SHABBAT PARSHAT BAMIDBAR - MACHAR
CHODESH Halachic Times for Jerusalem Israel
Summer Time Sunset, on the other hand, is given for an elevation of 825m and, in parentheses, as if at sea level. There are different opinions as to which sunset time should be used for halachic purposes. We present both times. The deadlines for the SH'MA and the Shacharit Amida can be calculated in two ways. Either considering the day to be from sunrise to sunset or from dawn to stars out. The first way of reckoning is known as the opinion of the GR"A, and is the first time given in each case. The second method is known as the Magen Avraham, and is presented in parentheses. Aside from candle lighting and havdala, the times are presented as a range, from the current Thursday of the issue of Torah Tidbits until the coming Thursday, a span of 8 days. Days between the two Thursdays can be determined by interpolation (which means: a method by which to estimate a value of between two known values - this is something that people above a certain age might remember from high school trigonometry and logarithms, but younger people who went to school during the calculator era might not be familiar with). It is usually wise to "pad" the times
with a minute or two in the "play it safe" direction. E.g. Plag Mincha.
Better to finish Mincha a minute or two before the given time. But, better
to not light candles until a minute or two after the given time. Shabbat Parshat Acharei, April 26 ROSH CHODESH SIVAN YIHYEH MACHAR B'YOM
RISHON HABA ALEINU V'AL KOL YISRA'EL L'TOVA: A TT reader asked about the frequency of
such an occurrence and if there could be more than 59 days in a row that
match between the two calendars. As mentioned earlier, when two 30 months
(one Jewish month, one secular month) match up, then the following months
will also match. There are only four 30-day months in the secular calendar.
Thirty days hath September, April, June, and November - remember that? So
when Sivan and June match, then Tammuz and July will also. Most recently
before this year, this double match up happened in 5744 (19 years ago).
Before that, it happened in 5733 (11 years earlier) and 5725 (19 years
before 5744). The next time it’s scheduled to happen is 5809 (which is two
19-year jumps and an additional 8 years). September-Elul is a matchup that cannot
be followed by another match up, because Elul only has 29 days. But we have to remember that it’s two out of three. Not THE two, two out of three. Over the years of Torah Tidbits, frequent mention has been made of the package deal. When G-d first appeared to Moshe at the S’neh, and again in the beginning of Va’eira, and repeatedly throughout the Torah, G-d speaks of three parts to the process: Being taken out of Egypt, being given the Torah, AND being brought into Eretz Yisrael (and building the Beit HaMikdash, which we will consider part of this third prong of G-d’s Plan). In fact, if you think about it, one has to be very “dense” to miss the third part of the package, especially between Pesach and Shavuot. We count the days from the day we brought the Barley Offering (in the Beit HaMikdash - guess where) until we will bring the Two Loaves offering (again, guess where). The days we count are identified as days of the Omer, which points to Eretz Yisrael and the Beit HaMikdash. Shavuot is Yom HaBikurim, which tells us (or should tell us) that Shavuot is not “just” Zman Matan Torateinu, but also the celebration of our entry into Eretz Yisrael and the building of the Beit haMikdash. And in our own time, there are historical events that are commemorated during this period of time between Pesach and Shavuot that also remind us of the Eretz Yisrael point of the triangle. Yom HaAtzmaut falls 30 days before Shavuot, the traditional amount of time before a Chag when we begin to study and prepare for the Chag. Its position on the calendar allows Yom HaAtzmaut to input into the thought process and mental preparation for Shavuot. And so does Yom Yerushalayim, falling exactly one week before Shavuot. It makes Yom Yerushalayim not just the joyous celebration of the miraculous victories in ‘67 and of the reunification of Jerusalem, but it connects the different factors to each other and binds us to each of them. And if Yom HaAtzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim can remind us of the Eretz Yisrael component of G-d’s prom- ises and prophecies, then things must work the other way too. The State of Israel and the City of
Jerusalem hollow and empty without Torah learning, Torah observance, Torah
values. This does not mean to force anything down anyone’s throat, but it
should set for us a goal and challenge to be worked on diligently. On the other hand... Another commentator suggests that this census was not done with shekels, but rather with a direct head count. Although we learn that it is improper, and even potentially dangerous, to count people directly, in this case there was a direct command to count the people. Hence, no harm would befall them during the carrying out of these Divine orders. This, in contrast to Ki Tisa, where the Torah says, "WHEN you count, then you MUST collect the half- shekel, etc. There the language in the Torah indicates that the counting was optional or practical, but not obligatory. Therefore, the indirect method was necessary. K'RU'EI HA'EIDA, a term for leaders of the people, is written with a YUD in place of the VAV as in the word's pronunciation. Baal HaTurim says that we can look at the YUD as a chopped VAV, to tell us that among the leaders was a "not so worthy" individual. He says that Shlumiel b. Tzurishadai, the leader of Shimon, was Zimri b. Salu, who caused G-d's anger to destroy many thousands of people, until Pinchas' act put an end to Zimri (and to the plague). Having G-d's name in his didn't help him. Note that there is a broken VAV in the Pinchas story, the VAV of BRITI SHALOM. Could be a REMEZ-level connection. It is noted by commentaries that the
accounts of some of the episodes in the book of Bamidbar are out of order.
This is more than the usual issue of “the Torah is not necessarily in
chronological order” that is used to explain other out-of-sequence events.
