MISC section - contents: [1] From the virtual desk of the OU VEBBE REBBE Q: We hired a contractor to do major home renovations. His prices for various jobs were relatively high, but he told us that he would throw in major parts of the work we asked for as a bonus. After doing about 75% of the total job but only around half of the “bonus,” he became sick and had to stop working. He now demands 85% of the set price, pointing to the line items he completed and their corresponding prices on the written work order. He promises to make up for the bonus items with jobs of similar value after he recovers. While we feel bad for him, his illness not only complicated our lives, but we also had to pay another contractor good money (more than 25%) to finish up. We do not want to settle for future services of questionable value to us. How much should we pay? A: We will answer your question with two reservations. First, we refer to the letter of the law, not to matters of compassion for a worker who got sick and the value of avoiding fights. We leave those elements to you. Also, we cannot rule conclusively on monetary matters without hearing both sides in the framework of a Din Torah. We can only discuss your apparent rights and obligations based on your depiction. Clearly, it is now common for salesmen of different types to present package deals as if you pay for one thing and get another for free. This is sometimes accurate, as in a case where one buys a car and receives a key chain as a present. However, if you clearly ask for, say, 12 projects done in your home and the contractor makes it worth your while by promising 4 of the major ones for free, it is clearly a package deal with one price for the total job. Thus, you do not have to pay the full list price of the work and can deduct for the undone work that was “free” in name only. What happens when people arrive at a package deal of which only part is carried out as designed? Consider a precedent in the realm of a sale. Reuven agreed to buy from Shimon land and date trees, but Shimon did not provide the trees. The Rambam (accepted by the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 216:5) says that, in such acase, the whole deal is off, and the buyer can return the field and does not have to agree to compensation for the trees. The Rama (ad loc.) accepts the opinion that the sale of the land stands. In certain cases, all seem to agree that half a sale does not stand alone. For example, if one tried to sell a large field but was actually capable of selling only part of it, the buyer can reject the part that should have worked (Shulchan Aruch, ibid. 182:8). The Netivot (ad loc.:8) makes some distinctions, including whether the parts of the sale form one unit or are more easily separated. However, your case does not lend itself to voiding the whole agreement. You cannot “return” the services you received but must reckon with the work that was done. Your case is similar to the Gemara (Bava Metzia 79a) about Reuven who rented a donkey from Shimon to transport wares and the donkey died along the way. Reuven has to pay Shimon for the part of the trip he made. The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 310:2) limits this to a case where Reuven can salvage the situation by selling the wares where they are or finding alternative transportation. Other- wise, he need not pay when the job was not completed and he received no benefit. However, if there was benefit, even if the alternative brought the total cost to more than was originally agreed to, if it is only moderately so, Shimon still gets paid for the work he did. We do not deduct the added cost when it was caused by matters out of his control (see Pitchei Choshen, Sechirut 3:(33)). In broad terms, the amount you halachically owe should be calculated as follows. Determine the relative market value of the work completed as a percentage of the whole job. Multiply that percentage by the total price agreed upon for the work (irrespective of whether it is the average market price). Use that number as a basis of arriving at an appropriate agreement. 