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. A year and three weeks later, 10 prominent Israelites (one commentary says they were SAREI ALAFIM) defamed Eretz Yisrael, displayed lack of faith in G-d, and panicked the entire population (at least the males) against going into Eretz Yisrael, as was G-d's wish and plan for us. Yehoshua and Kaleiv, Moshe and Aharon were outraged with what the Meraglim said. The people wanted to stone them. An entire generation was destined to die off in the course of 40 years of wandering, rather than imminently entering Eretz Yisrael. What was the sin of the masses? They did not join Kaleiv's call for Aliya and trusting in G-d. The sat on the fence. Korach and Datan and Aviram,
250 Ketoret offerers and various others actively participated in Korach's
rebel- lion. The 250 were struck dead by Divine Fire, the others were
swallowed by the Earth. But a further plague killed 14,700 people. What was
their sin? Fence-sitting and despairing. [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. Korach is identified as the son of Yitzhar, grandson of K'hat, great grandson of Levi. It is quite unusual to identify biblical personalities that way. Rashi points out that the lineage mentioned in the pasuk stops before reaching Yaakov Avinu who foresaw Korach's wickedness and pleaded with G-d not to be included in the Torah's account of Korach's deeds. On the other hand, it reached back to Levi because Korach's being from Levi was the major factor involved in the whole episode. Korach, Datan & Aviram and On b. Pelet (who backed out in time) challenge Moshe's authority. Korach enlists 250 men to publicize his/their "cause". Ponder this... Korach was a first cousin of Moshe and Aharon. He felt slighted by the fact that both top positions - the leadership and Kohen Gadol-ship - went to two of his uncle Amram's sons (Moshe & Aharon) and the leadership of the K'hat family went to another cousin, the son of Korach's father's younger brother - Elitzafanb. Uziel. Korach found sympathy for his cause within the tribe of Reuven because Reuven himself was passed over for the leadership (which went to Yehuda), the birthright (Yosef received the double portion of the firstborn in the form of the tribes of Efrayim and Menashe) and the Kehuna/Leviya went to Levi. This is not to whitewash Korach's actions, but to show some of his motivation. Moshe proposes a test - both Aharon and Korach's people will offer incense before G-d and G-d will indicate whom He chooses. Moshe tries to talk Korach out of his fight by telling him that being a Levi is special - why show dissatisfaction and ingratitude by seeking more? Moshe then calls for Datan & Aviram, but they arrogantly refuse Moshe's summons. SDT Sources tell us that Korach taunted Moshe Rabeinu with two mocking questions - A talit made completely of T'cheilet, does it require Tzitzit (with the T'cheilet strand)? A house filled with Torah scrolls, does it require a mezuza? Both questions pointed to the same argument: A Nation of holy people, people who heard G-d's Voice at Sinai, do they require holy leaders? The basis of suggesting the talit question is the juxtaposition of the Korach episode to the portion of Tzitzit at the end of last week's sedra. The Kli Yakar suggests that the mezuza question is alluded to by the description of Datan & Aviram arrogantly standing at the doorway of their tent and mocking G-d's commandments and Moshe's leadership. The answer, by the way (or
maybe not just "by the way"), is that Tzitzit with T'cheilet is required of
every four-cornered garment, even one made totally of T'cheilet wool. And a
dwelling (and many other types of rooms) requires a Mezuza, regardless of
how many Sifrei Torah are in the room. Moshe angrily asks G-d not to accept the incense offerings of Korach's group. Moshe then reiterates the challenge to Korach. Korach gathers the People to witness the "showdown"; the 250 people and Aharon will each have the special vessel onto which they will place a glowing coal, onto which they will put the incense and they will all be standing at the entrance to the Ohel Mo'ed. G-d's "glory" was revealed to the People. SDT The Gemara tells us that when Korach challenged Moshe's authority, it was the Sun and the Moon that appeared before G-d and said: If you side with the son of Amram (i.e. Moshe), then we will continue to shine; if not, we stop shining. What is the significance of this statement from the Gemara? One commentator points out that the Sun and the Moon were originally of equal greatness, and the Moon was diminished because "two kings cannot rule with one crown". This was exactly one of the problems with Korach's arguments, so the Sun and Moon were particularly appropriate participants in this issue. Notice that not only must the sun acknowledge the situation, but so must the moon. Korach's downfall was his lack of acceptance of a moon-like role. For quite a while now, our Aliya-by- Aliya Sedra Summary has included PARSHA layout of the sedra, as well as the breakdown by Aliya. It should be easy to notice that most Aliya breaks happen at Parsha breaks. This would be reasonable to expect. When an Aliya break occurs in the middle of a parsha, and more so, in the middle of a small number of p'sukim that are telling us one episode - then we can pause for a moment and try to see if our attention is being called to something specific. The Aliya-break between Kohein and Levi comes right in the middle of the confrontation between Moshe and Datan & Aviram. Rabbi Sholom Gold pointed out that the break separates a reference to Egypt as a land flowing with milk and honey with a reference to Eretz Yisrael with the same description. These need be separated, just as one would say L'HAVDIL. Or maybe... When an Aliya break occurs, it gives us - the people who are listening to Torah Reading - pause to reflect on what just "happened". Our attention is drawn to the last pasuk or so, and we can focus on it while the gabbai is calling the next person to the Torah (and blessing the one just finished). Datan and Aviram had just
called Egypt a land flowing with milk and honey. They mocked G-d (Who uses
that term for Eretz Yisrael), they mocked Moshe, and they mocked Eretz
Yisrael. As terrible as the Meraglim were with their report and
