HALACHIC TIMES 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. Yes, it's a crab apple, a.k.a.
crab, and therefore stands for the Mazal of Tamuz. Except for one (perhaps) major point: The Golden Calf was a sin; the topic of Para Aduma deals with ritual purity and impurity which involves contact with a dead body. Being Tamei or becoming Tamei is not a sin. It would be a sin to enter the Mikdash in a state of Tum'a. Or to eat sacred foods. Or for a kohein, with certain exceptions. But it is not per se sinful. In fact, contact with a dead body is often a great mitzva, and an act of Chesed shel Emet. So what's the connection between sin and atonement, on the one hand, and Tum'a and Tahara, on the other. It can be said that G-d
originally planned that people would live forever. Adam & Chava's sin
brought death to the world. Modified plan, so to speak, was that the people
of Israel upon receiving the Torah, would be on such a high spiritual level,
that they - as a subset of all humans - would live forever. When 40 days
after Matan Torah, they sinned with the Golden Calf, the plan changed again
(so to speak) and there would, once again, be death. And that brought about
the existence of TUM'AT MEIT, the ritual impurity from contact with a dead
body. Therefore, the sin of the Golden Calf brought about Tum'a and the Para
Aduma, whose ashes rid one of that Tum'a, is an atonement for that Sin. [P> X:Y (Z)] and [S> X:Y (Z)]
indicate start of a parsha p’tucha or s’tuma respectively. X:Y is
Perek:Pasuk of the beginning of the parsha; (Z) is the number of p'sukim in
the parsha. The mitzva involves taking a cow with reddish hair (even two black hairs invalidate it), that is blemish-free (i.e. fit for the Altar) and that has not worn a yoke or carried a burden for people. (If it carried upon its back something for its own benefit - e.g. a blanket to keep flies away - it is still acceptable.) Elazar b. Aharon was in charge of the preparation of this first Para Aduma. SDT "And G-d spoke to Moshe and Aharon saying... DABEIR (you Moshe, not both of you, DAB'RU) to the children of Israel... Only Moshe could tell the people about the PARA ADUMA, which is an atonement for the Sin of the Golden Calf. Aharon was too involved in the Golden Calf episode. He didn't tell this mitzva to the people and he didn't prepare the PARA ADUMA, his son did. Yet the pasuk tells us that G-d spoke to both Moshe and Aharon. Perhaps this contains a private rebuke by G-d to Aharon... And perhaps a bit of the opposite as well, since Aharon IS included in the command to prepare the Para Aduma. SDT Rashi says that the mitzva is for the assistant Kohen Gadol to tend to the Para Aduma, although any kohen qualifies. Commentaries see a symbolism in the son of Aharon doing the work: just as the cow atones (so to speak) for her calf, so too the son atones for his father who was somewhat involved in the Golden Calf. "Take a PARA ADUMA T'MIMA..." T'MIMA usually means blemish-free, fit for the Altar. However, here the word T'MIMA is followed by the phrase "that has no MUM (blemish)", making the adjective T'MIMA superfluous. There- fore, we are taught that T'MIMA in this context is describing ADUMA, indicating that COMPLETE reddish hair is required. Without T'MIMA, a cow that was a "jinji" would be acceptable even if it had some non-red hairs. Not so, because of the word T'MIMA. As opposed to all korbanot in the Mikdash which had to be brought "inside", the Red Cow is slaughtered and prepared "outside". It is not a korban, but it does have korban-like features (atonement, among others). After the cow is slaughtered, it is burnt whole (some of its blood having been sprinkled towards the Mikdash first). The complete process of the Para Aduma (including what is thrown into the fire, how the ashes are collected and how the potion is made) is a positive mitzva [397,A113 19:2] that has been fulfilled nine times, so far. The next (tenth) time will be in the time of the Moshiach. A person who comes in contact with a dead body is rendered ritually impure for a seven-day period [398,A107 19:4]. The "Para Aduma Potion" is to be sprinkled on the defiled person on the third and seventh day. Without this procedure, the state of ritual impurity remains forever. It is most important to avoid entering the Mikdash while one is defiled. Intentional violation is a (Divinely imposed) capital offense. MitzvaWatch (2) We are not permitted to go onto Har HaBayit in those areas that the Beit HaMikdash and its courtyard stood (or might have stood). (3) Some gifts of the Kohen (such as t'ruma, t'rumat maaser, challa) are not given to a kohen, but are "disposed of" according to alternate halachic procedures, because of TUM'A of both the Kohen potential recipient, as well as the giver, and therefore, the gift itself. Note that there are gifts to the kohen that pose no TAMEI problems; these are given today (e.g. Pidyon HaBen). SDT The Chidushei HaRim made a
mussar comment about T’MIMA that deserves our attention. For the Para Aduma,
the standard of ADUMA T’MIMA is not met if there are two hairs of another
color. For the Jew, who must strive to fulfill the mitzva of TAMIM TIH-YEH (im
HaShem Elokecha), even a single “black hair” prevents a complete
fulfillment. Note that the cedar branch and hyssop are added to the potion as well as to the burning of the Para Aduma. Commentaries see special significance in the fact that the cedar is a lofty tree and the hyssop is a lowly shrub. The dual nature of the Para Aduma potion (that it purifies the defiled and defiles the ritually pure) is counted as a mitzva of its own [399,A108 19:19]. [P> 20:1 (6)] The next topic the Torah deals with is the death of Miriam in the Tzin Wilderness in Nissan (on the 10th of the month, according to Tradition). The Torah immediately tells us that the People had no water (Midrashim speak of the Well of Miriam that miraculously accompanied the People during their wanderings. This well disappeared upon Miriam's death, since it was in her merit - because she had watched over Moshe at the river - that we had the Well.) The People complain bitterly to Moshe and Aharon. (The custom of emptying out water containers in the room in which someone has died, comes from the sequence: "...and Miriam died ...and there was no water...") Commentaries point out a
connection between Para Aduma and the death of the righteous Miriam. Both
are “instruments” of atonement. [S> 20:12 (2)] G-d is "angry"
at Moshe and Aharon for missing a chance to sanctify G-d's Name by having
the People see water come from the rock by speaking to it. (The People had
previously seen water come from a struck rock.) G-d decrees that neither
Moshe nor Aharon shall lead the People into the Land of Israel. Note that the rock gives forth water even though Moshe did not speak to it, as G-d had told him to. There are two possibilities (maybe) as to why. (1) It avoids a Chilul HaShem that would result if water did not come forth. (2) Moshe Rabeinu was on the high level that he was able to control and divert nature (with limits). He had previously stricken a rock to get water; this now is something he can do. (3) A twist on the Chilul
HaShem possibility of (1) is that G-d wanted to avoid Moshe's losing face.
