Shabbat Parshat VA-EIRA -
ROSH CHODESH Halachic Times for Jerusalem
Israel Standard (Winter) Time 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. Answers the Ohr HaChayim: The expression, "And you shall KNOW that I, HaShem, your G-d, took you out of Egypt" is not one of the promises, but rather a condition for what follows it. I will take you out, save you, redeem you, take you to Me, become your G-d - these are all unconditional promises. But the insertion of VI-DA'TEM specifically where it is, acts as a condition for the promise of V'HEIVEITI. If you/we will truly know and understand and appreciate the fact that it was G-d Who took us out of Egypt - i.e. if we truly believe in G-d, in commandment #1 - ANOCHI - I am HaShem your G-d Who took you out of Egypt... then we will merit the fulfillment of the final terms of Redemption - Coming to the Land and receiving it as a Heritage. One direction to take the Ohr
HaChayim in is to realize that we can be THE generation for whom the
promise will finally be fulfilled completely. A long ago generation
came out of Egypt and stood at Sinai. We get close by reliving the
experiences. We get to K'ILU, like we came out of Egypt, like we
received the Torah today. But for the V'HEIVEITI promise, some
generations were brought into the Land, and later generations were
expelled. We can be the ones to be part of the Complete Geula,
meaning the complete fulfillment of the three p'sukim of G-d's
promises. To be that, we must believe in Him and keep His Torah. Exile is certainly associated with the stricter side of G-d's treatment of His People. If the quality of mercy were dominant, perhaps we would acclimate too well to conditions and lose our yearning for redemption. (See what has happened in modern times when exile is accompanied by G-d's Midat HaRachamim and people are quite comfortable, and therefore, complacent - a regrettable state of affairs.) In the opening pasuk of this week's sedra, we find the unusual combination of both names. It is ELOKIM Who speaks to Moshe, G-d Who has judged and treated the People strictly and harshly. (And G-d Who is also speaking harshly to Moshe for his outburst at the end of Parshat Sh'mot). However, His message to Moshe is "I am HASHEM" (which comes with VAYOMER, the softer "tell", rather than VAIDABEIR, the harsher "speak" that began the pasuk). And His words of hope and promise to the People begin with the same declaration, "I Am HASHEM". In this context, we are told that G-d will take the People out of Egypt, save them, redeem them, take them unto Him, be our G-d and ultimately bring us into the Promised Land. These stages of redemption are summed up with the reiteration of the statement, "I Am HaShem". It is as if G-d is saying to the down-hearted People: "until now you've experienced Me as ELOKIM, but rest assured that you will now see HASHEM - the G-d ofMercy - in full measure. The Egyptians on the other hand are being punished by the hand of G-d as ELOKIM. (see 5:15). [S> 6:2 (8)] The sedra begins with G-d speaking to Moshe Rabeinu and telling him of the promises He had made to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. Also, G-d tells Moshe that He has heard and is responding to the cries of the People of Israel. [In other words, G-d will be taking us out of Egypt not only because of promises He had made to the Avot, but because of His feelings for us.] Therefore, G-d will take the People out from under Egyptian oppression, will save them from bondage, and will redeem them with His might. He will then take the People to Him as a Nation and be our G-d. He will then bring us into the Promised Land. Moshe relates this prophecy to the People, who are too exhausted to listen. [P> 6:10 (3)] G-d then tells Moshe to go to Par'o and demand the People's release. Moshe questions how Par'o can be expected to listen, if the People (Moshe's own people) themselves didn't listen to him. SDT G-d tells Moshe to go speak to Par'o (about letting the People go). Moshe "demurs", using the logical argument known as KAL VACHOMER - if the People of Israel (my own People) didn't listen to me, how is Par'o going to listen to me. Seems logical, but the Torah has told us why the people didn't listen to Moshe - they were utterly exhausted from their unusually difficult labors. If so, it does not follow logically that Par'o would not listen to Moshe. Maybe he would listen, not being exhausted. On the other hand, Moshe's KAL VACHOMER is based on his own statement - "I have a speech impediment". In trying to understand his failure to reach the people, Moshe finds fault in himself, not in the People. This is how a leader should behave. When a rabbi or teacher fails to communicate an idea to his charges, he should not conclude that the fault lies with them - they are dumb; they are not committed enough; etc. He should rather be critical of himself - I probably didn't explain things well; I wasn't patient enough; etc. This is one of the signs of humility that is such a desirable characteristic in a leader. This was one of the many qualities that made Moshe Rabeinu The Leader and Teacher par excellence. [P> 6:13 (1)] (Above Moshe's objections, so to speak,) G-d reiterates to Moshe and Aharon, that they are to tell the People as well as Par'o that the People will be leaving Egypt. Note that this last pasuk of the
first Aliya is one whole parsha. Single-p'ukim parshiyot seem to
say, LOOK AT ME. Perhaps, G-d is saying to Moshe - all your
hesitations and protestations aside, it is time for TACHLIS. You and
Aharon are going to tell/command the people and Par'o about leaving
Egypt. Period. SDT Why are we known as BNEI YISRAEL, and not one of the other Fathers or Mothers? YISRAEL is spelled YUD (Yitzchak & Yaakov), SIN (Sara), RESH (Rivka & Rachel), ALEF (Avraham), LAMED (Leah). The name YISRAEL then emcompasses the names of all the Patriarchs and Matriarchs. This is not a reason, but a nice way to look a tour main name. SDT When the Torah tells us who Aharon married, she is identified as Elisheva b. Aminadav AND as the sister of Nachshon. Rashi tells us that from here we learn that when a man marries a woman, he should check out her brothers (because children often take after their maternal uncles). The same idea was previously presentedin reference to Lavan, but a good Jew would hope that his children resembled a Nachshon rather than a Lavan. SDT On the Torah’s statement: HU
AHARON UMOSHE, Rashi points out that sometimes (mostly) Moshe is
mentioned first, and sometimes Aharon is mentioned first, to teach
us that they were equals. (That is, on some levels, but on others,
