Meaning in Mitzvot by Rabbi Asher Meir

Each week we will discuss one familiar halakhic practice and try to show its beauty and meaning. The columns are based on the commentary “Meaning in Mitzvot” on the Kitzur Shulchan Arukh; you can subscribe by visiting Yeshivat Har Etzion’s “Virtual Beit Midrash”, www.vbm-torah.org.

CAREFUL SPEECH AND FAVORABLE JUDGMENT

While Moshe killed the wicked Egyptian taskmaster in secret, loose tongues spread word of his deed far and wide. Rashi writes that Moshe considered this dangerous tendency to gossip a sufficient explanation for the terrible afflictions Israel suffered. (Shemot 2:14.)

Later on, we learn that Moshe himself received instruction in careful speech. When HaShem told him to tell the Jews of their imminent redemption, Moshe worried aloud “They won’t believe me, and they won’t listen to me.” (Shemot 4:1.) Rashi explains that the next few statements of HaShem are meant to teach Moshe that someonewho expresses unsubstantiated suspicions is continuing the work of the primeval serpent, and is worthy of punishment. (Rashi on Shemot 4:2, 3 and 6.)

According to the Midrash (Shir HaShirim Rabba 1), similar admonishments were given to Yishayahu who included himself among a “people of defiled lips” (Yishayahu 6:5), and to Eliahu who complained to God that the Jews “have abandoned Your covenant” (Melakhim I 19:10. Zohar Lekh lekha, I:93a, teaches that because of thisstatement Eliahu was chosen to testify that the Jews do keep the covenant - by being present at each and every brit mila.)

These statements of our great Neviim would normally be considered permitted speech. They were intended as accurate statements with a constructive purpose, uttered before One Who would certainly not misinterpret them. Yet the Midrash speaks of their admonishment because a different standard is demanded when we stand beforeGod. Every Jew stands before HaShem as a representative or advocate for the entire Jewish people and indeed all mankind. And the heavenly Judge, like an earthly one, pays attention to the claims brought in His court.

In terms of earthly judgment, we sometimes need to make harsh statements and even harsh judgments in order to maintain order. This reality underlies certain leniencies in the laws of lashon hara. (See SA CM 8:5, 11:1. The book Chafetz Chaim explains all the leniencies and their many limitations.)

But when it comes to heavenly judgment, HaShem wants each of us to view ourselves as senegor - defense attorney - for our fellow man. Think of the great efforts a skilled attorney makes to defend his client. He presents the facts and the law alike to show his client’s innocence; should his client nonetheless be convicted,he cites mitigating circumstances and presses for a lenient sentence.

This is how HaShem wants us to present our fellow Jews in His court. We should consider how the facts and the law could redound to the credit of wrongdoers, and suggest mitigating circumstances which may justify a milder punishment. (See Tanchuma Vayera.) An added benefit is that once we get in the habit of favorable judgmentwe will find it easy to stay clear of improper speech (lashon hara).

The Mesilat Yesharim teaches us to be jealous of God’s honor and not let any transgression go unrequited (chapter 19). However, in the very same chapter we learn that a chasid must “pray on behalf of his generation, atone for one who needs atonement, turn others to repentance, and plead the defense (lamed senegoria) forthe entire generation.”

The Torah shows that Moshe grasped the subtle admonishment of HaShem. Without compromising his zeal to uproot wrongdoing, Moshe was a tenacious pleader on behalf of the Jewish people. His unique level in senegoria was comparable to his unique level in prophecy. HaShem calls us to follow Moshe’s example.

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. Rabbi Meir - who has given a series on Business Halacha at the Center, as well as three sessions of Meaning in Mitzvot - the Shiur. He will, IY"H, be continuingthe series on a regular basis. See back page for details.

From last year's TT - still needs to be said.

UNITY - WHO'S FOR IT; WHO'S AGAINST IT?

Editor's note: The following is my personal opinion and reaction to recent developments in Israel - specifically to the Supreme Courts ruling concerning the acceptance of Conservative and Reform converts. This is a general statement, not directly related to the specifics of the current issue.

