Special Features Few More Rain Thoughts Rain is important - very important for us. The Torah mentions it often, in both its promises of the good that will reward our faithfulness to HaShem, as well as in the threats and warnings againstour misconduct. Last week, we read in the Torah of the devastating effects of non-blessed rainfall - the Flood. This week, we read of the famine that drove Avraham and Sarah out of the Land to which HaShem had sent them. Although it does not mention the cause of the famine, one can make a reasonable guess that it was drought. If that is the case, then we are presented with back-to-back events (from the perspective of our Torah readings, not actual chronological sequence) at this "sensitive" time of the season, as we begin to ask G-d for rain, that highlight the detrimentaleffects of "bad" rain and no rain. This underscores the dual nature of the prayer-change that we make in Israel beginning at Maariv of the eve of the 7th of Cheshvan. (Chutz LaAretz people will begin asking for rain in December - save these thoughts for then, if they fit.) We ask G-d to give TAL U'MATAR LIVRACHA - dew and rain as a blessing. We ask for rain, because the lack of it is not good for us. We ask for it to be blessed rain, because rain can kill people, rain can cause damage. We want, we need, we ask for blessed, beneficial rainfall in the upcoming rainy season. The Deeds of our Ancestors... The Avot and Imahot are not only the progenitors of the Jewish People, but are our role models as well. The well-known maxim "Maasei Avot Siman l'Vanim" (the deeds of the parents set the pattern for the children) not only helps explain many events in Jewish History, but also challenges us to consciously learn from theirdeeds,emulate the good qualities and shun those areas where our ancestors failed. Avraham Avinu is the premier Jewish role model. His many deeds in general, and those episodes considered "the ten tests of faith" in particular, inspire and mold Jewish character for all time. Some of these tests became mitzvot in perpetuity. Avraham is asked by G-d to "walk before Me and be complete (tamim)" by circumcisinghimself- we are commanded to circumcise all male offspring. According to most countings, the first test for Avraham was the opening words of this week's sedra, Lech Lecha. Avraham Avinu was commanded to go (come) on Aliya, without benefit of Aliya shaliach, no pilot trip, no support group back in Charan, and no absorption apparatus in Israel. (Antagonistic locals were present then too.) Unlike Brit Mila, mitzva-counters do not list "Lech Lecha" among the 613. However, the mitzva of Aliya most definitely is counted among the Torah's mitzvot by some authorities (e.g. Ramban). Other authorities, while not counting "Yishuv Eretz Yisrael" among the 613, do consider it a Divine imperative (e.g. Rambam). Avraham's willingness to obey G-d's command to bring Yitzchak as a sacrifice became the model for a Jew's dedication and devotion to Torah. We are all challenged to face our "tests of faith" with that same special commitment. So too, must we be inspired to heed the call of "Lech Lecha" thereby earning G-d's blessings andpromises. May it be HaShem's will that those Jews who live in Israel, be it for generations or as new (or old) Olim, shall be blessed with lives of prosperity, health, and peace. And that those Jews who do not YET live here, (shall likewise be blessed and) shall be inspired by Avraham Avinu's faith, by the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael,andby the opportunities for spiritual development as individuals and community, to "go forth from your land, from your birthplace, and from the house of your father, to the Land..." ON THE OTHER HAND (maybe)... Towards the beginning of the sedra, Avraham Avinu is driven out of the Land of Canaan by a famine. The Talmud teaches us that this is a source that one may leave Eretz Yisrael in times of mortal danger. True, Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon (Naomi's husband and sons) are considered to have been punished for that, but commentariessayit was their abandonment of the community which relied on them for sustenance and guidance that resulted in their punishment - not leaving E. Yisrael per se. In contrast, Avraham did not yet have any responsibility for the people in Eretz Yisrael - the Torah makes a point of telling us that the "Canaanites were yetin theLand". On the other hand, the Ramban is very strong in stating that Avraham sinned a great sin (some commentaries say it was unknowing, albeit a sin) by leaving the Land that G-d had sent him to. Many commentaries disagree with the Ramban and give their opinions for Avraham's leaving not being wrong. However, the Ramban's positiongivesrise to the question as to whether it is possible for the deeds of our Avot and Imahot to be both good and bad at the same time. The answer can very well be - Yes. Interestingly, some