Oneg Achrei Kedoshim by Oneg Shabbos

OnegShabbos

‫בס"ד‬

North West London's Weekly Torah and Opinion Sheets

‫קדושים‬-‫פרשת אחרי‬ 02 May ‘15 ‫י"ג אייר תשע”ה‬ For Questions on Divrei Torah or articles, to receive this via email or for sponsorship opportunities please email mc@markittech.com Now in Yerushalayim, Antwerp, Baltimore, Bet Shemesh, Borehamwood, Cyprus, Edgware, Elstree, Gibraltar, Hale, Holland, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, South Tottenham, Toronto, Vienna, Zurich

‫מוצש’’ק‬

London: 9:24 pm

Kindly Sponsored

‫הדלקת נרות‬

London 8:08 pm

‫קדושים‬-‫פ' אחרי‬ ‫ט'ו‬-'‫ עמוס פרק ט' פסוקים ז‬:‫הפטרה‬ '‫ פרק ג‬:‫פרקי אבות‬

‫לעלוי נשמת גרשון בן מנחם מנדל ז"ל לעלוי נשמת צירל בת אברהם ע"ה‬

PARSHA

The Individual and the Group

Rabbi Zev Leff

Rav of Moshav Matityah The Gemara (Sotah 14a) instructs us in the mitzvah of imitating Hashem in all His ways. Just as He clothes the naked, visits the sick, comforts mourners and buries the dead, so should you emulate His example. Rambam (Hilchos Aveilus, Chapter 14:1) mentions all the above mitzvos, but gives another source: the Torah commandment to "love your friend as yourself." Why the twofold source for the mitzvah of performing acts of kindness? The Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 24:7) relates: R' Akiva said, "Love your neighbour as yourself - this is a great rule in Torah." Ben Azzai said, "This is the book of the generations of man ... in the image of God was man fashioned" is a greater rule, for one should not say, 'Since I was shamed, so too, should my friend be shamed with me. Since I was cursed, so too, let my friend be cursed with me." R' Akiva, as Hillel before him, saw in the commandment, "Love your friend as yourself," the foundation of the entire Torah. The purpose of the entire Torah, Rambam says (Hilchos Chanukah 4:14), is to bring peace and harmony to the world, and in order to achieve this, one must conduct himself so that those things which are hateful and repulsive to him are not done to his friend. Ben Azzai, however, feared rooting a person's conduct towards others in his own subjective feelings and making what is hateful to him the standard for his conduct towards others. There is always a danger that a person might become hardened or insensitive to being shamed or cursed after repeated instances, and thus less sensitive to the need not to humiliate or curse others. Therefore, said Ben Azzai, "in the image of God was man fashioned," is a more all-encompassing source for our duties to our fellow men. Although both verses seem to apply exclusively to relationships between man and his fellow, Rashi in Shabbos (31a) points out that Hashem is also referred to as "your friend," and one must also relate to Him in peace and harmony. In addition, the relationship between one's soul and body must be harmonious. "Love your friend as yourself," thus applies equally to all relationships: between man and God, between man and man, and between man and himself. It thus encompasses the entire Torah. see footnote 1. There are two reasons for the derech eretz the Torah requires us to show others. One is communal; the other focuses on the individual. The first arises out of the desire to bring peace and harmony to the world; the second because each human being intrinsically deserves the respect and honour befitting one created in the Divine Image. On the one hand, the Torah is concerned with the individual and the development of the Divine Image within him; on the other hand the Torah is concerned with the community and with social interactions between people. At times, these two concerns are harmonious: what is good for the individual is good for the Klal and vice versa. But there are times when these concerns are in conflict and the individual's needs conflict with those of the community. Sometimes the community must yield to the individual, and sometimes the individual must sacrifice for the community. This balance between individual and community is crucial to a proper observance of the Torah and a development toward perfection.