recommendation about Eretz Yisrael, at least they acknowledged the beauty
and specialness of the Land. They said that the Land was truly flowing with
milk and honey. One has time during the Aliya break to be justly enraged by
the behavior of Datan and Aviram... and perhaps by those Jews today who echo
their sentiments. [S> 16:23 (13)] Moshe warns the People to separate themselves (physically and psychologically) from Korach and his followers lest they be included in the punishment to come. Moshe declares that all will know that G-d has sent him to do all that he does. If these wicked people shall die in a similar manner to others, then G-d has not sent Moshe. But if G-d will "provide" a new creation and the earth will open its mouth and swallow Korach and company and all that belongs to them, then all will know that these people have truly rebelled against G-d. As Moshe finished these words, the earth beneath them split, opened and swallowed all with Korach. (Implication from the p'sukim is that the People did not actually die but left this world in this unusual and miraculous manner.) The People shouted in panic when they witnessed what was happening. A Divine fire consumed the 250 incense offerers. [S> 17:1 (5)] G-d tells Moshe to tell Elazar b. Aharon to collect the fire-pans and scatter the burning coals. The copper from the pans was to be used to plate the Mizbei'ach as a reminder that a non-Kohen must not attempt to usurp the Kohen's authority. In general, the Torah warns us not to be like Korach and his gang, and not to suffer their fate. [P> 17:6 (3)] The next day, the People, fearing retribution, complained against Moshe for killing (part of) G-d's Nation. G-d's Cloud descended upon the Ohel Mo'ed and Moshe and Aharon went there for instructions. SDT The earth not only swallowed Korach's gang, but their possessions as well. The message, says IMREI SHEFER, is that one's wealth often causes a person to be arrogant. This, in turn, leads sometimes to challenging authority. The people's possessions were not innocent bystanders, so to speak, to Korach's rebel- lion, they were the instigators. Note that in Korach's rebellion we see not only two punishments, but two very different kinds of punishments, which, in turn, reflect the types of sin. Datan and Aviram and their ilk were plunged down into the bowels of the Earth. But the 250 K'toret-offerers, they were honorable people. They were godly. The Torah testifies to that when we are first introduced to them. They honestly believed that they were making proper offerings to G-d. Other- wise, they would not have risked their lives. They must have been surprised to have failed! Their sin was reaching TOO high towards the Divine. And their punishment was to be struck down by Divine fire (as had been Nadav and Avihu). Here's another thought... Moshe was chosen by G-d to lead the people. True. And he will always be on a higher level than the rest of us. We, not G-d, elevated Moshe even higher. We decided that we did not want to hear the "Voice of G-d" anymore and we requested that Moshe tell us what G-d wants of us, and we would comply. Originally, G-d spoke to all of Israel. That was the plan. And that put all of Israel on the level of prophecy. With Moshe as the chief prophet. We forfeited our direct communication with G-d, and we made Moshe the ONLY prophet. (Let's not complicate the issue with the 70 elders who shared Moshe's prophecy, like candles that are lit from a single burning candle.) The Gemara says that the "deal"
that the People of Israel made at Sinai concerning not having direct
communication from G-d, was an irrevocable, forever deal. Korach wanted to
change his mind. Perhaps he was no longer confident that Moshe could
actually bring the People into Eretz Yisra'el, after the whole Meraglim
fiasco. The merit of this theory is that it balances the motivations of
Korach's gang. Datan and Aviram were BAD. The K'toret bringers were not
necessarily evil. Probably not. Sometimes, in times of trouble, Moshe prays to G-d extensively. His prayer after the Sin of the Golden Calf is an example of long prayer. We can even say that it was a prayer that lasted 40 days and nights. When Miriam was stricken with Tzora'at, Moshe uttered a short 5-word (11 letter) prayer for her wellbeing - KEIL NAR'FA NA LAH. And at this point in Parshat Korach, Moshe senses that prayer will not work - swift action is called for. Another way to look at this is that "And they fell on their faces" means they had no prayers to offer. This told them that disaster (the plague) will immediately follow and therefore they acted immediately to stop it. In addition to the Lead Tidbit, let's take another look at three "biggies": the Sin of the Golden Calf, the Sin of the Spies, and Korach's rebellion. CHEIT HA'EIGEL resulted in the deaths of the actual perpetrators (3000 men), but the rest of the People were basically forgiven after Moshe's pleading. The spies themselves were killed, the adult male population was banned from entry into Eretz Yisrael, and were to die out in the course of the 40 years of wandering. It might not sound like it, but the people were basically forgiven for this too (but with harsher punishment). In contrast, the 250 incense offerers were consumed by fire, Korach, Datan and Aviram and their people, house- holds, and possessions were swallowed up by the Earth, and for complaining in the aftermath of the Korach rebellion, a plague erupted and claimed 14,700 lives "on the spot". The plague was "contained" by Moshe's swift actions. A heavy price was paid for the Korach fiasco. Combining different ideas in the commentaries, we can suggest the following: The Sin of the Golden Calf represents sins against G-d. He can be, and often is, most forgiving for that kind of sin. The sin of the spies was an affront to Eretz Yisrael. This, so to speak, G-d considered a graver sin, and was less forgiving. Korach's rebellion was directed against Moshe. It was a BEIN ADAM L'CHAVEIRO issue. These are the kinds of sins that G-d is least willing to forgive. The same observation has been
made in comparing the Flood, which came as a result of a breakdown in
society, with the Tower of Babel, where people united to rebel against G-d.
