One posuk in our parsha (Bamidbar 15:24) states “it will be, if from the eyes of the assembly it was done in error, then the entire assembly…shall prepare an olah-offering.” The Gemara Harayot 4b deduces from the phrase “from the eyes of the assembly” that the verse is discussing the Sanhedrin itself making an error in teaching. The Torah Temimah points out that the sages viewed the Sanhedrin as the eyes of the congregation. As the eyes of the congregation, the members of the Sanhedrin are acting as representatives of the entire Jewish people. Therefore, every single member of the Sanhedrin must be fitting and qualified.

Then, in the next part of the discussion, the gemara goes on to mention what these qualifications are. Amazingly, the Torah Temimah mentions that among the qualifications is the fact that a judge must not be an old person or one who does not have children (Sanhedrin 36b). He states that the reason for this is that such people are generally not as merciful or empathetic. “Additionally, an elderly person, even though he had children when he was younger, nevertheless, has forgotten the trials and tribulations of raising children and he will not be as merciful. “

Wow. I found this amazing. I had been taught (I thought) that one of the qualifications for being on the Sanhedrin was a long beard and advanced age. It seems that is not exactly so. Isn’t the whole story mentioned at the seder table of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah turning grey overnight contrary to this? The gemoras noted above show that getting along in age may be an advantage in that one has acquired much knowledge, but knowledge might sometimes take a backseat to attitude. Or at least they must go hand in hand. Therefore, our halachic screening policies for hiring judges for the Sanhedrin should consider both the qualities of intellect and compassion as much as possible.

Genesis 11:1 – Now the entire earth was of one language and uniform words.

Jerusalem Talmud Megila Chapter 1, Halacha 9:  Rabbi Eliezar and Rabbi Yochanan commented. One said that they [each] spoke 70 languages and one states that they spoke the language of the Unique one of the world – the holy language [ie, Hebrew].

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #1

This rabbinic comment requires explanation. The commentaries state that until the generation of the tower of Babel, everyone spoke Hebrew.  Afterwards, [the commentaries say] when God mixed up the languages, the world then began to speak in 70 languages.

This is astounding that they would then begin to speak in 70 languages. Additionally, in general, it is impossible to say that until this point the whole world was speaking just Hebrew. Behold, it explicits states in the previous chapter (Genesis 10:20) “These are the sons of Ham, according to their families and their tongues, in their lands, in their nations”. Also, in Genesis 10:31 it states: “These are the sons of Shem, according to their families, according to their tongues, in their lands, according to their nations.” There already existed set languages for the various nations.

Therefore, it appears that the explanation is that before the generation of the tower of Babel even though Hebrew was a global language spoken by everyone, still each nation had its own language, specific for that particular people. Just as we find examples in our own time, citizens of a certain nation will speak the national language, and in addition to this each people within the country speaks a separate language that pertains just to that people.

However, when they began to build the tower of Babel, they needed to use a common language so that the builders could understand each other throughout the world. They then agreed to use for this purpose the common language of Hebrew since they all already understood it. God then caused them all to forget Hebrew and they returned each group back to speaking their own individual language. The result of this was that they no longer understood each other. They then had to stop building what they had begun.

This, then, is the intent of the sages in the Gemora that we quoted above. One sage is speaking of the languages that the nations spoke amongst themselves. The number 70 is used as this is the common number used in the Talmud to indicate the multiplicity of nations.  The other sage notes the language that was used to do the building, that they had all agreed to use the language of the world, Hebrew.

Editor’s Note: I feel that the Torah Temimah chose to highlight this aggada from the Jerusalem Talmud because he could not see, rationally, how the world suddenly learned 70 new languages. There still needs to be miraculous occurrence that God caused everyone to forget Hebrew, but I think that for the Torah Temimah, this was a more believable miracle, perhaps.

Bamidbar 13:16 –  These are the names of the men that Moshe sent to spy out the land and Moshe called Hoshea’s name Yehoshua.

Gemora – Sotah 34b: Moshe called Hoshea’s name Yehoshua as a form of prayer meaning “may God save you (yehosheacha) from the evil report of the spies”.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation of Comment #6:

Apparently, according to the simple meaning of the gmora, Moseh prayed using these exact words. The meaning being that Joshua (Hoshea) should not join in with the intention of the [other] spies to bring a negative [evil] report regarding the Lan of Israel. But if this is the meaning, then two difficulties arise:

1. If Moshe knew about the intent of the spies to bring a negative report, why did he go ahead and send them?
2. Why didn’t Moshe also pray for the other men that they should not bring back and evil report?

