WHAT'S IN A NAME?

Biblical names are filled with meaning and provide us with insights into the lives of our ancestors. Additionally, they provide us with lessons that we can translate into our lives as Jews.

In Parshat Vayetze we read of the births of eleven of Yaakov's sons (Binyamin's comes later) and his daughter Dina. The name each received is accompanied by its meaning. Gemara & Midrashim often supply other reasons for the names. The same applies to the names of the Patriarchs and other biblical personalities.

Avraham Avinu underwent a name-change from Avram. The Torah emphasizes that he shall no longer be called Avram - this, our Sages tell us, is tantamount to a prohibition on referring to him as anything other than Avraham. Yitzchak, on the other hand, keeps his birth-name throughout his life and beyond. Yaakov Avinu receivesasupplementary name - Yisrael - which accompanies his original name throughout Tanach.

Commentaries explain that Avraham's original name was given to him by his idol-worshipping father. It is inappropriate for that name to survive the dynamic development of Avraham as the premier patriarchs of the Jewish People. He is to us, forever, Avraham, the name that G-d gave him.

Yitzchak was named by G-d. With this source for his name, Yitzchak needs no other.

Yaakov was named by his father Yitzchak. This name he can retain. G-d, through the angel who wrestled with Yaakov, and reconfirmed by G-d Himself, gave Yaakov the additional name of Yisrael. Both names - with different connotations - continue to be used.

Some sources say that Leah was a prophetess. They point to the namings of her third and fourth sons, Levi and Yehuda. Rashi brings a Midrash that explains that Leah knew that Yaakov was destined to have twelve sons. She, therefore, expressed the hope that her husband would cling to her because of the birth of Levi, whichrepresentedher one-fourth share of Yaakov's children. With Yehuda she thanks G-d for allowing her to exceed her share.

Along the same lines, Leah's prayer that she should not have a seventh son, which would mean that her sister Rachel would be shamed by bearing fewer sons than the "maidservants", is expressed in the name Dina.

(Generally, when a woman is already pregnant - especially after 40 days from conception - it is considered improper to pray for a boy or girl. Commentaries point out that this case was an exception, and that G-d responded to Leah's prayer on behalf of Rachel's honor, and miraculously changed the sex of Leah's foetus.)

The names of our ancestors, and who named them, often give us insights into their lives and provide us with food for thought. And, on a practical level, when we are in the position of naming our children, we should also take into consideration the meaning of the name, the family members with the same name, and (when applicable)thebiblical personalities associated with the name. Names mean something.

AN OBSERVATION... One cannot help but notice the changes in pace within the book of B'reishit. The first sedra spans the generations from Adam to Noach. Somewhere during those first ten generations, humanity corrupted itself and ran out the string of G-d's patience. In the second sedra, we have the (almost) destructionofthe whole world, the emergence of Noa'ch from the Ark and another ten generations that were marginally better than the first ten. But the world still did not recognize G-d as Creator and Master. Then, one single light appears among all the darkness. Avraham Avinu rediscovers G-d. And through the sedras of Lech L'cha, Vayeira, Chayei Sara, and Toldot, we see the single flame burn brightly and be passed from Avraham to Yitzchak to Yaakov. The flame is there. Now it's time to advance to the next stage. Vayeitzei gives us, not the individual, but the birth of the first Jewish family. A few more sedras and we'll be ready to move on to Nationhood. But not yet.

Meaning in Mitzvot by Rabbi Asher Meir

Each week we will discuss one familiar halakhic practice and try to demonstrate its beauty and meaning. These columns are based on the work “Meaning in Mitzvot”, which is serialized on Yeshivat Har Etzion’s “Virtual Beit Midrash”, www.vbm-torah.org.

ADJOINING GEULA TO TEFILLA AT MAARIV

After leaving Beer Sheva, Yaakov “encounters” a certain place and then spends the night there (Bereshit 28:11). The gemara explains that that he encountered HaShem - he prayed! This teaches that Yaakov instituted the maariv prayer. (Berakhot 26b.)

Both the morning and evening prayer services consist primarily of two parts: keriat shema with its blessings, and the Amida prayer. But the relationship between these two parts is different at the two times.

