Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Mishpatim

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Mishpatim ======================================================== This edition of Hemdat Yamim is dedicated to the memory of R' Meir ben Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld o.b.m. ======================================================== Close Enough for Comfort / Harav Yosef Carmel In the laws of shomrim (watchmen of objects), we find the laws of borrowers. “Should a man borrow from his friend (רעהו) and it broke or died, if its owner was not with him, he shall pay. If its owner was with him, he shall not pay” (Shemot 22: 13-14). The obligation of a borrower to safeguard the borrowed object is the strictest among those of the four shomrim, because he received the benefit of using the object without paying for it. Despite this fact, the Torah stresses with a double language that in a situation where the owner is with him, the borrower is exempt from payment. This stress prompted the Sefat Emet to explain these p’sukim with a unique and beautiful homiletic approach. Hillel, upon accepting the daunting task of teaching the whole Torah on one foot, said: "That which you hate, do not do to your friend" (Shabbat 31a). Rashi, in his commentary on this gemara, brings the pasuk in Mishlei (27:10), )"Do not forsake your friend רעך and the friend of your father" and adds that( this friend is Hashem (based on Shemot Rabba 27:1). In other words, Hillel's famous statement, which seems to put the stress of the Torah on mitzvot between man and his counterpart, can be seen in a different light if one considers that, to whatever degree we can utter the words, Hashem is a counterpart or friend. Returning to the theme of borrowing from a friend (re'ah), we can now present the Sefat Emet's beautiful idea. Our lives and souls were lent to us by our (re'ah), Hashem. This presents us with a very demanding level of responsibility to safeguard these precious items. Under what circumstances will we have to "pay up" if our souls are damaged? If the owner of the borrowed object (Hashem) is not with us, i.e. if we have become separated from Him, then we will have to "pay." Of course, this payment is more serious than a monetary one. If Hashem is with us, because we have fulfilled, "I have placed Hashem before me always" (Tehillim 16:8), then we will be exempt. ====================================================== P'ninat Mishpat - Kiddushin - Discovery of an Invalid Witness - II We saw last week that according to several important authorities, even if one of the appointed witnesses was invalid, members of the "audience" can be viewed as witnesses to validate the marriage. Let us examine distinctions on this matter. In order to "cover ourselves" from the possibility that relatives or non-kosher witnesses will be included in the group of witnesses and invalidate everyone [see last week's article], we appoint two men as official witnesses. Does it make a difference how this is done? The Chatam Sofer (Shut, Even Haezer 100) says that if the mesader kiddushin appoints the witnesses, then other people are not excluded from being witnesses. If, however, the chatan appoints them, then he is, in effect, excluding everyone else from serving as a witness of his marriage. Thus, if a problem arises with one of the witnesses, the audience would not help, according to this opinion. It would seem that if the chatan states his choices as witnesses, then even if someone else announces them to those assembled, they are deemed the appointees of the chatan. An apparently new custom has arisen to be "machmir" to exclude non-kosher witnesses by pronouncing that the appointed witnesses are "to the exclusion of all others." While it is questionable if this statement has any effect, it potentially causes more problems regarding the situation where a witness is invalid than it solves in the standard case (as there is a consensus of Rishonim that it is sufficient, if not superfluous, to simply appoint the witnesses). ==================================================== Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) Financial Sacrifice to Live in Eretz Yisrael - Part I (based on Eretz Hemdah I, I, 7) The first question we should deal with is whether one should subject himself and/or his family to poverty and dependency on tzedakah in order to live in Eretz Yisrael. The Maharit II, 28 rules that one who will be unable to support his wife and children if he moves to Eretz Yisrael should not go there. This is based on a gemara (Gittin 6b) which criticizes those who went to Eretz Yisrael to learn, and as a result, exposed their children to difficult conditions in order to survive. One can deflect this proof based on another position of the Maharit