ZMANIM - HALACHIC TIMES All other places at some height above sea level have similar problems. Tzfat lights candles 30 minutes before sunset. Official candle lighting for Petach Tikva is 40 minutes before sunset, just like Jerusalem. Not everybody holds by that timing. Some communities calculate Shabbat out at
33 minutes after sunset. Some use the angle of the sun below the horizon to
“end Shabbat” (8.5 deg). Also realize that Sfardim and Ashkenazim
often has differences in minhag. 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. Nothing in Jewish History happened once
upon a time a long time ago. Everything, through our holidays and fasts and
laws and customs, stays alive and current. And packed with challenges. We
remember the good, internalize it, revitalize it, live it in our own lives,
and grow from it. We remember the negative and strive to repair the damage
by focused mitzvot and good deeds. 45% of Tammuz and 32% of Av combine to
challenge us to "repair" two of the greatest sins of early Jewish History -
the Golden Calf and the Sin of the Spies. We are challenged to rebuild
Jerusalem and the Beit HaMikdash, and through the spread of Torah knowledge,
values, mitzvot, commitment - bring about the conditions for the Geula
Sh'leima. No small task. But no small reward either for our best efforts and
our ultimate success. But, there is a mild application of the "Lesson of Pinchas" that we can take and apply in our own lives. And although I described it as mild, it is nonetheless vital in its application. When Pinchas saw immoral and idolatrous behavior unfolding before his eyes, when he saw terrible betrayal of G-d and Torah, when he saw his fellow Jews and especially the leaders of the people not doing anything to stop the horrendous behavior of his fellows and the plague of G-d's wrath taking its toll on the people... he had to do something. He could not sit by and let it happen. He did what he did, and although we
probably may not grab a spear, we still must react. We must shout our
objections and proclaim that it is wrong to... (I leave it to the reader to
understand the end of the sentence... and the end of this Lead Tidbit.) We
dare not be silent. Obscene plans are afoot. SDT Most scribes write the VAV in the word SHALOM with a break. Peace that results from violence, even required violence, is defective. Clarification: Aharon and his four sons were anointed as kohanim. They were not born kohanim, nor were they kohanim until being anointed. From that point, all their descendants are to be kohanim from birth. Pinchas was not born to a kohen, since he was born before Elazar was anointed. He was originally not included in the Kehuna of his grandfather, father, and uncles. Pinchas became a kohen in the unique way - by G-d's decree. In other words, there are three ways to be a kohen. Five people were anointed as kohanim by G-d's command. One was given the kehuna by G-d. All other kohanim that ever existed or ever will exist are kohanim because they were born to a kohen. [Added points: Some people born to a kohen are NOT kohanim. The son of a kohein and a woman that a kohein is not allowed to marry because of his kehuna, is not a kohen. If the father is a kohen, the son might or might not be a kohen. But the father of a kohen is always a kohen - except for Aharon, whose father Amram was not a kohen.] [P> 25:16 (3.23)] Next, G-d tells Moshe to go to war against Midyan in revenge for their seduction of Israel to the worship of Baal Peor. (The battle does not take place until next sedra, the rest of Pinchas is a digression of sorts.) It is after the plague... [P> 26:1* (10.77)] (this parsha break comes in the middle of a pasuk - unusual, but not unique) G-d commands Moshe and Elazar that a new census be taken of the people. The counting of the people at this point has several functions. Rashi says that after the plague(s) that devastated the people, G-d wants to count them as a shepherd would count his sheep after wolves attacked the flock. Having just been commanded to prepare to fight against Midyan, a census of men of military age is necessary. Most significantly, it is these people who will fight for Eretz Yisrael, and it is to these people that the Land will be apportioned (but based on the original post-Exodus census). SDT Moav was the partner of Midyan and
should have been included in this avenging war. Some explain that Moav was
spared this battle in the merit of Ruth. (Note that G-d can "give credit"
not only for past deeds but for that which is only in the future.) Some
commentaries explain that there was a significant difference between Moav
and Midyan. Moav was afraid of Israel. They feared that their land would be
conquered by them. That is why they wanted to fight against us. Midyan
agreed to help Moav because of their desire to destroy the Jewish People.
