Oneg Ki Setzei

‫בס"ד‬

‫הריני בא ללמוד תורה לשמה לעשות נחת רוח לאבינו שבשמים‬

‫פרשת כי תצא‬ ‫י"ד אלול תשע”ח‬

NORTH WEST LONDON’S WEEKLY TORAH & OPINION SHEETS

A Torah publication that enables local Rabbonim and Avreichim to share their insights and Divrei Torah on a variety of different levels, to provide something for everyone

5TH AUGUST 2018

‫ב‬-‫ פרק א‬:‫פרקי אבות‬ ‫יט‬:‫כה‬-‫י‬:‫ א‬:‫קריאת התורה‬

SHABBOS TIMES FOR LONDON, UK ‫מוצאי שבת‬ 8.57PM (‫ ר"ת‬9.16PM)

‫שקיעת החמה‬

‫חצות‬

‫סו"ז תפילה‬ ‫גר''א‬

8.02PM

1.03PM

10:41 AM

‫סו"ז ק"ש מג"א סו"ז ק"ש גר"א‬ 9.31AM

8.55AM

‫הנץ החמה‬

‫עלות השחר‬

6.01AM

4.49AM

‫זמן הדלקת‬ ‫נרות‬

‫פלג המנחה‬ ‫עש''ק‬

7.49PM

18:36 PM

Rabbi Berel Wein Founder and Director of the Destiny Foundation

Parshah

KI SEITZEI The Torah deals with temptation in this week’s reading.

Temptation is a constant factor in human existence. Usually we do not carry out the acts that tempt us simply because of lack of opportunity and not necessarily because of our piety. People are watching, the police are in the vicinity, the circumstances currently conspire against us being successful in this tempting but illicit venture. However there are times when these outside inhibitions are not present to deter one from succumbing to the temptation presented.

the Torah restricted it but did not deny it completely.

At such times the Torah seems to imply that it will be very difficult to deny the temptation completely. During war and battle, the soldiers’ inhibitions are released.

The Torah therefore proposes to channel the fulfilment of this temptation rather than attempt to deny it completely. Because of this unusual set of circumstances, occasioned by war and its attendant violence and human callousness, the temptation of a defenceless attractive woman captive will be so overriding that

Yet in spite of all of the above, the Torah warns the Jewish soldier that there are unpleasant results and sad consequences to one’s succumbing to temptation even in “permissible” circumstances.

No stable and lasting family life can be built upon such wanton initial behaviour. Even acts that cannot be initially categorized as being forbidden or illegal can engender dire results later for the person who perpetrates them.

QUIZ TIME

??

There is too much opportunity present here. The Torah is well aware of the frailties and weaknesses of human behaviour.

It never demands the impossible from Hashem’s creatures. But it does impose a set of rules and a sense of discipline regarding all area of life’s activities. The set of circumstances posed by the Torah at the onset of this week’s reading is a paradigm example of the Torah’s attitude and instructions in all other like matters.

This is true in commercial life as well as in personal affairs. One

livingwithmitzvos.com

NOW IN THE FOLLOWING PLACES

should always restrain one’s self from pushing the envelope too far. Every act of human behaviour potentially carries with it unseen and far reaching consequences.

The rabbis always advocated caution in all matters in life – in speech, in behaviour and in decision-making. One should never stand too close to the edge of any precipice, whether moral, physical or spiritual.

Everyone’s life experiences validate this wisdom of the sages of Israel. Don’t sit too close to the fire lest one be singed by it. Don’t lean over the fence lest one may fall. Don’t always justify giving in to convenient temptation for there will always be unforeseen and in most cases very negative consequences.

In a world that somehow overvalues risk taking, prudence and caution are not especially favoured. Yet this week’s Torah reading illustrates, in a graphic fashion, the wisdom of restraint.

The advent of the month of Elul only serves to reinforce these ideas in our hearts and minds and most importantly, in our behaviour.

‫המלך‬ ‫בשדה‬ ‫ואיפה‬ ?‫אתה‬ To advertise here please contact Batsheva.pels@onegshabbos.org.uk

1. What is this rebellious son described with two descriptions of ‫?סורר ומורה‬

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, Ruislip, Santiago, Sao Paulo, Stanmore, Southend, Tallinn, Tarzana, Toronto, Uman, Vienna, Zurich

Rabbi Dov Birnbaum

36

Rabbi of The Seed shul, Edgware

The author can be contacted at dbirnbaum@seed.uk.net

SEDRA SUMMARY

An attitude of gratitude

Thank you to Chabad.org

Parshah

What do the words faleminderit and ngiyabonga have in common?

Deuteronomy 21:10–25:19 Seventy-four of the Torah’s 613 mitzvos are in the Parshah of Ki Seitzei. These include the laws of the captive woman, the inheritance rights of the firstborn, the wayward and rebellious son, burial and dignity of the dead, returning a lost object, sending away the mother bird before taking her young, the duty to erect a safety fence around the roof of one’s home, and the various forms of kilayim (forbidden plant and animal hybrids).

They both mean “thank you” - in Albanian and Zulu respectively (isn’t Google clever?!).‘Thank you’ is one of the most frequently used phrases in every language and a basic sense of gratitude is the norm in every culture.

Also recounted are the judicial procedures and penalties for various aveiros related to marriage and relationships. The following cannot marry a person of Jewish lineage: a mamzer (someone born from an adulterous or incestuous relationship); a male of Moav or Ammonite descent; a first- or secondgeneration Edomite or Egyptian.