For whom is it forbidden to drive a car on Shabbat? Sounds like a simple question. But many people's answers are wrong. Some say, "Religious Jews". Others say "Orthodox Jews". Inaccurate answers, to a fault. The correct answer is, "Jews". Who is required to separate the sexes for synagogue services? "Orthodox Jews." Wronganswer. Jews, all Jews, are required to daven separately. The same goes for Kashrut and Family Purity and every other aspect of Jewish Law and Life.

There are Jews who follow Halacha and there are those that don't. And they are all Jews. A Jew can choose not to keep Shabbat. People have Free WIll. They can and will do what they choose to do. That's one thing. It is a very different issue when a Jew - or group of Jews - says that a particular mitzva - or mitzvot in general-doesn't apply to him. Because he is a secular Jew. Or not religious. Or not Orthodox. Any of these terms mean People have Free Will to do what they choose. But choosing not to keep mitzvot does not change the rules of Judaism, no matter how much a group wants things to be different, no matter how large the group, no matterwhat resolutions their committees pass.

A Jew can call himself Reform, but the laws of separation of milk and meat still apply to him. He might eat a cheeseburger and think it's okay for him - but it isn't. He is still in violation of Halacha.

There are Halachic guidelines for conversion of a non-Jew to Judaism. If these standards are met by all converts, then Jewish Unity is preserved (in this area). If there were to be different conversions, including non-halachic ones, then a split is created (or widened) within the Jewish community. If all divorce in thiscountry is halachically correct, then Jewish Unity is preserved. If different divorces were to be recognized in Israel, then the split further widens.

In reference to the different "streams" of Judaism vs. different opinions within the "Torah Camp" (not easy to label things) - the latter differences between strict and lenient opinions and the like, are all firmly based on a belief and commitment to Torah Min HaShamayim, the package deal of the Written Word, the Oral Law,and Tradition, and in the processes of Halachic Psak. The former have broken away from Torah-true ideals, principles, beliefs, and practices, and have chosen to redefine Judaism to suit their practices and preferences. The striving for "equality" and for breaking the "Orthodox monopoly" will not unify the Jewish People,it will solidify the splits that exist and create new ones.

Conservative Judaism claims to be committed to Halacha. Yet they have allied themselves with Reform which rejects the concept of a binding Halacha. A prominent Reform rabbi and spokesman made the following statement (in public): We believe in G-d but do not believe that He ever communicated with people. He did not appearto Avraham Avinu, did not speak to Moshe, nor did He give him or the People the Torah. He does not tell us what to do and what not to do." How is it possible - no matter how strongly they want to fight the Orthodox establishment - that the Conservative Movement can join forces with Reform, and still claim a commitmentto Halacha?

A man who refuses to give a Get to his wife when she wants one, when the courts order him to do so, etc. is abusing Torah, as well as his wife, and must be dealt with the utmost severity. Rabbanim of our time must work ceaselessly to find a halachically acceptable way of preventing this kind of abuse. This should be - andis - the Orthodox approach to a problem. Changing the Torah laws of divorce is not an acceptable solution, no matter how appealing the idea is to people without a commitment to the Chain of Tradition.

Let these words not be considered an attack on Jews of any leaning. It is an attack on the notion that Judaism can be reinvented, redefined to suit the preferences of any group of Jews.

There is tremendous flexibility within the boundaries of Halacha. If the Orthodox establishment has been too rigid in its resistance to exploring this flexibility, then the solution is not recognition of "other streams" but more serious efforts at resolving the problems of modern Jewish Life within the guidelines of Halacha.

G'MATRIYA

Par'o was afraid: HAVA NITCHAKMA LO PEN YIRBEH - Let's come up with a plan lest they increase in population... The numeric value of this phrase is 12+523+36+130+217 = 918. Par'o wanted to bring down our population figures; G-d has a different plan: VAYOMER LAHEM ELOKIM P'RU U'R'VU... - and G-d said to them: Be fruitfulandmultiply = 257+75+86+286+214 = 918.

Similarly, when the first plan failed (having the midwives kill the males), Par'o orders: KOL HABEIN HAYILOD HA'Y'ORA TASHLI CHUHU... all males born shall be thrown into the river. This G'matriya of this phrase is 50+57+55+221+771 = 1154. This plan also failed. As Mishlei puts it (19:21) "Many are the thoughts in the heartofman, but G-d's plan prevails", VA'ATZAT HASHEM HI TAKUM = 566+26+16+546 = 1154.