see Avraham's flight to Egypt as the cause of the exile and enslavement of the as-of-now future People of Israel in Egypt more than 400 years later. Others see it as the act which permitted the events of the Birth of the Jewish Nation to take place. We have a second example of an action of Avraham's from which we learn an important principle, and at the same time, an act that is considered wrong, once again by the Ramban. As Avraham and Sara approached Mitzrayim, he asked her to say that they were brother and sister, in order to save his (Avraham's) life. The MidrashP'liyasays that from here we learn that one may violate the Shabbat (for example) in order to save the life of SOMEONE ELSE. There are other sources that permit a person to violate (most) mitzvot to save his own life, but that this rule extends to others is based on this episode. Sara was subjecting herself to violationat thehands of Par'o - a potential capital offense of adultery, in order to save Avraham. [Side point: Although adultery is one of the three mitzvot that one must "be killed rather than violate", for a woman who can remain completely non-active and since the issue of public disgrace of G-d's Name is not involved either, Sara would be permitted to "be with" Par'o (a non-Jew) in order to save her life or Avraham's.This situation strongly parallels the case of Esther in Achashverosh's palace.] On the other hand, the Ramban states that Avraham should have relied on G-d's protection rather than subject Sara to being taken by Par'o. Again, we might have a situation where we can view the same deed as proper on one level and improper on another. A question on the Ramban's view arises from the Mishna in Avot that states that "Avraham was tested with ten tests of faith, and withstood them all..." In light of the fact that the "test-counters" consider the famine and the taking of Sara as two of the tests, how can we understand the Ramban's statement that Avraham sinnedgreatlyin these two instances. The answer lies in the meaning of a test of faith. Sometimes people are placed in a difficult situation which both challenges them to maintain their faith and to act or react to their situation. It is possible for a person to make the wrong choice as far as what to do, yet remain faithful, nonetheless. Perhaps this is whathappenedwith Avraham Avinu, in the Ramban's eyes. The famine in the Land so soon after his being led there by HaShem, definitely tests his faith. To this, Avraham remained steadfast. Did he do the right thing by leaving the Land? Maybe, maybe not. But he remained faithful to G-d. He did not despair. He handled the situationashe thought best. It was a tough situation, and he emerged unscathed, as he had from the fiery furnace. The issue is more complicated than the treatment above, but suffice it to say that what lessons we do or don't draw from the deeds of our ancestors is a matter of Talmudic teachings and tradition, not our own analysis or whim. We must always learn from the deeds of our ancestors, as they are the patterns of our own psyche and behavior. This does not mean that we always must DO the same things they do. Sometimes it means the opposite. But we always learn from them. As it was with Avraham and Sara, the first Olim; so it is with Olim today. Regardless of country of origin, the Oleh's mind and heart will often drift wistfully to his past. Just as Avraham is complimented for his commitment to Hashem, we must appreciate the Oleh, realize the sacrifices that he/she has made, and help easetheirabsorption into Israeli society. So it is for Baalei T'shuva (and converts). Although they have left a less spiritually fulfilling life behind, and they are truly happy with their new life, there will always (usually?) be times when they will look back and wonder. Their undertaking of Torah and mitzvot was not easily done and is to be commended. [SDT] The Malbim suggests that this request of Avra(ha)m's is considered a pre-Torah divorce, thereby removing Sarai from the category of "married woman". This would save her from serious violation if she were to be taken by Par'o, and also renders their claim of brother/sister more truthful. More about rain... A Jewish community in the southern hemisphere somewhere - Africa, South America, Australia - where the seasons are opposite ours AND rainfall in their summer time would be harmful - destroy crops, breed disease, etc. - they have "halachic sanction" NOT to ask for Tal U'Matar when the rest of the world's Jews are askingforit. They say V'TEIN BRACHA, asking G-d for a blessing, each location according to its needs. But they may not ask for rain when we do not. (In certain cases, they may say Tal U'Matar in Sh'ma Koleinu, but not in Barech Aleinu. Still playing around with TES's Torah Codes CD. One of its features is LETTER COUNT. This allows the calculation of the G'matriya of any continuous piece of text. I use