Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Matot-Masei 5763

Hemdat Yamim Mattot Masei - 26 Tammuz 5763 ********************************************** This edition of Hemdat Yamim is dedicated to the memory of R' Meir ben Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld o.b.m. ************************************************************************** Eretz Hemdah is the premier institution for training young rabbis to take the Israeli Rabbinate's rigorous Yadin Yadin examinations. Eretz Hemdah, with its distinctive blend of Religious Zionist philosophy and scholarship combined with community service, ensures that its graduates emerge with the finest training, the noblest motivations resulting in an exceptionally strong connection to Jewish communities worldwide. *********************************************************************************************************************** Sociology, Cities of Refuge, and Cities of Levites Harav Yosef Carmel In our parasha, the Torah commands to set aside both arei miklat (cities of refuge for unintentional murderers) and arei Levi'im (cities of Levites). These are not just similar sounding commandments, as the two types of cities are interconnected. "The cities that you shall give to the Levites: the six arei miklat that you shall give for the murderer to escape to, and upon them you shall give forty-two cities" (Bamidbar 35:6). Even in the desert, before the arei miklat existed, the Levi'im's encampment already absorbed unintentional murderers (Zevachim 117a). Additionally, all of the additional 42 arei Levi'im served as arei miklat, as well (Makot 13a). We must, therefore, understand the connection between the functions of arei miklat and arei Levi'im. The Torah also connects between the life and death of the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) and the obligation of exile in the arei miklat for the murderer. "For in his ir miklat he shall dwell until the death of the Kohen Gadol, and after the death of the Kohen Gadol, the murderer shall return to the land of his inheritance" (Bamidbar 35:28). Apparently, the responsibilities of the Kohen Gadol are not limited to ritual service in the Temple. He is responsible no less for the spiritual state of the nation and to ensure that the spiritual atmosphere of the Temple positively influences everyone's behavior and moral standing. Therefore, when the social situation is such that the value of human life is not high enough on the public's agenda, the spiritual leader must shoulder much of the blame. Even an unintentional murderer requires the atonement of the leader as well, and only when the leader dies may the murderer return home. But where does the murderer live during exile? Is it sufficient that he change his residence in order that he should be encouraged to contemplate his predicament? The Torah teaches that this is not sufficient. He must live in a place where those who are responsible for the moral, spiritual level of the nation live. The gain is double. First of all, the murderer is reminded daily of the need to improve his values. The Sefer Hachinuch (408), in a similar vein, explains that the holiness of the land of arei Levi'im helps atone for them. (Another factor that he cites is that it is not feared that the Levi'im will kill the intentional murderer even if he killed someone close to them). The other factor that is gained by the interaction between the murderer and the Levi'im is that the Levi'im, the members of the Kohen Gadol's tribe, are reminded of their responsibility to influence the murderer, as well as potential future ones throughout society. While Levi'im had spiritual leadership as a birthright, others can accept it upon themselves. (See Rambam at the end of the laws of Shemitta and Yovel, that anyone who is truly inspired to do so can do so). But they must realize that this status obligates them to be responsible for the social, spiritual level of the nation as a whole. At a time of the year when many are on the road, we must remember that unintentional murder is quite prevalent in our days. After all, is a fatality in a car accident not exactly that?! How many otherwise wonderful people are irresponsible drivers. Drivers, and those who have moral influence on them, should show their respect for the value of life by acting with a realization that life and death is in the hands of ... the steering wheel and the gas pedal. *************************************************************************************************************************** P'ninat Mishpat Objections to Building on the Roof (condensed from Piskei Din Rabbani'im XIV, pp. 161-169) Case: The defendant (=def) owns two out of the four apartments in an apartment building. He wants to build on half of the roof (his proportional part) two apartments to rent out to tenants. The plaintiffs (=pl) own the other apartments and claim that they will be damaged by the building project in a few ways. Primarily, they feel that the presence of additional dwellers in the building will create more noise and other unpleasant phenomena. They also claim that during the building process, they will be further affected by noise and dirt. Majority Ruling: Regarding the matter of additional dwellers in a joint area, we have the following precedent in the Shulchan Aruch. If one adds an attic on top of his house, he may not open up an entrance directly into the courtyard that is shared with neighbors (chatzer), because it increases the number of people who use the area (Choshen Mishpat 154:1). However, the implication is that one could make that type of addition if the entrance is to a mavoy (a more public joint area, which is more similar to our streets). This is implied by the fact that only opening up a business that attracts a large number of people from the general public is prohibited in a mavoy (see ibid. 156:1). The difference is based on the uses of a chatzer and mavoy in classical times. Homeowners did a significant amount of household work in their chatzerot. Thus, in a chatzer, privacy and peace of mind would be significantly compromised by the addition of people sharing the area. However, a mavoy was more of a thoroughfare that did not require the same level of privacy, and only a large change in the numbers was significant. In our case, the use of the joint areas of the apartment consists primarily of passing through the staircase. Additional people do not significantly affect the matter of privacy. One must note that not any claimed nuisance meets the threshold of grounds for an enforceable objection (see one example in Rama 156:2). Additionally, when def bought his apartments, no stipulation was made that he would be limited in what he could use his property for. Since it is standard procedure for people to build on their roofs in order to maximize the value of their plot of land, pl should not be able to withhold that valuable asset without more significant objections. As long as the matter is legal from the perspective of the municipality, def has a right to build. As it is possible that damages will be caused during the time of building and conditions in their apartments may be compromised at that time, we require def to make the following arrangements. He must make appropriate financial guarantees for payment in the case of damages. He must also be prepared to provide reasonable, alternative accommodations for pl during the time of construction, if they so