Shlomo HaMelech's Famous First Judgment
This piece sort of belongs to the better late than never category. It is about the Haftara of three weeks ago, the "regular" Haftara of Parshat Mikeitz. That Haftara was last read 4 years ago, but it is not scheduled to be read until 20 years from now. So my choice is writing it three weeks late or holding it until 2020. IY"H we'll repeat it then, but in the meantime, here it is. I'm sharing this with you because I like it and because many who heard it in the shiur on Monday morning also liked it. Hope you will too.

Credit for the following analysis of the story of Shlomo and the babies is shared by two Midrashim, R. Yehoshua Ibn Shu'ib and R. Menachem HaMeiri of the 13th century, the author of Shemen Roke'ach, R. Mordechai Kornfeld, R. Yitz Eitshalom, attorney Baruch C. Cohen, and cousin Alan Schoffman of Teaneck, respectively the sources of the analysis, the first ones to put things together, the present day presentor of this analysis, those who spread the word, and he who called it to my attention.

The following explanation can be said to be warranted by an interesting question or two on the story as presented in Melachim Alef (from 3:16). After the two women present their claims before the king and he calls for a sword to divide the living baby between the two, it is the real mother who speaks up first and pleads that the baby's life be spared and that he be given to the other women. The other women, the kidnapper and liar, says "neither hers nor mine - cut!"

Why didn't she agree to the "offer" of the other woman? She took the baby. She claimed it was hers. The real mother said before the king that she should have him. She could have easily proclaimed herself justified by saying something like, "Yes I will take my child. What woman would offer to give her child away rather than fight for him." But she didn't take the baby when she had the chance. She said, "Cut".

And how could Shlomo have been sure that his bluff would produce the desired reactions from the women? What if both would have protested the suggestion of killing and dividing the baby? Or what if both would have agreed to the cut? 

Combining two Midrashim, we have this: the two women were married to a father and son. One was the mother-in-law of the other. Both gave birth to sons, both husbands died, the father had only two children - the son now deceased and the baby, and the son had only this baby. The mother of the living baby was the wife of the father. It was the wife of the son who had accidentally smothered her child and had then switched the babies. Her strong desire to claim the living baby as her own was based upon her not wanting to be caught in a particularly problematic YIBUM situation. Because her child died before 30 days of age, it does not cancel the YIBUM situation. She, as the widow of a man who died "childless" is obligated to her husband's brother. Either they marry or the brother-in-law performs Chalitza which releases the widow to marry someone else. In this case, the YAVAM is none other than the living baby. 

It would be at least 13 years before she could be released from her Y'VAMA status. She wanted out. Switching the babies was her first plan. If she got away with taking the baby as her own, there would be no YIBUM situation, for two reasons - her husband would supposedly have been survived by a son, and he would have no living brothers. She'd be free.But only in the "eyes of people". She'd always know that she was still stuck in the YIBUM situation, and have to look at her actual brother-in-law YAVAM whom she pretended was her son.

When Shlomo HaMelech suggested cutting the live baby in two, she saw a much better way of getting out of her "situation". With that baby dead too, there would really be no YIBUM problem for her. So she switched plans from claiming the baby as her own, to saying, "cut".

And this was why Shlomo was able to present the bluff in the first place. She had already demonstrated her determination not to be trapped as a Y'VAMA by switching the babies. She would surely go for the "better plan".
(The real mother, the wife of the father, would not have acted the same way had it been her son that died. There would be no YIBUM situation for her since one baby was her husband's son and the other was his grandson - either would cancel YIBUM.)

That's it. I think it adds much to the story that everyone knows. It demonstrates Shlomo's wisdom in a stronger manner than the "regular" story. Think again what would have happened if the women had both said the same thing. Likely, except in this scenario.

RITE and REASON by Shmuel Pinchas Gelbard 
Q What is the reason for saying AL NAHAROT BAVEL before Birkat HaMazon during the week, and SHIR HAMAALOT on Shabbat? A The Zohar states that if one derives pleasure from bread and delights in given foods, he is required to remember and worry over the sanctity of the Holy Land and over the Palace of the King which is in ruins. So on weekdays we recite, "There we sat and we also wept when we remembered Zion." On Shabbat and Yom Tov when it is prohibited to openly display grief, we say a joyful psalm instead: "When HaShem returned the captivity of Zion, we were as dreamers." Q What about the additional four p'sukim that some people say after SHIR HAMAALOT? 

A It is possible that these four verses correspond to the four brachot of Birkat HaMazon. "...and all flesh shall bless His holy name..." corresponds to "He gives bread to all flesh". Va'anachnu n'varech Kah" matches NODEH L'CHA. "For His lovingkindness is forever" is echoed by "...that we shall not be shamed... unto eternity. And "Who shall speak the powers of HaShem..." corresponds to "Our King, our Creator, our Redeemer..." 
RITE and REASON by Shmuel Pinchas Gelbard, which we have been featuring these last many weeks is available at local sfarim stores, both in the original Hebrew as well as the English translation. It makes a great gift... even for yourself!

