SALT | Shelach 5785

MOTZAEI

Parashat Shelach concludes with a section familiar to us all as the third paragraph of shema, which presents the mitzva of tzitzit. The Torah requires that one affix tzitzit to his four-cornered garments.  Strictly speaking, one must wear tzitzit only if he wishes to wear a four-cornered garment; he need not specifically purchase a four-cornered garment for this purpose. Nevertheless, the practice has developed - to the point where it has become mandatory - to wear a four-cornered garment and hence bring oneself under the obligation of tzitzit.

The Gemara in Masekhet Menachot (39b) cites an important dispute between Rava and Rav Nachman as to which kind of garments require tzitzit. Rav Nachman (based on a Berayta of Rabbi Yishmael) maintains that the Torah's juxtaposition of the mitzva of tzitzit with the prohibition of "sha'atnez" in Sefer Devarim (22:11-12) indicates that only garments made of wool or linen - the materials that create "sha'atnez" - require tzitzit.  Rava accepts this association between tzitzit and "sha'atnez" but reaches a different conclusion.  The Torah requires that tzitzit be affixed on all garments. However, whereas generally a garment requires tzitzit made from the same material as the garment itself, strings made from wool and linen may be used as tzitzit for all materials.

Thus, according to Rava, the Torah does not obligate one to affix tzitzit to a cotton or silk garment.  Even he agrees, however, that these materials require tzitzit on the level of "de-rabbanan" (by force of rabbinic enactment).

This debate is of great practical import.  Since the custom has developed to specifically obligate ourselves in the mitzva of tzitzit, we should presumably do so at the level of Torah law.  Thus, according to Rav Nachman, we should wear only woolen garments for our tzitzit.

So, what is the halakha?

A major dispute exists among the Rishonim as to whom the halakha follows in this regard.  The following is a partial list of prominent Rishonim who adopt Rav Nachman's position, that garments made from materials other than wool and linen do not require tzitzit on the level of Torah law: Rif, Rambam, Ri Migash, Rav Hai Gaon, Ramban, Sefer Ha-chinukh, Kol Bo and the Nimukei Yosef.  The "Mechaber" follows this view in the Shulchan Arukh (9:1). The Rema, however, adopts Rava's position, obligating all garments on the level of Torah law, based on the ruling of Tosafot (Menachot 39b) citing Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam.  Other members of this group among the Rishonim include the Ra'avad, Semag, Mordekhai, and Rashba.  The Rosh and his son, the Tur, likewise adopted this ruling.

Therefore, many authorities strongly recommend wearing a woolen garment for the purposes of this mitzva.  (We do not wear linen garments for the mitzva of tzitzit in compliance with the view of Rabbeinu Tam in Tosafot, Menachot 40a, a position mentioned already in the literature of the Geonim.  The reason behind this halakha lies beyond the scope of our discussion [which is already getting too long].)  This way, one fulfills the Biblical obligation according to all opinions. Indeed, the Radbaz (3:607) records that this was the prevalent custom his time.  More recently, this practice was recommended by the Chayei Adam, Ben Ish Chai, and Mishna Berura.  Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe O.C. 1:2) urges men to do so even in the hot summer months, when cotton garments have far more appeal.  Nevertheless, he does allow those for whom this causes great discomfort to rely on the position of the Rema, and wear cotton tzitzit.

We should also note that two other prominent poskim, the Vilna Gaon (Ma'aseh Rav 17) and, more recently, the Chazon Ish (Sefer Dinim U-minhagim), ruled leniently in this regard and wore garments from other materials for the mitzva of tzitzit.  Indeed, many people today wear tzitzit from cotton or silk.  For practical guidance, please consult a competent rav.

SUNDAY

In its discussion of the mitzva of tzitzit at the end of Parashat Shelach, the Torah says, "you shall see it" (Bemidbar 15:39). Chazal (Menachot 43a) derive from this clause that one need not affix tzitzit to a "nighttime garment," as nighttime is not a time when one would "see" the tzizit.  The Rishonim debate as to the definition of this ambiguous term.  One view, represented perhaps most prominently by the Rambam (Hilkhot Tzitzit 7:8, as understood by the Tur; the Chazon Ish understood the Rambam differently), takes this halakha to mean quite simply that the obligation of tzitzit does not apply at nighttime.  Once the daytime ends, so does the obligation of tzitzit.  This is also the position taken by the Geonim, cited by the Ritva (Shabbat 25b), and the Meiri (Shabbat 25b).  The other opinion argues that it all depends on the type of garment worn. A daytime garment requires tzitzit even when worn at night, and, conversely, a nighttime garment is exempt from the obligation, even when worn by day.  This group of Rishonim includes the Rosh, Ba'al Ha-itur, Sefer Ha-teruma, Semak, Rashba, Rabbenu Yerucham, and Ran.  Within this second position, a dispute exists as to the status of a garment worn both by day and by night; some Rishonim require tzitzit on such garments, while others argue that only a garment used solely by day requires tzitzit.