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) The Kli Yakar offers an interesting insight on an earlier verse (26:64) which states that "there was no man" from those counted at the time of the Exodus who was still alive for the count taken right before entering Eretz Israel. This verse implies, argues the Kli Yakar, that there were women, for the women were not punished for the sin of the spies. The Kli Yakar then delineates two reasons that the women merited entering Eretz Israel and even inheriting it. The first reason is that the women, due to their inborn modesty, and unlike the men, were happy to go to a land where modesty and chastity are essential; where the land vomits out those who are licentious. The second merit was that the women of Israel, who by nature are charitable, welcomed going to Israel where the people of Israel are obligated in charitable contributions to the kohanim, the Levites, and the poor. The Kli Yakar states that the men preferred Egypt where there were no laws of terumot, ma'aserot, pe'ah or leket, and they were not required to share their yields, whereas the women, who normally have no control over their husbands' money, were eager to move to Eretz Israel where the giving of charity would be compulsory. Living in Israel requires living on a higher and more demanding spiritual and ethical level than does living in Galut. The Kli Yakar suggests that the Daughters of Israel are worthy of the challenge. 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 R' Yoshe Ber consented. Along the way they passed the village of Ivnitz and stopped there. The leaders of the community came to R' Yoshe Ber with a request. It seemed that that day there was to be a public meeting of the community. Would he agree to attend? R' Yoshe Ber agreed. As R' Yoshe Ber, accompanied by his son Chaim, entered the hall, they were met by a tremendous din. There were shouts and counter-shouts. The more boorish came to the fore to press their own points. In the end, it was the more forceful group that won. After the meeting, R' Yoshe Ber said to his son: "Chaim, you can go back to Volozhin and I will travel on to Vilna." "But why, father?" wondered the young Chaim. "You told me you'd take me to Vilna." "Yes, I did," said R' Yoshe Ber."You wanted to see what the world was like, and you've already had your wish granted. What you saw in Ivnitz is what you'll find in Vilna and in the rest of the world. The boors are the ones who press forward and those who are the more forceful are the ones who win." 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 - PINCHAS THESE ARE THE ANSWERS 2) Tosafot answer that since Moshe had spent many years in Midian when he fled from Par'o, he felt he could not personally wage war against a nation that had helped him. 3) Rav Moshe Feinstein explains, based on Rashi, that their request had nothing to do with materialistic concerns. Rather, it was out of a love for the land of Israel. When people love something, they want to own it and posses it as their own. That is why they wanted their own portion in the Land. Parsha Points to Ponder is prepared by Rabbi Dov Lipman, who teaches at Reishit Yerushalayim, Tiferet, and Machon Maayan in Beit Shemesh and RBS and is the author of "DISCOVER: Answers for Teenagers (and adults) to Questions about the Jewish Faith", soon to be re-published by Feldheim ppp@israelcenter.co.il [6] Portion for the Portion by Rakel Berenbaum For example Shimon's son is called Yemuel in B'reishit (46:10) and Nemuel in Parshat Pinchas. Yissachar's son is called Yov in B'reishit (46:13) and Yashuv in Bamidbar. And three of the descendants from the tribe of Gad are mentioned differently then they were in B'reishit: Tz'fon (Tzifyon), Arod (Arodi) and Ozni (Etzbon). The sages learn things from these changes that we might just have skipped over. On the difference of the names Ozni from Etzbon Rashi says "Ozni is the same family as Etzbon". What is the connection between these two names that seem so different? The Sh'lah HaKodesh says that the Sages relate that man was created with long thin fingers so that he could put them in his ears whenever something was said that wasn't appropriate to hear. Since it seems that the fingers were created for the ear then there is a direct connection between the two names Etzbon (fingers) and Ozni (ears). Actually the finger that we call pinky is also called auricular which means ear finger. There are two recipes this week has one for ears one for fingers. HERBED ROASTING EARS OVEN BUTTERED CORN FINGERS Roll out into a rectangle ½ inch thick. Cut into 1-inch thick strips. Roll in melted butter to coat and arrange in pan. Bake at 450° for 20-30 minutes or until golden brown. Tastes good with chili! Ed. note: Not that the SH'LAH needs confirmation for what he said about the finger and the ear, but it is interesting that a dictionary definition of auricular finger is the pinky, called this because "it can be readily introduced into the ear passage". [7] ...being of sound and disposing mind and memory... This piece is NOT going to be a survey or summary of the Jewish Laws of Inheritance. It will shortly focus on part of one mishna in Bava Batra that addresses one aspect of these laws. But before we get there, we must make a very important point. The simple, plain, straightforward application of the Torah's Laws of Inheritance often [this is difficult to put into words...] result in situations that can be taken unfair advantage of by heirs, that cause