The Lesson Of The Word "Sh'air" - Emor 5773

In the beginning of the Parsha we have the rules of a Kohen who is not allowed to be Mitamei. A Kohen Hedyot we are told is allowed to be Mitamei to his relatives. In the language of the Posuk in 21:2 (כִּי, אִם-לִשְׁאֵרוֹ, הַקָּרֹב, אֵלָיו). What is (שְׁאֵרוֹ). Rashi says (אין שארו אלא אשתו). That he is allowed to be Mitamei to his wife. As the Posuk says the other of the 7 relatives as well.

I would like to discuss the idea of (שאר) being a wife. Rashi says (אין שארו אלא אשתו) the word Sh'air refers to a wife. Now that comes from Toras Kohanim in the Medrash. The Medrash says a few more words. Ain Sh'airo Ela Ishto Shenemar Sh'air Avicha Hi. The Tosafos Yom Tov in Masechese Bava Basra in the beginning of Perek Ches brings this Medrash and he says Divrei Taima Haim. He says this is a Pele. Sh'air means a wife Shenemar (שְׁאֵר אָבִיךָ, הִוא) Sh'air Avicha Hi. The Posuk (שְׁאֵר אָבִיךָ, הִוא) Sh'air Avicha Hi appears in the Parsha of Arayos in Vayikra 18:12. (שְׁאֵר) Sh'air there means a sister. We are talking about the prohibition about marrying your father's sister and the Posuk says (שְׁאֵר אָבִיךָ) Sh'air Avicha and there Sh'air means a sister. The Tosafos Yom Tov שדלד how does the Toras Kohanim seem to understand Sh'air to means a wife? It is a tough Kasha.

I would like to share with you an answer that it says in both the Torah Temimah and actually is written more clearly in the Sefer Haksav V'hakabalah (page # 119). These sources say that the word Sh'air does not literally mean wife. As a matter of fact the Haksav V'hakabala brings from the GRA (the Vilna Gaon) that D'vadai Lashon Sh'airo Hainu Sh'air Bisaro V'lo Ishto. The word Sh'air means someone connected to your flesh. So that a sister is Sh'air (connected to your flesh) and it doesn't literally mean a wife. Why then here do we say that Sh'airo Zu Ishto? So we say that the Posuk says (כִּי, אִם-לִשְׁאֵרוֹ, הַקָּרֹב, אֵלָיו) the flesh who is closest to him. Closest? Yes, that is a wife. So that the word Sh'air implies someone is from the same flesh. Now we understand that blood relatives can be called from the same flesh. Now what about a wife? A wife comes from different parents? The answer is that this Limud is that Sh'air is from the idea that is found in Beraishis 2:24 (וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד). That they are actually one. Husband and wife are one. In that way, the idea of Sh'airo Zu Ishto is important. Sh'airo your wife in the language of the Rashbam there in Masechta Bava Basra 109b (כדכתיב והיו לבשר אחד (בראשית ב)). The Rashbam is saying the Yesod that the Torah Temimah and the Ksav V'hakabala say that Sh'air is the idea of being one of oneness. Therefore, Sh'airo Zu Ishto is an idea, is a sense of oneness that husband and wife need to have one with the other.

There is an interesting Hagahos Mordechai in the beginning of Maseches Kesuvos. The Hagaos Mordechai was asked whether it is proper that Arus V'arusoso, a man and woman who plan to be married, whether they are allowed to live in the same house. To that Hagaos Mordechai responds that they should not live in the same house even if they are planning to be married. He brings two reasons. One is the Issur Yichud problem and Kallah B'lo Beracha Asura L'bayla and there is an Issur Yichud. Secondly, and this is where it becomes interesting, he says that it is not good for a couple that are engaged to be married to spend time living together as they will end up fighting and come to hate each other. There will be fights. He brings from Beraishis 2:21 (וַיַּפֵּל י רוָר אֱלֹרים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל-הָאָדָם) when HKB"H prepared Chava for a wedding Adam was sleeping.

