The name Genack was originally Levine, which then became Genechovsky. Within these three names lie many sefarim. I'm happy to have met all the authors except Rabbi Levine zt"l (pictured), the author of the "Yad Eliyahu," though I do present his Torah. Rav Avrohom Genechovsky zt"l, previous Rosh Yeshiva of Tshebin, was my father's first cousin and was an enormous figure that I got to know well. I feel humbled yet proud to present his Torah thoughts, personal stories and insights. My uncle, Rabbi Genack, a mechaber of many sefarim, is a renowned personality, and someone I continue to grow with. My first cousin, Rabbi Yaakov Nagen (Genack), Rosh Kollel at Yeshiva Otniel, was mechaber two very important Hebrew books in Israel, "Awaking to a New Day: Stories and Insights from Life," and "Nishmat HaMishna." Interestingly, Rav Avrohom Genechovsky’s last name is often transliterated as Genechovsky (with other variations existing as well), though in America the family name is spelled as Genachowski.
*LEKAVOD SHAVUOS
I. Rabbi Genack
“This thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it” (Deuteronomy 30:14)
The verse (Deuteronomy 30:14) says, “This thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.” Rashi says on this verse, [this] thing is very close to you: The Torah was given to you in writing and [accompanied by an] oral [explanation]. In the previous verses of the Parsha it says, (ibid. 30:11) “For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away,” and (ibid. 30:12), “It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?”, on which Rashi comments, “It is not in heaven,” for if it were in the heavens, you would have to climb up after it [in order] to learn it (quoting Eruvin 55a). So according to Rashi that which is very close to you in your mouth and heart refers to Torah.
This explanation seems to be going on the simple meaning of the words – (ibid. 30:14), “It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.” With the mouth one can read the Torah Shebichtav and with the heart one can understand Torah she-be-`al peh. Rabbi Genack heard from the Rav zt”l that Torah Shebichtav is different from Torah she-be-`al peh, in that Torah Shebichtav – one has a kiuyim of Talmud Torah by just reading the words even without understanding them whereas Torah she-be-`al peh, if one learns a Halacha or Gemara and doesn’t understand it – one does not fulfill Talmud Torah.
This is further evidenced by the Halacha relating to Megillat Esther that even though we don’t understand the explanation of some of the words, such as הרמכים בני האחשתרנים (Esther 8:10), we are still yotze.
The notion of differentiation between Torah Shebichtav and Torah she-be-`al peh is further illustrated by the following story. The Griz zt”l was walking with Rav Elchanan Wasserman zt”l and they were discussing Torah. As they were speaking in Torah, Rav Elchanan zt”l mentioned that perhaps they should look inside to get reward for otiot machkimos (The letters bring wisdom). The Griz zt”l responded that such a notion only applies to Torah Shebichtav and not Torah she-be-`al peh. In regards to Torah she-be-`al peh, it’s the understanding of the sugya that brings fulfillment of Talmud Torah, not the reading of the letters.
While Rashi understood the above mentioned verses (Deuteronomy 30:11,12,14) to be going on Torah, the Ramban understands the verse (ibid. 30:11), "For this commandment which I command you this day” is going on Teshuva and the verse (ibid. 30:14), “It is in your mouth and in your heart” refers to vidui on sins with the mouth and returning to Hashem with the heart.
There seems to to be a proof to Rashi from the Tanna Dvei Eliyahu Zuta (14:1), where it's written that Eliyahu encountered a fisherman that didn’t know how to read or learn Torah. The fisherman remarked that he wasn’t given the intelligence nor ability to learn. Eliyahu countered by saying - being that it’s true that you have the ability to weave a net from flax that is then placed in the water to trap fish, certainly you have the ability to learn the Torah, as the verse (ibid. 30:14) says, “This thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.” This seems to be a direct proof for Rashi as Eliyahu uses this verse to reference Torah and not Teshuva.
*Maariv as a Reshut
The 3 tefillos we daven every day is sourced in one of two places. The Gemara (Berachos 26b) records that Rebbe Yosi B’Rebbe Chanina says it is in direct correlation to the prayers of the Avot whereas Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi says it’s based on when the daily karbanos were brought.
Maariv was for the prayer of Yaakov. The difficulty emerges based on the Gemara (ibid. 27b) where Rav holds maariv is a reshut (which will be soon defined), and we hold like Rav in esurim. If the prayer was instituted based on tefillos Avos, how can maariv be a reshut, as Yaakov prayed at that time. (If maariv is sourced in the karbanos, it is very logical why it would be a reshus, for shacharis is in place of the tamid shel shachar, mincha in place of the tamid shel bein ha’arbaim and maariv in place of the emurim of the karbonos – and emurim do not nullify the effectiveness of the karban.)