They went as far as using their women to seduce the Israelites to immoral
and pagan behavior. G-d's command of revenge is directed at the latter type
of enemy. In preparation for conscripting an army to fight Midyan, a new census is taken. The Torah lists each of the tribes, their family sub-units, and the number of males of military age. In addition to this information, it is interesting to note the "extra" material mentioned in this portion... Under Reuven, the Torah tells us about Datan and Aviram who, with Korach, were swallowed up by the ground. The Torah then makes a point of telling us that Korach's sons did not die. Korach was from Levi. The inclusion of the sons of Korach at this point is not of census value, but does teach us the power of T'shuva. Korach's sons did not follow in their father's ways. They were righteous. Generally, the family units of a tribe are based on the sons of sons of Yaakov. In Reuven's case, we have Chanoch, Palu, Chetzron, and Karmi, giving Reuven a total of 43,730. Palu's son, Eliav, is mentioned because his sons were N'mu'el, Datan and Aviram. One more observation: Reuven is called B'CHOR YISRAEL. This is noteworthy in light of the fact that Reuven "lost" the status of first born to three younger brothers. The Kehuna went to Levi, the kingship was destined to go the Yehuda, and the double portion of the B'chor went to Yosef. Yet the Torah repeatedly calls Reuven the B'chor of Yisrael. Reuven’s count dropped 2770 since the first counting in the Midbar. (Expected because of their involvement in the Korach rebellion.) [S> 26:12 (3)] Shimon: note the relatively small number. Members of the tribe of Shimon were the main victims of the plague that followed the Zimri (one of the leaders of Shimon) affair. Shimon: 22,200. Down 37,100! Shimon's family units are from N'mu'el (another one), Yamin, Yachim, Zerach, and Sha'ul. [S> 26:15 (4)] Gad: 40,500. Down 5150. The families are from Gad's sons Tz'fon, Chagi, Shuni, Ozni, Eiri, Arod, Ar'eili. [S> 26:19 (4)] Yehuda: 76,500. Up 1900. Yehuda's families are from sons Sheila, Peretz, Zerach. From Peretz come the families of Chetzron and Chamul. Yehuda's first two sons Er and Onan, who died childless, are mentioned at this point in the Torah. [S> 26:23 (3)] Yissachar: One of his sons is identified as Yashuv. Commentaries say that he is Yov, as recorded in Vayigash. Yov was an inappropriate (pagan) name. The extra SHIN that was added to his name is symbolically taken from his father's name - spelled with two S(H)INs but pronounced as if there is only one. The families of Yissachar are Tola, Puva (family name is Puni), Yashuv, and Shimron. Yissachar: 64,300. Up 9900. [S> 26:26 (2)] Zevulun: 60,500. Up 3100. Families are from sons Sered, Eilon, and Yachl'eil. [S> 26:28 (7)] Notice that the sons of Yosef are listed as Menashe and Efrayim - in that order. Although this is birth order, it is unusual to find Menashe mentioned first. Also note the great increase in the population of Menashe, and the decrease in the population of Efrayim. The increase in Menashe is considered to be related to the fact that their tribe was given land on both sides of the Jordan. They were not the ones who asked to settle on the east side of the Jordan — that was Reuven and Gad. Menashe was sent along, so to speak, to keep an eye on the other two tribes. It would therefore be unfair to give them a smaller portion of Eretz Yisrael (west side of the Jordan). Their increase in population got them a "regular" share on the west side in addition to their territory on the east side of the river. Menashe: here we are introduced to the five daughters of Tzelofchad. We will hear more from them shortly. Menashe: 52,700. Increase of 20,500. By the way, Efrayim was mentioned before Menashe in that earlier census. Menashe's sons/families are Machir, Machir's son Gil'ad, Gil'ad's sons I'ezer, Cheilek, Asri'el, Shechem, Sh'mida, Cheifer, and Cheifer's son Tzelofchad. [S> 26:35 (3)] Efrayim: 32,500. Down 8000. Efrayim's families are from Shutelach, Becher, Tachan. And Shutelach's son Eiran. The Torah then says again that these two are the children of Yosef. [S> 26:38 (4)] Binyamin: Families from sons Bela, Ashbel, Achiram, Sh'fufam, Chupam. Bela's sons Ard and Naaman. Binyamin's total is 45,600. Up 10,200. Note: Back in Vayigash, Binyamin is recorded as having 10 sons: Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Geira, Naaman, Eichi, Rosh, Mupim, Chupim, and Ard. [S> 26:42 (2)] Dan: One son, Shucham, family name Shuchami. Previously, Dan's one son is called Chushim. Dan's total: 64,400. Up 1700. Note that Binyamin's ten sons produced a smaller tribe than the one son of Dan. This is considered as a(nother) lesson that we cannot second-guess G-d. He has an agenda, we do what we have to do, but He "calls the shots". [S> 26:44 (4)] Asher: Note the rare inclusion of a daughter — Serach bat Asher. Great longevity is attributed to her, and she is considered the bridge between Yaakov and his sons on the one hand, and the new nation of Israel which emerged from Egyptian slavery. Serach was alive throughout the entire Egyptian experience, and then some. Asher's total: 53,400. Up 11,900, come from sons Yimna, Yishvi, B'ri'a. Bri'a's sons Chever and Malki'el. [S> 26:48 (4)] Naftali: Yachtz'eil, Guni, Yeitzer, Shileim. 45,400. Down 8000. And, within this Naftali parsha we are
presented with the total for Bnei Yisrael: 601,730. Down 1820 from the
603,550 following the Exodus. [S> 26:57 (9)] The Torah next details the family tree of Levi (whose Tribe does not receive land). Specific attention is paid to Amram's family — namely, his wife Yocheved (Levi's daughter), Moshe, Aharon and his sons, and Miriam. The Torah next states that no one in this national census was in the previous census except for Kalev and Yehoshua. [S> 27:1 (5)] The daughters of Tzelofchad
(identified here as 6th generation from Yosef, an unusually long ancestry to
record) approach Moshe, Elazar HaKohen, the leaders of the Tribes, and the
People, and petition for property in the Land of Israel for themselves