The punishment was much less severe in that case. G-d's choice of almond is
significant. The almond is the fastest tree to develop flowers, buds, and
fruit. Those who challenge the status of the Kohanim were dealt with very
swiftly. The people seemed to have felt the speed with which G-d dealt with
the rebels and it devastated them (as mere observers). [S> 18:1 (7)] G-d reiterates that the Kohanim and Leviyim hold special positions and have the responsibility to avoid risking their lives by over- stepping their bounds. Leviyim are required to guard the Mikdash [388,A22 18:4] (Honor guard). [There were 24 watch posts, 21 of which were manned by Leviyim; three were within the Beit HaMikdash and were manned by Kohanim.] Kohanim and Leviyim are forbidden to perform each others sacred tasks [389,L72 18:3]. A non-Kohen/Levi may not work in the Beit HaMikdash [390,L74 18:4]. It is forbidden to disregard the obligations of the Beit HaMikdash honor-guard [391,L67 18:5]. [P> 18:8 (13)] The Torah next lists several gifts that are given to the Kohen - the meat of certain korbanot, t'ruma, bikurim, consecrated objects, the firstborn of kosher farm animals and the redemption/exchange for a firstborn donkey. Firstborn humans are to be redeemed for 5 silver shekels [392,A80 18:15]. Firstborn cow/goat/sheep may
not be redeemed [393,L108 18:17], but must be given to a kohein who must
bring it as a korban within a year (if unfit for the Altar, the b'chor is
the possession of the kohen without restrictions). All gifts of the kehuna
(24 in number) are for Aharon and his descendants in perpetuity. However,
the Kohen does not receive a portion of land in Israel. (This is the basis
of the complex intertwined relationship between kohen and non-kohen.) The service of the Leviyim in
the Mikdash constitutes a positive mitzva [394,A23 18:23]. So too it is a
mitzva to give Ma'aser Rishon to a Levi [395,A127 18:24]. Notice that Korach is two
thirds story and one third mitzva. Pretty differentiated, but definitely
interrelated, as we've been saying. Note too the very sobering ending of the
sedra. The Korach story is depressing enough, but as a once-upon-a-time, a
long time ago, we can keep our distance. Not so the mitzva-content of the
sedra. There's no fooling around. We don't do these mitzvot, we die. Keep
the mitzvot and we will not die. Very strongly put. It partially means,
learn the Korach lesson, because it isn't just a story - it applies to each
of us. Appreciation of the Object The time of abandonment by Shimon of hope of having the object returned to him may determine if the appreciation belongs to Reuven. If Shimon abandons hope of recovery of the object, all appreciation that takes place after the abandonment of hope belongs to Reuven. The appreciation belongs to Reuven whether the appreciation came about through the efforts of Reuven or without his efforts. When the object is returned by Reuven to Shimon, Shimon must pay to Reuven the value of the appreciation. What has been said about the appreciation belonging to Reuven applies if there was a change in the object, but if the value of the object has appreciated solely due to inflation, Reuven will not receive any money for such increase in value. All appreciation that takes place prior to the abandonment of hope belongs to Shimon, except appreciation that comes about from the efforts or expense of Reuven. The latter belongs to Reuven, and in that case when the object is returned by Reuven to Shimon, Shimon must pay to Reuven the value of the appreciation. Responsibility for
Deterioration of the Object Reuven robbed a cow that aged in his possession or became weaker as a result of natural sickness; or a leg of the cow was broken; of he robbed a coin that cracked; or fruit, a large percentage of which rotted; or wine that turned sour, or a vessel that broke. Reuven must pay for all of these at their value at the time of the robbery. In all of the foregoing cases the deterioration is visible; but if they can be restored or it is not visible, then Shimon has to accept the object in its current condition without any compensation from Reuven. Examples: the robbed animal has lost weight that can be restored; or objects where the damages are not visible because the appearance has not changed, but the object is no longer usable because if it is forbidden to use such an object, such as terumah that became unfit by becoming ritually impure, or leavened bread that was held over Pesach, or a animal that was sodomized, or an object including an animal that was used in idolatry. In all of these cases Reuven can say to Shimon “Here is your object”, since the object appears exactly as before, although it is forbidden to use the object. The law is that if the damages are not recognizable to the eye, then it is not classified as damages. In all of the instances, if Reuven does not have the prohibited object to return to Shimon, he must pay for the object as at the time of the robbery. Reuven robbed money and the government canceled the legality of the currency that he robbed. This is recognizable damage. Assume that there is no deterioration in the object, in which event Reuven does not have to make any payments to Shimon; if Reuven is in the habit of robbing, he will be fined and otherwise punished as beth din sees fit. The Robber Uses the Robbed