In Parshas Kedoshim, there are a series of mitzvos which highlight the importance of the individual, while at the same time not losing sight of the importance of the individual as a part of the Klal. On the one hand, the Klal does not become the supreme value, robbing the individual of his intrinsic importance. At the same time, the individual must recognize that he does not exist in a vacuum, that he is a member of society whose actions profoundly affect others. The Torah exhorts us, "Do not spread gossip." Respect the privacy of the individual. And likewise, "Do not stand by with respect to your friend's blood," - be willing to exert efforts to save the life of a fellow Jew, for every Jew is an entire world. At the same time, do not lose sight of the equal importance for unity and interaction. Thus, “Do not despise your brother and distance yourself from him by harbouring negative feelings in your heart, thereby causing division in the common soul that binds all Jews.” Likewise, the Torah continues with a command to recognize our responsibility to others by reproving them when necessary. Do not say: I'll mind my own business; live and let live. Your fellow Jew is your business. The command, "Do not take revenge," also forces us to recognize the communal nature of the Jewish people. The Yerushalmi compares taking revenge on a fellow Jew to one who accidentally strikes his left hand while hammering and then takes the hammer into his bruised left hand and strikes his right hand. Now, we can understand the necessity for two sources in the Torah for deeds of loving kindness. On the one hand, one must do kindness out of recognition of the intrinsic value of a fellow Jew, who is a reflection of the Divine Image. And, in addition, one must also consider the ramifications of his actions on society, and do kindness to promote peace and harmony on a communal level. Both of these aspects are fundamental and crucial to the proper service of Torah. The students of R' Akiva - despite learning from their teacher that loving one another as themselves is the basis of the entire Torah - failed to adequately honour the Divine Image in each other or acknowledge one another as partners in developing society. Our mourning over their deaths during this period reinforces our recognition of respect for our fellow man as the basis of our relationship with Hashem. We must appreciate our own individual worth as human beings created in God's image, as well as the intrinsic worth of all our fellow Jews. At the same time, we must also recognize the equal importance of the Klal and our need to unite peacefully and harmoniously into a cohesive community.

1. R' Akiva agreed with Ben Azzai that an appreciation of the intrinsic worth of the individual is crucial, but felt it was implied in the words "as yourself." A person must first have a proper understanding of his own intrinsic self-worth in order to fulfil the mitzvah to relate to his friend in a similar fashion

SPONSORED

??? QUIZ TIME Answers can be found on back page. Ohr Somayach Institutions www.ohr.edu

K NEXT WEE llus, ga Ka Rabbi Shra kin, Rabbi Plis r Sinclair, Rabbi Ashe li Katz & (E Easy Giving er) ey

Emanuel M

& more

1. Why does the Torah emphasize that Parshas Acharei Mos was taught after the death of Aaron’s sons? 2. What is the punishment for a Kohen Gadol who inappropriately enters the Kodesh Kodashim?

Journey through Nach My new book Journey through Nach has is on the way to the shops in Israel today: perek summaries on every perek in Nach, over 100 divrei torah, iyun articles, maps and more! for more info or to order via email please email moishe@adirpress.com

Sefer Shoftim PEREK 8: Efraim complained to Gidon that they were not chosen to fight against Midian. Gidon appeased Efraim by explaining that his tribe were more useful than the army, as Efraim killed many of the enemy, including Orev and Z’ev, and were generally more successful in battle than Gidon. While chasing the remaining Midianite princes, Zevach and Tzalmunna, Gidon asked the men of Succos and Penuel for food, but they refused and mocked him. Gidon threatened to repay their injustice with violence if he were to successfully capture them. Gidon captured Zevach and Tzalmunna and they asked to be killed by Gidon himself as opposed to his [amateur] son, as they hoped Gidon would kill them quickly and painlessly (Radak). Gidon’s son refused to kill them, so Gidon himself killed them. On his return, Gidon thrashed the men of Succos with thorns and destroyed the tower of Penuel with many people inside it. Gidon refused the mantle of kingship, but asked that the people each donate one nose ring from the spoils. From these nose rings, he fashioned an ephod (apron) which he kept in his city as a reminder of the victory. Unfortunately, this ephod was used later in his life for idolatrous purposes. Gidon was punished with the death of his sons for this lack of foresight (Metzudas David 8:27). There was peace for another 40 years. Gidon had 70 children, one – Avimelech with a concubine. He died and the Bnei Yisrael did not follow in the ways of Hashem.

PEREK 9: Avimelech persuaded the warlords of Shechem to allow him to rule. He hired men to kill his 70 brothers and only Yosam1 escaped. The inhabitants of Shechem appointed Avimelech as king2. Yosam announced a parable of trees looking to appoint a king; after the date palm, olive tree, and vine refused to assume the position, the thornbush was offered the job. He likened Avimelech to the thornbush, and cursed him and the warlords of Shechem that they would both destroy each other. Avimelech ruled for three years. Rifts then emerged between Avimelech and Shechem. Gaal ben Eved spoke out against Avimelech’s regime. Gaal was tricked by Zevul - the leader of the city - into believing that Avimelech’s forces were not really attacking. Avimelech laid an ambush for Gaal and destroyed the city of Shechem, including burning its tower killing thousands. Avimelech tried to burn another tower in Tevetz, but a woman threw a millstone at Avimelech, crushing his head. Avimelech asked his attendant to kill him, to avoid the embarrassment of being killed by a woman. Thus, Yosam’s parable had come to fruition.