Moshe Rabeinu was obviously on a higher standing. BTW (that’s “by the way” in email shorthand), ARAL S'FATAYIM has different meanings in commentaries. Literally, it means: I have uncircumcised lips, it is variously interpreted as, "I have a speech defect", "I can hardly speak", and "I have no self-confidence when I speak". Rashi says that G-d did not repeat the command, nor did Moshe repeat his objection. It is the Torah that is putting us back where we left off before the genealogical data were presented. [P> 7:1 (7)] G-d tells Moshe that Aharon will do the talking, that Par'o will refuse the repeated requests to free the People, and that He (G-d) will take His people out, and that it will be clear to Egypt (and everyone else) that it is indeed G-d Who is doing everything. Moshe and Aharon do as G-d instructs them; they are 80 and 83 years old respectively. Observation When the Torah is
specific about ages, it usually is meant to give us an accurate way
of constructing a timeline. Perhaps too, in this case, the Torah is
pointing out something that we saw very often in the book of
B'reishit - namely, the prominence of the younger brother over the
older one. Rashi says that TANIN means NACHASH, snake or serpent. Not everyone see it that way. When G-d first had Moshe throw his staff down, it changed into a NACHASH, a snake. Here with Par'o, it changed into a TANIN. Strong possibility is that we are talking about a crocodile, venerated and worshiped by Egypt. Many Pharaohs identified with the crocodile as the ruling animal of the Nile. Adds the Baal HaTurim, that the Tanin reverting to wood was a message to Par'o that just as the mighty crocodile turns to dry wood, so too will the mighty Par'o turn to dust and food for worms. SDT Baal HaTurim points out that the pasuk says: G-d says to Moshe that when Par'o will ask for a sign, you (Moshe) shall tell to Aharon to take your staff and throw it (on the ground) in front of Par'o, it shall become a TANIN. It didn't say: AND it will become a Tanin. He explains that the staff was thrown down and then he was to command it to become a Tanin. And that's what happened, to show Par'o the power of speech that G-d has given to Moshe. In other words, the staff did not change upon being thrown down. It changed by a spoken command. That carries a pointed message to Par'o that his wizards aren't even in the same class with Moshe and Aharon. Par'o calls his wizards who are able to duplicate (sort of) what Aharon does; however, Aharon's staff (note: not his TANIN) swallows those of the wizards. Nonetheless, Par'o refuses to listen to Moshe and Aharon, as G-d had said. [S> 7:14 (5)] G-d then instructs Moshe to go to the river (Nile) in the morning, where Par'o will be, and to bring the Staff with him. Moshe is to say to Par'o that G-d has sent me (Moshe) to tell you (Par'o) to release the People and you have refused until now. "With this will you know Who G-d is..." Moshe (actually Aharon)will be striking the water of the river, turning it to blood and killing all the fish therein. [S> 7:19 (7)] G-d tells Moshe to tell Aharon to take the Staff and strike the waters of Egypt. Moshe and Aharon do as instructed and the waters turn to blood, the fish die, and the Egyptians cannot drink the water. Par'o's wizards again duplicate what was done, causing Par'o to remain stubborn. Egyptians are forced to digfor water (and/or buy water from the Jews). This first plague lasts 7 days. [P> 7:26 (15)] G-d next instructs Moshe to go to Par'o (at his palace) and warn him that if he does not let the People go, Egypt will be smitten by a plague of frogs. Aharon is to raise the Staff above the river, which he does, and the land is blanketed with frog(s). The wizards are again able to simulate this plague with their magical powers. Par'o calls to Moshe and Aharon to pray to G-d that the frogs be removed, promising that he will let the People go into the wilderness to offer sacrifices to G-d. Moshe asks Par'o when he wants the frogs to leave. (A strange question, to which Par'o gives a stranger answer). Par'o says "tomorrow", to which Moshe responds "so be it. And that will serve as proof of G-d's powers". SDT Why would Par'o ask for the plague to be withdrawn on the following day? He and his people were certainly suffering and would want to rid themselves of the frogs as soon as possible. Par'o (still refusing to see the plagues as Divine, and assuming that there was some natural explanation for them) figured that Moshecame before him when he (Moshe) knew that the frogs would leave. Moshe would give the impression that he (in the name of the G-d of Israel) had power over the frogs. So Par'o tried to trick Moshe by asking the unexpected - do it tomorrow. Moshe's answer was that doing so would demonstrate that it was truly G-d's power that was being observed. Egypt saw itself as great because
of the Nile and because of the fertile land created by the waters of
the Nile. The first plague smote the water. The second was a plague
that came from the river and attacked the land. The third smote the
land itself. [S> 8:12 (4)] G-d tells Moshe to tell Aharon to strike the dust of the earth (no warning to Par'o this time). The resultant plague of lice was not able to be matched by the wizards, who acknowledge G-d's might. Par'o remains stubborn. [S> 8:16 (13)] G-d sends Moshe to warn Par'o about the next plague (swarms of insects or wild animals, depending upon which opinion you follow). New element: the contrast between Egyptian and Jewish experiences. There was always a contrast
between the Egyptians and the Jews - Egyptians had no water during
the first plague; the Jews had water. The Midrash even says that if
a Jew and an Egyptian drank from the same cup, the Jew would be
drinking water and the Egyptian would have blood. Similarly, the
Jews did not suffer the plagues and the
Egyptians did. Yet it seems that G-d had different messages for each
of the plagues. (Or each set of 3 plagues.) AROV was the first
plague that the distinction between Goshen and the Jews on one hand,
and the land of Egypt and the Egyptians on the other, was so sharp. Par'o agrees on the condition that Moshe pray for the removal of the plague. Afterwards, Par'o again reneges. [P> 9:1 (7)] G-d next sends Moshe back to Par'o to repeat the demand for the People's release and to warn him of the consequence of his refusal this time, namely DEVER. And so it happens that the livestock of the Egyptians all die, with not a single loss to the Jews. This Par'o checks on, yet he still remains stubborn. [P> 9:8 (5)] The sixth plague (boils) is brought upon Egypt without warning. Although his people are being seriously beaten, Par'o continues to resist (from this point on, with G-d's help). [S> 9:13 (9)] Moshe is next sent to warn about the seventh (and very powerful) plague. SDT In warning about HAIL, G-d
says (through Moshe) that this time, I will send ALL my plagues...
