SHABBAT PARSHAT B'HAR 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. The prohibition under discussion is ONA’AT D’VARIM. We’ll explain it a piece at a time. ONA’AH is cheating, defrauding. The Torah warns a person not to take unfair advantage of others in money matters. The specific example is not to overcharge for land if the number of years to the next Yovel release of land is few. The treatment of this prohibition in the Oral Law makes it obvious that the Written Torah was giving an example of a more general type of sin. And then, the Torah seems to say, “Speaking of ONA’AH, be careful not to harm your fellow even with words”. And this prohibition is strengthened by the Torah by following it in the pasuk with YIR’AT HASHEM, reverence of G-d, and then the statement, I Am HaShem your G-d. The implication is that defrauding one of money is a “regular” sin, but harming one with words is something that really gets G-d angry (so to speak). Don’t you dare violate this one, because I (says HaShem) will consider it a lack of Yir’at Shamayim and a denial of Me. Okay, it’s a serious offense. What is it? According to the Sefer HaChinuch it has many forms. So many, in fact, that they cannot all be mentioned, and that they vary from person to person and situation to situation. Among the examples of Ona’at D’varim are: Not reminding a Baal T’shuva or a convert of his previous “life”. If one says a hurtful thing on purpose to hurt - Hey, you think your such a tzadik now, remember that you ate bacon every morning for breakfast - then that is truly a terrible thing to do to another Jew. But it could be very benign, and still be hurtful to the other person, and you might never even know that you hurt his feelings. Let so-and-so argue with this missionary; he used to be like him. You didn’t mean to hurt the convert. You seriously thought that he’d be the better one to argue. But he was hurt by the reminder of the life he gladly gave up to become a Jew. Group of women need someone to go to the store for the group. Oh, let so-and-so go, she doesn’t have kids she has to watch anyway. Hurtful. Hey, eating too much pizza and ice cream lately? Hurtful. Hurtful words, once spoken, are very hard to undo. Maybe impossible. An apology does something, but cannot take all the hurt away. It is best not to say hurtful words in the first place. How? Think carefully before speaking. What follows Ona’at D’varim in
the Torah? Keep all mitzvot and live in security in Eretz Yisrael. On another level we still can ask the question: "why was this particular set of mitzvot chosen by G-d, so to speak, to teach us the general rule?" One commentator offers the following insight: The mitzva of Shmita teaches us (among other things) that G-d in concerned with the mundane things of this world. He cares about us and our earthly fields and trees. And He exists, not only in the lofty realm of the heavens, but His Essence fills the world. G-d's choice of lowly Har Sinai as the venue for giving us the Torah, was meant to teach us the same idea. How appropriate that the Torah tells us that it was at Sinai that G-d commanded us the laws of Shmita. And here is another idea as to why specifically Sh’mita is singled out as the mitzva to teach us that all mitzvot of from Sinai with full detail. It makes the Eretz Yisrael connection. The purpose of our being taken out of Egypt and being given the Torah was to bring us to Eretz Yisrael and that we should live a Torah life in this Land. There is no better choice to make this additional point. "When you come to the Land..." The Land is to be rested each seventh year. For 6 years one works the fields, and on the seventh there is to be a Shabbat to HaShem for the Land; neither land [326,L220] nor trees [327,L221] may be worked. Even that which grows on its own, may not be harvested (in a normal manner) from the land [328, L220] or trees [329,L223]. (The Torah uses the term "vineyard", but means to include all trees.) Shmita year is for all to benefit from the land (without the usual sharp distinction between land- owner and others); and for the animals. (Shmita gives the land a chance to restore itself, and gives us a chance to put our relationship with the environment and with the other creatures who share the Earth with us, in perspective. It helps us get our priorities straight.) Shmita reminds us of who created and still rules. MITZVA WATCH (When the majority of Jews are in Israel and the infrastructure of Torah life in Israel is intact,) the Sanhedrin is required to count seven successive seven-year cycles - 49 years [330, A140]. On the Yom Kippur of the 50th year, the Shofar is to be sounded (as we do each year on Rosh HaShana, and as we do in symbolic fashion at the conclusion of Ne'ila each year) [331, A137]. This 50th year is to be proclaimed "kodesh" as Yovel - the Jubilee year [332,A136]. Farming the land is forbidden [333,L224] (as during Shmita), as are harvesting that which grows on its own [334,L225] and gathering the fruit of the trees in a normal manner [335,L226]. Yovel is holy; we "eat of the land". During Yovel one returns to his estate. Although we might consider the
yearly blowing of the Shofar as the main fulfillment of the mitzva
of Shofar, and the once in 50 years blowing of the Shofar on the Yom
Kippur of Yovel year as something less - the fact of the matter is
that we learn much about the blowing of Shofar on Rosh HaShana from
that of Yovel. Most significantly, the word SHOFAR is not used in
the Torah in the context of Rosh HaShana. Rosh HaShana is to be a
T'RU'A DAY, but we would really have a difficult time knowing what
to do on Rosh HaShana had it not been for the parallels to Yom
Kippur of Yovel. Comparing the texts of the two days, we find a
Tishrei-Tishrei match and a T'RU'A-T'RU'A match. The Gemara teaches
us that we answer the question as to how to make a T'RU'A in Tishrei
(Rosh HaShana), by doing it the same way as the other Tishrei T'ru'a
is produced - with a Shofar. This method of learning Rosh HaShana
from Yom Kippur of Yovel is known as a G'ZEIRA SHAVA. It is one of
the methods by which the Written Word and the Oral Law are linked.
