Shabbat Parshat VAYEITZEI 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. Last op for Kiddush L'vana in any
month is midway between the molad of that month and the molad of the
next month. Since we use the average numbers for the calculations of
the calendar, we know that the time between two successive moladot
is 29d 12h 44m 1p. Therefore, the deadline for K.L. (a.k.a. full
moon, opposition, Nigud) is half that time (14d 18h 22m) added to
the molad of the month. Kislev's molad was Monday (Nov.24) at
5:34am. Add 14d 18h 22m and we get Monday (Dec.8) at 11:56pm Israel
Standard Time (Winter time, Sha'on Choref). The Gemara in Brachot attributes the "establishment" of Maariv to Yaakov Avinu, based on the pasuk at the beginning of Vayeitzei: VAYIFGA - and he came, stopped at, approached, met, encountered the place... The Gemara then points to a pasuk in Yirmiyahu in which we find G-d telling the prophet that He is "angry" with the People and intends to do to the Beit HaMikdash what He had done to the Mishkan in Shilo, and you (G-d) says, don't pray to Me on behalf of the people, don't bring Me their prayers and joyful song, and don't TIFGA (word with same root as VAYIFGA) Me, because I won't listen to you. P'GI'A says the Gemara, is another term for T'FILA. The pasuk in Vayeitzei mentions KI VA HASHEMESH, for the sun has set, which identifies the time of Yaakov's prayer as nighttime. Hence, Yaakov "established" Maariv. Ideally, one should daven Maariv (which includes, remember, the SH'MA of the night - a mitzva from the Torah) as soon as it gets dark. If a person has a regular Maariv minyan he attends at a later time (than the beginning of the night) and/or if a person has someone to remind him to daven Maariv, then he may daven at a later time. Halacha discusses what a person
may or may not do when it comes time to daven Maariv - eating,
learning, other activities. Majority opinion is that women are
exempt from Maariv, but may take it upon themselves. Limited space
does not allow for more detail, but ponder this: What's the first
thing you want to do at the beginning of a brand new day? SDT There are different explanations concerning the wording of this pasuk. As to why the Torah mentions Yaakov's departure, Rashi explains that a prominent person not only influences his surroundings, but his absence from a place is also felt, in a negative way. Therefore, the Torah not only tells us that Yaakov went to Haran; it also tells us that he left Be'er Sheva, and his absence was felt - even though Yitzchak (and Rivka) remained there. (Perhaps, especially because Yitzchak and Rivka remained in Be’er Sheva - they would feel Yaakov’s absence the most!) Another explanation - In leaving Be'er Sheva, Yaakov was fulfilling the wishes of his mother Rivka, who feared that Eisav would kill Yaakov if he remained. In going to Haran, Yaakov was fulfilling the wishes of his father, Yitzchak, who sent him there to find a suitable wife. The pasuk tells us of Yaakov's departure from Be'erSheva AND his journey to Haran, to show us that it was important to satisfy the wishes of BOTH his parents. He encounters "The Place" (it is unidentified in the text, but is traditionally considered to be Har Moriah, the site of the Akeida, and the location of the future Beit HaMikdash) and stays the night. He dreams of a ladder with its feet planted in the ground and whose top reaches the heavens. Angels are ascending and descending the ladder. SDT The S'fat Emet points out that the ladder in Yaakov's dream is described first as having its feet planted on the ground (representing worldliness and/or basic decency) and then its head reaching the heavens (representing spiritual pursuits). This is consistent with the famous maxim from Pirkei Avot - Derech Eretz Kodma laTorah, worldliness precedes Torah. SDT This represents the "Changing
of the Guard". Angels that accompanied Yaakov in Eretz Yisrael are
not the same as those outside Israel, just as Shabbat angels differ
from those of weekdays. Our weekly counterpart to Yaakov's dream is
the Friday night song, Shalom Aleichem, which refers to the changing
of the angels. (Note that in Shalom Aleichem, we greet the Shabbat
angels before saying farewell to the weekday angels. This gives us
an overlap of angels rather than an angel-less gap. In Yaakov's
dream, the angels are spoken of as ascending and descending, leaving
a momentary gap. See next SDT) SDT A person should realize that wealth is not permanent; it can be lost as easily as it is gained. Therefore, if one is blessed with wealth, he should use it wisely, constructively, charitably. This idea is symbolized by the ladder, and the ups and downs that take place on it - the SULAM, with the angels OLIM V'YORDIM BO. SULAM (ladder) is numerically 60+6+30+ 40=136. MAMON (money) is also 40+40+ 6+50=136. And so is ONI (poverty) 70+6+50+10=136. More... KOL, voice (prayer) and TZOM, fasting are also equal to 136, perhaps saying that prayer and petition of G-d can be effective in resulting in a blessing of wealth rather than one's being poor. In the dream, G-d appears to Yaakov at the head of the ladder and reiterates to him the promises made to Avraham and Yitzchak. These oft-repeated promises have consistently included the possession of the Land and the "countless" nature of their descendants. This prophecy also includes G-d's promise of protection for Yaakov on his sojourn. Yaakov awakens from his sleep and acknowledges the sanctity of the place. When Yaakov awakens in the morning, he takes the stone (formerly referred to in the plural) that was at his head, and erects it as a monument which he then anoints. He names the place Beit El. Yaakov vows allegiance to G-d. SDT Shulchan Aruch, based on Midrash, says that a person should/can take a vow or make a pledge to increase and enhance performance of mitzvot and giving of tzedaka during troubled times. The precedent for this is Yaakov's vows at this "low point" in his life. SDT "And I will return to my
