Oneg vayakhel pekudai

OnegShabbos

‫בס"ד‬

North West London's Weekly Torah and Opinion Sheets

‫פרשת ויקהל פקודי‬ ‫ מברכין החודש‬.‫פרשת פרה‬ 14th Mar ‘15 ‫כ"ג אדר תשע”ה‬ To receive this via email or for sponsorship opportunities please email mc@markittech.com Now in London, Hale, Edgware, Borehamwood, Elstree, South Tottenham, Gibraltar, Bet Shemesh, Yerushalayim, Baltimore, New York, Miami, Vienna, Toronto, Johannesburg, Los Angeles, Holland

‫הדלקת נרות‬

‫פ' ויקהל פקודי‬ ‫ל''ח‬-‫ יחזקאל ל''ו ט''ז‬:‫הפטרה‬

London 5.45 pm

‫לע"נ חזן שלמה בן אברהם משה ז"ל‬

‫לע"נ חנה בת אלעזר ע"ה‬

The Torah Shiurim of Rabbi Frand

Rabbi Yissochor Frand

Maagid Shiur, Yeshivas Ner Yisroel, Baltimore

PARSHA

‫מוצש’’ק‬

London: 6.53 pm

A Good Name Is Better Than Good Oil There is an interesting Medrash on the pasuk "See G-d has called by name Betzalel son of Uri son of Chur of the tribe of Yehudah" [Shmos 35:30]. The Medrash references the pasuk in Koheles "A good name is better than good oil" [Koheles 7:1]. The Medrash elaborates that the scent of good oil may precede the oil by a mile or two at most, even if the oil has a very powerful aroma. However, a good name can precede a person even across continents.

The Medrash then asks how far a person must remove himself from contact with the prohibition of Shatnez [the forbidden mixture of wool and linen]. The Medrash answers that even if a person is wearing 99 layers of clothing and none of them are Shatnez, he still may not wear a garment containing Shatnez as the one hundredth layer of clothing.

place on earth (the Mishkan), did not want to be associated with anyone who had anything less than an impeccable reputation.

How does one obtain a good reputation? The Medrash answers this question by introducing the matter of Shatnez. The Medrash is teaching that the way a person acquires a good name is not by merely avoiding evil or sin, but by avoiding even the slightest hint of impropriety. It is not sufficient to merely 'play it by the book'. A person must distance himself to the ultimate extent from anything that even smacks of impropriety.

Shatnez is a peculiar prohibition, in that the two substances involved (wool and linen) are completely permitted when taken individually. Only a combination of the two is prohibited. The Torah is teaching us that a person merits a good name by staying away from Shatnez. Avoiding Shatnez represents staying away from anything that has even a minute mixture of something improper.

Rav Nissan Alpert gives the following interpretation of this Medrash (in his sefer Limudei Nissan):

Those people in our communities who have achieved a good name are people who are above reproach. They have removed themselves from any taint of scandal or impropriety. Impeccable reputations are not achieved by playing it on the edge or bending the rules.

Every time the Torah introduces Betzalel, it uses the following unique expression: "Look, I've called him by this name..." Why does the Torah give Betzalel such an introduction? The Medrash explains that the reason why Betzalel merited to be the master builder of the Mishkan was not because he had master architectural talents or special artistic ability. Betzalel's uniqueness was that he -- for some reason -- merited having a 'good name'. The Medrash then emphasizes how wonderful it is to have a good reputation (shem tov). G-d, in choosing someone to construct his dwelling

We all know that certain people's handshakes are more reliable than other people's signed contracts. The reason why is because the first group of people stay away from 'forbidden mixtures'.

They stay away from the slightest hint of 'non-Kosher' business practices. Ultimately, this is what pays off for them in the long run.

When G-d builds a Mishkan, He does not want it built by a person regarding whom people may have suspicions. He wants a Betzalel -- a person above reproach, who possesses a good name, which is superior to good oil.

What is the connection between distancing oneself from Shatnez and the pasuk that says, "A good name is better than good oil"?

SPONSORED

YOUR WEEKLY LOCAL NEWSPAPER 020 8442 7777 | sub@hamodia.co.uk

?? Quiz Time

Questions & Answers from Ohr Sameach. Answers can be found on back page.

This week's Oneg and its learning is ‫לעילוי נשמת‬

‫רב בנימין יוסף בן גאדל ז"ל‬

1. [Vayakhel] On which day did Moshe assemble the Jewish People?

Rabbi Boruch Boudilovsky

2

Rabbi of Borehamwood and Elstree Synagogue The detail to which the Torah goes into when outlining the construction of the tabernacle is enormous. What makes this extensive elaboration particularly surprising is that the Torah regularly writes succinctly, leaving the broadening of our knowledge to the oral law.

In the case of the tabernacle, however, the Torah repeatedly goes into almost as much detail as possible.

What deepens this enigma is the contrast between the Torah’s depiction of creation to that of the tabernacle. The Torah commits thirty one verses to the creation of “heaven, earth, and their entire array”1. Several dozen verses only are dedicated to the creation of the entire universe, in all its breath-taking beauty and remarkable complexity. However, when describing the design and formation of the tabernacle, a structure which extended to a mere twenty by ten beams, the Torah dedicates over three hundred verses!

To understand the seemingly disproportional devotion of over three hundred verses to the construction of the tabernacle, we need to reflect on the very essence of the Torah.