This idea is brought in the Rama Even Ha'ezer Siman 51 where he says a Chosson and Kallah shouldn't live in one home because they may come to despise one another. I believe that this is where the custom comes that when the Chosson or Kallah comes to their future partner's family for Shabbos like when the Kallah comes to the Chosson's family for Shabbos that the Chosson sleeps in a different home. This is the source. Here there is an obvious question. We are afraid for them to live together in the same house because they will have too much of each other and they will come to hate each other. What are you talking about? Better they should find out before they are married than after they are married! They are about to get married. If they can't be happy living in the same house they should find out now. Isn't that a Pliya?

The answer lies in the words of the Hagaos Mordechai. A man and a woman who live together in the same house certainly they will come to disagreements certainly they will get on each other's nerves. Marriage only works because there is a sense of Sh'air. There is a sense of Basar Echad, there is an idea of permanence. There is an idea of making it work. Once a couple is married and in the same house assuming they are sensible people and have feelings for each other, they will be able to make it work. The problem is before they are married. If they are going to be together and there is no sense of permanence it is not going to happen. It is not going to end up being able to work because it just doesn't work. Ahava is Gematria Echad. Ahava requires that there be a sense of oneness. If there is a sense of trying it out you can be sure that it is not going to work. This is an important Yesod to understand. The key to Sholom Bayis in a home is not for a husband and a wife never to get on each other's nerves, never to do things that the other doesn't like. It is normal that these things happen. The key rather is to have a sense of oneness, a sense of Sh'air, (שְׁאֵרוֹ, הַקָּרֹב, אֵלָיו), a sense of Basar Echad. When there is a sense of Basar Echad it works.

I love to say this over. I once brought from the Aleinu L'shabaiach on Parshas Metzora. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's wife passed away and he said at the Levaya I have nothing to ask my wife Mechilah for. It moved everybody. A husband married more than 60 years could say that there is nothing that I have to ask Mechila for, it is very moving. That part of the story I think is rather well known. There is a second part. The Aleinu L'shabaiach brings that awhile later one of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's Talmidim came to Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and told him we are married for such and such a period of time and we have never had an argument, never had a disagreement. He meant to say that I am following in your footsteps. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach answered you have never had a disagreement with her? Are you divorced, did she die? The young man was bewildered. To which Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach replied it is not normal for a couple that is married to never have a disagreement, to never argue over anything. For that you don't have to ask for Mechila. As long as you treat each other with respect when you disagree, that is fine. But to say that you will have a home where you will never disagree that is not possible.

Heart In The East - Vayeitzei 5772

Eretz Yisrael is called the place that Einei Elokecha Ba Mairaishis Shana Ad Acharis Shana, that Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s eyes are Kavayachul on Eretz Yisrael and we too if our hearts are towards Eretz Yisrael it is as if we are there.

The Gemara in Maseches Kesuvos 75a (9 lines from the bottom) Darshuns the Posuk from Tehillim 87:5 ((תהילים פז) ולציון יאמר איש ואיש יולד בה והוא יכוננה עליון א"ר מיישא בר בריה דר' יהושע בן לוי אחד הנולד בה ואחד המצפה לראותה). The Posuk in Tehillim says regarding Tzion regarding Yerushalayim that the Goyim say all you are born there so the Gemara Darshuns not only one who is born there but someone who has in his heart a strong desire to be there and see Yerushalayim it is as if he was born there and is a citizen of Yerushalayim. Rashi says that (ולציון יאמר. משום דאיירי בה רבי מיישא נקיט לה ולציון יאמר איש ואיש יולד בה לעתיד לבא כשיתקיים מקרא שכתוב והביאו את כל אחיכם מנחה לה' וגו' כל מקום שימצאו שם ישראל יאמרו העמים זהו מבני ציון זה יולד בה נביאנו שם). Rashi says that in later days the Goyim will look at Yidden and whoever wants to be in Eretz Yisrael, whoever has a (Teshuka) a desire will be called Bnei Tzion. So this is the idea that where a person has his heart set, in a certain sense it is as if he is there.