because their father had no sons. They emphasize that their father was not
part of Korach's rebellion but died for his own sins Moshe appeals to G-d for a decision in their case. (Commentaries say that the details of the laws of inheritance momentarily escapes Moshe's memory, either as punishment for an inappropriate comment he had made, or to give honor to these "lovers of the Land" - Tzelofchad's daughters - by having the laws of inheritance presented "to them"... or both.) Clarification... This is one way to understand what happened with the presentation of the Laws of Inheritance. Do not think that before Tz’lofchad’s daughters approached Moshe, that only males were to inherit. And that when they made their claim, G-d changed or adjusted the rules to accommodate them. Not so. The Laws of Inheritance were a part of Torah from Sinai, as were all mitzvot. The presentation of these laws to the people was held in abeyance, so to speak, until this moment, so they would be in response to the plea of the daughters. This has similarities to the presentation of the mitzvot of Pesach Sheni. They were already there, but they were told to the people as a response to the plea of those who were TAMEI and did not want to miss out on the special mitzva of Korban Pesach. There is a phrase used in each of these two episodes that seem to link them. LAMA NIGARA and LAMA YIGARA respectively. Why should we miss out... Why should our father miss out... In both cases, Moshe honored the occasion
(and the people who came before him with the “requests”) by asking G-d, so
to speak, to clarify the issues. This is not the only way to see matters,
but it works. A man's son(s) inherit from him. If there are no sons, his daughters inherit. (When a man has both sons and daughters, his sons inherit and are responsible to support the daughters, even if it means begging door-to-door.) A man without children is inherited by his father, then his brothers, and if there are no brothers, by the closest relatives along paternal lines on the family tree. The laws of inheritance are called by an unusual term — CHUKAT MISHPAT. The term implies that there are aspects to the rules that seem to make perfect sense, and there are other aspects that seem to defy logic. Part CHOK, part MISHPAT. [P> 27:12 (3)] G-d next tells Moshe to
ascend Har HaAvarim and view the Land into which he (Moshe) will not go.
Moshe is then to prepare for his death. [S> 27:15 (9)] "And Moshe spoke to G-d saying." This unique variation of the most common pasuk in the Torah (“And G-d spoke to Moshe saying” occurs 70 times in the Torah - Sh’mot, Vayikra, and Bamidbar - not counting the many variations on that pasuk), creates a dramatic and suspenseful mood as we wait to see what he is about to ask of G-d. Will he ask for his life? Will he ask to be permitted even a brief excursion into the beloved Land of Israel? Moshe Rabeinu asks that a suitable leader be appointed to take his place. The true leader of the People is concerned first and foremost with his charges. This is part of the great legacy of Moshe Rabeinu. G-d's response to Moshe's request is
immediate. Yehoshua is to be presented to the People as Moshe's successor
and Moshe is to transfer to him some of his "majesty". Elazar has already
taken over from Aharon, and it will be Yehoshua and Elazar who will bring
the People into the Land. [P> 28:9 (2)] Next the Torah speaks of the "Musaf Offerings" for Shabbat - two lambs [402,A41 28:9]. Correspondingly, we daven Musaf on Shabbat. [P> 28:11 (5)] The Musaf of Rosh Chodesh [403,A42 28:9] consists of two bulls, one ram, and seven lambs. In addition to these "Olot", a goat was to be offered as a communal "Sin Offering". Korbanot were accompanied by wine for libation (in varying amounts for the different animals) and fine flour & oil mixtures, known as MENACHOT. SDT Rashi notes that G-d told Moshe to
command the Children of Israel (all of them, not just Kohanim) to observe
and preserve the mitzva of the daily sacrifices in the Beit HaMikdash. He
explains that not only did kohanim have a role in the offering of korbanot
in the Beit HaMikdash, but so did Leviyim, and so did Yisra’eilim. Kohanim
had their AVODA, the Leviyim were on the DUCHAN singing, and a
representative of the rest of the people stood in the courtyard of the Beit
HaMikdash and directed the AVODA to take place. Without the members of the
MA’AMAD, both in the Mikdash and “back home” in the particular district
responsible for the particular week, the sacrificial service could not take
place. Says Rashi, we learn that from TZAV ET B’NEI YISRA’EL. [S> 28:26 (6)] Then, Shavuot - here referred to as Yom HaBikurim. The Musaf of Shavuot is counted as a mitzva here [404,A45 28:26] - that of Pesach has been counted already from Parshat Emor. [P> 29:1 (6)] Next comes Rosh HaShana, called here YOM T'RUA. Its Musaf has also been counted as a mitzva previously (in Emor), but the mitzva of blowing Shofar is counted here [405,A170 29:1]. Since Rosh HaShana is also Rosh Chodesh Tishrei, double musafim are brought. MITZVA WATCH [S> 29:7 (5)] Next comes Yom Kippur's
Musaf. All the Chagim are presented here and previously in Emor (aside from
other places as well). The sedra concludes with references to other korbanot in the Mikdash. And finally, a summary/divider pasuk - And Moshe told the people all that HaShem had commanded. Rashi explains that Matot begins with Moshe speaking to the people, so the pasuk at the end of Pinchas has to restate that Moshe has been transmitting G-d’s words all along, and not just from the portion of Nedarim at the beginning of Matot.. The last 6 p'sukim are reread for the
Maftir. (6 p’sukim is the most for a regular maftir. Only one other sedra
have a sixer - Nitzavim.) The haftara consists of the opening words
of the book of Yirmiyahu. Aside from the personal exchange between G-d and
Yirmiyahu, we are told of his visions of an almond tree (which blooms early
in the year, a sign that G-d's judgment is coming soon) and the "boiling
pot", representing the enemy from the north (Bavel) who will come to destroy