At shacharit, there is immense importance in semikhat geula litefilla - saying the silent Amida prayer immediately following the blessings of Shema, which close with the recognition of HaShem as the Redeemer of Israel. (SA OC 66:8, 111; MB 52:7.) One understanding is that redemption is a prerequisite for proper prayer,since only when we are free do we have the complete ability to serve HaShem. And only when we recognize HaShem as our Redeemer is our service fully acceptable to Him.

However, adjoining redemption and prayer at maariv, while still important, is somewhat less critical. It is considered less important than praying with a minyan, and geula and tefilla are in any case partially interrupted by the blessing “Shomer amo Yisrael”, and in many communities by “Barukh HaShem leolam”. (SA OC 236).

Indeed, according to one opinion in the gemara, there is no need at all to adjoin redemption and prayer at night (Berakhot 4b). Rashi explains that in the actual redemption from Egypt, the geula began in the evening, but was incomplete. Only in the morning, after the Pesach sacrifice and the plague of the first-born, wasthe Exodus actually underway (Shemot 12:41, 51). Since the evening redemption was less complete, there is less emphasis then on adjoining it to our prayers.

Note that the evening’s geula was not only partial, it was also different. A careful reading reveals that the night’s redemption was spiritual. At night the Jewish people ignored the pagan customs of the Egyptians, which abhorred slaughtering sheep, and instead fulfilled HaShem’s commandment to offer the Pesach lamb. Whereasthe bodily redemption was completed in the morning.

This order is reflected in the ongoing historical experience of the Jewish people. Since accepting the Torah, we enjoy the spiritual freedom of the commandments, and we have liberated ourselves from pagan beliefs. But until the days of the Moshiach, our physical redemption is incomplete. (See Berakhot 34b.) We are stillexperiencing the night of exile.

Since at this time in history our geula is incomplete, we can not fully adjoin geula to tefilla. Our limited appreciation of HaShem as redeemer does not lead to the ideal state of worshp.

But after the Redemption, we will be able to attain a full recognition of HaShem as the spiritual and physical Redeemer of Israel. This recognition will lead into an entirely new level of worship and G-d-consciousness, and our service will then be fully acceptable before HaShem. “Once David comes, so too does prayer, asit is said (Yishayahu 56:7) ‘And I will bring them to My holy mountain, and I will make them to rejoice in My house of prayer.’” (Megilla 18a.)

And Shabbat corresponds to the ultimate level of redemption where we have completely forgotten the travails of exile, so adjoining geula to tefilla becomes superfluous (based on Rema OC 111:1).

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 have givien a series on Business Halacha at the Center - will be giving a weekly shiur at the Israel Center on Tuesday mornings. See Back Page,page II for details.

MA'ARIV (a.k.a. ARVIT)

The Talmud in Brachot teaches us two approaches to our davening - Davening was instituted to correspond to the sacrifices in the Beit HaMikdash; davening was instituted by the Patriarchs. Rather than be an "either, or" type of dispute, we can look at these two schools of thought as mutually enhancing.

(1) The prayers match the korbanot in the Beit HaMikdash... Whereas Shacharit and Mincha correspond to the two daily sacrifices - the T'midim, Maariv does not correspond to a sacrifice, but rather to Hekteir Chalavim v'Eivarim. All parts of an Olah offering were to be burned on the Altar (except for the skins). Some partsofother korbanot were likewise burned. The burning of these parts was most often not completed during the day, but continued throughout the night. In fact, it was desirable to leave much of the burning (especially from korbanot of the afternoon) for the night, so that the Mizbei'ach would be active at night too (no korbanot were brought at night). The burning of the parts had to be completedbeforedawn, otherwise the korban was invalidated.

Because of the "vagueness" of "the burning of the parts", as opposed to the concrete nature of the T'midim, Maariv also has a bit of "vagueness" about it. When stating the time for Maariv, the Mishna does not say "all night long", but rather uses the strange terminology "no set time" (Ein La Keva).