“R’ Elazar the son of Chanina quoted R’ Acha: For twenty six generations, the letter Alef challenged in front of the thrown of the Holy One, Blessed is He, saying ‘Master of the world, I am the first of the letters and you did not create the world with me!’2 The Holy One, Blessed is He, responded by saying that the entire universe was created in the merit of the Torah… When I will give the Torah at Sinai, I will open with your letter, as it says: ‫'אנכי ה‬ I am Hashem... (Midrash Rabbah Bereishis)” In this midrashik text, our sages are analogically teaching us what the primary objective of the Torah is. The Torah is mainly concerned with the relationship between human and Hashem. This relationship is characterized by a command from Hashem, and a human response of deference, best exemplified in the giving of the Torah at Sinai. The Torah highlights the primary importance of this relationship by reserving the first letter of the alphabet to the opening of the first command at Sinai. The account of creation is secondary in importance.3 Judaism is fundamentally radical in its definition of spirituality. Spirituality, Judaism maintains, is not a product of a subjective emotional feeling but rather the objective discipline of human behaviour. A relationship with Hashem

is not developed by withdrawing into soaring feelings of meditation, but rather by humbly and actively submitting to the will of Hashem. This is precisely the role of Halacha; to provide a detailed context to which we must discipline ourselves. Successful and consistent submission to Halacha is what Judaism accepts as spirituality. This idea is beautifully expressed in the following words:4 “Cathartic redemptiveness… cannot be attained through man’s acquisition of control of his environment, but through man’s exercise of control over himself. A redeemed life is a disciplined life. Redemption is achieved when humble man makes a movement of recoil, and lets himself be confronted and defeated by a higher and truer Being… This unique message speaks of defeat instead of success, of accepting a higher will instead of commanding, of giving instead of conquering, of retreating instead of advancing…”5 The tabernacle was designed to be a place of service to Hashem. Consistent with the Jewish idea of spirituality, the tabernacle did not offer people a place where they could cathartically meditate on their own terms and decide for themselves what makes them feel close to Hashem. Rather, the tabernacle, in its construction and subsequent service, was a place which imposed requirements upon man. Only by obediently performing the detailed tasks dictated by Hashem, and on Hashem’s terms only, does man serve Hashem. This is why the Torah dedicates over three hundred verses in the book of redemption to the tabernacle. The Torah is teaching us that we serve Hashem by routinely disciplining ourselves to detailed ritual.

In the absence of the tabernacle we still continue to serve Hashem, as before, in our submission to ritual. This is what our sages meant when they said:

‫מיום שחרב בית המקדש אין לו להקב"ה בעולמו אלא‬ ).‫ארבע אמות של הלכה בלבד (תלמוד בבלי ברכות ח‬ Since the day that the Temple was destroyed, the Holy One, Blessed is He, has nothing in His world but the four amos of Halacha.6 1 )‫א‬:‫ ְצ ָב ָאם (בראשית ב‬-‫וַ יְכֻ ּלּו ַה ָּשׁ ַמיִם וְ ָה ָא ֶרץ וְ כָ ל‬ 2 A reference to the opening of the story of creation with the letter )..‫ (בראשית ברא‬,‫ב‬.

3 This understanding of the Midrash is based on the classic commentary of Rav Zev Wolf Einhorn Zt”l from Grodno and later Vilna. ")‫ ואתה מתוקן לדבר יותר גדול מאשר זכה הב' " (פירוש מהרז"ו‬,‫וא"כ נתינת התורה עיקר וחשוב יותר מבריאת העולם‬ 4 These words might also explain why the details of the construction of the tabernacle take a huge percentage of the book of Exodus which our sages have termed the “Book of Redemption”.

5 Excerpts from the writings of Rav Soloveitchik Zt”l 6 This suggests that the detailed ritual which we are currently familiar with in the context of Halacha, is paralleled in the context of the tabernacle. With the destruction of the Temple, our obedient attention to prescriptive details was limited to daily halachik ritual.

Oneg Shabbos is looking for 10 individual sponsors to cover the costs of production until Rosh Hashana (29 weeks) ONEG PATRONS/SPONSORS: £1480 Please email mc@markittech.com for further details

?? Quiz Time

Questions & Answers from Ohr Sameach. Answers can be found on back page.

2. [Vayakhel] Why is the prohibition against doing work on Shabbat written prior to the instruction for building the Mishkan?

PARSHA

The Four Amos of Halacha

‫קהלה קדושה‬ ‫חברת‬ ‫בני ישראל‬

Rabbi Josh Bennet

3

Commercial Development Manager, KF Kosher From time immemorial, religious Jews have

Chaim 173”. On the spot, however, the Darkei Moshe

been extremely careful about not mixing fish

(by R’ Moshe Isserles) says that R’ Yosef Karo must

and meat. The source for this is not in the Torah itself. Rather, it is considered dangerous, to the point that it can cause tsora’as. There is also a halachic principle of chamira sakanta me’issura, danger is more severe than prohibition, which according to some poskim means that although certain issurim

have mixed up milk and meat! (And yes, he does seem to intend the play on words). He insists that we have never heard of such a problem. This would imply that the Rema had never seen the commentary of Rabbeinu Bachye on Parshas Mishpotim. There, on the posuk of

‫לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו‬, he states that it is dangerous to cook fish and cheese together.

