Q: I was teaching the laws of meat and milk, including that one who is within six hours of eating meat should not eat pareve at a table with those eating milk without a reminder in place. One of the students asked if sitting around in a kumzitz where there are milchig refreshments on nearby tables is considered eating at one table. A: [We orally received more information regarding this question, enabling us to discuss the background of the matter with the fine, young teacher. The class was learning from a sefer in English, written, to a great extent, for yeshiva students who are new to preparing food. The students were primarily from “Modern Orthodox homes."] Although the question is a perceptive one, excuse us that we want to concentrate on the assumption that introduces it and the phenomenon of which it is representative. The mishna and gemara (Chulin 103b-104b) give instructions to avoid accidental eating of milk and meat together. One step is that one who is eating cheese should not bring meat, including poultry, to the table. The gemara is bothered that, if, as we rule, poultry with milk is forbidden only rabbinically, then this is a gezeira l’gezeira (an injunction on an injunction). In other words, the mistake that the Rabbis’ legislation is intended to avoid is itself only a rabbinic prohibition. As a rule, this is an improper injunction. The gemara, after pointing out that there is a Torah prohibition only when the milk and meat have been cooked together, concludes that without a gezeira, one might come to mix the two in a boiling pot on the table. Therefore, the gezeira is “legal.” Several Acharonim cite the Beit Yaakov, who extends (as you read) the aforementioned gezeira to one who is not eating meat now but did so within six hours and thus may not yet eat milk products. Most of those who cite this opinion reject it (see a summary of the opinions in Darkei Teshuva, YD 88:16 and Badei Hashulchan, Biurim to YD 88:1). The most prominent of those who reject the stringency (chumra) is the Pri Megadim (YD 88, MZ 2), who cryptically makes the following points that strike a strong chord for us. One is that the gemara was concerned that the gezeira regulating people eating milk and meat at one table at the same time was over-extended. It finally constructed a case where one might violate a Torah law. However, in the case at hand, meat is not present. Rather Chazal extended the prohibition of eating meat and milk that were cooked together to waiting six hours (according to the most stringent opinion) after meat. We have no right to extend the gezeira even further than the gemara and Shulchan Aruch spell out. The Pri Megadim and others make a general point, which it is crucial to teach your students. He writes: “I have not seen people being careful about this.” What difference do regular people make in the face of the scholarly opinions of the Pri Megadim and Beit Yaakov? The answer is that the great majority of halachic authorities have taken the minhag ha’olam (common practice) very seriously when determining halacha. You, we, and your students have grown up in observant homes and have visited many others. I dare say that few have even heard of this chumra. Now, if a consensus of sources indicates that a minhag ha’olam appears to violate a Torah law, it is a serious matter, requiring rabbinic guidance. In this case, most poskim reject the chumra, and the worst-case scenario is on an extended Rabbinic prohibition. In our opinion, the author of the sefer erred in his ruling. Perhaps, he intended the sefer for those who believe in adopting every chumra they can find. However, you are teaching a group that was not brought up to do so. It is complex enough (requiring its own discussion) to deal with cases where they learn that their parents have clearly been acting incorrectly. A teacher’s experience and sensitivity should help determine what is a chumra that cannot be accepted at face value, even if it is in print. If one is not sure, he should ask, rather than assume that he and many others have been doing the wrong thing. 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 When you walk down the street and see a ladder leaning against the front of a house, you assume that the house is being painted or repaired or perhaps some building is going on. When weeks or months go by, and the ladder is still there, the neighbors get upset. The ladder is an eyesore. They urge the owner of the house to get rid of it. Yaacov was leaving Eretz Yisrael. He was going into Galut. Before leaving Israel, he was shown a ladder to symbolize the fate of the Jew in the Diaspora. Throughout the history of our Galut, Jews were welcomed into societies when they needed our talents. When an economy needed building up, when trade and commerce were faltering, the Jew was invited to come and build or repair. However, once the job was done, like the ladder, the Jew was an eyesore to be removed from view. The angels ascending and descending represent the status of the Galut Jew, initially ascending but, ultimately descending. Yaacov was being cautioned that Galut is always temporary and precarious. Only in our own land can we stop being a ladder to be used and then cast away. Only here can we build for ourselves and our future. Rabbi Yosef Wolicki, Beit Shemesh TORAH THOUGHTS as contributed by Aloh Naaleh
members for publication in the Orthodox Union's 'Torah Insights', a weekly
Torah publication on Parshat Ha'Shavuah 2) Rashi quotes the Chazal that the name Reuven describes that Reuven was much greater than Esav (See 29:32). The Torah already explains very clearly that Leah named her son, Reuven, because G-D HAS SEEN MY AFFLICTION so why did our Sages feel the need to teach a completely different reason for his name? 3) Why does the Torah relate the seemingly
insignificant event that a bunch of stones were piled up as a marker and
that Lavan and Yaakov gave the pile names? (See 31:46-47) 2) The Vilna Gaon notes that for every other son, the Torah first gives the reason for his name and only then teaches the name. However, regarding Reuven, the name comes first and then the reason. Based on this, our Sages understood that there must have been an additional reason for Reuven's name. 3) The Seforno answers that the message of this
incident lies in the contrast between the Aramaic name which Lavan gave the
pile (Yegar Sahadusa) and the Hebrew name which Yaakov bestowed upon it.
