Shabbat Parshat VAYISHLACH HALACHIC TIMES Even though it is only for one more issue, we have a new Robin Hood - Archer to represent the mazal of Kislev. This is due to comments from readers about character flaws and reputed anti-Semitic nature of the actor whose role as Robin Hood has appeared in the last 3 issues. Did you notice on the calendar that we are scheduled to light the last candle on January 1st? How often does Chanuka make it past December? How many times do we light candles in January? Looking at the 58th cent. since Creation,
these years have days of Chanuka in January: 5701 (1), 5709 (3), 5720 (2),
5728 (3), 5739 (1), 5747 (3), 5766 (2), 5777 (1), 5785 (2), 5788 (1), 5796
(2). 11 years in the current century have Chanuka days in January. Candles?
10 nights of 800 this cent. Now you know! This limp is immortalized by the Torah's prohibition - the only one counted from the book of B'reishit - forbidding us to eat the GID HANASHEH. In fact, the wording of the Written Torah makes it seem as if this was a voluntary undertaking by the sons of Yaakov - in order to remember Yaakov's injury at the hands of Eisav's angel. The Oral Law explains that this is one of the 365 prohibitions of the Torah, no less so that had it said: Thou shalt not eat... Remembering the limp means remembering that Yaakov was injured. But it also means to remember that Yaakov was not killed, that he survived the encounter, that he subsequently recovered from his injury. Commemorating the limp helps us not to forget the injury, nor the victory, nor the encounter in the first place. Tradition tells us that Eisav, when he realized that he could not vanquish Yaakov, instructed his grandson to keep on trying. As the Torah tells us in this week's sedra, his son Elifaz had a concubine named Timna. Rashi tells us the Midrash that Timna was from a royal family, but wanted so much to be part of Avraham's family that she consented to Pilegesh status to accomplish that goal. Their son, Eisav's grandson was Amalek. He has continued the fight against Yaakov's descendants; he fails to defeat us, but we occasionally walk away limping. The clash of Yaakov and Eisav, the battles
against Eisav, are perennial. Our ultimate complete victory is to come only
with the Complete Geula. [P> X:Y (Z)] and [S> X:Y (Z)] indicate start
of a parsha p’tucha or s’tuma respectively. X:Y is Perek:Pasuk of the
beginning of the parsha; (Z) is the number of p'sukim in the parsha. SDT Onkeles seems to consider the messengers that Yaakov sent to be human (IZGADIN are runners or messengers); Rashi states that the word MAL'ACHIM is to be taken literally, as heavenly angels. Commentaries point to the end of last week's sedra (which tells of Yaakov's encountering the "camps" of angels upon his return to Eretz Yisrael) as support for Rashi's point of view. Bartenura further explains that Biblical references to angels always include something they said or a prophetic message. When Yaakov encountered the angels, nothing is said. It could be argued, that the Torah mentioned the angels in connection with Yaakov's sending them to Eisav. Other commentaries say that Yaakov sent angels because humans might be affected by Eisav and angels would be able to "read" the situation accurately. One Chassidic Master put it this way: When a Jew is facing a threat from an Eisav-type and needs help, he may even bother heavenly angels for their support. SDT One of Yaakov's statements was that he had been living with Lavan and was delayed until now. Rashi learns, that "he lived with Lavan but did not learn from his evil ways". Some see this as a compliment to Yaakov, that he was able to maintain his complete adherence to the Torah in such an alien atmosphere. Others see an implied criticism: All those years in Lavan's home, and he did not learn form Lavan's evil ways... how to channel the cunning and enthusiasm he witnessed towards his own service of G-d. There are lessons to be learned even by negative example. Yaakov announces to Eisav that he has "oxen, donkeys, sheep, servants". SDT Why does Yaakov tell this to Eisav? Is he boasting about wealth that he has amassed in Lavan's house? No, just the opposite. Yaakov is telling Eisav that although he has much material wealth and large flocks and herds, he does not have land. He has not (yet) benefited from the blessing (that Eisav felt should have been his) of "from the dew of the heavens and the fertility of the ground..." Therefore, Yaakov hoped that Eisav would not be angry with him. Side note: Yaakov is, so far, blessed with the Shehakol type of wealth. The other 5 of the 6 brachot for food are all related to that which comes from the ground, the blessings of TAL HASHA MAYIM & SH'MANEI HA'ARETZ, which Yaakov has not yet received. The report of Eisav's pending arrival with 400 men prompts Yaakov into three modes of action. He first divides his camp into two, so that one will be able to escape if the other is attacked. Then he prays to G-d for His help and the fulfillment of promises made. (the third phase is in the next portion.) SDT Commentaries point out that he asks G-d to save him "from my brother - from Eisav". This is not a redundancy. The Jew faces two enemies: The Eisavs of the world who would destroy the Jewish people, and the "friendly brothers" who would gladly permit us to assimilate into their cultures - thereby also bringing about the destruction of the Jewish People. Yaakov prays for salvation from both threats. Similarly, in the very first pasuk of the sedra, Yaakov sends the angels (or messengers) to his BROTHER EISAV. Yaakov is always aware that Eisav is both, and he must be weary of both persona. The Beit HaLevi puts it this way. Danger #1
is war. Danger #2 is a treaty with Eisav that can also be disastrous. Does
this say anything to us today? SDT Baal HaTurim points out that there are two p'sukim in the Torah in which every word ends with a "final mem". Here in Vayishlach (32:15): 200 she-goats, 20 he-goats... and BaMidbar (29:33): And their (referring to sacrifices) flour-oil offerings, their wine of libation, for the oxen... Is there a connection? Yaakov sent 550 animals as an appeasement to Eisav, even though G-d had assured him that He would protect him. Yaakov's descendants were destined to offer 550 animals per year as Musaf sacrifices. (The numbers need work, and years differ from one another in number of days, but the final results bear out the Baal HaTurim's remarkable observation.) He instructs his servants what to say when they meet up with Eisav. During the night before his encounter with Eisav, Yaakov finds himself alone. (This is one of the sources for the rule that a person should not go out alone at night.) SDT Commentaries tell us that Yaakov had returned across the Yabok River to retrieve small flasks of oil that had been left behind. Some say that this was the oil with which he anointed the altar and monument he built in G-d's honor, and that this flask of oil was the antecedent of the sole flask of oil found by the Hashmona'im many centuries later. This is another of many examples of MAASEI AVOT SIMAN L'BANIM. Yaakov battles with a "man" (whom we are taught is the guardian angel of Eisav). Yaakov prevails in this struggle but is injured. He receives an unusual blessing from the angel in the form of an additional name - Yisrael. SDT Yaakov asks the angel who has wrestled with him to give him a bracha. Rashi says that he was asking that the angel acknowledge the brachot that Yaakov had received from Yitzchak, which Yitzchak had intended to give to Eisav. Perhaps what prompts Rashi to this explanation rather than the situation being simply that Yaakov was asking for a new bracha, is the unusual word BEIRACHTANI (which relates to the past) and not BOR'CHEINI (bless me now). Note that the angel does not declare that
