Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #105

  1. Question: Why is getting rid of chometz more strict then performing a bris?

Background:

A. They both are punishments of kares if not done.

B. They both are considered transgressed every moment they aren’t fulfilled after the time to do the mitzvah has come, according to the Machatzis Hashekel.

C. There are two parts to every mitzvah (1) the mitzvah itself, (2) the obligation to fulfill the mitzvah itself. D. The mitzvah itself by chometz is to not have chometz in your possession. The mitzvah itself of milah is to perform the cut of the  milah just once.

Answer: By chometz, as long as you are not getting rid of your chometz you are transgressing the obligation of the mitzvah which is to get rid of the chometz and the mitzvah itself of not having chometz in your possession, but by milah you only transgress the mitzvah itself of not having the milah cut, but the obligation to actively cut the milah is not being transgressed it just has not been done yet.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 4 halacha 12

If one did speak lashon hara but no one accepted what you said so it didn’t harm anyone then you must repent to Hashem for transgressing a sin. (A) regret what you said, (B) admit your wrongdoing I.e vidui, (C) accept upon yourself altruistically to never do it again. However if they did accept what you said and it caused harm, physically, monetarily, or even psychologically then the speaker must first go over to the person he spoke about and apologize to him, and only then can he repent to Hashem. Neither Yom Kippur or death is sufficient atonement if you did not apologize to the person accosted if you are supposed to. There is an argument between the Chofetz Chaim and Rav Yisrael Salanter whether you must apologize to someone who does not know you spoke lashon hara about him. The Chofetz Chaim says you have to tell him that you wronged him and you apologize but Rav Yisrael Salanter says that might make him feel worse now knowing what happened and you shouldn’t make a person feel bad even if you apologize afterwards, therefore it is better to say nothing then to make things worse. The Chofetz Chaim in the Be’er Mayim Chaim (48) says something very scary that it is possible that Lashon hara might not immediately harm someone and a person will repent to Hashem and wipe out his sin but if later on harm does come to the one spoken about the sin resurfaces and the speaker must apologize to the one harmed. Best thing to do if already spoke is to try to avoid hard being done like going back to who he spoke to and convincing them that what he said was inappropriate and should not be accepted as truth at all. Then there would be nothing to apologize for.
ReplyForward
Posted on

Shabbos HaChodesh – Dedication

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.


The last Mishna in Pirkei Avos writes, “Ben Hei Hei says: The reward is in proportion to the exertion” (Avos 5:26). The reward for observing Hashem’s mitzvos is increased in direct proportion to the effort and discomfort one experiences in its enactment.

Besides the double portion of Vayakhel-Pekudai which concludes the Book of Shemos, this week is also Parshas HaChodesh, and we read from the first 20 pesukim of perek 12 in parshas Bo which discusses the “First Passover” in Egypt. There is an illustration of this last Mishna in Pirkei Avos within these pesukim. The Torah states: “You shall have a perfect male lamb in its [first] year; you may take it either from the sheep or from the goats. And you shall keep it for inspection until the fourteenth day of this month, and the entire congregation of the community of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon. And they shall take [some] of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel, on the houses in which they will eat it. And they shall take [some] of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel, on the houses in which they will eat it. And on this night, they shall eat the flesh, roasted over the fire, and unleavened cakes; with bitter herbs they shall eat it. You shall not eat it rare or boiled in water, except roasted over the fire its head with its legs and with its innards. And you shall not leave over any of it until morning, and whatever is left over of it until morning, you shall burn in fire. And this is how you shall eat it: your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste it is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord” (Shemos 12: 5-11).