G-Sh is part of the Tradition passed down through the generations. MITZVA WATCH Rambam describes certain situations in business in which one can technically get away with something, but he is considered not to have acted in "a proper Jewish manner". Perhaps the positive commandment also comes to teach us not to take advantage of the technical loopholes, but rather to conduct ourselves with the highest standards of business ethics. There is more than one way of explaining what a positive command adds to our observance of mitzvot, when the prohibition(s) are already on the books. This was one explanation. On another note... Let's say that
an art dealer passes off a good-quality fake as an original master.
To be sure, the art dealer has violated the halacha against cheating
in business. But whose law has been violated? Do we consider this
type of cheating to be a rabbinic prohibition inspired by the
Torah's statements regarding the particular example of cheating
vis-a-vis the years remaining until Yovel. No. We say more. We say
that our Oral Tradition teaches us that Yovel is the particular
context for a wide category of prohibition. In other words, in this
case, we are not dealing with Torah-inspired rabbinic extension of
Torah Law. We are dealing with Talmudic DEFINITION of Torah Law.
These are not the same; the distinction between them is significant
to our keeping things in proper perspective. Safeguard and obey the statutes
and laws of the Torah and dwell in security on the Land. (This link
between observance of Torah and continued peaceful, secure living in
Israel, is an oft-repeated theme, one that must be kept in mind in
modern Israel.) [SDT] One commentator says that the pasuk states that if someone were to ask what are we going to eat..., then G-d will command His blessing to give us an abundant yield. However, one should not ask. If we are completely faithful and believe without reservation or question that G- d will provide for us, then He won't have to command the blessing to come; it will happen as a natural reaction to that faith. The land must not be sold forever [339, L227] since it is to return to its original owners during Yovel [340,A138]. MITZVA WATCH Ramban takes the mitzva out of its context and explains the ban as forbidding the selling of land in Eretz Yisrael to non-Jews, who we can assume will not abide by the Yovel rule of reversion of ownership. It would seem obvious from the
Ramban (and other sources) here and other places in the Torah that
it is forbidden to give part of Eretz Yisrael into the hands of
non-Jews, certainly ones that are our sworn enemies. Rashi says that we learn from
these p’sukim that ordinarily, one should not sell a field in Eretz
Yisrael, except for the extenuating reason of poverty. We are obligated to help our fellow who has fallen on hard times. We may not take interest for personal loans made to help him out [343,L235]. "I Am G-d Who took you out of Egypt, to bring you to the Land, to be your G-d." (This is definitely NOT a non sequitur - it emphasizes G-d's desire, so to speak, for His People to care about each other. It is as if G-d says to us: Look and remember what I did for you. Now you be nice to your fellows.) [SDT] The pasuk says that YOU SHOULD NOT LEND YOUR MONEY WITH INTEREST. The word here is B'NESHECH, which also means WITH A BITE. A Jew who lends money to his fellow should do it with an open heart and a pleasant disposition, and not be snappy or curt with the recipient. The Torah repeatedly shows us the compassion that G-d has for the down-trodden. He wants us to emulate those feelings. Giving is good. Helping others is good. But it must be with a pleasantness that will not hurt the feelings of the already disadvantaged. There is even one more step. Not only do our actions have to be proper, and not only do we have to speak pleasantly (and that would include no dirty looks, raising of eye brows, gestures, etc.), but we also must have proper thoughts. To lend a poor person money he needs, and even to behave properly, but to harbor a resentment or a condescending attitude in our minds, is improper. It might even be the worst part of the offense, since it is born of an incomplete belief that G-d is the Boss and calls the shots. Shishi - Sixth Aliya - 8
p'sukim - 25:39-46 Jews (according to Torah law) may own non-Jewish slaves, such slaves becoming hereditary property. These slaves are not released at Yovel, but remain the permanent property of their owners [347,A235]. “...and proclaim liberty throughout the Land to all its inhabitants.” It does not say to all its slaves and servants, but rather, all its inhabitants. Says the P’nei Yehoshua: As is well known, he who acquires a slave, acquires a master. The liberty of Yovel is for all the inhabitants, servants and masters. We might add that with the
existence of slavery, we are all lowered in status - the
proclamation of Yovel frees us all. "Keep My Shabbat and revere My
sanctuary, I Am G-d. It is likely that Shabbat here refers to
Sh'mita. If so, it makes a matched bookend with the beginning of the
sedra. On the other hand, if Shabbat means Shabbat, then the
juxtaposition to idolatrous prohibitions also makes the point that