LOTUS to help with the calculations and statistics. For example, the G'matriya of LECH LECH - the whole sedra, all 6336 letters - is 432,171. So what? Whoknows. It's fun to play around and experiment with different stats. Only 26 TETs is LECH L'CHA; 31% fewer than average (whole Torah). The 95 CHETs in the sedra are more than 36% fewer than "expected". On the other hand, there are 36% more REISHes than expected and 30% more GIMMELs. And there are 32% fewer PEIs than expected. This type of "exploration" is like scanning the beach with a metal detector in the hopes of finding a coin or something. VAV and LAMED both come very close to their "expected" numbers. BET, DALET, YUD, MEM are also fairly close. GIMMEL and REISH are the two most more-than-expected letters. They spell ER, convert. LECH L'CHA, Avraham & Sara, parents of the GER. SPEAKING OF 8... The Maharal discusses the significance of many numbers that recur in Judaism. 8, as mentioned above represents "beyond nature". The 7 days of Pesach - the 7 weeks of 7 days each of the Omer - are followed by a super-8 day (50 is like 8 in that it follows 7 sevens), Shavuot, the day we received the Torah - the ultimate "beyondnature"aspect of our Jewish lives. This idea is echoed on Sukkot, when the 7 "nature" days of the Holiday - the mitzvot of Sukka, the 4 Species, Water of Libation, the Arava, all involve elements of nature - are followed by an 8th day - Shmini Atzeret. The nations of the world have a connection to Sukkot, including the70 oxenoffered in the Beit HaMikdash; only Yisrael is involved with the day beyond. That was G-d's special extra gift to us. The MISHKAN went through a 7-day period of inauguration, and only on the 8th day was it ready to begin its "beyond nature" functioning. An animal goes through a minimum of 7 days and only from the8th daycan it be used for the "beyond nature" Korban in the Beit HaMikdash. The Greeks worshipped nature and beauty. They rejected our circumcision as an abomination. They outlawed Brit under penalty of death. The Chashmona'im defied them and fought the battle for HaShem and Judaism. Brit Mila was the cause celebre of the war. And the celebration of our victory is the 8 day holiday of Chanuka.Thenumber of days makes a statement for all generations. Nature is what G-d gave us to work with, to improve upon, and to rise above, when called upon to do so. Nature is for the whole world. The 70 nations have 7 categories of mitzva to keep. G-d does not ask of the other nations to commit themselves to a higher calling.He hose the People of Israel for that special way of life. Meaning in Mitzvot by Rabbi Asher Meir Many of us find the halakha very meaningful as an encompassing way of life, but still find it hard to perceive meaning in the details of our everyday practices. In order to help remedy this, each week we will discuss one familiar halakhic practice and try to demonstrate its beauty and meaning. The columns are based on thework “Meaning in Mitzvot”, which is serialized on the Yeshiva Har Etzion's "Virtual Beit Midrash", www.vbm-torah.org. TEFILLAT HA-DEREKH The Midrash (Bereshit Rabba) relates that Avram was reluctant to travel to Canaan before the events of our parsha, as he was concerned about neglecting his obligation to serve his father. Rather, he awaited G-d’s command, “Lech lecha”. The halakha likewise instructs us, the descendants of Avraham, to “consult with our Maker”before going on a trip, by saying the Tefillat Haderekh. (Berakhot 29b, SA OC 110:4-7, KSA 68.) Most people understand that the background for this prayer is the risk of travelling. Even today, travelling is one of the more dangerous things we do routinely, mostly due to the risk of auto accidents. In the time of the Sages the risks from accidents, bandits, hunger and so one were very much greater. This is indeed the aspect of the prayer emphasized by the Yerushalmi (Berakhot 4:4), which points out that “All roads are considered dangerous”, and mentions that Rebbe Yonah used to make a will each time he set out on a trip. Yet many things we do are more dangerous than crossing an unsettled area, but do not merit a special blessing. For instance, there is no special benediction before undergoing surgery, even though dangerous medical procedures were certainly common in the time of the Sages. Indeed, the Bavli does not mention danger at all in the context of the travellers’ prayer. The practice is introduced by the following story: “Eliahu [the Prophet] said to Rav Yehuda brother of Rav Sala Chasida, ‘Don’t come to anger and you won’t come to sin; don’t become drunk and you won’t come to sin; and when you goon a journey, consult with your Maker and then go.’” (Berakhot 29b.) Eliahu mentions three things: anger, drunkenness, and travel. All of these things make us forget ourselves, and do things we would normally avoid. Anger and drunkenness are always improper, and Eliahu warns against them