תנו רבנן מהיכא לדעת כי אני השם מקדשכם אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה מתנה טובה יש לי בבית גנזי ושבת שמה ואני מבקש ליתנה לישראל לך והודיעם. מכאן אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל הנותן פת לתינוק צריך להודיע לאמו.
Shabbos is a matana tova. Apparently above and beyond the rest of Torah, Shabbos bemiyuchad is a matana tova. So I'd like im yirtzeh Hashem to discuss a couple of understandings of what makes Shabbos a matana tova. I'm not sure if we'll get to the second one tonight but let's begin with the first one. The first one, the first understanding is suggested by Reb Tzadok but before we get to what Reb Tzadok says maybe we'll provide some background and lay some groundwork. On the pasuk in Parshas Bo of כל מלאכה לא יעשה בהם אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש הוא לבדו יעשה לכם.
Talking about Yom Tov but again as we discussed already the Rambam, Rashi in Beitzah, kulam shabsos Hashem. So Rashi quotes a Mechilta on the pasuk in Parshas Bo, the Mechilta clearly responding to the fact that the pasuk is written in the nifal of כל מלאכה לא יעשה בהם as opposed to lo saaseh vahem and the Mechilta says melachas acheirim. Melachas acheirim. Ramban asks and says melachas acheirim can mean one of two things. Melachas acheirim can either mean if one Yisrael tells another Yisrael to do melacha that would be melachas acheirim or if a Yisrael tells an akum to do melacha that would be melachas acheirim. He says neither can be the pshat in the pasuk. Neither can be the pshat in the pasuk. If a Yisrael tells another Yisrael to do melacha so the sheini Yisrael is muuzhar on the issur melacha not the Yisrael rishon. Yisrael sheini who does the melacha is muuzhar on the melacha. Yisrael rishon will be over lifnei iver but the one who's going to be over the issur melacha is going to be the Yisrael sheini. And if Rashi by melachas acheirim Rashi's understanding of the Mechilta is that it means that the acheirim are akum so the Ramban taynas that the Gemara says keseder that amira leakum shvus that the issur amira leakum is only an issur derabbanan so that can't be what it means. So ella mai he says the Mechilta is only an asmachta. The Mechilta is takeh referring to amira leakum but the Mechilta only means it bederech asmachta. It doesn't mean it as pshat in the pasuk and Rashi shouldn't have quoted it. Rashi shouldn't have quoted it. But lemaaseh Rashi does quote it. So Rashi al korcheinu means one of those two things. Either Rashi means that the Torah here is mechadesh that in addition to the Yisrael who does the melacha if he does it at the behest of another Yisrael he's over or Rashi means takeh melachas akum. But the Ramban taynas that the Gemara says keseder that amira leakum shvus. So emes is that the Yaakov Emden already in Mor Uketzia also goes with a mahalakh that at times amira leakum is deoraisa and tries to be meyashiv and introduce chilukim as to when the Gemara says. Whether it's given on Shabbos, before Shabbos, but Yaakov Emden in Mor U'Ketzia in the beginning of Hilchos Shabbos takeh says that and it has other precedent in the Rishonim as well, the Yereim, that amira l'akum at times is d'oraisa. What do you see from this Rashi, again, whichever Rashi means? Let's not say that that Rashi takeh means like this shita mechudeshes, mechudeshes me'od of Yaakov Emden that at times amira l'akum is d'oraisa. So what do you see? What do you see from this Rashi? What you see is like this. We generally think of issur melacha on Shabbos as an issur gavra. Issur gavra. A person's not supposed to be zore'ah, is not supposed to be choreish, is not supposed to be kotzeir. Issur gavra. When we talk about ma'achalos assuros, so there's a whole diyun whether or not the issurei Torah are issurei cheftza, whether or not they're issurei gavra. The Ridvaz at the beginning of the second perek in Nedarim... it's an arichus. But Shabbos lichora is a davar pashut that issur melacha on Shabbos is an issur gavra. If lichora the inference from Rashi is, again, let's assume although it doesn't make a difference which of the two possibilities that the Ramban