Therefore, it appears that in actuality Moshe did not know about the intent and plan of the spies. Rather, Moshe only prayed regarding Joshua because Moshe was specifically worried about him. Since descendants have a tendency to continue the traits of their ancestors and since Joshua descended from Joseph who had brought a negative report regarding his brothers – Moshe was worried that this trait also existed in Joshua. That is why Moshe prayed only regarding him.

If you should ask why Moshe didn’t similarly pray regarding Gadi ben Susi, who is also descended from Joseph, perhaps it was because Joshua was a special student of him and so Moshe was more endeared to Josshua than to Gadi ben Susi. Additionally, since Joshua was being prepared for bringing the Jewish people into the land of Israel, Moshe was perhaps more concerned about him, lest he stumble. These factors did not pertain to Gadi ben Susi. In all events, perhaps Moshe thought that his concerns were far-fetched and not likely to occur.

Regarding the exact phraseology “God should save you from the evil report of the spies”, it appears that this is not the exact phrase that Moshe used. Rather Moshe merely just said “God should save you from bringing back an evil report.” It was the sages of the gemora who used the exact phrase noted above based on their knowledge of what actually ended up occurring.

Editor’s Note: I have left out translating the second half of this note concerning the practical halachic ramifications of the name Hoshea being essentially equivalent Yehoshua. The first part of the note appealed to me due to the Torah Temimah’s human explanation of why Moshe only prayed for Joshua – attributing it, basically, to the fact that Moshe had a special relationship with Joshua and was therefore, naturally, more concerned about him.

Leviticus 23:32 It [Yom Kippur] is a complete day of rest for you, and you shall afflict yourselves. On the ninth of the month in the evening, from evening to evening, you shall observe your rest day

Gemora Berachot 8b:  – Do we fast on the 9^th day of the month? No, we fast on the 10^th day of the month. If that is the case, then why does the verse state on the 9^th? To teach you that anyone who eats and drinks on the 9^th of the month – it is counted for him as though he fasted on the 9^th and the 10^th.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on later part of Note #97:

It is not clear what the reason is for the commandment to eat and drink on the 9^th of Tishrei [the day before Yom Kippur.] It is possible that the reason relates to that which is written in the Gemora Taanis 27a: The “men of the guard” in the Temple would not fast on Sundays. The Gemora there gives several reasons for this, but one reason is that they would not fast on Sundays so as to not have an abrupt transition from the rest and joy of Shabbat to the pain and trouble of fasting. The commentaries explain that a fast that comes immediately after a period of much eating and drinking is proportionately more difficult than an average fast. Therefore, since Shabbat is a period of more than average eating and drinking, this would make fasting on Sundays more difficult than fasting on any other day. This is the reason for the saying that everyone who eats more on the 9^th of Tishrei, it is counted for him as though he fasted on both the 9^th and the 10^th of Tishrei. By eating and drinking more on the 9^th, a person causes the fasting on the 10^th to be more difficult.

This greatly clarifies Rashi’s comment in the Gemora Rosh HaShanah 9a. There Rashi explains the phrase in the Gemora “anyone who eats and drinks on the 9^th” as meaning “anyone who eats and drinks more than average on the 9^th”. This is also stated in Chulin 83a: and and Chulin 110a:   It is not apparent why Rashi makes this comment [or what his source is.] But according to what we have just written above, all becomes clear. Since to the extent that one eats more on the day before a fast, to that extent is the difficulty of the fast the next day. If so, it is logical to state that the more one eats on the 9^th, the more praiseworthy it is; since the faster is just making the fast more difficult for himself.

This also clarifies the comment of Rav Achai Gaon in Section 167, where he states that the commandment of eating on the 9^th only applies if one fasts on the 10^th. My teacher, my uncle, also explains this in his comments on this issue. On the face of it, it is not immediately apparent what the connection is between the commandment to eat and drink on the 9^th and the commandment to fast on the 10^th. But now that we have explained the connection, we see that anyone who is not commanded to fast on the 10^th, such as a sick person, is also not commanded to eat and drink extra on the 9^th.

Our rabbi, Rabbi Akiva Eiger in his Halachic Responsum in Section 16, questions whether women are obligated in the commandment to eat and drink extra on the 9^th of Tishrei. Rabbi Eiger wonders if, after all, eating on the 9^th could be considered a “positive, time-bound commandments”. Since women are exempt from positive, time-bound commandments, perhaps they are exempt from the commandment of eating on the 9^th. Rabbi Eiger concludes that he is unsure how to rule in this instance.