unequivocally. But travel is sometimes necessary, so in this case the proper course is to consult withHaShem, that is, recite the travellers’ prayer to remember Who accompanies us on our journey. This reminds us that one of the most important risks of travel is the spiritual danger. When we travel, we tend to be tired, and therefore less vigilant in performing G-d’s will; it may be difficult to find the wherewithal to keep mitzvot, such as mitzva objects and kosher food; and we are anonymous, and so our usual senseof shame at deviating from the commandments may be lessened. The comments of the Acharonim on the Tefillat HaDerekh relate to all these aspects. They urge us to study on the way, to keep G-d’s service in mind; to bring necessary mitzva objects with us and to be careful about kosher food on the road; and to have someone accompany us on the beginning of our journey, to lessen our senseof isolation. (MB 110:20 and 28, KSA 68.) When we say Tefillat HaDerekh, we should remember that we are not only asking help from HaShem to help us in our way; we are also consulting with Him to make sure that we are continuing in His ways. Rabbi Asher Meir is in the process of writing a monumental companion to Kitzur Shulchan Aruch which beautifully presents the meanings in our mitzvot and halacha. Hopefully, Rabbi Meir - who have givien a series on Business Halacha - will be giving a weekly shiur at the Israel Center in the near future. Watch for announcements. Hi, I'm a Taurus. What are you? Towards the end of the parsha, G-d appears to Avra(ha)m in a "vision" and assures him that his reward (for his faithfulness, etc.) will be great. Avra(ha)m expresses his disappointment in his being childless, and resolves himself to his heir being from his household, albeit not from his biological descent. G-d "insists"that Avra(ha)m will yet have a child who will be his true heir. G-d then takes Avra(ha)m outside to look at the stars, and tells him that his descendants will be as numerous (and as countless) as the stars of the heavens. Rashi refers to the famous Midrash that Avra(ha)m "saw in the stars" that he was not fated to have a child. When he raised this point with G-d, so to speak, G-d explained to Avra(ha)m that the stars and constellations which in some way rule and control others, will have no influence over Avra(ha)m's descendants (if theyremain faithful to G-d and keep His mitzvot). The Gemara states that Avraham Avinu was a great and well-known astrologer of his time. That he was consulted by kings and noblemen from far and wide. The astrologers of Egypt told Par'o that the redeemer of Israel will be punished by water. Based on their interpretation, all boys born during a certain period of time were to be drowned. (In this case, the astrologers read the signs correctly, but came to the wrong conclusion - Moshe was indeed punished because of MEIMERIVA.) There are many other examples in Talmudic literature that seem to give credence to astrology. What is the "Jewish" attitude concerning astrology. The dictionary defines astrology as, "the study that assumes and attempts to interpret the influence of the heavenly bodies on human affairs". In Rambam, Hilchot Avoda Zara (ch.11), one of the definitions of M'ONEN (soothsaying - predicting the future) is to use astrology to determine times that are good or bad to do certain things. Anyone who acts upon astrological predictions, says the Rambam, is liable to makot (whipping) for violation of a Torah prohibition. The Rambam further says, at the end of the chapter, that all of the above (many forms of occult arts are described in the chapter, including astrology) are completely false, and have misled people throughout the generations. Anyone who considers them to be true, albeit forbidden by the Torah for us to practice, is a fool. And yet, that is exactly the point of view of other authorities. They do consider there to be a real basis for astrology, that the heavenly bodies do exert influence on human behavior. Ramban, for example, states that, "When G-d created the world, He appointed the upper creations to rule the ones beneath them. Thus theearth is under the influence of the constellations, which in turn are under the influence of the angels." (Commentary to D'varim 18:9, as quoted in Faith and Folly by Rabbi Yaakov Hillel.) Let's put it this way: The non-Rambam view is that there is something to astrology, but [1] it is forbidden for Jews to act upon astrological predictions, as this distances the Jew from G-d and the close, straightforward relationship He wants between the People of Israel and Himself, and [2] being faithful to G-d and keepingTorah and Mitzvot allows the Jew to rise "above his Mazal". The Gemara (Shabbat 156a) states, "Rabbi Yochanan said: How do we know that Israel is immune to planetary influence? Because it is written, 'Thus said HaShem: Do not learn the ways of the nations and do not fear the