Here too, Yaakov Avinu was now heading back to Eretz Yisroel and his heart mind was on Eretz Yisrael. He was eager to return even from a distance. At that moment the Malachim returned to him the Malachim of Eretz Yisrael came to him K’ilu (as if) he was actually there

Was Eisav'e Food Kosher? - Toldos 5771

We know that Yitzchok sent Eisav to bring him food. The Halacha is that a Mumar for Avodah Zorah is not trustworthy. How could he trust a Rasha to bring food to him? All the Meforshim say that Yitzchok knew that Eisav was not a Tzaddik. The question is how can he have such a Ne’emanus?

I would like to suggest an answer based on an Igros Moshe Yoreh Dai’a Teshuva 54 which is a Yesodosdika Teshuva. This is a Teshuva that came to me in a very interesting way.

There were many cases in Russia before Rav Moshe left, that the children were communists and the parents were Frum. Rav Moshe was asked by one of these elderly couples, whether they can trust their communist children in matters of Kashrus. The question was posed as follows. The children are not religious and they do not believe in G-d. However, the parents know that the Kibbud Av is wonderful and that they would never do anything that went against the interest of the parents. They knew from experience that the children who do not care about Kashrus are careful about Kashrus for their parents. Still the Shulchan Aruch says that they are not trustworthy. What to do?

Rav Moshe says a Chiddush. He says the question of trustworthiness is only when there is a Sofeik to a person about a fact.  If a person knows something and has a Yidia that doesn’t enter into the question of Ne’emanus. Rav Moshe brings a beautiful Mekor from a Gemara in Maseches Kesuvos Daf 85a  ההיא איתתא דאיחייבא שבועה בי דינא דרבא אמרה ליה בת רב חסדא ידענא בה דחשודה אשבועה אפכה רבא לשבועה אשכנגדה זימנין הוו יתבי קמיה רב פפא ורב אדא בר מתנא אייתו ההוא שטרא גביה א"ל רב פפא ידענא ביה דשטרא פריעא הוא א"ל איכא איניש אחרינא בהדי' דמר א"ל לא א"ל אע"ג דאיכא מר עד אחד לאו כלום הוא א"ל רב אדא בר מתנא ולא יהא רב פפא כבת רב חסדא בת רב חסדא קים לי בגווה מר לא קים לי בגוויה.  

The Gemara tells us that Rava was doing a Din Torah and his Psak in the Din Torah was that one side would have to swear. Rava’s wife who the Gemara refers to as Bas Rav Chisda, came and said don’t let that man swear because he is a liar. Rava then went back to the Din Torah and said this man can’t swear because he is not trustworthy, we will let the other side swear and if he does swear he will win the Din Torah. Rava changed it because of his wife.

Later in the Gemara a similar incident happens and Rava is ready to give a Psak when Rav Pappa a contemporary of Rava tells him that the person is not trustworthy. Rava says to Rav Pappa you are one witness and one witness is not believed. The Gemara then asks, Rav Pappa is not even treated like Bas Rav Chisda? When it came to Rav Pappa who was trustworthy by reputation why did he not change the Psak?

Rav Pappa is no more worthy than any Eid Echad (one witness). His wife he really knew. When you have a Yidia B’rura you don’t have a question of Ne’emanus. So here where Rav Moshe was asked by the Frum parents in Russia if they could trust their children who were communists, the answer is if you know than it is not an issue of Ne’emanus.

We had a Shaila many years ago of parents who came from Russia who had children who were living at home. At that time they asked the Shaila can they trust their parents for Kashrus. Their parents were trustworthy people but not for Kashrus. According to the Shulchan Aruch they are not Ne’emanim.

At that time, I asked Rav Belsky the question and he showed me the Teshuva. He remarked that a generation before it was the other way around and the parents were Frum and the children were not Frum. The question was can the parents trust the children. Rav Moshe said this Chiddush. A generation later, it was the parents who were not Shomer Shabbos and it was the children who were Frum. It was the same Psak. It would be incredible in Shamayim if somehow these people who live in Brooklyn now, are the descendents of the original Shoalim who asked Rav Moshe in Russia.

