הריני בא ללמוד תורה לשמה לעשות נחת רוח לאבינו שבשמים מוצאי שבת ר"ת
מוצאי שבת
252
Issue
פקד יפקד ה' אתכם
בס"ד
בחוקותי- בהר
כ"ב אייר תש"פ 16th May 2020
פרקי אבות פרק ה' • ל"ז לעומר
קבלת שבת
JLM
MAN
LON
JLM
BMTH
GLSCW
GHD
MAN
LON
JLM
BMTH
GLSCW
GHD
MAN
LON
8.54
10.18
10.02
8.11
9.55
10.46
10.26
10.16
9.54
6.53
8.35
9.08
8.53
8.49
8.31
Thought, Word and Deed. One method in which a person could pledge a donation to the Temple was to vow- ערכי עלי- which literally means I vow to donate my personal value. The Torah defines (Vayikra 27: 2 -8) what this actually amounts to, dependent on the person’s age and gender. From a spiritual perspective, human life is of infinite value but, truth be told, in terms of the basic chemicals needed to build a human being, a person is probably only worth about £20! Interestingly, the statutory sums fixed by the Torah across these age bands generally apply irrespective of a person’s status or position. This rule is specified in the Mishneh (Arachin 3: 1) and is also true for the defamation (motzi shem ra) that ensues when a man marries and then falsely claims that his kallah was not a besulah (Devarim 22: 13-19). Irrespective of her father’s personal status and position, he must pay compensation of 100 shekalim (Arachin 3:5).
are worse than the sin itself. If so, there appears to be a hierarchical scale in which sinful actions are regarded as less serious infractions than sinful words, with sinful intentions or thoughts being the most serious of all. This seems counter-intuitive; How can it be so? Though modern biologists challenge this view, Humankind - viewed through the prism of Torah – is regarded as the pinnacle of the Creation. Consider (Bereishis 2:7) ‘Vayehi HaAdam l’nefesh chayah’ – and Adam became a nefesh chayah. The Targum renders this to mean ruach memalelah – Adam was imbued with the power of speech. Rashi (ibid)
But consider this: if a man was found guilty of mefateh or oness, the Torah prescribes compensation of 50 Silver shekalim – just half the amount payable for making a false accusation of motzi shem ra. This implies that destructive words are, in some sense, more injurious than physical assault. Even more remarkable is the statement in the Gemara (Yoma 29a) – קשו מעבירה היהורי עבירהsinful thoughts
ספר דברים
ספר במדבר
לע"נ ר' יקותיאל זלמן נאה ז''ל בן ר' חנניה יו''ט ליפא הי''ד נלב''ע ט''ז אדר תשע''ז
לע"נ מרת טויבא רחל נאה ע''ה בת ר' שמואל שמעלקא הי''ד נלב''ע כ''ה מנחם אב תשע''ז
ספר ויקרא
Rabbi Dr Julian Shindler Director of the Marriage Authorisation Office, Office of the Chief Rabbi Formerly Rov of the Muswell Hill Synagogue
notes that other creatures also have a nefesh – indeed they can communicate in various ways using sounds, mimicry, visual display, by means of touch and even by chemical sensing. But, additionally, says Rashi, humans have de’ah v’dibbur – the capacity to think deeply, to plan, to self-reflect and the ability to communicate thoughts and feelings using complex language. So when a person sins with words, s/he offends with the very characteristic that sets Humankind apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. According to Nefesh Hachayim (1:14), the three aspects of human conduct – action ()מעשה, speech ( )דיבורand thought ()מחשבה correspond to the three components of a person’s inner spirituality – i.e. nefesh, ru’ach and neshamah. Al pi Kabalah, Hashem’s immanence in the world percolates down from the highest levels of human thought (chochmah, binah and da’as) to the lowest levels of inanimate physical material. According to this scheme, a person who thinks about sinning thereby offends with that highest aspect of their being i.e. their neshamah – the part which is closest to Hashem. This is a startling and challenging idea to embrace yet a Jew’s calling is to serve Hashem, not only in word and deed, but also in thought. M
ספר שמות
Please daven for
לע"נ
הב' אברהם יוסף אריה בן רוחמה אילה נ"י
לרפואה שלימה בתוך חולי ישראל לע''נ ר' מרדכי בן ר' שלום ז''ל נלב''ע ט''ו סיון תשס''ב
לע''נ ר' בנימין בן ר' מאיר דוד ז''ל נלב''ע ב׳ אדר תשע''ז
ספר בראשית
stafftreats.com
jle.org.uk
אריאל יהודה ז״ל בן ר׳ פינחס צבי נ״י קליין
נלב''ע י״ז תמוז תשע''ח
MEDIA PARTNERS N OW R E AC H
ING
OPLE 24,000 PUENTRIES I N 24 C O
Yerushalayim, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Baltimore, Beit- Shemesh, Birmingham, Borehamwood, Budapest, Cancun, Detroit, Edgware, Elstree, Gateshead, Gibraltar, Glasgow, Hale, Henderson, Hong Kong, Ilford, Johannesburg, Lakewood, Larnaca, Las Vegas, Leeds, London, Los Angeles, Manchester, Melbourne, Memphis, Miami, Milan, New York, Oslo, Paris, Petach Tikva, Philadelphia, Pressburg, Radlett, Rio de Janeiro, Rotterdam, Ruislip, Santiago, Sao Paulo, Stanmore, Southend, Tallinn, Tarzana, Toronto, Uman, Vienna, Zurich
2
Oneg Shabbos Issue 252
This page is sponsored by M&N Insurance | mninsure.com
Chazak Chazak VeNischazeik!
