MISC section - contents: [1] From the virtual desk of the OU VEBBE REBBE Q: What can I do when I take off my head covering on Shabbat and find hairs that are detached from my scalp and are lying on the rest of my hair? May I remove them by hand or in another manner? A: Our response to this question is very uncharacteristic of our approach to halacha. We have been unable to find explicit reference to this issue. While there seem to be ample grounds to forbid it, our thought-out, researched, yet greatly intuitive, answer, despite the lack of a clear source or a clear reason, is that it is apparently permitted. Now, the explanation. There seem to be two problems with removing the hair. Firstly, the loose hair is unwanted, and it is forbidden to remove an undesired object that is mixed in among the desired because of borer (selecting - see Orach Chayim 319). Secondly, detached hair is not part of the human body and has no clear purpose; therefore, it should be muktzeh and forbidden to handle directly. Yet, there are strong indications (but not full proof) that neither of these issues will forbid removing the hair. The Shulchan Aruch (OC 303:27) forbids combing one's hair normally on Shabbat because of the certainty that some hair will be uprooted from the scalp (shearing). The poskim (see Mishna Berura ad loc.: 86-87) say that one may go over the hair gently with a soft brush because it is uncertain if any hair will thereby be uprooted and it is not his intention. Poskim do not forbid the latter out of concern that if there are detached hairs on the hair, they will certainly be removed, which we hypothesized would be borer. The Shulchan Aruch (OC 316:9) also allows picking out lice or other insects from clothing or hair without the matter being considered borer. The Rama (OC 302:1), in discussing the prohibition of laundering, permits removing feathers stuck to clothes, which also would seem to be removing bad from the good and borer. Another indication is that women remove anything superfluous from the hair (including loose hairs) that could be a chatzitza before going to the mikveh, and the major sources do not limit how this should be done on Shabbat, except for the matter of combing the hair, which, as abovementioned, is a problem of "shearing." It is harder to explain why there would not borer. Possibly, some substances or circumstances are too distant from the classic cases of borer, which refer to separating different types of food. Perhaps, removing impurities from hair and fabrics fall under the categories of shearing and laundering, and when those do not apply, borer is not a factor. Similarly, Rav S.Z. Orbach (Minchat Shlomo I, 11) suggests that since it is normal for things to get on hair and fabrics, it is considered cleaning them rather than selecting. There may be other distinctions. The exact parameters of the explanation are important because there are likely test cases that can go either way depending on the explanation. However, our relatively strong halachic intuition, based on similar precedents, is that your case is permitted. Regarding muktzeh, in some of the sources above (including Shulchan Aruch, OC 319:9), the poskim speak of removing the apparently unusable objects directly by hand. The most likely explanation is along the lines of the Chazon Ish (47:21) that when cleaning an object from unwanted "impurities" (e.g., washing dishes) the unwanted is subsumed under the non-muktzeh and we view the action as cleaning dealing with the useable object. So here you would be considered handling your head of hair rather than grabbing detached hairs. While apparently not everyone agrees with this thesis (see Shvut Yitzchak, Muktzeh, p. 308), this does seem to be a mainstream view (see Sh'mirat Shabbat K'hilchata 14:(149) and Orchot Shabbat, II, 19: 207) and other possible explanations may also cover your case. In summary, while we can conclusively neither prove nor explain exactly why we believe one may reach into her hair and remove a detached hair, indications for permitting it far exceed those for forbidding it. [2] Candle by Day It is curious that often, when we forget our anger, we forget our motive for being angry. From "A Candle by Day" by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein [3] Wisdom and Wit by Shmuel Himelstein In 1927, the President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Masaryk, a friend of the Jews and for whom a street in Jerusalem was named, visited what was then Palestine. Among those present at one meeting were members of the Old Yishuv who had come from Czechoslovakia. After that meeting, Dr. Masaryk met privately with R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, the head of the Old Yishuv. At that meeting, R' Yosef Chaim spoke with foreboding about the growth of technology and its unrestrained use in furthering the ambitions of governments and political leaders (this even before the Nazis had attained power). Basing his words on the story in the Torah of the Tower of Bavel, R' Yosef Chaim pointed out that before the tower was built the people said, "Come, let us make bricks" (B'reishit 11:3). Why did they need to make bricks, when they could more easily have built their tower from rocks? The answer is that they wanted to break away from Hashem, and to provide their own building materials, rather than using those provided by Him. That was what eventually led to "challenging" Hashem with their tower. "It is this same idea," said R' Yosef Chaim, "that Man has unlimited power to do whatever he wants, that has led to the drastic decline in morals following the World War (World War One), and to the attempts to dominate the world." 