Object If Reuven is a trespasser on Shimon’s real estate and Shimon demands that he vacate, Reuven must pay rent for the time that he remains there. Reuven must pay rent although ordinarily Shimon does not rent the premises and Reuven ordinarily does not pay rent when he occupies real estate. If Shimon does not make instant demand for Reuven to vacate or to pay rent, Reuven may have to pay rent if Shimon holds the real estate out to be rented, and if not, Reuven does not have to pay rent. If Reuven robs the premises by forcibly chasing Shimon from the premises, Reuven will have to pay rent even if he does not occupy the premises, since Shimon cannot now rent the premises to anyone else. If Reuven causes the premises to deteriorate even in a small way, Reuven will have to pay rent. Subletting The subject matter of this
lesson is more fully discussed in volume IX chapter 363 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 The Essence of Life But what exactly is considered "life" for the purposes of this prohibition? There are two opinions in the Gemara (Shabbat 107b): According to Rebbe Eliezer, the definition is anything that has a Neshama, or animating spirit. But according to the Sages, the definition is an animal that reproduces, one that "is fruitful and multiplies". Therefore, according to the Sages it is permissible to kill a kina (louse) on Shabbat, since according to their understanding and definition a kina doesn't reproduce. The Shulchan Arukh (OC 316:9) rules according to the Sages. What is the significance of the fact that an animal reproduces? (Some commentators, such as the Ramban, add that they must reproduce sexually.) Given the fact that the animal has life and spirit, why do we care about its origin? Rav Kook explains that the significance of reproduction is not the animal's origin - its past, but rather its destiny, or future. When an animal has the potential to reproduce then killing it cuts short an entire, potentially infinite chain of life. "If a creature doesn't extend life for generations, it lacks the bounty of the supernal persistence, and thus its own, temporary life is not called life in essence, and one who kills it on Shabbat is not liable for taking life" (Ein Ayah Shabbat 107b). This explanation is supported out by the halakhic commentaries. The Beur Halakha (chapter 316) writes that if an animal was formed asexually, but itself has the ability to reproduce, then it is also forbidden to kill it on Shabbat. This forward-looking approach may characterize the disputing opinion as well. In the Yerushalmi (Shabbat 1:3), the opinion which forbids killing a kina bases the prohibition on the fact that this animal has limbs and sinews; the Gemara goes on to state that only an animal with these structures has the ability to survive more than a few months. It seems that both opinions base the definition of life on the ability to survive, but one looks at the ability of the individual creature and the other at the potential for future generations. (In both cases the prohibition is not based on the future of this particular specimen; it is definitely forbidden to kill an old, infertile creature. The question is what kind of animal is deemed to have "life".) We find a similar approach in other areas of halakha. For example, neutering an animal is considered a grave transgression, forbidden even to non-Jews (SA EHE 5). It is especially interesting that this potential is identified specifically with sexual reproduction, which doesn't reproduce the animal identically but passes its characteristics to the next generation in a variety of combinations. Our very first column in the Torah Tidbits, almost six years ago, discussed the blessing on the rainbow. We explained that the rainbow reminds us of the ability of the material world to show how God's unity (the "simple" white light of the sun) actually encompasses an infinite, scintillating variety of experience (the many colors of the spectrum). In a similar way, the essence of animal life is also the ability of an individual creature to express it unique characteristics in an unlimited variety of ways in future generations. Yet, ironically, taking an
animal's life in this way can still be considered a melacha, a productive
labor. Using the animal in the service of holiness, in the human service of
Hashem, such as the hides that served as the roof of the Tabernacle, is a
higher expression of its innate potential then simple undirected
reproduction of its remarkable characteristics. For Kayin (Cain), whose name is derived from kinyan, to take possession, but also from koneh - source of power, the challenge flowed from understanding the true nature of acquiring possessions and of power (Rabbi S. R. Hirsch). He was a tiller of soil and as such was fulfilling Adam's role in this world to labor in it and guard it. Historically, the source of civilization and wealth has been agriculture. As a positive factor it has been the stimulator of a great part of the human inventions and culture from the wheel to machinery to refrigeration to transportation. It was also the foundation of communal society, the state and the administration of justice geared to the allocation and monitoring of land and water resources. However, working on the land tends to bind men