T
hese two parshiyos together form the final bookend of the book of Vayikra. This conclusion of Vayikra is a rather somber one, what with the dominant theme being the prediction of Jewish dereliction from Torah values and practices and the resultant exile from their land and sovereignty. Yet in these parshiyos there are also promises of prosperity and wellbeing and successful general Jewish life. The Torah generally conforms to such a pattern of great blessings and stern warnings. It really allows the Jews very little middle ground in which to maneuver the private and national lives of Israel. Our entire history is one of great vacillation between exalted and miraculous moments and dire events and forebodings. This certainly is true regarding the story of the Jewish people and the Jewish State over the past century. Our tears are always mixed with joy and our joy is always laden with a heavy dose of accompanying tears. The Torah’s message to us is that life constantly presents different emotions and scenarios that are rarely if ever completely positive or completely negative.
Rabbi Berel Wein Founder & Director, Destiny Foundation RabbiWein.com
But that requires a sense of realism. We cannot fool ourselves to think that everything is always correct and well with ourselves and our society, nor can we always be so pessimistic and down on the situation that we find ourselves in that we preclude honest attempts to improve it. The balance of hope and warning that these concluding parshiyos of Vayikra exude is an important lesson and guidepost for our daily lives. This lesson lies embedded in another teaching of the rabbis in Avos: “It is not incumbent upon you to complete the entire task at hand but then again neither are you free to discard it entirely.” Reality dictates to us that we face our world and its dangers squarely and honestly. But we should not abandon hope and effort to improve our lot. We believe that positive effort and wise decisions, coupled with faith and tradition allow us to survive and prosper. Therefore at the conclusion of the public reading of these mixed messages at the end of the book of Vayikra we rise and strengthen ourselves “Chazak chazak v’nischzeik.” M
Perhaps this is one of the meanings of the words of the rabbis of the Talmud that everything that Heaven does has good within it. Even if the general event may be deemed to be a negative one, there always lies a kernel of good buried within it. So, therefore, our parshiyos reflect this duality of blessing and accomplishment as well as of defeat and hardship. This duality of view regarding our national life also applies to our dealings with others on a daily basis. To try and see the good lurking within another person whenever possible – and I will admit that there are situations that make it look impossible to do so – has always been a premier Jewish trait. The rabbis in Avos taught us that every person has his moment so to speak. Seizing and exploiting that moment is the main accomplishment in life. For questions on Divrei Torah, please email the editor Rabbi Yonasan Roodyn at editor@oneg.org.uk
To receive this via email please email subscriptions@oneg.org.uk
To suggest an idea or a response to the ideas exchange please email ideas@oneg.org.uk
16 May 2020
כ"ב אייר תש"פ
בחוקותי- פרשת בהר
3
THE BEST INVESTMENT FOR LIFE A woman should constantly use her power of speech to strengthen her family to trust in Hashem and show them how He is constantly taking care of them lovingly. In the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim, we see that the women were the ones who constantly had trust in Hashem. The women were the ones who kept having more children even during the roughest times when the Egyptians would throw their children into the Nile River. The women had emunah that Hashem would take them out of the Egypt. By Kriyat Yam Suf, when the men were complaining that they would have preferred to stay in Mitzrayim, the women were preparing the cymbals to thank Hashem. By cheit haeigel, the women did not want to give their jewellery, because they were confident that Moshe would return. The Gemara in Kiddushin teaches us that women were given nine tenths of the power of speech. Women are much better at communicating than men. An amusing anecdote occurred to me a few weeks ago demonstrating this. I invited somebody for Shabbat lunch and he told me that he would ask his wife and then let me know. A little while later he accepted the invitation. Friday morning, I received an uncomfortable phone call from him. “This is really awkward. There was a misunderstanding….” He explained that after I invited him, he messaged to his wife a short message, “Levys for Shabbat?” She replied “Sure,” and then prepared a whole meal for the Levys and invited more guests too. Such a story wouldn’t have happened to a woman; only to a man. Women are much more expressive using many more words and are able to communicate better.
My niece stopped over by us for 24 hours on the way to Israel. That evening, she got together with a friend. The next morning, she went out to eat breakfast with the same friend. I was wondering what two women could talk about if they had just spoken to each other twelve hours earlier. I think men would only get together once every year or two; they don’t have so much to say. This power of speech is one of the strengths of the woman. How can a woman use this amazing power? A woman is able to talk about emunah and trust in Hashem. When her husband is going through a hard time, a woman encourages her husband and talks to him, strengthening his emunah in the Ribono Shel Olam. No matter what obstacles she faces, a woman trusts that everything is for the best. It is essential that every woman instil emunah into her family. A woman should always remember that she is a driving force of emunah. She should repeat emunah talks over and over. During difficult times, when traveling plans don’t work out, during exams, or any other situation, she should encourage her family that Hashem is running every step of our lives perfectly. A woman should tap into her strength of always accepting the will of Hashem and not questioning His ways. We see from Miriam Haneviah how in the hardest times she held those instruments just waiting to see how Hashem would work things out again. The women believed that Hashem would take care of them. This was ingrained in every single woman.