(2) The Patriarchs instituted the prayers... Maariv is associated with Yaakov Avinu. This is based on the verse in the beginning of this week's sedra (that's why this Maariv Pull-Out is in the Vayeitzei issue of TT) - "And he (Yaakov) "encountered" the place (Makom - also a "supplementary" name for G-d) and spent the nightthere,because the sun had set..." Elsewhere in Tanach, the word "encounter" is associated with prayer. So we have a verse (1) about Yaakov, (2) with a synonym for prayer, and (3) nighttime - hence, the notion that Yaakov established Maariv.

This too contains a "vagueness". Avraham woke up early and purposefully went to the place where he had stood before HaShem. Yitzchak purposefully went into the field to commune (with G-d) before evening (as he had previously done). These give Shacharit and Mincha their "concrete" identities. Yaakov "happened" upon the place.(He"admits" that he was unaware of the G-dliness of the place, although he did know it as a place where his father and grandfather had prayed.) Once again, Maariv seems a bit less "fixed" than its daytime counterparts.

What does all this "vagueness" talk mean? Maariv is/was known as R'SHUT, as opposed to Shacharit and Mincha, which are CHOVA (obligatory). There is an implication that Maariv is optional. This requires clarification. In olden times, Shacharit and Mincha were considered obligations even for those people who did not knowhowto daven. They were required to go to shul so that they could fulfill their obligations by listening and answering AMEN to the davening of the Shaliach Tzibur. For these people, however, Maariv was not required. Only those who knew how to daven on their own (remember, we're talking before printing, before easily accessiblesiddurim,before Torah Tidbits Pull- Out sections) were required to say Maariv.

Maariv today is considered as obligatory as the other davenings. One (a male, that is; see the next section for the female side of the story) must daven Maariv just as he must daven Shacharit and Mincha.

Women...

Without going into the whole topic of women's obligation to daven, let's look at two of the many opinions that exist for this issue:

(1) Women are obligated to daven Shacharit and Mincha, but are not required to daven Maariv. (Remember, this is not the whole picture; there are other opinions.) When Maariv "changed" from "optional" to required, the requirement was not "imposed" on women. This seems to be the mainstream, majority opinion concerning women and Maariv.

(2) There is a minority opinion that women are obligated to daven three times a day - including Maariv.

Note: A woman who decides to daven Maariv should realize that it becomes a vow-like commitment to continue to do so, unless she has in mind B'LI NEDER - that she is NOT undertaking Maariv as an ongoing commitment.

SHOULD a women (who has the time) commit herself to Maariv? There are many women who daven three times a day. Many who don't. There are reasons that Maariv exists. There are reasons that many authorities consider a woman to be exempt from davening Maariv. Women might want to consult with a Rav (and others) before making a commitment.

It is important to remember that Maariv is not only one of the thrice-daily davenings - it is also the time we fulfill the mitzva of the evening Sh'ma.

The G'matriya of the 7512 letters in VAYEITZEI is 482,605

Once again, YUD leads the letter-count with 878. This is 13% above average for the whole Torah. The 715 VAVs are just a bit below average. TAVs are closest to average, with VAV, DALET, and AYIN also pretty close.

The greatest deviations from average are again (they were in To'l'dot) SAMACH with 17, instead of the "expected" 45 (that's more than 60% below average) and KUF with 60% more than would be expected, based on average. This week, the extremes are not as extreme as they were in To'l'dot. The other letters that deviate significantlyfrom average are NUN and GIMMEL on the high side (getting ready for Chanuka), and TET, PEI, and SHIN on the low side.

KUF and SAMACH have an interesting relationship in the world of the Sofer. The gemara "warns" about carefully distinguishing between "look-alike" letters - BET & KAF, for example, and REISH &DALET. KUF & SAMACH are on the list. If you slide the bottom piece of a KUF up and to the left a bit, you get a SAMACH.

Meaningful? Don't know. Fun? Yes (if you like this sort of thing). Who knows?

We Live in Two Worlds (from last year)

Yaakov Avinu is identified early in his life as an ISH TAM YOSHEIV OHALIM, a straightforward man, a dweller of tents. That early picture of Yaakov is of the Yeshiva Bachur isolated and insulated in the four walls of his Beit Medrash.

