Nafka Minot

The Rav goes on to discuss at length several Nafka Minot of this distinction(I’ll try to cover these in more detail in another post):

1. Tefilin on Chol Hamoed- Rav Chaim quoted as saying that chol hamoed has the same kedusha as chag, but with heter melacha. Therefore we don’t wear Tefilin on Chol Hamoed, while we do on Rosh Chodesh
2. Din Simcha- we say Hallel on days that have a mitzvah of Simcha as do the three Regalim. Rosh Chodesh actually has a limited din of simcha due to the minhag of treating it with a limited kedusha, so we say Hallel, but it has a lesser status
3. Shmonah Esre & Bircat Hamazon- The Rav ties a number of dinim in mentioning Rosh Chodesh/Chol Hamoed to the chakira of Kedushat Hayom. For instance, whether one is required to repeat a forgotten יעלה ויבוא

Amud Hashachar vs. Netz

I found the second half of Rav Soloveichik’s lecture on יום ולילה to be more challenging than the first half on Bein Hashmashot. After changing my mind several times as to what the Rav meant, I'm cautiously confident of my final understanding, so, for what it’s worth, here goes...

In this second half of the lecture, The Rav moves on to discuss the beginning of the halachik day. Astronomically it’s similar to the end of the day in that there are two distinct transitions:

1. Amud Hashachar: when the darkness begins to give way to light.
2. Netz Hachama: when the sun rises above the horizon.

The Mishna(מגילה כ ב) says that, in general, halachot that apply during the day should be performed from Netz, but bediavad can be performed even from Amud Hashachar.

זה הכלל דבר שמצותו ביום כשר כל היום דבר שמצותו בלילה כשר כל הלילה

Halachik Significance of the Two Times

Rashi(מגילה כ א) understands the Minsha's ruling as meaning that the Halachik day begins unequivocally at Amud Hashachar, but that chazal decided to push back the time to the more easily recognizable Netz so that people don’t make a mistake and perform daytime mitzvot too early.

Rabeinu Tam(יומא לז ב ד"ה אמר), on the other hand, understands that the Mishna's rule is a din torah. The Rav explains that the transition from night to day has two distinct chaluyot. The chalut at Amud Hashachar is based on light/darkness while the chalut at Netz is based on meorot. Ideally we use the later time, but the earlier time can also be used.

Struggling with Rabeinu Tam

Rabeinu Tam's shita comes out strange, according to the Rav. The Rav sets up a chakira and which side does Rabeinu Tam come out on? Both! The day begins with this two-step transition from day to night, yet ends in a moment(albeit one that can’t be identified precisely).

Why should the day start and end so differently?  Similarly, why doesn't the same safek of "how dark is dark" that applies to bein hashmashot apply to Amud Hashachar, according to Rabeinu Tam? The Rav doesn't really address these questions...

Exceptions to the Rule:

After explaining how Rabeinu Tam understands Amud Hashachar/Netz, the Rav goes on to explain cases that don't conform to the general rule.

Raveinu Tam says that the morning Shema can only be said from netz, even bediavad. The reason is that it is dependent on זמן קימה, not daytime.

The Rambam(הלכות קרבן פסח ה:ט) says that the ptur of derech rechoka is measured from netz. On the other end of the day, the Raavad says that a Yoledet's days end at shkiyah, without the usual safek applied to bein hashmashot. Similarly, Rabeinu Tam says blood becomes nifsal at shkiah rishona. The Rav explains all these cases by saying that Amud Hashachar is used as the cutoff for questions of day/night, while Netz is used when we need to measure the amount of a day:

כי בכל מקום שאנו עושקים בחלות שם יום או לילה, אז עמוד השחר קובע את היום, אבל במקום שאנו מעוניינים ביום בתור יחידה כמותית, בחלות שיעורין, אז הזריחה היא התחלת שיורי יום.

This is quite a nice little distinction in and of itself, and I found it to be quite persuasive.