In the case in Bamidbar, the Torah dates the events, making conspicuous the
fact that the events are not in order. In chapter 9 we find the command to
bring the first annual Korban Pesach. That command was given a month before
this census was taken. Rashi explains that the topic of Korban Pesach is a
sensitive one, since this first KP was the only one Bnei Yisrael brought
until they came into Eretz Yisrael after 40 years in the wilderness. To
avoid putting this embarrassing reminder at the prominent beginning of the
book, G-d, so to speak, rearranged the topics. In light of all the "problems" that Reuven had, and the fact that Yehuda, Yosef, and Levi each ended up with an element of that which might have been Reuven's, it is interesting that Reuven retains the designation "B'chor". After the count of each Tribe, the Torah gives the grand total as 603,550. (The figure that is generally used to describe the multitude that left Egypt is 600,000. It is obviously rounded from the actual total.) With women and children, the number of people who left Egypt is probably between 2 and 3 million. The Leviyim were not to be counted together with the rest of the Nation, but were to be counted separately. It was the Leviyim who were charged with carrying the components of the Mishkan and with dismantling and erecting the Mishkan each time the People traveled. Non-Leviyim were not to anger G-d by approaching the Mishkan in an improper manner. This applied to the encampment as well; the Leviyim were camped around the Mishkan and the Tribes kept their distance in their camps. [SDT] LiVnei Yehuda... for all the tribes the term LiVnei is used, except for Bnei Naftali. Baal HaTurim says that they had more women than men. In the later census, "Bnei" is used for all the tribes since the men died out - all had more women. [SDT] Commentaries point out that the low
population figures recorded for Levi were closer to what would be expected
according to natural demographics. The figures for the rest of the people
were unnaturally high. This is a result of the Torah's telling us, "and as
they were tortured, so they multiplied". Among the many miracles that
occurred in Egypt, was the fact the the people proliferated so greatly under
very adverse conditions. Since the tribe of Levi was not subjected to the
harsh conditions of slavery, its growth was "normal". [SDT] The lead tribe of each camp was
based on OTOT, signs, transmitted by Yaakov Avinu. The Baal HaTurim points
out a correspondence between Yaakov's blessings to his sons and these
camp-heads. Each son that Yaakov addressed in second person was to be a
leader of a camp. "Revuen, YOU are my firstborn", "Yehuda, YOU your brothers
will acknowledge", "Dan... YOUR salvation", "Yosef... the G-d of YOUR
father... blesses YOU". The Tribe of Levi is to be assigned the tasks of assisting the kohanim in their work and in safeguarding the Mishkan and its vessels. In essence, the Levi is to replace the B'chor who was sanctified from the day of the Exodus (and even before that). The b'chor was originally supposed to perform the sacred tasks of the Leviyim (and kohanim), but lost the privilege as a result of the Golden Calf. SDT - "These are the names of the sons of
Aharon, the B'chor (firstborn) Nadav..." The regular reading of the pasuk,
based on the Taamei HaMikra (the Torah notes) indicates that Nadav is being
identified as Aharon's B'chor. But there is a vertical line which separates
between B'chor and Nadav, suggesting that it is Aharon the B'chor; Nadav,
having died without children is not really a B'chor at this point. (Since
the children of a deceased B'chor get their father's double portion, had
Nadav had children he would retain the title of B'chor.) The Gershon branch is to be in charge of the curtain material of the Mishkan, including the coverings and the courtyard enclosure. K'hat is in charge of the main holy furnishings of the Mishkan, including the Aron, Shulchan, Menora, and the Altars. Merari is in charge of the structural materials: the boards, support rods, foundation sockets, pillars. In all, 22,000 Levi'im are counted. Clarification... If one adds up the counts of the three families of Levi - Gershon, 7500; Kehat, 8600; Merari, 6200 - the total is 22,300, not 22,000, the number used in the exchange with the firstborns. Rashi explains that the 300 "missing" Leviyim were themselves B'chorim, and were not part of the official exchange - see coming Aliya. [SDT] Choose your neighbors well. Rashi
points out that the proximity of the Yehuda camp to the encampment of Moshe
and Aharon and family, had a positive influence on the three tribes of
Yehuda, Yissachar, and Zevulun - the three tribes famed for their Torah
scholarship. On the other hand, Reuven's closeness to Korach and his to
Datan and Aviram, produces disaster. Imagine gathering 22,273 people and asking each to choose a card from a batch of 22,273 cards, 22,000 of which have the words BEN LEVI on them and 273 have 5 shekel on them. This, says Rashi, is how they determined who would pay the 5 redemption shekels. Rashi points out that the 5 sh'kalim of
the B'chor, each worth 20 GEIRA. 20 pieces of silver is the amount the
brothers received for the sale of Yosef. Rashi considers there to be a
connection between the sale of Yosef and the requirement of redemption of
the firstborn. Remember that Yosef was Rachel's firstborn. Perhaps it is because Rosh Chodesh is so understated and often ignored. This became a way - in addition to Rosh Chodesh benching - to say: Hear ye hear ye, tomorrow is Rosh Chodesh. It seems that the connection is mainly in
the opening words. Rabbi Jacobs points out in his A Haftara Companion that
there are some lessons we learn from this passage in the Navi, and the
knowledge makes us more aware of the specialness and sanctity of Rosh
Chodesh. We see that Rosh Chodesh was celebrated with a special meal which
was to be eaten in a state of ritual purity. Many have the custom today of
marking Rosh Chodesh with a special meal. The Haftara also serves as a
source of the minhag of abstaining or reducing one's work on Rosh Chodesh.
Rabbi Jacobs refers to a deeper connection between Rosh Chodesh and the
Jewish People (which might explain why we take the extra opportunities to
highlight Rosh Chodesh). The cycle of the Moon alludes to Jewish History.
For 15 days (or so) the Moon increases in brightness and fullness,
corresponding to the 15 generations from Avraham Avinu to Shlomo HaMelech.
This is followed by 15 days of decline, matching the 15 generations from
Shlomo to the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash and the Babylonian exile.
