MISC section - contents: [1] Vebbe Rebbe [1] From the virtual desk of the OU VEBBE REBBE The Orthodox Union - via its website - fields questions of all types in areas of kashrut, Jewish law and values. Some of them are answered by Eretz Hemdah, the Institute for Advanced Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, headed by Rav Yosef Carmel and Rav Moshe Ehrenreich, founded by HaRav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l, to prepare rabbanim and dayanim to serve the National Religious community in Israel and abroad. Ask the Rabbi is a joint venture of the OU, Yerushalayim Network, Eretz Hemdah... and the Israel Center. The following is a Q&A from Eretz Hemdah... Q: May I eat on Shabbat in the house of someone whose business (in Europe) stays open on Shabbat? A: If the owner works in the store on Shabbat, one has to assume that he has the status of a M'chaleil Shabbat B'farhesia (one who desecrates Shabbat publicly), who loses all halachic NE'EMANUT (credibility, trustworthiness) (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 119:6; see Shut Chatam Sofer, Choshen Mishpat 175 regarding operating a store on Shabbat). If, though, a wife who does not violate prohibitions vouches for all the food's purchase and preparation it would be permitted to eat there. Your question implies that the owner only keeps the store open, and let's assume with non-Jews selling and working. You also imply that the person seems to generally follow the laws of the Torah. Since you give no details, we cannot say whether your acquaintance's store is allowed to be open on Shabbat with non-Jews working in it. Some relevant factors include whether there is a non-Jewish partner and the nature of the partnership; whether it is known publicly that it is a Jewish-owned business; how the workers are paid and whether they are required to open on Shabbat. We will work with your apparent assumption that the owner violates a rabbinic prohibition by keeping it open. There is considerable debate, without a clear consensus, regarding whether the sweeping disqualification for Chilul Shabbat B'farhesia applies to the violation of rabbinic prohibitions of Shabbat (see Baer Heitev, Yoreh Deah 2:15; Pitchei Teshuva, YD 2:8; Rabbi Akiva Eiger, ad loc.; Aruch Hashulchan, YD 2:16). Besides the special disqualification of a M'chaleil Shabbat, there is the general matter that one who does not follow a halacha loses credibility. The Gemara (B'chorot 30a) cites a machloket Tanna'im whether one who is not trustworthy in one area of halacha is not trusted for anything or whether he is trusted in areas that are more severe and thus it is less likely that he would violate them. We accept the opinion that one is still believed regarding matters that are more severe (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.:5). On one hand, one who violated rabbinic prohibitions should not be suspected of violating ones of Torah origin (B'chorot 30a). On the other hand, when one eats by someone, he has to be sure that not only are there are not Torah violations but that there are also not rabbinic violations. Regarding questions of general kashrut, this should not be a problem because the transfer of distrust from a severe violation to a lighter one applies only when the violations are of the same general type (i.e., from forbidden food to forbidden food) and would not apply from Shabbat to kashrut (see Shach 119:12). Yet, if one wants to eat in this person's house on Shabbat, don't we have to be concerned that he will violate a rabbinic prohibition of Shabbat as he did regarding the store? The solution to these problems is found in the Rama (YD 119:7). One does not lose his reliability if he violated a prohibition that people don't think is a real prohibition. Since there are cases where one can have his store operated on Shabbat and since, for a long time in many places, there has been an atmosphere where many believed that doing so in general is not forbidden, the storeowner is not categorized as a M'chaleil Shabbat nor is he considered one who is suspect of sinning. Of course, it may be questionable if someone of this level knows enough to keep a sufficiently kosher home, but the matter of the store per se should not make it forbidden to eat in his house even on Shabbat. [2] Candle by Day Sometimes we cannot concentrate because our mind is too preoccupies with certain thoughts for us to do so. At such times, instead of throwing up our hands in despair at our inability to pursue a desired path of thought, we should realize that we are fertile for no thought to a greater degree than the very kind which is preoccupying us at the moment. And in this realization, we should fix our attention upon that thought which has taken such strong hold of our consciousness and expoit its insistence for all its worth. In general, we must abandon the attitude of assuming the best thing for us to do, and the thing we can do best, is that which we wish to do at a particular moment. We must admit that we are not our own masters, and become more our masters than we are by directing to our purposes the forces that we are mastered by. From "A Candle by Day" by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein A Candle by Day - The Antidote - The World of Chazal by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein Now available at 054-209-9200 [3] Wisdom and Wit by Shmuel Himelstein R' Eliyahu Lapian would tell his students: ìIf you enter your room at night and your roommate is sleeping, you must take every precaution not to do anything which might wake him, such as making a noise or turning on a light. Waking a person is considered to be stealing that person's sleep, and it is a theft that cannot be repaid. Furthermore, that person violates the halacha which states that one must love his fellow as himself, because no person would want another person to disturb his sleep.