(Ed. note: The amazing thing about the G'matriyas of R. Auerbach z"l is the exclusive use of the words of the text without the squeezing and stretching one usually finds in G'matriyas.)

The Basis of Belief

During Moshe's first experience communicating with G-d at the Burning Bush, he asks what will happen if he will not be believed about G-d's having appeared to him. G-d gives Moshe a series of three signs - the staff turning into a snake, his hand becoming leperous and then healed, and water turning to blood.

These signs were meant to grab the attention of the audience, but are not the basis of our belief. Rambam states in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah (8:1) that the People of Israel do not believe in Moshe and his prophecy because of signs. Belief based on signs is always suspect and shaky. This includes this first set of signs andthe whole sequence of miracles that the people would be witness to in the coming years. Miracles, says the Rambam, were for practical purposes - to effect the escape from Egypt, to feed the people, etc.

So what is the basis of our belief and confidence in G-d and Moshe as his chief prophet? The answer is SINAI. G-d says to Moshe that the Bush is a sign to him that he will succeed in his mission - just as the Bush is followingG-d's instructions and is unharmed for it, so too will Moshe succeed and be unharmed.

But the real sign, the proof, that G-d has sent Moshe - and that the People merit saving and that Moshe will succeed - is that the People will return to this very spot, to receive the Torah.

Matan Torah is the basis of belief that solidified into knowledge based on eye-witness testimony through an unbroken Chain of Tradition all the way, generation to generation, to us, here, today.

Twice during the experience at the Bush, G-d tells Moshe of the purpose of His (on his) taking the people out of Egypt: To bring them to "the Land flowing with milk and honey".

"Right up front", we might say, G-d makes it clear that we have two goals as a Nation, as His Nation - to receive the Torah and to live in Eretz Yisrael.

These are our realities, not a stick turning into a snake and not even a sea splitting. We have a lot of wonders and miracles and signs in the coming sedras of Sh'mot, Va'eira, Bo, and B'Shalach until we receive the Torah and then begin the practical day-to- day living as Jews as described in Yitro and Mishpatim.

Our faith has endured and will continue to do so because of the Torah, because of our way of life. Supernatural thunder and lightning caught our attention, but Torah & Mitzvot keep it.

Because of Righteous Women...

This has appeared a few times in past issues of TT. It's worth reading it again and showing it around. Especially to those who like to throw the feminist and egalitarian line at Traditional Judaism without really understanding our traditions.

The sedra begins the narrative of Egyptian oppression by telling us of Shifra and Pu'a, the two midwives who defy Par'o by keeping the Jewish babies alive. The Talmud and Midrash present two views as to who they were - Shifra was Yocheved and Pu'a was Miriam, or the two were converts who joined the ranks of the People inEgypt.Either way, the Torah testifies to G-d's gratitude to them for what they did.

Yocheved, who miraculously gives birth to Moshe at 130 years of age, heroically hides him for three months and then puts him in a waterproofed basket which she places in the Nile under the protective eye of Miriam.

Miriam, at the young age of 5, prophesies to her father Amram that his decree (that husbands are to separate from their wives to prevent giving birth to children who will most likely fall victim to the treachery of Par'o) is more severe than that of Par'o (who "only" commanded that the boys be killed). As a result, Amram"remarries"Yocheved and the result of that union is Moshe. Miriam faithfully stands watch over baby Moshe and arranges for Yocheved to nurse her own son (when Bat Par'o finds the crying baby).

The Talmud tells us that the women of Israel (in general) were responsible for keeping up the morale and spirits of their husbands. The men were despondent; they wanted to give up. The women adorned and perfumed themselves, prepared special foods for their husbands, and encouraged them to continue having children and raisingfamilies.

The Torah enigmatically tells us that on his way back to Egypt, Moshe is almost killed by G-d (for not having circumcised his son Eliezer). Tzipora saves Moshe's life by performing the Mila. (The explanation that Moshe was justified in not circumcising Eliezer because of the danger in traveling immediately following Mila,andthe question of a female circumciser aside, Tzipora is credited with saving Moshe's life).