G-d and Moshe are very much partners, so to speak, in the perception of the
People. At the Sea, the people believed in "HaShem and in Moshe His servant,
BASHEM UV-MOSHE AVDO. In contrast, their lack of faith is expressed as their
talking against G-d and against Moshe, BEILOKIM UV-MOSHE. These are the only
two times the word UV-MOSHE appears in all of Tanach. SDT In asking for passage through Edom territory, Moshe's messengers state that the people "will not drink water of a well". Rashi says that we would have expected the Torah to say "the water of cisterns". Rashi explains that Edom had the cisterns; we had a miraculous well (as well as Manna for food). What we were offering Edom was the profits from selling us food and water. We had no need for their food and drink, but it was a proper offer to make. Rashi says that when staying at an inn, one should partake of the inn's meals rather than "brown bag it". This increases the benefit to the innkeeper and is a proper thing for a patron to do. SDT Moshe sends a message to
Edom saying, "...you know all the trouble we had in Egypt." Imrei Shefer
asks, how was Edom expected to know what happened to us in Egypt? The
answer, he says, comes from Parshat To'l'dot, when Rivka sought out G-d to
explain what was happening inside her. She was told that the twins in her
would grow to head great nations, and when one fell, the other would rise
proportionally. Edom's life must have made a significant turn upward during
the dark years we spent in Egyptian servitude. That is how Edom would know
what was happening to his brother Israel. The Midrash says that the Heavenly Clouds that protected the People, left upon Aharon's death. We can see now that the miracles of the Midbar were each associated with one of our leaders: Moshe, the Manna; Aharon, the Clouds; Miriam, the Well. [S> 21:1 (3)] That made them vulnerable to attack from Emori. The attack was successfully countered by Israel. [P> 21:4 (13)] The People then tired of their extended travels and complained once again to G-d and Moshe. Their tirade included gross disrespect to G-d's miracle of the Manna. For this they were punished by an attack of "fiery" (poisonous) snakes that bit many people, causing many deaths. The People repented and pleaded with Moshe to pray to G-d to spare them. G-d told Moshe to fashion a copper (the choice of copper was Moshe's and it was a play on words) snake and mount it atop a staff, so that anyone who would see it (i.e. turn their eyes and hearts towards G-d) would live. The Mishna in Rosh HaShana (3:8) asks, “What? (The copper image of) a snake can kill or restore life?” Not so, says the Mishna. “Rather, when the People of Israel look towards the Heavens and subjugate their hearts to G-d, then they were cured; and if not, they would decay.” The Mishna in P'sachim (4:9)
records different things that Chizkiyahu HaMelech did, and was either
praised for them, or not. He destroyed the Copper Serpent and the Sages
approved of his actions. People were misusing it, and misunderstanding it
(despite the concept presented in the Mishna cited above). This same kind of
problem exists with the use of Korbanot in the time of the Beit HaMikdash,
amulets, Tashlich on Rosh HaShana, Kaparot before Yom Kippur, visiting holy
places, notes in the cracks of the Kotel, red threads around one's wrist,
and even saying T’hilim - meaning that there are people who do certain
things in lieu of heartfelt prayer and sincere kavanot, somehow expecting
miraculous salvation. All of the above, to some extent or another, are meant
to be incentive and inspiration to sincere repentance and prayer, not
substitutes for them. This is why Chizkiyahu HaMelech got rid of the N’CHASH
NECHOSHET. This is why some rabbis banned Kaparot in their communities, etc. [S> 21:17 (4)] This was another significant event related to water. From a physical point of view, water is by far the most valuable "commodity" of the wandering Nation. On a spiritual level, water represents Torah and Life itself. The "Song of the Well", a short but beautiful song is recorded, highlighting the preciousness of water. The words are filled with symbolisms and allusions. The next piece of travelog is either part of the song at the well... or not. From the desert, the people went to Matana, from Matana to Nachliel, and from Nachliel to Bamot. From Bamot to Hagai in the field of Moav, on a cliff top that overlooks the Wastelands. Notice that we have, shortly
out of Egypt, before the wandering period in the Midbar, an AZ YASHIR...
Shirat HaYam. Water. At the end of the period of wandering, shortly before
leaving the Midbar and entering Eretz Yisrael, we have another AZ YASHIR...