The Chizkuni paints a vivid picture about exactly what these pesukim are telling us, with the theme being disgracing the Egyptian god. The Jewish people took a lamb on the tenth of Nissan and tied it to their bed post until the 14th of Nissan so that the Egyptians would see their gods tied up and denigrated in a disgraceful manner inside the houses of the Jews. They heard the cries of the lambs and could not save them. The Jews then were commanded to slaughter their lamb in mid-day for all the Egyptians to see.They then took the blood and painted it on their doorposts, for perhaps not all the Egyptians were able to make it to see the slaughtering of the lambs, so they could instead see the blood of their god placed on the doorposts in disgrace. They ate the meat at night when everyone is usually home. It was roasted on the fire so that the scent would travel and be a thick smell in the noses of the Egyptians, and they would know that the Jews were eating their god. It was eaten in a disgraceful manner since the meat was eaten with something bad and bitter, the bitter herb, not with something of significance, or sweet. They were told not to eat it raw, meaning if an Egyptian came to their house while roasting, they should not remove it from the fire and say it has roasted well enough, though it is still raw (medium rare). The Jew might have said this out of fear, therefore the pasuk was saying not to be afraid of them. It was roasted completely and as one full body so that the Egyptians could recognize their idol being roasted. Any leftovers should have been burnt to ashes which is a disgrace. Lastly they ate it with their backpacks and boots on, and with their staffs in their hands, which is a mundane and disgraceful manner in which to eat, as opposed to other sacrifices which would normally be eaten in an honorable fashion. (Please click here for Hebrew text.)
It’s very clear that the theme of this charge was to disgrace the Egyptian’s god and to make sure every Egyptian knew what was going on.  It was an utterly thorough disgrace without holding anything back, leaving no possible angle of disgrace unturned. But why did it have to come to the point of making the Jewish people so uncomfortable by eating bitter herbs, and in a very awkward manner with their backpacks on their backs, boots on, and staff in hand? Wasn’t all they did besides that enough of a disgrace and a show of not fearing the Egyptians and their false god? Why did Hashem place His children under this type of suffering and discomfort at a time that He was about to let them go free and accept them as His nation, leaving the many years of torture and slavery?

We must say that adding these two bits of disgrace added and completed the utter degradation of the Egyptian god, which was the purpose of this exercise. Fulfilling every detail was a test of true dedication, which one must have under any and all circumstances when performing Hashem’s mitzvos.

This in fact seems to be the first test of the Jewish people, as a nation, to show their dedication towards fulfilling Hashem’s command.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #104

  1. Question: According to the Ta”z what’s the difference between a slab of meat which you are unsure whether the unkosher fats and sinews were removed where we assume it was removed and a house before Pesach where you are unsure if it was checked and cleaned out of Chometz where we assume it was not checked?

 Background:

  1. The Ta”z (Yoreh Deah 127:6) holds that if one is unsure whether a slab of meat had any unkosher fats and sinew taken from it or not we don’t assume it is forbidden because the meat itself wasn’t originally forbidden and the prohibition is just the unkosher fats and sinews, we are just worried that while eating the meat you might take a bite of the fat or sinew. Since what would be permissible after the removal was permissible the whole entire time just that it was mixed up with forbidden things therefore

 it is not considered to be assumed prohibition, ischazek isura.

B. The Shach in the Nekudas Hakesef argues there and holds that since originally it was forbidden to eat this piece of meat then its considered ischazek isura.

C. The Shev Shmaisa (6:5) explaining the view of the Shach says that he has to admit the meat is assumed permissible but it is also assumed to not have what’s forbidden removed. He brought a proof to this assumption from a Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim 437) that poskin by a house which we are unsure if it was checked from chometz is assumed to be unchecked. This means that granted the house itself is permissible but the chometz inside would be forbidden we still assume the house was unchecked.

D. The Rabbis enacted that the person living in the house has to check it for chometz.

E. People don’t have to eat meat.

Answer: The obligation is what triggers the assumption of being forbidden so because there is an obligation to check the house then we assume it is unchecked until we know it was checked but there is no obligation to eat meat so the assumption that the forbidden fats and sinews weren’t removed doesn’t kick in.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #103

  1. This Question seems to be flawed, there is just an argument between the Har Tzvi and Rav Shlomo Zalman whether an animal can turn on a light for you on shabbos or shut it off, both speak about electric
  3. Question: Why can you teach a watch dog to turn on a light when intruders come even if he will do it on Shabbos but you cannot ask a dog to turn a light on for you on Shabbos?

Background:

A. The Har Tzvi (Ohr Hachaim 1:174) says that if one signals to a dog to light a fire or blow it out on Shabbos you are transgressing the mitzvah of resting your animal on Shabbos even if this is an indirect way of turning off the light it is considered a full-fledged melacha because any melacha an animal does is considered its normal way of doing things for them attributed to the owner.