The "Mechaber" in the Shulchan Arukh merely cites both views, attributing them to the Rambam and Ran, without issuing a definitive ruling.  In his Beit Yosef, however, he expresses support for the Rambam's view for two reasons. First, he writes, the Rambam is a "rav muvhak" (a distinguished rabbi; precise intent unclear). Secondly, the halakhic principle dictates that we never recite berakhot whose requirement is in doubt ("safek berakhot le-hakel").  Therefore, when wearing a daytime garment at night, we should not recite a berakha over the tzitzit, given the doubt arising in light of the Rambam's view.  Many Acharonim have questioned this second reason of the Beit Yossef, as it relates only to the case mentioned: a daytime garment worn at night.  What about the reverse situation, of a nighttime garment worn by day?  Here, following the Rambam would yield the opposite result - to wear it with a berakha!  Several answers have been offered, perhaps the simplest being that of the Ma'amar Mordekhai.  He explains that already in the Beit Yossef's time, pajamas were not made with four corners and were thus exempt anyway from the obligation of tzitzit.  He therefore limited the practical application of this dispute among the Rishonim to the more common instance, of a four-cornered daytime garment worn by night.

In any event, the Beit Yossef's reference to this issue as a situation of doubt, if only in his second reason for siding with the Rambam, may suggest that he never arrived at a definitive ruling on the issue.  Indeed, the Rema rules that one must adopt the stringency of all views, as no halakhic conclusion has been reached.  Therefore, one recites a berakha on tzitzit only by day and on a garment worn primarily by day.  Additionally, one may not wear a four-cornered garment without tzitzit except at nighttime when wearing a garment reserved for nighttime use.

Most Rishonim permit wearing tzitzit at night, even according to the view that exempts one from this obligation at nighttime.  The Rambam issues this ruling explicitly in Hilkhot Tzitzit 3:8, and this appears in the writings of other Rishonim, as well.  The Shut Ha-Rid (118), however, forbids wearing tzitzit at night, based on the verse with which we opened our discussion. Since the Torah wrote that "you shall see it," which Chazal interpret as requiring only daytime wearing of tzitzit, one who wears tzitzit at night violates this positive commandment of "you shall see it."  As stated, however, this represents a minor view among the Rishonim. (Rav David Yosef suggests that the Ravya, cited by the Mordekhai in Masekhet Megila 441, also adopts this stringency of the Rid, thus resolving the difficulty raised by Rav Moshe Feinstein in Iggerot Moshe Y.D. 1:180:1.)

The Kabbalists, however, based on the teachings of the Arizal, forbid wearing a tallit gadol at nighttime.  A halakhic reason for such a prohibition is offered by the Bach, who writes that wearing a tallit at night gives the impression that the obligation of tzitzit applies at nighttime, as well.  This position appears in many other works, as well, including the Mishna Berura.  In any event, the custom in some communities is for the chazan to wear a tallit when leading the arvit service (or Selichot).  Many authorities recommend in these situations to wear a borrowed talit and not recite a berakha.  On Yom Kippur eve, when we wear a talit gadol, one should put it on before sundown with a berakha.

For practical guidance on all these and related issues, please consult a competent rav.

(Sources for this and yesterday's S.A.L.T. were taken from Rav David Yosef's very thorough work, "Halakha Berura," vol. 1.)

MONDAY

A story is told of two men named Gadi and Yigal, who came before a certain posek in Israel to ask if they must change their names.  After all, Gadi and Yigal were the names of two of the ten evil spies who, as we read in Parashat Shelach, implanted fear within Benei Yisrael's hearts and led to the catastrophe of the death of that entire generation.  Given the impropriety of bearing the name of a wicked person, may Gadi and Yigal keep the names assigned to them by their parents?

The posek ruled that they need not change their names, but without providing a reason.