Jerusalem. This prophecy of destruction, because of idolatry and
unfaithfulness, sets the tone for the 3 Week mourning period for the Beit
HaMikdash and for the main part of the book of Yirmiyahu. The concluding
pasuk of the haftara tell of the promise that G-d will punish those who rise
against Israel, for Israel - despite its sins - is holy and special to
HaShem. These declarations are made by a person who eventually dies intestate so that the person or persons named may be the sole heir or be included in the class of inheriting heirs of the declarant. This may be true even though when the declaration is made the person named was not a person who would otherwise inherit. Yaakov has two sons, Reuven and Shimon. Yaakov declares that Levi is also his son. When Yaakov dies, Reuven, Shimon, and Levi inherit from him. Or Yaakov, who has a son, Reuven, makes a declaration naming Aharon as his brother from his father Isaac. Reuven predeceases Yaakov, leaving no offspring. Yaakov's father Isaac, predeceased Yaakov leaving a known son, Pinchas. Pinchas and Aharon share Yaakov's estate. A person is believed when he states who his heirs are Yaakov declares that Reuven is his son, or that Aharon is his brother, or that Moshe and Yehoshua are his cousins or have some other relationship. The person whom he names is a person who will inherit if Yaakov dies intestate according to the laws stated in prior lessons. The declaration of Yaakov is given full credence by Beth Din and such person will be an heir of Yaakov. This holds true even if it is not generally known that such person is so related to Yaakov; it holds true whether Yaakov so states when he is on his death bed or halachically healthy. The declaration may be in writing or he may make his intent known by nodding in response to a question put to him whether a certain person is his son or other relative. His declaration applies to all his assets when he made the declaration and to assets that he later will acquire. It even applies to assets that he thereafter acquires while he is in a coma before he dies. There is a strong line of authorities that this last sentence holds true only if the declared person as an heir is a son of Yaakov. However, if the declared person is a relative other than the son of the declarant, then he shares only those assets that were owned by Yaakov when he made the declaration. To illustrate the last holding: Assume that all of the facts stated herein can be proved in Beth Din. Yaakov, on January 1, declares that Reuven is his brother from his father, Isaac. Isaac has two other known sons, Shimon and Levi, and if not for Yaakov's declaration, it was not known that Reuven is Isaac's son. On January 1, Yaakov had assets worth $1,000. He thereafter on March 1 acquired assets of $500, making a total of $1,500 in assets that he possessed on April 1, the day of his death. Yaakov has no children or other descendants surviving him, and Isaac also predeceased him. Yaakov's estate is inherited by Isaac's sons. According to this view, Reuven would receive $333.33 or one-third of the assets owned by Yaakov on January 1, the date of the declaration; the other $666.67 is divided between Shimon and Levi. Reuven does not share in the other $500 since it was not owned by Yaakov on January 1. The $500 will be divided between Shimon and Levi. A person is believed when he states that a person is not his son. Yaakov is believed when he declares that Reuven, a person assumed by the community to be his son, is not his son; neither Reuven nor Reuven's son will share in the inheritance of Yaakov's estate. Yaakov's statement that Reuven is not his son can be used only to defeat Reuven's right to inherit from Yaakov. It has no bearing upon the legitimacy of Reuven as a son of Yaakov for other purposes. Such a declaration by Yaakov cannot establish Reuven as an illegitimate son. However, if Reuven predeceases Yaakov; then Reuven's son will be an heir of Yaakov; since Yaakov's declaration is not given credence when it applies to anyone other than his assumed son. If Yaakov states that a person is not his brother or cousin, or other relative, his statement is not given credence, if it was assumed by all that such person was his brother or his cousin or other relative. Recanting of a declaration regarding
heirs Yaakov is not believed even if he gives a reason such as that he loves his servant so much that he refers to him as his son. Reuven's declaration of January 15 is not given any credence and Reuven is deemed to be his son for the purposes of inheriting from Yaakov; This in spite of the fact that Reuven performs those services usually performed by a servant. However, if on January 1, Yaakov declares that Reuven is his servant and on January 15, he declares that Reuven is his son, his January 15 declaration is given credence by Beth Din, This in spite of the fact that Reuven performs those services usually performed by a servant. Beth Din must weigh all of the factors, for example, Reuven was always called the servant, the son of a handmaid. Yaakov, while passing through customs or immigration authorities, declares that Reuven is his son. Sometime later he declares that Reuven is his servant. His later declaration is believed since he obviously made the prior declaration to get Reuven through customs or immigration authorities, who permitted sons but not servants to accompany their fathers. The converse does not hold true. If Yaakov at the customs or immigration authorities declared that Reuven was his servant, and sometime thereafter declared that Reuven was his son, his second declaration is not given credence. In this case, the earlier declaration made in the presence of the customs authorities was a declaration made against his interest and would not have been made if not true. The subject matter of this lesson is more
fully discussed in volume VIII chapters 273 of A Restatement of Rabbinic
Civil Law by E. Quint. Copies of all volumes can be purchased via email:
orders@gefenpublishing.com and via website: www.israelbooks.com and at local
