MISC section - contents:
1. Vebbe Rebbe
2. Words of Wisdom; Words of Wit
3. Rite and Reason
4. Torah from Nature
5. Candle by Day
6. MicroUlpan
7. Torah Tidbits this 'n that
8. From Aloh Naaleh
9. From the desk of the director

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

Q Someone promised to make a donation to a school, but he has not yet fulfilled his promise? Can this be enforced? Can I cite retribution if he does not agree to keep his promise?
A Before we get into the particulars of the case, we should note that a Jew should always take great care to keep his word in monetary matters, as well as other matters (see Bava Metzia 49a). However, the demands that a person should make on himself and the ones others can enforce over him are two separate things.

In general there is a concept that Beit Din can force someone to fulfill his tzedaka obligations properly (Shulchan Aruch 248:1). The classic case is where one did not make a pledge, but that the authorities in charge of tzedaka assessed that he should be giving a certain amount. Most poskim seem to assume that the same is true if one made a specific pledge to give tzedaka even if it is beyond his minimum requirement (see Tzedaka U'mishpat 1:(31)), as one's pledges are called nidrei (oaths of) tzedaka and are binding like oaths. But one should understand what we are talking about. This coercion is not the right of a specific expected recipient to enforce that which is his by right. Rather it is the authority of beit din to see to it that people are fulfilling the mitzvot they should. We are not in the practice, to say the least, of forcing someone to put on tefillin or sit in the sukka, and such attempts, in our context, are usually counterproductive. For one to all of a sudden suggest that we should be aggressive with one who does not fulfill his obligation specifically in a given case is questionable from a few perspectives.

It is possibly even counterproductive for the overall welfare of the institution that is awaiting payment. But we should investigate if there is ever a situation where the rights of the recipient become monetary, giving them an absolute right to sue for payment, whether or not it is within the overall best interests of the donor, the community or themselves. There is a concept in regard to donations to hekdesh (property of the Beit HaMikdash) that one's word given to hekdesh is like handing over to a person. The Rashba (Shut I, 563) rules that such promises to charity are not binding without an act of acquisition. Similarly, the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 252:2) rules: "One who makes an oath to give a certain amount to a certain person and dies without giving, his inheritors are exempt from paying" (The implication is that this ruling applies to cases where the intended recipient was poor). On the other hand, the Rama (ibid. 212:7) says that if one makes a pledge to give the fruits of a tree to charity, and he is still alive when the fruit grows, he is obligated based on the laws of oaths to give them.

The Netivot Hamishpat (250:4) makes the following distinction, which can reconcile the two rulings. If the donation is general, relating to a sum of money, then it doesn't take hold until it is given. In contrast, if the donation is related to a specific item, then the obligation takes hold on the object. It sounds that, in this case, the donation was to be a sum of money, which does not take hold.There are other factors that could possibly exempt the pledger. The pledge is considered like an oath, classically, when it is to the poor. Here it is to a school, and it is not automatic that that is considered outright charity. While supporting Torah institutions is certainly a mitzva and a proper use of tzedaka funds (Shulchan Aruch, YD 249:15) the donor might claim that his money was not directed to enable Torah studies but was to be used for other purposes. (Some side expenses are necessary for Torah study even if they seem ancillary (see Pitchei Teshuva YD 259:5), but not all are.) If the pledger's financial situation deteriorated drastically, he may have the right to make hatarat nedarim (Aruch Hashulchan, YD 258:17). There might be other claims (see some in Tzedaka U'mishpat, ch.4). While it is (very) possible that no valid excuse exists, it is not our place to make such a judgment without considering his explanations.The way to go is to seek a way to work out the matter without threats of any sort.

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

[2] ArtScroll Series • Mesorah Publications Ltd.
WORDS OF WISDOM WORDS OF WIT by Shmuel Himelstein
In 1812, Napoleon's armies invaded Poland. As they were passing through a Jewish village, Napoleon heard the sound of a large number of people weeping. He sent one of his men to investigate what was causing the people's distress, and to see if they could be helped.

As the man entered the building from which the crying was coming, he realized that he had entered a shul, and that everyone was sitting on the ground. After consulting with the elders, he found out that it was Tisha B'Av, and that they were mourning the destruction of the beis hamikdash.

When he came back to Napoleon, the soldier reported, "Your excellency, these are Jews. There was a major calamity, and their synagogue was destroyed." "Was this recent?" asked Napoleon. "No, it occurred over 1700 years ago." "And was it in this place?" "No, your excellency, it happened in far off Jerusalem."

"Remarkable," said Napoleon. "They are mourning for something that happened thousands of miles and many centuries ago. Now I understand how the Jews have survived throughout all these years. A nation with memories that go back that far, which still longs for deliverance after all these years, will continue to exist forever."

[3] Rite and Reason by Shmuel Pinchas Gelbard
For some it is customary not to issue a direct invitation to the circumcision feast, but instead to merely inform people that it will take place (Shulchan Aruch).

Reason: The Gemara (Pesachim 113b) states: :Whoever does not participate in a Seudat mitzva (a feast celebrating a mitzva) deserves [to be] excommunicated. Tosafot explains that this refers to the circumcision feast. Due to this, it became customary not to directly invite people to the meal “because extenuating circumstances might prevent them from attending, thereby warranting them being excommunicated.”

For some it is customary that the husband names the first child, while the wife names the second child, then again the husband gives the name to the third child.

