MISC section - contents: The following is a Q&A from Eretz Hemdah... Q: I work in a special ed. setting, where the following halachic issues arise. May one answer Amen to the b'racha of a mentally disabled (= MEDI) child, who is not expected to ever be obligated in mitzvot? When teaching them b'rachot, can one pronounce Hashem's name? Is there a point to teach them mitzvot if they will never be obligated in them? A: We cannot discuss which mental handicaps cause people to have which halachic standing; such determinations are too complicated and individual for this forum. Rather, we will use the term "MEDI" for whoever it is that meets your halachic assumptions. We will touch on the laws regarding a CHERESH and a SHOTEH (loosely rendered as deaf-mute and lunatic, respectively) and a child, who are often bunched together as those who are exempt from mitzvot (Rosh Hashana 29a). We will not deal with your questions in an exhaustive manner, but we hope to add perspective and give some guidelines. It is inaccurate to say that the Torah's laws do not apply to those who are exempt from mitzvot. For example, it is forbidden to feed non-kosher food to a child (Yevamot 114a), a CHERESH or a SHOTEH (Chatam Sofer (I, 83)). Rather, they are personally exempt from responsibility for mitzvot because they lack the level of understanding that such commitment requires (see Pri Megadim's Peticha Kollelet 2:1). Since people who are exempt from a mitzva receive reward for fulfilling it (Bava Kama 87a), one might posit that there is intrinsic value in the MEDI performing mitzvot. However, the MEDI is worse off than one with a local exemption because his actions lack the level of cognitive intent that others have (see Chulin 12b). On the other hand, although a minor also lacks full intent (ibid.), he is instructed to perform mitzvot he is capable of (Sukka 42a); furthermore, he does so with b'rachot to which we answer Amen (Shulchan Aruch, OC 215:3). (It is forbidden to answer Amen to an unauthorized beracha - ibid.:5). A possible explanation is that since there is a mandate to train him to perform mitzvot (chinuch), his mitzvot and b'rachot have halachic standing. In contrast, the mitzvot and b'rachot of one whose prognosis is that he will never be obligated in mitzvot (and he thus apparently lack the laws of chinuch - see Encyclopedia Talmudit, XVI, 169) would lack such standing. However, a different possibility is that the mitzvot and b'rachot of anyone who is capable of carrying them out with a basic understanding of He who commands and what He commands is significant. A test case is a child under "the age of chinuch" (see Rivash 451) who is able to make a b'racha with reasonable under- standing. The Mishna B'rura (215:16) and Yabia Omer (II, OC 13) say that one should not answer Amen. However, Rav Bakshi (Binyan Av I, 8) notes that most people answer Amen to pre-schoolers' b'rachot and substantiates the approach that the child's basic understanding of what he is doing makes this appropriate. He mentions that the same is likely true for a CHERESH and SHOTEH. Rav Sh. Z. Orbach is reported to have answered Amei, without the "n," in an inconspicuous manner (Halichot Shlomo 22:20). Rav Orbach has two important ideas that enable one
to teach and respond to b'rachot of MEDI. First, he says that at least many
of them should not be compared to a SHOTEH, whose problem are psychological,
or to a CHERESH, who has a specific condition the Torah addresses. Rather,
MEDI is analogous to a child. One of bar mitzva age who is on the level of
PE'UTOT (an average six year old or so) is obligated in mitzvot, although he
is not culpable like others (Minchat Shlomo 34). (Thus, one should train
them even as children - Nishmat Avraham V, pg. 80 in Rav Feinstein's name).
