Yohrzeit Shiur for Rav Yitzchok Asher Twersky

A gut vuch and a gut kvittel. Thank you very much, it's a very difficult time to come and it's very much appreciated. Is it audible on the Zoom? Yes, okay. I basically just wanted to share two ha'aros in inyanei aveilus. The first one is exclusively halacha, the second one is more weighted in the direction of Agadda and also links up with hilchos Yom Tov. Maybe we'll begin with the Rambam here in Perek Beis of Hilchos Aveil, Halacha Vav. Rambam writes: כמה חמורה מצות אבילות. How weighty the mitzvah of aveilus is. Right, the Rambam is of the opinion following in the footsteps of the Rif that aveilus is a mitzvah de'oraisa. In contradistinction to the Ba'alei Tosafos, the Rosh, for whom aveilus is only derabbanan, but for the Rambam, aveilus yom rishon is min haTorah. So כמה חמורה מצות אבילות, meaning the mitzvah de'oraisa of aveilus. Beis-Vav here in Hilchos Aveil.

שהרי נדחת לו הטומאה מפני קרוביו כדי שיתעסק עמהן ויתאבל עליהן.

That the lo is the kohen of whom the Rambam has been speaking previously. That the issur tumas kohanim is overridden in case of the seven immediate relatives to facilitate the kohen being occupied, involved with the kevura and the aveilus. שנאמר כי אם לשארו הקרוב אליו. Right,

הנפש לא יטמא בעמיו, אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן, הנפש לא יטמא בעמיו.

However, כי אם לשארו הקרוב אליו לאמו ולאביו וגומר, and the Torah lists explicitly six of the immediate relatives and then the Torah says lo yitama. Rambam paskens like Rabbi Akiva. The Toras Kohanim here has a machlokes, the Gemara in Sotah daf gimmel presents a machlokes Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva whether tumas kohanim lekerovim is a reshus, that the Torah gives them the option but it's not mandatory. That's Rabbi Yishmael. And Rabbi Akiva says no, lo yitama mitzvah. That the kohen is obligated to betamei himself to the zayin kerovim. שאם לא רצה להטמא מטמאין אותו על כרחו. Okay, we'll get an occasion to try to mine this halacha a little bit more. But for now, let's just note that the Rambam uses the word שהרי נדחת לו הטומאה very precisely, very advisedly. What does that mean? So if you take a look at the next halacha here, Perek Beis Halacha Tes-Zayin. הטומאה לקרובים דחויה היא ולא הותרה לכל. When the Torah allows the kohen, allows and mandates that the kohen be mitamei to the zayin kerovim, the truth is that's if we're talking within shitas HaRambam, the Rambam holds that a kohen being mitamei le'ishto is only miderabbanan, so it's really only shesh kerovim if we're going to speak precisely within shitas HaRambam. הטומאה לקרובים דחויה היא ולא הותרה לכל. The resolution of the clash between the issur, the general issur of a kohen being mitamei lames on the one hand with the mitzvah in the instance of the kerovim, so the resolution of that conflict is דחויה היא ולא הותרה. What's the practical ramification of the fact that it's dechuya and not hutra? לפיכך אסור לכהן להטמא למת אפילו בעת שמטמא לקרובו. According to the Rambam, again we're focused on the shitas HaRambam, not necessarily everything we're talking is halacha lema'aseh. But according to the Rambam, a kohen cannot simultaneously be mitamei to another mes while he's being mitamei to his relatives. לפיכך אסור לכהן להיטמא למת אפילו בשעה שמטמא לקרובו, she-ne'emar lo yitama. Lo, davka her, again the lo refers to the sister who's representative of the group of the immediate relatives. Lo yitama, davka exclusively to her, אינו מטמא לאחרים עמה. He can't simultaneously be mitamei to achairim with her.

שלא יאמר הואיל ונטמאתי על אבי על כן אטמא בפלוני או אגע בקבר פלוני.

I'm incurring tumas mes anyway, so what difference does it make if either actually simultaneously or on the same day I will be mitamei to another mes?

לפיכך כהן שמת לו מת צריך להיזהר ולקוברו בסוף בית הקברות.

Therefore, the kivrei kohanim should be on the outskirts of the cemetery. So interesting, you could have said that it needs to be on the outskirts because after the burial, so then the kohen is no longer occupied, preoccupied with the relative. So why exact, but the Rambam says no, that the reason the kivrei kohanim have to be on the outskirts is because at the time of the burial, you have to make sure that the kohen doesn't have to traverse other kvaros in order to access the burial plot of the relative.

לפיכך כהן שמת לו מת צריך להיזהר ולקוברו בסוף בית הקברות כדי שלא ייכנס לבית הקברות.