B'eir. Water. Og, king of Bashan, also falls, as G-d promised. SDT It is important to note that Israel's military might is not absolute, nor are their military options equal. Israel fights against whom G-d tells us to, and we do not engage in battle anyone that G-d forbids us to. It is irrelevant whether Edom was stronger or weaker than Emori. We didn't fight the latter and avoid the former for military reasons. G-d is the One in charge. We have to always keep this in mind; and it would help if our enemies knew this as well. Ironically, it is our enemies who sometimes seem to believe in G-d's role in these kind of matters, whereas we sometimes seem to stubbornly deny His role. And this point is applicable in modern times as it ever was. SDT Rashi explains why G-d had to tell Moshe not to fear fighting Og. Og was the sole survivor of the Flood (except for Noach and company), and he was the one who told Avraham that nephew Lot had been taken into captivity. Perhaps he had earned enough merit to resist the Israelites. G-d told Moshe not to worry. Israel's military victories in the Midbar, towards the end of the period of wandering, were very important for the morale of the people as they faced long years of many battles upon crossing the Jordan River into Eretz Yisrael. In the Midbar, they get a taste of G-d's promises and might. Moshe sends Meraglim to Ya'zer. Rashi says that the spies who were sent said, "we will not do as our predecessors did; we have complete confidence in the power of Moshe's prayer.” In a way, the sending of these Meraglim is a TIKUN (repair) of the Sin of the Spies. Spies were always sent to facilitate the nation's next step. They were not meant to decide on what G-d already had decreed. The final pasuk tells us that Israel traveled and arrived at Arvot Moav - this is their final stop before entry into Eretz Yisrael. Note the significance of the above statement. The four remaining sedras of Bamidbar and all 11 of D'varim are still in front of us, and we are already at Arvot Moav. Mas'ei will give a summary of the wandering, but with the conclusion of Chukat, we have arrived at the threshold of Eretz Yisrael. Remember that back in Mikeitz we left the Land and went down into Egypt. Now we are readying ourselves to return. The final 3 p'sukim are reread
for the Maftir. There are witnesses that Reuven entered Shimon’s premises while Shimon was not present and they saw Reuven emerge with some objects that the witnesses can identify. Shimon beings a lawsuit in Beth Din to recover the objects that he pleads were in his home prior to Reuven’s entry and burglarized by Reuven. Reuven pleads that Shimon sold him the objects and instructed him to take them whenever he wanted, even if Shimon is not on the premises. Or Reuven pleads that Shimon owed him money and told Reuven to go to Shimon’s premises to obtain these objects in lieu of payment, or some other pleading to that effect. Shimon denies Reuven’s pleasand pleads that he did not give Reuven permission to enter his premises. Reuven’s pleas will be dismissed. After he restores the object to Shimon, he can sue Shimon if he can prove his pleas. There is a presumption that if Reuven enters Shimon’s premises when Shimon is not present, Reuven has no permission to be there and has committed an act of burglary. If there are two witnesses to the entry but no witnesses who can testify what Reuven took, Shimon takes a special (hesseth) oath as to what is missing from his premises and Reuven pays that amount. This holds true even if Reuven admits being in the premises and pleads that he did so with permission of Shimon to obtain that which Shimon sold to him. Assume that there is only one witness who testifies that he was present when Reuven entered into Simon’s premises and that Reuven took from Shimon’s premises an object that the witness identifies. Shimon pleads that the object was robbed from him, while Reuven pleads that he purchased the object or took it in payment of a debt or it was his object that he had deposited with Shimon. Reuven must restore the object to Shimon without Shimon having to take an oath. Had there been two witnesses present, Shimon would win the lawsuit without having to take any oath. Now that there is one witness present, Rueven should be permitted to take an oath to rebut the testimony of one witness and Reuven would win the lawsuit. Since Reuven admits entry into Shimon’s premises and taking the object, he cannot contradict the witness who testifies as to entry and taking the object. The law is that if a person can win a lawsuit by taking an oath but cannot do so (as is the case here) he must pay. However, if Reuven does not admit the entry and/or taking the object, then he takes a Torah oath of denial of entry and denying that he has anything of Shimon’s. Since this oath of denial contradicts the one witness who testified against him, Reuven wins the lawsuit. There is one witness who testifies that Reuven entered Shimon's premises but he does not testify that he saw Reuven take anything out with him or that he saw Reuven take something out with him but cannot identify what it was. Reuven takes a hesseth oath that he did not rob anything and wins the lawsuit. Reuven is observed by a single witness entering into Shimon’s premises and taking out vessels. Shimon pleads that he took twenty vessels and Reuven pleads that he took eight vessels all belonging to him. The witness does not know how many vessels Reuven took. Reuven must restore eight vessels to Shimon since he cannot contradict the witness having admitted the entering. When he admits that he took eight vessels that is he amount he must restore. As for the balance, since Shimon cannot prove that Reuven took more vessels Reuven is exempt. Shimon pleas that Reuven robbed him of $100. If Reuven pleads that he did not rob Shimon, Reuven takes a hesseth oath to the effect and is exempt. If Reuven admits that he robbed $40, he pays the $40 and takes a Torah oath of partial admission regarding the balance of $60. Whom Did He Rob? Reuven robbed $100 from only one of four people, either Shimon. Levi, Yehuda, or Issachar but does not remember from which one. Each of them pleads with certainty that he was the victim of the robber and is owed $100 by Reuven. Each of the four takes an oath and Reuven must pay each one who took the oath $100. Reuven robbed from two people, Shimon and Levi. From one he robbed $100 and from the second he robbed $200, but he does not remember from whom he robbed $100 and from whom he robbed $200. Both Shimon and Levi plead with certainty that he was the victim of the $200 robbery. Each of them takes an oath that he was the victim of the $200 robbery and Reuven must pay each $200. Reuven robbed $100 from only one of four people, either Shimon, Levi, Yehuda or Issachar, but does not remember from which one. Each of the four pleads that he is not certain if he was the robbery victim. According to the law, Reuven may place $100 before the four of them and they will divide the $100 equally. However, if Reuven wants to exonerate himself from the judgments of Heaven, he will give each one $100. Reuven robbed two people, Shimon and Levi. From one he robbed 100 and from the second he robbed $200 but he does not remember from whom he robbed $100 and from whom he robbed $200. According to the law, Reuven may give each one $100 and place $100 in front of the two of them. However, if Reuven wants to exonerate himself from the judgments of Heaven, he will give each one $200. Reuven advises Shimon that he robbed Shimon’s father Yaakov of money but he does not remember if it was $100 or $200. Or Reuven tells Shimon and Levi that he robbed one of their fathers of $100 and does not remember whose father it was. In the first case Reuven must pay Shimon $200 and in the second case he pays Shimon and Levi each $100. Reuven robbed an object from
Shimon and does not remember if he made restitution to Shimon. Reuven must
pay to Shimon the amount of the restitution. However, if Reuven states that
he does not remember if he robbed Shimon or did not rob him, Reuven need
make no payment to Shimon. The subject matter of this
lesson is more fully discussed in volume IX chapter 364 and 365 of A
Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint. Copies of all volumes can be
purchased via email: orders@gefenpublishing.com and via website:
www.israelbooks.com and at local Judaica bookstores. Questions to quint@inter.net.il Let's begin at the beginning: the opening expression "Who formed man with wisdom". What is the significance of this wording? The Tur discusses the blessing in detail, yet omits mention of the opening. The Beit Yosef explains that the Tur felt this expression needs no explanation, "for it is a clear thing that the creation of man is of wondrous wisdom" (Tur and Beit Yosef Orach Chaim 6). Rashi doesn't devote a special entry to this part of the blessing, but he includes it together with the explanation of the ending of the blessing, "Who heals all flesh and does wondrously". The Midrash explains that the "wonder" of man's creation is that the body doesn't spill its content of fluid and air despite the many openings and pores; Rashi adds that this is also an aspect of the wisdom of God's formation (Berakhot 60b). Tosafot, however, cite a different Midrash, on Bereshit, which explains that the order of creation displays Hashem's wisdom. In particular, man was created last so that all of our needs would be available at the time of our formation. The same idea, write Tosafot, is expressed in the Gemara in Sanhedrin which states that man was created last so that he could "enter into the meal right away", that is, our "table" is fully set as we enter the world (Sanhedrin 38a). The central message of the Midrash and of the Gemara seems to be that the wise and prudent order in any creative act is to first create the proper conditions for its success. By contrast, it is foolish to first create something and then start working on ways to make it function. (In similar fashion, Rambam writes that a wise person acquires a livelihood and afterwards starts a family, and a foolish person does the opposite -- Deot 5:11.) In the context of the blessing, the message seems to be that man was created with all of the external means of subsistence prepared for him, and like- wise with all of his internal needs: the human body is not "jury rigged" but on the contrary is designed with all of the equipment needed to thrive. This explanation dovetails well with the comment of the Rema in the Darkhei Moshe on the Tur, who states that the closing of the blessing "Who does wondrously" refers to the wonder of duality: the human soul, which belongs in the world of spirit, is wondrously united with the human body which dwells in the world of matter. Thus the blessing asher yatzar tells the order of creation as follows: First Hashem created all of the external physical needs of the human body. This is, "Who formed man with wisdom". Afterwards, he created the body itself with the ability to take advantage of this raw material, the orifices and hollows needed to absorb the good and excrete the waste. And all this is in order to put all these exterior and interior aspects of our material existence at the service of our spirits. Latest publication
developments: The book is completed! Yaakov Feldheim called me on Thursday
to tell me that he "is pleased to announced the birth of a new book"... I
hope to be able to give TT readers clear directions on how they can obtain a
copy - probably I will direct them to the Feldheim website... How often, in how many centuries, in how many languages and in how many different countries have these words rung out? How varied and how sophisticated have been the causes, explanations and the answers to these two verses in our Torah? From Chazal and our commentators we can learn a message that is simple and clear, yet profound and all-embracing. "Cain told this to his brother Hevel. And it came to pass when they were in the field..." (4:8). On the second phrase, the Midrash comments: "What were they discussing in the field? They decided to divide the world between them with Cain taking the land that he worked and Hevel the movables as befitted a shepherd. Then Cain said: "The land on which you tread belongs to me", to which Hevel replied that all the clothes that Cain wore belonged to him. As a result, Cain rose up against his brother. However, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, "They both took the land and the movables, but their argument was in whose portion would the Temple stand; 'sadeh' being a reference to the Mikdash (Micha 3:12). This one claimed the right to the Temple but so did the other. As a result, Cain rose up against his brother. Rabbi Huna said that a twin sister was born with Hevel and they quarreled over who would marry her. Cain claimed the right of the first born to her marriage, while Hevel argued that she was born together with him. As a result, Cain rose up against his brother (B'reishit Rabba, 22:7) It seems from this Midrash that the cause of the murder was property or religion or sex, however, all three are only symptoms and the real cause lies elsewhere, as shown by Hashem's words to Cain, which is what he told to Hevel while they were in the field. When his offering was rejected, Cain was exceedingly annoyed and his countenance fell, so Hashem said "See if you will use your S'EIT for good or not for good, for that sin rests before the door; its strong desire is towards you, that you should master it". Whether we understand S'EIT in that verse, in the sense of korbanas does the Malbim or in the sense of privilege as does Rabbi R. S. Hirsch, the spiritual message remains the same, that it is Free Will that determines whether one sins or not. "Whether G-d accepts Cain's offering or whether He prefers Hevel's does not determine anything, since it is not a sacrifice that is important but rather obeying Hashem. As Chazal taught us, the Yetzer HaRa sends his gifts before him while he lurks behind the door [It is easy for us to over-emphasize ritual at the expense of correct actions]. Cain thought that just as with the animals, his instinct would tell him how to act correctly. However, Man's intelligence and spiritual nature sets him apart from the rest of creation. They enable him by means of his own free choice to determine whether he will allow his animal and materialistic desires to rule him or whether he will rule over them. Moreover, Cain is assured by G-d that indeed it is possible for human beings to rule over their desires" (Malbim). "We find the word S'EIT having the meaning of a specially privileged position as in Yaakov's blessing of Reuven as the 'bechor'. Now Hevel's offering was a protest at Cain's unworthiness to have the honor associated with being a first born and Hashem confirmed it. Hashem queried his anger, since this disapproval could be temporary as he had the power to change his moral and spiritual position. Irrespective, "sin awaits at the door and its strong desire is towards you" has been distorted to support the theory that there is an element of evil lurking in the world eager to overpower Man. This is seeing the cause of men's evil action in some dark and evil spirits or fallen angels whose whole desire is to ensnare men, instead of in their own free will. TESHUKA, desire, is used everywhere in Tanach to convey a yearning for a most valued possession, that will overcome or rule one. Chazal taught, "Satan temps human beings, and when they succumb to his temptation she goes up and accuses them before Hashem"; for he had not enticed them so that they should sin, rather that they should conquer and take him under their mastery" (S. R. Hirsch). "Where is Hevel your brother? And Cain answered: Am I my brother's keeper?" This answer, evading man's responsibility for the welfare of his fellow man, shows cold- blooded egoism that easily leads to hatred and to a readiness to do away with one's neighbor should he stand in the way of one's own progress or welfare. This evasion of social responsibility is unacceptable in Judaism, even for ordinary people. "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours, this is a mediocre quality; some say it is the mark of Sodom" (Pirkei Avot 5:10). The Divine creation of Man creates, not only a vertical relationship between us and G-d, but also a horizontal relationship between us and our neighbors created in His Image. Adam and Chava sinned against G-d and then their son had done evil to his fellow man. Now the stage was set for the 10 generations that followed Adam, who would show that they were not capable of guarding and maintaining His world. This is the 89th installment in
