Vol 28.04 - Chag HaShavuot               Spanish French Audio  Video

Page 24   Page25   Page26   Page27   Page28   Page29   Page30   Page31   Page32  

Translation:

In Shulchan Aruch at the conclusion of the Halachot regarding Chag HaShavuot, the Alter Rebbe writes (484:19):

“It is forbidden to fast on the day following Shavuot according to the fundamentals of the law, for it was a day when sacrificial animals were slaughtered during the era of the Beis HaMikdash. For on that day, the burnt-offerings (Olat Reiyah) brought by the pilgrims for the festival were offered, i.e., (sacrifices) that could not be offered on the festival itself. (The reason these sacrifices were not offered on the festival) is that they were not necessary for the preparation of food and therefore one was not allowed to desecrate the festival in order to offer (these sacrifices), because it was possible to offer them after the festival. For Atzeret (Shavuot) has a compensation period for a full seven days (beginning with Shavuot).

Although the above follows the rulings of the School of Shammai, while according to the School of Hillel, it is permitted to offer (these sacrifices) even on the festival itself. Nevertheless, since, concerning this matter, the School of Hillel followed the ruling (of the School of Shammai) and many Jews followed (this practice) and offered (these sacrifices) after the festival, and for them, this day that followed the festival became like a festival itself with regard to forbidding eulogizing (the dead) and fasting (on this day). Accordingly, even now, when the Beis HaMikdash is destroyed, eulogies and fasting were not permitted on this day.”

There is a well-known question on this:

Where is the source that Beit Hillel followed Beit Shammai in this matter, and offered the Korbanot after Yom Tov, and moreover that “Many of Yisroel conducted themselves in accordance with them to offer their Korbanot after the festival”?

The Talmud cites a Beraita:

“An incident occurred when Alexa died in Lod, and all of Yisrael gathered to eulogize him, but R’ Tarfon would not allow them do so because it was the Yom Tov of Shavuot”.

The Talmud asks: “Do you actually suppose that it was a Yom Tov?” (For if so, they would not have eulogized someone on the Festival itself) “Rather, say that they were prohibited to eulogize because it was the Festival day of slaughter (Yom Tavoach).

Since, it is not a reason to say that R’ Tarfon should himself rule like Beit Shammai, and that all Yisroel should agree with his ruling. Therefore, it is understood that all Yisroel, beforehand, of their own accord, conducted themselves like the words of Beit Shammai.

Even though the Mishnah expressly states:

“If the festival of Shavuot occurs on the eve of Shabbat, Beit Shammai say: The day of slaughter is after Shabbat, on Sunday. And Beit Hillel say: The day of slaughter is not after Shabbat”.

In other words, if Shavuot does not occur on Shabbat, one must not have a Yom Tavoach since it is possible to offer the Korbanot on the day of Yom Tov.

The Tosafot Rid (R' Yeshaya d'Trani c. 1180 – c. 1250) addresses this question:

“It is difficult to me. For if so, R’ Tarfon maintains like Beit Shammai. For if he maintains like Beit Hillel, it has been said that there is not a Yom Tavoach that is offered on Yom Tov”.

And he answers:

“Beit Hillel does not require a Yom Tavoach . . However, the plain understanding of the matter is that all Yisroel did not have sufficient time to offer the peace offerings and Olot Reiyah on the first day, and many offered them on the second day. Therefore, the second day of Atzeret was forbidden for eulogizing and fasting since it was a Yom Tavoach etc. For the main offerings were on the second day”.

According to this, the words of the Alter Rebbe in Shulchan Aruch are explained and elucidated. Namely, that the reason that he states that in actuality, that Isru Chag (of Shavuot) was a Yom Tavoach, is because it conforms (and is based) on the words of the aforementioned Tosafot Rid.

2. However, it is entirely not clear, that with the words,

“Concerning this matter, the School of Hillel followed their rulings (of the School of Shammai)”

the Alter Rebbe follows the reasoning of the Tosafot Rid. (that all Yisroel did not have sufficient time etc.)

This wording of the Alter Rebbe does not contain such an explanation. And even from the Alter Rebbe’s words, “Many of Yisroel conducted themselves in accordance with them to offer their Korbanot after the festival” it also proves that he does not mean the aspect that is stated in Tosafot Rid. For if so, the Alter Rebbe would have stated,

(not “they conducted themselves in accordance with them to offer their Korbanot after the festival“, which implies that they conducted themselves so, at the very onset – like Beit Shammai, but rather)

“Many of Yisroel who did not have sufficient time to offer the peace offerings on Yom Tov conducted themselves in accordance with them to offer their Korbanot after Yom Tov”, and so forth.

