Special Features MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE The Mishna in Brachot states that if a person says in prayer "May G-d have mercy on us like he shows the mother bird in the mitzva of SHILU'ACH HA'KEN", we should silence him. He must not say that. The standard explanation of this teaching, is that mitzvot are to be observed because they are Divine Commands, not for anybenefits which might come along with their fulfillment. This can be said of any mitzva. In this case, the statement implies that the reason for the mitzva is mercy on the mother bird - maybe there is a kindness performed, maybe there is not. That is irrelevant to the main reason for keeping mitzvot - they are the decreesof the King. On further reflection, another idea emerges. In this same sedra of Ki Teitzei we find several mitzvot that form the basis of "kindness to animals". Not muzzling an animal when it is working with food, not harnessing together two incompatible animals, helping someone load and unload a beast of burden - these mitzvot areall seen as G-d's way of teaching us and sensitizing us to treat animals kindly. Would it be objectionable for one to pray that G-d show us kindness as He has taught us towards the animals via these mitzvot? Perhaps not. SHILUACH HAKAN is different. It is far too simple to suggest that it is in the same category as the other mitzvot just mentioned. Yes, some commentaries include this mitzva among the many inputs into "Kindness to animals". But there are too many facets of SHILUACH HAKAN that point to something beyond our complete understanding.Kindness to animals is required for all animals, kosher or non-kosher. So it is with the prohibitions of muzzling, harnessing, etc. Not so here. The mitzva applies only to kosher birds. Only to females. Only ones found on the road, not ones owned by the person. There is something so complex about this mitzva that it has CHOK-like features and we are warned by the Mishna not to oversimplify it. Not being a mitzva with a non-kosher bird, does that mean that we may take the mother bird with the eggs, or does it mean that we may not even chase away the mother bird and take the eggs, because without a mitzva requiring such an act, perhaps it is an act of cruelty. It is not simple. While no mitzva is "simple", whilewe do not know all of G-d's reasons for any mitzva, some are easier for us to work out, straightforward enough for us to "be on safe ground" when we assume (presume?) to understand why G-d gave us these commandments. SHAATNEZ Shaatnez is a prime example of a CHOK, those mitzvot for which reasons are not apparent, those mitzvot that we do purely because we are commanded. However, some see a symbolic reminder in the mitzva of Shaatnez to the first, terrible clash between brothers, that resulted in Kayin killing Hevel. Kayin's offering to G-d wasfrom the produce of the ground and Hevel's was from his flock. Keeping wool and linen separate in garments reminds us of this Biblical episode and its lessons. Some see Shaatnez as having its origins in pagan cults of old, thus being one of many mitzvot geared towards keeping us far away from idolatry. Others point out that some of the garments of the Kohen Gadol (and possibly the belt of every kohen) were Shaatnez. Perhaps this particular combination of wool and linen is off-limits for us in our everyday lives to highlight a special place the combination has in the holy service of G-d. Others point out that Shaatnez completes the set of forbidden combinations - there are plant-plant prohibitions, animal-animal prohibitions, and Shaatnez represents the forbidden blending of plant and animal. (Important: only the combinations that G-d forbid us to have are considered sinful. We do not extend this idea tothe many permitted mixtures of our experience.) And some commentaries include Shaatnez in the group of mitzvot that are meant to sensitize us towards treating the animals kindly. Fiber is fiber, and as humans, we can take fibers for fabric and clothing from any source we so choose, in any way we want. WRONG. Perhaps the mitzva of Shaatnez is to remind us that the flaxplant and the sheep are not the same. When we shear sheep for wool, our main goal should not be economics. How to do it fastest, most cost-efficient. We must take the sheep's well-being into account. Shaatnez is A CHOK; we do not really know why the rules are as they are. But we can learn many lessons from this unusual mitzva. To Win the Battle, but... The Baal Shem Tov offered a beautiful interpretation of the opening p'sukim of Ki Teitzei. The following idea is his; some of the elaboration is mine. I hope I have done justice to the message. Ki Teitzei is always read in Elul. During this month, we go out to do battle against the Yeitzer HaRa (evil inclination) in each of us. He/it is our enemy. When go out to battle our enemy, says the Torah, G-d will help us and put the enemy in our hand. Essentially, we have the weapons and the back-up from G-d, to defeatthe Yeitzer HaRa. But what happens sometimes is that we see the Beautiful Captive and we want her. We have won the battle against temptation to veer from the proper path, but the war is not over. Something has caught our eye. In our battle to get up every morning to