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 The Challenge of Aliya: Before and After The Baal Haturim points out that the Torah writes a small "chof" in its description of Avraham's crying for Sarah after her passing. He says it was written this way to show that Avraham only cried "a little bit." This would seem not to be what we would expect from a husband whose wife was not only his lifelong partner in marriage but his lifelong partner in spreading the word of G-d throughout the world. Moreover, the Torah describes Avraham as arriving "to eulogize Sara and cry for her". Usually one cries immediately after the occurrence of a tragedy out of grief and only later offers a eulogy. It would seem that Avraham did not cry for Sara until after he had first eulogized her. Why is the order reversed? The Kehillas Yaakov answers the question. Rashi comments that the death of Sara is juxtaposed to the Akeida in order to show that Sara died as a result of hearing that her husband was going to kill her son. She was told of what was happening by the Satan who succeeded in causing her to die of grief. But his goal was not only to affect Sara, but Avraham as well. The midrashim recount that the Satan unsuccessfully tried to prevent Avraham from carrying out G-d's command to sacrifice his son. But the Satan never gives up easily. If he cannot succeed in preventing a person from performing a mitzva, at the very least, he will later try to make that person regret his having done so. Although he failed at convincing Avraham to forego the Akeida, the Satan hoped that by Sara's death being linked to that event, Avraham would regret having gone through with it. By making Avraham feel guilty for Sara's death, he hoped to stir up a feeling of regret on the part of Avraham for having obeyed G-d's command to sacrifice Yitzchak. If Avraham would have grieved excessively at the loss of Sara, people may have wrongly interpreted his sorrow. It would have appeared to others that indeed he regretted his involvement in the sacrifice of his son. That is why he only cried "a little bit". This also explains why he delayed his crying until after he first eulogized her. He wanted to make it absolutely clear that he was not crying tears of regret about having followed G-d's instructions regarding the Akeida. In the evening tefilla of Maariv, this is the intent of our words in the prayer Hashkiveinu - "And remove the Satan from before us and after us." We pray to G-d that He stops the Satan whether he is trying to stop us from fulfilling a mitzva before we have done it or trying to cause us to regret over having performed it, after we have done it. All of us Olim have successfully overcome the Satan's attempts to prevent us from making Aliya and fulfilling the mitzva of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael. However, as we mentioned earlier, the Satan never gives up easily and if he cannot succeed in preventing someone from making Aliya, at least he will later try to make that person regret having done so. The challenge of making Aliya is not just in moving to Israel but to make one's Aliya permanent. Unfortunately, there are too many examples where the Satan has convinced Olim, even after being in Israel several years, that it is preferable to give up the Aliya dream and return to Chutz La'aretz. May the merit of Avraham Aveinu stand by our side to help us in our constant struggle to overcome the Satan's temptations to turn our backs on Eretz Yisrael. Chaim Liberman, Michmas 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 for CHAYEI SARA 1)Why does Avraham refer to G-D as G-D OF THE HEAVENS and not the Earth as well when he speaks to Eliezer (24:7)? Parsha Points to Ponder is prepared by Rabbi Dov Lipman, who teaches at Reishit Yerushalayim and Machon Maayan in Beit Shemesh and is the author of "DISCOVER: Answers for Teenagers (and adults) to Questions about the Jewish Faith" (Feldheim) and "TIMEOUT: Sports Stories as a Game Plan for Spiritual Success" a recent release by Devora Publishing ppp@ouisrael.org Answers - Ponder the questions first and then look here 1) Da't Zekainim MiBaalei HaTosfot answers that since Avraham speaks here of the time when he lived in his hometown when G-D was unknown on Earth, he only references Him as G-D of the realm where He was known, namely in the heavens. [6] Portion from the Portion by Rakel Berenbaum FEEDback to berenbau@actcom.net.il THE LIFE OF SARAH Chayei Sara - the Life of Sarah - seems to be a funny title for a portion in which we are told that Sarah dies. But the verse