Q: In our religious summer camp, some items were apparently stolen, and there were grounds to suspect a specific camper. We considered searching the camper’s belongings to try to catch him, return the stolen objects, prevent future thefts, and perhaps educate the offender. We decided not to do the search, but could we have? A: Psychological and educational issues need to be addressed in such a case by those who are familiar with the case’s dynamics. We will concentrate on the halachic principles. Moving another’s possessions around while searching is not stealing, which is defined as taking something away from its owner, even temporarily (Rambam, Gezeila 1:3) or using it physically without permission (ibid. 3:15). Simply moving an object to another place where its owner maintains access is not stealing. However, going through another’s belongings compromises his right to privacy, a right that halacha defends. The gemara (first perek of Bava Batra) discusses in detail the concept of avoiding HEZEK RE’IYA (damage by seeing sensitive matters). Rabbeinu Gershom rendered a cherem (ban) against reading a friend’s letters without permission. According to many poskim, the prohibition to do so preceded the ban, which just strengthened the matter (see Encyclopedia Talmudit on Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom, 18). May one invade a thief’s privacy in order to catch him? As a rule, one may take the law into his own hands to legitimately protect his interests. One who recognizes his stolen object in the thief’s property may enter his property and take it forcibly, if opposed (Bava Kama 27-28; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 4:1). (According to one opinion, he should not do so surreptitiously and thereby look like a thief.) Presumably, this allows suspending other of the thief’s “civil rights”, including his privacy. The Chikekei Lev (I, Yoreh Deah 49) leaves as an unsolved question whether Beit Din can allow one who suspects that a letter contains improperly damaging information about him to read it in order to know how to act. The prominent dayan, Rav Shlomo Daichovsky (Techumin, vol. XI, pp. 299-312) discussed the matter regarding listening devices. He says that the Chikekei Lev would agree that one who has strong grounds to expect being damaged can use such a device to protect his interests. He says that this is all the more so when one has the opportunity to prevent another from sinning. In our case, it is a sin to possess stolen goods or steal more, and the staff might have been able to help facilitate the youngster’s receiving counseling that he likely needs. One problem is that barring definite knowledge of the suspect’s guilt, one could be acting improperly toward the innocent. However, we have precedent in this regard, as well. The gemara (Bava Metzia 24a) tells of Mar Zutra, who suspected a certain yeshiva student of stealing a silver goblet, because he showed disregard for someone else’s property. Mar Zutra physically pressured the student until he admitted to the crime. Panim Meirot (II, 155) brings some more recent rulings in this vane of physical steps based on strong suspicions. Another issue is that, classically, it is the one with the personal interest who may take steps to protect himself, whereas others should not (see Halacha Pesuka, Dayanim 4:16). However, this is apparently to prevent people who should not be involved from “sticking their nose in” without judicial authority. In our case, it is improper to allow an apparent victim to act based on his suspicions alone (see warning in Chafetz Chayim, Lashon Hara 7:14). The camp’s responsible staff members, who are mandated to supervise the campers’ welfare and conduct, are the proper people to be involved. Thus, if the staff’s higher echelon, in
consultation with its rabbi(s), were convinced that the suspicions justified
a search, they could have halachically done so. (We would urge people to
consult legal counsel regarding the legality of their actions and consider
all relevant concerns.) What was so unique and important in this blessing that Esav began to cry when he realized that he had not received it? Esav did, in fact, receive what seems to be a similar blessing, albeit in reverse order: "Behold, the rich bounty of the earth shall be your dwelling place and the dew of the heaven from above." How are the two blessings different? The Kli Yakar in his insightful wisdom suggests that Yitzchak blessed each son with his own priority. Yaakov whose emphasis was on God's help and support, was blessed with dew coming from the heavens as the primary source of his well-being, while Esav received a blessing attuned to his philosophy of life whereby the significant support comes from man himself, thereby "the rich bounty of the earth" is primary. I once read that the late Chief Rabbi Joseph Hertz referred to these blessings in homiletical terms - that there is nothing wrong in requesting both spiritual and material achievements, but many times parents put the emphasis for their children on getting a good job and fulfilling their materialistic needs, while pushing off the child's spiritual growth until it is too late. For our unique people "the dew of the heaven" must
come before "the rich bounty of the earth." This is why parents must realize
that the holiness of Eretz Yisrael should take priority over the "rich
bounty of the (Diaspora) earth". "I am afraid," said the Malbim, "that I will not receive my wages." "Rabbi," they protested, "why should you be worried about that? Have we ever failed to pay our rabbi what he agreed to?" "The reason for my concern," said the Malbim, "is
that when you appointed me rabbi of the city, you offered me a fine salary.
I therefore said to myself: this is obviously a well-off community, which
can afford to pay so fine a salary. Now that I see that your people are so
poor that they cannot survive by working only six days a week and are forced
to work even on Shabbos, how can you possibly have the money to pay me?" 2) What is the everlasting significance of the story of Yitzchak and his servants digging wells, enduring disputes over them and then digging more wells until he had his own water? (See 26:18-22) 3) Yitzchak declared THE VOICE IS THE VOICE OF
YAAKOV AND THE HANDS ARE THE HANDS OF EISAV. (27:22) The Midrash teaches
based on this verse that when Jews are properly making the sounds of Torah
study and prayer (the voice of Yaakov), then the hands of Eisav are weak.