Dr. Tamari’s series on “Tanach and its messages for our times” Q: Two brothers inherit a two-family house. Reuven wants to sell it. Shimon wants to keep it, but he cannot afford buying out Shimon’s part. Can Shimon force Reuven to remain in partnership and not sell the house? A: If this is an actual case, we must clarify a few points. Firstly, we cannot give a definitive answer without hearing both sides. This is not only a procedural matter. Details, which either side may overlook, can surface during a joint discussion in a way that changes a ruling. Also, it is best for the sides to work out the matter among themselves. Yet, it is important to know halachic guidelines, as upstanding Jews should use them as the point of departure when trying to arrive at a fair solution that satisfies the basic needs of both. It is in this spirit that we provide the following information. When two or more people inherit an estate, their relationship is like that of business partners for most matters, including the right to end the partnership (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 171:1). One difference is that people’s agreement to enter a joint venture for a set time may include an obligation not to breakup the venture prematurely (see ibid. 176:15). Because inheritors become partners by the death of a joint relative, not by agreement, and for an open- ended time-period, each has the right to end the partnership. The question is how to do this in a given case. The optimal way to break up the partner- ship is to divide the property proportion- ally among the partners. However, there is a feasibility check of that arrangement (ibid. 171:1). Each side must be left with a portion that can be used for the same function as the entire unit was. The smaller parts must be similar enough to the original property to be called by the same name. Thus, regarding a field, the divided parts must be known as a field and not a garden (ibid.:3). In the case of living quarters, a house would have to be broken up into pieces that would each be called a house and be fit to use as complete living quarters. Where halacha does not deem it feasible to divide the property, the next-best system is known as GUD-O-AGUD (ibid. :6). This system, which is disputed by Amora'im in Bava Batra (13a), means that Shimon challenges Reuven to either buy out Shimon’s part or allow Shimon to buy him out. The Rama (ibid. :7) even allows Shimon to make a challenge at a higher than market-value price. If Reuven does not want to pay more than the property is worth, Shimon gets the chance to buy at that higher price. However, if Shimon is not capable of buying, he cannot force Reuven to buy his part. When neither side is interested in buying out his partner, and the property cannot be feasibly divided, two systems remain. The preferable one is to rent out the property to a third party and split the profits (Shulchan Aruch and Rama, ibid. :8). Where the property does not lend itself to being rented out, the two can share time usage of the property. In the case of living quarters, they each get a turn of a year at a time. Each of these alternatives has details that determine if and how the given alternative should be carried out. We do not have enough details to provide exact guidelines. Your procedural alternatives are basically as follows. You can use these guidelines to help you come to a mutual agreement. If, as it sounds, the property can be broken up into two living units in a practical manner, then if one of you prefers that arrangement, that is what should be done. Reuven cannot force Shimon to buy the house if he does not want to for whatever reason. Renting it out is halachically and probably practically a better idea than time-sharing. If you cannot reach an agreement, it is perfectly respectable to go to a Beit Din to examine the claims in detail. It is regrettable for siblings to reach the point of anger and recriminations before ending up in Beit Din. One might still prefer the more intimate forum of a Rav knowledgeable in monetary law, than a formal Beit Din. Ask the Rabbi Q&A is part of
Hemdat Yamim, the weekly parsha sheet published by Eretz Hemdah. You can
read this section or the entire Hemdat Yamim at www.ou.org or
www.eretzhemdah.org. And/or you can receive Hemdat Yamim by email weekly, by
sending an email to info@eretzhemdah.org with the message: Subscribe/English
(for the English version) or Subscribe/Hebrew (for the hebrew version).
Please leave the subject blank. Ask the Vebbe Rebbe is partially funded by
the Jewish Agency for Israel The 37 intermittent years seem to have passed without any event worthy of mention. Day after day passed, adding up to weeks, months, and years. All we get in between the aftermath of Parshat Korach and the death of Miriam are the mitzvot of Para Aduma and Tum'at Meit, which, according to the Midrash, were actually given on the day of the dedication of the Mishkan. But it is during these years that Moshe Rabbenu and the Jewish people became intimately connected with one another. Up to this point the Israelites had lived from crisis to crisis. Now they developed the routine of daily manna collection and the study of God's Torah from Moshe and the elders. They were able to focus on the details of the mitzvot and contemplate their significance and proper fulfillment. While the desert was hardly a preparation for the independent life they would be leading in Israel, this experience imbued them with a new perspective of what life is all about, both personally and nationally. These years are well represented by the Para Aduma, which teaches that man is ultimately redeemed from the defilement of death, and kal vachomer from the setbacks of life. Daily efforts to do what is right, to fulfill God's mitzvot, add up to a human existence worthy of man who was created in His image. Yes, there is a great deal of confusion in life. Yet, all in all we slowly move in the direction of being worthy of entering God's promised land as God's chosen people. Rabbi Menachem Schrader, Efrat "Common courtesy requires a
person who wants a favor to go to the person from whom he wants the favor." 2) When the Jews complained about their situation in the desert, G-d punished them by killing them with snakes. (21:6) How did this fulfill G-d's approach to punish measure for measure? 3) When the Jews were killed by
snakes, Moshe ended the plague by placing a snake on a staff and having the
people look (see 21:8-9). Why did G-d command Moshe to use the same thing
which killed as the cure instead of using something sacred? Many Sifrei Mussar point out that while what Korach did was based on jealousy, his goal was to be in a position where he could be closer to Hashem. Thus, the great Moshe Rabbeinu should have held back somewhat in his chastising of Korach. (2) Why did Korach's sin warrant the introduction of a new form of capital punishment (being swallowed alive by the ground - see 16:32 and a flame consuming the people - see 16:35) instead of one of the standard methods of execution according to Torah law? The Belzer Rebbe, zt"l, explained that if they were killed by Beit Din or died through some natural plague, it would still have been possible to suggest that Korach's platform was correct. Perhaps people would have said that they received the punishment because they acted improperly in shaming a Jewish leader. The supernatural deaths, however, made a clear statement that Korach and his cohorts were wrong. (3) Following the death of Korach and his cohorts, all of the tribes were told to put staffs into the Mishkan and only Aharon's sprouted (17:16-24). Suddenly, everyone is comfortable with Aharon as the Kohein Gadol. Why weren't the Jews satisfied by the miracle of the fire pans and the punishment of Korach and why did the staff incident pacify them? After Korach died, people still suspected nepotism in the selection of Aharon as the Kohein Gadol. The Chizkuni points out that three words are used to describe the miracle of the staff - PERACH, TZITZ, AND SHEKEIDIM (17:23). These allude to the fact that that young priests (Pirchei Kehuna - similar to Perach) who emerge from Aharon will wear the tzitz and will perform their jobs with resolve (Shokdim similar to shekeidim). Thus, Hashem was making a final declaration that Aharon is His chosen Kohein. Parsha Points to Ponder is
prepared by Rabbi Dov Lipman of Beit Shemesh ppp@israelcenter.co.il •
Answers will appear in the next issue of TT One explanation is that Shmuel
HaKatan was known to quote this pasuk often in reproach of those who
committed this common error, of rejoicing in the down fall of their foes.
