MISC section - contents:
[1] Vebbe Rebbe
[2] Candle by Day
[3] From Aloh Naaleh
[4] MicroUlpan
[5] A Touch of Wisdom, A Touch of Wit
[6] Parsha Points to Ponder
[7] Treasures in the Sand
[8] G'matriya Match
[9] Divrei Menachem

[1] From the virtual desk of the OU VEBBE REBBE
The Orthodox Union – via its website – fields questions of all types in areas of kashrut, Jewish law and values. Some of them are answered by Eretz Hemdah, the Institute for Advanced Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, headed by Rav Yosef Carmel and Rav Moshe Ehrenreich, founded by HaRav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l, to prepare rabbanim and dayanim to serve the National Religious community in Israel and abroad. Ask the Rabbi is a joint venture of the OU, Yerushalayim Network, Eretz Hemdah... and the Israel Center. The following is a Q&A from Eretz Hemdah...

Q: When do we burn or otherwise get rid of the chametz before Pesach this year, when Erev Pesach falls on Shabbat? How does this situation affect mechirat (sale of) chametz?
A: The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 444:2) writes: "It is good to eliminate [chametz] on Erev Shabbat before midday [apparently an hour before midday- Mishna Berura 444:9] so that people do not come to make a mistake in other years to eliminate the chametz after midday." Despite this, one may leave the amount of chametz that he plans to eat through the [early] Shabbat morning meal (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.:1). This "halachic request" is not an absolute halacha and should not create a situation whereby, due to haste, one might miss some chametz.

The question of mechirat chametz is more complicated, and there are different possibilities and practices. The individual follows the system the local rabbinate is using. However, it is worth- while to understand the issue, not only for the sake of Limud Torah, but also to act appropriately in accordance with the local practice's particulars.

Acharonim discuss whether the desire to follow the time frame of regular years applies also to mechirat chametz. Is selling the chametz an accepted form of eliminating it, in which case it should be done at the regular time? Or is it a use of the chametz (as if one did so for profit), which one can continue to do as long as he can benefit from it? (See Maharam Shick, OC 205.) According to the stringent approach, the rabbi should carry out the sale to the non-Jew on behalf of his congregation during the latter part of Friday morning. However, stringency sometimes causes more halachic problems than it solves. Those who continue during the afternoon to deal with their chametz (e.g. stores) and those who decide to add chametz to that which is to be sold, which they had previously not expected to sell, will unknowingly miss the sale for those chametz products. Therefore, most rabbanim will not rely on only an early sale, and, if they want to be machmir, will add a later one to cover last minute issues that the first one missed.

There is a further question as to how late is late. Some say that when doing the sale on Friday, the rav can stipulate with the seller, orally and in the document, that the sale will take effect soon before the time that chametz becomes forbidden in benefit - namely, on Shabbat. This can conceivably be done in one of two ways. The sale can take effect on delay to Shabbat morning. It may also be possible to have it take effect at the time of the transaction on Erev Shabbat, but the items to be included in the sale will be determined retroactively according to what remains in the seller's possession on Shabbat. Either way, one cannot include chametz that he did not own when the acts of transactions took place [see P'ninat Mishpat]. The prospect that the transaction will take hold on Shabbat is controversial, even if he is inactive on Shabbat, because R. Akiva Eiger (Shut 159) and others say that it is a violation of the prohibition of commerce on Shabbat.

Rabbanim who do not want the sale to be completed on Shabbat can have it take effect soon before Shabbat. This can be done in one of two ways. It can be done on a time delay, in which case the rabbi can pick a time that is very close to Shabbat. If he is concerned that this type of sale might not be able to be done on a delay, he can actually do the transaction as close to Shabbat as feasible. In these cases, the chametz owner must be aware by what time he must decide whether he is selling a chametz food or keeping it for Shabbat, as he cannot add it in later.

Let us reiterate that the local rabbinate will be the one to choose, based on halachic and/or practical considerations, which system to use. [We hope our readers will understand and implement the basic nuances of the system used in their location. See also P'ninat Mishpat.]

Ed. note: TACHLIS - Burn chameitz by 11:14 on Friday morning (S'faradim: 10:43am). Deadline for eating chameitz on Shabbat morning 9:54am. Bitul (nullification) on Shabbat morning by 11:14am. The 9:54am deadline for eating chameitz should be used for egg matza as well.