The Vilna Ga'on explains that G-d uses three main weapons, so to
speak, to punish those who violate His commands - Fire, Water, and
Wind. For example, to destroy the Generation of the Flood, G-d used
Water. To disperse DorHaP'laga, He used Wind, and to destroy S'dom,
His main weapon was Fire. The plague of Blood used Water. Plague 6
was the burning Fire of Boils on the skin. The locust came on the
Wind. But Hail consisted of the whole arsenal - the Hail itself was
Water, it had Fire in it, and the Hail was accompanied by strong
Wind. [P> 9:22 (14)] Moshe raises his
hand heavenward and the hail falls. It is extremely destructive, but
some plants survive, as do the animals of those Egyptians who heeded
Moshe's warning to bring them indoors. Par'o admits that he has
sinned and grants Moshe's demands, if only the hail will stop. When
Par'o sees that thehail and thunder have stopped, he yet again
reneges, as G-d has said he would. We shall now examine the first two of these criteria more fully. (The remaining five shall be discussed IYH in the next lesson.) (1) The owner has not abandoned hope The obligation to pick up the object and to restore it to the owner is present if the owner has not (or is presumed not to have) abandoned hope of recovering the object from a person who will find it. The owner abandons hope if he states, "Woe is me that I've suffered a loss" or other words to that effect from which Beth Din can ascertain that the owner abandoned hope. This holds true even if the object has an identification mark. If the finder picks it up after the abandonment, the object belongs to the finder. Caveat:The abandonment of hope must precede the finder picking up the object. If the finder picks up the object and then the owner realizes that he lost the object and immediately abandons hope, the item does not belong to the finder. If there is some doubt as to which came first, the finding or the abandoning of hope, the object must be restored to the owner. There are times when the owner does not immediately realize that he lost the object. He cannot abandon hope until after he realizes that he lost the object. Under some circumstances there is usually no gap in time between the loss and the realization of the loss. For example, the object is valuable and the owner feels his pocket constantly to see if the object is still in his pocket. In such a situation the owner will almost immediately realize that he lost the object. Or it is heavy and the owner will almost immediately feel the loss because he realizes that the weight he was carrying is no longer there. Absent a definite declaration from the owner, there is a presumption that if the object is identifiable, the owner did not abandon hope. Conversely if the owner loses an
object that is not identifiable, it is presumed that the owner
abandons hope as soon as he realizes that he lost the object. Even if the object does not contain an identification mark, the owner has not abandoned hope. The owner has not abandoned hope since he thinks that the other person whom he was with took the object and will sooner or later admit that he took the object. If the finder picked up the item and the owner later did abandon hope, the item still does not belong to the finder. Related to the topic of abandoned objects are objects that are carried away by a raging river and other such acts of nature. If the finder, Shimon, rescues an object from a raging river or wild animals, the object belongs to Shimon. The reason is that if the actual intent of the owner is different from the standard of what a reasonable person does under the circumstances, that is, he abandons hope of ever recovering the object; the law presumes that this standard applies. However if downstream there is an obstacle that will prevent the object from being washed out to sea, then there may be hope that the owner can reach such place and recover his lost object, and it will not be presumed that the owner abandoned hope of recovery of the object. Thus either the owner will proceed downstream and recover his object, or else the people down- stream, if they are Jewish, can be depended upon to salvage his object from the river and return it to the owner. It belongs to the owner even if he makes no effort to retrieve the object from the river as it is washing away his object. If the object does not have an identifying mark, it will belong to the owner if (1) he immediately runs after the object to attempt to salvage the object before it is washed away; or (2) if the owner is not there when the river washes away his object, and, had he been there, he could have prevented the object from being washed away by the river. If either (1) or (2) is present then the object is presumed not to be abandoned and the finder must restore the object to the owner. If the river is not a raging river but nevertheless carries objects away from the landowners along its banks, then the objects carried away by the river belong to the owner if (a) the owner immediately runs after the object and is not successful in rescuing his object; or (b) if the owner was not present when the river washed away his object, but when he became aware of it, he immediately made whatever effort could have been made. If by the time the owner heard of the river carrying off his object it was too late for him to do anything, then the object belongs to him, since the river is not a ravaging river and the people down- stream will return the object to the owner if it has an identifying mark. Assume that a river has a dam used by fishermen to catch fish. An object is found behind the dam. The dam is set up by Jewish fishermen and is usually repaired by them. If an object is found there it has to be treated as an object that has not been abandoned. The result is otherwise when the dam is maintained by gentiles. The Jewish owner of the lost object is presumed to assume that the object will be found by a gentile and not be restored to him and thus he abandons hope of having the object restored. Therefore the object belongs to the finder. (2) The object must be