Rabbi Moshe Levy Executive Director, Chazak UK
In the Arab lands, it was common to see people praying five times a day, so belief and prayer were ingrained into society. Unfortunately, nowadays we live in an atheist society, so we must put much more effort into reminding our families that Hashem is always there and everything will be good. It is imperative to emphasise this at home constantly, especially to children. We must constantly talk to our children about Hashem. Around the Shabbat table, we should talk about how we felt Hashem’s hand guiding us during the week. We should share with them our experiences of how we thought things wouldn’t work out and how Hashem, in His loving kindness, turned everything out for the best. We can describe those little incidents of how we saw Hashem’s goodness in our life. We must also remember to emphasize that even when things don’t look like they are good, Hashem always has our best interests in mind. If something doesn’t work out the way we wanted it to, then it is gam zu l’tovah; that also for the best. Chavakuk taught us that the whole Torah stands on the foundation of tzaddik b’emunato yichyeh – a righteous person lives with emunah. Let us always live with emunah. There is no better investment in life. M
4
Oneg Shabbos Issue 252
This page is sponsored לע''נ ביילא בת ר׳ משה ע''ה
Rabbi Yissocher Frand Rosh Yeshiva, Ner Yisrael Baltimore
Bechukosai Behar Your Customer Has A ‘Famous Father’ The pasuk in Parshas Behar says, “When you make a sale to your fellow or make a purchase from the hand of your fellow, do not aggrieve one another.” [Bamidbar 25:14]. When we sell an object to our brother, there is a Biblical prohibition against cheating him. Three pesukim late it says: “Each of you shall not aggrieve his fellow, and you shall fear your G-d, for I am Hashem your G-d.” [25:17]. The Seforno offers an insight into the connection between the warning against cheating and the statement “For I am Hashem your G-d.” Obviously, such a statement could be attached to any prohibition in the Torah: Do not eat pig for I am Hashem your G-d. Do not wear shatnez for I am Hashem your G-d. Why is this statement specifically mentioned in connection with the prohibition of cheating? The Seforno explains: It is as if to say: “I am the G-d of the purchaser and I am the G-d of the seller and I am particular about either party being cheated.” In other words, if someone comes to purchase an item from a store and the storekeeper is debating whether to cheat him or not, Hashem is telling the storekeeper: “Remember, this customer is my son.” If someone comes into a Jew’s store and the storekeeper notices that it is a simple person who may be a little naive, he may be tempted to take advantage of the customer. If however, if the customer happens to be the son or grandson of a great Rosh Yeshiva, the storekeeper might hesitate before trying to pull a fast one. “I’m not going to cheat the son of Rabbi Ploni. That would just not be right!” That is exactly what the Almighty is telling us here. Do not cheat your fellow Jew, because I am Hashem your G-d. “It is My son who is buying that suit from you. Do not cheat him!”
A Consoling interpretation To A Scary Pasuk There is a very scary pasuk in Parshas Bechukosai. In the midst of the terrible tochacha [curses], the pasuk says: “And you will eat the flesh of your sons; and the flesh of your daughters will you eat.” [Vayikra 26:29] The Medrash in Eicha Rabbah (Chapter 14) gives a different interpretation of this pasuk than the literal one. The pasuk in Eicha states: “The hands of merciful women boiled their children; they became their food (hayu levoros lamo) in the ruination of the daughter of my people.” [Eicha 4:10] This is really a restatement of the same idea that we find in the tochacha, quoted above. The Medrash interprets homiletically: The Al-mighty said, “I was prepared to destroy the world and My own children did not let me do it. Because of their activities, I could not do what I wanted to (so to speak). In what sense is this true? A woman had a single loaf of bread that would last for her and her husband and children one day only. But when this couple saw that their next door neighbour’s child died out of starvation, they took their own bread – literally out of the mouths of their own children –- and took it next door to their neighbours, thereby providing them with a meal of consoling (seudas havraah), to console them for the loss of their child. [According to the laws of mourning, the first meal partaken of by a family returning from the funeral of a loved one should not be their own food but should be provided by their friends and neighbours.] The Medrash compares the root of the expression in Eicha – hayu levoros lamo [they became their food] to the root of Seudas havraah [the meal of consoling]. When the couple that barely had enough bread for their own family saw what happened to their next door neighbour, took their meagre rations and provided their neighbours with the Seudas havraah, to help them get over their terrible loss. The pasuk credits such a sacrifice with that of boiling their children. When Hashem saw such sacrifice, He concluded: Such a (wonderful) nation I cannot totally wipe out. M
16 May 2020
כ"ב אייר תש"פ
בחוקותי- פרשת בהר
5
Daily Inspirational Stories
Listen to over 1500 stories and subscribe to receive them dailyon storiestoinspire.org or Whatsapp: +1 (310) 210-1205 This page is sponsored by OGR Stock Denton | ogrstockdenton.com
Do the Will of Hashem at All Costs Rabbi Yitzchak Oelbaum Rabbi, Nachlas Yitzchok, NY
Some time ago, my friend called me excitedly sharing his experience of how doing the will of Hashem saved him from great heartache. My friend works in real estate and buys apartments. A few months ago, he was looking at a small building of thirty apartments. The seller was in foreclosure and the bank told him that they were giving him a month to sell the building. If he would not be able to sell it, the bank would take it. Instead of the million dollars that the man put in to the apartment, he would only be able to recoup $600,00. My friend was bidding against a few people. The bidding went high; up to $4.5 million. One man offered $4 million and another person bid for $4.5 million.
days before closing, I will back down and offer 4.1. The seller will then have no choice because if he doesn’t close in three days, the bank will take it away and he’ll make almost nothing. This way I’ll be able to buy the building for a price that I can pay.” The broker really wanted my friend to buy the building and so he agreed. My friend was excited. He called one of his partners and told the whole story, sure that his partner would share his enthusiasm. His plan was to rent a few flats and use that money to finish paying for the deal. After two months, he would essentially have thirty free flats. His partner, however, was thoughtful. “You have to ask a shaalah before you do such a thing. We are Jews. The man knows that a Jew is coming here to buy it and if you re-trade, it may reflect badly on religious Jews. It’s a shaalah of chillul Hashem. You have to find out if you may do this. I don’t know if it’s permissible.”