One contemporary author suggested a basis for this leniency in light of an interesting discussion in the Tur and Beit Yosef.  The Tur, in Orach Chayim 580, lists several days on which there is a custom to fast.  This list includes the 17^th of Elul, commemorated as the day on which the ten spies perished in a divine plague as punishment for their inappropriate report about Eretz Yisrael.  The Beit Yosef questioned this practice on the basis of the principle, "When the wicked are destroyed - there is joy."  Rather than conducting a solemn fast day, we should instead celebrate the demise of the wicked!

The Beit Yosef thus concludes that contrary to what we may think upon reading this parasha, the ten spies, in the end, repented.  Although God did not accept their teshuva and killed them, they are nevertheless considered "ba'alei teshuva" and hence did not die as wicked people, but rather as tzadikim.  The custom thus evolved to fast on this day.

Along the same lines, then, no prohibition exists to bear the same name as one of the scouts, since, at the very end of their lives, they repented.

We could perhaps learn two important lessons from the tragic end of the spies.  First, we must never lose hope of teshuva for either ourselves or others.  Judging by their punishment, the spies' sin - however we understand it - must have been quite severe.  Moshe himself stresses their wicked nature later, in Parashat Matot (see 32:14).  Yet, even they managed to repent, to the point where their death is cause for sorrow rather than celebration.  Secondly, we see here that God does not necessarily grant the requests of even sincere and genuine petitioners.  According to the Beit Yosef, their teshuva earned them the title of tzadikim, but yet God did not spare them His wrath.  We stand humbly before the infinite wisdom of the Almighty, knowing that only rarely can we figure out His ways.  Why the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper remains a question to which we have no answer.  Our job is teshuva; how the Almighty responds depends solely on Him.

TUESDAY

Much has been written in an attempt to pinpoint the sin of the scouts' report and the nation's reaction thereto.  The scouts seem to have done their job: they reported both sides of Eretz Yisrael, its wondrous agricultural prospects as well as the intimidating challenge of security.  We will suggest here one simple approach that is far from new, and we do so on the basis of the following story, cited from Rabbi Dr. Abraham Twerski's It's Not As Tough As You Think: How to Smooth Out Life's Bumps (p.21):

In the villages of the old country, many people were illiterate, and if they needed to write a letter they would go to the town scribe.  One woman, whose son had immigrated to the United States, had not heard from him in several months, and asked the scribe to write a letter for her.  She dictated as follows:

Dear Son,

I'm sorry that I have not heard from you for several months. Please write me and let me know how things are going for you.

With me, things are quite well.  We have had a difficult winter, and the cold wind would come through the crevices in the walls, but thank God, I was able to seal the crevices with some old garments.  The price of food has gone up very high, but thank God, day-old bread is much cheaper, and I can afford this.  I still have my house-cleaning job, and thank God that at my age I am still able to do this kind of work.

I am anxiously waiting to hear from you.

Love,

Mother.

The woman then asked the scribe to read what he had written.  The scribe, who was outraged at the son's neglect of his mother, wrote as follows:

Dear Son,

What in the world is wrong with you that you have not written to me? Conditions here are intolerable. The icy wind blows through the crevices of the walls and I have to try and stuff them with rags.  I can't afford proper food, and I have to eat day-old bread. At my old age I still have to get on my hands and knees to scrub floors in order to survive.  This is the kind of life I am leading here while you seem to be enjoying yourself in America.

When the scribe finished reading the letter, the woman grabbed hold of her head with her hands and said, "Oy vay!  I never knew how bad off I was until now!"

Rabbi Twerski concludes, "It is not always necessary to change conditions.  Sometimes all that is needed is a change in perspective."

Many situations, including Benei Yisrael's anticipated entry into Eretz Yisrael, have two sides to them, one positive and one negative. Someone comprehensively describing the general situation - as did the scouts - will include both aspects with the conjunction "but."  The sequence of presentation generally makes a world of a difference: the second aspect described leaves the greatest impact upon the audience and reflects the point of the report's focus.

Herein lies the spies' tragic mistake.  They first describe the luscious fruits, rolling hills, and rich soil. But then they make the transition: "However, the people who inhabit the country are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large… " (13:28).  After the nation breaks out in panic, Yehoshua and Kalev insist, "The land… is an exceedingly good land.  If God is pleased with us, He will bring us into that land, a land that flows with milk and honey."