After being freed from an Egyptian prison, Yosef advised Pharoh how to survive the years of famine. He was placed in charge of the initiative and masterminded the stockpiling of food, which kept the Egyptians well - fed throughout years of scarcity. Yosef invited his family to join him in Egypt and when his father Yaakov came the famine ceased completely.

In addition, Yaakov blessed the waters of the Nile and from that time on they irrigated all the

In this week’s parsha, the Torah sets our standards of gratitude very high: “Do not hate an Egyptian because you lived in his land.”

(23:8) To understand just how surprising this statement is let’s cast our minds back to the beginning of our sojourn in Egypt.

Our Parshah also includes laws governing the purity of the military camp; the prohibition against turning in an escaped slave; the duty to pay a worker on time, and to allow anyone working for you—man or animal—to “eat on the job”; the proper treatment of a debtor, and the prohibition against charging interest on a loan; the laws of divorce (from which are also derived many of the laws of marriage); the penalty of thirty-nine lashes for transgression of a Torah prohibition; and the procedures for yibbum (“levirate marriage”) of the wife of a deceased childless brother, or chalitzah (“removing of the shoe”) in the case that the brother-in-law does not wish to marry her.

crops in Egypt. Yaakov was so esteemed by the Egyptians that when he died they proclaimed a period of national mourning for seventy days!

Despite all of this, a new king arose and enslaved the Jewish people. The people were mercilessly beaten for not fulfilling their work quotas and eventually all baby boys were drowned. Generations of Jewish children were born into a life of constant suffering at the hands of their cruel taskmasters.

We would expect the legacy of this painful episode to leave bitter feelings on our national conscience. Instead, the Torah itself reminds us that we should still feel grateful towards them for hosting us in their land!

As Hashem’s ambassadors, we are expected to develop a sense of gratitude that goes above and beyond social and cultural norms. In turn, this enables us to appreciate all that Hashem does for us too.

Ngiyabonga for reading!

A Quick Vort: Ma’ayanah shel Torah

by Yisroel Avrohom Kaye The pasuk (Devarim 21:10) says “When you go forth to battle against your enemies and Hashem your G-d delivers them into your hands and you carry them away captive.”

The Ma’ayanah shel Torah brings the Chassam Sofer in Toras Moshe who explains that this posuk can be applied to the constant fight which we must wage against our yetzer harah.

Chazal tell us that our yetzer harah gathers strength against us each day and

Ki Seitzei concludes with the obligation to remember “what Amalek did to you on the road, on your way out of Egypt.”

were it not for Hakodosh Baruch Hu being there to help us he would not be able to prevail against it.

It is very difficult to conquer the yetzer harah and this thought might deter one from continuing the battle. We can learn from this pasuk that it is incumbent upon us to begin the battle and we can be sure that Hashem will deliver them into our hands. Hashem will help us conquer our yetzer hara because, as chazal tell us, “Hashem will help those who come to purify themselves”.

HOW DO I KEEP MY CHILDREN SAFE

FROM ABUSE?

For information, support and advice, visit our new website www.shemakoli.org or call the Helpline 020 3670 1818

QUIZ TIME

??

2. livingwithmitzvos.com

The punishment for this rebellious son is stoning. Why such a strict form of death?

For stealing and killing the punishment is only beheading. Why then is this son given worse than this?

This page is sponsored by Federation

37

Dayan Yehonoson Hool Federation Beis Din

The author can be contacted at dayan.hool@federation.org.uk

Coming up with the Goods The Torah tells us that although we can accept geirim from almost all the nations of the world, when it comes to geirim from Amon and Moav, they will not be allowed to marry in to the Jewish people. The reasons given for this are,

Now, this criticism seems a little harsh.

To provide for a huge nation of 600,000 men, plus woman and children, would be hugely expensive. Were the Moabites really expected to provide food and water for the whole of klal Yisrael, for free?

‫אתכֶ ם‬ ְ ‫ַעל ְּד ַבר ֲא ֶׁשר ֹלא ִק ְּדמּו ֶא ְתכֶ ם ַּבּלֶ ֶחם ַּוב ַּמיִם ַּב ֶּד ֶרְך ְּב ֵצ‬ ‫ִמ ִּמ ְצ ָריִם וַ ֲא ֶׁשר ָׂשכַ ר ָעלֶ יָך ֶאת ִּבלְ ָעם ֶּבן ְּבעֹור ִמ ְּפתֹור ֲא ַרם‬ )‫ דברים פרק כג (ה‬:ָ‫נַ ֲה ַריִם לְ ַקלְ לֶ ּך‬

The answer, says the Dubno Maggid, is understood, as ever, by a parable.

A man promised to support his future sonin-law financially for several years, but shortly after the wedding the father-in-law reneged on his promise and declared that he could not continue supporting the young couple.

The next day the son-in-law left town, and did not return. After some months, the father-inlaw, seeing his daughter’s distress at being left alone, offered a large financial reward for anyone who would bring his son-in-law home.

Soon after, the recalcitrant husband was found and brought home, and brought before the town’s rov. The young man claimed that he ran away from town because his father-in-law had reneged on his promise of financial support.

When the rov asked the father-in-law why he had in fact reneged on his promise, he replied that he didn’t have much money, and simply couldn’t afford it.

“Because they didn’t come out towards you with bread and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because he hired Bilom the son of Be’or from Pesor, Aram Naharayim, to curse you.”

These actions indicate ingrained negative middos, which are antithetical to the holy nation of klal Yisrael.