himself, namely, that only one who goes to Eretz Yisrael in order to live there permanently fulfills the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael. Thus, the Torah students who left their families behind and planned to return were not even fulfilling the mitzva, in which case they had insufficient justification to compromise their families' welfare. Perhaps, if they would have fulfilled the mitzva, it would have been proper. There are additional sources which indicate that one shouldn't go to Eretz Yisrael if it will cause him to be dependent on charity. The M'eel Tzedakah says that it is against the Rabbinic dictum that one who supports himself "from the toil of his hands" is to be lauded and that one should not spend too much money on enhancing Shabbat if it will cause him to be dependent on others. The Rashbash also says that one is not required to move to Eretz Yisrael if he doesn't have an expected source of income there. The Avnei Nezer (454) questions whether it is clear that fear of poverty exempts one from the great mitzva to live in Eretz Yisrael which, Chazal tell us, is equivalent to all the mitzvot of the Torah combined. There does, though, appear to be a clear proof to the position of the M'eel Tzedakah and Rashbash from the gemara, codified in the Rambam (Melachim 5:9). The gemara states that when the economic situation reaches a point where money is scarce and a person does not have the ability to earn, he can move to wherever he can find a living. However, if we understand the Rashbash properly, we can accept the Avnei Nezer's contention that one needs to make greater financial sacrifices for living in Eretz Yisrael than for other mitzvot. The Rashbash posits that when one is not able to live in Eretz Yisrael normally, which includes having a place to live and the ability to earn money for basic needs, he does not fulfill the mitzva of living there. We can argue that if one will be able to survive reasonably in Eretz Yisrael but will have to make a more significant financial sacrifice than is required by other mitzvot, he is required to do so. ======================================================== Ask the Rabbi Question: Why do we read the Haftara? What does the word mean? Answer: Moshe Rabbeinu initiated the public reading of the Torah and Ezra expanded it (see Bava Kamma 82a). The reading of the Haftara was established at some later point during the period of the Second Beit Hamikdash, certainly before the end of the period of the Tanaim (as it is mentioned in Mishnayot in the 3rd perek of Megillah). The Haftarot certainly mirror the reading of the Torah. The gemara (Megillah 23a) states that the Haftara should contain at least 21 p'sukim, corresponding to the 7 aliyot on Shabbat multiplied by the minimum of 3 p'sukim per aliyah. The classic explanation, found as early as the Avudrohom (14th century) and brought by many since (see L'vush, Orach Chayim 284:1), is that the Haftara was instituted during the time that the Greeks decreed upon Jews not to read the Torah. Instead, they read from the Prophets something related to the Torah reading which also corresponded to the minimal length. The Levush (ibid.) and Tosafot Yom Tov (Megillah 3: 4) write that although the decree ceased, the practice, initiated under those difficult circumstances, was adopted permanently. This explanation fits with the root of Haftara (patur), that the Jews of that time exempted themselves from the normal obligation to read the Torah by reading the Prophets instead (Avudrohom). Another approach, which Harav Yaakovson (Chazon Hamikrah, pg. 20) quotes from Likutei Pardes and others, sees the development of the Haftara as a natural, positive one. The ancient custom was that after daily prayer the congregation would remain in the synagogue and read the Tanach, Mishna and halachot. When poverty spread, people had to work longer hours. Although people did not have enough time to continue the custom, on Shabbat and Yom Tov, when people do not work and have more time, the custom was preserved and turned into the practice of Haftarot. According to this approach, Haftara may mean to exempt or fulfill the need to read from the Prophets. Rav Maimon (Chagim U'zmanim, pg. 197) suggests that the public reading of the Prophets was begun to counter the claims of the Shomronim who rejected their importance. Other explanations of the term, Hafatara, relate to its position at the end of Torah reading at which point it is permissible to talk (until Musaf and at appropriate times) along the lines of the phrase "yaftiru safa" (Rabbeinu Tam). Similarly, it is the end of Shacharit (as we say, "ein maftirin achar hapesach..."). 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 Mishpatim 27 Shevat 5762 משפטים

Main > Parashat Shavua
Eretz_Hemdah