(Gal-ed). This teaches us that Yaakov never changed his language. This act
of specifically giving it a Hebrew name after it was given an Aramaic name
laid the groundwork for the Jews to have the strength to maintain their
unique language while they were slaves in Egypt. There are many interpretations of this dream. For example the dream can be talking about different types of angels, the revelation at Sinai or the service in the Temple. Rashi says that the angels who were with Yaakov in Eretz Yisrael were returning to Heaven (so as not to go to Chutz L'Artez) and the angels who would go with him to the Diaspora were coming down to be with him in Lavan's house. The message to Yaakov being that whatever type of protection he needed, Hashem was providing it for him. He needn't fear going to Lavan because G-d's angels were with him. In looking at the whole Parsha there seems to be a difference between the behavior of the angels at the beginning and at the end. When Yaakov leaves Eretz Yisrael, first the Eretz Yisrael angels go up (leaving him alone) before the Chutz L'Artez angels come down. On his return from Lavan (32;2-3), the angels from Eretz Yisrael came to accompany him before the angels from Chutz L'Aretz left. He was not left alone; in fact he had two encampments of angels - MACHANAYIM - with him. Why this difference? Oznayim LaTora says that G-d never left Yaakov alone. At the beginning the angels left him by himself so he could be alone with Hashem. Yaakov at that moment was in the Place that would later become the Holy Temple. He rested his head on the rock, the EVEN SHTIYA of the Holy of Holies. He was like the Kohein Gadol on Yom Kippur who goes in to Kod'shei Kodashim by himself. Hashem was showing Yaakov that he had been right to take the bechora (birthright) from Esau and his descendant's future service in the Temple would therefore be accepted. Wherever he went Yaakov was furnished with Divine protection. This is a sign to all generations for what it says in T'hilim 91:11 - that G-d will command His angels to protect us in all our journeys. (An interesting point about angels. The Avnei
Nezer says that just like there are angels for Eretz Yisrael and for Chutz
LaArtez there are also different angels for Shabbat and for weekday. That's
why we sing Shalom Aleichem (may your coming be in peace) - to the Shabbat
angels and immediately Tzeitchem L'Shalom (may your departure be in peace).
We're not being rude and kicking the angels out right away. We're just
saying goodbye to the weekday angels.) Leah, using the gift of prophecy, compared her first-born son Reuven with the son of her father-in-law, Esav: Esav despised the birthright, sold it contemptuously to Ya'akov, and then threatened to kill him. Reuven, however, lost his cherished birthright to Yosef (Divrei Hayamim I, 5:1) yet saved Yosef's life. Our rabbis teach that we can learn much from our names. Yehuda, Leah's fourth son, indicates the debt of thanks Leah felt for exceeding the quota of children allotted to each matriarch (cf. Rashi on Breishit 29:35). The name Yehuda contains the Hebrew letters of G-d's name. So it is not surprising that we, whose collective identity revolves around thanking G-d, should have been called Yehudim. Shabbat Shalom, Menachem Persoff [The Parshat Vayeitzei Homepage]
|
