Saturday, December 06, 2003
Dear fellow R' Reisman 'fan',
Due to inclement weather over the holy shabbos kodesh, I was unable to make it to Flatbush for tonight's shiur. I will, imy"H, buy the tape but can't guarantee if/when I'll post it considering some upcoming assignemtn, finals, and the upcoming subsequent trip to Eretz Yisrael.
Gut voch, sorry for the disappointment,
-MB
Due to inclement weather over the holy shabbos kodesh, I was unable to make it to Flatbush for tonight's shiur. I will, imy"H, buy the tape but can't guarantee if/when I'll post it considering some upcoming assignemtn, finals, and the upcoming subsequent trip to Eretz Yisrael.
Gut voch, sorry for the disappointment,
-MB
Monday, December 01, 2003
Thank you so much for waiting for this shiur, I apologize for the delay and hope it does not happen in the future.
I'd like to thank Shmueli for lending me his laptop which enabled me to get more quotes, be more precise, and hopefully gives you a more realistic recap of this wonderful shiur.
I'd like to dedicate this shiur to all the cholim-each of whom should have a refu'ah shelayma b'karov-as well as the healthy people alive today. May we all live for at least 120 happy, healthy, peaceful, and successful years, and may we only be menachem avel for those who have lived past that "ripe old age."
Shavu'a Tov! ...though it's already after shikia on Monday night.
-MB
[This shiur is based on Melachim II, 22:20]
We've been learning about the malchus/kingship of Yoshiyahu, during which Jews worshiped idols. This led to the kohanim finding the sefer torah in the mikdash rolled to the tochacha/rebuke in parshas Ki Savo, a sign of punishment for Klal Yisrael's many aveiros. Yoshiyahu sent messengers to Chulda HaNeviah to find out what the sefer torah's position meant and what punishment G-d had in mind for Klal Yisrael. Thus concludes our brief introduction and we will henceforth learn about pasuk 20.
Chulda said that because the Jews were worshiping idols, they'd be punished. However, because Yoshiyahu was a great leader and got Klal Yisrael to do teshuva/to repent, he would die in peace without seeing the bad that will befall his nation. This response was conveyed to Yoshiyahu and was considered a zechus/merit for him. What was it? That he'd die before the churban habayis/destruction of the holy temple.
First of all, this sounds incredibly selfish. Yoshiyahu is told that although the mikdash will be destroyed, he will be dead before it happens so he shouldn't feel so bad. What kind of nechama/solace is that for a leader of Klal Yisrael?
Second, Yoshiyahu only lived 39 years. The churban took place 29 years later. Had he lived, it would have taken place when he was 68. The bracha/blessing was to die a younger man and wasn't zoche/he didn't merit to live to 68? Is this really a bracha? [I'm not 100% sure I got the numbers right...feel free to comment or write back if I'm wrong on this one.]
According to Nachlas Shimon (as cited by the late Ner Yisrael Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yaakov Weinberg, zt"l,) we know that there are two tochachos/portions of rebuke in the torah. One is at the end of sefer Vayikra in parshas Bechukosai, while the second one is written in sefer Devarim in parshas Ki Savo. Ramban holds that the first one is for churban bayis rishon/the destruction of the first holy temple while the second is for churban bayis sheini/the destruction of the second holy temple. The sefer torah found in the time of Yoshiyahu was up to the tochacha in Ki Savo although Yoshiyahu was king before churban bayis rishon!?! Nachlas Shimon answers that were it not for Yoshiyahu the first churban would have been as permanent and terrible as the second was/is. However, because of his tzidkus/righteousness it didn't happen that way. It's called "galus Tzidkiyahu/the exile of Tzidkiyahu" because it happened during the kingship of Tzidkiyahu who followed Yoshiyahu. In fact, when Yoshiyahu died, Yirmiyahu HaNavi made a takana/decree that Jews should remember the accomplishments of Yoshiyahu. Rash"i says-in Divrei HaYamim-that's it is precisely for this reason that we say a kinah/lament in his memory a Tish'a B'Av; for the king whose life was an inspiration for generations to come who was able to turn things around and prevent that level of churban/destruction. That constituted sachar/merit for his neshama/soul. The neshama only wants its life b'olam hazeh/this earthly world, to be an inspiration to those that remain.
When a relative among the seven "kerovim/close relatives" is niftar/dies, we sit shiva and others perform the mitzva of nichum aveilim/comforting the mourners. However, the purpose of this "event" is misunderstood by most people. In the context of Yoshiyahu's last wishes we can better understand what it should accomplish and what a person is obligated to do when he is the avel or the menachem.
On one occassion I was menachem avel with Rav Pam, zt"l, in a home where there was only one avel. On the way out I said to him "HaMakom yinachem os'cha b'soch sha'ar aveili tzion v'Yerushalayim." Afterwards, Rav Pam, zt"l, told me that I was wrong in saying "os'cha." The reason that one says "eschem" no matter if there is one avel or one hundred aveilim present is because you are talking not only the to the surviving avel, but to the neshama that is present as well. Similarly, Da'as Torah-in siman 376 se'if katan 3 quoting the Shiltei HaGiborim-says that the neshama is in aveilus as well and you must give it nechama also.
In 1986 I sat shiva on the loss of a brother. Some of my friends were in camp and didn't want to make the long trip back to the city. One friend called me and said that he was unable to make the trip down and hoped that I understood. I told him that while I can be mochel him, I don't know if the neshama can do the same and told him to ask Rav Pam, zt"l, for advice. Rav Pam, zt"l, said that he should, in fact, make the trip back to the city.
Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l-in Igros Moshe chelek 4, siman 40, letter 11-raises two issues. One is obviously for the living person, however there is a second aspect, namely that nichum aveilim is a benefit for the niftar also.
The gemara-Shabbos daf 152-relays that R' Yehuda asked on the following scenario: a niftar who has no "7 kerovim" and no one visiting to be menachem, what happens? He answers that ten people sit in the place of the 7. The gemara cites the story that happened in Rav's neighborhood in which every one of the seven days of shiva R' Yehuda got a minyan together in the home of the niftar. After the shiva period had concluded, the niftar came to R' Yehuda in a dream and said "you should have menuchas hanefesh because you gave me menuchas hanefesh."