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

[2] Candle by Day
Our minds must mediate between our eyes and our souls.
From A Candle by Day by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein

[3] CHIZUK and IDUD (for Olim & not-yet-Olim respectively)
The houses of Jerusalem do not become defiled through nega'im" (Baba Kama 82b).

The Talmud explains that the houses in Jerusalem were not subject to the leprous spots described in this week's parsha because, as the Torah says (14:34), "And I will bring the plague of leprosy in the house of the land of your possession." Only a house on land parceled out to one of the tribes is subject to this affliction. But since Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes, its houses were impervious to this form of punishment.
What difference does it make whether Jerusalem belonged to an individual tribe or to all the tribes of Israel? If its inhabitants deserved tzara'at on their houses, they should have been afflicted with it.

Perhaps the Torah is telling us something about the power of unity. It is not that Jerusalem did not belong to any individual tribe, but that it belonged to all the tribes. It was everyone's capital and everyone had a right to it - and an obligation. The obligation was to preserve the unity of Jerusalem; to keep it whole, undivided; to buttress the achdut, the oneness and spiritual focus upon which the rest of the nation could build.

An individual might have deserved the terrible affliction of tzara'at, but the power of the Klal, the fact that all of the tribes gave a part of themselves to this city, was sufficient merit to counter personal sin, even something as serious as speaking evil.

If only we could all give a little of ourselves to Jerusalem, then no affliction in heaven or on earth would be able to taint its glory or disturb the "peace of Jerusalem."
Yaacov Peterseil, Jerusalem

[4] MicroUlpan
What do you call a strip of cloth that is tied over one's eyes, as in Pin-the-Tail on the Donkey? Blindfold! And in Hebrew? Hint: Same word for a mask worn over the eyes in a costume. A'FER

[5] A Touch of Wisdom, A Touch of Wit
Just before Pesach a man came to R' Yoshe Ber of Brisk with a question: "Rebbe, is it permitted to use four cups of milk instead of the customary four cups of wine for the Pesach seder?"

"Are you, Heaven forbid, sick?" asked the Rav.

"No, I'm fine, thank G-d," said the man, "but," and here his voice dropped, "wine is very expensive this year."
Calling in his wife, R' Yoshe Ber told her to give the man 25 rubles.

"Rebbe," the man protested, "I came to ask you a question of law, not to ask for a donation."

This money," said R' Yoshe Ber persuasively, "is a loan until such a time as you can afford to repay me."
Eventually the man took the money and left.

After the man had gone, his wife asked, "Why did you give him 25 rubles? Even the best wine doesn't cost more than two or three rubles."

"I assume you heard his question, didn't you?" said R' Yoshe Ber to his wife. "He wanted to know if he could use four cups of milk instead of wine. If he had been able to buy what he needed for Pesach, he would have had fish and meat at his table, and then he wouldn't have been able to have milk at all. I understood that he had none of the necessities, and had him take 25 rubles to buy whatever he lacked."

Shmuel Himelstein has written a wonderful series for ArtScroll: Words of Wisdom, Words of Wit; A Touch of Wisdom, A Touch of Wit; and" Wisdom and Wit" — available at your local Jewish bookstore (or should be).
Excerpted with the permission of the copyright holder

[6] Parsha Points to Ponder -for Parshat Shemini and Para:
1)Why does the Torah seemingly contradict itself by first stating that the metzora is brought to the Kohein (14:2) and then relating that the Kohein goes out to the metzora (14:3)?
2) Why must the metzora shave his hair, beard and eyebrows as part of his cleansing process?
3) Following the laws of tzara'as, the Torah introduces the laws of the impurity of the "zav." It does so with the words "Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them." (15:2) Why weren't the laws of tzara'as - in both this week's Parsha and Parshat Tazria - introduced with a specific command to tell the Jewish people as well?

