Special Features ASARA B'TEVET The 10th of Tevet is one of the four fasts associated with the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. Specifically, it marks the beginning of the siege around Jerusalem by the Babylonians, prior to the destruction of the first Beit HaMikdash. It thus commemorates the beginning of the Churban. To the 10th of Tevet has been added events that are associated with the 8th of Tevet - namely, the "tragedy of the Targum Shiv'im", the first (and coerced) translation of the Torah into Greek. The day is considered as "dark" as the day of the Sin of the Golden Calf. Literal translation of the Written Torah without the inseparableOralLaw, opens the Torah to misunderstanding and distortion, the effects of which have haunted us throughout the generations; And the 9th of Tevet - namely, the anniversaries of the deaths of Ezra and Nechemia, who represent for us the restoration of Torah study and practice after a long spiritual drought, and the return (albeit in disappointingly small numbers) of the Jews to Eretz Yisrael from exile. In our time, an additional element was added to Asara b'Tevet - namely, it has been declared as Yom Kaddish K'lali - a day of saying Kaddish and remembering victims of the Holocaust whose actual dates of death will remain forever unknown to their families and all of Israel. A major minor fast... Asara b'Tevet, together with Tzom Gedaliya and the 17th of Tammuz, unfortunately carries the misleading moniker - Minor Fast Day. It somehow came to convey the message that it isn't THAT important to fast on those days. Yom Kippur, of course. Tish'a b'Av? Sure. What kind of Jew do you think I am? The others (Taanit Esther gets into the picture too, but it is treated slightly differently) - well, no, they're not that required. I'm not a fanatic. WRONG! It is clear in the sources of Jewish law that a healthy person - male and female, adult and child from 13/12 years of age - is REQUIRED to fast on Asara b'Tevet (and the other fasts). True, there are several "types" of individuals that are exempt from fasting. Many authorities exempt from fasting pregnant women, nursing mothers, people with various and sundry medical conditions that can worsen as a result of a fast, frail people. If a person suspects that he/she should not fast, a Rav should be consulted. But healthy people - even those weakened by fasting, but not unusually so, MUST fast. It's as simple as that. Do not be misleadby commonlyheld misconceptions. In addition to the non-fasting types mentioned in the previous paragraph, there are other leniencies that apply to Asara b'Tevet, that should be accepted for what they are, and not taken as indicators to ignore the Fast. For certain reasons, the Sages allowed us to begin the fast at dawn, instead of prior to sunset the evening before. They also did not "impose" upon us the "additional" restrictions of Yom Kippur and Tish'a b'Av. Only eating and drinking is forbidden on Asara b'Tevet; washing, use of lotions etc., wearing of leather shoes, and marital relations are not forbidden. These leniencies notwithstanding, the Shulchan Aruch states clearly that a healthy person who will not be harmed by the fast, MUST fast on the required days. More on Asara b'Tevet... It is very important to explain to people, young and old, that fasting and mourning are both important aspects of a fast day like 10 Tevet, and one should not hold back the other. In other words, someone who is not fasting, for a good reason or even a bad reason, still has an obligation to mourn the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash and to spend serious time thinking about the different commemoratives of the day. One must use the day for self-improvement resolutions (which must be taken seriously) and plans for improving the "matzav" of Klal Yisrael. Fasting is supposed to be a help in these directions, but everyone must relate to the events of thedate, fasting or not. In case you were wondering... Asara b'Tevet falls on Sunday 30% of the time, Tuesday 28%, Wednesday 4%, Thursday 18%, and Friday 20% of the time. Never on Monday or Shabbat. Unlike most of the dates in the Jewish Calendar which have three impossible days of the week - like LO AD"U ROSH (Rosh HaShana cannot fall on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday) - the days of Tevet and Shvat have only two impossibles. And Kislev dates have only one impossible. Take this as a rough sketch. More exact data on some other occasion.
G'MATRIYA from the pages of L'ORA shel TORAH by R. Yaakov Auerbach z"l Yosef tells his brothers (in pasuk 45:7) that G-d sent him in advance to Egypt, to prepare the land to receive the family, so to speak, so that the Children of Israel would be able to survive there. The numeric value of that whole pasuk is 3161. The first pasuk in Sh'mot which announces the arrival of Bnei Yisrael in Egypt has the same G'matriya, 3161. The two p'sukim are tied together by their themes and by their numeric values.