A further proof that aveilus is very "niftar-oriented" [my term, not R' Reisman's]: After a levaya/funeral we're melave/escort the niftar, not the aveilim/mourners. When we say hespeidim/eulogies, it's for the benefit of the niftar, to be me'orer bechi/cause others to cry and inspire others. Though it may cause more pain to the aveilim, the main purpose is for the mais.
Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, said that while a phone call does console the avel, it does not console the neshama; rather, a personal visit must be made to fulfill the mitzva in totality.
Rav Hutner, zt"l-in Igeres 19-said that while you do fulfill the mitzva with a phone call, the main part of shiva and being menachem avel is having a group sit around the avel-a hana'ah/benefit for both the chayim/living and the niftar/deceased.
Now that we've established that there are two parts to the mitzva, which is more significant?
I found two ra'ayos/proofs that the ikar/main part is for niftar:
1) If a rasha/evil person dies, there is no shiva. While the death of a child, no matter how bad a person, is a terrible tragedy, there is no shiva. Why not? Because the deceased was not a person who was worthy of shiva.
2) From shemu'a rechoka-if the news of a person's death arrives more than thirty days after the death, the "7 kerovim" only sit shiva for one hour. Why is this? The aveilim are pained just the same if they find out one minute or one day after the death, as they are thirty days after the fact!?! The answer is that the tza'ar/pain for the neshama is greatest only immediately after death, and lessens after thirty days.
Rambam, when discussing certain mitzvos says that the "hamon am" perform a mitzva in such a way while the "ba'alei sechel" do it in the proper way. For uninformed people, the shiva period is a time for aveilim to relax, recover, and catch their breath from the tragedy. They sit shiva worried about themselves, looking for people to comfort them but there is little that an outsider can do to help them. You can't impress upon them how much more there is to shiva; we can't change that. But for those who seek to be ba'alei chachma and anshei sechel-it's a different thing entirely. The job is not for the avel to be into himself; it's for the avel to roll up his sleeves and involve himself in a difficult job, namely kavod hameis/respect for the deceased.
Rambam-which is also quoted in the shulchan aruch [though I didn't catch the exact source]-says that anyone who doesn't observe shiva properly is called an "achzar/cruel." Why does he use the terminology of "cruel" and not "lazy" etc? If he doesn't sit shiva properly, if he isn't careful with the strict laws that govern that period such as refraining from changing clothes or showering he is considered cruel? Why can't we just say that he has a yetzer hara/evil inclination and he succumbed to it?
Yes, it is cruel. Ther is no situation where a person is as helpless as the neshama is after death-it can't help itself, it can't add zechusim while facing the ultimate Yom HaDin/Day of Judgement. However, the relatives can do something. They can remember the niftar's life, they can try to inspire others with stories etc, and can even be inspired themselves by things the niftar did in his lifetime.
Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l,-Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim chelek 5, siman 37-says that there is no mitzva for the avel to feel pain, merely to obvserve aveilus. Similarly, Rash"i-somewhere in Kesubos [I don't think he specified]says that the avel feels pain but that's only "tirda d'mitzva/the trouble of the mitzva." [He says, "ain tza'aro mitzva af al pi she'aveilo mitzva."]
Let's examine some of the halachos that are relevent, starting with the most important.
Often people ask what they should speak about in a bais avel because they feel uncomfortable. Rambam-in hilchos aveilus, perek 13, halacha 19-says that you should not tell the avel the latest news. Rather, you should just sit sadly.
Sometimes I go into a bais avel and it's quiet and someone feels obliged to "break the ice." If the avel wants to be quiet, be quiet!!! However, if he wants to talk, what do you say? "Tell me something about the niftar." That is the appropriate comment! That's the purpose of nichum aveilim. If the purpose is to make the avel feel better, sometimes he may want to get his mind off the pain, so maybe discussing the news is a good thing. "But that's not the purpose! At all! The neshama is there and the niftar is there in great pain! You don't come in and talk about the latest news."
I was recently menachem avel when another person entered the house. He came in chewing gum loudly, sat down, spread out comfortably, and asked "so, what's new?" The conversation had to do with aveilus, so he said, "that thing with not changing clothes-I never got that." I had to stop him. "Did you do research? Did you look up the source for it?" I didn't say that, but was surprised that someone would talk about an issue they knew nothing about, especially in this situation.
Once a visitor corrected an avel about a halacha and said, "that's not the way it should be." The avel answered back, "yeah, but my father was never makpid/strict on that anyway." WHAT?!? Do you think the neshama got any hana'ah from that comment? If she said, "I'm not as great as him," fine-it's not excusable, but we might understand. Here, however, she's actually taking inspiration to not be makpid on halacha because her deceased father wasn't!
The Ma'avir Yabok-a kabala sefer on aveilus-says that conversations that commonly take place in a bais avel usually serves to act as a burden to the niftar, not to make him feel better. Rather, he suggests that each new guest be given a sefer so that they can talk about torah instead of "divrei shtus."
A person sitting shiva should know that they should be speaking about the ma'alos/positive aspects of the niftar so that it should be a zechus/merit for the niftar, and an inspiration for those listening. The avel shouldn't tire of it. While different people come in and out, even if things are repeated-that's the avoda/work of the avel. On Yom Kippur we daven again and again and again. Shiva isn't the time to recover-it's a time to do something for the neshama. The avel should say a "vort" the niftar once said or even just the life experiences! A niftar who was a ba'al teshuva-the idea of changing you life so dramatically!-that should be an inspiration for us! A Holocaust survivor who was strong and kept his emunah through it all, that should be a chizuk for us! That is what should be happening during shiva in a bais avel.
I once was menachem an adam gadol/important person who lost a sibling. The sibling went through the Holocaust but was not frum afterwards. The avel didn't have much to do with his brother. I wondered what he would speak about during shiva. From the time I was there, he focused on two things: 1) the niftar's life before the war broke out because the life experience they had together was so inspirational and 2) life in general and how death makes people look at life in a certain way. At least the petirah was an inspiration to someone, to take mussar from it.