Yitzchak Avinu was certainly a spiritual person, symbolized by his being placed on the Mizbei'ach during the Akeida. Yet he learned many lessons from his father as to how to be part of this materialistic, physical world. His experience with Avimelech and his repeated digging of the wells is a representation of his understandingconcerningliving in this world.

Yitzchak's first idea was to give his blessings to Eisav, the man of the field, the one of his sons that was well aware of the physical world. Yitzchak hoped that Eisav would develop a spiritual persona to combine with the worldly side and become the embodiment of the whole, complete individual. Yitzchak might have feltthatEisav NEEDED the bracha, without which Eisav might remain only the ISH SADEH. Yitzchak seems satisfied with Yaakov as is.

Rivka Imeinu had other plans. She saw where Eisav was heading and she saw Yaakov's potential of SHLEIMUT, completeness. She orchestrated the diversion of the Bracha from Eisav to Yaakov. The Brachot that Yaakov received - the one when Yitzchak might not have known who he was and the one, Birkat Avraham, where Yitzchak knewforsure whom he was blessing - gave Yaakov a very important "start" in life, but he needed "more work" to become Yaakov Avinu. He needed to attend the "school of hard knocks", the school of life. Rivka probably knew this better than Yitzchak; compare in whose home each grew up.

Rivka wants Yaakov to go to her hometown for more than one reason. Primarily, it was to save himself from Eisav's anger. And there is the issue of finding a suitable wife (or wives). But there was also the experience to be had in living with Uncle Lavan. And he was a master teacher.

Dreams play a major role in parts of the Book of B'reishit. In Vayeitzei we see two major dreams. The first, when Yaakov has just left his father's house, is filled with spirituality. A ladder reaching to heaven with G-d standing above it and angels going up and down the ladder. (True, the ladder had its "feet on the ground",andthat is significant...) After experiencing life with Lavan, life with wives and children, Yaakov becomes much more worldly. And this worldliness shows up in his dream of sheep and goats and ways to increase the size of his flocks.

Has this spoiled the ISH TAM? The answer comes in the form of the famous play on words. In next week's sedra, when Yaakov tells Eisav what's been happening in his life since they last saw each other, Yaakov says, IM LAVAN GARTI, I have been living with Lavan, and have been occupied until now. Rashi's famous comment takes the letters of GARTI and rearranges them to state, V'TARYAG MITZVOT SHAMARTI, but I have remained faithful to G-d. This is the only way itcanwork. There's a risk. We need G-d's help, and we need to prioritize, so that we won't be corrupted.

G'MATRIYA = 3 + 40 + 9 + 200 + 10 + 1 = 263 (R. Orbach z"l)

G-d says to Yaakov: "I am HaShem, the G-d of Avraham your father and the G-d of Yitzchak, the land upon which you lie, to you it will be given and to your descendants." The initial letters of this phrase add up as follows: 1+10+1+1+1+6+10+5+1+1+300+70+30+1+6 = 444.

And where specifically WAS Yaakov lying? The place of the future MIKDASH = 40+100+4+300 = 444.

And if you take the whole verse (not just the phrase), adding the first words of the verse: "And G-d was standing atop that ladder...", this adds the letters 6+10+50+70+6 = 142 to bring the total for the verse to 586, the numeric value of Yerushalayim (as it is usually spelled in Tanach) = 10+200+6+300+30+40 = 586.

KOSHER KOLUMN

This is another informational Kosher Kolumn, rather than a Buyer Beware type, but for some it might prove tachlitic (as the made up word goes).

We start with a question so old, that no one asks it anymore - why is honey kosher? We don't ask, "Is honey kosher?" We know that it is. At least, we assume that it is. But do we know why it might not have been, and why, in fact, it is?

Camel milk and ostrich eggs are two foods that come from non-kosher animals. Neither is kosher because that which comes from non-kosher, IS non-kosher. But doesn't honey come from bees?

Bees suck nectar from flowers. The nectar mixes with the bee's saliva and is swallowed into the honey sac where enzymes from the saliva break the nectar down into honey. The nectar is not digested by the bee, nor is the honey produced by the bee's body. The bee processes the nectar and transforms it into honey. What happens in the honey sac is halachically considered to be an "external" process. Halacha does not consider honey to be "part of the bee" in the way that it considers milk and eggs to originate from the body of the animal.