The broker liked my friend; he knew he was a real person. The broker told my friend, “Listen to me. For $4.5 million, you have a deal.”
As soon as my friend heard those words, he called the broker back. “You know that I am Jewish and I fear G-d. I will not re-trade my faith. My offer is four million one thousand dollars now. If the seller wants that price, then I can buy it. I will not re-trade and I cannot pay 4.5. I want to retract my whole idea.”
My friend did his calculations and saw that for $4.5 million, the deal was not worth it for him. He called the broker back and said, “I can’t offer four-and-a-half.”
The non-Jewish broker was very impressed. “That is very upstanding of you. I appreciate that and am very impressed.”
The broker very much wanted to sell it to my friend; he even offered to lower his fee. My friend explained that it was not worth it for him, but instead suggested a different idea. “We’re doing business a long time and you know that I have never re-traded. When I say a price, I never went back on my word. Listen to my brainstorm: I’ll tell you now that I’ll give you 4.5, thereby winning the bid. However, three
With that the story seemed over. Two months later, my friend received an excited call from the broker, “You won’t believe what happened!” “What? What?” The bidder for 4.5 made the deal. However, the seller misrepresented. He represented the building as 90% occupied when really it was only 50% occupied. The broker said, “You thought you would cover costs after two months. It would have taken you a very long time to do what you wanted to do. G-d protected you!” This true story of hashgacha pratis happened recently; if you ask me, I can give you the name and contact information of my friend. He did the will of Hashem and Hakodosh Boruch Hu took care of him. M
6
Oneg Shabbos Issue 252 This page has been sponsored anonymously
Thankful For The Parking Fine Rabbi Menachem Salasnik Director, Journey to Better Speech
A
wonderful miracle happened to me! I got to work on taanis asarah be teves, only to find that the work car park was already full. I therefore had to park in a side road. The issue was that all the nearby parking spaces had a period of time where parking was for ‘residents only’, in this case from 11:00 to 13:00, to stop non-residents leaving their cars there all day. I parked there with full intention of returning before 11:00 to move the car and then proceeded to completely forget about it! In the afternoon I suddenly remembered and resigned myself to the parking ticket I had obviously received – the traffic warden (or parking enforcement officer!) in the area is very conscientious at his job! The last thing that I would have wanted on top of a tough day of working while fasting would be an unnecessary fine, but it was too late, there was nothing I could do. And then, at the end of work when I returned to the car, to my complete shock, there was no ticket! I thanked Hashem for this wonderful gift, not just for giving me the money but also for saving me from the annoyance and emotional distress, and drove off. Two days later, I once again had to park in a restricted area, making a clear mental note that I must, must, get back to move the car before 11:00, for miracles don’t happen twice. But the day was so, so, busy that I got completely distracted and I forgot again! With trepidation I approached my car and, lo and behold, I didn’t have a ticket!!! Twice in one week!! Who has ever heard of such a thing in that particular neighbourhood!? I was even suspicious that perhaps I had received a ticket but somehow it had fallen off so I looked on the ground around and underneath the car, but nothing! Hashem had given me yet another gift. I was so thankful, thankful to the traffic warden who had obviously taken the
week off work, thankful to all the other people who must have paid for his holiday with their fines (!) and of course thankful to Hashem who had, yet again, looked after me! Then I realised that my degree of gratitude was at a relatively low level. Even if I had received a fine or two, why should that have taken over my life to the extent that I would not be able to be happy for all the other things that I have been given, for example, my life, a car and the ability to have thoughtsw of gratitude!? And then I realised that an even higher level of gratitude would be to be thankful for the fines themselves because He is directing everything and if I receive those fines it’s because that is what is best for me right now. Although this is a very high standard to expect from oneself, we have all experienced times where what appeared to be a negative turned out, over time, to be the very catalyst to the greatness and positivity that subsequently arrived. Why do I mention all of this right now (apart from the fact that I have just had to pay a bill for a burst pipe that makes the two absent fines pale into insignificance!)? About six years ago a very special person told me, very kindly and gently, that I needed to work on the way I speak to and about others! He strongly recommended that I learn the laws that apply to such matters with him, which I did, very reluctantly. I did so for about two years, in depth, and those two years were very painful. The study of the topic was essentially forcing me to change my behaviour and who wants to
have to change? Who wants to have to watch what they are saying, to apologize to those who they have previously disparaged? And what was there left for me to talk about when socializing if I couldn’t dish the dirt and share the latest gossip? But slowly the good behaviours started to become easier, more habitual, until I realized that during those two years of study I had grown more as a person than at any other time of my life. It had been painful but I was so grateful for where the struggle had taken me. And then we stopped learning the topic - we had been through the set texts - and I found that as it wasn’t on my mind anymore, I started to slip back to previous bad habits. What could I do? I went back to that same person and asked for direction and he suggested that I write and teach about the topic. Write and teach? I’m an optometrist not a teacher! And I hate writing essays, that’s why I took a university subject that is essentially math and science. But he insisted that it was the best thing to do. So I started the difficult and arduous task of writing about speech, connected to each week’s Torah reading. I would often find it stressful (and still sometimes do) trying to find the time to write it, to find a suitable topic to write about, to find the right words to convey what I was feeling in my heart. And then I started to get asked to teach the topic in different organisations and settings, and this added another level of weight on my shoulders. If I was teaching it, I really had to live up to it!!! M
16 May 2020
כ"ב אייר תש"פ
בחוקותי- פרשת בהר
HELP YOUR CHILD BE INDEPENDENT Rav Shai Atari Derech HaBaal ShemTov
It is very important for us to teach our children to be independent. In general, a parent should try to let his child do things that they are capable of doing on their own, so that they will obtain tools to manage on their own. I’ll give you an example. A father wakes up Shabbos morning and he sees that his children are hungry. He can use this opportunity to guide his children to manage using their own resources. Instead of the father serving his children the cake and milk, he can tell the children to do it themselves. “Go, sweetie. Go take a plastic knife and cut yourself a piece of cake. Now go get a cup. Take the container of milk and pour yourself some milk.” It may look nicer when the father brings it, however it is important that a father teach his child how to be independent and manage on his own. A child should be taugh t to do take care of himself. A child should be encouraged to his make bed and fold his blanket. It is not advisable to do everything for your child. Teach him to do things on his own. By encouraging him to do things on his own, he will develop skills to deal with challenges of life.