What if there are no male aveilim? Should one make a minyan in the house of the niftar? After all, the aveilim are not the ones saying kaddish-the son-in-law etc. can go to shul and daven.
Ram"ah paskins/rules-in siman 384 se'if 3 [I'm not sure which chelek of Shulchan Aruch he writes this]-that it's a mitzva to daven where the niftar lives even without an avel because it gives "nachas ruach" to the niftar.
In siman 376 Ram"ah writes about a case in which the avel was sitting in another home. The case above was if there are no aveilim. But if there are others who are sitting-do you still need a minyan?
It's not clear if when there's a minyan in a location other than the home of the niftar it's enough. If the aveilim are sitting in their own home-if the aveilim are only females, for example-Aruch HaShulchan says you don't need a minyan. However, most say you should have a minyan in the house at least once a day because it's a zechus for the niftar.
Chidushei Reb Shimon-Bava Metzia daf 26, dibur hamaschil "umnam"-says that a mais, although he doesn't own anything, does have the power to rule over his belongings, as chazal say-he didn't specify where-all who take the clothing the mais should be buried in is actually stealing from him because he owns things that are for his kavod.
The torah says that if a person does certain avieros, his chidren will be yesomim/orphans, his wife will be an almanah/widow, and he'll die. Obviously if he dies, his children will be yesomim and his wife will be an almanah!?! Rashi answers that the onesh/punishment is that he'll die, they won't find his body, his children won't be able to take their yerusha/inheritance, and his wife won't be able to remarry. But who are we punishing? Obviously we're punishing the chotei/the sinner because his children don't get to yarshin his estate. Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, says that it's a "nachas ruach" to have your relatives inherit your belongings. That's pshat/the explanation in how a mais can pass on yerusha though he shouldn't have ba'alus/ownership rights over his belongings after death. Apparently it's because he can have kinyanim/rights for things that are zechusim/meritorious for him.
With this we have an understanding of a teshuva/responsa of R' Akiva Eiger-siman 68 [I'm not sure if this is 'sh"ut' R' Eiger or 'chidushei' R' Eiger or what...he didn't specify] regarding dinei yerusha/the laws of inheritance-in which he discusses a case in which a person dies, leaves an inheritance, and a tzava'a/will that his money should go to certain institutions/organizations etc. However, he didn't make it in such a way that it should be a halachically binding document. Nonetheless, R' Eiger rules that the child is obligated to follow the will because of hilchos "kibud av v'eim/Honor your mother and father." This ruling is not a choshen misphat issue [he meant a monetary discussion]; rather, it is an orach chaim one [a day-to-day issue involving respect and honor for parents.]
However, R' Eiger, citing the ruling in maseches kiddushin-again, he didn't specify where-says that one is only obligated in performing kibud av v'eim if it does not involve spending his own money-only his parent's.
To illustrate this point, there's a story told over in the name of R' Chaim Brisker, zt"l, in which a student of his approached him before the yeshiva's bain hazemanim was to begin. The boy asked whether he could stay and learn during the period, or whether he had a chiyuv/obligation of kibud av to return home to his parents. R' Chaim, zt"l, said he did have to go home. The boy said that doing so would require him to spend money, i.e. purchasing a train ticket, and we know that one does not have to perform the mitzva of kibud av v'eim if it requires spending your own money. R' Chaim, zt"l, said that he was correct and advised him to start walking immediately so as not to be late for yom tov.
R' Eiger holds that if yerusha is a chiyuv the child must carry out-the son must give the money to the appropriate tzedakos as per the father's request because it was a tzava'a from the father, thus transforming it into a chiyuv kibud av. This is yet another proof to Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, that the niftar still has ba'alus over things if they are zechusim for him.
The basic yesod/principle is that the neshama lives beyond this world. All the things we do out of respect for a person-like the mitzva of kibud av v'eim-do not stop after the individual's petirah. "If anything, the obligation is greater!"
It disturbs me that people do nonsensical things because they perceive it to be "l'iluy nishmas/it should be a merit for the niftar and cause an ascension of the deceased person's neshama" the niftar. The worst case is when there are two aveilim in shul for minyan. Both aveilim want to 'daven for the amud' so one takes a minyan of ten men into the hall outside the shul "l'iluy nishmas the niftar." Somehow this all makes sense to us. What zechus gets 'shipped up?' The zechus of people who would otherwise be davneing in shul? Is that really a zechus??? If you took ten people off the street and brought them into the hallway to daven-maybe. But if you take ten men out of the shul to daven in the hallway, you're merely causing them to have greatly inferior tefilos because the hall minyan is almost always faster than the minyan inside the shul (though this may be out of necessity-if the minyan in the hall is not done by the time the minyan in shul finishes, the people in the hall will get trampled etc.) So instead of a good amidah l'iluy nishmas the niftar, this avel is responsible for inferior tefilos at least ten times over...all in an attempt to do something l'iluy nishmas the niftar! Do we really want that 'zechus' to be sent up?
The Ben Ish Chai wrote that in his shul in Baghdad, aveilim would say kadish after yishtabach before borchu, but he couldn't change it because they think they're being mechayeh maisim with it.
I had a friend who went out of town to be rov in non-observant shul. His first shaila/halachic question was asked just before Shavuos. A man was sitting shiva and said that while he knows he can't go to work during shiva, he heard that we don't sit shiva during Shavuos. That being the case, can he go to work instead, though it's still within the first week? The rov was unprepared for this and answered that if you want to observe Shavuos, then you don't have to sit shiva. But if you don't observe Shavuos and would otherwise go to work, you should sit shiva. Although we know more that the person who asked that question, unfortunately we, too, fall into the trap of doing things without thinking.
The navi says, "Nachamu nachamu ami yomar elokaichem" which is the haftorah we read the shabbos immediately following Tish'a B'Av. The purpose is to reach nechama/consolation. Isn't this strange? We have the three weeks to observe aveilus for the churban hamikdash. It's always tough-it's summertime, we're on vacation etc. and it's difficult to feel the tza'ar so many generations after the fact. On Tish'a B'Av we know that we're required to feel the pain and so during the reading of Eicha or while reciting the kinos we finally feel a bit of what we should have been feeling for the past three weeks. Then, the first shabbos after Tisha B'Av we have Shabbos Nachamu, the first of the "shiva d'nechemta/seven [weeks] of consolation]" from Tish'a B'Av to Rosh HaShana. But we just started "feeling it"!!!
