Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Balak 5763

Hemdat Yamim Balak - 12 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. ********************************************************************************************************************* What Will be In the "End of Days" Harav Yosef Carmel While Bilam's first speeches were ordered by Balak, the fourth and final speech was of his own volition. After thrice not getting the type of help he was hoping for, Balak reacted angrily and told Bilam to leave and not give any more blessings. Bilam, whose feelings were hurt, showed some of his haughtiness by introducing his parting words with a new title he hadn't used the previous times. "The one who knows the knowledge of Hashem" (Bamidbar 24:17) then went on to prophecy about the "end of the days." The prophecy speaks about a ruler who will arise in Yisrael who will smite nations of the area, including Moav and Edom (ibid. 17-19). The Rambam categorized this as the prophecy of the anointed king, the Mashiach. It is important to review some of the more important concepts from the Rambam's treatment of the subject, especially as they relate to our parasha. The following ideas are taken from the 11th chapter of The Laws of the Kings and Their Wars. The Rambam writes that one who denies the idea of the coming of Mashiach, rejects not only the words of The Prophets but even the words of the Torah, which come from Moshe, the greatest of all prophets. Included in the Torah sources for the coming of Mashiach is the prophecy of Bilam, which was related to us by Moshe. The Rambam writes that Bilam spoke of two Mashiachs. The first one is King David himself, who was the first anointed one who saved Bnei Yisrael from their enemies. The second is the final Mashiach, who will be a descendant of David. The Rambam goes on to dissect the double language of Bilam's prophecy and show how one part applies to David and the other to whom we call, Mashiach. Prominent in the Rambam's treatment of the topic is the idea that the future coming of Mashiach will not be of a totally different nature to the reign of King David. There will be no changes in the Torah and not even in the normal process of nature or the history of nations and society. He writes that Mashiach will not need to perform any miracles to prove that he is indeed the Mashiach. Even some of the prophecies' descriptions of wolves living peacefully with lambs are parables of peaceful relations between Israel and the nations of the world and their uniting into one, universal worship of Hashem in a true manner. One of the Rambam's most important conclusions is that the proper understanding of the prophecies, knowing exactly what each parable will correspond to in reality is something that we will not know until the things actually happen. It is interesting to note the humility of the Rambam, who says we will not know in contrast to the haughtiness of Bilam who claimed to know it all. ********************************************************************************************************** P'ninat Mishpat Refusal of a Wife to Live With her In-laws (based on Piskei Din Rabbani'im X, pp. 355-362) Case: A couple got married with the agreement that they would live with the husband's sick mother and his sister. After a year and a half, the wife left the joint apartment and demanded that her husband should rent a separate apartment for them and, in the meantime, pay for her support. The regional beit din had ruled that, since the wife had agreed to the arrangement prior to their marriage, and since some complications were to be expected, she would have to prove that the difficulties of living with her in-laws were out of the ordinary. In the meantime, she could not demand support as long as she refused to stay in domestic residence with her husband. Harabbanim Yisraeli, Kapach, and Eliyahu sat as a court of appeals. Ruling: The first question is whether a wife has to prove the grounds for her objection to living with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law or whether her claim of difficulties is sufficient. At first glance, this is a clear machloket between the Shulchan Aruch, who says that no proof is necessary, and the Rama, who says that she must convince beit din, possibly with the help of an external observer to determine who is responsible for the conflict (Even Haezer 74:10). The Beit Meir (cited in Pitchei Teshuva, ad loc.) concedes that the Rama is logical in regard to some relatives. However, he sides with the opinion that no proof is needed in regard to a mother-in-law and sister-in-law, about whom there is a mishna (Yevamot 117a) that assumes that they are likely to harbor antagonism toward each other. The likely response of the Rama is that, given the antagonism, there is still a question in each specific case whether the wife or the relatives are the main culprits. If that is so, then we can distinguish between the cases. The Rama deals with a wife who wants to remove the relatives, while we are discussing a case where the relatives will stay where they are, and the wife just demands of the husband to rent another apartment for them. In such a case, it is likely that the question of how much each side is to be blamed is less relevant, as Chazal foresaw that problems are to be expected. There are sources that infer from the Teshuvot Harif that if a wife agrees before her wedding to living with relatives that she cannot force her husband to act otherwise by claiming that she was unaware how difficult it would be. However, both parties agree that they did not set a specific time span to live with his family. There are two opinions in the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 60:3) whether open-ended obligations are forever (as long as the obligation is applicable) or for a year. There are different ways to understand the opinions and to rule, leading to a case of sfeika d'dina (uncertainty how to pasken). In a case like this, where there is a definite responsibility of the husband to provide reasonable lodgings for his wife and a question as to the extent of the relaxation of this responsibility, the burden of proof is on him (based on Ketubot 83b). Since the wife's claim that she intended to agree to a year of living together is a plausible one, the husband must now find an apartment for them. In the meantime, he must pay her expenses, as she has justification to live separately under these circumstances. ************************************************************************************************************************** Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) Interview with "Hatzofeh" on the Occasion of 50th Anniversary of Kfar Haroeh - part II (from Gaon Batorah U'vamidot pp. 285-288) Kfar Haroeh was one of the first religious agricultural settlements (moshavim). Rav Yisraeli was the founding rabbi and served there for some three decades. Below are his thoughts on some of the challenges of what was a new type of rabbinate. Question: Didn't working the land in and of itself