Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Behar 5763

Our special, annual Yom Yerushalayim celebration will take place on Thurs., 27 Iyar (29/05) between 11:00 AM-3:00 PM. The event has become a major event, bringing together important public figures, the extended Eretz Hemdah family and hundreds of those who wish to rejoice with Yerushalayim. For details and reservations, contact our office. *********************************************************************************************************************** In memory of Koby Mandel and Yosef Ishran, two young boys from Tekoa who were brutally murdered two years ago. *********************************************************************************************************************** Hemdat Yamim Parshat Behar 16 Iyar 5763 ===================== This edition of Hemdat Yamim is dedicated to the Bat Mitzvah of Sharona Samantha Kufeld. We wish her continued success in all of her endeavors. ================================= 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. ========================================= Freedom - Opportunity and Responsibility The liberty proclaimed throughout the land in the 50th year is described by our parasha with the help of the words "dror" and "yovel" (Vayikra 25:10). Rashi explains yovel as the shofar, which is used in the public proclamation, but the Ramban claims that it is a more direct reference to the concept of freedom. It is from the root of yuval, to be brought. Everyone is brought back to his field, if he had to sell it, or to his family, if he was sold into servitude. Is this freedom desirable for those who receive it? Certainly, we would expect so, but we must consider that among those freed is the Jewish servant who elected to stay on past his six years of required work. Even if he desires to stay on past yovel, he is to be brought to his family against his will. Our disapproval with his comfort as a slave is felt already when he stays beyond six years and a hole is pierced in his ear. At that time, we tell him, "the ear that heard at Har Sinai, 'for Me, Bnei Yisrael are servants,' and he went to acquire a master for himself, shall be pierced" (Rashi on Shemot 21:6). Why do we oppose a person's preference to forgo freedom? The truth is that the real value of freedom is not to be free from something but to be free to do something of value. Opportunity is not just a luxury; it is a mandate to make the most of the opportunity. Our ears heard on Har Sinai that freedom from Egypt gave us the freedom and opportunity and responsibility to accept 613 mitzvot and a Divine Master. Someone, who rejects the opportunity to go back to his family and help mold it in the path Hashem laid out for Bnei Yisrael but opts to be directed as the property of someone else, shirks his responsibility. On Yom Kippur, the day of repentance, atonement and spiritual renewal, the slave is told that it is time to take those lessons to heart and make something of himself. The word "dror" also has various opinions as to its etymology. R. Sa'adia Gaon says that it means freedom. The Ramban says that it means the ability to live (ladoor) where he likes. But Rabbeinu Bachyai has a fascinating suggestion. He says that it is from the root "dor" (generation). During the yovel everything goes back to its origin, not just technically, but metaphysically. Indeed, when we have the freedom to act, the Jewish way is not to dream up some strange, original idea, style, or practice. Rather, we take the opportunity to search out and implement the original design for which the world was created, as our previous generations were commanded at Har Sinai, when they were truly free. This d'var Torah is written in honor of the Bat Mitzva of the writer's daughter. ================================================== P'ninat Mishpat- Disagreement over Choice of an Apartment (condensed from Piskei Din Rabbani'im, vol. IX, pp. 60-64) Case: Before their marriage, the families of the bride and group signed an agreement to put aside money for the couple to buy an apartment. Months before the marriage, the groom acquired a reasonable apartment with the help of sums of money from different sources, including significant loans. Immediately after the wedding, the couple experienced significant discord and did not begin joint domestic residence. (Both sides claim to desire to do so after resolving the dispute.) In the meantime, the husband claims that he is unable to afford payments on the purchased apartment. He wants them to move into an apartment belonging to family members, which is of a dramatically lower standard. The wife demands they move into the apartment purchased for the purpose of their residence. Ruling: The mishna (Ketubot 110b) states that one cannot make his wife move from a nicer location to a less desirable one, and, at first glance, that applies in this case, as well. However, there is a difference of opinion if that rule applies only to the location of their dwelling or to the quality of the apartment, as well (see Piskei Din Rabbani'im VIII, 202). Another objection to applying that concept to our case is that here the couple never lived in the discussed apartment, in which case, she cannot claim that she got used to the higher standard of living. However, there is an additional factor, which serves to support the wife's demand, both in its own right and to strengthen the previous claim. There is a broad concept of making a marriage conditional on the fulfillment of certain additional obligations, and there is also a concept of making an unconditional marriage but incorporating into it additional elements. Not only can such elements arise from explicit agreement but also from clear assumptions (umdanot) based on the circumstances. One example of such an obligation is found in the Ritva (Kiddushin 7a). He says that even if Rabbeinu Gershom's ban is not binding, if one marries in a place where all husbands have only one wife, then one may not take a second wife because of his implied agreement at the time of marriage. Closer to our context, the Rosh (end of Ketubot) cites a tosefta that if a man from Yehuda betroths a woman from the Galil in Yehuda, he cannot make her live out of Yehuda. This is because she can say that she got betrothed with the understanding that they would live there. Therefore, since the matter of the first apartment was clearly discussed and agreed upon and it was purchased before the wedding, the marriage was done with the understanding that they would live in it or in one of approximately similar value. He cannot, as he wants, make her move into a place whose value is only 15% of that of their purchased apartment. ================================================================== Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) Restoring