father's home and HaShem will be for me G-d." The Ramban explains
the connection between Yaakov's return home with his "acquisition of
G-d". The Gemara in Ketuvot states that he who lives in Eretz
Yisrael is like one who has G-d; he who lives outside Israel is like
one without G-d. Yaakov's return from Lavan's house to his father's
was a physical as well as spiritual Aliya - as is Aliya to Eretz
Yisrael in our own time. When they tell him that they work for Lavan, Yaakov asks about his well- being. The shepherds point out the approaching Rachel, daughter of Lavan. They explain to Yaakov that they must cooperate with each other in order to physically remove the stone from the well. Just then, Yaakov sees Rachel, his cousin, and approaches the rock and single-handedly removes it from the mouth of the well in order to give water to the sheep of his uncle. Yaakov kisses Rachel and weeps bitterly. (He weeps because he sees with Ru'ach HaKodesh that they are destined not to be buried together.) Yaakov tells Rachel who he is -
what their relationship is - and she runs off to tell her father.
When Lavan hears, he runs out to welcome Yaakov, and brings him home
to tell "the whole story". Lavan "offers" Yaakov a job and tells him
"to name his price". Lavan had two daughters - Leah, the older one
and Rachel, the younger one. Leah had "weak" (sensitive) eyes and
Rachel was very beautiful. Lavan gathers the locals for the festivities and substitutes Leah for Rachel. SDT Although Lavan was the deceiver, and for his own motives, our Sources indicate that it was Rachel who facilitated the switch, motivated by love and compassion for her sister. Rachel gave her private "signals" to Leah to save her from a probable marriage to Eisav, Yitzchak's biological elder. This compassion serves her descendants well many years later, when she "intercedes" before G-d following the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. Tradition tells us that G-d "softened" the punishment with a promise of return, only after Rachel pleaded before Him. The Avot and Moshe Rabeinu had not succeeded in their pleas on behalf of the people. When Yaakov confronts Lavan about the deceit, Lavan says that it is improper to marry off the younger before the older. (this is the minhag in many communities, despite the fact that its origin is Lavan.) Yaakov agrees to work an additional seven years for Rachel. Zilpa and Bilha are the handmaidens of Leah and Rachel respectively (commentaries say they too were daughters of Lavan, from a pilegesh). Yaakov showed his obviously greater love of Rachel. As a result, G-d made Leah fertile and Rachel barren. Next the Torah tells us, in rapid succession, of the births of Reuven, Shimon, Levi, and Yehuda. Leah names each son (Levi was named by Yaakov or perhaps by an angel) with a name that expresses her thanks to G-d and her feelings under the unusual circum- stances of her life. Rachel, jealous of Leah, complains to Yaakov that she has no children. Yaakov gets angry with her, saying that it is G-d's doing, not his. Rachel gives Bilha to Yaakov to have children whom she will raise as her own. Dan and Naftali are born. Leah, realizing that she has stopped having children, gives Zilpa to Yaakov. Gad and Asher are the results. SDT Notice the rapid fashion the
Torah employs to tell us of the build-up of Yaakov's family. With
Avraham and Yitzchak having such a difficult time fathering
children, Yaakov has fathered 10 sons in the span of 16 p'sukim! After Yosef is born, Yaakov asks
his leave of Lavan. He desires to return to his fathers' home. He
asks for his wives, children, and compensation for all the work he
has done for Lavan. Lavan acknowledges that he has been blessed
because of Yaakov. Lavan's sons feel as if Yaakov has cheated their father. G-d tells Yaakov to return to his birthplace. Yaakov calls to his wives and explains the situation to them. He tells them of being instructed by an angel as to what to do with the animals. Rachel and Leah feel as strangers in their father's house and are prepared to do as G-d commands. When Yaakov vows to return to his
father's house, he adds, "and HaShem will be G-d for me. Ramban says
from here we learn that he who lives in Eretz Yisrael has G-d, and
he who lives in Chutz LaAretz it is as if he has no G-d. Rav Aryeh Kaplan z”l in The Living Torah, expains Terafim according to different opinions. Some say they were idols that were worshiped. This opinion adds that Rachel took them to save her father from the sin of idolatry. Others are of the opinion that they were meditative devices that would enable Lavan to divine the whereabouts of Yaakov. Thus Rachel’s motive was to prevent Lavan from pursuing Yaakov and family. Yaakov answers in kind, expressing his anger at Lavan's repeated attempts to cheat him. As to the terafim, Yaakov permits Lavan to search for them and boldly declares that the one who took them shall not live. Lavan fails to find his terafim because Rachel convinces him not to search her person or belongings. Had it not been for G-d's protection, Yaakov tells Lavan, you would have left me with nothing. KI VARACH... The Midrash, based
on the same phrase being used, says that it was Amalek who told
Lavan that Yaakov fled, and later told Par'o that Bnei Yisrael did
so too. Yaakov continues on his journey
and encounters angels (of Eretz Yisrael - the sedra thus comes full