î ### R' Yitzchak Kalish, the Rebbe of Vorka, was very much against the way people would push and shove against one another when coming to hear him talk. He told his followers: ìEach one of you is like a SeferTorah - a Torah scroll - and you must treat one another with the appropriate respect.î One of his more brazen Chassidim asked him: ìRebbe, if we are indeed like holy works, doesn't the halacha permit a person to place one holy work on top of another?î ìThat is true,î said the Rebbe, ìbut whereas we must treat every other person as if he is a Sefer Torah, each person has to be modest enough to regard himself as no more than a secular book, and one cannot place a secular book on top of a holy book.î Shmuel Himelstein has written a wonderful series for ArtScroll: Words of Wisdom, Words of Wit; A Touch of Wisdom, A Touch of Wit; and "Wisdom and Wit" - available at your local Jewish bookstore (or should be). Excerpted with permission [4] CHIZUK and IDUD for Olim & not-yet-Olim respectively ìAnd the children of Israel, the entire congregation came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month...(Bamidbar 20:1) After reading further, one learns that ìthe first monthî refers to the 40th year of the wandering since they left Egypt. This then makes the 20th chapter of the Book of Bamidbar the great dividing-line in the Torah's narration of our people's history. For up until the 20th chapter we have been given the events that occurred during the first two years in the wilderness. In this week's parsha, chapter 20 picks up the story at the beginning of the 40th year as they head in the direction of Eretz Yisrael. (The Torah is silent as to what happened during the intervening 38 years.) Thus the Netziv (on Bamidbar 32:1) points out that the journeying of Israel after the Exodus can be divided into three segments. 1) After coming out of Egypt and receiving the Torah, Israel headed towards Eretz Yisrael. 2) After the sin of the meraglim, there was no clear overall direction. 3) Now at the beginning of the 40th year, Hashem had ordered that the compass be reset in the direction of the Promised Land. That is why, comments the Netziv, in the first two verses of Chapter 33 (Parshat Mas'ei) the word mas'ei or mas'eihem occurs three times to indicate that each segment of the journey, having a different goal or destination assumed a different character with different priorities. This explains why the people now seem to come forward with a fresh slate of complaints and demands in spite of the fact that they now realize they are finally headed in the direction of the original destination - Eretz Yisrael. They argued that what may have been adequate for our artificial existence in the wilderness may no longer be sufficient to cope with a real responsible life of national sovereignty in our own land. So too with us today. During that period of Israel's historical journey when we were driven from our land with no practical possibility of returning in the foreseeable future, we had one set of values and priorities. When we realized that unlike the Babylonian Exile, this one was to be for a long time, we knew we had to unpack our bags and strike roots wherever they would let us. However, ever since the beginning of the 19th century when Rabbis Zvi Hirsh Kalisher and Yehudah Alkalai announced the dawn of the redemption and that the road back to Eretz Yisrael was open, it should have been clear that we were now into segment three of our journey, when Eretz Yisrael is clearly on the practical horizon and that our entire orientation priorities and values should have changed! Strange that some of our brothers and sisters still don't see it that way . Rabbi Shubert Spero, Jerusalem 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 [5] Parsha Points to Ponder - CHUKAT 1) Why does the Torah add the seemingly extra words HIS IMPURITY IS STILL UPON HIM after describing that a person who was impure and has not immersed in the mikva cannot enter the Mishkan (19:13)? 2) Why was Moshe not allowed to enter the Land of Israel as a result of his sin (20:12)? What is the connection between his action and his punishment? 3) Why does the Torah stress that Moshe sent messengers FROM KADEISH to the King of S'dom (20:14)? We already know that this is where they were located! Suggested Answers Ponder the questions first, then read here 1) The Chizkuni explains that a person might have thought that while he cannot enter the holy place despite the fact that seven days have passed, perhaps he no longer channels impurity to other objects. These last words teach that this is not the case. 2) Rav Hirsch teaches that Moshe's losing his temper demonstrated that he no longer had faith in the people fulfilling their mission as the nation of God. The leader must be a person who believes that the people can accomplish and, therefore, a new leader had to lead the Jews into Israel. 