PEREK 10: Tola and Yair judged Bnei Yisrael for 23 and 22 years respectively. Bnei Yisrael continued to do evil and serve the Baal, and completely ignored Hashem (Radak). Therefore, Hashem delivered them into the hands of the Plishtim and Ammon who oppressed them for 18 years. When they cried out to Hashem (via a prophet – Radak 10:11), Hashem told them to plead 1 His name means ‘orphan’. 2 This was ironic as Avimelech means ‘my father, the king’. Gidon, his father, had refused the kingship despite being worthy of it, whereas Avimelech was unworthy and grabbed it for himself.

to their gods – the Baalim3. Bnei Yisrael admitted that they sinned and Hashem had compassion. The Ammonites were preparing to wage war and the people of Gilad proclaimed that whoever fights against Ammon will become the new leader.

PEREK 11: The Haftara of Chukas is from Shoftim 11:1-33 Yiftach was banished by his brother, while Ammon waged war against Bnei Yisrael. We are told of Yiftach’s modest family background; he was the son of a zonah4. Yiftach was asked by the Elders of Gilad to lead them in war and he conditioned his agreement on success in the battle against Ammon. Yiftach sent messengers to the King of Ammon, inquiring why they insisted on war, and was told that Bnei Yisrael had taken their land unfairly when Moshe led the people out of Egypt. Yiftach disagreed and proved his case. When the king of Ammon did not rescind his demands and threats, Yiftach decided to go to war, with a vow that if he returned successfully, he would offer up to Hashem ‘Whatever emerged from his house’. Yiftach defeated Ammon, and upon his return home, his only child, his daughter, came out to greet him. Consequently, she could not marry any man. Yiftach tore his clothes and for two months she wept in the mountains; this was commemorated annually from then on. There are different views among the commentators as to what exactly happened to Yiftach’s daughter. The Ramban maintains that Yiftach made a real vow that if he returned from war victorious, he would offer up whatever exited his house first. This happened to be his daughter and he summarily offered her up as a sacrifice (after a brief stay of execution period to allow her to cry over her fate). The Ramban explains (Vayikra 27:29) that Yiftach erred in thinking that a vow (cherem) of a leader can have an effect and is binding even in such a case. The Ibn Ezra (cited ibid and in the Radak here) disagrees, and opines that Yiftach inserted a clause in his vow, whereby if a person exited his house first, he would simply dedicate him or her in seclusion for Hashem, so to speak. Thus, according to the Ibn Ezra, Yiftach’s daughter simply lived in a remote place, and wept over her inability to marry. She lived isolated from the physical world to serve Hashem in prayer (Radak, citing Ibn Ezra).

PEREK 12: The men of Efraim protested to Yiftach that they were not asked to assist in the war effort. Yiftach claimed that he had requested their help, but did not receive it. Yiftach initiated a civil war against Efraim. In order to ascertain who the enemy was, the people were asked to pronounce ‘Shiboless’; the men of Efraim could only pronounce it ‘Siboless’. 42,000 people from Efraim were killed. Yiftach judged for six years. Three more judges of Bnei Yisrael are listed: Ivtzan5, Elon, and Avdon, who judged for a total of 25 years and then died. 3 Hashem had now saved them seven times, corresponding to the seven idols the people served (Rashi 10:11). 4 This either means that she was married without official kiddushin, a sort of concubine, (Radak), or that she was simply from a different tribe than Yiftach’s father (Ralbag). 5 Ivtzan was ‘Boaz’ from Megillas Rus (Rashi, Metzudas David).

SPONSORED

‫לעלוי נשמת‬

‫חנה בת ר' דוד ע''ה‬ ??? QUIZ TIME Answers can be found on back page. Ohr Somayach Institutions www.ohr.edu