If it's the outer row of the cemetery, so then the kohen doesn't have to walk near any other kvaros. ולא יטמא בקברות אחרים כשיקבור מתו. Fine. What about the kvaros shel kohanim? I'm sorry? It could be other kvaros shel kohanim. There will be, but even so, he's going to still need it to be on the outer row, right? So that he doesn't have to traverse any kvaros. But not if it's on the outer, if it's on the outer row, so then he doesn't have to traverse anything, right? If it will be on the outer row. Okay, so that why, okay, maybe some other time, that's not what we're going to focus on for this evening. So the Rambam tells us that, again, the way the clash between the general issur of a kohen being mitamei lemes and the mitzvah for him to be mitamei to the krovim, the way that clash is resolved is in the form of dchuya, not in the form of hutra. And the nafkameina of the fact that it's dchuya and not hutra is that the kohen is not allowed to be mitamei even simultaneously to another mes while he's being mitamei lemeiso. That's the Rambam. Now what's very difficult here is the following. The source in the Gemara for these categories, we know whenever we have again a clash, so the question always arises, is it hutra or dchuya? So when the Torah says וביום השמיני ימול בשר ערלתו, so you have a milah even on Shabbos. Milah involves a melacha. Maybe it involves the melacha of gozez, maybe it involves the melacha of chovel because the baby bleeds, but either way there's a melacha involved in milah. So the question is, is it hutra, is it dchuya? There's a discussion in Shulchan Aruch that in Europe the custom used to be that at a milah they used to mechabed two mohelim. I think it's hard enough to find one mohel, but they obviously had no problems lining up mohel because their minhag was they used to have two mohelim and they used to be mechabed one with the milah and one with the pri'ah. One with, one to remove the skin and one to remove the membrane underneath, the or haperi'ah. So there's a question whether or not that's appropriate on Shabbos as well, or no, maybe on Shabbos you're supposed to do things in as streamlined a fashion as possible and you should only have one mohel, you shouldn't have two mohelim. So whenever we have kilayim bevigdei kehuna, so generally there's an issur to wear tzemar upishtim. The avnet, or the belt of the kohen hedyot, was shatnez. So whenever we have this clash, so the question always is how did the Torah... Now what's the makor in Shas for this? So the makor in Shas is from the Gemara in Yuma. If you take a look here, itmar.

טומאת מת רב נחמן אמר הותרה היא בציבור ורב ששת אמר דחויה היא בציבור.

Now if you have a קורבן ציבור שקבוע לו זמן, like korban tamid, a korban musaf, so the din is that a קורבן ציבור שקבוע לו זמן, you can have a korban tzibur, ich veis, if the tzibur is bringing a פר העלם דבר של ציבור because the rov of the tzibur sinned in a דבר שזדונו כרת, so that's not kavuah lo zman. It just happened that today they have to bring such a korban. But the korban tamid, the korbanos musafim, so that's kavuah lo zman. The Torah said, now on this day, on this day, daily, in the case of tmiddim, you're supposed to be makriv this korban tzibur. So the din is that even if we need to override tuma, so the korban tzibur prevails. So itmar.

טומאת מת רב נחמן אמר הותרה היא בציבור ורב ששת אמר דחויה היא בציבור.

Now what's the practical nafka mina between hutra and dchuya? And again, this is the source for the categories of hutra and dchuya. This is the source where in every other context we're transposing hutra and dchuya to tumas kohanim, to mila b'Shabbos, to קילאים בבגדי כהונה, etc. This is the source. So היכא דאיכא טמאים וטהורים בההוא בית אב, so the kohanim were divided into chaf dalet mishmaros, 24, there were 24 rotations, and then each mishmar was subdivided into batei av and each beis av was assigned one weekday. So let's say it's a Tuesday and for some reason the many, many of the kohanim are tamei. So heicha d'ika of today's beis av,

היכא דאיכא טמאים וטהורים בההוא בית אב, כולי עלמא לא פליגי דטהורין עבדי טמאים לא עבדי.

According to the first lashon, again even if you hold hutra there has to be a clash, right? There has to be a conflict. If you have kohanim in today's beis av who are assigned to do today's avodah who are tehorin, so then there's no clash. If you have a חולה שיש בו סכנה, the doctor says we need boiling water to sterilize something and there's boiling water right here, there's no clash between the tzorchei hacholeh and Shabbos. There has to be some clash. So

היכא דאיכא טמאים וטהורים בההוא בית אב, כולי עלמא לא פליגי דטהורין עבדי טמאים לא עבדי.

So of course you have those kohanim who are tehorin in today's beis av, they do the avodah. כי פליגי לאהדורי לאתויי טהורין מבית אב אחרינא. Now let's say all the kohanim of today's beis av, they're all tmei'im. So do you now have to go out of your way, resort to extraordinary measures to reconcile the conflict between the fact that between the korban tzibur which has to be offered and the issur tuma which says that a kohen who's tamei is not allowed to do avodah? So רב נחמן אמר הותרה היא בציבור ולא מהדרינן. Now there is a clash since the kohanim of today's beis av are tmei'im, so that's a clash. Once there's a clash, you don't have to resort to every possible means to reconcile that conflict. הותרה היא בציבור ולא מהדרינן. You don't have to go and go find a kohen who's not on duty today, who's not on call today. רב ששת אמר דחויה היא בציבור ומהדרינן. The Rambam quotes this halacha, he actually expands the Gemara. If you take a look in the Rambam, right in

היו מקצת בית אב טמאים ומקצת טהורין אף על פי שרובן טמאי מת לא יקריבו אלא הטהורין. היו כל בית אב טמאי מת יביאו בית אב אחר.

So so far the Rambam is just quoting directly from the Gemara, right? If we have to go within this week's mishmar to a different day's beis av, we do so. But the Rambam says, the Kesef Mishneh points it out, that היתה כל המשמרה טמאי מת, let's say no, all the kohanim of this mishmar are tmei meis. The Rambam says

אם היו רוב הכהנים הנכנסים שם בירושלים בזמן הקבוע טמאים יעשו בטומאה.

If the majority of kohanim who are within reasonable distance, i.e., within Yerushalayim, are tamei, so at that point, even according to Rav Sheshes, we would allow a kohen tamei to do the avodah. Fine. So what's the nafkamina of hutar and dechuya here in the Gemara in Yoma? The nafkamina is, do we look to resolve the conflict? The Rambam spells it out in the next halacha, take a look Halacha Tes-Vav, ומפני מה מחזירין על הטהור מבית אב אחר? Why do we have to go out of our way and bypass today's assigned beis av?