According what we have explained above, however, regarding the connection of eating on the 9^th to the commandment of fasting on the 10^th, it is clear that women are obligated in the commandment of eating on the 9^th since they are obligated to fast on the 10^th [and the two commandments are intrinsically connected to each other.]

One can also bring a proof to what we’ve written from a Gemora Betzah 30a regarding the topic of adding on to the time period of Yom Kippur. There, the Gemora states “Those women who eat and drink on the day before Yom Kippur [on the 9^th] right up until sunset, we don’t correct them at all. It is better that they err unintentionally than err intentionally.” Apparently, on the face of it, this Gemora is astonishing. It is well known that women, in general, are more careful in mitzvot than men even regarding light mitzvot and even regarding mitzvot that they are not intrinsically obligated to perform. How much more so are women careful and exacting regarding the commandments relating to Yom Kippur! This being the case, how is it possible that they would eat on the 9^th so close to the actual time of Yom Kippur? Additionally, how could one possibly say that they wouldn’t listen if one were to try and correct their actions? This is an astounding thing to say.

However, according what we have said above, that women are obligated equally in the commandment to eat and drink extra on the 9^th even though they are exempt from most “positive, time-bound commandments” – and this instance is a special exception; that is the reason why this commandment is especially endeared to women and why one would suspect that they would not listen if one was to try and restrict their observance of it.

This discussion enables us to shed some light on comments of the Rosh and the Ran on this section of the Gemora Betzah and comments by the Rema on Orach Haim Section 608. They deduce from this section of the Gemora that there is a general principle regarding women that if one sees the women doing something wrong, it is better to not correct them. It is preferable that they err unintentionally than err intentionally. According to what we have written above, however, there is no proof at all from this Gemora to cause us to make a general principle. Behold, regarding this commandment of eating on the 9^th, they [might] be transgressing due to this particular commandment being so endeared to them. However, regarding other commandments how could one think that women wouldn’t listen if corrected and thus be prevented from a transgression?

Editor’s Note: The Torah Temimah goes on further in this note to show that the law of eating and drinking extra on the 9^th is not a Rabbinical ordinance but rather is from the written Torah, itself. This note is another example, of many, where the Torah Temimah uses the opportunity of his commentary on the Bible to defend and promote the role, observance and reputation of women against some negative comments that have been made by some rabbis down through the ages.

Leviticus: 6:2 – Command (צו) Aaron and his sons saying: This is the law of the elevation offering [it is it that stays] on the flame, on the Altar, all night until the morning, and the fire of the Altar should be kept aflame on it.

Tosefet Bracha: Rashi here quotes the Torat Cohanim as follows: The word “command” [‘tvav’ / צו] is used to mean ‘exhort to perform diligently now and for generations to come’. Rabbi Shimon states that the extra exhortation is needed in cases where [performing the commandment] involves a monetary loss.

It is worthwhile to consider more thoughtfully the reason why command/tvav implies extra diligence. It is possible to explain this idea according to the idea that is mentioned frequently in the Gemora “Greater is one who is commanded to perform a mitzvah and does it, than one who is not commanded to perform it, but does it anyway”.

As, for example, a blind person who is exempt from performing mitzvot, but who does them anyway. The reason why one who is commanded is ‘greater’ is explained by Tosafot in the Gemora Kiddushin 31a. It is because the one who issues the command is worried that perhaps the commanded one won’t heed the command and perform the mitzvah. [Note: the root of mitvah is “tzav” – commandment.] This issue [of the Commander’s expectations] is not present for one who is not commanded; in that case there is no worry. Since there is no command, if the person does not voluntarily perform the deed, he does not transgress a command in any way.

Therefore, this person who is commanded, he actually does need more exhortation to perform the commandment. Since, perhaps, it may not be convenient for him to perform it. This is the connection between the concept of commandment and extra exhortation. Together with accepting the command comes an extra need for exhortation and diligence.

Let us also consider more deeply why the word command/tzav also implies “for now and for generations”. The emphasis isn’t on the verb “command” per se but rather circumstance of God doing the commanding. When God commands, He means for now and for generations to come. Behold we find many instances where the verb “command” is used only for a short period of time. Examples are: 1. In the beginning of Parshat VaYishlach (Genesis 32:5) “He (Jacob) commanded them” 2. Parshat VaYichi (Genesis 40:2) “Joseph commanded his servants”  3. Parshat Shmot (Exodus 5:6) “Pharaoh commanded the taskmasters…” There are many other examples. These, however, are examples of people commanding others. Commandments from God, however, are for now and for generations to come.