Moreover, and primarily:

Since the Alter Rebbe solely mentions “Olat Reiyah” – “On this day, the burnt-offerings brought by the pilgrims (Olat Reiyah) were offered”

(Not like the Tosafot Rid who also mentions “festival peace offerings”)

and he elaborates in the reason of the matter according to Beit Shammai (which is relevant only with regard to Olat Reiyah):

“For they could not be offered on the festival itself since they were not necessary for the preparation of food and one may not desecrate Yom Tov on their behalf”,

This proves that the reason that,

 “in this matter the School of Hillel followed their rulings (of Beit Shammai) and many of Yisroel conducted themselves in accordance with them”

is not because that “Not all Yisroel had sufficient time to offer”

(which also pertains to Festival peace-offerings).

Rather, it is connected with the reason of Beit Shammai, which is relevant only regarding Olat Reiyah.

One could say that the reason why the Alter Rebbe does not accept the reason of the Tosafot Rid regarding the prohibition of eulogizing and fasting on Motzai Shavuot, is because it is difficult to say that due to those persons who, “did not have sufficient time to offer . . on the first day” - that the second day should have the scope of Yom Tavoach regarding the prohibition of eulogizing and fasting, and moreover for all Yidden.

Even the reason itself that,

“all Yisroel did not have sufficient time to offer the peace offerings and Olat Reiyah on the first day”, requires explanation:

Why should one accept that they “did not have sufficient time”?

We find regarding the Korban Pesach, which also regarding this Korban, everyone is obligated, that all the Yidden were able to offer it in one day.

Moreover, the Korban Pesach could only be offered on erev Pesach after midday (Chatzot) while the Olat Reiyah and Festival peace-offerings can be offered throughout the entire day, beginning after the morning Tamid offering.

(And although not every individual brought the Korban Pesach. Rather the one offering it was appointed by the group – nevertheless, the law is that even the Olat Reiyah and Festival peace-offerings can be brought in partnership).

The question thus returns:  What is the source and reasoning for the Alter Rebbe stating:

“Since, in this matter the School of Hillel followed their ruling (of the School of Shammai), many of Yisroel conducted themselves in accordance with them to offer their Korbanot after the festival”

(Due to the reason of Beit Shammai “since they were not necessary for the preparation of food”).

3. In addition, one must understand the body of the words of the Alter Rebbe:

1. After his stating, “Since, in this matter the School of Hillel followed their ruling (of Beit Shammai)" - why does he add “Many of Yisroel conducted themselves in accordance with them”? Since, not only Beit Shammai but also Beit Hillel offered the Korbanot on the day after Yom Tov – it is simple all Yisroel conducted themselves so! Moreover: what is the meaning of “many” and not “all Yisroel”?
2. From the elaborate wording of the Alter Rebbe in the beginning of the section:

“For it was a day when sacrificial animals were slaughtered during the era of the Beis HaMikdash. For on that day, the burnt-offerings (Olat Reiyah) brought by the pilgrims for the festival were offered that could not be offered on the festival itself.  For they were not necessary for the preparation of food and therefore one was not allowed to desecrate the festival in order to offer them. For it was possible to offer them after the festival. For Atzeret (Shavuot) has a compensation period for a full seven days.”

It implies that:

“In this matter the School of Hillel followed their rulings (of the School of Shammai), many of Yisroel conducted themselves in accordance with them”

is connected with the reason of Beit Shammai which he cites previously, and as aforementioned.

One must understand. What is the reason of this, since according to Beit Hillel, it is permitted to offer them on Yom Tov.

4. This can be understood by prefacing an explanation in the order of the sections (סעיף) of the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch at the conclusion of the aforementioned Halachot:

• Beforehand comes section 18: “It is forbidden to fast (because of) a (disturbing) dream (תַּעֲנִית חֲלוֹם) on the festival of Shavuot.
• Afterword section 19: “It is forbidden to fast on the day following Shavuot according to the fundamentals of the law”
• And afterward section 20: “It is customary in these regions not to fast and not to recite Tachanun from Rosh Chodesh (Sivan) until – and including – the eighth of (the month)

Seemingly, it is understood why the Alter Rebbe placed the laws of the prohibition of fasting etc., and the conclusion of Hilchot Shavuot. For logic dictates that beforehand must precede, the laws and customs that one is obligated to perform on the festival of Shavuot. And afterward – the aspects and laws that are connected with prohibitions and so forth.