[SDT] When Yosef and Binyamin embrace, the Torah uses the phrase "and he (Yosef) fell on Binyamin's neck and he cried..." Rashi says that Yosef cried for the destruction of the two Temples which were to stand (partially) on a portion of Binyamin's tribal land. (And Binyamin cried for the Mishkan in Shilo which stood for 369 years on Yosef's land.) The Torah Temima cites a verse in Shir HaShirim to support Rashi's point: "Thy neck is like Migdal David..." Neck refers to the Beit HaMikdash - just as the neck is adorned with jewels, so too is the Temple adorned with "the jewels of Israel". This drash is partially prompted by the term in the verse NECKS, in the plural. People do not have more than one. But two Beit HaMikdash were destroyed.
[SDT] On these words in the verse, Rashi says that the Divine Spirit returned to Yaakov. It had left him during the years of sadness. This is true of prophecy in general. A prophet must be in a receptive mood for the Divine Spirit to come to him.
According to one opinion brought by Rashi, Yosef told his brothers not to rush on the way back to Yaakov. The Kotzker Rebbe says that we have to know that we are often powerless to speed up or slow down G-d's timetable.
More on Asara b'Tevet Some say that if 10 Tevet fell on Shabbat, it would not be postponed and we would fast on Shabbat. In our calendar, this cannot happen; the point is of academic interest only. It is based upon the wording in Yechezkeil that speaks of the Siege being on the 10th of the month B'ETZEM HAYOM HAZEH, on this specific day. This is the same terminology as is used in the Torah's description of Yom Kippur - hence the similarity. "He who mourns Jerusalem will be privileged to see its rebuilding." The Fast of 10 Tevet is one way that we mourn Jerusalem. It must be a day of serious introspection and resolve to do our share to improve the quality of Jewish life, to spread Torah and its values among our fellow Jews. In this way, we will be doing ourshareinbringing about the rebuilding of the Beit HaMikdash, the coming of Moshiach, and the conversion of the Four Fasts into days of great joy and celebration, as G-d has promised through the prophet Zecharya. [Those who are not fasting still must "do" Asara b'Tevet - the mourning, thinking, resolving, etc.]
Speaking of the SH'MA... The five fingers of the hand (that covers the eyes during the first pasuk of the SH'MA) are named BOHEN (thumb), ETZBA (pointer), AMA (middle finger), K'MITZA (ring finger), ZERET (pinky). The G'MATRIYA of the names of the fingers totals 1118, which is the G'matriya of Sh'ma Yisra'el HaShem Elokeinu HaShem Echad. This is particularly interesting if you've seen the way S'faradim cover their eyes. They do not use their hand, as Ashkenazim do, but specifically, their fingertips - pinky and thumb in the corners of their closed eyes, and the other three fingers, tips on the forehead, forming the letter SHIN.