desecration of the Shabbat is tantamount to idolatry. For example, the seller is from Canada and the buyer from the United States and the parties sign a contract in China specifying dollars. Did the parties mean Canadian dollars or American dollars? Sometimes the agreement between the parties is not in writing. Beth Din has to determine the intent based upon testimony of the parties, witnesses and their lawyers. In most of these cases both parties are honest and each believes that his version is the truth. I will set forth just two of the many types of disputes discussed in the Shulchan Aruch and responsa literature. 1. Reuven the seller and Shimon the buyer enter into negotiations for the sale and purchase of Reuven's car. Reuven states, "I sell you this car for $200" and Shimon states, "I buy this car for $100". The parties then leave the scene of the negotiations, without any further conversation, each one convinced that the other acceded to his statement. They reassemble for a second time and Shimon performs the act of acquisition necessary to acquire the car in the presence of Reuven (such as Reuven giving the keys to Shimon and Shimon takes the car for a short ride.) Reuven then demands $200 and Shimon offers to pay only $100. Reuven sues Shimon in Beth Din for $200 that he says was agreed upon. The halacha is that if Reuven invited Shimon to the second meeting and gave Shimon the keys, Shimon pays only the $100 that he originally offered to Reuven. If Shimon came to the second meeting without Reuven having invited him, Shimon must pay $200 to Reuven. If the parties had in their first meeting discussed the terms of the sale, such as installment payments and warranties, these are held to be part of the transaction. 2. Reuven offered an expensive camera worth $1,000 for sale at a reduced price of $500, and Shimon and Levi each claim to have bought the camera and paid for it. The status of the law on this question finds its source in a passage in the Talmud (Tractate Kiddushin 73b). The Talmud states, 'The seller [Reuven] is believed by Beth Din when he testifies to having sold the article to Shimon and not to Levi, or vice versa. This holds true provided that the article is still in the possession of Reuven. But if the article is no longer in the possession of Reuven, he is not believed." How is this Talmudic passage to be interpreted. There are many different views among the great Torah codifiers and commentaries regard- ing how this passage should be interpreted. I shall set forth what I believe is the current status of the halacha on this issue. As stated in prior lessons, the payment for the camera by Shimon or by Levi did not transfer title to him. The payment of money is not an act of acquisition for personal property. The act of acquisition is usually the lifting of the camera with the consent of the seller to acquire the camera. The perfor- mance of an act of acquisition without the consent or the instruction of the seller is a nullity. In the case before us, Shimon gave Reuven $500, the money for the camera, Reuven handed the camera to Shimon and Shimon returned the camera to Reuven. Shimon claims he gave the camera back to Reuven for packing it up. Then Levi gave Reuven $500, the money for the camera, Reuven handed the camera to Levi and Levi returned the camera to Reuven. Levi claims he gave the camera back to Reuven for packing. Thus each claims that he returned the camera to Reuven, after each performed an act of acquisition and paid for it. Both Shimon and Levi plead that while the camera was in his hands he acquired the camera by lifting it up with the authoriza- tion of Reuven. Thereafter witnesses saw them both holding the camera, each claiming he purchased it. Once the witnesses saw them both holding the camera, a third person can take the camera on their behalf to Beth Din to decide who owns the camera. Beth Din must first decide if the camera is still deemed to be in the possession of Reuven If Beth Din decides that the camera is deemed to be still in the possession of the seller, Reuven, he is believed to state to whom he sold the camera. That is, the halacha recognizes the statement of Reuven as it would the testimony of two witnesses to state that they saw the transaction take place; such testimony by two witnesses would be binding on the Beth Din. The Rabbis enacted that the seller in this case has the credibility of two outside witnesses. Thus if Reuven testifies that he sold the camera to Shimon and not to Levi, Shimon will win the case against Levi, without Shimon having to take an oath. Levi will lose the case even if he offers to take an oath that he now is the true buyer of the camera. Shimon will keep the camera and Reuven will return to Levi $500. However, from the above facts, Beth Din will have trouble deciding that the camera is deemed to still be in the possession of the seller. Thus his statement that he sold the camera to Shimon and not to Levi is the testimony of a single witness. Since Shimon has a single witness, Reuven, to bolster his claim that he Shimon bought the camera, Shimon will not be required to take an oath in Beth Din that he bought the camera. However, if Levi will take an oath that he Levi bought the camera, the camera will be deemed to belong to both Shimon and Levi. Reuven will have to return to each Shimon and to Levi $250 each, one half of the money he is holding. Then Beth Din will have to make an arrangement what shall be done with the camera. A solution may be to have them flip a coin and the winner gets the camera and gives $250 to the other party. Or they can sell the camera on the open market and obtain $1000, the true value of the camera and they can divide the $1,000 each getting $500 in addition to the $250 that he obtained from Reuven. Having sat on Beth Dins for many years, I think the parties would take the first solution as being preferable. The subject matter of this lesson