But this is followed by MACHAR CHODESH. Tomorrow will see the brightening of
the Moon and the fate of the People of Israel. The cycle con- tinues until
the Complete Redemption, when the Moon (and Klal Yisrael) will be completely
restored. A case is cited in the Talmud (Gittin 73a) that is the basis of the law in opening of this lesson. Reuven hired some sailors to transport his cargo of sesame to a certain place. The parties agreed that the sailors will be liable for not delivering the cargo even if prevented from doing so by accidents or other unusual events along the way. The government dammed up the river so that the boat carrying the sesame could not reach its destination. Reuven instructed the sailors to hire wagons to transport the sesame to its destination, and the sailors pleaded that they were not liable under their agreement to do so. It was held that the damming of the river was not contemplated and the sailors did not have to hire land transportation to complete their undertaking. Getting back to our discussion. Reuven sold a field to Shimon with warranties 1, 2, and 3 described in the last lesson. The government built a dam so that the field Shimon purchased from Reuven no longer has irrigation, or a river changed its course and flooded the purchased field, or there is an earthquake that renders the property unusable. Reuven has no liability under his warranty even if the warranty is so broad as to cover all types of contingencies. Generally it is not contemplated that these unusual events will occur, and the seller could not have had these in mind even under a very broad warranty. However, if there are circum- stances suggesting that he did have these in mind, it is the task of Beth Din in each case to decide if the occurrence that caused the loss of the property to Shimon was contemplated by Reuven to be covered by the warranty. If the warranty specifically states all contingencies, and adds the words "contemplated or not contemplated, usual or unusual," then all such contin- gencies are covered by the warranty. Assume that Reuven, when selling either real property or personal property to Shimon. expressly disclaims any liability that Shimon may suffer resulting from the property being seized by Beth Din on behalf of Yehuda, a creditor of Reuven, or on behalf of Levi, the person from whom Reuven stole the property. The disclaimer is binding on Shimon even if it was known at the time of the sale that Reuven had stolen the property from Yehuda. The parties to a commercial transaction may make any stipulation they desire and it will be binding upon them. In a reported case of the early thirteenth century, Reuven sold his wine cellar to Shimon with all of its contents. They agreed that Reuven would be liable for any broken barrels found in the cellar, and Shimon will not look to Reuven for damages for any wine that was spoiled. The wine was handled by a Gentile and made ritually unfit for a Jew to drink. The Beth Din held that Reuven was liable under his warranty regarding breakage. This holding is true only in those communities where it was not uncommon for Gentiles to plunder the wines of the Jews. However, if Shimon heard that Gentiles were coming to break into his newly purchased wine cellar and he did not protect himself by hiding the wine, he cannot sue Reuven on the warranty. Shimon could have insisted that Reuven help him move the wine since Reuven is liable on the warranty. Assume that either Levi, who claims that he is a person who owns the property that Reuven sold to Shimon sues Shimon in Beth Din to recover the property. Or assume that Yehuda who claims he has a mortgage on the property because Reuven owed Yehuda money comes to seize the property from Shimon. Shimon must notify Reuven that Levi or Yehuda is suing to seize the property purchased by Shimon and if Shimon loses the property to Levi or Yehuda, that Shimon will sue Reuven on the warranty that Reuven gave to Shimon. Reuven, the seller, if he sold the field to Shimon with a warranty, may participate in any lawsuit brought by Levi, who claims to be the true owner of the field, or against Yehuda, who claims that he has a lien on the field because of a debt due him from Reuven. Reuven may have defenses to the lawsuit not available to Shimon. Also Reuven may be a more capable litigant in the lawsuit and may have more facts available to him to win the lawsuit. Or there may be other reasons that Reuven will be successful when Shimon cannot be, such as documents and witnesses available to Reuven and not to Shimon. Assume that Reuven sells a field to Shimon disclaiming any warranties. Levi sues, or threatens to sue, Shimon to recover the property on the grounds that it really belonged to him and not to Reuven. Reuven seeks to intervene in the lawsuit to protect Shimon from Levi. Levi pleads that Reuven has no standing in Beth Din since he will in no event be liable even if Levi prevails in his lawsuit against Shimon since Reuven disclaimed any warranty to Shimon against the loss of the property. Reuven may nevertheless intervene in the lawsuit and litigate against Levi. The reason is that Reuven, although not liable to Shimon, does not want Shimon to complain against him to friends. If Reuven gives the field to Shimon as a gift, (gifts generally do not contain warranties) then Reuven cannot intervene in the lawsuit brought by Levi since Shimon cannot have any complaints against Reuven. Assume that Reuven sells a field to Shimon disclaiming any warranty and Shimon resells the field to Reuven with a warranty. Yehuda, Reuven's creditor in an action in Beth Din, seizes the field from Reuven. Reuven commences a lawsuit against Shimon on the warranty. Beth Din will dismiss Reuven's lawsuit against Shimon. Although his original sale to Shimon was without a warranty, the sale by Shimon is deemed not to warrant against Reuven's own acts. That is, Reuven cannot be both the seller to Shimon and a claimant against Shimon for a seizure by his own creditors. Reuven sells a field to Shimon disclaiming any warranties. Although there is no warranty against any third party seizing the field from Shimon, there is a warranty that Reuven himself will not seize the field from Shimon arising from any rights Reuven may have against Shimon at the time of the sale. When a fiduciary such as a guardian of the property of a minor orphan sells the property of orphans, the fiduciary is not personally liable to the buyer under the warranty, unless he expressly undertakes to be bound. In these two lessons we have covered a