identifiable However, if the public place is used by many people, such as a loading platform on a pier, the place in and of itself is not an identification mark. The identification mark need not be on the object itself, but may be the way the object is packaged, or how it is tied together, or the amount of the object, or its weight, or a certain unique mark or thing about the object, or anything that makes the object identifiable by the owner when he comes to claim the object from the finder. (The remaining five criteria will be discussed IYH in the next lesson.) The subject matter of this lesson
is more fully discussed in Volume VIII Chapter 259 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. There are many unusual halakhic
features of this blessing: We can explain all of these features if we understand that an essential part of the gomel blessing is that a person's loved ones and com- munity are also thankful for his or her deliverance. Thus, the thanks must be made in the presence of the community, and all those present add their own thanks: "May He who has repaid you with goodness, repay you only good- ness forever". Since the gratitude of the community is part of the very essence of the blessing, somebody close to the rescued person can also say the blessing. Yet since the thanks must be given only once, it is impossible to make this an obligation on any specific individual; as long as the blessing has not been said, any loved one can be the first to say it. Rav Kook connects even the Aramaic formulation to this idea. In the time of the gemara, Hebrew was the language of the learned, Aramaic the language of the common people. (Indeed, the other place we find this unusual Aramaic structure of a blessing is where we learn that Binyamin the shepherd - in the time of the gemara, a shepherd was often a symbol of ignorance used to bless on his bread in this way Berakhot 40b, SA OC 167:10). The students of Rav Yehuda wanted to express that without the guidance of their beloved Rebbe, they were reduced to the status of common people (Ein Ayah). The source of this aspect of the gomel blessing can be found in its origin in the thanksgiving offering, the korban todah. (See Tur OC 219 who writes that the gomel blessing is based on this sacrifice.) The todah had to be brought with forty loaves of bread, much more than any other private sacrifice. The vast majority of these loaves are not for the Kohanim but rather for the offerer and those accompanying him or her. (See Rambam Maaseh HaKorbanot ch.9.) Furthermore, it is improper to bring any sacrifice to disqualification by offering it without having the time and the opportunity to eat it; this means that each todah had to be eaten by a large group of celebrants. Again, we see that the communal aspect of thanks is an inherent part of the mitzva. “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 The full significance of this relationship between the spiritual behavior of the king and his reign, is vividly demonstrated in the repetition of David's last words to Solomon, as described in greater detail in Divrei HaYamim Alef (28:1-29:28). There, the will is made with great fanfare and publicly before the gathered leaders of Israel. Solomon is directed to walk in G-d's ways and keep his Torah, but he is also told that he has been chosen as being worthy of building the house of G-d. David gives the plans of the Beit HaMikdash as Divinely revealed to him. David also gives the treasures he has accumulated for this purpose, after being told that, because of the many wars he has fought, he himself may not build the Temple. The heads of the tribes are exhorted by David to contribute their share of the building together with all the members of their tribes. After all the contributions are gathered, David creates a prayer that has been included in our daily liturgy, one which expresses the power and greatness of G-d in all His works (ibid. 29:10-13). At the conclusion of that prayer, David repeats the need for Solomon's observance of Torah. Now Solomon is once again appointed king. Previously, there had been only a limited number of witnesses to his appointment, but a king needs to be accepted by his subjects and anointed with the consecrating oil. So here the tribes accepted Solomon and the Kohen Gadol anointed him before G-d. Such a repeated election had been done both in the case of Saul (Shmuel alef 11:14-15), and of David (Shmuel bet 5:1-6). Even though halakhically, the son of a king does not need to be anointed, nevertheless this was done here in order to prevent discord and strife. The injunctions of David regarding Yoav and Shimi ben Gerah in our chapter must be seen within the context of the above ideas. Not to do so cannot be reconciled either with Psalms and the text of the Tanach or with the words of our Sages. This is not a question of cover- ing up any shortcomings or of camouflage but rather as viewing these instructions within their textual and conceptual context. Here I have in the main followed the comments of Don Yitzchak Abarbanel, adviser to kings and princes in Portugal, Spain and Italy of the 15th and 16th centuries. He points out that the text shows clearly that David in no way broke his oath to Shim'ior told Solomon to kill either of these leaders, because of any actions against David. Rather the emphasis is on the need for Solomon to use his chokhma to meet any of their future actions in a just manner. Regarding Yoav, David says, "You shall act according to your chokhma and do not let his gray hair go down to the grave in peace." It was important that Yoav not find the normal death of old age. His past record showed that he had killed in a period of peace for his own personal gain or revenge. This is evident in the story of his murders of the two generals, Avner ben Ner and Amasah ben Yeter (Shuel bet 3:6, 19:14.). The former had been a general of King Saul and his son Ish Boshet but later had made a covenant with David. Amasah had been a general of Absalom in his revolt against David, but after that failed revolt, David had sworn an oathto appoint him as general instead of Yoav. The 'blood on his weapon belt and on his shoes' was meant to show his pride in the murder. Such a person constituted a perpetual danger to the rule of Solomon. Even then, nothing was done to
Yoav until Yoav, on hearing of the ascent of Solomon to the throne,
fled to the sanctuary to grasp the horns of the altar; a refuge
meant only for those guilty of causing accidental death. Murderers
were to be taken by force even from the sanctuary (Shmot 21:14).