go to shul, we have seen the "beauty" of sleeping late.In our battle against wasting time, we have been attracted by the "beauty" of late night television, cable, or web- surfing. In our struggle to be more honest and straightforward in busi ness, we have been attracted by the "beauty" of greater profits. The Torah acknowledges the strong attraction of the Beautiful Captive. But the Torah also warns us against taking her as a wife. The month-long waiting period that the Torah requires can be considered analogous to the month of Elul, during which we must examine very carefully the many Beautiful Captives we have taken homefrom the battlefield. Here's the pirated, copied version of the word processor program I am using. The beauty of it is the hundreds of shekels I saved by not buying a legal copy of it. But in the light of Elul, the beauty isn't there. No pretty dress, hair, and nails. What happened to TOV LI TORAT PICHA... "better forme is Your Torah, than thousands... Yes, it's expensive to buy the best programs, but it's also right. The sedra mentions bad marriages and good ones. We must examine all our "marriages" - to Shabbat, prayer, interpersonal behavior, ethics, and many other things - and improve them all, so that we can win the war. THE JERUSALEM INSTITUTE OF JEWISH LAW R. Emanuel Quint, Dean Lesson #3. Getting to Know the Great Sanhedrin (part 1) We now embark on the voyage of getting to know the Great Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish Court, by describing a few physical facts about this illustrious court and then describing its jurisdiction, that is, the matters over which it has authority to act. The source of the authority of the Great Sanhedrin rests on the verseGather to Me seventy men. (Numbers 11:16) Adding Moses to that number gives us the total of seventy-one men. It is noteworthy that this verse appears in the chapter in the Torah after Moses’ invitation to Yitro; the court structure is also mentioned in the sidra bearing his name. Perhaps this is what Moses means when hesays to Yitro and you have been as eyes to us. (Numbers 10:31) Yitro, in advising setting up the various courts shows that the judge must do as his eyes see. Compare Baba Batra 131a “for a judge has only what his eyes see”. The Great Sanhedrin consists of 71 judges; it meets in the Chamber of Hewn Stone that is on the Temple Mount. Half of the Chamber is situated on consecrated ground and half is located on unconsecrated ground. The judges sit in the unconsecrated section since only kings descended from the house of David are authorized tosit in the consecrated part. Where the Great Sanhedrin meets is of legal significance. If they do not meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, the criminal justice system (the Lesser Sanhedrin) that metes out the death penalty is not permitted to function. We are told in the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 8b) that the Great Sanhedrin left the Chamber of Hewn Stone40 years before the destruction of the Holy Temple. The reason for that move was that when the judges saw that the lawlessness attendant upon the extreme Roman oppression was both inevitable and prevalent, they did not want to permit their courts to become instruments of capital punishment. The judges sit in a semi-circle so that each judge can see the judge who is speaking. The head of the Great Sanhedrin is the Nasi and the second in charge is called the ‘Av Beth Din’. Since this court is the highest court in the land, it has a broad and varied jurisdictional base - some judicial, some legislative-like - over matters of national importance. A. Judicial functions - Major transgressions by groups and individuals [1] cases involving a city or a majority of a tribe accused of idolatry. Are we behaving as God’s people? The Great Sanhedrin has exclusive jurisdiction to judge this case. The Talmud derives this from verses that an individual accused of this heinous crime is judged by the Lesser Sanhedrin of 23 judges (Sanhedrin 15b).But when many people are involved it goes to the very fabric of a Torah society with the concomitant national punishments, and the Great Sanhedrin must pass judgment. [2] cases involving false prophets. We have suffered enough from false prophets not to realize the critical repercussions that arise from such conduct. Only the Great Sanhedrin is equipped to cope with this nefarious crime against the Jewish people. Only they can fathom the truth of the statements of the accused. Upon theirdecision in this area will depend the lives of countless Jews for future generations who will be persecuted by the followers of the false prophet. [3] cases involving a rebellious elder. The rebellious elder is one of the wise men of the land and he teaches the words of the Torah in the same manner as all the wise men of Israel judge and teach. The rebellious elder, however, disagrees with the Great Sanhedrin on one of the laws, and refusing to accept their ruling,continues to dispute them, and teaches people to follow him and not to follow the Great Sanhedrin. The guilt or innocence of this person is determined by the Lesser Sanhedrin. If he is found guilty there, it is the Great Sanhedrin that sentences him to death. If the Great Sanhedrin is