is trying to teach us things about how she lived her life so we can apply it to our own lives. The verse says that the life of Sarah was 100 years, and 20 years and seven years. The word years is repeated each time. We are all familiar with the Rashi that at 100 years she was like a 20 year old who never sinned and at 20 years she was like a 7 year old for her beauty. There are positive aspects to old age such as wisdom and life experience. There are positive aspects to youth as well, such as excitement, strength, and energy. The Torah teaches us here, that throughout her life, Sarah had the positive qualities of the aged as well as of youth. The Torah tells us that Sarah died but it doesn't tell us how? What would CNN have written about her death. The Midrash fills in these details. Rashi says that she died when she received the news that her husband Avraham, had almost slaughtered her only son, Yitzchak, on Mt. Moriah. If we think of this simply we might assume that she, as Yitzchak's mother, had a heart attack from the shock of this news. How close she had been to losing the son that she had waited for for so long. But R' Chayim Shmuelevitch has a deeper understanding. He says that we know that Sarah had a strong faith in Hashem - so news such as the near death of her son wouldn't change her beliefs in G-d's goodness. Sarah knew that life on this earth is a mission given by Hashem. Yitzchak's mission was to listen to Hashem and that is exactly what he did. Yitzchak had reached such a high level of consciousness that he was ready to sacrifice his life in service of G-d. When Sarah realized that Yitzchak had reached this level she knew her job, as his mother, on earth was done. There was nothing more she could teach her son, so she had fullfilled her life's mission and her soul left her body and she died. We all have many missions in this life. May we be successful in accomplishing them. One of a mother's missions is to care for the health of her children. Here is a recipe for Gogel Mogel, a popular Eastern European egg-based dessert recipe that when served hot is considered a home remedy for sore throats. Research done in Israel suggests that it may really assist in the treatment of sore throats with an antibiotic effect. It can widen the blood vessels in the throat, allowing more blood and antigens to flow to the inflamed area, hastening recovery. GOGEL-MOGEL [7] from Machon Puah no column this week [8] Glimpses into the world of OU kashrut supervision Does it NEED a hechsher? Q. Why do supervision agencies supervise products that do not need a hechsher? A. If by "products that do not need a hechsher" you mean items that have no connection to food, such as bicycles, they don't certify such products. Otherwise, it is important to remember that there is no hard-and-fast category of products that do not need a hechsher. To say that a product does not need supervision is essentially to make a judgement-call: as far as we know the product is usually made in ways that pose no kosher concerns. Are these "as far as we know" assumptions fail-safe? By no means. Plants make products in unexpected ways all the time. Some products which now need super- vision were possibly acceptable without a hechsher in the past. Many dairies, for instance, bottle water, and some of those have switched from filtering the water to pasteurizing it on the same equipment used for the milk. Additonally, by supervising these products, kashrus agencies are able to confirm that the current manufacturing processes used to manufacture them do not do not negatively effect the their kosher status. So the most you can say is that supervision agencies supervise some products that are pretty safe to buy without supervision. "Kosher gelatin" A. The gelatin probably came from a cow that was not kosher slaughtered or a pig. There are some opinions that allow for this - hence the designation, "kosher gelatin". But most halachic poskim rule that such gelatin is not kosher. There is gelatin available nowadays from kosher- slaughtered animals, but it is usually identified by something more than the mere phrase "kosher gelatin". Fish gelatin (which also requires a reliable hechsher) is usually identified as "fish gelatin". It is worth noting, also, that it is not a good idea to rely on an unfamiliar hechsher. When in doubt about a hashgacha, ask your Rav. [9] Hidden in the Sand Here's a Gimatriya Match that insists that we say something about it - exactly what, we will leave up to you. (Well, we will say something about it.) [10] Person in the parsha by Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb for Parshat for Parshat Chayei Sara Mourning Sarah Grief is the most powerful and most painful of human emotions. Yet, it is an emotion which few human beings can avoid in their lifetime. We all face loss, and we all grieve. Interestingly, the first death of which we read in detail in the Torah is a murder. And the reaction of the murderer is one of denial and, ultimately, guilt. I speak, of course, of Kayin's slaying of Hevel. We do not read of Kayin's grief, nor do we know at all of the reaction