Yoav by his actions showed his guilt and
rebellion against Solomon, thus incurring the death penalty. It would be easy to see all David's political testament as mere cunning statecraft or Machiavellian political plotting. That is indeed the non-Jewish and the secular view but our commentators saw therein moral and ethical perspectives of relevance even in the present day political and social world. The punishment of evil people and wrongdoers flows from the moral underpinnings of the Divine mitzvot, which Solomon had been urged by David to keep faithfully (Radak). Part of the divinity of human beings is their free will and their ability to choose between right and wrong and between good and evil. Responsibility for our actions and their consequences is a corollary of this free will. Without the balance between the two, moral and ethical ideas easily degenerate into corruption and immorality. So there are positive and negative mitzvot and there is reward but also there is punishment. G-d is all merciful, slow to anger and quick to forgive. He is a Father to all of His creation but He is also the King thereof and His throne is Justice. So there has to be punishment alongside Mercy. Yoav was guilty of murder, of destroying the Divine image of G-d, and the Torah had said, "You shall not corrupt the land" by letting the murderer of this Divinity live. The Malbim (19th century Hungary) faults Yoav with killing the two generals despite their having made their peace with David; this behavior is contrary to justice and undermines the basis of moral and stable government. S. R. Hirsch introduces an idea with which we are all too familiar in our modern democratic societies. David was legally obligated to kill Yoav, at the time of Avner, both for murder and for rebellion at the time the acts were perpetrated. However, at that time he had only just taken the throne and many of the tribes were by no means ready to accept this. So because of his weak political position he did not carry out the deserved death sentence. Had David ordered the death of Yoav at that time, the people of Israel would have believed that he was only acting on orders from David, who now killed him in order to cover up his own crimes. Hirsch notes that the text (verse 5) reads ' did to me' rather than ' did to them', thus showing that it was Joav's implication that David had ordered the murders despite his promise to them. Even later when David'srule was secure, there was still place for concern. Any action by David against Yoav, would be seen by the public, as an excuse for his revenge for the killing of Absalom, who actually was liable to such punishment for his rebellion. Alternatively, the rabbis taught that David was concerned that any action of his against Yoav, would not be seen as punishment for murder but rather for making public the letter David had sent to Yoav, telling him to place Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Batsheva, in the front lines. Perhaps the real message of these political instructions can only become clear when we remember the relevance of the state and of government to Judaism. Judaism is a national- communal orientated religion, whose purpose is to create a holy nation and a kingdom of priests. Torah, the constitution of that kingdom is not revealed to the Patriarchs, but only after the Exodus from Egypt which created the nation. Government therefore, whatever its nature, is not simply a social or political creation but is an integral part of Torah. Modern Torah authorities like Rabbis Avraham HaCohen Kook and Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, rule that governments elected legally by democratic means inherit the rights of the king. The kabbalists taught that the king was the heart of the Jewish people and Maimonidies ruled that respect and obedience to a legitimate and legally appointed king's rule, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, are halakhically mandatory. So the sages taught that if a king waived his honor, the waiver was meaningless; after all it was not his personal honor that was at stake. Rebellion against the king, of which both Yoav and Shimi were guilty, was in this light, an act that undermined the framework of the visualized Torah social structure. Such rebellion also may endanger the safety of the Jewish communal entity, bringing with it civil war, as it did at the time of the destruction of the 2nd Temple, and could have done at the time of David. "If it would not be for the fear of government, people would eat each other alive." (Pirkei Avot, chapter 3, mishnah 2). Yet the picture would be
incomplete, if we neglected the obligations that the system imposed
on the government and the limitations it integrated into the
halahkic system. We will describe these when we deal with the
Tanach's vision of what constitute 'Jewish Kingship'. Here it
suffices to bring the comment of Harav Kook
regarding the role of the state. He writes that all national
states and governments face a perpetual struggle against the abuses
brought by arrogance and the lust for power. A Jewish state, without
its moral and ethical bearings will be reduced to the spiritual
level of all other states, and like them, will loose bothits reason
and its power to exist. In essence, that is the will and testament
that David bequeaths to Solomon. Q On a day that we read from two Sifrei Torah, the chazan took the second Sefer as the first. The gabbai discovered this only when the Torah was opened up on the bima. Should we have rolled the Torah to the right place for the first reading (it was a significant distance in the Sefer) or have covered up the Sefer and replaced it with the correct Sefer for the first reading? A Remember this rule. Among the trickiest halachot to decide are those where there is a conflict between competing halachic preferences. While halacha requires us to act in manner A and in manner B, how do we know how to act in cases where A and B are mutually exclusive? One either has to find earlier sources that deal with the conflicting coincidence of the two issues or to decide (intuitively or otherwise) which issue should have precedence. There is a rule that one should not roll the Sefer Torah to the right place while the congregation waits because of the congregation's honor (Yoma 70a). For this reason, the Kohen Gadol would read the maftir on Yom Kippur by heart and not roll the Sefer from Acharei Mot to Pinchas. Nowadays, we do roll the Sefer Torah when there is a need, with the assumption that the congregation is willing to pass on its honor under the circumstances (Magen Avraham 144:7). Another rule found in that gemara is that one should not do anything that might imply that a Sefer Torah is pasul when indeed it is not. For that reason, they did not have a second Seferon hand for the Kohen Gadol to switch to (see there why we can use multiple Sifrei Torah). While we have found no discussions among the Rishonim on a case where we have to choose between rolling a Sefer Torah and casting aspersions on it, Acharonim do discuss it. The common case is where the person who has peticha (opens up the Aron and takes out the Torahs) gives the chazan the wrong Sefer. In the siddur ofRav Yaakov Emden, two opinions are brought. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, OC II, 37) says that it is hard to determine which factor takes precedence but says that if the congregation is willing to forgo its honor, the Sefer Torah should be kept out and rolled. He continues, in classic form, to say that if someone (not necessarily the rabbi) already gave instructions to return the Sefer Torah and there is fear that overruling him will cause dispute or embarrassment, then it is like a situation that the congregation does not withdraw its right to honor, and we return the Sefer. Our situation is different in two ways. First of all, it is necessary to roll two Sifrei Torah, which takes longer and increases the chance of disruptive discussion among congregants. More fundamentally, there should be no disgrace or aspersions on the Sefer Torah we would "pass up." After all, it will soon get its turn to be used as the second Sefer. This is probably the rationale of the Sha'arei Ephrayim (a 19th century work on the laws of kriat hatorah), who says that if one opens the Sefer for maftir instead of that for Bereishit on Simchat Torah, he should close it and switch Sefarim (8:67) rather than roll it. The Biur Halacha (on684:3) concurs with this analysis. Another halachic factor which is all but ignored in the Acharonim's treatment of this question is the concept, "ein ma'avirin al hamitzvot" (we don't pass over mitzvot) or, in this case, the Sefer Torah to be used for a mitzva. One reason that it might not apply is that the fact that one person's mistake to take out thewrong Sefer should not bind the whole congregation to suffer (see Har Tzvi, OC 83). Whatever the reason, though, the consensus is that in the case of switching two Sifrei Torah that will both be used, we opt to switch the Sefarim rather than roll them. 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)orSubscribe/Hebrew(forthe
hebrew version). Please leave the subject blank. Ask the Vebbe Rebbe
is partially funded by the Jewish Agency for Israel We're highlighting frogs this week, because of plague number 2. G-d chose to use frogs (among other things) to punish Egypt and to show us His Wonders. Let's take a look at the "natural" frog, as opposed to the supernatural frog(s) of Tz'fardei'a. Frogs are members of the
zoological class called Amphibia (DU-CHAI in Hebrew, referring to
the fact that amphibians undergo a change from water-dwelling,
gill-breathing tadpoles to lung-breathing land (more or less)
adults. DU CHAI, two lives. Amphibians are cold-blooded vertebrate
(backboned) animals... one type of amphibianis called Anura or
Salientia, (frogs and toads)... when we think of frogs, we generally
picture what are called "True Frogs"... comprising more than 400
species... they have two bulging eyes, strong, long, webbed hind
feet that are adapted for leaping and swimming, smooth or slimy
skin... they tend to lay eggs in clusters.
Frogs have variable kinds of eye types... the iris can be brown,
green, silver, red, bronze, and even gold. The pupils come in all
kinds of shapes... round: (just like us)... vertical pupils that
look like a cats eye are really good for night vision and respond
quickly to changes in light... horizontal: These are the more
common pupil, good for normal day-vision. heart-shaped:
purpose is unknown... Some frogs have triangular pupils, and some
even have star-shaped pupils... Some frogs have tongues that are
long and sticky that can be used to catch bugs... Frogs with long
tongues go by the "see it, snap at it" technique of feeding. Toads,
on the other hand, have tiny tongues and have to snap at
their food using their mouth. They often will stalk their food, much
like a cat... creeping up to it and then just as dinner is about to
take off, they will SNAP and eat their meal! When a frog swallows a
meal, his bulgy eyeballs will close and go down into his head...thus
applying pressure to push his food down his throat... There are
about 6 to 14 species of tongueless, aquatic African frogs too...
Most frogs have teeth of a sort... a ridge of very small cone teeth
around the upper edge of the jaw... some have Vomerine Teeth on the
roof of their mouth... no teeth on lower jaw... swallow
their food whole. The so-called "teeth" are mainly used to
hold the prey... Toads, however, do NOT have any teeth... a frog's
feet are adapted to specific activities: Tree frogs have sucker-like
adhesive disks, or Sticky pads, which aid in climbing, on the tips
of the fingers and toes. Aquatic Frogs have webbing between
their toes that aid in swimming. [Try this little experiment:
Spread your fingers and run your hand through a tub of water. Then
place a plastic sandwich bag and place it over your hand, spread
your fingers and NOW run your hand through the water.] Frogs that
burrow into the sand to keep moist in the heat have stubby
clawlike fingers that are adapted to digging. Some frogs have
parachute-like webbing on their hands and feet which act as an
air-brake when they glide from tree to tree or leaf to leaf. These
frogs are known as "Flying Frogs." Frogs can leap over 20 times
their body length, making them among the best leapers in
nature...Frogs drink and breathe through their skin. Some frogs shed