topic that takes up several chapters in Shulhan Aruch Hoshen haMishpat. It is instructive to compare ALEINU with the "Song of the Sea" sung by Moshe and the children of Israel after HaShem inundated the Egyptian soldiers at the Reed Sea. At that stage in our history, the Jewish people were still at an immature stage of faith in G-d. One tradition states that the Jews in Egypt were sunken into "forty-nine gates of impurity" in their religious faith; and the forty-nine days from the Exodus until the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai correspond to the forty nine levels they had to ascend until they were fit to receive the Torah (Responsa Chatam Sofer VII:42, Divrei Chachamim OC 99). The Song of the Sea is written in a style which speaks even to that level of faith. It refers to HaShem as "a man of war", and describes in detail how He avenged Himself of the Egyptian soldiers, and cast terror on the nations of Canaan. But the Jews who entered Eretz Yisrael forty years later were a far different nation. After encountering the revelation on Mount Sinai and then the rest of the Torah, after daily experiencing G-d's providence directly through the manna, this nation - most of whom had never experienced servitude and had never even seen pagan worship - was at a high level of religious faith. Therefore, their reaction to HaShem's providence is quite different. Of course they too experienced a miraculous parting of the waters and destruction of our enemies. But their response is a prayer of thanks of a quite different character. Whereas the Song of the Sea repeatedly emphasizes that "this is my G-d", in ALEINU we further acknowl- edge that HaShem is "the Master of all". In the song of the sea the special status of the Jewish people is attributed to G-d's election - "You have guided in your kindness the people You have redeemed". But in the ALEINU prayer we are already able to discern that we have a special, inherent spiritual elevation as Jews, and we thank G-d that He has not made us like the pagan nations. In Egypt, where there was some danger that the children of Israel might attach importance to the Egyptian gods, it was important for G-d to make clear that he would do judgment on the gods of Egypt (Shemot 12:12). And in the Song of the Sea we asked, "Who is like unto You, HaShem, among gods?" (Shemot 15:11). But in ALEINU, we were able to forthrightly acknowledge that the pagan gods have no reality at all - "for they bow down to vanity and emptiness". If we look at the expectations for the future, we see a similar contrast. In the Song of the Sea, our hopes are for HaShem to guide us to "Your dwelling of holiness" (15:13), or to "the mountain of Your inheritance" (15:17). But in ALEINU, we look forward to a more universal expression of HaShem's sovereignty — "to repair the world in the kingdom of He Who set a boundary to the earth", to a time when "all flesh will call Your name". The ALEINU prayer of Yehoshua came at the end of the forty year process of preparing for complete Jewish nation- hood - not at the beginning. Likewise, the daily ALEINU prayer comes at the end of the prayer service, not at the beginning. Indeed, in the introductory p’sukei d’zimra section of the prayer, we recite the Song of the Sea. The message here is that while Judaism does embrace a universalistic message, we maintain that the route to this vision is only through particularism. When we rise in the morning, we say the morning benedictions which focus on the individual. When a person is secure in his individual identity, then he is able to focus on his place within the Jewish people, chosen by G-d, as we recite the Song of the Sea. When we have attained the highest level of spiritual purification, after the completion of our prayers, then it is indeed appropriate to expand our horizons yet again and turn our attention to the perfection of the world as a whole and to the brother- hood of mankind, looking forward to the time when "On that day HaShem will be one and His name one". “Meaning in Mitzvot” is now undergoing intensive editing; which will be followed IYH by printing. With the help of loyal supporters, we hope to have the book on the shelves by Rosh HaShana. If you would be interested in helping with publication, please contact Rabbi Meir about making a dedication or subscription (advance purchase): email mail@asherandattara.com, fax 02-642-3141. Rabbi Meir authors a popular weekly
on-line Q&A column, "The Jewish Ethicist", which gives Jewish guidance on
everyday ethical dilemmas in the workplace. The column is a joint project of
the JCT Center for Business Ethics, Jerusalem College of Technology - Machon
Lev; and Aish HaTorah. You can see the Jewish Ethicist, and submit your own
Qs — www.jewishethicist.com or www. aish.com Q I am in charge of a teenage group at a
religious camp. Every year that group goes on a five-day camping trip far
from camp. Past experience tells us that this is an important experience for
them beyond the good times, and the atmosphere enables us to make real
educational gains. We are unable to bring along a Sefer Torah and will not
be near any shuls. (There will be regular minyanim.) May we go on the trip,
knowing that we will miss kriat hatorah (Torah reading)? The institution to read the Torah, both on Shabbat and during the week, is an ancient and beloved one initiated by Moshe Rabeinu (Bava Kama 82a). Yet, there are ample sources in halacha that one can travel in such a situation that he will be unable to hear kriat hatorah. There is discussion as to the circum- stances under which one is allowed to go on a boat or in a caravan through the desert in such a way that will com- promise one's ability to properly keep Shabbat (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 248:1,4). It discusses cases where the trip is halachically deemed as optional, not a mitzva. Yet, the poskim do not raise the issue that he will be missing kriat hatorah (it is implausible that they assumed that a sefer Torah was being brought along). See the discussion about travelling for non-mitzva purposes in a way that makes one miss a minyan (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 90:16-17 and Mishna Berura, ad loc.). There is one way in which missing kriat hatorah may be more lenient than other mitzvot. The mishna (Megilla 23b) lists kriat hatora among the things which require a minyan, but omits megila reading. Ramban (Milchamot to Megila 3a of the Rif) explains by making the following distinction. All of the things mentioned in that mishna are obligations of only the tzibbur (community), as opposed to the reading of the megila, which is an obligation of the individual, as well. If this is the case (which is certainly not unanimous – see Yabia Omer IV, YD 31), then it is not critical for an individual who was forced to miss kriat hatorah to find a later minyan to make it up (see examples in Yalkut Yosef II, pg.23, 27). The question is, though, how to define a tzibbur. If your minyan of campers is a tzibbur, then the full weight of the obligation is on the group. (It might still be permitted if the need is great enough, as cited above, but the question is still pertinent.) Yabia Omer (ibid.) cites stories of talmidei chachamim who had minyanim in their homes without a sefer Torah, and understands that it was sufficient that the tzibbur in the set shuls in town had kriat hatorah. In your case, this requirement could be met by the rest