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] ADAR ALEF
[7] From the desk of the director

[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...

In honor of our parasha, which is full of monetary issues, including those discussed below, we share a question that arose in an informal din Torah that came before us.

Q: Reuven and Shimon traveled together. Reuven allowed Shimon to put valuables, which, Shimon is sure included a 50NIS bill, in one of the compartments of his backpack. Before getting on a bus, Shimon ripped the zipper while opening up the compartment but left his items inside. (Reuven was able to fix the zipper on the bus). When they reached their destination, Shimon found all of his items except the 50NIS bill. Suggested versions of what might have happened to the money include that Shimon did not put in the money or took it out, it fell out, or it was stolen. The two disagree only on interpretation of events, and do not accuse each other of lying. Is Reuven responsible to pay for losing the money?

A: A SHOMER CHINAM (an unpaid watchmen) is exempt when the object is lost or stolen but is liable if that occurred due to P'SHIYA (negligence). There are two main points of contention to clarify. [We had to omit other, smaller issues in this forum]. One is whether Reuven was a SHOMER or just a "carrier," a matter they had not discussed. The second is whether the money's disappearance was due to P'SHIYA after the zipper opened, as Shimon claims, or whether Reuven watched it reasonably. Only if both points are decided to Reuven's detriment will he have to pay.

Status as SHOMER - There is a dispute among Tana'im (mishna in Bava Kama 47b) whether when one allows his friend to put his animal in the former's pen without further stipulation, the former accepts responsibility for the animal or whether he just gives permission without accepting responsibility. The gemara (Bava Metzia81b) suggests that this is a global MACHLOKET whether one who agrees to receive control over another's property becomes obligated as a SHOMER without explicit agreement to that status. It concludes that more local, psychological factors may explain the various positions in their specific context.

To skip to the bottom line of the halacha, Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 291:2) rules that when the wording of the agreement is "plain", the one who ends up with the object does not receive the responsibilities of a SHOMER. However, he continues that if Levi agreed for Yehuda to place his shoes on Levi's donkey before Levi went alone to another city, then, since the shoes are in a precarious situation if not cared for, we presume that Levi accepted responsibility and did not only give permission to put the shoes on his donkey. Despite similarities to our case, the rationale of the Rosh, the source of this halacha, shows differences. Since our Shimon accompanies Reuven, Reuven likely intended that Shimon retain responsibility that his items not be lost, especially since, at the time he put them in the knapsack, it seemed unnecessary for Reuven to give them further thought. Although the situation became more complex when the zipper broke, the parties' accounts indicate that Reuven did not intend to accept a new status of SHOMER as a result.

Was there P'SHIYA? - Reuven is adamant that he was sufficiently careful under the circumstances that arose, whereas Shimon feels that he was apparently not. Ordinarily, a SHOMER has to take a Torah-level oath that he was not negligent and since we avoid oaths, this may be grounds for monetary compromise.

However, in this case, neither friend accuses the other of lying, but sees the apparently borderline case differently. (Had there been clear P'SHIYA, Shimon would have taken back his items and/or checked earlier if they were still there, as he generally saw Reuven's actions during the time in question.) Regarding a doubt whether there was P'SHIYA, a SHOMER is exempt from paying (see K'tzotz HaChoshen 340:4).

Based on indications (albeit not fully conclusive ones) on both issues, and certainly given the convergence of the two, there are not grounds to require Reuven to pay.

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
How much more beauty a believing person sees in the world, in his realization that what he sees is INTENDED as beauty, and is not merely an accident of atoms. - From A Candle by Day by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein

[3] CHIZUK and IDUD (for Olim & not-yet-Olim respectively)
At the end of this week's sedra, God informs the Jewish people about their entry into the Land of Israel. He tells them that the nations inhabiting the land will be chased out gradually, so as to ensure that the land doesn't turn desolate as it becomes populated by the Jews. God then forbids the Jewish people to worship the idols that they will find in the land, and commands them to refrain from replicating the actions of its current inhabitants. A number of questions may be raised: Since all idol worship is prohibited, what is the significance of these additional warnings? And since this worship is so repugnant to God, one would have thought that the quicker these nations are removed from the land, the better! Why do it slowly?
In answer to the first question, the Or Hachaim Hakadosh explains that the Torah comes here to prohibit activities that are not actually idolatrous, but nevertheless part of the culture of an idolatrous society. The Netziv explains further that there was a special danger of following a system that had been in place and had worked for the inhabitants of the land which the Jews would now take over. After their victory, they might find it appropriate to imitate the local forms of worship, redirecting those activities towards God. The Torah comes to teach us that in the Land of Israel, no foreign influences should taint the purity of Jewish life.
And yet, God allows these people, corrupt as they may be, to remain until they are replaced by Jews behaving in accordance with the Torah, since desolation and abandonment of the Land of Israel create such an undesirable situation.
It appears that God does not allow a vacuum in the Land of Israel. Foreign inhabitants of the land are only removed as their place is filled by Jews. And those Jews should be populating the land with lives and a society that are built on authentic service to God.
Rabbi Shaya Karlinsky, Jerusalem