The reason why there is a difference between God’s commands and people’s commands is obvious. People, since they only exist temporarily, cannot issue commands for eternity – who knows, perhaps the situation will change. This is not so with God. Since He is Eternal, He can issue commands that apply forever.

This approach is the approach that we took to explain one aspect of the liturgy for Rosh HaShana [the New Year]. “All believe that He exists forever and He is Good and does good to evildoers and to good people.”

[וכל מאמינים שהוא חי וקים, הטוב ומטיב לרעים ולטובים]

It is not clear how God’s existing forever is related to His aspect of doing good to evildoers and to good people. However, it can be explained as follows: People, who do not live forever, when they want to exact payment or revenge from on who hates them, they cannot tarry and wait. Since their days are short and they don’t know when their end will come. God, however, He exists forever. He does not need to hurry to exact judgement from those who hate Him. He can be sure that that day will come. Alternatively, the evildoer might repent and change his ways. Either way, God has done a good thing for the evildoer.

Let us also consider more deeply why exhortation is more needed when there is a monetary loss involved. Rabbi Shimon’s intent here is that this statement applies to the “elevation offering” of which the Cohanim [the descendants of Aaron] don’t get any share in it at all. The concern is that perhaps they may weaken a bit in their diligence for this mitzvah. It seems improbable to say this to a group referred to as God’s special messengers. (See Gemora Kiddushin 23b)

Further, besides our use of the word “command” here, this word appears many times in the Torah and there is no special exhortation or diligence required. As it often says “Command the Children of Israel saying…” Or “Command Joshua…” in Deuteronomy. There are many other examples where the word is used without any extra diligence being meant.

Also we need to consider the adjacent phrase in the verse “it is it that stays on the flame all night long”. This phraseology of “it is it…” is not usual nor does it flow well. It should have just continued with the details of the commandment “this is the Torah of the elevation offering, it will burn all night…” as is the usual phraseology used in the Torah.

Therefore, it appears possible to say that the verse itself explains why extra exhortation and diligence is required for this commandment of the elevation offering. The explanation is in accordance with the first Mishna in the Tractate of Brachot where it states that “Burning the fats and organs [of the sacrifices, on the Temple altar] — this precept [can be performed] until the break of dawn….If this is so, why did the Sages say ‘until midnight’? To distance a person from transgression.”

The explanation of this Mishna is that it is the nature of man when it is possible to perform a mitzvah throughout the entire night, he can tarry and weaken and think that he still has enough time left. With this type of thinking, he might then actually come to a transgression [since one dawn comes, he has missed the time and may not perform the commandment.] That is why our verse uses the word commandment with the implication of extra exhortation and diligence. Since the verse is commanding specifically regarding the elevation offering that can burn on the alter all night [but not longer] there was a concern that the Cohanim could weaken and therefore needed extra exhortation.

Thus, one can conclude that the phrase “the word ‘command’ always means extra exhortation” is not exact but rather is a contraction of its total meaning. The total phrase should be “the word ‘command’ IN THIS CASE means extra exhortation”. The average meaning of the word ‘command’ is ‘appoint’ or ‘designate’.

In this exact same manner do we explain the Gemora Berachot 9b explaining the verse in Exodus, Parshat Bo. There is says “say ‘please’ [na] into the ears of the people”. There the Gemora comments “the word ‘na’ always means ‘request’”. The truth is that there are many examples where the word ‘na’ is used without any reference to ‘request’. Rather, the meaning is the same as noted above “IN THIS CASE” the word ‘na’ means only ‘request’.

Similarly, we find in the beginning of Parshat BeShalach when it says “it was that when Pharaoh ‘sent’ [shlach] the people…” The Mechilta when commenting on this verse says “the word ‘sent’ always meaning ‘accompany’…” Again, we find many examples where the word ‘sent’ does not mean ‘accompany’. Thus, we see that the intent of this phrase in the Gemora is to say “in this case” rather than “in all cases”. See also the Gemora Makot 8a where more examples are given.

Also, note that further along in our chapter (Chapter 6, verse 7) it says “This is the law of the meal offering…”. According to what Rashi writes at the beginning of Leviticus that anywhere where a verse is missing the words “speak to”, “say to” or “command”, that verse relies on the command from the previous commands. Thus, this “command” in our verse, with the extra exhortation, also applies to the meal offering. We need to search and find a reason why extra diligence is also required with the meal offering because the explanation of “all night long” does not apply to the meal offering.