3. How long did the first Beis Hamikdash exist? 4. What did the Kohen Gadol wear when he entered the Kodesh Kodashim?

NACH

Weekly Nach

‫קהלה קדושה‬ ‫חברת‬ ‫בני ישראל‬

Rabbi Portnoy

Loughton Federation Synagogue Perhaps one of the most tragic episodes in the entire Torah is the death of Nodov and Avihu which occurs in Parshas Shemini. This week’s parsha, Acharei Mos-Kedoshim, opens with a detailed description of the intricate Avodah, the service carried out by the Kohen Godol (High Priest) on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. The parsha begins with the words ‘Acharei mos shnei bnei Aharon’, telling us that Hashem spoke to Moshe, who in turn was to instruct Aharon, following the death of Aharon’s two sons. The fact that the Torah deems it necessary to tell us this event took place immediately following Nodov and Avihu’s deaths is picked up by Rashi, who gives the following analogy. There is a chance that someone visiting their doctor may not necessarily listen meticulously to the advice given and carry out all the instructions they receive. However, if the doctor is careful to add the caveat ‘make sure you follow my instructions so that you don’t die like the other patient!’ he will probably pay a little more attention to what he is told! In other words, by including the words ‘after the death of the sons of Aharon”, Aharon is being told to make sure to follow the set procedure of instructions, to prevent anyone else dying. Seems straight forward enough! Or does it? What is somewhat perplexing is that at the end of the parsha dealing with the Avodah, the Torah tells us ‘Va’ya’as ka’asher tzivo Hashem es Moshe – and he did that which Hashem had commanded Moshe (CH 16, V 34). Says Rashi, this is to indicate that Aharon didn’t change anything, he did exactly what he was told to do. (It is worth noting that the Sifsei Chachamim among others point out that this posuk is referring to the fact that Aharon carried out the instructions on Yom Kippur itself and not immediately after Moshe has given them to him).

FEDERATION

Doing Too Much Or Not Doing Enough?

Rav Moshe Feinstein zt’l in the sefer ‘Drash Moshe’ asks a powerful question. Did Aharon Hakohen, the High Priest, second-in-command to Moshe and in many ways greater than him, really need an extra warning to tell him to not follow Nodov and Avihu’s example? Compounding this question further, why does the Torah give this special praise to him for doing just that? What else would we have expected him to do? It is clear that, whatever the precise details of the misdeed of Nadav and Avihu, they committed an aveiroh, a sin. The Torah tell us about them that ‘bekorvosom’, when they came close before Hashem, they died. Ie it was at the point of drawing near to Hashem that they died. Says Rav Moshe zt”l, among others, that at the root of their aveiroh were pure intentions. They believed that they would become spiritually elated and as close to Hakodosh Boruch Hu as they could possibly hope to be. Ultimately whatever their sin was, as far as they were concerned, they were trying to get close to Hashem! In fact, it is precisely these aveiros that are the hardest to prevent. If one looks through Sefer Melochim for example, there were good kings and there were bad kings in Klal Yisroel - yet the one aveiroh they were universally unable to stop was the practice of Bomos, making a private altar in your backyard. Incredible! Of ALL the wrongdoings the one they couldn’t stop was this one! Because that is the aveiroh which is seemingly lishmo, seemingly for the right reasons, with the right intentions. It is the offering up of a korbon, a private sacrifice to Hashem, an act with pure intentions, coming from a good place. Indeed, there are times when we do things wrong but use cognitive dissonance to justify our actions – however, it is someone who believes he is truly doing the right thing, who is the hardest to stop. Aharon Hakohen was about to get as close to Hashem as a Human Being possibly could. The danger was that he may try to get too close, he may try and go a step further. Says Rav Moshe zt”l, this is why it was necessary for Aharon to be warned prior to being given the instructions, and indeed praised for having done just that - no more, no less.

SPONSORED

DO YOU HAVE A SHAILA? Post your question and get a response from the Federation Beis Din within 24 hours

FEDERATION OF SYNAGOGUES

SHAILAONLINE ??? QUIZ TIME Answers can be found on back page. Ohr Somayach Institutions www.ohr.edu

‫קהלה קדושה‬ ‫חברת‬ ‫בני ישראל‬

groups/askthefederation

5. How many times did the Kohen Gadol change his clothing and immerse in the mikveh on Yom Kippur? 6. How many times did he wash his hands and feet from the Kiyor (copper laver)?

Rabbi Avi Wiesenfeld

Rosh Kollel, Yerushalayim and Rav at Kav Halacha Beis Horaah

How To Have A Kosher Haircut (Part 2)

HALACHA

The Weekly Halachic Conversation

To dedicate the second printing, collect the set or to organize a digital slideshow of these halachos pocketseries@gmail.com Follow my Video Shiurim on Torahanytime.com

ÂÂ If one uses a #2 guard (which cuts to a length of 6mm) on most

METHOD

electric clippers, this will satisfy all opinions. Using a #1 guard is not permissible [in the payos harosh area] since it cuts the hair to a length of 0.125 inches which is shorter than the minimum required length according to most poskim.

Q. Which method is forbidden to remove the ‘payos harosh’? A. The Gemara1 states that the prohibition to shave the beard is only if one uses a razor (‫ תער‬ta’ar). There is a dispute amongst the rabbinic authorities if the same applies with regard to payos harosh2.

ÂÂ Therefore, if a person is getting a #2 haircut, he can cut all over his

head and not worry about transgressing this prohibition. It is only when the guard is less than a #2 that he must avoid the area of the payos harosh.