a terrible injustice, and pervert the intention of Torah Law. [Maybe this will get a little clearer as we proceed...] What has evolved is the concept of a Kosher Will that retains the intent of the Torah and also safeguards the interests of children and spouse of the deceased. In what follows here, we are going to stick to the simpler details of the Torah's Laws of Inheritance. [If we say, for example, that a wife does not inherit from her husband, and that only sons do, and not daughters (unless there are no sons), then resist the temptation to shout "unfair". The Laws of Inheritance provide for the wife and daughters of the deceased to be well cared for by the sons, even if they (the sons) end up with less than their mother and sisters. And today, as mentioned earlier, there are ways to handle the more complex realities of finance and society, within acceptable halachic boundaries, namely, the Kosher Will. But we are not discussing this here. See how hard it is to write this...] One more word of introduction: The Laws of Inheritance are referred to by the Torah with a rare term: CHUKAT MISHPAT. The implies that there are logical, common sense aspects to these laws, and aspects that will confuse and confound our understanding as only a CHOK can. Keep that in mind if you are tempted to say, "that doesn't make any sense". We do our best to understand G-d's laws, but some resist our logic. And that is as it is supposed to be. Now let's get to the mishnayot of Bava Batra, chapter 8. If a man says: "My son, so-and-so, shall not inherit from me", he has not said anything, since this contradicts the rule of the Torah that a man is inherited by his sons. If a man gives away his entire estate while he is still alive, and his intention is to thereby disinherit his son, then "what is done is done", in other words, the gifts during lifetime are valid and there is nothing left for the son to inherit, BUT, "the spirit of the Sages do not derive pleasure from him", meaning that he has behaved improperly, because the Torah wants the son to inherit and he, in effect, went against the Torah's wishes. What about a person with a wayward son? One who has gone off the proper path (married out, perhaps, become irreligious, or however you would define "not behaving straight"). What if you use the "gift during lifetime" to take away the inheritance from the wayward son, is that okay? Rabban Shimon b. Gamliel says, ZACHUR LATOV. Kol HaKavod. You did well, using this method to prevent such a bad person from inheriting. The Chachamim disagree. Their opinion is that the Torah never said that only good people inherit. If G-d says the son inherits, then he should. And we should not judge his worthiness. The Chachamim would not say Yasher Ko'ach to this father; they would apply the same language as before - What's done is done, but that is not the way we are supposed to behave. The halacha is not like Raban Shimon b. Gamliel; it is like the Chachamim. It is not up to us to judge the worthiness of heirs. Only G-d can. Some commentators add that to "freeze" out the wayward child would be to slam the door to T'shuva in his face. We dare not do that. There is a lesson here that goes beyond the specifics of inheritance. It goes to the tendency of some people to decide who is worthy of charity, perhaps, and who is not. Whom should we be nice to and whom do we con- sider less of a Jew. Not our place to do these evaluations. Though there might be limits to "Love your fellow as yourself", we should be generous as to whom we love and see the great value in every Jew and every human being, and act accordingly. [Again, it wasn't easy writing this, finding the right way to express one's thoughts, and there are certainly humans and even Jews who don't deserve our love and help. Just be extra careful and deliberate.] [8] Divrei Menachem We, as Jews, are not newcomers to foreign attempts to undermine our integrity and to destroy our moral fiber and physical existence. The first experience transpired in the Nile that drowned our babies and in Egypt's forced labor camps where we were persecuted daily. Amalek followed suit as he attacked our undefended flanks out of pure hatred and gave rise to the idea that, despite our Eternal Guardian, the Jewish people is vulnerable. No wonder that throughout the generations other nations used every possible ruse to poison our passion and to eliminate Jews and Judaism from the universal lexicon. No wonder that in our parsha Hashem commands Moshe to harass the Midianites and to smite them (Bemibar 25:17). For, as commentators note, we have always to identify our enemies, the extrinsic (such as Midian) and the intrinsic (such as lustful desires). Then having done so, it is our duty to wage war on both these adversaries. [The Parshat Pinchas Homepage]
|