Judaica bookstores. Questions to quint@inter.net.il However, some customs of mourning over the destruction are relevant year-round. For example, the Shulchan Arukh states that someone who builds a house leaves a bit unfinished, and someone who sets the table for a grand feast leaves a bit undone (OC 560). The source for these customs is found in Bava Batra (60b). The gemara tells us that after the destruction there were people who took mourning to great extremes; they wanted to avoid all meat, since these had been offered as sacrifices; all bread, since the show- bread was no more; they were even concerned about drinking water, since the Sukkot water libations could no longer be brought! The tanna Rebbe Yehoshua gently corrected them with the following language: “Thus said the sages: One whitewashes his house, but leaves a small amount; one prepares all the needs of a feast, but leaves out a bit.” Rebbe Yehoshua’s explanation is remarkable for both its words and its content. We may note that these mourning customs exist only against the backdrop of simcha; a person who doesn’t whitewash his house, or doesn’t prepare a great feast, is unable to fulfill them! Furthermore, the language begins with the directive for life, including joy, to continue: first he states, “One whitewashes his house”; afterwards, he qualifies “but leaves a small amount”. (Later sages in the gemara explain that we need to leave one square tefach, about half a meter, across from the entrance.) Then he states, “one prepares the needs of a feast”, only then explaining that a bit must be left out. The custom of mourning for the destruction does not call for an end to joy and celebration. The exact opposite is true: these customs exist only as a contrast to celebration. A well-known Chasidic epigram notes that the Shulchan Arukh, citing the sages, opens the laws of Av mourning with the words, “When Av comes in rejoicing is diminished” (OC 551). We infer that rejoicing must be present; otherwise, it could not be reduced. Even the verse cited by Rebbe Yehoshua carries this message: “If I forget you, Yerushalayim, may my right hand forget; may my tongue stick to my palate if I don’t remember you, if I don’t set Yerushalayim at the head of my joy” (Tehillim 137:6). Here also, the call is to set Yerushalayim at the head of our rejoicing. This is only natural. Yerushalayim and the Temple were above all, a place of joy, of communal rejoicing in G-d’s presence. When we want to remember the Temple, the most natural time is a time of joy. However, we must also remember that until the Sanctuary is rebuilt and the Divine presence returns completely, our joy is incomplete. Therefore, commemorations of the destruction are specifically at joyous occasions, but express themselves in a lack of completion. “Meaning in Mitzvot” is undergoing intensive editing, and BE"H and the help of loyal supporters, we hope to have the book out soon. If you would be interested in helping with publication, please contact Rabbi Meir about making a dedication or subscription (advance purchase): 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 The first stage of the war was a series of guerilla attacks; something with which we are familiar through our own present day experiences. Groups of Aramean soldiers set ambushes for the troops of Yoram that were repeatedly discovered in time by Elisha and thwarted. The angry and frustrated Aramean king [probably Ben Hadad the second], accused his courtiers of treacherous gossip, to which they answered that it was the gift of prophecy of Elisha that revealed everything to him. Thereon Ben Hadad sent soldiers to capture Elisha from Dotan that lies on the road between Jenin and Shomron [close to present day Shechem] in the valley where the brothers sold Yosef and the scene of an important tank battle during the Six Day War. (And where Phil did his basic training - Ed.) To Elisha's frightened disciple, who told him of the resultant encirclement of the city, the prophet answered: "The horses and soldiers who are with us are far more numerous than they are". Then it was revealed to the disciple that hosts of angelic chariots and horsemen filled the surrounding mountains. Now Elisha prayed that Hashem should strike the Aramean soldiers with blindness. "We should know that the opening of the eyes and the blindness described here [and with the people who surrounded Lot's house in Sodom], has nothing to do with physical sight, but solely with the ability to perceive and understand" (Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim 1:2; Bereishit Rabbah 3:5-7). With the troops blinded, literally and/or figuratively, Elisha offered to take them to the prophet they sought. So he leads them on to Shomron, the capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Once there, standing in front of Yoram's palace, Elisha prayed for their eyes to be opened so that they would recognize that they were trapped in the center of their enemy. Our Sages note that an important attribute of G-d's is shown in the language used by Elisha. When he asks for blindness, both in the case of his disciple and the Arameans, he does not include G-d's Name in his prayer. However, when he prays for Him to restore their sight he does so. "Hashem does not associate His Name with suffering, rather only with good. So we see that at the creation of Adam and Eve it is written: And Hashem blessed them (Bereishit 1:28), while when He cursed them after their sin, it is written 'And to Adam He said, and to Eve He said'. There are three people whom Hashem addresses with His Name even though it is for punishment; one who incites others to sin, one who fails to follow the words of Chachamim and one who places their trust in humans rather than in G-d" (Yalkut Shimoni). So too the Midrash [Bereishit Rabba 3:8] brings the verse (Bereishit 1:5) 'And Hashem called the light day, [whereas] the darkness was called night', to teach the same idea. Yoram, excited at Israel's good fortune and cognisant of the prophet's spiritual power, addressing him as 'My Father', asked his permission to kill the Aramean prisoners