The question, however, is with regard to the order in the three sections itself:

Due to the chronological order (סדר הזמנים), it would have been fitting that the Alter Rebbe should, at the very first,

• Begin with the last section,

“It is customary in these regions not to fast and not to recite Tachanun from Rosh Chodesh until the eighth of (the month)”

• And afterward – the laws regarding the prohibition of fasting (for a dream) on Shavuot and at Motzai Shavuot.

(Especially since the law of not saying tachanun is stated in the Rama (and that of not fasting in the Magen Avrohom) at that place. Whereas the prohibition of fasting a dream-fast on Shavuot is not cited in the Rama, but rather in the Chok Yaakov (in the name of the Maharil)).

5. The explanation of all this is:

One could say that the source for the reason that the Alter Rebbe states,

“The School of Hillel followed their rulings” (from Beit Shammai) is in Tractate Beitza:

“There was an incident involving Hillel the Elder, who brought his burnt-offering (Olah) to the Temple courtyard in order to place his hands on the animal’s head on a Festival. The students of Shammai the Elder gathered around him and said to him: What is the nature of this animal that you are bringing? Hillel (concealed the truth from them for the sake of peace) said to them: It is a female, and I have brought it as a peace-offering (as burnt-offerings are always male. He swung its tail for them so that they would not be able to properly discern whether the animal was male or female, and they departed).

On that day (when the incident became known, suggesting that even Hillel had accepted Shammai’s view), Beit Shammai gained the upper hand over Beit Hillel (and they sought to establish the Halacha in this regard in accordance with their opinion). But a certain Elder of the disciples of Shammai the Elder was there, and Bava ben Buta was his name, who knew that the Halacha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in this matter.

(And he sent for and brought all the high-quality sheep of Kedar that were in Jerusalem, and he stood them in the Temple courtyard and said: Anyone who wishes to place his hands on the head of an animal should come and place his hands there).

And on that day Beit Hillel gained the upper hand over Beit Shammai, and they established the Halacha in this case in accordance with their opinion, and there was no one there who disputed the matter in any way”.

After this, the Talmud states:

“There was another incident involving a certain disciple (After this incident, there was an incident with one student - Rashi) from among the disciples of Beit Hillel who brought his burnt-offering to the Temple courtyard in order to place his hands on the animal’s head on a Festival. A certain disciple from among the disciples of Beit Shammai found him and said to him: What is this placing of hands? Why do you place your hands on the animal’s head (and thereby violate the statement of Beit Shammai?) He said to him: What is this silence? (Why do you not stay silent, as the Halacha was not established in accordance with their opinion?) He silenced him with a rebuke (בנזיפה), and he, Beit Shammai’s disciple, departed quietly”.

Seemingly:

Since they established the Halacha like Beit Hillel, that they may bring burnt-offerings (Olot) and place the hands upon it, how could there be that after this, there was an incident with one disciple of the students of Beit Hillel, who brought his Olah to the Temple courtyard etc. which shows that his was not an ordinary (געוויינליכע) incident, but rather a unique (אויסגעטיילטער) incident with one student.

All of the students of Beit Hillel should have done so, and in general – all Klal Yisroel (for – they established the Halacha in accordance with Beit Hillel)?

From this itself, it proves that even after they established the Halacha in accordance with Beit Hillel, most of the Yidden, including the students of Beit Hillel, did not bring their Korban Olah on Yom Tov.

6. However, this itself requires a reason:

Since they established the Halacha like them, why did they not bring their Korban Olah on Yom Tov, like the words of Beit Hillel. Especially since the Halacha regarding bringing the Olat Reiyah on Yom Tov, is not just an exemption (היתר) to offer one’s Olat Reiyah on Yom Tov, but then it is “the primary Mitzvah (עיקר מצותן)”?

Therefore, the Alter Rebbe learns, that the aforementioned episode in Tractate Beitzah is in accordance with the what the Talmud tells us in Tractate Chagigah that R’ Tarfon did not allow eulogizing on the day after Shavuot since it is a Yom Tavoach.  In other words, the reason that one did not offer Olat Reiyah on Yom Tov itself, is because this is how they acted with regard to Atzeret - Chag HaShavuot - when at that time the Yom Tavoach was after Shavuot (and from this, it branched out to Pesach and Sukkot – that they were not particular to offer the Olat Reiyah on the first day of Yom Tov).

