[Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah?

[Chana Luntz]

I wrote:

> Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have 
> simcha on yom tov acharon shel chag.

And RMB replied:

<<But the Rama doesn't say simchas YT, just "mishum simchah". OTOH, as we
saw, the Rama opens by speaking of the simchah and mishteh of completing the
Torah. So, if he just says "simchah" afterwards, why would I think it is
anything but the "semeichin ... legamra shel Torah" already brought into the
discussion?>>

I suppose the reason it seems to me obvious that mishum simcha, means the
simcha of Yom Tov, is because:

a) when the poskim say something is meshum simcha in the context of yom tov,
they mean the mitzvah of simcha  - for example: the Levush and the Bach (and
numerous others, I believe) hold that the hakafos of the lulav during sukkos
is mishum simcha  (or at least the hakafos in the Beis HaMikdash, come
directly out of the pasuk mandating simcha, and we then do them as a zecher.
In that context, various rishonim and achronim discuss whether an avel is
permitted to do hakafos, ie whether the simcha of the day pushes of the fact
that a avel is forbidden from simcha.  And in all these discussions, when
they talk about simcha or mishum simcha, simchas Yom Tov is understood. 

b) I have not seen (and don't expect to see) a distinction made between an
avel doing hakafos with the lulav, and an avel doing hakafos on simchas
Torah.  But if they have completely different bases, then that discussion
would need to be had.

c) On the other hand, the obligation to have a seudas mitzvah on finishing
learning comes from a statement in gemora shabbas (118b-119a) where Abaye
says: he should be rewarded because whenever he heard about a tzurba
d'rabanan finishing a mesechta, he would make a yom tov for the Rabbis,
which is understood to mean a seudas mitzvah.  This is listed as part of a
whole list of various Amoraim stating what it is that they believe they
should get a special reward for, including being careful in known mitzvos
(such a tefillin and tzitzis, and three meals on shabbas) and what are
identified as good minhagim (such as not going daled amos with his head
uncovered).  It is really not clear into which category Abaye's statement
falls.  And while the Rema in Yore Deah siman 246, si'if 26  does say that "
when one finishes a mesechet it is a mitzvah to rejoice and to make a feast,
and it is called a seudas mitzvah" - to hang everything we do on Simchas
Torah on this one statement in the gemora seems like a breathtaking
chiddush.  And think about it this way.  If I were to finish a mesechta,
here today, does that mean I can take the sifrei Torah out of the aron,
dance around with them, call up some children (and some people together at
once, making the brachos at once), read multiple times, take the sifrei
Torah out into the street, (and, if it was shabbas, dance even if in general
I held that dancing on shabbas is not permitted, as per the Shulchan
Aruch?). Given that the essential siyum that is described in the gemora and
referred to  by the Rema is on a mesechet in Shas, then all this should be
permissible on any day of the week, not just Simchas Torah. Because mai
nafka minah. 

So I suppose it seems to me obvious that all the heterim the Rema refers to
cannot be because of the simcha of the siyum, especially as the heterim were
in place before the siyum was necessarily happening, historically, which
again seems to suggest that the one does not cause the other.

I do see that in fact the Aruch HaShulchan seems to support you, as in Orech
Chaim siman 669 si'if 2 he says in the middle of the piece:  "And also we
are accustomed that two are called up together and bless, and even though it
is not correct in any event because of the joy of the siyum they do so ." -
whereas I would have thought he should say the joy of Yom Tov.  So the Aruch
HaShulchan would seem to be supporting your position.

But still, I cannot see, if the Aruch HaShulchan is saying this, how he can
be correct, because the consequences must surely be that any time there is a
siyum, such a heter would then be permissible, or at least tolerable.  I
just can't see how this is right.  I cannot see how, even if the whole of
klal yisrael this year decided that we were going to have a siyum on kriyas
hatorah when we had had a full year since last lockdown (ie assuming a
vaccine became widely available and was effective), somewhere in the middle
of the year, it would it be mutar as part of holding that siyum on krias
haTorah on an ordinary Shabbat, to have the usual Simchas Torah heterim.
According to you it would be, but I cannot see that this can be right, and I
struggle to believe the Rema would authorise it were he here today.  

<<You're assuming the Rama changes topics without telling us.>>

Not really.  Given that mishum simcha in the context of a Yom Tov is
logically understood to mean simchas yom tov, without the modifier, the Rema
is just explaining in greater detail why we do everything we do before.
That *includes* holding the completion of the krias hatorah cycle on Simchas
Torah.  ie we arrange to have the siyum on Simchas Torah, *because* of the
nature of Simchas Torah, not that Simchas Torah is the way it is because of
the siyum of finishing the reading cycle.

-Micha

Gmar Tov

Chana