7
SHEMIRAS HALOSHON
FOOD FOR THOUGHT TO SPARK N CONVERSATIO NO LAUGHING MATTER Yechezkel knew he was an exceedingly lucky 12-year-old, for how many boys his age got to sit at the private Shabbos seudah of Rabbi Shlomo Halberstam, the Bobover Rebbe? It was a privilege that came with being the Rebbe’s grandson, and therefore being included in the Shabbos day meals that were reserved just for family. One week, Michoel, a distant relative from out of town, was a guest at the table. To Yechezkel, Michoel was an oddity. He didn’t wear Chassidishe clothing; his peyos were short and stubby; and his pronunciation of Hebrew sounded foreign to Yechezkel’s ears. Nevertheless, the meal proceeded as usual. The Rebbe told tales of tzaddikim, many of whom he had known personally. They sang the lively Bobover melodies and ate a hearty meal. After dessert, the Rebbe’s unwavering custom was to sing one more song and proceed directly to Birkas HaMazon. But this time, the Rebbe changed course. “Before we bentch, I want to tell you an important lesson that I learned from my father,” the Rebbe said, looking straight at Yechezkel. “Once, when I was young, I went with my father to a sheva berachos. There were many great rabbanim at the table, and one of them was asked to lead the entching. The mayim acharonim was brought to the table and passed along from one person to the next.
When a child asks us to help him with homework, instead of us jumping in, taking over and showing him exactly what to do, we should encourage him to try to do it himself first. We should tell him that we will help him with his homework after he tries to do it on his own.
By the time it reached the end of the table, where the person who was supposed to lead the bentching was sitting, he had dozed off. Someone said, “Nu, nu?” to wake him up, but he had been so soundly asleep that he didn’t know what was going on. He picked up the mayim acharonim thinking that it was the cup of wine and began,
Whenever a child is capable of doing something on his own, it is good to encourage him to do it himself. This will help teach a child to manage on his own and be independent. This is a very important principle for building a child’s character.
“People couldn’t hold in their laughter. I thought it was funny too, and I began to laugh, but my father grabbed my hand and said in a stern voice, ‘We don’t laugh at the expense of others.”
“Rabbosai, mir vellen bentchen.”
With those words hanging in the air, the Rebbe poured a cup of wine and set it in front of Michoel, signifying that he would lead the bentching. Soon the meal was over, Michoel went on his way and Yechezkel had the chance to ask the question that was burning in his mind. Why had his Zeide changed his custom and spoken before bentching? The Rebbe explained: “When people meet someone who dresses and speaks differently than they do, they sometimes find it very funny. I was afraid that when you heard Michoel bentch with a different pronunciation, you might feel the urge to laugh. That would have hurt his feelings, so before that could happen, I wanted to teach you that you have to hold back. Baruch Hashem, I see that you are a good student and you learned the lesson well.” Adapted with permission from Stories for the Jewish Heart by Rabbi Binyamin Pruzansky, published by Artscroll/Mesorah Publications.
The Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation Reviewed by Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Lowy. For discussion only; actual halachic decisions should be made by a rav or halachic expert on a case-by-case basis.
8
Oneg Shabbos Issue 252
Restoring the primacy of Choshen Mishpat Under the auspices of Harav Chaim Kohn שליט"א
Rabbi Meir Orlian Halachah Writer, BHI
This page is sponsored by nextgenrealestate.co.uk
לע''נ אריאל יהודה ז''ל בן ר' פינחס צבי נ''י קליין
CORONA CANCELLATIONS, PART 1 The coronavirus pandemic has worldwide economic consequences. Among the most heavily hit are the airline, travel, and hotel industries, which have suffered massive cancellations. Regarding flight cancellations, almost always the plane ticket is paid for in advance and the industry is clearly regulated. Every ticket is purchased with explicit cancellation stipulations. Some tickets are refundable; some are not. Many allow rescheduling the flight for an additional fee. We have mentioned numerous times that when the contract provides explicit stipulations, they are binding. If the government imposes special regulations on account of coronavirus, they are also binding, either because of dina d’malchusa dina, or because whoever buys a ticket does so with this understanding, since the industry is regulated (Rama, C.M. 369:11). Nonetheless, many airlines have relaxed their conditions. Some provide refunds even for “non-refundable” tickets; others allow changing dates without penalty; others allow you to cancel the charge through the bank, and will not dispute the cancellation. It is permissible to pursue these options, since it is with the agreement of the airline. Regarding hotel or apartment cancellations, the question is more complicated. In some cases we are dealing with only a down payment or deposit and a cancellation of the reservation; in others with a refund of prepayment. In some cases people rented an unspecified room from a hotel; in others, they rented a specific apartment from the landlord. We would like to present three cases in the Gemara, which serve as foundations for this topic. The first case (B.M. 76b) involves a person who hired workers, but the job became impossible due to circumstances beyond control, such as workers being hired to dig a field or water it, but it rained overnight and the field became flooded. If the employer had no reason to expect this any more than the workers, neither side is at fault, so the employer does not have to pay due to the uncontrollable circumstances, since he is in possession of the money (C.M. 334-1-2). Rishonim extrapolate from this to one who rented a house but died during the year or fled for some unexpected