What is nechama? As with many things in life, it's how as time passes, the pain gets old, we 'get over it,' and put it behind us. The avel thinks about the loss a lot immediately after the petirah and then, as time goes on, less and less.
R' Tzadok asks what does nechama mean? The torah [at the beginning of parshas B'Shalach] says, "Pen yinachem ha'am bir'osam milchama, v'shavu mitzrayma/lest the nation be 'consoled' when they witness war and return to Egypt." It's a terminology of changing of the mind. "Yinachem" is a lashon/term of "hishap'chus/change." Also, "Eisav achicha misnachem l'hargech/Eisav, your brother, 'misnachem' to kill you."-Esav had a change of mind and now wants to kill you. And, "Ki nichamti, ki asisim"-I regret making them. R' Tzadok says that it's a lashon charata/regret. The ideal nechama is that a person should see a purpose in that which took place. But we're not all as holy as R' Tzadok; it's difficult to have this mindset when its a close relative. But we should see some purpose in remembering the person.
I've mentioned that my father went through the Holocaust-he was17 years old when he entered Aushwitz. He had trouble talking about it afterwards but there was always one thing he did that I never understood. When he'd drive us to yeshiva in the morning, he'd stop at street corners and look at children lined up waiting for the bus, at which point he'd remark, "Look at that, "yiddeshe kinder/Jewish children." I never understood it.
One day he told me why. After the war, he was broken-he had no family and no home. One day he saw a Jewish child! After the war there were no Jewish children! Where did this child come from?!? For the rest of his life when he saw Jewish children lined up waiting for a bus to go to yeshiva etc. he saw chizuk. Did he think that which happened during the war was good? We're not all ba'alei madraiga. But at least he saw the beauty of a jewish child and appreciated it much more than some of us do today.
R' Tzadok says that's why the 'shiva d'nechemta' leads into "chodesh Elul/the month of Elul"-because the month of Elul should be one of 'turning things around,' which is the main part of both Elul and nechama; to see the positive and realize the purpose of everything that happens.
"Avielus is a terrible feeling of pain, helplessness, and hopelessness. Yet shiva and aveilus is a period of purpose, of drive, of goal, in finding solace in the petirah. In Klal Yisrael we have a minhag/custom to "be mehader" things our relatives did. A Jewish child tries to do the "lifnim meshuras hadin/beyond the 'letter of the law'" his father did. Why? Because that's what it's all about."
Once I was in a shul on the last day an avel was saying kaddish. Afterwards the rabbi went over and 'congratulated' him on his accomplishment and said that he can come again tomorrow though he won't be davening for the amud. The man's response was that after eleven months of waking up so early to make it in time for the first kaddish, he's not coming again until his mother dies. And he hopes that doesn't happen too soon. Is that really the inspiration he had from eleven months? How tragic!
Regular people go to shul for minyan in the morning and try to get there in time for minyan or certainly in time to hear the first kaddish. Aveilim, on the other hand, put their tefilin on before brachos, hoping to say brachos for the tzibur. Wouldn't it be a zechus for the niftar-even after the yud bais chodesh-if the relative would continue doing this?
Another thing most people don't know is that davening for the amud is a zechus for the niftar even after the yud bais chodesh are up. Mishna Berurah-siman 132, se'if katan 10 in discussing kaddish yasom-says that "U'kvar yadu'a mima'aseh d'Rabi Akiva to'eles hagadol she'yaish l'mais k'she'yaish lo ben ha'omer kadish u'borchu, u'v'yosair b'soch shana rishona/And we already know from the story with Rabi Akiva the great benefit there is for the deceased when he has a son to say kadish and borchu, and especially within the first year." [At the end of the se'if katan, the Chafetz Chaim refers the 'reader'/learner to the long but interesting "kuntrus ma'amar kadishin" written in the Be'ur Halacha on the siman.] So it's not just within the first year that an avel should be davening l'iluy nishmas the niftar, it's all the time! Why do gabbaim have such difficulty in finding shluchei tzibur to daven? We should be fighting for the amud after shana rishona also!
Death is something we don't understand. The tragedy is something we can't come to grips with when it touches our emotion. When it's someone else's loss, perhaps we can rationalize, or analyze it objectively. But when it touches our own lives we have difficulty. What's the response? When people go to be menachem avel, they ask "what can we do? We can't do anything!"
The gemara-again, no citation-says that Ula didn't want to be menachem avel a certain bais avel. The Rabbis said it was because he knew that the Babylonians said terrible things, like "what can we do?"
If a person died, it was the right thing at the right time.
Ramah-siman 376 [again, I don't know which siman of Shulchan Aruch he's referring to]-says that we'll hear this question asked a lot. Most people don't know or fully understand why they're sitting shiva. Some think it's for them to feel better. "Those people-I don't judge them. But that's not the zechus it should be. It should be about chesed to the neshama, a loving kindness for the neshama; something that gives honor to the neshama."
The Medrash Tanchuma-Vayikra perek 19, on the din/laws of 'orla'-a tree's fruit within the first three years is prohibited, is permitted in certain ways during the fourth year, and is allowed for regular consumption from the fifth year on. The medrash compares these halachos to a child. For three years of his life he doesn't converse. In the fourth year he's holy because his father dedicates him for torah and praises HaShem. In the fifth year you can eat the tree's fruit-the father get hana'ah from his child's torah study.
In this world the father brings his child to yeshiva and learns with him but gets no nachas because he dies too soon. Rather, he gets nachas from the son in Olam Habah. R' Yechiel Mordechai Gordon-the "Lomzer Rov"-said that even after petirah, the neshama can provide inspiration to others. "When you suffer and keep a happy face-that's a chizuk to those who remain; that's the honor for the neshama in the olam ha'emes. You should do mitzvos with simcha."