circle) on the way, Yaakov names the place Machanayim. Some suggest concluding the haftara with Yoel 2:26-27, in order to end the haftara on a better note than Hoshea ends with. This concluding portion of the book(let) of Hoshea begins with reference to Yaakov's journey to Aram to find (and work on behalf of) a wife (wives) - hence its obvious connection to the sedra. The prophet points out to the People of Israel their humble origins, in an attempt to put things in perspective and restore their faith and reliance upon G-d. The haftara contains SHUVA YISRAEL from haftarat Shabbat Shuva. The last pasuk in Hoshea states: Whoever is wise, let him understand this... The ways of G-d are straight, and the righteous will walk on them and the wicked will stumble. The Gemara explains this pasuk with the example of two people who eat Korban Pesach, one eats it AL HA'SOVA, while satisfied but not stuffed, and the other eats K.P.but he is full from his Seder meal. Amazing that the Gemara illustrates this pasuk with two people, both of whom fulfill mitzvot. The POSHEI'A is mitzva- observant! He buys a lamb, brings it as a K.P., roasts it properly - everything. Except the one little detail of AL HA'SOVA. And that brands him a sinner. There is a message in the Gemara's choice of example. A person who doesn't keep mitzvot usually knows he's not doing the right thing, but doesn't care. Let's call him a "gross poshei'a". The one referred to in the Gemara is the "subtle sinner". Seems so insignificant. Especially compared with others. But the proper way to eat K.P. requires the additional effort throughout the Seder meal to control one’s appetite. This additional Mussar- message cannot be overlooked. This is only an example of a type of sin. Take talking in shul during davening. People who do it usually develop an attitude - hey, at least I'm davening. I come to shul. So this can't be that bad. By choosing these examples to
illustrate those who walk upright on G-d's path and those who
stumble, we are to understand that a "regular" sinner will obviously
stumble on the G-d's path. But the message is more subtle than that.
Even a person engrossed in Torah and Mitzvot will occasionally
stumble. Food for thought. Particularly appropriate in light of the
Haftara's speaking about T'shuva. But if Reuven does not make the gift conditional, Beth Din will not impose a condition, even if two things are stated together such that one might think they are actually conditional. For example, Reuven, who is critically ill, declares, "Give Shimon $200, and he shall marry my daughter". Since he mentioned the money first and then the marriage to his daughter, this is deemed to be two independent gifts to Shimon (the $200 and the daughter), the choice being Shimon's to take both or only one. Thus, Shimon may take the $200 without marrying Reuven's daughter. If Reuven mentions the daughter first: "Give Shimon my daughter and give him $200," then it will be deemed to be a conditional gift; that is, if Shimon marries Reuven's daughter, he will receive the $200, and if he does not marry her, he will receive nothing. Even in the situation where he mentions the money first, if the witnesses testify that it was obviously Reuven's intent that the gift to Shimon be conditioned upon him marrying Reuven's daughter, Beth Din will impose the condition. For example. before Reuven made his declaration, he stated that he anticipated that Shimon would marry his daughter and that therefore, he would like to give him a gift of $200. Reuven declares a gift causa mortis: "Give $200 to Shimon so that he may buy a scrap business with the money". Shimon dies before the gift is given to him. The $200 is given to the heirs of Shimon, although they will not buy the scrap business. The gift will be deemed to be unconditional; there was merely an aspiration on Reuven's part that Shimon would buy the scrap business. There is a dissent that holds that the purchase of the scrap business is a condition and that unless the heirs of Shimon buy the business, they will not receive the $200. There must be some criteria to define the extent of the gift. Reuven, who is critically ill, declares a gift causa mortis, giving to Shimon a house capable of containing 100 bales of grain. After Reuven dies, the house is measured, and it is found that the house can contain 120 bales of grain. It is held that the entire house belongs to Shimon, since it is apparent from the declaration of Reuven that he had this house in mind. Although it is larger, this is attributed to the fact that the donor of a gift should give generously. Thus, it was not the intent of Reuven that Shimon obtain an area in the house encompassing space to hold 100 bales of grain, and that the remaining area (capable of containing 20 bales of grain) go to the heirs of Reuven. It is not usual for a house to be divided into parts. The result will be similar if the gift is the same but in this case, Reuven owns several houses, the smallest one capable of containing 120 bales of grain; Shimon will be given this smallest house. If there are two houses, one holding 120 bales of grain and the other holding 80 bales, Shimon will receive the house holding 80 bales. The law presumes that the heirs are the owners of all of the estate of the decedent who made the gift, and the burden of proof is on the donee to show that the donor intended the larger house. Reuven, who was critically ill, declared in a writing, "Shimon is to be given one of Reuven's apartments selected by Shimon to live in, whether it is the upper apartment or the lower apartment". Shimon selected neither the upper apartment nor the lower apartment, but rather the middle apartment. It was held that the selection made by Shimon would be honored. When Reuven