of the camp, which remains behind. However, it appears logical that when the group begins to daven, they become a tzibbur, but one which lacks the means to carry out the obligation. It does not seem that this situation should be able to prevent them from leaving camp before the day's obligation to read the Torah begins. One should, though, explore a variety of options (including time consuming ones that cost money) in order to make kriat hatorah a possibility, for educational reasons, even beyond halachic require- ments. If you can get to a place with a Sefer Torah only at Mincha time, this is a halachic possibility (Mishna Berura 135:1), especially for Ashkenazim (see Yabia Omer IV, OC 17). Besides technical concerns, it is problematic to have a Sefer Torah travel with the group (see Shulchan Aruch, OC 135:14). The educational message of making the extra effort not to miss kriat hatorah can have a positive impact on your campers. Even if you are unable to arrange it, it is educational to let them know how hard you tried and perhaps discuss the issue with them. For teenagers, most of whom are not from backgrounds where they make it to shul every morning, a conversation in which you express how hard it was for you to miss kriat hatorah even once is likely to be more effective than docking them from night activity for oversleeping. Ask the Rabbi Q&A is part of Hemdat Yamim,
the weekly parsha sheet published by Eretz Hemdah. You can read this section
or the entire Hemdat Yamim at www.ou.org or www.eretzhemdah.org. And/or you
can receive Hemdat Yamim by email weekly, by sending an email to eretzhem@netvision.net.il
with the message: Join Hemdatya –Please leave the subject blank. Ask the
Vebbe Rebbe is partially funded by the Jewish Agency for Israel We must commend and reward the good in our children, not so much to reward them, as to apprise them that what they are doing is good. How many appreciate the gardner when they
gaze upon the garden? - From A Candle by Day by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein The term used for 'You shall count' is ‘Tifkedu,’ a word that recalls Hashem's visit to Sarah ("Va'hashem Pakad"), after which she conceived. In that sense, Ramban teaches us, there is a specific concern for the individual to whom the term is addressed. In a similar fashion, the Torah alerts us to the fact that every person is unique, that every person in the census counts. Indeed, the detailed instructions locate each member of the Jewish people as a member of his tribe; not, as in the previous census, as [just] another member of the nation. R. Yaakov Kaminetsky notes, however, that rather than encouraging sec- tionalism, the goal was for each tribe to actualize its unique propensities for realizing the national destiny. Each person, we see, was to give his name
and that of his family in the presence of Moshe, Aharon, and the leader of
the tribe. He was to stand before his mentors and acknowledge, as the Shelah
Hakodesh reminds us, that maybe he, alone, holds the balance as to whether
the Shechina would descend on Israel or not. Could we say the same for
ourselves today? Bringing Bikurim to the Beit HaMikdash As a rule liquid extracts (fruit juice, wine etc.) were ineligible to be brought as Bikurim. "Yosef Hakohein brought wine and oil (as Bikurim) but (the Mikdash authorities) did not accept them." (Challah 4:11). First fruits brought to the Mikdash which were not of the Sheva Minim did not acquire the sanctity of Bikurim. The Bikurim had to be of superior quality "and not from dates in the hill country or from (other) fruit from the valleys and not olives of poor quality." Dates from the hot Beit She'an Valley and the steaming Jericho oasis are far superior to the dates grown in the cooler mountainous areas of the Judean Hills and the Galil. Bikurim were brought from east of the Jordan River as well as from western Eretz Yisrael, even though Transjordania was not considered a "land flowing with milk and honey." Surprisingly, Bikurim were brought from Syria! "Ariston brought his Bikurim from Apamea and they accepted them from him. They said, 'One who buys (land) in Syria is considered just like one who purchases (land) on the outskirts of Jerusalem." (Challah 4:11). Understandably, the purchaser would have the same obligations as the man who bought land "on the outskirts of Jerusalem." In contradistinction to Terumot and Ma'asrot (for the Kohein and Levi), where the harvest of a field or an orchard is forbidden to be eaten, until the Terumot and Ma'asrot are separated, the produce of a field or an orchard may be eaten even before Bikurim are set aside. Interestingly, for this reason, the Rashba suggests that the Mitzva of Bikurim could possibly be regarded as Chovat HaGuf, i.e., applying to the person of the Jewish farmer to fulfill the Mitzva, and not one of the "Mitzvot Telu'yot Ba'aretz" ("Mitzvot depen- dent on the land"). The Halacha did not assign a specific percentage of the crop which was required to be brought as Bikurim, but the Sages did recommend that the farmer set aside one-sixtieth part of the harvest to fulfill his obligation. Unlike Terumot and Ma'asrot which are Mitzvot still observed today (albeit in token form), Bikurim were only obligatory when the Beit HaMkidash stood; "When you have the Mizbei'ach - the altar - you are obligated to bring Bikurim, but when you do not have the Mizbei'ach, you do not have the obligation of bringing Bikurim." (Sifri). The Mitzva of bringing Bikurim was applied only if both the produce and the land belonged to that particular farmer. "'The first fruits of your land' - until the whole of the growth shall be from your land." (Bikurim 1:2). If a viniculturist bent the branch of a vine into the soil belonging to another, to root and grow a new independent plant, the grapes of the new vine would be unacceptable for Bikurim. If a man bought one tree growing in someone else's land, he did not bring Bikurim from the fruit of that tree because he was not considered the owner of the soil nourishing the tree. If he bought two trees, there was a question but if he bought three trees, he was reckoned as if he acquired the trees and their nourishing soil. In this case, he was obligated to bring Bikurim. "Working tenants (who receive an agreed upon part of the produce), lessees (who paid a fixed quantity of produce to the landlord), Sikrikin ("daggermen") or robbers may not bring… because it is written, 'The first fruits of your land." (Bikurim 1:2) The four examples cited in this Mishna were not legitimate owners. Particularly instructive is the case of the Sikrikin. During the stormy history of the Second Temple period, whole- sale confiscation of land in Eretz Yisrael by the occupying power was not uncommon. The land would be distributed to those whom the government wanted to reward or to those who were well connected. Often the legitimate owners would simply be intimidated and forced to "sell" to "Ba'alei Zero'ah - "strong-armed men". Chazal scorned