of war. Elisha's answer is negative and his additional advice to the king is to give them bread to eat and water to drink. The king accepted this and as a result of their return, Ben Hadad no longer sent guerillas into Israel. "Elisha achieved more than all the wars of Yoram" (Eliyahu Rabba 7). It is easy to see Elisha's advice as shrewd political thinking as they would thereby be grateful and return to Aram with a message of goodwill and peace. Such cost-benefit thinking is the same as seeing moral business behavior, not as the right thing to do but as good business. However, Judaism sees moral behavior as G-d's imperative whether it is profitable or not. So our commentators [Abarbanel, Radak, Ralbag and Malbim] see the prophet's words, 'Do you kill those you have captured'? as disapproval. They grant the right to kill in battle but question the right to kill prisoners of war; to which is added the fact that Yoram had no part in their capture. This concept of "kosher war" is in keeping with halakha that mandates offering peace to the enemy before the battle and providing them with avenues of escape together with part of their property, during and after it (Rambam Hilkhot Melakhim 6:1-5). Interestingly, this applies even to the 7 Nations who lived in Eretz Yisrael, whom we were commanded to destroy. Such mercy is also consistent with the morality of Hilkhot Shechita, whereby the shochet has to make a bracha that grants Divine permission to slaughter animals; without the bracha this would be akin to murder. Furthermore, the blood (of slaughter of fowl and "wild" animals) has to be covered with soil accompanied by the appropriate bracha, thus preventing the callousness in the shochet that we often find amongst those who deal in the suffering of others. Yoram magnanimously freed the prisoners, gave them a great feast and sent them back to Aram. We can imagine the effect of this Kiddush Hashem on Aram and on Israel, demanded by Elisha as the prophet of G-d. This is the 44th installment in Dr.
Tamari’s series on “Tanach and its messages for our times” Q I thought that one must make Kiddush on Shabbat morning by chatzot (halachic, astronomical midday). However, I cannot find a source for such a halacha. Does one exist? A Your impression has a basis but is not precise. Let us explain. We fulfill the main mitzva of Kiddush on Shabbat at night by making a special beracha (M'kadesh HaShabbat) in tefilla and before eating. In the daytime Kiddush (called Kiddusha Rabba - Pesachim 106a), the main element is to add prominence to the meal by beginning it with wine (Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchata 50:4) [or possibly a substitute - beyond our present scope]. If, for whatever reason, one did not make Kiddush at the morning meal, then he begins Seuda Shlishit with Kiddush (Sha’ar Hatziyun 291:9). The time element of Kiddush is not an independent issue. Rather, whenever the first Shabbat day meal is, Kiddush should precede it. So the question is whether the meal must be started by chatzot. There are classical sources that talk about the three meals of Shabbat taking place at night, in the morning, and in the afternoon, respectively (Shabbat 117b; Rambam, Shabbat 30:9). However, it is not clear whether the stated times are halachic requirements, assumptions, or suggestions. There is significant discussion among poskim on the questions of whether the first meal must be at night and the third must be in the afternoon. In contrast, there is little discussion about whether the second meal must begin in the morning and the practice is not to be concerned of any such requirement. See an interesting discussion of possible reasons for this phenomenon in Yisrael V’haz’manim (vol. I pp. 432-438). The more serious problem is that of fasting on Shabbat. All agree that under normal circumstances it is forbidden to fast on Shabbat, the day the Torah (Shemot 16:25) and Navi (Yeshaya 58:13) refer to as a day of eating and indulging. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 288:1) says that one may not fast on Shabbat until the end of six hours (a standard term for chatzot), even if he does intend to fast (Magen Avraham & Mishna Berura 288:1). The Rama (288:1) rejects the minority opinion (see Beit Yosef, ad loc.) that one who is preoccupied with tefilla or Torah study need not be concerned. So, since one must eat by the end of six hours and he may not eat or drink before Kiddush (Shulchan Aruch, OC 289:1), he ostensibly has no choice but to make Kiddush by chatzot. Of course, this problem is equally solved even if one makes Kiddush before eating cake; he does not need challot at that time. However, there are grounds and means for leniency (if you call not eating, leniency). Most commentators (including Taz 288:1) say that the significance of six hours into the day is that after that time the stomach is so empty that it is not receptive to food, a situation to avoid all week long. The Magen Avraham (157:1) and Mishna Berura (157:2) say that the six hours (z’maniyot), in this regard, are calculated from the time a person awakens. This solves the problem for those who start eating late because shul starts late. However, it is possible that there is an independent problem of fasting until midday, even if one has not been up for six hours (note the aforementioned’s silence in siman 288 and see K’tzotz Hashulchan 90:1 & footnote 1). However, one can remedy this by drinking a cup of water or tea before the beginning of tefilla, after which it is no longer considered a fast. It is unclear whether this also remedies the problem of the empty stomach (see ibid.). In summary, Kiddush per se need not be done by chatzot, but there is an issue not to fast. As most people eat within six hours of awakening, it is possible that there is no problem, and, if there is, it can be remedied by drinking before tefilla. 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 info@eretzhemdah.org
with the message: Subscribe/English (for the English version) or
Subscribe/Hebrew (for the hebrew version). Please leave the subject blank.