Yehoshua and Kalev would have told the scribe to write, "Sure, it will be a bit difficult at first, but God is with us and it will be worth it in the end."  The other ten would have written, "Sure, it's a great land, but how on earth are we supposed to capture it from its mighty inhabitants?!!"

As it was then, so is it now.  During times like these it is all too easy for us to overlook the remarkable achievements of the modern State of Israel and focus instead on the crises it currently faces.  If we learn the message of the scouts, we will follow the lead of Yehoshua and Kalev. However difficult, discouraging, and painful the current situation, we cannot forget the incredible miracle of the rebirth of our nation, its strength, prosperity and remarkable resolve to continue furthering the dream of Jewish statehood on our ancient soil, come what may.  We have two sides of the coin on which to focus; let us select wisely.

WEDNESDAY

The Torah describes the spies' return from their forty-day mission in Eretz Yisrael as follows: "They went and they came to Moshe and Aharon and all of Benei Yisrael… " (13:26).  Rashi explains that the term "they went" actually refers to their initial departure to Eretz Yisrael.  The verse here seeks to compare their mindset upon embarking on their mission and their attitude when their returned.  Just as they returned with the intent of discouraging Benei Yisrael, so had they planned from the very outset.

Many later commentators struggle to reconcile Rashi's comments here with an earlier comment (to 13:3), that the twelve tribal leaders chosen as scouts started out as righteous tzadikim.  Apparently, only upon seeing the dangers of Eretz Yisrael did their faith and trust in the Almighty begin to wane.  How could Rashi claim that these tzadikim had in mind all along to lead Benei Yisrael's hearts astray?  Secondly, why would the verse make a point of transmitting this piece of information? What significance can we find in the precise point at which the scouts decided to rebel?

One answer might be that the righteous men had not actually made up their minds about misguiding the people until their brief sojourn in Eretz Yisrael.  Rashi meant that the idea had already entered their minds as they left.  Righteousness does not mean the absence of any "yezter ha-ra" (evil inclination) and total freedom from challenges and struggles.  Even before observing the formidable armies of Canaan firsthand, the spies - like all of Benei Yisrael, presumably - had some doubts - however slight - about their ability to capture the land.  After all, they were but an untrained slave nation whose only military experience was the successful battle against Amalek, a nomadic tribe.  Could they stand a chance against the stable, powerful nations of Canaan, defended by skilled warriors, protected by fortresses and equipped with well-stocked arsenals and weaponry?  Quite reasonably, these questions crept into the minds of even the greatest men of the generation.  Their failure lay not in these doubts themselves, but rather in their inability to overcome the spiritual challenge and strengthen their faith in the Almighty.

In a famous exchange between Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt"l and a disciple, the latter describes to his esteemed rebbe his frustrations in pursuing his goals, his inability to withstand the challenges he faces and grow to the extent that he knows he can.  In his response, Rav Hutner informed his student that the Chafetz Chayim went through the same struggles.  Great people do not live without temptation or spiritual challenge; if they did, we could hardly consider them great people.  The true tzadikim are the ones who face the same difficulties and experience the same forms of "yetzer ha-ra," only they surmount these obstacles while we often stumble.

According to Rashi, perhaps, this verse comes to teach us this very lesson.  The spies were great men, only they lost this critical battle against their natural fear of combat in Eretz Yisrael.  From them we perhaps learn that our shortcomings may not lead us to despair, but rather to increased strength.  Even tzadikim confront struggles, and occasional setbacks are natural.  Rather than triggering discouragement, they must instead spur us towards further growth and concentration of our efforts to maintain our ongoing pursuit of perfection.

THURSDAY

How should one conduct himself when situated among unscrupulous, corrupt company?  Should he withdraw and completely dissociate himself from the group, or should he try to work with them while remaining steadfastly committed to his ideals, far as they maybe from his comrades'?

In Parashat Shelach, Yehoshua and Kalev, the two heroic scouts who opposed the sinful efforts of the other ten, faced precisely this challenge. While we usually think of the two together, some have suggested that their approaches to handling the situation differed fundamentally from one another, as implied by the various verses and Midrashim about their involvement in the debacle of the spies.