Yaakov will no longer be his name, but rather Yisrael. He does say that it
will no longer be said that he is a "Yaakov" (one who holds onto his
brother's heel to hold him back) but rather he will referred to as Yisrael,
the one who prevailed before G-d and man. Unlike Avraham, whose previous
name is no longer used after he is renamed Avraham, Yaakov carries both
names. In fact, the second word after the angel's declaration of the new
name is Yaakov. Similarly, when G-d confirms the name Yisrael upon Yaakov,
he (Yaakov) is still called Yaakov, and sometimes Yisrael. This is the
flavor of Rashi's commentary on LO YAAKOV, which he explains thus: People
will no longer call you "the one who held your brother back", but they will
acknowledge you as having justly prevailed. Yaakov sees Eisav and his men coming; he pushes his family behind him and repeatedly bows to his brother. Eisav runs towards him embraces him, k*i*s*s*e*s him, and weeps. SDT Mishlei 24:16 says: For a righteous person will fall seven times and rise up... Baal HaTurim relates this pasuk to Yaakov's bowing 7 times before Eisav. Finally, Yaakov and Eisav - brothers, twins! - are face to face, and Eisav runs towards Yaakov and embraces him, hugs him, and kisses him. Asterisks on the word VAYISHAKEIHU. The Scribal custom is calling our attention to something important. A message we dare not overlook or ignore. Rashi tells us that our Sages in a Midrashic B’raita debate the message of the six dots written above the word. Some explain the dots by saying that the kiss was not sincere. Eisav still resented (hated) Yaakov, and absence did NOT make the heart grow fonder. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai disagrees. But he does not take the opposite point of view. Not exactly. He says (as Rashi quotes him) that it is a well-known truism (a halacha, in the wording of Rashi) that Eisav (and his descendants, and his spiritual heirs) hates Yaakov. Fact of Life. At this moment of their reunion after so many years of separation, says R’ Shimon b. Yochai, Eisav was overwhelmed with brotherly feelings and he kissed Yaakov “with all his heart”. That’s nice. It really is. But Eisav still hates Yaakov. And the descendants of Eisav still hate the children of Yaakov. And other people throughout the generations, up to and including today, and probably for a couple of tomorrows as well, still hate the Jewish People. And even when they are pressured and blackmailed into condemning terrorist acts, they proclaim that such acts are not in THEIR best interest, but do not condemn terror out of a desire for peace with Israel. (Just an example.) Or they say one thing to the English-speaking media and world, and a very different thing to their own people in Arabic (to use another example). Eisav asks about the women and children and
Yaakov prepares to introduce his family to Eisav. SDT Why did Yaakov hide Dina from Eisav? Some explain that Yaakov did not want Eisav to take Dina as a wife and thereby subject her to his wickedness. For this, Yaakov was punished, because Dina might have been (probably?) a positive influence in Eisav's life. (The very next portion of the Torah tells us of the kidnap and rape of Dina and the subsequent debacle of the revenge exacted by Shimon and Levi.) Commentaries ask whether Yaakov should be praised, rather than punished, for protecting Dina. Bartenura says that Yaakov's reason for hiding Dina was not the fear of anything negative happening to her, but the fear that she would succeed in reforming Eisav, which would make him worthy of the blessing that he would dominate his brother. Eisav asks about the groups of animals that he met on his way. Eisav at first refuses to accept the gifts, but eventually takes them. Then Eisav suggests that he and Yaakov join together. Yaakov adamantly refuses. NOTE: At first, Yaakov seems to want to
avoid antagonizing Eisav, even to the point of humbling himself before his
brother. However, when the possibility of subjecting his family to the
influences of Eisav is at issue, Yaakov boldly risks confrontation. Lesson
to learn. The land that Yaakov purchased was later
used for the burial of Yosef's remains. [S> 34:1 (31)] Dina (who had been hidden from Eisav) now goes out to explore the "local attractions". She is kidnapped and raped by Sh'chem who then falls in love with her. His father proposes an alliance with Yaakov's family for the purpose of intermarriage and fusing of their cultures. Shimon and Levi trick Sh'chem and his people into circumcising themselves. When the people are weakened, Shimon and Levi kill them to avenge what was done to Dina. Yaakov is upset at what they have done (perhaps not - some commentaries say he was upset at not being consulted in the first place), but they defend their actions. [P> 35:1 (8)] G-d tells Yaakov to move to Beit-El and build an altar there. Yaakov rids his household of idols. G-d prevents the locals from pursuing Yaakov and family to avenge the killing of the people of Sh'chem. Rivka's nurse Devora dies and is buried. (There is a Tradition that Rivka died at this point too. Some suggest that the Torah was silent about Rivka’s death because Yaakov was not around to tend to her burial, only Eisav was.) Who was D'vora, the nursemaid of Rivka? Why does she rate mention by name? Why is her death mentioned? It has been suggested that she was one of Avraham and Sara's "converts", but that they purposely did not take her when they went to Eretz Yisrael, with "the souls they had made there". Rather, they left her as a tutor for Rivka Imeinu, someone to teach her and influence her to become worthy and fitting to be Yitzchak's wife and one of the Matriarchs of the Jewish People. [P> 35:9 (14)] G-d appears once again to
Yaakov and blesses him. He confirms the new name Yisrael (which is used
alongside the name Yaakov, each having different connotations). Reuven UNTRANSLATED with Bilha... SDT The Gemara states: Anyone who thinks that Reuven actually slept with Bilha, as the literal translation of the pasuk would indicate, is grossly mistaken. Some say that Reuven moved Yaakov's bed from the tent of Bilha - where Yaakov had placed it after Rachel's death - into his mother's (Leah's) tent. The Torah's cryptic description of what he did is considered a sharp rebuke of his actions, which were disrespectful to his father. Nonetheless, he was motivated by protective jealousy for his mother Leah. The Mishna states that when the Torah was translated into Aramaic during public Torah reading, this pasuk was not translated. It was read, but it was left without TIRGUM so as not to mislead and confuse the people. This is a glaring example (of which there are many more, as well as more subtle ones) of the inability to understand the Written Word without its inseparable partner, the Oral Torah. This is so for "story" parts of the Torah, as well as Halachic texts. This is the tragedy of the nations of the world clutching their bibles and thinking that they hold in their hands the Word of G-d. They hold only part of the Word of G-d which is so easily misunderstood and perverted in the absence of its Oral part. [P> 35:23 (7)] ...the sons of Yaakov are 12. SDT This statement is part of the same pasuk (although it begins a new parsha) as the statement about Reuven's deed. This is considered proof of the Talmudic statement mentioned above. Had Reuven actually sinned, he would not immediately be acknowledged as one of the sons of Yaakov, he would have been ostracized, or worse. Additionally, he is identified as Yaakov's B'CHOR in the very next pasuk. Yaakov's sons are enumerated. Yaakov returns to his father's home. Yitzchak dies at 180 and is buried by Yaakov and Eisav. [P> 36:1 (19)] Eisav's descendants are enumerated. The fact that this is done at this point in the Torah, before the Torah continues with the accounts of the family of Yaakov seems to say: Let's finish up with Eisav first, before we continue with the important line of descent. Eisav is a force in this world, but he is not the reason for its existence. I (says the Torah, so to speak) am not yet ready to continue telling about Israel; I'll get to it after this business is out of the way. Another reason offered for the detailed