3) The Netziv answers that the Torah is teaching that Moshe did not send Jewish messengers to ask permission from the king to pass through his land. Rather, they were MESSENGERS FROM KADESH - gentiles who lived in Kadesh. Moshe did so because he did not want the Jews to have to spend time among the non-Jews or because he did not want Jews to see that Edom feared the Jews which could have led them to try to fearlessly attack Edom. 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@ouisrael.org [6] Portion from the Portion by Rakel Berenbaum FEEDback to berenbau@actcom.net.il THE SNAKES After the death of Aaron, the nation continued on their journey, but skirted the territory of Edom. The people became discouraged along the way and spoke out against Hashem and Moshe complaining about the lack of bread and water (21:4-9). They said "We are getting disgusted with this insubstantial food." They are complaining again. They are tired of leading a supernatural life, getting sustenance from the manna - they want to eat real natural food. The verse (6) says VAYSHALACH HASHEM BA'AM ET HANECHASHIM - G-d sent poisonous snakes against the people, they bit them and some people died. Nechama Leibowitz points out a grammatical usage of the verb SH'LACH that gives us deeper insight into this whole episode. Here the verb comes in the grammatical PI'EL form - VAYSHALACH and not in the KAL form which would have been VAYISHLACH. In the KAL form the verb always means ìsentî such as sending on a mission like in B'reishit 32:4, "And Yaakov sent messengers". In the PI'EL form it implies "setting free", "letting go", and the opposite of forcible restraint as in the famous SHALACH ET AMI (Sh'mot 5:1), or "When Par'o had let the people go" (Sh'mot 13:17) or when talking about freeing Jewish slaves, "In the seventh year you shall let him go free...." (D'varim 15:12). The Torah here doesn't say that G-d sent snakes, but rather He let the snakes free. What is the significance of this slight difference? G-d wanted to teach the people about His HASHGACHA over them through- out the years of the desert. They had been walking in the snake-ridden desert all these years, as the verse in EIKEV states - HAMOLICHACHA BAMIDBAR MAKOM NACHASH SARAF V'AKRAV - but the snakes had never bothered them before. This was because of G-d's interventions on their behalf. He had been holding the snakes back day after day. He had been protecting the nation every minute from all kinds of hardships of the desert. In order to remind them this G-d uses the word VAYASHALACH - set free. G-d let all those snakes, that He had been holding back all those years - free. When the children of Israel got bitten by the snakes and started dying, they started to understand what G-d had been doing for them till now. Even though we may not be living the supernatural life of the desert with manna, protective clouds, a traveling well, and divine snake repellent, we must remember that it is G-d who is helping us at every minute. SINCE THE PORTION talks about snakes, here's a Chinese Sechuan recipe for snake beans. These beans should be very tender because of the dry frying. Dry frying is similar to stir frying, using very little oil, until it appears almost dried out. SNAKE BEANS 1 lb snake beans (use green beans if you can't find the extra long Chinese bean) 1 Tbsp. garlic, chopped 1 Tbsp. ginger, chopped 2 scallions, white parts only, finely chopped 1/2 tsp. chili paste 1 Tbsp. soy sauce 1/2 tsp. sugar salt, pepper to taste 2 Tbsp. oil for stir-frying Wash the snake beans, drain (so they won't splatter), and trim the tops and bottoms. Cut the beans on the diagonal into slices approximately 2 inches long. Chop the garlic, ginger and scallions. Heat 1 Tbsp oil over medium heat. Add the green beans and "dry-fry" - stir-fry until they start to shrivel or "pucker" and turn brown (6-7 min). Remove green beans from the wok and drain in a colander or on paper towels. Heat 1 tablespoon oil in the wok on high heat. Add the garlic, ginger and scallions. Stir-fry for a few seconds, then add the chili paste and stir-fry for a few more seconds until aromatic. Add the green beans and the dark soy sauce, sugar, salt, and pepper if using. Stir everything together, and taste and adjust the seasoning if desired. Serve hot. [7] from Machon Puah Preventing Fetal Reduction In the past few weeks we have looked at the complex issue of fetal reduction. While we did find halachic sources that allow it, still everyone would prefer not to have to undergo fetal reduction. Since it is a delicate question in the halacha, the Rabbis would prefer situations where there would be no need for fetal reduction. It is emotion- ally and often physically trying for the couple, and therefore they would prefer not to do it. And the doctors as well would prefer to do as few fetal reductions as possible, since when- ever we enter the uterus during pregnancy we are concerned that we will cause a miscarriage. When dealing with a multi-fetal pregnancy this concern is even greater, and, while attempting to save the lives of some of the fetus, a chain reaction can in fact be initiated that will end up with losing the entire pregnancy. All the involved parties have a vested interest not to reach a situation that will require fetal reduction. Since many of the multi-fetal pregnancy are as a result of fertility treatment, it would seem that