their skin as often as once a day. MRMH According to Midrash Rabba, when Moshe agreed to go to Par'o, he under- stood that the redemption of the Jewish slaves was imminent: Moshe would present God's demand for emancipation and the slaves would summarily be released. Were Par'o to refuse, Moshe expected God to immediately unleash the plagues, one after another, and bring Par'o to his knees. When this didn't happen, Moshe complained to God about Jewish suffering and ques- tioned his own role as God's messenger. In reply, God assured Moshe that the realization of the stated goal, i.e. redemption, would take place, but not with the immediacy that Moshe had envisioned. What was important was not to lose sight of the grand vision that God had promised to our forefathers - the emergence of a unique nation and its settlement in Eretz Yisrael. Throughout the ages, Jews never lost sight of the ultimate reality of "Am Yisrael B'Eretz Yisrael." No day passed without multiple mentioning of Jerusa- lem and "the land." The historic restoration of Zion was destined to be gradual rather than instantaneous. This classic model found expression when Jews returned to Eretz Yisrael under the leadership of Ezra and Nechemiah to rebuild the Second Temple. They contended daily with severe challenges, starting with the painful fact that the majority of Jews at that time chose to remain in the Babylonian exile. But the promise to our forefathers was ever present in the consciousness of Ezra and Nechemiah, and the emergence of the glorious Second Commonwealth is testimony to their faith and commitment. In modern times we witness the
return of our people to the land which expresses itself in a steady
march of new immigrants. At the same time we strive to inspire those
who have not as yet made aliya and must still internalize the words
of Parashat Va'eira, "And I will bring you unto the land concerning
which I did swearto give to Avraham, Yitzchak and to Yaacov." May
this come about speedily in our lifetime! Aharon had previously accompanied Moshe at the court of Par'o, but now he was formally promoted to the leader- ship team. Interestingly, there is a sudden break in the narrative as the Torah begins to describe the descent of these two leaders from Levi, Ya'akov's third son (ibid 6:14-29). Rabbi S.R. Hirsch notes that as Moshe and Aharon's mission now begins in earnest, this family description helps us understand how close the two brothers really were to their compatriots. Rashi explains that despite the slaves' building frustration over their leaders' failed intercession with the Egyptian king (ibid ch.5),Moshe and Aharon will nevertheless be able to deal patiently with those who are essentially their cousins. Ramban also points out that there
are three wives recorded in this family description whose lineage
was distinguished. Yocheved, mother of Moshe and Aaron, was a
daughter of Levi; Elisheva, Aharon's wife was from the royal tribe
of Judah; and Elazar's wife was a daughter of Putiel (associated
with both Yosef and Yitro).Moshe and Aharon, then, are more than
just a leadership team; their very background under- scored their
suitability to represent the Children of Israel. The Floor Sanctifies… When a Kohein performed Avoda, he was required to stand barefoot directly on the floor of the Azara; there could be no interpositions between the bare feet of the Kohein and the stone floor. The Mishna reads: "…(A Kohein who performs the Avoda) while standing on 'utensils', or on an animal or on his fellow's feet, (theAvoda that the Kohein performed) is invalid." The Gemara comments that it was necessary to mention all three particulars, because if a Kohein performed Avoda while standing on 'utensils', the 'utensils' created a Chatzitza - an interposition - between the feet of the Kohanim and the floor of the Azara. The Avoda of thatKohein would be invalidated even though the Chatzitza was not "flesh". The Gemara notes that if a Kohein stood on an animal while performing Avoda, the Avoda would be disqualified because even non-human flesh created a Chatzitza. And if the Kohein performed Avoda while standing on the feet of another person, the Chatzitzacreated between the feet of the officiating Kohein and the Azara floor would invalidate the Avoda even though the Chatzitza consisted of human flesh. Is it possible that the Mishna is teaching us that the road to spiritual fulfillment and growth can be blocked by the misuse of 'utensils', i.e. material possessions and'animals' perhaps an over-concentration on one's career to the exclusion of everything else (a la Hirsch)? And may we speculate that the Chatzitza created by the "feet of his fellow" represent the enticement of false man-made, man-centered philosophies? The "floor of the Azara sanctifies" in that it is holy ground and Divine Avoda is permitted to be performed only there. But suppose a Kohein, performing Avoda, "had one foot on the 'utensil' and one foot on the floor… or one foot on a stone which was not part of the floor and one foot on the floor itself…", would the Avodabe valid? R. Eliezer answered that if the 'utensil' or the stone (or the animal…) were removed and "the Kohein could stand on his other foot and continue the Avoda, then the Avoda would be valid." Rav Ami, an Amora, asked (as understood by Rav Zuti), what was the Halacha if a Kohein performed an Avoda while standing ona stone of the Azara floor that had been 'uprooted' (removed) and he stood in its place, i.e. on the exposed soil beneath the removed stone? Did David, together with the prophet Gad, who originally sanctified the site of the Mikdash (I Devrei Hayamim 22:1), sanctify only the upper layer of stones which constituted theactual stone floor of the Azara, or did he sanctify the soil underneath the Azara? In the latter case, it should not matter if some stones were removed. The Gemara asks if Avoda would be still valid even if all the stones of the Azara floor were taken away and the Kohanim offered sacrifice while standing on the bare earth.Rav Zuti is convinced that David indeed sanctified the area of the Azara down to the lower depths of the Earth. In the eyes of Rav Zuti, the real question is this: if the Kohanim are sacrificing while they stand on the bare earth, can this be considered a conventional way ("Derech Sheirut") to perform Avoda? The Gemaracomes to no definitive conclusion (Zevachim 24a). However, be it as it may, the Rambam rules, "If the stone were loose and wobbled, a