J022 - Water Damage - 3-12

ג-יג והיה כנוח כפות רגלי הכהנים.
יתבאר בכתובים לפנינו שעמידת המים היתה תלויה ברגלי הכהנים שכל עוד שעמדו בירדן עמדו המים. יש להתבונן אם היו הכהנים יוצאים מהירדן וישטפו המים ויזיקו, האם יתחייבו לשלם.
ב"ק ד: ואימא מבעה זה המים ועתוס' שם. היוצא מדבריהם שהמסיר מונע ממים, כח הראשון נקרא מעשיו ממש וכח השני פטור.
ד"ז אינו נוגע רק לחושן משפט אלא הובא באו"ח קנ"ט ט-י לגבי נטילת ידים, שצריך להיות כח גברא, והמסיר הברזא נקרא כח גברא אבל רק המים הראשונים, משא"כ השופך מים בידים שכל המים כשרים.
וגם ביו"ד בהלכות שחיטה שהקובע סכין בגלגל והסיר המונע מן המים ושחט בכח ראשון של המים כשר ואח"כ לא.

עוד נקודה הנוגעת לענינינו הוא אם המזיק באופן סגולי חייב. עי' קהילות יעקב סי' מה (לט בדפו"ר), שמביא הרבה ראיות שדבר הפועל מחוץ לטבע לא נחשב בעיני ההלכה.
דבר זה ראוי להתבונן בו, שהוא חידוש שאף אם בודאי פועל מ"מ פטור בנזקין וכן לשאר נפק"מ להלכה.
שמעתי מר' פאם כמה פעמים שלא להתחשב בענינים אל-טבעיים.
שאלתי אותו אם להפסיק לומר נוסח תפלת רמב"ן שמבקש זכרים, כיון שהיו לי אז בנים ולא בנות, ולכאו' מצות פו"ר מחייב להשתדל להוליד בנות, והשיב שאין לנו עסק בכגון דא.
וכן השיב ג"כ כששאלתי על הדין אל יבזבז יותר מחומש (כתובות נ. סז: ערכין כח.)  שמא יעני (עי' רמ"א יו"ד רמ"ט א), והרי בעצם מזונותיו קצובים, והרמב"ם (מתנת עניים י ב) כת' שאין מתעני מן הצדקה?
כשלא זכינו לילדים ואמרו שיש סגולה עם אבן, אמר שלא לעשותו כל עוד שיש סיכוי טבעי.

במדרש פר' עקב ג ח כל הניסים שעשה הקב"ה עשה על המים. מהו חשיבות ענין המים? דברי יואל פר' בשלח דף תג. מביא מרח"ו שער הקדושה (וכ"כ הגר"א) שד' יסודות הם נגד ד' מידות. אש - גאווה, כעס. רוח - דיבורים בטלים, ביטול זמן. עפר - עצלות ועצבות. מים - תאווה. תאווה הוא המזיק של מים בעולם הרוחני.
התאווה הזו יש לה צד טוב והוא האהבה להשי"ת שגם תשובה נמשלה למים ע"ש. הדבר"י שם מביא מהזוהר שחוץ מהתשובה הפשוטה של ווידוי וחרטה וכו' יש אופן אחר לשוב אל ה' והוא האהבה הגמורה, והוא תשובה מאהבה. וכמו שהמתקוטט עם חבירו להבדיל, כאשר יבין שאוהב אותו שוב אי"צ לכל מיני מעשים להראות חרטתו. וכת' עוד שם שמה שמובא מהזוהר שאין תשובה לחטא שז"ל הוא דוקא בתשובה מיראה אבל תשובה מאהבה מועיל. עש"ע שמפרש המדרש הנ"ל לפי דרכו.
בזה מובן טהרת המקוה לענינים אלו. וסגולת המים לשידוכים.
וע' משך חכמה יתרו כ י שמביא ומבאר הרבה מאמרי חז"ל בהא דעו"ע האמינו שאין ע"ז שולטת במים, והא דאין כשפים שולטים במים.
- דברי חיזוק לגבי עניני תאווה זאת שמתגברת בימינו.