We know that you can only be misnabeh/prophesize when in a state of simcha/happiness. But how did Yirmiyahu write Eicha? There was no simcha there!?! Rather, there's simcha from knowing that it was a job well done. A person who sits shiva and sits with a feeling of a job well done, being mehader the neshama, should have a feeling of accomplishment when the period of shiva is over.
May HaShem give us the zechus of sitting only for those who live to at least 120 years, and that shiva should only be b'simcha!
Gut Voch!
I'd like to thank Shmueli for lending me his laptop which enabled me to get more quotes, be more precise, and hopefully gives you a more realistic recap of this wonderful shiur.
I'd like to dedicate this shiur to all the cholim-each of whom should have a refu'ah shelayma b'karov-as well as the healthy people alive today. May we all live for at least 120 happy, healthy, peaceful, and successful years, and may we only be menachem avel for those who have lived past that "ripe old age."
Shavu'a Tov! ...though it's already after shikia on Monday night.
-MB
[This shiur is based on Melachim II, 22:20]
We've been learning about the malchus/kingship of Yoshiyahu, during which Jews worshiped idols. This led to the kohanim finding the sefer torah in the mikdash rolled to the tochacha/rebuke in parshas Ki Savo, a sign of punishment for Klal Yisrael's many aveiros. Yoshiyahu sent messengers to Chulda HaNeviah to find out what the sefer torah's position meant and what punishment G-d had in mind for Klal Yisrael. Thus concludes our brief introduction and we will henceforth learn about pasuk 20.
Chulda said that because the Jews were worshiping idols, they'd be punished. However, because Yoshiyahu was a great leader and got Klal Yisrael to do teshuva/to repent, he would die in peace without seeing the bad that will befall his nation. This response was conveyed to Yoshiyahu and was considered a zechus/merit for him. What was it? That he'd die before the churban habayis/destruction of the holy temple.
First of all, this sounds incredibly selfish. Yoshiyahu is told that although the mikdash will be destroyed, he will be dead before it happens so he shouldn't feel so bad. What kind of nechama/solace is that for a leader of Klal Yisrael?
Second, Yoshiyahu only lived 39 years. The churban took place 29 years later. Had he lived, it would have taken place when he was 68. The bracha/blessing was to die a younger man and wasn't zoche/he didn't merit to live to 68? Is this really a bracha? [I'm not 100% sure I got the numbers right...feel free to comment or write back if I'm wrong on this one.]
According to Nachlas Shimon (as cited by the late Ner Yisrael Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yaakov Weinberg, zt"l,) we know that there are two tochachos/portions of rebuke in the torah. One is at the end of sefer Vayikra in parshas Bechukosai, while the second one is written in sefer Devarim in parshas Ki Savo. Ramban holds that the first one is for churban bayis rishon/the destruction of the first holy temple while the second is for churban bayis sheini/the destruction of the second holy temple. The sefer torah found in the time of Yoshiyahu was up to the tochacha in Ki Savo although Yoshiyahu was king before churban bayis rishon!?! Nachlas Shimon answers that were it not for Yoshiyahu the first churban would have been as permanent and terrible as the second was/is. However, because of his tzidkus/righteousness it didn't happen that way. It's called "galus Tzidkiyahu/the exile of Tzidkiyahu" because it happened during the kingship of Tzidkiyahu who followed Yoshiyahu. In fact, when Yoshiyahu died, Yirmiyahu HaNavi made a takana/decree that Jews should remember the accomplishments of Yoshiyahu. Rash"i says-in Divrei HaYamim-that's it is precisely for this reason that we say a kinah/lament in his memory a Tish'a B'Av; for the king whose life was an inspiration for generations to come who was able to turn things around and prevent that level of churban/destruction. That constituted sachar/merit for his neshama/soul. The neshama only wants its life b'olam hazeh/this earthly world, to be an inspiration to those that remain.
When a relative among the seven "kerovim/close relatives" is niftar/dies, we sit shiva and others perform the mitzva of nichum aveilim/comforting the mourners. However, the purpose of this "event" is misunderstood by most people. In the context of Yoshiyahu's last wishes we can better understand what it should accomplish and what a person is obligated to do when he is the avel or the menachem.
On one occassion I was menachem avel with Rav Pam, zt"l, in a home where there was only one avel. On the way out I said to him "HaMakom yinachem os'cha b'soch sha'ar aveili tzion v'Yerushalayim." Afterwards, Rav Pam, zt"l, told me that I was wrong in saying "os'cha." The reason that one says "eschem" no matter if there is one avel or one hundred aveilim present is because you are talking not only the to the surviving avel, but to the neshama that is present as well. Similarly, Da'as Torah-in siman 376 se'if katan 3 quoting the Shiltei HaGiborim-says that the neshama is in aveilus as well and you must give it nechama also.
In 1986 I sat shiva on the loss of a brother. Some of my friends were in camp and didn't want to make the long trip back to the city. One friend called me and said that he was unable to make the trip down and hoped that I understood. I told him that while I can be mochel him, I don't know if the neshama can do the same and told him to ask Rav Pam, zt"l, for advice. Rav Pam, zt"l, said that he should, in fact, make the trip back to the city.
Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l-in Igros Moshe chelek 4, siman 40, letter 11-raises two issues. One is obviously for the living person, however there is a second aspect, namely that nichum aveilim is a benefit for the niftar also.
The gemara-Shabbos daf 152-relays that R' Yehuda asked on the following scenario: a niftar who has no "7 kerovim" and no one visiting to be menachem, what happens? He answers that ten people sit in the place of the 7. The gemara cites the story that happened in Rav's neighborhood in which every one of the seven days of shiva R' Yehuda got a minyan together in the home of the niftar. After the shiva period had concluded, the niftar came to R' Yehuda in a dream and said "you should have menuchas hanefesh because you gave me menuchas hanefesh."
A further proof that aveilus is very "niftar-oriented" [my term, not R' Reisman's]: After a levaya/funeral we're melave/escort the niftar, not the aveilim/mourners. When we say hespeidim/eulogies, it's for the benefit of the niftar, to be me'orer bechi/cause others to cry and inspire others. Though it may cause more pain to the aveilim, the main purpose is for the mais.
Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, said that while a phone call does console the avel, it does not console the neshama; rather, a personal visit must be made to fulfill the mitzva in totality.
Rav Hutner, zt"l-in Igeres 19-said that while you do fulfill the mitzva with a phone call, the main part of shiva and being menachem avel is having a group sit around the avel-a hana'ah/benefit for both the chayim/living and the niftar/deceased.
Now that we've established that there are two parts to the mitzva, which is more significant?
I found two ra'ayos/proofs that the ikar/main part is for niftar:
1) If a rasha/evil person dies, there is no shiva. While the death of a child, no matter how bad a person, is a terrible tragedy, there is no shiva. Why not? Because the deceased was not a person who was worthy of shiva.
2) From shemu'a rechoka-if the news of a person's death arrives more than thirty days after the death, the "7 kerovim" only sit shiva for one hour. Why is this? The aveilim are pained just the same if they find out one minute or one day after the death, as they are thirty days after the fact!?! The answer is that the tza'ar/pain for the neshama is greatest only immediately after death, and lessens after thirty days.
Rambam, when discussing certain mitzvos says that the "hamon am" perform a mitzva in such a way while the "ba'alei sechel" do it in the proper way. For uninformed people, the shiva period is a time for aveilim to relax, recover, and catch their breath from the tragedy. They sit shiva worried about themselves, looking for people to comfort them but there is little that an outsider can do to help them. You can't impress upon them how much more there is to shiva; we can't change that. But for those who seek to be ba'alei chachma and anshei sechel-it's a different thing entirely. The job is not for the avel to be into himself; it's for the avel to roll up his sleeves and involve himself in a difficult job, namely kavod hameis/respect for the deceased.
Rambam-which is also quoted in the shulchan aruch [though I didn't catch the exact source]-says that anyone who doesn't observe shiva properly is called an "achzar/cruel." Why does he use the terminology of "cruel" and not "lazy" etc? If he doesn't sit shiva properly, if he isn't careful with the strict laws that govern that period such as refraining from changing clothes or showering he is considered cruel? Why can't we just say that he has a yetzer hara/evil inclination and he succumbed to it?
Yes, it is cruel. Ther is no situation where a person is as helpless as the neshama is after death-it can't help itself, it can't add zechusim while facing the ultimate Yom HaDin/Day of Judgement. However, the relatives can do something. They can remember the niftar's life, they can try to inspire others with stories etc, and can even be inspired themselves by things the niftar did in his lifetime.
Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l,-Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim chelek 5, siman 37-says that there is no mitzva for the avel to feel pain, merely to obvserve aveilus. Similarly, Rash"i-somewhere in Kesubos [I don't think he specified]says that the avel feels pain but that's only "tirda d'mitzva/the trouble of the mitzva." [He says, "ain tza'aro mitzva af al pi she'aveilo mitzva."]
Let's examine some of the halachos that are relevent, starting with the most important.
Often people ask what they should speak about in a bais avel because they feel uncomfortable. Rambam-in hilchos aveilus, perek 13, halacha 19-says that you should not tell the avel the latest news. Rather, you should just sit sadly.
Sometimes I go into a bais avel and it's quiet and someone feels obliged to "break the ice." If the avel wants to be quiet, be quiet!!! However, if he wants to talk, what do you say? "Tell me something about the niftar." That is the appropriate comment! That's the purpose of nichum aveilim. If the purpose is to make the avel feel better, sometimes he may want to get his mind off the pain, so maybe discussing the news is a good thing. "But that's not the purpose! At all! The neshama is there and the niftar is there in great pain! You don't come in and talk about the latest news."
I was recently menachem avel when another person entered the house. He came in chewing gum loudly, sat down, spread out comfortably, and asked "so, what's new?" The conversation had to do with aveilus, so he said, "that thing with not changing clothes-I never got that." I had to stop him. "Did you do research? Did you look up the source for it?" I didn't say that, but was surprised that someone would talk about an issue they knew nothing about, especially in this situation.
Once a visitor corrected an avel about a halacha and said, "that's not the way it should be." The avel answered back, "yeah, but my father was never makpid/strict on that anyway." WHAT?!? Do you think the neshama got any hana'ah from that comment? If she said, "I'm not as great as him," fine-it's not excusable, but we might understand. Here, however, she's actually taking inspiration to not be makpid on halacha because her deceased father wasn't!
The Ma'avir Yabok-a kabala sefer on aveilus-says that conversations that commonly take place in a bais avel usually serves to act as a burden to the niftar, not to make him feel better. Rather, he suggests that each new guest be given a sefer so that they can talk about torah instead of "divrei shtus."
A person sitting shiva should know that they should be speaking about the ma'alos/positive aspects of the niftar so that it should be a zechus/merit for the niftar, and an inspiration for those listening. The avel shouldn't tire of it. While different people come in and out, even if things are repeated-that's the avoda/work of the avel. On Yom Kippur we daven again and again and again. Shiva isn't the time to recover-it's a time to do something for the neshama. The avel should say a "vort" the niftar once said or even just the life experiences! A niftar who was a ba'al teshuva-the idea of changing you life so dramatically!-that should be an inspiration for us! A Holocaust survivor who was strong and kept his emunah through it all, that should be a chizuk for us! That is what should be happening during shiva in a bais avel.
I once was menachem an adam gadol/important person who lost a sibling. The sibling went through the Holocaust but was not frum afterwards. The avel didn't have much to do with his brother. I wondered what he would speak about during shiva. From the time I was there, he focused on two things: 1) the niftar's life before the war broke out because the life experience they had together was so inspirational and 2) life in general and how death makes people look at life in a certain way. At least the petirah was an inspiration to someone, to take mussar from it.
What if there are no male aveilim? Should one make a minyan in the house of the niftar? After all, the aveilim are not the ones saying kaddish-the son-in-law etc. can go to shul and daven.
Ram"ah paskins/rules-in siman 384 se'if 3 [I'm not sure which chelek of Shulchan Aruch he writes this]-that it's a mitzva to daven where the niftar lives even without an avel because it gives "nachas ruach" to the niftar.
