Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Ki-Sisa

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Ki-Sisa ========================================================== This edition of Hemdat Yamim is dedicated to the memory of R' Meir ben Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld o.b.m. ========================================================== Young at Heart After first portraying Yehoshua bin Nun as a warrior, the Torah describes him in a different role in our parasha. “His [Moshe’s] mesheret (servant), Yehoshua bin Nun, na'ar (a lad?), would not depart from within the tent” (Shemot 33:11). Why did Yehoshua receive the apparently degrading term of na'ar, considering he was 56 years old (Ibn Ezra, ad loc.)? Ibn Ezra explains that Yehoshua served like a נער, but he doesn’t tell us what that entails. The Ramban (ad loc.) brings examples from Tanach where na'ar means mesheret (servant), not lad. This, however, raises the issue of redundancy in our pasuk. Apparently, when the Torah stresses that a given servant is a na'ar, it implies that he is a particularly devoted servant. Certainly, in the case of a highly accomplished 56 year-old, to submit to playing the role of a youngster was an act of self-sacrifice. Perhaps another meaning of the root can shed additional light on the matter. “Na'ar” in the verb form means to shake off. A dedicated servant can remove personal wills and desires from his mind and concentrate totally on the needs of his master. Indeed, that is what the pasuk is telling us about Yehoshua, who waited patiently at the foot of Har Sinai and at the Ohel Moed to serve Moshe Rabbeinu to the maximum. Rav Goldvicht z.t.l. (late Rosh Yeshiva of Kerem B’Yavneh) was fond of explaining the connection between Yehoshua’s ability to eclipse mantle of leadership. Combining the various meanings of na'ar , we can suggest the following. One of the positive powers of youth (sometimes adults focus too much on the negative) is the ability to get excited about a particular project. When this happens, a youngster may (for better or for worse) throw off other concerns and give it “everything he has” to succeed. Adults have the maturity to put things in perspective and are less likely to focus on one thing to the exclusion of others. While that maturity is usually helpful, there are some goals which deserve the “tunnel-vision” often reserved for the young. We should learn from Yehoshua and know when relegating ourselves to the role of na'ar is fitting, beneficial, and crucial. ================================================ P'ninat Mishpat - Kiddushin - What Invalidates Witnesses? - III Last time we discussed which sins invalidate witnesses. Is one who commits one of those sins automatically disqualified? The answer is somewhat complicated. According to several Rishonim, a person's status can be changed to pasul (invalid) only by a formal, legal process (see opinions in Beit Yosef, Even Haezer 42). This entails kosher witnesses coming to court to testify about the sins in front of the sinner. Thus, if we want to rule that a wedding was invalid because of invalid witnesses and allow the woman to remarry without a get, we would have problems if the witnesses have not been formally invalidated. However, it is still not permissible to use witnesses who have sinned but have not been officially invalidated. First of all, that which we require testimony to pasul is, according to almost all opinions (Tumim 87:27 may argue), only to clarify that the witness is pasul, not to create the p'sul. All agree that once the testimony comes in, the witness is pasul retroactively from the time of the sin (Bava Kama 73a). It would make no sense to use witnesses who are, in fact, pasul and hope that no one will prove that the wedding was halachically meaningless or, at least, questionable (see previous weeks' discussion about a case where both kosher and pasul witnesses are present). Furthermore, the consensus of Poskim is that we don't require testimony about the p'sul if the sins are known to the public, certainly including those who desecrate Shabbat publicly (Igrot Moshe, E.H. I, 82.3). This is helpful in some agunah cases. ================================================ Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) Financial Sacrifice to Live in Eretz Yisrael- Part III (based on Eretz Hemdah I, I, 7) We saw last time that the gemara felt that it is not logical that the Torah would require one to spend a third of his money for a mitzva. The Rosh continued this reasoning, saying that one shouldn't spend more than a fifth and need not put out, hone rav(great sum of money) on a mitzva and that Rabbeinu Yerucham said that one should be prepared to spend a tenth, as by tzedakah. The Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 656) questions the source of Rabbeinu Yerucham's tenth, and the Biur Halacha (ibid.) understood that it should be more (up to a fifth). However, it seems that the tenth we find by tzedakah may be too stringent for other mitzvot for the following reasons: 1) The nature of the obligation of tzedakah is that there is a minimum outlay to fulfill the mitzva properly, whereas other mitzvot do not necessarily require any expense. 