The Wonder of Tzitzit 
In the parsha of Tzitzit (Bamidbar 15) is written clearly the reason for Hashem commanding us regarding the 4-cornered garment and its requisite fringes. “And you will see it and you will remember all the commandments of the Lord, and you will perform them and won’t be lured after your desires and eyes with which due to them you act presumptuously”. As our sages explained, Talmud, Menahot – “Seeing leads to remembering and remembering brings to action”. This is also the reason for taking the fringes in our hand during, the reading of the parsha, and the custom to raise the fringes to one’s eyes when he recites “you will see it”, and to touch the tefillin when he recites “and you tied them”. The human mind can grasp this connection between the symbolic meaning of action and its influence on one’s behavior.

However, our grasp is minimal when compared to the depth of meaning that lies in each commandment and each detail within a commandment. We have tried these past weeks to uncover these deep symbolic teachings. Yet, as much as we can learn, the true effect of a mitzva is ungraspable for our human level, and that is the true greatness of the commandment, its Divine origin and providence – Being from Hashem, each detail is necessarily connected to the theme and purpose of the mitzva. The main idea is that by remembering, one will certainly be able to do what he has forgotten, and vice versa. We must remember first and foremost that Hashem is One, Giver of the mitzvot, and the only one that can bring us salvation. This is remembered since the 5 knots and 8 strings totaling 13 are equivalent to the Hebrew Gematria of “Ehod”, One, namely Hashem.

Similarly, the custom of wrapping the strings according to the order of 7, 8, 11, 13 wrappings equalling the value of Hashem Ehod – 39 (13+26). The visual effect when looking upon one’s tzitzit is deeper then we generally know. Today, without the (blue thread) Techelet it would seem we are missing a crucial aspect of the mitzva, yet the Torah requires to don the white strings alone, when Techelet is not available. cont. next issue, IY"H – Prepared by the owners of NeaTzit. More to come. 

ASK THE VEBBE REBBE
from the virtual desk of the OU Vebbe Rebbe 
The Orthodox Union – via its website – fields questions of all types in the areas of kashrut, Jewish law and values. Some of the questions are answered by Eretz Hemdah, the Institute for Advanced Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, founded by HaRav Shaul Yisraeli, zt"l to prepare rabbanim and dayanim to serve the National Religious community in Israel and abroad. The Ask the Rabbi project is a joint venture of the OU, Yerushalayim Network, Eretz Hemdah... and the Israel Center. The following is a Q&A from Eretz Hemdah... 

Question: Does Halacha permit a Jewish woman to perform a brit milah? 
Answer: The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 264:1 rules that a woman may perform a brit milah, although it is preferable for an adult male to do so. The Rama (which, as you know, is more critical for Ashkenzim) brings an opinion that women may not perform the brit, and he states that the minhag is according to this opinion.

The basis for the disagreement stems from the gemara (Avodah Zara 27a). The gemara brings varied opinions of Tana’im whether the milah done by a non-Jew is valid. Rav and R. Yochanan argue as to the reason a non-Jew’s milah would be disqualified. Rav said it is because they are not in the group of those commanded to have a brit. R. Yochanan said that only one who is circumcised may circumcise others. 

The gemara points out that a woman is disqualified according to Rav since milah doesn’t apply to her. However, according to R. Yochanan, a woman, as a member of the convental nation, is considered as if she is circumcised and is qualified. (A circumcised non-Jew is considered - from a halachic view - to be uncircumcised). The Rishonim disagree regarding which opinion should be accepted as halacha, as do the Shulchan Aruch and Rama. 

[Ed. note - One cannot refrain, on Parashat Shemot, from mentioning the gemara’s proof that a woman may circumcise. Tziporah, after all, circumcised Eliezer to save Moshe’s life. The gemara, however, deflects the proof, saying that it is possible that she passed the rock on to someone else to do the brit or that she started but Moshe completed the job].

This “Ask the Rabbi” Q&A is part of this week’s Hemdat Yamim, the parasha sheet published by Eretz Hemdah. You can read this section or the entire Hemdat Yamim at www.ou.org or www.eretzhemdah.org. If you would like to receive Hemdat Yamim by e-mail, on a weekly basis, please send an e-mail to lists@eretzhemdah.org with the message Join Hemdatya. Please leave the subject blank. 

[The Sh'mot Homepage]
[The TORAH tidbits Homepage] [How to use TORAH tidbits]
[About The OU/NCSY Israel Center] [About TORAH tidbits]