In siman 376 Ram"ah writes about a case in which the avel was sitting in another home. The case above was if there are no aveilim. But if there are others who are sitting-do you still need a minyan?
It's not clear if when there's a minyan in a location other than the home of the niftar it's enough. If the aveilim are sitting in their own home-if the aveilim are only females, for example-Aruch HaShulchan says you don't need a minyan. However, most say you should have a minyan in the house at least once a day because it's a zechus for the niftar.
Chidushei Reb Shimon-Bava Metzia daf 26, dibur hamaschil "umnam"-says that a mais, although he doesn't own anything, does have the power to rule over his belongings, as chazal say-he didn't specify where-all who take the clothing the mais should be buried in is actually stealing from him because he owns things that are for his kavod.
The torah says that if a person does certain avieros, his chidren will be yesomim/orphans, his wife will be an almanah/widow, and he'll die. Obviously if he dies, his children will be yesomim and his wife will be an almanah!?! Rashi answers that the onesh/punishment is that he'll die, they won't find his body, his children won't be able to take their yerusha/inheritance, and his wife won't be able to remarry. But who are we punishing? Obviously we're punishing the chotei/the sinner because his children don't get to yarshin his estate. Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, says that it's a "nachas ruach" to have your relatives inherit your belongings. That's pshat/the explanation in how a mais can pass on yerusha though he shouldn't have ba'alus/ownership rights over his belongings after death. Apparently it's because he can have kinyanim/rights for things that are zechusim/meritorious for him.
With this we have an understanding of a teshuva/responsa of R' Akiva Eiger-siman 68 [I'm not sure if this is 'sh"ut' R' Eiger or 'chidushei' R' Eiger or what...he didn't specify] regarding dinei yerusha/the laws of inheritance-in which he discusses a case in which a person dies, leaves an inheritance, and a tzava'a/will that his money should go to certain institutions/organizations etc. However, he didn't make it in such a way that it should be a halachically binding document. Nonetheless, R' Eiger rules that the child is obligated to follow the will because of hilchos "kibud av v'eim/Honor your mother and father." This ruling is not a choshen misphat issue [he meant a monetary discussion]; rather, it is an orach chaim one [a day-to-day issue involving respect and honor for parents.]
However, R' Eiger, citing the ruling in maseches kiddushin-again, he didn't specify where-says that one is only obligated in performing kibud av v'eim if it does not involve spending his own money-only his parent's.
To illustrate this point, there's a story told over in the name of R' Chaim Brisker, zt"l, in which a student of his approached him before the yeshiva's bain hazemanim was to begin. The boy asked whether he could stay and learn during the period, or whether he had a chiyuv/obligation of kibud av to return home to his parents. R' Chaim, zt"l, said he did have to go home. The boy said that doing so would require him to spend money, i.e. purchasing a train ticket, and we know that one does not have to perform the mitzva of kibud av v'eim if it requires spending your own money. R' Chaim, zt"l, said that he was correct and advised him to start walking immediately so as not to be late for yom tov.
R' Eiger holds that if yerusha is a chiyuv the child must carry out-the son must give the money to the appropriate tzedakos as per the father's request because it was a tzava'a from the father, thus transforming it into a chiyuv kibud av. This is yet another proof to Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, that the niftar still has ba'alus over things if they are zechusim for him.
The basic yesod/principle is that the neshama lives beyond this world. All the things we do out of respect for a person-like the mitzva of kibud av v'eim-do not stop after the individual's petirah. "If anything, the obligation is greater!"
It disturbs me that people do nonsensical things because they perceive it to be "l'iluy nishmas/it should be a merit for the niftar and cause an ascension of the deceased person's neshama" the niftar. The worst case is when there are two aveilim in shul for minyan. Both aveilim want to 'daven for the amud' so one takes a minyan of ten men into the hall outside the shul "l'iluy nishmas the niftar." Somehow this all makes sense to us. What zechus gets 'shipped up?' The zechus of people who would otherwise be davneing in shul? Is that really a zechus??? If you took ten people off the street and brought them into the hallway to daven-maybe. But if you take ten men out of the shul to daven in the hallway, you're merely causing them to have greatly inferior tefilos because the hall minyan is almost always faster than the minyan inside the shul (though this may be out of necessity-if the minyan in the hall is not done by the time the minyan in shul finishes, the people in the hall will get trampled etc.) So instead of a good amidah l'iluy nishmas the niftar, this avel is responsible for inferior tefilos at least ten times over...all in an attempt to do something l'iluy nishmas the niftar! Do we really want that 'zechus' to be sent up?
The Ben Ish Chai wrote that in his shul in Baghdad, aveilim would say kadish after yishtabach before borchu, but he couldn't change it because they think they're being mechayeh maisim with it.
I had a friend who went out of town to be rov in non-observant shul. His first shaila/halachic question was asked just before Shavuos. A man was sitting shiva and said that while he knows he can't go to work during shiva, he heard that we don't sit shiva during Shavuos. That being the case, can he go to work instead, though it's still within the first week? The rov was unprepared for this and answered that if you want to observe Shavuos, then you don't have to sit shiva. But if you don't observe Shavuos and would otherwise go to work, you should sit shiva. Although we know more that the person who asked that question, unfortunately we, too, fall into the trap of doing things without thinking.
The navi says, "Nachamu nachamu ami yomar elokaichem" which is the haftorah we read the shabbos immediately following Tish'a B'Av. The purpose is to reach nechama/consolation. Isn't this strange? We have the three weeks to observe aveilus for the churban hamikdash. It's always tough-it's summertime, we're on vacation etc. and it's difficult to feel the tza'ar so many generations after the fact. On Tish'a B'Av we know that we're required to feel the pain and so during the reading of Eicha or while reciting the kinos we finally feel a bit of what we should have been feeling for the past three weeks. Then, the first shabbos after Tisha B'Av we have Shabbos Nachamu, the first of the "shiva d'nechemta/seven [weeks] of consolation]" from Tish'a B'Av to Rosh HaShana. But we just started "feeling it"!!!
