MISC section - contents: [1] From the virtual desk of the OU VEBBE REBBE Q: I had an Israeli supermarket send me a delivery. After they left, I realized that they gave me two cases of expensive beer I had not bought. I have asked them several times to pick them up, but they haven’t yet. The cases are in the way and two bottles have been broken. When I last nudged them, the woman said that it hard for them to arrange, and if I don’t want to bring them back, I should keep them. As it is hard to shlep the cases by bus (with children), what should I do? I wouldn’t mind drinking the beer, but their value to me is far less than their price. A: Your simple case raises many, difficult Choshen Mishpat questions that we cannot do justice to in this forum. We will touch on a few major points and give our suggestion of how to proceed. When you discovered the beer, you became obligated in hashavat aveida (returning lost objects). (We assume it ideally would have been returned to another customer, although, depending on a few halachic doubts and questions of the sequence of events, it is possible that the store still owned the products.) As such, you became responsible to protect them from harm (Shulchan Aruch, CM 267:16) and return them. If the adults in your home broke the bottles or they were otherwise broken because of your lack of care (there is a machloket between the Shulchan Aruch and Rama, ibid. regarding the required level of care), you became obligated to pay for them. The main question is whether a finder is obligated to actually return a lost object or whether it is sufficient to enable the owner to retrieve it. The gemara (Bava Metzia 30a), in illustrating the differences between the mitzva of hashavat aveida and those of helping one load or unload his animal, describes hashavat aveidaas being done when the owner is absent. This seems to imply that if the owner is around to take the object, the finder is not responsible to take it home for him. Yet, the Derisha (CM 265) derives from Rishonim that the mitzva extends until it is returned to the owner’s possession. (See also Bava Metzia 31a and Shut Ben Yehuda I, 118, which strengthen the Derisha’s claim.) Thus, it seems that you did not complete hashavat aveida with the phone calls. The Derisha does point out that if the owner improperly wants to use the finder’s mitzva to have him do all the work, the finder can refuse, just as one can refuse to load another’s donkey alone as the owner watches. However, in this case, we can understand why a busy supermarket finds it difficult to send someone specially to pick up two cases of beer. There are a couple of possibilities to exempt you from storing the cases until they are retrieved or returning them on your next visit to the store. We are assuming that the person who paid for the beer has or will be reimbursed. Thus, he drops out of the picture, and you deal with the store. It is unclear whether he can and did halachically return ownership to the store (see R. Akiva Eiger’s notes on CM 120:1 and Divrei Chayim II, YD 112). Therefore, one can make the claim that you are not formally obligated in hashavat aveida. The store’s interest in the beer may not be sufficient if they do not own it (see Pitchei Choshen, Aveida 1:(55)). More directly, the woman on the phone said that you could keep the beer. There is a broad, important question to what extent a worker can relinquish his employer’s rights. In practice, it depends on the worker’s level of authority and the logic of making the concession. Your case involves a relatively modest amount of money, and they have reason to be considerate of a customer who was caused reasonable trouble because of their mistake. However, you may want to be wary of a half-hearted concession that might have been caused by what sounded like reluctance to perform hashavat aveida to its fullest. We suggest getting the store’s agreement to a compromise. For example, find someone to buy it at a good price and give the store the money or drink it for around half the price. 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 [3] CHIZUK and IDUD (for Olim & not-yet-Olim respectively) Asks Rav Zalman Sorotzkin in Oznayim LaTorah: What are they complaining about? They are not doing anything wrong in not bringing the offering; they are exempt. And no one is faulting them for being impure. To the contrary, the Gemara says that the people who came to complain were Mishael and Eltzafan, who had been instructed to drag the bodies of Nadav and Avihu out of the Mishkan after they were killed for having brought the "strange fire." They had been involved in the important mitzva of honoring the dead, and one who is engaged in one mitzva is exempt from another. Rav Sorotzkin answers that while they had a good reason for not bringing the Pesach offering, they were nevertheless upset because they were losing out on the opportunity to fulfill the mitzva as part of the Jewish people. Being exempt from a mitzva means that one is not liable for failing to observe it; but it does not provide the spiritual boost that comes from doing what God has commanded. Rav Sorotzkin laments that we no longer have this attitude. Rather, we see mitzvot as burdensome and are relieved to be exempt from them. Nowhere is this truer than in regard to the mitzva of settling the land of Israel. There are many legitimate reasons for not fulfilling this mitzva. But why aren't we asking lama nigara? Why aren't we bothered by the fact that we are losing out on the experience of raising our families in Eretz Yisrael? Only if we feel and express the pain of not being in Eretz Yisrael will we be motivated to seek ways to overcome the obstacles to Aliya. And only if our children hear us sigh, lama nigara, will they understand that Eretz Yisrael is an important goal even if, temporarily, it seems to be unachievable. Joel Rebibo, Beit El TORAH THOUGHTS as contributed by Aloh Naaleh members for publication in the Orthodox Union's' Torah Insights', a weekly Torah publication on Parshat HaShavu’a [4] A Touch of Wisdom, A Touch of Wit Once, this rich man was sitting with the rabbi and discussing various matters. The conversation turned to the different religious functionaries and what they earned. "Rebbe," the man asked R' Chaim Leib, "how do you do financially?" "Well, if there were fifteen such as you," R' Chaim Leib answered, "I would have no financial problems at all." "You've misunderstood me," R' Chaim Leib told him. "I really meant what I said. If there were fifteen such as you in Smargon, I would have no financial problems at all. The problem is that there are two hundred such as you." 