[Avodah] What Will be with Simchas Torah?

[Chana Luntz]

RMB writes:

<<This is the crux of our difference in understanding. You're using a
general rule about "mishum simchah" in texts about hilkhos YT.>>

Not only a general rule about mishum simcha in texts about hilkhos YT, but
when used specifically about a set of festivals described in all of our
tefilot as "zman simchasainu".  Why do you think that particular accolade
was instituted davka about Sukkos/Simchas Torah, by the anshei Knesset
hagedola ? 

<<I'm using the se'if's first mention of simchah, or at least "semeichin",
as the context by which I understood all further mentions of simchah.>>

I understand that, but in the context of a discussion about what we do on
zman simchaseinu, which comprises a list of customs for that zman,
understanding that the use of semeichin in the first line as being what
drives the whole passage, including the language "and all is mishum simcha"
appears to be ignoring the wider context.  

...
> 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.

<<OTOH, if simchas YT were the reason for all of the minhagim of Simchas
Torah, why aren't we dancing with the Torah on all chagim? Or at least on
Zeman Matan Toraseinu?>>

Because, as many meforshim point out, the psukim specifically speak of three
times the amount of simcha for Sukkos -  here it is from the midrash agada:

מפני מה לא נאמר בפסח שמחה, ובעצרת כתיב שמחה אחת דכתיב ושמחת לפני ה' אלהיך
(פסוק יא) ובחג כתיב שלשה שמחות, דכתיב ושמחת בחגך (פסוק יד), והיית אך שמח.
לפי ששנינו בארבעה פרקים בשנה העולם נידון, בפסח על התבואה, בעצרת על פירות
האילן, ובראש השנה כל באי עולם עוברים לפניו כבני מרון, שנאמר היוצר יחד לבם
וגו' (תהלים לג טו), ובחג נידונים על המים, כי זמן פסח הוא חסרון ועדיין יש
לעשות, לכך אין כתיב שמחה, אבל בעצרת עבר דין אחד, לכך נאמר בו שמחה אחת, בחג
שכבר עברו שלשה דינים פסח ועצרת וראש השנה, לכך נאמר בו שלשה שמחות:

"Why does it not say regarding Pesach simcha, and with Shavuos, there is
written [only] one simcha, “and you shall be happy before Hashem Your G-d
(pasuk 11), and on Sukkos it is written three times simcha, that it is
written you shall be happy on your festival (pasuk 14), and you shall be
only happy [pasuk 15].  Because we are taught that on three periods in the
year the world is judged, on Pesach on the grain, on Shavuos on the fruit of
the tree, and on Rosh HaShana all the world passes before him like a flock
of sheep, as it says “He who forms their hearts together etc” [Tehillim
33:15] and on Chag we are judged on the water, that the time of Pesach there
is a lack, that there is still what to do, and so it does not write simcha,
but on Shavuos one judgment has passed, and therefore we say one simcha, and
on Chag that has passed three judgments, Pesach, Shavuos and Rosh HaShana
there we say on it three simchos."

And here it is from the Da'as HaZakeinim:

דעת זקנים מבעלי התוספות דברים פרק טז פסוק טו
(טו) והיית אך שמח. אתה מוצא כתיב שלש שמחות בחג הסוכות. ושמחת בחגך. אך שמח.
ושמחת לפני ה' אלהיך דכתיב בפרשת אמור אל הכהנים וגבי שבועות לא כתיב אלא חדא
ושמחת לפני ה' אלהיך. וגבי פסח לא כתיב שמחה כלל לפי שבפסח עדיין לא נלקטו
התבואות ולא פירות האילן. ובחג השבועות כבר נלקטו התבואות ואיכא חדא שמחה ולא
יותר כי עדיין לא נלקטו פירות האילן וגם התבואות לתוך הבית אבל בחג הסוכות
שלקטו התבואות ופירות האילן וגם הכל נאסף לתוך הבית אז השמחה היא שלימה לכך
כתיב ביה שלש שמחות:

Da'at Zekenim m’ba’alei hatosfos deverim 16:15
And you shall be only happy: You find that there is written three times
simcha regarding chag hasukkos, v’samachta b’chagecha, ach sameach and
v’samachta lifnei Hashem Elokecha that is written in parshat emor al
hakohanim, that in connection with Shavuos there is not written except once,
v’samachta lifnei HaShem Elokecha. And in connection with Pesach it is not
written simcha at all because on Pesach they have still not gathered in the
grain, and not the fruit of the tree. And on Chag HaShavuos already they
have gathered in the grain, and there is one simcha, and not more, because
they still have not gathered in the fruit of the tree, or also the grain
inside the house, but on Chag HaSukkos they have gathered in the grain and
the fruit of the tree, and also all is grain is inside the house then the
simcha is complete therefore it is written regarding it three time simcha.


<<You see hakafos with the lulav as mishum simchah to begin with? "Anah H'
hoshia na?" I think I just don't understand what you're trying to say.>>

Not me - the meforshim - here for example is the Levush: - 
לבוש אורח חיים סימן תרס
ונוהגין להקיף המגדל פעם אחת בכל יום, ומניחים הספר תורה על התיבה כשמקיפין
אותו כדי להקיף הספר תורה משום שמחה. ומי שאין לו לולב אינו מקיף כמו שיתבאר
בסמוך. וביום השביעי מקיפין ז' פעמים, זכר שהיה סובבים את המזבח בלולב וערבה ז'
פעמים משום שמחת החג שנקרא זמן שמחה, על כן אנו מקיפין את המגדל והספר תורה
עליו במקום מזבח גם כן משום שמחה ז' פעמים,
Levush Orech Chaim siman 660
We are accustomed to go around the bimah once every day and to put the sefer
torah on the bimah when we go around it in order to go around the sefer
torah because of simcha.  And one who does not have a lulav does not go
around like we have explained nearby. And on the seventh day we go around 7
times, in memory that they would go around the mizbeach with the lulav and
the aravah seven times because of simcha of the festival that is called the
time of simcha, and therefore we go around the bimah and the sefer torah is
on it, in place of the altar also this is because of simcha seven times.