Reason: In accord with the verse (B’reishit 38:3): “And he [Yehuda] called his name Er.” Afterwards (ibid., :4) it states: “And she [Tamar] called his name Onan.” Regarding the third son the Torah (ibid., :5) says: “And she called his name Shelah, and he [Yehuda] was in Keziv when she gave birth to him.” This means she named the third son because her husband Yehuda was them in Keziv and not present. Otherwise he would have named the child.

[4] Torah from Nature
MA RABU MA'ASECH HASHEM KULAM B'CHOCHMA ASITA MAL'AH HA'ARETZ KINYANECHA
BEARS are mentioned just a few times in Tanach, once in Eicha. Bears can be found throughout the world. They are generally large animals, and are characterized by a plantigrade walk (on their heels, like humans), a large body, short legs, a stub of a tail, small, round ears, and forward facing eyes. All bears are classified as carnivores, with each species having a variable degree of herbivorous tendency. Species include Black, Brown (including Grizzly), Polar, Asiatic Black, Sloth Bear, Spectacled, Sun (smallest), and the Giant Panda.

[5] Candle by Day
It’s not really a small world — think of all the people we don’t meet. - From A Candle by Day by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein

[6] Micro Ulpan - a word (or two) from HaAcademiya LaLashon Ha-Ivrit
You know that white stuff you paint on paper to cover mistakes? It was originally called "mistake out" and was the invention of Bette Nesmith Graham... in 1951... changed the name to Liquid Paper... took her 17 years before making a profit from it... in 1979, the Gillette Corporation bought Liquid Paper for $47.5 million plus royalties. Also known as White Out and TipEx... what’s it called in Hebrew? The official word is M’CHIKON.

[7] Torah Tidbits this 'n that
First, the chocolate covered raisins (CCR) we have in our vending machine are not Rainsinets®, but things that look like them, taste like them, and are even Chalav Yisrael. Second, the picture above is of the box from the “good old days”, when after you finished the contents, the box became a horn (without its cellophane wrapper). Raisinets now come in a packaging that is much less fun, but just as tasty and nutritional. Third, it is amazing how many comments the CCR issue has generated in the last few weeks.

[8] CHIZUK and IDUD (for Olim & not-yet-Olim respectively)
The Parsha begins with Moshe Rabeinu's prayer that he be per- mitted "to cross over and see the good land on the other side of the Jordan River, the good hill country and the Levanon."

The Or HaChayim (R. Chayim Ibn Atar) raises two questions concerning this pasuk. First, why did Moshe use the term "na"? Rashi states that it denotes "a request." The Siftei Chachamim comments, however, that na usually means "now." Why, asks the Or HaChayim, does Moshe request that he go to Eretz Yisrael "now"? And second, why "cross over and see"? Is it not obvious that when Moshe would enter Eretz Yisrael, he would see it?
To answer these questions, the Or Chahayim quotes our Sages that Moshe was barred from entering Eretz Yisrael for two reasons. First, the time had come for Yehoshua to assume leader- ship, and it is well known that the rule of two leaders cannot overlap for even a moment. And second, Bnei Yisrael were destined to sin and turn away from HaShem, and He would have to punish them for their transgressions. It would be preferable that HaShem destroy the Beit HaMikdash, and not Bnei Yisrael. But, as Chazal say, had Moshe led Bnei Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael and built the Beit HaMikdash, it could never have been destroyed by any nation or people (see Or HaChayim on Devarim 1:37).

We now understand the use of the terms "na" and "see." Moshe says to HaShem, "Ebrah na v'er'eh" - let me enter Eretz Yisrael, not as the leader of Bnei Yisrael, but as an ordinary person. I wish only to see the land, not to build anything in it.

Moshe's love for Eretz Yisrael was so great that he was prepared to forego his position of leadership and forfeit the privilege of building the Beit Hamikdash just for the opportunity of being in Eretz Yisrael.
Certainly the consideration that Jews in the Diaspara give to the difficulties of Aliyah and the sacrifices that must be made for its sake - in many cases exaggerated or perhaps even imagined - pale in comparison with the sacrifice that Moshe Rabbenu was prepared to make for the privilege of entering Eretz Yisrael.
Rabbi Binyamin Walfish , Jerusalem
TORAH THOUGHTS as contributed by Aloh Naaleh members for publication in the Orthodox Union's 'Torah Insights', a weekly Torah publication on Parshat Ha'Shavuah`

[9] Divrei Menachem
As Tish’a B'av approaches we do well to reflect on the words of Moshe Rabeinu in this week's parsha. For Moshe foresees the days when, having been in the Land a long time, we did evil in the sight of the Lord and, scattered among the nations, we are induced to "ask about the days that are past" (Devarim 4:32).

When we consider the meaning of Tish’a B'Av and contemplate on the good times that were lost, our thoughts naturally turn back to the era when the Bet Hamikdash stood in all its glory. We are reminded that the Bet Hamikdash was the spiritual and national focus of all our destiny and dreams; it was the quintessential meeting place between the Jewish people and Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

The Bet Hamikdash was the spiritual center where we offered up our sacrifices; it encapsulated all our prayers. The site of the Temple stirred up memories of Avraham's ultimate test of faith, of G-d's covenant with the Jewish people. The song of the Levites and the scent of the incense captured our senses; the celebrations of the Water Festival and the First Fruits unified the people in garlands of sound and color.

As we become acutely sensitized to these concepts on Tish’a B'av, we better appreciate why we add at the end of the daily reading of the Korbanot and the Shmone Esrei: "Let it be Your will that the Holy Temple be rebuilt speedily in our days… [For] then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, as in the former years" (Malachi 3:4).
Shabbat Shalom,
Menachem Persoff