[4] MicroUlpan
How do you say FICTION in Hebrew?
Literature = SAFRUT
Fiction = SIPORET
without vowels, SIPHORET
Science Fiction = SIPORET MADA

What do you call the dish made of noodles, rice, vegetables, fruit, meat or cheese and whipped eggs that rises during baking to a delicate, fluffy consistency? SOUFFLÉ. In Hebrew? T'FICHA

[5] A Touch of Wisdom, A Touch of Wit
R' Menachem David of Amshinov came to a rich man to persuade him to help a relative who was deeply in debt. The rich man turned him down. "What do I have to do with him?" he asked. "We are only distant relatives."
"Excuse me," R' Menachem-David asked, "Do you pray every day?"
"What? Do you think that I am not observant?"
"Well, if you do pray," R' Menachem David went on, "could you tell me how the Shemoneh Esrei prayer begins?"
The man bristled. "A school child can answer that", he said. "It begins with 'Hashem of Avraham, Hashem of Yitzchak and Hashem of Yaakov.'"
"Well, who are Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov?" persisted R' Menachem-David.
Now the man was really angry: "Those are obviously our forefathers!"
"When did our forefathers live?" went on R' Menachem-David.
"Thousands of years ago," said the man.
"Let's see now," said R' Menachem David. "They are extremely distant relatives of yours, yet you mention them three times a day and ask to benefit from their good deeds."

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] WILL THE REAL ADAR PLEASE STAND UP
MISHENICHNAS ADAR (ALEF) MARBIN B'SIMCHA?
An important question. Even with MITZVA GEDOLA to be B'SIMCHA always, we still have to know in which months to increase our JOY.
Rav Yoel Schwartz in his ADAR UPU- RIM suggests that based on the statement in the Mishna Megila - the only difference between the first Adar and the second Adar is Megila Reading and the Four Parshiyot - it would seem that increasing our joy belongs in the first Adar as well as the one containing Purim. In fact, the existence of Purim Katan and Shushan Purim Katan in Adar Alef, even though they are extremely low key, indicates that Purim's joy belongs to both Adars.
Rav Schwartz does bring one opinion that MISHENICHNAS only goes for the first Adar.

Let us suggest that we be strict with ourselves and increase our joy in the first Adar as well.

Aside from the issue of increased joy, there are other reasons to decide which Adar is the "real" one. Bar/Bat Mitzva and L'havdil, yahrzeit are halachic issues in need of an answer.

The yahrzeit of a person who died in either of two Adars, is observed in the specific Adar when there are two, and in the one Adar in a 12-month year.

For the yahrzeit of a person who died in a regular Adar, there are different opinions and the Ashkenazi practice is to observe the yahrzeit in both Adars. This includes fasting twice IF that is one's custom and IF one is able enough to fast in both Adars. A Rav should be consulted for a personal P'sak - not the generic one here.

A boy who was born in a single Adar and reaches the age of mitzvot in a 2-Adar year, should not read the Torah for the kahal until the date in the second Adar, but probably has to be strict with T'filin, Nedarim, et al from the date in the first Adar.
More IY"H next week

[7] Divrei Menachem
Parshat Mishpatim is essentially a collection of commands (Mishpatim) in the realm of Mitzvot Bein Adam LeChavero - laws that relate to a Man and his fellow. On reflection, we might think that we could have deduced many of these through our own sense of right and wrong.

Thus when our parsha opens with the statement from Hashem to Moshe declaring: "And these are the ordinances that you shall place before them", we are instantly con- fronted with the question as to the degree of authority invested in the laws. So we need Rashi to step in, as it were, to instruct us that the word "And" binds these laws to the previous commands: Just as they were given at Sinai so were these.

Now our inclination would be to play down human reason: what matters is that we fulfill the will of G-d. Indeed, we declare daily: "You have taught us Torah and mitzvot, statutes and ordinances", whereby we band these "logical" Mishpatim with the unfathomable Chukim (statutes).

Nevertheless, G-d insisted that Moshe place the laws before the people, teaching their underlying principles so that they would better apply them according to circumstances (cf. Rashi). It seems then that the challenge in our rational age is how to observe the Mishpatim unconditionally, even when we claim to understand their rationale.
Shabbat Shalom, Menachem Persoff