TB Khullin 26 What is the correct concluding blessing of Havdalah when a Festival falls on erev Shabbat?

Today we finished the first chapter of our massekhet with daf TB Khullin 26. It concludes with a discussion concerning blowing the shofar on the onset of Shabbat and holidays and reciting Havdalah at the conclusion of Shabbat and holidays. The Rabbis describe a series of six blasts blown shortly before sunset, with each alert serving a specific, practical purpose for the community as they wrapped up their weekly tasks:

·        1st Blast: Signaled workers in the distant fields to cease their agricultural labor and begin making their way back to the city.

·        2nd Blast: Alerted shopkeepers and innkeepers in town to wrap up business, clear out, and close their stores.

·        3rd Blast: Instructed households to finish their food preparation and light the Shabbat candles.

·        The Final 3 Blasts: A sequence of Tekiah, Teruah, and Tekiah (one long blast, a series of staccato notes, and another long blast) signaled the exact, final instant before Shabbat began. At this point, the shofar blower would cease blowing and put the instrument down, as carrying or blowing a shofar is forbidden once Shabbat has started. (TB Shabbat 35a)

Even today the shofar is blown in Jerusalem erev Shabbat.

Our Mishna of teaches: “Any situation where there is a shofar blast sounded on the eve of Shabbat or a Festival to stop the people from performing labor and to demarcate between the sacred and the profane, there is no havdala recited at the conclusion of the Shabbat or Festival in prayer and over a cup of wine. And any situation where there is havdala recited, there is no shofar blast sounded.

“How so? On a Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve, one sounds the shofar to stop the people from performing labor that is permitted on the Festival and prohibited on Shabbat and to demarcate between one sacred day and another; and one does not recite havdala, as that is recited only when the transition is from a sacred day to a profane day or from a day of greater sanctity to a day of lesser sanctity. The sanctity of Shabbat is greater than the sanctity of the Festival, and therefore havdala is not recited in this case. On a Festival that occurs at the conclusion of Shabbat, one recites havdala, but one does not sound the shofar.

“How does one recite havdala in that case; i.e., what is the formula of the blessing? It concludes: Who distinguishes between sacred and sacred, as opposed to the standard blessing at the conclusion of Shabbat: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane….” (Sefaria.org translation)

A standard blessing has a beginning (in Hebrew a petikha-פְּתִיחָה) starting with “Barukh atah Hashem” and a conclusion (in Hebrew a khatima-חֲתִימָה) with “Barukh atah Hashem”. When reciting Havdalah going from a Yom Tov to Shabbat we recite “Who distinguishes between sacred and sacred” in the khatima. “The Gemara asks: Where does one recite the formula in question? Rav Yehuda said: He recites the formula at the conclusion of the blessing. But in the body of the blessing one recites the same formula as in every conclusion of Shabbat: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane, between light and darkness, etc. And likewise, Rav Naḥman said: He recites the formula at the conclusion of the blessing.” Sefaria.org translation)

What is the conclusion of Havdalah when it falls in the middle of the week is the next question the Gemara answers. “Rabbi Zeira said: At the conclusion of a Festival that occurs in the middle of the week, one recites: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane, and between light and darkness, and between Israel and the nations, and between the seventh day and the six days of labor, even though it is not Shabbat. What is the reason for that practice? He is enumerating the series of distinctions that the Sages instituted and not specifically the distinction unique to that particular day.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Here is the final blessing of Havdalah at the conclusion of Shabbat. “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who distinguishes between the holy and the profane, between light and darkness, between Israel and the nations, between the seventh day and the six working days. Blessed are You, O Lord, who distinguishes between the sacred and the profane.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Here is the final blessing of Havdalah when Yom Tov falls on erev Shabbat: “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who distinguishes between the holy and the profane, between light and darkness, between Israel and the nations, between the seventh day and the six working days. Blessed are You, O Lord, who distinguishes between the sacred and the sacred.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

Is it a mitzvah? Rambam and Ramban disagree.