to the land, and make them into clods ruled by the soil they till so that they become subservient to increasing their yields. This has led to worship of the forces of nature or to fate, imagined to be the source of wealth. This duality exists to this day with regard to all our efforts at wealth creation. The Torah gives us the ability to achieve wealth creation while preserving justice, chesed and spirituality, thus avoiding the trap that Kayin chose for himself. "G-d gave Israel great wealth when He took them out of Egypt and then at Sinai gave them Torah to know how to deal with it" (Rabbi S.R. Hirsch). Hevel (Abel) was a shepherd and as such set an example of a livelihood that the Patriarchs, Moshe and David HaMelech followed. The shepherd deals only with living creatures, whose care and attention keep alive humane feelings of tenderness and consideration. It is an occupation that does not strain man physically and mentally, so that he can also develop ideas of spirituality and godliness. Furthermore, the wealth represented by his flocks and herds is not a fixed asset and does not owe its existence to human beings but only its care. This protects one from placing too much dependence or value on property and its owners. No one is suggesting that we should all become shepherds, only that our attitudes to wealth should be balanced ones, as the Torah demands. Perhaps the spiritual dilemma that faced these two brothers was foretold and alluded to in the two different views of Chava's exclamation on giving birth. "She said I have acquired a man, with G-d" (4:1). "The first enthusiasm of the first mother was a raised feeling of self-importance'' (Rabbi S. R. Hirsch). "Kaniti, however, has another connotation, that of creation or of action; "You have kanita-created my mind" (T'hilim 131:13) or "He is your father, your konecha-creator" (Dvarim 32:6). Thus, Chava was expressing the creativity associated with motherhood. "Adam was created from the Earth and Chava from Adam, but henceforth, all humans are created in their image, no man without woman and no woman without man and neither of them without Shechina" (B'reishit Rabba 22:2). Furthermore, by her announcement 'with G-d', Chava declared that the birth was not the product of her lust but the fulfillment of His commandment, "Be fruitful and multiply". The choice before her sons was between self- importance, and a partnership in their wealth creation with their Creator. The first test came when they brought offerings to Hashem. "It is a tradition that the place where David and Shlomo built their altar for the Temple was the same place as where Avraham bound Isaac as a sacrifice. In that place Kayin and Hevel offered their offerings, as did Adam. From the dust of that place was Adam created and from there came his atonement" (Rambam, Hilkhot Beit HaBechirah 2:2). Kayin brought casually of the produce of the land; "of the worst produce" (B'reishit Rabba) or "flax" considered the most inferior of the yarns; (Tanchuma), whereas "Hevel brought of the first-born of his flocks, and of the best thereof" (4:4). "She seeks out wool and flax" (Eshet Chayil); the wise woman knows to balance between the inferior flax and the refined wool, each for their appropriate use. However, "Even when the 'gasut ru'ach' perform mitzvot, those mitzvot are perverted by their pride and arrogance " (Admor of Kotsk). We can understand the sin of Kayin, but what was Hevel's error that caused his premature death and lack of descendants? His name reveals the defect; Hevel from vanity, worthless or transitory, so he held nothing was worthwhile and all were merely passing phases. "Man is like a breath - hevel, his days are like a passing shadow" (T'hilim 144:4). Rabbi Simcha Bunem of Pshyshcha made his trousers with two pockets. In one he placed a paper on which was written, "Hashem created Man in His Image", whereas the other had a slip bearing, "What is Man that You should be mindful of him". "The wisdom is to know when each slip of paper is appropriate. We read, "Hevel, he also brought an offering" (4:4), to tell us that even praise of Hashem, even divine worship was hevel in his eyes. The world cannot exist on a life based on the negation of all Man's actions and good deeds, so Hevel had to die." (Shem MiShmuel). "And Adam knew his wife again
and she bore a son in place of Hevel" (4:52), and of Kayin, since through
him, Sheit (Seth), the world was to be continued. Q: I want to plant a variety of
vegetables in my backyard (in New Jersey). Do the vegetables have to be
planted at a certain distance one from the other to avoid problems of
kilayim (mixed planting)? A gardener even told me that I should plant carrot