presentation of Eisav's lineage is a rebuke of sorts for Yaakov's humbling
himself before Eisav. Call him your master and you his servant, says G-d (so
to speak), then I will establish him and his line of royalty in their own
land many years before you and your descendants are ready for nationhood and
their own kings. [P> 36:31 (13)] Finally, the Torah
enumerates the kings that ruled the city-states of Eisav/Edom/Se'ir, "even
before there ruled a king in Israel". Israel must still go through many
stages of refinement and pass through many trials and tribulations before
they are to emerge as The People of Israel. The last 4 p'sukim are reread
for the Maftir. The ongoing battle between Yaakov and Eisav
is the main theme of the prophecy of Ovadya. The prophecy focuses on the
ultimate judgment that Eisav's descendants face; G-d will emerge as the true
King of all. The Haftara "answers" the question raised in the sedra as to
what are the real feelings of Eisav to Yaakov. Reuven, either voluntarily or under threat from a brigand, informs the brigand of the location of Shimon's assets (his real or personal property, or money). As a result of the information provided by Reuven, the brigand seizes Shimon's assets. There are times when Reuven is liable to Shimon and there are times when he is not. The halacha regarding informers differentiates two types threats by brigands, i.e. physical or monetary. The character of Shimon is irrelevant Furthermore it is a tradition that anyone who is an informer without having been physically threatened has no part in the World to Come. He goes to Hell and never emerges from there. The community, according to the instruction of Beth Din, may punish whoever is presumed to be an informer, (except one who is physically threatened). He may be punished even before he actually informs, if he only threatens to do so. After proper warnings, such punishments may include beatings, ostracisms, requesting punishment by the secular non-Jewish courts, and other methods that Beth Din deems proper. Although ordinarily Beth Din may not hear testimony if a party is not present, in the case of an informer, they may accept testimony about him even if he is not present, and may be less strict in deciding a case against him. The informer is not permitted to take any oath in Beth Din that would be beneficial to him. Whatever sanctions may be taken against an informer may also be taken against one who hired, encouraged, or instructed him to do such an act. Shimon may employ any means available to save himself from Reuven including causing damage to Reuven's property and inflicting injury on Reuven. All of the foregoing sanctions against Reuven apply only if he is not physically threatened. If the brigand physically threatens Reuven, he is not liable to these sanctions, although there are times that he has monetary liability to Shimon. Similarly, if Reuven admits to being an informer he is not subject to the sanctions described above, but he must still make the necessary payments to Shimon. In all situations Reuven should consult a competent Rabbi to discuss how he can gain forgiveness from Shimon and the community. Only then can God forgive him. There are times when Reuven the informer is not liable to Shimon. Reuven is free of liability under the following circumstances: 1. If Reuven is threatened by a brigand with physical harm or death to disclose Shimon's assets, and he does so. Reuven must reasonably conclude that if he does not comply with the demands of the brigand to disclose the whereabouts of Shimon's assets, then he risks physical injury or even death at the hands of the brigand. Although one may not save himself by using the assets of his fellow, in this situation the brigand has already fixed his intent to forcibly obtain Shimon's assets; Reuven is not the proximate cause of the loss to Shimon. 2. Shimon seeks to flee paying his debts to his creditors and Reuven informs the creditors who then stop Shimon. Reuven is not an informer since Shimon is indebted to his creditors. However, if as a result of Reuven informing the creditors, Shimon pays more than his debts, Reuven must compensate Shimon for his loss. Some of the Codes speak of the practice of Beth Din or community leaders to advise merchants regarding those who seek to purchase on credit and do not pay their bills or borrow and do not repay the loans. This extends to all types of business practices, naming those who adulterate company products. Or those who pass off gold plate for solid gold. The Codes speak of this as a commendable practice to be instituted in all communities. It is also maintained that when the Gentiles observe such practice they will respect Jewish beliefs. Reuven is liable to Shimon for the value of the property or money seized under the following circumstances: 1. Reuven voluntarily informs about Shimon's assets without threat of physical harm to disclose Shimon's assets. 2. As a result of Reuven's actions the brigand knows of Shimon’s assets. For example, Shimon retains Reuven to sell a precious stone for him. Reuven decides not to sell the stone and returns the stone to Shimon in the presence of a brigand. The brigand then forcibly takes the stone from Shimon. Another example is if two partners, Reuven and Shimon, loan money to the ruler. The ruler forces Reuven to forgive the entire debt, which he does. In this case Reuven is free of liability to Shimon for his half of the debt. 3. A brigand threatens Reuven with monetary
loss if he does not disclose where Shimon is and/or where Shimon has his
assets, and Reuven informs the brigand. Reuven is liable to Shimon for the
value of the assets and he is liable to Shimon for all of Shimon's
suffering. 4. If a brigand threatens Reuven, even with physical harm, to disclose his own assets, and he shows the brigand Shimon's assets, or if he shows the brigand both his own and Shimon's assets. 5. If the brigand threatens Reuven, even with physical harm, to bring him provisions, without specifying Shimon's provisions, and Reuven tells the brigand that Shimon has such provisions; the brigand takes Shimon's provisions. 6. Reuven physically touches the asset that he hands over to a brigand. This applies even if he was forced by the brigand to do so. For example, Reuven and Shimon are in dispute as to ownership of property, real or personal, each one claiming sole ownership. Reuven turns the property over to a brigand or a government official. Beth Din will compel Reuven to retrieve the property that he handed over and Beth Din will then determine ownership. However, technically Reuven is not an informer, since he had not intended that the brigand would keep the property but would only hold it to preserve it for Reuven. There is authority that Reuven is deemed to be an informer in this situation and is therefore liable to Shimon for the loss. We shall IYH complete this topic in the next lesson. The subject matter of this lesson is more
fully discussed in volume X chapter 388 of A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil
Law by E. Quint. Copies of all volumes can be purchased via email: orders@gefenpublishing.com
and via website: www.israelbooks.com and at local Judaica bookstores.