Everybody agrees that there are 613 commandments; however, different sages count certain verses in the Torah as mitzvot while others versus are not considered mitzvot. We shouldn’t be surprised that Rambam in his introduction to his Sefer HaMitzvot enumerates 14 principles (Shorashim)  which determine what counts as a mitzvah. The third shoresh is “You should know that that which they said (Makkot 23b), "613 commandments were stated to Moshe at Sinai," indicates that this is the number of the commandments that are practiced for [all] generations. For commandments that are not practiced for [all] generations do not have a connection to Sinai - whether they were stated at Sinai or elsewhere. ” (Sefaria.org translation)

Daf TB Khullin 24 sets up a debate between Rambam and Ramban whether carrying the tabernacle and its vessels is a mitzvah are not. According to the Torah the Levites only serve between the ages of 30 and 50. The Gemara expands their opportunity to serve after a permanent home in Israel is built and the tabernacle no longer needs to be carried from place to place. “One might have thought that the Levites were disqualified with the passage of years even in Shiloh, the permanent place of the Tabernacle, and in the eternal Temple. Therefore, the verse states: “To perform the work of service, and the work of bearing burdens” (Numbers 4:47), juxtaposing the two forms of Levite service to teach: I stated the disqualification of the passage of years only at a time when there is Levite service involving carrying the Tabernacle on their shoulders.” (Sefaria.org translation) Since carrying the Tabernacle is not something that is practice for all generations, Rambam doesn’t count it as one of the 613 mitzvot.

Ramban agrees with the principal; however, he disagrees on its application. Carrying is counted as one of the 613 mitzvot. He explains his point of view in his commentary on Numbers 8:25.

“AND FROM THE AGE OF FIFTY YEARS HE SHALL RETURN FROM THE SERVICE OF THE WORK, AND HE SHALL SERVE NO MORE — “the service of carrying loads upon the shoulders, but he returns [i.e., he may still serve] to close the gates, or to sing, or to load the wagons.” This is Rashi’s language. But in the Sifre the Rabbis mentioned only that “he returns to close the gates or to the work of the sons of Gershon” [but they did not say that he may return to the service of singing]! And this indeed appears correct [that a Levite above the age of fifty was not allowed to take part in the singing] — for if it were as the Rabbi [Rashi] has written, why were the twenty-year old Levites not appointed to sing, to close the gates and to load the wagons until they reached the required age, and why were they counted from thirty to fifty years old and only for the work of bearing burdens [since both before and after these two age-limits they could still serve by singing etc., therefore they should have been counted from twenty years, with no upper limit]? Moreover, why were the sons of Gershon and Merari counted in this way [from thirty to fifty] since all their work [i.e., singing, closing the gates and loading the wagons] could be done when they were older?

"We must rather say that since they were appointed to carry the ark at the age from thirty to fifty, they [therefore] were not appointed to sing, which was the main function of the Levites, unless they were also qualified to carry the ark, for all those who were appointed to sing were qualified to perform all the services [including the carrying of the ark]. And since the Kohathites [who were the only ones permitted to carry the ark] were counted from thirty to fifty years old, even for singing, they were all counted in this manner, in order that the sons of Gershon and Merari should not be qualified to sing during these years [i.e., below the age of thirty and above the age of fifty] and the sons of Kohath be disqualified. [Hence the age limits of thirty and fifty applied to the Kohathites’ singing, which was their main function, as well as to their carrying of the parts of the Tabernacle, and therefore these age limits applied to the function of singing of the sons of Gershon and Merari as well, and they could not, as Rashi wrote, return to the singing.] But for closing the gates or loading the wagons all of them were qualified [even after the age of fifty, as quoted in the Sifre above]. Furthermore it is written, from thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that entered in to do the work of the service, and the work of bearing burdens in the Tent of Meeting, and the Rabbis interpreted in the Tractate of Shechitath Chullin: “I might think that in Shiloh and in the Eternal House [at Jerusalem, when the services of the Levites were limited to gatekeeping and singing] it was also so [that the Levites were disqualified after the age of fifty]; Scripture therefore says, to do the work of service, and the work of bearing burdens. I have only said so with respect to a time when there is bearing burdens upon the shoulders.” Now [the expression] ‘avodath avodah’ [the work of service, but literally “a service of a service”] is a reference to singing, as Rashi has written above in Seder Naso; if so [it is clear that] when there was [the duty of] bearing the burdens upon the shoulders, the Levites were disqualified from singing as well [after the age of fifty]. And so it is said in the words of David, And the Levites were numbered from thirty years old and upward, and it is further written there, Of these twenty and four thousand were to oversee the work of the House of the Eternal etc., and four thousand praised the Eternal with the instruments which I made to praise therewith. For until the House [of G-d in Jerusalem] was built, when they still had to carry [the ark and the Tabernacle] on their shoulders, they only appointed Levites to sing who were also fit to carry [i.e., from the age of thirty to fifty]; but David counted them again from twenty years old to meet the requirements of the House [of G-d] when it was built, as has been explained [above at the end of Verse 4].” (Sefaria.org translation)

TB Khullin 17 Rambam and Ramban disagree what soldiers may eat in a war.