Maaseh Bereshit

Let's talk about reconciling the Torah's story with that of contemporary of science. I'm not an expert in either Tanach or scientific research. In fact, I don't really have a fully-developed approach on this topic. But I still think it's important to work on your understanding of the topic, especially if one is immersed in general studies.

In my mind, the main problem is confined to the first few chapters of Bereshit. Everything later on, like when archeologists try to answer "did the Exodus happen?", "did King David exist?" seems less critical to me. The academia just doesn't have much to go on. There just aren't so many sources around for those periods except for the Tanach. So in my mind, the main issue concerns two specific scientific narratives: the Cosmological creation story and the theory of Evolution.

Cosmology

Cosmology describes a long and complex process by which the universe exploded into being. This doesn't sound so similar to the Torah's succinct and Geo-Centric version.

Natan Aviezer's book "In the Beginning" aims to reconcile the two. It's a good book, collecting a wide base of scientific literature into a single narrative and using details of that narrative to explain the many difficult psukim in the creation story. And yet, it sort of feels like Professor Aviezer dealt with all the trees, but missed the forest. He doesn't really address what are, to my mind, the central difficulties:

• The time-frame of 7 days is too short
• The beginning of mankind is too recent
• The order of some of the events seems wrong
• Why aren't pre-historic creatures, including Pre-Historic Man, mentioned?

Evolution

The torah describes the creation of people and animals as what sounds like a miraculous process of יש מאין, divided into distinct phases. This sounds a lot different than the Evolutionary narrative that all life evolved over the eons from single-cell organizes.

In the inaugural issue of the Rambam Medical Journal, Professor Aviezer and Dr. Avraham Steinberg present two different approaches to this topic. Both make many good points and are well worth reading.

Professor Aviezer for the most part accepts the the theory of Evolution, then alludes generally to the ability of interpretation to overcome the problems, but doesn't go into detail.

Dr. Steinberg for the most part rejects the theory of Evolution, pointing out the weakness in many of it's assumptions. He does what he sets out to do, argue that the theory of Evolution isn't as well-established as one might think. But ultimately, his arguments leave Evolution in the realm of the highly plausible and if you had to take a bet based solely on the physical(non-Torah) evidence, most people would probably tend towards the Evolutionary side. So really it would be nice to have an answer for the possibility that Evolution is true.

Two Creation Stories

As for myself, I can't help thinking the explanation of the dual creation stories is significant. Rav Mordechai Breuer(פרקי בראשית, פרקים 2, 5) (and to a lesser degree Rav Soloveichik in Lonely Man of Faith) discusses the repetition of the Creation Story(בראשית א, ב) and the contradictions between the two accounts. Rav Breuer ultimately explains that the two accounts describe two idealized creations according to Hashem's attributes of דין and רחמים, along the lines of the midrash(מדרש רבה יב:טו)

ה' אלהים: למלך שהיו לו כוסות ריקים, אמר המלך אם אני נותן לתוכן חמין הם מתבקעין, צונן הם מקריסין ומה עשה המלך? ערב חמין בצונן ונתן בהם ועמדו. כך אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא: אם בורא אני את העולם במדת הרחמים, הוי חטייה סגיאין. במדת הדין היאך העולם יכול לעמוד?! אלא, הרי אני בורא אותו במדת הדין ובמדת הרחמים, והלואי יעמוד:

Rav Breuer argues that the creation stories are different than the rest of the narratives in the Torah: they aren't telling us the story as it actually happened, rather they are idealizations coming to give us insight into the spiritual duality inherent in the Universe.

But once we accept that Thesis, then a lot of the questions about how to reconcile the Torah's account with Cosmological/Evolutionary theory fall away. Unlike the rest of the Torah's narratives, the details in the creation stories are about the spiritual make-up of the Universe, not a step-by-step account of Prehistory.