Faded letters with a Chemical -part II (condensed from Amud Hay'mini, Siman 41). We discussed last time the question that arose in regard to the writing in an old sefer Torah which faded until its letters appeared red. A chemical, which is clear in color, causes the letters to revert to black, when applied to the old writing. Does use of this chemical fix a halachically invalidated sefer, ruin one, or not change its status? We demonstrated, based on the sugya in Gittin 19b, that writing which was written with ink that disappears but is subsequently restored with a chemical, is considered writing. However, that conclusion is not sufficient to use our modern chemical to restore sifrei Torah whose letters have turned red, according to those who rule that such a Torah is invalid before the improvement. The distinction is as follows. The gemara is discussing the status of writing in regard to a get and compares it to its status in the realm of the laws of Shabbat. In those areas, the color of the ink is irrelevant, and all that matters is that there is some type of writing which results from an act of writing done according to the required halachic parameters. From that perspective, writing which was accomplished, lost, and restored relates to the original writing process. In contrast, a sefer Torah must be written specifically in black. If it loses its color and its color is restored by a new ink that is added onto it, we will have to relate the color to the new action, even if the status of writing in general relates to the original action. Thus, in our context, the process will not halachically restore a pasul sefer Torah, unless one goes over specific missing letters in a manner which itself is considered writing (which is not the point of the chemical's use). However, there can still be value for this chemical in strengthening the color of the ink of a sefer Torah which is in danger of or has started to fade but is still kosher. The rationale to disallow going over the sefer Torah with the chemical in this case is if we compare it to a case where ink drops over a letter. However, over here, the chemical is clear in color and does not constitute a separate layer. We proved already [last week] that such chemicals are considered not to erase the previous letters but, on the contrary, to restore the status of the previous writing. Certainly, when proper writing already exists, the addition of the chemical does not ruin it. The only question is as follows. Even though the chemical, by itself, is colorless, one can claim that when it combines with the previous ink it takes on a color. If so, perhaps it should be considered a new coating of recently colored ink, which would make the sefer invalid, as it is not applied with an action of writing. However, scientifically, this is not the case. Rather, the old and the new combine chemically to form a uniform renewal or strengthening of the original lettering. As it is not a separate layer, the old writing, which never lost its black color, continues to exist in a more stable manner. ======================================================= Ask the Rabbi Question: Is there a minimum time that Shabbat and Yom Tov candles must remain lit? Answer: There are two elements to candle lighting. The main element is to help ensure that the spirit of festivity and tranquility appropriate for the special day is maintained. The other element is to fulfill the rabbinic mitzva that this positive atmosphere is accomplished by taking the active step of lighting candles before Shabbat in its honor. Because of this element, if the house were filled with candles or other lights well before Shabbat, we would extinguish the candles and light them again soon before Shabbat for the purpose of honoring the Shabbat (or Yom Tov) (Rama, Orach Chayim 263:4). We have not found an absolute minimum amount of time for the candles to be lit and assume that your question is what is the minimum appropriate time. Let's start with what is best and work our way down. It is appropriate to have candles lit for as long as they serve a purpose. However, that has changed dramatically with the advent of electric lights. (We will not have the opportunity to get into the pertinent question of the extent to which electric lights can themselves be considered "Shabbat lights.") The main element of having as much light as we need is usually accomplished by means of electricity. For that reason, we no longer have the practice to light candles in all the rooms and hallways of the house where light improves the "quality of life" (see Shemirat Shabbat K'hilchata 43:15). The location and setting where the second element, of adding a positive, additional light to honor Shabbat, is most important is the place where one eats the Shabbat meal (Mishna Berura 263:45). It, therefore, stands to reason that the more of the meal is accompanied by the special Shabbat lights, the better, and preferably it should last for the whole meal (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 75:2; Shemirat Shabbat K'hilchata 43:17). The most critical part of the meal is in the beginning, when one makes kiddush. There is even an opinion in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 273:7) that one cannot make kiddush without the lights being present, although it is sufficient that those lights be electric ones (see Perisha, Orach Chayim 273:6). It is rare for one to use candles that do not last at least until kiddush. The main question arises when one is eating away from home but lights candles in her own home before leaving. (Regarding the different factors that determine when to light at home and when it is better to light in the home of the hosts, see Shemirat Shabbat K'hilchata 45). In such a case, the optimal suggestion is to use candles that are long enough that one can expect them to be lit when the family returns and to put them in a place where they will be of value when they return. It is best that, when putting on electric lights (especially incandescent ones) around the house, to do so right before lighting the candles with the intention that they are part of the mitzva to light (see Riv'vot Ephrayim I, 83). That way, even if one doesn't benefit from the candles upon returning home, she can rely partially on the benefit from the electric lights. If this is not possible, then it would be required that someone wait in the house until it begins to get dark and benefit from the light of the candles. If one needs to leave before that and certainly if one leaves the house more than an hour and a quarter before sunset, then one should light at the home of the host. 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