The Shulchan Aruch concludes that anything similar to a razor is included in the prohibition3. Q. Which utensils are included in this prohibition? A. Since we mentioned previously that one transgresses this prohibition even if a razor is not used, if the hair is cut too short, it makes no difference how this is achieved. Any method of cutting the hair too short is included in the prohibition and is forbidden. Therefore, it is forbidden to use (if one cuts the hair in the area of the payos too short) a razorblade, shaver, scissors, tweezers or cream.4

Note: These lengths are only a problem within the area that is considered ‘payos harosh’ – see above. Additionally, not all machines are the same; there may be clippers which cut smaller than the minimum required length, even though the guard is set to #2. CUTTING AROUND THE EAR Q. May one use scissors to cut the hair around the ear? A. Yes, but one must be careful not to cut the hair [in the area of the payos] shorter than 5mm (0.2 inches).

ÂÂ

This is one of the most common errors of barbers who use bare clippers, trimmers, or scissors to round out the hairline above the ear. This should not be done, since he is cutting too closely to the skin and will surely cut the hair of the payos harosh shorter than the minimum requirement. At the very least, some hairs will almost definitely be cut down close to the bare skin, in which case, both the barber and the person receiving the haircut will have, unfortunately, transgressed this most serious Torah prohibition.

LENGTH Q. How short may the hair be cut before one encounters a problem? A. There is no definitive ruling in the Shulchan Aruch, and it is disputed amongst the poskim. There are two main opinions [The point of this machlokes is how to explain ‘K’ein Ta’ar’]:

ÂÂ Some learn that unless one gets too ‘close to the skin’, the prohibition was not transgressed – i.e. one has not removed the ‘payos harosh.’5

ÂÂ Others learn that the length of a strand must be at least ‘k’dei kakuf

roshah l’ikrah’ – ‘sufficient enough to bend its head to this root’. If the hair is too short to perform this, one has erred and removed the payos6. The final halachah is in accordance with the second view7.

PENCIL PAYOS Q. May one shave/thin out one’s payos in order

Q. How much is this in real terms?

to shape them in a certain form?

A. It is estimated to be between 3 and 5 millimetres (0.2 to 0.6 inches). Less than this size is considered ‘k’ein ta’ar’ and is forbidden on the area of the ‘payos harosh’8. Some poskim recommend that it should not be smaller than 6 millimetres9.

A. To do so close to the skin within the area of the payos harosh is a transgression of a Torah prohibition. COMBING

.‫ לגבי פאות הזקן‬.‫ מכות כא‬1 ‫ וכעין תער מותר כיון שילפינן פאות הראש מפאות הזקן‬,‫ שיטת הרמב"ם הל' ע"ז פי"ב ה"ו שרק בתער ממש אסור‬2 ‫ ורק‬,‫ ושיטת הרא"ש מכות פ"ג סי' ב שלא ילפינן פאות הראש מפאות הזקן‬.‫ א"כ ה"ה כאן רק בתער‬,‫ובזקן כתב תער‬ ‫ אמנם כתב שיש לחוש‬,‫ ופסק השו"ע ס"ג כדעה הראשונה מעיקר הדין‬.:‫ כ"כ תוס' שבועות ב‬.‫בזקן כ' תער ולא בראש‬ .‫לדעה השניה שכעין תער ג"כ אסור‬ .]‫ יו"ד סי' קפא ס"ג "ויש לחוש לדבריהם" [שיטת הרא"ש‬3 .‫ ספר פאות כהלכה עמ' כב‬4 .'‫ וע"ע בבה"ל סי' רנא ד"ה אפי‬.'‫ עי' פרישה אות ג‬.‫ ש"ך ס"ק ב שמסביר מהו כעין תער‬5 .‫ דרכ"ת ס"ק טז שהביא כן מהכת"ס‬."‫ רמב"ם לגבי טומאת צרעת פ"ח ה"י "כדי לכוף ראשו לעיקרו‬6 ‫ וכן שמעתי מהגר"ע‬.‫ וכ"פ בחת"ס הובא בכת"ס יו"ד סי' קפא בשם תשו' החת"ס כת"י שהיתה מונחת תחת ידו‬7 .‫אויערבאך שליט"א‬ .‫ שו"ת תשובות והנהגות ח"ד סי' קצח‬8 .‫ הגר"ד פיינשטיין שליט"א בשו"ת ודברת בם סי' רכד‬9

Q. May the payos harosh be combed? A. The Mishnah in Nazir states that since a nazir is forbidden to cut or pull out his hair, it is forbidden for him to comb his hair, since it is almost inevitable that hairs will be pulled out10. Nevertheless, according to most poskim, one may comb one’s hair in the payos harosh11.

ÂÂ Lice combs may be used around the area of the payos.