is more fully presented in Volume VI Chapters 221-222 of"A
Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law" byE. Quint, published by Jason
Aronson, Inc. and on sale at local Judaica bookstores. • Questions
to quint@inter.net.il In the passage relating to Yovel (in this week’s sedra!) we read: "And when you sell to your fellow or buy from the hand of your fellow, don't oppress each one his brother" (Vayikra 25:14). This verse comes to prohibit overcharging in the sale of moveable items (as learned from the word "from the hand" - merchandise which goes from hand to hand.) However, Rashi, based on the midrash halacha, adds an additional element: "Where do we learn that when you sell, you should sell to your fellow Israel? We learn 'And when you sell - to your fellow'. And where do we learn that if you come to buy you should buy from your fellow Israel? We learn, 'or buy - from the hand of your fellow'. In other words, a person should strive to give preference to doing business with another Jew, though there are various opinions in the halachic works exactly how much sacrifice is required to fulfill this mandate. Last week we brought strong evidence that the preference for doing business with a Torah scholar involves two distinct elements: one is the desire to benefit the Torah scholar by helping his livelihood; the other is the desire to benefit ourselves by making edifying business associations with talmidei chachamim. Let us see if we can find both of these strains also in the mandate to do preference with a Jew. There is certainly reason to believe that livelihood considerations are important in this mitzva. We know that the highest level of charity is to do business with someone, in order to help them in a constructive and non-humiliating fash- ion (SA YD 249:6). And the Rema in a responsum writes explicitly that this mitzva is part of the mandate to provide a livelihood for our fellow Jews (Responsa Rema 10). The mitzva to sell to a Jew can also be understood in this light. After all, some- times items are in short supply and it is material help to have preference from a seller; in addition the mishna in Nedarim tells us that there is always some benefit to the buyer as well as to the seller (Nedarim 42b). Still, there are also good reasons to consider that the human element is also present in this mitzva. One is the mitzva to sell to a Jew, and not just to buy from one. Despite what we have just said, in general a purchaser doesn't lack for willing sellers and he doesn't really need any favors from them. More importantly, the very language of this mitzva points to a human element. As we pointed out in a previous column, the Torah's word for overcharging is "onaah", which literally means "distressing". The main meaning is to cause anguish to someone, as in the verse almost immediately following (Vayikra 25:17) which forbids "onaat devarim", causing anguish by cruel or careless words (see Rashi's commentary), which is a twin of "onaat mamon", which presumably means causing anguish by cruel or careless business conduct. Furthermore, we know that there are many commandments whose stated objective is to encourage association specifically with our fellow countrymen. Prominent among these is the prohibi- tion on food cooked solely by a non-Jew. It seems then that we can discern two distinct strains in the preference we give to doing business with other Jews. One is to help them with their livelihood; yet another dimension of the law seems to be to encourage association with other Jews. There is an important practical distinc- tion between the two understandings. What if we have to choose between a Jewish merchant who carries mostly non-Jewish merchandise and a non- Jewish merchant who sells Jewish merchandise? If livelihood is the only consideration, then we might well give preference to the non-Jewish merchant assuming that the bulk of the markup goes to the producers. But if association is equally important, then this might tip the scales in favor of a Jewish mer- chant, especially since this also helps his livelihood. “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 Is there a minimum time that
Shabbat and Yom Tov candles must remain lit? We have not found an absolute minimum amount of time for the candles to be lit and assume that your question is what is the minimum appropriate time. Let's start with what is best and work our way down. It is appropriate to have candles lit for as long as they serve a purpose. However, that has changed dramatically with the advent of electric lights. (We will not have the opportunity to get into the pertinent question of the extent to which electric lights can themselves be considered "Shabbat lights.") The main element of having as much light as we need is usually accomplished by means of electricity. For that reason, we no longer have the practice to light candles in all the rooms and hallways of the house where light improves the "quality of life" (see Shemirat Shabbat K'hilchata 43:15). The location and setting where the second element, of adding a positive, additional light to honor Shabbat, is most important is