of Hevel's parents, Adam and Chava, to his death. In this week's Torah portion, for the first time, we learn in detail of the reaction of a surviving relative to the death of a loved one. I speak, of course, of Avraham and his response to the death of his wife, Sarah. Much has been written about the psychology of the emotion of grief. It is a complex emotion and is a very long, sometimes lifelong, process. It seems that there are at least two components to normal grief. There is an emotional component, consisting of feelings of great sadness and pervasive melancholy. There is also an intellectual component, as the mourner seeks to make some sense of his or her loss and to find purpose and meaning in the death of the loved one, to thus be able to move on in life. So it is not surprising that when Avraham learned of Sarah's death, and he apparently was not in the vicinity of where she died, he came rushing to make the arrangements for her burial. We read that he "came to eulogize Sarah and to cry for her". Note the two components of his response. Crying, expressing feelings of loss through sobs and tears, BECHI, was one component. The other component was much more cerebral and consisted of a well thought-out and carefully composed eulogy. Avraham honored Sarah with his heart, his feelings, but also with his head, with his mind and intellect. Both aspects of this dual response are necessary. Over the first, the emotional aspect, we have little control. Feelings burst forth even when we try to suppress them. There is a beautiful eulogy in the homiletic writings of the great 18th century sage, Rabbi Ezekiel Landau, author of the authoritative halachic work, Nodah B'Yehuda. In that eulogy, Rabbi Landau speaks about his wife, Leeba, and compares her to the matriarch Sarah. He notes that in our text, Avraham cries "for her", the pronoun "her" being used instead of the proper name. However, he "eulogizes Sarah". No pronoun here, but her personal name - the name by which she was known to him and to all of her acquaintances. Rabbi Landau insists that Avraham was setting an example for all eulogies to follow, for all time and eternity. A eulogy must be specific and speak in detail about the particular and unique qualities of the deceased. One should not just eulogize "her", one must eulogize "Sarah". Those listening to the eulogy must come away with a better sense of who the deceased was, with some details about what made the deceased special. Too often at funerals, we hear clergymen make very impersonal remarks about death and eternity, and they do not leave us with even an impression of the biographical details and significance of the life that was just lost. Avraham set the tone for a proper eulogy. He eulogized the Sarah that he knew. Not some abstract description which could fit any woman, but an exquisitely detailed portrait of the real Sarah, from the perspective of one who shared his life with her. There is so much that careful students of Torah have learned from the lives of Avraham and Sarah. One lesson that I personally cherish is the lesson of Avraham's eulogy for his life's companion. The actual words of this eulogy are not recorded, but the message is clear. It was not an anonymous "her" that he mourned, but a real, flesh and blood, deeply beloved lifelong spouse, Sarah. [11] MicroUlpan Period is a NEKUDA - Comma is a PSIK - Colon is NEKUODOTAYIM - . And a semi-colon [12] G'ZEIRA SHAVA Translated in the new OU-Koren siddur as, "An inference drawn from identical words in two passages", we have a classic example of this "Interpretive Principle of Rabbi Yishmael" (one of 13), in this week's sedra. The mishna in Kiddushin teaches us that a man "acquires" (marries) a woman in one of three ways, the first of which is KESEF or SHAVEH KESEF, money or something of monetary value. How do we know that this is so? Sometimes it is not so direct. In the case of "marriage by money" (gold ring is something of monetary value and is the prevalent application of this rule of Jewish Law), the Gemara teaches us that we link the term "TO ACQUIRE", lakachat, known as KICHA (taking or acquiring), in the context of Avraham's acquisition of Me'arat HaMachpeila and its environs (which was done by the transfer of silver from Avraham to Efron, to the concept of KICHA in the context of KI YIKACH ISH ISHA..., when a man takes a woman (as his wife). The the marriage context, the use of money is not mentioned. But we are taught the G'zeira Shava of Kicha, Kicha, mis'dei Efron. We do not make our own G'zeira Shava. They are part of the Oral Law. They point out the connections. The Sources fill in the rest of the details. [13] Sara Imeinu; Guest article by Bonnie Linder in memory of Basha Liba bat Chasha a"h on her first yahrzeit, 23 Cheshvan "...Everything that Sara has said to you, hearken to her voice..." (B'reishit 21:12) At first glance, this verse sounds like nice feminist propaganda. "See Honey, even G-d says that men should listen to their wives." It's worth looking deeper, examining the story more carefully. Rashi says that Sara was superior to Avraham in prophecy. In