Questions to quint@inter.net.il Wisdom of Secrets III The gemara continues: "Ulla said, we hold that there are no multitudes in Bavel [Babylonia]. It is taught [in a b'raita]: There is no multitude less than 600,000." The significance of the number 600,000 is that this is the number of adult males counted among the children of Israel at the time of the Exodus. So this number represents a number of souls sufficient to encompass the entire scope of views and characters of the Jewish people. A common theme in Chasidic writings is that at all times the Jewish people comprises this number of individual souls, which are like the primal elements or building blocks from which all subsequent, "compound" souls are created. And indeed the Shulchan Arukh rules that the blessing is only said on 600,000 individuals. The statement of Ulla regarding Bavel is more controversial. Rambam (B'rakhot 10:11) writes that the blessing is said only in the land of Israel. Although Ulla mentions only Bavel, Bavel is often the synechdochic term for the entire Diaspora, whose center was there for many centuries. Rav Kook explains that these two characteristics, number and place, teach us that the unique status of the Jewish people is evident only when we are a nation, not when our multitudes represent only "a party or a faction". [An appropriate thought for this election season.] Nationhood in turn has two conditions: a sufficient number of people, specifically the same number which saw the "birth of a nation" in Egypt, and in addition the land of Israel, which is the only place our national character can flourish. (Olat Rayah I:387.) However, the Shulchan Arukh, following the Tur, does not rule out making the blessing in the Diaspora. The Beit Yosef mentions a number of possible reasons why the Tur does not rule like the Rambam. One possibility is that Ulla was merely making a factual statement: There aren't enough Jews in Bavel to assemble a multitude of 600,000, so even if you see a huge crowd, don't make the blessing. Another possibility is that Ulla does rule that the blessing can't be made in Bavel, but his ruling is contradicted by the practice of Rav Chanina son of Rav Ika who made the blessing on seeing two Torah scholars in Bavel, as we mentioned in last week's column. We saw last week that the Tur rules in accordance with Rav Chanina that the blessing can in principle be made on an outstanding Torah figure who embodies the many- faceted wisdom of Torah. However, we also pointed out last week that the Tur himself states that practically speaking there are no Torah scholars of this stature, so the blessing is not made on scholars today. We also explained, based on Rav Kook, that the blessing can't be made on scholars because it acknowledges not only that "their views differ" but also that "their faces differ" in other words, we wonder not only at the amazing variety of personalities but also at the remarkable combination of practical talents. Based on this explanation, we can partially reconcile Ulla's view with the ruling of the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh. There is no actual prohibition on reciting the blessing abroad, but practically speaking "There are no multitudes in Bavel" the unique character of the Jewish people, combining spiritual outlook and practical talents, are destined to be realized only here in the Land of Israel. Rabbi Asher Meir has two wonderful books in
print - Meaning in Mitzvot (ask for it at your local s'farim store) and The
Jewish Ethicist, available at some bookstores and through the Business
Ethics Center of Jerusalem, (02) 632-0222. Both works are highly recommended The whole subsequent story immediately calls to mind the incident of the mass rape of the concubine in the city of Giv'a that led to a civil war between the Tribes of Israel and the tribe of Binyamin (Shoftim 19). At the outset it should be noted that verse 22 in that story tells us that the evil men of the city gathered around the home that had given hospitality to the stranger and his concubine, whereas in S'dom we are told that all the people, young and old, demanded that Lot hand over his guests; in the former it was an act of some evil individuals, whereas in the latter it was the result of public policy supported unanimously. However, the commentators see further basic differences between the two stories, differences that highlight the under- lying idea behind the evil that was S'dom. "The Torah tells us that S'dom was rich and prosperous. They lived in constant fear that the poor of the neighboring tribes would come and settle in their city and thus detract from its wealth, so they made laws to keep out the strangers" (Malbim). Even today, rich countries limit emigration not only for nationalistic, racial or cultural reasons but also to limit competition for jobs or for natural resources. Halakhically, the entry of non-residents was conditional on their paying their share of the taxes; however, in medieval Franco-Germany the right of the autonomous self-governing Jewish communities to restrict free entry was recognized through the Cherem HaYishuv. Refugees have, unfortunately, been a constant in Jewish history, but although the question of allowing them refuge in the Jewish communities on the grounds of the economic competition they posed did arise, halakhic authorities never allowed denial of entry; the restriction on entry by the community of Rome is the one glaring exception. "The people of Giv'a had no intention of keeping strangers or poor people out of their town. However, the powerful ones among their leaders were driven by sexual desire to demand that the stranger and his concubine be handed over to them. They had consideration and respect for the old man who had sheltered the stranger and his concubine, and did nothing to his daughter even though she was offered to them together with the concubine. However, when the stranger offered his concubine to placate them, they permitted themselves to rape her as she was not considered a wife and therefore there was no adultery; furthermore, as the text in Shoftim tells us, she had acted promiscuously. So Giv'a did not warrant destruction and all that the Tribes of Israel wanted was that Binyamin should hand over the criminals since they had not fulfilled their obligation as a tribe to judge them. The aim was to make a fence to prevent sexual immorality and this in accordance with the halakha that Bet Din has the power and obligation to beat and prosecute whenever they see that public moral and spiritual welfare is threatened (Yevamot 90b). In their starting war, the Tribes sinned only in not protesting equally the idol of Micah, but later recognized their error and repented of the killing of most of Binyamin. S'dom was different. There the whole population gathered in front of Lot's house to demand that he hand over the strangers to them as they did not permit entry to strangers. The motivation here however, was not sexual immorality but rather the desire to prevent the entry and settlement of poor strangers, since they considered that it was harmful to their wealth that was equal to the plenty symbolized by Egypt. They had permitted Lot to dwell in S'dom either because he was wealthy [the equivalent of the modern capitalist visas that make entry into all countries easier] or out of respect to Avraham; in both cases he represented no economic danger to them" (Ramban). It seems that the idea that economic and social oppression as in S'dom was considered a more onerous sin than the sexual immorality that existed there and in Giv'a, may find its parallel in the halakhic ruling brought by Rambam (Mishne Torah, Hilkhot G'neiva 7:12) that the sin of false weights and measures is more serious than sexual immorality; the former being a sin both between Man and G-d and between Man and Man, whereas the latter is between Man and G-d only. "For the latter it is possible to repent and do teshuva, however, the former requires that restitution be made in order to do teshuva. False weights and measures injure many and often unknown parties, so such restitution may prove to be difficult if not impossible. It is this difficulty of true teshuva that makes them more onerous" (Mei'ir Einayim, Choshen Mishpat 131:19). Nevertheless, the Torah sees sexual transgressing as a cause for galut from Eretz Yisrael. "This seems strange since sexual morality is not one of the mitzvot ha'teluyot ba'aretz. However, when Hashem took us to be His Chosen People, He announced His Kingship over us, to be fulfilled by our keeping His commandments in the Land chosen by Him for our settlement. So the Torah foretells galut from that Land should the list of forbidden sexual relationships be transgressed" (Ramban, Vayikra 18) This is the 107th installment in Dr.