And then there is Batya, daughter of Par'o. She disregarded her father's orders and saved the life of baby Moshe. Her act of kindness is beautifully acknowledged in the Midrash, which says that of all the names Moshe had, he is exclusively called Moshe by the Torah, in honor of Batya, who gave him that name.

The Midrash also says that Batya was the only Egyptian firstborn to be spared Makat B'chorot (plague number 10 - the Smiting of the Firstborns). There is reference in Divrei HaYamim to Batya being the mother of Moshe. Although she was not his biological mother, she was identified as mother because she saved him and raisedhim. The Talmud in Megila cites this as one of the sources from where we learn that a person who raises an orphan is considered his parent. So too Batya is called "daughter of G-d" (the meaning of "Batya") to honor her for her role in the Redemption sequence. That same passage in the Gemara says that Batya rid herselfofthe idolatry with which she was raised, and was a wife of Calev.

Moshe Rabeinu led the People of Israel out of Egypt, brought them to Sinai, gave us the Torah that he received from G-d, and brought us to the border of Eretz Yisrael. But it is thanks to several women that Moshe made it to that point and it was in the merit of the righteous women that our ancestors were redeemed from Egypt.

In every generation, we must relive the events of Egyptian oppression and redemption. It is comforting that G-d chose to include these elements of the Geula in the beginning of the Book of Sh'mot.

And speaking of women...

Do not think that the significant role played by women in the establish ment of the Jewish Nation begins with the Book of Sh'mot. We have an impressive set of episodes from B'reishit to add.

Our matriarchs each had very significant input to the process.

Sara Imenu tells Avraham to expel Yishmael and his mother because of the wrong influence that Yishmael could have on Yitzchak. Avraham hesitates; G-d orders him to listen to Sara.

Yitzchak loved Eisav. He planned on giving him the main blessing. Rivka Imenu undertakes to get the bracha for its rightful recipient, Yaakov. She also "suggests" to Yitzchak that Yaakov be sent to her hometown to find a suitable wife. This suggestion saves Yaakov's life AND provides for the continuity of the ancestrallineof the Jewish People.

Rachel and Leah collaborate to allow both to be married to Yaakov. They subsequently give him their maid- servants as wives, resulting in the births of the "Twelve Tribes".

Through their prayers and actions, the Imahot played an important part in the formulation of the Jewish Nation.

Subsequent Jewish History shows us that the women of Israel - Rachav, Yael, Devora, Naomi, Ruth, Chana, Esther - continued be be full partners, and then some, in guaranteeing the continuity and quality of Jewish Life. Women's obligation in Megilat Esther, Chanuka lights, and the Four Cups at the Seder are summed up by thephrase: "They too were in that same miracle." In fact, women were the deciding positive factors in all of those situations.

THE JERUSALEM INSTITUTE OF JEWISH LAW

Rabbi Emanuel Quint, Dean

Lesson #21 (Part 4 of 4) - Composition of the Beth Din - The Single Judge (Part 2)

Continuing the discussion of the secular authorities granting authorization to the Jewish judge to judge by himself.

Rabbi Jacob Tam (Rabbainu Tam, Tosafist, France, 1096-1171) convened a synod which issued a decree signed by Rabbainu Tam and all the leading scholars who were present, including Rashbam (Rabbi Samuel b. Meir, Tosafist, Germany, 1080-1174), Raban ( Rabbi Eliezer b. Nathan, Tosafist, France, 1090-1170), and one hundred andfifty outstanding rabbis and scholars. The decree states that a person may not accept a position of authority over the Jewish community from the king or any other secular official. It decries the Jewish leaders who are involved in such conduct and compares such conduct to the spreading of a plague. Anyone who engages insuch conduct is placed under a ban and excommunicated, and his food and products are placed on a par with those of heathens. About a hundred years later, Rabbi Solomon b. Adret (Rashba, Spain, 1245-1310, part 1, responsum 637) wrote that the king could appoint individual officers for the Jewish community as long as theJewish community consented to such appointment.