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). [5] Parsha Points to Ponder - B'HAALOT'CHA THESE ARE THE ANSWERS 1) Rav Moshe Feinstein answers that the Torah is revealing to us how Aharon approached the performance of mitzvot. Despite the fact that the commands to him actually came from Moshe, Aharon focused on the fact that they were actually the words of G-D. This prevented him from having any thoughts that perhaps Moshe did not transmit the mitzva properly or in its entirety. Since it emanated from G-D its transmission was undoubtedly perfect. 2) The Chidushei HaRim explains that G-D wanted to make sure that while one group of Jews was being designated for a special role, the rest of the nation should not feel slighted or jealous. Therefore, in this specific verse He mentions BNEI YISRAEL five times to demonstrate his love for the entire nation. 3) The Ramban teaches that the negativity prior to these two verses refers to the fact that the Jewish people fled from Mount Sinai indicating their desire to have no further mitzvot. Had we stayed longer, perhaps we would have received even more mitzvot. The Kli Yakar explains that the word NUN means fish. A fish never turns away from water, its life source. The backwards NUN captures the negativity by indicating that we were like a fish that turned away from its life source when we turned away from Mount Sinai where we were receiving the Torah, our life source. Parsha Points to Ponder is prepared by Rabbi Dov Lipman Mashgiach Ruchani, Yeshivat Yesodei HaTorah in Bet Shemesh, author of "DISCOVER: Answers for Teenagers (and adults) to Questions about the Jewish Faith", soon to be republished by Feldheim - ppp@israelcenter.co.il [6] Portion for the Portion by Rakel Berenbaum The paragraph starts off, "On the day that the Tabernacle was erected, the cloud covered the Tabernacle, the Tent of Testimony. It seems that a special cloud is referred to here and not just any ordinary one. The Midrash says that this was the cloud that had covered Sinai when Hashem gave the Torah. The fact that this cloud appeared over the Tabernacle was a "Testimony" to the people that G-d rested in their midst. Although it might have looked like the Israelites were wandering in the desert, the nation knew that Hashem, by the sign of the cloud, was leading them. And yet this was no easy journey. Sometimes they encamped in one place for a very long time. Some times they only stayed in a place for a very short time. They might just arrive in a location and weren't given time to rest before they had to pack all their belongings and move again. There was no hint how long they would remain in each place so they had to do all the preparations of setting up camp even if in the end they only remained for a short time. These verses show us the uncertainty of the travel in the desert. They couldn't know in advance when they would travel. They couldn't plan for the future. Despite this hardship the verses repeat "AL PI HASHEM YACHANU VAL PI HASHEM YISA'U" - THEY CAMPED AT G-D'S WORD AND MOVED ON AT G-D'S WORD. They had faith in Hashem and followed His lead. Rav Hirsh explains that from the description of the travel in the desert, we learn how we, in every generation, should follow Hashem. We must accept what Hashem brings our way even if it doesn't make sense to us and even if it is difficult for us. What is interesting in these verses is that it seems that the long distances traveled in the desert weren't what was difficult for the people, but rather the staying put in one place for extended periods of time were the big test on the peoples trust in Hashem. They felt they weren't moving any closer to their goal of reaching the Promised Land. We must follow in our forefathers' footsteps during this long exile in the "desert of the nations" (Yechezkeil 20:35) and have patience and trust that no matter how long the journey Hashem leads us on, we will follow His cloud. TIRAMISU 2 cups Ricotta cheese (part skim milk) [7] Torah from Nature About a half a year ago, there was a scientific survey conducted in a previously unexplored mountainous jungle region in Indonesia. Just a look at the summary of discoveries passes the Wow test. A new species of honey eater, the first new bird species discovered on New Guinea since 1939. The breeding grounds of a "lost" bird of paradise... A new large mammal for Indonesia, the golden-mantled tree kangaroo... More than 20 new species of frogs, including a tiny microhylid frog less than 14mm long. A series of previously undescribed plant species, including five new species of palms. A remarkable white-flowered rhododendron with flower about 15cm across. Four new butterfly species. [8] Israel and Chutz LaAretz are not reading the same Parshat HaShavua It happens in two ways: [9] Divrei Menachem The consecration consisted partly of Bnei Yisrael "lean[ing] their hands upon the Leviyim" and of the Leviyim offering sacrifices. We understand the immediate necessity of sacrifices as a means of atonement, but the aspect of the people's leaning on the Leviyim seems strange. Surely, if at all, Moshe, the leader, should have leaned his hands on the new priests in the same way that he (later) leaned his hands on his successor Joshua, as a means of investing authority (Bemidbar 27:23). [The Parshat Naso Homepage]
|