Tamari’s series on “Tanach and its messages for our times” Q: We have a mesh Parochet (curtain) in front of our Aron Kodesh. Some congregants have been questioning whether it is valid since you can see through it. Are there halachot or firm minhagim on the opaqueness required? Please provide sources. A: This is the type of public question which
is the local rabbi's clear domain. However, since the answer is that it is
valid and you want sources to clarify the topic, we assume we are not
getting involved improperly. Let us first understand the Parochet's function
and status. What does the Parochet serve and how? The Maharam Padova (#82) and others say that it serves the Aron Kodesh. It is appropriate to separate between the holy and the mundane. Just as we put a cloth on the Bima where the Sefer Torah sits to separate between them, so too we put the Parochet to separate between the Aron Kodesh and us. The Terumat Hadeshen (I, 68) points out that a Parochet is used primarily with the door of the Aron Kodesh closed. Thus, not only does it not touch the Sefrei Torah but does not even directly separate between them and us. This is important in his context, the question whether one can hang a Parochet before the Aron Kodesh on Shabbat. We rule (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 315:1) that it is forbidden to erect a vertical partition only when it serves a defined, halachic function (e.g., the wall of a sukka). The Terumat Hadeshen demonstrates that a Parochet lacks a defined, halachic function but just serves l'tzeni'uta. Tzeni'uta usually means modesty, in such contexts as being properly dressed. In that context, clothes that are see-through are insufficient. However, in our context, there is no prohibition to see the Aron's door or the Sifrei Torah (in shuls that keep the doors open). Rather, the separation demonstrates our reverence for that which is behind the curtain. Although at some point, transparency makes a Parochet meaningless in this regard, we doubt that the one in question is that transparent. Some say that the Parochet honors the Sifrei Torah, rather than the Aron Kodesh. Still, they are not a tashmish kedusha. Not only do they not touch the Sefer Torah, but they hang before it, not as a layer on top of it (see Machatzit Hashekel to 154:8). Regarding honoring the Sifrei Torah, the aesthetics are more of a factor than the opaqueness. Another explanation of a Parochet's function is that it is modeled after the Parochet that separated between the area of the Mishkan (Tabernacle) that housed the Aron and the rest of the Mishkan (Perisha, OC 154:5). When a division is necessary and its main purpose is to separate rather than prevent seeing, transparency is not a factor (Berachot 25b). As we have seen, a mesh Parochet can serve its various, possible functions, certainly when it significantly distorts the view. In general, we should adorn and thus honor our synagogues and their sacred objects. The Parochet may also serve to cover and/or separate. If it is in proper taste and generally finds favor in the eyes of the congregation, it need not be the center of controversy. 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 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 Many are familiar with Rashi on this verse, that Yaakov went back for little vessels, PACHIM K'TANIM, that he had left. Me'am Lo'ez relates that he went back for a special vessel of oil, PACH SHEMEN. It was the flask of oil that he had received miraculously when he awoke from his dream of the angels going up and down. He used this flask to anoint the pillar that he set up at the place of his dream. Then by a miracle the flask was refilled with oil. Yaakov realized that this flask was blessed and he carried it everywhere with him. He knew that with this flask of oil the vessels of the Temple would be anointed, and Elisha HaNavi would perform a miracle. (I wonder if this was even the same flask of oil found in the Temple for the miracle of Chanuka). Even though this was such a special flask, because of all the turmoil around him, Yaakov forgot it and had to go back by himself to retrieve it. That is why he was alone. From here R' Chiya and R' Shimon learned that a person should always go back to check that he didn't forget anything. This is a good lesson for all of us who might forget things (to turn off the lights, to take an umbrella, to turn off the gas)/ We should always give a second check around in order not to forget. Our forefather Yaakov taught us this simple lesson in "memory improvement". While Yaakov was alone, a "stranger" wrestled with him and touched him at the upper joint of his thigh (loins) thereby dislocating Yaakov's hip joint. Therefore Jews don't eat the displaced nerve on the hip joint, the GID HANASHE. One of many explanations (Daas Z'keinim) for the meaning behind this prohibition is that it acts as a KNAS, punishment for the children of Yisrael because they left their father alone - L'VADO The whole family had been there together. They should not have left Yaakov by himself, someone should have gone with him. It is possible to remove the sciatic nerve
in order to eat the rest of the piece of meat, but it is a very complicated
procedure that can only be done by someone trained specifically for this
task ( treiben in Yiddish, NIKUR in Hebrew). In some communities, since it
was easier to sell the whole back part of the animal to non-Jews, Jews did
not eat this piece of meat at all. Here is a recipe for sirloin steak, for
those who do eat it. The same recipe can be used for Minute or End steak. We refer to Ya'akov's return to Eretz Yisrael after his long sojourn with Lavan and his rapprochement with Esav. The Torah relates that Ya'akov arrived "intact" (Shalem) at the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan. There- after, "He bought the parcel of land upon which he pitched his tent from the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for one hundred kesitas" (B'reishit 33:18-19). The word Shalem is indicative of bodily completeness, in the sense of having overcome physical hurdles, and spiritual harmony, insofar as having spent years in a Diaspora setting, Ya'akov was not found faulty in his Torah knowledge (cf. Rashi on v.18). However, it is this return to Eretz Yisrael that represents the closing of the circle of Ya'akov's vow that if he returned "Shalem" to his father's house, "Hashem will be a G-d to me" (ibid 28:22). Ya'akov's state of mind is a prototype for further generations. Only in Eretz Yisrael could that ultimate state of fulfillment be reached. Ya'akov's purchase of land, like the acquisition of the Cave of Machpela and the site of the Beit Hamikdash, reaffirmed this inalienable connection between Eretz Yisrael, Am Yisrael and the G-d of Israel. Shabbat Shalom, Menachem Persoff "And G-d spoke to Moses as follows: Speak to the Children of Israel, saying, 'When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male child, she shall be impure for a seven day period… as during the days of her separation shall she be impure… For thirty-three days shall she remain in blood of purity; she may not touch anything sacred and she may not enter the Sanctuary until the completion of her days of impurity. If she gives birth to a female child, she shall be impure for two weeks, as during her separation; and for sixty-six days, she shall remain in blood of purity… (Vayikra 12:1-5). After the initial seven-day period for a male child (fourteen days for a female child), the Yoledet immersed in a Mikveh and was then permitted to her husband, but an additional "waiting" period of thirty-three days for a male child (forty total), and sixty-six days (eighty total) for a female child followed. During this supplementary period, though she was permitted to her husband, she was still banned from Mikdash grounds or from eating Kodashim or "coming in contact" with "anything