A younger contemporary, Rabbi Meir of Rotenberg (Germany, 1215-1293, part 4, responsum 137) decided the following case. The majority of the community desired that a certain person be named the cantor of the synagogue; the minority objected. The duke of the area appointed him cantor. Rabbi Meir writes that it is wrong tohave the duke make the appointment and that in his country they were careful to avoid such a procedure. He cites an earlier incident that occurred in the time of Avi HaEzri (Rabbi Eliezer b. Yoel haLevi, Cologne, 1140-1225) in the city of Cologne. The community wanted to add dignity to the cantor’s appointment, went tothe governor who summoned the cantor. When the cantor appeared before him, the governor took off his own hat, placed it on the cantor’s head and said he was appointing the cantor. In the presence of the governor, the cantor showed his displeasure at the procedure and informed the governor that it contravened Jewish lawto have a religious functionary receive his appointment from the governor and that he was therefore refusing the appointment although the community had appointed him.

Rabbi Moshe Sofer (Chatam Sofer, Hungary, 1762-1839, responsum Hoshen haMishpat, 18) decided the following case. The community had to decide between leasing a beautiful building for a synagogue for a term of twenty years or leasing more modest quarters for one year. Which lease should they choose, the first or the second?Rabbi Sofer says that obviously the first lease is preferable, but its wording could be construed to give the landlord the right to appoint a rabbi. Rabbi Sofer writes that even in the case of Bezalel (the leader of the construction of the Tabernacle in the dessert) the nation accepted him voluntarily. Also the decreeof Rabbainu Tam and his synod prohibited such conduct. Therefore unless this could be avoided by the language of the lease, they should not enter into the first lease. In another case that came before Rabbi Sofer, a high government official appointed a rabbi for a community without consulting the community. Rabbi Sofercites all of the above sources together with many additional sources and recommends that the community entreat the government official who made the appointment to cancel it.

We can conclude that if the secular ruler appoints an individual judge and (a) the community accepts him, then the judge is the same as any other individual accepted by the community as their judge; (b) the community does not accept him, then he may not judge, and if he does, his judgments are void.

While there are instances where an individual may judge cases by himself, he should avoid doing so. There is a Mishna in Tractate Aboth (Chapter 4, Mishna 8) that states in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, “Judge not alone, for none may judge alone save One.” As explained by Bertinoro, this Mishna contains a strong admonitionto adopt the pious trait of not judging alone, since only the Lord judges alone. Tosafoth Yom Tov comments that the intent of this teaching is also to further the requirement that judges should discuss a matter fully and attempt to penetrate deeply the questions involved in a case. Lacking the provocative probing of fellowjurists, an individual judge may be unable to delve so deeply onto the matter.

This is seen in the following case that came to Rabbi Solomo Luria (Maharshal, Poland, 1510-1574, responsum 37). Reuven attempted to obtain the whiskey concession from a gentile mayor. Prior to this, the concession was held by Shimon. Reuven consented to have the question of whether he was wrongly interfering with Shimon’sbusiness adjudicated by a rabbi. When the rabbi heard the case, Reuven asked the rabbi to have another rabbi familiar with the obtaining of the whiskey concession join him. Both Shimon and the rabbi objected and the rabbi decided the case by himself n favor of Shimon. The case was sent to Rabbi Luria for review. He reversedthe decision of the rabbi on several grounds, including the fact that he judged the case by himself. Such procedure is not correct even if the parties consent and certainly in this case where Reuven had objected.

From this we see that even where one judge may decide a case by himself, it is preferable, if possible, to have others join in judging the case. Sometimes it is not practical to have more than the judge who is also the rabbi of a small shtetel judge by himself. Nowadays, with instant communication and fast methods of transportation,it is not hard to find a Beth Din of three judges to judge a case.

Although a Beth Din of three judges is a complete Beth Din, there are situations where it is preferable that more judges be added to the Beth Din provided that there must always be an odd number of judges on the Beth Din. This is based on a Talmudic passage that says that when a case would come before Rav Huna for decision,he would gather an additional ten scholars from the school of Rav to judge the case with him. He would remark that each of them should carry a chip from the beam. (Talmud Sanhedrin 7b). Similarly when Rav Ashi had to decide whether an animal that was sent to him for inspection was treifa he sent and gathered all of theslaughterers of Matha Mehasia, in order as he put it that each of them should carry a chip from the beam. Rashi explains that if the Beth Din makes a mistake, then the responsibility that the judges will have to bear will be apportioned among the additional judges.

The judges of the Beth Din should be scholars and worthy, and they should always know who is sitting with them.

IYH next lesson will deal with self-help in halachah.