reason, and to one who hired a tutor for a child who became unexpectedly sick. He does not have to pay, but if he prepaid – the landlord or tutor can retain the money (C.M. 334:1,4). This second case (B.M. 79a-b) involves a person who hired a ship to transport cargo, but the boat sank midway. Whichever party can still uphold his commitment has the upper hand. For example, if the agreement specified the ship but not the cargo, the shipper must refund any payment, since the renter can provide other cargo, whereas the shipper cannot provide the specified ship. Conversely, if the agreement specified the cargo, but not the ship, the renter must pay, since the shipper can uphold his commitment with another ship, whereas the renter cannot provide the specified cargo. If both the ship and cargo were specified, whoever holds the money retains it, since no one can uphold the agreement. If neither was specified, but the parties are not interested in shipping other cargo, they split the rental fee (C.M. 311:25). The third case (B.M. 105b) involves a person who rented a field for a fixed amount of the yield, but the crop was afflicted by locust or withered. If the plague was widespread (makkas medinah) the renter is entitled to a reduction in the amount of produce that he owes (C.M. 322:1) The Rishonim apply this to the case of a rented house that was destroyed in a widespread fire. Even if the renter already paid, he is entitled to a refund in a makkas medinah (Rama, C.M. 312:17). M
Provided by Business Halacha Institute. The BHI is a non-profit organization based in New York that educates and guides people in up to date applications of monetary halacha. For more information or to browse the BHI archives, visit www.businesshalacha.com
16 May 2020
כ"ב אייר תש"פ
בחוקותי- פרשת בהר
Daf Yomi WEEKLY
9
שבת ע“א
Distinctive Insight
COMBINING TWO TYPES OF PROHIBITIONS "וזו חומר במין אחד ממינין הרבה שאם אכל חצי זית וחזר ואכל חצי זית ממין אחד חייב משני צריכה למימר? ואמר ריש לקיש משום בר תוטני לעולם ממין אחד, משני מינין פטור...מינין פטור . עא- . ורבי יהושע היא דאמר תמחויין מחלקין,ואמאי קרי ליה שני מינין שאכלו בשני תמחויין And the following is the stringency of one type over many types: that if he ate a half of an olive and then ate half from one type, he is liable [to a chatas]; from two types of prohibitions, he is exempt...Is it necessary to say that if someone eats two types of prohibited items, each less than the size of an olive, he is exempt [from an offering] ? Reish Lakish said in the name of Bar Tutni: Actually, it was of one type. But why does [the Mishnah] call it two types? Because he ate it prepared as in two dishes; and it accords with R' Yehoshua who said that different dishes distinguish. - 71a
T
osafos1 asserts that the Gemara could have answered that it was necessary to say that one who eats of two types of prohibited items is exempt from bringing an offering - because the law is that a person who eats the total volume of an olive of two types of prohibited items (viz., half an olive of forbidden fat and half an olive of forbidden blood) is subject to lashes. Hence, it would have been necessary to teach us that this is only the case in regard to lashes, not in regard to an offering, in which case the two types cannot be combined. Rambam,2 on the other hand, maintains that a person who eats a combination of two types of prohibited items is not subject to lashes. To be subject to lashes, according to Rambam, one must eat an entire olive’s worth of one type of prohibited item to be subject to lashes.
But elsewhere, Rambam3 rules that two prohibited items do join together to make up the minimum measure of prohibition to forbid a mixture. For example, to permit the eating of a mixture that contains permitted fruit, orlah fruit (fruit from within the first years of the tree’s growth, which is forbidden) and kil’ei hakerem fruit (fruit that grew in a vineyard within which grains or vegetables grew as well, which is forbidden), there must be enough permitted fruit to nullify both the orlah and the kil’ei hakerem. The question is obvious: If two types of prohibited items cannot be combined with each other, then, on the contrary, the orlah should combined with the permitted fruit to nullify the kil’ei hakerem, and then, in turn, the kil’ei hakerem should combine with the permitted fruit to nullify the orlah. Reb Chaim Soloveitchik4 resolves this difficulty. Let us summarize and paraphrase his suggestion:
It is indeed not possible, according to Rambam, to combine two different types of prohibited items to make up the total volume of an olive, whether for the purpose of making a person subject to lashes or making him liable to bring an offering. This would require the fusion of the two disparate substances, so that they might be regarded as one new, uniform, homogenous prohibition. Clearly, such fusion is not possible. On the other hand, in the case of a mixture that contains two different types of prohibited substances, they need not be seen as fused together. Rather, so long as the one prohibited item does not nullify the other prohibited on its own, and vice versa, they coexist. And therefore, the mixture must contain enough of the permitted item to nullify the total amount of these coexisting prohibited substances, although they continue to retain their independent nature vis-a-vis each other. We can suggest that Tosafos are evidently of the opinion that offerings must be brought by the formula of one offering per prohibition. Hence, prohibited items do not fuse, and they remain distinct prohibitions. When the amount eaten of each is less than the volume of an olive, there can be no offering. Lashes, on the other hand, are a penalty for acting improperly - as long as one acted improperly to the extent of a volume of an olive one can be subject Brought to you by to lashes, even if the prohibitions did not fuse. הלכות3 ז: והלכות שגגות ו, הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק ד' הט"ז2 ד"ה משני1 הלכות מעשי הקרבנות פרק י' הלכה י"ב4 יד:מאכלות אסורות טו
Kindness Hacks from Behar Mark was walking home from school when he noticed that the boy ahead of him had tripped and dropped all the books and belongings that he was carrying. Mark knelt down and helped the boy, Bill, pick up the scattered items. As they spoke, Mark discovered that Bill was having trouble with many areas of his life. They stayed in contact over the future years. Before graduation, Bill called over Mark and reminded him of the day that they met. ‘I was on the way to end my life’ he explains. ‘I was clearing out my locker, I didn’t want to leave a mess for anyone. After we had spent that time talking and laughing, I realised what I would be missing should I go. You didn’t just pick up my books…. You saved my life.’ We are told in this week’s Parsha that ‘If your brother becomes poor, and his hand falters when he is with you, then you should support him’. (Vayikra 25:35) The phrase ‘and his hand falters’ expresses a hold that is in the process of weakening. It stresses that we are commanded to help people BEFORE they fall.
