MISC section - contents:
[1] Vebbe Rebbe
[2] Touch of Wisdom; Touch of Wit
[3] Candle by Day
[4] MicroUlpan
[5] Torah from Nature
[6] Maariv
[8] STD
[9] 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...
Ed. note: Thanks to the Vebbe Rebbe for his addition last week about the Shabbat Door Knocker as a clarification on the Q&A from the week before. Although the VR said he has never seen one, we (TT) did here from someone who has one, and it is labeled "for Shabbat use only".

Q When disbursing the funds I give as ma'aser kesafim (the laudable practice of giving 10% of one's net earnings to tzedaka - VR), I am torn between giving smaller amounts to all who send requests and giving larger donations to fewer institutions.

A There are different classical sources that stress different arguments on the serious question you raise. One can apply the values found in those sources to our present-day situation and, with some common sense, arrive at a reasonably balanced strategy.

The gemara (Eruvin 63a) strongly criticizes one who gives all of the donations that should be going to kohanim to one kohen. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 257:9) extends this rule to tzedaka, saying that one should not give all to only one poor person. Several other sources follow this direction, but there seem to be two main reasons for dispersing tzedaka among several recipients. The Bach (Orach Chayim 695), in explaining why we must give matanot la'evyonim to at least two people, says that it is important to bring sustenance to as many people as possible. Rambam, on the mishna in Pikei Avot (3:15) that says that "it all follows the amount of action", says that one's attribute of generosity is developed more by giving more times to more people. Thus, while both encourage giving to multiple recipients, the former source stresses the physical welfare of the recipient, and the latter focuses on the spiritual welfare of the donor.

On the other hand, there are sources that stress the importance of giving to fewer recipients in the hope of reaching the higher level of helping a person or organization to reach the level of "dei machsoro" (enough to fill his needs) (see Tzedaka U'Mishpat 3:(16)). That logic is stronger when the alternative is giving to so many people that no one gets a donation that significantly changes their predicament (see Bemareh Habazak IV, 89). However, when one can help more people reach their most basic needs as opposed to helping fewer people attain less critical provisions, the basic level of the many supersedes our desire to fulfill the preferred mitzva of dei machsoro. (See Chatam Sofer, Yoreh Deah 264 that one gives first to his city's poor only when they are in an equivalent situation to those of other cities; one does not make one set of poor a few levels better off than another.) There is another modern consideration that makes it preferable to give larger sums to fewer institutions. Each donation costs (the donor's tzedaka account, if he has one, and) the organization money, including banking fees, mailings, and secretarial work. If one mails an organization a $5 check, it likely has no net gain. (A $5 bill for a door-to-door collector is an outright net gain for someone who already paid the expenses that got him to the door).

We should consider that most significant donations are given to organizations that help many individuals. This has a few advantages. One check reaches a large number of recipients, fulfilling the Bach's concern. Yet the problem of not changing any individual's situation is not so pertinent, as the nature of organizationalt zedaka campaigns is to collect from many people so that, at the end, many people are helped significantly. On the other hand, to give all of one's money to one source, even one that distributes to many, seems to be a problem from the Rambam's perspective. What does it do to one's neshama to receive 50 requests from worthy causes, representing different populations and needs, and throw 49 in the garbage? (We cannot presently address the question of ignoring altogether a plea for tzedaka; see Tzedaka U'mishpat 1:(3)). It is also possible that the organization with the most attractive campaign gets a disproportionate amount, and one who gives only to it misses out on entire groups in dire straits. It is healthy to "connect" with several causes and institutions, while trying to ensure that the amounts given are large enough to be helpful. As usual, balance is paramount.

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] ArtScroll Series • Mesorah Publications Ltd.
A TOUCH OF WISDOM A TOUCH OF WIT by Shmuel Himelstein

When R' Shimon Sofer of Cracow was young, he told his father, the Chasam Sofer, "Father, yesterday a heretic asked me a question about matters of faith, and I was unable to answer him."
The Chasam Sofer said nothing then, but a few days later he summoned his son and showed him that the question was easily answered.
"Father", R' Shimon asked, "if you knew the answer when I asked you, why did you wait a few days before telling it to me?"
"I wanted to teach you", said the Chasam Sofer, "that in questions of faith, one does not have to worry if he does not have an immediate answer. If he doesn't have an answer today, he will have it tomorrow. Meanwhile, there is no reason to lose faith."