Hands Up - Naso 5771

There is a Chakira, is Nisias Kapaim, the raising of the hands a Tenai in Duchaning or is it the Guf Hamitzvah (the definition of the Mitzvah).

What I mean to say is this, Amida – standing is not the Guf Hamitzvah of Duchaning, it is a condition of Duchaning. The question is if Nesias Kapaim is like Amida – standing or no Nesias Kapaim is the definition of Duchaning. After all we call it Nesias Kapaim and we don’t call it Birchas Kohanim. The Gemara in Maseches Kesuvos 22 calls it Nesias Kapaim .

What is interesting is that this Chakira is the subject of a Machlokes in the Halacha L’mayseh world. All Berachos have to be said before the Mitzvah is done. So the question is the following, when the Kohen makes the Beracha should the Kohen already have their hand stretched out, make the Beracha and go directly into Nesias Kapaim, or should they first make the Beracha and then lift up their hands. If you hold that lifting up the hands is the Guf Hamitzvah then the Kohanim should first make the Beracha and then lift up their hands. However, if you hold it is only a Tenai then on the contrary lifting the hands should be done first so that they are ready for the Mitzvah.

There are 2 Minhagim in what the Kohen does first. Most Kohanim stretch out the hands first, make the Beracha and in middle of the Beracha turn towards the congregation. The Shulchan Aruch Harav (which is the Minhag followed by Chabad) says in 128:17 that Nesias Kapaim is the Guf Hamitzvah and therefore the Beracha should be said first, the arms are stretched out second. So we find here a major difference if the Inyan of Nesias Kapaim is a Tenai in the Mitzvah or if it is the Guf Hamitzvah.

The Biur Halacha at the beginning of 128 in Dibbur Hamaschil B’zor wonders how is it that we have a custom that a Father blesses his children with the same Nusach as the Kohanim on Erev Yom Kippur and most do it every Erev Shabbos. So the Biur Halacha asks a Zar, someone who is not a Kohen is not allowed to Duchan and he is Over an Issur if he Duchans?

If you hold like the Shitta of the Baal Hatanya this would be answered because putting the hands out is the Guf Hamitzvah and if you bless a child without putting out the hands you are not Over on Bal Tosef.

In fact the Torah Temima on this week’s Parsha writes that the Gra was Makpid not to Bentch somebody with two hands on the head because that is Nesias Kapaim with your arms spread out and he would only Bentch somebody with one arm spread out. In the Siddur HaGra it says that as well. This is controversial as there are those that say that it is inaccurate. But at any rate the point is the same. That if you hold that Nesias Kapaim is the Guf Hamitzvah then Avada if somebody doesn’t do it with the proper Nesias Kapaim then he is not Over on Bal Tosef.  Even though it is a minority Shitta, the Bal Hatanya, nevertheless it would answer the Biur Halacha’s Kasha and it would come out very Geshmak with that.

There is something else that comes out very Geshmak. Tosafos in Yevamos 7a asks a question. Why is it that a Kohen that kills someone even if it was B’shogeg can’t Duchan again and yet in the Bais Hamikdash this Kohen is not Posul to do the Avoda if he killed somebody if he is not a Rasha, meaning that he did Teshuva or he did it B’ones.

Tosafos in the second Teretz says (ואין קטיגור נעשה סניגור) the hands which cause someone’s death cannot be the same hands to bring Beracha. 

It is Mashma from Tosafos that the hands are what bring the Beracha itself, because after all if the hands are only something that is part of the ceremony then Zerikas Hadam, the spreading of the blood in the Bais Hamikdash also requires hands. However, if we understand Nesias Kapaim the use of the hands as the Guf Hamitzvah then that is a whole different story. So this is something else that would come out very Geshmak based on this Chakira.