The conquest of the Land of Israel by Joshua took seven years according to the rabbis’ calculation. The life and adventures of Calev ben Yefuneh is the key to this understanding. He was 85 years old when the Land of Israel was conquered. According to this he entered the land when he was 78 years old, 38 years after Moses sent the 12 spies to check out the land when he was a 40-year-old man.

The Gemara discusses the difference between how the animal was slaughtered during the 40 years of wandering and after they enter the land.

Ҥ Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the meat of stabbing was permitted in the wilderness: With regard to the limbs of the meat of stabbing that the Jewish people took with them into Eretz Yisrael, what is their halakhic status?

“The Gemara asks: When? With regard to what period does Rabbi Yirmeya raise his dilemma? If we say that the dilemma is with regard to the seven years during which they conquered the land, now, non-kosher items were permitted for them during that period, as it is written: “And it shall be, when the Lord your God shall bring you into the land that He swore to your fathers, and houses full of all good things…and you shall eat and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 6:10–11), and Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: Cuts of pig meat [kotlei daḥazirei] that they found in the houses were permitted for them; is it necessary to say that the meat from the stabbing of a kosher animal was permitted?

“Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma is with regard to the period thereafter. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, his dilemma is with regard to the seven years during which they conquered the land, as perhaps when the forbidden food was permitted for them, it was specifically food from the spoils of gentiles, but their own forbidden food was not permitted.” (Sefaria.org translation)

No matter what, during the seven years a conquest the Israelites were allowed to eat trief food like bacon and shrimp!

Rambam and Ramban disagree whether a general principle can be gleaned from the Gemara. Rambam learns the general principle. In any war when the soldiers conquer an area and there’s no kosher supplies available, they may eat any forbidden food. Let me share Ramban’s commentary on Deuteronomy 6:10 where he cites Rambam and explains his disagreement.

“…And in the opinion of our Rabbis the verse further alludes [to the law] that anything found in the houses full of all ‘good’ things [that were occupied in the conquest of Canaan] may be used, even if they contained things forbidden by the Torah such as kadli of swine, or the produce of a vineyard sown with diverse seeds, or fruits of the first three years of a tree. Even regarding cisterns, it is possible that in their construction forbidden materials were used in their coat of pitch [such as forbidden wine; hence Scripture mentioned and cisterns hewn out, which thou didst not hew to indicate that they, too, were permitted to them]. Or it may be that the cisterns are mentioned figuratively, to denote the abundance of good things, thus giving them mastery over all that was found in the Land both permissible and impermissible. Thus all forbidden articles were permitted to them except [for those that were forbidden as a result of] the prohibition of idols, as he will yet clarify, thou shalt not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee etc. Therefore, he mentions here in the next section, ye shall break down their altars, to destroy the idols and their appurtenances. But whatever else was found in the Land was permissible. This permission lasted until they consumed the spoil of their enemies. And some Rabbis say that this permission applied [only] to the seven years of [the] conquest [of the Land], and so it appears in the Gemara, in the first chapter of Tractate Chullin. Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Laws of the Kings and their Wars: “Armed soldiers, when they enter the border of the nations and loot from them, are permitted to eat n’veiloth and treifoth the flesh of swine and the like if they are hungry and do not find anything to eat except for these forbidden foods [i.e., only in the case of emergency are they permitted to eat these foods]. Similarly they may drink yayin nesech (wine dedicated to an idol). From tradition the Rabbis have learned: ‘And houses full of all good things — the necks of swine and the like.’” But this is not correct. For it is not because of danger to life or of hunger alone in time of war that [forbidden foods] were made permissible; rather, after they captured the large and wealthy cities and settled in them, was the spoil of their enemies permitted to them. And not to all armed soldiers [in any war throughout does this law apply as the Rabbi seems to hold], but only to [those who conquered] the Land which He swore to [give to] our fathers, as is explained in the subject before us. [Rabbi Moshe’s ruling that the dispensation applies to] yayin nesech is also incorrect, for all forbidden articles pertaining to idolatry — the idols themselves, their appurtenances, and their offerings — are all forbidden as it is said, thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it, for it is a doomed thing. And if the Rabbi’s intent was to permit in wartime only wine which was merely under suspicion of having been dedicated to idolatrous worship [which is a Rabbinic prohibition] — why do we need a Scriptural interpretation for this? If Scriptural prohibitions were permitted [to them], could subjects of a Rabbinic decree be forbidden?!” (Sefaria.org translation)

According to Ramban eating forbidden foods during the seven years of conquest has nothing to do with pikuakh nefesh, saving a life of a hungry soldier in the midst of a battle. It was a special gift dispensation in order to enjoy the booty of that time and place. It has nothing to do with Army regulations whatsoever.