 B.Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shulchan Shlomo 266:1) poskins that if you teach a dog to turn on or off a light switch whenever an intruder comes you are allowed to have the dog outside to do this function on Shabbos because it’s only indirect melacha.

C. Turning on an electric light is indirectly doing a melacha because you are just completing or breaking a circuit to allow the light to go on or off.

D. Dogs don’t have cognitive thinking and melacha needs cognitive thinking for humans to be liable, I.e meleches machsheves.

Answer: It is an abnormal way for a human to use a dog to blow out or light a fire but the way the dog does it is normal for them therefore the owners will be liable for not resting the dog. But completing or breaking the circuit by itself is indirect and is only liable if you have a cognitive intent to perform the act to cause the melacha to be done but since an animal doesn’t have a cognitive thought process and by definition the completing of the circuit is indirect even if the animal’s action is direct the owner would still be exempt. (See Dirshu Mishna Berura 246:3:12:8)

Posted on

Ki Sisa – In the Courtroom of Hashem

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.


In this week’s Torah portion of Ki Sisa we witness the sin of the Golden Calf and the tragic ramifications it had on the Jewish people and the world throughout history. After Moshe came down from Mount Sinai and broke the tablets it says: “Then he took the calf they had made, burned it in fire…on that day some three thousand men fell from among the people…And now, if You forgive their sin But if not…Behold My angel will go before you. But on the day I make an accounting [of sins upon them], I will bring their sin to account against them…” Then the Lord struck the people with a plague… The Lord spoke to Moshe: “Go, ascend from here… And Moshe took the tent and pitched it for himself outside the camp, distancing [it] from the camp, and he called it the tent of meeting, and it would be that anyone seeking the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting, which was outside the camp” (Shemos excerpts from perakim 32, 33).

The Ralbag learns a lesson from these pesukim in relation to middos

[character development]

. This is that it is not befitting for a person to ask forgiveness for a sin on behalf of others, as long as the sinner still is holding on to the sin. For this reason Moshe only requested from Hashem to forgive the Jew’s sins after the golden calf was destroyed, and the rebels killed. However, since not all the rebels were completely wiped out at that time, and although Hashem accepted his words, he said that those who had sinned against Him should be erased from His Book, and the rest of the rebels who followed the calf should be plagued. But Hashem promised Moshe that He would not take away their inheritance of The Land because of their sin. In this manner He forgave their sins. However Hashem still had not attached to them His Personal Divine Providence, hashgacha pratis, lest they would sin to him. For Hashem brings bad to those He loves as rebuke, and they escaped from that bad as Moshe requested, but the bad that automatically came as part of the system of consequences eventually caught up with them; as it says: “But on the day I make an accounting [of sins upon them], I will bring their sin to account against them” (Shemos 32:34). This destiny Moshe did not try to save them from, since it is inappropriate for a person to ask forgiveness for a sinner while the sinner is still holding on to the sin. Therefore Moshe did not request that Hashem’s Personal Divine Providence, hashgacha pratis, would cling to the Jews as long as their hearts were far from Him. Rather, he conducted himself with reprimand by distancing his tent from them until they subjugated their hearts and returned to Hashem. After that he requested that Hashem’s Personal Divine Providence would cling to them.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

If you analyze the Ralbag carefully you’ll see that there are two stages of dealing with the sin which are being addressed here. We are going to gain a slight glimpse into how we can approach Hashem with our sins. First and foremost, in order to even ask Hashem to forgive us, we must remove ourselves from the sin we have committed, for Hashem doesn’t simply overlook sin for no reason. The perpetrators must take steps to fix the problem before Hashem begins to forgive, and possibly forget. For this reason Moshe destroyed the idol and sent the Levite family to murder all the primary accomplices. Only then was Moshe able to begin to daven to Hashem to not annihilate the Jewish people and to promise that they would still inherit The Promise Land, The Land of Israel.

However that wasn’t enough, because there are underlying reasons and intents for any sin, which are harder to get rid of. But in this case, in order for Hashem to apply his Divine Providence on every individual as a person, and not just as a collective, they had to be cleansed of the underlying emotion that caused them to sin to begin with.