holy". Rashi notes that during this supplementary period, Biblically, even if she experienced her menstrual flow, she was not considered a Nida. (However today, the Halacha does in fact regard a woman experiencing her menstrual flow during this period as a Nida [Yoreh Deah 194:1]). At nightfall of the forty-first or eighty-first day (the supplementary period actually ended at sunset) she became pure and, if the wife of a Kohein, was permitted to eat Teruma. On the morning of the forty-first day (or the eighty-first day), the Yoledet brought a male sheep and a turtle dove or pigeon to the Mikdash for an Olah and a Chatat. If she was poor, she might substitute an additional turtle dove or pigeon in place of the sheep (Vayikra 12:1-5). Upon offering her required Korbanot, she was permitted to eat Kodashim. The sage R. Simeon ben Yochai explained that the sin offering effected atonement for the Yoledet, not because she gave birth - children are a blessing from G-d - but because of the possibility that in the pain of birthing, she might have sworn never to cohabit with her husband again (Nida 31b). Ibn Ezra posited that the parturient's Olah atoned for blasphemous thoughts she might have entertained because of her pain. (If an Israelite had "forbidden thoughts" - Avon Machshevet HaLeiv - and contemplated such prohibited behavior as blasphemy, the worship of idols, apostasy, etc., after atoning for his sin, he brought an Olah. The concept of bringing an Olah to expiate forbidden thoughts was derived from Iyov (Job) who brought Olot saying, "It may be that my sons have sinned and blasphemed G-d in their hearts" (Iyov 1:5). Rabeinu Bechai suggests that the Chatat brought by the Yoledet expiates for the sin of Eve who, because of her disobedience, brought death into the world. Why does the birth of a male child engender impurity for only forty days (7+33) while the birth of a female child engenders impurity for eighty days (14+66)? Does this not show "the cultic inferiority of the female sex"? The surprising answer is "no"; this "extra impurity" does not suggest "cultic inferiority" at all. In fact, it indicates the exact opposite because "extra impurity" is usually a sign of greater deference and esteem. Redolent of Kabalistic imagery, the Or Hachayim Hakadosh illustrates the "origin" of "extra impurity" in a wonderful parable. "Let us assume that we have two containers inside a house, one filled with honey, the other full of refuse. If you take both of these containers outside, you will observe that the container of honey attracts swarms of flies whereas the container of refuse attracts an insignificant number of flies by comparison." Similarly, holiness "attracts all kind of negative spiritual elements. These are the forces of impurity that always attempt to attach themselves to anything sacred because they wish to benefit from the… sweetness of holiness" (Chukat). Far fetched? Consider this Mishna. "The Sadducees (who denied the validity of Torah She'b'al Peh) say, 'We cry out against you O Pharisees (a.k.a. "Chazal") because you declare that the Holy Scriptures (i.e. hand-written parchment scrolls) render the hands impure, but the writings of Hamiram (i.e., heretical books or the works of Homer) do not render the hands impure.'" R' Yochanan ben Zakkai reminded the Sadducees that even they would agree, "the bones of an ass are pure but the bones of Yochanan Kohein Gadol render impure." They replied, "As our love for them increases), greater is their (power to engender) impurity…. Using the same principle which the Sadducees themselves accepted, R' Yochanan ben Zakkai responded, 'So it is with the Holy Scriptures: our (greater) love for them is (reflected) in their (greater) ability to generate impurity, whereas the writings of Hamiram which are not precious to us do not engender impurity. (Since we have no love for the writings of Hamiram), "they do not render the hands impure" (Yada'yim 4:6). If we apply this principle, "the more impurity, the more respect", it would seem that the "extra" impurity engendered by the birth of a female child, if anything, demonstrates the "cultic superiority" of the female sex! With the exception of the eight small "unclean creeping things" specified in Vayikra 11:29-38, the Torah considers carrion of only the larger mammals "worthy" of having the ability of generate impurity. Moreover, the dead human being is the most defiling source of impurity of all! (Water-creatures [and birds] do not contaminate, perhaps because their origin is water [B'reishit 1:20], the very element which engenders purity.) However, there is something else. The whole cycle of birth and death, which can easily provide the basis of an "alternative spirituality", was banned from the Beit Mikdash - the earthly house of the Eternal One. The religions of the ancient world, Egypt, Canaan, Babylonia, etc., all revolved around the birth and death cycle. Nature came to life in the spring and "died" when the growing season was over; gods were born, died and were "resurrected". "Mother-earth" was so intimately connected with the life, fertility, and death of its inhabitants that earth-cults were inevitable. A widespread ancient myth with hundreds of local variations, told how the goddess Ishtar (or Osiris, Demeter, Attis, etc.) descended to the nether world to seek her lover. The disappearance of Ishtar threatened to end all life on earth because with her departure, all procreation ceased. Many frenzied spring festivals throughout the ancient world celebrated her "return". If man died like the nature gods did, could not a way be found to enable him to return to life again as they appeared to do? These myths and hopes formed the basis of the mystery religions, which were so popular in the latter days of Bayit Sheini. "The female more than the male is involved in the birth-death cycle, and therefore, is a greater focus of impurity, just because she represents a greater potentiality for a different religious orientation." Catriel's book in progress: The Temple of
Jerusalem, A Pilgrim’s Perspective; A Guided Tour through the Temple and the
Divine Service BOOKED? When a tiyul is listed as BOOKED - you can call to be wait-listed; if you call, you will be called back if there is a cancellation, if we add a bus, or when we fix a new date for the tiyul. CANCELLATION POLICIES: We reserve the right to charge a cancellation fee in case of last-minute cancellations. Also... Price of tiyul is based on a minimum number of participants. STUDENTS FROM ABROAD: Parents visiting you this year? If so, speak to us! (566-7787 ext. 261) to see if we have any tiyulim or Shabbatonim (call Ita Rochel ext. 204), while they are here, and to help with hotel and car reservations. KASHRUT POLICY: Food for Israel Center In-House programs is supervised by OU-in-Israel-Mehadrin. Israel Center sponsored trips and programs are Mehadrin. Hotels, restaurants, and tiyulim advertised by the Travel Desk or by outside parties are not necessarily Mehadrin and are not endorsed by the OU or the Israel Center. Calls from abroad: Due to time differences, we recommend that people from abroad fax 972-2-5660156 for attention of Travel Desk or e-mail tiyul@israelcenter.co.il. Please be sure to include e-mail or fax number for reply, in addition to phone number. Israel Center tiyulim are partially