signs of heaven, for the nations fear them (Yirmiyahu 10:2) The nations fear them, but Israel does not." There are two incidents related in the Gemara where astrologers predicted death to a certain individual. In both cases, the snake or serpent "predicted" showed up, but the individual lived. In both cases, the non-fulfillment of the prediction, so to speak, was attributed to acts of kindness on the part of the individual. Two further points to ponder. The passage of the Sun through the various signs of the Zodiac in the course of a year parallels the cycle of the seasons. A person born "under the sign" of Capricorn, for example, is a person born in the winter. There have been studies that have discovered that the season (and weather conditions)during which a baby is born (or during which a baby was carried in utero), can be responsible for a higher incidence of some physiological and psychological conditions. This certainly cannot answer most astrological claims, but it does allow the rational person to see some aspects of astrology from a different perspective. And the final point is a practical one motivated by halachic concerns. There are many people who will read the horoscope column of a newspaper or magazine, for example, while waiting their turn at the barber shop. These are not serious astrology fans, just curious people with a couple of free minutes on their hands. Theirusual attitude is that astrology (especially in the form it takes in newspaper columns) is meaningless. Then, something happens to them during the day which reminds them of something they read in their horoscope. They shrug it off. The wording of the horoscopes are vague enough so that almost anything that happens canfit it. Yet, who knows, they say. So the next opportunity to read a horoscope is not so casual. Now they looked for the column in the paper and read "their" entry with a little more interest. Just a little. And sometime later, something else happens that they "attribute" to the prediction. Somewhere down this road is (canbe) an actual reliance on a horoscope in deciding whether to buy the car they've had their eye on or not. Or to date that girl they're interested in, or not. And now we are talking about an ISUR D'ORAITA, a Torah violation. Ask that individual when he read the horoscope at the barber shop if he took things seriously. Forsure not, he would say. Do not think that this is an idle or frivolous warning. Astrology (and other occult and black arts) exert a tremendous attraction upon many human beings. Our greatest protection from it all is TAMIM T'H'YEH IM HASHEM ELOKECHA - the mitzva to be straightforward with G-d. THE JERUSALEM INSTITUTE OF JEWISH LAW R. Emanuel Quint, Dean Lesson #11 • Powers of the Beth Din (of non-ordained judges - part 3) From the last two lessons it is apparent that the present-day Beth Din of non-ordained judges has a broad and liberally construed jurisdictional base in cases of commercial matters. However, it is so only if it is the type of case that both occurs frequently and involves a loss of money. If these two criteria are met, BethDin can issue a summons at the behest of the plaintiff and compel the defendant to appear before it. After the trial the Beth Din of non-ordained judges can render a judgment in favor of one of the parties to the dispute. For example, the Beth Din of non-ordained judges can judge the following types of cases: (1) Reuven loans money to Shimon and Shimon denies the loan, or admits the loan but claims that it was less than Reuven alleges; or that Shimon repaid all or part of the loan. (2) Pesach divorces Sarah and there is a dispute as to whoowns the piece of real estate where they resided. (3) Pesach and Sarah, after their divorce have a dispute over the terms of the Kethubah. (4) Moshe pleads that the automobile that Issacher is driving was given by Issacher to Moshe as a gift, and Issacher denies the making of the gift. (5) Naftali dies and Aharon claimshe is a long lost son of Naftali; the other known sons of Naftali deny that Aharon is a long lost son. (6) Asher’s chauffeur pleads that Asher gave him the Rolls Royce as a gift before Asher died and the heirs of Asher plead that there was no such gift. (7) Pinchas pleads that he worked for Gershon for two weeks and wasnot paid; Gershon denies that Pinchas worked for him. (8) Saul wishes to return a suit he bought from David’s store and David pleads that he informed Saul that there were no returns of merchandise permitted. In all of these types of disputes the Beth Din of non-ordained judges has the power to compel the defendant to appearbefore it at the behest of the plaintiff. After the trial both parties are bound by the judgment of the Beth Din. Another area where the Beth Din of non-ordained judges has jurisdiction involves personal and property damage. Reuven, a tax lawyer, has invited several guests to a barbecue in his back yard. While