first stated that Shimon could have any apartment he selected, it was controlling; the latter part of his declara- tion, that he could have the upper or lower apartment, was only by way of example, and was not meant to limit Shimon's selection. The Beth Din will examine each declaration to see if the intent was to delineate the specifics to limit the general opening of the declaration. The results are different when dealing with gifts of personal property. As was stated above, it is not usual for a house to be divided, and thus, the intent of the donor was to give the entire house. However, it is not unusual to divide personal property that is capable of being divided. But if the personal property cannot be divided, such as a piece of furniture, it will be treated the same as a house. For example, if Reuven declares, as a gift causa mortis, "Give to Shimon that purse, which contains $100," and it is found that the purse contains $200, Shimon will be given $100. Similarly, Reuven declares, as a gift causa mortis, "Give to Shimon that keg, which contains twenty gallons of wine," and it is found that the keg contains thirty gallons, Shimon will be given only twenty gallons of wine. There is a custom that the father of the bride makes a gift of a dowry to his daughter that will be included in her kethuba for the use of her husband. It was also the custom that the kethuba listed the value of the dowry as twice its actual value in order to add prestige to the bride. Reuven, the critically ill father, declares, as a gift causa mortis, "Give to my daughter $400 to be included in her kethuba as her dowry". Was it his intent to give her $400 and to include in the kethuba $800, or to give her $200 so that the kethuba would state $400? It was held that the gift was of $200; the kethuba was to state $400, which was the father's intent. Reuven, who is critically ill, declares, "Give to my daughter Rivka $300 worth of furnishings as her dowry". At the time, Rivkah was not engaged to be married. Reuven did not mention when the gift should be given. Should the $300 be given to her upon his death to purchase furnishings that can be used when she gets married, enabling her to determine when to purchase the furnishings? Or should the money be given to her upon her getting married, or close to the marriage, for her to buy furnishings then? There are legal differences depending on which interpretation is given. In the case of the latter interpretation, if she dies without having married, her heirs do not inherit the $300; if the former interpretation, her heirs will inherit the $300. Also, if there is a rise or fall in the value of the dowry under the former interpretation, the daughter loses or gains; under the latter interpretation, she does not share in the gains or losses of the $300. Also under the former interpretation, if the daughter takes the $300 and uses it for other purposes, the gift is nevertheless valid. With this lesson we have concluded the discussion of the words indicating a gift causa mortis. IYH next week w shall discuss invalid gifts causa mortis and in cases where it is not certain who the donee is, how do we ascertain the intent of the donor who is dying. The subject matter of this lesson is more fully presented in Volume VII Chapters 253 of"A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law" by E. Quint, published by Jason Aronson, Inc. and on sale at local Judaica bookstores. Questions to quint@inter.net.il The simple explanation (based on the Rambam's source in the Midrash Halakha - see Midrash Tannaim on Devarim 15:9), is that even a well-off person may have an extraordinary need for money, because of illness or the like. He may be worried that even if he is not impoverished by charity, he may suffer damage because he will lack this financial "cushion." Thus the Sages need to reassure us that tzedaka enriches and protects. A letter of the Alter Rebbe also relates to the potential danger of tzedaka, from a rather different angle. His explanation is based on Chasidut, but we can find parallels for it in the revealed Torah. The prophet Yishayahu says that HaShem "clothes Himself with tzedaka like armor". The gemara explains the likeness as follows: charity is like a coat of mail, for "just as with mail each scale combines with the others to form a large armor, so with tzedaka each coin joins together to form a large sum". (Bava Batra 9b. The visual image is reinforced by the likeness of the scales of mail to small coins.) And what is this "armor" of tzedaka protecting us from? The Alter Rebbe explains that it protects us from a potential danger in the act of tzedaka itself! The source of this danger is that part of the reward of charity is enjoyed in this world (as stated in the Mishna Pe'ah 1:1). "By the act of charity and kindness, whose fruits are eaten in this world, there are openings in the supernal garment which encompasses the [supernal] body... And in order that the extraneous forces above should not draw from the light and plenty which devolve and descend down into this material world [from the impact of the mitzva] and also to protect man and keep and protect him from any harm physically or spiritually", the protective aspect of charity is necessary (Igeret HaKodesh 3). The two dangers mentioned are "extraneous forces" and "harm physically and spiritually" to the donor. One physical analog of the "extraneous forces" is the possibility that tzedaka may reach recipients who are unworthy. This is a danger that the Sages warn us about in a number of places. Yet surprisingly the danger described is not that lazy or dangerous individuals will benefit from the tzedaka; the danger is that the giver loses his mitzva! (See