Parashat Shavua

Hemdat Yamim Parashat Emor 5764

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Emor 10 Iyar 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. *************************************************************************************************************************** Shabbat and Festivals Harav Yosef Carmel The parasha's section dealing with the festivals seems to start off strangely. "Speak to Bnei Yisrael and tell them, Hashem's festivals (moadei- hinting at a specific time) that you shall set as holy convocations, these are My festivals" (Vayikra 23:2). This is followed by a pasuk about Shabbat and then again, "These are Hashem's festivals, holy convocations, which you shall set at their appointed times" (ibid. :3-4). Both the Torah's repetition of the introduction to the festivals and the insertion of Shabbat, which is not considered a festival, bothered generations of commentators. Rashi explains that the first introduction instructs beit din to make leap years when necessary, and the second one refers to beginning new months on the right day. Both help determine when festivals take place. Shabbat is mentioned to compare the observance of the festivals to that of Shabbat. The Kli Yakar explains based on Rashi's rule that whatever is mentioned first in the pasuk pushes off that which is mentioned second when the two conflict. The festivals are mentioned both before and after Shabbat to tell us that sometimes one has precedence and sometimes the other. Witnesses can push off Shabbat to come to testify about setting the calendar, but beit din cannot send emissaries to inform the world of their decision on Shabbat. This explains the p'sukim well, as the first pasuk addresses Bnei Yisrael (the witnesses), whereas the latter pasuk addresses beit din. Rashi explains the mention of Bnei Yisrael in a way that is important even in our era when beit din no longer sets the calendar. He explains that we are to set the festivals so that it will be possible for Jews to celebrate the festivals in Yerushalayim, such as those who embarked on the journey but appear unable to make it on time. What principle does this teach us? There are two types of reasons for making a leap year. One is so that the festivals will come out at the time of year that Hashem instructed. The other is to solve problems that can prevent portions of the nation from properly taking part in them. It then appears that the first mention of setting the calendar, mentioning "Bnei Yisrael," refers to the needs of the people and the second one, which talks of "at their appointed time," refers to the objective, seasonal considerations. Since we saw the approach of Rashi and the Kli Yakar that the needs described in the first pasuk are worthy of pushing off Shabbat observance, under the right circumstances, it follows that certain national needs have a special status regarding what is permitted on Shabbat. The field of determining when and how national institutions, such as the police and armed forces can function on Shabbat was one pioneered by our mentor, Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli. One of his guiding principles was that when halacha allows for pushing aside the normal laws of Shabbat for a crucial, national need, such activity should be done preferably by observant Jews, without searching for solutions of a "Shabbos goy." *************************************************************************************************************************** Ask the Rabbi Question: Two Jewish doctors own a medical practice together with a non-Jewish doctor. The premises, which include dozens of rooms and employees, is rented from a hospital group. Do some or all of the doors require mezuzot? Answer: The gemara (Chulin 135b) searches for the significance of the Torah's writing that mezuzot are to be put on "beitecha (your (singular) house)." It first suggests that the word comes to exclude a house owned in partnership (even with a Jew). But the gemara learns from plural usage elsewhere that the mitzva applies even for partnerships and learns something totally different from the word. The Rashba (ad loc.) asks why the gemara did not use the word to derive that in a partnership between a Jew and non-Jew, the Jew does not require mezuzot, as the gemara had done in several similar examples (ibid.). He learns from this silence that in such an interfaith partnership, mezuzot are required. The Rashba also provides the rationale, saying that mezuzot are to provide protection, and anywhere that the Jew lives, he is to seek such protection. On the other hand, the Mordechai (Avoda Zara 810) says that in such a partnership, mezuzot are not required, and the Rama accepts his ruling (Yoreh Deah 286:1). Commentators disagree as to whether the exemption is because of danger from the possible reaction of non-Jews (Shach 286:6), because of the way to analyze the p'sukim on the matter (Taz 286:2) or because the area is considered an incomplete one in regard to mezuzot as it is partially owned by one who is exempt from the mitzva (Birkei Yosef 286:2). The Shulchan Aruch does not mention the matter, but in his addendums to the Beit Yosef (Bedek Habayit 286) he writes that the Rashba is correct. Although the matter appears to be a machloket how to pasken between Ashkenazim (like the Rama) and Sephardim (like the Shulchan Aruch / Bedek Habayit), the later poskim do not make such a clear break. The Birkei Yosef (ibid.) and Yalkut Yosef (Sova Semachot I, pg. 365) are among prominent Sephardic poskim who say that although one should affix mezuzot in this case, he should do so without a beracha because of doubt. From the other side, the Aruch Hashulchan (286:2) is followed by recent sefarim (see Chovat Hadar 2:2; Pitchei Shearim pp. 127-130) who write that even Ashkenazim should attach mezuzot to houses jointly owned with non-Jews without a beracha in cases where there is no fear of non-Jewish hostility or desecration of the mezuzot. However, in our case, there are additional grounds for leniency. Firstly, in commercial settings, the obligation of mezuzot even for a totally Jewish area is only based on doubt (we discussed the matter last year, also on Parashat Emor). Secondly, the premises are rented from a hospital group, which, if we understand correctly, is at least primarily non-Jewish. According to many (see Shut R. Akiva Eiger I, 66) the obligation of a renter is always only rabbinic, and it is likely that those Ashkenazim who are more stringent than the Rama do so only by the likelihood of a Torah obligation (see language of Aruch Hashulchan, ibid.). We would make the following distinction. In those offices or rooms that are frequented by Jewish doctors, there is a hidur (a favorable but not required practice) to affix mezuzot, as well as on the front door, assuming it is not likely to cause animosity or invite vandalism. However, in the other dozens of rooms that Jewish doctors visit rarely (and the Rashba's logic of requiring protection, among other things, is not so applicable), you do not need to place mezuzot. ************************************************************************************************************************** P'ninat