Perhaps one can say that the explanation is according to the Gemora Menachot 55a. There is states that all the meal offerings were mixed with warm water and one needs to be careful that they not become leavened bread. This may be the explanation: that extra diligence is required to ensure that the meal offerings do not become leavened bread.

It is also likely to quote the often-repeated refrain: “Cohanim are diligent”. The reason they are diligent is because they have been commanded all of these commandments and they have many obligations. This is another instance of the connection of the idea of being diligent and the idea of commanded.

Editor’s note: Certainly, the topic of why ‘one who is commanded is greater’ is an important topic for many people. It is wonderful that the Torah Temimah gives us an opportunity to discuss it.

Exodus 38:21 These are the accountings of the Mishkan, the Mishkan of the Testimony, which were counted at Moses’ command; [this was] the work of the Levites under the direction of Ithamar, the son of Aaron the Kohen.

Bach on Yoreh Deah Section 257 – From here we learn that even though the people in charge of the charity funds are kosher people and we are not [constantly] inquiring after them, nevertheless it is good for them to give an accounting as we find with Moshe, our Teacher, who gave an accounting of the money that was donated for the tabernacle, as it says in our verse, “These are the accounts of the Mishkan…”

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #20:

It is possible that the Bach is relying on what is says in the Midrash Rabba and in the Tanchuma on our verse. There it says as follows: Who is referred to by the term ‘Trustworthy man’ (Proverbs 28:20)? This refers to Moshe, our teacher, who was appointed treasurer over the building of the Temple.” Even though he was his own treasurer, nevertheless he gave an accounting for others and the [actual] counting was done by others. This is deduced from our verse that says:  “These are the accountings of the Mishkan, the Mishkan of the Testimony, which were counted at Moses’ command.” Note that it doesn’t say that Moses counted but rather that the counting was done at Moses’ command, but actually performed by others, in this case by Ithamar. A person needs to please other people, just like he needs to please God. This same lesson is also deduced from the verse in Numbers 32:22 “and you shall be freed [of your obligation] from the Lord and from Israel”

Editor’s Note: In this note the Torah Temimah is showing the biblical source for the need for financial transparency from our leaders.

Shmos 15:26 –  And He said, if you hearken to the voice of the Lord, your God, and you do what is proper in His eyes, and you listen closely to His commandments and observe all His statutes, all the sicknesses that I have visited upon Egypt I will not visit upon you, for I, the Lord, heal you.

Gemora – Sanhedrin 90a: One who whispers on a wound and says “All the sicknesses that I have visited upon Egypt I will not visit upon you” has no portion in the world to come.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation of Comment #44:
The Gemora in our chapter (101a) notes that Rabbi Yochanan states that the Gemora is speaking of a situation where someone spits; this being forbidden because it is not proper to mention God’s name while spitting. Rashi there explains that it is the way of whisperers to spit prior to their whisper. In other words, based on Rashi, first they spit and then they say the verse with God’s name in it, “For I, the Lord, heal you.” However, the Tur in Yoreh Deah Section 179 states that the custom of whisperers is to say the verse first [with God’s name in it] and then spit.

Thus, according to the Tur, there would be support for the custom of those who spit during the Alenu prayer before they mention God’s name. The only prohibition being the opposite, namely to mention God’s name first and then spit. This would be prohibited because it would appear as though one is disparaging God’s name. But, if one follows the opinion of Rashi that spitting even before mentioning God’s name is also forbidden, then the custom of spitting during Alenu would be difficult [to support].  

That which the Tur writes in the above noted section that in those instances where it is obvious that one intends to honor God in spitting [as in the Alenu prayer] then it would be permitted, that doesn’t appear to be applicable. The case brought in our Gemora of one who is whispering upon a wound also does not mean to disrespect God, but rather the opposite is true in that he is honoring God by saying a verse that he hopes will cause healing. Nevertheless, the Gemora makes it clear that even in such a case it is still prohibited because it is just not honorable to mention God’s name in connection with spitting.

In summary, if one follows Rashi’s understanding of the Gemora, it is better to not spit during the Alenu prayer. This is how I have seen great men of our generation acting and I have followed their example.

 Editor’s Note: The bottom line is that the Torah Temimah is pointing out that it seems inappropriate to spit during prayers, no matter what.

Shmos 14:20 –  And he [the angel] came between the camp of Egypt and the camp of Israel, and there were the cloud and the darkness, and it illuminated the night, and one did not draw near the other all night long.

