A: Shemot 21:15 lists striking one's parent as a capital offense, and the gemara (Sanhedrin 84b) says that that is when he causes a CHABURA (wound). The gemara then asks whether one is permitted to let blood (a medical practice at that time) for his parent. Two derivations from the Torah are brought to show that when the action is done in a positive context, it is permitted. Yet the gemara relates that Amora'im would not allow their sons to perform certain procedures, fearing that they might accidentally make a wound, which is a serious transgression. Regarding some- one other than a parent, where the sin of injuring is less severe, it is permitted to draw blood despite the fear of injury. The gemara's conclusion seems to be that it should have been permitted for a child to perform medical procedures that include puncturing his parent's body, but that we instruct him to refrain. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 241:3) rules unequivocally that a child should not let his parent's blood or remove a splinter. However, the Rama (ad loc.), based on the Rambam, adds that if the child is the only one available to do the procedure, he should do so.

Let us apply this general, halachic back- ground to our specific case. Several poskim discuss injections for parents, including four responsa that open Gesher HaChayim, vol. II. We will summarize the main indicators for leniency and try to come to some conclusion.

Gesher HaChayim (ibid.) raises the point that, halachically, a CHABURA must include some spilled blood or blood that accumulates under the skin. The gemara's conclusion, which was meant to be only a stringency (Bach on Yoreh De'ah 241) was concerned about a mistake, but perhaps it was designed for a case of a definite wound, with the mistake being that it went beyond the therapeutic need. If there is only a small chance of a wound at all it is possible that the stringency does not apply (The probability of blood depends on where the injection is done and other factors).

Minchat Chinuch (#48) claims that if a father asks his son to wound him, the son is not bound by the prohibition of striking a parent. Some (including R. Sh. Z. Ohrbach, cited in Gesher HaChayim, ibid.) raise a possibility that this enables a father to say he agrees that his son treat him, even if it includes unnecessary damage. This suggestion is problematic on a few grounds. The Rivash (#484) says that permission only exempts some- one from damage payments but cannot permit causing bodily damage. Igrot Moshe (CM II, 64) says that one can ask someone to cause a non-medical but helpful wound, but he cannot ask his child to do so. Furthermore ,it is unlikely that the parent does not mind if the child injures him unnecessarily. His main intention is, even if he says otherwise, to permit a proper job, and halacha is concerned that he may not. It is also quite clear that the early authorities did not accept the Minchat Chinuch's approach.

Ashkenazim can rely on the Rama's ruling that if no one else can do the treatment, then the child may. It is unlikely that no one else can do injections. However, poskim discuss the parameters of availability in this context. Some suggest that the prospect that the child can do it for free, whereas others will charge, maybe sufficient (see Gesher Hachayim ibid. and Chelkat Yaakov, YD 131). (This point is too complex to do justice in this forum.) Sometimes the chance of reliable treatment is improved by the child's ability to provide the service himself (see Minchat Yitzchak I, 27).

In summation, Sefardim should make every effort to find an alternative to a child injecting his parent. For Ashkenazim, one should do whatever system is best for the patient's welfare, but the child should avoid doing injections when comparable alternatives exist. One should consult a local rabbi in borderline cases.
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
Sometimes we do not accept the truth precisely because it is so obvious. Our reasoning is that something so obvious could not fail to have been recognized and accepted by all humanity, and that, therefore, we must be making some mistake in our appraisal of it. And our reasoning is wrong.
From A Candle by Day by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein

[3] CHIZUK and IDUD (for Olim & not-yet-Olim respectively)
P'kudei, the last sedra in the book of Sh'mot, summarizes the account of the construction of the Mishkan. The opening verse reads: "These are the accounts of the Mishkan, the Mishkan of witness..."

Rashi explains the repetition of the word Mishkan with a play on words - "Mishkan," meaning Tabernacle, and "Mashkon," denoting a pledge given as security for a debt. He writes that the repetition alludes to the two Temples which were pledged by their destruction due to the sins of Israel.

Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin, in his commentary to the Torah "Oznayim LaTorah," explains the use of the word pledge in reference to the destruction of the two Temples by way of an analogy to the everyday world of commerce. When a person suffers a financial setback and finds himself unable to provide for his daily needs, he may react in various different ways. A person who has no hope for improvement will sell his possessions. However, one who is hopeful about the future will pledge his possessions and take loans, because he is confident that better times lay ahead of him and that he will be able to redeem his pledges.

The history of the Jewish people includes periods of spiritual wealth as well as periods of spiritual poverty. The latter led to Divine punishment, the loss of the Temple and exile from the land of Israel. But these losses are temporary. As stated by Rashi in Pekudei, they are pledges to be redeemed - speedily in our days - Amen.

Isaac Tarshansky, Har Homa, Jerusalem
TORAH THOUGHTS as contributed by Aloh Naaleh members for publication in the Orthodox Union's 'Torah Insights', a weekly Torah publication on Parshat Ha'Shavuah

[4] Three-Torah Shabbatot
With this coming Shabbat being Sh'kalim and Rosh Chodesh, in addition to Parshat P'kudei, we will be reading from three Torahs. Here, then, is almost everything you ever wanted to know about 3-Torah Shabbatot [3TSh], and probably more.

Simchat Torah is always a 3-Torah day, but it isn't always on Shabbat, In Chutz LaAretz, it NEVER is. In Eretz Yisrael, Simchat Torah falls on Shabbat 28½% of the time (when- ever Rosh HaShana is Shabbat).

The next possible 3TSh is Shabbat Chanuka, when Rosh Chodesh Tevet is Shabbat. (Specifically, it is 30 Kislev - first day of Rosh Chodesh Tevet - that can be Shabbat; the first of Tevet does not fall on Shabbat.) This happens 28% of the time - never in the same year as Simchat Torah on Shabbat.