2) The Divine promise to compensate for tzedakah outlays does not seem to exist by other mitzvot. Therefore, it should not be simply assumed that one is obligated to give a tenth for mitzvot. Indeed, the gemara, cited by the Rosh (Bava Kamma 1:7), says that the 1,000 zuz which Rabban Gamliel spent to get an etrog was more than halachically required. As Rabban Gamliel was a nasi and a wealthy man, that sum was probably not a fifth or even a tenth of his net worth. Rather, if a certain sum of money is objectively considered hone ravfor a given mitzva, then even a wealthy man is not obligated to pay it. The monetary value of hone rav does depend on societal considerations to set it. Additionally, a poor person is not required to exceed a tenth of his resources for a mitzva, even if it is an objectively reasonable sum, unless the monetary amount is part of the obligation (i.e. the 5 shekalim of pidyon haben). [As we mentioned in part I] it is possible that the great mitzva of inhabiting Eretz Yisrael, which is equivalent to the entirety of the mitzvot, requires one to spend all his money, if he will be able to support himself (which is a requirement to fulfill the mitzva). [Ed. Note - perhaps we can suggest a further reason to expect a larger than usual expenditure for inhabiting Eretz Yisrael. Besides the value of the mitzva, one would not pay more for an etrog than for a lemon. Therefore, to pay an unusually large and oppressive amount of money may be unnecessary. In contrast, it is common for people looking for a place to live to spend exorbitant amounts of money because of location (for accessibility, view, good neighbors, etc.). Why then shouldn't the mitzva value of living in Eretz Yisrael be considered the most important factor in choosing a location, causing the estimation of hone rav in this realm to jump?]. Summary: If by making aliyah, one will need to be impoverished until he needs handouts to survive, he is not obligated to do so and it is forbidden. However, if the situation is not that dire, it is not altogether clear how much he must spend. He must certainly pay up to a tenth and may spend up to a fifth, as we find by other mitzvot. ================================================ Ask the Rabbi Question: Pursuant to your recent discussion on hatmana (insulating food) before Shabbat, is it permitted to put a "cooking bag" inside the chulent pot to cook rice or the like separate from the rest of the chulent? Answer: As we mentioned, hatmana is forbidden even before Shabbat in a medium where energy is being added to the system (mosif hevel). Thus, if placing the cooking bag inside the chulent is considered hatmana, it will be forbidden. However, usually there is either no issue of hatmana or it can be easily avoided. Firstly, it should be clear that cooking one food directly in another is not hatmana. The issue of hatmana arises when a food is not being cooked with the rest of the pot but is placed in it to become or remain hot, as a separate unit. Even this is only a problem when it is separated from the rest of the food by a utensil or at least a significant covering (Shmirat Shabbat K'hilachta, 1:72). Cooking by putting cooking bags in boiling water in a pot is considered a manner of cooking, not hatmana, and is permitted (based on Minchat Yitzchak VIII: 17). If one intends to have the foods' tastes interact by heating them together, even if they were previously cooked (i.e. matza balls in soup), this is considered cooking together and permitted. The fact that they are in a bag is not a problem, especially if that is done to prevent the food from falling apart or dispersing. Using a porous bag or making holes in the bag are signs of the desire to have the foods interact (Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata 42:63 and footnote 242). Even when none of these criteria are met, we pasken that hatmana applies only when the food is insulated on all sides (Rama 253:1). Therefore, one may warm a securely wrapped kugel by placing it before Shabbat in the chulent pot if a reasonable portion of the kugel protrudes above the surface of the chulent. ================================================ Ki Tisa 18 Adar 5762 כי תשא Harav Shaul Israeli zt"l Founder and President Deans: Harav Yosef Carmel Harav Moshe Ehrenreich ERETZ HEMDAH 5 Ha-Mem Gimmel St. P.O.B 36236 Jerusalem 91360Tel/Fax: 972-2-5371485 Email: eretzhem@netvision.net.il web-site: www.eretzhemdah.org American Friends of Eretz Hemdah Institutions c/o Olympian 8 South Michigan Ave. Suite 605 Chicago, IL 60603 USA Our Taxpayer ID#: 36-4265359

Main > Parashat Shavua
Eretz_Hemdah