The reason for this is:

From the primary law, Beit Hillel indeed maintains that the time and primary Mitzvah of Olat Reiyah is on the day of Yom Tov itself. This is as we derive from the verse:

 “You shall observe it as a Festival to the L-rd etc.” (״וְחַגֹּתֶם אוֹתוֹ חַג לַה׳״  - Lev. 23:41)

who maintains that: “to the L-rd” means that anything brought as an offering to the L-rd may be sacrificed throughout the seven days of the holiday, even on the actual Festival day, and because of the reason, “your table should not be full while your Master’s table, the Altar, remains empty”.

However, on Atzeret where,

“All maintain that on Atzeret, we require that it be also “for you” – that “one should celebrate it with food and drink”,

Beit Hillel acted in accordance with the words of Beit Shammai and did not offer the Olat Reiyah, at that time.

The reason is:

Although from the reason,

“your table should not be full while your Master’s table remains empty”,

there is “somewhat of a necessity” of offering the Olat Reiyah on Yom Tov and therefore it is in the realm of “joy of Yom Tov”.

However, due the great aspect of “the day that the Torah was given” on Atzeret, a day that demands that

“One must celebrate it with food and drink to show that that this day is accepted and favorable to Yisroel, for the Torah was given on it”.

Therefore, Beit Hillel endeavored that the main Korbanot on this day should only be those, in which it apparent that there is not just “somewhat of a necessity”, but rather those where there is a “complete necessity “, with “food and drink”.

7. According to the aforementioned, it is understood why the Alter Rebbe:

1. Brings (at length) in the beginning of the section the reason of Beit Shammai,

“For they were not able to offer them on the festival itself, since they were not necessary for the preparation of food etc.”,

even though this does not fit at all with the view of Beit Hillel

2. He just mentions Olat Reiyah, not like the Tosafot Rid (and similarly, the Levush) where it also mentions the “Festival peace-offerings”.
3. He adds, “Many of Yisroel conducted themselves in accordance with them to offer their Korbanot after the festival”.

For with this the Alter Rebbe emphasizes that although according to the view of Beit Hillel, it is “permitted to offer them (even) on Yom Tov”. Nevertheless, “they acted in accordance with their view”,

(Not because “they did not have sufficient time to offer the Olat Reiyah (and Festival peace-offerings) on Yom Tov itself. Or due to a stringency that they were stringent upon themselves like the view of Beit Shammai (as we find in other places) – rather)

due to the reason of Beit Shammai that “they were not necessary for the preparation of food etc.”. Therefore – “Many of Yisroel conducted themselves in accordance with them to offer their Korbanot after the festival”.

The Alter Rebbe gives even more reason for this, by placing the sections regarding fasting, not according to their chronological order.

(Which is from Rosh Chodesh until the eighth day; and afterward the prohibition against fasting a dream-fast on Shavuot; and after this the prohibition of fasting on Motzai Shavuot).

Rather he states the custom not to fast from Rosh Chodesh until the eighth day – after the prohibition of fasting of Shavuot and Motzai Shavuot.

This is in order to emphasize that the reason that the prohibition of fasting of Motzai Shavuot comes after the section regarding the prohibition of fasting a dream-fast on Shavuot, is not (just) due to the chronological order, but in conjunction with the theme of the previous section:

With this that,

“It is forbidden to fast a disturbing-dream fast on the festival of Shavuot since it is the day that the Torah was given on, and one must eat and rejoice on it to show that the day when the Torah was given is favorable and accepted to Yisroel. Therefore, it does not resemble other festivals and Sabbaths, where it is permitted to fast a disturbing-dream fast.”

It is explained why,

“It is forbidden to fast on the day following Shavuot according to the fundamentals of the law, for it was a day when sacrificial animals were slaughtered during the era of the Beis HaMikdash. For on that day, the burnt-offerings (Olat Reiyah) brought by the pilgrims for the festival were offered”.

As the Alter Rebbe immediately explains the reason of Beit Shammai

(However, not immediately citing that Beit Shammai say this).

For this boundary is also according to the view of Beit Hillel (although it is not due to prohibition), and as aforementioned.

(According to this the wording of the Alter Rebbe here: “Many of Yisroel conducted themselves in accordance with them” is fitting (יומתק).

For seemingly, since,

“in this matter the School of Hillel followed their rulings”,

it should have seemingly stated, “all Yisroel” conducted themselves so.