e.g. Bava Kama 16b, Yalkut Shimoni on Kohelet 7:19.) In fact, in a number of places the gemara indicates that we shouldn't be zealously selective in giving tzedaka (Ketubot 67b, 68a). The special protective benefit of tzedaka is such that we needn't be obsessed with the possibility that the recipient is not really so needy. (However, if there is a concern that the person is actually using the money in a destructive way, for example to finance an addiction, we should not turn a blind eye.) The danger to the donor described by the Alter Rebbe is that the reward of the mitzva is so overwhelming that we are unable to assimilate it, and it becomes destructive. This indeed is the reason that normally "there is no reward for a mitzva in this world" (Kiddushin 39b). This problem too is discussed in the revealed sources. For example, the gemara states that one reason we shouldn't accept charity from those with extraneous motives (this is especially likely when we are offered charity from non-Jews) is that the unique reward of the mitzva will give the donor power which may be used in a negative way (Bava Batra 10b). But here again the conclusion is that the giver needn't worry that he will be damaged by any admixture of impure motives. One reason a person may be afraid to give tzedaka is that he is worried that it may damage him financially. On this count, our tradition reassures us that tzedaka enriches. Yet a person who takes this reassurance seriously may still be concerned: perhaps tzedaka will enrich the wrong person - a recipient who is not truly needy, or a donor who has improper motives. On this count too our tradition urges us not to be overly concerned. If we give charity with the proper motives, and take basic but not obsessive precautions to ensure that it reaches truly needy beneficiaries, then the unique blessing of this commandment guarantees that it will bring only benefit, and never harm. “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 War against Amalek is one of the reasons for Jewish kingship and always precedes the building of the Temple. In the desert before building the Mishkan, the wars of Saul and David before Solomon's Temple, and Purim preceded the building of the second Temple. The king unified the people socially while the Bet HaMikdash unified their Divine worship so they were an antidote to Amalek who separated between Israel and G-d Whose throne is incomplete as long as Amalek exists, but also separated Jew from Jew. He attacked the stragglers (Deut. 25:18). The Admor of Chabad saw the attack as punishment for a Jewish community having stragglers, while Rashi sees it as a warning against the sin that divides a community, of false weights and measures in business. S.R. Hirsch sees 'karkhah - who chanced upon you' used in same verse describing Amalek's attack, the essence of Amalek's teaching that there is no such thing as Divine intervention in human affairs and history, only random chance and accident. Abarbanel and the Malbim both see Amalek as guilty of crimes against humanity since war and bloodshed was their only purpose and pleasure. Israel was no threat to them, to their territory nor to that of any of their allies. Even looting or plundering wasn't their purpose. Any of these may have been seen as a justification for the attack, without them the attack itself was their only pleasure, like the snake who has no benefit from the poison it injects. Perhaps, the spiritual and moral dimensions of Amalek in contrast to Judaism, the nature of their war against us and thus the enormity of Saul's failure to kill Agag their king, will become clearer when we remember his genealogy. Amalek was the grandson of Esau the twin brother of Jacob, and so a direct descendant of the Patriarchs Abraham and Isaac; Torah is 'Reishit', Israel is 'Reishit' and Amalek is 'Reishit goyim' - first among the nations. Both Esau and Amalek had inherited the Abrahamic family's spiritual drives and their intoxication with Heavenly matters. Like Jacob they too desired a connection with the Divine and spoke words of spirituality. However, while Jacob desired to elevate and spiritualize the Earthly and the mundane, they wished to debase the Heavens and to reduce it to the most base and gross elements. Amalek, from the word 'akalkal - contorted', sought to distort and to corrupt all that was moral and pious in Mankind. Esau kept his hatred for Jacob hidden in his heart and his descendant Amalek crept up on us in stealth - vayezanev. Haman, descendant of the king Agag of Amalek, disguises his hatred beneath a mask of concern for all the persecuted citizens who are at the mercy of Israel who do not keep the laws of Achashverosh. Esau was like the chazir (pig) who sleeps with his cloven hoof out-stretched so all can this sign of kashrut, while his mouth is kept closed, hiding the fact that he does not chew the cud. With him and his descendants, all is deceit and concealment. Esau and Jacob are twins, like the grapes grown on one vine, but when the grapes are put to the press, from some we get wine and from some only vinegar; Esau the perverted twin and his heir Amalek, are the vinegar of Jacob's wine. "We can believe the saying that, "Caesariah [the seat of Roman rule over Eretz Yisrael] ascends and Jerusalem descends, [or vice versa]"; we cannot believe that they ascend or descend together" (Talmud, Megila 6a). Rome, a rabbinic pseudonym for Edom or his descendant Amalek, cannot be in equilibrium with Jerusalem but there is an eternal war between them since, "There is war between G-d and Amalek from generation to generation" (Exodus 17:16). Other nations stood in awe of G-d's power and of His intervention in history as shown by the redemption