dismisses you attribute to Rashi, whichever of the two, either way, the inference from Rashi is that that's not pshat in issur melacha on Shabbos. Pshat in issur melacha on Shabbos is that there's an objective kedusha Shabbos in the world. Kedusha Shabbos is not just a compilation of dinim which are incumbent upon a person. There's an objective kedusha Shabbos which is shoreh in the world on Shabbos. An objective kedusha Shabbos. If that's the case, then itochei, it makes perfect sense. Maybe the Torah did it, maybe the Torah didn't do it. But then it makes perfect sense that the Torah can say that the definition of the issur melacha is not just an issur gavra, but שלא תתחלל קדושת שבת על ידך. And then Rashi thinks that the Mechilta is telling us, and that azhara is not only for melacha atzma. That azhara שלא תתחלל קדושת שבת על ידי is not only that I should be responsible for the chilul kedusha Shabbos rachmana litzlan because of what I do, but because of what I ma'aseh acherim to do as well. So the inference from Rashi is, again, that kedusha Shabbos is not just a din, and kedusha Shabbos is not just a melitzah, but is a reality of kedusha Shabbos in the world on Shabbos. A reality of kedusha Shabbos. An ultimate reality of kedusha Shabbos. Like every ultimate reality, intangible and invisible, but kedusha Shabbos is a reality and the definition of issur melacha on Shabbos is that that kedusha Shabbos shouldn't be mechulal. The emes is that itochei, that even though the Ramban dismisses Rashi and says that the Mechilta is not more than an asmachta, if you understand asmachta like the Ridvaz in Rosh Hashanah Tes Zayin, that asmachta doesn't mean that Chazal just used a pasuk as a mnemonic device to help us remember a din d'rabbanan, but the pshat in asmachta is that the Torah was meramez to the chachamim. The lashon in the Ridvaz is that he'ira haTorah something like את רוחם של חכמים, that the Torah for whatever reason wasn't kove'a chova. Torah didn't establish it as a chiyuv, but the Torah hinted to the chachamim that this is something they should introduce. So the emes is that even if you say it's an asmachta, and again, asmachta doesn't mean that it's got nothing to do with a pasuk. Even if you say it's an asmachta, it relates to the pasuk. Because that's what the pshat in asmachta is according to the Ridvaz in Rosh Hashanah. The Ridvaz says in Rosh Hashanah, how can the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah Tes Zayin say that אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אמרו לפני מלכויות זכרונות ושופרות? What do you mean אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא? It's only a din d'rabbanan. So the Ridvaz says no. A din derabbanan which has an asmachta, a din derabbanan which has an asmachta means that the Torah hinted, that the Torah planted the seed in the minds of the Chachamim that they should institute this. So if you understand the Rambam in light of that meaning and that definition of asmachta, then the emes is that according to the Rambam also, the lashon of כל מלאכה לא יעשה בהם is the Torah here is hinting at this secret that there's an objective kedusha shabbos, it's not simply an issur gavra, but the issur is שלא תחלל קדושת שבת על ידו. That objective kedusha shabbos. Could be that the Torah was only koveiah the issur when the person does it directly על ידי מלאכת עצמו. But the hagdarah remains the same. Perhaps the most remarkable raya to this is the following. The Gemara has in the eighth perek in Brachos a din that the bracha of borei meorei haesh motzei shabbos, אור ששבת מברכין עליו ושלא שבת אין מברכין עליו. Says the Gemara, what do you mean that if the or was lo shavas is ein mevorchin alav? Do you mean אי נימא שבת מחמת מלאכה אפילו ממלאכה דהיתירא? Even if this candle was lit beheter on shabbos, you can't make a borei meorei haesh on the flame motzei shabbos. והתניא אור של חיה ושל חולה מברכין עליו. If at the end of shabbos you had to light a candle for pikuach nefesh, you can then use that candle motzei shabbos for borei meorei haesh. So the Gemara says אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מאי ששבת ששבת מחמת מלאכת עבירה.