to legitimize these forms of "legal theft" and refused to grant their produce an undeserved aura of sanctity, even after the rightful owners despaired of ever recovering their property. The Bikurim of these new "owners" were not welcome in the Beit Hamikdash. "The men of Har Tzevo'im brought their Bikurim before Shavu'ot and the (Mikdash authorities) did not accept them…" Why not? Shavu'ot was the time when the Shtei HaLechem, the two wheat loaves, were brought and "waved" in the Beit HaMikdash. (Vayikra 23:16,17) This "waving" of the Shtei Halechem, which the Torah also calls Bikurim (Vayikra 23:17), permitted Chadash, the new produce, to be utilised in the Mikdash. Therefore Bikurim were not brought before the "waving" of the Shtei HaLechem. However, the normative Halacha is, that, if Bikurim accidently were brought to the Mikdash too early, they were temporarily put aside, and then accepted after Shavu'ot (Menachot 10:6) But in this specific case, since the men of Har Tzevo'im were prominent people in the community and should have known better, the Mikdash authorities were apprehensive that K'lal Yisrael would interpret their bringing Bikurim early, as an undesirable precedent, and as a result, many others might be encouraged to follow their inappropriate example. <mtc> Catriel Sugarman gives illustrated
lectures on the Beit Hamikdash and related topics. He can be reached at (02)
652-7531 or by email at acatriel@netvision.net.il. Catriel is in the process
of writing a book entitled: The Temple of Jerusalem, A Pilgrim's
Perspective: A Guided Tour through the Temple and the Divine Service. The number of the column was wrong last week; we are back on track now. Brachot for mitzvot have a standard formula with which we are quite familiar. Many times in this column, I project my own mistakes and “I never realized that!” kind of experiences on some (many?) TT readers. If you react with an “I knew that” or a “That’s obvious” on anything that appears in TBDATR, then please accept my apologies for stating the obvious. Except it isn’t obvious to everyone. ...ASHER KI-D’SHANU B’MITZVOTAV, He Who has sanctified us with His mitzvot. I’m sure I always used to say the second work of this phrase K’DISHANU, as if there was a SH’VA under the KUF and a CHIRIK under the DALET. I’m not sure if there is a different meaning to this mispronunciation, or it just isn’t a real word, but the fact is that there is a CHIRIK under the KUF and a SH’VA NA under the DALET - which has a DAGESH CHAZAK in it. That means that the first syllable is pronounced KID, and the DALET sound is stretched a little an fused to the second syllable - D’SHA, which gets the accent, and then NU. The word is MIL’EIL (accented on the next to the last syllable. The other thing to watch out for (which seems common among many people) is the phrasing. This three-word phrase should stay together and the next word, V’TZIVANU, should not be con- nected to them. A lot of people say ASHER KID’-SHANU B”MITZVOTAV V’TZIVANU and then pause while they are trying to remember the ending they are supposed to be saying. First of all, one is supposed to know and have in mind the ending of the bracha before beginning it. We should not say brachot as if they are a form which we will fill in with the ending when we get there. The word V’TZIVANU, and He commanded us... belongs to the ending of the bracha. V’TZI- VA-NU AL S’FIRAT HA-OMER. ...V’TZIVANU AL N’TILAT YADAYIM. ...V’TZIVANU L’HADLIK NER SHEL YOM TOV. Etc. Side point. Not really a side point to the topic of Brachot, but a side point as far as proper grammar, pausing, accenting, etc. is concerned. A bracha for a mitzva should be completed before the mitzva is performed. On Leil Yom Tov, assuming that you will say the bracha before lighting, then don’t start lighting while you are finishing the bracha. Wait until you finish the bracha (including SHE’HE’CHE’YANU), and then begin lighting. (Of course, for Shabbat candles, women light first and then say the bracha, so this point doesn’t apply there.) For N’TILAT YADAYIM, one should strive to complete the bracha BEFORE the hands are completely dry. In this case, the bracha is said while we dry our hands, but it is an error to finish drying the hands before finishing the bracha. While we’re on the subject... On Shabbat, HaMotzi should be finished before one cuts the challah. The custom of scrastching the challah with the knife or at least passing the knife over the challa in a “pretend” cut, is a token way of starting the cut (but not really) before the bracha. And after the bracha, the HaMotzi sayer
should take his first bite (and swallow) as soon as possible. This means NOT
waiting until the challah is cut up for all people at the table. Cut a
generous chunk that will serve everyone, then cut or tear a piece from that
to start eating, and then cut up the challah for the others. <mtc> Hungarian Roots, Branches and Zionism, by
Ilene Bloch-Levy; Reprinted with permission of the author and the WZO
Hagshama Dept. web site at www.wzo.org.il The Natonek family convened on a Shabbat to meet Imre Natonek, their 80-year old cousin from Budapest. Like many family members, the Budapest cousin was a Holocaust survivor. Unlike the others, he opted to remain in Hungary. The bulk of the family that survived the flames made their way to Israel. Frankly, it was the only logical choice they had, since their great-grandfather, Rabbi Yosef Natonek of Hungary, who lived from 1813-1892, was an ardent Zionist - long before Herzl came upon the scene. In fact, the family is convinced that Herzl first heard about Zionism and the idea of the establishment of an independent Jewish State from their Rabbinic ancestor. The majority of Hungarian Jewry, from the
1800's on, strived to assimilate into mainstream society. The Rabbi
witnessed this emancipation movement within his own community. After much
thinking, by mid-century he came to the conclusion that to ensure their
future, the Jews had to create an independent state in Palestine. Rabbi
Natonek spoke and wrote at length about Israel, was in contact with the
Zionist Alliance Organization in Paris, and conducted extensive
correspondence with Moses Hess in Germany and Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer of
Hungary - both advocates of a political and national renaissance of the Jews
in their ancient homeland. Rabbi Natonek edited a newspaper called "Yisrael
Ha'achid" ("The One Israel") using it as a platform to champion the idea of
a Jewish State on the land of our forefathers. His efforts did not go
unnoticed. One of his avid readers was, in fact, Yaakov Herzl, the father of
Theodore Herzl. The Natonek family's claim that Theodore Herzl first began
to consider the concept of a State of Israel in his father's home is backed
by documentation in the Zionist Archives. Like so many others, the Rabbi's
descendants were caught within the net of the Nazi horrors. When it was
over, most of those who survived made the treacherous journey to Israel.