The final two candidates for 3TSh are Sh'kalim and HaChodesh when their Rosh Chodesh (Adar or Adar Sheni for Sh'kalim and Nissan for HaChodesh) falls on Shabbat. HaChodesh is a 3TSh 28% of the years, and Sh'kalim, only 11½% of the time (including this year). 3TSh for Sh'kalim happens in the same year-types as Triple Purim and Erev Pesach on Shabbat.

In Chutz LaAretz, 42½% of years have no 3TSh, and 10% have two (Chanuka and HaChodesh). Years with 3TSh are slightly more common than ones without.
In Eretz Yisrael, 3TSh are very common. Only 18% of years have no 3TSh. Over 14% have two. (In addition to Chanuka and HaChodesh, there is also one year-type with Simchat Torah and Sh'kalim.)

On the lighter side...
Some have a minhag of making one kugel for each Torah that is read from on Shabbat and Yom Tov. That is, one kugel on a regular Shabbat; two kugels on Yom Tov, Shabbat Rosh Chodesh, Shabbat Chanuka, Arba Parshiyot, Shabbat Purim; and three kugels on a 3TSh.

On the lighter side of the lighter side... (Pre-Purim Torah)

There is a difference of opinion as to whether different kugels that are made from the same major ingredient are counted separately in the kugel-count. Even those who hold that two different potato kugels, for example, cannot be counted separately, all would agree that Yerushalmi kugel and a noodle kugel can be counted separately, provided that the noodle kugel uses wider noodles than those in the Yerushalmi kugel. If there are raisins or chunks of pineapple in the sweet noodle kugel, then it can be counted on its own, even if the noodles are the same width as those in the Yerushalmi kugel.

There is a question as to whether a PASHTIDA (broccoli, spinach, sweet potato, etc.) can count for this minhag, if the PASHTIDA in question is not usually referred to as KUGEL.

In cases of doubt, do not ask a Rav - he'll probably think you started your Purim drinking a little too early this year.

[5] A Touch of Wisdom, A Touch of Wit
R' Zundel of Salant was once being driven in a horse-drawn cart. When they came to a field full of hay, the driver stopped said to R' Zundel:
"Please keep watch for me while I get some hay for my horse."
R' Zundel remained silent.
The driver got off the cart. As he picked up a load of hay, R' Zundl called out:
"They're watching! They're watching!"
The driver dropped the hay and ran back to the cart. He jumped onto his seat, and in no time at all he had the horse galloping away at full speed. As he drove away he turned and looked around. He saw no one there.
"You lied to me," he said reprovingly.
"Heaven forbid," said R' Zundel. "I told you the truth. They were watching."
"Who," asked the driver. "I didn't see a soul."
"Up there," said R' Zundel, pointing up to the heavens.

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] New Feature: Parsha Points to Ponder - for Parshat P'kudei:
1) Why does the Torah use the repetitive language, "And the Jews did according to all that G-d commanded to Moshe, like this they did" (39:32) upon the completion of the Mishkan?

2) Chazal teach that every day of the consecration of the Mishkan Moshe dismantled it and rebuilt it. Why did he do this?

3) How do we understand the Midrash that states that the Mishkan assembled itself miraculously in light of the Torah's statement that Moshe built the Mishkan (40:18)?

Last week's Parsha Points to Ponder
(1) Why are the Jews referred to as ADAT BNEI YISRAEL in the beginning of Vayak-hel?
The positive commandments of Shabbos are time bound mitzvos which women are usually exempt from. Ramban teaches that the words "the congregation" comes to specifically include women in these command.

(2) Why does the Torah emphasize that the 7th day "will be holy FOR YOU" (35:2)?
The Chida answers that this teaches us to imbue the aspects of Shabbos which are seemingly for our physical pleasure, with holiness.

(3) Why is Betzalel's name associated with the ARON, and only with the Aron?
The Meshech Chochma explains that Betzalel is only credited with making the Aron since it is the only vessel which will last for all time without a replacement being needed.

Parsha Points to Ponder is prepared by Rabbi Dov Lipman of Beit Shemesh. Answers may be submitted to him at:ppp@israelcenter.co.il Answers will appear next week.

[7] Divrei Menachem
Parshat P'kudei is like a prologue. For as we transcend the pages we take a final look at the completion of the Mishkan. We are once again mesmerized as the descriptions of the various appurtenances unfold before our eyes in a flurry of turquoise, purple and scarlet, odem, sapir and yahalom and braided craftsmanship of pure gold.

The weavers finished their craft and then: "All the work… was completed… and Bnei Yisrael did everything that Hashem commanded Moshe - so they did. (Shmot 39:32).

And again in verse 43: "Kein Asu" - and so they did. In fact three times the Torah repeats that Bnei Yisrael did exactly as commanded in building the Mishkan.
Ohr HaChaim explains that the apparent redundancy alludes to the three components of the Sin of the Golden Calf. These were denial of Torah in deed (worship of the calf); in speech (calling it a god); and in thought (believing it had divine power). In performing the duties of building the Mishkan exactly as Hashem instructed, the people repented these three elements: In deed, by contributing the materials of which the Mishkan was made; in speech, by declaring they were doing this for the sake of Heaven; and in thought, by exercising their intelligence to the task.

No wonder that immediately afterwards the people deserved Moshe's blessing as represented in the psalm that he composed: "May the pleasantness of my Lord be upon us… [and] may He establish our handiwork for us (Psalm 90:17).
Shabbat Shalom, Menachem Persoff