One who adopts a pasuk as a creed, it is as if he authored that pasuk. One
can be thankful that his enemy has failed, but to rejoice in that can be
seen as a sign of arrogance, as if one feels more deserving of victory than
the other. G-d can sympathize (so to speak) with the other fellow and allow
him to prevail against you at a future time. Maybe, to put you in your place
for gloating. (Kahati plus...) A: Your afterthought question is probably more significant than you think but even so, the feelings on the loss of a sibling are very often minimized for the very reasons that you give. i.e. spouse, children , grandchildren etc. so why am I carrying on so much? A sibling plays a very special role in one’s life. No one else shares the history you both do. No one else has known you as long as your brother or sister (unless your parents are still alive, but it’s different). No one else shares the memories of your childhood (positive or negative) and no one probably knows you as well. They knew you as a child in a way that no one who knows you now as an adult does. They knew the family jokes and the family struggles. The fun times and the difficult ones. Brothers and sisters influence each others lives in very fundamental ways: they are a part of your formative past and an important part of your roots to that past. When your sibling died you lost someone who had been in your life for a very long time. A constant in your life is gone. This alone can make you feel insecure and anxious. Their death can make you feel
older – the family has dwindled. You are the last one left from those you
started out with. Very unsettling, to say the least. If your relationship with them was close you’ll miss them terribly. If it wasn’t as good as you would have a wanted , you’ll likely feel regret and perhaps some guilt and of course sadness. The fact is that there may be little recognition from others as to the importance of the loss to you. While your sister was likely a pivotal person in your life, the other members of your family may not recognize it. They may not understand your grief and may not help you in the way you would expect them to if they felt the loss as you have. So all in all, it’s easy to understand why you’re experiencing all those feelings connected with any loss in addition to the specific ones mentioned here. Those feelings are very normal. You lost someone who had a special place in your life and you need time to deal with it. Your sister will always be a part of your life and because of that special connection the intenseness of the loss will take time to abate. Talk about her – perhaps with her children or even your children. Share the feelings related to the loss of a sibling. Tell them what you miss most, how it was growing up with her ( the positive and the negative). Reminisce, share your feelings, and above all give yourself time to mourn. At some point you may want to perpetuate her memory -- perhaps by donation to a cause that would be meaningful to both of you or by taking on a chesed project or by attending a shiur in her memory. A Nechama counselor is always available if you should feel the need to call. NECHAMA is a non-profit
organization that provides counseling for those who have lost a loved one.
Call (02) 573-4413 or (02) 651-8319. To address a question to NECHAMA,
email: counselor@nechamaisrael.org Despite the fact that the nations of the world taunt us for this irrationality (cf. Rashi, B'midbar 19:2), we are expected to uphold this command obediently. According to the Midrash, Hashem actually revealed the reason to Moshe - but to him alone. Even the wise King Solomon had to admit that, 'I said I will get wisdom, but it was far from me." Following this line of discussion, we are troubled by the fact that Moshe, having been told to speak to the rock to produce water (ibid 20:8) is later punished for disobeying G-d. For Moshe strikes the rock rather than speaking to it. It seems that even the most pious can err. Later, in another episode, Moshe listens unquestionably to the command to make a material serpent to cure the people: He had learned his lesson, notes Rabbi Julius Baker. There is a very fine line between absolute obedience to G-d and doing what appears right in our subjective eyes. The art is in recognizing the source of the directive. Shabbat Shalom, Menachem
Persoff Efrayim in Assyrian Exile -
a History "Then the King of Assyria came up through- out all the land, and went up to Shomron (Samaria), and besieged it for three years. In the ninth year of Hoshea, the King of Assyria took Shomron (722BCE) and carried Israel away to Assyria and placed them in Halah, and in Habor, on the river of Gozan… And so Israel was carried away from their own land to Assyria unto this day… (II Melachim 17:6,23). But the Northern Kingdom's battle against Assyria had begun in the days of King Ach'av, the victor of the Battle of Karkar, some 130 years earlier. Centered in northern Mesopotamia, Assyria played a devastating role in Israelite/Jewish history for centuries. Tiglat Pil'eser I was the first real Assyrian empire builder; he succeeded in conquering extensive areas in Anatolia, Babylon and even reached the Mediterranean coast. But a series of weak kings and civil wars collapsed Assyrian power. In fact, the Assyrians might have been completely destroyed by their Aramean (Syrian) enemies to the south had the Arameans themselves not become entangled with... the United Israelite Kingdom under the leadership of King David! In the process of being defeated by David (990? BCE), the Ammonites summoned help