part of the judicial process in thiscase then there is compliance with the verse, The entire nation shall listen and fear, and they shall not act willfully any more. (Deuteronomy 17:13). [4] cases involving the suspected adulteress. This case is described in Numbers 5. A husband suspects that his wife is committing adultery. In the presence of two witnesses he warns her not to seclude herself with a named individual. Thereafter there are two witnesses who testify that she did indeed seclude herself withthat very individual but the witnesses do not know what transpired during such seclusion. The wife has several choices, including confessing to having committed adultery in which case she is divorced. She is not otherwise punished since the fact of her adultery came from herself and a person may not be punished on thebasis his or her confession alone. Or she may refuse to admit what transpired during the seclusion but she will not undergo the ritual of the water of bitterness. In such event she is also divorced. Or she may proclaim her innocence in which event she drinks of the water of bitterness. If she is innocent she is permittedto live with her husband and is blessed with beautiful children. If she was guilty of adultery the waters made her face to turn pale, her eyes bulged, her veins filled up and soon her belly became swollen, her thighs fell away and she died. At the moment that these things befell her and she died, her paramour, whereverhe was suffered the same swelling of the belly, falling away of the thighs and he also died. The function of the Great Sanhedrin in this case is to instill fear in her to tell the truth. The waters will not work to prove her guilt if her husband was ever guilty of sexual indiscretions. If he were, a woman who did commitadultery while she was secluded and underwent the ordeal would see that nothing happened. She may not have realized that the bitter waters were not effective because of her husband’s conduct; she would tell her friends that the waters don’t work and she herself could carry on her immoral conduct. To forestall this RabbiYochanan ben Zakai, (the great hero who saved the Jewish nation by asking the Roman general to permit him to move the scholars and the Sanhedrin to Yavneh) discontinued the ordeal of the bitter waters. Thus it was the conduct of the immoral men that caused this procedure to be discontinued. In most societies a case ofa suspected adulteress will not make its way up to the highest court in the land. But it has national implications. Because of the moral repercussions it might have upon the basic cornerstone of Jewish life - the family - the Great Sanhedrin must be involved. What can be seen from this lesson is that the Great Sanhedrin is deeply involved in the every day problems of the Torah society; no matter is too trivial when the Jewish life as required by the Torah may be compromised. The next lesson IY"H will continue the jurisdiction of the Great Sanhedrin. Your comments about this and other TT features are greatly appreciated. Keep them coming. KOSHER KOLUMN Someone asked the Webbe Rebbe about canned sauerkraut vis-a-vis the bug-problem with cabbage. The OU certifies sauerkraut based on the well-known HETER that the brine that the sauerkraut is made in dissolves any bugs that might have been on the cabbage. This, after the machine processing of the cabbage, which also cleansit. Another question concerned Nabisco's Triscuts - some packages carry an OU and some have an OU-D. The OU explained that the company informed them that they no longer would abstain from making dairy products with the sae machines as parve. The OU insisted on changing the designation to OU-D, as is their policy for parve productsmade on the same equipment as dairy. The temporary confusion of the labels occurred during the transition persiod. Another question concerned the use by S'faradim of OU products, because of BISHUL ACU"M. Let me explain. No Jew - S'faradi or Ashkenazi is allowed to eat a food product that is produced by BISHUL ACU"M (food cooked exclusively by a non-Jew). The OU does not certify any product that has a BISHUL ACU"M problem. Exactly whatfoods fall under the ban of BISHUL ACU"M and what constitutes BISHUL YISRAEL when required are complex issues. Food that can be eaten raw, may be cooked by a non-Jew and is not subject to the ban on BISHUL ACU"M. Nor is product that requires further cooking. Nor is a food that does not "go onto the table of kings. Theseexemptions from the ban on BISHUL ACU"M are the same for S'faradim and Ashkenazim. (There is somethings a dispute among poskim as to what does and does not go onto the table of kings, but that's another story.) Where Ashkenazim and S'faradim differ in this issue is concerning what a Jew has to do in order for the food to be BISHUL YISRAEL. Ashkenazim follow t5he RAMA who says that if a Jew does ANYTHING in the processing - lights the fire or turns on the machinery, for example - then the product is considered BISHUL YISRAEL andis permitted. S'faradim follow the M'CHABER (Rav Yosef Caro) who requires a Jew to actually put the food on the fire (or into the machines) in order for there not to be a BISHUL ACU"M. About 90% of OU products are not S'faradi-problematic. Careful S'faradim (and Ashkenazim who periodically host S'faradi in-laws and friends)should check specific products with their LOR. Another question concerned PAT YISRAEL, goods BAKED by a Jew. Big difference. According to halacha, it is forbidden to eat a (kosher) food that is BISHUL ACU"M (cooking), but one may eat bread baked by a non-Jew. The OU will not certify a product that is BISHUL ACU"M, but will certify a product that is not PAT YISRAEL.Those whose kashrut standards include the praiseworthy insistenceon PAT YISRAEL should look for a specific designation on the product. To repeat a statement that has appeared in Kosher Kolumn before: "Following a study of various liquors and their distillation process in both the U.S. and Scotlan, the OU issued a report where it states that Southern Comfort is NOT recommended." [There are different approaches to the kashrut of liquor. Hence, Southern Comfort might show up on someone's approved list. The above is the OU's view on the subject.] Another OU statement. Milk in the United States and in Western Europe are included in the well-known T'shuva of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein zt"l that when there is strict government regulations about adulterating of cow milk with any other milk, then one can consider the milk not to be Chalav Acu"m. A question was asked about what may and may not be fed to an animal. The question came in light of the practice in some countries of feeding meat products to cows, in addition to grain. The OU answers that whatever a cow is feed dows not affect its kashrut. (If a cow is fed poison, then it becomes a Treifa and thereforenon-kosher.) We (Jews) may not feed our animals milk & meat mixtures that are prepared by cooking, nor chametz on Pesach. The Webbe Rebbe added that one can oppose and protest certain practices in the feeding of cows on moral ground, or for health reasons. But halachically, a cow can eat (almost) anything. In response to a query, the Webbe Rebbe made the following statement: Hershey's is a conglomerate which owns dozens of other companies. Not all of these companies are certified by the OU (or anyone else, for that matter). Therefore, although many, many Hershey's products are under the OU, one cannot rely on the name Hershey's,but rather must see an OU on the specific product itself. [Side note: Even if we are told that such-and-such is kosher even without an OU on the package, one should avoid using the product until it conforms with the general rule of trusting only the kashrut symbol. Word of mouth is not binding on a company. If we refrain from non-labeled products, maybe the company will get themessage an be sure to print the OU on the package.] Lady Godiva Chocolates are under the OU's supervision ONLY when an OU appears on a sealed package. Even if a salesperson in a store assures you that LGC being sold from an open tray is OU, do not rely on it. Only closed packages, made in the U.S.A. (not all of it either), carrying an OU can be trusted. Regular instant coffee has been cooked before it gets to your cup. Therefore it can be spooned into a cup of hot water on Shabbat because "there is no cooking after cooking". Freeze-dried coffee has not been cooked. And, it is considered "easily cooked". Therefore, there is a problem with freeze-dried coffee. This can possibly be solved by not putting the coffee into the cup and pouring the boiling water onto it, but filling the cup with water - an extra transfer to make the cup a KLI SHLISHI is an additional recommendation - and stirringin a spoon of coffee. Pure vegetable oil - needs a hashgacha because [1] the company producing it may also produce non-kosher animal oils on the same machinery (which is a problem with or without a cook cleaning between runs, and [2] they may add non-kosher ingredients for flavor, color, etc. [Personal addition. Years ago I sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Heath, Food and Drug Administration, asking for a definition of 100% vegetable oil. The reply stated that "vegetable oil", "pure vegetable oil", and "100% vegetable oil" all have the same guidelines. Namely, they can contain no more than 2% animal fat.Imagine that! A corn oil with 2% lard can legally be referred to as "100% vegetable oil".] Does vegetable oil need hashgacha? Definitely YES. G'MATRIYA from L'Ora Shel Torah by R. Y. Auerbach z"l Aside from the regular G'matriya - ALEF = 1, BET = 2... TAV = 400, there are other ways to assign the values the letters. Once such G'matriya is MILUI, complete - filled in, in which a letter is equal to the G'matriya of the NAME of the letter. ALEF = ALEF + LAMED + FEI = 111. YUD = YUD + VAV + DALET = 20. In Parshat Zachor (the concluding portion of Ki Teitzei), the Torah says: "(Amalek) who encountered you On the road and attacked your stragglers, and you were exhausted. And feared not G-d." Commentaries debate the question of who is the subject of the last phrase. Who does not fear G-d? Israel or Amalek. The TROP (Torah notes) seems to say that it is Amalek that fears not G-d. AMALEK = 130 + 80 + 186 = 470. In stark contrast to Amalek is the statement of faith of the People of Israel: HASHEM HU HA'ELOKIM = 20+6+12+6 (44) + 6+12+111 (129) + 6+111+74+6+20+80 (297) = 470. [The Ki Teitzei Homepage]
|