This itself is a telling lesson, for it seems, according to the Ralbag, that because of the consequence of our actions, Hashem out of his love and mercy for His precious children, will not shine His Personal Divine Providence on a sinner who has not psychologically changed his mind, since it would just do more harm than good. This is because of His close relationship with his righteous children; it would behoove Him to rebuke us in order for us to mend our ways.if He was so close to us, therefore Hashem does not give special individual attention to His children when they are sinning, in order to not give dangerous rebuke that is deserved.

For this reason Moshe removed himself from the camp, as if to show his own disgust in their actions, so that they will humble themselves and remove the haughtiness which caused them to sin.

Why did Moshe get involved in this manner by separating his tent from the rest of theirs? Wouldn’t it have been sufficient just to lecture them and verbally take them through the process of how to properly conclude their teshuva, the repentance process of clearing their minds and hearts of any lingering evil intent, no matter how minute it was? Especially since it is really unimaginable at this point that they weren’t humiliated enough for the sin they had committed, especially after they reached such heights at the receiving of the Torah just days before, and then realizing how they quickly came crashing down with the sin of the golden calf, they must have already felt utter embarrassment and disgrace before Hashem as is. Why did Moshe have to dig it in more by separating his tent from the rest of them?

We can learn a very important lesson in how to treat our children, students, or anyone, when they have done something wrong and you want to help them correct their ways. That is, that the most effective way to help a person change is not just to tell them what they did wrong and how to fix it, or even to lead by example, but to put them into the position that they will be forced to figure out, on their own, how to fix the problem. It will make a greater impression on them in the long run, even if they are feeling betrayed in the short term. For this reason, even though the Jewish People must have already begun to feel a tremendous amount of remorse over what they were involved in but Moshe separated himself from them so that they will come to the realization that they had to be even more humiliated in order to wipe out any negative feeling inside them and to completely humble themselves.


Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 4, halacha 11,footnote 2 part 3

The reason why it is so important to be open, and honest about why you are inquiring about someone else, whether it is a shidduch, partnership in business, hiring an employee, etc. is because if you don’t it is very to lead the person you are asking into speaking lashon hara, placing a stumbling block in front of the blind. If he doesn’t know your purpose in questioning him, he might say things which don’t need to be said, you might prove him too much and he’ll divulge unnecessary information, or if you are trying to use subterfuge you might start asking about other people so that he won’t figure out who you really want information about which leads to a tremendous amount of lashon hara about a lot of people. Therefore the right thing to do so that you won’t be tempted to ask too many details about the person you are inquiring about and so that the one answering the questions will understand fully why he is answering and will know what is appropriate to say and not to say, is to tell him exactly what the reason you are asking him about someone. You can tell him to keep the inquiry a secret but you can’t tell him answer my questions truthfully you won’t be doing anything wrong because I need some info for my own benefit and I won’t share this info with anyone else, for as long as you don’t tell him exactly why you need the info it will inevitably lead to unneeded lashon hara.

In a similar vein, if someone inquiries about his son or relative who lives in another city, he has to inform the person he’s talking to that he’s just asking for his family member’s best interest, for example how’s his learning coming along, is he still in Kollel, how’s his ruchniyus, etc. those questions can only be asked with the caveat that if there is a problem you would like to and have the means and enough concern to try to fix it. Therefore you have to tell the person you’re asking that you just want to help your son or relative. Something applies to Kiruv professionals inquiring about those they want to be mikarev, bring closer to Judaism.

Lastly if one moves someplace else and one day sees someone from his old town he is not allowed to ask him how this guy is doing and that guy and ask about details of people lives. Though it is tempting and part of human psychology to want to feel connected to those you haven’t seen in a while, giving away too many details about others is still lashon hara, therefore you shouldn’t probe and expect detailed answers about you long lost friends and neighbors since there is no usefulness into the inquiry.

Posted on

Tetzaveh – Fried Chicken & Spiced BBQ Ribs with a Smile

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.
 
Two of the many things discussed in this week’s Torah portion of Tetzaveh are the olive oil that was used in the Mishkan for various functions like for lighting the menorah and meal-offerings, and the incense that was burned on the Golden Alter right outside the Holy of Holies in the Mishkan and Beis HaMikdash.