.‫ מחמיר בזה אם הוא פ"ר‬:‫ הגרע"א בגליון הש"ס מס' שבועות ב‬10 .‫ חת"ס יו"ד סי' קלט שכן ראה אצל רבו הגר"נ אדלר זצ"ל‬1 1

SPONSORED

‫לעלוי נשמת‬

‫ר' חיים משה בן ר' אלימלך ז"ל‬ ‫מרת מלכה גיטל בת חיים ע"ה‬

??? QUIZ TIME Answers can be found on back page. Ohr Somayach Institutions www.ohr.edu

Sponsored by Proud Parents & Grandparents

7. The Kohen Gadol offered a bull Chatas to atone for himself and his household. Who paid for it? 8. Why was Parshas Kedoshim said in front of all the Jewish People?

HALACHA PARSHA

The Dateline Problem

Prof. J.H.E. Cohn

Three Part Series

3. ARE THERE NO ANCIENT SOURCES AT ALL?

all the other opinions. There are actual places on dry land where the time is 18 hours behind that of Jerusalem. The Baal haMaor requires such places in his explanation of the Gemara. Against this, there is the objection of the Yesod Olam, and the fact that several places have been observing Shabbos on the wrong day. The Brisker Dayan would have liked to have concurred, but was put off by the minhag in Harbin.

Yes, there are some. But not where you would expect to find them. As we have mentioned, there is nothing in Tanach, Talmud or Shulchan Aruch. No Rif, Rambam or Rosh, no Rashi or Tosafos or any of our recognised poskim amongst the Rishonim. But there are two Rishonim who do state in terms that there is a date line, and also where it is, and they do seem to agree.

b. The view of the Chazon Ish. His method was to invent the concept of

The first is Rabbi Yehuda haLevi, who is much better known for his beautiful poetry and for his philosophy, than for his opinion on any halachah. Indeed, his reference to a date line is just a throwaway line in the middle of his main philosophical work, the Kuzari. It is just a bald statement of fact, without any attempt at justification, as if it were an agreed and accepted fact. As such it seems to carry a certain amount of weight. In any case, the position that he gives is 90° east of Jerusalem, corresponding roughly to 125°E longitude. It is just 3°, or approximately 180 miles, further east than Shanghai, which is on the east coast of Asia, and approximately at the same latitude as Jerusalem.

geraira. The idea behind this is to subsume the eastern part of any landmass which crosses the 125°E longitude line to its western part. It neatly avoids the problem posed by the Yesod Olam, and also the difficulty that Harbin raises. It also, apparently, deals with Melbourne and Sydney, although here the logic is much less persuasive. The overwhelming majority of the Australian landmass lies to the east of the 125°E longitude line, and it is not so obvious why this should be secondary to the relatively small area to the west. In any case, according to this view, Japan and New Zealand as well as any offshore islands east of the 125°E longitude line such as Tasmania, ought to celebrate Shabbos on Sunday. That maybe disturbing, but the main objection to this view is that there seems to be no source for the concept of geraira.

The second is Rabbi Zerachiah haLevi, known as the Baal HaMaor, who lived about 40 years later. There is a particularly difficult passage in the Gemara, on which a number of commentators including Rabbeinu Chananel admit defeat. He offers a lengthy explanation, which is not entirely easy to follow. He himself records the hostility of some of his unnamed contemporaries to his explanation. At any rate, it implies a date line in precisely the same place as the Kuzari, although he does not mention this. I do not know whether he was aware of the Kuzari.

c. Many such opinions exist, but for practical purposes, the effect of all of them is to use the International Date Line.

d. The idea is usually quoted as the view of the Chachmei Yerushalayim.

It is enunciated in Sefer Hayomam by Rabbi Y.M. Tukatzinski. It is quite brilliant, but it too is largely an invention, and short of justification. That Jerusalem is the centre of the world is usually understood in a spiritual or philosophical sense, not physically. A slightly different method of reaching the same conclusion is to assert that in every place on Earth, one should try and make the period of Shabbos overlap as far as possible with that of Jerusalem. Either way, to use it as the basis of the date line is a considerable leap. Nevertheless, this view found acceptance by the majority of contemporary authorities, despite the vehement objection of the Chazon Ish.