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

[3] Candle by Day
One of the prime accomplishments of vacations is that they break the feeling of cumulativeness of certain duties and problems, so that when one returns to his tasks, it is not in the role of resuming a burden, but rather in that of beginning things anew. - From A Candle by Day by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein

[4] Micro Ulpan - a word (or two) from HaAcademiya LaLashon Ha-Ivrit
RAFREFET. Sounds like riff- raff, but it's not. It is the "proper" Hebrew word for PUDDING.

Commonly known in Hebrew as DAG SOLE , that name is borrowed from English. The flounder-like flatfish is also known as DAG MOSHE RABEINU - anyone know why? The real Hebrew name of this fish is SANDAL

[6] MA RABU MA'ASECH HASHEM KULAM B'CHOCHMA ASITA MAL'AH HA'ARETZ KINYANECHA

AARDVARK

It is so extraordinary among mammals that it is placed in an order all by itself - Tubulidentata (meaning Tube Toothed Mammals). Although it eats ants and termites, the aardvark is not closely related to the anteaters... a homely beast that looks something like a long-nosed, rabbit-eared pig. Its name means "earth-pig" in Afrikaans. It is found in Africa in areas where its main diet - ants and termites - are in abundant supply. It also indulges in locusts or grasshoppers occasionally. But it is well adapted to a specialized diet of ants and termites, because it has strong limbs and heavy claws which easily dig into termite mounds... has a long sticky tongue, thick skin, and an acute sense of smell. Incisor and canine teeth are absent, but the aardvark has on each side of its mouth five upper and four lower cheek teeth which are peculiarly tubular in structure... it has few predators because it can fight fiercely with the claws of its forefeet, and its skin is quite thick.

Hyenas are occasionally hungry enough to try, but only the young, the old and the sick are easy prey for other carnivores... not yet endangered, but dwindling... so much about the aardvark is unique... an aardvark will travel up to 18 miles in search of food... nocturnal... a single aardvark can dig faster than a team of six men with spades... A female aardvark does not have a litter like many mammals. Instead it is like humans and has one or two baby aardvarks at time. Female aardvarks, after being born, will sometimes stay with their mother until the next baby is born and help care for it. Only then will she dig her own burrow... fewer teeth than most mammals... Although not territorial, females seem to become attached to a particular place. The males wander more...

[8] SDT
SDT When Lavan wanted to search Rachel for his idols, she told him it was that time of month. Did she lie? The SH'LA HAKADOSH suggests that the gemara tells us of Rabbi Akiva's teaching that one who carries AVODA ZARA becomes TAMEI just like a NIDA. Not only did Rachel not lie, but her statement might be the source of this ruling.

[9] CHIZUK and IDUD (for Olim & not-yet-Olim respectively)
 

[8] Divrei Menachem
As we read in Parshat Vayeitzei of Yaakov's imminent departure from Eretz Yisrael we cannot but be stirred. For the circumstances in which he lies down and dreams are surely associated with the trepidation one feels when leaving the Holy Land.

In this troubling circumstance, the Torah tells us something of Yaakov's psyche. For he suddenly encounters "that place" and dreams of angels ascending and descending a ladder set on earth whose top reaches heavenward to G-d. The place as yet has no name; it is any place. And yet from that Place angels rise to the loftiest of stations.

The Hebrew value of "Sulam" or 'ladder' matches that of "Sinai", as if to teach us that as we once stood transfixed at the earthly bottom of the Mount and reached the highest zenith, so too, like angels, we have the potential to climb the ladder and reach the highest rungs of our spiritual potential.
Like Yaakov, however, we are afraid. Not only of losing our soul, should we set foot out of Israel (or let Israel slip away from us), but also of losing Hashem's protection and the possibility of transforming "that place" into a royal palace. Perhaps, like Yaakov, we too are in need of G-d's reassurance that, "Behold, I am still with you… and I will return you to this soil" (Bereishit 28:15).

Shabbat Shalom,
Menachem Persoff