Ask the Vebbe Rebbe is partially funded by the Jewish Agency for Israel All we really know about them is that they wanted the portion of the land that would have been allotted to their deceased father. This action might be labeled, at best, shrewd. Why then do our Sages attribute such greatness to these women? Sfas Emes explains that when one acquires a physical place in Eretz Yisrael, one also acquires a corresponding aspect of Torah. The Torah and the land are bound together and are interdependent. Such wise and righteous women did not care about material gains – had they married they would have lived on their husbands' physical portions of the land. However, they did not want to lose their unique share in the Torah. They wanted their Torah inheritance! When we choose to make aliyah and live in Eretz Israel, we do not simply move to a Jewish land and acquire a new home. We also claim our inheritance in the Torah – that portion which is bound to the land. Come and "claim it and do not let go of it." (Rashi, Devarim 33:4). Prof. Rabbi Steven Ettinger, Hashmonaim With this in mind, we would not be surprised had Moshe pleaded that one of his sons take over the mantle of leadership (see Rashi). Nor, it seems, should we be startled at Moshe’s insistence that the leader be one who “brings them [the people] in.” For Moshe is surely persisting that, having come so far, he at least should be the one to lead his people into the Promised Land. The Midrash tells us that Moshe grudgingly acceded to his fate. However, having been enticed into his mission, he felt he could now coax Hashem, as it were, into at least allowing his successor “to go in before them” (ibid 17) – that is, to have the merit of bringing Bnei Yisrael in to Eretz Yisrael. Despite these interpretations, no- where
in the text is there any echo of grievance or suggestion of nepotism. On the
contrary, Moshe, the true Torah leader, denies his self-interest. All that
finds expression is his still timely concern for the welfare of his flock –
that “the congregation of the Lord be not as sheep without a shepherd.” After the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE, there was a fierce power struggle between the Macedonian generals who succeeded him. Ptolemy seized control of Egypt and Seleucus came to rule northern Syria, Babylon and points east; Eretz Yisrael was joined to the Ptolemaic Empire. In 204 BCE, King Ptolemy IV Philopater died and a motley coterie of nobles ruled the Ptolemaic Kingdom in the name of Ptolemy V Epiphanies, who was still a minor. Ineffectual rulers, they were unable to see to the defense of their country. Young and ambitious King Antiochus III saw his chance and invaded southern Syria and Eretz Yisrael. Decisively defeating the Egyptians, he absorbed these areas into his kingdom. Surprisingly, the Jews supported him. Josephus quotes a royal epistle, "When we came to their city (Jerusalem), the Jews received us in a splendid manner… and gave an abundance of provisions to our soldiers, and to the elephants, and joined with us in ejecting the Egyptian garrison that was in the citadel." But after a century of peace, Jerusalem had been devastated by the fighting. In return for Jewish support, Antiochus permitted the tax-free importing of wood from Lebanon to help rebuild the city and granted permission to the Jews to "live according to their ancestral laws." Jerusalemites were exempted from all taxes for three years and afterwards their taxes were reduced by a third. Those who were captured and sold as slaves during the war were liberated and their property restored to them. Antiochus was especially generous to the Beit HaMikdash which had been seriously damaged. "I would also have the work about the Temple finished and the cloisters, and if there be anything else that ought to be rebuilt …to make the Temple more glorious." He also underwrote the cost of "animals fit for sacrifice, for wine, and oil and frankincense… wheat and salt… the priests, and the scribes of the Temple, and the sacred singers be discharged from poll money and the crown tax and other taxes also" (Antiquities XII: 3). The Greek variant of the apocryphal book of Ben Sira describes the active role played by Shim'on HaTzadik, the incumbent Kohein Gadol, in the work of reconstruction. Simon, the son of Onias was the High
Priest But Shim'on HaTzadik is not noted in Jewish history for his administrative abilities, he is revered for his saintliness. When he was Kohein Gadol, miraculous signs of Divine favor were clearly evidenced in the Mikdash. When Shim'on HaTzadik was Kohein Gadol, the lot choosing the "For the Lord" goat on Yom Kippur always came up in his right hand, a favorable omen for the coming year. After he passed away, "it would come up now in the right hand, now in the left…". During the Yom Kippur Avoda, strips of crimson- colored wool were tied between the horns of the Sa'ir LaAzazel and also to a rock in close proximity to where the goat was pushed over the precipice. During Shim'on HaTzadik's tenure, the wool always miraculously turned white, a sign of grace for K'lal Yisrael. "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow (Yeshayahu 1:18). After he died, sometimes the wool remained scarlet. "Throughout the 40 years (of Shim'on HaTzadik's tenure as Kohein Gadol), the western-most light (of the