They began to rebuild their lives, marrying, raising children and are now
reaping their harvests in a Land that they helped to create, settle and
build. In Hungarian, Imre expressed his gratitude to the family for the efforts they all made to attend this Shabbat gathering. He was happy to see that the Nanotek family, strong and fertile, had taken root in Israel. It was my guess that Rabbi Natonek, who traveled extensively, spreading his message, would gather satisfaction that his words and ideas did thrive. They did so, in fact, with his own family in the very land that he dreamed would be the salvation of the Jewish nation. Eretz Yisrael in Our Sources • Whoever prays in Jerusalem, it is as though he is praying before the Heavenly Throne (Kisei HaKavod), because it is the gateway to Heaven, and the door is open for G-d to hear [his prayers]. - Pirkei d'R Eliezer 35 Recent Aloh Na'aleh Events • Approximately 200 young women learning in Israel for the year attended an event organized by Aloh Na'aleh. After hearing inspiring talks, they sought advice from professionals about employment in various fields. AACI's k’lita director Josie Arbel fielded questions about olim benefits, studies in Israel, employability in specific professions, pre-aliya information, and the implication of change of status. A similar event attended by about 500 young men took place at Machon Lev. AACI national counselor Howie Kahn noted that most questions dealt with their rights as olim. Most questions dealt with the army and scholarships for their college education. The following feedback was received after
the men's event: Jacob, in Israel since 1984, spent 4 months finding his first job. Although various organizations helped olim, there was no one to give serious advice in finding computer related jobs. During his first job in a large hi-tech company, friends would ask Jacob if he knew of open positions there or at other hi-tech firms. Each week he would buy newspapers and cut out the wanted ads for friends and others. This evolved into a photocopied report and in 1993 he started publishing the report electronically to reach out to potential olim overseas. Due to the weak job market, each day brings new subscribers. At this point, the report is still free for both subscribers and companies placing positions. It takes many hours to maintain the list including answering emails. Jacob believes that if CJI helps one person make aliya or helps one resident stay in the country, then it would all have been worthwhile. See Computer Jobs in Israel and links to Jacob Richman's sites at: http://www.jr.co.il Here to Stay • Inspiring stories of olim from different periods of aliya are welcome. The essay should be up to 450 words long and emphasize one of the following: motives for aliya, contributions to Israel, how Israel contributed to the oleh, the main challenge in aliya and overcoming it. Send the essay to: aloh-naaleh@aaci.org.il. Ilene Bloch-Levy, a copywriter from
Sha'arei Tikvah, appreciates the warmth of her community. • When we arrived
in Israel in 1986 from Riverdale NY, my husband leaped off the bottom step
of the airplane and literally kissed the ground. The four older kids were
weary and anxious. The 13-month baby was a mass of gold curls. I was
petrified. With minimal language skills and admit- tedly, no great desire to
move from our comfortable existence in America, I was an aliya risk. "You will not regret your move to Israel.
Ever. It will fill your heart and soul for the remainder of your days", my
email to my friend continues. We live in a community that has embraced us to such an extent that I cannot ever imagine leaving it. Immediately after the midnight phone call from America informing us of my husband's sudden death from a massive heart attack, our home filled with friends who had come to guide us through this excruciating period. The community came in droves, bringing good advice, love, warmth and many necessities. Today, the home we built, facing the
olive-laden Samarian Mountains, often fills with friends and communal
activities, Shabbat guests and celebrations and much laughter tinged with a
new-found sadness that wraps us all in good times and bad. We are part of
this land. And, our hearts and souls are bound here as they could only be
with a land that becomes entwined in every part of your fiber and has been
so for the Jewish people for three thousand years. Sha'arei Tikva by David Magence Licensed Tour Guide • Sha'arei Tikva is not far from Petach Tikva. Located about 5km across the green line, Sha'arei Tikva was established in 1983 for ideological reasons. Just as a goal of early Zionism was redeeming land, so too the founders of this community wished to redeem land in Shomron. Today Sha'arei Tikva has over 900 families, representing a wide spectrum of political opinions. Families that came to Sha'arei Tikva in its early years, when local services were unavailable and the only access was via the Arab village of Kfar Kassem, were motivated by ideological considerations. As the village developed, newer families chose Sha'arei Tikva for economic reasons. Today the community has educational, health and sports facilities, youth movements including Bnei Akiva, library, commercial center, and two community centers. About 30% of the residents are religious. Sha'arei Tikva prides itself on the neighborly relations between its religious and secular citizens. The government suggested the name "Toafot",
which appears twice in the blessings Balaam gave to the People of Israel (Bamidbar
23:22, 24:8). Translated as "the lofty horns of the wild ox", it's used as a
symbol of power. An American Jew who bought plots in the village requested
that Sha'arei Tikva replace the suggested name. Perhaps it has to do with
its relative proximity to Petach Tikva. Thursday, June 5th (5th of Sivan) is Erev Shavuot. When Yom Tov falls on a Friday (or Thursday and Friday), we must make an Eiruv Tavshilin (ET), which will permit cooking, baking, and lighting candles on Friday (Yom Tov) for Shabbat. Sometime before Yom Tov, one takes a Challah or Matza and a cooked food (hard boiled egg, piece of gefilte fish, piece of chicken, etc.) which will be eaten on Shabbat (many eat the Eiruv up at Seuda Shlishit, but it only must last until Shabbat to be effective). With baked and cooked items in hand, one recites the bracha...and then makes the Eiruv declaration, which is in Aramaic - because this declaration must be understood and Aramaic was the vernacular of the time. It follows from this that one should make the declaration in whatever language is understood. It is still traditional to say it in Aramaic, but you should feel free to follow the Aramaic with Hebrew and/or English. With this EIRUV it becomes permitted for us to bake, cook, to “hide” food (refers to packing food into an oven in such a way that not only will heat be maintained, but increased as well), to light candles, and do all other needs from Yom Tov to (for) Shabbat - for us and all Jews who live in this city. After the bracha and declaration (and it