מפני שהטומאה לא הותרה בציבור אלא באיסורה עומדת ודחויה היא עתה מפני הדחק ואין דוחין כל דבר הנדחה אלא במקום שאי אפשר.

Similar to the rule of עשה דוחה לא תעשה, whenever you have the rule of עשה דוחה לא תעשה, it's only if it's אי אפשר לקיים שניהם. So the same thing applies here. So now lichora, if tumas kohanim, again, and this is the makor in the Gemara for hutar and dechuya. So now lichora when we transpose that to tumas kohanim, so we should get a very different nafkamina. The first nafkamina we should get is, is the kohen's involvement necessary to bury the relatives? No. Maybe you can just call the chevra kadisha and hand it off and maybe his involvement isn't necessary. So the Rambam is operating with the terms of hutar and dechuya, but they play out very differently here by tumas kohanim, right? There's no, we're not looking to reconcile the issur tumas kohanim with krovei hameis kedei sheyisasek imahem. No, that's, we just tell the kohen to be mitamei. The only way dechuya expresses itself is that the kohen shouldn't additionally be mitamei to a second meis. But that's a much more limited and weaker nafkamina to hutar and dechuya than the Gemara in Yoma, which is the classic source, gives us. The question clear, rabosai? So then you have the same problem in Hilchos Shabbos. If you take a look on the bottom of the page from the Rambam in Hilchos Shabbos, so the Rambam says דחויה היא שבת אצל סכנת נפשות כשאר כל המצוות. Lefichach,

חולה שיש בו סכנה עושים לו כל צורכו בשבת על פי בקי אומן של אותו מקום.

Right, famously the shita of the Rambam is that we don't assess the tzorech to see whether or not יש במניעת הדבר סכנה. The Rambam's opinion is, if there's a bona fide need for the חולה שיש בו סכנה, we don't look to make a judgment whether or not it's vital, whether or not it potentially, possibly, could make the difference between life and death. If it's a legitimate tzorech, so then עושים לו כל צורכו בשבת. That's why Rav Chaim used to pasken on Yom Kippurim, he used to pasken that a choleh should only eat pachos pachos. A choleh should only eat or drink shiurim on Yom Kippurim if he's not a חולה שיש בו סכנה but there's a concern that fasting may trigger sakana. But if he's already, rachmana litzlan, a חולה שיש בו סכנה, so Rav Chaim said it's certainly a tzorech of the choleh to get the maximum nutrition. That's possible. Okay, that's just an aside.

דחויה היא שבת אצל סכנת נפשות כשאר כל המצוות. דחויה היא שבת אצל סכנת נפשות כשאר כל המצוות. לפיכך חולה שיש בו סכנה עושין לו כל צרכו בשבת.

Okay, who makes the call? על פי רופא אומן של אותו מקום. Okay, that's maybe the Rambam Halacha Bet.

עמדו בו ביום השבת שהוא צריך לכך וכך שמונה ימים.

On Shabbos the doctor assesses that the choleh needs a certain treatment, a certain protocol which involves some melacha for eight days. So if we'll begin today on Shabbos, we'll have to be mechallel this Shabbos and next Shabbos. If we'll wait until tonight, we can get away with only being mechallel one Shabbos.

עמדו בו ביום השבת שהוא צריך לכך וכך שמונה ימים אין אומרים נמתין עד הערב כדי שלא לחלל עליו שתי שבתות אלא מתחילין מהיום שהוא שבת ומחללין עליו אפילו מאה שבתות כל זמן שהוא צריך.

All those things skipping to the last line of Halacha Bet:

שבת לגבי חולה שיש בו סכנה הרי הוא כחול לכל הדברים שהוא צריך להם.

Okay, so we're still holding out hope, maybe the Rambam will tell us, you know, if there's a non-Jew available, have the non-Jew do it. If there's a katan available, have the katan do it. No such luck. כשעושין דברים האלו Halacha Gimmel.

אין עושין אותן לא על ידי גויים ולא על ידי קטנים אלא על ידי גדולי ישראל וחכמיהם. ואסור להתמהמה בחילול שבת לחולה שיש בו סכנה שנאמר אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם הא למדת שאין משפטי התורה נקמה בעולם אלא רחמים וחסד ושלום בעולם.

So on the one hand, the Rambam began Halacha Aleph by saying it's dchuya. On the other hand, there is no attempt whatsoever to avoid the chillul Shabbos for a חולה שיש בו סכנה. You don't, you don't hand it off to a non-Jew, you don't hand it off to a katan. The Rambam doesn't say anything about if it's possible to do it al yedei shinuy. None of that. And yet the Rambam insists on calling it dchuya. So some say he's using dchuya but he's not using it in its technical term. But that's it's difficult. Given that it's a term that has that carries associations not only in the Gemara but in the Rambam itself, it's hard to say that the Rambam said dchuya but didn't mean dchuya. But here too we're running into the same problem as in our sugya of aveilus that the category of dchuya is not expressing itself the way the classic source of the Gemara in Yuma says dchuya should express itself, which is try to reconcile that conflict. Here again we know from the Rama. The Rama says if you're not going to lose any time, so then have a nochri do the melacha on Shabbos. That's davka what it says in Shulchan Aruch the Rama against the Rambam. But the Rambam insists that it's on the one hand dchuya, but on the other hand says no you don't do that. So what's the pshat? So here's the, here's the suggestion rabosai. I'm not sure that I have the right words for it but but we'll try b'ezras Hashem. Before we come to the question of how to dchuya, the question is how the Torah resolves the conflict. And by how, so we mean not only in whose favor, not just that the conflict between the Shabbos and pikuach nefesh is resolved in favor of pikuach nefesh, that it's resolved in favor of the Kohen is mitameh, that it's resolved in favor of the Korban Tzibur, that the Korban Tzibur does proceed, but how the Torah resolves it in the sense that again, before you ask who to dchuya, the question is when the Torah prioritized one over the other, there are different ways for the Torah to say it. And here's, hopefully that's very vague but but we'll try to concretize right now b'ezras Hashem. Let's begin here in Shabbos. Come back again to Halacha Gimmel on the bottom of the page rabosai. The last line and a half: ואסור להתמהמה בחילול שבת לחולה שיש בו סכנה. You're not allowed to delay. You're not allowed to delay, to procrastinate in being mechaleil Shabbos