from their Aramean allies. But "when the Arameans saw that they were put to the worse before Israel, they gathered themselves together. And Hadad-ezer (the Aramean king) sent, and brought out the Arameans that were beyond the River (i.e. the trans-Euphrates Arameans who were fighting the Assyrians)… and he (David) gathered all Israel together …and the Arameans set themselves in array …and the Arameans fled before David" (II Shemu'el 10:15-18). The thoroughly thrashed Arameans relaxed their pressure on Assyria and… Assyria was saved! The first people to use cavalry in warfare, Assyrian recovery began only under Adad-Nirari II (911-889BCE) who renewed the drive for conquest. Assyrian wars were marked by exceptional brutality. "Their blood in the valleys and in the high places of the mountains I caused to flow. Their heads I cut off and I piled them up outside their cities like heaps of grain…" The renewed Assyrian threat explains Ach'av's strange clemency to Ben-hadad of Damascus, the Aramean king who had initiated so many vicious wars against Israel (I Melachim 20:34). A politically astute and far-sighted monarch, Ach'av was keenly aware of the rising Assyrian menace. For this reason, Ach'av did not want to weaken Ben-hadad unduly because he understood that it was vital to enlist him and the other local rulers in a joint effort to halt the Assyrians. In pursuit of his program, Ach'av firmly cemented his tie with Judah and had an unusually warm relationship with her king. Perhaps unaware how much this behavior angered his own people, Ach'av also tolerated the Ba'al cult for the same reason. Unlike Queen Izevel who was the daughter of the Tyrian king, Ach'av was not a Ba'al worshipper, but he was not going to offend any potential ally either. Only two years after Ach'av's spectacular victory over Aram,the long anticipated Assyrian threat finally materialized. As the leading ruler between the Nile and the Euphrates, Ach'av assumed responsibly for the defense of the entire region and called on the other local kings to facilitate the war effort. The advancing Assyrians swept through the Upper Orontes Valley but when they turned south, they met the arrayed allied army at Karkar in northern Syria. Though the Tanach does not mention the battle at all, we know from Assyrian accounts, that Ach'av played a commanding role in the battle. (Ben-Hadad certainly could not have been the moving spirit behind such a major enterprise only two years after his disastrous defeat at the hands of Ach'av.) According to Assyrian annals, Aram contributed 20,000 foot soldiers compared to Israel's 10,000. However, Israel's contingent of chariots (2000, which no doubt included Judean units) was greater than that of all the other allies combined. (Ach'av's close ties with wealthy Tyre may explain how he was able to pay for such a pricey force.) At the battle of Karkar the Assyrian armies were stopped cold. A deleterious result of Yeihu's
bloody coup d'etat against Ach'av's son Yehoram (II Melachim 8,9,10) was a
serious weakening of Israel both politically and militarily. There were
other battles between Assyria and the smaller kingdoms to the south, but
Yeihu's Israel did not participate in them. Instead the Arameans took the
initiative and led the resistance. Lacking the vision of an Ach'av, Yeihu
foolishly declared for Assyria! The first extant representation of an
Israelite is carved on an Assyrian stele - Yeihu groveling at the feet of
Assyrian King Shalmanezer II! When the Assyrian threat temporarily receded,
the Aramean king Hazael launched a savage (note Amos 3:4-5) war against
traitorous Israel. He felt that it was necessary to secure his rear before
the Assyrians regained their strength and attacked again. The triumphant
Aramean king sliced off the Golan Heights and Transjordania from Israel.
Syrian units penetrated as far south as Eilat, and with the help of the
Edomites, detached the Negev from Judah. Israel and Judah had been rendered
impotent. But Assyria returned, and under Adad-nirari III, dealt the
Arameans a crushing blow which fatally weakened them (806BCE). Before he
died, Elisha, long the aide and confidant of the House of Yeihu encouraged
the king not to despair. "The Lord's arrow of victory, even the arrow of
victory against Aram; for you shalt smite the Arameans... until you consume
them… (II Melachim 13:17). In three brilliant campaigns Yo'ash restored the
borders of Israel, his son Yerav'am (II) occupied Damascus, and for 45 years
Israel was the paramount power in the region. Judah also blossomed. But it
could not last. After the death of Yerav'am II, Israel's last great king,
everything fell apart and the Assyrian blight returned in full fury. During
the first Assyrian invasion of Eretz Yisrael, the Mediterranean coast, the
Galil, and the lands beyond the Jordan were amputated from Israel. Evidence
of ferocious battles between heroic Israelite defenders and the vastly
superior Assyrian army (732BCE) is attested to by archeological findings in
Chatzor (level V) and in Megido (level IV). "In the days of Pekach King of
Israel, Tiglat Pil'eser King of Assyria took Ijon, and Avel - Beit Ma'acha,
and Yano'ach, and Kedesh, and Chatzor, and the Gil'ad, and Galilee, all the
land of Naphtali; and he carried them captive to Assyria" (II Melachim
15:29). By its length alone, the reduction of courageous Shomron ten years
later, surpasses some of the greatest sieges in the history of warfare.
Nineveh, Assyria's capital, withstood King Nabopolassar for less than two
years and Tyre fell to Alexander the Great after a siege of seven months.