demand special attention from the rabbi? What a question! Form the first day, I was flooded by agricultural [halachic] questions. How do we arrange milking on Shabbat? What about taking trumot and maasrot (tithing)? How does one solve problems of kilayim (cross-breeding) in grafting and when sowing. These were all questions that rabbis of the Diaspora and of the city were not demanded to deal with. In Kfar Haroeh, they required discussion with conclusions, a daily, halachic give and take. I instituted special shiurim on agricultural topics, and most of the men of the kfar (village) took part with great interest. Then there was the matter of the holidays and times of rejoicing. They also required a unique type of molding, one appropriate for people of the land. How does one ensure a traditional Jewish atmosphere on Shabbat? How do you celebrate Yom Ha'atzmaut? In Kfar Haroeh we innovated new customs for the prayers and holiday meals of Yom Ha'atzmaut, which drew hundreds and thousands to the kfar from all over the country. Those who came were affected by the atmosphere and spread it elsewhere. One can say that the character of Yom Ha'atzmaut throughout the religious Zionist community is taken from the kfar. We had an impact on the immediate surroundings, as well. If Kfar Haroeh is surrounded today by settlements of traditional Jews, like Chibat Zion or the Yemenite settlements, it is by virtue of the personal example that the kfar gave, which helped them not get caught up in the tides of the time. Let us address the second generation, as well. Religious activists arose, who formed other villages in the spirit of Kfar Haroeh. Grandchildren grew up and went to settlements in Yehuda and Shomron and started branches of the Yeshiva of Kfar Haroeh, which set the standard of the new Israeli yeshiva. One can say that the whole lifestyle that was developed in the place served as a guide and prototype for the Eretz Yisrael community. Let us give two examples. The close contact with the workers' movement and the socialist ideology caused me to educate our community in the distinctively Jewish approach to work. We developed he concept of the workplace complying with halacha and the ability to prove that the scope of Judaism, with its world-wide grasp, provides a theoretical basis that is well ahead of the modern social theories. Shabbat in the kfar was simply a beautiful thing. Our children were able to soak in the full experience of Shabbat without external influences. I remember how my daughter would see cars travelling on the main road outside the kfar and say how there must be many sick people in the neighboring settlements. It was unimaginable that anyone would travel on Shabbat if not for saving lives. In Kfar Haroeh we proved that there is no contradiction between a Torah life and an agricultural one. On the contrary, the Torah encourages a life of hard work of the hands. We also proved that Torah and avoda create a pure social model and that such creativity has longevity, as it has reached 50 years, three generations, and other settlements modeled after it. ************************************************************************************************************************** Ask the Rabbi Question: Does milk that was milked on Shabbat (in Israel) without employing any halachic solutions become not kosher because of the violation? Answer: This response deals with the kashrut element of the issue and not with the policy questions of going out of one's way to either support shomer Shabbat dairies or send a financial voice of disapproval to chillul Shabbat. The gemara (Ketubot 34a) brings the opinions of three Tanaim regarding food which was intentionally cooked by a Jew (or otherwise produced in a forbidden manner- see Rama, Orach Chayim 318:1) on Shabbat. The most stringent opinion, that the food becomes forbidden mid'oraita for everyone forever is not accepted as halacha. R. Yehuda and R. Meir agree that there is only a rabbinic prohibition, but they argue as to its degree. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 318:1) rules like R. Yehuda that we penalize the person who violated Shabbat and never allow him to eat the food. Others may eat the food after Shabbat. R. Meir says that even the one who violated may eat the food after Shabbat, and a minority of Rishonim accept his opinion (see Beit Yosef and G'ra, ad loc.). It, therefore, would seem like an open and shut case that one can drink milk that was milked by others, as it is forbidden only for he who violated Shabbat. The question is whether the people, on whose behalf the work was done, is considered like the violator himself or like someone else. The Magen Avraham compares this to the case where one takes a forbidden food and purposely mixes it up in such a way that the forbidden food should be batel (nullified). The Shulchan Aruch rules (Yoreh Deah 99:5) in that case that the mixture is forbidden even for the person upon whose behalf the act was done. Thus, it would have seemed that the milking, which was done in order to sell to consumers, would be forbidden for them. However, the Magen Avraham continues that the Beit Yosef explains that the case of mixing in the forbidden food is particularly strict, because we need to fear that the perpetrator will not take the matter seriously. The Magen Avraham reasons that, regarding actually violating Shabbat, one cannot make that claim. Almost all later Acharonim understand the conclusion of the Magen Avraham and the halacha as permitting the food to the intended recipients of the melacha. However, the K'tav Sofer (son of the Chatam Sofer) complicated the matter a bit. He explains (OC 50) that while the Shabbat violator may sell the food, that is because he already is penalized for his violation by virtue of the fact that he cannot eat the food himself. However, in a case where someone regularly cooks on Shabbat in order to sell the food to customers, the penalty will not be felt if he can continue to do so. It, therefore, becomes forbidden for him to sell. If it is forbidden for him to sell, then it is forbidden to buy from him because of the requirement not to facilitate or even aid and abet one who is doing a sin, in this case the sale. It is not at all clear that we accept the K'tav Sofer's ruling, but in any case, the matter does not seem applicable to our case. After all, we do not buy the milk from the dairy farmers but from a grocery, who bought from a distributor, who bought the milk. Therefore, it is too indirect for the consumer to need to be concerned about lifnei iver (facilitating a sin). In practice, it is often a non-Jew who does the actual milking. This is, paradoxically, a stricter situation in some ways. When a non-Jew does melacha on Shabbat on behalf of a Jew, one has to wait after Shabbat the additional amount of time it takes to do the necessary work (bichdei sheya'su- see Beitza 24b). However, in practice, the necessary amount of time always elapses before the consumer has a chance to drink his milk. 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