is the best place to start to reduce the incidence of multi- fetal pregnancy. It should be stated that many of these pregnancies are as a result of even very low tech treatments, such as taking fertility drugs. However, in most cases, this is the first treatment suggested to couples, many of whom do not have multiple pregnancies. This is due to careful monitoring of the amount of hormones and their timing to prevent over stimulation. This same is true when the woman undergoes an insemination. The way to prevent multiple pregnancies, which may require fetal reduction, is through carefully monitoring the woman before the procedure to ensure that she does not over stimulate. The real challenge regarding multiple pregnancies is in-vitro fertilization where embryos are developed outside of the body for several days and then implanted in the uterus. In the past it was thought that the more embryos implanted the better the chance of achieving a healthy pregnancy. At one point it was normal to implant six or seven embryos and sometimes even more. However, over time we have learned that this is not true and pregnancy rates are not significantly improved even when more embryos are introduced. Therefore in recent years the norm is to implant fewer embryos, a fact that has greatly contributed to less fetal reductions. - More on this next week The Puah Institute for Fertility and Gynecology in Accordance with Halacha is based in Jerusalem and helps couples from all over the world who are experiencing fertility problems. Puah offers free counseling in five languages, halachic supervision, and educational programs. Puah has offices in New York, Los Angeles and Paris. To contact the Puah Institute please call 1-800-071111 in Israel or in the US 718-336-0603. website: www.puahonline.org [8] Pirkei Avot Perek 5 With ten trials did our fathers try the Holy One, blessed be He, in the wilderness; as it is said, "And they have put Me to the proof these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice." Perek 5 starts out with 10 different TENs, most of which are positive and upbeat. This one is singularly embarrassing, in the "report" of the generation of the wilderness, and depressing in the implied rebuke to us. G-d made the statement quoted in the mishna after the Sin of the Spies (Cheit HaMeraglim). So that was the tenth time. The first nine included the Sin of the Golden Calf, various complaints for water and food - mostly in attitude and choice of words... This, though is only half bad. Right after the Meraglim fiasco, we started a fresh count, so to speak, with Korach's rebellion. In Chukat we find more disrespectful complaints, by the new generation, that are upsettingly similar to earlier complaints. The saddest part is that we haven't seemed to learn from all this. And we must. If our predecessors' trust in G-d was lacking, ours must not be. [9] MicroUlpan From Grandfather clocks to modern watches... Grandfather clock = ORLOGIN Pendulum = METUTELELT LCD = liquid-crystal display = MATZAG GVISHI NOZLI What do you call the little knob used to wind up and set a watch? In Hebrew, KAFTOR DRICHA V'KIVUN In English, the crown. ### And here's a bilingual MicroUlpan lesson What do you call the half-moon whitish area at the base of a nail right next to the cuticle? Lunula = SAHARIT [10] Torah from Nature Poisonous snakes They are mentioned in the sedra and featured in the Portion of the Portion column, so let's "meet" some of the world's most deadly snakes. Thought to be the deadliest by far is Belcher's Sea Snake - only .5-1 meter long. The good news is that it rarely bites and often when it does, it does not inject venom. Most venomous land snakes are the Taipan Snake family. 1.8-3.7 meters. Extremely fast strike. No chance without immediate medical attention. Krait - blue-black with white bands. 2nd most deadly land snake, 15 more poisonous than the common cobra. India, Sri Lanka... [11] Gimatriya Here's a gimatriya with no "vort" attached. You make it up: PARA ADUMA T'MIMA = YISSACHAR [12] Divrei Menachem When Miriam passed from this world so did the well of water that accompanied the people in the desert. For it was in the merit of Miriam that Bnei Yisrael benefited from this well (Rashi). Indeed, we are taught that the merits of Miriam, Aharon and Moshe were, respectively, the source of three miraculous instruments of survival in the wilderness: the well, the cloud of glory, and the manna from heaven (Ta'anit 9). The Talmud tells us that when the well returned it was through Aharon's merit. And after Aharon's death the clouds of glory reappeared through the merit of Moshe. We might then ask, "Why did the people not receive all three phenomena directly in the merit of Moshe?" In the name of the Chatam Sofer we learn that Miriam's strength lay in inspiring the women, while Aharon was virtuous in bringing peace among brothers. Moshe could thus devote himself entirely to fulfilling his mission of teaching Torah. Now, with his siblings gone, Moshe undertook all three roles and the miracles did indeed occur solely in his merit. Having established this point, however, we hopefully still draw from this narrative a reinvigorated ability to appreciate the significance of each person's potential. And we might also find ourselves yearning to achieve no less than did Miriam and Aharon. Shabbat Shalom, Menachem Persoff [The Parshat Chukat Homepage]
|