Of course, this all really begs the question of why

are botul in mixtures,that would not apply

didn’t R’ Yosef Karo bring down this halocho in the

to dangers like fish and meat. In addition to

Shulchan Aruch? In fact, he makes it quite clear that it

the obvious applications this has, one lesser

is permitted to cook fish and milk together!

known problem is the use of Worcestershire

The answer may lie in the severity of the danger

Sauce, which usually contains anchovies, in

caused by fish and milk. Although it is generally

meaty dishes. Certain hechsherim do not insist

accepted that there is a danger of tzora’as caused by

on indicating that the product contains fish if it is less than one sixtieth of the product. If one is machmir that fish isn’t botul, although the basic halocho is that one can be meikel, one would need to check the ingredients listing to check for fish content. As a matter of policy, the

the consumption of meat and fish (although the Mogen Avrohom, amongst others, suggests that this may no longer be true), the danger caused by milk and fish may have never been so severe to require it to be codified in halocho, and it may just be a matter of avoiding unhealthy foods. In fact, as one can perhaps infer from Rabbeinu Bachye (as pointed out by the Aruch

Federation would insist that a Worcestershire

Hashulchan), the problem may be limited to only fish

Sauce with even a tiny amount of anchovies

and cheese, and not actual milk.

should indicate that it contains fish.

Somewhat less well known, and unfortunately sometimes ridiculed, is a custom to not mix fish and milk. An oversimplification of this minhag is that it applies to Sephardim and not Ashkenazim, however, as we shall see, it may not be so simple.

FEDERATION

Fish And Milk Do They Go Together?

As to how one should conduct one’s self, although it is clear that the Rema, Shach, Taz and the majority of the Ashkenazi poskim held this not to be a problem, and as we have seen, it isn’t even mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch, a number of poskim, including the Levush and the Pri Megadim, hold that one should be machmir. Additionally, R’ Ovadiah Yosef in his sefer

The first occasion most people will see this brought

Yechaveh Da’as makes it clear that Sephardim should

tends to be in the Beis Yosef, the commentary on the

be machmir, although he holds that there is no need for

Tur by R’ Yosef Karo. In Yoreh Deiah 87-3, he wrotes

Ashkenazim to be. So the next time you see someone

that “one should not eat fish and milk together because

avoiding a salmon and cream cheese bagel, or an

of the danger involved, as it is explained in Orach

anchovy pizza, the reason might not be so fishy after all.

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

Questions & Answers from Ohr Sameach. Answers can be found on back page.

‫קהלה קדושה‬ ‫חברת‬ ‫בני ישראל‬

groups/askthefederation

3. [Vayakhel] Why does the Torah specify the particular prohibition of lighting a fire on Shabbat right after it had already noted the general prohibition of doing work on Shabbat?

Rabbi Zvi Teichman 4

Congregation Ohel Moshe, Baltimore, MD

Family Portrait The many vessels in the ‫משכן‬, the Tabernacle, were devised from the collective donations of gold, silver, copper and other material’s necessary in the construction of them. The identity of the various sectors that each type of material came from became submerged into one collective unidentifiable contribution. There was one exception however, the ‫כיור‬, the copper Laver that was used by the ‫כהנים‬, Priests, to wash their hands and feet prior to their service. The copper used here in the fashioning of this Laver, was "donor directed” by the women who came en masse to Moshe to present their coveted highly polished copper “mirrors” for this purpose. ‫ויעש את הכיור נחושת ואת כנו נחושת במראות הצבאת אשר צבאו פתח אהל‬

)‫ח‬,‫מועד (שמות לח‬, He made the Laver of copper, from the mirrors of the legions who massed at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

The ‫ אבן עזרא‬claims that not only were these specifically used for this purpose, but every single mirror donated by these women were incorporated into this vessel. It is for this reason that no exact dimensions are prescribed for the ‫ כיור‬so as to allow them to implement each mirror into the construction of the Laver!

‫ רש"י‬quotes the ‫ מדרש תנחומא‬which describes a fascinating debate

between Hashem and Moshe regarding the propriety of accepting these mirrors: The daughters of Israel had mirrors in which they looked to adorn themselves; these, too, they did not refrain from donating to the making of the Mishkan. Moshe disdained these mirrors, since their purpose is to serve the evil inclination. Said Hashem to him: Accept them, for these are more beloved to Me than everything else: through these, the women begot legions of children in Egypt. When their men were exhausted by hard labor, they would go and bring them food and drink and feed them. They would take along the mirrors, and each would look at herself in the mirror together with her husband and entice him, saying, "Look, I'm more beautiful than you," thus awakening desire in her husband and cohabiting with him and conceiving and giving birth there, as it is written (Song of Songs 8:5), "Under the apple tree I roused you."

Why was Moshe so hesitant? Didn’t he realize the sacrifice and risks these women undertook under such dire and impossible circumstances to bear these children?

Rashi’s reading of the Midrash indicates that the women sought to direct their despondent husbands attention away from their personal plight and focus on their wives beauty in restoring them to the hope for a family life with children, “look I am more beautiful than you”.

The Midrash however gives a more elaborate account of the husband and wife’s dialogue:

‫זאת אומרת אני נאה ממך וזה אומר אני נאה ממך ומתוך כך היו מרגילין עצמן‬ ‫ לידי תאוה ופרין ורבין והקב"ה פוקדן לאלתר‬, She would say “I am more

beautiful than you”, and he (would respond) and say “I am more beautiful than you”, and through this they would arouse a desire to have children and Hashem would grant them their wish immediately.

Apparently it wasn’t merely a tactic to distract her husband but rather a “argument”! What was the husband’s notion that he was “more beautiful”, wasn’t he beaten, dejected and downtrodden and certainly not a fine healthy specimen of beauty?