The Sifsei Chachomim raises a question, though. It is apparent from pesukim in Devorim that the Moabites did in fact sell the Jewish people bread and water:

‫כ''ט‬-‫כ''ו‬:'‫דברים ב‬ ‫וָ ֶא ְׁשלַ ח ַמלְ ָאכִ ים ִמ ִּמ ְד ַּבר ְק ֵדמֹות ֶאל ִסיחֹון ֶמלֶ ְך ֶח ְׁשּבֹון‬ ‫ ֶא ְע ְּב ָרה ְב ַא ְר ֶצָך ַּב ֶּד ֶרְך ַּב ֶּד ֶרְך ֵאלֵ ְך ֹלא‬:‫ִּד ְב ֵרי ָׁשלֹום לֵ אמֹר‬ ‫ּומיִם‬ ַ ‫ אֹכֶ ל ַּבּכֶ ֶסף ַּת ְׁש ִּב ֵרנִ י וְ ָאכַ לְ ִּתי‬:‫ּוׂשמֹאול‬ ְ ‫ָאסּור י ִָמין‬ ‫ ּכַ ֲא ֶׁשר ָעׂשּו לִ י‬:‫ַּבּכֶ ֶסף ִּת ֶּתן לִ י וְ ָׁש ִת ִיתי ַרק ֶא ְע ְּב ָרה ְב ַרגְ לָ י‬ ‫ּמֹוא ִבים ַהּי ְֹׁש ִבים ְּב ָער ַעד ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ָ ‫ְּבנֵ י ֵע ָׂשו ַהּי ְֹׁש ִבים ְּב ֵׂש ִעיר וְ ַה‬ :‫ֹלקינּו נ ֵֹתן לָ נּו‬ ֵ ‫ֶא ֱעבֹר ֶאת ַהּי ְַר ֵּדן ֶאל ָה ָא ֶרץ ֲא ֶׁשר ה' ֱא‬

“I find that difficult to believe,” replied the rov. “When you really wanted to, you were able to find plenty of money to pay for a reward to anyone who found the son-in-law!”

Moshe relates that he sent messengers to Sichon, the king of Emori, asking for permission to pass through his land. He requested that the Emmorites allow passage for klal Yisrael, whilst offering that the Jews pay for any food and water provided, just as the bnei Esov had done, and as had the Moabites done! Son the Moabites did actually provide food and water.

The Moabites provided food and water for the Jewish people, and perhaps couldn’t be faulted for charging for this if they couldn’t afford to provide for free. But the truth was exposed in the next part of the pasuk. “And he hired Bilom the son of Be’or from Pesor, Aram Naharayim, to curse you.” In order to entice Bilom to come and curse the Jewish nation, the Moabites offered huge sums of money. So, they did have plenty of money. They “couldn’t afford” to offer sustenance to the Jewish people for free, but to hire Bilom to curse them, they had no problem drawing upon enormous financial resources.

The Sifsei Chachomim answers that the Moabites were criticised because although they provided food and drink for klal Yisrael, they didn’t give this for free but charged for everything. The Ammonites didn’t offer anything at all, and as for the Moabites, although they offered provisions, they wouldn’t give them for free.

Parshah

they [i.e. Ammon and Moav] didn’t come out towards you with bread and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, [Ammon didn’t provide at all, and although Moav did provide, they charged for it, and not because they needed the money, for] and because he [i.e.

Moav] hired Bilom the son of Be’or from Pesor, Aram Naharayim, to curse you.” If Moav had plenty of financial resources, they should not have charged for the bread and water provided for the passing Jewish people.

The lesson is clear. If someone simply doesn’t have the financial resources, the physical or the emotional strength to dedicate himself to Torah and mitzvos, he may possible have an excuse. But if, somehow, he manages to find and apply these resources for other activities, his excuses will fall flat.

It is only if a person looks honestly at the sum of his activities that he can discern what he himself is really capable of.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

Tzadikim Tahorim do not complain of the dark, but increase the light; they do not complain of evil, but increase justice; they do not complain of heresy, but increase faith; they do not complain of ignorance, but increase wisdom.

With this in mind, we can reread the verse and see new interpretations: “Because

TEXT

SHAILATEXT 07403 939 613

QUIZ TIME

??

3. livingwithmitzvos.com

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO SHAILOS ON ANY TOPIC WITHIN FOUR WORKING HOURS Wherever possible it is preferable to take shailos to your own rov who knows you personally. ShailaText is not intended to be used as substitute for a rov but L’zakos es horabim. For more information visit federation.org.uk/shailatext/ To sponsor a day/week/month of Shailatext, please email Batsheva.pels@federation.org.uk

This week’s Shailatext is

‫לע”נ שמעון בן שרגא ז”ל‬

The Gemora Sanhedrin 71a states that this rebellious son never happened and never will happen. Why then is it mentioned at all in the Torah if it is not relevant?

38

Rabbi Binyomin Hoffman Parsha Pages

The author can be contacted at leibhoff@gmail.com

SHILUACH HAKEIN – SENDING AWAY THE MOTHER BIRD

Parshah

‫כי יקרא קן צפור לפניך בדרך בכל עץ או על הארץ אפרחים או ביצים והאם רבצת על האפרחים או על‬ ‫ שלח תשלח את האם ואת הבנים תקח לך למען ייטב לך והארכת ימים‬:‫הביצים לא תקח האם על הבנים‬ )‫ז‬-‫ ו‬:‫(דברים כב‬ Sending a mother bird away from her nest contains two Mitzvos (separate but related), a negative command not to take the mother bird while it is hovering over its nest, and a positive command to send the mother away.