from Egypt, but Amalek stands in awe only of his spiritual conflict with G-d and with Israel, so Amalek is the first to attack the nation taken out of bondage by Hashem. To reject the liberation of enslaved people, to oppose the elevation of mankind through a divinely revealed message and through the nation living according to that message, and to venerate only the physical power and material appetites, this is the war of Amalek. His descendants persecute Israel, try to destroy him and burn his body, his synagogues and study houses, and his books, because Israel's very existence threatens the world outlook of Esau and Amalek. Only when they will serve the younger brother so that they acknowledge Jacob's Torah can the twins become one. Our sages saw the grandsons of Haman the Agagite, studying in the academies of Bnei Brak. This is the fifteenth installment
in Dr. Tamari’s series on “Tanach and its messages for our times” Q A recent column in Torah Tidbits stated definitively that one may not walk within 4 amot (6-7 feet) of someone during his Shmoneh Esrei. Some readers inquired whether this is an absolute rule. We want the "Vebbe Rebbe" to voice an opinion on the matter. A We must distinguish between the desirable and the prevalent practice. Under normal circumstances it is at least desirable for people not to walk within 4 amot of someone in the middle of Shmoneh Esrei (Shulchan Aruch, OC 102:4-5) (and perhaps Kri'at Shema (Eliyahu Rabba 102:6) and Kaddish (Yabia Omer V, OC 9)). This is the simple reading of the gemara and the classical poskim and displays good midot. However, there are important poskim who found grounds for limud z'chut (justification of leniency) of less than full fulfillment of the stated halacha. In some cases, stringency is unnecessary or negative. We will start with background. There are two similar halachot regarding people who are nearby others during their Shmoneh Esrei. One is not to sit within his 4 amot in any direction (Shulchan Aruch ibid.:1). The main issues are sitting in a place where the Divine Presence (shechina) is felt and/or appearing not to concur with the content of his tefilla. The entire issue by the other halacha, not to pass in front of one who is davening, is, according to almost all poskim, the fear of disturbing his concentration (Chayei Adam 26:(2) also mentions the shechina). Can we say that since the issue is only affecting someone else, he can waive his rights? We agree with the article, that one may not condone having his tefila disturbed, as he himself may not do anything to disrupt his tefila. The poskim display varied approaches regarding their flexibility in considering whether the prohibition applies in borderline cases. The Shulchan Aruch (102:4) rules that one can pass near someone from the side, and the Mishna Berura (ibid.:15) is inconclusive on the question of whether passing diagonally in front is a problem. He also shows an inconclusive, moderate approach by entertaining local leniency where the problem is less severe (e.g. the davener has his face covered by a tallit), yet he stops short of permitting it outright. The Aruch Hashulchan (102:13) is lenient where the two people are separated by furniture that is 10 tefachim high (roughly waist high), whereas the Mishna Berura is not (ibid.:2). Yet none of these sources rationalizes walking directly in front of someone who is blocking one's path to the aisle. Some bold ideas of limud z'chut on those who all but ignore the halacha are found in Eishel Avraham (Butchach) (102) and Tzitz Eliezer (IX, 8). The former talks about one being optimistic that when he wants to pass, the davener has finished the main part of Shmoneh Esrei or is taking a break in his tefilla. The latter even suggests that since few people concentrate well anyway (see Tur, OC 101), the halacha's full force no longer applies. One should not follow these suggestions regularly but can use them to be tolerant of the lenient or in cases of specific need. When one needs to pass to fulfill a mitzva (e.g. a Kohen needs to duchen, he is the ba'al koreh) or he has an acute need to use the facilities, most poskim are lenient, as logic dictates (see cases in Tefilla K'hilchata 12:113-116). The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:5) says that the need to take the three steps back is insufficient to encroach on another's 4 amot, even if he began davening late. However, when the davener's actions create an unreasonable burden on others (especially, a group) by blocking the door or aisle for an extended period of time, some poskim draw the line. Da'at Torah (ad loc.), comparing it to one who buries the dead in a public thoroughfare, says that it is permitted to traverse the area. Consider also that standing near him with an angry face may affect his concentration more than passing by. Of course, while a slow or late davener should give thought to his location's affect on others, we should remember that he has feelings, too. 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 (fortheEnglishversion) 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 The words SHAFAN and ARNEVET from
the small list of non-kosher animals that chew their cud but do not
have split hooves, are often translated as rabbit and hare. This
translation is highly suspect, especially because neither rabbits
nor hares chew their cud (at least not in the usual defini- tion of
the phrase). There are several other animals suggested as the SHAFAN
and ARNEVET, but the intended identity of these animals remains
