MISC section - contents: [1] From the virtual desk of the OU VEBBE REBBE Q: I put a hot, pareve water kettle in a milchig sink and saw that it touched a relatively small piece of cheese. Do I need to kasher the kettle, and, if so, how? Kashering is required even where the food we want to heat in the kli would remain kosher even if the kli is not kashered. For example, if one cooks most foods in a treif pot that has not been used for 24 hours, the food remains kosher. However, the kli must still be kashered as if it were within 24 hours (Avoda Zara 76a). In this case, if you used this kettle immediately for water and the water became mixed into something fleishig, the food would be permitted for S'faradim and perhaps for Ashkenazim (see Shulchan Aruch & Rama, YD 95:5; Shach, ad loc.:4). The situation is more lenient if the kli sat unused for 24 hours (although we are more strict regarding water heated in such a pot because it can be easily replaced (Rama, ibid.:3)). If the piece of cheese was very small, it is possible that no kashering is necessary (see Binat Adam 41:58). Otherwise, one is required to kasher a pot that he wants to use for pareve if it absorbed milchig or fleishig. The situation where a kli becomes milchig rather than treif is less problematic regarding how to kasher it. A kli that absorbed ta’am while over a flame, without a liquid medium, requires libun, exposing it to very high “dry” heat, commonly available only from blow- torches and self-cleaning ovens. However, if the absorbed ta’am was from a permitted food with halachic limitations (e.g. milk or meat) it is sufficient to put it into boiling water, in a process called hagala (Avoda Zara 76a). In your case, where the ta’am was absorbed away from a fire, there is certainly no need for full libun. When hagala works, an easier form of libun known as libun kal also works (Rama, Orach Chayim 451:4). Although there are differing opinions regarding the level of heat needed for libun kal, most assume that a kli left in a normal oven’s highest setting for at least half an hour is sufficient. One of the technical advantages of libun kal is that, if done for long enough, it burns up problematic grime that is hard to remove (ibid.). This makes it unnecessary to carefully clean the entire kli from residue, which may be difficult or impossible (see Tur, YD 121; Hagalat Keilim (Cohen) 6:(5)). Often, a kettle has plastic on top, which would likely get ruined if exposed to an oven’s top temperature. In such a case, libun kal is forbidden even if one is willing to take the risk. This is because when a person is concerned that kashering will ruin his kli, we do not trust him to do a proper job (Shulchan Aruch, OC 451:1). Thus, it is best to remove the plastic section, do the libun, and return the plastic (assuming the plastic part did not absorb directly). Theoretically, one should be able to apply the heat of libun kal to the part of the kli which absorbed the cheese. In this way, the rule k’bol’o kach polto (just as it absorbs, so it expels) presumable applies (Rama, YD 121:6). However, the Shach (ad loc.:18) and others say it is proper to rely on this leniency only bedi’avad (after the fact). However, if it is not possible to clean the kli and do hagala to it, it is possible to employ libun to the place of the absorption alone. This is especially reasonable regarding a kli which will be used for pareve and certainly if the amount that was absorbed is tiny compared to the amount of water one regularly uses (see Shulchan Aruch, YD 99:7). Ask the Rabbi Q&A is part of Hemdat Yamim, the weekly parsha sheet published by Eretz Hemdah. You can read this section or the entire Hemdat Yamim at www.ou.org or www.eretzhemdah.org. And/or you can receive Hemdat Yamim by email weekly, by sending an email to info@eretzhemdah.org with the message: Subscribe/English (for the English version) or Subscribe/Hebrew (for the hebrew version). Please leave the subject blank. Ask the Vebbe Rebbe is partially funded by the Jewish Agency for Israel [2] Candle by Day [3] CHIZUK and IDUD (for Olim & not-yet-Olim respectively) Rashi's interpretation seems to conflict with the notion that Eretz Yisrael is inherently ours due to the fact that our forefathers lived there. Furthermore, the idea mentioned by Rashi that Eretz Yisrael is not an inheritance for the Jews is also troubling since it seems to contradict a verse in Vaera (Sh'mot 6:8), where God tells Moshe that He will give the Jews the land of Israel as an inheritance. How then are we to understand the Rashi in our parsha? TORAH THOUGHTS as contributed by Aloh Naaleh members for publication in the Orthodox Union's 'Torah Insights', a weekly Torah publication on Parshat HaShavu’a [4] Wisdom and Wit Once, when he was at the bathhouse, the Chafetz Chayim saw a man take another man’s pail without the man’s permission, and use it to pour water over himself. Seeing this, the Chafetz Chayim approached the man and told him quietly: “If a person uses another’s pail without permission to rinse himself off, he comes out of the bathhouse dirtier than when he entered it.” [5] Portion for the