and radish seeds in the same hole to help the carrots. Is that permitted? Let us start with a little background. There are a few different types of mixing of species as they grow or reproduce. The one you refer to is called kilei zera'im. There is a more severe type of mixing of seeds, which carries with it even an issur hana’ah (a prohibition to receive benefit) on the resulting produce. That is kilei hakerem (mixed planting that includes grapes, Devarim 22:9). Another agricultural type of kilayim is kilei harkava (grafting). Finally, there is a prohibition on facilitating the mixing of animal species, which is called kilei harba’ah. The question that is of greatest importance to you is: where do the prohibitions on mixing apply? The general rule is that mitzvot that are land-based apply only in Eretz Yisrael, whereas other mitzvot apply throughout the world (Kiddushin 36b). Thus, the prohibition on mix-breeding animals, which is not land-based, applies in NJ as in Israel. The mishna (ibid.) mentions two (and brings a dispute on a third) land-based mitzvot that are in effect in chutz la’aretz (outside Israel). They are orla (benefiting from the fruit of trees during their first three years) and kilayim. Thus, it would seem that you would have to be careful to make sufficient separation between the species. However, the gemara (ibid. 39a) states that the mishna which says that kilayim applies in chutz la’aretz refers only to kilei hakerem, which, as we mentioned, is a more stringent prohibition within Eretz Yisrael. Due to that stringency, the Rabbis extended its implementation to chutz la’aretz, as well. When we refer to the gemara, we are talking about the Babylonian Talmud. In the Jerusalem Talmud (Orlah 3:3) they learn that kilei zeraim is forbidden in chutz la’aretz based on a comparison to another type of mixture, that of shaatnez. Rambam (Kilayim 1:1) though, rules like the gemara, as does the Shulchan Aruch. Only in regard to grafting trees, which the Torah hints is connected to the mixed-breeding of animals, does the Torah prohibition apply in chutz la’aretz. Let us summarize that which applies and does not apply in chutz la’aretz. From the Torah, mixed-breeding animals and grafting branches onto trees of a different species are forbidden. Rabbinically, mixed planting of species along with grape vines is forbidden. Planting trees or vegetables or even mixing the seeds of different species other than grapes are all permitted in chutz la’aretz. Therefore, the mixed planting that you refer to is permitted for you in NJ. Let’s just discuss some basic concept as to the separation required, when it is required, so you know a little of what to do regarding grapevines and you can be prepared if and hopefully when you make Aliya. The minimum separation between most types of vegetation is six tefachim (approximately 18 inches). (According to Rambam (Kilayim 3:10), there are certain types of vegetables where the requirement on the level of Torah law is only one tefach (see Eretz Hemdah II, 6:1)). As the size of the patches grow the required separation grows significantly, until the groups do not look like they are being inter-grown (Rambam ibid.:7). Regarding grapes, the minimum requirement is to have a separation of 6 tefachim. Once you have a patch of five vines, the minimum separation goes up to 4 amot (approx. 6 feet) (Rambam ibid. 7:1,7). 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 But Israel is the land of milk and honey because its agricultural bounty is not merely material. The Rambam (Guide to the Perplexed III, 43) calls Israel "the best place in the land and the fattest" [as in "fat of the land"]. This description appears earlier in the Sifrei (Devarim 37): "A land of milk and honey - its fruit are as fat as milk and as sweet as honey… fat is the Land of Israel... The Land of Israel is higher than all other lands and is therefore superior to them." The "elevation" to which the Sifrei refers is the land's proximity to God's blessing. Avnei Nezer (Neot Deshe, parshat Sh'lach) writes that the manna that descended daily from heaven to sustain Israel in the desert never ceased altogether; to this very day, its nature permeates the produce of the Land of Israel. Rav Kook teaches that unlike the food of other lands, "the food of the Land of Israel is holy" (Orot Hakodesh III, p. 295). May all Israel merit to dwell in the Land, to "eat of its fruit and be sated with its bounty." Rabbi Jonathan Blass, Neve Tzuf As soon as the men had left, R'
Yaakov moved close to the room where the man who claimed to have lost the
coin was waiting, and began speaking to himself: A little later, he called the main in for questioning. As soon as the man entered, he burst out, "Rabbi, you know that I never saw the coin that was found, but I can prove to you it was mine. The coin had a hole in it." "If that is so," said R' Yaakov, "you must be mistaken. This cannot be your coin, because it doesn't have any hole in it." "A person was given two eyes so
that he could see the goodness of his fellow with one eye and his own
blemishes with the other." —R' Meir of Premishlan 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? 