subsidized by the Jewish Agency for Israel Relevant Times WHEN TO LIGHT HOW LONG TACHLIS: If one lights at the SET or DARK time, or earlier (remember, never before PLAG) then the candles should burn until at least 5:45pm (padded), preferably somewhat longer. (Since Rabbeinu Tam's Stars-Out is around 6:00pm during Chanuka week (this year), one might try to have his Chanuka lights burn at least until 6:30-ish. This is not required, but it does cover the different opinions concerning Stars-Out.) For Motza'ei Shabbat and anytime else one lights later than Tzeit HaKochavim, then the candles must last at least a half hour, regardless of what time one lit. (Preferably longer, as mentioned.) Examples: Jerusalem, second night of Chanuka. One who lights at 4:48pm, the candle should last at least until 5:45pm. Approx. 1 hour minimum. Be aware that the small colorful Chanuka candles we used to get in the mail from an orphan home, with the music for Maoz Tzur on the side, are too small for Minhag Yerushalayim, because they won't last at least an hour. The longer colorful candles that are available here in plentiful supply, are long enough (except for Erev Shabbat). One who lights at 5:08pm, his candles also need last only to 5:45pm. One who lights at 5:30pm, the candles have to last at least until 6:00pm. If you light at 10:00pm, they have to last until 10:30pm. If you light at 3:45 (due to extenuating circumstances), the candles must last until 5:45pm - two hours! In all these examples, it is preferable that they last even longer. As mentioned earlier, this is because PIRSUMEI NISA is considered to have extended beyond the original "half hour after dark". Do the candles need to burn hours longer? No. How much is "somewhat longer"? Consult with your Rav. EARLIEST This time is padded slightly to avoid someone's being off a bit and lighting too early. Those lighting early should remember that the candles or oil must be able to last until the minimum half-hour after Stars-Out. OFF TIMES Sometimes a less-than-perfect performance of a mitzva is a fine, acceptable "second best". Sometimes, not. Lighting Chanuka candles early or late is a poor second, at best. Lighting early lacks an element of Pirsumei Nisa at the time of lighting - which is when the mitzva is performed - because a candle flame is not eye-catching during full daylight. Lighting late is not so good because of the opinions that the time-period for Pirsumei Nisa from the days of the Gemara remains the optimum time (and some say the ONLY time) for the fulfillment of the mitzva. Although we follow other opinions, and basically allow lighting any time of the night, it is far less than ideal to light late. A "good" excuse makes it okay, but not great. One should consult a Rav especially for recurring situations, such as coming home late from work or school, and the like. Remember that having someone light for you is a valid alternative to your lighting for yourself, and sometimes it is even the preferred alternative. Ask your Rav. See further for other POINTS that apply to Chanuka-candle lighting. FRIDAY, Dec. 30 - 6th candle Something else that one should try to do on Erev Shabbat-Chanuka is to daven Mincha before candle lighting. This is so because Mincha “belongs” to Friday and candle lighting “belongs” to Shabbat (even though we are lighting when it is still Friday). Furthermore, the lighting of the Menora in the Beit HaMikdash was done after the Tamid sacrifice of the afternoon. All this said, if it means not davening Mincha with a Minyan, it is better to light and then go to shul for Mincha and Kabbalat Shabbat & Maariv. However, one should try to daven at a Mincha Gedola Minyan. With that in mind, we will be davening Mincha at the Israel Center on Friday, December 30th at 12:12pm, in the Wolenitz Family Shul Ohel Shmuel, on the ground floor of the Center. (Men and women are invited.) LIGHTING Jerusalem (and Petach Tikva) custom for every Shabbat is to light candles 40 minutes before sunset. (Maale Adumim lights 35 minutes before sunset.) There is a common custom to delay Shabbat candles 15 to 20 minutes after the posted time (remember - Jerusalem and Petach Tikva only (Maale Adumim, make it 10-15 minutes), or other places where the same practice is observed) so that one's Chanuka candles do not have to be lit so early. This matter should be explained well to the family so that misunderstandings do not arise. Be very careful not to get too close to sunset. Let 4:35pm be a "redline" for lighting candles (Chanuka or Shabbat) - otherwise, one runs the risk of encroaching on Shabbat. If you are late, be absolutely sure the sun is still in the sky - otherwise it is better not to light Chanuka or Shabbat candles. TACHLIS: Shabbat candle lighting time for
Jerusalem on Erev Shabbat-Chanuka is 4:10pm. Either keep to this time for
Shabbat candles, with Chanuka candles right before, or wait until 4:25-4:30
to light Chanuka candles followed immediately by Shabbat candles. In all cases, do not light either Chanuka or Shabbat candles before PLAG Mincha, see chart, adjust as necessary. Also, as mentioned earlier - and this is very important - whenever you light Chanuka candles, they must have enough fuel (oil or wax) to last until at least a half-hour after stars-out, that is, at least until 5:45pm (padded), preferably (somewhat) longer. For Friday lighting, this could mean 1½-2 hours. Standard (or even the prettier, longer) Chanuka candles will not make it. Recommended are the #16 or #20 Shabbat candles, which will fit most Chanukiyas and will last long enough. For oil users, experience will teach you how much oil you need. If you do not have the experience, it doesn’t hurt to experiment a couple of days before Shabbat so you will be ready. Suggestion: If many Chanukiyot are lit in your home, and you usually have everyone gather for each lighting, you might want to speed things up on Friday by having people light close to simultaneously. (Just a suggestion.) Suggestion: Hold MA’OZ TZUR for the Shabbat table as one of the Z’mirot, rather than sing it with candle lighting, so you can get to shul right after lighting. It also makes Friday night feel more like Chanuka. Many shuls will sing L’CHA DODI to the tune of MA’OZ TZUR on Shabbat Chanuka. And, of course, at the table, especially if you have any GAN-age children or grandchildren present, there are many Chanuka songs to add to your usual Friday night repertoire of Z’mirot and other songs. Remember, although Chanuka does not require a SEUDAT MITZVA, any meal with songs, stories, and relevant Divrei Torah (especially, but not only, on Shabbat) becomes a special Chanuka Seudat Mitzva. MOTZA"SH Dec 31 - 7th candle Okay, it's Motza'ei Shabbat and Chanuka (and Rosh Chodesh this year), we're home from shul as soon after Shabbat as possible, what now? Two mitzvot to perform - Havdala and Chanuka candles. By the rule of TADIR (that which is more frequent should be done first), havdala should be said first. And by logic, one should "finish" with Shabbat and then light candles for the next day of Chanuka, which is Sat. night & Sunday. Many authorities hold that on Motza'ei Shabbat, one should say havdala first and then light Chanuka candles. This opinion is followed by the majority of Chanuka-candle-lighting Jews all over the world. The Maharal (among others) is vehement in his insistence that we cannot possibly consider doing some- thing so "weekday-ish" as lighting Chanuka candles on Motza"Sh, unless we have first said havdala. He rejects any argument to the contrary. ON THE OTHER HAND... there is a strong argument for lighting Chanuka candles before havdala. First of all, Shabbat is over when it is 5:26pm AND one has said Havdala in davening (ATA CHONANTANU in the Maariv Amida) OR at least said BARUCH HAMAVDIL BEIN KODESH L'CHOL. The Havdala with wine, spices, candle, is NOT what ends Shabbat - it is what honors the departing Shabbat (and permits eating and drinking). Even so, havdala should go first, except for one very important factor: The prime time (according to some opinions, the only time) for Chanuka candles is ticking away. We cannot, of course, light Chanuka candles when it is still Shabbat. But we should maximize the amount of time of the "half-hour after" once we are allowed to light. Havdala will wait; Chanuka candles will not. Therefore, the OTHER opinion is that Chanuka candles go first and then havdala. This procedure comes with the reminder not to use the Chanuka candles for havdala, since one may not benefit from the Chanuka lights, and the bracha in havdala is specifically upon using the light (hence the examining of fingernails, etc.). "Chanuka candles first" is the opinion of the Vilna Gaon and many others, and is Minhag Yerushalayim. (Remember: not everyone in Jerusalem follows Minhag Yerushalayim and some people elsewhere do.) This dispute is one of the few in halacha that is resolved in the following manner: "Whichever opinion you follow, you have performed correctly". Either procedure may be followed. Family and community custom should play a deciding role in this issue. Again, a Rav should be consulted, especially if one is considering a change of his/her practice. Some say that those who light outdoors