Portion by Rakel Berenbaum - FEEDback to berenbau@actcom.net.il The verses tell us that although the hail brought utter destruction, there was something left behind in order for there to be something for the locusts to eat. The verses seem to connect the two plagues hail and locusts by pointing out that something was actually left behind. Daat Mikra actually points out that the plagues can be looked at as units of two. Each group of plagues is there to show the Egyptians that it was worth- less to depend on another one of their numerous gods because Hashem was much stronger then them. The first two plagues dealt with the water, the third and fourth with the land, the fifth and sixth with diseases spread through the air, and these two plagues - hail and locusts - deal with produce. These plagues show the Egyptians that their gods can't provide sustenance for them, but Hashem can provide for the Jewish people. All the plagues as a unit show that our One G-d, Hashem is mightier then the multitude of gods that the Egyptians believed in - as the verse says (12:12), “I will perform acts of judgment on all the gods of Egypt.” A few recipes for that leftover bread. BROWN BETTY [6] Parsha Points to Ponder - BO 2) Why does Moshe declare that TO ALL THE JEWISH PEOPLE NO DOG WILL WHET ITS TONGUE regarding the final plague? (11:7) If the purpose is to teach that no Jews will die why doesn't he say that outright? 3) The Torah teaches that the first born of a donkey must be redeemed with a lamb which is then given to the Kohanim in its place. (See 13:13) If the donkey is not redeemed, it must be decapitated. What is the significance of chopping off the donkey's head when it is not redeemed? THESE ARE THE ANSWERS 1) The Chatam Sofer teaches that G-d did not want to blind the Egyptians since a natural outcome of blindness is a strengthening of the other senses. By creating a situation in which they were able to see but the darkness prevented the effectiveness of that ability, not only were they not able to see, but the effort they expended on trying to see diverted their focus from using and strengthening their other senses, thereby magnifying the severity of the plague. 2) The Ohr HaChayim answers that this phrase revealed something very important to the Jewish people. The barking dogs marked the presence of the Angel of Death. There were not going to be barking dogs in any location which was all Jews. There were certainly Egyptians who would try to find safe haven amongst the Jews and this could certainly alarm the Jews with the fear that the plague was not working. However, Moshe declared, if there was even one Egyptian among Jews, the dogs would come and whet their tongue and this would show the Jews that no Egyptian would succeed in escaping the successful plague. 3) The Netziv explains that since the first-born donkey could not fulfill its potential and lost its chance (through redemption by the lamb) to indirectly bring benefit to others (the Kohamim), it forfeits its right to life. This teaches that one who has the capacity for greatness and chooses not to use that potential, is worse than one who never had such ability in the first place. Parsha Points to Ponder is prepared by Rabbi Dov Lipman, who teaches at Reishit Yerushalayim, Tiferet, and Machon Maayan in Beit Shemesh and RBS and is the author of "DISCOVER: Answers for Teenagers (and adults) to Questions about the Jewish Faith",just re-published by Feldheim, ppp@israelcenter.co.il [7] Torah KidBits At the very beginning of Parashat Bo, Hashem sends Moshe to Par'o (for the third time). But the instructions He gives are strange. He tells Moshe: BO EL PAR'O - Come to Par'o. If He was sending him to Par'o's palace, shouldn't He have said Go to Par'o? If you look at the Chumash carefully, you'll see that every time Moshe was ordered to go to the palace, he was told to come instead of to go. The palace was surrounded by fences, wild animals, and armed guards. No one could possibly enter without permission, yet Moshe went right in just as though he were taking a stroll thorough a public park. He entered - and left! - safely. Obviously Par'o did not want him there, so how could he come and go as he pleased? He came and went because G-d came with him. That's why Hashem said "Come to Par'o". It was as though Hashem were inviting Moshe to accompany Him to the palace. One of G-d's names is HaMakom - The Place. He is in all places at once. He can come and go wherever and whenever He pleases. No gates or guards can stop Him, so entering Pa'ro's palace was no problem at all. At first, Moshe was a little worried. Perhaps he was even a little fearful of what might happen. But if Hashem was coming with him, he knew that everything would be fine. We usually think of Hashem performing spectacular miracles, but these three, simple words BO EL PAR'O were enough to fill him with trust and faith. By the way, did you ever notice how many women are in the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim? The Rabbis said that the Jews were redeemed because of righteous Jewish women. There was Yocheved, Moshe's mother, and Miriam, his