Have you ever lingered lovingly on a family portrait? You see yourself together with parents and children. You realize how beautiful you look because of the magnificent context you are fortunate to be a part of. Remove everyone from the picture and suddenly you don’t look as good or radiant anymore!

A healthy sense of self is critical for success in life. Our qualities and talents fuel our ambitions and hopes. But one must realize it is a privilege that is given to us to utilize for others. In a relationship, conveying the sense that “I am worthy” because of my partner, and without him or her I have no meaning, is the foundation for a true and lasting bond of love. "‫"אני נאה ממך‬, is a double entendre. It can on a literal level simply mean, “I am more beautiful than you”, or more deeply it can express “I am beautiful because of you”, ‫ממך‬, from you!

When each one conveys the sense that the other gives the context for a meaningful “self” that is where love resides.

On the one hand each is asserting ‫אני נאה‬, I am beautiful, I have qualities that project my essence, but more importantly it is the "‫"ממך‬, “from you”, the assertion that it is my involvement with my spouse, friend, or family member and my appreciation of what they contribute to that identity that gives value to those traits.

With mirrors in hand reflecting their men with them, these wonderful women created the first “family portrait”.

The women instilled within their husbands a new sense of self, making them feel uplifted by their significance in the eyes of their wives. In turn the husbands then attributed their self-worth to the wives who they cherished as their valuable partners in a escalating cycle of mutual respect, giving their wives ever greater impetus to continue their noble mission. )‫ח‬,‫ועשו לי מקדש (שם כח‬, and you shall make for Me a Sanctuary.

We derive from here that it must be built with an infusion of ‫לשמה‬, purely motivated intentions. Moshe was concerned that although the women dedicated themselves to the noble task of bearing children under duress, nevertheless there was a introduction of an aspect of “self” in the pleasure one receives in the course of the relationship that might taint the purity of "‫"לשמה‬. Hashem teaches Moshe that there is no contradiction, The greatest "‫ "לשמה‬is when one uses that sense of self in creating a bond of purpose and commitment towards others, and therein lies the secret to true ‫אהבה‬, love.

May we take a good long look at our own “family portraits”, familial, communal and universal and instill a love in one another in the tradition of our great ancestors.

Oneg Shabbos is looking for 10 individual sponsors to cover the costs of production until Rosh Hashana (29 weeks) ONEG PATRONS/SPONSORS: £1480 Please email mc@markittech.com for further details

?? Quiz Time

Questions & Answers from Ohr Sameach. Answers can be found on back page.

4. [Vayakhel] What function did the “yitdot hamishkan” serve?

PARSHA

Eretz HaTzvi

HALACHA

The Weekly Halachic Conversation

Rabbi Avi Wiesenfeld

Rosh Kollel, Yerushalayim and Rav at Kav Halacha Beis Horaah

5

Can’t Wait For Shabbos To End… Chazal prohibited doing any action on shabbos in preparation for a weekday. This is called Hachanah. This means that if one does something on shabbos that will not be benefitted from on shabbos itself, it is an act of preparation, and is forbidden.

HALACHA KOLLEL

looking for Dedication / Sponsor!!

Special Opportunity.

Call 0203-734-8365

There are two reasons given by the poskim as to why hachanah is forbidden on shabbos: •

Exertion on shabbos for a weekday.1

MAKING THE BEDS – TIDYING THE HOUSE

•

It is a disgrace to the shabbos to prepare for after shabbos. 2

Usually, making one’s bed is a problem of hachanah. There are, however, two situations that deem it permissible:

Asking a non-Jew to perform an act of hachanah on one’s behalf is also forbidden.3 Consequently:

ÂÂ One may not prepare food on shabbos for melava malka. ÂÂ One may not tidy a room or table for preparation for a meal/meeting on motzoi shabbos.

ÂÂ One may not prepare children’s clothing on shabbos for Sunday morning. ÂÂ One may not tidy up the toys on shabbos to save time motzoi shabbos.

WASHING DISHES If one knows that he will need the dishes on shabbos itself, (e.g., washing up after Friday night meal for the next day or shabbos lunch for seudo shelishis,) they may be washed. If they will no longer be used that shabbos, it is forbidden to wash them.

Even if one is not 100% sure the dishes being washed will be needed, as long as there is a good chance they will be needed, they may be washed.4

1.

If one is not making the bed to prepare it for the next time he sleeps, rather he is making it so the room looks more presentable.8

2.

If the bed is in a place in the house that is used (e.g., the lounge, playroom), making the bed is needed for shabbos itself and is permitted.9

According to some poskim, making one’s bed is never a problem of hachanah and may be done in any situation.10 This is because beds used to have to be made in order to sleep in again. However, making one’s bed nowadays is not done with this in mind, rather, it is simply being done for beauty. Therefore, it is not considered preparing for after shabbos and is always permitted.

Q. Does “making ones house look nicer” apply to any other situations?

A. Yes. One may do other things for the same reason: •

One may wash the dishes if the mess really irritates them and they would like the sink/kitchen clean. [Please be careful with this one; I once was shouted at by a woman who was upset at me giving this leniency to her daughter! It has to be that it really bothers one to see them dirty, not to save time doing it Motzoi Shabbos!]

•

One may clean a table after seudo shelishis or a room that is messy if it bothers him, even though it is not really necessary to be done until after shabbos. Since one would like the table/area clean now, this is considered a shabbos need and not preparation.11

[When washing up on shabbos, one should be aware of the following prohibitions: 1) Using the hot water (Bishul), 2) Using sponges or steel wool (Sechita).]