בחולה שיש בו סכנה שנאמר אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם

ve'lo she'yamus bahem. So that proof is be'chora difficult. Now וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם is the source that we override Shabbos for pikuach nefesh. Now how do you know that you shouldn't delay? Not from that source. The same way you shouldn't delay on a Sunday if there's a call rachmana litzlan someone's having a heart attack so the person can't finish his Gatorade first. No he has to go attend to him right away. Obviously it's assur leshamaya. But the assur leshamaya is not from ve'chai bahem. Ve'chai bahem says Shabbos is not an issue. Shabbos is not an issue in general seven days a week now the same way we knew six days a week we now know that seven days a week so if time is of the essence so of course it's assur leshamaya. It's לא תעמוד על דם רעך. It's not ve'chai bahem. And yet the Rambam quotes ve'chai bahem. So the answer is as follows. Coming back to Halacha Beis. Again Halacha Beis is a gemara in Yuma. So is וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם also a gemara in Yuma. What was the hava amina that we should postpone when the doctor orders an eight-day treatment which involves melacha? What was the hava amina that we should wait from Shabbos afternoon to motzei Shabbos? So the Rashi struggles with it. There's a very very novel explanation of the Rashash. But the Rambam apparent because it's obvious. If that's what you need to save him then that's what you need to save him and what? So it's clear that the way the Rambam learned peshat in that gemara is as follows. The Rambam learned peshat that the doctor says it doesn't make a difference whether you begin at 5:00 in the afternoon or 8:00 at night. The doctor said three hours don't make a difference. Let's say I think there are some treatments that you have a certain window where the doctor says you have a certain window within when to begin the treatment. Ich meyn I think rachmana litzlan a person is bit by a rabid animal. So there's a certain window within which to give the shot. A cycle bit? On the same also there's a certain if you miss the window you don't take it. But there is a window and where medical opinion is confident that you do have a certain latitude. The Rambam is saying if at 5:00 when the doctor makes his rounds he says okay this is what we're going to do. 5:00. Okay so shkiya is 6:47. It's not a big deal to wait. You can even wait bein hashmashos. It's not a big deal to wait. So the Rambam is saying no what the gemara is saying is even then it's assur. Why? Because ve'chai bahem doesn't only say that you override Shabbos it says that it's assur to take Shabbos into account. Now if today were Monday or Thursday and the doctor said eight-day treatment we'd start right away. We wouldn't make a point of saying well let's wait three hours let's wait four hours. If you wouldn't do it on Monday you can't do it on Shabbos even though the doctor doesn't think that's going to make a crucial difference. He doesn't even think it's going to make any difference. But the point is you can't take Shabbos into account. That's from ve'chai bahem. So when the Rambam says assur leshamaya he means assur leshamaya even in a way that isn't going to jeopardize the choleh. Assur leshamaya in deference to Shabbos. So what does that point to? What that points to is that the way the Torah resolved the conflict between Shabbos on the one hand and pikuach nefesh on the other hand is as the Rambam said at the end of Halacha Beis klal shel davar. This is not just a practical description it's a conceptual definition.

שבת לגבי חולה שיש בו סכנה הרי היא כחול לכל דבריה.

It's not Shabbos. It's not Shabbos. When you're busy with the choleh it's not Shabbos. It's Monday. So first the question is how did the Torah resolve the contradiction? But even now so this is a hafk'ah of kedushas Shabbos which would seem to be what room is that to talk about hutra or dechuyah? No there's still room to talk about hutra. So take a look here on page two. The famous Gemara in Menachos

סמך דלת עמוד א. בעא רבא כל שהן דלא שתי גרוגרות.

He needs two figs. ויש שתי גרוגרות בשתי עוקצין ושלש בעוקץ אחת. So either there's two but each one is sort of growing individually, so you'll have to be kotzer twice to get the two, or there's a cluster of three. So you could get two with one act of ketzirah, but then you'll be getting more than you need. Hei mineihu ma'alinan? שתים מעלינן דחזו ליה, better we should do ketzirah twice and not be kotzer something which is unnecessary for the choleh, או דלמא שלש מעלינן דקא ממעטא קצירה. Or no, maybe it's true that gratuitously we shouldn't be marbeh, but over here, this is the most efficient way, this is the way to be mema'et. And the Gemara says, pshita, shalosh ma'alinan. Rava then he resolves this just in sevara. You don't need a raya for that. But it's clear from the Gemara, what if the choices would be that he needs two grogros and there's two on one oketz and there's three on another oketz? So it's clear from the Gemara that in that case you have to take the two and you're not allowed to take the three. That implication is clear from the Gemara. So take a look in the Rambam. Why? For some reason the computer didn't tell us what halacha this is, but this is a little bit further in perek bais of Hilchos Shabbos.