sister. Both saved countless Jewish babies from the hands of the Egyptians. There was Bitya, the daughter of Par'o, who took Moshe from the river and raised him, and who later joined the Jewish people when they left Egypt. There were the women who encouraged their husbands not to lose hope, and the women who sang G-d's praises at the sea, and the women who refused to worship the Golden Calf. So next time Pesach comes around, remember how important your mother is and do your best to help her out. And remember that wherever you are and whatever you do, HaMakom is there with you! [8] MicroUlpan [9] Torah from Nature [10] TTReader Feedback Ed. note: Until we hear from Rabbi Berger on this, we will just confirm that Avram, his wife (Sarai), and nephew Lot "did" Aliya from Egypt to the Negev, from which they traveled to Beit El and elsewhere. Thank you SD for pointing that out. Interesting either way, since Avraham and family and Yosef's brothers were already living in Eretz Yisrael (K'na'an), went down to Mitzrayim for various famine-related reasons, and their RETURN to Israel is called Aliya. The answer is “Mashiach hasn’t come yet.” The Ramban and his Zionist followers are “daat yehidim” in this. However Rav Moshe Feinstein wrote some place in “Igros Moshe” as some addenda to a different question, that nowadays Mitzvat Yishuv Eretz Yisrael is a “mitzva kiyumit” not a “mitzva chiuvit” (in modern Hebrew, “mitzvat chova.) “He explains that no one is mechuyav (obligated) in “tzitzit” but if I have a garment with four corners, I have to put on tzitzit. The same way, no one is mechuyav to live in E.Y. But if one lives here, it is a mitzva. To be sure, we who live here... [here the AG describes many of the special, wonderful spiritual and psychological benefits of living in E.Y.]... and we hope that more of our brethren will come here to enjoy those things with us. However- we have no right to make them feel guilty that they are not living here. Mashiach has not yet arrived. If some people have economic preferences, or family difficulties, or security concerns regarding living here, we have no right to tell them to come here in spite all these difficulties. My first reaction to what you wrote is this "snappy comeback": How many frum Jews outside of Israel choose not to wear tzitzit or talit because it is ONLY a mitzva kiyumit? And how many are meticulously careful with the mitzva of tzitzit? I would add that there are many, many genuinely religious Jews who also are careful to observe many CHUMROT, strict measures in Jewish practice that are even less than "mitzvot kiyumit". But somehow, living in Israel seems to be treated differently by some people. All of a sudden, they are quoting the Megilat Esther's comments on the Ramban as a justification for not having Aliya on their agenda. More: The issue of whether living in Israel is a mitzva in our time and if so, what kind of mitzva it is, is one thing. But you will notice that the "editorials" in TT that deal with Aliya, address the issue of what appears to be what G-d wants of us. A heter not to do something does not mean that G-d stopped wanting us to do it. You, AG, would not be living in Eretz Yisrael if you didn't think that this is where G-d wants Jews to be. As to having the right to make Jews who don't live here uncomfortable or feel guilty - I not only believe that we most definitely have the right, but I also feel that feeling guilty about not living here is a BRACHA. Woe unto the Jewish people if we ever stop crying by the waters of Babylon... Longing to live here is what will hasten the Mashiach. Getting too comfortable and complacent in Galut can unfortunately delay the Geula. As to economic, family, and security concerns, some of them are acceptable reasons for not living in Israel yet, but none of them are valid excuses for not wanting to live here, and for not putting Aliya on one's agenda. People with "real" excuses should only feel a little uncomfortable with what they read in TT. People who say, "Aliya? Are you crazy?" should squirm a lot. -PC speaking only for myself [11] Divrei Menachem Three phrases here reflect three phases of the Egyptian exile, namely, "Gerut" - the element of being a stranger; "Avdut" - the aspect of slavery; and "Inui" - affliction and persecution. Now, each of these 3 elements can be found, in succession, in each of the three sets of plagues to which the Egyptian people was subjected. The plagues of blood, wild beasts and hail so upset Egyptian routine that they felt like strangers. The plagues of frogs, animal disease, and locusts caused the Egyptians to feel like slaves as they tried to dispose of endless piles of carcasses. And the plagues of lice, boils and darkness were tortuous bodily afflictions. Thus were the Egyptians taught that superiority and wealth are transient and subject to the lowliest of animals and bugs and the seemingly casual quirks of weather. And through the age-old divine principle of "measure for measure," Hashem also fulfilled His word that, "the nation that they will serve, I shall judge," thus sanctifying His name in this world. [The Parshat Bo Homepage]
|