When I was living in Springfield, Massachusetts I had the good fortune to know Kalman Chaitovsky z”l. He was the cantor at Keser Israel. I co-officiated many funerals with him. Once he told me his life story. He grew up in Poland and left with his family to come to America. They had to take a train through Nazi Germany. It was the last train that the Nazis allowed Jews to travel through their country before the war broke out. Once America entered World War II he enlisted. Being a committed observant Jew, he refused to eat Army rations because they were trief. He only ate peanut butter sandwiches three times a day during the war. He told me once he returned stateside, he never ate peanut butter again.

 

How can the ritual slaughtering of an animal Shabbat be kosher? TB Khullin 14

Immediately the Mishnah on today’s daf TB Khullin 14 is problematic “In the case of one who slaughters an animal on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, although he is liable to receive the death penalty, his slaughter is valid.” (Sefaria.com translation) The very first Tosafot on the page ד"ה השוחט בשבת raises the following problem. Who else would purposely desecrate the Sabbath but a  Jewish heretic (מוּמָר). We have previously learned Tb Khullin 5a that we are forbidden to eat ritually slaughter animals by a Jewish heretic who desecrates the Shabbat.

There are different categories of Jewish heretics. The first category is a transgressor with regard to only one matter (מְשׁוּמָד לְדָבָר אֶחָד). This person accepts the Torah however, he doesn’t want to observe a commandment, for example he really loves his BLT sandwiches. The second category is a transgressor who rejects the entire Torah (מְשׁוּמָד לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָהּ). The last category is a transgressor who becomes an idolater (מְשׁוּמָד לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה). One who desecrates the Sabbath is considered like a transgressor who rejects the entire Torah. Consequently, how can this Mishnah teach that his slaughter is valid?

The Tosafot provides two possible solutions. The Mishnah is dealing with the case of a person who slaughters the animal on Shabbat in private. One who privately desecrates the Sabbath isn’t considered a Jewish heretic (מוּמָר). If this person would slaughter the animal publicly, we would be forbidden to eat the meat. The second solution is this person’s first time offense. A first-time offender isn’t considered a Jewish heretic; consequently, even though he’s guilty of a death sentence his ritually slaughtering of animal is kosher. Once he becomes a habitual offender he is considered a Jewish heretic and his ritual slaughtering is no longer kosher.

Rambam solves the problem by interpreting the person slaughter the animal unintentionally transgressed (שׁוֹגֵג). Either he didn’t know that slaughtering an animal on Shabbat is forbidden or he didn’t realize that that day was Shabbat. If the person ritually slaughter the animal on Shabbat on purpose, he is considered a Jewish heretic and the slaughter becomes invalid.

Positive enablers #Bamidbar#devartorah#parashathashavua

All Teenagers spend somewhere between 5.5-8 hours a day on their smartphones or screen-based media, with about 50% of teens reporting at least 4 hours of daily screen time. Major activities include social media, video streaming, and gaming, with some studies indicating teens spend 1.5 hours on phones during school hours. Americans spend an average of 5 to 5.4 hours per day on their smartphones. No wonder many of us become anxious when we’re separated from our smartphones. When we have our iPhones or Androids in our hands, we can be fixated on our screens.

Like many things, the Internet and all that it allows us to access become either a distraction or a blessing. It depends on what we do with it. In Proverbs we read, “The heart of the judicious seeks knowledge; but the mouth of fools feeds on foolishness.” (15:14)

Applying the wisdom of Proverbs to life, we can ask ourselves: Do you check your social networks compulsively throughout the day? What does that say about the things we hunger for? Do the things we read or view online encourage sensible living? ( vv. 16-21) or are we feeding on foolishness-gossip, slander, materialism, or sexual impropriety?

“Commenting on the Numbers 2:7 “The tribe of Zevulun” the Ba’al Haturim notes and reference to certain of the tribes work together with other tribes the Torah as the letter ‘vuv-ו’ which connotes that they are separate but together. But as regards the tribe of Zevulun there is not a ‘vuv.’ This is because the tribe of Yissochor, which is mentioned right above, devoted themselves to Torah study, while the tribe of Zevulun worked to support both of them. Because they enable the tribe of Yissochor to study Torah they are considered as one tribe and the reward is the same.” (Pliskin, Growth Through Torah, page 308-9)

Parents and grandparents who influence enable their children and grandchildren to study Torah have this merit, as too husbands and wives who enable their spouse to study Torah 

Shavuot, the holiday of the giving of the Torah, is just one more week away. We should be ready and willing to receive it anew and seek knowledge. Rabban Gamliel used to say, “The more Torah, the more life; The more study, the more wisdom; The more counsel, the more understanding; The more charity, the more peace.” (Avot 2:7) That’s a much better use of our time than all the gossip, slander, materialism, and sexual impropriety we might scroll on the Internet on our smartphones.