Q. If one has other clean dishes that are available, may the dirty dishes be washed up?

A. Yes (provided these ones will be used on shabbos). This is because hachanah is prohibited since one is exerting oneself on shabbos for a weekday. Since the dishes will be used on shabbos, this is not an exertion for a weekday.5

Q. If one only requires one utensil, may all of them be washed?

A. Yes. This is because, since he needs one utensil, each utensil he is washing now could be the one he will use. Thus, he is washing all of them for shabbos itself, even if he knows he will only use one of them.6

However, this is only true if one will be staying (or walking) in the room/area that he is cleaning now (i.e. one will benefit from the cleaning he did on shabbos itself).

But if one is leaving the house now, or will not be walking in this room again, it may not be cleaned/washed, since this is a true example of preparing for after shabbos.

PREVENTING A LOSS If one does something that is not an act of direct preparation, rather, it is being done simply to save it from getting ruined, lost etc. even if it is not needed on shabbos itself, it is permitted.12 For example:

DISHWASHER Q. May one place dishes in a dishwasher on shabbos?

•

A. Yes. Provided that one normally would leave utensils in the dishwasher until needed, the dishwasher is considered as a cupboard and is not considered as if one is preparing for after shabbos.7 One should be careful not to sort them out, so as not to transgress the prohibition of borer.

Chairs that were left in the garden may be brought inside to protect them from the rain, even if they are not needed on shabbos.

•

One may put the ice cream or leftover challah/cake back in the freezer to prevent it from melting/becoming stale.

ÂÂ Remember that a door of a dishwasher is actually muktzah, so while it may be opened in order to allow dishes to be placed inside, it may only be closed if it is in the way, or if children may take the knives from inside. ‫ ועי' רמב"ם פכ"ג ה"ז שכתב שהכנה אסור משום‬.‫ ערוה"ש שם ס"ז‬,‫ מ"ב שכג ס"ק כח‬,‫ ד"ה אסור‬:‫ רש"י שם קיד‬1 .)‫מתקן (מכה בפטיש‬ .‫ שש"כ פכ"ה ס"ע‬,‫ שו"ת מחזה אליהו סי' סב ס"ק ג‬,‫ עי' סי' תטז ס"ב‬2 .‫ מ"ב שם ס"ק סב‬,‫ גר"ז סי' שיט סעי' יח‬,‫ מג"א סי' שכא ס"ק ז‬3 '‫ אך בתו"ה ח"א סי' רכג כ‬.‫ ערוה"ש סי' שכג ס"ט‬,‫ פרמ"ג שם‬,‫ א"ר סי' שב ו‬,‫ לחם משנה טו ג‬,‫ מג"א סי' שכג ס"ט‬4 .‫שטוב להחמיר אם השתמשות אינו ברור או מצוי‬ ‫ הגר"י‬,‫ שו"ת אבן ישראל ח"ח סי' לב‬,‫ שו"ת משנה הלכות ח"ג סי' מ‬,‫ אג"מ הובא בקובץ קול תורה חוברת נד עמ' יח‬5 .‫ שו"ת באר משה ח"ו‬:‫ ויש מחמירים בזה‬.‫ שו"ת מחזה אליהו סי' סב ס"ק ג‬,‫קמנצקי באמת ליעקב סי' שכג ו‬ .‫ גר"ז ס"ק ז‬,‫ ערוה"ש ס"ק ז‬,‫ מ"ב ס"ק כו‬,‫ פרמ"ג שם‬,‫ מג"א סי' שכג ס"ק ח‬,‫ רוקח נה‬,‫ תוספתא סוף פרק יג‬6 .‫ שו"ת מחזה אליהו סי' ס‬,‫ אג"מ ח"ד סי' עד בסוף‬7

Shabbos should be a day of supreme simchah. Hashem told Moshe Rabbbeinu, “I have a special gift in my treasury for My children. It is called Shabbos.” If we give Shabbos the proper kavod, we will merit the beracha cited in the Ribbon Kol Ha’olamim prayer before Kiddush: “May we merit to receive Shabbos amid abundant gladness, amid wealth and honor, and amid a dearth of sins.”

.‫מ"ב שם‬ .‫ שו"ת מהרש"ג ח"א סי' סא‬,‫ כה"ח סי' שב ס"ק כג‬,‫ קצוה"ש סי' קיז ס"ג‬,‫ ערוה"ש ס"ק יג‬,‫ גר"ז ס"ק י‬,‫מג"א שם ס"ק ו‬ .‫ שש"כ פכ"ח הע' קפב‬,‫ קצוה"ש סי' קיז ס"ט‬,‫גנזי חיים סי' שב ס"ד‬ .‫ שו"ת צי"א חי"ד סי' לז ס"ק ד‬,‫שו"ת מהרש"ג ח"א סי' סא ד"ה ואשיבהו‬ .‫ שו"ת מחזה אליהו סי' נד‬,‫ מ"ב סי' רנד ס"ק מג‬,‫א"ר סי' רנד ס"ק יח‬

SPONSORED

SPONSORED

In deep appreciation to the individual who takes time out of his busy schedule to compile this amazing Dvar Torah compendium.

To donate to the Oneg Shabbos

HKB'H Yishalem Sechorom.

?? Quiz Time

Questions & Answers from Ohr Sameach. Answers can be found on back page.

8 9 10 11 1 2

BACS Payments to BARCLAYS BANK PLC Account Number: 70598097 | Sort Code: 209561 Thank you

5. [Pekudei] Why is the word Mishkan stated twice in verse 38:21?