He is also quoted as saying that one can use Hashem's Name in teaching
severely MEDI (but not answer Amen) because it is of value to enable them to
fit into their surroundings as much as possible (Halichot Shlomo 22:(70)). A: The Rambam (Shut 268) was asked about a talit with p’sukim embroidered on it. The Rambam, whose ruling was accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 284:2), objected to the matter on two grounds (we are lenient on the first - Taz, YD 284:1; Shach ad loc.:3). His major issue is that we need to fear that one will enter the bathroom with the talit, thus disgracing the p’sukim. One could use this source to prohibit the jewelry in question outright. However, there are poskim who have allowed people
to wear scrolls hanging from their body (see some sources in Tzitz Eliezer
XVI 30). We should note that most of the poskim discussed people who wore
p’sukim for the specific purpose of Divine protection, which is not usually
the case these days. Also most people we have asked who wear this jewelry
have admitted that they not infrequently enter the bathroom without taking
the necessary steps (see below). Thus, this jewelry appears to be against
the Rambam's and poskim’s spirit, if not letter, of the law. All writings on Torah topics have kedusha and cannot be discarded disrespectfully (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.:5) or brought exposed into a bathroom. However, those that contain one of Hashem’s names are on a higher level. For example, teachers write and erase Divrei Torah and p’sukim on boards, which they could not do if Hashem's names appeared (Minchat Yitzchak I, 18, citing the Tashbetz). We also write Divrei Torah in notes but only hint at His name for fear of what might become of it. Thus, leniency in the aforementioned issues is easier when His name doesn’t appear. It is difficult to claim that the issues apply only to a full pasuk. Various laws of respect for Torah texts apply to even three or four words (see Shulchan Aruch, YD 283:3 & 284:2). If the words express a coherent Torah thought, it is no less than Divrei Torah that are not p’sukim. There is one exception, which may apply in some cases at hand. If the words are borrowed from the Torah to be used as a catch phrase to describe a friend(ship) (e.g., ani l’dodi...), they may have no restrictions (based on Shulchan Aruch, ibid.; some argue - see Shach, ad loc.). However, usually the phrase is intended to recall its Torah content (e.g., “im eshkacheich…”). We often attempt to justify customs even when their correctness is questionable. However, not every practice is a custom, and the rabbinic reaction to a practice helps determine whether it becomes a custom. It is nice to see how popular Torah has become. However, our “vote” is that p’sukim are better in sefarim than on jewelry (or T-shirts). This fashion causes halachic problems for all and is forbidden for one who is not careful. If one does wear this jewelry, she can bring it into a bathroom covered by clothes or something else (two covers are preferable but not necessary). Hashem’s names should not be spelled out, and it is better if Torah letters are not used. 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 The Vilna Gaon taught that regarding the redemption, there is no going backwards. Some things happen that seem to be acts of mercy, while others appear to be the very opposite. Don't worry, taught the Vilna Gaon, they all contribute to the redemption of the Jewish people. These words are profoundly relevant today. For 50 years we had lived with the belief that the return of Eretz Israel to Jewish control was part of the final redemption. After portions of that land were given up last summer, it was easy to become distraught and to entertain doubts. However, a deeper understanding reveals the following: It is precisely because Jewish control of the Holy Land is part of the redemption process that opposing forces have arisen to interfere with our progress. This is to discourage us from continuing our holy work of settling the land. Despite the signs of "kotzer ru'ach" in our own time, may we, God willing, soon witness the fulfillment of God's promise of a Final Redemption. Rabbi Pinchas Winston ,Telz Stone "I want you to promise me that when you reach Frankfurt you will see Baron Rothschild and tell him how much R' Akiva of Amsterdam gave you." The rabbi was astonished at this request, for he
couldn't understand how a man as righteous as R' Akiva could be conceited.
R' Akiva, though, insisted on this condition, and would not let him go until
he had promised to fulfill it. "Do not worry," said the baron. "R' Akiva and I
have an agreement. He knows that I am very busy and am unable to take the
time find out who represents worthy causes. R' Akiva has taken upon himself
that whenever he finds someone worthy he will let me know how much he gave,
and I will give the man ten times that amount." 2) Why does the Torah use the word VAYITZ'AK to describe Moshe's prayer to end the plague of frogs (8:8) while to end the plague of AROV (wild animals) the word VAYE'TAR is used? (8:26) 3) The Torah relates that during the plague of
dever, FROM THE FLOCK OF THE JEWS NOT ONE (ECHAD) DIED." (9:6) Why does the
Torah add the word AD when Pharaoh checks to see if the Jews were spared
during this plague by relating AND BEHOLD FROM THE FLOCKS OF THE JEWS THERE
DID NOT EVEN ONE (AD ECHAD) DIED?" (9:7) 2) Our Sages teach (Yevamot 64) that the prayers of the righteous are called VAYE'TAR based on the word ETAR which means a shovel. Just like an ETAR turns over crops from one place to the other, so, too, the prayers of the righteous turn over the attribute of G-D from anger to compassion. Based on this, the Chatam Sofer explains that at the conclusion of the plague of frogs, the anger of G-D was not completely transformed to mercy since when the frogs died, there remained a terrible stench which continued to serve as some element of punishment. Therefore, the word VAYE'TAR could not be used. However, the plague of AROV was removed in its entirety so the word VAYE'TAR was appropriate. 3) The Vilna Gaon answers based on the story later
in the Torah (Vayikra 24:10-23) regarding a man who cursed G-d. He was the
child of an Egyptian father and a Jewish mother - the only Jewish woman who
strayed in this manner. Ramban teaches that prior to the giving of the
Torah, Jewish genealogy was determined based on the father. Therefore, this
fellow was an Egyptian and, as a result, his flocks died during this plague.