כל שהיה צריך לשתי גרוגרות ולא מצאו אלא שתי גרוגרות בשני עוקצין ושלש גרוגרות בעוקץ אחד כורתין העוקץ שיש בו שלש אף על פי שאין צריכין אלא לשתים כדי שלא ירבו בקצירה אלא יכרתו עוקץ אחד ולא יכרתו שנים וכן כל כיוצא בזה.

Fine. So here already lichora, even in this, again, remarkably just to begin with, broad way of resolving the clash in favor of the choleh, but af pi chein the question still arises, when I'm doing melacha for the choleh, it's not Shabbos? Or no, only if what I'm doing is letzorech hacholeh. So again, what's the definition of how we resolve the conflict between Shabbos and the choleh? The definition is a hafka'as kedushas Shabbos. It's not Shabbos, it's Monday. It's not Shabbos in a more restricted sense that what I'm doing is exclusively for the purpose of the choleh? Or no, if right now what I'm doing is for the choleh, so then we don't care if there's extra. So hutra o dechuya is the categories of hutra o dechuya are applied after we first ascertain how the Torah reconciles that conflict. And again, how, meaning not just factually that pikuach nefesh wins and Shabbos loses. No, you could have said pikuach nefesh wins and Shabbos loses, but it's still Shabbos, and therefore no. How the Torah resolves it is a hafka'as kedushas Shabbos. כללו של דבר שבת הרי היא כחול לכל דבר. Okay. But even so, hutra o dechuya is still a meaningful question because the question is, again, so right now when I'm doing the ketzirah, so I'm busy with tzorkei hacholeh? Or no, that's not enough. What I have to be doing, it's not just that I'm busy for the tzorkei hacholeh, it has to be again that this is going to exclusively benefit him. That will be hutra o dechuya applied to Shabbos. Now, let's come back to tumah be'tzibur. By tumah be'tzibur, so the way the Torah resolves it is not the way the Torah resolved in favor of the choleh versus Shabbos. There the Torah just said the korban tzibur has to be offered. The Torah didn't say that tumah doesn't exist in presence of a korban tzibur, which would have been the analogue to saying it's not Shabbos in the presence of a חולה שיש בו סכנה. The Torah didn't say that, the Torah said the korban differently. So the, again, just I apologize, maybe a little bit too abstract for Motza'ei Yom Kippur, but let's try, let's try again just to summarize very briefly and then we'll come back to how it explains the case of tumas meis. The Gemara, the source for hutra or d'chuya, is the Gemara in Yoma. The way the Gemara in Yoma translates hutra and d'chuya is we look to reconcile, we look to avoid at all costs invoking the, the override, invoking the d'chuya. We'll go outside of today's beish av to tomorrow's beish av, we'll go outside of this week's mishmar to any other mishmar. We're going to do anything possible, almost anything possible, to reconcile the clash. In hilchos Shabbos, which the Rambam insists is also d'chuya, no such thing. No such thing happens. So what we're suggesting is, is that hutra or d'chuya isn't the first, isn't the only, or even the first defining consideration in terms of the interaction between the two. The first defining consideration is when the Torah said the choleh prevails over Shabbos, the korban tzibur prevails over tumah, how did the Torah say that? And the Torah said it differently by the case of korban tzibur versus tumah as opposed to the choleh versus Shabbos. Korban tzibur versus tumah, the Torah said, it's tumah, what an ordinary Kohen can't. What are we going to do? We need the korban tzibur. The Torah said every day there has to be a tamid, right? We fast because of bittul hatamid, right? It's למסזט״ר, so when, when a קרבן ציבור שקבוע לו זמן is, is, is undermined. By Shabbos, the way the Torah, the way the Torah prioritized Shabbos is by saying, for this חולה שיש בו סכנה, it's Sunday. It's Sunday. Now, now apply hutra or d'chuya. Again, hutra's going to be more expansive, d'chuya's going to be more limited. So in the context of tumah b'tzibur, so the way hutra or d'chuya translate—but this isn't the definition of hutra or d'chuya. The definition of hutra or d'chuya is, again, is it a broader—the, the, it's a, you apply the Torah's resolution more broadly or you apply it more narrowly. That's what hutra or d'chuya means. Now, now you have to see within the, each one's own context. So within, within hilchos bias mikdash, so there the Torah didn't suspend tumah. Torah didn't say that when you're dealing with a korban tzibur there's no such thing as tumah. No, there is. So d'chuya means, go outside of today's beish av, go outside of this week's mishmar. In hilchos Shabbos, so the Torah said it's not Shabbos, it's Sunday. So here the way the question of hutra or d'chuya will translate in hilchos Shabbos is, is it enough that right now since I'm being osek with the tzorchei hacholeh, so therefore it's not Shabbos? Or no, it's not enough that I'm being osek with the tzorchei hacholeh, it's only, everything is measured by if it's going to benefit the choleh. What's the nafkamina? If, again, I could get two grogeros in, or three grogeros in, so there's no le'man d'amar d'chuya, so there's no heter to take, to take the three. Now, when we come back to tumas kohanim, which is where we started, so how did the Torah resolve the conflict? Notice again that coming back to

פרק ב הלכה ו, כמה חמורה מצות אבילות שהרי נדחת לה הטומאה מפני קרוביו כדי שיתעסק עמהן ויתאבל עליהן.