Honey is not a secretion from the bee; the bee serves as a carrier and facilitator. When the article with this information (from the Star-K website, by the way) was presented at the Shiur-while-you-fold-TT, last Thursday, the question was raised concerning the saliva of the bee and its kosher-status. Halacha does not consider saliva as something the animal (or insect) produces, but rather it is water that is processed by the animal in question. Interestingly (and disgustingly, if you think about it) neither zebra saliva or elephant urine is non-kosher.

There is an interesting difference of opinion as to the source of the halacha that honey is kosher. Some base it on the explanation as presented in the preceding paragraphs. Others say it is a G'ZEIRAT HAKATUV, a decree based on the text. According to this second opinion, the reasoning might help us understand the ruling, but does not (necessarily) allow application to similar honeys and other products of other insects.

Another important point to present concerns other products "manufactured" by the bee. Propolis is a bee product made with the sap of certain trees, rather than nectar from flowers. In too is kosher in its pure state, but companies often process the propolis with other ingredients which might require Hashgacha. This same warning applies to flavored honey. Only 100% honey, assuming that the designation is reliable, can be considered kosher without checking further.

Bee pollen and bee bread, which the bee "makes" with pollen in addition to nectar, would also be kosher. These products are well-known to health food stores and those who frequent them. Let's hold the issues of Royal Jelly and Beeswax for part two of this Kosher Kolumn, which will appear, IY"H next week. Each is its own story, significantly different from honey. Until then...

THE JERUSALEM INSTITUTE OF JEWISH LAW R. Emanuel Quint, Dean

Lesson #15: Emergency Jurisdiction of the Courts (part 1 of 3)

As seen from the prior lessons, the powers of the Beth Din consisting of non-ordained judges were mostly limited to commercial actions and to a few tort actions. But the Beth Din was not authorized to act in cases involving criminal-type conduct or transgressions of religious laws and practices. Situations could arise whereanti-social or irreligious conduct threaten the fabric and quality of communal life, or even the safety of the community in its relationship with the ruling non-Jewish authorities.

Emergency or sometimes called exigency jurisdiction of the Beth Din existed long before the lapse of ordination. The response of the halachah was to expand the extrajudicial authority of the Beth Din to cope with problems that it could not otherwise handle.

This type of extrajudicial authority is even found in the Bible (Genesis chapter 38). Tamar had been married to Judah’s two sons, both of whom died. While she was an unmarried widow she became pregnant by Judah. Judah did not know that the woman he had cohabited with was Tamar; he thought that he had cohabited with a prostitute.When Judah is told that Tamar is pregnant, he sentences Tamar to be burned for becoming pregnant. Tamar did nothing that called for the death penalty. Since she was not married at the time she became pregnant, the death sentence against her was an extrajudicial remedy. Also as seen in prior lessons the death penalty requiresa Lesser Sanhedrin of 23 judges, and in her case only three judges convicted her. To compound the invalidity of the Beth Din, it consisted of Judah, his father Yaakov and his grandfather Isaac. A court that has relatives sitting together is an invalid court. The Patriarchs and Judah concluded that the generation was dissoluteand the death penalty although not warranted in such a case, was meted out as a social deterrent. Beth Din exercised its exigency jurisdiction. Tamar showed her greatness when she refused to divulge who the father was. Of course she was blessed with the birth of twins, Peretz and Zerach. This same Peretz is the ancestorof King David and the King Messiah. Tamar was silent when she could have spoken to save herself just as Lot remained silent in parshas Lech Lecha. He too is an ancestor of King David and King Messiah. The amazing moral lesson to be learned that sometimes silence can bring about the Final Redemption. In an incident thathappened at the Cave of the Patriarchs (Maarat haMachpelah) in 1976, the Arabs on Erev Yom Kippur destroyed the synagogue there and destroyed eight Sifrai Torah and other holy books and objects. When those who discovered the atrocity asked Rabbi Ovadyah Yosef if they had to tear kriyah as for a dead person, he ruled thatthey did not have to and explained why. They also asked if they had to fast from eating food and drink when they buried the eight Sifrai Torah and the other holy objects? He responded that they could fast from food and drink, but he suggested a fast of speech might be more beneficial. (Yechaveh Da’at 4:56)