the place where one eats the Shabbat meal (Mishna Berura 263:45). It, therefore, stands to reason that the more the meal is accompanied by the special Shabbat lights, the better, and preferably it should last for the whole meal (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 75:2; Shemirat Shabbat K'hilchata 43:17). The most critical part of the meal is in the beginning, when one makes kiddush. There is even an opinion in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 273:7) that one cannot make kiddush without the lights being present, although it is sufficient that those lights be electric ones (see Perisha, Orach Chayim 273:6). It is rare for one to use candles that do not last at least until kiddush. The main question arises when one is eating away from home but lights candles in her own home before leaving. (Regarding the different factors that determine when to light at home and when it is better to light in the home of the hosts, see Shemirat Shabbat K'hilchata 45). In such a case, the opti- mal suggestion is to use candles that are long enough that one can expect them to be lit when the family returns and to put them in a place where they will be of value when they return. It is best that, when putting on electric lights (especially incandescent ones) around the house, to do so right before lighting the candles with the intention that they are part of the mitzva to light (see Riv'vot Ephrayim I, 83). That way, even if one doesn't benefit from the candles upon returning home, she can rely partially on the benefit from the electric lights. If this is not possible, then it would be required that someone wait in the house until it begins to get dark and benefit from the light of the candles. If one needs to leave before that and certainly if one leaves the house more than an hour and a quarter before sunset, then one should light at the home of the host. 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 Reason: This symbolizes the matza that was eaten when the Beit HaMikdash stood, by those who offered the Pesach sacrifice on the 14th of Iyar, as stated in the Torah (Bamidbar 9:10). [Whoever was unable to come to Jerusalem on Erev Pesach to eat the Pesach sacrifice had to offer it on Pesach Sheni]. Reason: When the Children of Israel departed from Egypt, they ate their matzot until the 14th of Iyar. The Torah (Sh’mot 16:1) says: “And the whole congregation of the Children of Israel came to the Wilderness of Sin...on the 15th day of the second month.” rashi notes that this encampment is mentioned explicitly because that day they finished the remnants of the matza they baked in Egypt and then they became dependent on the manna. Ed. note: Some eat matza on the eve of the 15th of Iyar for the same (first) reason. Pesach Sheni was brought on the afternoon of the 14th, but was eaten on the eve of the 15th, with matza (and maror). This year in particular, it would be educational for family and guests to include matza in the Lechem Mishna of Friday night, so that the topic of Pesach Sheni can be explored at the table. Note that the first reason above explains the matza connection to Pesach Sheni, whenever it would have been. The second reason explains why Pesach Sheni is specifically on the 14th of Iyar. So the two reasons are for different things. Apropos the choice of the date for Pesach Sheni - there is an additional suggestion that the 14th of Iyar of a regular 12-month year and the 14th of Nissan of a 13-month Shana M’uberet are the same day. So the 14th of Iyar has a “connection” to Korban Pesach. One way or the other, may we
merit the building of the Beit HaMikdash
speedily in our time, BIMHEIRA B'YAMEINU, AMEN. In 1598, Portuguese sailors landing on the island discovered a previously unknown species of bird, the Dodo. Having been isolated by its island location from contact with humanity, the dodo greeted the new visitors with a child-like innocence. The sailors mistook the gentle spirit of the dodo, and its lack of fear of the new predators, as stupidity. They dubbed the bird "dodo" (meaning something similar to a simpleton in Portuguese). Many dodo were killed by the human visitors, and those that survived man had to face the animals that the humans had brought with them. Dogs and pigs soon became feral when introduced to the Mauritian eco-system. By the year 1681 — in less than 100 years — the last dodo had died, and the world was left worse with its passing. The dodo, historically, has been viewed as a rather plump bird, weighing 20-23 kilograms. Grey in color, the dodo had a large, hooked beak, and a plume of white feathers adorning its rear. The dodo was flightless. It had small, weak wings which could not lift it into the air. Thus it was easy prey to the Portuguese invaders who would club the bird to death as it approached them seeking friendship. There is now a theory that the dodo was not at all plump and weighed 13-17 kilo. The nests of the dodo bird were, by necessity, built on the ground as the bird was flightless. The dodo's young were afforded little protection against introduced predators... Dodo eggs were trampled and eaten by such creatures, and the ability to repopulate... was seriously affected... the impact of mankind through hunting and the introduction of new predators placed too great a strain upon the dodo... As one of the earliest examples
of modern ecovandalism... the impact of the Portuguese sailors...