Gemora – Megila 10b: Rabbi Yochanan asked, what is the meaning of the verse “and one did not draw near the other all night long”? [It means] that the Ministering Angels wanted to sing, but God said to them, “the work of my hands is drowning in the sea, and you want to sing?”

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation Of Comment #9:
The phrase “the work of my hands” is reference to the Egyptians, who in spite of everything, are still God’s creations just like any other person. The [grammatical] reason for Rabbi Yochanan’s comment is that in the previous verse the word “camp” is referenced in the plural while in our verse the word “camp” is referenced in the singular. Thus the verse should have stated “and they [the Egyptian camp and the Israelite camp] did not draw near to each other all night long”. This change is the reason why it is taught that the verse is referencing the Angels not coming near to each other – one Angel for the pillar of file that went before them and the other Angel for the pillar of cloud that went behind them. This is in accordance with the verse in Psalms 104:4 “He makes winds His messengers [angels], burning fire His ministers [angels].

Now since the Jews had stopped traveling and stopped, it is obviously that the two pillars [and their accompanying angels] did not, at that point, draw near to each other. Thus, why would the verse even state that they did not draw near to each other? The reason is to teach the fact that they did not even draw near to each other in a spiritual manner, meaning that even for singing they were not allowed to come spiritually near to each other. This teaching relies on the phrase “did not come near” as being a reference to the verse in Isaiah 6:3 – And one called to the other and said, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory.” The angels joined together to say [sing] God’s praises because the natural way for song is to sing in a group.

Look further at the Beis Yosef on Orach Chaim Section 490 who quotes the Midrash “Harninu” the reason why we don’t say [sing] a full Hallel on the intermediate and last days of Passover is because of the this reason that “the work of my hands is drowning in the sea”. This idea, however, requires further investigation. Behold, we see that Moshe and [all of] Israel themselves sang on the seventh day [of Passover] and we also [in synagogue service] say the Song of the Sea. Rather it is clear that the caution against singing is [only] at the actual time of the drowning and prior to that. However, after the fact, singing God’s praises is allowed.

This approach is alluded to in the Gemora’s discussion on this topic in Sanhedrin 39b. The teaching is that the caution against singing is only at the time of the drowning [and beforehand]. This is also stated in the Mechilta (16:1) that on the seventh day of Passover, the angels sang. This would all be in accordance with the approach that we stated above. This is also the way to explain the Gemora Berachos 9b in referencing the Hallel that King David sang upon the downfall of the evildoers – the singing was not at the actual time of their downfall but rather afterwards.

In addition to these above listed reasons, I don’t know what the halachic commentators and the Midrash Harninu are forced to say in regard to the Gemora Arachin 10b where it explains that the reason why we don’t pray the whole Hallel on the Intermediate and Latter Days of Passover is because there is no unique sacrificial offerings on those days. This is in contrast to the holiday of Succos where we do offer unique sacrificial offerings each day and where we do pray the whole Hallel each day. It seems also that this explanation is more logical. After all, if the reason we don’t pray the whole Hallel is due to the Egyptians historically drowning during this time, then what logical distinction would there be between praying the whole Hallel and praying half-Hallel?

One point that can be derived from this discussion is a comment on what the Chavos Yair writes in his Responsum Section 225. There he writes that we do not follow the custom of saying Yotzrot [special additional prayers] on the Seventh Day of Passover. The Chavos Yair states that the reason why we don’t relates to the fact that God did not permit the angels to sing Hallel. [I think] this reason does not make any sense at all. According to that which we have written above, the command to the angels only applied at the night before the Seventh Day but that actual during the day Moshe, the Bnei Israel and the angels all did sing songs [of praise.]

 Editor’s Note: This midrash is popular in certain Jewish groups. It is interesting to see the Torah Temimah take a more learned approach.

Shmos  12:9 – “And it shall be to you as a sign You shall not eat it rare or boiled in water, except roasted over the fire its head with its legs and with its innards.

Gemora: Pesachim 41(a) – Rav Hisda says: [One who cooks/boils] a Pesach sacrifice that is cooked in the hot waters of Tiberias is guilty of a sin because the verse states that it must be roasted.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #89:

The phrasing of the Gemora is not exact – if so, what would be the difference between cooking it in the waters of Tiberias and cooking it in any other hot water? The meaning of the Gemora is that one who roasts the Pesach sacrifice above the waters of Tiberias is liable.  [using the hot air emanating from the waters of Tiberias.] This is a sin because the verse requires that it be roasted over a fire. This is exactly what Maimonides writes in Chapter 8, Halacha 10 of the Laws of Pesach, “one who roasts it above the hot waters of Tiberias transgresses since it must be roasted over a fire.”