The Commentators discuss if the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird only applies when a person wants to take the chicks or eggs, the contents of the nest. Perhaps the mitzvah is that before taking the chicks a person must send away the mother, but if one has no interest in using the eggs or chicks he has no mitzvah to send the mother away.

Or, perhaps the mitzvah applies even where a person has no interest to take the mother or the chicks.

The understanding of this Mitzvah has implications in other areas of Torah:

Chidushei R’ Yehuda b. R’ Binyamin HaRofeh notes that this Gemara begins with the assumption that one should have to trek through hills and valleys in order to fulfil this mitzvah. It is only a special phrase in the verse (‫כי‬ ‫ )יקרא‬that limits our obligation

QUIZ TIME

Maharsham (1:209) infers the opposite conclusion from this Gemara. It opens with its suggestion, Rashi explains, “The Gemara notes that the verse here states, ‫שלח תשלח‬ you shall certainly send away the mother.

This double expression suggests that one must pursue this mitzvah until it comes into his hands.” Maharsham notes that without a double expression, there was no expectation to pursue this mitzvah, and this seems to be the impression of the Gemara regarding all mitzvos.

After showing the Karaite this in the Greek work, the chacham concluded, “Since there were such monks in the times of the sages of the Talmud as well, is it any wonder that they discuss the halachic ramifications of one who finds a bird nesting on someone’s head?”

A Karaite once debated a great sage who was also learned in non-Jewish literature. The Karaite chose a strange sounding statement from the mitzvah of Shiluach HaKein to demonstrate what he thought was the obviously ridiculous nature of Talmudic discourse.

Chullin 139 questions: “Should one search through the hills and valleys to find a nest?”

“In Chullin 139 the Talmud wonders about the halachah of a bird nesting on a human’s head. Have you ever heard of anything more ridiculous in your life? What human would ever allow a bird to nest on his head?”

The chacham did not hesitate for a moment.

“In earlier works in Greek we find that there were monks who worked hard to nullify their material selves. They were willing to do any self-mortification to attain this goal. One of the ways they worked to completely divest themselves from their physical senses was to stand for long periods without any motion whatever. They would choose a deserted place, like a desert or field, thinking as deeply as they could, while carefully standing absolutely inert.

4. livingwithmitzvos.com

These works record that the monks were so still that birds thought they were statues and nested on their heads. Of course this is a very specialized kind of physical torture, but these monks accepted this on themselves to help them come to this state.

Understanding Strange Statements in the Gemara

Is there an obligation to pursue other mitzvos, or are we expected to fulfil mitzvos only when they come our way?

??

specifically in this case and teaches that this mitzvah of “sending away the mother” only applies when the mitzvah comes our way. We see, therefore, that the general approach to mitzvos is that one must assert himself and find opportunities to fulfil them.

Tefilas haDerech

One that travels a Parsah beyond the city’s limits, must pray to complete the trip in safety, by reciting the prayer of Tefilas haDerech.

The distance of a parsah is equivalent to 8000 amos (4 mil) which in our terms range from 3.840 km. / 2.385 miles (per Rav Na’eh) to 4.640 km. / 2.9 miles (According to the Chazon Ish) to 4.800 km./3 miles.

The Rogatchover wonders if one who flies in an airplane can, in fact, be compared to a road traveller to recite the brachah. Interestingly, he quotes the Gemara in Chulin 139, which discusses the mitzvah of shiluach hakein (sending away the mother bird). The Gemara asks if one who finds a nest at sea must do shiluach hakan, and the Gemara responds, “He is obligated because it says, ‘He Who made a way (derech) in the sea.’ (Yeshaya 43:16)” And, when discussing shiluach hakein, the Torah says, “If a bird’s nest chances before you on the road derech” (Devarim 22:6).

The Gemara then asks if one must fulfil the mitzvah if the nest is found in the air, because it says, “The way (derech) of an eagle in the heavens.” (Mishlei 30:19) But the Gemara responds, “The way of an eagle is called; an unspecified way is not called.” In other words, the air cannot be referred to as a “derech”.

Hence, the Rogatchover holds that tefillas haderech should not be recited in an airplane, but said while the plane is moving on the runway.

Rashi (21:18) brings that this rebellious son should die while still innocent as opposed to be allowed to be left alive and then die as a sinner. This means that we do judgement now for the future. Why is this different to Yishmoel when he was ill and the Malochim complained that letting him live would in the future mean his descendants would kill the Jews. Hashem refused saying that he would only be judged for the present situation and not the future. Why are they judged differently?

39

Rabbi Ozer Alport Author of Parsha Potpourri and Renowned Lecturer

The author can be contacted at oalport@optonline.net

Strength to Overcome Ki Setzei(Deuteronomy 21:10-25:19)

The parsha begins by discussing the y’fas toar - woman of beautiful form. The Torah permits a soldier who becomes infatuated with a non-Jewish woman during battle to marry her (Deut. 21:11). This concept is difficult to comprehend. The Torah is replete with warnings against becoming too familiar with the non-Jewish inhabitants of the land, yet it explicitly permits a soldier to take a nonJewish woman home and marry her.

Rashi explains that this apparently counter-intuitive permission was granted as a concession to the evil inclination. Hashem recognized that if He didn’t allow the soldier to marry this woman in a permissible fashion, he would do so illegally, so He made an allowance for this exceptional case.

Rabbi Yechezkel Abramsky derives from here an inspiring lesson. Judaism is such an all-encompassing religion, with laws governing virtually every aspect of daily life, that a person will almost surely encounter mitzvot that run counter to his nature. Although which mitzvah seems insurmountable will vary from person to person, it is likely that there will be laws that upon learning of them, one’s instinctive reaction will be to declare their observance beyond his capabilities.