How is this derived from this verse which seems to indicate that both the
voice of Yaakov and the hands of Eisav are functional simultaneously? 2) The Chofetz Chayim explains that we learn a very important lesson from Yitzchak's perseverance to dig the wells that had previously been stopped up, digging new wells, losing those, and his continuing to dig. In both spiritual and Earthly matters, we will always have struggles and challenges. We learn from Yitzchak that a person should never give up in any pursuits. One should keep striving to achieve goals under all circumstances and eventually success will come. 3) The Vilna Gaon answers that the source of the
Midrash is a missing VAV in the word KOL (voice.) Read without the VAV, the
words spells out KAL which means lax or light. Thus, the verse can be read
that when the voice of Yaakov is weak, the hands of Eisav have their
strength. However, when the word KOL is spelled in its proper and complete
form, then the inference would be that Eisav's hands are weak. That is why our sages teach us that Eisav was wicked and was not worthy of the b'chora (birthright) and the b'racha (blessing). From reading the p'shat, we might think that Yaakov is the bad guy and Eisav the good guy. But our Sages see hints in the text that point to Eisav's wickedness. They even say that on that same day he committed five horrible sins murder, adultery, denying G-d, denying resurrection of the dead, and despising the birthright. If Eisav wasn't worthy of the b'chora and b'racha then it seems justified for them to end up with Yaakov. Chaza”l teach us that G-d ended Avraham's life on that very same day, in order to spare him the heartache of seeing his grandson straying from his path. This explains why Yaakov (who was usually in the house of study and probably not in the kitchen) was cooking a lentil stew - the consolation meal for his father Yitzchak. Eisav seems at first to be polite saying HALITEINU
NA, please give me a swallow of some of that red
stuff. But Rav Mordechai Yehuda Leib says that here tb means raw - like in
the verse telling the Jews how to eat the Korban Pesach AL TOCHLUM
MI'MENU NA..., do not eat it (the Korban Pesach) raw" (Exodus 12:9). Eisav
was so hungry that he couldn't wait until the lentils were cooked; he wanted
them right away, even if they were raw. That explains how the dish was
HA'ADOM HA'ADOM HAZEH, this red stuff. Raw or semi-raw lentils remain red,
whereas cooked lentils turn yellowish (as you'll see if you make the recipe
this week). Eisav asked just for the lentils but Yaakov also gave him bread.
Oznayim LaTorah says this is so that in the future Eisav wouldn't be able to
say that he sold the b'chora under duress (hunger), he had already filled
his stomach with bread (given to him by Yaakov) before he sold the b'chora
(birthright) for the lentil dish. Smallest mammal is Kitti’s Hog- Nosed Bat, a.k.a. bumblebee bat, measuring about 3cm long and weighing about 2g. That's about as long as this paragraph is tall, and a weight that is less than half a sheet of A4 paper. It is native to Thailand, and has a wingspan that would reach across this page. Largest mammal is the Blue Whale, the largest of which weighed in at 187 tons. They can reach lengths of more than 30m (100 ft). Compare that with an African bush elephant, largest land mammal, weighing in at only 12 tons. Birds range from the bee hummingbird to the ostrich (6-270cm). Fish from the Stout Infant fish (less than a cm.) to the whale shark (15m). Smallest reptile: Dwarf gecko, Dominican Republic
(1.6cm). Largest Australian Seawater Crocodile (7m). The Gemara says that Eisav did not rebel during Avraham's lifetime (which was cut short by 5 years - 175 and not the 180 that Yizchak reached so that Avraham would not see Eisav's wickedness). Targum Yonatan says that Eisav killed Nimrod (and took his special garment - some say it was the leather garment made by G-d for Adam & Chava). The Midrash says that Eisav encouraged his grandson Amalek to take revenge against the children of Yaakov, since he did not succeed in vanquishing Yaakov. The Zohar says that there was never a person who
so honored his father as did Eisav. This earned him domination in this
world. Targum Yonatan adds that Eisav's honoring of Yitzchak is what caused
Yaakov to fear him, especially since he (Yaakov) spent so many years away
from his father. The Gemara says that he lived with two righteous individuals and didn't learn from their deeds. The Midrash says that Eisav's male offspring were
circumcised during Yitzchak's lifetime, but then they stopped observing
Mila. The ruddy Esav is associated with the other side: he is self-serving, the embodiment of evil. His red complexion is indicative of his murderous nature. While his base instincts could have been used for good, Esav let his nature run rampant, becoming the eternal symbol of cruelty. In contrast to Esav, Ya'akov is a "dweller in tents", the personification of righteousness. Rivka knew that the brothers represented two nations and that Esav would serve his younger brother Ya'akov. While she under- stood that Ya'akov must receive the firstborn's blessing, Yitzchak favored Esav, convinced that he could turn his ugly traits to the service of Hashem. Because of his faith in Esav, the blind Yitzchak was deceived. He hears the voice of Ya'akov but feels the hands of Esav. According to Rashi, Yitzchak heard Ya'akov invoking the name of G-d but believed it was Esav reaching new vistas. Of course, in our times, the opposite holds: we must beware of those who claim to be Ya'akov, speaking in G-d's name when they actually epitomize those conniving hands of Esav. Shabbat Shalom, Menachem Persoff [The Parshat To-l'dot Homepage]
|