6

book cov

katz meyer

Mar14 COVER

SPREADS

v10.indd

1

11/04/2014

16:18

HALACHA CHARITY

tzedakah

‫פתוח תפתח‬

Excerpts from the sefer Easy Giving / ‫( פתח תפתח את ידך‬which includes extensive notes and comprehensive halachic sources), authored by Eli Katz and Emanuel Meyer and available from seforim shops in NW London.

Easy Givin g – ‫את ידך‬

A Practical Guide to the Halochos of Communal Obligations, Mitzvas Tzedokoh and Ma’aser Kesofim

Previously, we identified the source and the obligation of every member of every community to support the essential communal infrastructure and also the strength of this obligation. We further clarified what types of communal organisations are considered essential and that the obligation to support them has precedence over the mitzvah of tzedokah and minhag of ma’aser kesofim. Finally we explained how the personal obligations are calculated, with some modern day examples and also proposed a method of a pro-rota calculation for NW London. We then provided details on the obligation to build, maintain and support schools.

Section A – Communal Obligations Chapter 3 - The Personal and Communal Obligations to Support a School and a Mikvah B. MIKVAHS. 1. One of the communal obligations is to build a mikvah, see an earlier article chapter 1:B. 2. The community should be aware of the severe prohibitions involved and ensure that there is not even a delay of one day for anyone who wishes to use the mikvah.

3. When additional mikvah capacity is deemed necessary by a majority of the city, then the obligation to fund the new mikvah applies to every member of the entire community, even to the minority who may disagree.

4. A mikvah should be built to the highest aesthetic standards as regards cleanliness and hygiene etc. It should be situated in a convenient location, in order to encourage attendance by as wide a group as possible.

C. RELATIVE PRECEDENCE. 1. Generally providing funds for a new school has precedence over a mikvah (assuming there is a mikvah within at least driveable distance), which in turn has precedence over a shul.

2. The local rabbonim should provide the necessary guidance regarding priority, taking into account the circumstances at the time.

Chapter 4 - Essential Communal Infrastructure in North-West London as of April 2014 SCHOOLS. 1. The total financial shortfall among North-West London schools today, is approximately £7,000,000 per annum. Please see a future article (Chapter 5), for details of a proposed North-West London Schools Takonoh.

MIKVAHS. 1. Currently in North-West London due to capacity restraints, especially in the summer, there are women who have to wait until 1.00am or later before they are able to use the Mikvah. Due to the lateness of the hour, some ladies leave prior to teviloh.

Consequently, there is a significant need for an additional mikvah.

2. The total amount outstanding (February 2014) on the capital building projects for existing, or soon to be completed, NorthWest London mikvahs is approximately £750,000 for the NW11/ NW4 communal mikvah, and £750,000 for the Woodstock Avenue mikvah – a total of £1,500,000. It should be noted that this is a one-off capital expenditure. The ongoing operational costs are mostly funded by the charges levied on the users, although there is a shortfall , which is usually funded by annual appeals.

3. Due to ongoing growth of the North-West London community, it is understood that a number of new mikvahs (Raleigh Close, Shirehall, North Hendon Adass etc.) are being planned. Therefore, we envisage that for the next few years there will be an ongoing requirement for the community to fund these capital building projects.

WELFARE INSTITUTIONS. 1. The principal communal institutions that focus on North-West London aniyim include:

b. Keren Shabbos (chickens for Shabbos), which has a budget (2013) of £240,000. c. Tsaido Labayis (food for the poor), which has a budget (2013) of £65,000. d. GIFT (welfare for the poor) which has a budget (2013) of £300,000.

2. In addition, there are local shul organised welfare funds (such as GGBH, Hendon Adass, Sadigur etc.) which require a further estimated £500,000 per annum or more.

3. At this stage, there is not yet a proposed takonoh to address the community’s welfare requirements, since a combination of the weekly shul collections for WST and the usual fund-raising activities by all the welfare funds are just about, addressing their current needs.

4. The total for the communal welfare institutions, as listed above is £2.5M, as at 2013. However, based on more recent information (2015), the authors believe that the total NW London welfare requirements are unfortunately closer to £3M. Therefore it is strongly encouraged for everybody to provide additional support (eg 20% more than their usual practice) to accommodate this extra growth in demand.

SHULS. 1. In general, there is plenty of capacity available today in NorthWest London, and therefore the establishment and costs incurred in setting up a new shul could not be considered an essential communal obligation.

a. Woodstock Sinclair Trust (WST), which has a budget (2013) of £1,400,000.

?? Quiz Time

Questions & Answers from Ohr Sameach. Answers can be found on back page.

6. [Pekudei] Why is the Mishkan called the “Mishkan of Testimony”?

To Be Continued ..

Headed by Rabbi Yehoshua Frickers This week: R' Alex Nadler Kollel Halocho Berura is an evening chabura of Baale Battim in Golders Green, learning ‫ הלכה‬from the ‫ מקורות‬to ‫למעשה‬. We are ‫ בס”ד‬currently finishing ‫הל’ בשר וחלב‬ and thank Oneg Shabbos for this opportunity to share what we are learning with you.

7

HALACHA HALACHA PARSHA KASHRUT

‫כולל הלכה ברורה‬

Drops on Pots This is an overview of two common kitchen ‫שאלות‬, for a psak consult a competent halachic authority.

Q. Reuven whilst cooking a milky porridge on the stove is frying a burger next to it, a drop from the burger splashed onto the outside walls of the milky pot.