From the fact that the Torah permitted a soldier to marry a y’fas toar as an acknowledgement that forbidding him to do so would represent an impossible task, we may conclude that our Maker clearly understands our human limitations. If He nevertheless commanded us regarding a particular mitzvah, it must be that He knows that we have within us the strength to overcome the evil inclination by properly observing that mitzvah.

TOTALLY ABSORBED

The Torah prohibits a person who is born to proper Jewish parents to marry an Ammonite or Moabite because they failed to give the Jewish people bread and water after the Exodus from Egypt (Deut. 23:4-5). Why was there a need for them to do so when the Manna

and well provided them anything they wanted to eat or drink?

Rabbeinu Bechaye explains that although the Jews were not lacking anything to eat or drink, it is still appropriate conduct to greet travelers and offer them food and drink, and Ammon and Moab were punished for neglecting to do so.

The Paneiach Raza maintains that the Manna only fell when the Jewish people were in the wilderness. When they passed through an inhabited area, it temporarily ceased falling, thereby requiring them to purchase food from the local residents. He adds that the Torah alludes to this when it records (Exodus 16:35) that the Jews ate the Manna until they arrived in an inhabited land.

THE DIVORCE DOCUMENT

The Vilna Gaon explains that a divorce document (Deut. 24:1) is called a Get (spelled gimmel-tet) because these two letters are not found next to each other in any other word in the Hebrew language and aren’t pronounced with the same part of the mouth. This name therefore symbolizes separation.

Based on this concept, the Margalios HaTorah - a student of the Vilna Gaon - notes that in the section in the Torah (Genesis 49:29-32) which details the final instructions of Yaakov to his sons immediately prior to his death, every letter in the alphabet is used except for gimmel and tet.

As long as Yaakov remained alive, unity reigned between his children, as symbolized by the fact that the letters which connote separation aren’t used to describe his final moments with his sons. However, the following verse (Genesis 49:33), which relates Yaakov’s death, contains both the letter gimmel and the letter tet to hint that upon the death of the unifying figure who inspired peace, the brothers immediately began to have feelings of distrust (see 50:15).

Similarly, the section in the Torah (Numbers 28:1-8) which discusses the Korban Tamid, the continual offering which was brought twice daily on the Altar, contains every letter

More than 20,000 Torah videos Over 400 different speakers QUIZ TIME

??

livingwithmitzvos.com

Parshah in the alphabet except for gimmel and tet. This hints to the Talmud (Gittin 90b), which teaches that when a man divorces his first wife, the Altar sheds tears. As a result, the portion which describes the sacrifice which was most regularly brought on the Altar omits the two letters which are used to describe a Jewish document of divorce.

Though the letters gimmel and tet aren’t found next to each other in any other word in the Hebrew language and therefore symbolize separation, there are four other two-letter combinations which also never appear together. How many of them can you identify, and why is a divorce document called a Get as opposed to one of these other combinations?

Demonstrating the encyclopedic mind for which he is renowned, Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky (Taima D’Kra) points out that the letter combinations zayin-tet, zayin-tzaddik, gimmel-kuf, and samech-tzaddik also never appear together in any word in the Hebrew language. To explain why a divorce document is called a Get as opposed to one of these other combinations, he cites Tosefos (Gittin 2a), who explain that a divorce document contains 12 lines which is the numerical value of the word Get, something which isn’t true of any of the other letter combinations.

HONEST WEIGHTS AND LONG LIFE

Why is the mitzvah of keeping honest weights and measures (25:13-16) specifically rewarded with long life? (Yalkut HaGershuni) Rav Elazar Fleckeles explains based on the teaching of the Gemora (Sotah 9a) that Hashem doesn’t punish a person for his sins until his “Heavenly cup” becomes full of sins.

However, Hashem judges people measure-formeasure, and somebody who sins by using inaccurate weights and measures runs the risk of having his Divine quota unfairly adjusted, which could result in him being punished prematurely. Only a person who is careful to use honest weights and measures will be guaranteed that Hashem will treat him in the same manner, which will enable him to live a longer and fuller life.

torahanytime.com

5. Why the need for hanging after the Ben Sorer Umore has already been killed?

Rabbi Yissocher Frand

40

Rosh Yeshiva, Ner Yisrael Baltimore

Parshah The Lesson of Not Plowing With an Ox and Donkey

This week’s parsha contains the prohibition of ploughing with an ox and donkey together [Devarim 22:10]. The Torah lists three examples of prohibitions related to mixed species in close juxtaposition. We cannot sow our field with mixed seed (kilaei zera), we cannot plough our field with an ox and donkey together (a form of kilaei beheimah), and we cannot wear garments made of wool and linen combinations (kilaei begadim — shatnez).

In the final analysis, all laws regarding forbidden species fall into the category of Divine Decrees (Gezeiras haKasuv) that have no apparent reason. Nonetheless, there is a fascinating comment from the Daas Zekeinim m’baalei haTosfos regarding the prohibition against harnessing together an ox and donkey that does shed some insight — at least homiletically — into this prohibition.

The Daas Zekeinim offers a logical explanation why the Torah forbade this particular combination of animals. The ox, the Daas Zekeinim says, chews its cud, while the donkey does not. In other words, two animals would be working next to each other, one kosher and one non-kosher, one that chews its cud and one that does not chew its cud. The donkey would see the ox chewing and imagine that it must be eating. The donkey would become upset: “I’m working and not eating, while my ‘yoke-mate’ is working and eating at the same time!”