the flames are still red hot he walks into his house to answer a telephone call from a client. Since Reuven is billing the client on a time basis, including telephone calls, Reuven sees to it that his conversation is quite long. The wind has in the meantime blown an ember out of the barbecue and onto the grass that happens to be very dry. The dry grass catches fire, and the fire spreads very rapidly to Shimon’s property next door. The expensive wooden fence that Shimon, the psychiatrist, has installed burns, as does Shimon’s expensive car thatis in the driveway close to Reuven’s property. As will IY"H be seen in chapter 418 of Shulhan Aruch, Hoshen haMishpat, there are times when Reuven is not liable if he placed his barbecue far away from Shimon’s property, depending upon the intensity of the fire and the height of the flames. Reuven pleads that he took properprecautions and is therefore not liable to Shimon for Shimon’s monetary losses. Shimon pleads that the fire was started too close to Shimon’s property. Also that Reuven was careless by not tending the fire and was instead making money on the telephone while Shimon’s property was burning. In fact, Shimon asks Reuven ifReuven was fiddling while Shimon’s property was burning. Beth Din, consisting of non-ordained judges has the jurisdiction to adjudicate who is correct. Shimon, the psychiatrist, remembers from medical school to get even with Reuven. He boldly walks onto Reuven’s property and sets Reuven’s garage on fire. Reuven claims that the garage that was burned to the ground was worth $25,000 and that there was a Rembrandt painting hanging on the wall of the garage worth $10,000,000that Reuven was about to insure. Shimon pleads that the garage was worth not more than $3,000 and as for the alleged Rembrandt painting, if anyone believes Reuven had such a painting hanging in his garage, Shimon will treat that person for free. Beth Din has the jurisdiction to decide all of the issues between Ruven andShimon. Consolidated Edison loves to dig up streets and sometimes even refills the holes. This time it was late in the day and the workers were tired. Instead of placing a steel plate over the hole in the ground they put up a small paper sign on an adjacent tree advising drivers that there is a hole in the street. Ruven drivesaround the corner at a normal speed and does not see the small paper sign hanging on the tree. The car goes into the hole in the ground and Reuven is injured and the car is totally destroyed. The Consolidated Edison people run down and collect the sign from the tree and want to use it as evidence in Beth Din to show thatthey are not liable. Besides, Consolidated Edison pleads that the injures claimed by Reuven could not possibly have resulted from the occurrence. Beth Din consisting of non-ordained judges has the jurisdiction to decide the case when Reuven sues Consolidated Edison. The Beth Din of non-ordained judges may decide issuesdealing with obstructions in the public street. In halacha, these obstructions - whether below the ground or above the ground - are designated under the rubric “pit”. The laws dealing with “pit” are found in chapters 410 to 417 of Shulhan Aruch Hoshen haMishpat. There are big differences among the great Halachic authorities over the centuries if the non-ordained judges have jurisdiction over the cases of arson (“fire”) and over cases of obstructions (“pit”). I think that all doubts as to jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of jurisdiction. Charles drives his car through a red light and hits Benjy who is crossing the street with the green light in his favor. Benjy suffers: (1) the loss of a finger (he is a concert pianist); (2) pain; (3) loss of earnings; (4) medical expenses; and (5) embarrassment. Charles denies that he drove through a red light, and hefurther denies that the monetary damages suffered by Benjy are as large as Benjy pleads is due to him. There is a great difference of opinion whether a Beth Din of non-ordained judges may adjudicate the questions dealing with the liability of Charles, relating to loss of earnings and medical expenses. As will be seen ina future lesson, the Beth Din of non-ordained judges has no authority to judge the loss of limb, pain and suffering and humiliation aspects of the case. This leaves Benjy with a lawsuit before Beth Din to adjudicate only two categories of his loss, loss of earnings and medical expenses. These can usually be quickly ascertainedby simple arithmetical calculations, but there are times when the parties have so many disagreements even regarding these calculations that Beth Din will have to have a full trial to determine if there is liability, and if yes, the proper amount. We shall IY"H discuss other cases of property damage where a Beth Din of non-ordained judges has jurisdiction to compel the litigants to appear before it and to render a decision.
[The Lech L'cha Homepage]
|