Thus, in reality NOT ONE of the Jewish owned animals died. Pa'ro did not
know that this man, who lived in the Jewish camp, was the child of an
Egyptian father. Therefore, from Pa'ro's perspective, there was one Jew
whose animals died. The Torah records what Pa'ro saw - in the Jewish camp
NONE AD ECHAD which also means NONE UNTIL ONE died meaning the animals of
one did die. As a result, the next verse records that Paro's heart became
hard, since he saw that Jewish owned animals also died. [6] Portion for the Portion by
Rakel Berenbaum This word is used in many places to refer to prayer (Sh'mot 17:4, Bamidbar 12:13). But there are ten words that are used to refer to prayer. What is the Torah trying to teach us by choosing this specific word, "screamed", for prayer, in this place? The frogs were everywhere in Egypt, "in your palace, in your bedroom, and even in your bed. (They will also be in) the homes of your officials and people, even in your ovens and kneading bowls. When the frogs emerge, they will be all over you, your people, and your officials." (Sh'mot 7:28-29) The noise level of all those croaking frogs was unbearable for the Egyptians. This part of the plague was a punishment MIDAH NEGED MIDAH, measure for measure, tit-for-tat for the Egyptians' shouting at the Jewish people to work faster. Or because the Jewish women had been afraid to shout out during child labor, in case the Egyptians would hear them and take away their babies. Since the frogs were croaking so loudly, Moshe wouldn't have heard himself if he had prayed in a regular voice. Therefore he screamed out his prayer. That brings us to a practical question about our own prayers. How much do we ourselves need to hear the words that we are praying? The Gemara in Brachot says that for Kriyat Shema and Birkat Hamazon "one should let his ears hear what his mouth is uttering", and should be said in a loud voice. The Amida (Sh'mona Esrei), on the other hand, is said in a quiet voice, as we learn from the prayers of Chana, Sh'muel HaNavi's mother, who "spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard" (Sh'mu'el Alef 1:13). All this we learn from the use of the word VAYITZAK - he screamed out. The following salad recipe is not made with real
frogs' eyes, but is so named because the little pastas look like frog eyes.
Maybe you can fold your napkins origami style to look like frogs. The most ferocious biters among mammals aren't lions, tigers, or wolves, but meat-eating marsupials, a new study says. Scientists in Australia estimated, for the first
time, the bite force of a wide range of mammalian carnivores. The
researchers found that, pound for pound, the Tasmanian devil is the most
powerful biter alive today. In a clear reference to the approaching demise of ancient Egypt spelt out in our parsha, the prophet Yehezkiel relates to Israel's treaty with Egypt in later days whereby the Jewish people depend on the Egyptians to defend them against their common enemy, Babylon. However, the prophet envisions that like the former Pharaoh of Egypt, who in his arrogance proclaimed himself to be the god who created the Nile, the then Pharaoh - an inflated and bogus ally - would be banished by the Babylonians to his homeland, chastened and powerless. The goal is more than the ruin of a major power, however. In addition to its diminishment, Egypt would, "No more be for the House of Israel a guarantor… and they [the Egyptians] shall know that I am the Lord, G-d" (cf. Malbim on Yehezkiel 29:16). But that is not enough. For even as Israel is vindicated and the House of Israel dwells securely in the Land and G-d executes judgment on those who disdain his Chosen People - therein lies a message: Because, then, the Jewish people will internalize where the real alliances lie, "For they [too] shall know that I am Hashem" (ibid 29:21). Shabbat Shalom, Menachem Persoff [The Parshat Va'eira Homepage]
|