The Daas Zekeinim’s message is that we need to make sure that we are compassionate even towards our animals. We do not want to put the donkey in a situation where he will feel jealousy towards the ox. The eminently obvious (kal v’chomer) conclusion from this lesson relates to human relationships. If we are even commanded to worry about the jealousy we might inspire in a donkey, which most likely has very little pain or anguish from such a situation, certainly we need to be worried about human beings, who are very sensitive to jealousy. Our friends and neighbours are very sensitive to “what the other guy has”. We certainly should not do things that incur the envy and jealousy of other human beings.

QUIZ TIME

??

livingwithmitzvos.com

Parshas Ki Seitzei Getting Credit For “Selfish” Actions

Later in the parsha, the Torah mentions the prohibition against a Moabite or Ammonite (male) ever marrying into the Jewish nation [Devarim 23:4]. This is a harsher restriction than that levied against the Egyptians, whom we are allowed to accept as marriage partners after 3 generations. Despite the fact that, historically, we would assume that the Egyptians treated us worse than the Moabites, the Moabites are more restricted than the Egyptians “because they did not greet you with bread and water on your journey when you came out of Egypt and because they hired against you Bilaam son of Beor… to curse you.”

In past years, we have cited the Ramban’s opinion that the reason for the harsher treatment against Amon and Moab was due to the fact that they were “cousins” who should have repaid the favours to the Jewish people that our ancestor Avraham did for their own ancestor, Lot. Their lack of gratitude (hakaras haTov) and particularly their repaying good with bad — by hiring Bilaam to curse the Jews triggered the Torah’s insistence that they never be allowed into “the Congregation of Hashem.”

This year, we would like to focus on the continuation of the pasuk [verse], which states, “And the L-rd did not hearken to Bilaam and He inverted Bilaam’s curses to blessings for Hashem your G-d loves you.”

The Dubno Maggid asks a simple question here: This is history. Parshas Balak describes the whole narrative. Balak hired Bilaam to curse Klal Yisrael. Bilaam tried to curse them several times, but every time he tried, the words came out a blessing. This is not germane to Parshas Ki Seitzei and the prohibition of marrying Moabites and Ammonites! It may make sense for the pesukim to explain the wickedness of the Moabites by mentioning that they hired Bilaam to curse us. But the fact that “Hashem did not wish to listen to Bilaam” is not germane to the issue at hand. We know that already!

The Dubno Maggid explains: Perhaps the Moabites will argue that they did us a favour. In hindsight, they paid for beautiful blessings that were bestowed upon the Jewish people. Even though that might not have been their initial intent, nonetheless, from the historical perspective they can claim that

they indirectly benefited us. To counteract this line of reasoning, the Almighty answers them: “No. You are not going to get away with such an argument. Do not try to say that you did Klal Yisrael a favour. The only reason why it resulted in blessing is because I chose not to listen to Bilaam. You tried to do a wicked sin, but I interceded to prevent it from taking place.”

The Dubno Maggid continues as follows: We see from here that the only reason why they did not get credit for collateral benefit that emerged from their actions is because their intent was malicious. They would have gotten credit if their intent was not malicious, but perhaps only self-serving. If in the course of an action taken for my own benefit, an indirect benefit emerges for someone else — I can be credited with having done a mitzvah.

Rav Aharon Kotler zt’’l writes that if one hires a friend to fix his house, he is credited with doing the worker a Chessed [act of kindness].

Although his primary intent was clearly “selfish” — to have his house repaired, since he thereby provided a livelihood for his friend as well, he will get reward for that mitzvah. As long as a person’s intent is not malevolent, any benefit that derives to someone else is counted as a Chessed.

Putting The “Snap Crackle and Pop” Into One’s Relationships

Later in the Parsha, the Torah says (regarding the draft deferment of the Jewish solider for the first year after his marriage): “He shall be free do go home and make his wife happy (v’simach es ishto) for one year.”

[Devorim 24:5] Rashi comments on the words “v’simach es ishto” by citing the Aramaic Targum: “v’yachdi yas itsei”. Rashi explains that anyone who translates the pasuk to mean “v’yachdee IM itsei” is making a mistake. The two versions of Aramaic translation quoted by Rashi hinge around the interpretation of the Hebrew word “es”. “V’simach ES ishto” could mean “You should MAKE your wife happy” or it could mean “You should be happy WITH your wife.”

Rashi says the former translation is correct and the latter translation is erroneous. Rashi supports his position by stating that the meaning of the ‘piel’ grammatical form of the word v’simach is to make someone else happy.

Had the meaning been “you should rejoice

6. Is burying the deceased quickly for the benefit of the Ben Sorer Umoreor or for his living relatives?

41

Halacha from

Rabbi Shraga Kallus

WITH your wife,” the expression would have appeared as “v’sAmach es” not “v’sEEmach es”.

However, the Targum of Yonasan ben Uziel quotes the very translation that Rashi rejects as erroneous. Yonasan ben Uziel was a Tanna! How can Rashi imply that a Tanna does not know how to properly translate a pasuk in Chumash?

Rosh Kollel, 'The 2nd Seder Kollel'; 'Machon Hora'ah L'Rabanim'

The Shemen HaTov offers a beautiful interpretation to resolve this difficulty.

Certainly, the meaning of the pasuk is — as Rashi says — that the husband must try to make his wife happy. But if one’s intent in marriage is to make the other partner happy then they will ultimately find happiness together. A marriage only works when each party is trying to make the other one happy. When each person tries to make the other one happy, they will wind up both being happy. On the other hand, if one approaches marriage from the perspective “What is in it for me?” then no one will be happy.