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? The Meshech Chachma answers that Moshe's biggest concern was the spies' fear of Amalek. Moshe knew that the other spies would not be influenced by this fear as indicated by their statement that AMALEK LIVES IN THE SOUTH (13:29). However, Yehoshua led the fight against Amalek, and thus feared them more than the others. He, alone, required Moshe's prayer to overcome this fear. (2) The Gemara (Sota 34 quoted by Rashi 13:26) says that just as the spies returned to the people with evil plans, so too, they originally left the people with evil plans. How can this be understood in light of Rashi's earlier comment (13:3) that when they left to perform the mission they were righteous? The Gemara in Kiddushin (40) teaches that G-d treats a good thought as if a good action has been performed. However, a bad thought is not counted unless it actually leads to a bad action in which case one is punished for the thought as well. Based on this Gemara, the Gerrer Rebbe points out that when the spies left, while they had evil thoughts, it was only thoughts and, therefore, they were still righteous. However, once the bad thoughts translated into evil deeds, it reflected back on their original thoughts as well, and they were considered evil at that time. (3) Why didn't Yehoshua join Kalev in trying to calm the fears of the nation in 13:30? The Meshech Chachma explains that one of the major fears of the nation was the fact that Moshe was going to die and not lead the Jews into Israel. (They knew this based on the prophecy of Eldad and Meidad.) Thus, only Calev could persuade them that everything would be satisfactory with Yehoshua as their leader. The people would not have accepted this reassurance from Yehoshua about himself. 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 The wild boar... capable of
causing serious injury and are best avoided... especially mothers protecting
their offspring... almost always have thick, short bristly coats ranging in
colour from brown through grey to black. A prominent ridge of hair matching
the spine is also common, giving rise to the name razorback... tail is
usually short and straight. Wild animals tend also to have longer legs than
domestic breeds and a longer and narrower head and snout ...adult males can
be up to 200kg and have both upper and lower tusks; females do not have
tusks and are around a third smaller on average... live in groups called
sounders. Sounders typically contain around twenty animals... typically
there are two or three sows and their offspring; adult males are not part of
the sounder outside of the autumnal breeding season and are usually found
alone. Birth, called farrowing, usually occurs in the spring; a litter will
typically contain five piglets... usually nocturnal, foraging from dusk
until dawn but with resting periods during both night and day... Wild boar
are found in Israel... CHAZIR BAR, in Hebrew... Since boars don’t have any
sweat glands, they must wallow in the mud to cool off. Wallowing may also
help get rid of fleas and ticks... fast runners and good swimmers... they
eat acorns, hickory nuts, pecans... roots, grass, fruits, mushrooms, bugs,
eggs, and even dead animals... dig up the ground while looking for roots...
excellent sense of smell... poor eyesight, good hearing... The rebels' demise did not pass without a clarification of the real source of power of both Moshe and Aharon (and other public servants, for that matter). For Moshe declares: "Through this [style of death] will you know that Hashem sent me to perform all these acts, that it was not from my heart (B'midbar 16:28). And of Aharon it is written, "It shall be that the man whose name I [G-d] choose - his staff will blossom (ibid. 17:21). Then later, after a stream of prophets and judges had protected the people, and it seemed as if the people were used to the idea of having a divinely spiritual leader in their midst, Bnei Yisrael suddenly wanted their own king (See haftara, Shmuel Alef). The motive, we are told, is that the Jewish populace wanted to be like other nations. They were afraid of Nachash, king of the Children of Amman, and needed someone to take them into battle. Shmuel the Prophet saw right through this plan, however. This king will rule by whim, and will forget the authority of the Book; and the people will lose their trust in G-d. How familiar this all sounds. Paradoxically it took a descendant of Korach, the prophet Shmuel, to champion G-d's sovereignty. Oh that we had a prophet of Shmuel's stature today! Shabbat Shalom, Menachem
Persoff Shivat Tzion, First Return
to Eretz Yisrael (2) Scholars love to write learned articles in prestigious publications about how the northern ten tribes exiled by Assyria were "shot through and through with paganism even before they were exiled in 722 BCE". However a careful reading of our primary sources notes that Yeihu, after he annihilated the House of Omri, "destroyed the Ba'al out of Israel" long before that exile (I Melachim 10:28). By trickery, he had succeeded in gathering the Ba'al worshipers from all Israel into one temple "and smote them with the edge of the sword". In reality, Yeihu's purge was only the culmination of an aroused people in their struggle against pagan gods. Following Eliyahu's victory on Mt. Carmel (II Melachim l8,19:2), though the victorious prophet had to flee from the wrath of Queen Izevel (Jezebel), the prestige of "Ba'alism" fell dramatically and in further confrontations with King Ach'av (Ahab), Eliyahu never had to accuse him of Ba'al worship again. Later we find the king is surrounded by prophets of the G-d of Israel. Many of them were corrupt - "false prophets" - but they do not prophesy in the name of a strange god. After Ach'av's heroic death in battle, he was succeeded his by his worthless son Achaziah who only lasted a year. Achaziah's brother Jehoram, upon ascending the throne of Israel, began to distance himself from Ba'al worship. "And he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord; but not like his