Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Dvarim 5763

Hemdat Yamim Devarim - 4 Av 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. ******************************************************************************************************************* Devarim - The Old, the New, and the Revisited Harav Moshe Ehrenreich In several places (including Berachot 21b) Chazal refer to Sefer Devarim as "Mishneh Torah." Tosafot (Gittin 2a) uses this name to help explain an interesting detail in the writing of a get. Rasag says that a get has twelve lines to correspond to the blank lines between the various sefarim of the Torah. There are actually sixteen lines (4 lines X 4 breaks). However, says Tosafot, the break between Bamidbar and Devarim does not count, because Mishneh Torah is just a repetition of the rest. According to Tosafot, Mishneh Torah means a repetition. This is also how the Metzudot explains the phrase in Yehoshua 8:33. One can also bring support for this approach from the pasuk: "Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisrael everything that Hashem had commanded him to tell them" (Devarim 1:3), which is an introduction to the sefer as a whole. However, when we examine the contents of Devarim, we will find that it far more than a repetition. It contains more than 100 mitzvot, of which 70 are new ones. Regarding its role of summarizing, we should note that there is little reference to the mitzvot of sacrifices and purity, which are the mainstays of Sefer Vayikra. Therefore, the Netziv (introduction to Devarim) explains that "Mishneh" comes from the root of sharpening and intensifying, as our sefer puts great stress on the intensive study of Torah. The Ramban in several places tries to connect apparently new mitzvot in Devarim to previously mentioned mitzvot in other sefarim, thus connecting it more strongly to previous sefarim. If we want to reconcile Tosafot's approach with what appears to be a different reality, we need to explain as follows. Moshe was indeed commanded before his death to review all of the precepts of the Torah, as cited above. However, not everything that he related at that time, was incorporated into Sefer Devarim. Rather, some, which had not been previously written, were included, along with additional "old" mitzvot, which were revisited in a manner that justified being written again (see Rav Hirsch on 1:3). Looking more deeply into that which was specifically chosen for inclusion at this point, we will see that there is a stress on the guidance of the new leadership, which would arise and would be entrusted with the task of bringing Bnei Yisrael from the desert to Eretz Yisrael. The leadership after Moshe would need to grapple with assembling a Sanhedrin, appointing a king, and running a legal system. They would also have to deal with the nations who inhabited Eretz Yisrael, raising questions about treatment of idolatry and the laws of war. In their new land, with a more normal economy than that which existed in the desert, stress on the various forms of charity, on Shemitta, and the laws of workers would be crucial. Even in regard to the holidays, only the three regalim, when Bnei Yisrael were to go up to Yerushalayim were repeated, and their agricultural element is that which is stressed. In summary, Sefer Devarim highlights those mitzvot that deal with the upcoming challenge, initiating a state with an army and an economy according to the Divine ideal, even before the Beit Hamikdash was erected. *************************************************************************************************************************** P'ninat Mishpat Objections to Building on the Roof - part II (condensed from Piskei Din Rabbani'im XIV, pp. 161-169) Case (summary from last week): The defendant (=def) and plaintiffs (=pl) own apartments in an apartment building. Pl object to def's plans to build apartments to rent out on a portion of the roof. Pl´s complaints relate to living conditions both during and after construction. Majority Ruling (summary from last week): While one cannot build on to his house in a way that there will be more inhabitants using the joint courtyard (chatzer), this is because a chatzer was classically used in a way that made privacy relatively important. The set-up in modern apartment buildings is more similar to that of neighbors in the classic mavoy, where one cannot prevent another from bringing in new tenants under normal circumstances. Therefore, def may build. To alleviate possible damages and harsh living conditions during construction, def must make financial guarantees to pay for damages and pay for alternative living accommodations for pl during the time of construction. Minority opinion (as expanded and upheld unanimously in the appeal process): Almost all opinions agree that the owner of the apartment may not make changes in the apartment in a manner that creates a new living unit, allowing additional families to enter the joint property. One cannot compare our case to that of different neighbors living in a mavoy (similar to our streets), because there each person owns his property individually, and the issue is only of the damages between neighbors. But in our case, the property is jointly owned, and one partner cannot make changes to the property without the others' permission. There is a clear reference to this type of situation in the Law for Apartment Buildings, which in par. 62.1 says that one is not allowed to build additions without approval of the other owners. Because the law does not contradict a clear halacha and certainly because the public, by and large, operates under its provisions, the binding, common practice is along the lines of the law. Def's assumption, upon buying into the property, that he would be able to build, like some other people do, does not create a legal right, but rather was a financial gamble. Additionally, Def's willingness to assure payment and interim rental arrangements for his neighbors is not sufficient. The gemara (Bava Batra 7a, brought by Shulchan Aruch CM 154: 13) says that when one wants to make changes in a wall, which will require he who shares the building to move out temporarily, the neighbor can say that he is not willing to trouble himself. Although pl are not required to give permission, since def is willing to be as accommodating as possible and the matter is important to him financially, pl are strongly encouraged to go beyond the letter of the law and seek a compromise for the sake of peace. *************************************************************************************************************************** Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) Kilayim - Part II -The Source for the Prohibition of Sowing of Mixed Species (based on Eretz Hemdah, vol. II, 1:1) The Torah writes explicitly: "You shall observe my decrees: your animals you shall not cross-breed with other species, your fields you shall not sow with mixed seed, and clothes with a mixture of different fibers (sha'atnez) you shall not place upon you" (Vayikra 19:19). Despite this fact, Rashi in several places (including Shabbat 84b) says that the prohibition of kilei zerzaim (seeding a field with a mixture of species) is only rabbinic. In one place, Rashi does seem to agree to the Torah origin of the prohibition. How do we deal with both Rashi's internal contradiction and the contradiction from an apparently explicit pasuk? Tosafot brings several questions on Rashi. One is from the gemara's (Chulin 115a) suggestion that that which grows from a field that was sown with a mixture of seeds is prohibited based on the pasuk, "Do not eat any abomination" (Devarim 14:3). That pasuk is the basis of a general rule that products of forbidden processes are forbidden to eat. However, the pasuk is pertinent only if the process (in this case, kilei zeraim) is forbidden from the Torah. Another question is from the gemara (Kiddushin 39a), which learns from the word "sadcha" (your field), not that one is forbidden to graft, but that the laws of kilei zeraim apply only in Eretz Yisrael. That again presumes that the prohibition has a source in the Torah. But even Tosafot is difficult to understand. Why does he need to derive his objection to Rashi from inferences from gemarot if there is an explicit pasuk on the matter? The gemara (Sanhedrin 60a) picks up on the juxtaposition of the prohibition of sowing a field with mix species and the prohibition of cross-breeding species of animals and derives that one is forbidden to graft trees, which is the botanical equivalent of cross-breeding. If one takes the importance of the juxtaposition to an extreme, he can claim that despite the simple meaning of the words, the pasuk is referring only to grafting and not to kilei zeraim at all. For that reason, Tosafot did not bring a proof for kilei zeraim from the pasuk, rather from gemarot. The possibility of learning the pasuk just to forbid grafting may be behind Rashi's opinion as well. There are indications that Rashi understood that there was a machloket between R. Eliezer and Rabbanan whether grafting is forbidden from the Torah (R. Eliezer) or not. It is possible that Rashi understood that according to the opinion that grafting is forbidden from the Torah, then only it is forbidden and not kilei zeraim. According to the opinion that grafting is rabbinic in origin, then kilei zeraim is the subject of the Torah's prohibition. Since R. Yochanan (Kiddushin 39a) rules that grafting is from the Torah, Rashi may have concluded that kilei zeraim is rabbinic. Consequently, Tosafot's questions are no longer difficult for Rashi. The gemarot that Tosafot cites as proofs that kilei zeraim are from the Torah may be going according to the opinion that grafting is rabbinic. Rashi's internal contradiction can also be reconciled, as different gemarot may be explained in line with different opinions found in Shas, as may be appropriate based on local subtleties. In terms of halacha, both the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule, like Tosafot, that kilei zeraim is from the Torah and is punishable by flogging. *************************************************************************************************************************** Ask the Rabbi Question: What is the proper beracha on chocolate -covered raisins? Answer: Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the beracha for chocolate-covered raisins. But fortunately, there are a few legitimate options, and one can cover his bases well. When one eats a food that is made up of distinct parts that are combined together, he makes the beracha of that which is the ikar (primary food) and not on the tafel (secondary food) (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 212). The problem is that at times there is no clear ikar and tafel. So, for example, when one eats fruit salad (which contains some fruit whose beracha is ha'adama), he determines the beracha by using that which applies to the majority of the fruit in terms of volume (Mishna Berura 212:1). This is because when it is difficult to say that one fruit is more important than another, the majority prevails. However, by chocolate-covered raisins, where the function of the chocolate and the raisin are different, it is possible that one is really ikar and the other tafel. If one had a clear feeling on the matter, that would determine his status (Laws of Berachos (Forst) pg. 215), but most people are somewhat ambivalent on the matter. Let us mention a couple of precedents. The Shulchan Aruch (212:2) says that those who place a liquid-based confection on top of thin crackers make a beracha only on the confection. However, the Magen Avraham (ad loc.) says that that is only when the cracker does not have its own good taste, but the way it was done in his days, one makes a beracha on the tasty cracker. The Machatzit Hashekel (ad loc.) adds that one should make two berachot on the two separate parts of the food. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe OC III, 31) feels that our situation is similar and that one makes two berachot, shehakol followed by ha'etz. On the other hand, the Mishna Berura paskens that on nuts coated in sugar, even if the sugar is the majority, one makes ha'etz. But chocolate is a more significant, independent food than sugar, and, therefore, there are those who say that one makes only a shehakol on the chocolate coating (see V'zot Haberacha, pg. 96). However, there seems to be more logic to make ha'etz, and this is for a combination of reasons. First of all, as we are dealing with a whole (albeit, small) fruit which is coated, it seems that the fruit is more important (see Tur, Orach Chayim 204 and Mishna Berura 204:51). Even if one never eats raisins without the chocolate, it does not mean that the raisins are not the ikar, like bread is the ikar even for one who never eats it without peanut butter and jelly. Secondly, many are of the opinion that the beracha on chocolate itself is ha'etz, as it is the normal use of the chocolate bean, which grows on a tree (see Minchat Shlomo 91.2). A major part of the reason that we normally make shehakol on chocolate is that it is a safer beracha. After all, shehakol works even for that which should get ha'etz, but not vice versa. In our case, an assumption that chocolate gets ha'etz eliminates a beracha, whereas saying shehakol makes one go out on a limb and make a second, possibly unnecessary beracha. This combination of factors leads some to say that we should recite only ha'etz (see Laws of Berachot, ibid.). Another factor is that, in most cases, the raisin is greater in volume than the chocolate (see V'zot Haberacha, pg. 97). On the other hand, reciting just shehakol has its own advantage, as b'dieved it fulfills the obligation of beracha on all foods. In summary, we recommend saying only ha'etz on chocolate-coated raisins, especially if the raisin is the majority. Shehakol is also a safe alternative, especially if the chocolate is the majority or if one thinks that the chocolate is his ikar. Only those who follow Rav Moshe regularly should make two berachot (and refer to his cited teshuva as to how to carry this out). Making berachot first on other foods of the same beracha(ot) removes some doubts but can also raise other ones. 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