further disrupted nature in unexpected ways. But why was sh’mita singled out for this purpose? Granted that the Torah wanted to make a point, we are still concerned with the particular selection, the specific mitzva chosen to serve as the archetype. In the spirit of the Maharal's dictum: "Devarim gedolim einam bemikreh", "great things do not happen by accident", we may reformulate Rashi's famous question as simply "ma inyan sh’mita," "what is special about sh’mita?" The experience of Sinai was first and foremost one of the commitment of na'aseh venishma, predicated on the people's willingness to accept the yoke of the Heavenly Kingdom. According to Ramban, this is the very meaning of the first of the Ten Commandments - kablu malchuti, "accept My kingship." In other words, the level of Torah commitment is measured not merely in its observance, as meticulous as that may be, but also in the motivation behind that observance. One may choose to observe for many reasons which satisfy one's own needs, desires, and comforts in life. But this is not kabalat ol malchut shamayim, accepting the yoke of the Heavenly Kingdom. Though it may be glatt kosher, it may also be nothing more than Reconstructionist Orthodoxy. In an agricultural society subsisting from year to year on its annual produce, the laws of sh’mita are certainly problematic. Far from a vacation from work, they are a test of allegiance to royal decree, to an imperial order of the greatest difficulty. It is this characteristic of sh’mita that makes it the paradigmatic representation of all the manifold commandments promulgated at Sinai. It is the question of what the mitzvot really mean to a person. In this spirit, one might
formulate a question: Immigrants to Western countries often saw the
abandonment of Shabbat as a condition for basic survival. Yet, there
were those who stood firm and fully observed the Shabbat. It is to
those few that we owe the renaissance of Orthodoxy in the Diaspora. The Korban Pesach of Pesach
Sheini (Bamidbar 9:1-12) "There were men who were made impure by (contact with) a human corpse and could not make the Pesach Offering on that day; so they approached Moshe and Aharon on that day. Those men said to him (to Moshe), 'We are impure because (of contact) with a dead body of a man, why should we be diminished by not offering G-d’s offering in its appointed time among the Children of Israel. And Moshe said to them, 'Stand and I will hear what G-d has commanded concerning you.' And G-d spoke to Moshe, saying, 'Speak to the Children of Israel, if any man will become impure (because of contact with) a human corpse or on a distant journey whether you or of your (future) generations, he shall make the Pesach Offering unto G-d. On the second month, on the fourteenth day in the afternoon shall he make it, with matzot and maror shall he eat it. They shall not leave over from it until the morning nor shall they break a bone of it; like all the decrees of the Pesach Offering shall they make it.'" Sefer Hachinuch, Mitzva 380: "Any Israelite who was unable to observe Pesach Rishon (and bring the Korban Pesach) on the 14th of Nisan (the first month of the calendar) should observe Pesach Sheini on the 14th of Iyar (one month later); for example, if he was in a state of ritual impurity or on a distant journey... Those of blessed memory also taught us that not only impurity and distance exempted the Israelite from observing Pesach Rishon, but also if he unwittingly erred or was accidentally prevented from doing so or even if someone deliberately neglected to bring the Korban Pesach on the 14th of Nisan, he must observe Pesach Sheini." The slaughter of this "back-up" Korban Pesach is a mitzva in its own right and is “Docheh Shabbat” (pushes aside Shabbat). If a child attained maturity between Pesach Rishon and Pesach Sheini, he was required to bring a Korban Pesach on Pesach Sheini. Similarly, if a non-Jew converted to Judaism after Pesach Rishon but before Pesach Sheini, he was bound to bring a Korban Pesach on the 14th of Iyar. A woman, who was unable to bring a Korban Pesach on Pesach Rishon, could, if she chose, bring her Korban on Pesach Sheini. Since there were comparatively few celebrants, the Korban of Pesach Sheini was not slaughtered in three shifts, as was the "regular" Korban Pesach. Paraphrasing the Gemara, we note
that Hilchot Pesach - the laws of Korban Pesach - may be divided
into three categories; Mitzvot Shebegufo (mitzvot concerning the
sacrificial animal itself), Mitzvot Mei'al Gufo (Mitzvot which
"surround" the Korban Pesach) and Mitzvot Shelo Al Gufo (laws of
Pesach which do not directly concern the Korban Pesach at all). On
Pesach Sheini, only the Mitzvot Shebegufo and Mitzvot Mei'al Gufo
are observed; Mitzvot Shelo Al Gufo are not observed. The celebrants of Pesach Sheini were permitted to possess Chameitz because the possession of Chameitz, is not directly connected to the offering and eating the Korban. When the Korban Pesach was slaughtered "in its appointed time" i.e. the 14th of Nisan during Pesach Rishon, there was an accompanying Isur of possessing Chameitz No member of the Chavura - the company joined to slaughter and eat the Korban Pesach as a group - could have Chameitz in his possession. This Isur also applied to the Shocheit and to the attending Kohanim. This prohibition did not apply to those who were observing Pesach Sheini. While the Leviyim did sing Hallel when the Korban Pesach of Pesach Sheini was being slaughtered in the Beit Hamikdash, Hallel was not recited during the Pesach meal by the members of the Chavura. A Chagiga - the festival sacrifice - was brought together with the Korban Pesach on Pesach Rishon, but never on Pesach Sheini. On both Pesach Rishon and Pesach Sheini, the Halachot relevant to the Chavurot applied. The members of the Chavura could eat their Korban Pesach only in a building or a well-defined area. However in contra- distinction to Pesach Rishon, the sacrificial meat could be removed from the premises on Pesach Sheini. "'Why should we be diminished?'