Yom Kippur Wedding - Acharei Mos 5771

The entire first section of the Parsha is about the Avodas Yom Hakippurim that was done in preparation of Yom Kippur. As you have heard on Monday and Thursday, the Kohen Gadol is told 16:6 (וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ, וּבְעַד בֵּיתוֹ). The Kohen Gadol has to bring a Kapparah for himself and for his family.

The Gemara in the beginning of Maseches Yoma Darshuns from here that the Kohen Gadol must be married, he must have a family for which to ask forgiveness. (ר' יהודה אומר אף אשה אחרת מתקינין לו שמא תמות אשתו שנאמר (ויקרא טז) וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו ביתו זו אשתו). He is only allowed to have one wife because (ביתו זו אשתו) is in the singular. The Gemara therefore explains what would be done if the Kohen Gadol’s wife were to die on Yom HaKippurim. The Mishna explains that they would prepare for him another wife in case his original wife would pass away on Yom Kippur because if she would die, then he would be ineligible to do the Avoda on Yom Kippur and a Kohen Hedyot would not be allowed to do the Avoda either.

So how does it work that they prepare for him another wife? It is a Machlokes in the Gemara. If one looks in the Rambam, he says that they would prepare for him a woman who would be willing to marry him and he would be willing to marry her. If his wife were to die on Yom Kippur then the Kohen Gadol would marry her on Yom Kippur. They would need Kiddushin and Nisuin because she has to be fully married to him. Therefore the Rambam says that he would do that on Yom Hakippurim.

Many of you will remember from when we learned Maseches Kesuvos and Maseches Kiddushin that we discussed the different Shittas of what Chuppah is. Kiddushin, the Mishnah says in Kiddushin the first Mishnah (האשה נקנית בשלש דרכים וקונה את עצמה בשתי דרכים נקנית בכסף בשטר ובביאה). Chuppah however, is not something that is explained in the Mishnah. So there are different Rishonim who have different opinions of what constitutes a Chuppah. Some of them are: 1) the canopy that we use for the Chuppah, 2) the veil that the Kallah wears, Or the Rambam’s Shitta 3) that it has to be a private room that there is possible to have intimacy there in order for the Nisuin to be Chal. In other words, the Yichud room.

The Ran asks a Kasha on the Rambam. The Rambam says that the Kohen Gadol will get married on Yom Kippur. How can that be? Yom Kippur is a day on which there is an Issur of Tashmish Hamitah and the Rambam’s Shitta is that the Kohen Gadol would get married on Yom Kippur. The Rambam’s Shitta is also that there has to be a Yichud Haraui L’biya and how can this be if Tashmish Hamitah is Assur on Yom Kippur?

I want to remind you briefly of the Shitta of Rav Naftali Trop (1871–September 24, 1928) in his Chiddushei Ha Granat that there are 2 levels of Yichud, one that is a Yichud Haraui L’biya (that is a complete Nisuin) and one that is not a Yichud Haraui L’biya (which is a Nisuin for certain things). It answers numerous problems of the Rambam. We discussed it in Shiur in Maseches Kesuvos on 2a on the bottom, so pull out your notes and review them and I hope you will have a Geshmak from it. This is one aspect of the Avoda of Yom Hakippurim.

Parshas Shemos 5771 - גירות קודם מתן תורה

2:5 (וַתֵּרֶד בַּת-פַּרְעֹה לִרְחֹץ עַל-הַיְאֹר, וְנַעֲרֹתֶיהָ הֹלְכֹת עַל-יַד הַיְאֹר; וַתֵּרֶא אֶת-הַתֵּבָה בְּתוֹךְ הַסּוּף, וַתִּשְׁלַח אֶת-אֲמָתָהּ וַתִּקָּחֶהָ) We find in the Parsha that when Moshe Rabbeinu as an infant was put in the river Bas Paroh came and as you all know she rescued him. Why was she at the river?