So the insistence here is that you can't make a borei meorei haesh if the candle, if the flame on which you're going to make the borei meorei haesh was lit bimelachas aveirah. So what does that mean lachora? It means that if a Yisrael lit it not for a chayah, not for pikuach nefesh, a Yisrael lit it baveirah, you can't. But it means more than that. The hemshech hagemara says that if a nochri lights a candle on shabbos, that's considered melachas aveirah. And if a nochri would light a candle at the end of shabbos, let's say, and then you're going to make havdalah right afterwards, you can't make havdalah on this candle because it's לא שבת ממלאכת עבירה. What do you mean it's לא שבת ממלאכת עבירה? An akum is not allowed to keep shabbos. אקום ששבת חייב מיתה. So you see it's an unbelievable Gemara. So you see again the reality of kedusha shabbos. The reality of kedusha shabbos, kedusha shabbos the same way that there's oxygen in the atmosphere, on shabbos there's kedusha shabbos that permeates the atmosphere. That reality of kedusha shabbos is universal. It's not just for a Jew that it's shabbos, for the whole world it's shabbos. And this status despite the fact that a Ben Noach, that an akum is assur to keep shabbos, but the reality of shabbos is there. And al pi din, what he does on shabbos is considered a melachas aveirah and again for purposes of borei meorei haesh, if he were to light the candle right afterwards you wouldn't be able to make a borei meorei haesh on that candle. That kedusha shabbos is a reality, that it's a universal reality, certainly in light of the Or Hachaim Hakadosh, which we've been discussing, comes as no surprise. The Or Hachaim Hakadosh of כי בו שבת מכל מלאכתו אשר ברא אלהים לעשות כי ששת ימים עשה ה' את השמים ואת הארץ.
That Hakadosh Baruch Hu created the world that it would only last six days. Kivo shavas through kedusha shabbos, it's kedusha shabbos that then gives a chiyus to the world for another cycle, for another week. So of course kedusha shabbos. And this notwithstanding the din is that a Yisroel is muzar to be nizar on that Kedusha Shabbos, to tap into Kedusha Shabbos, to experience Kedusha Shabbos, and אקום ששבת חייב מיתה. So says Reb Tzadok, Reb Tzadok illustrates the fact that Kedusha Shabbos is a universal reality even for an akum from a different Gemara. He quotes the Gemara in סנהדרין ס"ח ע"ב that Turnusrufus says to Rabbi Akiva, הכי קאמינא לך מי יימר דהאידנא שבתא. He says how do you know that the day you observe, the day of the week that you observe, is Yom Hashvi'i Shabbos? Maybe, maybe your kabbalah got confused or something. So Rabbi Akiva gives him three proofs that Shabbos as we know it is Shabbos. One is he tells him go look at Naharsambatyon. On Shabbos it's still, the rest of the week it flows. And then he tells him the last one he tells him is go to your father's kever. You'll go to your father's kever and you'll see that all week long it's ma'aleh ashan, right, as an indication that he's being nidon b'Gehinnom, and that on Shabbos it's not ma'aleh ashan. So says Reb Tzadok, so you see that it's Shabbos for the goy also. It's Shabbos for rish'ei umos ha'olam, Shabbos is universal. And אף על פי כן, this notwithstanding the universal reality of Shabbos, so only Klal Yisroel observe Shabbos. We would have thought given the universality of Shabbos, Shabbos should be for everyone. Says Reb Tzadok, that's the pshat matana tova. That Shabbos is exclusively for Klal Yisroel despite its universality, that's a matana tova, that's a matana tova. So if you think about it for a minute, it means that above and beyond Hakadosh Baruch Hu's ahavah which is channeled to us through Torah be-khuliyuso, there's a special, special ahavah, a special, special ratzon, a love and desire that Hakadosh Baruch Hu has for Klal Yisroel which is evident and manifest through Shabbos, through this matana tova. Rashi explains in Beitzah where this same Gemara of matana tova appears, so again Rabban Shimon Gamliel says that מכאן אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל הנותן פת לתינוק צריך להודיע לאמו.