father and his mother; for he put away the pillar of Ba'al that his father had made." Though Jehoram removed royal patronage from the Ba'al cult, he still had to contend with the all-pervasive influence of his murderous mother who was still alive. Nevertheless, Jehoram, the scion of Izevel and Ach'av, would ask Geichazi the servant of Elisha, Eliyahu's successor, "Tell me… all the great things that Elisha has done" (II Melachim 8:4). Elisha doomed the House of Omri (Ach'av's father) to destruction not because of Ba'al worship; the House of Omri was condemned to destruction because of the judicial murder of Navot and the prophets. Eliyahu told Ach'av, "Thus saith the Lord, 'In the place where the dogs licked the blood of Navot, they shall lick your blood… I will cut off from Ahab every man-child… " And then, surprisingly, the Navi partially absolved Ach'av of guilt by pinpointing Izevel as the real source of evil - "whom Izevel his wife stirred up." When, at the behest of Elisha, Yeihu was secretly being anointed as king, he was charged, "And thou shalt smite the house of Ach'av thy master that I may avenge the blood of my servants the prophets and the blood of all the servants of the Lord at the hand of Izevel. For the whole house of Ahab (Omri's father) shall perish…" (II Melachim 9:7,8). Later, while Yeihu was murdering Jehoram, he mouthed slogans against the "harlotries" and "witch crafts" of his mother Izevel and that the judicial murder of Navot was being avenged, but he never accused the hapless Jehoram himself of committing any sin at all! The fact is that during the entire 200 year span of existence of the Northern kingdom, idols were worshipped publicly under royal protection for only 20 years. (Note. Similar to the "image of Micha", the "golden calves" in Bethel and Dan were accoutrements of unsanctioned worship of the G-d of Israel. Debased in our eyes perhaps, nevertheless, strictly speaking the calves were not Avoda Zara. Yeihu does not destroy them nor do Eliyahu and Elisha or any other northern prophets before Hoshea denounce them. Nor were there ever "calf-prophets".) Public worship of Ba'al existed only during the reign of Ach'av and Izevel and his son Achaziah. Jehoram who succeeded his brother on the throne of Israel was in the process of "phasing out "Ba'alism". In fact no one accused Jehoram of Ba'al worship at all! In their wonderings through the countryside, Eliyahu and Elisha never encounter Ba'al worshippers; Ba'al worship was a phenomenon strictly limited to the Queen and her coterie. Would Elisha would have been the confidant of three of Yeihu's now royal descendants had they been idolaters? Hardly. A careful analysis of the prophecies in Amos, Yeshayahu, and Micha reveals that there is no reference to the sin of Ba'al worship. The prophet Hoshea refers to Ba'al worship only as a sin of the past. When the northern Kingdom of Israel fell in 722 BCE, the deported northern Israelites did not take the Ba'al with them into exile. Sefer Melachim notes that
Hoshea, the last king of Israel before the Assyrian exile, "…did evil in the
eyes of the Lord but not as the kings of Israel before him (II Melachim
17:2). The Gemara says that he "removed the guards that Jeroboam the son of
Nevat (the first king of the northern kingdom) placed on the roads to
prevent Israel from going on pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Tana'it 30b). Probably
he removed the golden calves that Jeroboam I had set up in his Bethel temple
long before. When the Judean King Yoshiayahu later destroyed this schismatic
shrine, there were no calves! Had they still been there, the author of
Melachim certainly would have gloated over their destruction. (To replace
the deported Israelites, the Assyrians transplanted colonists "from Babylon,
and from Cutha, and from Avva, and from Hamath and Sepharvaim and placed
them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel" (II Kings
17: 24). With the aid of an Israelite priest, this potpourri of aliens - who
later called themselves Samaritans and claimed to be "Israelites" - evolved
a syncretic form of worship which also retained traces of paganism.
Eventually the Israelitish element became dominant. It is noteworthy that
the Israelite priest did not instruct the Samaritans in a "calf-cult".In
short, the ten tribes took neither the Ba'al nor some sort of a "calf cult"
with them into exile; they had cleansed themselves of those sins long
before.) The prophet Yirmiyahu describes G-d's acceptance of the exiled
northern tribe's repentance and Tziduk Hadin in some of the most beautiful
Pesukim in all of Tanach."I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself;
Thou hast chastised me and I was chastened, As a calf untrained, turn Thou
me and I shall be turned, for Thou art the Lord my G-d. Surely after that I
was turned and repented … I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did
nor bear the reproach of my youth" (31:17,18)…Is Ephraim a darling son unto
Me? …I do earnestly remember him still … I will surely have compassion
upon', saith the Lord." Later "men of the people of Israel", hailing from
northern cities, joined Zerubavel when he returned to Jerusalem. (I Divrei
Hayamim 9:3)". <to be continued> 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 Korach Homepage]
|