Note what is written by the Marei Kohen that is appended to the Vilna Shas. The Marei Kohen quotes the Chacham of Jerusalem as asking: how could it be that one is cooking the Pesach sacrifice in the hot waters of Tiberias? Behold, it is forbidden to eat the Pesach sacrifice outside of Jerusalem. Additionally, if one were to bring it to Tiberias, one would be liable for transgressing the prohibition of “taking it out” [of Jerusalem]. Also, if one were to bring the waters of Tiberias to Jerusalem, they would already have cooled down. Further they would be a “kli sheni” and it would not technically be cooking.

The Marei Kohen states that the Sage of Jerusalem did not propose an answer to his question. The Marei Kohen suggests that the Gemora is discussing a time when bamot [small alters for ‘light’ sacrifices] were permitted throughout the land of Israel.

If that were the case, then why would the Gemora discuss it? Something that was in the past, was in the past. Additionally, bamot will never be permitted again the future (as mentioned in Gemora Zevachim 113b). Lastly, Maimonides also mentions this law regarding the waters of Tiberias and his way, in general, is not to discuss bamot for the above reasons. For these reasons and others, the answer given by the Marei Kohen seems unlikely.

On the other hand, I am amazed that the comments by Rashi on this issue are not mentioned. Rashi interprets “waters of Tiberias” as being “boiling waters”. On the surface, this comment of Rashi’s seems superfluous. Everyone knows what the waters of Tiberias are. Rather, the point of Rashi’s comment is to state that “waters of Tiberias” refers to boiling waters, in any location. Thus, if one were to find hot springs in Jerusalem, the laws applying to them would be the same as those applying to the waters of Tiberias. Now everything is understandable, the above Gemora Pesachim is referring to boiling waters, wherever they may be found.

In fact, a good proof that the Gemora is accustomed to referring to boiling waters as the “waters of Tiberias” can be found in the aggada of helek (Sanhedrin 108a). That Gemora is as follows: “Rabbi Yochanan states that 3 [types of waters] survived from [Noah’s] flood. “  One of them is the waters of Tiberias. Rashi explains there that the waters of Noah’s flood were boiling and the waters of Tiberias are from those waters. Now, the rabbi stating this view is Rabbi Yochanan and he, himself, states in Gemora Zevachim 113a that the flood did not cover the land of Israel. Since Tiberias is in the land of Israel, it is surprising that Rabbi Yochanan would make this statement. Rather, what we see is that Rabbi Yochanan was using the phrase “waters of Tiberias” to refer to hot springs wherever they might be found throughout the world.

Editor’s Note: The Meshivas Nefesh, a commentary on the Torah Temimah, points out that the Gemora in Pesachim 8a discusses “why are there not found ‘waters of Tiberias’ in Jerusalem?” He also mentions that the Yalkut Shimoni in Parshat Baalotcha discusses why there are not ‘waters of Tiberias’ in Jerusalem.  I think he does this as a critique of the Torah Temimah statement that if there were to be found such waters in Jerusalem it would be forbidden to cook the Pesach sacrifice using their heat. It seems to me, though, that these quotes actually prove the Torah Temimah’s point that ‘waters of Tiberias’ is a generic phrase referring to hot springs anywhere.

Shmos  13:9 – “And it shall be to you as a sign upon your hand and as a remembrance between your eyes, in order that the law of the Lord shall be in your mouth, for with a mighty hand the Lord took you out of Egypt.”

Gemora: Menachos 34(b): We learn in a Beraitha, Rabbi Akiva said, “You might think that perhaps one should put on tefillin on Shabbos and Holidays. However, the verse states [tefillin] should be a sign – meaning for when you need a sign. This excludes Shabbos and Holidays that are themselves referred to as signs.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #33:

Rashi explains and cites the verse in Shmos (31:13) that explicitly states that Shabbos, itself, is a sign. However, Rashi doesn’t mention a proof for the Holidays also being a sign. It seems though that since Holidays are also often referred to as Shabbos; therefore, they also are a sign. This is shown in a variety of verses. Vayikra (23:15) “You shall count, starting the day after Shabbos…” which refers to the holiday of Passover as is explained in the Gemora Menachos (65b). Regarding the holiday of Succos, the verse states (Vayikra 23:39) “the first day of the holiday shall be a Shabbos and the eighth days shall be a Shabbos”. Also, note the Gemora Shevuos (15b) where the rabbis deduce that building the temple needs to be suspended on holidays because of the verse in Vayikra (19:30) “You shall surely guard my Shabbos and my temple shall you fear.” Also, in the Mechilta (on Parshat BeShalach) the rabbis deduce that one may not reap on holidays from the fact that the verse (Shmos 16:26) “Six days shall you reap and on the seventh day (Shabbos) not”. The reason all of these cite describe Holidays as a form of Shabbos is easy to understand. The word Shabbos means resting and ceasing from work – since this is also true of Holidays, we can then see that it is logical to refer to Holidays with the word Shabbos.