...
> 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.

<<Huh? The universality of finishing veZos haBerakhah on Shemini Atzeres,
Yom Tov sheini if you're in chu"l was WELL before minhagim about hakafos
with the Torah, never mind hakafos at night, giving all the men aliyos, and
then also the older boys, hakafos at night, leining at night (where
applicable)...>>

On what basis do you say that?  The Beis Yosef brings the Meharik as writing
in shoresh 9 (unaf 2) in the name of Rabbanu Hai Gaon that on the day of
Simchas Torah it is permitted to dance at the time that they say praises of
the torah because they are accustomed to permit because of honour of the
Torah since there is only in it because of a rabbinical decree.  

בית יוסף אורח חיים סימן שלט ג
וכתב מהר"י קולון ז"ל בשורש ט' (ענף ב) בשם רבינו האי שביום שמחת תורה מותר
לרקד בשעה שאומרים קילוסים דתורה דנהגו בו היתר משום כבוד התורה כיון דלית ביה
אלא משום שבות


And while I can't seem to find the full description when I went looking for
it, I am pretty sure I have seen sources about behaviour on Simchas Torah
from around the times of the Geonim, where the people were going around with
flaming torches. This was heavily disapproved of, as I recall, as
Halachically problematic, and dancing only was permitted - I can see that in
the Ritva (Chiddushei HaRitva Beitza 24a) it is mentioned briefly - "And so
we are accustomed in a few places with a torch that was lit in the synagogue
the night of Simchat Torah, and so writes the Ritva that this is not correct
because all the torch is one body".  And similarly in the Shita Mekubetzes -
Beitza 22a - "And so we are accustomed in a few places with a torch that was
lit in the synagogue on the night of simchas Torah".  But what I can't seem
to find at the moment is a vivid description I am sure I have read of the
scenes with juggling torches (and halachic disapproval), which then links
into Rav Hai Gaon's permission of dancing (only)!

The point being, that this is very old, and there were even more
Halachically difficult behaviours going on, so that the authorities clamped
down on torch juggling but allowed the dancing to continue (despite the
rabbinic ban on dancing on Yom Tov).  Wild scenes on the night of Simchas
Torah are thus very old, which is why my sense is that it is even older than
finishing the Torah on Simchas Torah, which I don't think become universal
until about the time of at least of the rishonim, if not the later rishonim.
I agree that the aliyos and layning seems to have been much newer, but the
mayhem, if you like, has very old antecedents, and roots in the hakafos
around the mitzbeach in the beis hamikdash (and quite likely, as the Levush
says, the sefer torah was taken out on Sukkos to be the central point of the
hakafos of the lulavim, and then on the last day, when there were no more
lulavim, but there was still supposed to be simcha, it extended to dancing
around just with the sifrei Torah, accompanied by these "praises".

<<Again, I must not be understanding what you're trying to say.>>

> 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.

<<Possibly the source of my first impression, via AhS Yomi.>>

Yes, I suspect so, but I think you are reading that back where it doesn't
belong.

> > 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...

<<Whenever people talk about "the ground", they mean on planet earth. Pretty
solid general rule.

But if someone starts a paragraph by saying "When Neal Armstrong left
footprints on the ground of the moon..." What would you assume "the ground"
refers to in the rest of the paragraph?>>

And I think that makes my point exactly.  They would almost certainly have
to keep qualifying it throughout as "the ground of the moon", because every
time they reverted back to "ground" people are likely to understand him as
having returned to earth.   If three sentences later they said "And Neil
Armstrong when he was back on the ground, said ... ", without qualifying, it
would be understood that was when he returned to earth, not when he had been
into the space ship or moon rover and then out again, unless that was very,
very clearly earmarked, as it is not the natural understanding.  You need
the words "and all this is because of the simcha of the siyum", not "and all
this is because of simcha" if you want say that the  simcha is Halachically
generated by the siyum.  And especially as, unlike coining "the ground of
the moon" (which of course, people wouldn't say, they would say the "surface
of the moon") the halachic obligation of simcha being generated by a siyum
is not so clear.  In a halachic work, the Rema needs to justify that a siyum
generates a halachic requirement of simcha (which he might be able to do, if
he actually held that way, by quoting the gemora about Abaye, but it does
need to be spelt out - about making a yom tov for the rabbis, and that this
"yom tov" reference indicates that just like simcha on a Torah mandated yom
tov, one is obligated in simcha on a siyum generated yom tov - although
probably this is at most rabbinic, as there is no pasuk quoted by Abaye).
But if he was going to do this, he needs to provide the halachic rationale,
rather than just say "and all of this is because of simcha" on a day when
there is a three times Torah mandated obligation of simcha (well, minhag
avosaynu b'yadenu, but on Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah in Israel it is three
times Torah mandated) which everybody reading would know.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Chag Sameach (tripled!)

Chana