We do not find anywhere that a mitzva, which was required to be
observed at a specific time, could be "made up" at a later time. The
sole exception is the Korban Pesach. Why? Because there were men in
Israel who exerted themselves and struggled to fulfill the mitzva.
They pleaded before G-d and said, 'Why should we be diminished?' For
this reason, their wish was granted - for them and for future
generations." Last week we worked on the
opening six words of most brachot. Actually, we worked on some
aspects of pronunciation with the goal of improv- ing the way we say
brachot. Even though the following is not about grammar and
pronunciation, it definitely belongs in a column called, Towards
Better Davening and Torah Reading. We begin each bracha with a declaration and acknowledgement that G-d is the source of all Blessing. And we make this statement, not about G-d, but directly to Him. Second person - ATA. We then proclaim that G-d is the Master of All, that He is OUR G-d, and that He is King of the Universe. These first six words take up less than two seconds to say. Which is lamentable. If we say them right, and don’t rush them, we’re talking about 6-10 seconds. A very small investment of time for the tremendous improvement that it gains. It requires taking yourself off of automatic pilot. Thinking (for just a brief moment) about the bracha you are about to say. And then saying (and understanding, and feeling) the words more slowly than you usually do. These first six words of a bracha are as important, if not more so, than the ending of the bracha. Most of us don’t think that way. Since it is the end of the bracha that gives it its identity - what kind of food are you about to eat, what mitzva are you about to perform, what will you say for the clap of thunder you just heard, or the rainbow you just saw - we tend to think that the end of the bracha is important. But it is the beginning of the bracha that contains SHEIM & MALCHUT - G-d’s names and His kingship. These are essential compo- nents of a bracha. We should say them (and all of the bracha) with a feeling of Awe and Love of G-d. In certain ways, the beginning of our brachot is similar to making the quintessential statement of Judaism - SH’MA YISRA’EL... Let’s take a look at some of the endings of brachot. HAMOTZI - The source of the ending of the bracha for bread is from T’hilim 104:14. The phrase there is ...L’HOTZI LECHEM MIN HA’ARETZ. If you look at the TROP in the pasuk, you will find that L’HOTZI, which would usually be pronounced with the last syllable accented, l’ho- TZI, in this pasuk the accent recedes to the next to the last syllable - this DIKDUK process is called NASOG ACHOR, and the word is pronounced MIL’EIL (rather than MILRA) - L’HO-tzi. The reason for the NASOG ACHOR is the word LECHEM, which is accented MIL’EIL. The word that precedes a MIL’EIL word of two syllables (or a one syllable word) within the same phrase, often undergoes NASOG ACHOR. As it is in the pasuk, so is it with the text of the bracha that came from the pasuk. The word ha-mo-TZI is MILRA, but it becomes MIL’EIL (NASOG ACHOR) in the bracha for bread. ha-MO-tzi LE-chem. Another caution in this bracha is to separate LECHEM from MIN with a purposeful brief pause, so the MEM at the end of LECHEM does not swallow the MEM of MIN. These are two distinct words and each has a MEM sound. Both should be heard. <mtc> On the lighter side (courtesy of
Judy)... What bracha do we say on small pastries, cupakes, petits
fours, small cookies, tiny pasta shells, pretzel bits, etc.? BOREI
MINI-MEZONOT, of course. [2] UKRATEM, and you shall call (or proclaim). The word appears only four times in Tanach. In EMOR, the Torah says that on the very same day that the MINCHA CHADASHA, the Two Loaves” Offering was brought, the day shall be a YOM TOV. Shavuot, to be exact. The word following UKRATEM is B’ETZEM, in bone (using, of course, a different meaning for ETZEM). Similarly, in B’har, we find the Yovel command to “Proclaim liberty throughout the land...” - the word following UKRATEM is D’ROR, which also means sparrow. In Melachim Alef and Yirmiyahu, the word UKRATEM is followed by B’SHEIM and respec- tively, “in the name of” and “Me” referring to G-d. [3] Okay, so this one was a little obscure. Some- times a phrase in the sedra jumps out and says, “Make a TTriddle out of me”. The answer is HAMOTZI in the case of LECHEM it’s from the generic ARETZ. But in the sedra, it is HAMOTZI ETCHEM (you) from the specific land - MEI-ERETZ MITZRAYIM. [4] The word ACH (but, however) appears 158 times in Tanach, including 