So the Rambam very famously identifies the mitzvah of the Kohen being metamei to... to the zayin krovim with mitzvas aveilus. The Rambam says that the Kohen being mitamei to the zayin krovim is a facet and expression of mitzvas aveilus. That the very fact that he is mitamei is itself an expression of aveilus. So that being the case, so again, we have a clash between, on the one hand, the general prohibition of a Kohen being mitamei l'meis. Over here, the case of the zayin krovim, so we're not going to ask. So first we have to say, how did the Torah prioritize the zayin krovim? And the answer is the Torah prioritized it not by saying that, well, they need to get buried, so we're prioritizing tzorech k'vurah. No, the Torah said, according to the Rambam's understanding, that the very act of the Kohen being mitamei to the zayin krovim is itself an expression of aveilus. So clearly here, hutrah dechuyah is not going to mean, can we avoid it? Because what the Torah said in prioritizing the krovim, the meis, the Torah said is that the Kohen being mitamei is itself again an expression of a facet of mitzvas aveilus. But hutrah dechuyah is still going to be relevant. That's the Rambam that we saw in Halacha tes-vav. Even so, hutrah dechuyah even when it's a mitzvah, again, so is the resolution in favor of the krovim, is that broader so that if right now he's being misasek l'aviv, yeah, so then he can be mitamei? Hutrah would mean that he could be mitamei simultaneously to another meis. We don't mind if in the chapel when the Kohen goes in, according to the Rambam, if you would say hutrah, you wouldn't mind that there are other meisim in the chapel now. You wouldn't mind if in order for the Kohen to access his father's kever to do the kvurah, he had to pass by other kvarim because it's hutrah and right now he's being misasek b'aviv. But if you say dechuyah, it's not enough that right now he's being misasek b'aviv. No, the heter is exclusively l'aviv. It's not while he's being misasek l'aviv, that's hutrah. So that's the suggestion. That what the Gemara in Yoma is not defining hutrah and dechuyah. The way hutrah and dechuyah will express themselves, will translate, depends upon again a prior, conceptually prior consideration of exactly how did the Torah resolve the clash. Okay, so just briefly to share one other he'arah, more in divrei aggadah. But we'll give a little bit of a preface in halacha. If you take a look here on page two, where you have the Rambam in הלכות אבל פרק א' הלכה י"א. me'abeid atzmo lada'as Rachmana l'tzlan, a person commits suicide.

אין מתעסקין עמו לכל דבר ואין מתאבלין עליו ואין מספידין אותו.

So there is no, again we're honing in on the phrase ein misablin alav, there's no shiva for a person who, while in his right mind, Rachmana l'tzlan, commits suicide.

אבל עומדים עליו בשורה ואומרים עליו ברכת אבלים וכל דבר שהוא כבוד לחיים.

So we'll look, if it's kvod hachayim, so then we extend that to the relatives. But if it's kvod hameis, so since the person was me'abeid atzmo lada'as, so the dinim of kvod hameis are suspended. But the Rambam said ein misablin alav. So take a look at the Kesef Mishneh.

באבל רבתי מסכת שמחות בפרק ב' המאבד עצמו לדעת אין מתעסקין עמו לכל דבר אין קורעין עליו ואין חולצין ולא מספידין עליו אבל עומדים עליו בשורה ואומרים עליו ברכת אבלים מפני שהוא כבוד לחיים וכללו של דבר כל שהוא כבוד חיים מתעסקין בו כל שאינו כבוד של חיים אין הרבים מתעסקין עמו לכל דבר.

But notice how Masechet Smachot didn't But the Maseches Semachos did give us this klal of kovod hachayim versus kovod hamays. So says the Kesef Mishneh, you see clearly from the Rambam that sover rabbeinu that avelus אינו מדברים של כבוד החיים, it's kovod hamays. The avelus is kovod hamays and therefore in the case of me'abeid atzmo loda'as it's suspended. So that's one - okay, we're not going to do all the sources here, we'll try to kind of streamline. It's getting late. That's one dimension of avelus, that the avelus is kovod hamays. The Rambam tells us also, if you take a look in on page 3, yud-gimmel yud-bais. yud-gimmel yud-bais on page 3, raboysai. כל מי שאינו מתאבל כמו שציוו חכמים. Again, not talking about the terrible, tragic, extreme case of me'abeid atzmo loda'as. A normal case: כל מי שאינו מתאבל כמו שציוו חכמים harei zeh achzori. Achzori here maybe cruel, but basically it means insensitive, apathetic. אלא יפחד וידאג ויפשפש במעשיו ויחזור בתשובה. So the Rambam here sets forth an equation between avelus and teshuva. That avelus rachmana litzlan is a time for teshuva.

ואחד מבני חבורה שמת תדאג כל החבורה כולה. כל שלשה ימים הראשונים יראה עצמו כאילו חרב מונחת לו על צווארו.

The first three days of shiva he should feel like the executioner's - the point of the executioner's sword is resting on his neck. ומשלשה עד שבעה מונחת בקרן זוית. It's not on his neck, but it's in the corner of the same room. mikan va'eilach for the balance of avelus, presumably that means for shloshim in other cases, but על אביו ועל אמו presumably it means all year long. מכאן ואילך כאילו עוברת כנגדו בשוק. Which means it's in proximity. It's not in the same room, but the threat is very much proximate. כל זה להכין עצמו ויחזור ויעור משנתו to arouse the person from his slumber, to stimulate him to do teshuva.

והרי הוא אומר הכיתה אותם ולא חלו מכלל שצריך להקיץ ולחול.

So there are two sort of different foci within avelus. One is that it's kovod hamays. The other is that it's a time for teshuva. So sort of two different centers of gravity within avelus. Okay, now let's shift to divrei aggada. So if you take a look here the Rambam - I have no more sources up my sleeve, there's only one left on page 4, we're almost at the end of the sichah. So one page 3 here, Moreh Nevuchim, Cheilek Gimmel, Perek Mem-Zayin.