Mishpat- Action Based on a Divorce Settlement That Did Not Materialize (based on Piskei Din Rabbaniim- vol. XV, pp.184-190) Case: A couple lived together under a civil marriage and decided to get divorced. They reached a settlement by which the husband would transfer his share in their apartment to the wife. A date was set at beit din to formalize the agreement. (Beit din was involved because even after a civil marriage, it is customary to require a get l'chumra.) The couple never arrived at beit din. Rather, the husband went abroad after signing a power of attorney to allow the wife to receive full ownership of the apartment. The wife followed him abroad, where they lived as husband and wife for a year and half. Upon returning, the wife used the power of attorney to obtain ownership of the apartment. The two sides are interested at this point to divorce, but the husband has sued to return his share of the apartment. He claims that it was transferred improperly, as it was linked to a divorce that did not materialize. The wife claims that the apartment was a present as evidenced by the power of attorney, and that, in any case, she paid $100,000 for his part. She presented no evidence of payment, and he denies that there was any. Majority Ruling: There is a signed agreement between the sides, bearing the heading, "Divorce Settlement," in which one of the paragraphs obligates the husband to transfer his share in the apartment. Thus, even though the husband gave unconditional power of attorney, it was clearly done within the framework of the divorce settlement. Whenever beit din gives its authorization to a divorce settlement, the sides can act on its various elements only in connection with divorce. We have a rule that formal conditions are not necessary when matters are clearly linked to certain circumstances and understandings (Kiddushin 49b; Rambam, Mechira 11). It is difficult to view the transfer as a gift, as the wife claims, when seen within the context of a divorce settlement. The granting of the power of attorney prior to the divorce is readily understandable given that, without it she could have prevented the husband from leaving the country as he desired. The wife's claims also contradict each other. If the transfer was a present, then why did she pay $100,000 for it? If the wife can substantiate the claim that she paid the money, then that changes the picture dramatically, but, in the meantime, no evidence whatsoever has been presented. Regarding the divorce settlement's validity, since the wife decided to follow the husband abroad and they lived together as husband and wife for a year and a half, the settlement is deemed null and void, and a new one is needed according to terms the couple can reach at this point. But, in the meantime, acting unilaterally on the basis of one of the elements of the old settlement was improper and the share of the apartment must be returned, pending further steps by the sides. *************************************************************************************************************************** Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l) The Proper Reaction to Israeli Independence - part II (from Zeh Hayom Asa Hashem, pp. 8-9) [We saw last time that in the beginning of the State, almost all religious leaders saw the Divine significance of its establishment. Even though we are disappointed and even surprised by some of the State's religious shortcomings, it is our responsibility to respond by acting to improve the situation through our positive involvement.] Now that we have witnessed the outbreak of a wave of hatred from our neighbors from foreign nations [ed. note- the "first intifada"], whom we had thought had reconciled with our existence, there are some who have reverted to a tendency that was prevalent in the Diaspora. Now, as then, many communities of people dedicated to Torah observance distance themselves from identifying with the re-establishment of a national entity in our land. We hear calls to the tune of "we told you so" that they dared not voice when the State was first established. They do not understand that the difficulties we face today are [not a sign that the State's establishment was not a Divine blessing, but are] a result of our misdeeds. Let us open up Shir Hashirim, which Chazal described as Holy of Holies, which brings the discussion between Israel the Maiden and her Beloved (Hashem). We find the following inspiring p'sukim, which are so appropriate to our times. "The sound of my Beloved, behold it is coming, skipping over mountains, jumping over hills." "Behold, He is standing behind our wall, observing from the windows, peeking through the lattices." "I am sleeping, but my heart is awake; the sound of my Beloved is knocking, 'Open up...'" "I removed my cloak, how can I put it back on; I washed my feet, how can I dirty them." What does it say afterwards.? " I got up to open for my Beloved, but my Beloved had already moved on." The significance of this interchange was already explained by one of the great Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael, in reference to the aliya that began the Second Commonwealth period. It could have been the beginning of the Messianic Era, but the people of the time pushed off redemption with their own hands. This is what Reish Lakish (Yoma 9b) had to say on the matter. "Scripture says: 'If she is a wall, we shall build on her a tower of silver, and if she is a door, we shall build on her a frame of cedar' (Shir Hashirim 8:10). If you had made yourselves like a wall and come en masse to Eretz Yisrael at the time of Ezra, you would have been compared to silver, which does not rot. Now that you came like doors (Rashi- a gateway with two doors, where one opens a door and another closes a door. So too, you came to Eretz Yisrael only partially), you are compared to cedar wood, that rots." R. Yochanan pointed out, in that context, that the time of redemption had not yet come. In our case, we have already undergone 2,000 years of degradation and despair since the Temple's destruction. Should we once again push off Hashem's revelation to His nation and enter into complex arguments over whether this is the era when all of Hashem's promises will be fulfilled? We are unaware that, by doing this, we alone are pushing off the redemption, the blossoming of our redemption, with our words, which are planting doubts and uncertainty in our midst. Let us see what the Kuzari (II, 24) had to say about the matter. "The Divine matter does not take hold over a person but according to his preparations for it, whether they be a little or a lot." It is not too late to do something about it. We still have control over the boundaries that were set for us when we entered the Land the first time (spelled out in Parashat Masei). Maybe we can stop arguing and unite, as one person with one heart, in order to hasten the promised and desired goal. "[Hashem] will choose for us our portion, the pride of Yaakov which he loved, selah" (Tehillim 47:5). 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