obscure. Yaakov continues on his journey and comes to a field where there is a large well covered by a huge stone. The stone is so big that the shepherds have to wait until they are all gathered in order to roll it off. But Yaakov sees the beautiful Rachel coming and single- handedly (29:10) "rolls off the stone." He approaches Rachel, kisses her and cries. Again, a stone plays a role in the story. In the last story of the parsha, Lavan chases after Yaakov insisting that he stole his idols. After a search that finds nothing, Lavan suggests they make a covenant. As a symbol of the covenant, Yaakov chooses a stone. The agreement between them is that the stone will be a sign or demarcation that neither of them will pass to harm the other. What's with all the stones? In the first story, Rashi notes that Yaakov gathered many stones for his pillow, but after his dream he took (28:18) "THE stone." Rashi explains that all the stones vied for the position directly under Yaakov's head, because each one wanted to have that Tzaddik's head on it, so Hashem caused all the stones to merge into one. The stones went from a symbol of disunity to one of unity. Since this is the place where the future Temple would stand, the message seems to be that the Temple, which connects Heaven and Earth, is the ultimate place where a Jew finds unity with Hashem. In the second story, Rashbam says
that there was such a huge stone on the well because the shepherds
didn't trust each other not to steal extra water, so they wanted to
make sure no one could take water by himself. Here again the stone
symbolizes disunity. When Yaakov sees Rachel and realizes he has
found his soul mate (someone with whom he will be unified or "one")
he throws off the stone. Now that the well has become a place of
unity, the stone has no place there. The overall message here is that stones are not inherently good or bad, rather it depends on how we use them. We choose whether to throw them at each other, or to use them to draw one another together. Hopefully we will choose the latter. Shprintzee Herskovits, Jerusalem Leah, the rabbis tell us, was bleary eyed from crying at the thought that if Ya'akov were to be united with her younger sister, she would be paired with Rivka's older son, the wicked Esav. Now, as Rachel sees her father taking Leah to Ya'akov, she acts quickly. The Talmud describes how in order that, "my sister not be humiliated", Rachel gave Leah the "identifying signs" she received from Ya'akov (Megila 13b). Rachel suffers humiliation during
the following years. And after her eventual marriage to Ya'akov she
still endures the shame of barrenness while her older sister gives
birth to one son after another. Then we are told that, "G-d
remembered Rachel" (Breishit 30:22). What did G-d actually remember
about her? Shabbat Shalom, The Gemara (Kiddushin 52b) quotes Sumchus, a student of the Tanna R. Meir: "If a man - or more correctly, a Kohein - betrothed a woman with his portion of sacrificial meat, whether it be Kodashei Kodashim… he has not betrothed her." ("This sacrificial meat was given to the Kohanim only for eating, and not for anything else." - Rambam, Hilchot Ishut 5:5. Consequently, the attempted Kiddushin could not take effect. Since Kodashei Kodashim, the meat of sacrifices of a higher level of sanctity could not be removed from the Azara for any reason, obviously for a Kohein to consider betrothing a woman with it, it had to be at least conceivable that she would be physically present in the Azara. Of course, as per R. Yosi, the possibility also existed that the woman authorized a messenger to receive her Kiddushin in the Azara on her behalf.) Upon hearing Sumchus' remark, R. Yehuda exclaimed, "How would a woman come to be in the Azara?" This exclamation of R. Yehuda provoked Rashi to comment, (erroneously, as we shall see); "Women could not enter (the Azara) as we learned in… the first chapter of Mishna Keilim" (Kiddushin 52b). One of the Ba'alei Tosafot (mediaeval Sages, who in the generation immediately after Rashi, began to write critical and explanatory glosses on the Gemara), points out Rashi's error. "Kuntrus' (i.e. Rashi's) statement that 'women could not enter the Azara as we have learned in the first chapter of Keilim' is inaccurate. We have not found anywhere that women were forbidden to enter the Azara. What we actually learn in the first chapter of Keilim (Mishna 8) is "The Cheil (ramparts which surrounded the walled Mikdash complex including the Ezrat Nashim and the Azara) is still more holy (than the Temple Mount), because non-Jews and those who have contacted ritual impurity by coming into contact with a corpse may not enter therein. The Ezrat Nashim is still more holy because no one who has immersed himself that very day (because of ritual impurity) may enter therein (He would have to wait until the next day to enter the Azara)… Ezrat Yisrael, the Court of the Israelites, is still more holy because no one whose atonement is incomplete (Mechusar Kapara) may enter therein... Ezrat Kohanim is still more holy, for Israelites could not enter there except at a time when they had a particular reason, i.e. laying on hands on their Korbanot, slaughtering them, or 'waving' (note Vayikra 7:30)." The Ba'al Tosafot concludes, "We cannot derive (from this Mishna) that women were not permitted to enter the Azara. We learned in Zevachim 31b that women were permitted to slaughter their sacrificial animals, and, if this is indeed so, then they certainly were permitted to enter the Azara (where the slaughtering of sacrificial animals took place)." Rambam encapsulates the Halachot ordained in the Mishna in Keilim in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:2-7 (and reiterates them in Hil. Beit HaBechira 7:15-18). Paraphrasing the Mishna, Rambam excludes the Nida (the menstruant, Vayikra 15:19-24), the Yoledet (the parturient, note Vayikra 