desire. Next week we hope to bring the minority opinion and the appeal of the ruling. ************************************************************************************************************************** Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) Kilayim - Part I -The Reason Behind the Prohibition of Kilayim (Mixing of Vegetation)- (from Eretz Hemdah, vol. II, 1:3) [Upon beginning the fourth year of Hemdat Yamim, we decided to take on a topic, which we had thought might be somewhat technical for our reading public. We hope to prove ourselves wrong. In any case, as a pioneering rabbi of an agricultural moshav, Rav Yisraeli spent much time researching and teaching the laws of kilayim. Volume II of his classic work, Eretz Hemdah, is dedicated entirely to the topic. We start this week with the reasoning of the Torah related to these laws. We will continue with other elements of the topic, which even those of us who are not farmers can relate to.] According to Rashi (Vayikra 19:19), all elements of mixing of species are a "decree of the King, without a [known?] reason." The Ramban (ad loc.) argues, pointing out that this is not one of the areas of halacha that Chazal identified as being questioned by the nations of the world. Rather, the Ramban posits that the logic is that "he who combines two species, changes and weakens the creation, as he thinks that Hashem did not complete His world fully and wants that we should help in creating the world." According to this logic, the Torah objects primarily to creating hybrids, such as by grafting. Regarding planting different species side-by- side, the issue is "because they are changed in their taste and also their form by being nourished one from the other." The Sefer Hachinuch (244) explains quite similarly to the Ramban. If the Torah is concerned with the crossed nourishment, then how did the Rabbis permit the sowing of different species in proximity to each other when they do not appear to be intermingled? The standard explanation that the Torah forbade the appearance of mix does not seem to make a difference if the actuality of contact exists. We must conclude that the Torah was not concerned with the interaction of two species as long as it is a natural development. It is the active involvement of man in the process with the intention of creating the interaction so that one could influence the other that is root of the problem. The intention is particularly important according to the formulation of the Ramban, who says that we don't want a man thinking that Hashem needs his help in creating the world. When there is no appearance of mixing, it is as if there is no human action in that direction. The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (3:37) claims that the prohibition on mixing species is related to the attempt to distance us from idol worship. There was a time that grafting was connected to a promiscuous activity that was part of idolatrous worship. The main prohibition is, thus, on grafting, with other forms of kilayim being an extension. According to this approach, it is easier to understand the ruling that grafting is forbidden throughout the world, whereas intermingled sowing is forbidden only in Eretz Yisrael. Similarly, the stress on not planting wheat and barley in a vineyard is to be understood based on the fact that this was a classic practice of the idol worshippers. Of course, whether the reason is this or that, and whether one reason or the other seems to be more or less pertinent in our times and places, the Torah's prohibitions are eternal and immutable. ************************************************************************************************************************** Ask the Rabbi Question: Is it permitted to use a hearing aid on Shabbat, or does the electrical mechanism make it forbidden or problematic? Answer: While there is what to discuss from a halachic perspective, all of the major poskim who discussed it, permitted use of a hearing aid. They were well aware that a hearing aid is used in cases of significant need and that the public understands that it as an exceptional situation. This helps explain why it wasn't forbidden or frowned upon despite the fact that it has a similar mechanism to that of a microphone, which most poskim forbade. There are some poskim who included the need as an integral part of the lenient ruling (see Tzitz Eliezer VI, 6) and others who made the absolute need a condition of the ruling (Minchat Yitzchak quotes Rav Henkin z.t.l., who suggests that only those who cannot hear at all without the hearing aid should use it). However, as we know, people who wear hearing aids do so only when the need is substantial, and the minhag has developed to allow them to use them freely on Shabbat. We feel that this practice should be continued, certainly considering its impact on quality of life and the enjoyment of Shabbat. We will deal now with some of the issues that arise. [We only have the liberty, in this context, to deal with these issues in a superficial manner and request from our readers not to extrapolate from our discussion to other applications]. The first issue that is dealt with is of creating circuits, which could be a problem of boneh (building) or metaken manne (fixing a utensil) or a related rabbinic prohibition. Indeed this is a problem (in one form and reason or another) when one turns on a battery-operated device or shuts it off. Therefore, one should leave the hearing aid on all of Shabbat. Another issue is the fact that speaking causes an increase in electrical current. It is far from clear that increased current in an existing circuit is considered creating something new. Even if it was, there is room for leniency, because the change occurs to something that has no real substance, and the change is fleeting in duration (Tzitz Eliezer, ibid.). There is a general question regarding devices that produce sound, whether they are included in the prohibition of using musical instruments (see Rama, Orach Chayim 338:1). There are several ways to deal with the issue in our context. One is to say that the sound that is created is not heard by those standing around but only by the person who wears the hearing aid in his ear. Also, he who speaks does not come in direct contact with the instrument (see Chelkat Ya'akov OC 120). The fact that it is not generally audible has other advantages (see Shulchan Aruch, OC 252:5). A further question is whether, as a battery-operated device that is usually used by turning on and off, a hearing aid shouldn't be muktzeh. Tzitz Eliezer has a variety of ways to deal with the issue. In summary, he feels that it is, at worst, a kli shemelachto l'issur (a utensil which is generally used by doing an action that is forbidden on Shabbat). Even such an item may be moved in order to use for a permitted purpose or because its place is needed (Shulchan Aruch, OC 308:3). In summary, while this response is not an exhaustive one that deals with the subject in depth or deals with every pertinent question that relates to the use of a hearing aid, we hope to have explained the general basis for its use on Shabbat. We think it also displays the interest of the poskim to find room for leniency in a case like this, where the need is great, and despite the fact that one could have raised objections on several fronts. 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 91360 Tel/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