The Rambam explains that this is the highest level of charity. To support someone BEFORE the decline. Don’t wait for them to hit rock bottom. Aid them be able to sustain themselves, and not need the help at all! But this applies to more than finances.
We need to support people before they fall emotionally too. Notice signs, struggles, moods. Send regular messages to people to check up on how they are doing, or to call them. To not wait until someone cries out for help. When ‘his hand falters’ - Hold him up! (Story from ‘Chicken Soup for the Soul’)
10
Oneg Shabbos Issue 252
Divorce Bills and other Documents Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein Author of Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press)
Two very common words for “document” in Rabbinic Hebrew make absolutely no appearances in the Bible: gett and shtar. The clunkier Biblical term Sefer HaMiknah (“Scroll of Acquisition”) appears five times in Jer. 32, making it the standard — or only — word in Biblical Hebrew for a “document of sale.” In this article, we will focus on the words gett and shtar, seeking to better understand their etymology and how they are used. The word gett (plural: gittin) technically refers to any type of document, but is often attached to a modifier to explain what type of document is under discussion: a gett ishah (“woman’s gett”) refers to a writ of divorce, a gett shichrur (“gett of freedom”) refers to a freed slave’s writ of emancipation, and a gett chov (“obligatory gett”) refers to an IOU (Gittin 10a, Bava Kamma 95a, Bava Basra 160a). Nonetheless, the default gett in colloquial terms refers specifically to a bill of divorce (see Rashi to Gittin 65b and Maimonides’ commentary to the Mishnah Gittin 2:5), as we shall see below. In Biblical Hebrew, by the way, a bill of divorce is called a Sefer Kritut (Deut. 24:1–3, Isa. 50:1), literally “Scroll of Cutting.” The Tosafists (Gittin 2a) cite Rabbeinu Tam as explaining that a bill of divorce contains twelve lines of text because it is called a gett (GIMMEL-TES), and the gematria (numeric value) of the word gett equals twelve. Some authorities understand the Tosafists to also be explaining why a bill of divorce is called a gett (as opposed to a shtar). This assumption is shared by Rabbi Shmuel Eidels (Maharsha, 1555–1631), Rabbi Meir Shiff (Maharam Shiff, 1608–1644), and Rabbi Eliyahu Spira (Elyah Rabbah, 1660–1712), even though Rabbi Yom Tov Lipmann Heller (Tosafos Yom Tov, 1579–1654) criticizes this assumption for not heeding closely to the Tosafists’ actual words (see Rabbi David Tzvi Fetene’s Maharsha HaAruch who resolves this difficulty). Rabbi Eliyahu HaBachur (1469–1549) in Sefer HaTishbi also quotes the Tosafists as saying that a bill of divorce is called a gett because it has twelve lines, and questions this explanation on two grounds: Firstly, he notes that other documents (like a written loan) are also called a gett, yet the legal requirement of twelve lines do not apply to those documents. Secondly, he notes that the Tosafists have failed to explain why the bill of divorce must be called “gett” as opposed to a word derived from any other two-letter combination whose gematria would equal twelve (like DALET-CHET, HEY-ZAYIN, or TES-GIMMEL).
After citing HaBachur’s questions, Rabbi Yisrael Yaakov Algazi (1680–1757) writes that he heard a different explanation for why a bill of divorce is called a gett: Since divorce serves to separate a man and woman who were previously married, this schism is best reflected in the word gett because it is comprised of a combination of two letters which never appear next to each other in that order anywhere in the Bible! [Interestingly, Rabbi Algazi asserts that every shtar can also be called a gett, but not every gett can be called a shtar. Based on this, he rules that communal enactments which were explicitly said to govern a shtar do not apply to a gett.] The Vilna Gaon in Divrei Eliyahu also says a similar thing about the letters GIMMEL and TES never appearing next to each other in the Bible. The earliest known source for this explanation is in Sefer HaChaim by Rabbi Chaim of Friedburg (1520–1588)—the oldest brother of the Maharal of Prague (1525-1609). He writes that because G-d so much dislikes divorce, He made sure that the letters GIMMEL and TES which spell out the word gett never appear next to each other in that order in the entire Bible. Rabbi Meir Mazuz writes that even though there are other combinations of two letters that never appear side-by-side in the Bible besides GIMMEL-TES (e.g., GIMMEL-KUF and SAMECH-TZADI), those other combinations are all of letters pronounced through the same parts of the mouth, while the letters GIMMEL and TES are pronounced through different parts of the mouth, yet still never appear in the Bible in that order. Moreover, he notes that the other two-letter combinations are difficult to pronounce, so they were not in the running for becoming the word for a “bill of divorce.” Finally, Rabbi Mazuz adds that even though there are other pairs of letters that do not go together, GIMMEL and TES are the earliest ones in Alphabetical order that are incompatible with one another. Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky in Taama DeKra (to Deut. 24:1) also proffers this last point to answer the question. [A computer search of the entire text of the Bible reveals that the letters GIMMEL-TES are never juxtaposed to each other in the same word, but in Ezek. 22:25 they are juxtaposed with a space in between them to separate between words. For further discussion, see Rabbi Aryeh Leib Tzintz’s introduction to his Seder HaGett.]