is also a good idea to explain the basics of Eiruv to the members of your
household, if not at the time of making the Eiruv, then at least at the
dinner table), one places the Eiruv items in a secure place so that they
will not accidentally be eaten before cooking for Shabbat is completed. Let’s start from the beginning. Yom Tov is designated by the Torah as a Holy Day, and, as such, Melacha is forbidden. Next comes the proviso in the pasuk in Parshat Bo concerning the first day of Pesach (all Yom Tov days being learned from this first of the Yom Tov days). ACH ASHER YEI-ACHEIL... except for that which is done to provide food, only those Melachot may be done. The limits and guidelines of what is considered OCHEL NEFESH and permitted on Yom Tov are complex, but suffice it here to say that this pasuk permits cooking and a few other Melachot on Yom Tov. Permission to cook is limited to the needs of the day itself. One is not allowed to cook on Yom Tov for any other day. What if tomorrow is Shabbat? MACHLOKET. Talmudic dispute. One opinion says that if the day following Yom Tov is Shabbat, then one may cook on Yom Tov for Shabbat, as well as for the Yom Tov day itself. Shabbat has a higher sanctity than Yom Tov. It is only forbidden to cook on Yom Tov for another day of lesser sanctity, i.e. for a regular weekday (or Chol HaMoed). But for the day itself, and for Shabbat which is the following day, one is allowed by the essential rule of Yom Tov. (Remember, this is only one opinion.) If this were the end of the story, we’d be allowed to cook on Friday for Shabbat and there would not be such a thing as ET. But the Sages came along and expressed a fear that people would make a mistake and cook on Yom Tov for a regular weekday, if they had permission to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbat. And they banned the cooking on Yom Tov for the following day EVEN when it is Shabbat. If this were now the end of the story, then there still would be no ET, and we would not be allowed to cook on Friday which is Yom Tov for Shabbat (nor even light candles for Shabbat). Since the rabbinic ban on cooking on Friday-Yom Tov for Shabbat was meant to protect Yom Tov from misuse, it is ironic that the effect of the ban is to slight Shabbat by not allowing cooking for Shabbat except “way back” on Erev Yom Tov. And remember, the Torah (according to this opinion, permits the cooking for Shabbat on Yom Tov). So the Sages said the following: Since it
is really permitted to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbat, we will relax our ban if
one performs the Eiruv Tavshilin ceremony thereby officially beginning
Shabbat cooking on Erev Yom Tov and “only” continuing the cooking and
preparation on Friday. The Eiruv (as the word means) merges the cooking of
Erev Yom Tov with the cooking of Yom Tov in honor of the Shabbat.
Remembering that this was allowed in the first place without an Eiruv, the
Eiruv serves as a clear reminder that cooking on Yom Tov for the next day is
permitted ONLY when that day is Shabbat. The Sages are no longer worried, so
to speak, that people will make a mistake on a Yom Tov that is not on
Friday, because the Eiruv distinguishes the Friday-YomTov from Yom Tov on
other days of the week. But there is another opinion. That opinion says that the Torah gave us permission to cook on Yom Tov for that day only. Period. Even if the next day is Shabbat, with its higher K’dusha, cooking on Friday-YomTov is not permitted. According to this opinion, an Eiruv, which is a rabbinic mitzva/procedure would have no effect on a Torah prohibition. Rabbinic authority does not extend that far. So this opinion needs a different understanding of Eiruv. We first answer a related question before we get to Eiruv. You finished lunch on Friday-YomTov at 1:00pm. Can you cook food at 2:00pm for Shabbat? No. Answered that already. Can you cook food at 2:00pm for guests who unexpectedly knocked on your door and said they were very hungry? Yes, of course. It’s Yom Tov and cooking on Yom Tov is permitted for consumption on the day itself. May I cook on Yom Tov more food than I need for the day and eat the leftovers on the next day, Shabbat? Yes. (There are some limits to this, such as cooking all the food - for Yom Tov and leftovers - in the same pot. And more. But we’ll leave that discussion for another time.) Easy questions so far.Here’s the clincher. Can I cook at 2:00pm on Friday-Yom Tov for company that MIGHT unexpectedly drop by, or do I have to wait until they are in front of me? Well, the Torah would no longer forbid that cooking, because maybe hungry company will come on Yom Tov. But the Sages would still not allow that cooking... unless you had made an ET on Erev Yom Tov. And there you have it. ET according to the first opinion, allows cooking on Friday-YomTov for Shabbat (which is really allowed by the Torah anyway). ET, according to the second opinion allows cooking on Yom Tov for company that may or may not drop by, and the leftovers (which is all the food, if no company actually showed up) are there for Shabbat. (This too is really permitted by the Torah.) According to both opinions, one may cook
food on Friday-YomTov afternoon and that food may be eaten on Shabbat. So
the ET works for both opinions. And there is one more technical
difference. According to the first opinion, lighting Shabbat candles (which
is essentially for Shabbat) can be done, courtesy of an ET, with no problem
(other than remembering not to strike a match, not to extinguish the fire
you use to light the candles). According to the second opinion, the lighting
should be for some use on Yom Tov itself, since transferring of fire on Yom
Tov is permitted only for the benefit of the day itself, not the next day,
even when it is Shabbat. Reading by the light of the candles or examining
something that needs the extra light can satisfy the second opinion. [The
Parshat Bamidbar Homepage]
|