This interpretation of the Shemen HaTov could shed light on the universally expressed blessing when a child is born that the parents merit to bring the child to Torah, to the Chupah, and to ma’asim tovim.

The sequence of this blessing is often questioned. Why do ma’asim tovim appear last in the list? It sounds from this wish like good deeds only begin after one is married. Is that the case?

Hadlokas Neiros

Part V – K’nas / Penalty for forgetting to light

Q A

I once heard the following explanation: When one is single and he goes shopping for breakfast, he walks down the cereal aisle to make his selection. He thinks to himself, “What kind of cereal do I like? Cheerios.

What about Rice Crispies? I can’t stand Rice Crispies.” He buys himself a box of Cheerios every single week.

Then he gets married and goes shopping for the family. The first week he brings home Cheerios. His wife tells him “I hate Cheerios. I like Rice Crispies.” If he can afford it, then fine, he buys two boxes — one of Cheerios and one of Rice Crispies and everyone is happy. But what if he cannot afford it? He will have to make a choice. He goes to the store and looks at the cereal aisle and asks himself “What should I buy? Should I buy Cheerios or should I buy Rice Crispies?”

The pasuk in this week’s parsha cries out to him: V’Simach es Ishto. “I am going to buy Rice Crispies!” After marriage, even the act of buying cereal — which until the time one gets married was just a mundane shopping chore — now becomes a Gemillas Chessed, an act of kindness. The mundane act of shopping is turned into a ma’aseh mitzvah (an action with religious nuance). Therefore we understand: First Torah; then Chuppah; and after that even buying cereal will fall into the category of Ma’asim.

I was so tired, so I thought a quick nap would help. But, I overslept and did not light Shabbos candles. Must I light an additional candle for the rest of my life?!

If one forgets to light candles one Friday night, for the rest of their life they must add an extra candle. This candle is in addition to the number of candles that this person is normally accustomed to lighting. There is only a K’nas in cases of negligence (P’shi’ah) and disgrace (Zilzul) and not in cases of unavoidable mishaps (Oness). The purpose of the K’nas is to serve as a reminder to accord Shabbos the appropriate honor.

In this case, at first glance it would appear that such a situation would deserve a K’nas. Oversleeping should be considered negligence, thereby incurring the K’nas. However, upon further probing, it would seem that in this and other similar scenarios there is room to be lenient because the Mitzvah of Hadlakas Neiros might have been fulfilled b’dieved, and therefore there would be no K’nas. In this specific case, they turned on the lights in the kitchen for Shabbos after P’lag HaMinchah, before they had gone to sleep, which was a form of Hadlakas Neiros and fulfilled their obligation. Since these lights suffice for the Mitzvah, there would be no K’nas.

Adapted by Rabbi Avraham Chaim Slansky

Rabbi Slansky can be contacted at avislansky@gmail.com

riddle

Parsha

FIND RABBI KALLUS'S SHIURIM ON TORAHANYTIME.COM

Thank you to Boruch Kahan bkahan47@yahoo.co.uk

QUIZ TIME

??

QUESTION

Question: Someone in Nach misread a very important word in our Parshah that lead to a battle not completely won by Yisroel.

Who was it and where is it recorded in the Gemoro?

CLUE He was Dovid’s chief officer and held on to the horns of the Mizbeiach when trying to escape punishment by death.

livingwithmitzvos.com

ANSWER FROM LAST WEEK Question: There is a well known two word Hebrew expression that comes before Sheni in both this week's and next week's Parsha but they mean completely different things. What is it and what do they mean?

Answer: Rabbah and Rav Yoisef; we always Pasken like Rabbah throughout Shas except for three cases that all occur in Maseches Bovo Basro where we Pasken like Rav Yoisef. These three exceptions are known as 1) Sodeh which is in the first Perek (Daf 12a).

2) Inyan which is in the eighth Perek (Daf 114b).

3) Mechitzoh which is in the ninth Perek (Daf 143b).

7. When in Jewish History do we find that Jews were left to hang much longer than this time period?

Rabbi Michoel Fletcher Author of sefarim: “Do You Know Hilchos Shabbos?”, “Do You Know Hilchos Brachos?”, “From Strength to Strength”, “Dancing in our Heart” and the soon to be published; “The Hidden Light, a New look at the Holocaust and other essays”.

tefilah

Revolutionising our Shemoneh Esrei Avrohom Ovinu’s statement that he is “like dust and ashes” (Bereishis 18:27) is much misunderstood. People often understand that just as dust and ashes are virtually valueless, so Avrohom Ovinu is saying that he regards himself also as having no value. This understanding is not only contradicted by Rashi’s explanation of the posuk but is wrong and dangerous. Rashi says that Avrohom Ovinu meant that if not for Hashem’s help he would have died and become like dust during the war with the four kings and the five kings and he would have become ashes in the furnace of fire into which he was thrown by Nimrod. Far from expressing his low estimate of himself, the words reflect Avrohom Ovinu’s total emuna that we can do nothing without Hashem. This is true humility as we explained in connection with Noach.

To suggest that Avrohom Ovinu would consider himself worthless is preposterous.

Imagining that the Torah expects us to consider ourselves worthless is a mistake which could lead to yi’ush and depression.

As Nefesh Hachaim explains at length, every mitzvah we do, every pure thought, has a tremendous effect in the higher worlds, which is in turn reflected in brochos which descend later to our world. Naturally, Gedolim and tzaddikim have the greatest effect but we can all contribute in our own way. We have all heard the stories of apparently simple people changing a Heavenly decree through some act of exceptional righteousness.