16 May 2020
כ"ב אייר תש"פ
בחוקותי- פרשת בהר
Rabbi Yehoshua Boaz (1518–1557) in his commentary Shiltei HaGibborim (Mordechai, Gittin §1) cites a non-extant Midrash that refers to some sort of gem called getta in a far-off island that has a special charm of being able to ward off people. Based on this, he explains that a bill of divorce — by which a married couple officially “repel” one another — is appropriately called a gett. Rabbi Moshe Sofer (1762–1839) cites another tradition about this gem which says that its charm is actually to attract people, not repel them. In order to determine which version of this tradition is most accurate, Rabbi Sofer turns to a different work entitled Shiltei HaGibborim (written by Rabbi Avraham the Physician of Portleon) which, inter alia, discusses different gems and their charms. That work discusses a stone known as “gagate” that if rubbed is said to attract straw. Based on this, Rabbi Sofer concludes that in the former Shiltei HaGibborim as well, the getta stone refers to something which has the power to attract, not repel. Accordingly, Rabbi Sofer explains that all legal documents are called a gett because they bridge the gap between people (like between a lender and borrower, or a buyer and seller) and bring them together. On the other hand, Rabbi Sofer explains that the term gett in the sense of a divorce document is less readily understood, which is why the explanation above (about it having 12 lines) had to be proffered. Tosafot Chachmei Anglia (Gittin 2a), Orchot Chaim (Hilchot Gittin), Kolbo (§76), the glosses to Rabbi Yaakov Margolis of Regensburg’s Seder HaGett, and the Levush (Even HaEzer §125:11) all explain that gett is an expression of “breaking” or “cutting,” thus mirroring the Biblical term for a bill of divorce. These sources cite a no-longer-extant passage from the Yerushalmi that uses the word in such a way. Rabbi Shlomo Aharon Wertheimer (1866–1835) similarly suggests that gett is an expression of “erasure” (see Rashi to Brachos 56a). Despite all of these explanations, the scholarly consensus is that the Mishnaic Hebrew term gett is a loanword borrowed from the Akkadian gittu, meaning “a (single-column) document.” The late Rabbi Eliezer Herstik wrote that some explain that the word ghetto (the section of Rome to which the Jews were confined to living) is derived from the word gett — “chased away.” Another popular theory about the origins of the word ghetto is that it is derived from the Italian word borghetto (“small part of a city”), which is, in turn, derived from the
11 Germanic burg (“fortress”, “city”, “town”), the equivalent to the English word borough (and the Old English suffix -bury). Others explain the etymology of ghetto as deriving from the Venetian word getto ("metal foundry"), as near the Jewish ghetto in Venice there was such a factory. Finally, others claim that the Italian word ghetto is derived from the Latin Aegyptus (“Egypt,” where the Jews were first ghettoized when exiled and enslaved there in Biblical times). As mentioned above, the word shtar (plural: shtarot) in the sense of a “bill” or “document” does not appear anywhere in the Bible, but is quite common in later rabbinic literature (like in the Bar Kochba Letters and the Mishnah). It too is often attached to a modifier to explain what type of shtar is under discussion: shtar chov, shtar erusin (Kesubos 102b, Kiddushin 9b), shtar nisuin (Bava Basra 167b) shtar amanah (Kesubos 19a, Gittin 19b, Bava Basra 49a, 154b), shtar arisot (Bava Basra 167b), shtar berurin (Moed Katan 18b), shtar mivrachat (Kesubos 79a), and more. In Meturgaman, HaBachur’s lexicon of Targumic Aramaic, HaBachur has two separate entries for the root SHIN-TESREISH. The first entry is an Aramaicization of the Hebrew root SHIN-TES-REISH which refers to “policing” or “enforcing” the law (shoter/shotrim), while the second entry consists of examples of shtar in the sense of a “document.” He thus understands the two meanings of this root to be separate. On the other hand, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (to Ex. 5:6) explains that a shtar is called so because it is a creditor’s best means for presenting his grievances and “enforcing” his dues, thus understanding that both words derived from the SHINTES-REISH root are related. Dr. Chaim Tawil defines the Biblical Hebrew word shoter as a “record-keeper” or “organizing officer,” and connects its root to the Akkadian verb sataru which means “to write.” Tawil explains the difference between shoter and sofer in Akkadian by noting that although both words refer to a scribe, the former is specifically a civil servant who is an official scribe, while the latter refers to any type of scribe. Interestingly, the Old English word starr is a corruption of the Hebrew shtar and referred to documents or contracts held by Jews. After the Jews were expelled from England in 1290, this word fell into disuse until it was revived by later scholars like the English parliamentarian John Selden (1584–1654). M
Oneg Shabbos would like to thank the Pirchei Agudas Yisroel of America for providing this page +1 (347) 838-0869
Please be careful to dispose of this sheet in the proper manner as required על פי הלכה. Please do not read this publication during קדיש, קריאת התורהor חזרת הש''ץ. Please do not read the adverts on Shabbos or Yom Tov. Please would you ensure that there are ample sheets left in shuls for Shabbos before taking one home. בברכת שלא ימוש התורה מפי זרעינו ומפי זרע זרעינו מעתה ועד עולם IN ASSOCIATION WITH BHNY