The Romans took Syracuse after two years and Carthage in three. In modern
times Sebastopol held out for eleven months (1856), Paris in 1870-187l
lasted for 132 days and in 1945, Berlin, two weeks. Mayour Shomron rise
again! <to be continued> Following Miriam's death, the Well dried up and there was no water for the people (the faucet with the spider's web at the spout). Although Moshe was commanded to speak to the Rock (its ear indicates that it was ready to listen), he struck it with the MATEH twice and water gushed forth from the rock(s). The Kohen Gadol is pictured, with the garments that were transferred from Aharon to Elazar. Following Aharon's death, the people panicked and a plague of serpents attacked the people. G-d told Moshe to put the form of a snake on a rod (which he did, making the snake from copper) and anyone bitten by a poisonous snake who looks at the snake-on-the-stick would live. The symbol of the medical corps is a serpent (or two) wound around a staff. Known as a caduceus, dictionaries and encyclopedias give it an origin in Greek mythology. One wonders if the Torah is its original source... or something like that. The sedra mentions SEFER MILCHAMOT HASHEM, some kind of written record of the battles. It is represented by the open book with a tank on one page and the HEI-apostrophe on the other. DO NOT ENTER sign has a double-double meaning. Edom and Emori both responded to Israel's request for safe passage through their territory with DO NOT ENTER. Moshe and Aharon, as a result of the "hitting the rock rather than talking to it episode", were given DO NOT ENTER orders for Eretz Yisrael. The bottle of water marked 2NIS represents the offer Bnei Yisrael made to pay for the water they would use while passing through Edom's land. The well with the musical clef stands for the Song of the Well. At the bottom is a mathematical expression equaling 256+44+1, which is 301, the g'matriya of fire. That is what the expression is equal to in the ParshaPix, and altogether it represents the phrase,"For a fire has come out of CHESHBON..." There are two new elements in
the ParshaPix that each become a visual TTriddle. One is easy, the other -
nearly impossible. [2] One TTriddler suggested that this refers to the molad, announced on Shabbat but taking place on - and therefore reminding us of - Wednesday. Not what we had in mind, but acceptable as an answer. The TTriddle points to the Psalm of the Day for Wednesday, which ends with first two p'sukim of L'CHU N'RAN'NA (Psalm 95), the first Psalm of Kabbalat Shabbat. That can be said of any Shabbat reminding one of Wednesday - or vice versa. But the haftara of Korach has another reminder. KI LO YITOSH HASHEM (ET) AMO, a phrase that appears only in Shmuel Alef (12:22), haftara of Korach, and in T'hilim 94, Shir Shel Yom of Wednesday. BTW, since T'hilim 94 is followed by L'CHU N'RAN'NA, the first two p'sukim were appended to the Psalm of Wednesday as if to remind us that beginning with the second half of the week, we focus on the coming Shabbat. Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday can be seen as the preparatory days for the coming Shabbat, as Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday at the beginning of the week, draw some of the flavor of the preceding Shabbat. One manifestation of that idea is that havdala can be said in extenuating circumstances until (but not including) Tuesday evening. [3] This TTriddle was born when we changed the footer of the page from SHLACH to KORACH, only switching the SHL to KOR and leaving the ACH intact. From there it was a search of the acronym websites to find that the only possibility for a TTriddle would be the three-letter codes for airports around the world. Whereas TTreaders might be more familiar with TLV and JFK, EWR (Newark), LGA (La Guardia - the airport in Queens, not the street and highway exit in Tel Aviv), LHR and LGW (Heathrow and Gatwick for our British TTreaders), we did find both SHL and KOR on the list. From the airport in Shillong, India to the airport in Kokoro, Papau New Guinea is almost 7000 km. [4] ON b. PELET is NOT the correct answer. Since "his brothers" Datan and Aviram were not biological brothers, but only in the sense of partners in crime. However, Datan and Aviram had a brother. His name was NEMUEL (not to be confused with the NEMUEL who was the son of Shimon - they were first cousins twice-removed), and he did not join his brothers in the Korach rebellion. [5] This might have been used as a TTriddle in the past. The word TZITZ appears in the description of the flowering, budding, and fruiting of Aharon's staff. The TZITZ was one of the 8 garments of the Kohein Gadol. Hence the TTriddle. [6] The infamous pair DATAN and AVIRAM are mentioned 6 times in Bamidbar 16 (Parshat Korach), twice in Pinchas and once in Eikev. That makes in 6 pair in Korach and three elsewhere. [7] This TTriddle was born of a curiosity search for sedras of the Torah (there are 54) which end (terminate) with reference to death (termination). Which seems like an unexpected way that sedras end. Korach ends with the words V'LO TAMUTU, and they shall not die). B'midbar ends with VAMEITU, (they - Leviyim from K'hat family - should not witness the covering of the vessels of the Mishkan) and die. Parshat Balak ends with, "And the body-count of the plague was 24,000. Each seem inappropriate in light of what we know about where to put an aliya-break. And then there is Parshat No'ach, ending with, "And Terach died in Charan. Also K'doshim and Emor fit (sort of). That brings the number of the 54 to six. [8] Is this one visual TTriddle
with two parts or two separate ones - take your pick. Both are from the
haftara, and refer to the unusual storm (storm cloud with lightning)
Honorable mention (and a CD) to DM for 007/M. The Israel Center clothing
Gemach located on the café level is now seeking pots, pans, and other
kitchen items in addition to clothing. There are Israeli families,
specifically Ethiopian olim that desperately need these items. Either bring
them or, if you have a lot, call Mark 054-582-0517 to have them picked up. LUNCH? When a tiyul says “bring your own lunch”, you can order one instead from the Israel Center Cafe. When you make your reservation for the tiyul, request a box lunch, or call the CAFE (ext. 257) up to the day before the TIYUL. 18nis will get you a sandwich (your choice), a refreshing drink (regular or diet) and a dessert. Your lunch will be ready for you when you board the bus. CANCELLATION POLICIES We reserve the right to charge a cancellation fee in case of last-minute cancellations. Also... Price of tiyul is based on a minimum number of participants. Students from Abroad Parents visiting you some time this year? If so, you want to speak to us! (566-7787 ext. 244). We have many attractive deals for them... and you. Let us turn an ordinary “been there, did it” visit into an unforgettable, special one! KASHRUT POLICY Food for Israel Center In-House programs is supervised by OU in Israel - Mehadrin. Israel Center sponsored trips and programs are Mehadrin. Hotels, restaurants, and tiyulim advertised by the Travel Desk or by outside parties are not necessarily Mehadrin and are not endorsed by the OU or the Israel Center. Calls from abroad: People from
abroad should fax 972-2-5660156 for the attention of The Travel Desk or
email to tiyul@israelcenter.co.il [The
Parshat Chukat Homepage]
|
