Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Bshalach 5764

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Beshalach 15 (Tu B')Shevat 5764 *************************************************************** This edition of Hemdat Yamim is dedicated to the memory of R' Meir ben Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld o.b.m., Yitzchak Eliezer Ben Avraham Mordechai Jacobson 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. **************************************************************************** ********************* The Manna- A Remembrance of Creation or Exodus? Harav Yosef Carmel The foundation of Shabbat's sanctity begins already at creation. Yet a further dimension of Shabbat emerges from the exodus from Egypt. In fact, both elements of Shabbat find explicit expression in the two presentations of the Ten Commandments. In the first set, the Torah says: "Remember the day of Shabbat to sanctify it ...because for six days Hashem created ... and He rested on the seventh day, therefore Hashem blessed the day of Shabbat and sanctified it" (Shemot 20: 7-10). The second mention is as follows: "Guard the day of Shabbat to sanctify it ... you should remember that you were a slave in the Land of Egypt and Hashem liberated you from there ... therefore He commanded you to make the day of Shabbat" (Devarim 5: 11-14). Chazal have a tradition that even during the enslavement in Egypt, Shabbat played a special role in Bnei Yisrael's lives. The midrash (Shemot Rabba 8:18) says that they had scrolls that would bring them joy from Shabbat to Shabbat, as they said that Hashem would redeem them. Those days when they would contemplate their liberation were the days of Shabbat, for on Shabbat they rested. When, in response to Moshe's plea for freedom, Paroh decreed to make Bnei Yisrael's workload heavier, it included taking away their rights to rest and spiritual enjoyment, which they had on Shabbat. Another rabbinical tradition is that the commandment to keep Shabbat pre-dated Mt. Sinai and was given at Mara in the beginning of the sojourn through the desert. There, the Torah reports, "He presented them a statute and decree" (Shemot 15:25). The gemara (Sanhedrin 56b) explains that they were given ten mitzvot, seven that bind all Noachides, laws of the judicial system, Shabbat, and the obligation to honor parents. However, explicit mention of a specific obligation to refrain from work on Shabbat comes only in the section that deals with the manna, which sustained Bnei Yisrael in the desert. Hashem gave a double portion of manna on the sixth day so that Bnei Yisrael would not need or be allowed to collect it up on Shabbat. The Torah says, "The nation rested on the seventh day" (Shemot 16:30). The only parallel to this phrase in all of Tanach is, "[Hashem] rested on the seventh day" (Bereishit 2:2). Thus, the fact that the manna did not fall on Shabbat and that Bnei Yisrael were forbidden to go out to gather it is evidence of its connection to the remembrance of the creation. The Torah also commanded Moshe to store a portion of manna as a remembrance for future generations, who should "see the food that I fed them in the desert when I took them out of the Land of Egypt" (Shemot 16:32). This is a reference to the element of remembrance of the Exodus, which the manna shares with Shabbat. Now we see why the mitzva of Shabbat was mentioned for the first time in the section dealing with the manna, as both share the significance of being reminiscent of both creation and exodus. Let us pray that we will merit to see the fulfillment of Chazal's statement (Shabbat 118b) that if Bnei Yisrael will keep two Shabbatot properly they will immediately merit redemption. **************************************************************************** ********************* P'ninat Mishpat- Suing in Rabbinical Court after Losing in Secular Court (from Piskei Din of the Rabbinical Courts of Yerushalayim I, pg. 27) Case: The plaintiff sued the defendant in beit din to overturn a ruling of the secular court forbidding the plaintiff to use the hallway in front of the defendant's apartment, which, the defendant claimed, belongs to him. The defendant responded that since the plaintiff already took part in the hearings in the secular court, he waived his right to have the case heard in beit din. The defendant claimed that he should not have to trouble himself to go through the legal process an additional time. Ruling: K'nesset Yechezkel (siman 97) discusses a man who expelled his son-in-law from his daughter's house after her death, in contradiction to the halacha that a husband inherits his wife upon her death. The father-in-law bribed officials to allow him to prevail and keep the son-in-law out, which induced the son-in-law to bribe in order to restore his rights. The K'nesset Yechezkel upheld the demands of the son-in-law for compensation and, in the process, developed the following point, which is pertinent to our case. One is permitted to protect the rights that have been or are in threat of being taken away from him in the secular courts. He does not need permission from beit din to go to the secular court to protect himself, but only needs permission if he wants to initiate a legal process which he is unable to do in beit din (usually because the other side refuses to accept beit din's jurisdiction). In our case, therefore, the plaintiff (who was previously the defendant in the secular court) was permitted to defend himself in secular court and try to deflect the process initiated by the defendant. It was the defendant who should not have initiated the first court case in the secular court without permission from beit din. We do not have complaints against the plaintiff's defense there nor do we deem his appearance there as an acceptance of the secular court's jurisdiction in this case Therefore, the plaintiff has every right to decide to sue the defendant in beit din, even after losing in secular court, and the defendant has a halachic obligation to respond to the summons to adjudicate before beit din. **************************************************************************** *********************************************** Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) The Halachic Significance of Tu B'shevat- part II (based on Chavot Binyamin I, pg. 63-5) [We saw last time that it is agreed that Tu B'shevat has significance in determining the orlah status of fruit. Regarding fruit during Shemitta, the Rambam is of the opinion that they are governed by the Rosh Hashana of Tishrei, with an etrog being the lone exception. Tosafot, though, said that