Chazal comment that before sending the mission, Moshe took note of Yehoshua's "humility," and, foreseeing trouble ahead, prayed that God should "save" his student from the spies' plot (Rashi, Targum Yonatan 13:16).  He did not, however, formulate such a prayer for Kalev.  Instead, as the Midrash relates, Kalev himself, upon embarking on the scouting mission, headed towards the Cave of the Patriarchs in Chevron to beseech the Almighty for the strength to oppose the scouts (Rashi 13:22). Yehoshua, Moshe's "humble" student, "did not budge from the tent" (Shemot 33:11).  He was withdrawn and introverted and would therefore not overtly oppose the scouts.  Moshe thus feared that the others would force their will upon him, and he prayed accordingly.  Kalev, by contrast, the leader of the royal tribe of Yehuda, worked from within. Rather than withdrawing, he actively and courageously engaged with the others and hoped to exert his influence upon them.  He had no reason to fear their coercive efforts, but he did pray "that he would not be drawn to his brothers to join their plot."  When working with the other spies, Kalev needed the strength of character to adhere to his principles even as the minority.

This distinction also explains the different reactions of Yehoshua and Kalev upon hearing the report of the others.  Yehoshua remains silent, realizing that as an outsider he would not be given an audience.  Kalev, however, was "one of them."  He could ask for the microphone and speak as an insider.  He therefore seized the opportunity in an attempt to defend Eretz Yisrael against the disparaging remarks of his comrades (13:30).  Only thereafter did Yehoshua join the opposition.

Thus, our initial question remains, as two different models present themselves in our parasha.  Careful thought, thorough self-knowledge, and consideration of current circumstances must all play a role in determining which of these two models ought to be followed in a given situation.  Importantly, both Yehoshua and Kalev required tefilot in anticipation of the difficult challenge ahead.  For when dealing with those opposed to our values, there is never any guarantee of successfully resisting their influence.  We therefore ask the Almighty to grant us the strength to adhere to His mitzvot even in a society often hostile thereto.

FRIDAY

In response to the scouts' derisive remarks about Eretz Yisrael, God rhetorically asks Moshe, "How much longer [shall there be] that wicked community!?" (14:27).  In Masekhet Megila 23b, Chazal understand the term "eida" (community) here as a reference not to all of Benei Yisrael, but to the ten sinful spies. From here the Gemara derives the general principle that the phrase "eida" refers to a minimum of ten people.  Therefore, whenever in halakha an "eida" is required, such as for any "davar she-bikedusha," prayers discussing God's sanctity (kadish, kedusha and the like), ten people must be in attendance.

Rabbeinu Bechayei (Vayikra 22:32), however, insists that we emend the text of the Gemara.  He refuses to accept that the Gemara would learn the laws of "davar she-bikedusha" from the wicked, sinful scouts.  That God referred to them as an "eida" cannot possibly affect the term "eida" as far as the recitation of sacred prayers is concerned.

Most other Acharonim, however, strongly dispute Rabbeinu Bechayei's claim, noting that throughout the Gemara we find references to this derivation of the halakha.

But how do we resolve Rabbeinu Bechayei's difficulty?

Many authorities have written that from here we learn the exact opposite of Rabbeinu Bechayei's claim.  Chazal here teach us that even sinners are counted in the quorum required for the recitation of a davar she-bikedusha.  Indeed, even the presence of ten sinners brings the Shekhina into Benei Yisrael.

As for the halakhic sources, the Beit Yosef (O.C. 55) cites the Sefer Ha-manhig's position that a sinner counts as one of the ten men needed for a minyan, a view quoted as well by the Hagahot Maimoniyot (Hilkhot Talmud Torah 6) in the name of the Rokei'ach. This ruling is codified by the Shulchan Arukh.  Some controversy exists, however, as to the scope of this provision.  The Peri Megadim maintains that this refers only to those who sin "le-tei'avon," to satiate their appetites, so-to-speak, but not to those who violate the Torah "le-hakhis," with the specific intention of angering the Almighty.  The Kaf Ha-chayim, however, cites from earlier sources that even those of the latter group may be counted towards a minyan. Many poskim, including Rav David Tzvi Hoffman (Melamed Le-ho'il O.C. 29) and Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe vol. 1, O.C. 23), allow counting public Shabbat violators towards a minyan.

Food for thought: relate the dispute between the Peri Megadim and other authorities to the Gemara's derivation of the ten-man minimum from the spies.  Did they sin "le-tei'avon" or "le-hakhis"?  Does it matter?  We recommend carefully reviewing the aforementioned Gemara in Megila as you answer these questions.

Additionally, consider Rabbeinu Bechayei's position cited above. Would he rule "halakha le-ma'aseh" that violators are not counted towards a minyan?  If so, to which type of violators would this ruling apply?  What are the possible, broader ramifications of his approach?