should follow the custom of lighting before havdala. Those who light indoors
can take their pick. In shul, it is the universal practice to light Chanuka candles before saying havdala, this to maximize Pirsumei Nisa in a situation where everyone present will be leaving for home shortly. At home, people will still be there for the Chanuka candles, so there is no need to light before havdala (according to those who follow the first opinion). Those who say havdala first can light the Shamash for the Chanuka candles with the havdala candle before extinguishing it, thus dovetailing two mitzvot. Those who follow the second opinion can light the havdala candle from the Shamash (but not from any of the mitzva candles), thereby dovetailing one mitzva into another. On Motza'ei Shabbat, when we light after Stars-Out, it is sufficient for the candles to burn for half an hour. Still, it is preferable that they last longer. This has to do with the fact that in our time, people are out in the streets later than in times past and Pirsumei Nisa (publicizing the miracle) applies later than the original "half-hour after stars-out". A note for Rabeinu Tam people: Those who
follow the Shabbat-out time of Rabeinu Tam (72 minutes after sunset) and
consider it to be the correct halachic time, must keep it on Motza'ei
Shabbat Chanuka, even though it means losing "prime time" for Chanuka
candles. POINTS to keep in mind... • Opinions differ, but a common practice is to place the first candle (or oil cup) in the right side of the Chanukiya. If one lights at the doorpost, then the first candle should be closest to the doorpost, even if it is the left side of the Chanukiya. From the second night on, the custom (one of the customs) is to "load" the Chanukiya from right to left, but to light it, left to right. At the doorpost, one loads it from the doorpost out, and lights it starting with the candle closest to the doorpost. Loading and lighting direction is not crucial to the performance of the mitzva, but there are reasons for the various practices. • The essential performance of the mitzva of Chanuka Lights is the lighting of a single candle each night, and the custom that we follow of increasing the number of candles each night is considered HIDUR MITZVA (enhancement of the mitzva). One practice that has developed because of this, is to begin reciting HANEIROTHALALU after the first candle is lit, while lighting the others. Alternatively, one can wait until the lighting is done to say HANEIROT HALALU. • One should not just light the Chanuka candles and then go on to business as usual, but rather one should look at the candles for a while, ponder G-d's miracles, spend some time with the family talking about the message of Chanuka and how it relates to our time, play a little dreidel, sing a song or two, have a snack, have some Chanuka fun. • It is recommended to learn some Torah, share a Dvar Torah, have a family shiur, or something like that, right after candle lighting. The decrees of the Greeks included a ban on Torah learning. Our celebration of Chanuka marks our freedom from Greek oppression, including the ability to learn Torah in public without fear So let's do just that! • Notice on the "Chanuka Card" (part of this week's TT) that the word SHEL in the first bracha is in parentheses. There is a dispute as to whether the bracha ends NER SHEL CHANUKA or NER CHANUKA. One should follow his own (or family) minhag, if you have one (and remembers it). If not, you might want to ask your Rav which wording you should use. (Those who say NER CHANUKA have a bit of a problem if they sing the brachot, but don't let that determine your choice of wording.) Indoor/Outdoor Many people who have come to Israel, still light inside, at the window, as they had in their countries of origin. Others have gone back to the original practice of lighting outdoors. It seems that this is the preferred method in Yerushalayim. If you are considering changing any aspect of your Chanuka candle lighting routine, (candle to oil or vice versa, sunset to stars-out or vice versa, indoors to outdoors or vice versa, window to door or vice versa, each family member to one for the family or vice versa, etc.) it is advisable to consult a Rav. AL HANISIM is added to every Amida and all
Birkat HaMazon through- out Chanuka. (There is no reference to Chanuka in
"AL HAMICHYA'" i.e. Bracha Mei'ein Shalosh.) Forgetting AL HANISIM does NOT
invalidate either the Amida or Birkat HaMazon. That means that one does NOT
repeat either, because AL HANISIM was omitted. However, if one realizes the
omission before the end of the Amida, AL HANISIM can be said right before
YIHYU L'RATZON. In Birkat HaMazon, an omitted AL HANISIM becomes a
HARACHAMAN, right before HARACHAMAN HU Y'ZAKEINU, as follows... Day 1 - One Sefer Torah. Three Aliyot. Kohein gets the introduction of the Dedication of the Mishkan portion, from the beginning of Bamidbar 7 (first 11 p'sukim). Some shuls begin the reading 6 p'sukim earlier, to include the Birkat Kohanim parshiyot with the Chanuka reading. This is appropriate because the Chashmona'im were kohanim. Levi and Yisrael Aliyot split the account of the gifts of the leader of Yehuda, Nachshon b. Aminadav, 3 p'sukim each. Days 2,3,4,5 - One Sefer Torah. Three people to the "Tribal Leader" of the day (from Naso, Bamidbar 7). Each day's portion has 6 p'sukim. The first three are read for the Kohen, the next three for the Levi. The third Aliya is a repeat of the whole portion. (Outside of Israel, the third Aliya is the next day's portion.) Day 6, Shabbat, and the first day of Rosh Chodesh - This year, THREE Sifrei Torah are taken out. Parshat HaShavua - MIKEITZ (not always, but most often, including this year) is read from the first, to six people (Shishi and Sh'vi'i are combined). In the second Torah we read Sh'vi'i - which is the Musafim of Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh (Bamidbar 28:9-15). Chatzi Kaddish is said between the second and third Torahs. We read Maftir in the third Torah, which is the Chanuka portion - the gifts of Elyasaf b. D'u'el from Gad. Torah reading is followed by the special Chanuka Haftara, which preempts the regular Haftara of Mikeitz and also that of Shabbat Rosh Chodesh. The reading is from Zecharya, and includes his vision of a golden Menora. (More on the Sedra Summary two weeks from now.) Day 7, 2nd day Rosh Chodesh - Two Sifrei Torah are taken out. 3 people are called to the first Torah, and the reading is the weekday Rosh Chodesh portion (including the daily sacrifices, the Musaf of Shabbat, and the Musaf of Rosh Chodesh). In the second Torah, the Chanuka portion of Elishama b. Amihud from Efrayim is read. Day 8, Zot Chanuka - One Torah. Kohein gets the first half (3 p'sukim) of the Chanuka portion of Gamli'el b. P'datzur of Menashe. Levi gets the second half of the Day 8 Nasi. The third Aliya gets days 9, 10, 11, and 12, the summary of all the gifts, and the beginning of B'ha-a'lo-t'cha, i.e. the portion of Aharon and the Menorah. On top of everything else, enjoy the celebration of HaShem's miracles and victories. Chanukah Sameiach OU ISRAEL CENTER [The
Parshat Vayishlach Homepage]
|