Rabbeinu Bachye, in his introduction to the Torah portion, quotes a pasuk in Mishley (27:9), “Oil and incense make the heart rejoice, and the sweetness of his friendship more than one’s own counsel.” King Shlomo warns us in this pasuk to be merciful to strangers (or converts) who are exiled from his place and from the land in which he was born. The Torah warns about how to treat this person in many places, to not mistreat him verbally or monetarily, as it says, “And you shall not mistreat a stranger” (Shemos 22:20), and it writes, “And you shall not oppress a stranger” (Shemos 23:9), and it also writes, “for you know the feelings of the stranger” (Shemos 23:9). Therefore Shlomo came and added and newly conceived here that a person is obligated to treat another person who was exiled and moved from place to place in two ways: (1) He should feed him, and (2) He should smile at him. This pasuk is connected to the previous pasuk in Mishlei that says, “As a bird wandering from its nest, so is a man wandering from his place.” It equates a person who has left his birthplace to a bird who has left his nest, his origin, those who are the source of his birth. Right next to that verse it then immediately says “oil and incense,” which is a nickname for all food. Anything which is fried with oil and spices  [creates an incense of] smoke that rises from the food being cooked. The pasuk informs us with this that a person is obligated to make the heart of a man who is wandering happy by feeding him which is the “oil and incense,” for it “make the heart rejoice”. One also has to have a smile which in the pasuk refers to as “the sweetness of his friendship;” that one should sweeten his words and smile at the stranger. For besides the fact that he needs “oil and incense he also needs “the sweetness of his friendship” through smiling and talking to him gently.The pasuk concludes, “more than one’s own counsel,” meaning this sweetness and smile should come from one’s own mind, showing true love and care, and not flattery, because the stranger will show you sweetness in his lips, more than you give him. So to Chaza”l say in Kesubos 111b, “Better is to show your white teeth (smile) to your friend then offering him milk, as it says ‘and the whiteness of teeth more than milk’ (Breishis 49:12)…” The prophet also mentioned, “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry” (Yeshayahu 58:7), this refers to “oil and incense,” he then mentions, “And you draw out your soul to the hungry” (Yeshayahu 58:10), which refers to “the sweetness of his friendship”. (Click here for Hebrew Text.)

Earlier in the Torah portion of Mishpatim, where it discusses not mistreating a stranger (convert) as quoted earlier, Rabbeinu Bachye writes on 22:20, “one should not mistreat a stranger (convert) with hurtful words and should not oppress them by stealing their money. In many places in the Torah it writes, and Hashem warns us about, a stranger (convert) for a stranger (convert) finds himself alone in a foreign land and that is why he is called a ger (stranger), from the word gargir, (seed) which is found by itself at the top of a branch of a tree, feeling desolate and weak. Therefore Hashem said: ‘Don’t think he won’t find someone to fight his fight, for I will fight for him, and will take revenge for him being taken advantage of. This is why the pasuk gives a reason that ‘You know the soul of a stranger for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.’ It does not say ‘you know the stranger” rather it says ‘you know the soul of the stranger,’ meaning [Hashem is telling the Jews] ‘you know that every stranger has a feeling of being a lowly soul, and he has no one to lift up his eyes towards, except for Me, and therefore I will be merciful on him just as I was merciful to you when you were strangers in Egypt.’ Mentioned with them are the orphans and widows, because all of them have weaker strength, and people take advantage and cause them suffering, their tears are common, for the gates of tears never close, therefore people have to be very careful to be good and kind to them with their body and money, and so to the prophet mentions, “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry” (Yeshayahu 58:7), and also writes, “And you draw out your soul to the hungry” (Yeshayahu 58:10). If you are able to give him bread, give it, and if not then at least strengthen his soul with some kind words.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The Torah goes out of its way to not hurt a stranger (convert), even giving reasons for why not to do so. This logically leads us to believe that not only do we have a responsibility not to hurt them, but we must also be sensitive to their needs; feeding them, taking care of them, and certainly talking to them calmly, softly, and with a sincere smile, as Rabbeinu Bachye logically points out. But if this is so, why did King Shlomo feel a need to reemphasize how to properly treat a stranger (convert,) and why did Rabbeinu Bachye call it a ‘new insight’ if it is a logical extension of the verses in the Torah? Of course in order to not make a stranger (convert) feel bad you have to talk to him nicely and make him feel at home by giving him a scrumptious meal, room, and board if needed! On the contrary, we are descendants of Avraham Avinu, who was an expert at having guests who were total strangers, many of whom eventually converted to monotheism. It is in our genetic makeup to be merciful and act with kindness; certainly we should at least strive to emulate him. So why does this concept of taking care of strangers and not mistreating them need to be emphasized so much, at such length, over and over again?!