12) and the Zava (a woman who experiences abnormal vaginal blood flow, Vayikra 15:25-29) from the Temple Mount. Women who did not fall into these categories were not excluded and, if they were in a state of ritual purity, freely entered the Ezrat Nashim. Josephus observes that "those (men) who were pure came in (to the Ezrat Nashim) with their wives" (Antiquities 15:11). Again basing himself on the Mishna, Rambam excludes from the Azara "all those whose atonement process was incomplete…" (Hil. Bi'at HaMikdash 3:7), but he does not exclude women in general. The Chidushei Harashash, (R. Shmuel Strashun of Vilna, 1794-1872) writes that, while in theory, "a woman could stand outside the Azara and slaughter her sacrificial animal with a long knife, nevertheless (practically speaking), a woman must stand next to her sacrificial animal. Therefore she may enter the Azara just like a man" (Kiddushin 52b). Tif'eret Yisrael (Midot 2:6) explains, "Women must enter the Azara to stand next to their Korban because, as we have learned, how can a person bring a Korban and not (be permitted to) stand next to it? (Ta'anit 27a). The Mishna states, "Ein Adam
Nichnas La'azara - No one may enter the Azara for the Avoda (and
even not for the Avoda) even if he was pure until he has immersed" (Yoma
3:3). Before entering the Azara, the men immersed in Mikva'ot
located in the Lishkat HaMetzora'im (Chamber of Lepers) situated in
the northwestern corner of the Ezrat Nashim. They entered the Azara
by ascending the adjacent fifteen concave Nicanor steps located in
the western side of the Ezrat Nashim and passed through the Nicanor
Gate. Women entered the Azara through Sha'ar HaNashim, the Women's
Gate. Despite the fact that the Mishna states that all the entrances
leading into the Azara were the same size (Midot 2:3), Tif'eret
Yisrael (ibid. 2:6) speculates that Sha'ar HaNashim may have been
smaller, since "it was not so common" for women to bring Korbanot.
He notes that "Sha'ar Ha- Nashim was located between Sha'ar HaKorban
(the Sacrificial Gate, where the Kodashei Kodashim were brought into
the Azara) and the Beit HaMokeid (the Chamber of the Hearth, a sort
of hostel for Kohanim)" on the northern side of the Azara (Midot
2:6). Just as the men immersed in Mikva'ot adjacent to the Nicanor
Gate before entering the Azara, it is quite likely that, before
entering the Azara, the women immersed in Mikva'ot situated in close
proximity to the Sha'ar HaNashim. <to be continued> More on the "Ha, you thought the
ALEF was silent, didn't you?" Issue... Last week both Senior and Senior Plus has a very spiritual evening full of story and song with Chaim Dovid. We even had the pleasure of having quite a few non-NESTOers present, not that that stopped the NESTOers from getting up and dancing every dance from the customary circle dance to the kazatzkah (Or however you spell it) to advanced breakdancing. After that, Senior Plus went to the play "She Loves Me" where two of our chanichot, Ilana Gindis and Chana Woolf, performed beautifully and everyone had a great time. Going further back in time we want to summarize the very successful Senior NESTO Shabbaton last week. The topic was "You and I can change the world" and Bat Sherut Tanya did an amazing job as well as did the madrichim and the chanichim. There is much to remember from that Shabbaton, the many intelligent debates between Aryeh and Yehoshua, murdered spiders, karate chop and shout "Ezra", stealing other people's chocolate, reading horoscopes, Carlebach davenings, night tishe with chulent, long talks into the night and a lot of quality time with friends. Ezra told a touching story about the forming of Hatzalah and after a lot of singing and finally Maariv outside under a starry sky. Finally to complete a great Shabbaton everyone sat on blankets on the floor of one of the rooms and did havdalah by candle light. The message of what we learned from this Shabbat is found in the words from Daniel's summation: Life isn't something you are born into. I don't see it as a system where you go to school, army or college, get married and find a job, raise a family go on pension and die. You don't need to walk that path without making some out-of-path decisions and you don't need to lock yourself away in some career. Life is so much more than that. We should all try our best to get ourselves into a position of influence at least in some small way. We are the next generation and I think that BE"H we should all try to make a difference... and make that difference. I know that well said is easier than well done, but I am not talking about achieving a far off ideal or an impossible dream. There are many people who do it. There are many leaders and builders and people of influence in a thousand different fields, from construction company owners to people in government to head volunteers in organizations, that work to save the environment. I say to you all and to myself, I know that we can make a difference if we want to. It's important to succeed but first you have to try. I am not saying we have to devote our lives to politics or fighting other people's wars but make sure to at least have enough of a part that you don't have to sit on the sidelines and get rocked with the results of another person fighting your fight. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to our parents and family, we owe it to the world and we owe it to the children who see so clearly but are too young and powerless to have a say in things. This isn't something to read and say ok I read it. This is something to think about and use. To make that difference. You and I can change the world so let's go out and do it. Have a good shabbos & C U at
NESTO Tue. night |