Menora) would remain lit …" Every afternoon (and morning), the Kohanim would clean the Menora and pour oil into each one of the seven lamps. Even after the other lamps were quenched, the western lamp continually remained afire. This miraculous occurrence was seen as a sign that the Shechina rested in the Mikdash. After the demise of Shim'on HaTzadik, "sometimes it (the western lamp) would remain lit, sometimes it would go out." During Shim'on HaTzadik's term of office, "the sacrificial wood pile fire on the Mizbei'ach burned strongly on its own, so the Kohanim did not have to add any additional wood except for the (obligatory, daily) two wooden blocks" (note Zevachim 26b). After his death, the Kohanim were constantly bringing wood to feed the sacrificial fire. "In the year that Shim'on HaTzadik died, he foretold that he would die. They said, 'How do you know?' he replied, 'On every (other) Yom Kippur an old man dressed in white… would join me, entering (the Kodesh HaKodashim) and leaving it with me. But today I was joined by an old man, dressed in black… who entered but did not leave with me.' After Sukkot, Shim'on HaTzadik sickened… then died. From that time on, the Kohanim stopped verbalizing the Sheim HaMeforash - the Ineffable Name - in Birkat Kohanim" (Yoma 39b). Tosafot (Sota 38a, "Harei") explains, "Every place where I reveal Myself there, only there are you are permitted to utter My (Ineffable) Name." After the passing of Shim'on HaTzadik, and the disappearance of the evident signs of Divine favor, the Kohanim realized that the Shechina no longer "filled" the Mikdash and ceased verbalizing the Shem HaMeforash. “How was he (Shim'on Hatzadik) glorified
when the people gathered around him, LUNCH? When a tiyul says “bring your own lunch”, you can order one instead from the Israel Center Cafe. When you make your reservation for the tiyul, request a box lunch, or call the CAFE (ext. 257) up to the day before the TIYUL. 18NIS will get you a sandwich (your choice), a refreshing drink (regular or diet) and a dessert. Your lunch will be ready for you when you board the bus. CANCELLATION POLICIES We reserve the right to charge a cancellation fee in case of last-minute cancellations. Also... Price of tiyul is based on a minimum number of participants. Students from Abroad Parents visiting you some time this year? If so, you want to speak to us! (566-7787 ext. 261). 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 Mehadrin. 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. Calls from abroad: People from abroad
should fax 972-2-5660156 for the Attention of Ahuva or email to tiyul@israelcenter.co.il The Shulchan Aruch and the ARI Z"L say that one should not recite the bracha during the Three Weeks. Therefore, one should not buy new fruits during this period (since it would not be proper to eat them without saying this bracha) nor should one buy new items that would require the bracha. The exception to the rule according to this opinion would be a mitzva such as BRIT MILA (according to the Israeli custom to say the bracha in question) or a PIDYON HABEN (even when postponed from their "proper" times. One does not "spoil" the mitzva by not saying that bracha.) The Vilna Gaon says that one need not prevent himself from saying the bracha even on weekdays, even during the week of Tish'a b'Av. The joy of the SHE'HE'CHE'YANU-causing event exists simultaneously with the mournful mood of the Three Weeks. Rather than considering this a contradiction, we can see it as almost typical of Jewish life - the bitter with the sweet. The Mishna B'rura writes that one can say the bracha on Shabbat, but he agrees with the Shulchan Aruch about the weekdays, that one should not say SHE'HE'CHE'YANU. One can buy a new fruit during the Three Weeks, but should save it for Shabbat and make the bracha then. If the not saying SHE'HE'CHE'YANU will cause a diminishing of Oneg Shabbat, then even those that hold not to say SHE'HE'CHE'YANU at all during the Three Weeks, would allow it on Shabbat. This would apply to people who often spot a new fruit and get excited about saving it for Shabbat as a special treat. To hold back from doing that is a slap to Shabbat and will cause a drop in Oneg Shabbat. In such a case, by those prune-plums (or whatever) and enjoy them on Shabbat, with a SHE'HE'CHE'YANU. The issue we're dealing with here is open (obvious) mourning on Shabbat. If it "doesn't show", these opinions would rather avoid SHE'HE'CHE'YANU. The Aruch HaShulchan distinguishes between the first part of the Three Weeks and the latter, viz. the Nine Days. He writes that until Rosh Chodesh Av, one may say the bracha even during the week, but during the Nine Days, only on Shabbat. If you see a new fruit that won't be around after Tish'a b'Av, then you can buy it and save it for Shabbat. And if it is such a fragile fruit that it won't make it intact for Shabbat, then you can say SHE'HE'CHE'YANU even during the week. Wouldn't it be simpler just to skip the new fruit for three weeks? We don't HAVE to have new fruit all the time. There's plenty of old fruit to eat. But that's not what our Sages taught us. That's the point. We are entitled to joy. Even while mourning. May we see the day soon, when saying
SHE'HE'CHE'YANU at any time of year will be the most natural thing to do. [The
Parshat Pinchas Homepage]
|