Kohein should not perform Avoda while standing on it, but nevertheless, if he did, the Avoda is valid because the stone remains in its place" (Bi'at Mikdash 5:19). But elsewhere he rulesdifferently. "If the stone is 'uprooted' (in this case, loosened, not cemented down) but still in its place, it is damaged… and it is forbidden for a Kohein to perform Avoda while standing on such a stone" (Beit HaBechira 1:10). The classic commentators on the Rambam, did not know what to make of these two rulings whichseemingly contradict each other. The ban on Chatzitza is not limited to feet. Basing himself on Vayikra 6:3 and the Talmudic discussion found in Zevachim 19a, Rambam writes, "It is written concerning Bigdei Kehuna, the priestly garments, "...on his flesh shall he wear them." (a paraphrase of Vayikra 6:3). This teaches that there should be no interpositionsbetween the body (of the officiating Kohein) and his priestly garments, not an intervening thread, certainly not dirt… and if there was an interposition between the body (of the Kohein) and the garment, it is a Chatzitza and the Avoda is invalid. Therefore a Kohein could not perform Avoda if he wore Tefillin Shel Yad,because the Tefillin Shel Yad would be an interposition (between his arm and his priestly garment). But the Kohein could wear the Tefillin Shel Rosh." (In other words, no thermal underwear in cold weather, just the regulation Bigdei Kehuna!) The Kohein was admonished not to permit "light dust between his body and his garmentand even not to allow the wind to blow upon him in such a way that it raised up the garment from actual contact with his body. A Kohein should not put his hand under his garment during the time of Avoda and should be vigilant to insure that there were no hanging threads. "But if he performed Avoda in these conditions (despitethe warnings), his Avoda was valid" (Hilchot Klei Mikdash 10:6,7). There had to be direct contact between the Kohein's hands and the Mikdash vessels and sacrificial animals. He could not wear gloves. The Sages picture the Azara itself "crying out" in protest and verbalizing its anger at the irreverence of one unworthy Kohein Gadol. "Go from here, Issachar of K'far Barkai, who honors himselfwhile desecrating the sacred sacrifices of Heaven; for he used to wrap his hands with silk - which created a Chatzitza - and then perform Avoda (thus invalidating it). Happily such cases were few. Catriel Sugarman gives
illustrated lectures on the Beit HaMikdash and related topics. He
can be reached at(02) 652-7531 or acatriel@netvision.net.il Different column this week. TBDATR (Towards Better Davening and Torah Reading - i.e. this column) is not only about accented syllables and NA vs. NACH. More than DIKDUK is required for improving our davening. This Shabbat is also Rosh Chodesh. Not an unusual combination, with at least two and sometimes three Shabbat-Rosh Chodeshes a year (including Shabbat only, Friday-Shabbat, and Shabbat-Sunday). Shabbat is about the Sanctity of Time, and Rosh Chodesh (and all the Holidays in its wake) is about Sanctity of Time. When Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh coincide, it gives us pause to reflect on the concept that each demonstrates. The lesson for us comes in two stages. G-d alone sanctified Shabbat, the Crown of Creation. Later,with the fourth Commandment, He asked us to remember Shabbat and to sanctify it. With Rosh Chodesh, He gave it to us without sanctity, and asked (com- manded) us to sanctify it. It is as if He told us, "I showed you how to sanctify Time by giving you the Holy Shabbat; now let's see how you do it on your own. Here is RoshChodesh. You sanctify it. If you don't, it won't be holy." G-d shared Shabbat with us, so to speak, after He made it on His own. By our sanctification and establishment of the Jewish Calendar, we bring G-d into the partner- ship with us, so to speak. Of course, He created the Sun and the Moon and commanded us as to howto go about Kiddush HaChodesh, but we are the ones who set up the Calendar and give it its Kedusha (sanctity). Shabbat-Rosh Chodesh is a powerful combination of Kedushot. These are thoughts we should have when we daven and otherwise celebrate and mark Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh. 2 We've raised the following issue in the past, but it is time to bring it up again. The point is raised by the Aruch HaShulchan and others, but we'll present it from the Aruch HaShulchan. He writes in Orech Chayim 425,
Hilchot Rosh Chodesh, s'if 2: Best way to continue is to show you what the Aruch HaShulchan is talking about. Following is the text of the conclusion of the middle bracha of the Amida just referred to. The bracketed section does not appear in standard Ashkenazi siddurim. (in the hard copy of TT) The Aruch HaShulchan doesn't understand why the bracketed section disappeared from our NUSACH. It is part of the SIYUM HABRACHA (ending of the middle bracha) on a regular Shabbat and on Yom Tov, Rosh HaShana or Yom Kippur, whether they are on a weekday or on Shabbat. There is no reason why the passage would not be appropriateof Shabbat Rosh CHodesh, and no reason why it should be omitted. The Aruch HaShulchan concludes by saying that it is missing from the text and that it was his practice to say it. That's what the Aruch HaShulchan
said. Add to that, the following: The siddur for EIDOT MIZRACH has two separate passages - one for Shabbat and one for Rosh Chodesh, with the concluding bracha uniting the two by referring to both Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh. Side point: Whereas Ashkenazi siddurim (S'fard and Ashkenaz, etc.) usually have Musaf for Shabbat and then have regular and Rosh CHodesh side by side or above and below a line, and Rosh CHodesh Musaf for a weekday is on its own, in Eidot Mizrach siddurim (at least some), there is a Rosh Chodesh Musaf with Shabbat and weekdaytogether, above and below a line, and regular SHabbat Musaf is by itself. Torah Tidbits TBDATR conclusion:
Use the full version of the final passage of the middle bracha when
you daven this Shabbat-Rosh Chodesh. If you have any doubts as to
whether you should switch, discuss the issue with your Rav or other
halachic consultant. One way or the other - Shabbat Shalom and
Chodesh Tov. OU ISRAEL CENTER [The
Parshat Va-eira Homepage]
|