May one eat the porridge, and what is the status the pot?

The ‫ מחבר‬makes a distinction as to whether it fell; In line with the food cooking inside - ‫כנגד הרוטב‬, or

•

Above the level of the food inside - ‫כנגד הריקן‬

ÂÂ The Porridge - Normally the contents will have ‫ ששים‬against the drop and therefore will be sufficient to be ‫ מבטל‬the drop.

Consequently, the porridge is ‫ מותר‬but must he poured out immediately.5

ÂÂ The Pot - Is ‫אסור‬ and requires kashering.

A. The ‫ מקור‬to answer this ‫ שאלה‬can be found in ‫שו"ע יו"ד סימן צ״ב סעיף‬ ‫ ז‬-'‫'ה‬.

•

IF THE DROP FELL IN LINE WITH THE CONTENTS ‫נגד הרוטב‬

IF THE DROP FALLS ABOVE THE LINE OF THE FOOD - ‫נגד הריקן‬

ÂÂ The Porridge - If one cooked a full pot of porridge for first shift of breakfast and then soon after cooked only half a pot, the splash of burger that fell on the top half will 'contaminate' up to ‫ששים‬.

Even though the food is not in contact with that spot and hence should not be affected by it, ‫ לכתחילה‬the food is still ‫אסור‬.6 Consequently, if the porridge does not have 3.66 litres it will be

‫כנגד הרוטב‬

‫אסור‬.

The drop will simply penetrate through the walls of the pot and into the food.

However, if one cooked today only half a pot since there will likely be 60 times the drop, the porridge will be ‫מותר‬.

ÂÂ The Food – If there is 60 times the drop it is ‫ בשישים בטל‬and the

ÂÂ The Pot - The pot is ‫ אסור‬and requires kashering.

food is permitted. If not, it is ‫אסור‬.

ÂÂ The Pot – In all cases the pot is ‫ אסור‬because of the ‫ חשש‬that some of the drop will remain in the walls of the pot and will be released the next time one cooks porridge.1

‫כנגד הריקן‬ However, if the drop falls above the level of the food then it will not (necessarily) penetrate into the contents below and in that way be ‫בטל‬.

Rather, the drop of meat once absorbed in the walls spreads and combines together with the pre-existing ‫ בליעות‬of milk already there, making ‫אסור‬ ‘contaminating’ that area. 2 The total amount of ‫ איסור‬created is 60.9 times the volume of the drop.

For example - if the drop is 1ml the ‫ איסור‬created is 60.9 ml.

The ‫ רמ״א‬adds that this ‫׳‬contamination' only occurs if the pot was used for milk within the last 24 hours (ie. ‫ )בן יומו‬in the area of the splash.

If not, it will not create an issur ‫בשר בחלב‬.3

Q. Shimon is cooking a vegetable soup in a parev pot and whilst frying a burger next to it a splash from the burger lands on the outside of this parev pot.

Is the pot still parev so that one may cook parev food (spaghetti) that will be eaten with cheese?

Although clearly no ‫ איסור‬was created, perhaps ‫ בליעות‬of meat remain in the walls and may be discharged during next cooking. This occuring may prevent one from being allowed to cook spaghetti to eat with cheese.7 A. The 8‫ חכמת אדם‬mentions several ‫ סברות‬to support the idea that the pot remains parev; •

A drop remaining in the wall may not be released into the pot during a future cooking.9

•

Subsequent cooking would typically contain enough to be ‫מבטל‬ the drop.10

•

After 24 hours the drop is ‫ פגום‬and as such allows for a greater degree of leniency.

Accordingly;

ÂÂ The Food - Since the area of 'contamination' is 60 times the drop, one requires ‫ ששים‬against that amount. This amounts to 60 x 60.9 = 3,660 times the drop.4 For example if the drop of meat is 1ml, one requires 3.66 litres in the food to be ‫ מבטל‬the ‫איסור‬.

If the area of the drop is not ‫ בן יומו‬then 60 times the drop will suffice.

ÂÂ The Pot - The pot is ‫אסור‬.

We are now well equipped to answer our ‫שאלה‬.

1 2 3 4

‫רמ"א סעיף ו "ואז הקדירה הוי אסורה" וש"ך בס"ק כז דחיישינן שמא לא פעפע הכל לפנים‬ ‫'מחבר סעי' ה‬ ‫רמ"א סעיף ה' לגבי כלי חדשה‬ ‫ "ס פעמים ס"א פחות מעט‬-‫"ש"ך ס"ק כ‬

HELPLINE 020www.shemakolihelpline.org 3670 1818 info@shemakolihelpline.org

One may further add; •

The concern (footnote 1) that some of the drop remains in the walls, may only apply to ‫ – חרס‬earthenware – and not to metal pots.11

In conclusion: The pot may well remain parev and after 24 hrs be used for the spaghetti.

5 ‫'רמ"א סעי' ו‬ 6 ‫'מחבר סעי' ו‬ 7 Based on ‫הל' נ"ט בר נ"ט סי' צ"ה‬. See Oneg Shabbos ‫ פ' תצוה‬by R’ Shloime Aisenthal 8 ‫כלל מ"ה בבינת אדם סע"ק מ"א‬ 9 Perhaps based on ‫ חזו"א יו"ד סי' י"ז סע"ק ו‬.‫ 'ט"ז סע"ק י"ז‬follows the ‫ט"ז‬.