The same way Hakadosh Baruch Hu told us that he was giving us a matana, so when you give someone a matana you have to inform them of the fact. So too you give, if you're the candyman in shul, tzarich lehodi'a le-imo. Why is that? Says Rashi, לעשות לו אות וסימן שאם יאכלנו קודם שיבא לאמו תראה את האות.
If the child will eat the candy, the treat, before the mother comes, but she'll recognize the os. She'll ask him מי עשה לך כך והוא יאמר פלוני וגם נתן לי פת ומתוך כך. ידעו אביו ואמו שהוא אוהבם ותרבה חיבה וריעות בישראל.
So the din of hanosein matana, הנותן פת לתינוק צריך להודיעו, is that by the parents being aware of the love that you demonstrated to them, to that child, so then you awaken a similar love in them. ומתוך כך ידעו אביו ואמו שהוא אוהבם, that the nosein matana loves them, and in return, they'll reciprocate clearly, and that's how תרבה חיבה וריעות בישראל. So it's a yesod and it's compressed into this Rashi, but it's a yesod in other contexts as well, that there is a symmetry. Sometimes the initiative is ours, sometimes the initiative is the Ribbono Shel Olam's, but when the Ribbono Shel Olam is nisgaleh to us be'ofen shel ahava, so it's me'orer ahava in us. So when we say that Shabbos is be'ahava uveratzon hinchaltanu, be'ahava uveratzon hinchaltanu, one expression again of the ahava is that Shabbos is this special matana tova, above and beyond tov bikhlaluso. Shabbos is an expression of this ahava. So that means that on Shabbos, the zman of Shabbos is mesugal that we should be nis'orer to ahava as well. And that Shabbos is a zman again, if a person taps into kedushas Shabbos, that's mesugal, that's mesugal to make strides towards ahavas Hashem. And that's what the mashal of the tinok is. This is something which deserves more elaboration and bli neder I hope, I hope we will be able to come back to it. For now, I just want to add just al derech halacha another element to this idea again of Shabbos as an objective kedusha in the world. It actually underlines a famous discussion in the Rishonim as well. The Rosh and the Ran in the last perek in Maseches Yoma quote a teshuvas HaRa'avad. That the Ra'avad was asked if you have a choleh mesukan and the doctors say that he absolutely must eat basar. And the choice now is that we have basar neveila, there will be no need to do shechita, no need to kill the animal, we already have basar neveila at hand, or we have a live animal and we could shecht the live animal. So what should we do? Should we feed the choleh neveila or should we shecht and then be able to feed him basar shechuta? Veyeshe omrim and the sho'alim to the Ra'avad say לכאורה מוטב שיעבור הוא בלאו, better that the choleh should be over an issur neveila than someone else should have to be over an issur of Shabbos, which is an issur chamur, so better we should give the neveila. So the Ra'avad answers דברי יש אומרים מכוונים. What they say is mistaber, but it's not correct. Because כיון שניתנה שבת לדחות בהבערה ובבישול, meaning either way the basar neveila is raw. So we're going to have to make a fire, havara. And we're going to have to cook the basar neveila, bishul. So we're going to have to be mechalel Shabbos anyway. Once we're going to have to be mechalel Shabbos behavara ubebishul, so then the Raavad says better we should be mechalel Shabbos bishchita rather than feed them the neveila. Inami says the Raavad, efshar that there isn't a קטן אחד בסוף העולם who needs basar, where there is no basar neveila available, where we'll have to kill the animal. So since you're going to shacht for the קטן אחד בסוף העולם, you might as well shacht for this katan here and not be over issur neveila. So the Raavad's answer is very, very tamuah. In hachi nami, when it comes to havara, when it comes to havara, we're going to have to make a fire. If we had an alternative at that stage, so we would have opted for the alternative which was more kal. But there is not going to be any alternative. So belis bereira we'll taka do havara. When it comes to bishul, if there were an alternative, we would opt for the alternative. There isn't going to be an alternative. At the stage of shchita, there is an alternative. We can give them basar neveila and an issur lav is kal from an איסור מיתת בית דין. So what difference does it make? What difference does it make? And what's the קטן אחד בסוף העולם got to do with anything? So