41 times in the Torah, three of which are in Parshat Emor. The first time it is used concerning the various blemishes that invalidate an animal from being a korban (blind, et al). It appears also with Yom Kippur and Sukkot (with Sukkot, it is after the first presentation of the Chag, as part of the lead-in to the mitzvot of the Four Species and Sukka. [5] The key word for this TTriddle is ETZEM, meaning both BONE and in the phrase B’ETZEM HAYOM HAZEH, on this very same day. Broadening the word to include BONE made the TTriddle a little trickier, but... that’s how TTriddles are sometimes. Let’s first look at the B’ETZEM HAYOM HAZEH phrase. On that very day, the Torah tells us, No’ach and his wife and his sons and their wives, went into the TEIVA. Reference is to the same day as the Flood started, which is the 17th of Cheshvan (according to the more popular tradition. The next two occurrences of the phrase were skipped over, but one of the solvers pointed out that a date could be given for them too, since they are mentioned in connection to Avraham’s Brit Mila. Tradition tells us that G-d visited Avraham on the third day. During that visit, the angels came to Avraham and we date that traditionally as Pesach. So B’ETZEM HAYOM HAZEH refers to 13 Nissan, twice. Pesach (the day of Y’tzi’at Mitzrayim) has three B’ETZEMs. Shavuot has one (in Parshat Emor). Yom Kippur has three. And the day of Moshe’s death, 7 Adar, has one. If we open the count to other ETZEM, which was done for the TTriddles, then we find two more for Pesach (including the prohibition of breaking a bone in the K.P.) and one more for Shavu’ot (in reference to part of the description of Matan Torah). And one more for the prohibition of breaking a bone in Pesach Sheni. Not counting the two for Avraham’s Mila, there are 13 ETZEMs. The comment of being 195 fewer than in the body is based on the notion that there are 208 bones in the body. The source of this (if there is one) has not been found as of the typing of these words. Nonetheless, the TTriddle was solved by a few solvers. [6] The correct answer is SHLOMIT.
In Parshat Emor, she is named as the mother of the son of an
Egyptian man and an Israelite woman. In Divrei HaYamim, SHLOMIT is
the chief among Yitzhar’s sons. A second reference to him in Divrei
HaYamim is also male. The third reference could be either male or
female. MM/Bklyn and his brother DM have teamed up this week for a fine solution set. YYW called in a masterful solution set as well. We’ll call it a draw between them - prizes for both. Honorable mention to EB. After the TTriddles Report was
printed, but still within acceptable deadlines for submission of
solution sets, the TTriddles department received another fine set of
solutions from the Gersten Gang, who are hereby awarded shared
possession of first place this week... and prizes. THE TIYUL HOTLINE Dial the Israel Center's number 5-66-77-87, then press 211. You'll hear "thank you, one moment please", and then the phone system's music for 15 seconds (or less). Then the Tiyul Hotline message begins. You can listen to the whole message and then press 2 to leave your message, or you can interrupt by pressing 2 right away and leaving your message sooner. What’s for lunch? When a tiyul says “bring your own lunch”, you can buy one instead from the Israel Center Cafe. Call the TRAVEL DESK or TIYUL HOTLINE up to the day before the TIYUL and request a box lunch. 18š will get you a delicious sandwich (specify your preference), a refreshing drink (specify regular or diet) and a dessert. Your box will be ready for you when you board the bus. TIYUL POLICIES Please note: We reserve the right to charge a cancellation fee in case of last-minute cancellations. (Please speak to Rochel at the Travel Desk when making reservations.) Also... Price of tiyul is based on a minimum number of participants. Students from Abroad Are your parents planning on visiting you some time this year? If so, you want to speak to us! (566-7787 ext. 211 or 249). We have many attractive deals for them... and you. Let us turn an ordinary “been there, did it” visit into an unforgettable, special one! KASHRUT POLICY Food for Israel
Center In-House programs is supervised by OU-in-Israel - Mehadrin.
Israel Center sponsored trips and programs are under Mehadrin
Hashgacha. Hotels, restaurants, and tiyulim advertised by the Travel
Desk or by outside parties are not necessarily Mehadrin and are not
endorsed by the OU or the Israel Center. OU ISRAEL CENTER Seymour
J. Abrams Orthodox Union Jerusalem World Center [The
Parshat B'har Homepage]
|