Although the Baal haMaor mentions that his view was not universally popular, the first reasoned objection does not seem to have appeared until about 1310, well over a century after his death. Known as Yesod Olam, the author was Rabbi Yitzhak haYisraeli, a talmid of the Rosh. It was said to have been written at the latter's behest. The most telling point of his critique is to point out the following absurdity. How can you possibly have a situation in which there is a line running through a landmass dividing the hemispheres? It would mean that there might be a town in which different sides of the same street had differing days of the week. Cross the street and you move from Friday to Shabbos. As Rabbi Heber eloquently puts it in one of his online shiurim: On one side, you might have a gentleman who so enjoyed Shabbos, that towards its end, he moves over the street to do it all again, whereas on the other there might be an accountant, so busy with his figures that he moves in the opposite direction on Friday afternoon, so that he can continue working shortly and miss Shabbos completely.

e. This is the opinion of Rabbi Isser Zalman Melzer and Rabbi Zvi Pesach Frank and is the least understood of all the opinions. How on earth could there not be a date line? Clearly our imaginary traveller at the beginning of this section would return to London and think it was one day later than the people who had stayed put, and so of course he must at some stage adjust his calendar. Yes, he must. But that does not necessarily mean that there must be a date line! Maybe there is no line. True, he must make an adjustment, but perhaps there is no specific longitude which results in a change of day, and that what he has to do until he lands is simply to count six sunsets from the end of his last Shabbos, and then start the next Shabbos. As soon as he lands, he must if necessary change his day to that of the local residents. A somewhat similar scenario is that of one who has lost count of the days in the wilderness, who counts six days and then keeps the seventh holy. In support of this view is the fact that in the whole of our Written and Oral Torah and also in Shulchan Aruch, there is no mention of a date line. So perhaps there isn't one!

4. WHAT MODERN OPINIONS ARE THERE? In a word, lots. They fall roughly into five categories, with a certain amount of overlap:

a. Follow the Baal haMaor literally, and ignore the objection of the Yesod Olam, as well as current practice in Harbin, Japan and Australasia.

b. Accept the Baal haMaor in principle, but modify or interpret his view to take account of the Yesod Olam and at least avoid the problem of Harbin. This could also perhaps avoid a problem with the Australian mainland, including Melbourne and Sydney, although not Japan, New Zealand or Hobart in Tasmania, whose Shabbos would still be on Sunday.

c. Draw

a line somewhere or other down the Pacific Ocean to avoid all contentious places. This takes account of the Yesod Olam. A few of the opinions claim to be in the category above, although this is not the case, for example, using the International Date Line.

d. Ignore the Baal haMaor, and taking Jerusalem to be the centre of the world, make the date line directly opposite at approximately 145°W. This deals with the Yesod Olam as well as Harbin, Japan, Australia and even New Zealand, although it would make Shabbos on Friday in Hawaii and most of Alaska.

e. Assert that there is no date line at all. It is not our purpose to attempt anything like a decision on these opinions, but we shall make a few observations.

a. This

view is expressed in the work Agam haSohar by Rabbi A.H. Zimmermann written in 1954. This line has one great advantage over

SPONSORED

In case the idea seems far-fetched, we mention that it was suggested in this connection as long ago as 1761 by Rabbi Yaakov Emden in Mor uKetziah. He uses the same idea in dealing with Shabbos times for someone near the poles of the earth, where sunset and the appearance of stars do not occur at certain times of the year. It is also mentioned in 1794 in the work Machar Chodesh by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Rimini. A very similar idea occurs in the Bais Avrohom, who was travelling from Auckland to San Francisco in 1894, and was rather bewildered when told the boat had crossed the International Date Line. He did not know on which day he should observe the following Shabbos, but decided that he should stick to his previous counting, that is, observe Shabbos and make Kiddush on his seventh day, which the on-board calendar said was Thursday night/Friday, but refrain from melachos also on the following day. He did the same the next week, and only on arrival in San Francisco did he change to the local calendar. He asked a question as to whether he had acted correctly, which eventually arrived at the door of Rabbi Elchonon Spector, who wholehearted agreed that he had. Two things stand out from this. He really held that there was no date line as Rabbi Melzer and Rabbi Frank would have said, and it is noteworthy that no one had suggested that Shabbos in New Zealand was not on Saturday.

SPONSORED

Kindly Sponsored by the RACHEL CHARITABLE TRUST

??? QUIZ TIME Answers can be found on back page. Ohr Somayach Institutions www.ohr.edu

9. Why does the Torah mention the duty to honour one’s father before it mentions the duty to honour one’s mother? 10. Why is the command to fear one’s parents followed by the command to keep Shabbos?

Rabbi Tatz

JLE 6

Inspiration and Disappointment In aggadic writings we are told that an unborn child is taught the whole Torah in the womb. An angel teaches the baby all the mysteries of Creation and all that he or she will ever need to know in order to reach perfection, his own chelek (portion) in Torah. A lamp is lit above the baby’s head, and by its light he sees from one end of the world to the other. As the child is born, however, the angel strikes him on the mouth and he forgets all that he has learned and is born a simple and unlearned baby. The obvious question is: why teach a child so much and then cause all the learning to be forgotten?