Joshua was similarly motivated by the concept of social deterrent when he sentenced Achan to death for taking booty from Jericho. (Joshua ch.7) Someone had taken from the booty of Jericho against the express decree of Joshua, and the Jews lost the next battle. Hashem would not divulge who the transgressor was and lots hadto be cast to find the guilty party; it turned out to be Achan. There was no competent testimony to prove his guilt, just the lots. His subsequent confession would have been excluded at a trial since a person cannot testify against himself. Joshua and his court exercised exigency jurisdiction in punishing Achan.

Ramban in commenting on the story that we just read a few weeks ago, of Lot offering his daughters to the Sodomites in order to save his guests, compares it to the similar incident of the “concubine in Gibeah”. (Ramban Genesis 19:8)

The story of the concubine of Gibeah may also have been brought about by social deterrent (Judges ch.19). In that situation an elderly man residing in Gibeah extended hospitality to a visitor and his concubine. The citizens of the town of Gibeah demanded that the old man surrender the visitor so that they could commit unnaturalacts upon him. The visitor thrust his concubine into their midst. The inhabitants ravished her and she was found dead in the morning on the old man’s doorstep. This precipitated a civil war, the other tribes deciding to punish and indeed decimating the Benjaminites. There was no direct evidence of the cause of death ofthe concubine. She may have died of being exposed to the cold. The punishment inflicted on the tribe was an extrajudicial remedy to eradicate such conduct from the nation.

There are also Talmudic sources for exigency jurisdiction of courts of non-ordained judges. (See Yebamoth 90b) Rabbi Eliezer b. Yakov states that he heard from his teachers that a court of non-ordained judges may mete out lashes or capital punishment even in cases where the law does not prescribe such punishments, the purposenot being to undermine the law but to preserve the law by “building a fence around it.” Another case cited there: during the period of Greek rule in Israel a man rode his horse on Shabbat and he was brought to court and was stoned to death. In another case a man had relations with his wife in a semipublic place, he wasbrought before the court and he was flogged. In these last two cases the penalty was not the prescribed penalty. The times, however, required it. The courts in both cases acted extrajudicially to combat attitudes of assimilation and immorality that prevailed during the Hellenistic period.

In another case the Talmud relates the following incident. (Baba Kamma 96b) A person stole a yoke of oxen from his neighbor and after having used the oxen for plowing and sowing he returned them to the owner. When the case came before R. Nachman, he ordered the thief to pay the equivalent of the increment in the value ofthe field due to the plowing. When R. Nachman was asked that the halachah provides for a lesser payment he answered that the person who misappropriated the oxen was a notorious robber and must be penalized as a deterrent. It is to be noted that R. Nachman lived outside the Land of Israel and this type of emergency jurisdictionis thus universal.

There is another incident, where Shimon b. Shetach caused 80 witches to be hanged in one day. (Jerusalem Talmud, Hagiga, ch.2, halachah 2) It was feared that witchcraft was undermining belief in Hashem and might affect the religious practices of the community at large.

Rambam, based on a Talmudic passage, writes that the Beth Din has authority to flog a person about whom there is an evil rumor and about whom the people are saying that he is guilty of immorality. (Laws of Sanhedrin ch.24, law #5, based on Kiddushin 81a.) In another Talmudic incident R. Yehudah placed a ban on a memberof the academy whose reputation was objectionable. (Mo’ed Katan 17a.) Rambam concludes “With regard to all these disciplinary measures, discretionary power is vested in the judge. He is to decide whether the offender deserves these punishments and whether the emergency of the hour demands their application.” (Rambam law#10)

All of the great codifiers and commentators state that the exigency jurisdiction of the Beth Din of non-ordained judges must be employed if they see that the people are becoming dissolute in sin and an emergency exists.

In the next lesson we shall discuss whether it applies to capital or corporal punishments.