Three answers are proffered. The Netziv (Sheilta 8) explains that the nature of Yaakov’s tefilla was characterized in the Torah as “Vayifga Bemakom” (Genesis 28:11). The Gemara (Chulin 91b) explains this to mean that Yaakov was proclaiming, “Here I am passing through Charan where my forefathers prayed so I must pray as well.” It was a prayer more based on circumstances than need, thus making it a reshut. The Pnei Yehoshua (Berachot 26b s.v. mihu) says Yaakov didn’t intend to pray at night but G-d caused the sun to set suddenly giving Yaakov no choice but to pray then, thus deeming it a reshut. The Zohar says it’s a reshut because no later individual can match the kavana of Yaakov.
An outright Gemara seems to challenge the fact that maariv is a full-fledged reshut. The Gemara (Berachos 26a) says that if one mistakenly didn’t daven maariv, he must daven shacharis twice. If maariv is a full-fledged reshut then why must it be repeated?
The Rishonim deal with this question and four major opinions emerge all suggesting that maariv is not a full-fledged reshut.
The Behag (as cited in Tos. Yoma 87b) says that if one davens maariv in general than he subjectively creates maariv as a chova for him and therefore if he should miss maariv such a person would have to repeat it. Tosefos (Berachos 26a) understands that maariv is only a reshut if there is not another mitzvah passing, but if another mitzvah would be lost by praying maariv – one must perform the mitzvah.
The Rif (Berachos 19a) holds that all of Israel has taken it upon themselves to daven maariv making it a chova. Rabbi Levine zt"l (Yad Eliyahu Siman 1 Page 3 -Chelek Rishon on Sheilos Ve’tshuvos on Halacha, 2010, Originally published 1900) ) notes a difference of opinion between the Rambam and the Rif. The Rambam (Hilchos Tefillah 1:6) says, “Tefillas maariv is not a chova like shacharis and mincha, nevertheless it has been accepted like a tefillas chova." Rabbi Levine zt"l (ibid.) points out that the Rambam says maariv is “like” a chova but not a full-fledged chova like the Rif.
We see another chiddush in the opinion of the Rambam. The Gemara (Berachos 21a) says that if one is davening shacharis or mincha and realizes that he already recited it, he must cease davening immediately.
However, by maariv, the Rambam (Hilchos Tefillah 10:6) says that one need not stop but can continue davening maariv as a nedava. The question is why is maariv different if it's like a chova. Reb Chaim Soloveitchik zt"l explains that according to the Rambam maariv is a chefsa dereshut. That means even if it was metakaen like a chova it's inherently a reshut type of davening and that is why one can continue to daven maariv as a nedava.
Rabbi Genack (Sefer Gan Shoshanim Chelek Beit, Sefer Chazon Nachum: Siman 11 Page 33) uses a similar sevara to explain Tosefos – (Brachot 26a s.v. Ta’aa). Tosefos brings down the Gemara (Berachot 27b) where Rav holds maariv is a reshut. Then Tosefos asks from the Gemara (ibid. 30b) that if one forgets to say Rosh Chodesh at night, he need not go back because we are not mekadesh the chodesh at night. Tosefos asks why didn't the Gemara simply answer that one must not go back since maariv is a reshut. As already mentioned, [because of this question], Tosefos learns there is still a mitzvah and one is only excempt from maariv if another mitzvah is passing.
Rabbi Genack asks why Tosefos didn’t suggest another answer where everyone would hold it’s chova, that is, by the mere fact that there's a din of tashlumin to daven maariv twice if one mistakenly didn't daven mincha, therein lies a proof that maariv is a chova because you can't daven tashlumin if not for the fact that you recited the first tefillah at its designated time. Therefore, when mincha is missed both tefillas recited at maariv should be considered chova's. Rabbi Genack answers that Tosefos didn’t offer this explanation because even though there is a din of tashlumin, maariv is a chefsa dereshut, deeming it impossible to have the din of tashlumin transform the tefilla's to chova's.
Rav Avraham Genachowski zt”l
*Tefillas Mincha After lighting Candles on Erev Yom Tov Sheini Shel Galios
On Shabbas, after one lights the candles, he may no longer daven mincha, as he would be offering a tefillas Chol on Shabbas (Orach Chaim: Siman 263; Mishna Berurah, Seif Katan 43). Does the same law apply on Yom Tov Sheini Shel Galios when you light the candles on Erev Yom Tov of the first day for the second? The logical answer, is that in this case, you can daven mincha as it’s the same nusach as maariv and you’re not davening Chol on Yom Tov.
However, this premise isn't necessarily true, for if the first day is Yom Tov then the second day is Chol and if the first day is Chol then the second day is Yom Tov, either way causing a Chol to be said on Yom Tov.
Therefore, the answer lies in an argument between the Magen Avraham (Siman 108) and the Tzlach. The case relates to one who who forgot to recite the Yom Tov portion of mincha on Erev Yom Tov Sheini Shel Galios. The question is whether he can repeat mincha and daven maariv twice. According to the Magen Avraham one can repeat it, whereas according to the Tzlach one cannot. The Mishna Berurah (Siman 108: Seif Katan 34) is not doche the opinion of the Magen Avraham indicating that this is the Halacha. Therefore, according to the Magen Avraham if you lit candles on the first day for the second day you can still say mincha.