 

Khullin 9-10 What is presumptive status חָזָקָה in Jewish law?

 Dappim TB Khullin -10 discusses the role of presumptive status, חָזָקָה -khazaka, when determining halakha.  Ultimately the Gemara concludes that Rav Hunah’s position is accepted as the halakha. “Rav Huna, who says: An animal during its lifetime exists with the presumptive status of prohibition, as it is prohibited to eat a living animal, and it continues to have this status even after its death until it will become known to you in what manner it was slaughtered, i.e., whether it was properly slaughtered. Once the animal was slaughtered, it exists with the presumptive status of permissibility until it will become known to you in what manner it was rendered a tereifa.” (TB Khullin 9a, Sefaria.org translation)

According to the Rishonim the meaning of the word  comes from that language אָחִיזָה, to hold on to as in the case of a person who holds onto a piece of property for many days has the presumption of ownership and another party cannot claim it as his. Unlike today when holding onto a deed is easy, back in Talmudic times a person was only expected to be able to hold onto a deed for three years. After three years the presumptive status of the land is his even without the deed.

There are many different sub categories of khazakot and the Rishonim divide them into two major categories. The first category is a khazaka that has no terminal end time. This presumption takes the place of witnesses and is based on what the majority of people actually do. An example would be the assumption that a man does not pay off his debt before it’s due because the majority of people don’t pay their debts before they are due. The second category is a khazaka that the presumption is temporary. The presumption status of a single woman or a married woman remains the same until there is a change like a wedding or a death.

Among the many subcategories the most common the Hatam Sofer lists are the following three.

1. חֶזְקַת מִנְהָג-The presumption of a habitual practice. The example would be a man doesn’t pay off is debt until it’s due because the majority people don’t pay off their debts before they are due.

2. חָזָקָה -The presumption of an established pattern i.e. something that happens at least three times. An example of this would be a forewarned ox. A shor muad  (Hebrew: שוֹר מוּעָד) is a “forewarned ox” in Jewish law, specifically an animal known to be dangerous, usually after goring three times. Unlike a shor tam (innocent ox), the owner of a shor muad is liable for full damages (or death) because they were warned and failed to properly guard the animal

3. חֶזְקַת הָגוּף-The presumption of inertia of a known entity will continue until otherwise proved. Has the reality really changed? An example of this would be a parent bringing a child claiming to be his son or daughter to a new city would be accepted as the parent until proven otherwise.

 

 

Rashi's secret TB Khullin11-12

Dappim TB Khullin 11-12 discusses the role of presumptive majority status when determining halakha. “From where is this matter that the Sages stated: Follow the majority, derived? The Gemara is surprised at the question: From where do we derive it? Obviously, it is derived from a verse, as it is written explicitly: “After the majority to incline” (Exodus 23:2). The Gemara explains: With regard to a majority that is quantifiable before us (רוּבָא דְאִיתָא קַמַן), for example, in the case of a piece of meat that was found on the street before ten shops, nine shops selling kosher meat and one shop selling non-kosher meat, one follows the majority and deems that piece kosher. Or when the Sanhedrin adjudicates a case, one follows a majority of the judges in determining the ruling. In these cases, we do not raise the dilemma.” (Sefaria.com translation)

The Gemara wants to know the source of a statistical majority (רוּבָא דְלֵיתֵיהּ קַמַן) like “the case of a minor boy and a minor girl. If the boy entered into levirate marriage with the girl, it is permitted for them to remain married, and there is no concern that when they grow older it will be discovered that the boy or the girl never develop sexually. Rather, one follows the majority, that minors develop sexually at puberty.” (Sefaria.com translation)

10 different sages provide proof texts from the Torah. Each one is not completely convincing as the source of a statistical majority. Rashi ד"ה פסח provides two possible sources for a statistical majority. His first answer is it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. His second answer is that a statistical majority is just a sub category of a majority that is quantifiable before us. He writes that we rely on these assumptions and don’t have to check the 18 possible ways an animal can become trief. We only have to check the lungs because a defect there is more common. We don’t have to check the other possible scenarios an animal can become trief because we rely upon Rav Hunah who holds that an slaughtered animal by a shokhet is under the presumption of it being permitted. (TB Khullin 10)

And Rashi concludes “Nevertheless, we don’t publicize this.” Now you know Rashi secret.