another place, Rashi says that G-d is telling Avram to pay attention to the prophetic quality in his wife. The Rambam teaches us that prophecy is only given to people with exceptional character traits. Let's look at Sara's life story and see how she can teach us to build ourselves up. First we'll take a few steps back in time to the first woman, Chava. Adam was told by G-d that he was punished "Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife..." (B'reishit 3:17) Chava's downfall came because she abused the gift of speech. She was off doing her own thing and she chatted with the snake. That led her to tell her husband to do the one thing that was forbidden to them. To make a very complicated issue short, they got chucked out of Gan Eden because Chava didn't watch her mouth. She wasn't careful about what she said. Sara was very different. She was primarily a spiritual partner to Avraham, sharing his life's mission in the world. All along, we see her idealism and selflessness. When G-d told Avram to leave his home and go to some yet unknown place, Sarai (Sara) didn't hesitate to go along with him. It says there that they took with them "the souls that they made in Haran". Rashi points out that these were the converts that they attracted, "Avram was converting the men and Sarai was converting the women." Sarai selflessly gave Avram her maidservant as a second wife when it appeared that she was unable to bear children. (At that time it said that, "Avram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. it wasn't her idea but he did as he suggested). After that, Sara did give birth to her own son, Yitzchak. It was only when Sara saw that her maidservant's son was a danger to Yitzchak (physical and/or spiritual), that she opened her mouth and insisted on a position that was difficult for her husband to accept. G-d stepped in and admonished Avraham, "Everything that Sara tells you, hearken to her voice" (do as she says). She has proved herself worth listening to. It says in the Talmud that the righteous women, with Sara first among them, weren't included in the edicts against Chava. G-d punished Chava's husband for listening to her. Avraham was commanded to listen to Sara, his wife. Because Sara was so careful about her speech and actions, she was given a level of prophecy. G-d helped her words make a difference. To the same degree that Chava's words came close to destroying the world. Sara's words had an important impact on our nation's history. Bonnie Linder is a Rabbinic Pleader and a licensed Mediator. She also guides tours around the area of Hebron. She can be reached at (02) 996-3240 [14] Torah from Nature Endangered, etc. It's sad enough to learn about animals that are extinct from prehistoric times. Their extinction is blamed on cataclysmic events such as comets striking Earth, Ice Ages, etc. Whether you accept the theories of extinction or attribute fossil finds to the Mabul, the pre-Mabul times, the "days" of Creation, or previous worlds that were created and destroyed - is not the point. Those extinctions were not our fault; we could do nothing about them. Not so, the sorry state of affairs of the animal and plant kingdoms in our own time. Not so the long list of mammals and other animals and plants that have become extinct in the last few hundred years. The black rhino, Steller's Sea Cow, a gazelle here and a dwarf hippo there, Aurochs (large wild cattle)... to name just a few. If we are to marvel at the variety of G-d's creations, as several p'sukim in Tanach teach us, and many sources confirm, then we should be sensitive to the terrible mistreatment of nature that many of our co-inhabitants of the planet are guilty of, be upset by it, and perhaps even DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. [15] Divrei Menachem Parshat Chayei Sara introduces us to what might be described as the first matchmaking exercise described in the Torah. From the narrative, young men might learn much about how to look for their life-long partners. Firstly, Avraham sets the goal. Eliezer is not to take a woman from among the Canaanites, for they are not only idol worshipers - an intellectual frailty that can be overcome - but, accord- ing to Rav Hirsch, they also display a blatant lack of ethics and morality that precludes any of their womenfolk as candidates for Yitzchak. The Midrash describes the instant divine response to Eliezer's plea for a successful mission and the miracles at the well that occurred on Rivka's behalf. Yet it is neither wealth nor divine intervention that impresses Eliezer. For when Rivka attends to the servant, it is the plethora of actions attesting to her overriding kindness that overridingly determine her suitability for the marriage (Malbim). Chizkuni remarks that away from home, one's true character emerges. Accordingly, Rivka's display of energy and eagerness to go beyond the regular norms of hospitality ("I will draw water even for your camels... So she hurried... and kept running") is clearly a supreme test of a sterling character (cf. Artscroll). Shabbat Shalom, Menachem Persoff [The Parshat Chayei Sara Homepage]
|