there is a broad derivation of the laws of Shemitta from those of orlah, by virtue of which Tu B'shevat is the cut-off date for fruit in regard to Shemitta, as well.] It seems that the aforementioned machloket between the Rambam and Tosafot is related to another machloket among the Rishonim. We saw that fruit that grow during the fourth year of a tree's existence, but before Tu B'shevat of that year, are considered to belong to the third year. The question is whether that status is across the board or not. Rashi says that this applies only to those trees that have not completed a full three years but are deemed to belong to the fourth year because they "completed" their first year when they were planted soon before the end of the calendar year. But the fruit of trees which completed three full years are treated as r'vai (fruit of the fourth year, which need to be eaten in Yerushalayim or redeemed) even if they budded before Tu B'shevat of the fourth year. The Rambam, cited in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 294:5, concurs. The Ran rules against this, saying that the requirement of budding after Tu B'shevat of the fourth year is absolute. One can prove that Tosafot and the Rach agree with the opinion of the Ran. Tosafot and the Rambam are consistent in their positions. Tosafot posits that any fruit except etrog (see last week's article) that buds before Tu B'shevat is considered to have grown based on the previous year's rain and relates totally to that year in regard to Shemitta, as well as orlah. He also feels that this applies even to fruit from trees that finished a full three years since planting, as the fruit is considered as if it grew before Tishrei. On the other hand, according to Rashi and the Rambam, the significance of Tu B'shevat is much more limited. All fruit is considered to enter a new year in the beginning of Tishrei. Those that did not yet complete a full third year need Tu B'shevat to pass to usher in a new year regarding orlah, whereas those that are already fully in their fourth year do not. Regarding Shemitta, after Tishrei enters, the fruit are considered as belonging to the new year of Shemitta. We should point out that even according to Tosafot that Tu B'shevat has a more far-reaching significance, this is only in regard to the fruit of a tree, which are profoundly impacted by the rain of the previous year. However, as far as the rest of the tree is concerned, Tishrei determines the entire halachic status. Therefore, the gemara (Sukka 39-40) discusses the Shemitta status of branches that were cut in the beginning of the calendar year of Shemitta. **************************************************************************** ********************* Ask the Rabbi Question: We had a minyan for Mincha without a mourner, and so we did not say Kaddish after Aleinu. We subsequently did some learning, after which I recited Kaddish D'rabbanan. Some people questioned whether this is the right thing since, Baruch Hashem, both of my parents are alive. Can/should one with live parents say Kaddish D'rabbanan (=KD)? Answer: There is nothing per se about Kaddish that makes it appropriate only for mourners. Chazanim regularly say the Kaddeishim during the tefilla. The main issue has to do with the Kaddish following Aleinu at the end of the tefilla (in a few places, during Shacharit). That was instituted to give mourners who are not able to be the chazan the opportunity to recite at least that Kaddish and thereby elevate the souls of their departed parents. Thus, poskim write that when one whose parents are alive says Kaddish, it may look as if a parent has died, and we refrain from this in order to "not open our mouth to the Satan." In contrast, KD was instituted based on the special impact that it has for the world, in general. The gemara (Sota 49a) mentions the saying of "Y'hei Shmei Rabba" after learning aggada (homiletic portions of the Torah) as one of two things that keep the world in existence. In theory and according to the great majority of classical sources (see Shut Chatam Sofer, IV 132; Pitchei Teshuva, YD 376:4) it need not be limited to mourners or those whose parents have died in the past. On the other hand, there is an opinion that only one who does not have parents says KD (Matei Ephrayim, cited in Tzitz Eliezer VII, 49). Even though this opinion is rejected, it is hard to deny that the perception of most people is that it is said by mourners or those without parents. This perception of people causes a situation where it is understandable for a parent to be disturbed that their child is reciting KD. Some authorities (see Yabia Omer III, YD 26) say that under those circumstances, there is an element of "opening the mouth to the Satan." What happens if a parent objects to the saying of Kaddish when he need not do so? There is a major machloket among Rishonim in a case that a father tells his son not to recite Mourner's Kaddish for his mother (the father's wife, not divorcee). The Maharam (cited in Tashbetz 425) says that the father's objection, which has a logical basis, should be heeded, even though it is unfortunate, as it is important to say Kaddish for the mother. But the Rama (Yoreh Deah 376:4) says that we reject the father's objection and instruct the son to say Kaddish for his mother. Our case is different from the Rama's in both directions. On one hand, if the parents and others would be more knowledgeable as to the background of KD, there would be no reason to object. On the other hand, there is less of a requirement to say KD, certainly if we are speaking about after a learning session that is not part of davening. It is very common for group learning to end without KD (for better or for worse, and that is not our topic now) even if mourners are present. So why create a questionable situation when one can finish the learning without a Kaddish? We suggest the following approach, which is in line with that of Rav O. Yosef shlita (Yabia Omer, ibid.). The parent(s) have the prerogative to object to their son saying KD, but one need not ask their permission in advance. If one wants to ask his parents, he can say that it is permitted for a son with live parents to say Kaddish and hope they do not object. If someone without live parents is present, he should ideally be the one to say KD, but if no one is saying the KD at the beginning or end of davening, then it is fine for anyone to recite it (Rav Sh. Z. Orbach z.t.l. instructed a colleague of ours with parents to act this way.) In any case, your friends at the minyan have no reason to object. 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