The Challenge of Creation

Now, I've never been entirely comfortable with this approach, since it implies that part of the torah is non-factual(albeit a very limited part). Fortunately, Rav Natan Slifkin's book "The Challenge of Creation"(Chapter 7) takes a similar approach, and he did his homework.

Rav Slifkin brings support from numerous rishonim and acharonim for his understanding that "the descriptive parts of the account of creation are not to be taken literally". I've only browsed the book on Google Books, but it looks quite impressive and I've added it to my list of books to order.

Bein Hashmashot

Bein Hashmashot is a short period after sunset about which the halacha is in doubt whether to consider night or day. In his שעורים לזכר אבא מרי ז"ל, Rav Soloveichik takes a closer look at the nature of this doubt.

Incidental vs. Inherent Doubt

The Rav presents two different understandings of the doubt over the status of bein hashmashot:

1. There is an exact moment that divides day from night, but we are unsure when it is. This is a conventional example of a ספק and may be either a doubt over the halacha or the metziut. Maybe there is a halachic dispute as to the exact time when day turns to night. On the other hand, perhaps there is simply a practical problem in measuring the moment precisely.
2. Bein Hashmashot is a time containing both aspects of day and of night simultaneously. This situation creates a halachic doubt of which aspect to follow.

שניות זו מחדשת שתי אפשריות: א) לאמר שזמן זה יהא מקצתו יום ומקצתו לילה, על פי חלוקה כמותית. ב) שכולו מורכב משתי בחינות, יממיות וליליות, והספק לא יתברר על ידי חלוקה כמותית.(שעורים לזכר אבא מרי ז"ל, יום ולילי, ג)

Nafka Mina 1: Rabeinu Tam vs. the Gra

The debate between Rabeinu Tam and the Vilna Gaon over the timing of bein hashmashot is fairly well known.

• The Gra says Bein Hashmashot begins with the astronomical sunset and ends 18 minutes(זמן הליכת 3/4 מיל) later with 3 stars
• Rabeinu Tam says Bein Hashmashot begins 54 minutes(זמן הליכת 3 ו3/4 מיל) after astronomical sunset and ends 18 minutes(זמן הליכת 3/4 מיל) later with complete darkness

Rav Soloveichik uses this debate to demonstrate the two views about the doubt over Bein Hashmashot.

1. Rabeinu Tam says that darkness defines the point at which night time ends, but that we are in doubt as to when precisely it is dark enough to be considered night. It is a typical incidental doubt.
2. The Gra says that we have some psukim that say that darkness/light determines the change-over, while others imply that the visibility of the sun is the determining factor. Therefore, Bein Hashmashot, when the sun has set but it is still light out, has both aspects of day and night, creating an inherent doubt.

 Nafka Mina 2: Rashi vs. Rabeinu Tam

For another example of this debate, the Rav brings Rashi and Rabeinu Tam's debate on שבת לד:ב.

בסוגיא הנ"ל, בראשיתה(לד,ב), ביאר רש"י כי דברי המשנה בזבים, "ראה שני ימים בין השמשות ספק לטומאה ולקרבן", מתייחסים לזב שראה במשך כל בין השמשות בשני הימים, והספק הוא שמא ביה"ש הראשון כולו שייך ליום שלפניו, והבין השמשות השני שייך ללילה שלאחוריו.

Rabeinu Tam asks the obvious question: it should be consistent and therefore either way it should be considered consecutive days. If Bein Hashmashot is considered daytime then it should be for both, and if it's considered night, then it should be for both.

The Rav explains this difficult Rashi as holding that Bein Hashmashot is an inherent doubt. Since the the Zav's first ראיה happened during a time that simultaneously belonged to day 1 and day 2, and his second ראיה happened during a time simultaneously belonged to day 2 and day 3, so there is a ספק whether the ראיות have the status of having happened on consecutive days.

According to Rabeinu Tam, however, the doubt is incidental and therefore the Mishna must be talking about momentary ראיות belonging either to day or to night, but not to both simultaneously.

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.