For

(Here it is not relevant how the Yidden actually acted (like the Tosafot Rid), but rather just the reason. And it is possible that, for others, this was because they lacked alacrity (זריזות), and so forth, but rather)

The proof is from that which “many” (at least) “conducted themselves in accordance with them to offer their Korbanot after the festival”, because of the reason of the matter, that it is relevant to “the day when the Torah was given”, as aforementioned).

8. One could say that the Alter Rebbe derives this from the Beraita of R’ Tarfon itself:

“R’ Tarfon would not allow them (to eulogize him) because it was the Festival day of Atzeret”.

The Talmud asks: “Do you actually suppose that it was Yom Tov? If it was Yom Tov who would have come? Rather, say that it was because it was the day of slaughter (Yom Tavoach)”.

Seemingly, how is it that the Talmud (Beraita) should, at the very onset, change the wording and state: “the Yom Tov of Atzeret” instead of Yom Tavoach? However, from this it is understood that this is the subject of the first wording:

This is indeed not the day of Atzeret itself, but rather after Atzeret. However, on the other hand, it contains within it a primary aspect of “the Yom Tov of Atzeret”, since it is the Yom Tavoach of the Korbanot of the “Yom Tov of Atzeret”.

However, according to the explanation of the Tosafot Rid, the Yom Tavoach of Atzeret is not the primary (Korbanot of) the Yom Tov of Atzeret, but rather just a continuation, and only regarding a part. And just for those who “were not able to offer them” in actuality.

For this reason, it is also not straightforward, that the name (and scope) of “Yom Tavoach” should be applied to this day,

(And that because of this it should be prohibited to eulogize and fast (so much so that it is in effect even to this day, after the Churban when one does not offer Korbanot)).

Since the day itself is not Yom Tavoach – (it just similar to Isru Chag, in the words of the Talmud Yerushalmi “an offspring of a festival” (ברי׳ דמועדא)- the “son of a festival (בן המועד)) as an offshoot and outcome of the inability to offer all the Korbanot on the festival itself).

Whereas according to the explanation of the Alter Rebbe – since Atzeret is

“The day that the Torah was given and one eat and celebrate it etc.”.

Therefore, a part of the Korbanot of Atzeret were offered in a day, which, (in the words of the Alter Rebbe “the School of Hillel followed their rulings. Many of Yisroel conducted themselves in accordance with them . . ) For them, this day that followed the festival became like a festival itself”.

The actual obligation of these Korbanot is on “Yom Tavoach”. Therefore, it is prohibited to eulogize and fast. According to this, it is understood that “If so, even now, when the Beis HaMikdash is destroyed, eulogies and fasting were not permitted on this day”. Since this day “became . . like a festival itself”, as aforementioned.

9. According to all the aforementioned, it comes out that the difference between the Alter Rebbe and Tosafot Rid is in two details:

1. Yom Tavoach is connected with the Yom Tov of Atzeret itself as a “day when the Torah was given”.
2. It is not due to the necessity and inability (like according to the Tosafot Rid – since “all Yisroel did not have sufficient time to offer etc.”).

Rather it was enacted due to the making and custom of Yisroel – “the School of Hillel followed their ruling. Many of Yisroel conducted themselves in accordance with them”. Therefore “For them, this day . .  became like a festival itself”

One could say that the two details are connected with each other due to their inner theme:

In Torah there is the aspect of Matan Torah (giving the Torah) as it is from the perspective of the Giver of the Torah – G-d; and there is the receiving of the Torah (קבלת התורה) as it is from the perspective of the recipient – Bnei Yisroel.

This is what the Alter Rebbe states in his Shulchan Aruch. Namely, that the reason that,

“All maintain that on Atzeret, we require that it be also ‘for you’”

is “to show that that this day is accepted and favorable to Yisroel, for the Torah was given on it”.

In other words, in order to bring out the scope of the Torah as it is from the perspective of the recipient - the Yidden.

Therefore, this comes out regarding the day upon which one offers the Korbanot of Shavuot, Yom Tavoach, that the designation (חלות) of the name “Yom Tavoach” on that day, is not due to the necessity, namely, because they did not have the ability to offer the Korbanot on the day of Shavuot and therefore, it became an “offspring of a festival”, an outcome of Yom Tov. Rather, that due to the conduct of Yisroel, as aforementioned. That due to their custom, in the joy and dearness of the Torah - to “to show that that this day is accepted and favorable to Yisroel”, they accomplished and added (also) in time, that Motzai Yom Tov - “For them, this day . .  became like a festival itself”.

M’Sichas Yom 2 of Chag HaShavuot, 5717, 5723, 5736