Last week's Parsha Points to Ponder
(1) A first born son is redeemed after 30 days because at this point it is established that the child is a viable being. Why, then, do we wait only eight days before circumcising a child as described in the beginning of this week's Parsha (12:3)?
Tosefes Bracha answers that it is assumed that most children are viable beings and for a mitzva like circumcision we follow the majority. However, redeeming the first born entails a financial obligation for the father and the halacha teaches that in situations that require monetary expenditures we do not follow the majority. Thus, we must wait 30 days.
(2) Why does the Torah first call the children that are born "male" and "female" (12:3 and 12:5) and then switch to the terms "son" and "daughter" (12:6)?
Meshech Chachma states that the child has not been established as a viable being prior to the 30th day and cannot be called a "son" or a "daughter" until then. Thus, it is simply labeled as "male" or "female". However, once 30 days pass, the term "son" and "daughter" is used.
3) Why do we no longer experience the skin afflictions like tzaraat which is described in this week's Parsha?
Alshich teaches that these afflictions occurred because the holiness in their bodies could not tolerate the sins and the body pushed them out. This manifested itself in growths on the skin. Nowadays, we lack this high level of holiness and, therefore, our bodies do not have the same adverse reaction.

Parsha Points to Ponder is prepared by Rabbi Dov Lipman of Beit Shemesh. ppp@israelcenter.co.il

[7] Treasures in the Sand
Ed. note: Based on the phrase from V'ZOT HAB'RACHA, US'FUNEI T'MUNEI CHOL, I have usually appried the description "Treasures in the Sand" to the many interesting G'matriya Twins or G'matriya Matches I have stumbled upon while "playing" with one computer search program or another. It is like walking along the beach and your toe, absent- mindedly probing in the sand, happens upon a pretty shell or some other object of interest or curiosity. Many times, I will search for different words, phrases, or p'sukim, without a specific goal in mind, and happen upon something interesting.

The word KOHEIN (with or without prefixes) shows up in Tanach over 400 times. By far, the place where more KOHEIN occur than any other place is the book of Vayikra. That is to be expected. 186 times, to be specific. (Not counting KOHANIM, of which there are only 10 in Vayikra - surprisingly few.) Of the 186, 41 are in the sedra of Vayikra, an amazing 57 in Tazri'a (it is only 67 p'sukim long), and 45 in M'tzora's 90 p'sukim. Shmini and B'har have none, K'doshim only one, and Acharei has 4. Again, 102 in Tazri'a-M'tzora, very high number. Aharon is mentioned 80 times in Vayikra; Moshe Rabeinu 79. What do you think of that?

[8]  G'matriya Match
The search for g'matriya matches is mostly done with TES's Torah Codes 2000 program. It starts with "blocking" a pasuk from the sedra and pasting it into the G'matriya Lookup feature of the program. Then comes a request to find whole p'sukim in Tanach that have the same g'matriya as the pasuk (or word/phrase) pasted in. Sometimes the results lead to something to say - most times not. Take, for example, Vayikra 14:26 (from M'tzora):
U'MIN HASHEMEN YITZOK HAKOHEN AL KAF HAKOHEN HAS'MALIT

It is one of the details of the purification of the Metzora. One detail of many. But look what pasuk it matches:
ZACHOR ET UOM HASHABBAT L'KADSHO -Little detail and major concept. For us there is an equality. Maybe. And T'hilim 115:15 also matches. Keep the concepts and the details, and you are worthy of 115:15. Take a look.

[9]  Divrei Menachem
Parshat Metzora discusses the various maladies that, in Biblical times, could affect a person's house, garment or skin. Metzora is not the physical ailment leprosy; rather it was a sign of contamination that reflected spiritual degradation. Metzora was the negative consequence that befell an individual who was remiss in the areas of worldliness, pride and slander.

The rabbis tell us that Metzora is an acronym for "Motzi Shem Ra", one who speaks evil about others. As indicated, this usually stems from haughtiness that in turn may result from the self-satisfied stance of one who takes his material well-being for granted. Consequently, the stages of purification reflected the need to temporarily isolate the person from society and symbolized the contrast between the individual's supposed high ground and the desired new level of humility.

For the "Akeida", what is primarily at stake is the degree to which we value speech. As beings in whom G-d breathed His spirit, we could well reflect on Yeshayahu's proclamation that, "The grass withers, the flower fades/But the word of our G-d shall stand forever" (Yeshayahu 40:8). Our external selves are but temporary. The "Word of G-d", however, is our divinely bestowed power of speech that is everlasting. Thus, to abuse speech is to distort Creation's purpose; to venerate speech is to further Hashem's will in this world.

Shabbat Shalom, Menachem Persoff