What is nechama? As with many things in life, it's how as time passes, the pain gets old, we 'get over it,' and put it behind us. The avel thinks about the loss a lot immediately after the petirah and then, as time goes on, less and less.
R' Tzadok asks what does nechama mean? The torah [at the beginning of parshas B'Shalach] says, "Pen yinachem ha'am bir'osam milchama, v'shavu mitzrayma/lest the nation be 'consoled' when they witness war and return to Egypt." It's a terminology of changing of the mind. "Yinachem" is a lashon/term of "hishap'chus/change." Also, "Eisav achicha misnachem l'hargech/Eisav, your brother, 'misnachem' to kill you."-Esav had a change of mind and now wants to kill you. And, "Ki nichamti, ki asisim"-I regret making them. R' Tzadok says that it's a lashon charata/regret. The ideal nechama is that a person should see a purpose in that which took place. But we're not all as holy as R' Tzadok; it's difficult to have this mindset when its a close relative. But we should see some purpose in remembering the person.
I've mentioned that my father went through the Holocaust-he was17 years old when he entered Aushwitz. He had trouble talking about it afterwards but there was always one thing he did that I never understood. When he'd drive us to yeshiva in the morning, he'd stop at street corners and look at children lined up waiting for the bus, at which point he'd remark, "Look at that, "yiddeshe kinder/Jewish children." I never understood it.
One day he told me why. After the war, he was broken-he had no family and no home. One day he saw a Jewish child! After the war there were no Jewish children! Where did this child come from?!? For the rest of his life when he saw Jewish children lined up waiting for a bus to go to yeshiva etc. he saw chizuk. Did he think that which happened during the war was good? We're not all ba'alei madraiga. But at least he saw the beauty of a jewish child and appreciated it much more than some of us do today.
R' Tzadok says that's why the 'shiva d'nechemta' leads into "chodesh Elul/the month of Elul"-because the month of Elul should be one of 'turning things around,' which is the main part of both Elul and nechama; to see the positive and realize the purpose of everything that happens.
"Avielus is a terrible feeling of pain, helplessness, and hopelessness. Yet shiva and aveilus is a period of purpose, of drive, of goal, in finding solace in the petirah. In Klal Yisrael we have a minhag/custom to "be mehader" things our relatives did. A Jewish child tries to do the "lifnim meshuras hadin/beyond the 'letter of the law'" his father did. Why? Because that's what it's all about."
Once I was in a shul on the last day an avel was saying kaddish. Afterwards the rabbi went over and 'congratulated' him on his accomplishment and said that he can come again tomorrow though he won't be davening for the amud. The man's response was that after eleven months of waking up so early to make it in time for the first kaddish, he's not coming again until his mother dies. And he hopes that doesn't happen too soon. Is that really the inspiration he had from eleven months? How tragic!
Regular people go to shul for minyan in the morning and try to get there in time for minyan or certainly in time to hear the first kaddish. Aveilim, on the other hand, put their tefilin on before brachos, hoping to say brachos for the tzibur. Wouldn't it be a zechus for the niftar-even after the yud bais chodesh-if the relative would continue doing this?
Another thing most people don't know is that davening for the amud is a zechus for the niftar even after the yud bais chodesh are up. Mishna Berurah-siman 132, se'if katan 10 in discussing kaddish yasom-says that "U'kvar yadu'a mima'aseh d'Rabi Akiva to'eles hagadol she'yaish l'mais k'she'yaish lo ben ha'omer kadish u'borchu, u'v'yosair b'soch shana rishona/And we already know from the story with Rabi Akiva the great benefit there is for the deceased when he has a son to say kadish and borchu, and especially within the first year." [At the end of the se'if katan, the Chafetz Chaim refers the 'reader'/learner to the long but interesting "kuntrus ma'amar kadishin" written in the Be'ur Halacha on the siman.] So it's not just within the first year that an avel should be davening l'iluy nishmas the niftar, it's all the time! Why do gabbaim have such difficulty in finding shluchei tzibur to daven? We should be fighting for the amud after shana rishona also!
Death is something we don't understand. The tragedy is something we can't come to grips with when it touches our emotion. When it's someone else's loss, perhaps we can rationalize, or analyze it objectively. But when it touches our own lives we have difficulty. What's the response? When people go to be menachem avel, they ask "what can we do? We can't do anything!"
The gemara-again, no citation-says that Ula didn't want to be menachem avel a certain bais avel. The Rabbis said it was because he knew that the Babylonians said terrible things, like "what can we do?"
If a person died, it was the right thing at the right time.
Ramah-siman 376 [again, I don't know which siman of Shulchan Aruch he's referring to]-says that we'll hear this question asked a lot. Most people don't know or fully understand why they're sitting shiva. Some think it's for them to feel better. "Those people-I don't judge them. But that's not the zechus it should be. It should be about chesed to the neshama, a loving kindness for the neshama; something that gives honor to the neshama."
The Medrash Tanchuma-Vayikra perek 19, on the din/laws of 'orla'-a tree's fruit within the first three years is prohibited, is permitted in certain ways during the fourth year, and is allowed for regular consumption from the fifth year on. The medrash compares these halachos to a child. For three years of his life he doesn't converse. In the fourth year he's holy because his father dedicates him for torah and praises HaShem. In the fifth year you can eat the tree's fruit-the father get hana'ah from his child's torah study.
In this world the father brings his child to yeshiva and learns with him but gets no nachas because he dies too soon. Rather, he gets nachas from the son in Olam Habah. R' Yechiel Mordechai Gordon-the "Lomzer Rov"-said that even after petirah, the neshama can provide inspiration to others. "When you suffer and keep a happy face-that's a chizuk to those who remain; that's the honor for the neshama in the olam ha'emes. You should do mitzvos with simcha."
We know that you can only be misnabeh/prophesize when in a state of simcha/happiness. But how did Yirmiyahu write Eicha? There was no simcha there!?! Rather, there's simcha from knowing that it was a job well done. A person who sits shiva and sits with a feeling of a job well done, being mehader the neshama, should have a feeling of accomplishment when the period of shiva is over.
May HaShem give us the zechus of sitting only for those who live to at least 120 years, and that shiva should only be b'simcha!
Gut Voch!