Tosafot here writes a [different] reason why Holidays are referred to as a sign. They state that for Passover, the “sign” consists in the prohibition of eating leaven baked goods. On Succos, the sign consists in the dwelling in the succah and in the shaking of the lulav.

But according to this reasoning, one would have to ask what the sign would be for the holiday of Shavuos and Shmini Atzeret? One cannot say, regarding these holidays, that the sign consists of the special sacrifices that are brought on these days. If that were the case, then Rosh Chodesh [the first day of each month], would also be a sign and one would not be obligated to wear tefillin on Rosh Chodesh. [However, one is obligated to wear tefillin on Rosh Chodesh.] Thus, if one does not deduce Holidays as being a sign from the prohibition of work, there are some logical inconsistencies. Further, from the phraseology of Tosafot, it is clear that these two opinions of why Holidays are referred to as signs are mutually exclusive. In Tosafot’s opinion Holiday is referred to as a sign because of its unique observances, not because of the cessation from work.

The halachic ramification of this opinion is regarding the question of whether one needs to put on tefillin during the intermediate days of the holiday [chol ha’moed]. If the reason is because of the prohibition of leaven bread or the obligation to eat in a succah, then one would not be obligated to put on tefillin during chol ha’moed. If, however, the reason is because of the prohibition of doing work – then according to those opinions that one is allowed, biblically speaking, to do work on chol ha’moed, then one would be obligated to put on tefillin during chol ha’moed. This enables us to understand the Rashba who states explicitly that one is exempt from putting on tefillin during chol ha’moed. The Rashba is being internally consistent as he explains in his work (section 600) that it is prohibited bibilically to do work on chol ha’moed. This is as is written by the Beis Yosef. Thus one would not be obligated to put on tefillin during chol ha’moed.

Behold, much has been written by the Rishonim and the Acharonim regarding this issue of obligation or exemption from putting on tefillin during chol ha’moed. Therefore it does not appear appropriate to expound at length regarding this topic here. However, let us shed some light on the issue of putting on the tefillin but without a blessing in order to [seemingly] fulfill all the various opinions on this matter. My opinion is that this idea does not seem to make sense. The fact that saying a blessing does not in any way impact the performance of the mitzvah shows that even without a blessing one has completely fulfilled the mitzvah. [So in what manner does this meet the opinion of one who says that we do not wear tefillin on chol ha’moed?!]

Perhaps the logic here is similar to the logic in the Gemora Rosh HaShana (28b). In that Gemora there is a discussion regarding the prohibition of “don’t add to it”. [This is the prohibition against creating new mitzvot or new prohibitions.]  The Gemora raises the issue of one who sleeps in the succah on Shimi Atzeres is liable for lashes because he has transgressed the prohibition of “adding on”. Many have asked why the Gemora mentions one who sleeps in the succah [after the holiday is over] instead of the [more likely] scenario of one who eats in the succah [after the holiday].

The explanation for the Gemora’s choice of scenario is because on all the days of the actual holiday, we make a blessing before eating in the succah. Thus, if one were to eat in the succah after the holiday and NOT make a blessing, it would be immediately recognizable that one was eating there due to a doubt [is it still the holiday or isn’t it?] not due to a desire to add to the requirements of the mitzvah. This is not the situation with sleeping in the succah, however. Even during the holiday, one never makes a blessing before sleeping in the succah. Therefore, there is no way to recognize that one is NOT sleeping in the succah with the intent of adding on the holiday.

Based on this example we see that since on all normal weekdays of the year, we do make a blessing before putting on tefillin, if we put on tefillin during chol ha’moed and we don’t make a blessing – we thus demonstrate that we are doing so out of a doubt [as to whether one should put on tefillin during chol ha’moed or not]. This is the reason why putting on tefillin without a blessing is the way that satisfies both points of view.

Editor’s Note: This may be the most complex note that we have translated so far. However, the clarity of the Torah Temimah’s logic, I think, does make the note intelligible even to one not familiar with the method of Jewish Talmudic reasoning.