you see klar from the Raavad, and you'll find this in a couple of the acharonim. Says this pshat in the Raavad, not exactly in these words, but basically this pshat that the Raavad says the way the din of pikuach nefesh operates in Shabbos, pikuach nefesh isn't mattir a specific action. It's not the pshat that pikuach nefesh is mattir, well, the doctor says that we need boiling water to sterilize something. Okay. So pikuach nefesh is mattir havara and bishul. No. The doctor says we need boiling water to sterilize something, so pikuach nefesh is mafki’a kedushas Shabbos. Pikuach nefesh for purposes of the חולה שיש בו סכנה erases kedushas Shabbos. There is no more kedushas Shabbos. Oh, if that's what the din pikuach nefesh is and that's how the din pikuach nefesh functions, so then you understand that the Raavad says better to take advantage of that hafka’as kedushas Shabbos twice, three times, rather than to have to be docheh a second issur as well. If the din of pikuach nefesh relates to a specific ma’aseh, so then what we said initially is correct. So at every stage we should ask, do we have an alternative to this ma’aseh? Can we avoid bishul? No. So go ahead and be mevashel. Can you avoid havara? No. Can you avoid shchita? Yes. So avoid it and opt for the issur kal. But if to be mevashel means you have to be mafki’a kedushas Shabbos, kedushas Shabbos is cancelled, it's paka. You're mafki’a kedushas Shabbos, so if that's the case, says the Raavad, you're mema’it be’issurim by taking advantage of that hafka’as kedushas Shabbos multiple times, rather than in addition to kedushas Shabbos being docheh another issur as well. The second de’ah in the Raavad is saying the same understanding in terms of kedushas Shabbos. The difference is this. There are two differences, but just to highlight one of the differences, that the second de’ah in the Raavad apparently is looking, assumes that the lamed tes melachos are, as Rav Nachman Zember explains, according to the second lashon in the Raavad, shamos muchlakos. It's as if it's 39 different issurim. There's 39 different elements or components of the kedushas hayom. The fact that the kedushas hayom is paka for bishul wouldn't carry over to shchita. The fact that the kedushas hayom was paka for havara wouldn't carry over to shchita. It's only if the kedushas hayom is going to have to be paka for shchita. So the second lashon in the Raavad, no. justifies the psak by saying that somewhere in the world there's a need for shechita and therefore somewhere in the world kedusha shabbos is paka legabei shechita. Better to take advantage of that twice than only take advantage of it once and also have to be doche another issur. But when you step back for a minute and think about the Ravad, so this Ravad, the havana of this Ravad, the Rashash points to a gemara in Menachos which isn't talking in context of pikuach nefesh but it's talking in terms of shabbos being nidcha either litzorech avoda in terms of the ketziras ha'omer or in terms of eidim coming for kiddush hachodesh and in that context the gemara says that migu that מתוך ששבת ניתנה לדחות once so maybe we're not so makpid if it will be nidchas a second time. That once you have to be mechallel shabbos for ketziras ha'omer so then could be we don't care to be mema'et but if we could avoid it altogether we would have so he shows where the kernel is in the gemara. Al kol panim this whole havana in pikuach nefesh again only makes sense if you think of kedushas shabbos as an external reality. If shabbos is just an issur melacha which relates to the gavra then the Ravad just the words don't mean anything. The Ravad has no pshat. The whole Ravad is built on this yesod of an objective kedushas shabbos. Mimaila if that's the pshat if that's the reality so then the Ravad comes and is mechadesh that that's what pikuach nefesh relates to that underlying kedushas shabbos and not on the level of a specific or concrete ma'aseh. And al kol panim it's that which according to Rav Tzadok is the background to the fact that shabbos is a matana tova. I hope next time bli neder to explore further again I'm not sure which will come to first more in terms of matana tova and also in terms of this idea that the fact that shabbos is an expression what shabbos expresses מצד הקדוש ברוך הוא means that it's mesugal to be miorer in us the same.