10 ‫ סוף סי' צ"ט‬.‫כלי שמשתמשים בו בשפע‬ 11 ‫ל"א וע' חזו"א הנ"ל דכ' דמועיל הבישול כהגעלה על פי משמעות הביאור הגר"א סע"ק‬

SPONSORED

HELPLINE HOURS

Giving a voice to victims of abuse

Sunday 6.00-8.30pm Monday 3.00-5.30pm Tuesday 11.00am-1.30pm Thursday 11.00am-1.30pm

Endorsed by leading UK Rabbonim

Rabbi Aubrey Hersh

8

Senior lecturer & European Heritage tour guide : JLE

Rabbi Yoel Sirkes - ‫הב"ח‬ In common with many Gedolim of the time, little is known about his personal life beyond that which is mentioned in his teshuvos, and although his yahrzeit is known to be on the 20th Adar, the year itself is somewhat of a mystery.

His kever has two (almost identical) matzevos, neither being the original.

The newest - which was made in the 1950s - gives the year as 1640, whereas the one made in the 18th century records it as 1641 and since his last teshuva was written in 1638, the question remains unresolved. The mazteva also lists the 8 towns in which he was Rov, including Belz, Brisk & last of all Krakow, where he lived from 1619 until his petirah.

The 16th century was also the era when kabbala began to be taught more publicly. The Bach was a strong defender of kabbala (quoting the Zohar frequently and calling it the Mekor Hatorah), nevertheless he made it clear in situations where kabbala and Halacha conflict, that Halacha was the final word. ‫אין לנו לנהוג על דרך הקבלה כל‬

‫שהוא נגד מסקנת התלמוד‬ He wrote a pirush on Rabbi Moshe Cordervero’s kabbalistic sefer Pardess Rimonim and one on megillas rus, but he is best known for two other works. The first being his teshuvos - most of which were written during his years in Krakow, where he achieved a measure of menucha that had eluded him in his other rabbinates – which were first printed many years after he died: the Shu’t Bach Yeshonos in the 1690s and the Shu’t Bach Chadoshos almost 150 years later.

His second well known sefer is his notes on all 4 chalokim of the Tur, which are printed alongside the Tur itself. It was called Bayis Chadash and is referred to by the acronym Bach.

There are also a number of specific halachic decisions that he is famous for. His leniency with regards to Chodosh, where he paskened that all grain in Chutz L’Aretz grown by a non-Jew was not subject to the restrictions of Chodosh, was opposed by many poskim, including his son-in-law the Taz, as well as the Shach, the Shulchan Aruch & the Meginei Shlomo. The Bach stood firm however, and wrote that anyone who wanted to be machmir in this area, should do so for themselves only.

He also changed the method of mechiras chometz.

Whereas Jews had been selling chometz in the times of the Rishonim, it had required the removal of all chometz from the person’s residence. Changing circumstances in Poland made this almost impossible, since Jews ran inns across the kingdom ‫(שרוב משא ומתן ביין שרף וא"א למוכרם לגוי‬

)‫מחוץ לבית‬

‫ שנת ת‬or ‫?שנת תא‬ He was born in Lublin in 1561, at a time when Poland & Lithuania had united, which thereby created the largest Jewish community in existence. Seforim were being printed there for the first time, particularly in Krakow and Lublin, and both towns took on a more important role after 1553, when Pope Julius III banned any printing of Shas in Italy. This accounts for the Bach’s efforts in writing the Hagaos HaBach, which deals with errors in the text of the Gemora, Rashi and Tosfos. Many of these mistakes occurred because the copyists and printers were unlearned or even non-Jewish. His research was made somewhat easier by the fact that he possessed a large library of both seforim and manuscripts, which was quite unusual at the time.

He therefore allowed the room in which the chometz was located, to be sold to a non-Jew, a decision which both the Taz and the Magen Avraham agreed with, and which is familiar to us today.

Possibly the greatest change in psak Halacha though, was the creation of the Shulchan Aruch in 1569, and although many gedolim were advocates for it, it had vocal critics such as the Maharashal and the Levush. The Bach himself wrote that one would not be allowed to pasken Halacha based purely on knowledge of the Shulchan Aruch ‫ ומי שלא רגיל בלימוד הגמ א"א לו להורות‬,‫(א"א לפסוק מהשו"ע‬ )‫ הוראה נכונה‬and this came to the fore in one of his longest teshuvos, when he argues against the chazzan of his shul in Krakow, who was not proficient in Gemora, yet would pasken nonetheless.

??

QUIZ TIME ANSWERS

VAYAKHEL 1. 35:1 The after Yom Kippur.

ONEG PATRONS/SPONSORS: £1480

day

2. 35:2 - To emphasize that the building of the Mishkan doesn't supersede the laws of Shabbat.

3. 35:3 - There are two opinions: One opinion is to teach that igniting a fire on Shabbat is punishable by lashes as opposed to other "melachot" which are punishable by death.

The other opinion is to teach that violation of numerous "melachot" at one time requires a separate atonement for each violation.

4. 35:18 - The edges of the curtains were fastened to them. These were inserted in the ground so the curtains would not move in the wind.

PEKUDEI

5. 38:21 - To allude to the Beit Hamikdash that would twice be taken as a "mashkon" (pledge) for the sins of the Jewish People until the nation repents.

6. 38:21 - It was testimony for the Jewish People that G-d forgave them for the golden calf and allowed His Shechina to dwell among them.

Oneg Shabbos is looking for 10 individual sponsors to cover the costs of production until Rosh Hashana (29 weeks) Please email mc@markittech.com for further details

HISTORY

Views from History A Seven Part Series