But the answer is that it is not forgotten: it is driven deep into the unconscious. A person may be born with no explicit knowledge, but beneath the conscious surface, intact and rich beyond imagination, is all that one wishes to know! A lifetime of hard work learning Torah and working on one’s personality will constantly release, bring to consciousness, innate wisdom. Often when one hears something beautiful and true, one has the sensation, not of learning something, but of recognizing something! A sensitive individual will often feel intimations of his or her own deep intuitive level. The pathway is clear - a person is born with a lifetime of work ahead, spiritual wisdom and

COYS SPONSORED

growth are hard-earned. But the inspiration is within; you were once there! And that inner sense of inspiration provides the motivation, the source of optimism and confidence that genuine achievement is possible, even assured, if the necessary effort is made.

***

A second application: a characteristic feature of childhood, and relatively, of the teenage years, is inspired optimism and the lack of a sense of limitation. Children believe that they can become anything. The world is largerthan-life to a child; a child is not oppressed by a limited sense of what is possible. A child has simply to be exposed to almost any form of greatness (unfortunately, all too often physical and meaningless) to begin fantasizing about becoming or achieving that same thing. However, later in life one is lucky to have any inspiration left at all. Many adults wonder why life seemed so rich when they were teenagers, why they could laugh or cry so intensely, so fully, back then; and why life seems so flat (at best) now. But the idea is as we have described above. First comes a phase of unreal positivity, a charge of energy. And then life challenges one to climb back to real achievement independently. Concluded next week…. SPONSORED

‫לעלוי נשמת‬

‫ר' קלמן בן משה ז"ל‬ Kalman Weissbraun

??? QUIZ TIME Answers can be found on back page. Ohr Somayach Institutions www.ohr.edu

11. Why does Shabbos observance supersede honouring parents? 12. What is “leket?”

PHILOSOPHY

Why a Good Time Never Lasts (Part 2)

Rabbi Zelig Pliskin Aish HaTorah

PHILOSOPHY

Secret to Happiness (Four Part Series)

“A truly happy person does not allow his happiness to be dependent on any external factor over which he may not have control.” (Chochmah Umussar, vol.2, pp.331-2) Base your happiness on your own attitudes and you can be its master. If you tell yourself that you can only be happy if others do or say what you wish, your happiness is under the control of those people. You can never have

a guarantee how others will behave. Even when they do behave as you wish, you are likely to feel uneasy about how they might behave in the future.

PARSHA

Parsha Potpourri

Rabbi Ozer Alport Author of Parsha Potpourri and Renowned Lecturer

Death

Eye For An Eye

The Torah (Leviticus 21:5) prohibits various extreme forms of mourning the death of loved ones. As the laws of nature require every living thing to die eventually, why do we instinctively mourn the death of a loved one with such intensity when we mentally recognize that, although sad, it is inevitable? Nachmanides in Toras HaAdam, his work on the laws and customs of death and mourning, offers a fascinating explanation for this phenomenon. When God originally created the first man, Adam, He intended him to be immortal and created him with a nature reflecting this reality. When Adam sinned by eating from the forbidden fruit, he brought death to mankind and to the entire world. Nevertheless, this new development, although it would completely change the nature of our life on earth until the Messianic era, had no effect on man's internal makeup, which was designed for a reality in which Man would live forever. Therefore, although we are familiar with death and our minds recognize that people die, our internal makeup remains as it was originally designed. We expect our loved ones to live forever as they were originally intended to do, and therefore we are plunged into intense mourning when confronted with the reality that this is no longer the case.

Even though the Torah seems to require "an eye for an eye" (Leviticus 24:20) - that somebody who harms another person should be punished by having that same wound inflicted on him - the Gemara (Bava Kamma 84a) teaches that this is not meant literally. Rather, the culprit must financially compensate his victim for the harm that he caused him. Why did the Torah write this law in a manner which could be misunderstood if this is not its true meaning? The Chazon Ish (Kovetz Igros 3:102) explains that one of the purposes of the Torah is to teach us proper character traits, and by studying its laws and mitzvos, a person can acquire accurate values and outlooks. The greater the punishment prescribed by the Torah for a sin, the more a person should be repulsed by it and distance himself from it. Therefore, even though the actual punishment for physically harming another person is financial in nature, the Torah expressed it in stronger terms, implying that the culprit will be punished with the loss of whatever limb he injured, so that we should appreciate the severity of hurting another person and take the necessary precautions to avoid doing so.

SPONSORED

‫לעלוי נשמת‬

??? QUIZ TIME Answers can be found on back page. Ohr Somayach Institutions www.ohr.edu

‫ר' אליהו בן ר' אברהם הלוי ז"ל‬ ‫ר' חיים יוסף בן ר' יהודה ליב ז"ל‬ ‫מרת צפורה בת יעקב ע"ה‬