ANSWERS

We can all play a major role in protecting Klal Yisroel from our many enemies as can be learnt from a section of Agadah in Kiddushin

(29b). Abaya had a problem with a certain mazik (demon) which was causing harm in his Yeshiva. He heard that the tzaddik Reb Acha bar Yaakov was coming to learn in the yeshiva. Abaya hoped that Reb Acha would destroy the mazik. He engineered that Reb Acha would sleep in the Beis Hamedrash on the first night knowing that the mazik would be sure to try to damage him. The commentators say that Abaya knew that Reb Acha because of his righteousness, would come to no harm.

Indeed the mazik, appearing in the form of a snake with seven heads, did try to harm Reb Acha. However every time Reb Acha bowed down in tefilla, one of the heads of the “snake” was destroyed. After his seventh kriah, (bow) the mazik was completely destroyed. Rav Elyashiv in his He’oros on Kiddushin brings from the Shita Mekubetzes that the seven krios were the two at the beginning of the Shmoneh Esrei when we say Boruch Atoh, the two at the beginning and end of Modim and the three times we bow as we say Oseh sholom bimromov…at the end Shemoneh Esrei.

Why was one head of the mazik destroyed every time Reb Acha bowed down? It seems that this is the explanation: bowing down is a way of saying that we cannot stand up without You. You provide us with everything. Nothing else has power. Our enemies have power only if we ascribe power to them. In short, this is the famous concept of ein od milvado (There is nothing without Him.) If we genuinely believe ein od milvado, our enemies automatically lose their strength. Therefore each time Reb Acha bowed down expressing his emuna in ein od milvado, a head of the mazik was destroyed.

This understanding should revolutionise our Shemone Esrei. We have the power to neutralize our enemies as we bow down in Shemone Esrei through the correct kavana that nothing has any power besides Hashem. We may not be on the madreiga of Reb Acha bar Yaakov. Our belief in ein od milvado may not go as deep as it did with the Brisker Rovzt”l who escaped Nazi-occupied Europe, even walking past Nazi soldiers, as he concentrated intensely on ein od milvado. But each of us can achieve something. And together we can do much to protect Klal Yisroel from our enemies. If we are not on the level to destroy our enemies, we can weaken them, so that they will not always succeed in their plans against us. Even at the end of Shemoneh Esrei, when we tend to be mentally into chazoras hashatz or even outside the shul, we have still a major avoda ahead of us; three more krios with which can weaken our enemies and perhaps save Jewish lives. This is not a time to dilute our kavono but rather to bring it to new heights which could save ourselves and others from danger.

Bearing in mind that nothing besides Hashem has any power, we can have greater kavana throughout Shemone Esre. “Only You, Hashem, can maintain our mental health.

Only You, Hashem, can redeem us from our tzoros. Only You, Hashem, can give us good health and parnasa. Shema Koleinu, Listen to us, Hashem, because only You can help us.” Our Shemone Esre should never be the same again.

To be continued…

1.

These refer to his rebelliousness and refusing listening to his father (Rashi, 21:18).

The Sforno learns that his rebelliousness removes any hope of him turning back and repenting. The Ibn Ezra says that there are two phrases for his rebelling against the positive and the negative mitzvos. The Vilna Gaon learns that he rebels against the two parts of Torah – the Written and Oral Law.

5.

2.

The Maharsha (Sanhedrin) because of this question says that we must be talking about a case where he does several different sins that come with the punishment of stoning and beheading. He then gets the severest punishment of stoning.

The Chinuch (535) brings that the idea of raising high up someone killed by Beis Din is to serve as a deterrent to other potential sinners.

6.

3.

The Gemora says that we are meant to learn it and get reward for doing so. It is coming to teach us a lesson like the Akeida. It is showing us how much a person must love Hashem that he is willing to kill his own son in preference to serving Hashem. (Rabbeinu Bichai)

There is any interesting Zohar (Emor 88b) that says that it his for the deceased’s benefit.

This is because his Neshama might need to go through another gilgul and this is not possible until he is buried.

7.

4.

The Gur Aryeh answers that there is a difference in who is judging the case. By Yishmoel the discussion took place Above in the Beis Din Shel Maale. There things are judged

The Gemora Yevomas (79) brings that some of the sons of King Shaul were given over to the Givoinim to avenge how they were treated. They chose to hang these sons and they were left hanging up from Nissan until Tishrei. How could the Jews allow them to do this if the Torah forbids it? The Ramban answers that this is because they were not hang by Jews.

For Advertising opportunities or to receive a Media Pack please contact: Batsheva.pels@onegshabbos.org.uk

Please could you ensure that there are ample sheets left in shuls for Shabbos before taking one home.

based on the present state of the person. However, in Parshas Ki Seitsei by the rebellious son the judgement is taking place in the Beis Din in this world and then they judge a person based on the projected result of the future.

For questions on Divrei Torah, please contact the Editor in Chief, Rabbi Yonasan Roodyn rabbiroodyn@jewishfuturestrust.com To receive this via email please email mc@markittech.com

This newsletter contains Divei Torah. The Federation Beis Din rule that it should be double wrapped in plastic bags and discarded in the regular bin.

Although great effort is taken to ensure that Shem Hashem is not included, in cases where it inadvertently is included the relevant page requires geniza.

SHEIMOS BANKS ARE LOCATED IN NISHMAS YISROEL, SINAI, YESHURUN & OHR YISRAEL www.federation.org.uk/sheimos-lgeniza