ומפני שאי אפשר להיטהר מטומאת המת אלא אחר שבעת ימים ובמציאת אפר הפרה גם כן. והיו הכהנים צריכים תמיד להיכנס אל המקדש להקריב הזהיר כל כהן מטומאת מת לבד.

So the Rambam says the reason for issur tumas kohanim is that kohanim need to be available to do avoda. Tumas meis, A, the fact that it's seven days, and B, it requires not only a mikveh but it requires the eifer para aduma in order for the person to be tohor. So that's why the Torah said for a kohen who's supposed to be on call to do avoda, he shouldn't be nitma l'meis. ורק להכרח גדול אשר יכבד עניינו על הטבעים. The only time the Torah made an exception is due to great necessity when it's just demanding too much, it's going against human nature.

רצוני לומר להימנע מקרוב אל האבות ואל הבנים ואל האחים ולעמוד עמהם ולהתגאל בהם.

You can't tell a child, you can't tell a son not to go to a parent's funeral. You can't tell rachmana litzlan a father not to go to a child's funeral. You can't tell a brother... not not to go to his brother's funeral. It's demanding too much. So because of that, recognizing that emotional, psychological need that the kohen has in these cases to be metamei lames, that's why the Torah allows it. That's what the Rambam says. But the question is, the Rambam only explains why it's muttar. He doesn't explain why it's a mitzvah. Again, the Rambam we saw paskens like Rabbi Akiva that לא יטמא זו מצוה. So the ta'amei hamitzvah that the Rambam should be giving needs to account not only for the fact that it's muttar for the kohen to be metamei לאביו ולאמו ולאחיו ולאחותו, but it needs to account for why it's a mitzvah, and yet he doesn't. He doesn't. Okay, so let's take a look at another Rambam. The Rambam is talking about eshet yifat toar in Gimmel Mem Aleph. The Rambam doesn't, and for what... the Rambam's ta'amei mitzvot in the Moreh is very, very comprehensive. For whatever reason, I don't know why, I heard this observation from my father, zecher tzaddik livracha, he doesn't comment explicitly on... he doesn't comment explicitly on mitzvot aveilut. For some reason he doesn't have that explicitly, but maybe, maybe we'll piece together what he has in mind.

וממה שכלל אותו גם כן זה הספר דין אשת יפת תואר ספר שופטים

in the Mishneh Torah also includes the din of yifat toar. Now,

וכבר ידעת אמרם לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע,

that the mitzvah of yifat toar is a concession to the yetzer hara at a time of war when the yetzer hara has been inflamed and is raging. And nevertheless, the Rambam says, even though it's a concession to the yetzer hara,

ועם זה יש בכלל זאת המצוה מן המידות הטובות ואף על פי כן

the mitzvah teaches us middot tovot. Now, look at... let's skip now to line four. אין מותר לבועלה פעם שניה. He can't have relations with her a second time עד שינוח אבלה ותשקוט דאגתה until her mourning period has abated. ואין מונעין אותה מלהתאבל ומן הבכי, right? ובכתה את אביה ואת אמה ירח ימים the Torah says. And we don't interfere, we don't in any way impede her from mourning and crying, and if she chooses to neglect the hygiene, as it says, ובכתה את אביה ואת אמה. Why?

כי לבא על האבל מנוחה בבכיה ובעורור אבלם עד שיחלשו כוחות הגופנים מסבול המקרה ההוא הנפשי.

There's a catharsis, there's a relief that aveilim get from crying, from observing nihugei aveilut. The Rambam suggests emotionally there's a catharsis, emotionally there's a relief, there's menucha. But then the Rambam has a fascinating comparison. כמו שלבעלי השמחה מנוחה במיני השחוק. The same way at the opposite end of the spectrum, when a person is in a time of simcha, so he needs... he also needs an outlet. A person needs an outlet for intense experience. An intense emotion needs an outlet. So at one end of the spectrum, the intense experience rachmana litzlan is aveilut. So we don't deprive the yifat toar of that outlet, and the Rambam says because she needs that outlet the same way a ba'al simcha needs his outlet. Okay, good. Now, almost done. Take a look at the Rambam here in the bottom source and then we'll come back to Gimmel Mem Gimmel. כשאדם אוכל ושותה ושמח ברגל. When a person is being mkayem simchat yom tov, לא ימשך ביין ובשחוק ובקלות ראש. He shouldn't be getting drunk and be frivolous. Vayomar and think to himself שכל מי שיוסיף בזה יוסיף במצות שמחה. No, the more the merrier, right? The more the mitzvaer. That's not cogent reasoning. שהשכרות והשחוק הרבה וקלות... Intoxication and joking and lightheadedness, that's not simcha, it's frivolity and foolishness.

ולא נצטוינו על ההוללות והסכלות אלא על השמחה שיש בה עבודת יוצר הכל.

There's no mitzvah of frivolity and foolishness, there's a mitzvah of

שמחה שיש בה עבודת יוצר הכל. שנאמר תחת אשר לא עבדת את ה׳ אלהיך בשמחה ובטוב לבב.