We must say that even though the attribute of mercy and kindness are two of the signs that we are Jews, coming from the line of Avraham Avinu, still in all it is in fact very difficult to honestly deal with, and give selflessly to, a complete stranger and foreigner, even if he or she has joined our faith. There is a cognitive dissonance, that on the one hand it is within our genetic makeup to emulate Hashem and be a selfless giver and doer of kindness just as our forefather Avraham was. Yet it is also natural for a person to recoil and have a feeling of distance, and to create a wall of separation from someone who you don’t personally know and have not come to feel comfortable with, someone who has not been raised the same way as you have, or even in the same town that you have lived in your whole life. Indeed, because they are different you might come to rationalize treating them differently, and even take advantage of them. At the very least if you outwardly show that you are trying to be nice, you don’t really mean it, you put on a show. But they can see right through it, and Hashem sees their pain and tears. For this reason Hashem emphasizes and reemphasizes how important it is, and gives us initiatives of why, we should feel it is important to not mistreat a stranger. It is because it is so easy to fall into the trap of the inner struggle within us, and not sincerely give the way we are supposed to, that King Shlomo spelled out as clearly as possible how to positively treat the strangers that sojourn among us. It brings to light with a new clarity the altruistic feeling of care and compassion we should truly feel and act upon.

May this attitude make an impression on our relationship between us and our fellow person, who deserve it, whoever it might be!

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 4 halacha 11 part 2

If you don’t tell the person you are questioning that it’s for a shidduch, business partner, hiring a new employee, etc., for your own wellbeing then asking him question is transgressing “placing a stumbling block in front of the blind” because if he answers any questions negatively it is obviously with the intent of speaking lashon hara and he gets a sin even if he is helpful to the inquisitor.

The source for this concept that one is liable for a sin even if he didn’t actually commit it but they had intent to commit a sin is based on a Gemara in Nazir 23a which says that if a person was trying to eat pork chops and he wound up eating kosher lamb chops he still needs an atonement because his intent was to sin.

More severely, the Gemara in Bava Metzia 58b list 3 types of people that go down to Gehinom and never come back up, one of them is a person that calls another person a derogatory nickname even if the guy got used to being called that and is not embarrassed anymore, still he doesn’t come up from gehinom because his intent is to embarrass the guy. So to this person answering questions even if he winds up helping the questioner, if he is not told that the questions are being asked for one’s own good then he is obviously answering just to speak lashon hara so even if it is helpful, his intent is bad and he will be punished for speaking lashon hara therefore in order to not put him into that position you must inform him that you are just asking for helpful advice.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #102

Question: Why can you say Kiddush before nightfall if you made an early Shabbos but you have to at least have part of your Shabbos meal once it gets dark in order to fulfill the mitzvah of eating your first Shabbos meal?

 Background:

A. There is actually an argument amongst the Achronim whether one can eat the meal before dark. The Machatzis Hashekel explains the view of why you have to wait till dark which is because we learn the mitzvah of having 3 meals on Shabbos from the three times it says “hayom “ in the verses that discuss Shabbos, and only Shabbos itself is called “Yom Hashabbos” but what’s rabbinically added onto Shabbos is not. Why doesn’t Kiddush have the same parameters?

 Answer: Saying Kiddush by itself signifies the sanctity of the day so it can be said before nightfall but it’s not apparent that you are eating the meal for Shabbos until the day comes about at night fall therefore at least part of the meal should be eaten at nightfall to recognize that the meal is being eaten for Shabbos.