Meaning in Mitzvot by Rabbi Asher Meir Each week we will discuss one familiar halakhic practice and try to demonstrate its beauty and meaning. The columns are based on the work “Meaning in Mitzvot”; you can subscribe by visiting Yeshivat Har Etzion’s “Virtual Beit Midrash”, www.vbm-torah.org. INTERRUPTIONS IN KRIAT SHEMA When Yaakov and Yosef finally meet after decades of separation and uncertainty, Yosef embraces his father and weeps - but it seems that Yaakov doesn’t return this gesture! (Bereshit 46:29.) Rashi explains that Yaakov was reciting “Shema”. This thought-provoking Midrash may make us reconsider Yaakov Avinu’s relationship towards his son, but it also serves as the basis of a purely halakhic discussion, as we will now explain: The Mishna tells us that in the middle of Kriat Shema and its blessings we may “greet someone out of awe, and return a greeting out of respect”; whereas if we are in between sections we may even “greet out of respect, and reply to anyone” (Berakhot 13a). The only exception is in the middle of the “Shema” verse itself and“barukh shem kevod”. Then we may interrupt only in case of clear and present danger. The Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chayim 66) explains that we are in awe of our father or Rabbi, or any great Torah scholar, and we also fear (in a different way) a king or other powerful figure. The Taz (66:1) asks: Since Kriat Shema may be interrupted to greet a king, why didn’t Yaakov interrupt his recitation of Shema to embrace his son? After all, Yosef was like a king in Egypt. The Taz answers that Yaakov was still reciting the first verse of Shema. It is easy to understand why we may not interrupt the first verse of Kriat Shema - after all, saying this verse constitutes the focus of our acceptance of the Yoke of God’s kingdom. It is more remarkable that we may interrupt the following paragraphs - after all, the entire Kriat Shema is kabbalat ol malkhut shamayim. This surprising permission is derived in the Yerushalmi from the words of the first paragraph of the Shema itself. The phrase “vedibarta bam” - “and you shall speak of them [the words of the Shema]” is rendered “and you shall speak in them”, in other words, in the middle of the Shema! (End of Berakhot 2:1) Their is an important lesson in this halakha. Our primary, fundamental acceptance of God’s sovereignty needs to be completely unconditional (no interruptions in the first verse - perhaps Yaakov Avinu wanted to emphasize this lesson to Yosef). However, this acceptance needs to be expressed in a way that respects and leavesroom for ordinary human interaction - even when this relates to human weakness like the need for honor or the fear of a powerful figure (permissible interruptions in the following paragraphs.) Another halakha of Kriat Shema bears a similar message. The gemara (Berakhot 9b) suggests several criteria for deciding when the time of Kriat Shema begins; the one that is finally adopted, and which is mentioned in the Shulchan Arukh (OC 58:1) is “when he can see and recognize his friend from four paces.” Figuratively, this seems to suggest that if a person is so benighted that he is not sensitive to his fellow man - even to his friend who is right next to him - he is not yet at the stage where he is ready to accept the yoke of HaShem’s kingdom. “Derekh eretz kadma laTorah” - thoughtful conduct precedes Torah. 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 YOUR NAME IS YOUR BLESSING (Jason Aronson, Inc.) Name: YEHUDA G'matriya: 30 Meaning: PRAISE His word: Y'H'YEH (He will be) His phrase: B'YAD ZAHAV (with golden hand) His blessing: He will be all that he can be and others will greatly praise is accomplishments
For your trivial information: There will be no 6th of Tevet in the secular year 2000. The same will be so for the 7th thru the 22nd. (No Asara b'Tevet in 2000.) This is so because the period from 23 Tevet 5760 to 22 Tevet 5761 has 383 days. 2000 will have 366 days. Subtract and you get the 17 days not in 2000.
THE JERUSALEM INSTITUTE OF JEWISH LAW Rabbi Emanuel Quint, Dean Lesson #19 (Part 2 of.4) Composition of the Beth Din In the last lesson we discussed if the Beth Din of unlearned judges rendered a decision it was invalid. A question arises if the defendant appearing before a Beth Din of three unlearned judges is bound by their decision. In a case decided by Rabbi Jacob Reischer (Shvut Yaakov, Part 1, Responsum 137, Prague, 1670-1733) there were the following facts. A learned person sat in judgment with two corner-sitters who were neitherlearned nor able to reason logically. After the testimony was heard the learned member of the Beth Din sough to deliberate with the two unlearned members in order to arrive at a legal decision. However, the two unlearned members, without much deliberation, decided the case against the view of the learned judge. The learnedjudge sought a ruling of Rabbi Reischer as to the validity of the two to one decision. Rabbi Reischer answered that he needed more facts to decide the case. If the litigants accepted these unlearned judges then the legal consequence is different than it would be if the litigants were summoned to Beth Din against theirwill. Whenever litigants voluntarily accept three unlearned judges, the Beth Din’s decision is valid. This is based on a principle stated in a Mishna (Sanhedrin, chapter 3, Mishna 2) that states, “the litigants may accept three cowherds as judges”. The Talmud asks why cowherds were specified since the parties may acceptany three unlearned men to act as their judges. The answer given is that because cowherds are rarely found in populous areas they have very little contact with rules of law and are thus the paradigm of unlearned persons. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the litigants must expressly manifest an intent to accept the decision of the unlearned judges, or whether their mere appearance is enough. Question, did Shimon’s participation bind him to the decision of this “learned” Beth Din, or did his mere participation not act as a waiverof his rights to have a competent Beth Din adjudicate the claims. It seems to me that the better view is that if Shimon is to waive his rights it should have been a specific waiver. Assume Reuven the plaintiff and Shimon the defendant in last week’s lesson both realized that the three “judges” adjudicating their case are a sham and that they do not want to have them make a decision in their case. Yet the nearest Beth Din is far away in a major city and that the only way to get a decision from thatfaraway Beth Din is to submit to the judges there an agreed statement of facts. That is, both Reuven and Shimon will write down their version of the facts. Reuven will write that although Shimon had asked for a pale blue paint for his living room, it is obvious to all that orange with purple polka dots is more desirableand the paint job should have a higher price. Shimon will write that any fool, even Reuven will know that if Shimon would have wanted a living room painted orange he would have asked for it. The “Beth Din of the city of Chelm” composed of these “learned” judges can accept the pleas of Reuven and Shimon and forward themto the Beth Din of the faraway city. Not only that – if Reuven and Shimon desire, they can even testify before this Beth Din of the city of Chelm and have their testimony also forwarded to the Beth Din in the faraway city. The question arises in the Talmud, what if the Beth Din consisted of two judges. That is, a Beth Din of two laymen (not corner-sitters) Issachar and Zevulun issued a summons to Shimon to appear in a lawsuit brought by Reuven. Shimon, receiving a summons to appear in Beth Din, does not question their composition and appears.Beth Din, after hearing the testimony of the parties and witnesses and examining all of the evidence, renders a decision. Is this decision binding on the parties? There are two views in the Talmud whether the law follows R. Abbahu who says it is not valid, and the Amora Samuel who says that two judges should not judgea lawsuit, and if they did they are called an arrogant Beth Din, but nevertheless their decision is binding. Many of our greatest decisors of the law are split as to whether the halachah follows R. Abbahu of Samuel. The law seems to follow R. Abbahu. (I have preference to follow Samuel because Halachot Gedoloth and RabbainuTam hold like him.) The decision of the two judges is a nullity even if their decision is correct. With this in mind, Rabbi Yoel Sirkus, (Bayot Chadash, Poland 1570-1641) posits the following situation. Reuven sues Shimon and there are two judges who decide the case in Reuven’s favor and Shimon pays Reuven $100 adjudged by the Beth Din of two judges to be due to Reuven. Reuven used the money to betroth Sarah, Accordingto R. Abbahu the betrothal is void since the consideration for the betrothal must belong to Reuven. In this situation if did not belong to Reuven since the judgment of the Beth Din of two judges is a nullity. According to Samuel she is betrothed. Subsequently Yehudah betroths Sarah. According to Samuel she is betrothedonly to Reuven. According to R. Abbahu she is betrothed only to Yehudah. Rabbi Sirkus concludes that in cases where the only question is a monetary one, the law is definitely not as stated by Samuel. However, in cases where there may be religious prohibitions, such as sexual prohibitions rising from the marital relationship,it is not at all certain that the halachah does not follow Samuel. Accordingly, out of abundance of caution, to prevent Sarah who may be betrothed to either Reuven or Yehudah (depending upon whether the halachah follows Samuel or R. Abbahu) from committing adultery, she must secure a divorce (get) from both Reuven andYehudah. However, the litigants may confer jurisdiction on less than three judges to decide a monetary case. Since the halachah does not follow Samuel, all pleas and admissions made before a Beth Din of two judges are of no effect and the litigants may change their pleas and retract their admissions. More on these topics is found in “A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law”, Chapter 3. More on "Composition of the Beth Din, IY"H, next week (and the week after).
FYI - R. Yosef Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch, was born in 5248 (1488ce) and died in 5335 (1575ce). R. Moshe Isserles (the RAMA) was born in 5290 (1530ce) and died in 5333 (1573ce). As you can see, the RAMA lived his short life during the second half of the M'CHABEIR's lifetime. [The Vayigash Homepage]
|