So we once commented a few years ago that you see that the Rambam here learns pshat in this pasuk differently than we generally do and the Rambam himself actually elsewhere. We generally quote this pasuk תחת אשר לא עבדת את ה׳ אלהיך בשמחה that you weren't oved Hashem besimcha when you took the lulav, you were kvetching about how much you had to pay for the esrog and when you and when you go sit in the sukkah you're you're holding your back, you know you have a bad back from from putting up the sukkah. No, you do a mitzvah, do the mitzvah besimcha. You're not supposed to do a mitzvah begrudgingly, you're not supposed to feel that the mitzvah is onerous, you're supposed to do the mitzvah besimcha. So how's that a prooftext for saying that that we weren't commanded on frivolity, we were commanded on a mitzvas simcha? It's clear that the way the Rambam here, hear this rabosai, is learning pshat in the pasuk is the pasuk means תחת אשר לא עבדת את ה׳ אלהיך בשמחה when you had reason to be happy, you had a bumper crop. When you had reason to be happy, you didn't channel that simcha to a mitzvah. That's what it means. תחת אשר לא עבדת את ה׳ אלהיך בשמחה is when you had simcha, you didn't channel it for a mitzvah. No, you you let it express itself in in non-mitzvah fashions. You didn't channel it

ולא נצטוינו אלא על השמחה שיש בה עבודת יוצר הכל.

You didn't channel that simcha to mitzvah. You didn't elevate that to mitzvah. Now, come back to Gimmel Mem Gimmel, we're going to try to finish by 10:30, we'll see if it happens. Now, come back to Gimmel Mem Gimmel. Aval hayamim hatovim, this is the Rambam's ta'amei hamitzvos for yamim tovim. So the Rambam has sort of one general generic reason for the shalosh regalim, and then he also has specific ones for each of the shalosh regalim. But here he's commenting on the shalosh regalim in general about why we have days with a mitzvas simcha. אבל הימים הטובים הם כולם לשמחה, yeah yom tov is a time to have simcha. Ulekibbuzim, and to gatherings שיש להם הנאה שבני אדם צריכים עליהם ברוב. People need to have an occasion to have simcha. People need to, again, that's that's the human personality, human psychology, that we need occasions to to celebrate, we need occasions to gather together. Then the Rambam so the Rambam says the pshat in מצות שמחת יום טוב is that the Torah said look, it's a basic human emotional need to to be samei'ach at times, to to engage in simcha. The Torah said the Torah therefore made it a mitzvah so it's so so we elevate that basic human emotional need and we elevate it, we transform it into a mitzvah. We need, we need, we need to to be samei'ach, there are times when we need to celebrate, there are times when we need to dance. The Torah comes and has has a simchas beis hasho'eiva and and let that mitzvah have a focus of avodas yotzeir hakol. And that's exactly how we understood the pasuk of תחת אשר לא עבדת את ה׳ אלהיך בשמחה, you didn't do that. You didn't channel your simcha to to avodas Hashem, it's who won the Super Bowl. That's how you channeled your your simcha. Oh. So now lich'ora we ask this as follows. We ask that by aveilus the Rambam explains why it's muttar for the kohen to be mitamei to the kerovim, but he didn't explain why it's a mitzvah. He said it's muttar because it's an emotional need. It's asking too much to to tell the kohen that he can't be involved with his father, that he can't go to the father's funeral. That's asking too much. There's an emotional need. Oh, but it's exactly parallel to simcha as the Rambam himself drew that comparison. Just as by simcha the Torah recognizes an emotional need and then the Torah says, channel... channel it to a mitzvah. You need, you need occasions to celebrate? Okay, so channel it and and celebrate Yetziat Mitzrayim and celebrate Matan Torah. Make the focal point a mitzvah. So too, so too there's Rachmana litzlan at the other end of the spectrum. There's an emotional need to, for the Kohen to be mitamei and for people in general to be mitabel on korov, so the Torah says so we're gonna not only make it mutar, but we're gonna say channel it toward a mitzvah and let there be a mitzvah focus and maybe that's the pshat, maybe that's the perspective. Again we commented how avelus has two foci or two dimensions. Avelus on the one hand is kavod hames. On the other hand avelus is a time for teshuvah. But maybe that exactly reflects this dimension. It's kavod hames, again that reflects the again as it were the impetus for the mitzvah of avelus. Again we're looking to upgrade the emotional need to a mitzvah. That it should be channeled to a mitzvah. Okay, but he needs to focus on a meis. Okay, avelus is takeh kavod hames. But while so doing, again the teshuvah is means more than this also but by so doing while so doing it's also a time of teshuvah. And in that way again we're not only accommodating the basic emotional need, but it's it's being it's being channeled to a mitzvah and it's being elevated to a mitzvah. And and that's happening at both ends of the emotional spectrum, both by simcha and as well as as well as by avelus.

יתגדל ויתקדש שמה רבא בעלמא די ברא כרעותה וימליך מלכותה בחייכון וביומיכון ובחיי דכל בית ישראל בעגלא ובזמן קריב ואמרו אמן. יהא שמה רבא מברך לעלם ולעלמי עלמיא. יתברך וישתבח ויתפאר ויתרומם ויתנשא ויתהדר ויתעלה ויתהלל שמה דקדשא בריך הוא לעילא מן כל ברכתא ושירתא תשבחתא ונחמתא דאמירן בעלמא ואמרו אמן. על ישראל ועל רבנן ועל תלמידיהון ועל כל תלמידי תלמידיהון דעסקין באורייתא די באתרא הדין ודי בכל אתר ואתר יהא להון ולכון שלמא רבא חנא וחסדא ורחמין וחיין אריכין ומזונא רויחא ופורקנא מן קדם אבוהון דבשמיא וארעא ואמרו אמן. יהא שלמא רבא מן שמיא וחיים עלינו ועל כל ישראל ואמרו אמן. עושה שלום במרומיו הוא יעשה שלום עלינו ועל כל ישראל ואמרו אמן.

Thank you all, and thank you very much. Thank you very much.