The Posuk says that she went (לִרְחֹץ עַל-הַיְאֹר). The Gemarah in Maseches Sotah 12b (top line)( ותרד בת פרעה לרחוץ על היאור א"ר יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יוחי מלמד שירדה לרחוץ מגלולי אביה) and Maseches Megillah 13a (12 lines from the top) (אמאי קרי לה יהודיה על שום שכפרה בע"ז דכתיב ותרד בת פרעה לרחוץ על היאור ואמר רבי יוחנן שירדה לרחוץ מגילולי בית אביה) say that Bas Paroh went down to the river to cleanse herself from the Avoda Zorah of her father’s home. Rashi says that (לרחוץ. לטבול (לשון) גירות) that she was Tovel for Gairus. She wanted to be Migayeir. She wanted to become a Jewess. Therefore, she went there to be Tovel for Gairus.

The Turei Even is Matmia on Rashi and says how can there be Gairus if it is before Matan Torah. How can a person be a Ger before there was a Klal Yisrael? He says that it was from the Tumah of the Avoda Zorah that she went to be Tovel. 

To answer the Turei Even’s Kasha on Rashi, I would like to remind you that there is a Rav Naftali in Maseches Kesuvos that we learned in Yeshiva. The Chidushei Hagarnat in Maseches Kesubos 11 in the Sugya of Ger Kattan we had learned a Rav Naftali. Rav Naftali there discusses Geirus in general. He says that to be a Yid there are two components. 1) Kedushas Yisrael and 2) Yichus Yisrael. Yichus Yisrael is when someone is born and their mother is a Yid. Kedushas Yisrael is someone who has the Kedusha of the Jewish people. Every born Yid has both Kedushas Yisrael and Yichus Yisrael. However Rav Naftali says, prior to Kabbalas Hatorah Jews had Yichus Yisrael because they were the children of Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov but did not have Kedushas Yisrael until Har Sinai at Matan Torah.

Rav Naftali compares this to a pregnant woman who converts. Subsequently when she gives birth the child needs Geirus. Yet if there are twins born, they are considered to be related. Even if there is one child born the child is considered to be related to its mother. Why is that so if a Ger is considered like a new individual without relatives (Ger Shenis’gairu K’koton Hanoiled Dami)?

Rav Naftali answers that at the time of birth the mother was Jewish so the child has Yichus Yisrael. Relatives and relationships depends on Yichus Yisrael. The child lacks Kedushas Yisrael because at the time of conception the mother was not a Yid. His Geirus happens against his will because once someone has Yichus Yisrael he is obligated to have Kedushas Yisrael.

With this many things are explained. For example, we know on the one hand that at Matan Torah we became Jews (Geirim), and on the other hand we know that after Matan Torah that people remained prohibited to their sisters or their other relatives with whom they are not allowed to marry. Ai, we have a rule of Ger Shenis’gairu K’koton Hanoiled Dami? If all Jews became Geirim at Matan Torah there should be no Issur of relatives?

The answer is Yichus Yisrael they had because they were the children of Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov. It was the second aspect of Geirus, Kedushas Yisrael that they didn’t have until Matan Torah.

This also explains that the fact that Klal Yisrael received Mitzvas Shabbos at Marah. Before Matan Torah they were Mitzuva in Shabbos. However, a Goy who keeps Shabbos is Chayuv Misah. How can it be that they were Michuyav in Shabbos before Mattan Torah?

The Teretz is they were Jews by Yichus Yisrael even before Matan Torah. Therefore they could keep Shabbos. This is an idea of Yichus Yisrael and Kedushas Yisrael which Rav Naftali says.

What we gain from Rav Naftali of course is that it is possible to have Gairus for Yichus Yisrael alone so that even before Matan Torah we can understand that Bas Paroh was Yoredes (לִרְחֹץ עַל-הַיְאֹר) to be Megayair. Ai, you will ask how can she be Migayair if there were no Jews? The Teretz is that Yichus Yisrael already existed and at that point it was Shayich that aspect of being a Yid.